I think you've totally missed what's been driving Linux progress for the last few years. Money. Lots of it. Corporate money paying developers. Virtually every single successful open source project has large corporate backing of some sort, be it Apache, the kernel, Firefox, mysql, etc..
Without a profitable parent company, they can't afford to pay those developers, and thus paid development goes away, and then you're left with the snail pace of "in my spare time" development. You're also stuck with the "only doing what scratches my itch" development, and many of the finer fit and polish elements that have gone into Ubuntu and other projects would be hard to find.
Would these projects die? No, but they would greatly slow down, possibly to the point that the majority of users would give up waiting for them.
Look, all organized religion is a scam. It exists to profit itself. It's *ALL* that way.
What you believe personally for a religion is your own spirituality, and that's between you and your deit(y|ies).
Just remember, Christianity was a "cult" to the romans. Muslimism was a cult to the christians. You're using your own biases to label others as "cults" just as millions have done throughout history. Some people label Judaism a cult. Some people label Budism a cult.
I'm not saying it's right that churches get tax breaks, but there is standard in place that the government follows, and apparently CoS meets that standard. Like it or not.
I know, we all think scientology is ridiculous. But the fact of the matter is, there are a lot of people that believe very strongly in it. It's not your place to rain on their parade.
Whether or not they are a religion is not my place to call, nor is it yours. There's a lot of whacky beliefs out there from the FSM and Church of the subgenious to stuff even whackier than scientology. The point is, it's not anyones place to tell another what is and isn't a real religion, regardless of what your personal beliefs may be, otherwise you're no better than any other religion throughout the centuries making claims that other religions aren't "real".
I mean, is norse religion real? They don't have any kind of "golden rule". Many people still believe it today, or at least subscribe to it. How about Mayan or Native american beliefs?
I don't like scientology either, and yeah.. i think they scam people out of a lot of money, but then so does the PTL and Jerry Falwell, and even the catholic church. You don't think they built the vatican on good will donations, do you? No, they told people their eternal soul was at risk if they didn't give them a percentage of their income. They told people that their loved ones would go to hell if they didn't buy them a place in heaven.
It's a *VERY* slippery slope to start calling others beliefs "unreal". Next thing you know, someone is calling yours unreal.
You may be correct, but once you start judging others religious beliefs, you start on a very slippery slope. There is little difference between Anonymous persecuting scientoligy and the Romans persecuting cristians, or the cristians persecugint muslims, or the anyone else because they don't believe them to be a "true religion".
I disagree with Scientology to the extreme, and i'll actively try to convince others of their folly if their even remotely interested, but I can't get behond any militant organization that does the very things they accuse their opponent of.
the only part of.net that has ever been published as an (attempted) standard, is version 1.1.
False.
ECMA, like it or not, is a world recognized standards body. Javascript, for example, is standardized by ECMA.
ECMA CLI and C# are now in their 4th editions, which cover C# 2.0 and the.NET CLI 2.0 respectively.
In December of 2001, the ISO ratified ISO/IEC 23270 (C#), ISO/IEC 23271 (CLI) and ISO/IEC 23272 (CLI TR) standards, which map to.NET 1.1, and in 2006 ISO ratified ISO/IEC 23270:2006 (C#), ISO/IEC 23271:2006 (CLI), ISO/IEC TR 25438:2006 (CLI TR) which map to.NET 2.0.
Now, it's true that C# 3.0 has not been submitted to ISO or ECMA, and the.NET framework is currently at version 3.5, both of those are based on the 2.0 infrastructure and are fully backwards compatible, meaning that the CLI and CLI TR standards are still the latest versions even for use with.NET 3.5.
You might not look like such a dumbass if you knew anything about what you were arguing about.
The thing is, in C# it's your choice whether you want to use a property or function. In Java, there is no choice. If you prefer to make things more clear using a function, you're perfectly capable of doing that in C#.
The whole point of properties is that you can control access with them. Suppose i have some code that accesses a public member, and i later want to make sure that you can never assign a null to it. You either have to change all references to the member in your code, or in C#, just turn it into a property and put your check there. No other changes needed.
All language features have the potential for abuse. It's a good programmer that makes sure you don't abuse them.
