Where do you get 231MB? That's the size of the full "redistributable" installer, including compilers, debugging tools, debug versions, etc. The actual size of the 2.0 runtime is 22.4MB
That's not 3.5, but 3.5 is a superset of 2.0, which is basically adding on stuff that the basic JRE doesn't have anyways like Workflow and WPF.
Also, why is it that Java also creates side by side installations? I have something like 15 Java versions installed because each update installs a new version. Each Java folder is about 90MB, which means it's taking up about 1.35GB.
And you are wrong. The latest version, 3.5 SP1 will run 100% of apps from 3.5, 3.0, 2.0, and about 99% of 1.1 and 1.0 apps. Side by side installations are not required except for a very tiny fraction of 1.1 and 1.0 apps that had a breaking change occur.
Spoken like someone that's never really done pair programming.
I think you misunderstand what pair programming is. It's not, one guy takes the keyboard and writes code for 10 minutes while the other watches, the trade off...
Both programmers are active during pair programming. One may be physically entering it, but you're both writing all the code. And you're both keeping all the code in your head, otherwise you're doing it wrong and gaining no real advantage from pair programming.
Everyone on the team found that they were more productive if they were just let alone, had people to talk to if they had an actual problem, and just emailed each other their patches for "review".
I've had numerous 4-6 hour pair programming sessions that churned out more well written, largely bug-free software than most people write in a week.
The problem is, when pairs are mandated, you end up with a situation where you write code for 5 minutes, then one guy gets up to go to the bathroom for 15 minutes (the other guy surfs the web waiting for him to get back). Then they write more code for 5 minutes and the other guy goes to get a can of Dew, stops and chats with someone, etc.. comes back and they write 5 minutes of code and then the first guy goes to lunch... etc..
You need two people that are a team, working together, who want to be there and doing it. Otherwise it's just pointless. In most cases, I like to find an unused conference room or office to allow us to be completely "in the zone", and we generally don't come out until we're done for the day.
Occasionally you get into a disagreement about how to go about things, and that wastes time. But more often than not, a pair that's "in sync" churn out amazing amounts of good code.
The fact that you talk about mailing each other patches seems to indicate to me that you're talking about a maintenance situation. Pair programming does not work well for small patch change situations, or rather it's a waste of time.
Good developers paired with over-the-shoulder code reviews produce code that is just as good (or better), and is far more productive
My experience differs. Most people that say they're "good developers" aren't. What you really mean is "People that hate having someone watch them don't do well in pairs", and that's true.
I would have to wonder... how does the author know they don't get much out of code reviews? Is it just group think? Have they done a project without code review and compared defect rates? Have they done two post-mortem's and come to this conclusion?
Maybe it's not the code reviews, but the way you're doing them? Maybe it's the personalities allowed to control the code reviews?
Pair programming can work, but I'm not sure it's worth the overhead
By "overhead" I assume you mean the cost of two developers to write one piece of code. In my experience, Pair programmers are more than twice as productive as a single developer when you factor in all the errors and bugs prevented by having two sets of eyes on the same problem. Of course this only works when you have a pair that can work together, which can be hard to find in some environments.
The other advantage you get from pair programming is that you have two people familiar with the code, not just one. Thus if one leaves the company, or goes on vacation and problem needs to be fixed, you always have another person (at least until both of them leave the company).
Even if you do nothing else that XP advocates, pair programming can really be worth it.
No. Let's say I take you to court for trespassing because you walked on my lawn. In the process, you damaged my flower bed.
A court decides that you did indeed trespass on my property and you did indeed damage my flower bed. A judgement is placed in my favor for the cost of replacing the damaged flowers.
You were not convicted of a crime. There will be nothing on your criminal record.
You might still be called a criminal, but you are not a *convicted* criminal. A conviction can only occur in a criminal court.
Why is that, you might wonder? Because civil liability and criminal conviction have two different standards. In fact, someone can be found not guilty of a criminal act, but found liable if taken to civil court.
That's what happened to OJ, for instance. Sure, OJ was likely guilty, especially in light of later events... but the fact of the matter is, he was never convicted of murder, even though he was found liable for it in a civil court.
