I've read through a lot of shitty closed source code, too.
It has been my experience in reviewing closed source code on in-house apps that a thing of beauty is hard to find.
My experience in looking through open source code is different. Not that poorly written, undocumented, spaghetti code does not exist in open source projects...but in 20 years of software development experience, I've seen less of it in open source than in closed. And what's more, that "thing of beauty" I mentioned: I've found them rare in closed source and plentiful in open.
Again, this has been one man's experience. I might be biased. YMMV.
Still, even if I'm just one guy working on my own favorite pet project which I distribute as open source, I'm going to put as much effort into making it clean, simple, aesthetically pleasing, well-designed, etc. as possible.
Whereas, if I'm writing my own one-man-show app for my employer, knowing nobody else is likely to ever see the code, it'll end up more like a Q&D.
And that's simply because of human nature. It's like cleaning house. If I *know* people are coming over and likely to see my house, I want it clean and orderly. If I *know* the reverse is true, I have less incentive to make my house immaculate.
Hard-cover buyers are just suckers, who subsidize the industry for the rest of us.
I generally buy hard-cover books because they wear better. Many books (especially the HP series) in my home are read and re-read by my wife, myself, and our son. It has been my experience that hard-covers work better in this situation. I get so sick of paper-backs that won't close unless I set a big hard-cover book on top of them. I don't consider myself a sucker.
...I found myself paying full price $29.99 for the latest Harry Potter.
Then you may be a sucker. (I felt like a sucker after I bought one from Barnes & Noble for $17.99 and then saw Sam's Club has them for $15.73.) I don't know where you're buying your books, but paying full price is unnecessary.
I understand what you're saying...but I stand by my points. My desktop system at work is a dual-boot Windows 2000 and Red Hat 8 box. I like Windows 2000 on the desktop because I've gotten used to it and find it more stable than NT4. Not because it's prettier...
Automobiles in today's (American) society are more than functional items. This is a fact. Many people spend a high percentage of their time inside their cars. While I am more utilitarian than a lot and see no value in a Mercedes over my Honda, I understand other people have them for social reasons. I have a car that gets me from point A to point B, has enough room for my family, is reliable, and has a CD player (that I could really do without). The only reason it has a CD player is because it came with one. It was not an upgrade and I saw no purpose in looking around for one without one since I do have CD media. It is a 96 model. I purchased it at the time because my existing automobile (a Jeep Wrangler) was no longer practical given the growing size of my family.
Eventually, I'll "upgrade" my car...but not until the one I have has given me every last useful bit of service I can wring out of it.
On another note, the automobile analagy is flawed. For instance, Honda could say (if they wanted to) they will not support their 96 (or 86, for that matter) models. It is of no consequence because there are inumerable 3rd parties who will happily service it or sell me parts so I can service it myself.
What with NT4 being proprietary, closed-source software that opportunity does not exist. You can't keep using NT4 and go elsewhere for fixes when things break.
Not that I'd ever expect it to happen, but what I'd like to see is vendors releasing source to EOL products, even if only to users who signed an NDA and license agreement. At least then, people could choose to continue using a product if they feel it has served them well and know they're not taking a long walk out a short plank.
Okay...no love for Microsoft here. But, here's why we're still using it on two servers (several others are Linux, and two are W2K):
It gets the job done
The cost of maintaining it over six months is LESS than purchasing a new computer with W2K/XP...which would have its own, roughly equivalent support cost making this a MOOT POINT
Ever since we stopped running that God-forsaken Pervasive SQL on it, it's been humming along needing no attention, no reboots, nada. Then, even when we were running that POS database, when it locked up (daily, was it?) all we had to do was restart the services.
We have not mandated an enterprise-class directory service...but even if we did, it would not be AD. More likely, it would be NDS, which will run perfectly well on NT4 (and our Linux servers too, for that matter)
As a server, it has no need for any USB device...there is no keyboard or mouse connected to it, no monitor, no external anything except the network. Internally, it's a SCSI RAID. Why does a server need USB again?
Who gives a rat's ass about graphics? It's a SERVER. It doesn't even have a monitor. It could be freaking CGA for all I care. As long as file/print, etc. works.
It supports every bit of hardware we've ever thrown at it...
We don't want to give Microsoft the money for upgrading
If you know what you're doing, it is a breeze to maintain and it is not a resource hog.
