I doubt he will, he'll be awarded a massive payout "in recognition for hiw work over the last years" and to "compensate him for future earnings", etc etc.
Its happened before, and will happen again... in fact, it happens everytime a company fails. Sometimes it makes me think that working for a living is such a stupid thing to do.
Unless Google has a licence for uploaders that is incompatible with Wikipedia's copyleft licence. In this case, copying something from Wikipedia to Knol would be a copyright infringement and you'd have to either take it down, or have it taken down (in much the same was as commercial videos uploaded illegally to youtube)
So.. Knol must support the same permissive licence that Wikipedia has if they want to seed Knol with Wikipedia articles, even if they also support other licences for uploaded content.
it is more efficient to use a config file to set things up - when I'm setting up a new linux server, I tend to copy a bundle of pre-configured conf files across to the new machine.. and I'm pretty much done. That's really quick and efficient, I only have to set something up once.
However, I like a nice GUI to twiddle the settings after that, preferably one that's web based as all my servers are located physically far away.
So: support webmin, then you get to keep the config file, and have a gui to edit it with if you prefer, and you can still edit the config file if you like.
This approach doesn't solve the complexity problem. I can't see much of a way out of that, unless someone wants to create wizards to produce pre-defined config files of the most common settings, with just a few user tweaks.
eg, setting up sendmail once, I was foolish enough to leave the default settings in there.. and ended up being a spam relay for a couple of hours. If I could have found a resource for pre-configured conf files I'd have dropped one in, or a wizard to guide me through a 'configure but with this hostname and a couple of simple options' than I'd have used that and been much happier.
Windows uses wizards a lot, but you have to use them (or the gui they provide for advanced options) becuase the settings are scattered through the registry, custom DBs and files instead of being in 1 handy place (in/etc). The fact that Windows uses them after they spent a lot of money figuring out what was the best means of usability does suggest that they are a good place to start to make Linux easier to use.
Re:KVM less of a surprise than you might think...
on
Ubuntu Picks Upstart, KVM
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, if it gets some decent userspace tools to manage the host and guests, then yes KVM could well become a decent 'standard' though it will not oust Xen as Xen already has enough support in the marketplace to ensure its survival (unless, of course, Xen proves to be a poor performer or unstable)(I've heard reports of both).
The things to make people really think KVM is the best is a web-style gui to manage start/stop, guest settings etc, and stats on what all the guests are doing in semi/realtime.
Well less than one watt in and a full watt out makes me think not science as well. statements like that make me think: try actually reading the article instead of just looking at the pictures.
the subjects required less than one watt of extra metabolic power for each watt of electricity they generated.
Its not just Java (pah, spit, pah), its.NET as well : check this article out that describes the issue far better than I can tell it:
best quote from that article: If I set "ValidationType = ValidationType.None" it STILL downloads the DTD even though it doesn't validate against it. I get an XmlException when I set "ProhibitDtd = true"
Tha answer, of course, is to write your own resolver.
It's more like this: your app should *never* query the DTD.
then there's little point in having one at all, is there.
You're quite right though, copy the DTD, develop against it, publish without the DTD being present in your released app. simple. If only the W3C hadn't specified it as being required to be present. If only every sample didn't have it shown in place.
*some* Linux devs don't care about the desktop... This one did, and look where that got him in the community.
Within the 'user' marketplace, Linux desktop just has to be easy to install, easy to manage and easy to get new stuff on there. No config files, GUI everything, then they'll (slowly) come.
Within the business marketplace, its stuff like this that turns the managers off. Why get into Linux when the development teams are arguing all over the place, that sounds like risk, and they don't like risk. Far safer to stick to a tried and trusted OS like Windows that has a nice support line and a stable company behind it. The adage "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" still applies today (except for Microsoft, not IBM).
I think, if you really want to get people working with Linux, get it running in a window on Windows in a transparent virtualisation layer, so you get all the linux apps running natively without having to give up any Windows apps. Maybe the other way round would work too, but that's more of a risk to the boss so not as attractive. Don't try to replace Windows, try to embrace it, extend it and, well you know the rest;)
I meant, look to history when IBM had the stranglehold on computer equipment - if you wanted more memory, it had to be IBM proprietary memory, in a IBM proprietary slot, wrapped in IBM proprietary packing and delivered by an IBM proprietary courier! Then they accidentally created the open PC architecture and look at the state of computing now.
