cost of distributed computing with the power of centralized computing.
Original centralized machines are (believe it or not) cheaper and yes, you can provide Sally the Secretary with a Pentium 133 as an X-Windows station. It's possible to do this.
But as several people have pointed out, just because you can doesn't mean you SHOULD. He makes a poor argument (other than cost) to return to centralized computing and several people have pointed out that, even if we ignore the advantages of distributed computing (there are several), company's are STILL willing to spend the revenue necessary for distributed computing.
In short, cost alone isn't enough.
A better argument would be to point out the advantages to centralized computing that are not cost related (mobile 'desktops', centralized administration (no more GHOSTING!), etc.) However, given management's previous experiences with centralized computing, this isn't likely to be persuasive arguement either.
An argument needs to be found that shows that Linux is cheaper and invokes the use of distributed computing. (The advantages of remote administration is a start - but there's a long way to go.)
I've been playing RailRoad Tycoon II on my Mandrake box for the last several weeks now. (My wife is beginning to hate the train's 'Woo-woo!).
It's a paid for copy. I requested it as a Christmas present.
Egads...I'm going to be picking up Heros of M&M here soon.
Flame away...claim that I'm playing old games that no one wants to play anymore. But I'm spending the cash and I like not having to reboot to Windows to enjoy a game for a few hours.
Commericial companies (and single developers) want their packages to be installed easily and correctly.
I doubt if anyone cares if you use debian's package format or RPM, but the installation routine must be the same regardless of distribution and it must be easy enough that anyone can do it. (Furthermore, it should uninstallable.)
// configure; make config; make is way too difficult for most folks.
If I was smart, I'd suggest a database for each system that the would tell the package what to install where.
I'd had hopes that this would be kewl. I really did. But apparently with Roddenberry out of the picture Paramount is left with some damn executive controlling board that isn't willing to take chances.
I mean, please. The science officer is a vulcan. (Gee, wonder where they got that idea.) The communication officer is female. (hi uhura)
HELL, the CHIEF ENGINEER is called SCOT^H^H^H^HPIKEY!
It had potential. It really did. But after Roddenberry died, everything has just sucked.
First, there's a comment to start with the part that'll have the most benefit to the users first. I'm not disagreeing, but once the decision of what group is decided to be done, the hardest/unknown part of that module should be tackled next.
It's pretty much worthless to tackle something and find out what you thought would work won't. It's also going to the section that you spend most of your time on - it'll have a direct impact to whether or not you meet your deadline date or not.
Second, while the idea of testing first is admirable (and I do agree with it). I have run into problems that were untestable. For example, allocated memory in C isn't defined as to what will be in there...if you access it, there's no telling what you'll get. How can you set up a test for this that will fail?
I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been exposed to some 'Software Engineering' at a major project.
I've got a 'few' complaints.
Software Engineering, that's I've seen dislikes the concept of returning from the middle of a function. It's great in principle, a return acts (sorta) like a goto.
In practice, it sucks.
There are several piece of code that are quite elegant (and fast) if we detect the error and just stop processing. Without the ability to return, we need to create a RTN variable and constantly check this variable to see if we're supposed to execute any additional code. (Yes, I'm not kidding.)
It sucks.
Worse...some software engineering people want to adapt the languages to 'their style'. Ever hear of an elseif? They want to be able to fire business rules like this:
Heh...reminds me of ksh. I don't have a problem with this type of logic, especially if it's necessary. But why MAKE the language to this if you don't need to?
(Besides, I still prefer)
if (condition)
... if (condition)expression
... else (condition)expression
else expression
The first can claim to be dervived easily from business logic...the but 2nd shows the boolean logic (remember that?). Perhaps other think in business logic, but when I'm writing code, I think in boolean. Besides, your using a language, why not use the full functionality of that language? Why invent elseif where a switch statement will work?
Design to the language. Don't force the language to the design.
