Exactly. In a nutshell, it explains what it decries: the reason Apple is getting the press is because it's designed a system which is not error-prone and which is easy to use, a feat that still escapes Microsoft after years of playing catch-up. That IS news-worthy, especially since most consumers don't seem to have picked up on it yet--what's the news for unless it's to tell you something you don't already know?
Of course, you could say the same for the new things that Microsoft comes out with, but reading Vista coverage is more like reading about a train wreck... perhaps Dvorak simply subscribes to the old school "good news is fluff, bad news is news" philosophy of journalism.
He would have been more correct to say that Western Washington carries the rest of the state on its tax base--and that's absolutely true. As is that Western Washington is more heavily urbanized than Eastern Washington. I don't have a discrete breakdown on the rural/urban taxation and spending breakdown for the west side of the state, but in general it's not true that the rural areas of the state pay more back than the receive in funding... a lot of dollars from the Western Washington tax base flow back over the mountains to subsidize the rural East side of the state.
Check some of the research that has been done on all the "51st State" proposals for combining North Idaho and Eastern Washington and leaving the West side of the state stand alone. You'll be surprised where the money actually comes from and goes to around here, and it's definitely not what you would assume.
One of the biggest problems with the plan that is (thankfully) finally going down in flames is that it didn't do a damn thing to address the connectivity to the suburbs or the rest of the region. We DO need a viable mass transit link to other parts of the region, but this was never it. If the starry-eyed dreamers who were voting for and running the thing had ever bothered to look at the actual causes of traffic problems in the city they might have put something together that addressed those issues, but as it was, you are sadly close to correct--it was just something that sounded cool so people wanted it.
Thank god they got a look at the price tag before ground was actually broken!
That's more or less absurd, since there is no accurate way of predicting actual earthquakes in the first place, much less what they will cost, and certainly it isn't calculated down to the level of my house and lot specifically anyway--it's generalized over the region.
Anyway; as I said, my plan is to play the odds that a major one won't strike over the span of my residency, and if it does, count on the nice folks over in the federal government to cut me a check out of your tax money.:)
Only 13% of Californians have earthquake insurance. That's clear indication that Californians themselves take a relaxed attitude about earthquakes.
Or, perhaps more likely, that earthquake insurance is insanely expensive or flat-out unavailable in earthquake prone areas. I looked into it when I bought my place in Seattle a couple of years ago (and we don't hold a candle to California when it comes to quakes), and it was out of my price range... better to play the odds and rely on the government to bail you out if your place gets leveled.
Simple for you, maybe, not so much for the majority of subscribers. It's like whacking a dog for something your neighbor's dog did two weeks ago... there isn't going to be any connection in their head and they aren't going to know what to do about it anyway.
Funny, you usually see this sort of argument pointed in the other direction, with people using an example of theft to illustrate the illegality of downloading. But it is just as non-sensical in this direction, since theft and copyright infringement originate from completely separate bodies of law. The reasons and justifications behind the punishments for each are likewise completely unbound from one another.
If you're someone who supports downloading, I wouldn't be using this comparison too much, 'cause the implications aren't cheerful for that side of the argument.:)
Then it would be "system aging" not "software aging"; the mistake is in your choice of terminology. "Aging" in fact is still a terrible term to use to describe this process, since it has little or nothing to do with time and everything to do with modification and utilization. It's hardly a foregone conclusion that software-based systems will deteriorate without maintenance. You're making a poor generalization based on innaccurate assumptions of utilization across the board.
It escapes me why people feel the need to come up with inaccurate terms for things that are already easily described and then try to defend them when the inevitable misunderstanding results.
Who exactly was changing the code, since no one there supposedly knew FORTRAN?
And usage patterns are not conveniently tied to time, but rather, well, usage. The airline could have hit it big two months after this package was deployed and run into the exact same bug.
I think it is an easy to sell analogy to people who work on airplanes, but in fact software does not "age", and treating it as if it does is a fundamental risk factor in and of itself because doing so invites a complete misunderstanding of why software DOES fail.
"They had no failover plan in place in case the system went down."
With that, you've hit the heart of the matter, and what the article should have focused on rather than the "old software breaks down" BS. This was a bug which could have hit at ANY time since the software was installed; it was an overflow, not a rusting subroutine that fell off. I can't personally see any way that they could have foreseen this particular problem but when you have a system that is so critical to your operation, you don't look for problems it might have--you look for alternatives to fall back to when it DOES have problems.
You never see them coming. But you'd better plan for them anyway.
The most interesting thing that I've found in it so far is that apparently VOIP is a primary communications mechanism for Army units over there. Now THAT is a Slashdot-worthy story.
