Now, why might this be a common behavior pattern?
You try out a new tool, you do the Dumbest Thing That Could Possibly Work, because you don't know any better.
You gather some experience, and you try out all of the gizmo features, to strut your stuff.
Once the 'new' wears off the gizmo features, you relax, and go back to the DTTCPW, because you're bored of the gizmos.
What's the difference?
When things go wrong, you know which of those gizmo features to trot out and fix the problem.
It's all about negotiating the learning curve, man. Rather like a plant that grows madly when planted, becomes overgrown, and requires a trimming to come back to a full, balanced maturity.
They just don't want to actually claim success since it was done illegally.
I doubt that any of the language in EULA-land allows for this to be legal.
Not that I've read the EULA, mind you. Rather a left-handed DOS attack, isn't it?
I had a switch on the wall that didn't do anything. So every now and then, I'd flip it up and down.
Then I got a letter from a woman in Germany, telling me: "Cut it out".
>If you bought an extended support contract, at the time of expiration, you get this for free.
Listen, bro: 'free' and 'MicroSoft' are mutually exclusive concepts.
Any appearance of 'free' is a bill on a delay line.
In fairness, for some, there may be a business case for the transaction, but let us curb our enthusiasm, bitte.
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2059 Almost everything happened in the Golden Age, right?
When writing CTM I was struck with how many of the good ideas in programming languages were discovered early on. The decade 1964-1974 seems to have been a "Golden Age": most of the good ideas of programming languages appeared then. For example:
It is a sobering thought that not much new stuff has come since then. Hindley-Milner type inferencing in 1978, constraint programming in 1980, CCS (precursor of pi-calculus) in 1980. What revolutionary new ideas came since 1980? Most of the work since then seems to have been in consolidation and integration (combining the power of the different ideas). Right?
By Peter Van Roy at 2007-02-12
As with programming languages, so applications, IMHO.
USPTO: defenestrate these lousy software patents. They warm a body like the emperor's new clothes.
I love this response. "Microsoft can make better programs because they use the super-secret ultra-special hidden APIs." Completely false. Though sometimes I wish there were secret hidden APIs that could be used to somehow make programs work better, this seems pretty far-fetched. Microsoft employees use MSDN for documentation just like everybody else. While it is possible that they have access to better support options than the average developer (i.e. their friends that work on the Windows team can given them advice), there is no secret sauce available. Just elbow grease.
Just as a practical example of why MSDN can be dubious, here is a link to some VBA code (yes, I'm stuck using that for certain MS Office tasks) that lets you execute some external code synchronously:
This had been an example on MSDN, but managed to disappear, or at least become hidden as a result of that 'excellent' search/advertisement tool they have in place. (aside: is there any way to omit all of the.Net hits which I simply cannot use?) http://smitty1e.livejournal.com/36029.html
While I don't necessarily believe MS has "super-secret APIs" (at least with respect to commercial applications), I do think that their stuff is rather opaque due to time, backwards compatibility, and the shuffling of examples like the one in my link.
Another word for the tuning you mention for SQLServer is "coupling". Wired too deeply, I would expect that obvious security patching could lead to some interesting crashes. Suddenly, the likelihood that PostGRESql suffers slightly by comparison on OS calls looks more like a feature than a bug. Too, the magic of the RDBMS is more in how it manages the query analysis and database objects, which are unrelated to the OS entirely.
When you consider the portability of PostGRESql, and the fact that you are not tied to a single stored procedure language that's as sexy as home-made sin, PostGRESql becomes compelling, indeed.
http://www.emperorlinux.com/mfgr/dell/
Several other good manufacturers, to boot.
Rock solid, hard drive laid out to your taste, including dual boot configurations with that lesser operating system.
My biggest quibble is they don't Gentoo, but if you're batty enough to run that (like me) you probably know what to do.;)
Where? Constants in an out-of-tree hardware driver maybe?
The lines of the linux kernel source have been moved about in plain sight like chesspieces these many years.
Unlikely that you could readily integrate any of the cruft-tastic 'Doze code with the linux kernel if you tried.
If the claim wasn't so diabolical, it could nearly approach comic.
You may have a point. By the time they make the hardware components cheap enough, we can have a small unit that requires only power input to function, and all of this abstract property can remain safely under the control of those with feelings of ownership.
Those who just want to watch/listen/experience can do that.
Those cursed with natural human curiosity can watch the small unit self-destruct when tampered.
But does it sell?
Slashdot Mirror
Now, why might this be a common behavior pattern?
You try out a new tool, you do the Dumbest Thing That Could Possibly Work, because you don't know any better.
You gather some experience, and you try out all of the gizmo features, to strut your stuff.
Once the 'new' wears off the gizmo features, you relax, and go back to the DTTCPW, because you're bored of the gizmos.
