If you let your choice of language be determined by 30MB extra memory usage, you're optimizing the wrong variable (unless you're targetting a memory constricted environment of course).
Of course I'm targetting a memory-constricted environment. My users run office 2007, and I run Visual Studio with SQL Server Management Studio! I *need* that 3GB.
you van do that in VB.NET, if you have using System.Csharp.Adding at the top, you can ignore that bit, and just type "Namespace.Collections.Stuff.Object obj" and it'll figure it out. (if it can't, it underlines in red, and you have to start adding more of the namespaces until it can be explicitly resolved).
C# is an all-or-nothing approach, either put the whole lot in the using; or the whole lot in the code line. Maybe VS2010 has this fixed.
Its strange that C# gets all the fanbois, yet VB is a better language. I always wondered what would have happened if MS produced VB.NET and Pascal.NET instead of curly-bracketed C#.
I still don't like the sheer quantity of namespaces there are. Its like a junior programmer suddenly finding that namespaces can be used... and does so everywhere.
Well, Linux is a brand (only the fatally jealous calls is GNU/Linux:) )
That's enough to make it a 'known entity' amongst some, if it wasn't branded as such, each distro called themselves something completely unique, then they wouldn't have anywhere near the same amount of effort and support behind them. The fact that each distro can call themselves a Linux distro makes it completely different.
I don't think we need a single thing to market when having many flavours is quite sufficent.
If a court upholds the agreement you had that all your code belongs to the first contracted party, then all we need to do in future is to sign a legal agreement that all-your-creative-work-are-belong-to-us with your mum before you join a new company.
If they side with the later, then join, and then sign with your mum:)
If they agree with both parties... then neither have rights to the code that each has the rights to... if my head stops spinning, I think that means its all a load of unenforceable bo**ocks. Sign the agreement with your mum anyway.
would it not be possible to configure a single server, that proxies or delegates queries to all the other servers he has set up.
I asked about proxying openLDAP to AD, so I could have users in both, yet query them all just by asking the openLDAP server. If this was possible for multiple delegated servers, then this is the approach I'd take - start with 1+all the old ones, then gradually migrate them into just a few servers.
and yes, I'd probably go for RHDS, Active Directory seems to be one of those products that starts off with just a windows 2008 server, then requires more CALS, then needs a SQL Server licence, and then really expensive backup software, and then needs all printers to be connected to it, and then needs Sharepoint adding to the mix, and then... you get the idea:)
Not necessarily. If they keep selling XP, they have to keep supporting XP. If they had to do that the same for any other OS favored by a substantial number of people, they'd have 90+% of the company on support. Which would mean less broken features
fixed that for you.
Seriously, some of the 'new features' are just crap designed to make most people point and say "ooh , shiny". Admittedly there are a few good bits in there, but they could have put them into XP if they really wanted to. They didn', they wanted you to give them your money to replace something that worked perfectly well.
I think this is the big deal with XP, its got to the point where it is exactly enough for most people - including me where I run XP at work. The times are long past where you always needed to upgrade, the computing marketplace has finally matured, and one of the marks of a mature market is less change. Its the way things are, Microsoft needs top get with the plan and stop desperately trying to maintain its massive revenues at our expense.
does it really matter that someone buys a domain specifically for reselling before a trademark is established? Would anyone really consider the difference between a cybersquatted domain purchased before or after the trademark? I doubt anyone would register a trademark solely to try and wrest control of a domain name from someone if that domain was unused.
People buy property all the time intending to flip it... and look how well that turned out for us all!
Cybersquatting is considered an abusive registration, and therefore subject to 'expedited administrative proceedings' with an ICANN representative. Its likely to cost you a fair bit to go through the dispute resolution, but if their site is obviously a 'for-sale' site, then you're pretty much guaranteed to win - para 4, section b refers almost entirely to cybersquatting.
It might be worth going this route if a) the scumbag has registered several domains you want (eg.com,.net) , and b) also wants loads of cash for them. The cost for the NAF panel is $1300 (nice work if you can get it:) )
I do think the dispute-resolution process is pretty poor for the most obvious forms of abuse, and should be opened up to more, quicker and cheaper forms of arbitration, with anything other than the most obvious cases requiring a higher panel,but ICANN is run as an international body, so I don't expect anything to happen, ever.
True, no-one cares if the common or garden user can install it. What matters is whether they can *use* it without help once installed.
