Re:Well, you have to start somewhere
on
Head First SQL
·
· Score: 1
Given that most commercial RDBMS weren't designed to follow the relational model, I don't think it's accurate to say that it provides a framework for understanding what a RDMBS is. It's a bit like saying that you can't perform simple arithmetic without a deep understanding of number theory.
Re:Don't get in over your head...
on
Head First SQL
·
· Score: 1
The problem is that today's approach of software integration over software development means that you have to know a lot of different technologies to accomplish your goals. If today's "developers" had to understand all the technologies they use to the same depth as you suggest for database design, nothing would ever get finished.
Sun seems to think that Java is owed a living. Remember how they tried to get the government to force MS to install it on Windows? If they were really serious about Java they would have sent out CDs like AOL used to do.
Offtopic prediction: If there's a Java 7, Java fans will be saying that it fixes Java performance - just like they say for every new version.
While Windows hasn't had to deal with the specific issues you mention, the diversity of hardware suppported by Windows has almost been much greater than those supported by the Mac. So I'd say that Windows still has it harder.
"Remember the last 'punishment' they gave MS for anti-trust violations? They forced MS to unbundle media player from XP. But the idiots didn't require MS to proportionally, or even at all, reduce the price of the stripped down XP. So MS sells two versions of XP in the EU - regular XP and stripped XP for the same price and no one buys the stripped-down XP. Doh! Big freaking homer doh!"
Well, you're half right. It was the unbundling idea itself that was stupid, not the price. This was a gift to Real and provided zero value to EU consumers and businesses.
In that way it was very much like the US antitrust effort - it was driven by and crafted to benefit specific MS competitors rather than consumers. The remedy was pretty much what the people behind the scenes wanted. Just because a company is anti-MS, doesn't mean it's pro-consumer or pro-FOSS. This is a lesson that many will learn when the real IBM rears its ugly head.
I don't see much difference between developers making choices I disagree with vs. business concerns driving choices I disagree with. It's not as if core Linux development has ever been a democracy of developers.
Well, as long as there is a strong alignment between Linux developers and users that model is OK. However, in the larger world of computer users, developer goals are unlikely to correspond to user needs. In that larger world, changes in Windows have a greater potential to be useful to users simply because there's more motivation to cater to paying customers.
"But only if they got the work _directly_ from the original author. In a worst case scanario the original author may have given up distributing his own work, and only proprietary middlemen left, so a new user has no way to obtain the original free code but only the proprietary modifications"
This is a very contrived scenario. What if it were released under the GPL and only non-distributing parties had a copy? Or what if nobody ever bothered to pick up the GPL'd code in the first place and the original author no longer distributed it? I don't think there's really any difference here between BSD and GPL with respect to the ability to get a copy of the original work.
"There is a value. It's the same reason we use DirectX or OpenGL -- an API hides away the dirty details of a specific hardware platform."
If there is only a single hardware platform there is no need to hide anything.
"If they can optimize the middleware (which they might be able to do a better job than you, depending), then there's no real penalty to it."
Perhaps you don't fully understand the idea of optimization. Given the same skill set and effort, a custom solution is always going to be superior to a general one. If the general solution is also generic, the difference is just that much greater. We can debate how much the difference matters, but they will always be a trade-off involved.
"GTA: Vice City, Tony Hawk Underground, Gauntlet: Seven Sorrows were all written to different platforms by using middleware. It's hardly a controversial topic. Middleware is very, very common."
I'm not suggesting that middleware is controversial or uncommon, only that it is sub-optimal. The greater the number of targets and the longer the standard exists, the more sub-optimal it will be relative to creating new hardware platforms with advanced capabilities.
The only effective difference between your scheme and a standard hardware platform would be that the former would have lower performance. If ultimatly everybody is limited to the same set of capabilities, there's no value of having a middle layer written by a "middle-man".
If a generic API worked worked perfectly (and in practice, they seldom do) it would be purely a legacy strategy that allowed game developers to write games that target "worst of breed" in each functional category out of a collection of target consoles. Often the games would be less capable than those that the weakest single hardware console could support.
From the point of view of development cost, the value of a standard platform is proportional to how long it remains the standard to develop for. On the other hand, from a hard-core gamer's perspective, the value is inversely proportional to its longevity since no significant hardware advances will occur until a new platform is developed.
"And, equally importantly, which companies could look their communities in the eye after selling to Microsoft?"
If "looking their communities in the eye" is a major concern, than these companies aren't really serious about being a business. Any company that has enough value to be acquired probably has already gone beyond the "kumbaya" stage of OSS.
"How would OpenOffice's theoretical astroturfers be paid?"
Well, I was pointing out the absurdity of such claims, not supporting them. Nevertheless, Sun could certainly afford to do it. IBM also likes to support most anti-MS projects. Also when you are part of a "movement" such as F/OSS, you could get "paid" by receiving approval from your peers.
Again, I don't believe this is happening, but you could make just about as good a case for OpenOffice astroturfers as you could for MS Office ones.