Same applies to other huge companies that had extreme lock-in on their products. Hardly any of them exist today.
So, if MS decides that you have to have windows and attempt to enforce that through lock-in of DRM or WGA or anything, then you'll find that the market will naturally gravitate towards the alternative (currently Linux, I guess) and MS will end up with the kind of market share that DEC has in the marketplace today (perhaps your kids will talk about Windows in the same way I talk abotu VMS)
In a way there already is a systematic approach to open business models.. or remind me how well IBM and GEC are doing as IT vendors nowadays..
If MS and others increases their lockin practices (and I'm sure they will try more and more) then they will only serve to increase the number of Linux desktops out there. Its ironic that the best way to get Linux on the Desktop is for Microsoft to do everything in its power to keep Windows there:)
Re:IP6 won't matter til Google supports it
on
One Step Closer to IPv6
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This is a *baby* step towards IP6 being useful. Yup. The thing with first steps is that you have to do them in order to make the second step (obviously), but then you can make a third and fourth steps. Next thing you know, you've got to where you were going.
Now Google can register an AAAA record, do you think they will? If they couldn't register one, do you think they would?
I mean, if those companies complain, who cares. They wouldn't get such large and prestigious allocations in an IPv6 network anyways. So what's the difference. yeah, we'll restrict them to a meagre 281474976710656 addresses like everyone else. That'll show them, and if they want more than a single/48 then they can just go whistle, loooosers.
But yes, the base designs are the same, but I think you forget just how important the little changes are No, I don't. Really I think the little changes are what drives us forward in a progressive way that improves everything, little by little, step by step we get better. (my original posting may not have emphasised this properly).
Look at the new software products and its never a little change, its a large change each time. This is a problem, if they built on what they had, improving it, we'd have good software that would be a it boring, certainly not 'cool' and 'new', but it'd work a lot better.
To put it into perspective, software engineering has been around for what, 30 MAYBE 40 years? To put into a real perspective, Microsoft software engineering has been around for about 3 years, that's when they changed everything to a 'cool' new technology. I'd say give it 10 years and it'll be another new one, but they're changing it all the time with new stuff that keeps plopping out of MS development/architecture/framework teams.
The reason we build good bridges is because there's only 2 or 3 designs. 1 suspension bridge is pretty much the same as another, when they do try to make something new (eg the Millenium 'Bridge of death' across the Thames which was an upside-down suspension) it wobbled so much they had to close it and debu.. fix it.
The same applies to other engineering structures - skyscrapers, ships, cars, etc. These are all the same pattern and when new ones are built little changes. If there was the same level of "innovation" in engineering as occurs in software, everything would just fall down.
Na, we want Bill to stay and to get rid of half the developers, "architects" and programme managers that work for MS today. Once upon a time, Windows was quite straightforward to develop for, it worked and it was well documented with a good SDK that made sense.
Fast forward 10 years, and we have a product that has no internal consistency because we have 100 different developer teams scattered all over the world creating 'stuff' (ie object libraries, 'frameworks', etc) that just adds a layer of said baboon love-juice smeared all over everything.
Is it any wonder we have a dozen different SDKs, add-on libraries, and toolkits. If its so difficult just to get the right installer to develop something, is it any wonder that the products that are written are so flaky?
I see Linux gaining traction nowadays, and I can't help but think that that is partly due to Linux becoming more stable and mature, but also the unpleasant wierdness that Windows is becoming. I'm a Windows developer (happily been so for years), but I'm trying to get more Linux development on my CV now, simply because its more enjoyable.
I don't know about you, but all the crap coming out of Microsoft Development labs, their new Frameworks, their Best Patterns and Practices, their new Platform (or I think its been rebranded as Windows) SDKs, their Enterprise Application Blocks, their Windows XYZ Foundations, their new Tools to analyze, check and report, their new Features added to every server or operating system.... (I giving up typing at this point), all that just means I have a ton of time I used to spend coding that I now have to spend learning which of the above are acceptable, and which are a pile of donkey balls.
I did this a few years ago, had to investigate what the benefits of Application Server, Biztalk Server, Sharepoint Server, and Commerce Server was. The answer, you'll be unsurprised to hear, was very little to us, but a fair chunk of licencing money to MS (I mean, AppServer was practically a fancy way of configuring network load balancing).