Oh, and did I mention that software engineering doesn't care about the speed of execution? It's real goal is to take business rules and put them into code. The idea of making the code run smoothly, quickly, cleanly....out the window.
</Software Engineering Rant>
That said, I like the idea of extreme programming. (I still think more skullsweat needs to be put into the idea of project engineering - I could write a book at this point. sigh).
I may be the only person who feels this way...but I still think that URL's (and top-level domains) are basically a hack. They're nothing more than a label for a TCP/IP address & port number. People take this stuff WAY too seriously.
That said, I think there's a LOT more room for anarchy (a good thing, in this instance) with regard to top-level domains and URL's. The ICANN is imposing artificial limitations (which is their right) that don't need to exist.
If the ACLU wants to fight them...go for it. But it's sillyness in the extreme. What happens if someone where to take the 'standard TLD' from ICANN and add additional TLD's at the 2nd level? (In effect, adding additional TLD to the TLD that ICANN registers)
No offense dude...but I lived in Merritt Island, Rockledge and Titusville and used to work at KSC. (Long after the 1986). There's a LOT of us that felt that undue political pressure played a factor in the shuttle explosion.
The exec were wrong. No argument. But to ignore the political pressure is ALSO WRONG .
You'll notice that there was a COMPLETELY different attitude when Clinton decided to see the night shuttle launch...and not just on the NASA exec side.
BTW: if you had bothered to read the original poster...you'll notice that he actually KNEW that Reagan was President at the time of the explosion. He was making references to possible pressure that might be applied by President-Elect Bush. (And frankly speaking, your attitudes towards the cause of the explosion are likely to bring about a return of those political pressures - and more accidents.)
just a tiny bit, you'll find that he isn't saying that advertising on the web isn't inherently unworkable.
Actually, even with a little thought, most of jakob's statements are reasonable, although his metrics are flawed, in particular the concept that an ads effectiveness is measurable upon click-throughs is false. No offense folks, but I do NOT immediately get up and run to a dealer just because I saw an ad on TV. (And I suspect that the TV's effectiveness in this regard is FAR less than 5%.)
Frankly, I've bought from ThinkGeek and I see their ads quite a bit. The ads keep ThinkGeek in the forthought of my mind, but I don't go buying stuff just because I saw an ad.
The trick is whether or not they allow anonymous people those $10. (Then they'll be bankrupt with everyone wanting to play for free.)
But if they require a credit card number...there's a natural resistance of people wanting to put their CC out there. Once they've 'bought' into the game, a certain percentage will be hooked (and be back), but the initial hook-in is difficult.
(Can you imagine them offering $30 worth of credits and a boxed version in CompUSA... "Look dear, a new game for Jimmy!")
But look at it this way...10 people pay $5 to play. Winner get's (I don't know) $25 for winning. (They keep $25). Not a bad deal for them...not bad for the winner.
Both the Aspen and Volare could be equipped with the slant-6 (I know, I owned the stationwagon).
Amazing enough...there's a LOT of these cars are STILL on the road. (I still see valiants!) They got okay gas mileage...but they were reliable as hell.
The only thing I hate about Chrystler/Dodge is that their automatic trannys made manuals pointless (and I like manual transmissions). The 904 & 727 are the best transmissions I've even had.
It's not that you HAVE to be responsible for it...it's you're going to WANT to be responsible for it.
Let's face it...collection of money IS work, so what will happen is that the ISP will be given a piece of the action. Mind you, the ISP is ALREADY responsible for collection for the providing of the service, so it's not like they getting new duties. Frankly, an additional couple of grand a month is quite an incentive for an ISP.
If Microsoft wants to offer free software to charities, that's fine. But what's wrong with Red Hat, Caldera, (do Slackware & Debian count?) and others the option to also offer free software/training/whatever?
Choice...you know, it's what people have been complaining about Microsoft since day one.
I've taken a few courses in project management now...and guess what? Software projects are among the HARDEST to place an estimate on. Worse, most companies don't use the successes/failures of past projects to adjust the prediction of new projects.