Not only that, but just because they call it an open source site doesn't mean that *ALL* software has to be open source, by any definition. As long as some is, then it's still an open source site. This is just stupid rhetoric. Microsoft doesn't claim it's an "open source only" site.
Aren't there worse things people can criticize Microsoft for?
So let me get this straight. During the OOXML standardization, everyone said "But microsoft could just participate in ODF and all would be good".
So now Microsoft decides to participate in ODF and "ZOMG!!!! Microsoft is trying to take over ODF".
Talk about hypocrisy.
Need I remind everyone, that the OASIS ODF committee was composed of, almost entirely Sun employees, until IBM got interested and then it was composed of a majority of IBM employees? As of late, both Sun and IBM make up a majority of the OASIS ODF TC.
So why didn't anyone complain when IBM sent a boatload of participants to OASIS in an attempt to control ODF's destiny?
The fact of the matter is, Microsoft knows that if it only sent one or two people, they would be marginalized and ignored. Their participation would be pointless, and they would not get anything they needed to make ODF more interoperable with Office, something that Sun has been adamantly against because they want to give OpenOffice an advantage over Office.
A truly open and collaborative TC would be the only solution, but both OASIS and ISO allow the deck to be stacked, and IBM and Sun have used that to their advantage. And, as long as IBM and Sun are allowed to stack the deck, Microsoft will likely respond in kind.
You seem to have the typical Linux user skewed view of how people use real software.
Dreamweaver has come a long way. It's HTML generation is fully XHTML/CSS oriented, and it's quite good. Professionals use it because it improves their productivity, not because they don't know how to code by hand. Coding by hand is error prone, time intensive, and stupid. Yes, you still have to drop back to manual mode for some stuff, but the tools it provides and integration with the other adobe tools is invaluable.
Photoshop is a difficult program to learn, just like the GIMP and most professional level tools, but for those that know it well, they can do pretty much anything. The GIMP simply can't do many of PS's tasks, even if you discount CMYK and other print level tools. Remember, many times professionals are stuck using the tools their professional suppliers require (for instance, many print shops require Quark or InDesign file formats.
It's completely unrealistic to tell people "you don't need that program". Saying such shows that you really don't understand their needs at all, and you're really proving the parents point.
Sure, they'd probably deny it (assuming they could get away with denying it), but that's not evidence that it was their fault. If it wasn't their fault, they'd also deny it.
In fact, denial doesn't mean anything one way or the other.
My database is great, mysql is shitty in my eyes, and mysql has sold out.
Is there a prize?
Re:and what does a 2gig stick cost?
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
2 gig stick, with that you can open a whopping 7 tabs. I have over 60 tabs open right now in my favorite browser (well, several copies of the browser, each with about 10 open tabs).
By my calculations, i need over 15GB of memory, just to freaking browse the web. I'm currently using about 2.2GB of memory. So what would that cost me? 4 4GB sticks costs about $1000, just to browse the web the same way I am right now.
No, "self-taught professional" is not an oxymoron. Computer degrees do almost nothing to teach people how to write good good, nor do they much to teach people good procedures. They don't teach skills. They teach knowledge. Two different things.
The worst code i've ever seen was written by Phd's in computer science. The worst failures i've been a part of were led by Phd's. The worst managers were Phd's. This is the rule, not the exception.
One learns to write good code through experience, and nothing else. We all begin by writing crappy code. More than likely, the problems you were dealing with were not because of unskilled programmers, but rather unskilled managers. People that don't know how to hire skilled workers (or think they can get by with their brothers 17 year old kid). People that tie the hands of the skilled workers they do have. People that force their employees to do things that make the code worse.
Nearly all software problems are directly traceable to inept management, even if only for hiring unqualified people.
If a web browser is not backwards compatible, people won't upgrade to it. If people won't upgrade to it, web developers won't write to it. So having a 100% standards compliant IE that isn't backwards compatible is as useless to the majority of the internet as Firefox or Opera. (not that they're useless, just that they're not doing anything to convert that majority of the users).
Ie, a 100% compliant IE9 with no backwards compatibility means everyone stays with IE6, 7, or 8.