"Personally, the bubble made it possible for me to own my own home at a time in my life when most people my age were living in 1-bedroom roach motels, or worse, with their parents. I'm thankful for that. But when the bubble burst, it took with it my dreams of having a private jet or something, and I was left with a job that pays really well doing something I like."
I remember reading a story long ago about one of the guys who left Atari to form Activision. At the start of the story he was going through the planning for his megahouse with indoor basketball court etc. He was a multimillionaire on paper because of his ownership share of Activision, but he couldn't sell his stock until a certain amount of time had passed. Then the video game crash occurred and he watched the value of his stock drop and drop and drop. At each point he had to scale down his plans. Finally he realized that he was going to have to work for a living after all.
This story resonated with my friends and I because we too were victims of the video game crash although we were never in any danger of becoming rich.
So sorry, Rob, it's just a matter of luck and timing.
They got a remedy that was appropriate for what they focused on in the case. The primary theory that the DoJ case was based on was already proven wrong before the case was decided: the idea that MS's behavior toward Netscape would result in MS dominating the Internet the way it dominated the desktop. It never happened.
The other theory was that if MS hadn't messed with it, Java would have been a major alternative platform to Windows. We know now that theory was probably wrong too given the tepid interest developers have for desktop Java applications. Most of Java's problems were Sun's own fault.
The case was over and the DoJ won. The idea that the DoJ is going to investigate MS forever is just wishfull thinking.
Besides the primary outcome of the case was that AOL, Sun, Real etc got their payday. It just turned out that the fate of the Netscape browser and the Java language on Windows really had little to do with the consumer.
The only significant issue was the agreements with OEMs and the remedy came to late to make much difference.
"Japan's car and electronic industries were nurtured on their domestic markets, when US imports were restricted or much more expensive. "
There's some truth in that, but it doesn't explain everything. Remember that US car makers insisted on selling cars to Japan with the steering wheel on the left. US electronics companies had become lazy and non-innovative and gave up at the first sign of real competition.
"Software can be dumped at virtually zero price to retain market share, as Microsoft is doing in some third-world countries now."
Given that Linux is available world-wide at zero cost, dumping Windows in emerging markets wouldn't be sufficient to sustain MS's market share.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that most commercial RDBMS weren't designed to follow the relational model, I don't think it's accurate to say that it provides a framework for understanding what a RDMBS is. It's a bit like saying that you can't perform simple arithmetic without a deep understanding of number theory.
The problem is that today's approach of software integration over software development means that you have to know a lot of different technologies to accomplish your goals. If today's "developers" had to understand all the technologies they use to the same depth as you suggest for database design, nothing would ever get finished.
I didn't see any margin of error on the survey, so it's probably not valid. I'm sure the 10% won't be asked the next time.
Sun seems to think that Java is owed a living. Remember how they tried to get the government to force MS to install it on Windows? If they were really serious about Java they would have sent out CDs like AOL used to do.
Offtopic prediction: If there's a Java 7, Java fans will be saying that it fixes Java performance - just like they say for every new version.
While Windows hasn't had to deal with the specific issues you mention, the diversity of hardware suppported by Windows has almost been much greater than those supported by the Mac. So I'd say that Windows still has it harder.
"Remember the last 'punishment' they gave MS for anti-trust violations? They forced MS to unbundle media player from XP. But the idiots didn't require MS to proportionally, or even at all, reduce the price of the stripped down XP. So MS sells two versions of XP in the EU - regular XP and stripped XP for the same price and no one buys the stripped-down XP. Doh! Big freaking homer doh!"
Well, you're half right. It was the unbundling idea itself that was stupid, not the price. This was a gift to Real and provided zero value to EU consumers and businesses.
In that way it was very much like the US antitrust effort - it was driven by and crafted to benefit specific MS competitors rather than consumers. The remedy was pretty much what the people behind the scenes wanted. Just because a company is anti-MS, doesn't mean it's pro-consumer or pro-FOSS. This is a lesson that many will learn when the real IBM rears its ugly head.
I don't see much difference between developers making choices I disagree with vs. business concerns driving choices I disagree with. It's not as if core Linux development has ever been a democracy of developers.
Well, as long as there is a strong alignment between Linux developers and users that model is OK. However, in the larger world of computer users, developer goals are unlikely to correspond to user needs. In that larger world, changes in Windows have a greater potential to be useful to users simply because there's more motivation to cater to paying customers.
"But only if they got the work _directly_ from the original author. In a worst case scanario the original author may have given up distributing his own work, and only proprietary middlemen left, so a new user has no way to obtain the original free code but only the proprietary modifications"
This is a very contrived scenario. What if it were released under the GPL and only non-distributing parties had a copy? Or what if nobody ever bothered to pick up the GPL'd code in the first place and the original author no longer distributed it? I don't think there's really any difference here between BSD and GPL with respect to the ability to get a copy of the original work.
"There is a value. It's the same reason we use DirectX or OpenGL -- an API hides away the dirty details of a specific hardware platform."
If there is only a single hardware platform there is no need to hide anything.
