i think this is a good point. i assume one of the reasons m$ has been *cooperating* with apple is they aren't really a competitor, especially in the enterprise market. sure, apple is selling servers now that they have os X, but do you think microsoft is worried about that? doubtful. so they've extended their reach, and at the same time, made many companies more willing to use macs on the desktop. for example, at a design shop, managers and programmers can have windows on their desktop, and still exchange emails and documents with the legions of mac-loving designers.
as much as it would be hurt many oss advocates to see m$ provide the office suite for linux, it would be a great step for allowing the corporate world to embrace linux. people, especially non-techies, don't want to embrance a whole new suite of office tools, when they know how to write formulas and macros in excel, and easily format their documents in word.
I am right now on the eighth floor of an eleven floor building. I'm eight stories up and there's still a thousand tons of concrete and steel over my head. I have a great deal of confidence that if I don't make it out of this building alive it won't be because it collapsed on me.
BUT - if this building were a computer program I'd be freaking terrified at all times UNLESS it had been around for a long time (and therefore rebuilt over and over after falling on other people.)
well, that's true, but engineers have something called the laws of physics to work with. granted, physicists learn more and more about the natural world everyday, but the basic rules have been the same for a long time. like another post pointed out, there are reams of standards to be followed. now look at computer science. what's the oldest language still being used? c? how long has that been around? people have been designing and building structures for thousands of years. talk about still learning how to crawl....i bet the houses that were constructed in, say, 2000 BC weren't so sturdy either....
but....CS also has itself to blame. there are 2 camps...the *engineers* and the *programmers*. many *programmers* like to see software design as a creative process, and therefore it shouldn't be boxed in with standards and best practices. *engineers* would love to see those put into place. and in between is management, who wants the eiffel tower built yesterday. it just doesn't work that way.
this is a valid point, and i have to assume that whoever has mod points today must not understand the question. the text below is from the link that 3am points to:
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
sure, rms thinks it's great to sell things. who doesn't. but but but....anyone is free to distribute the code...in fact, even if i sell my software under the GNU license, i have to include the source code.
amen...i wish i had mod points. i've been doing a lot of.net work lately (got to put food on the table), and their data view components can really speed up development, at the cost of some extensibility. having worn both hats (developing.net web apps and writing custom tag libraries for java web apps), there is no doubt that using the.net components greatly reduced the lines of code. of course, like many others have pointed out, that does not a good application make.
the.net components are fantastic for a high pressure, short timeframe project. but...try and do something outside the norm with them and yer screwed. but such is life with a 1.x release.
liberty (in the constitutional sense) means that citizens give up certain freedoms to live within the community of citizens, and receive certain protections from the government. being a citizen of the united states doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. certainly we have many *freedoms* here that other citizens do not, but that doesn't entitle people to act like children. but another post was well-taken: let the theaters hash this out. why involve the goverment if we don't need to?
no doubt this has been repeated before, but religion in one form or another really is necessary for *morality.* if you don't believe that life originated from something sacred, why is it really worth anything? one of the tenets of evolutionary theory is, of course, *survival of the fittest.* if this is the case, shouldn't we all do what we can to get ahead? if all that really matters is me, myself, and i, why should i care about someone else's conception of morality or ethics?
Most of the great religions are founded upon words of love, tolerance, and respect. Then these religious beliefs are used to excuse all kinds of terrible things. If you believe in God, and you believe that the bible is the word of God, you're a sucker -- That thing's been edited so many times it makes the OED look static. But furthermore, you cannot say that it excuses violence on anyone's part other than God's; he's the man with the plan and the golden gun. You are a peon, and you toe the line or you get struck down with the rest of the heathens and unbelievers and so on.
sadly, you're right. too bad if you _really_ read what jesus said, it would be pretty hard to imply such behavior. christians all too often make christians look bad.
imho, as a christian, i strongly believe in the separation of church and state. i do not want a theocracy, or even anything vaguely resembling it. *render unto ceasar what is ceasar's* sticks in my mind. take the *under god* out of the pledge, take *in god we trust* off our currency. don't allow our elected officials to mention god. you won't hear me complaining.