Nope, that's not (necessarily) how it works. The Intranet zone is a whitelist. You add sites to it. It also defaults to puting sites in your own subnet in the intranet zone, but that's easily overriden, and most companies websites aren't on the same subnet as their workstations anyways.
If you don't add your companies public facing website to the intranet whitelist, you will by default be browsing it as the internet zone.
That's not what the icon is for. The icon is not there to say "this is standards compliant", it's a button you push that says "Use broken mode to view this".
It's a little ambiguous though, and they should come up with something a little better.
I should note, however, that every time Microsoft has shown any effort in creating effective icons in beta versions, they get tons of criticism that says "why don't you worry about fixing standards compliance before you worry about stupid icons". So it's a bit hypocritical to complain too much about this.
If you've got a program written for IE4, noone is stopping you from not upgrading.
That's precisely the problem. Having those old browsers around doesn't help anyone. They're insecure, they're not standards compliant, etc..
Why would you WANT people to browse the web with anything other than the most up to date version? THe more people running old browsers, the less chance anyone will upgrade their sites to standards compliance. Compatibility mode is the only way you can reasonably expect people to upgrade.
IE has had a concept known as 'security zones' for a long time. One of those zones is called the "intranet zone" and sites in the whitelist, or sites that are on your own subnet, are considered intranet sites (you can override the subnet thing too if you want, and put sites on your subnet in internet zone).
So you might want stop your wondering, and do a little googling instead.
Microsoft could have dealt fairly with this in a hundred ways. The essence of fairness here would have been to present this to the user as a conscious choice to be made.
Odd that you say that, as that is precisely what it does. The first time you go to an intranet site, the yellow bar pops up at the top of the screen that asks if you would like to enable intranet compatbility mode. If you don't do anything, it stays in standards mode. That is, if you're not using ActiveDirectory, in which case the choice is made by your administrator via Group Policy.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your holier than thou tirade though.
You are wrong. It would be a stupid move, for everyone.
Why? Because corporate users would *NEVER* upgrade. You seem to be laboring under the impression that the only thing that keeps people from migrating to Firefox or Opera or whatever is compatibility mode. It's not.
Let me put it this way. If a large corporation has invested millions in it's intranet infrastructure, millions in 3rd party intranet apps, millions in custom pages, and upgrading to IE8 would break all that, and cause millions more in upgrade costs do you really think they're going to just say "Fuck it, let's move to firefox"? No, because Firefox will also have those same issues (and probably more due to it's lack of ActiveX support, costing them even more money to replace ActiveX controls with something else).
What they will do, instead, is stand still. They won't upgrade. Maybe, after 10 or 20 years, attrition will make all that go away, but it's going to be a slow process.
Now, suppose IE8 works perfectly on the old intranet apps, and it renders standards mode. This allows the IT employees to phase out the old apps over time with new standards compliant ones. After which, you can use any browser you want.
So yes, compatibility mode and not breaking internets is a *GOOD* thing for everyone, not just Microsoft.
The problem is the term Beta is not used the same by all programmers.
If you're doing waterfall development models, then the traditional alpha/beta/gama release names make sense. But when you are working in modern methodologies that use iterative development models, you can have multiple "beta" releases, each with new features, because the previous beta release was only to beta the features present in that iteration.
If you're still stuck in the 70's development methodologies, good luck with that.
You're talking about a chicken and egg scenario. Corporate users make up a monstrous number of IE users, and if an IE upgrade breaks their intranets, they won't upgrade (they won't switch to FF or Opera either). They'll stay with the same old buggy version. That means Intranet software vendors won't upgrade their software, becuase their customers are all still using the old version of IE that won't render standards mode. That means nobody ever upgrades.
The only rational way to make this happen is to use compatibility modes, so people can upgrade to a browser capable of using standards, then software vendors can implement standards because their customers will have browsers capable of using them.
Didn't i just read that nVidia was getting out of the x86 chipset business? Why would they now be releasing an actual x86 Chip if they don't want to even be in the chipset business?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you've totally missed what's been driving Linux progress for the last few years. Money. Lots of it. Corporate money paying developers. Virtually every single successful open source project has large corporate backing of some sort, be it Apache, the kernel, Firefox, mysql, etc..
