It doesn't sound to me like you're really doing contract work. Do you have a contract with the company saying they're going to pay you X dollars a month for unlimited work? It sounds like the company has hired you as an employee but is pretending you're a contractor to avoid paying you benefits. The IRS may consider you an employee for tax purposes, I'd check into this with a tax accountant if I were you.
"It is true I believe that without the lawsuit MS Java would have become what the CLR and C# are now (and we would not even have the JCP), but the lawsuit was not the cause - loosing developers was the primary thing that scared them enough to develop thier own Java."
So, you agree that without the lawsuit there would not have been a CLR or C#. So what part of.NET is left? Passport?
"As others have posted, Apple did not 'rip-off' anything from Xerox. MS was the copycat who didn't ask."
Well, that's the Apple spin on history. Xerox actually sued Apple over their GUI, so it's clear that they didn't believe they gave them permission to use it.
What! What I heard when I was at Xerox was that they were going to sue Apple but waited too long. I could be wrong, do you have a reference to back up your claim?
I disagree that a JCP version of Java would be considered a standard over a Sun version, but we'll have to wait and see if it ever comes up.
I think that.NET is a reaction to Sun's litigation over Java, not a reaction to Java itself. Had Sun not sued MS, MS would be continuing to support Java and would contiue to add functionality that made it more useful for Windows. MS's version of Java was really the best way to perform COM programming.
If Sun had left MS alone, Java would be a lot more widely used then it is now. Regardless of what the judge decides, Windows programmers having been burned by Sun, will continue to avoid Java like the plague.
I was a bit sloppy. I should have said that the judge knows less about software development issues, not just programming.
The question is if Sun is not in control of Java, why should they have standing to sue MS? They have the standing because they own Java 100% and have full control of it. If Sun decided to abandon the JCP I doubt that any legal action could be taken to stop them. If there is any legal action the JCP members could take, I'd like to know what it is.
I guess you failed to see any humor in my comment.
I'm sure that most Federal Court judges are quite smart but if you are arguing that they understand these issues better than we do I don't buy it. Likewise, although many Slashdot posters act like they are experts on the law, even a mediocre judge probably understands it a lot better.
As for your 25 year coast, sorry you didn't learn anything important. Perhaps your company should replace you with a cheaper new grad since you value your experience so little.
Actually, MS was the best thing that evey happened to Java. If MS had just ignored it, it would have died a long time ago.
On the other hand, Sun would probably have argued that MS was abusing their monopoly by not including Java.
Or if MS hadn't altered Java to make it work better with Windows, Sun would probably have complained that MS wasn't treating it as full-fledged language since it didn't work as well on Windows as VC++ or VB.
I think Sun's strategy was to fight with MS, even if it wasn't good for Sun's bottom line.
"Monopolies are required by law to play by different rules."
Yes, and those rules, as far as Slashdot posters are concerned, are infinitely restrictive. In the real world, however, the restrictions won't end up being all that great. I suspect the injunction will be reversed before any changes are made to MS's products. Keep in mind that this exact remedy was rejected in the antitrust case given the same set of facts.
As I and others have pointed out on many occasions on Slashdot, the case against MS was a civil one and thus MS was not "convicted" of anything. This might not change the core of your argument, but by using the word "convicted" where it's not appropriate, you undermine your credibility.
Well, I hope this injunction (if it stands, which I doubt) satisfies Scott McNealy's ego because it won't help Java and it won't help Sun's bottom line.
The problem with crafting an invalid argument to fight MS is that a judge might believe it and give you a remedy that is equally flawed. Since MS is not at fault for Java's problems, making them carry Sun's version won't change anything.
Is there an "Old Rusty Hammer" antipattern? People who have been using the same tired tools for years tend to look at all new problems as if the old tool can solve them.
Seriously, the key is using an appropriate tool. It doesn't matter if the tool is old or new.
So I guess you claim that Slashdot is Unix turf. Perhaps unoffically it is. I would suggest that if you want to be left alone, you should simply talk about Unix and it's various clones and leave Amiga, Be, Windows etc out of the conversation.
Linux has become the latest anti-Windows thing (after Java failed in the previous jihad). You'd think that there was nothing to say about Linux without comparing it to Windows.
I couldn't care less if Linux is standardized as long as I don't get stuck having to use it.
"Doesn't this sound like the original GUI idea in Xerox Star (from the 1970's)?"