Maybe he is, but on the other hand, don't underestimate the stupidity of the average user, either--I've seen plenty of cases where people have forgotten that they signed up for something but were still getting it... short step from there to an unwarranted spam complaint.
Were you implying that free software is poorly functional?
I don't think he was... Stallman certainly seems to:
...no longer spread the message that non-free software is a good thing if it's convenient.
Certainly implies to me that sometimes free software is less functional that non-free.
Frankly, I'm not in on the Crusade (although I frequently use and appreciate OSS) and if someone comes up with a trick that makes their package better and doesn't want to share, it's my choice to deal with the restrictions or go build something better--or, apparently, whine about it. I'm not much of a whiner.
Dang... all that, and you love the product? Seems to me you'd never even have a chance to notice all the customer service failings if the computers weren't such crap that they kept falling apart on you.
For the record, I've only had one issues (battery problems) with any of the Macs I've ever bought, and it was resolved quickly and professionaly.:shrug:
That's been my experience, too--the real losers (and there certainly are those as well) tend to float through for a few months then are gone as they find that the job isn't quite the ego-stoking power-trip they were looking for. A lot of who are left are CJ students, or retired military or police who are just looking for some extra spending money.
Of course, effective or intelligent as they may be, none are inclined to have a gentle philosophical chat about the nature of privacy and security--they're paid to provide security, and if you're causing a problem as defined by their employer, you need to leave. Quite properly, they understand the debate, if it needs to happen, needs to happen with people who can actually make a change. If they don't do the job, the owner will just as happily hire someone with fewer philosophical inclinations and the situation will remain the same.
What makes you think data isn't encoded in the signal? It seems pretty clear to me--the data is "Turn around, idiot, this is restricted airspace."
Not seeing ANY flash would mean you're clear of it. Why get complicated (not to mention why carry a signal state which, by definition, wouldn't be seen by anyone it would be aimed at, since they would be flying the other direction)?
You may have missed the part where I said "not with the features required, not with the stability necessary" but actually I think you probably did see that, and also the list of OTHER industries and software packages I provided you, and are simply blustering your way out of the corner you talked yourself into by insisting that someone else provide all the in-depth market research for you.
It's okay. I never really thought you were anything other than a blowhard in the first place, I won't hold you to it.
"In fact if every player in the industry is using the same software that's all the more reason for one company to break out and seek a competitive advantage by trying different things perhaps even writing their own software."
I think that's pretty much exactly what I said.
If you really doubt that's how it is today, I suggest you go out and get a little more experience. I've consulted almost exclusively in the mid-size business market, with multiple clients across several industries, and I know it's the case in those areas. Engineering, construction, medicine... I've done RFPs for line of business application replacement for firms in each of those market segments and done extensive research on the alternatives, and they aren't out there--not with the features required, not with the stability necessary. Heck, for a long time, it was a stretch to find reliable accounting software that wasn't Windows based and was oriented at mid-sized businesses. That's getting better--a bit--but it's still shocking how many companies I walk into are running MAS 90 or Peachtree or similar. If you look around in their industry trade rags, those are the only solutions you see.
I think the rationalization is on your part and the other linux cheerleaders out there, who just assume someone can wave their hands and an adequate replacement for all these specialized software packages will appear. Well, you have the names of some industries and some software packages (a few more: Medisoft, Timberline, Quickbooks, Medstar)--I'll be interested to see what you come up with when you get cracking on all that competing you're gonna do with 'em.
In most industries, though, they are all in the same boat--everyone uses the same line of business apps, all of which are Windows based. Your competitor is just as unable to move to Linux as you are.
The first move in this game would be to convince vendors that they could convince customers that a Linux-based version of the application would be advantageous. The vendors are really the only ones in the right position to understand the arguments anyway--they are the software people, after all--and the only ones that the customers are likely to listen to in any event, as they've already proven their knowledge of that particular industry to some extent.
Not often, so I am going to take the opportunity to brag that I killed a lot of time (and bugs) hunting grasshoppers with a BB gun in my youth.
Sounds impossible now, but it's actually not so tough if your stalking skills are good (which is true of pretty much any sort of hunting, I guess). And it's really great target practice... what's that old maxim about targets? Aim for the head and you might hit the target; aim for the eye, and you'll probably hit the head? Something like that.:)
Visually, the upgrade from 98 to 2000 wasn't very convincing, while the underlying kernel outclassed 98 in every respect.
Which should be fine, if you think about it... why is it that designers think that every major technology upgrade should be accompanied by a snazzy new interface layout which forces users to re-learn how to perform operations with which they were perfectly comfortable before?