Without a profitable parent company, they can't afford to pay those developers, and thus paid development goes away, and then you're left with the snail pace of "in my spare time" development. You're also stuck with the "only doing what scratches my itch" development, and many of the finer fit and polish elements that have gone into Ubuntu and other projects would be hard to find.
Would these projects die? No, but they would greatly slow down, possibly to the point that the majority of users would give up waiting for them.
Look, all organized religion is a scam. It exists to profit itself. It's *ALL* that way.
What you believe personally for a religion is your own spirituality, and that's between you and your deit(y|ies).
Just remember, Christianity was a "cult" to the romans. Muslimism was a cult to the christians. You're using your own biases to label others as "cults" just as millions have done throughout history. Some people label Judaism a cult. Some people label Budism a cult.
I'm not saying it's right that churches get tax breaks, but there is standard in place that the government follows, and apparently CoS meets that standard. Like it or not.
I know, we all think scientology is ridiculous. But the fact of the matter is, there are a lot of people that believe very strongly in it. It's not your place to rain on their parade.
Whether or not they are a religion is not my place to call, nor is it yours. There's a lot of whacky beliefs out there from the FSM and Church of the subgenious to stuff even whackier than scientology. The point is, it's not anyones place to tell another what is and isn't a real religion, regardless of what your personal beliefs may be, otherwise you're no better than any other religion throughout the centuries making claims that other religions aren't "real".
I mean, is norse religion real? They don't have any kind of "golden rule". Many people still believe it today, or at least subscribe to it. How about Mayan or Native american beliefs?
I don't like scientology either, and yeah.. i think they scam people out of a lot of money, but then so does the PTL and Jerry Falwell, and even the catholic church. You don't think they built the vatican on good will donations, do you? No, they told people their eternal soul was at risk if they didn't give them a percentage of their income. They told people that their loved ones would go to hell if they didn't buy them a place in heaven.
It's a *VERY* slippery slope to start calling others beliefs "unreal". Next thing you know, someone is calling yours unreal.
You may be correct, but once you start judging others religious beliefs, you start on a very slippery slope. There is little difference between Anonymous persecuting scientoligy and the Romans persecuting cristians, or the cristians persecugint muslims, or the anyone else because they don't believe them to be a "true religion".
I disagree with Scientology to the extreme, and i'll actively try to convince others of their folly if their even remotely interested, but I can't get behond any militant organization that does the very things they accuse their opponent of.
the only part of .net that has ever been published as an (attempted) standard, is version 1.1.
False.
ECMA, like it or not, is a world recognized standards body. Javascript, for example, is standardized by ECMA.
ECMA CLI and C# are now in their 4th editions, which cover C# 2.0 and the .NET CLI 2.0 respectively.
In December of 2001, the ISO ratified ISO/IEC 23270 (C#), ISO/IEC 23271 (CLI) and ISO/IEC 23272 (CLI TR) standards, which map to .NET 1.1, and in 2006 ISO ratified ISO/IEC 23270:2006 (C#), ISO/IEC 23271:2006 (CLI), ISO/IEC TR 25438:2006 (CLI TR) which map to .NET 2.0.
Now, it's true that C# 3.0 has not been submitted to ISO or ECMA, and the .NET framework is currently at version 3.5, both of those are based on the 2.0 infrastructure and are fully backwards compatible, meaning that the CLI and CLI TR standards are still the latest versions even for use with .NET 3.5.
You might not look like such a dumbass if you knew anything about what you were arguing about.
Well, Firefox is broken. I've had that problem many times, even without virutal desktops.
There does seem to be a bug in the way the desktops manager works in some computers.
The thing is, in C# it's your choice whether you want to use a property or function. In Java, there is no choice. If you prefer to make things more clear using a function, you're perfectly capable of doing that in C#.
The whole point of properties is that you can control access with them. Suppose i have some code that accesses a public member, and i later want to make sure that you can never assign a null to it. You either have to change all references to the member in your code, or in C#, just turn it into a property and put your check there. No other changes needed.
All language features have the potential for abuse. It's a good programmer that makes sure you don't abuse them.