What is your basis for this extraordinary claim? Disgruntled employees are the biggest security threat a company faces. Any pissed off geek could just zip up the files and email them to the competition anonymously.
okay, point well taken...but this has more to do with a company not thinking through the decision to allow a contracter to GPL the work they do. ultimately, it _is_ the company's choice as to what restrictions are placed on the product they are purchasing. if the original poster wants to write public domain software, fantastic. if his clients don't think through the potential problems, that's their problem....
If the client agrees to make the work open source, then their competitors will be able to use it at no cost. How is that in your client's interest after they paid you to develop it?
ummm...their competitors can only get a hold of it if the client either posts the binaries for download or sells it to them. i don't believe the gpl insists that you give away free copies of the code to anyone who inquires about it. i have written *open source* programs for clients, and i have done so because i used public domain libraries to complete the task. my client has both the binaries and source code at their disposal, and the gpl simply requires them to include the source code should they modify my work and sell it.
Your client will already own the code, so they can give it to whomever they want. Why would it be in their interest to obligate themselves to give it to any more people than absolutely necessary?
again, this is not my understanding of the gpl. their only restriction is to provide the source code with the programs should they release/sell it. and if this was their intention from the beginning, if they had any understanding of the gpl, they would refuse to have the work done under it.
now, if the original author simply wants to use the gpl so he can *release and run*, well, shame on him. and you're right....word will get around, and his work will dry up.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but lately Linux and open source aren't "ruling" at the university level.
well, maybe in courses, but most of the research that's being done on the graduate level is still being done on *nix machines. a friend just took over a research department at a major university and one of the perks of the job was the beowulf cluster that would be doing his data analysis....
Thats not liberal. Thats being Socialist. This is one thing strange about the us...you think that one is liberal if one has that - the government should take care of you - attitude. It's not. It's Socialism.
you're right. and i don't equate american liberalism (classical conservativism) with socialism. but quite a few people in the general population do. they're making 2 mistakes in my opinion:
creating a false dilemma: you are either conservative or liberal.
they don't understand the political philosophies that this nation was founded upon
hmmm...i think part of the problem here in the u.s. stems from political ignorance. political and social pressure groups will never rule unless people come to understand politics better. the conservative/liberal debate has produced:
* conservative == big business can do as it pleases, and the government will support that (with tax dollars).
* liberal == the general population is too stupid to take care of itself, so the government will come to the rescue.
in reality, the philosophical underpinnings of conservative and liberal political theory have nothing to do with their present forms. here's a more concrete example:
the _conservative_ justices on our supreme court have often ruled in favor of giving police more authority to trample people's rights. imho, being _convervative_ (or classically liberal) means the average citizen should have _more_ liberty, especially from the prying eyes of the police. conservativism != facism. facism is a political relative of liberalism (the state being in full control) rather than conservativism.
let's look at the recent enron debacle. the media is portraying enron as the bastard son of free market capitalism. the company represents everything that is wrong with adam smith's vision of a free market economy. the reality, however, is quite a bit different. enron, though unregulated by the government, wanted to be involved with the government. meetings with cheney. political contributions to both parties to help further their agenda. that doesn't sound very _laissez faire_ to me....free market conservativism means the government stays out of business and businesses take the responsiblity to regulate themselves....
so...until people understand how our constitutional system works, and how the various political theories apply to it, our country will look like a hopeless mess. and our liberties will always be blunted.
Re:Does it? Depends on the person
on
Browsing Alone
·
· Score: 1
i like the subject line, though i was thinking of it in a different manner....
Thanks in part to the Net, Americans have never had so many reasons to stay home, so many entertaining or useful options when they do. I remember an e-mail I got from a grandmother last year lamenting all the TV ads showing AOL grandmas getting pictures of their grandchildren. "That's nonsense," she says. "My kids don't visit me nearly as much because they feel they can just e-mail me. I love digital pictures, but I rarely get to see my grandchildren in person." Her lament -- the illusion of connection, while facing the reality of tech-spawned separation -- was intriguing.
it seems that the net just gives couch-potatoes and other anti-social types a reason to continue their behavior...i'm a web developer, spending (and wasting) time each day surfing the web, taking part in discussions (like/. or plastic), sending emails back and forth to friends and family, but i still take time out and actually _spend_ time with those people. sorry, the net can't replace actual *face-time*. but for some people it does. and these are prolly the same people who, 10 or 15 years ago, would have spent their days lost in the world books or dungeon & dragons games (though, i admit the latter isn't a great example, since that does require at least some human interaction).
using the grandma example above...obviously those kids are simply looking for excuse not to spend time with grandma. they feel they can still *spend time* with her through digital photos and email. did her kids and grandkids visit her more before the net was so prevelant in our culture?
i have to agree...his premise is spot on (even when i'm working on a windows box, i'd rather not have to wait for word to open to read an attachment), but why not just reply by saying *sorry i can't open word documents*.