I disagree about commercial support of drivers and commercial apps - drivers are already free, you just have to buy an expensive bit of hardware kit to use them. Most people don't actually want to install the driver off the CD anyway - they perceive that as obsolete, and go online to get the latest updates anwyay.
Developers is probably the most important part - until there is less choice, more standards to develop against, Linux will remain a predominantly server-side OS.
Most of it isn't down to the IT department to upgrade their web pages and ActiveX controls, but the 3rd party vendors who supply the 'mission critical' apps that need to work. I'm talking companies like SAP or Siebel whose ability to change direction makes an oil tanker look zippy.
Most IT departments do have a strategy to upgrade:
1. buy upgrade of vendor for tens of thousands of dollars. 2. change and configure the new system at cost of more tens of thousands of dollars 3. install on new servers (that cost.. you get the idea by now) and pilot it 4. roll it out to users, if it actually works and provides the features the old version did.
they're not really bare metal hypervisors - they're cut-down linux OSes. ESX uses a redhat-based linux, ESXi uses busybox IIRC. VMWare Server (as faras I'm concerned) is a user-level hypervisor that runs on Linux too - or at least that's how I always install it:)
You can configure ESXi to open a SSH console up, but it has few commands and is unsupported. People generally use that to script VMs off to a backup server using SFTP (no rsync:( )
true.. but there's plenty more that get installed.
I find today I have a Silverlight plugin, a Genuine Advantage plugin, an Office 2007 plugin, a Windows Media Player plugin, and a new WPF plugin (I thought Silverlight was WPF for the web, obviously I need both for all the rich GUI apps I don't want to use).
I expect to have more next time I get a service pack update from MS.
I'm keeping them there in the hope that someome comes up with a class action lawsuit I can benefit from:)
No, I expect KDE and Gnome to slowly die, if a super-toolkit appeared that really was "teh win".
Also, Google does expend effort in places where it thinks its needed - they created their own JVM for Android after all.
I liken it to virtualisation toolkits, there are many, buit once the kernel gets KVM built in, then everyone will start to use that, regardless of what they thought of Xen or Virtuabox. Those others will still be around, but will not be the 'default standard'.
100% agree. Thinking about it a little more, its also why Linux is popular on the server - you don't have to suffer this GUI fragmentation at all. Your hardest issue is finding where an app puts its config file, and then putting a hard link to it in/etc.
'we decided not to use the cross-platform QT because it wouldn't look right on Windows.". REally, who gives a ****, this is the port for Linux, QT looks right on Linux, what's the issue?
Also... "our experience is that using these frameworks also limits what you can do to a lowest common denominator" - we use Windows directly, and be limited to what that offers you. I'm not to impressed here.
simply talking about it gets nothing done, and there's nobody capable of applying the pressure needed to get it done.
We need a huge global corporate who already uses Linux in, say, their mobile platform and who has developers coming out of every office, and more money and resources than sense! Who could that white knight be?!?!!
See, if Google did a bottom-up GUI toolkit (perhaps based on QT, perhaps on Clutter in conjunction with Intel, perhaps totally from the ground up) and it was truly good, then it would gain a massive "market share" amongst Linux desktops more quickly than I think most people realise. That's the beauty of Linux, things can be changed if the desire is there.
So come on Google, put your resources where your blog is.
We already have this universal coordination - we all use the same kernel, even if some people use a slightly out of date version. The filesystem APIs are the same too. similarly, we all write sockets in the same way.
There's no reason why we can't have similar interfaces to an underlying GUI framework API (that is a bit higher-level than X)
There are a lot of very good ideas, but it can become difficult for developers to support all the different distro formats, bundles, audio/video systems. For linux to REALLY take over, it has to be easy for developers to make stuff
Developers, developers, developers. He may be a ****** ******* ****, but he's not stupid when it comes to making money for the corporation. There is just too many options for Linux, having one choice would be barely acceptable, having a few would be fantastic, having a hundred is just counter productive.
Slashdot Mirror
If you let your choice of language be determined by 30MB extra memory usage, you're optimizing the wrong variable (unless you're targetting a memory constricted environment of course).
Of course I'm targetting a memory-constricted environment. My users run office 2007, and I run Visual Studio with SQL Server Management Studio! I *need* that 3GB.
Unfortunately, I work for an American corporate who "standardise" on Microsoft products :-(
So do I. Expect to be converting all your code to C#/WPF any day soon :(
you van do that in VB.NET, if you have using System.Csharp.Adding at the top, you can ignore that bit, and just type "Namespace.Collections.Stuff.Object obj" and it'll figure it out. (if it can't, it underlines in red, and you have to start adding more of the namespaces until it can be explicitly resolved).