So no, just because you think something is true doesn't make it so.
Hey, that was the EU's wonderful idea. They didn't understand that removing media players from an OS wouldn't make OS's any more competitive, or the media player market any more competitive.
Your links to the civil cases that lead to the criminal case are not particularly relevant
Yet you are completly unable to validate your claim of a criminal case by providing any valid links which talk about it.
As I said, if you can provide me with some credible evidence, i'll be happy to admit I was wrong. But you can't do that, or you would have already.
The European Commission is an enforcement branch of the executive, like the Department of Justice or FTC in the states.
The DOJ is just an attorney working for "the people". The DOJ has no special powers that any other attorney doesn't have. They have to bring everything before a judge just like anyone else. Thus, they are not an "enforcement division".
The EU Antitrust commission is different. They are an enforcement division, but they have no real legal standing. They can't put anyone in jail if they don't comply, they can only levy more fines.
As for the Court of Justice, no. You are misrepresenting the facts. Microsoft appealed the EU's decision, which is where the CoJ comes in.
No, it is not a criminal proceeding. Yes, there is the clayton antitrust act, but MS was *NEVER* charged with criminal violation of it. In fact, it's impossible to charge a company with criminal offense. Who do you put in jail? Not the officers, because the officers weren't convicted of anything.
"United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated *civil* actions filed against Microsoft Corporation on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states."
The DOJ never prosecuted it as a crime. If you can point me to something credible that says so, i'll be happy to agree with you.
And no, when they talk about the "Opera Complaint", they're not talking about a criminal complaint. They're talking about a complaint made to the EU Antitrust Commission. A Criminal Complaint is an actual case brought against someone in a court of law.
The point of anti-trust sanctions is PUNISHMENT. The point is NOT to "level the playing field". Everyone who thinks that "leveling the playing field" is the goal here, simply does not understand what "monopoly" means.
Actually, you're the one that doesn't understand. Let's look at the word you used. Sanctions. Sanctions are *NEVER* about punishment. The very word is used to describe using economic means to attempt to induce a specific kind of behavior. From the dictionary:
"International Law. action by one or more states toward another state calculated to force it to comply with legal obligations."
The EU calls it's actions "Remedies". One does not "remedy" if you are trying to punish. One only "remedies" if they are trying to fix the situation... ie, level the playing field.
MS broke the law, they will be punished for it, even if they stopped breaking the law.
You would be correct if they were being tried for a criminal activity. They're not. Hell, the EU commission isn't even a court of law. It's more like a regulatory board or government committee. The EU Commission doesn't have the power to "punish" anyone. It does have the power to seek monetary damages and, through assessment of more monetary damages enforce behavior changes. But that's it.
Or are you saying that if a serial killer stops killing, he shouldn't go to jail?
Murder is a crime, punishable by criminal law. Bundling a browser is an infringement of antitrust law. While it's possible for that to be a criminal offense, which exacts punishment, then the officers of the company would need to stand trial for such in a court of law.
This is basically a "If you're going to play in our yard, you have to play by our rules" deal.
What, exactly, is enough? Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
*sigh*. Not this old canard again. Do you understand what the term "convicted" means? Apparently not.
"convicted" means you have been found guilty of criminal activity. This requires a criminal trial, and possibly a jury. Microsoft has never even been accused of any criminal misdoings by any legal authority, much less actually gone to trial.
You seem to be confusing a civil lawsuit with a criminal trial. They are not equivlent. A civil lawsuit can only seek damages and possibly structural and/or behavioral changes. A criminal trial would result in someone doing jail-time, or at best probation, restitution, and possibly a fine. But in either case, it results in a criminal record. Further, corporations cannot be tried criminally, only the officers of the company can. For example, the officers of Enron were tried and convicted in criminal court.
In other words, Civil proceedings do not result in a criminal record of any kind.
Microsoft has been found "liable" of violaing antitrust laws, but is not a "convicted monopolist".
Maybe you're forgetting, this is punishment for a crime.