Now, all that being said...I would not run NT4 on a desktop any longer. If Microsoft must be the platform, Windows 2000 seems like the best choice. I'm just not comfortable with XP Pro yet, although I hear if the first thing you do is turn off that new UI crap and make it look just like 2K it is just as good...maybe better...but IMHO, the verdict is still out on that one.
Microsoft licensing its OS source to a third party (say, Citrix Systems for example).
The 3rd party develops a new product (say, Citrix WinFrame, for instance)
The 3rd party uses technology it developed in another product (like, say...MetaFrame for UNIX, maybe)
Microsoft claims it controls the technology developed by the 3rd party because it is a derivitive
Microsoft sues the shit out of 3rd party
Of course, Microsoft handled Citrix differently. They licensed the NT source code to Citrix. Then, when Citrix made this really neat product, Microsoft saw the opportunity and basically said, "Hey, Citrix Systems...umm, All your base..."
Microsoft has the luxury of being able to say: "We are assimilating your technology into our OS. No one will buy your shit anymore because it's already in the box."
SCO can't do that, as is evidenced by their dismal failure at being an OS provider. So, they sue.
Agreed. I think it looks like shit. Why the hell put all that effort into making a mod that looks so F-ing crappy?
It's like those idiots that take really nice cars like a Mercedes or BMW and put stupid low profile tires on them with deep rims and neon and other pimp-in-training gear and make them look like total crap.
...their customers (aka - the business they work for)...
This is the only thing you say that I disagree with. I understand IT needs to be service oriented. But the internal business associates serviced are NOT customers.
An unreasonable, unbearable, impossible customer is someone you can choose not to provide service to. But, no matter how much I may want to, I cannot tell the #$%@@^ in accounting to go away no matter how ridiculous she is.
Now, in a decent company, there should be ways of handling such problems; but, there often are not. And either way, the relationship is quite different than what one would have with a true "customer" if one were a freelance consultant.
I've done both, and being able to say, "I'm sorry. You are completely unreasonable and I refuse to do business with you any more..." is a wonderful freedom one has with customers.
Slashdot Mirror
I've read through a lot of shitty closed source code, too.
It has been my experience in reviewing closed source code on in-house apps that a thing of beauty is hard to find.
My experience in looking through open source code is different. Not that poorly written, undocumented, spaghetti code does not exist in open source projects...but in 20 years of software development experience, I've seen less of it in open source than in closed. And what's more, that "thing of beauty" I mentioned: I've found them rare in closed source and plentiful in open.
Again, this has been one man's experience. I might be biased. YMMV.
Still, even if I'm just one guy working on my own favorite pet project which I distribute as open source, I'm going to put as much effort into making it clean, simple, aesthetically pleasing, well-designed, etc. as possible.
Whereas, if I'm writing my own one-man-show app for my employer, knowing nobody else is likely to ever see the code, it'll end up more like a Q&D.
And that's simply because of human nature. It's like cleaning house. If I *know* people are coming over and likely to see my house, I want it clean and orderly. If I *know* the reverse is true, I have less incentive to make my house immaculate.
Well, another response explains the pronunciation bit; but, it's still a lame pun.
Right, because everything always works perfectly in the *next* version. How about the *shipping* version?
why fix it?
This makes me think...I wonder if one were to grep kernel source for strings like "SCO" what they'd find.
I understand what you're saying...but I stand by my points. My desktop system at work is a dual-boot Windows 2000 and Red Hat 8 box. I like Windows 2000 on the desktop because I've gotten used to it and find it more stable than NT4. Not because it's prettier...
Automobiles in today's (American) society are more than functional items. This is a fact. Many people spend a high percentage of their time inside their cars. While I am more utilitarian than a lot and see no value in a Mercedes over my Honda, I understand other people have them for social reasons. I have a car that gets me from point A to point B, has enough room for my family, is reliable, and has a CD player (that I could really do without). The only reason it has a CD player is because it came with one. It was not an upgrade and I saw no purpose in looking around for one without one since I do have CD media. It is a 96 model. I purchased it at the time because my existing automobile (a Jeep Wrangler) was no longer practical given the growing size of my family.
Eventually, I'll "upgrade" my car...but not until the one I have has given me every last useful bit of service I can wring out of it.
On another note, the automobile analagy is flawed. For instance, Honda could say (if they wanted to) they will not support their 96 (or 86, for that matter) models. It is of no consequence because there are inumerable 3rd parties who will happily service it or sell me parts so I can service it myself.
