Well, I agree that I was too quick to place compromise in the exact middle, but the main point is that the truth has nothing to do with our perception of how moderate or extreme a belief is. Thus compromise (wherever it may reside within the range) is not more likely to correspond to reality than any other point.
"NASA isn't six-sigma as there are only a few companies in the world that can achieve that kind of quality."
So which companies are six-sigma and what do they produce? IMHO any software "quality" standard that certifies companies rather than products is inherently flawed.
Dvorak is a LOT more efficient than QWERTY. Try to get a 200 wpm net score (-10 wpm for each error) on QWERTY.
Having said that, it's not too relevant for writing code. Unless of course you're a mythical super programmer that produces 100X as much code as the average programmer. Then you need all the help you can get to produce 100 lines of code in the time it takes the average guy to produce 1.
So, since when is 48% considered "peanuts"? The fact that a large percentage of the revenue is driven by services doesn't change the numbers, it merely suggests that services are stealth marketing activities. Customers will probably figure this out eventually and find more objective service vendors.
I suspect that the risk factors would be inverted if the front-line implementors were surveyed instead of managers.
Note that those items that managers feel the most comfort changing are considered the highest risk. It's a lot easier to change the methodology than to hang tough on requirements or to say no to features that might increase complexity.
"They still sell hardware and software, but the money they make off of that is peanuts compared to what they make selling you CONSULTANTS to come in and put all the pieces together for you."
Do you have the financial statements to back up this claim? "Peanuts" suggests a factor of about 100 to 1. Given that IBM consultants are often setting up proprietary IBM hardware and software, I doubt this is true.
IBM has been inconsequential since the release of the PS/2 and grows more so each day.
Having said that IBM's support of open/free source is primarily a marketing tool. IBM hasn't converted any of its money-making closed source applications to OSS and shows no sign of doing so in the foreseeable future.
Look at Rational Visual Test for example. Since Rational was purchased by IBM, they've discontinued the product, won't let you buy a license, and won't open the source. All of this to protect the profits of the much more expensive closed source Rational Robot. So not only won't IBM open the source for a profitable product, they won't even open the source for a product that competes with it.
One man's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter".
I certainly don't buy into the idea that civilians killed by a legitimate army are less dead then those killed by suicide bombers. From the point of view of surviving family members, there's no difference between these acts.
I suspect that even randomly chosing candidates among those that have the stated qualifications is about as effective as any other technique. If you've looked at the combination of qualifications that most companies have for programming positions these days, you'll see that only about 10% of the candidates have them all anyway.
Well, that seems to be a highly inefficient method for placement. How about advertising the positions available and let the applicant make their own choices?
In any case, I think most companies use this process to weed people out rather than for placement purposes.
These extreme interview processes are just meaningless rigor. There's still no way to guarantee that a candidate will be a good employee no matter what hurdles he/she makes it through. Google is either not as scientifically astute as it thinks it is, or is doing this as a PR stunt.
"On linux you can remove interrupts from the kernel if your app only needs polling. Stuff like that will never be possible with a closed source solution."
Actually, closed source real-time OS's have allowed that kind of stuff for years.
Well, I think your definition of "diskless" is too restrictive. It's OK to have RAM but not flash? I'll bet there aren't any Network Computers without flash or ROM.
If you meant a "Network Computer" you should have said that instead of "diskless".
I agree. "Convergence" is the real flop. The problem is that the ergonomics are all wrong. Computers are best used at a desk with the user close to the monitor. Entertainment devices are best viewed from the couch.
I understand your point, but I think you're illustrating the Unix cultural conceit that geeks are all pro-Unix and anti-MS. There are significant threads of geekdom (if that's a word) that owe nothing to Unix (or MS for that matter).
All class actions suits are a scam and the MS settlement is quite typical. It's always about lawyers making a lot of money, not about consumer's rights. Slashdotters should not have assumed that this suite was meaningful or that it would have any substantial negative impact on MS.
With such informed individuals as those at your link stating that there is no exception, it's no doubt true.
In general, however, one has to be careful not to confuse an informed opinion on a contract (including the opinion of the author) with a legal opinion. For example, RMS's personal interpretation of the GPL wouldn't be relevent in court, the contract has to stand on its own. If you've ever gone to court with your landlord over the terms of a rental agreement, you know why this is so.
I guess your argument is supposed to be self-evident from your quote.
I wasn't suggesting that you need a license to run a GPL'd program, just that the GPL is a license and you have to agree to it to legally take advantage of the benefits just as a EULA is a license and you have to agree to it to be able to legally take advantage of its benefits. The fact that those benefits are not the same is irrelvent to the principle involved, a contract.
Gee, reading a contract and having to agree to its terms before being able to use a product or service, what a novel concept.
If you want to be able to legally use the product without living by the terms you agreed to, you're SOL. Isn't this the same legal concept that the GPL uses to prevent distributions of derivative works without the source?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I agree that I was too quick to place compromise in the exact middle, but the main point is that the truth has nothing to do with our perception of how moderate or extreme a belief is. Thus compromise (wherever it may reside within the range) is not more likely to correspond to reality than any other point.
This assumes that the truth is always in the perceived "middle". A compromise has no greater probability of being true than an "extreme" position.
