You sound like you might be the ideal candidate for F/OSS contributions. A boring but well paid and stable job along with an interest in more cutting edge development.
Imagine implementing MS Office or Open Office using a hardware based state machine. I think you'd find that maintenance would be the least of your problems.
It's about how flexible the system will be when you have to change it. And you will -- that's the whole point of software, that it is soft, and changeable."
Not entirely. Software allowed one to perform functions that were not practical to do in hardware.
In a lot of environments in-house web apps would only serve the purpose of being trendy. I suspect a company who is smart enough to keep their working code around would probably resist the temptation of unnecessary "webizing" their internal apps.
I don't have the reference handy, but I've seen a quote from Wine's leader stating that it's not their goal to run every Win32 program.
If they really were fully targeting the Win32 API their goals would logically be measured by percent of API implemented rather than based on which programs run under the current Win32 subset.
If MS's "monopoly" is really the cause of every "Linux on the desktop" setback then you might as well give up because MS's market share isn't going to go down if Linux can't grow.
Rather than use the monopoly excuse, Linux fans should figure out the specific reason for the setback and try to address it.
Or you could just sit on your hands for another 10 years and say it's all MS's fault.
As I'm sure you are aware the "governments money" is short for the money collected in taxes. The fact that the money once belonged to taxpayers is obvious, but isn't relevant to the issue being discussed - how that money is spent.
Without taxes it's true that nobody would be on welfare, but it would also be true that you'd have nobody to call if somebody was trying to break into your house or if your bank walked away with your money.
So, other than helping citizens of the country, what pray tell, should the government do with its money? Spend it on dropping bombs on civilians in other countries? Foreign aid for dictatorships that favor American corporations?
Taxes in my view should be based on the power of money. Thus we shouldn't all pay the same amount, because the power of money is not a constant. We shouldn't pay the same percentage because the power of money is not linear.
In the 21st century we should get rid of the paper tax tables and have closer to a contiguous range of tax rates based on income.
You make a nice salary but you're not really in the category people are talking about. The question is whether CEOS that make 100x times your salary are really hard workers.
Most people are paid to produce something from natural resources that is basically unnecessary which the company advertises to convince people they need.
Then other people who also produce unnecessary stuff use the money they earn to buy it. Thus fundamentally worthless stuff is exchanged.
Some people use the money they get from making useless stuff to start their own company in the hopes that they can create new worthless stuff they can get others to buy. These people are called Entrepreneurs.
"It can't be that they actually have worked harder, its some flaw in the system that they exploited to make tons of money while holding you down."
Right. It's not as if CEOs of one company are on the compensation committee of another company along with other members that are on the compensation committee of the original CEO's company with the effect that the CEO "club" really sets its own salaries. Oh wait..
Given the pitiful percentage we pay for a social safety net in the US compared to most other industrialized democracies, it barely qualifies as a Welfare Hood let alone a Welfare State.
Slashdot Mirror
You sound like you might be the ideal candidate for F/OSS contributions. A boring but well paid and stable job along with an interest in more cutting edge development.
Perhaps, but then again, consider the propagation delay of all those gates.
Imagine implementing MS Office or Open Office using a hardware based state machine. I think you'd find that maintenance would be the least of your problems.
They've been saying the same thing about Smalltalk for years, but yet, it doesn't seem to actually happen.
Now you see why IBM embraces Java.
Get off my blue box!
Not exactly. You have to wait 30 years until the Java herd is thinned-out.
It's about how flexible the system will be when you have to change it. And you will -- that's the whole point of software, that it is soft, and changeable."
Not entirely. Software allowed one to perform functions that were not practical to do in hardware.
In a lot of environments in-house web apps would only serve the purpose of being trendy. I suspect a company who is smart enough to keep their working code around would probably resist the temptation of unnecessary "webizing" their internal apps.
I don't have the reference handy, but I've seen a quote from Wine's leader stating that it's not their goal to run every Win32 program.
If they really were fully targeting the Win32 API their goals would logically be measured by percent of API implemented rather than based on which programs run under the current Win32 subset.
If MS's "monopoly" is really the cause of every "Linux on the desktop" setback then you might as well give up because MS's market share isn't going to go down if Linux can't grow.
Rather than use the monopoly excuse, Linux fans should figure out the specific reason for the setback and try to address it.
Or you could just sit on your hands for another 10 years and say it's all MS's fault.
I hate to disappoint you, but the Wine project doesn't even have the goal of being able to run any Win32 program.
Wine development is driven by the desire to get specific applications to run on it. Nothing more.
As I'm sure you are aware the "governments money" is short for the money collected in taxes. The fact that the money once belonged to taxpayers is obvious, but isn't relevant to the issue being discussed - how that money is spent.
Without taxes it's true that nobody would be on welfare, but it would also be true that you'd have nobody to call if somebody was trying to break into your house or if your bank walked away with your money.
So, other than helping citizens of the country, what pray tell, should the government do with its money? Spend it on dropping bombs on civilians in other countries? Foreign aid for dictatorships that favor American corporations?
Taxes in my view should be based on the power of money. Thus we shouldn't all pay the same amount, because the power of money is not a constant. We shouldn't pay the same percentage because the power of money is not linear.
In the 21st century we should get rid of the paper tax tables and have closer to a contiguous range of tax rates based on income.
You make a nice salary but you're not really in the category people are talking about. The question is whether CEOS that make 100x times your salary are really hard workers.
It's really "value" that is the illusion here.
Most people are paid to produce something from natural resources that is basically unnecessary which the company advertises to convince people they need.
Then other people who also produce unnecessary stuff use the money they earn to buy it. Thus fundamentally worthless stuff is exchanged.
Some people use the money they get from making useless stuff to start their own company in the hopes that they can create new worthless stuff they can get others to buy. These people are called Entrepreneurs.
Remember, the whole point of corporations is to avoid personal responsibility while enhancing the owners wealth.
"It can't be that they actually have worked harder, its some flaw in the system that they exploited to make tons of money while holding you down."
Right. It's not as if CEOs of one company are on the compensation committee of another company along with other members that are on the compensation committee of the original CEO's company with the effect that the CEO "club" really sets its own salaries. Oh wait..
Given the pitiful percentage we pay for a social safety net in the US compared to most other industrialized democracies, it barely qualifies as a Welfare Hood let alone a Welfare State.
"I'd rather not have had someone else's machine .. scratch up the disc"
Right. They might be using too heavy a needle.
I think you're confusing an illustrator with an artist. Even if you can draw well enough to make a photo quality image, it doesn't make you an artist.
You have a strange theory on how to optimize the artistic process, but the point is, it can't be done.
Congratulations, you've discovered the value of independent testing. Of course, the important question is: Did his buggy code use the proper style?
When you say "hardware and O/S" do you mean SPARC and Solaris? Aren't both of these on the decline?