Quote: I believe software sucks because it's not designed properly.
Engineering software assume that designing/building/testing code is difficult. Sorta like building a bridge.
Frankly, proportionally speaking, it's not difficult. What is EXTREMELY difficult is determining end-user requirements. Our problem isn't that we don't know HOW to build the bridge (and make it safe) but rather attempting to figure out that the user wants a bridge in the first place. (As opposed to a ferry, as opposed to a cargo plane, etc.)
Our requirements come to us not as "I want a bridge that'll support a 10 ton truck." Rather, they come to us and I'd like to get from there to there. And it should have wings. And float. And it'll need to support a 10 ton truck.
Until this problem is fixed, software engineering won't be able to 'solve' anything, because the requires are always changing.
Article is a bit misleading...
on
EULA In Games
·
· Score: 1
Particular about the fact of upholding EULA. While the EULA itself is held up...aspects of that license can be struck down.
A proprietary piece of software requires tracking of it's licenses - an issue that has been routinely ignored by most companies.
Not to say that companies can't track it. As someone pointed out, companies track financials all the time.
But rather, FAILURE to track the licenses may end up in rather hefty fines. That $129k is NOT the cost of the software, but a penalty to track the licenses.
This immediately implies that SOMEONE needs to track licenses (salary) plus costs for storage of said licenses. (Not to mention the additional costs of inspection of machines to see if employees add additional software - sans license - without the employers knowledge.)
People can ignore TCO...but if you ignore your licenses, this proves Microsoft WILL come after you.
Our principle problem for Linux is that we, the current users, want different things from our OS than the faceless hordes want from theirs. (And, the author puts himself in the 'theirs' category)
Let's look at his points:
Linux is Free (as in beer) The author is correct. Most people get their OS with their system and do not consider the possibility of cost. We do, because we want to do stuff with our OS (modify it, customize it, change it) that we CAN NOT do with Windows. (Hey Microsoft, how about letting me release a distribution? Yeah, right.)
You get the source code Again, the author is right, the average user doesn't care about the source code. Again, we do, because we want to know how it works and we want to change it.
Linux is stable Most users have it ingrained into them that computers, by definition, are unstable.
Linux is customizable. Most users haven't figured out how to program their VCR's...you think they want to TRY and figure out how to customize their OS? Please.
So why are we people using Linux? Ah..well, now, that's a different question. Which people? We use Linux because some of us like to know what's going on, we like the ability to customize our systems and we like the flexibility.
The faceless hordes? They want a simple way to check email and use productivity software, fonts, popular games and they want it easy. Think Playstation 2 and Palm Pilot built together.
Would you, one of 'us', like to use this mythological Playstation 2 & Palm Pilot hybrid? I wouldn't.
So, our basic problem is that "Linux for the Desktop" is flawed because it doesn't address what the target audience wants. I'm not saying that we cannot create such a creature, but rather that when such a creature is birthed, it won't be recognizable as Linux.
Corel's problem is that they're developing software for this creature which doesn't exist yet. (And they don't seem intent on birthing it.)
1st and foremost, the TRUE limiting factor is that some sort of communication's link needs to be maintained between the aircraft and it's operator (if operated via telepresence). This becomes an
Achille's Heel for the aircraft (can anyone say EMP?).
And we're ignoring the slight time delay between the reactions of the aircraft, since info needs to be relayed from the aircraft, to the controller, back to the aircraft.
On the plus side, however, is a number of things. First is the gees that the craft can pull. 2nd, you could enable multiple eye's...ie: more than one person aboard the craft looking for bogies and such (actually, the limitations here are pretty much non-existant).
2nd, there ISN'T a craft around the pilot. This means (with appropriate cameras) you could look ANYWHERE. No...(i'll hide underneath the plane...he can't see through the plane!).
3rd...like it or not, this IS where it's headed. Want to fight with the US? Fine...put your men against our machines...you won't be able to get to our men, but we can kill yours.
On one side I have Al Gore...who represents big government, more taxes, gun control, anti-military, and believes in interferring with every possible flair-up around the world.
On the other side, I've got George W. Bush Jr., an elitist who has no experience in the world politics, keeps equating public schools with private (hmm..do private schools HAVE to accept handicapped students?), and who will overturn Roe vs. Wade if he ever got the chance to.
Sigh. I hate Gore's international & military stances. I hate Bush's domestic agendas.
And neither offered real workable solutions. Testing of students is NOT the problem...nor do I approve of Government playing funding games. (Student appathy IS the problem...we're warehousing students, but neither talked about that.)
And neither offered a real vision of where the US could be.
And I know I didn't read through the docs completely...
But is ICANN all that powerful? It seems to me, and I may be wrong, but there's only like 6 top level servers for DNS iirc. (Wasn't it Lee, that prevented something or other by requesting 6 people do something?).
That to me is the power. I still don't see why ICANN *HAS* to be *THE* authority. The entire internet is built on chaos. Hell, no one says you have to use BIND in the first place anyway.