This is yet again proof of why chat groups, bulletin boards and internet newsgroups are useless as a "breaking story" news source.
sorry...this is why they _are_ useful...they simply mirror the news, and given that i can't reach most news sites at this time, i at least can pick through the *facts* and try and figure out what's going on.....
What you've said so far: It was a 767. It was inbound to NY. It crashed downtown. It might have been terrorists.
check what the news outlets were saying when it first happened...hmmm...looks about the same...
What CNN is saying as of a minute ago: It was an Airbus A300. It was leaving NY on an international flight. It crashed 10 miles from the airport, out in Rockaway (Long Island).
hmmm...looks like i can find the same info here.....
Of course, what would be better than a national ID is an international ID (which passports are for, but are pretty poor... ink stamps when entering and leaving a country, please.) Though at least they have barcodes and pretty holograms.
while this sounds good, it would take major terrorists attacks all over the globe to get most countries to adopt and pay for such things. i wonder if ellison and mcnealy would provide ids for the world?
perhaps an international i.d. card would have prevented the attacks in nyc and washington. national cards would not. these guys were legal aliens, and under the typical id card scenarios, wouldn't have been required to have cards.
My job is as a programmer/admin. I enjoy it and the company receives good value. Pre-1995 this would have been defined as heaven. To you dot-bomb losers it is apparently hell.
it's hell because those of us still with *fun* jobs have realized you don't have to wear nice clothes to work and sit in a cube or office 8 hours a day to be productive. dot-coms don't ultimately fail because the developers play with nerf guns (which, btw, is no different than surfing the web for 4 hours a day in your cube), they fail because they didn't have a profitable business plan (but enough people have already pointed that out).
i know that there are plenty of developers/admins that work their tails off every day in a corporate environment. there's nothing wrong with that. all that really matters is whether or not you enjoy what you do. i enjoy the relaxed atmosphere of my employer. and we work hard and we play hard. now that i've seen the *other side*, i doubt i'd go back to a cube farm. you can relax and get your work done too.
we haven't reached the point when end users expect bug-free software. thanks to microsoft, users expect an application to have its quirks and problems. how many ms users have had windows 98 unexpectedly crash, and not even think twice about it? you just give it the three finger salute and wait for your box to reboot. there isn't a great deal of pressure on the development community (at least those who produce consumer-driven, non-critical apps) to produce *perfect* products.
There is usually a tradeoff between quality and expediancy.
i agree. can anyone shed light on what the typical iteration period is for structural engineers and architects? i'd be curious to know if they are put under the same time constraints as software developers.
i would also tend to think that the learning curve for developers can be a bit faster (thanks to rapid development cycle). that might lead to inexperienced developers getting involved in system design. it may not be that they are bad programmers--their managers may have given them responsibilities above and beyond what they can do. the average developer should spent some time as a code monkey (or perhaps just remain as a code monkey for their whole career).
I don't see any indication at the moment that the number of Servlet/JSP/J2EE sites is dropping in favour of ASP or.NET
i don't know that'd we'd ever see this. those sites that are using j2ee (or perl, php, or python, for that matter) are using that solution because it's _not microsoft_. imho, it may easier to create a m$ web services solution, but i don't think you'll have the same flexibility and performance.
it's also important to keep in mind that the apache percentages can be misleading. several j2ee containers (some may not even be open source) have their own web servers. so, even though apache loses a bit of market share, m$ doesn't gain any.
don't we expect our presidents to make _political_ descisions? hopefully the media won't deride bush for making a politically-expedient decision, given the precedent set by his predecessor....politicians are driven by focus group results. it's rare that we see a politician make an _idealogical_ decision (unless of course, you're a representative and your idealogy is supported by your constituency).