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. In a nutshell, it explains what it decries: the reason Apple is getting the press is because it's designed a system which is not error-prone and which is easy to use, a feat that still escapes Microsoft after years of playing catch-up. That IS news-worthy, especially since most consumers don't seem to have picked up on it yet--what's the news for unless it's to tell you something you don't already know?
Of course, you could say the same for the new things that Microsoft comes out with, but reading Vista coverage is more like reading about a train wreck... perhaps Dvorak simply subscribes to the old school "good news is fluff, bad news is news" philosophy of journalism.
Pick up on it? He practically invented it. And still tries to spread it, in typical resolute but poorly considered Dvorak fashion.
Mods! Wake up! How is this not +5 (either Funny or Insightful, I haven't decided which yet) already?
He would have been more correct to say that Western Washington carries the rest of the state on its tax base--and that's absolutely true. As is that Western Washington is more heavily urbanized than Eastern Washington. I don't have a discrete breakdown on the rural/urban taxation and spending breakdown for the west side of the state, but in general it's not true that the rural areas of the state pay more back than the receive in funding... a lot of dollars from the Western Washington tax base flow back over the mountains to subsidize the rural East side of the state.
Check some of the research that has been done on all the "51st State" proposals for combining North Idaho and Eastern Washington and leaving the West side of the state stand alone. You'll be surprised where the money actually comes from and goes to around here, and it's definitely not what you would assume.
One of the biggest problems with the plan that is (thankfully) finally going down in flames is that it didn't do a damn thing to address the connectivity to the suburbs or the rest of the region. We DO need a viable mass transit link to other parts of the region, but this was never it. If the starry-eyed dreamers who were voting for and running the thing had ever bothered to look at the actual causes of traffic problems in the city they might have put something together that addressed those issues, but as it was, you are sadly close to correct--it was just something that sounded cool so people wanted it.
Thank god they got a look at the price tag before ground was actually broken!
That's more or less absurd, since there is no accurate way of predicting actual earthquakes in the first place, much less what they will cost, and certainly it isn't calculated down to the level of my house and lot specifically anyway--it's generalized over the region.
:)
Anyway; as I said, my plan is to play the odds that a major one won't strike over the span of my residency, and if it does, count on the nice folks over in the federal government to cut me a check out of your tax money.
Only 13% of Californians have earthquake insurance. That's clear indication that Californians themselves take a relaxed attitude about earthquakes.
Or, perhaps more likely, that earthquake insurance is insanely expensive or flat-out unavailable in earthquake prone areas. I looked into it when I bought my place in Seattle a couple of years ago (and we don't hold a candle to California when it comes to quakes), and it was out of my price range... better to play the odds and rely on the government to bail you out if your place gets leveled.
Simple for you, maybe, not so much for the majority of subscribers. It's like whacking a dog for something your neighbor's dog did two weeks ago... there isn't going to be any connection in their head and they aren't going to know what to do about it anyway.
Translation of parent:
"You forgot Poland!"
Funny, you usually see this sort of argument pointed in the other direction, with people using an example of theft to illustrate the illegality of downloading. But it is just as non-sensical in this direction, since theft and copyright infringement originate from completely separate bodies of law. The reasons and justifications behind the punishments for each are likewise completely unbound from one another.
:)
If you're someone who supports downloading, I wouldn't be using this comparison too much, 'cause the implications aren't cheerful for that side of the argument.
Then it would be "system aging" not "software aging"; the mistake is in your choice of terminology. "Aging" in fact is still a terrible term to use to describe this process, since it has little or nothing to do with time and everything to do with modification and utilization. It's hardly a foregone conclusion that software-based systems will deteriorate without maintenance. You're making a poor generalization based on innaccurate assumptions of utilization across the board.
It escapes me why people feel the need to come up with inaccurate terms for things that are already easily described and then try to defend them when the inevitable misunderstanding results.
Who exactly was changing the code, since no one there supposedly knew FORTRAN?
And usage patterns are not conveniently tied to time, but rather, well, usage. The airline could have hit it big two months after this package was deployed and run into the exact same bug.
I think it is an easy to sell analogy to people who work on airplanes, but in fact software does not "age", and treating it as if it does is a fundamental risk factor in and of itself because doing so invites a complete misunderstanding of why software DOES fail.
"They had no failover plan in place in case the system went down."
With that, you've hit the heart of the matter, and what the article should have focused on rather than the "old software breaks down" BS. This was a bug which could have hit at ANY time since the software was installed; it was an overflow, not a rusting subroutine that fell off. I can't personally see any way that they could have foreseen this particular problem but when you have a system that is so critical to your operation, you don't look for problems it might have--you look for alternatives to fall back to when it DOES have problems.
You never see them coming. But you'd better plan for them anyway.
