Here is my brilliant advise, worth tons of $$$:)
The problem with Google is that it is based on the premise that the internet will continue to grow through the web. Browsing will be dead in 4-5 years, replaced by something new and improved. The "web" is dying. Long live the 'net.
If you want to throw money away in the market, gamble on biotech.
I completely agree about unchecked exceptions and I have asked the C# development team about it. They did not view it as important enough to force users to use since their analysis indicated that most developers were simply catching exceptions in java and throwing them away!
Although I didn't want to debate in-house development processes, I did ask for a compiler option that would at least generate warnings for uncaught exceptions. I think they agreed to consider that option.
I can't agree with your complaint about patterns. I find the pattern implementation in.NET typically cleaner and more consistent than java. MS now provides some pattern implementations on MSDN and there is at least 1.NET pattern book available.
I can't find any reference in the article to support your statement that it only impacts multicast TCP (not saying it isn't there, just that I couldn't find it). Can you provide a reference quote/page. Thanks
Why is this so complicated? If you have the money, compete for the friggin artist contracts and you can do what you want.
Quit trying to screw the labels, if you can do it better or cheaper, then just do it.
Everything else is BS.
He argues 3 points:
1. Where's the beef?
His first point argues that he doesn't have all the facts. He sets up a strawman outlining what he thinks SCO's position is, and then proceeds to argue against it. Bad form.
2. Why do User's need licenses?
Except for Free software, it's accepted that users need valid licenses for their software. His argument hinges on the position that SCO is going after copyright issues, which SCO hasn't claimed (point 1). PHBs accept software needs licenses.
3. Do Users already have a license?
I thought his argument was that they don't need a license? His argument here is the same as IBM's position paper - they distributed under the GPL so tough luck. It may be as cut and dry as this, but I would like to hear a judgement from the courts. If you take my work, break the license and then distribute it as GPL, if I distribute your product under the GPL without knowledge that it infringes on my work, should I suffer?
In short, I think SCO is going to lose, but this article does little to convince me that companies may not be vulnerable. In fairness to the author, he admits not knowing the facts of the case at the beginning - so everything after that is pretty pointless.
Not vanity...CHEAP. The shirt fit when they bought it 6 years ago, but too much junk, not enough exercise.
As long as they can still do up the top button, the shirt stays in the rotation.
I have noticed that MS products (even the technical ones) NEVER have names that appeal to geeks. Windows, Office, Word, Excel,.NET, Exchange, Visual Studio - all of these names seem designed to appeal to PHBs rather than techies. The only exception I can think of is SQL Server, but I think they may have inherited that one.
After spending a considerable amount of time trying to figure it out (5 minutes) it seems to me that there is only 1 way for DRM to be successful - only DRM-enabled computers will be able to access the internet.
Okay, probably not the internet, but MSNet (or something similar). This will be like the internet but more business friendly and it will be cheap for users, probably free with new computer and console purchases. Companies will pay to be on MSNet because all machines must be DRM-enabled AND consumers will want it because the speed will be measured in gigabits and be able to access the latest music, movies, etc. Of course, for a consumer to be on MSNet, you need an MSBank account that allows for simple and quick purchases.
Once MSNet is up, the internet will go back to the geeks and the universities and MSNet will be the choice for consumers and media companies!
Come join MSNet, Secure, fast surfing without the geeks:)
It's coming, as soon as the DRM hardware is available - look for an announcement by 2005.
Weather forecasts (at least in my neck of the woods) are never wrong anymore. Just like Gartner, everything is given in probabilities, and it's never 100%.
I saw a weatherman outdoors in the rain saying there was an 80% chance of rain that day.
I'm using Mozilla Firebird 0.6. I installed it initially because everyone was saying how awesome tabbed browsing is, but I don't get it.
It feels just like a MS MDI application from the '90s and I thought current UI reseach held that these were bad things.
Why is having tabs better than having a browser open for each page? I can tell you one reason it absolutely sucks - when you have 5 or 6 tabs open and you click the wrong X and accidently shut down Mozilla rather than just the current window.
Also, with individuals browsers I can Alt-Tab between pages, which is what I've become trained to do. I don't even know the shortcut to switch between tabs.
I still use Mozilla, but I no longer use tabs. What am I missing? Help please.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, we obviously needed to clean up the steps to profitability:
1. Write open source software for hardware
2. ???
3. TIDY profit.
Why don't the panics go to someone with nvidia's source code, even if it's nvidia themselves? Just asking..
If engineers can't figure out how to make money from rigging elections, the world is in a lot of trouble.
I hope you're joking (couldn't tell) since, according to the article, this bug was discovered in September.
Prisoners of Mother England
Least that was the explanation I was given
I'm not American, but I thought the issue was that he lied to a Grand Jury, not simply that he lied.