C# is an all-or-nothing approach, either put the whole lot in the using; or the whole lot in the code line. Maybe VS2010 has this fixed.
Its strange that C# gets all the fanbois, yet VB is a better language. I always wondered what would have happened if MS produced VB.NET and Pascal.NET instead of curly-bracketed C#.
I still don't like the sheer quantity of namespaces there are. Its like a junior programmer suddenly finding that namespaces can be used... and does so everywhere.
obj.GetSomething().Append(item) in about four keystrokes.
I believe that should be:
System.Csharp.Adding.Namespace.Collections.Stuff.Object.Manipulation obj;
obj.GetSomething().Append(item);
You *need* an IDE that allows code completion, or no-one be able to write more than 7 lines of code a day.
Well, Linux is a brand (only the fatally jealous calls is GNU/Linux :) )
That's enough to make it a 'known entity' amongst some, if it wasn't branded as such, each distro called themselves something completely unique, then they wouldn't have anywhere near the same amount of effort and support behind them. The fact that each distro can call themselves a Linux distro makes it completely different.
I don't think we need a single thing to market when having many flavours is quite sufficent.
yes, very interesting.
If a court upholds the agreement you had that all your code belongs to the first contracted party, then all we need to do in future is to sign a legal agreement that all-your-creative-work-are-belong-to-us with your mum before you join a new company.
If they side with the later, then join, and then sign with your mum :)
If they agree with both parties... then neither have rights to the code that each has the rights to... if my head stops spinning, I think that means its all a load of unenforceable bo**ocks. Sign the agreement with your mum anyway.
would it not be possible to configure a single server, that proxies or delegates queries to all the other servers he has set up.
I asked about proxying openLDAP to AD, so I could have users in both, yet query them all just by asking the openLDAP server. If this was possible for multiple delegated servers, then this is the approach I'd take - start with 1+all the old ones, then gradually migrate them into just a few servers.
and yes, I'd probably go for RHDS, Active Directory seems to be one of those products that starts off with just a windows 2008 server, then requires more CALS, then needs a SQL Server licence, and then really expensive backup software, and then needs all printers to be connected to it, and then needs Sharepoint adding to the mix, and then... you get the idea :)
Not necessarily. If they keep selling XP, they have to keep supporting XP. If they had to do that the same for any other OS favored by a substantial number of people, they'd have 90+% of the company on support. Which would mean less broken features
fixed that for you.
Seriously, some of the 'new features' are just crap designed to make most people point and say "ooh , shiny". Admittedly there are a few good bits in there, but they could have put them into XP if they really wanted to. They didn', they wanted you to give them your money to replace something that worked perfectly well.
I think this is the big deal with XP, its got to the point where it is exactly enough for most people - including me where I run XP at work. The times are long past where you always needed to upgrade, the computing marketplace has finally matured, and one of the marks of a mature market is less change. Its the way things are, Microsoft needs top get with the plan and stop desperately trying to maintain its massive revenues at our expense.
I think MS beat you to that idea - offer virtualized XP with IE6 environment for running stupid legacy app.
does it really matter that someone buys a domain specifically for reselling before a trademark is established? Would anyone really consider the difference between a cybersquatted domain purchased before or after the trademark? I doubt anyone would register a trademark solely to try and wrest control of a domain name from someone if that domain was unused.
People buy property all the time intending to flip it... and look how well that turned out for us all!
Cybersquatting is considered an abusive registration, and therefore subject to 'expedited administrative proceedings' with an ICANN representative. Its likely to cost you a fair bit to go through the dispute resolution, but if their site is obviously a 'for-sale' site, then you're pretty much guaranteed to win - para 4, section b refers almost entirely to cybersquatting.
It might be worth going this route if a) the scumbag has registered several domains you want (eg .com, .net) , and b) also wants loads of cash for them. The cost for the NAF panel is $1300 (nice work if you can get it :) )
I do think the dispute-resolution process is pretty poor for the most obvious forms of abuse, and should be opened up to more, quicker and cheaper forms of arbitration, with anything other than the most obvious cases requiring a higher panel,but ICANN is run as an international body, so I don't expect anything to happen, ever.
True, no-one cares if the common or garden user can install it. What matters is whether they can *use* it without help once installed.