I may be showing my age now, but I wish they would stop releasing new stuff and simply improve the existing stuff. The time and effort they've spent re-implementing Java could have made Vista into a kick-ass super OS that was easy to develop for and would run so efficiently I needn't have bought another 2 gig of RAM and a dual core CPU!!
true, but from an investment POV, MS could have spent nothing on development and still made as much money. Try telling your shareholders you were going to spend $500m on developing a new OS that would make everyone upgrade... and then tell them you needn't have bothered.
We're now assuming that companies will upgrade their new PCs after 4 years instead of 3, but what if they start to upgrade them to a different OS in the future. eg, we're starting to use Linux for our virtualisation hosts, that's a 2003 licence out the window for each of our servers already. The reason we're doing it is mainy cost, but I'm sure the boss will realise Linus isn't the hobby software he assumed it was and we'll start doing more Linux in the future (actually we already are - our Oracle databases are starting to be run on Oracle Linux).
Ms has some serious challenges ahead, and finally some real competition.
hmm. Micosoft Banking. "how much would you like to borrow today?"
The Credit crisis - its not MS that's got a problem because of it, but their customers. And if the customers hold off upgrades then it becomes a problem for MS. I wonder what their burn rate is today? I know they're got a ton of staff working for them.
Personally, I won't upgrade my PC to Vista, but if I happen to buy one with it pre-installed I won't remove it, either. Damn right. And that's the most important thing - remember Dell persuaded MS to ship with XP preinstalled instead of Vista? If the OEMs don't want it, the takeup is going to be significantly lower than anyone expected. If the demands isn't there for Vista preinstalls, that means businesses want XP... which they already have, chances are, they're not upgrading at all.
Add the current credit crisis, and you can start to see trouble ahead. The big issue for an investor is whether MS will pick up the same pace as everyone else when recovery comes along.
yeah, they do too, its just that the government keeps it restricted because they're scared of what the unlimited communication potential could do to their hold over society. That, or something about aliens.
cheers for that. I was beginning to get worried as I typed that message... perhaps Microsoft had actually produced some original software. Normal service is now resumed and I can get back to my knocked off from Java development.
Usually Microsft's first attempt *is* someone else's first attempt. Their roduct development roadmap is a case of "that's cool, we must have some of that, buy that company".
Who did they buy to get Virtual PC in the first place? I'd be very surprised to hear that they developed it entirely in-house.
This endeavour will be somewhat successful - VPC is out there at the moment, and its free since roughly the same time VMWare offered VMWare server for free (go figure:) ). If this hypervisor is not free too, then it'll have a hard time being adopted by companies that are used to, and happy with, VMWare.
If they do give their hypervisor away for free, then VMware will release ESX too and nothing will really change! I think this can only be a good thing for us:-)
Slashdot Mirror
the other 10% of ISPs who don't throttle the bandwidth during peak hours leave that duty to their users :)
I doubt he will, he'll be awarded a massive payout "in recognition for hiw work over the last years" and to "compensate him for future earnings", etc etc.
Its happened before, and will happen again... in fact, it happens everytime a company fails. Sometimes it makes me think that working for a living is such a stupid thing to do.
Unless Google has a licence for uploaders that is incompatible with Wikipedia's copyleft licence. In this case, copying something from Wikipedia to Knol would be a copyright infringement and you'd have to either take it down, or have it taken down (in much the same was as commercial videos uploaded illegally to youtube)
So.. Knol must support the same permissive licence that Wikipedia has if they want to seed Knol with Wikipedia articles, even if they also support other licences for uploaded content.
it is more efficient to use a config file to set things up - when I'm setting up a new linux server, I tend to copy a bundle of pre-configured conf files across to the new machine.. and I'm pretty much done. That's really quick and efficient, I only have to set something up once.
/etc). The fact that Windows uses them after they spent a lot of money figuring out what was the best means of usability does suggest that they are a good place to start to make Linux easier to use.
However, I like a nice GUI to twiddle the settings after that, preferably one that's web based as all my servers are located physically far away.
So: support webmin, then you get to keep the config file, and have a gui to edit it with if you prefer, and you can still edit the config file if you like.