This should have been an all or nothing decision.
i disagree. i used to think middle-of-the-road politics was spineless, but i've come to my senses and realized that we really do need _moderate_ leaders. there are positives and negatives to the idealogies on both sides of the aisle. think of this way...had bush followed his conservative instincts and banned all funding, image how much research time would be lost while we waited for the next liberal president. at least research can continue (albeit at a slower rate in some cases). though bush came of as a little spineless for not making an idealogical decision, you've got to give him _some_ credit for standing firm against the uber-conservative base of his party.
There are just so many applications available as people have different requisites. Why should it be for programming languages any different? I guess it's the 'new thing' paradigmn that a automically repulses people, even before looking at it.
i think the issue here (at least for developers) is the idea that this new language requires a plug-in for the client. imho, anything that's web based but still requires the client to go out and download something else is a _bad thing_ (pure multimedia notwithstanding). here at my company we've had an applet in beta for a long time because our potential end users don't like the idea of having to download the latest jre plug-in.
now, if the curl plug-in became a standard part of our browser, then i could see it gaining wider acceptance, though i still think it would be a limited adoption simply due to its roots in javascript.
n JAVA, and J2EE, sun has produced a great "plumbing" mechanism for distributed software. the problem is that they haven't developed the frills around the plumbing (somethign like.NET). i believe they expected the community to use their platform to do such a thing. have we failed them?
i think you're right on. ms has also made it easy for a company to implement their solution as well. while the tools exist for j2ee, they just aren't as well known, so it's just easier for a cto/is manager to implement the well-known ms solution. it may not be the specific product that's well-known (.net), but, as you pointed out, the decision-makers are familiar with other ms products.
it's strange that more os hackers haven't embraced j2ee as the *open source* solution to.net. while sun certainly isn't as open as we'd all like with the java platform, there's no reason an open source competitor (NOT implementation) of.net can't be created....
a confusion between the two different usages of the word "conservative."
i use the word _conservative_ much how goldwater would. to be exact, i should use the _Liberal_, as in the true blue political science definition of small government.
i don't really understand why everyone seems so shocked that scalia would be against such searches....true blue conservatives don't want the government to have power to intrude into our private lives. private property was one the basic rights this country was founded upon.
Slashdot Mirror
i think this is a good point. i assume one of the reasons m$ has been *cooperating* with apple is they aren't really a competitor, especially in the enterprise market. sure, apple is selling servers now that they have os X, but do you think microsoft is worried about that? doubtful. so they've extended their reach, and at the same time, made many companies more willing to use macs on the desktop. for example, at a design shop, managers and programmers can have windows on their desktop, and still exchange emails and documents with the legions of mac-loving designers.
as much as it would be hurt many oss advocates to see m$ provide the office suite for linux, it would be a great step for allowing the corporate world to embrace linux. people, especially non-techies, don't want to embrance a whole new suite of office tools, when they know how to write formulas and macros in excel, and easily format their documents in word.
well, that's true, but engineers have something called the laws of physics to work with. granted, physicists learn more and more about the natural world everyday, but the basic rules have been the same for a long time. like another post pointed out, there are reams of standards to be followed. now look at computer science. what's the oldest language still being used? c? how long has that been around? people have been designing and building structures for thousands of years. talk about still learning how to crawl....i bet the houses that were constructed in, say, 2000 BC weren't so sturdy either....
but....CS also has itself to blame. there are 2 camps...the *engineers* and the *programmers*. many *programmers* like to see software design as a creative process, and therefore it shouldn't be boxed in with standards and best practices. *engineers* would love to see those put into place. and in between is management, who wants the eiffel tower built yesterday. it just doesn't work that way.
i agree
this is a valid point, and i have to assume that whoever has mod points today must not understand the question. the text below is from the link that 3am points to:
sure, rms thinks it's great to sell things. who doesn't. but but but....anyone is free to distribute the code...in fact, even if i sell my software under the GNU license, i have to include the source code.amen...i wish i had mod points. i've been doing a lot of .net work lately (got to put food on the table), and their data view components can really speed up development, at the cost of some extensibility. having worn both hats (developing .net web apps and writing custom tag libraries for java web apps), there is no doubt that using the .net components greatly reduced the lines of code. of course, like many others have pointed out, that does not a good application make.