Actually, this isn't news. Project Managers have repeatedly argued for the PERT method rather than the CPM method, which would allow people to place a range of completion dates rather than a single deadline date.
Should any company actually keep actual delivery dates against projected (original) dates, I'm fairly certain that the distribution curve would non-normal and biased. (Actually, any project dealing with the unknown should have a non-normal & biased distribution curve.)
I'm willing to listen to anyone who's collected a database of met/unmet (from original) projection dates to see how close they've gotten...but I'm willing to lay money that they're no where near the 3% of construction projects.
BTW: Project Management is totally seperate from Quality Management - ie: CMM, bug-tracking systems, testing processes, etc. Quality Management uses the number of bugs as a indication of how far toward completing the project you are which, for a varity of reasons, is a poor choice of a metric.
But, in the end, who's going to force Microsoft to support Open Standards?
In all of his cited cases, there was someone (market, government, etc.) who forced the companies to accept Open Standards. The mere presence of the Open Standards was not enough to make companies adopt them.
Frankly, at this point in time, the market cannot hold Microsoft to an Open Standard. Perhaps some day, they will. But for now, if someone dictated to Microsoft what the open standard where, Microsoft could ignore them and feel no ill effects.
The Government could attempt to dictate that Microsoft use the Open Standard...but, aside from legalities and basic wrongness of such a move, it would require that the Government monitor Microsoft for compliance. Generally, the Government does not like to have to monitor business for compliance. (Besides, the Government has ALREADY been monitoring Microsoft for compliance...and it got us here.)
And just because standards are not open, doesn't mean they aren't useful to the consumer. IPX was the standard for LAN access for the longest time. Netscape 'owned' the HTTP standard for the longest time, regardless of what the W3C said (now Microsoft owns the HTTP standard). The assumption that Open Standards are the savior is faulty.
I won't go into the questions of WHERE these Open Standards come from, or who dictates the changes there-in.
There's no mention of NT? What's wrong with these people? NT is the single best OS out there, powerful and simple to use. Obviously for a top-notch supercomputer, NT is the only obvious choice for the system. I read about it in PC Magazine, just last week, and as everyone knows they are the defacto standard for everything related to computers.
Slashdot Mirror
Original centralized machines are (believe it or not) cheaper and yes, you can provide Sally the Secretary with a Pentium 133 as an X-Windows station. It's possible to do this.
But as several people have pointed out, just because you can doesn't mean you SHOULD. He makes a poor argument (other than cost) to return to centralized computing and several people have pointed out that, even if we ignore the advantages of distributed computing (there are several), company's are STILL willing to spend the revenue necessary for distributed computing.
In short, cost alone isn't enough.
A better argument would be to point out the advantages to centralized computing that are not cost related (mobile 'desktops', centralized administration (no more GHOSTING!), etc.) However, given management's previous experiences with centralized computing, this isn't likely to be persuasive arguement either.
An argument needs to be found that shows that Linux is cheaper and invokes the use of distributed computing. (The advantages of remote administration is a start - but there's a long way to go.)
It'll have two effects - first it'll provide evidence that Linux does have support for games. 2nd - it'll guarentee Loki sales.
check it's history. It started under Reagan.
was that they pointed out that the key sizes of the Americans and European markets were different. It reminded me immediately of DSS and IDEA.
It's a paid for copy. I requested it as a Christmas present.
Egads...I'm going to be picking up Heros of M&M here soon.
Flame away...claim that I'm playing old games that no one wants to play anymore. But I'm spending the cash and I like not having to reboot to Windows to enjoy a game for a few hours.
Commericial companies (and single developers) want their packages to be installed easily and correctly.
I doubt if anyone cares if you use debian's package format or RPM, but the installation routine must be the same regardless of distribution and it must be easy enough that anyone can do it. (Furthermore, it should uninstallable.)
If I was smart, I'd suggest a database for each system that the would tell the package what to install where.
