2) lack of support for legacy apps (although arguably, some of those apps were badly written)
every single one of which was badly written. MS had been spending years and uncounted dollars telling people how to write their apps so that they will remain compatible with future versions of Windows. If people insist on circumventing the Windows API and writing their own little gizmos to implement some functionality then they shouldn't be surprised when this functionality ceases to function when the underlying OS structure changes.
This, too, is not a problem with Vista, but with retarded children who imagine they're "programmers" because they get one kind of function working in one version of one OS and fantasize that from there on all OS progress must be halted so as to not break their crummy little hack.
You'd be pretty surprised to learn that Microsoft themselves has been a huge violator of the "bypass the standard methods" for years. So much so, they were taken to court and lost. So much so that they had to publish these hidden API's (which were already teased out of the compiled code) and everyone started taking advantage of them.
Rather than being an apologist or critic for Vista, I'll merely point to sentiment: The market watches the trade papers, and many trades have published their Vista adoption issues, with various "try again" articles now and then. When there's a bad experience to be had, if it ain't Microsoft's problem, you certainly haven't run a business. Bottom line: Nobody is going to go buy anything and then blame sub-vendors, historical issues and adaptability rates. For every consumer, its the product you bought, in its entirety.
Shit dude, most people think that replacing an OS requires buying a new machine. You really think grandma is steamed at the lack of driver signing from HP when her printer doesn't work? Riiight.
So what happens if we start firing off missions to try and seed life? Without much of an atmosphere, would we need a dome of some sort? How would temperature extremes be moderated?
Wind generation is placed strategically - remember, its still an investment and they need to sell the energy to recoup on a predictable schedule. This means a historic study with several yield models are built. This models also take into account the weather and census patterns for usage. By the time the project is green-lighted, the variability of a wind farm is ensured to be within the tolerances of the grid's spinning reserve.
You're not totally off-base, but this issue has been discussed at length. Only one grid gets penetration over 15% with wind, but it's been examined for problems up to about 25%.
Electricity is a grid of multiple sources, kept in tight balance at several geographic levels. The output of all of them fluctuate constantly, as does use.
When there's not enough wind, it'll come from somewhere else. The concept is to build a diverse portfolio of sources so that we're not as affected by situations in any one.
So would you mind if that company (your employer) asked 0 questions but also provided only one option for health care - buy it yourself? As for worker's compensation insurance, you could still buy that - it only covers you at work.
Spoken as a a true boiled frog. The slow, incessant indoctrination of "difference" starts with isolation from a more varied surrounding. OK, I take that back - just getting your attention.
Instead of camping/climbing/etc with a general societal group (plenty, check the local gear store, gym, mountaineering/alpinist club), the "SCOUTS" is a US-created pseudo-militia for boys, various shades of victorian intolerance still within it.
I'm sure you made great friendships, performed extraordinary feats, and learned a great deal in an atmosphere of fraternity. However, one can quickly realize that "BEING PREPARED" in the world involves more than all the eagle scout knows, like being prepared for diversity, finding common ground, conflict resolution and growth through changing one's mind. Religion, sexual aspects and cultural differences are all situations of real life that scouting avoids, making much of their own negative marketing.
Scouting to me is a vestigial playgroup of the war years (god, country and bravado). I can agree with you that it serves a mostly entertaining purpose for thousands of kids, but I think if they won't leave the "bathwater" of religious indoctrination, homophobia and exclusion, the baby goes with it. Like I alluded to earlier, society offers plenty of diversions to teach such lessons similar to the scouts.
Funny, your sense of the world. Its quaint how history, nature, biology, psychology and simple kindness - blurs your imaginary lines. Got yer ignorance badge, scout?
But, there is this division in the model: The brain, as a biological form, is quite complex and probably quite efficient and parallel.
But the brain as an adaptive pattern-recognition device, using a recursive-feedback mechanism for linking contexts and patterns, is slowly being unwound. There are indeed great strides in the mimicry of this model, within narrow tests, that I think will continue.
If Ray thinks there is enough information-sharing globally in this research to cause an exponential discovery graph, then by most interpretations, results of some sort are going to appear more often and more amazing.
I have read a lot of Ray's writing and it can be compelling and interesting. However, this explanation of what areas of life are actually real "feedback mechanisms" to cause an exponential growth is tough for me to always see as he does.