Not only that, but just because they call it an open source site doesn't mean that *ALL* software has to be open source, by any definition. As long as some is, then it's still an open source site. This is just stupid rhetoric. Microsoft doesn't claim it's an "open source only" site.
Aren't there worse things people can criticize Microsoft for?
So let me get this straight. During the OOXML standardization, everyone said "But microsoft could just participate in ODF and all would be good".
So now Microsoft decides to participate in ODF and "ZOMG!!!! Microsoft is trying to take over ODF".
Talk about hypocrisy.
Need I remind everyone, that the OASIS ODF committee was composed of, almost entirely Sun employees, until IBM got interested and then it was composed of a majority of IBM employees? As of late, both Sun and IBM make up a majority of the OASIS ODF TC.
So why didn't anyone complain when IBM sent a boatload of participants to OASIS in an attempt to control ODF's destiny?
The fact of the matter is, Microsoft knows that if it only sent one or two people, they would be marginalized and ignored. Their participation would be pointless, and they would not get anything they needed to make ODF more interoperable with Office, something that Sun has been adamantly against because they want to give OpenOffice an advantage over Office.
A truly open and collaborative TC would be the only solution, but both OASIS and ISO allow the deck to be stacked, and IBM and Sun have used that to their advantage. And, as long as IBM and Sun are allowed to stack the deck, Microsoft will likely respond in kind.
You seem to have the typical Linux user skewed view of how people use real software.
Dreamweaver has come a long way. It's HTML generation is fully XHTML/CSS oriented, and it's quite good. Professionals use it because it improves their productivity, not because they don't know how to code by hand. Coding by hand is error prone, time intensive, and stupid. Yes, you still have to drop back to manual mode for some stuff, but the tools it provides and integration with the other adobe tools is invaluable.
Photoshop is a difficult program to learn, just like the GIMP and most professional level tools, but for those that know it well, they can do pretty much anything. The GIMP simply can't do many of PS's tasks, even if you discount CMYK and other print level tools. Remember, many times professionals are stuck using the tools their professional suppliers require (for instance, many print shops require Quark or InDesign file formats.
It's completely unrealistic to tell people "you don't need that program". Saying such shows that you really don't understand their needs at all, and you're really proving the parents point.
Sure, they'd probably deny it (assuming they could get away with denying it), but that's not evidence that it was their fault. If it wasn't their fault, they'd also deny it.
In fact, denial doesn't mean anything one way or the other.
My database is great, mysql is shitty in my eyes, and mysql has sold out.
Is there a prize?
2 gig stick, with that you can open a whopping 7 tabs. I have over 60 tabs open right now in my favorite browser (well, several copies of the browser, each with about 10 open tabs).
By my calculations, i need over 15GB of memory, just to freaking browse the web. I'm currently using about 2.2GB of memory. So what would that cost me? 4 4GB sticks costs about $1000, just to browse the web the same way I am right now.
No, "self-taught professional" is not an oxymoron. Computer degrees do almost nothing to teach people how to write good good, nor do they much to teach people good procedures. They don't teach skills. They teach knowledge. Two different things.
The worst code i've ever seen was written by Phd's in computer science. The worst failures i've been a part of were led by Phd's. The worst managers were Phd's. This is the rule, not the exception.
One learns to write good code through experience, and nothing else. We all begin by writing crappy code. More than likely, the problems you were dealing with were not because of unskilled programmers, but rather unskilled managers. People that don't know how to hire skilled workers (or think they can get by with their brothers 17 year old kid). People that tie the hands of the skilled workers they do have. People that force their employees to do things that make the code worse.
Nearly all software problems are directly traceable to inept management, even if only for hiring unqualified people.
I think you're not thinking it through.
If a web browser is not backwards compatible, people won't upgrade to it. If people won't upgrade to it, web developers won't write to it. So having a 100% standards compliant IE that isn't backwards compatible is as useless to the majority of the internet as Firefox or Opera. (not that they're useless, just that they're not doing anything to convert that majority of the users).
Ie, a 100% compliant IE9 with no backwards compatibility means everyone stays with IE6, 7, or 8.