I've never bought into this Marketing argument. MS's marketing has about as much dazzle as Bill Gates' personality.
On the other hand, look at Apple. Jobs is charismatic and a master media manipulator.
If marketing was the key factor, Apple would be the one with the 90% market share instead of MS.
"NASA isn't six-sigma as there are only a few companies in the world that can achieve that kind of quality."
So which companies are six-sigma and what do they produce? IMHO any software "quality" standard that certifies companies rather than products is inherently flawed.
Dvorak is a LOT more efficient than QWERTY. Try to get a 200 wpm net score (-10 wpm for each error) on QWERTY.
Having said that, it's not too relevant for writing code. Unless of course you're a mythical super programmer that produces 100X as much code as the average programmer. Then you need all the help you can get to produce 100 lines of code in the time it takes the average guy to produce 1.
I guess I haven't been watching FOP with as much concentration as you do - I missed the Bill Gates references.
For some reason I hear Cosmo from "Fairly Odd Parents" saying "Yeah, but it runs linux!". That's what happens when you watch TV with a 4 year old.
So, since when is 48% considered "peanuts"? The fact that a large percentage of the revenue is driven by services doesn't change the numbers, it merely suggests that services are stealth marketing activities. Customers will probably figure this out eventually and find more objective service vendors.
I suspect that the risk factors would be inverted if the front-line implementors were surveyed instead of managers.
Note that those items that managers feel the most comfort changing are considered the highest risk. It's a lot easier to change the methodology than to hang tough on requirements or to say no to features that might increase complexity.
"sorry but open source existed WAY before closed source"
What do you base that claim on? What is the earliest year you claim that open source was available?
"They still sell hardware and software, but the money they make off of that is peanuts compared to what they make selling you CONSULTANTS to come in and put all the pieces together for you."
Do you have the financial statements to back up this claim? "Peanuts" suggests a factor of about 100 to 1. Given that IBM consultants are often setting up proprietary IBM hardware and software, I doubt this is true.
IBM has been inconsequential since the release of the PS/2 and grows more so each day.
Having said that IBM's support of open/free source is primarily a marketing tool. IBM hasn't converted any of its money-making closed source applications to OSS and shows no sign of doing so in the foreseeable future.
Look at Rational Visual Test for example. Since Rational was purchased by IBM, they've discontinued the product, won't let you buy a license, and won't open the source. All of this to protect the profits of the much more expensive closed source Rational Robot. So not only won't IBM open the source for a profitable product, they won't even open the source for a product that competes with it.
One man's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter".
I certainly don't buy into the idea that civilians killed by a legitimate army are less dead then those killed by suicide bombers. From the point of view of surviving family members, there's no difference between these acts.
I suspect that even randomly chosing candidates among those that have the stated qualifications is about as effective as any other technique. If you've looked at the combination of qualifications that most companies have for programming positions these days, you'll see that only about 10% of the candidates have them all anyway.
Well, that seems to be a highly inefficient method for placement. How about advertising the positions available and let the applicant make their own choices?
In any case, I think most companies use this process to weed people out rather than for placement purposes.
These extreme interview processes are just meaningless rigor. There's still no way to guarantee that a candidate will be a good employee no matter what hurdles he/she makes it through. Google is either not as scientifically astute as it thinks it is, or is doing this as a PR stunt.
"On linux you can remove interrupts from the kernel if your app only needs polling. Stuff like that will never be possible with a closed source solution."
Actually, closed source real-time OS's have allowed that kind of stuff for years.
Well, I think your definition of "diskless" is too restrictive. It's OK to have RAM but not flash? I'll bet there aren't any Network Computers without flash or ROM.
If you meant a "Network Computer" you should have said that instead of "diskless".
I agree. "Convergence" is the real flop. The problem is that the ergonomics are all wrong. Computers are best used at a desk with the user close to the monitor. Entertainment devices are best viewed from the couch.
I understand your point, but I think you're illustrating the Unix cultural conceit that geeks are all pro-Unix and anti-MS. There are significant threads of geekdom (if that's a word) that owe nothing to Unix (or MS for that matter).
All class actions suits are a scam and the MS settlement is quite typical. It's always about lawyers making a lot of money, not about consumer's rights. Slashdotters should not have assumed that this suite was meaningful or that it would have any substantial negative impact on MS.
Thus my comment "it's no doubt true".
With such informed individuals as those at your link stating that there is no exception, it's no doubt true.
In general, however, one has to be careful not to confuse an informed opinion on a contract (including the opinion of the author) with a legal opinion. For example, RMS's personal interpretation of the GPL wouldn't be relevent in court, the contract has to stand on its own. If you've ever gone to court with your landlord over the terms of a rental agreement, you know why this is so.
I guess your argument is supposed to be self-evident from your quote.
I wasn't suggesting that you need a license to run a GPL'd program, just that the GPL is a license and you have to agree to it to legally take advantage of the benefits just as a EULA is a license and you have to agree to it to be able to legally take advantage of its benefits. The fact that those benefits are not the same is irrelvent to the principle involved, a contract.
Gee, reading a contract and having to agree to its terms before being able to use a product or service, what a novel concept.
If you want to be able to legally use the product without living by the terms you agreed to, you're SOL. Isn't this the same legal concept that the GPL uses to prevent distributions of derivative works without the source?