.net components are fantastic for a high pressure, short timeframe project. but...try and do something outside the norm with them and yer screwed. but such is life with a 1.x release.
the
actually the formula looks more like this:
liberty != freedom
liberty (in the constitutional sense) means that citizens give up certain freedoms to live within the community of citizens, and receive certain protections from the government. being a citizen of the united states doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. certainly we have many *freedoms* here that other citizens do not, but that doesn't entitle people to act like children. but another post was well-taken: let the theaters hash this out. why involve the goverment if we don't need to?
no doubt this has been repeated before, but religion in one form or another really is necessary for *morality.* if you don't believe that life originated from something sacred, why is it really worth anything? one of the tenets of evolutionary theory is, of course, *survival of the fittest.* if this is the case, shouldn't we all do what we can to get ahead? if all that really matters is me, myself, and i, why should i care about someone else's conception of morality or ethics?
Most of the great religions are founded upon words of love, tolerance, and respect. Then these religious beliefs are used to excuse all kinds of terrible things. If you believe in God, and you believe that the bible is the word of God, you're a sucker -- That thing's been edited so many times it makes the OED look static. But furthermore, you cannot say that it excuses violence on anyone's part other than God's; he's the man with the plan and the golden gun. You are a peon, and you toe the line or you get struck down with the rest of the heathens and unbelievers and so on.
sadly, you're right. too bad if you _really_ read what jesus said, it would be pretty hard to imply such behavior. christians all too often make christians look bad.
imho, as a christian, i strongly believe in the separation of church and state. i do not want a theocracy, or even anything vaguely resembling it. *render unto ceasar what is ceasar's* sticks in my mind. take the *under god* out of the pledge, take *in god we trust* off our currency. don't allow our elected officials to mention god. you won't hear me complaining.
What is your basis for this extraordinary claim? Disgruntled employees are the biggest security threat a company faces. Any pissed off geek could just zip up the files and email them to the competition anonymously.
okay, point well taken...but this has more to do with a company not thinking through the decision to allow a contracter to GPL the work they do. ultimately, it _is_ the company's choice as to what restrictions are placed on the product they are purchasing. if the original poster wants to write public domain software, fantastic. if his clients don't think through the potential problems, that's their problem....
If the client agrees to make the work open source, then their competitors will be able to use it at no cost. How is that in your client's interest after they paid you to develop it?
ummm...their competitors can only get a hold of it if the client either posts the binaries for download or sells it to them. i don't believe the gpl insists that you give away free copies of the code to anyone who inquires about it. i have written *open source* programs for clients, and i have done so because i used public domain libraries to complete the task. my client has both the binaries and source code at their disposal, and the gpl simply requires them to include the source code should they modify my work and sell it.
Your client will already own the code, so they can give it to whomever they want. Why would it be in their interest to obligate themselves to give it to any more people than absolutely necessary?
again, this is not my understanding of the gpl. their only restriction is to provide the source code with the programs should they release/sell it. and if this was their intention from the beginning, if they had any understanding of the gpl, they would refuse to have the work done under it.
now, if the original author simply wants to use the gpl so he can *release and run*, well, shame on him. and you're right....word will get around, and his work will dry up.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but lately Linux and open source aren't "ruling" at the university level.
well, maybe in courses, but most of the research that's being done on the graduate level is still being done on *nix machines. a friend just took over a research department at a major university and one of the perks of the job was the beowulf cluster that would be doing his data analysis....
Thats not liberal. Thats being Socialist. This is one thing strange about the us...you think that one is liberal if one has that - the government should take care of you - attitude. It's not. It's Socialism.
you're right. and i don't equate american liberalism (classical conservativism) with socialism. but quite a few people in the general population do. they're making 2 mistakes in my opinion:
hmmm...i think part of the problem here in the u.s. stems from political ignorance. political and social pressure groups will never rule unless people come to understand politics better. the conservative/liberal debate has produced:
* conservative == big business can do as it pleases, and the government will support that (with tax dollars).