Having more open societies with faster communication methods across a larger research population and budget helps, but thats a very dynamic link. If a primary source of funding (say Nasa, Darpa or a university) needs to reduce it's budget, then that can chip away at these curves. Also, venture funding into pure research for cutting edge concepts like nanotech, learning machines and biointerfaces is susceptible to economic swings.
While I can't really disagree with his overall premise, the curves are not precise. However, eventually I think there is an exponential component.
For what it's worth, I link these curves to keeping research methods and details public and unencumbered by patents and licensing. I understand monetizing them is a huge benefit, but right now we have a private sector that spins off from pure research and jumps just a little ahead in features to build product. Overall, the public (open) research sources would advance more quickly if corporations compensated the research arms in more than money, but sharing discoveries - instead of using them as licensing advantages and litigation weapons.
There are real bugs, with huge consequences, that can be detected with static analysis.
The tools are easy to find and worth the price, depending on the customer base you have.
In the end, that cannot detect "all" bugs that could arise in the code.
Worth it?
Only you can decide, but after a few sessions learning why tools flag suspect code, if you take those suggest to heart, you will be a better coder.
Low priority, read-only views on a limited number of shared connection types.
Queries, even bad ones, are throttled, lower priority than standard work, and they can only open 10 connections, for example.
Even this will impact production performance, but it shouldn't interfere with local transactions, at least.
You could also make disconnected views, which are refreshed at a single point in time.
Which is one step away from a replicated DB. This offers the best hope, as they could update certains tables and you oculd scrub/replicate back if you wanted.
Going beyond what you state - indeed I agree: Threads have a useful place in the toolbox. Perhaps this will mark me as "old" at some point in the world of programming.
I use them routinely on MS platforms. Background threads for write-behind mechanisms, for self-tuning caches, for animation. The sharing between threads is the more-precise problem, not threads itself. If one knows how to examine the context of a thread, one can see all shared pints and code accordingly. This is no different that knowing what pieces of data are eventually exposed as public data of a component.
That said, there is a clumsy set of constructs around threading still. Most modern languages do not have the atomic test-and-flip operation around an object as you wish. For example, in the C# realm, I see this routinely:
if ( !sharedMemInitialized ) {
lock( sem ) {
if ( !sharedMemInitialized ) {// awkward
//...................initialize
...I'd much more appreciate the OS supporting a thread-level operation that allowed for
sem.LockIf( !sharedMemInitialized ) {
//................ initialize
}
..where above clause was skipped if (sharedMemInitialized==true), and if not, it waited for the "sem" semaphore concept to be unlatched.
I'm intrigued by your experience in a teaching role. Taking this side-discussion even further, are you aware of any writers, for lack of a better term, than have experimented with this artificial alphabet extension concept? I'm wondering if it may be fun to drum up internet interest around it as an art form.
You've been trumped by reality. The president of the united states, all the way through government, down to local school teachers, do more than semantic drift. And they believe it is right and proper, clinging to their own view of class and status.
I understand how you are particularly annoyed in the employ of the phrase to "reach up" in language formality, when such mis-use only degrades the usage more. Really, I get that. There are several forms of such a thing.
There are writers that pander to such, and writers that strive to stay above. Either will sell and so either can shift a society's entire linguistic trends. Eventually, as I wrote in the prior post, society adopts many turns, and "class" is but a fleeting thing.
I'm not defending the equality of semantics across all the grammars of email, text message, poetic license, marketing, humor, etc with formal writing. I'm merely trying to state that "formal writing" itself is fluid, just as much as the other grammars. I see how you'd like to keep the "begging the question" from being abused into "suggesting the question" but really, the logical fallacy term may have already moved over. The mere existence of this conversation suggests such a thing.
Frankly, I'd much more entertained by the introduction of extended glyphs into the alphabet instead of just morphing language. Language as art is more exciting to me, sacrificing a large part of generality and transferability. But that is another discussion.
Sorry to burst your bubble, captain, but language is as slippery to fix as weather forecasts.
In fact, the sheer nature of the abilities that give us language, grammar and the ability to encode its rules for a certain locale and time frame (creativity, imagination, intelligence) are also why language will never stop evolving.
From poetry to puns, jokes to playful word games, from new business ideas to completely new categories of anything - language needs to change. This includes existing words, existing phrases, and long-standing, commonly accepted words. All are fair game. The OED is a wonderful book to get a sense for just how this happens, how often, and even occasionally, why.