It doesn't sound like the Star (Dandelion) I used. Most of the applications were separate although you could mix text and graphics in a single document. Of course, there was no color involved, so it was a lot simpler. I don't remember a spreadsheet although there may have been one.
Actually, its often the quality of the analysis that is the root of the problem. Incomplete or incorrect requirements are common.
What you say about programmers could also be said of analysts: No two perform their analysis exactly the same way or come to exactly the same conclusions. But uniformity is neither sufficient nor necessary to guarantee a good result.
The fact is that creating a good software application is hard - way to hard for a machine to perform given the current state-of-the-art.
Perhaps if you redescribed your Project4 example from strictly a user's point of view it would be clearer whether it's a better method or not. If what you described IS what the user is doing, than I think it's too complicated for the vast majority of users who can't program their VCR's. I'd avoid using the term "interface" with users, you won't be able to explain it to them.
"Now granted, the apps on a PDA are much simpler than those on a desktop machine, but the concept is still good."
Scale matters. Many good models based on narrow functionality break down when more general functionality is required. Remember all the talk of making software as easy to use as a toaster? Well, you can do it easily as long as the functionality only requires a slider control and a start button. You can't even make a radio as easy to use as a toaster.
Names are actually very useful. Imagine if the phone book were organized the way you suggest. Instead of looking the name up alphabetically, you would have to remember specific characteristics of the person: height, weight, religion whatever. You would have to be sure you had a unique combination or wade through a potentially long list of candidates.
Of course many operating systems including Windows offer at least part of what you're suggesting, but as a secondary option, not to replace filenames which is still the most powerful method for most people to find files.
they should learn to light their subjects better. Some of them look like they must be in the witness protection program. My videos have the same problem.
"GUI operations are essentially impossible to script."
I'm not sure what they mean by "essentially", but scripting for most GUIs in MS Windows is quite possible. Using Rational's Visual Test you can automate the process of manipulating GUI objects like menus, buttons, checkboxes, etc without having access to source. There are other products that can do the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't sound to me like you're really doing contract work. Do you have a contract with the company saying they're going to pay you X dollars a month for unlimited work? It sounds like the company has hired you as an employee but is pretending you're a contractor to avoid paying you benefits. The IRS may consider you an employee for tax purposes, I'd check into this with a tax accountant if I were you.
"It is true I believe that without the lawsuit MS Java would have become what the CLR and C# are now (and we would not even have the JCP), but the lawsuit was not the cause - loosing developers was the primary thing that scared them enough to develop thier own Java."
.NET is left? Passport?
So, you agree that without the lawsuit there would not have been a CLR or C#. So what part of
"As others have posted, Apple did not 'rip-off' anything from Xerox. MS was the copycat who didn't ask."
Well, that's the Apple spin on history. Xerox actually sued Apple over their GUI, so it's clear that they didn't believe they gave them permission to use it.
"Apple licensed stuff from Xerox"
What! What I heard when I was at Xerox was that they were going to sue Apple but waited too long. I could be wrong, do you have a reference to back up your claim?
Wow. This is one case where a poster really needs his good Karma.
I disagree that a JCP version of Java would be considered a standard over a Sun version, but we'll have to wait and see if it ever comes up.
.NET is a reaction to Sun's litigation over Java, not a reaction to Java itself. Had Sun not sued MS, MS would be continuing to support Java and would contiue to add functionality that made it more useful for Windows. MS's version of Java was really the best way to perform COM programming.
I think that
If Sun had left MS alone, Java would be a lot more widely used then it is now. Regardless of what the judge decides, Windows programmers having been burned by Sun, will continue to avoid Java like the plague.
I was a bit sloppy. I should have said that the judge knows less about software development issues, not just programming.
The question is if Sun is not in control of Java, why should they have standing to sue MS? They have the standing because they own Java 100% and have full control of it. If Sun decided to abandon the JCP I doubt that any legal action could be taken to stop them. If there is any legal action the JCP members could take, I'd like to know what it is.
I guess you failed to see any humor in my comment.
I'm sure that most Federal Court judges are quite smart but if you are arguing that they understand these issues better than we do I don't buy it. Likewise, although many Slashdot posters act like they are experts on the law, even a mediocre judge probably understands it a lot better.
As for your 25 year coast, sorry you didn't learn anything important. Perhaps your company should replace you with a cheaper new grad since you value your experience so little.
Yes, I'm sure that this judge knows more about programming then most of us here. After all we know more about law then he does, right?