Nope, that's not (necessarily) how it works. The Intranet zone is a whitelist. You add sites to it. It also defaults to puting sites in your own subnet in the intranet zone, but that's easily overriden, and most companies websites aren't on the same subnet as their workstations anyways.
If you don't add your companies public facing website to the intranet whitelist, you will by default be browsing it as the internet zone.
That's not what the icon is for. The icon is not there to say "this is standards compliant", it's a button you push that says "Use broken mode to view this".
It's a little ambiguous though, and they should come up with something a little better.
I should note, however, that every time Microsoft has shown any effort in creating effective icons in beta versions, they get tons of criticism that says "why don't you worry about fixing standards compliance before you worry about stupid icons". So it's a bit hypocritical to complain too much about this.
Actually, when has ANYONE ever created a true web standards compliant browser. One doesn't yet exist.
If you've got a program written for IE4, noone is stopping you from not upgrading.
That's precisely the problem. Having those old browsers around doesn't help anyone. They're insecure, they're not standards compliant, etc..
Why would you WANT people to browse the web with anything other than the most up to date version? THe more people running old browsers, the less chance anyone will upgrade their sites to standards compliance. Compatibility mode is the only way you can reasonably expect people to upgrade.
You might want to use IE a little.
IE has had a concept known as 'security zones' for a long time. One of those zones is called the "intranet zone" and sites in the whitelist, or sites that are on your own subnet, are considered intranet sites (you can override the subnet thing too if you want, and put sites on your subnet in internet zone).
So you might want stop your wondering, and do a little googling instead.
Microsoft could have dealt fairly with this in a hundred ways. The essence of fairness here would have been to present this to the user as a conscious choice to be made.
Odd that you say that, as that is precisely what it does. The first time you go to an intranet site, the yellow bar pops up at the top of the screen that asks if you would like to enable intranet compatbility mode. If you don't do anything, it stays in standards mode. That is, if you're not using ActiveDirectory, in which case the choice is made by your administrator via Group Policy.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your holier than thou tirade though.
You are wrong. It would be a stupid move, for everyone.
Why? Because corporate users would *NEVER* upgrade. You seem to be laboring under the impression that the only thing that keeps people from migrating to Firefox or Opera or whatever is compatibility mode. It's not.
Let me put it this way. If a large corporation has invested millions in it's intranet infrastructure, millions in 3rd party intranet apps, millions in custom pages, and upgrading to IE8 would break all that, and cause millions more in upgrade costs do you really think they're going to just say "Fuck it, let's move to firefox"? No, because Firefox will also have those same issues (and probably more due to it's lack of ActiveX support, costing them even more money to replace ActiveX controls with something else).
What they will do, instead, is stand still. They won't upgrade. Maybe, after 10 or 20 years, attrition will make all that go away, but it's going to be a slow process.
Now, suppose IE8 works perfectly on the old intranet apps, and it renders standards mode. This allows the IT employees to phase out the old apps over time with new standards compliant ones. After which, you can use any browser you want.
So yes, compatibility mode and not breaking internets is a *GOOD* thing for everyone, not just Microsoft.
The problem is the term Beta is not used the same by all programmers.
If you're doing waterfall development models, then the traditional alpha/beta/gama release names make sense. But when you are working in modern methodologies that use iterative development models, you can have multiple "beta" releases, each with new features, because the previous beta release was only to beta the features present in that iteration.
If you're still stuck in the 70's development methodologies, good luck with that.
You're talking about a chicken and egg scenario. Corporate users make up a monstrous number of IE users, and if an IE upgrade breaks their intranets, they won't upgrade (they won't switch to FF or Opera either). They'll stay with the same old buggy version. That means Intranet software vendors won't upgrade their software, becuase their customers are all still using the old version of IE that won't render standards mode. That means nobody ever upgrades.
The only rational way to make this happen is to use compatibility modes, so people can upgrade to a browser capable of using standards, then software vendors can implement standards because their customers will have browsers capable of using them.
How do you not get this?
Didn't i just read that nVidia was getting out of the x86 chipset business? Why would they now be releasing an actual x86 Chip if they don't want to even be in the chipset business?
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/02/1749213