Only since the introduction of machines as a static point for grammar has language actually remained somewhat fixed. And even then, yes indeed - reality's needs for new behavior to be described has pressured languages from C++ to SQL to adapt. In fact, even the language to describe the art of programming, the models used to design programs independent of "programming language", have evolved from ratios to formulas to flowcharts to components, design patterns and services, etc.
And simultaneously during the history of language, a transferable vocabulary, grammar and context has to exist. How do we do it? Some say its because the rules for language are embedded in language itself, so that its a productive system, able to create branches all on its own.
This is indeed true, but reduced down, children learn language in a very peculiar way - they title their sensory input using anything they like, then slowly adjust their rules for names and concepts to the formal system they live in - their contexts, and there are indeed several (school, family, friends, pop culture, religion, etc). When all this gets mixed together, language evolves.
Rail against the tides! Fight for your favorite turn of phrase to be reinvigorated as you like it, but clinging to history is a losing argument. Champion any word, phrase or rule because its fun - because I hope I've shown you, "correct" is just a matter of time.
English itself has a wonderful and diverse spectrum. While you try to smack people with the rules, your rules are made of water - having existence but no true form. Even your boy Billy had great times inventing language. Fighting abuse of phrases just makes you sound like a mudgunner.
Lets face it, standard or not the OOXML purpose of going through all this was to win contracts otherwise off-limits to MS. If Office can support OOXML, agreed with some slight "interpretations", they are now able to sell more. I believe other vendors better wake up to this and leverage this standard as fast as possible to keep up.
This is also a way to limit IBM's influx of ODF usage in the same circles. MS recognizes that IBM's services on Linux/Websphere is slowly making inroads for some SOA platforms. Either OOXML or ODF could be the standard for human-generated content throughout that platform. ODF itself has issues of interpretation, but of course nowhere near as high as OOXML - at the moment. Simply put, its just a bit further along on the process of hammering out the bumps. In the end though, I expect platforms to need support for either format.
Remember kids, this is just one a series of salvos that land on a marketeer's bullet point slide. There are many more, like support, pools for technical resources, openness, etc. If a government office decides that OOXML is fine as a format for document exchange, then they should still be able to pick and choose the components that run the services. Short version: One has to support both of these formats, and a whole lot of other technology "standards" to really be an enterprise-ready product.
He's not really criticizing MS, but more like chiding them gently. I'm a little underwhelmed by Surface. If you've ever had a coffee table that you can't put your legs under, you know how awkward they are to sit at. Plus, this price seems awfully exaggerated.
I like ROSIE's surface much more, although the direct screen (instead of projection) makes the resolution an issue, but hopefully that'll get addressed as hardware goes up.
Really, if you took a touchscreen laid flat, added a bunch of multi-touch capability and some touch tags for wireless pseudo-plugs, why couldn't this be built by anyone?
You may be surprised, but Apple has had forums, blogs, support circles, and design groups that act as "social networks" - for years prior to their web-title as such a thing. But they're in a different space from years of productivity:
Drop into a graphic design firm, photographer, printer, game studio, music studio, or any of thousands of ancillary businesses. You'll find appleheads who have long since moved on from the "be my friend" webosphere to actually just using a computer as a tool in a network of real people.
I'm not pro-apple by a long shot (no businesses here paying me to code on that platform), but I own a few of their machines and they're quite useful (thinking about our use of Garage Band, Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc).
And with that - the "standards body" of ISO was effectively taken down. FUD shovelers everywhere will begin the slow, purposeful targeting of Government, school and corporations to use MS's products for long-term archival concepts.
Perhaps with only gnashing of teeth from the geek side, initially. After some time, say 3 or 4 product cycles, MS's formats, content and programs will have slipped into breaking changes - with various patches, pieces, conversion tools and sunsets. Then and only then, will the true colors of MS's saletroopers, who overrule the tech side, be shown. But you know this - why else would you be trawling the/. comments down here?
In other news, the business of writing code to munge data from old MS formats into new MS formats is alive and well. Programmers rejoice! There is an endless market of chagrined middle managers who are willing to port old crap to new crap for good $/hour.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd be pretty surprised to learn that Microsoft themselves has been a huge violator of the "bypass the standard methods" for years. So much so, they were taken to court and lost. So much so that they had to publish these hidden API's (which were already teased out of the compiled code) and everyone started taking advantage of them.