I don't think he's forgetting that, because it's not true. Neither the US DOJ anti-trust suit or the EU "commission" have chared Microsoft with any criminal wrongdoing. These are civil actions, and as such cannot deal with "punishment for crime". They can only extract monetary fines and seek to repair the problems.
This is why both the DOJ and the EU use terms like "Remedy". They are not seeking to punish (no matter how much they would like to). They are seeking to remedy the situation and are trying to put together a set of conditions upon which the company will need to operate in order to meet that remedy.
Civil and Criminal law are two diffent things. Don't confuse them, and perhaps you won't get so frustrated that nothing is ever solved.
If it's anything like the mediaplayer-less version of Vista called "N", then almost nobody will ever buy it. OEM's can still ship full versions in the EU, they just have the option to ship a more crippled version for the same price. What OEM will do that?
neither Apple nor Canonical enjoy Microsoft's monopoly position
Actually, Apple does. During the DOJ trial, it was ruled that Apple was not in Microsoft's market, and was excluded from marketshare numbers. This makes Apple it's own monopoly. Even though Apple now uses x86 processors, you can't run MacOS on normal PC's (legally), so this makes them a monopoly of their own market.
If your complaint were well justified, it wouldn't have been so soundly rejected, not to mention that the admins criticized you for doing it in the first place (inappropriate use of the COIN system).
Further, the very nature of your own conflict of interest makes your complaint inappropriate even if it were justified.
Actually, software does age. Like the human body, old software is more susceptible to infection from viruses. This makes older software far more risky to use than newer software.
Since your prof accepted your work in PDF format, which is available on FAR more platforms than ODF, what really is your argument? That you should be able to submit it in any random format you arbitrarily choose? What about a Mac Pages document? Pagemaker? WordStar?
PDF is a better format for submitting work anyways because it's not susceptible to issues with printer definitions or conversion.
Seems luck is not with you. The Wikipedia admins rejected your ban request, and people like Warren actually came to hAl's defense (though not agreeing with his edits). The article also seems to indicate that perhaps you have a conflict of interst in seeking to ban hAl.
How do you respond to claims that you have a conflict of interst in the matter?
The fact of the matter is, you're letting yourself be swayed by those that have a vested interest in the failure of OOXML, and by people who simply hate anything Microsoft does and look for any excuse to criticize it.
While Rob Weir may be "authoratative", he's not "objective" as he's paid to talk crap about Microsoft and OOXML. It's his job.
However, even so, Rob uses misdirection to imply something that is not true. Even you assumed that he was implying that submitted PAS standards have more intense scrutiny. This is not the case.
Rob is saying that PAS *ORGANIZATIONS* are under more scrutity, not the standards they submit. His dishonesty is when he throws about the use of the word "process" as in "PAS Process", but the scrutiny in question does not apply to that process.
While it may or may not be true that ECMA has less scrutiny than OASIS, that says nothing about the scrutiny the standard itself faced. OOXML was under an order of magnitude more scrutiny than ODF was.
The fact of the matter is, the *PROCESS* that both PAS and Fast Track use is essentially the same. If you want to believe that because OASIS has to go through more work to get PAS status that they create better specifications... that's entirely up to you.
They would only be "shills" if they were in collusion with the house to cheat. Any poker player who is not cheating, regardless of whether the house is paying them or not, is still just a poker play with the same chance to win as anyone else.
XP is a 9 year old OS. Even auto makers are only required to support the parts for their cars for 7 years. At what point isn't it an anti-trust violation to want to get rid of an aging product? 15 years? 30?
There isn't a single Linux vendor that supports a 9 year old version of Linux without paid support, and Apple certainly doesn't support 9 year old versions of MacOS either.
Slashdot Mirror
Where do you get 231MB? That's the size of the full "redistributable" installer, including compilers, debugging tools, debug versions, etc. The actual size of the 2.0 runtime is 22.4MB
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=0856EACB-4362-4B0D-8EDD-AAB15C5E04F5&displaylang=en
That's not 3.5, but 3.5 is a superset of 2.0, which is basically adding on stuff that the basic JRE doesn't have anyways like Workflow and WPF.