This approach doesn't solve the complexity problem. I can't see much of a way out of that, unless someone wants to create wizards to produce pre-defined config files of the most common settings, with just a few user tweaks.
eg, setting up sendmail once, I was foolish enough to leave the default settings in there.. and ended up being a spam relay for a couple of hours. If I could have found a resource for pre-configured conf files I'd have dropped one in, or a wizard to guide me through a 'configure but with this hostname and a couple of simple options' than I'd have used that and been much happier.
Windows uses wizards a lot, but you have to use them (or the gui they provide for advanced options) becuase the settings are scattered through the registry, custom DBs and files instead of being in 1 handy place (in
Well, if it gets some decent userspace tools to manage the host and guests, then yes KVM could well become a decent 'standard' though it will not oust Xen as Xen already has enough support in the marketplace to ensure its survival (unless, of course, Xen proves to be a poor performer or unstable)(I've heard reports of both).
The things to make people really think KVM is the best is a web-style gui to manage start/stop, guest settings etc, and stats on what all the guests are doing in semi/realtime.
the subjects required less than one watt of extra metabolic power for each watt of electricity they generated.
Its not just Java (pah, spit, pah), its .NET as well : check this article out that describes the issue far better than I can tell it:
best quote from that article: If I set "ValidationType = ValidationType.None" it STILL downloads the DTD even though it doesn't validate against it. I get an XmlException when I set "ProhibitDtd = true"
Tha answer, of course, is to write your own resolver.
It's more like this: your app should *never* query the DTD.
then there's little point in having one at all, is there.
You're quite right though, copy the DTD, develop against it, publish without the DTD being present in your released app. simple. If only the W3C hadn't specified it as being required to be present. If only every sample didn't have it shown in place.
*some* Linux devs don't care about the desktop... This one did, and look where that got him in the community.
;)
Within the 'user' marketplace, Linux desktop just has to be easy to install, easy to manage and easy to get new stuff on there. No config files, GUI everything, then they'll (slowly) come.
Within the business marketplace, its stuff like this that turns the managers off. Why get into Linux when the development teams are arguing all over the place, that sounds like risk, and they don't like risk. Far safer to stick to a tried and trusted OS like Windows that has a nice support line and a stable company behind it. The adage "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" still applies today (except for Microsoft, not IBM).
I think, if you really want to get people working with Linux, get it running in a window on Windows in a transparent virtualisation layer, so you get all the linux apps running natively without having to give up any Windows apps. Maybe the other way round would work too, but that's more of a risk to the boss so not as attractive. Don't try to replace Windows, try to embrace it, extend it and, well you know the rest
eh?
I meant, look to history when IBM had the stranglehold on computer equipment - if you wanted more memory, it had to be IBM proprietary memory, in a IBM proprietary slot, wrapped in IBM proprietary packing and delivered by an IBM proprietary courier! Then they accidentally created the open PC architecture and look at the state of computing now.
Same applies to other huge companies that had extreme lock-in on their products. Hardly any of them exist today.
So, if MS decides that you have to have windows and attempt to enforce that through lock-in of DRM or WGA or anything, then you'll find that the market will naturally gravitate towards the alternative (currently Linux, I guess) and MS will end up with the kind of market share that DEC has in the marketplace today (perhaps your kids will talk about Windows in the same way I talk abotu VMS)
In a way there already is a systematic approach to open business models.. or remind me how well IBM and GEC are doing as IT vendors nowadays..
:)
If MS and others increases their lockin practices (and I'm sure they will try more and more) then they will only serve to increase the number of Linux desktops out there. Its ironic that the best way to get Linux on the Desktop is for Microsoft to do everything in its power to keep Windows there
Now Google can register an AAAA record, do you think they will? If they couldn't register one, do you think they would?
and Four Times is shrimp getting to like the taste of plastic coating.
Look at the new software products and its never a little change, its a large change each time. This is a problem, if they built on what they had, improving it, we'd have good software that would be a it boring, certainly not 'cool' and 'new', but it'd work a lot better.
The reason we build good bridges is because there's only 2 or 3 designs. 1 suspension bridge is pretty much the same as another, when they do try to make something new (eg the Millenium 'Bridge of death' across the Thames which was an upside-down suspension) it wobbled so much they had to close it and debu.. fix it.
