It's absurd to compare MS to AT&T. When I was young, you simply couldn't make a phone call without Ma Bell. You couldn't even buy a phone, you had to rent it from the phone company.
Today you can buy a computer from many different vendors (none of them owned by MS) and many different OS's are available.
The point is that every environment has its requirements and Joel isn't forced to use.NET. I suspect that users that are still using Win9x at this late date are unlikely to spend a lot of money on new software. He'd be better off focusing his efforts on users that have demonstrated their interest in buying things like Windows 2000 and Windows XP users.
Exactly my point. IBM has no philosphical commitment to open source and will drop that support without hesitation if it negatively impacts the bottom line.
"The GPL is the only license many enterprises will consider releasing their erstwhile proprietary code under, as it protects them from having competitors snatch up their code and incorporate it into a competing proprietary product (in their view, competing GPLed products are not an issue, as they can reincorporate the best improvement into their GPLed product)."
I think the enterprises you refer to are few and far between. Any company that is concerned about their IP is likely to avoid releasing code under either license. The fact that competitors might contribute something useful under the GPL that they could take advantage of in the future is a gamble they aren't willing to take.
Look at IBM. While it's true that they are willing to embrace the GPL in the commodity market of Unixes through their support of Linux, you don't see them releasing code for any unique applications they directly derive revenue from. Why don't they release all the code they bought from Rational under the GPL?
So the solution to legal restrictions is another legal restriction? The fact is that programmers have shared code since the beginning. Not all code is covered by copyright, trade secrets, patents, or the GPL.
"When we say "run anywhere", we mean "anywhere that can run C++" or "anywhere that can run a VM". That's a given, right?"
So, we can just drop the word "anywhere" completely and just use the word "runs" and everyone will understand what we are taking about.
"I was just trying to say that "Write once, run anywhere" means two very different things for Java vs. Qt."
I agree with you. While the net result may be similiar they are substantial differences in how you get there. A JVM has to run on the target, while a compiler does not (obviously the output of the compilation does have to run on the target).
Re:Isn't It Ironic - Don't You Think?
on
More MyDoom Gloom
·
· Score: 1
"Fine, use PowerPoint for the presentation. But damn well save the slides as HTML, Acrobat, plain text, etc. for public downloading and consumption."
I completely disagree. The fact that PowerPoint was used is really a counter-argument and shouldn't be hidden. Diversity has it's value but it also has it's costs. If the goal is improvement, both sides of the argument need to be explored.
Embedded systems outnumber all other types of platforms both in their diversity and in total number of units and many of them suppport neither C++ nor Java.
In any case, the word "anywhere" means "anywhere" it doesn't mean 99.99% of systems. This is important because of the marketing hype and poor reporting of Java often described as a computer language that allows programs to run on any computer. This is not true and never will be.
If you have a family and mortage without a lot of money in the bank, 8$/hr can be a lot less than 0$/hr since you can't pay your bills with it and you could potentially make a lot more. You'd be better off using your time trying to find a job with pay to match your responsiblities.
You're right. For the moment IBM sees some advantage to be pro-Linux, but they're not really serious about being open. If they see in the future some business advantage to dropping Linux, they'll do it without hesitation.
If they really wanted to be open, they would offer a free license for all their software patents. The impact of that would be several orders of magnitude more significant than the impact of promoting Linux.
Could you accept and answer truthfully the same question asked by the candidate about yourself (if the candidate is going to work for you) or your company (what would your boss's reaction be if he found out what you said?) without holding it against the candidate? If not, then you are on your way to understanding why this is an inappropriate question.
If we actually "discovered" there were two children for the first time in Episode 3, that would be one thing, but we already know it, so there's little dramatic payoff there.
Lucas chose to make the films out of order, so he has to make them work dramatically in the order they are actually seen.