I disagree about commercial support of drivers and commercial apps - drivers are already free, you just have to buy an expensive bit of hardware kit to use them. Most people don't actually want to install the driver off the CD anyway - they perceive that as obsolete, and go online to get the latest updates anwyay.
Developers is probably the most important part - until there is less choice, more standards to develop against, Linux will remain a predominantly server-side OS.
so can most keyboards, when you use the (not supplied) screwdriver tool. :)
Most of it isn't down to the IT department to upgrade their web pages and ActiveX controls, but the 3rd party vendors who supply the 'mission critical' apps that need to work. I'm talking companies like SAP or Siebel whose ability to change direction makes an oil tanker look zippy.
Most IT departments do have a strategy to upgrade:
1. buy upgrade of vendor for tens of thousands of dollars.
2. change and configure the new system at cost of more tens of thousands of dollars
3. install on new servers (that cost.. you get the idea by now) and pilot it
4. roll it out to users, if it actually works and provides the features the old version did.
yeah, but wasn't Constantinople sacked by the Turks
see what happens when you don't have enough stock to satisfy consumer demand :)
they're not really bare metal hypervisors - they're cut-down linux OSes. ESX uses a redhat-based linux, ESXi uses busybox IIRC. VMWare Server (as faras I'm concerned) is a user-level hypervisor that runs on Linux too - or at least that's how I always install it :)
You can configure ESXi to open a SSH console up, but it has few commands and is unsupported. People generally use that to script VMs off to a backup server using SFTP (no rsync :( )
true.. but there's plenty more that get installed.
I find today I have a Silverlight plugin, a Genuine Advantage plugin, an Office 2007 plugin, a Windows Media Player plugin, and a new WPF plugin (I thought Silverlight was WPF for the web, obviously I need both for all the rich GUI apps I don't want to use).
I expect to have more next time I get a service pack update from MS.
I'm keeping them there in the hope that someome comes up with a class action lawsuit I can benefit from :)
No, I expect KDE and Gnome to slowly die, if a super-toolkit appeared that really was "teh win".
Also, Google does expend effort in places where it thinks its needed - they created their own JVM for Android after all.
I liken it to virtualisation toolkits, there are many, buit once the kernel gets KVM built in, then everyone will start to use that, regardless of what they thought of Xen or Virtuabox. Those others will still be around, but will not be the 'default standard'.
100% agree. Thinking about it a little more, its also why Linux is popular on the server - you don't have to suffer this GUI fragmentation at all. Your hardest issue is finding where an app puts its config file, and then putting a hard link to it in /etc.
In other words, the man is useless.
'we decided not to use the cross-platform QT because it wouldn't look right on Windows.". REally, who gives a ****, this is the port for Linux, QT looks right on Linux, what's the issue?
Also... "our experience is that using these frameworks also limits what you can do to a lowest common denominator" - we use Windows directly, and be limited to what that offers you. I'm not to impressed here.
simply talking about it gets nothing done, and there's nobody capable of applying the pressure needed to get it done.
We need a huge global corporate who already uses Linux in, say, their mobile platform and who has developers coming out of every office, and more money and resources than sense! Who could that white knight be?!?!!
See, if Google did a bottom-up GUI toolkit (perhaps based on QT, perhaps on Clutter in conjunction with Intel, perhaps totally from the ground up) and it was truly good, then it would gain a massive "market share" amongst Linux desktops more quickly than I think most people realise. That's the beauty of Linux, things can be changed if the desire is there.
So come on Google, put your resources where your blog is.
We already have this universal coordination - we all use the same kernel, even if some people use a slightly out of date version. The filesystem APIs are the same too. similarly, we all write sockets in the same way.
There's no reason why we can't have similar interfaces to an underlying GUI framework API (that is a bit higher-level than X)
There are a lot of very good ideas, but it can become difficult for developers to support all the different distro formats, bundles, audio/video systems. For linux to REALLY take over, it has to be easy for developers to make stuff
Developers, developers, developers. He may be a ****** ******* ****, but he's not stupid when it comes to making money for the corporation. There is just too many options for Linux, having one choice would be barely acceptable, having a few would be fantastic, having a hundred is just counter productive.
one of those will be Clutter - as used by Intel/Moblin. It looks good, but it based around Gnome libs.
Making Doom run on a new platform is only a couple days of work
And who said that you needed fancy managed stuff to be cross platform. C++ is the ultimate cross-platform language.