The most interesting thing that I've found in it so far is that apparently VOIP is a primary communications mechanism for Army units over there. Now THAT is a Slashdot-worthy story.
Maybe he is, but on the other hand, don't underestimate the stupidity of the average user, either--I've seen plenty of cases where people have forgotten that they signed up for something but were still getting it... short step from there to an unwarranted spam complaint.
I don't think he was... Stallman certainly seems to:
Certainly implies to me that sometimes free software is less functional that non-free.
Frankly, I'm not in on the Crusade (although I frequently use and appreciate OSS) and if someone comes up with a trick that makes their package better and doesn't want to share, it's my choice to deal with the restrictions or go build something better--or, apparently, whine about it. I'm not much of a whiner.
When's the last time your elevator blue-screened and sent you and the other occupants hurtling screaming to the bottom of the shaft?
Dang... all that, and you love the product? Seems to me you'd never even have a chance to notice all the customer service failings if the computers weren't such crap that they kept falling apart on you.
:shrug:
For the record, I've only had one issues (battery problems) with any of the Macs I've ever bought, and it was resolved quickly and professionaly.
That's been my experience, too--the real losers (and there certainly are those as well) tend to float through for a few months then are gone as they find that the job isn't quite the ego-stoking power-trip they were looking for. A lot of who are left are CJ students, or retired military or police who are just looking for some extra spending money.
Of course, effective or intelligent as they may be, none are inclined to have a gentle philosophical chat about the nature of privacy and security--they're paid to provide security, and if you're causing a problem as defined by their employer, you need to leave. Quite properly, they understand the debate, if it needs to happen, needs to happen with people who can actually make a change. If they don't do the job, the owner will just as happily hire someone with fewer philosophical inclinations and the situation will remain the same.
What makes you think data isn't encoded in the signal? It seems pretty clear to me--the data is "Turn around, idiot, this is restricted airspace."
Not seeing ANY flash would mean you're clear of it. Why get complicated (not to mention why carry a signal state which, by definition, wouldn't be seen by anyone it would be aimed at, since they would be flying the other direction)?
You may have missed the part where I said "not with the features required, not with the stability necessary" but actually I think you probably did see that, and also the list of OTHER industries and software packages I provided you, and are simply blustering your way out of the corner you talked yourself into by insisting that someone else provide all the in-depth market research for you.
It's okay. I never really thought you were anything other than a blowhard in the first place, I won't hold you to it.
Bye now.
"In fact if every player in the industry is using the same software that's all the more reason for one company to break out and seek a competitive advantage by trying different things perhaps even writing their own software."
I think that's pretty much exactly what I said.
If you really doubt that's how it is today, I suggest you go out and get a little more experience. I've consulted almost exclusively in the mid-size business market, with multiple clients across several industries, and I know it's the case in those areas. Engineering, construction, medicine... I've done RFPs for line of business application replacement for firms in each of those market segments and done extensive research on the alternatives, and they aren't out there--not with the features required, not with the stability necessary. Heck, for a long time, it was a stretch to find reliable accounting software that wasn't Windows based and was oriented at mid-sized businesses. That's getting better--a bit--but it's still shocking how many companies I walk into are running MAS 90 or Peachtree or similar. If you look around in their industry trade rags, those are the only solutions you see.
I think the rationalization is on your part and the other linux cheerleaders out there, who just assume someone can wave their hands and an adequate replacement for all these specialized software packages will appear. Well, you have the names of some industries and some software packages (a few more: Medisoft, Timberline, Quickbooks, Medstar)--I'll be interested to see what you come up with when you get cracking on all that competing you're gonna do with 'em.
In most industries, though, they are all in the same boat--everyone uses the same line of business apps, all of which are Windows based. Your competitor is just as unable to move to Linux as you are.
The first move in this game would be to convince vendors that they could convince customers that a Linux-based version of the application would be advantageous. The vendors are really the only ones in the right position to understand the arguments anyway--they are the software people, after all--and the only ones that the customers are likely to listen to in any event, as they've already proven their knowledge of that particular industry to some extent.
Not often, so I am going to take the opportunity to brag that I killed a lot of time (and bugs) hunting grasshoppers with a BB gun in my youth.
:)
Sounds impossible now, but it's actually not so tough if your stalking skills are good (which is true of pretty much any sort of hunting, I guess). And it's really great target practice... what's that old maxim about targets? Aim for the head and you might hit the target; aim for the eye, and you'll probably hit the head? Something like that.
Which should be fine, if you think about it... why is it that designers think that every major technology upgrade should be accompanied by a snazzy new interface layout which forces users to re-learn how to perform operations with which they were perfectly comfortable before?