The same applies to other engineering structures - skyscrapers, ships, cars, etc. These are all the same pattern and when new ones are built little changes. If there was the same level of "innovation" in engineering as occurs in software, everything would just fall down.
Na, we want Bill to stay and to get rid of half the developers, "architects" and programme managers that work for MS today. Once upon a time, Windows was quite straightforward to develop for, it worked and it was well documented with a good SDK that made sense.
Fast forward 10 years, and we have a product that has no internal consistency because we have 100 different developer teams scattered all over the world creating 'stuff' (ie object libraries, 'frameworks', etc) that just adds a layer of said baboon love-juice smeared all over everything.
Is it any wonder we have a dozen different SDKs, add-on libraries, and toolkits. If its so difficult just to get the right installer to develop something, is it any wonder that the products that are written are so flaky?
I see Linux gaining traction nowadays, and I can't help but think that that is partly due to Linux becoming more stable and mature, but also the unpleasant wierdness that Windows is becoming. I'm a Windows developer (happily been so for years), but I'm trying to get more Linux development on my CV now, simply because its more enjoyable.
I don't know about you, but all the crap coming out of Microsoft Development labs, their new Frameworks, their Best Patterns and Practices, their new Platform (or I think its been rebranded as Windows) SDKs, their Enterprise Application Blocks, their Windows XYZ Foundations, their new Tools to analyze, check and report, their new Features added to every server or operating system.... (I giving up typing at this point), all that just means I have a ton of time I used to spend coding that I now have to spend learning which of the above are acceptable, and which are a pile of donkey balls.
I did this a few years ago, had to investigate what the benefits of Application Server, Biztalk Server, Sharepoint Server, and Commerce Server was. The answer, you'll be unsurprised to hear, was very little to us, but a fair chunk of licencing money to MS (I mean, AppServer was practically a fancy way of configuring network load balancing).
I may be showing my age now, but I wish they would stop releasing new stuff and simply improve the existing stuff. The time and effort they've spent re-implementing Java could have made Vista into a kick-ass super OS that was easy to develop for and would run so efficiently I needn't have bought another 2 gig of RAM and a dual core CPU!!
true, but from an investment POV, MS could have spent nothing on development and still made as much money. Try telling your shareholders you were going to spend $500m on developing a new OS that would make everyone upgrade... and then tell them you needn't have bothered.
We're now assuming that companies will upgrade their new PCs after 4 years instead of 3, but what if they start to upgrade them to a different OS in the future. eg, we're starting to use Linux for our virtualisation hosts, that's a 2003 licence out the window for each of our servers already. The reason we're doing it is mainy cost, but I'm sure the boss will realise Linus isn't the hobby software he assumed it was and we'll start doing more Linux in the future (actually we already are - our Oracle databases are starting to be run on Oracle Linux).
Ms has some serious challenges ahead, and finally some real competition.
hmm. Micosoft Banking. "how much would you like to borrow today?"
The Credit crisis - its not MS that's got a problem because of it, but their customers. And if the customers hold off upgrades then it becomes a problem for MS. I wonder what their burn rate is today? I know they're got a ton of staff working for them.
Add the current credit crisis, and you can start to see trouble ahead. The big issue for an investor is whether MS will pick up the same pace as everyone else when recovery comes along.
yeah, they do too, its just that the government keeps it restricted because they're scared of what the unlimited communication potential could do to their hold over society. That, or something about aliens.
cheers for that. I was beginning to get worried as I typed that message... perhaps Microsoft had actually produced some original software. Normal service is now resumed and I can get back to my knocked off from Java development.
Usually Microsft's first attempt *is* someone else's first attempt. Their roduct development roadmap is a case of "that's cool, we must have some of that, buy that company".
:) ). If this hypervisor is not free too, then it'll have a hard time being adopted by companies that are used to, and happy with, VMWare.
:-)
Who did they buy to get Virtual PC in the first place? I'd be very surprised to hear that they developed it entirely in-house.
This endeavour will be somewhat successful - VPC is out there at the moment, and its free since roughly the same time VMWare offered VMWare server for free (go figure
If they do give their hypervisor away for free, then VMware will release ESX too and nothing will really change! I think this can only be a good thing for us
erm no. They spent it on secret bonuses for managers and directors. Who'd have thought!