I mean, please. The science officer is a vulcan. (Gee, wonder where they got that idea.) The communication officer is female. (hi uhura)
HELL, the CHIEF ENGINEER is called SCOT^H^H^H^HPIKEY!
It had potential. It really did. But after Roddenberry died, everything has just sucked.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main (void)
{
int a = 60;
int b = 6;
int c = 10;
printf("%f = %f\n", (((60/6) * 0.3) + (10 * 0.7)), (((a/b)*0.3) + (c*0.7)));
exit(0);
}
which would give 10.0000 = 9.99999 (or would it give 10.0000? I don't have a Linux box handy.)
Not only is she the executive producer...she invented the show. She got the idea from watching Apollo 13.
I'd talk to Linus. Ask him what he thinks. What does HE recommend?
Sigh. I know...I'm being too logical.
It's pretty much worthless to tackle something and find out what you thought would work won't. It's also going to the section that you spend most of your time on - it'll have a direct impact to whether or not you meet your deadline date or not.
Second, while the idea of testing first is admirable (and I do agree with it). I have run into problems that were untestable. For example, allocated memory in C isn't defined as to what will be in there...if you access it, there's no telling what you'll get. How can you set up a test for this that will fail?
I've got a 'few' complaints.
Software Engineering, that's I've seen dislikes the concept of returning from the middle of a function. It's great in principle, a return acts (sorta) like a goto.
In practice, it sucks.
There are several piece of code that are quite elegant (and fast) if we detect the error and just stop processing. Without the ability to return, we need to create a RTN variable and constantly check this variable to see if we're supposed to execute any additional code. (Yes, I'm not kidding.)
It sucks.
Worse...some software engineering people want to adapt the languages to 'their style'. Ever hear of an elseif? They want to be able to fire business rules like this:
if (condition) expression
elsif (condition) expression
elsif (condition) expression
elsif (condition) expression
fi.
Heh...reminds me of ksh. I don't have a problem with this type of logic, especially if it's necessary. But why MAKE the language to this if you don't need to? (Besides, I still prefer)
if (condition)
... if (condition)expression
... else (condition)expression
else expression
The first can claim to be dervived easily from business logic...the but 2nd shows the boolean logic (remember that?). Perhaps other think in business logic, but when I'm writing code, I think in boolean. Besides, your using a language, why not use the full functionality of that language? Why invent elseif where a switch statement will work?
Design to the language. Don't force the language to the design.
Oh, and did I mention that software engineering doesn't care about the speed of execution? It's real goal is to take business rules and put them into code. The idea of making the code run smoothly, quickly, cleanly....out the window.
</Software Engineering Rant>
That said, I like the idea of extreme programming. (I still think more skullsweat needs to be put into the idea of project engineering - I could write a book at this point. sigh).
That said, I think there's a LOT more room for anarchy (a good thing, in this instance) with regard to top-level domains and URL's. The ICANN is imposing artificial limitations (which is their right) that don't need to exist.
If the ACLU wants to fight them...go for it. But it's sillyness in the extreme. What happens if someone where to take the 'standard TLD' from ICANN and add additional TLD's at the 2nd level? (In effect, adding additional TLD to the TLD that ICANN registers)
The exec were wrong. No argument. But to ignore the political pressure is ALSO WRONG .
You'll notice that there was a COMPLETELY different attitude when Clinton decided to see the night shuttle launch...and not just on the NASA exec side.
BTW: if you had bothered to read the original poster...you'll notice that he actually KNEW that Reagan was President at the time of the explosion. He was making references to possible pressure that might be applied by President-Elect Bush. (And frankly speaking, your attitudes towards the cause of the explosion are likely to bring about a return of those political pressures - and more accidents.)
Actually, even with a little thought, most of jakob's statements are reasonable, although his metrics are flawed, in particular the concept that an ads effectiveness is measurable upon click-throughs is false. No offense folks, but I do NOT immediately get up and run to a dealer just because I saw an ad on TV. (And I suspect that the TV's effectiveness in this regard is FAR less than 5%.)