* liberal == the general population is too stupid to take care of itself, so the government will come to the rescue.
in reality, the philosophical underpinnings of conservative and liberal political theory have nothing to do with their present forms. here's a more concrete example:
the _conservative_ justices on our supreme court have often ruled in favor of giving police more authority to trample people's rights. imho, being _convervative_ (or classically liberal) means the average citizen should have _more_ liberty, especially from the prying eyes of the police. conservativism != facism. facism is a political relative of liberalism (the state being in full control) rather than conservativism.
let's look at the recent enron debacle. the media is portraying enron as the bastard son of free market capitalism. the company represents everything that is wrong with adam smith's vision of a free market economy. the reality, however, is quite a bit different. enron, though unregulated by the government, wanted to be involved with the government. meetings with cheney. political contributions to both parties to help further their agenda. that doesn't sound very _laissez faire_ to me....free market conservativism means the government stays out of business and businesses take the responsiblity to regulate themselves....
so...until people understand how our constitutional system works, and how the various political theories apply to it, our country will look like a hopeless mess. and our liberties will always be blunted.
i like the subject line, though i was thinking of it in a different manner....
Thanks in part to the Net, Americans have never had so many reasons to stay home, so many entertaining or useful options when they do. I remember an e-mail I got from a grandmother last year lamenting all the TV ads showing AOL grandmas getting pictures of their grandchildren. "That's nonsense," she says. "My kids don't visit me nearly as much because they feel they can just e-mail me. I love digital pictures, but I rarely get to see my grandchildren in person." Her lament -- the illusion of connection, while facing the reality of tech-spawned separation -- was intriguing.
it seems that the net just gives couch-potatoes and other anti-social types a reason to continue their behavior...i'm a web developer, spending (and wasting) time each day surfing the web, taking part in discussions (like /. or plastic), sending emails back and forth to friends and family, but i still take time out and actually _spend_ time with those people. sorry, the net can't replace actual *face-time*. but for some people it does. and these are prolly the same people who, 10 or 15 years ago, would have spent their days lost in the world books or dungeon & dragons games (though, i admit the latter isn't a great example, since that does require at least some human interaction).
using the grandma example above...obviously those kids are simply looking for excuse not to spend time with grandma. they feel they can still *spend time* with her through digital photos and email. did her kids and grandkids visit her more before the net was so prevelant in our culture?
i have to agree...his premise is spot on (even when i'm working on a windows box, i'd rather not have to wait for word to open to read an attachment), but why not just reply by saying *sorry i can't open word documents*.
This is yet again proof of why chat groups, bulletin boards and internet newsgroups are useless as a "breaking story" news source.
sorry...this is why they _are_ useful...they simply mirror the news, and given that i can't reach most news sites at this time, i at least can pick through the *facts* and try and figure out what's going on.....
What you've said so far: It was a 767. It was inbound to NY. It crashed downtown. It might have been terrorists.
check what the news outlets were saying when it first happened...hmmm...looks about the same...
What CNN is saying as of a minute ago: It was an Airbus A300. It was leaving NY on an international flight. It crashed 10 miles from the airport, out in Rockaway (Long Island).
hmmm...looks like i can find the same info here.....
Ashcroft is not a sympathetic guy
am i the only one who sees a resemblence between ashcroft and this man?
Of course, what would be better than a national ID is an international ID (which passports are for, but are pretty poor... ink stamps when entering and leaving a country, please.) Though at least they have barcodes and pretty holograms.
while this sounds good, it would take major terrorists attacks all over the globe to get most countries to adopt and pay for such things. i wonder if ellison and mcnealy would provide ids for the world?
perhaps an international i.d. card would have prevented the attacks in nyc and washington. national cards would not. these guys were legal aliens, and under the typical id card scenarios, wouldn't have been required to have cards.