Rather than being an apologist or critic for Vista, I'll merely point to sentiment: The market watches the trade papers, and many trades have published their Vista adoption issues, with various "try again" articles now and then. When there's a bad experience to be had, if it ain't Microsoft's problem, you certainly haven't run a business. Bottom line: Nobody is going to go buy anything and then blame sub-vendors, historical issues and adaptability rates. For every consumer, its the product you bought, in its entirety.
Shit dude, most people think that replacing an OS requires buying a new machine. You really think grandma is steamed at the lack of driver signing from HP when her printer doesn't work? Riiight.
So what happens if we start firing off missions to try and seed life? Without much of an atmosphere, would we need a dome of some sort? How would temperature extremes be moderated?
Wind generation is placed strategically - remember, its still an investment and they need to sell the energy to recoup on a predictable schedule. This means a historic study with several yield models are built. This models also take into account the weather and census patterns for usage. By the time the project is green-lighted, the variability of a wind farm is ensured to be within the tolerances of the grid's spinning reserve.
You're not totally off-base, but this issue has been discussed at length. Only one grid gets penetration over 15% with wind, but it's been examined for problems up to about 25%.
More details
Plans for 50% wind penetration are already in the air.
i'll take your bet.
Electricity is a grid of multiple sources, kept in tight balance at several geographic levels. The output of all of them fluctuate constantly, as does use.
When there's not enough wind, it'll come from somewhere else. The concept is to build a diverse portfolio of sources so that we're not as affected by situations in any one.
So would you mind if that company (your employer) asked 0 questions but also provided only one option for health care - buy it yourself? As for worker's compensation insurance, you could still buy that - it only covers you at work.
Physical Analogies
Is unsecured Wifi the same as having a hot ethernet cable laying on the sidewalk?
Is it the same as laying an unencrypted media disc out on a table in front of your house with content on it?
Network Analogies
Is it the same as anonymous FTP against a remote machine?
Is it the same as typing in a HTTP URL and downloading unsecured content in or through HTML?
To me, its pretty similar to all of these.
Spoken as a a true boiled frog. The slow, incessant indoctrination of "difference" starts with isolation from a more varied surrounding. OK, I take that back - just getting your attention.
Instead of camping/climbing/etc with a general societal group (plenty, check the local gear store, gym, mountaineering/alpinist club), the "SCOUTS" is a US-created pseudo-militia for boys, various shades of victorian intolerance still within it.
I'm sure you made great friendships, performed extraordinary feats, and learned a great deal in an atmosphere of fraternity. However, one can quickly realize that "BEING PREPARED" in the world involves more than all the eagle scout knows, like being prepared for diversity, finding common ground, conflict resolution and growth through changing one's mind. Religion, sexual aspects and cultural differences are all situations of real life that scouting avoids, making much of their own negative marketing.
Scouting to me is a vestigial playgroup of the war years (god, country and bravado). I can agree with you that it serves a mostly entertaining purpose for thousands of kids, but I think if they won't leave the "bathwater" of religious indoctrination, homophobia and exclusion, the baby goes with it. Like I alluded to earlier, society offers plenty of diversions to teach such lessons similar to the scouts.
Funny, your sense of the world. Its quaint how history, nature, biology, psychology and simple kindness - blurs your imaginary lines. Got yer ignorance badge, scout?
You get to meet Mr Ralph Nader on a first-name basis.
But, there is this division in the model: The brain, as a biological form, is quite complex and probably quite efficient and parallel.
But the brain as an adaptive pattern-recognition device, using a recursive-feedback mechanism for linking contexts and patterns, is slowly being unwound. There are indeed great strides in the mimicry of this model, within narrow tests, that I think will continue.
If Ray thinks there is enough information-sharing globally in this research to cause an exponential discovery graph, then by most interpretations, results of some sort are going to appear more often and more amazing.
I have read a lot of Ray's writing and it can be compelling and interesting. However, this explanation of what areas of life are actually real "feedback mechanisms" to cause an exponential growth is tough for me to always see as he does.
Having more open societies with faster communication methods across a larger research population and budget helps, but thats a very dynamic link. If a primary source of funding (say Nasa, Darpa or a university) needs to reduce it's budget, then that can chip away at these curves. Also, venture funding into pure research for cutting edge concepts like nanotech, learning machines and biointerfaces is susceptible to economic swings.
While I can't really disagree with his overall premise, the curves are not precise. However, eventually I think there is an exponential component.