Actually, MS was the best thing that evey happened to Java. If MS had just ignored it, it would have died a long time ago.
On the other hand, Sun would probably have argued that MS was abusing their monopoly by not including Java.
Or if MS hadn't altered Java to make it work better with Windows, Sun would probably have complained that MS wasn't treating it as full-fledged language since it didn't work as well on Windows as VC++ or VB.
I think Sun's strategy was to fight with MS, even if it wasn't good for Sun's bottom line.
"Monopolies are required by law to play by different rules."
Yes, and those rules, as far as Slashdot posters are concerned, are infinitely restrictive. In the real world, however, the restrictions won't end up being all that great. I suspect the injunction will be reversed before any changes are made to MS's products. Keep in mind that this exact remedy was rejected in the antitrust case given the same set of facts.
"They are a conviceted Monopolist"
As I and others have pointed out on many occasions on Slashdot, the case against MS was a civil one and thus MS was not "convicted" of anything. This might not change the core of your argument, but by using the word "convicted" where it's not appropriate, you undermine your credibility.
Sorry, guy, but MS is not a criminal corporation, fucking or otherwise.
Well, I hope this injunction (if it stands, which I doubt) satisfies Scott McNealy's ego because it won't help Java and it won't help Sun's bottom line.
The problem with crafting an invalid argument to fight MS is that a judge might believe it and give you a remedy that is equally flawed. Since MS is not at fault for Java's problems, making them carry Sun's version won't change anything.
Is there an "Old Rusty Hammer" antipattern? People who have been using the same tired tools for years tend to look at all new problems as if the old tool can solve them.
Seriously, the key is using an appropriate tool. It doesn't matter if the tool is old or new.
So I guess you claim that Slashdot is Unix turf. Perhaps unoffically it is. I would suggest that if you want to be left alone, you should simply talk about Unix and it's various clones and leave Amiga, Be, Windows etc out of the conversation.
Linux has become the latest anti-Windows thing (after Java failed in the previous jihad). You'd think that there was nothing to say about Linux without comparing it to Windows.
I couldn't care less if Linux is standardized as long as I don't get stuck having to use it.
"Doesn't this sound like the original GUI idea in Xerox Star (from the 1970's)?"
It doesn't sound like the Star (Dandelion) I used. Most of the applications were separate although you could mix text and graphics in a single document. Of course, there was no color involved, so it was a lot simpler. I don't remember a spreadsheet although there may have been one.
Actually, its often the quality of the analysis that is the root of the problem. Incomplete or incorrect requirements are common.
What you say about programmers could also be said of analysts: No two perform their analysis exactly the same way or come to exactly the same conclusions. But uniformity is neither sufficient nor necessary to guarantee a good result.
The fact is that creating a good software application is hard - way to hard for a machine to perform given the current state-of-the-art.
Perhaps if you redescribed your Project4 example from strictly a user's point of view it would be clearer whether it's a better method or not. If what you described IS what the user is doing, than I think it's too complicated for the vast majority of users who can't program their VCR's. I'd avoid using the term "interface" with users, you won't be able to explain it to them.
I can see I did misunderstand you. I thought you were suggesting methods to be used by end-users, not programmers.
"Now granted, the apps on a PDA are much simpler than those on a desktop machine, but the concept is still good."
Scale matters. Many good models based on narrow functionality break down when more general functionality is required. Remember all the talk of making software as easy to use as a toaster? Well, you can do it easily as long as the functionality only requires a slider control and a start button. You can't even make a radio as easy to use as a toaster.
Names are actually very useful. Imagine if the phone book were organized the way you suggest. Instead of looking the name up alphabetically, you would have to remember specific characteristics of the person: height, weight, religion whatever. You would have to be sure you had a unique combination or wade through a potentially long list of candidates.
Of course many operating systems including Windows offer at least part of what you're suggesting, but as a secondary option, not to replace filenames which is still the most powerful method for most people to find files.
they should learn to light their subjects better. Some of them look like they must be in the witness protection program. My videos have the same problem.
Perhaps he's just upset because they didn't call it Janotechnology.
"GUI operations are essentially impossible to script."
I'm not sure what they mean by "essentially", but scripting for most GUIs in MS Windows is quite possible. Using Rational's Visual Test you can automate the process of manipulating GUI objects like menus, buttons, checkboxes, etc without having access to source. There are other products that can do the same thing.