Also, why is it that Java also creates side by side installations? I have something like 15 Java versions installed because each update installs a new version. Each Java folder is about 90MB, which means it's taking up about 1.35GB.
And you are wrong. The latest version, 3.5 SP1 will run 100% of apps from 3.5, 3.0, 2.0, and about 99% of 1.1 and 1.0 apps. Side by side installations are not required except for a very tiny fraction of 1.1 and 1.0 apps that had a breaking change occur.
Spoken like someone that's never really done pair programming.
I think you misunderstand what pair programming is. It's not, one guy takes the keyboard and writes code for 10 minutes while the other watches, the trade off...
Both programmers are active during pair programming. One may be physically entering it, but you're both writing all the code. And you're both keeping all the code in your head, otherwise you're doing it wrong and gaining no real advantage from pair programming.
Everyone on the team found that they were more productive if they were just let alone, had people to talk to if they had an actual problem, and just emailed each other their patches for "review".
I've had numerous 4-6 hour pair programming sessions that churned out more well written, largely bug-free software than most people write in a week.
The problem is, when pairs are mandated, you end up with a situation where you write code for 5 minutes, then one guy gets up to go to the bathroom for 15 minutes (the other guy surfs the web waiting for him to get back). Then they write more code for 5 minutes and the other guy goes to get a can of Dew, stops and chats with someone, etc.. comes back and they write 5 minutes of code and then the first guy goes to lunch... etc..
You need two people that are a team, working together, who want to be there and doing it. Otherwise it's just pointless. In most cases, I like to find an unused conference room or office to allow us to be completely "in the zone", and we generally don't come out until we're done for the day.
Occasionally you get into a disagreement about how to go about things, and that wastes time. But more often than not, a pair that's "in sync" churn out amazing amounts of good code.
The fact that you talk about mailing each other patches seems to indicate to me that you're talking about a maintenance situation. Pair programming does not work well for small patch change situations, or rather it's a waste of time.
Good developers paired with over-the-shoulder code reviews produce code that is just as good (or better), and is far more productive
My experience differs. Most people that say they're "good developers" aren't. What you really mean is "People that hate having someone watch them don't do well in pairs", and that's true.
I would have to wonder... how does the author know they don't get much out of code reviews? Is it just group think? Have they done a project without code review and compared defect rates? Have they done two post-mortem's and come to this conclusion?
Maybe it's not the code reviews, but the way you're doing them? Maybe it's the personalities allowed to control the code reviews?
Pair programming can work, but I'm not sure it's worth the overhead
By "overhead" I assume you mean the cost of two developers to write one piece of code. In my experience, Pair programmers are more than twice as productive as a single developer when you factor in all the errors and bugs prevented by having two sets of eyes on the same problem. Of course this only works when you have a pair that can work together, which can be hard to find in some environments.
The other advantage you get from pair programming is that you have two people familiar with the code, not just one. Thus if one leaves the company, or goes on vacation and problem needs to be fixed, you always have another person (at least until both of them leave the company).
Even if you do nothing else that XP advocates, pair programming can really be worth it.
No. Let's say I take you to court for trespassing because you walked on my lawn. In the process, you damaged my flower bed.
A court decides that you did indeed trespass on my property and you did indeed damage my flower bed. A judgement is placed in my favor for the cost of replacing the damaged flowers.
You were not convicted of a crime. There will be nothing on your criminal record.
You might still be called a criminal, but you are not a *convicted* criminal. A conviction can only occur in a criminal court.
Why is that, you might wonder? Because civil liability and criminal conviction have two different standards. In fact, someone can be found not guilty of a criminal act, but found liable if taken to civil court.
That's what happened to OJ, for instance. Sure, OJ was likely guilty, especially in light of later events... but the fact of the matter is, he was never convicted of murder, even though he was found liable for it in a civil court.
So no, just because you think something is true doesn't make it so.
Hey, that was the EU's wonderful idea. They didn't understand that removing media players from an OS wouldn't make OS's any more competitive, or the media player market any more competitive.