The problem is that Lucas wrote himself into a corner by deciding to make Luke's father Darth Vader (it's painfully obvious that this decision was made after episode 4 was filmed). This created a lot of inconsistencies that Episodes 1 and 2 only made worse. I don't see how episode 3 can possibly duct-tape the plot back together (unless dreaming or time-travel is involved).It also means that the finale of the current trilogy has to end on a downer. Who wants to see that?
Well, we mostly agree. I don't think, however, that IBM was really worried that anyone would stop buying their mainframes someday if they didn't run Linux. On the other hand, why not choose the version of Unix that is currently the most politically correct.
Actually, I don't think IBM cares about BSD vs. Linux as far as IP is concerned. They just knew that Linux had the momentum in its favor and they had to support some kind of Unix anyway so why not make points with the open source community?
Of course, they still maintain the largest collection of software patents on earth, but as long as they promote Linux, this fact will probably be ignored.
Obviously something that has been revealed is no longer a secret, but that doesn't mean someone can't be sued successfully for revealing the information.
Otherwise the whole purpose of having a trade secret would be circumvented and no companies would bother with it.
I haven't followed this case closely, but I doubt that any NDA's were violated. I suspect that that was the primary weakness of the case.
You bring up a good point. This porting of traditional code to resource-limited devices like cell phones (as in Embedded Linux, Embedded Java, Window CE, Perl) is a matter of branding and the hidebound nature of programmers.
If would be more efficient (and probably more cost effective in cases were large volumes are involved) to use an OS or language that was designed from the ground up to be small and efficient.
Slashdot Mirror
It's absurd to compare MS to AT&T. When I was young, you simply couldn't make a phone call without Ma Bell. You couldn't even buy a phone, you had to rent it from the phone company.
Today you can buy a computer from many different vendors (none of them owned by MS) and many different OS's are available.
The point is that every environment has its requirements and Joel isn't forced to use .NET. I suspect that users that are still using Win9x at this late date are unlikely to spend a lot of money on new software. He'd be better off focusing his efforts on users that have demonstrated their interest in buying things like Windows 2000 and Windows XP users.
Exactly my point. IBM has no philosphical commitment to open source and will drop that support without hesitation if it negatively impacts the bottom line.
"The GPL is the only license many enterprises will consider releasing their erstwhile proprietary code under, as it protects them from having competitors snatch up their code and incorporate it into a competing proprietary product (in their view, competing GPLed products are not an issue, as they can reincorporate the best improvement into their GPLed product)."
I think the enterprises you refer to are few and far between. Any company that is concerned about their IP is likely to avoid releasing code under either license. The fact that competitors might contribute something useful under the GPL that they could take advantage of in the future is a gamble they aren't willing to take.
Look at IBM. While it's true that they are willing to embrace the GPL in the commodity market of Unixes through their support of Linux, you don't see them releasing code for any unique applications they directly derive revenue from. Why don't they release all the code they bought from Rational under the GPL?
So the solution to legal restrictions is another legal restriction? The fact is that programmers have shared code since the beginning. Not all code is covered by copyright, trade secrets, patents, or the GPL.
"When we say "run anywhere", we mean "anywhere that can run C++" or "anywhere that can run a VM". That's a given, right?"
So, we can just drop the word "anywhere" completely and just use the word "runs" and everyone will understand what we are taking about.
"I was just trying to say that "Write once, run anywhere" means two very different things for Java vs. Qt."
I agree with you. While the net result may be similiar they are substantial differences in how you get there. A JVM has to run on the target, while a compiler does not (obviously the output of the compilation does have to run on the target).
Those "it's" should have been "its"!
"Fine, use PowerPoint for the presentation. But damn well save the slides as HTML, Acrobat, plain text, etc. for public downloading and consumption."
I completely disagree. The fact that PowerPoint was used is really a counter-argument and shouldn't be hidden. Diversity has it's value but it also has it's costs. If the goal is improvement, both sides of the argument need to be explored.
Embedded systems outnumber all other types of platforms both in their diversity and in total number of units and many of them suppport neither C++ nor Java.