What's the difference?
When things go wrong, you know which of those gizmo features to trot out and fix the problem.
It's all about negotiating the learning curve, man. Rather like a plant that grows madly when planted, becomes overgrown, and requires a trimming to come back to a full, balanced maturity.
"Digg it baby
Digg it baby
Digg it a hole"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84DHHdQUpnQ
Let's not bicker and argue over who should carbon offset who.
Oh, the barristerial battery of it all...
Various instances of the same abstract(ed), (de)based class.
Not that I've read the EULA, mind you. Rather a left-handed DOS attack, isn't it?
1) keyboard /. ...
2) connection to
3) timing
4)
5) profit!!!
ATF? WTF? SOA?
Firefox, or Eclipse?
People fly more to
- Blow that travel budget, since there is no incentive to ecomomize
- Exchange information, with lower likelihood of that information growing teeth and biting their naughty bits
- Give the extremists something about which to preach
I'm still getting tons of email, some of it of the non-spam variety.For certain ego-crushing values of 'notice', sure.
"And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids"
Mediocrity is the new progress.
>If you bought an extended support contract, at the time of expiration, you get this for free.
Listen, bro: 'free' and 'MicroSoft' are mutually exclusive concepts.
Any appearance of 'free' is a bill on a delay line.
In fairness, for some, there may be a business case for the transaction, but let us curb our enthusiasm, bitte.
Indeed. Justice would be seeing the Intel PHBs get Nifonged.
Almost everything happened in the Golden Age, right?
When writing CTM I was struck with how many of the good ideas in programming languages were discovered early on. The decade 1964-1974 seems to have been a "Golden Age": most of the good ideas of programming languages appeared then. For example:
- Functional programming: Landin's SECD machine (1964)
- Object-oriented programming: Dahl and Nygaard's Simula (1966)
- Axiomatic semantics: Hoare (1969)
- Logic programming: Elcock's Absys (1965), Colmerauer's Prolog (1972)
- Backtracking: Floyd (1967)
- Capability security: Dennis and Van Horn (1965)
- Declarative concurrency: Kahn (1974)
- Message-passing concurrency: Hewitt's Actor model (1973)
- Shared-state concurrency: Hoare's monitors (1974)
- Software engineering: Brooks's mythical man-month (1974)
It is a sobering thought that not much new stuff has come since then. Hindley-Milner type inferencing in 1978, constraint programming in 1980, CCS (precursor of pi-calculus) in 1980. What revolutionary new ideas came since 1980? Most of the work since then seems to have been in consolidation and integration (combining the power of the different ideas). Right?By Peter Van Roy at 2007-02-12
As with programming languages, so applications, IMHO.
USPTO: defenestrate these lousy software patents. They warm a body like the emperor's new clothes.
This had been an example on MSDN, but managed to disappear, or at least become hidden as a result of that 'excellent' search/advertisement tool they have in place. (aside: is there any way to omit all of the
http://smitty1e.livejournal.com/36029.html
While I don't necessarily believe MS has "super-secret APIs" (at least with respect to commercial applications), I do think that their stuff is rather opaque due to time, backwards compatibility, and the shuffling of examples like the one in my link.
Another word for the tuning you mention for SQLServer is "coupling". Wired too deeply, I would expect that obvious security patching could lead to some interesting crashes. Suddenly, the likelihood that PostGRESql suffers slightly by comparison on OS calls looks more like a feature than a bug. Too, the magic of the RDBMS is more in how it manages the query analysis and database objects, which are unrelated to the OS entirely.
When you consider the portability of PostGRESql, and the fact that you are not tied to a single stored procedure language that's as sexy as home-made sin, PostGRESql becomes compelling, indeed.
You could have it come with the stock release CD in place, to save time.
http://www.emperorlinux.com/mfgr/dell/ ;)
Several other good manufacturers, to boot.
Rock solid, hard drive laid out to your taste, including dual boot configurations with that lesser operating system.
My biggest quibble is they don't Gentoo, but if you're batty enough to run that (like me) you probably know what to do.
The lines of the linux kernel source have been moved about in plain sight like chesspieces these many years.
Unlikely that you could readily integrate any of the cruft-tastic 'Doze code with the linux kernel if you tried.
If the claim wasn't so diabolical, it could nearly approach comic.
It's easy to flub these spatial relationships.
You may have a point. By the time they make the hardware components cheap enough, we can have a small unit that requires only power input to function, and all of this abstract property can remain safely under the control of those with feelings of ownership.
Those who just want to watch/listen/experience can do that.
Those cursed with natural human curiosity can watch the small unit self-destruct when tampered.
But does it sell?
"Surrender"
Mother told me, yes, she told me I'd meet girls like you.
She also told me, "Stay away, you'll never know what you'll catch."