:)
For a President to lie under oath seems a little more important, but what do I know, I'm Canadian - we don't even elect our president
Here is my brilliant advise, worth tons of $$$ :)
The problem with Google is that it is based on the premise that the internet will continue to grow through the web. Browsing will be dead in 4-5 years, replaced by something new and improved. The "web" is dying. Long live the 'net. If you want to throw money away in the market, gamble on biotech.
IBM and MS are founders of Web Services Interoperability
The organization must be 2 years old by now. Nothing to see here, move along.
Although I didn't want to debate in-house development processes, I did ask for a compiler option that would at least generate warnings for uncaught exceptions. I think they agreed to consider that option.
I can't agree with your complaint about patterns. I find the pattern implementation in .NET typically cleaner and more consistent than java. MS now provides some pattern implementations on MSDN and there is at least 1 .NET pattern book available.
I can't find any reference in the article to support your statement that it only impacts multicast TCP (not saying it isn't there, just that I couldn't find it). Can you provide a reference quote/page. Thanks
The only SPEC results that matter are posted on the SPEC site and, like most benchmarks, even those are suspect.
Right click the shortcut, choose properties, select the compatability tab at the top then choose the version of windows you want to emulate. Good luck
Why is this so complicated? If you have the money, compete for the friggin artist contracts and you can do what you want.
Quit trying to screw the labels, if you can do it better or cheaper, then just do it.
Everything else is BS.
1. Where's the beef?
His first point argues that he doesn't have all the facts. He sets up a strawman outlining what he thinks SCO's position is, and then proceeds to argue against it. Bad form.
2. Why do User's need licenses?
Except for Free software, it's accepted that users need valid licenses for their software. His argument hinges on the position that SCO is going after copyright issues, which SCO hasn't claimed (point 1). PHBs accept software needs licenses.
3. Do Users already have a license?
I thought his argument was that they don't need a license? His argument here is the same as IBM's position paper - they distributed under the GPL so tough luck. It may be as cut and dry as this, but I would like to hear a judgement from the courts.
If you take my work, break the license and then distribute it as GPL, if I distribute your product under the GPL without knowledge that it infringes on my work, should I suffer?
In short, I think SCO is going to lose, but this article does little to convince me that companies may not be vulnerable. In fairness to the author, he admits not knowing the facts of the case at the beginning - so everything after that is pretty pointless.
I think you just said that at WORST, we would get the same system there is today. Why not give it a try then?
Not vanity...CHEAP. The shirt fit when they bought it 6 years ago, but too much junk, not enough exercise.
As long as they can still do up the top button, the shirt stays in the rotation.
I have noticed that MS products (even the technical ones) NEVER have names that appeal to geeks. Windows, Office, Word, Excel, .NET, Exchange, Visual Studio - all of these names seem designed to appeal to PHBs rather than techies. The only exception I can think of is SQL Server, but I think they may have inherited that one.
Okay, probably not the internet, but MSNet (or something similar). This will be like the internet but more business friendly and it will be cheap for users, probably free with new computer and console purchases. Companies will pay to be on MSNet because all machines must be DRM-enabled AND consumers will want it because the speed will be measured in gigabits and be able to access the latest music, movies, etc. Of course, for a consumer to be on MSNet, you need an MSBank account that allows for simple and quick purchases.
Once MSNet is up, the internet will go back to the geeks and the universities and MSNet will be the choice for consumers and media companies!
Come join MSNet, Secure, fast surfing without the geeks :)
It's coming, as soon as the DRM hardware is available - look for an announcement by 2005.
Denial.
Weather forecasts (at least in my neck of the woods) are never wrong anymore. Just like Gartner, everything is given in probabilities, and it's never 100%.
I saw a weatherman outdoors in the rain saying there was an 80% chance of rain that day.
Thanks. Now at least I won't close the browser accidently.
I'm using Mozilla Firebird 0.6. I installed it initially because everyone was saying how awesome tabbed browsing is, but I don't get it. It feels just like a MS MDI application from the '90s and I thought current UI reseach held that these were bad things. Why is having tabs better than having a browser open for each page? I can tell you one reason it absolutely sucks - when you have 5 or 6 tabs open and you click the wrong X and accidently shut down Mozilla rather than just the current window. Also, with individuals browsers I can Alt-Tab between pages, which is what I've become trained to do. I don't even know the shortcut to switch between tabs. I still use Mozilla, but I no longer use tabs. What am I missing? Help please.
Okay, but MY browser has no identified exploits. Everyone using Mozilla or IE should drop both and use mine.
I have found the security and auditing features in .NET very powerful - any chance you could detail some of your concerns?
You are so banned from the geek club now