In any case, the word "anywhere" means "anywhere" it doesn't mean 99.99% of systems. This is important because of the marketing hype and poor reporting of Java often described as a computer language that allows programs to run on any computer. This is not true and never will be.
Actually, for compiled languages it's "Write once, compile for the target platform if a compiler exists for it, run on the target platform"
Java is "Write once, and if a JVM exists on a particlar platform, run"
Note that the term "anywhere" is not appropriate for either case since there are many platforms that have neither a compiler nor a JVM.
If you have a family and mortage without a lot of money in the bank, 8$/hr can be a lot less than 0$/hr since you can't pay your bills with it and you could potentially make a lot more. You'd be better off using your time trying to find a job with pay to match your responsiblities.
The problem is you don't know what will piss them off now or in the future. So the chilling effect of the patents can be very real.
You're right. For the moment IBM sees some advantage to be pro-Linux, but they're not really serious about being open. If they see in the future some business advantage to dropping Linux, they'll do it without hesitation.
If they really wanted to be open, they would offer a free license for all their software patents. The impact of that would be several orders of magnitude more significant than the impact of promoting Linux.
Could you accept and answer truthfully the same question asked by the candidate about yourself (if the candidate is going to work for you) or your company (what would your boss's reaction be if he found out what you said?) without holding it against the candidate? If not, then you are on your way to understanding why this is an inappropriate question.
Oops. I didn't read your entire post before I responded and just ended up repeating your point. Sorry.
Actually, I see many job postings where they ask for some experience like the list above but then end with 0-3 years of experience required.
Sometimes I think the real purpose of such postings is to be able to show that they can't find any qualified people in the US.
Read the minds of the people who'll be reading your resume and write what they want.
Otherwise you'll have to rely on all the contradictory tips the "experts" give you.
If we actually "discovered" there were two children for the first time in Episode 3, that would be one thing, but we already know it, so there's little dramatic payoff there.
Lucas chose to make the films out of order, so he has to make them work dramatically in the order they are actually seen.
The problem is that Lucas wrote himself into a corner by deciding to make Luke's father Darth Vader (it's painfully obvious that this decision was made after episode 4 was filmed). This created a lot of inconsistencies that Episodes 1 and 2 only made worse. I don't see how episode 3 can possibly duct-tape the plot back together (unless dreaming or time-travel is involved).It also means that the finale of the current trilogy has to end on a downer. Who wants to see that?
Well, we mostly agree. I don't think, however, that IBM was really worried that anyone would stop buying their mainframes someday if they didn't run Linux. On the other hand, why not choose the version of Unix that is currently the most politically correct.
Actually, I don't think IBM cares about BSD vs. Linux as far as IP is concerned. They just knew that Linux had the momentum in its favor and they had to support some kind of Unix anyway so why not make points with the open source community?
Of course, they still maintain the largest collection of software patents on earth, but as long as they promote Linux, this fact will probably be ignored.
Obviously something that has been revealed is no longer a secret, but that doesn't mean someone can't be sued successfully for revealing the information.
Otherwise the whole purpose of having a trade secret would be circumvented and no companies would bother with it.
I haven't followed this case closely, but I doubt that any NDA's were violated. I suspect that that was the primary weakness of the case.
Ahh, Dijkstra. One of the giants of the gaming world.
"Linux has an infinite plethora of ways to solve peoples' problems, but peoples' problems -belong- to them, not the other way around."
That's a perfectly reasonable philosphical position to take, but if the Linux community follows it, Linux will never be mainstream on the desktop.
You bring up a good point. This porting of traditional code to resource-limited devices like cell phones (as in Embedded Linux, Embedded Java, Window CE, Perl) is a matter of branding and the hidebound nature of programmers.
If would be more efficient (and probably more cost effective in cases were large volumes are involved) to use an OS or language that was designed from the ground up to be small and efficient.