What with NT4 being proprietary, closed-source software that opportunity does not exist. You can't keep using NT4 and go elsewhere for fixes when things break.
Not that I'd ever expect it to happen, but what I'd like to see is vendors releasing source to EOL products, even if only to users who signed an NDA and license agreement. At least then, people could choose to continue using a product if they feel it has served them well and know they're not taking a long walk out a short plank.
I use spam gourmet with much success as well. I also use privacy.net which works pretty well, too.
- It gets the job done
- The cost of maintaining it over six months is LESS than purchasing a new computer with W2K/XP...which would have its own, roughly equivalent support cost making this a MOOT POINT
- Ever since we stopped running that God-forsaken Pervasive SQL on it, it's been humming along needing no attention, no reboots, nada. Then, even when we were running that POS database, when it locked up (daily, was it?) all we had to do was restart the services.
- We have not mandated an enterprise-class directory service...but even if we did, it would not be AD. More likely, it would be NDS, which will run perfectly well on NT4 (and our Linux servers too, for that matter)
- As a server, it has no need for any USB device...there is no keyboard or mouse connected to it, no monitor, no external anything except the network. Internally, it's a SCSI RAID. Why does a server need USB again?
- Who gives a rat's ass about graphics? It's a SERVER. It doesn't even have a monitor. It could be freaking CGA for all I care. As long as file/print, etc. works.
- It supports every bit of hardware we've ever thrown at it...
- We don't want to give Microsoft the money for upgrading
- If you know what you're doing, it is a breeze to maintain and it is not a resource hog.
Now, all that being said...I would not run NT4 on a desktop any longer. If Microsoft must be the platform, Windows 2000 seems like the best choice. I'm just not comfortable with XP Pro yet, although I hear if the first thing you do is turn off that new UI crap and make it look just like 2K it is just as good...maybe better...but IMHO, the verdict is still out on that one.Maybe she already moderated...Oh, wait. Girls don't read slashdot
Maybe HE already moderated.
- Microsoft licensing its OS source to a third party (say, Citrix Systems for example).
- The 3rd party develops a new product (say, Citrix WinFrame, for instance)
- The 3rd party uses technology it developed in another product (like, say...MetaFrame for UNIX, maybe)
- Microsoft claims it controls the technology developed by the 3rd party because it is a derivitive
- Microsoft sues the shit out of 3rd party
Of course, Microsoft handled Citrix differently. They licensed the NT source code to Citrix. Then, when Citrix made this really neat product, Microsoft saw the opportunity and basically said, "Hey, Citrix Systems...umm, All your base..."Microsoft has the luxury of being able to say: "We are assimilating your technology into our OS. No one will buy your shit anymore because it's already in the box."
SCO can't do that, as is evidenced by their dismal failure at being an OS provider. So, they sue.
I'd like to see a case mod in the shape of a sphere. Then, if you wanted to move it to a new location, you wouldn't even have to pick it up!
Agreed. I think it looks like shit. Why the hell put all that effort into making a mod that looks so F-ing crappy?
It's like those idiots that take really nice cars like a Mercedes or BMW and put stupid low profile tires on them with deep rims and neon and other pimp-in-training gear and make them look like total crap.
What a waste of energy.
This is the only thing you say that I disagree with. I understand IT needs to be service oriented. But the internal business associates serviced are NOT customers.
An unreasonable, unbearable, impossible customer is someone you can choose not to provide service to. But, no matter how much I may want to, I cannot tell the #$%@@^ in accounting to go away no matter how ridiculous she is.
Now, in a decent company, there should be ways of handling such problems; but, there often are not. And either way, the relationship is quite different than what one would have with a true "customer" if one were a freelance consultant.
I've done both, and being able to say, "I'm sorry. You are completely unreasonable and I refuse to do business with you any more..." is a wonderful freedom one has with customers.
Now, if only the subject of your message had been: "Holy TLA Batman!" and the body been simply: RMS SCO FUD!!! WTF?!
I find this interesting. Pixlet...new codec. Sounds a lot like "Pixar." Anybody know if Pixlet came from Pixar?
I never knew Jobs suffered from Premature Specification!
Alas, I just used up my mod points.
I can buy dual 3.06 GHZ Hypertransport P4's for $2k less, so nyah!
Sorry...I couldn't resist.
Thank you for making our point for us.
-Microsoft
You don't need google's code, they've already released a detailed document explaining how their system works.
First, thanks for the reply. Second, I haven't read those archives...but I will. Thanks.