"If they can optimize the middleware (which they might be able to do a better job than you, depending), then there's no real penalty to it."
Perhaps you don't fully understand the idea of optimization. Given the same skill set and effort, a custom solution is always going to be superior to a general one. If the general solution is also generic, the difference is just that much greater. We can debate how much the difference matters, but they will always be a trade-off involved.
"GTA: Vice City, Tony Hawk Underground, Gauntlet: Seven Sorrows were all written to different platforms by using middleware. It's hardly a controversial topic. Middleware is very, very common."
I'm not suggesting that middleware is controversial or uncommon, only that it is sub-optimal. The greater the number of targets and the longer the standard exists, the more sub-optimal it will be relative to creating new hardware platforms with advanced capabilities.
The only effective difference between your scheme and a standard hardware platform would be that the former would have lower performance. If ultimatly everybody is limited to the same set of capabilities, there's no value of having a middle layer written by a "middle-man".
If a generic API worked worked perfectly (and in practice, they seldom do) it would be purely a legacy strategy that allowed game developers to write games that target "worst of breed" in each functional category out of a collection of target consoles. Often the games would be less capable than those that the weakest single hardware console could support.
From the point of view of development cost, the value of a standard platform is proportional to how long it remains the standard to develop for. On the other hand, from a hard-core gamer's perspective, the value is inversely proportional to its longevity since no significant hardware advances will occur until a new platform is developed.
"And, equally importantly, which companies could look their communities in the eye after selling to Microsoft?"
If "looking their communities in the eye" is a major concern, than these companies aren't really serious about being a business. Any company that has enough value to be acquired probably has already gone beyond the "kumbaya" stage of OSS.
The idea that everyone with a public service job is taking advantage of the public is nonsense.
"How would OpenOffice's theoretical astroturfers be paid?"
Well, I was pointing out the absurdity of such claims, not supporting them. Nevertheless, Sun could certainly afford to do it. IBM also likes to support most anti-MS projects. Also when you are part of a "movement" such as F/OSS, you could get "paid" by receiving approval from your peers.
Again, I don't believe this is happening, but you could make just about as good a case for OpenOffice astroturfers as you could for MS Office ones.
It's nice to know that even a great writer like Heinlein is still capable of saying something stupid.
Sure, because Bill Gates is personally responsible for the patent system so any indirect evil done because of them is his fault.
"How much do you guys get paid to post these?"
So you disagree. Should we assume that you get paid to praise OpenOffice?
"Personally, the bubble made it possible for me to own my own home at a time in my life when most people my age were living in 1-bedroom roach motels, or worse, with their parents. I'm thankful for that. But when the bubble burst, it took with it my dreams of having a private jet or something, and I was left with a job that pays really well doing something I like."
I remember reading a story long ago about one of the guys who left Atari to form Activision. At the start of the story he was going through the planning for his megahouse with indoor basketball court etc. He was a multimillionaire on paper because of his ownership share of Activision, but he couldn't sell his stock until a certain amount of time had passed. Then the video game crash occurred and he watched the value of his stock drop and drop and drop. At each point he had to scale down his plans. Finally he realized that he was going to have to work for a living after all.
This story resonated with my friends and I because we too were victims of the video game crash although we were never in any danger of becoming rich.
So sorry, Rob, it's just a matter of luck and timing.
"I can't imagine IBM, Oracle, HP and all the F-500 companies that use Linux allowing it to disappear or be damaged."
I'd hate to think that the issue can be decided by these companies. There is this idea of due process you know.
Yes, and other paid employees live in the same state as those ex-MicroSofties, so naturally there must be a vast MS conspiracy at work here.
They got a remedy that was appropriate for what they focused on in the case. The primary theory that the DoJ case was based on was already proven wrong before the case was decided: the idea that MS's behavior toward Netscape would result in MS dominating the Internet the way it dominated the desktop. It never happened.
The other theory was that if MS hadn't messed with it, Java would have been a major alternative platform to Windows. We know now that theory was probably wrong too given the tepid interest developers have for desktop Java applications. Most of Java's problems were Sun's own fault.
The case was over and the DoJ won. The idea that the DoJ is going to investigate MS forever is just wishfull thinking.
Besides the primary outcome of the case was that AOL, Sun, Real etc got their payday. It just turned out that the fate of the Netscape browser and the Java language on Windows really had little to do with the consumer.
The only significant issue was the agreements with OEMs and the remedy came to late to make much difference.
So you mean all the people using Linux without buying a distro are going to use their clout as non-paying customers to not buy Linspire too?
"Japan's car and electronic industries were nurtured on their domestic markets, when US imports were restricted or much more expensive. "
There's some truth in that, but it doesn't explain everything. Remember that US car makers insisted on selling cars to Japan with the steering wheel on the left. US electronics companies had become lazy and non-innovative and gave up at the first sign of real competition.
"Software can be dumped at virtually zero price to retain market share, as Microsoft is doing in some third-world countries now."
Given that Linux is available world-wide at zero cost, dumping Windows in emerging markets wouldn't be sufficient to sustain MS's market share.