I recently bought a Compaq 5100 series machine that, of course, came with a legal copy of Microsoft Windows 98. I wiped the disk and installed Linux on it; it didn't work too well due to poor driver support, so I installed BeOS too. That was a little better, but not much.
Then I decided I'd really be better off selling the machine, since it performed poorly with both Linux and BeOS - I had an interested buyer, even - so I booted the recovery CD to reinstall Windows.
THE RECOVERY CD DID NOT CONTAIN A COPY OF WINDOWS. Instead, it contained references to a partition on my hard drive in which Windows was supposed to be hiding. Without this partition, no install.
Technical support had to send me a real Windows CD!
This I believe is the KEY! Order a system, wipe it and then call tech support DEMANDING you get your Win98 disk!
While I don't doubt the missing chipsets...I think Intel has far worse problems on the horizon. (I haven't seen anyone come up with the new compilers that are going to be required for the P4...is there news there?)
Just out of curiosity..how are we denying them due process at all?
You're the one who's claiming we're denying them due process (presumably by going directly to the SC)...but since that *IS* the law..there's no due process eliminated.
No one is going around saying they should be broken up without a trial (lack of due process). (What's really funny is that until fairly recently..all Anti-Trust cases went DIRECTLY to the SC on appeal.)
Actually, I always considered online polls to have a lot of meaning...
The question, of course, is WHAT you are measuring. If you're attempting to measure the intensity that a group feels for a subject...it's an okay measure (it does NOT measure the SIZE of the group).
Look at the National Rifle Association. Those guys feel INTENSELY about the subject. (I'm not saying their right or wrong.) Now...look at the size of the organization...and compare that to the size of the population of the U.S.
What I find interesting is that implies that SOMEONE out there feels INTENSELY about Win2000. The next question is who?
But as someone said, it would be a good thing if this went through. The patent office has become nothing more than the personal validation stamp for anyone who wants to extort (yes extort) money out of people these days. This idiot has BARELY used his idea and frankly has no intention of doing so...he merely want to extort money out of everyone else doing transactions.
(I won't even mention where EDI comes into the picture..or the fact that EDI has been around for years...both international and domestically).
Turning it political was stupid. Asking the techincial question of the differences between CodeWarrior and g++ isn't.
Worse case scenerio...write it in g++ and then bring it over to code warrior and clean any environmental issues in code warrior before turning it in.
No offense folks..but when I went to college (all of what, 7 years ago?) they were still using mainframes for some of the courses.
Presenting the college with a new way of doing things is good. Demanding you be allowed to do it your way is bad. Look at it this way...you can show them the better product..you can't fix their intelligence...if they want to be stupid they're going to be.
How does one go about starting a class action lawsuit...specifically one involving anti-trust.
Last I checked, the MPAA controlled say 80% of all movies...probably more once you figure in distribution control. How do we as consumers sue them for price fixing (specifically regional controls)?
Slashdot Mirror
Engineering software assume that designing/building/testing code is difficult. Sorta like building a bridge.
Frankly, proportionally speaking, it's not difficult. What is EXTREMELY difficult is determining end-user requirements. Our problem isn't that we don't know HOW to build the bridge (and make it safe) but rather attempting to figure out that the user wants a bridge in the first place. (As opposed to a ferry, as opposed to a cargo plane, etc.)
Our requirements come to us not as "I want a bridge that'll support a 10 ton truck." Rather, they come to us and I'd like to get from there to there. And it should have wings. And float. And it'll need to support a 10 ton truck.
Until this problem is fixed, software engineering won't be able to 'solve' anything, because the requires are always changing.
Particular about the fact of upholding EULA. While the EULA itself is held up...aspects of that license can be struck down.
A proprietary piece of software requires tracking of it's licenses - an issue that has been routinely ignored by most companies.
Not to say that companies can't track it. As someone pointed out, companies track financials all the time.
But rather, FAILURE to track the licenses may end up in rather hefty fines. That $129k is NOT the cost of the software, but a penalty to track the licenses.
This immediately implies that SOMEONE needs to track licenses (salary) plus costs for storage of said licenses. (Not to mention the additional costs of inspection of machines to see if employees add additional software - sans license - without the employers knowledge.)
People can ignore TCO...but if you ignore your licenses, this proves Microsoft WILL come after you.
Then, gee, imcompatibilities develop in the network. No one knows exactly why...they just...happen.
Welcome to the Microsoft Defined World of Business.
Our principle problem for Linux is that we, the current users, want different things from our OS than the faceless hordes want from theirs. (And, the author puts himself in the 'theirs' category)
Let's look at his points:
So why are we people using Linux? Ah..well, now, that's a different question. Which people? We use Linux because some of us like to know what's going on, we like the ability to customize our systems and we like the flexibility.
The faceless hordes? They want a simple way to check email and use productivity software, fonts, popular games and they want it easy. Think Playstation 2 and Palm Pilot built together.
Would you, one of 'us', like to use this mythological Playstation 2 & Palm Pilot hybrid? I wouldn't.