Your links to the civil cases that lead to the criminal case are not particularly relevant
Yet you are completly unable to validate your claim of a criminal case by providing any valid links which talk about it.
As I said, if you can provide me with some credible evidence, i'll be happy to admit I was wrong. But you can't do that, or you would have already.
The European Commission is an enforcement branch of the executive, like the Department of Justice or FTC in the states.
The DOJ is just an attorney working for "the people". The DOJ has no special powers that any other attorney doesn't have. They have to bring everything before a judge just like anyone else. Thus, they are not an "enforcement division".
The EU Antitrust commission is different. They are an enforcement division, but they have no real legal standing. They can't put anyone in jail if they don't comply, they can only levy more fines.
As for the Court of Justice, no. You are misrepresenting the facts. Microsoft appealed the EU's decision, which is where the CoJ comes in.
No, it is not a criminal proceeding. Yes, there is the clayton antitrust act, but MS was *NEVER* charged with criminal violation of it. In fact, it's impossible to charge a company with criminal offense. Who do you put in jail? Not the officers, because the officers weren't convicted of anything.
Let me point you to some real links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
"United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated *civil* actions filed against Microsoft Corporation on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states."
The DOJ never prosecuted it as a crime. If you can point me to something credible that says so, i'll be happy to agree with you.
Here's some more links:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f225600/225658.htm
"Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)"
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f218300/218339.htm
"Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)"
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f200400/200457.htm
"Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)"
etc.. etc...
And no, when they talk about the "Opera Complaint", they're not talking about a criminal complaint. They're talking about a complaint made to the EU Antitrust Commission. A Criminal Complaint is an actual case brought against someone in a court of law.
The point of anti-trust sanctions is PUNISHMENT. The point is NOT to "level the playing field". Everyone who thinks that "leveling the playing field" is the goal here, simply does not understand what "monopoly" means.
Actually, you're the one that doesn't understand. Let's look at the word you used. Sanctions. Sanctions are *NEVER* about punishment. The very word is used to describe using economic means to attempt to induce a specific kind of behavior. From the dictionary:
"International Law. action by one or more states toward another state calculated to force it to comply with legal obligations."
The EU calls it's actions "Remedies". One does not "remedy" if you are trying to punish. One only "remedies" if they are trying to fix the situation... ie, level the playing field.
MS broke the law, they will be punished for it, even if they stopped breaking the law.
You would be correct if they were being tried for a criminal activity. They're not. Hell, the EU commission isn't even a court of law. It's more like a regulatory board or government committee. The EU Commission doesn't have the power to "punish" anyone. It does have the power to seek monetary damages and, through assessment of more monetary damages enforce behavior changes. But that's it.
Or are you saying that if a serial killer stops killing, he shouldn't go to jail?
Murder is a crime, punishable by criminal law. Bundling a browser is an infringement of antitrust law. While it's possible for that to be a criminal offense, which exacts punishment, then the officers of the company would need to stand trial for such in a court of law.
This is basically a "If you're going to play in our yard, you have to play by our rules" deal.
What, exactly, is enough? Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
*sigh*. Not this old canard again. Do you understand what the term "convicted" means? Apparently not.
"convicted" means you have been found guilty of criminal activity. This requires a criminal trial, and possibly a jury. Microsoft has never even been accused of any criminal misdoings by any legal authority, much less actually gone to trial.
You seem to be confusing a civil lawsuit with a criminal trial. They are not equivlent. A civil lawsuit can only seek damages and possibly structural and/or behavioral changes. A criminal trial would result in someone doing jail-time, or at best probation, restitution, and possibly a fine. But in either case, it results in a criminal record. Further, corporations cannot be tried criminally, only the officers of the company can. For example, the officers of Enron were tried and convicted in criminal court.
In other words, Civil proceedings do not result in a criminal record of any kind.
Microsoft has been found "liable" of violaing antitrust laws, but is not a "convicted monopolist".
Maybe you're forgetting, this is punishment for a crime.