Frankly, I've bought from ThinkGeek and I see their ads quite a bit. The ads keep ThinkGeek in the forthought of my mind, but I don't go buying stuff just because I saw an ad.
But if they require a credit card number...there's a natural resistance of people wanting to put their CC out there. Once they've 'bought' into the game, a certain percentage will be hooked (and be back), but the initial hook-in is difficult.
(Can you imagine them offering $30 worth of credits and a boxed version in CompUSA... "Look dear, a new game for Jimmy!")
But look at it this way...10 people pay $5 to play. Winner get's (I don't know) $25 for winning. (They keep $25). Not a bad deal for them...not bad for the winner.
Both the Aspen and Volare could be equipped with the slant-6 (I know, I owned the stationwagon).
Amazing enough...there's a LOT of these cars are STILL on the road. (I still see valiants!) They got okay gas mileage...but they were reliable as hell.
The only thing I hate about Chrystler/Dodge is that their automatic trannys made manuals pointless (and I like manual transmissions). The 904 & 727 are the best transmissions I've even had.
I know...it's supposed to sarcasm and humor and all. But...
"Bring a proof to class tomorrow. Analogy is always suspect, but that one is close to the truth." _STARSHIP_TROOPERS_
Although, the are more ecommerce focused. Zelerate
Let's face it...collection of money IS work, so what will happen is that the ISP will be given a piece of the action. Mind you, the ISP is ALREADY responsible for collection for the providing of the service, so it's not like they getting new duties. Frankly, an additional couple of grand a month is quite an incentive for an ISP.
Choice...you know, it's what people have been complaining about Microsoft since day one.
Wanna have fun? Figure the time to Pluto using the same stuff. (It's in the book, look it up.)
Actually, this isn't news. Project Managers have repeatedly argued for the PERT method rather than the CPM method, which would allow people to place a range of completion dates rather than a single deadline date.
Should any company actually keep actual delivery dates against projected (original) dates, I'm fairly certain that the distribution curve would non-normal and biased. (Actually, any project dealing with the unknown should have a non-normal & biased distribution curve.)
I'm willing to listen to anyone who's collected a database of met/unmet (from original) projection dates to see how close they've gotten...but I'm willing to lay money that they're no where near the 3% of construction projects.
BTW: Project Management is totally seperate from Quality Management - ie: CMM, bug-tracking systems, testing processes, etc. Quality Management uses the number of bugs as a indication of how far toward completing the project you are which, for a varity of reasons, is a poor choice of a metric.
In all of his cited cases, there was someone (market, government, etc.) who forced the companies to accept Open Standards. The mere presence of the Open Standards was not enough to make companies adopt them.
Frankly, at this point in time, the market cannot hold Microsoft to an Open Standard. Perhaps some day, they will. But for now, if someone dictated to Microsoft what the open standard where, Microsoft could ignore them and feel no ill effects.
The Government could attempt to dictate that Microsoft use the Open Standard...but, aside from legalities and basic wrongness of such a move, it would require that the Government monitor Microsoft for compliance. Generally, the Government does not like to have to monitor business for compliance. (Besides, the Government has ALREADY been monitoring Microsoft for compliance...and it got us here.)
And just because standards are not open, doesn't mean they aren't useful to the consumer. IPX was the standard for LAN access for the longest time. Netscape 'owned' the HTTP standard for the longest time, regardless of what the W3C said (now Microsoft owns the HTTP standard). The assumption that Open Standards are the savior is faulty.
I won't go into the questions of WHERE these Open Standards come from, or who dictates the changes there-in.
There's no mention of NT? What's wrong with these people? NT is the single best OS out there, powerful and simple to use. Obviously for a top-notch supercomputer, NT is the only obvious choice for the system. I read about it in PC Magazine, just last week, and as everyone knows they are the defacto standard for everything related to computers.
I just can't believe they didn't mention NT.
</sarcasm>