My job is as a programmer/admin. I enjoy it and the company receives good value. Pre-1995 this would have been defined as heaven. To you dot-bomb losers it is apparently hell.
it's hell because those of us still with *fun* jobs have realized you don't have to wear nice clothes to work and sit in a cube or office 8 hours a day to be productive. dot-coms don't ultimately fail because the developers play with nerf guns (which, btw, is no different than surfing the web for 4 hours a day in your cube), they fail because they didn't have a profitable business plan (but enough people have already pointed that out).
i know that there are plenty of developers/admins that work their tails off every day in a corporate environment. there's nothing wrong with that. all that really matters is whether or not you enjoy what you do. i enjoy the relaxed atmosphere of my employer. and we work hard and we play hard. now that i've seen the *other side*, i doubt i'd go back to a cube farm. you can relax and get your work done too.
we haven't reached the point when end users expect bug-free software. thanks to microsoft, users expect an application to have its quirks and problems. how many ms users have had windows 98 unexpectedly crash, and not even think twice about it? you just give it the three finger salute and wait for your box to reboot. there isn't a great deal of pressure on the development community (at least those who produce consumer-driven, non-critical apps) to produce *perfect* products.
There is usually a tradeoff between quality and expediancy.
i agree. can anyone shed light on what the typical iteration period is for structural engineers and architects? i'd be curious to know if they are put under the same time constraints as software developers.
i would also tend to think that the learning curve for developers can be a bit faster (thanks to rapid development cycle). that might lead to inexperienced developers getting involved in system design. it may not be that they are bad programmers--their managers may have given them responsibilities above and beyond what they can do. the average developer should spent some time as a code monkey (or perhaps just remain as a code monkey for their whole career).
I don't see any indication at the moment that the number of Servlet/JSP/J2EE sites is dropping in favour of ASP or .NET
i don't know that'd we'd ever see this. those sites that are using j2ee (or perl, php, or python, for that matter) are using that solution because it's _not microsoft_. imho, it may easier to create a m$ web services solution, but i don't think you'll have the same flexibility and performance.
it's also important to keep in mind that the apache percentages can be misleading. several j2ee containers (some may not even be open source) have their own web servers. so, even though apache loses a bit of market share, m$ doesn't gain any.
don't we expect our presidents to make _political_ descisions? hopefully the media won't deride bush for making a politically-expedient decision, given the precedent set by his predecessor....politicians are driven by focus group results. it's rare that we see a politician make an _idealogical_ decision (unless of course, you're a representative and your idealogy is supported by your constituency).
This should have been an all or nothing decision.
i disagree. i used to think middle-of-the-road politics was spineless, but i've come to my senses and realized that we really do need _moderate_ leaders. there are positives and negatives to the idealogies on both sides of the aisle. think of this way...had bush followed his conservative instincts and banned all funding, image how much research time would be lost while we waited for the next liberal president. at least research can continue (albeit at a slower rate in some cases). though bush came of as a little spineless for not making an idealogical decision, you've got to give him _some_ credit for standing firm against the uber-conservative base of his party.There are just so many applications available as people have different requisites. Why should it be for programming languages any different? I guess it's the 'new thing' paradigmn that a automically repulses people, even before looking at it.
i think the issue here (at least for developers) is the idea that this new language requires a plug-in for the client. imho, anything that's web based but still requires the client to go out and download something else is a _bad thing_ (pure multimedia notwithstanding). here at my company we've had an applet in beta for a long time because our potential end users don't like the idea of having to download the latest jre plug-in.
now, if the curl plug-in became a standard part of our browser, then i could see it gaining wider acceptance, though i still think it would be a limited adoption simply due to its roots in javascript.
n JAVA, and J2EE, sun has produced a great "plumbing" mechanism for distributed software. the problem is that they haven't developed the frills around the plumbing (somethign like .NET). i believe they expected the community to use their platform to do such a thing. have we failed them?
i think you're right on. ms has also made it easy for a company to implement their solution as well. while the tools exist for j2ee, they just aren't as well known, so it's just easier for a cto/is manager to implement the well-known ms solution. it may not be the specific product that's well-known (.net), but, as you pointed out, the decision-makers are familiar with other ms products.
it's strange that more os hackers haven't embraced j2ee as the *open source* solution to .net. while sun certainly isn't as open as we'd all like with the java platform, there's no reason an open source competitor (NOT implementation) of .net can't be created....
i use the word _conservative_ much how goldwater would. to be exact, i should use the _Liberal_, as in the true blue political science definition of small government.
i don't really understand why everyone seems so shocked that scalia would be against such searches....true blue conservatives don't want the government to have power to intrude into our private lives. private property was one the basic rights this country was founded upon.