For what it's worth, I link these curves to keeping research methods and details public and unencumbered by patents and licensing. I understand monetizing them is a huge benefit, but right now we have a private sector that spins off from pure research and jumps just a little ahead in features to build product. Overall, the public (open) research sources would advance more quickly if corporations compensated the research arms in more than money, but sharing discoveries - instead of using them as licensing advantages and litigation weapons.
Well hell, why even have it connected to your body?
Or why stop at one?
Or why keep it local? Camera/VR helmet and remote arm(s), you can perform physical work from afar.
Or why keep it immobile...maybe Dean offers a discount if you get the Segway Attachment (codename "R2")
Or why stop at human physiology? Might be nice to attach a drill/laser/etc to the arm.
IOW, let the creative minds of a thousand comic writers since the 50's be unleashed!
---
hey everyone, don't forget send a firehose link in when the first vet mods this into a Steampunk motif. That'd be insanehot.
Short version:
There are real bugs, with huge consequences, that can be detected with static analysis.
The tools are easy to find and worth the price, depending on the customer base you have.
In the end, that cannot detect "all" bugs that could arise in the code.
Worth it?
Only you can decide, but after a few sessions learning why tools flag suspect code, if you take those suggest to heart, you will be a better coder.
Low priority, read-only views on a limited number of shared connection types.
Queries, even bad ones, are throttled, lower priority than standard work, and they can only open 10 connections, for example.
Even this will impact production performance, but it shouldn't interfere with local transactions, at least.
You could also make disconnected views, which are refreshed at a single point in time.
Which is one step away from a replicated DB. This offers the best hope, as they could update certains tables and you oculd scrub/replicate back if you wanted.
Was that the "noble savage, thin and diseased" image or the "modern obese sedentary" image?
Maybe we created him in our image, and keep re-creating as need fitting.
I use them routinely on MS platforms. Background threads for write-behind mechanisms, for self-tuning caches, for animation. The sharing between threads is the more-precise problem, not threads itself. If one knows how to examine the context of a thread, one can see all shared pints and code accordingly. This is no different that knowing what pieces of data are eventually exposed as public data of a component.
That said, there is a clumsy set of constructs around threading still. Most modern languages do not have the atomic test-and-flip operation around an object as you wish. For example, in the C# realm, I see this routinely: ...I'd much more appreciate the OS supporting a thread-level operation that allowed for ..where above clause was skipped if (sharedMemInitialized==true), and if not, it waited for the "sem" semaphore concept to be unlatched.
The number of pages pointing to this comment is rising with certainty over the foreseeable future. Popular? Perhaps. Valuable stat? No.
I'm intrigued by your experience in a teaching role. Taking this side-discussion even further, are you aware of any writers, for lack of a better term, than have experimented with this artificial alphabet extension concept? I'm wondering if it may be fun to drum up internet interest around it as an art form.
You've been trumped by reality. The president of the united states, all the way through government, down to local school teachers, do more than semantic drift. And they believe it is right and proper, clinging to their own view of class and status.
I understand how you are particularly annoyed in the employ of the phrase to "reach up" in language formality, when such mis-use only degrades the usage more. Really, I get that. There are several forms of such a thing.
There are writers that pander to such, and writers that strive to stay above. Either will sell and so either can shift a society's entire linguistic trends. Eventually, as I wrote in the prior post, society adopts many turns, and "class" is but a fleeting thing.
I'm not defending the equality of semantics across all the grammars of email, text message, poetic license, marketing, humor, etc with formal writing. I'm merely trying to state that "formal writing" itself is fluid, just as much as the other grammars. I see how you'd like to keep the "begging the question" from being abused into "suggesting the question" but really, the logical fallacy term may have already moved over. The mere existence of this conversation suggests such a thing.
Frankly, I'd much more entertained by the introduction of extended glyphs into the alphabet instead of just morphing language. Language as art is more exciting to me, sacrificing a large part of generality and transferability. But that is another discussion.
Tact knows when Class is important.
Sorry to burst your bubble, captain, but language is as slippery to fix as weather forecasts.
In fact, the sheer nature of the abilities that give us language, grammar and the ability to encode its rules for a certain locale and time frame (creativity, imagination, intelligence) are also why language will never stop evolving.
From poetry to puns, jokes to playful word games, from new business ideas to completely new categories of anything - language needs to change. This includes existing words, existing phrases, and long-standing, commonly accepted words. All are fair game. The OED is a wonderful book to get a sense for just how this happens, how often, and even occasionally, why.