I don't think he's forgetting that, because it's not true. Neither the US DOJ anti-trust suit or the EU "commission" have chared Microsoft with any criminal wrongdoing. These are civil actions, and as such cannot deal with "punishment for crime". They can only extract monetary fines and seek to repair the problems.
This is why both the DOJ and the EU use terms like "Remedy". They are not seeking to punish (no matter how much they would like to). They are seeking to remedy the situation and are trying to put together a set of conditions upon which the company will need to operate in order to meet that remedy.
Civil and Criminal law are two diffent things. Don't confuse them, and perhaps you won't get so frustrated that nothing is ever solved.
If it's anything like the mediaplayer-less version of Vista called "N", then almost nobody will ever buy it. OEM's can still ship full versions in the EU, they just have the option to ship a more crippled version for the same price. What OEM will do that?
neither Apple nor Canonical enjoy Microsoft's monopoly position
Actually, Apple does. During the DOJ trial, it was ruled that Apple was not in Microsoft's market, and was excluded from marketshare numbers. This makes Apple it's own monopoly. Even though Apple now uses x86 processors, you can't run MacOS on normal PC's (legally), so this makes them a monopoly of their own market.
If your complaint were well justified, it wouldn't have been so soundly rejected, not to mention that the admins criticized you for doing it in the first place (inappropriate use of the COIN system).
Further, the very nature of your own conflict of interest makes your complaint inappropriate even if it were justified.
How can this irony be lost on you?
Actually, software does age. Like the human body, old software is more susceptible to infection from viruses. This makes older software far more risky to use than newer software.
Since your prof accepted your work in PDF format, which is available on FAR more platforms than ODF, what really is your argument? That you should be able to submit it in any random format you arbitrarily choose? What about a Mac Pages document? Pagemaker? WordStar?
PDF is a better format for submitting work anyways because it's not susceptible to issues with printer definitions or conversion.
Yes, that way people who write articles on, let's say, Abortion, can be tracked down by radical pro-life "enforcers" and harassed or worse.
There's a reason why anonymous editing is allowed.
Seems luck is not with you. The Wikipedia admins rejected your ban request, and people like Warren actually came to hAl's defense (though not agreeing with his edits). The article also seems to indicate that perhaps you have a conflict of interst in seeking to ban hAl.
How do you respond to claims that you have a conflict of interst in the matter?
If you're going to play the "objectivity" card, you might want to avoid using people paid to criticize OOXML as authoratitve sources.
Hell, the fact of the matter is, even the guy who edits the ODF specification has said a lot of good things about OOXML.
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/209998/odf_editor_odf_loses_ooxml_does
The fact of the matter is, you're letting yourself be swayed by those that have a vested interest in the failure of OOXML, and by people who simply hate anything Microsoft does and look for any excuse to criticize it.
Try making up your own mind.
While Rob Weir may be "authoratative", he's not "objective" as he's paid to talk crap about Microsoft and OOXML. It's his job.
However, even so, Rob uses misdirection to imply something that is not true. Even you assumed that he was implying that submitted PAS standards have more intense scrutiny. This is not the case.
Rob is saying that PAS *ORGANIZATIONS* are under more scrutity, not the standards they submit. His dishonesty is when he throws about the use of the word "process" as in "PAS Process", but the scrutiny in question does not apply to that process.
While it may or may not be true that ECMA has less scrutiny than OASIS, that says nothing about the scrutiny the standard itself faced. OOXML was under an order of magnitude more scrutiny than ODF was.
The fact of the matter is, the *PROCESS* that both PAS and Fast Track use is essentially the same. If you want to believe that because OASIS has to go through more work to get PAS status that they create better specifications... that's entirely up to you.
They would only be "shills" if they were in collusion with the house to cheat. Any poker player who is not cheating, regardless of whether the house is paying them or not, is still just a poker play with the same chance to win as anyone else.
XP is a 9 year old OS. Even auto makers are only required to support the parts for their cars for 7 years. At what point isn't it an anti-trust violation to want to get rid of an aging product? 15 years? 30?
There isn't a single Linux vendor that supports a 9 year old version of Linux without paid support, and Apple certainly doesn't support 9 year old versions of MacOS either.