So, our basic problem is that "Linux for the Desktop" is flawed because it doesn't address what the target audience wants. I'm not saying that we cannot create such a creature, but rather that when such a creature is birthed, it won't be recognizable as Linux.
Corel's problem is that they're developing software for this creature which doesn't exist yet. (And they don't seem intent on birthing it.)
PS: Linux has a lack of drive support? Please.
And we're ignoring the slight time delay between the reactions of the aircraft, since info needs to be relayed from the aircraft, to the controller, back to the aircraft.
On the plus side, however, is a number of things. First is the gees that the craft can pull. 2nd, you could enable multiple eye's...ie: more than one person aboard the craft looking for bogies and such (actually, the limitations here are pretty much non-existant).
2nd, there ISN'T a craft around the pilot. This means (with appropriate cameras) you could look ANYWHERE. No...(i'll hide underneath the plane...he can't see through the plane!).
3rd...like it or not, this IS where it's headed. Want to fight with the US? Fine...put your men against our machines...you won't be able to get to our men, but we can kill yours.
I have an issue with this. Microsoft can demand that someone (anyone) has paid for their software.
Fair enough. But can an Open Source developer demand to verify that Microsoft has/hasn't included GNU code into Windows? Fair is fair, right?
On the other side, I've got George W. Bush Jr., an elitist who has no experience in the world politics, keeps equating public schools with private (hmm..do private schools HAVE to accept handicapped students?), and who will overturn Roe vs. Wade if he ever got the chance to.
Sigh. I hate Gore's international & military stances. I hate Bush's domestic agendas.
And neither offered real workable solutions. Testing of students is NOT the problem...nor do I approve of Government playing funding games. (Student appathy IS the problem...we're warehousing students, but neither talked about that.)
And neither offered a real vision of where the US could be.
That's why people don't care about the election.
But the REAL question I have is whether or not those who broke the watermarks *TOLD* RIAA HOW THEY DID IT.
Sorry dude...we, like know what the answer is..but we forgot to tell ya how we did it. Sorry.
But is ICANN all that powerful? It seems to me, and I may be wrong, but there's only like 6 top level servers for DNS iirc. (Wasn't it Lee, that prevented something or other by requesting 6 people do something?).
That to me is the power. I still don't see why ICANN *HAS* to be *THE* authority. The entire internet is built on chaos. Hell, no one says you have to use BIND in the first place anyway.
Then I decided I'd really be better off selling the machine, since it performed poorly with both Linux and BeOS - I had an interested buyer, even - so I booted the recovery CD to reinstall Windows.
THE RECOVERY CD DID NOT CONTAIN A COPY OF WINDOWS. Instead, it contained references to a partition on my hard drive in which Windows was supposed to be hiding. Without this partition, no install.
Technical support had to send me a real Windows CD!
This I believe is the KEY! Order a system, wipe it and then call tech support DEMANDING you get your Win98 disk!
I like this.
While I don't doubt the missing chipsets...I think Intel has far worse problems on the horizon. (I haven't seen anyone come up with the new compilers that are going to be required for the P4...is there news there?)
You're the one who's claiming we're denying them due process (presumably by going directly to the SC)...but since that *IS* the law..there's no due process eliminated.
No one is going around saying they should be broken up without a trial (lack of due process). (What's really funny is that until fairly recently..all Anti-Trust cases went DIRECTLY to the SC on appeal.)
And the punitive damages can range upwards to $20,000 PER VIOLATION.
All it takes is one disgruntled/laid off employee.
The question, of course, is WHAT you are measuring. If you're attempting to measure the intensity that a group feels for a subject...it's an okay measure (it does NOT measure the SIZE of the group).
Look at the National Rifle Association. Those guys feel INTENSELY about the subject. (I'm not saying their right or wrong.) Now...look at the size of the organization...and compare that to the size of the population of the U.S.
What I find interesting is that implies that SOMEONE out there feels INTENSELY about Win2000. The next question is who?
But I still prefer electromagnetic catapults. There are problems, but far fewer than the space elevator.
But as someone said, it would be a good thing if this went through. The patent office has become nothing more than the personal validation stamp for anyone who wants to extort (yes extort) money out of people these days. This idiot has BARELY used his idea and frankly has no intention of doing so...he merely want to extort money out of everyone else doing transactions.
(I won't even mention where EDI comes into the picture..or the fact that EDI has been around for years...both international and domestically).
Turning it political was stupid. Asking the techincial question of the differences between CodeWarrior and g++ isn't.
Worse case scenerio...write it in g++ and then bring it over to code warrior and clean any environmental issues in code warrior before turning it in.
No offense folks..but when I went to college (all of what, 7 years ago?) they were still using mainframes for some of the courses.
Presenting the college with a new way of doing things is good. Demanding you be allowed to do it your way is bad. Look at it this way...you can show them the better product..you can't fix their intelligence...if they want to be stupid they're going to be.
Last I checked, the MPAA controlled say 80% of all movies...probably more once you figure in distribution control. How do we as consumers sue them for price fixing (specifically regional controls)?
But why repost the article? The link worked perfectly well.