Only since the introduction of machines as a static point for grammar has language actually remained somewhat fixed. And even then, yes indeed - reality's needs for new behavior to be described has pressured languages from C++ to SQL to adapt. In fact, even the language to describe the art of programming, the models used to design programs independent of "programming language", have evolved from ratios to formulas to flowcharts to components, design patterns and services, etc.
And simultaneously during the history of language, a transferable vocabulary, grammar and context has to exist. How do we do it? Some say its because the rules for language are embedded in language itself, so that its a productive system, able to create branches all on its own.
This is indeed true, but reduced down, children learn language in a very peculiar way - they title their sensory input using anything they like, then slowly adjust their rules for names and concepts to the formal system they live in - their contexts, and there are indeed several (school, family, friends, pop culture, religion, etc). When all this gets mixed together, language evolves.
Rail against the tides! Fight for your favorite turn of phrase to be reinvigorated as you like it, but clinging to history is a losing argument. Champion any word, phrase or rule because its fun - because I hope I've shown you, "correct" is just a matter of time.
English itself has a wonderful and diverse spectrum. While you try to smack people with the rules, your rules are made of water - having existence but no true form. Even your boy Billy had great times inventing language. Fighting abuse of phrases just makes you sound like a mudgunner.
Lets face it, standard or not the OOXML purpose of going through all this was to win contracts otherwise off-limits to MS. If Office can support OOXML, agreed with some slight "interpretations", they are now able to sell more. I believe other vendors better wake up to this and leverage this standard as fast as possible to keep up.
This is also a way to limit IBM's influx of ODF usage in the same circles. MS recognizes that IBM's services on Linux/Websphere is slowly making inroads for some SOA platforms. Either OOXML or ODF could be the standard for human-generated content throughout that platform. ODF itself has issues of interpretation, but of course nowhere near as high as OOXML - at the moment. Simply put, its just a bit further along on the process of hammering out the bumps. In the end though, I expect platforms to need support for either format.
Remember kids, this is just one a series of salvos that land on a marketeer's bullet point slide. There are many more, like support, pools for technical resources, openness, etc. If a government office decides that OOXML is fine as a format for document exchange, then they should still be able to pick and choose the components that run the services. Short version: One has to support both of these formats, and a whole lot of other technology "standards" to really be an enterprise-ready product.
Don't confuse the battles for the war.
He's not really criticizing MS, but more like chiding them gently. I'm a little underwhelmed by Surface. If you've ever had a coffee table that you can't put your legs under, you know how awkward they are to sit at. Plus, this price seems awfully exaggerated.
I like ROSIE's surface much more, although the direct screen (instead of projection) makes the resolution an issue, but hopefully that'll get addressed as hardware goes up.
Really, if you took a touchscreen laid flat, added a bunch of multi-touch capability and some touch tags for wireless pseudo-plugs, why couldn't this be built by anyone?
You may be surprised, but Apple has had forums, blogs, support circles, and design groups that act as "social networks" - for years prior to their web-title as such a thing. But they're in a different space from years of productivity:
Drop into a graphic design firm, photographer, printer, game studio, music studio, or any of thousands of ancillary businesses. You'll find appleheads who have long since moved on from the "be my friend" webosphere to actually just using a computer as a tool in a network of real people.
I'm not pro-apple by a long shot (no businesses here paying me to code on that platform), but I own a few of their machines and they're quite useful (thinking about our use of Garage Band, Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc).
And with that - the "standards body" of ISO was effectively taken down. FUD shovelers everywhere will begin the slow, purposeful targeting of Government, school and corporations to use MS's products for long-term archival concepts.
/. comments down here?
Perhaps with only gnashing of teeth from the geek side, initially. After some time, say 3 or 4 product cycles, MS's formats, content and programs will have slipped into breaking changes - with various patches, pieces, conversion tools and sunsets. Then and only then, will the true colors of MS's saletroopers, who overrule the tech side, be shown. But you know this - why else would you be trawling the
In other news, the business of writing code to munge data from old MS formats into new MS formats is alive and well. Programmers rejoice! There is an endless market of chagrined middle managers who are willing to port old crap to new crap for good $/hour.
That is fuckin' awesome. There should be a blue screen blog of such embedded disasters.
there's really no purpose in discussing this - its simply fodder for humor.
with that said, methinks said politician would be quite chagrined to have his doings on TEH INTERWEBS completely revealed to the world.
any takers?