As a large company we have to use MS apps that are a few years old for security and stability reasons. We're now slowly migrating to Windows 2000. We didn't consider it stable until the middle of last year (I still don't like it...). Most large companies, from what I've been researching, are only migrating to Win2K because support for NT is going to end soon. Most won't just to XP because of instability, too many bugs, and too many security holes. It's become an industry standard to wait a year after an MS app is released before using it in production.
Also, if Outlook 97 has worked until now, why pay many thousands of dollars to upgrade to a new version which contains at minimum the same number of bugs and security holes. Any minor new features aren't worth it. We're now forced into MS's upgrade cycle.
Only because it would get us a big step closer to freedom from Microsoft. Most of my coworkers don't see Microsoft as putting chains on us while we're so dependant on them, but I certainly do. I've come to the point where I'm happy to see any little step away from Microsoft as a good thing for us, even if we lose some features.
I've always wanted a video wall at home. That way I'm really using the available "real estate" to it's maximum capability. It would be great to have video on my cubicle walls at work. No monitor... a little to my right is my e-mail, touch the app window in front of me to bring my word processor into focus. It would be cool to have touch-support on video walls at work, along with a keyboard. Drag documents around... no more white board with smelly markers, just open a blank "window" and draw, no scanning needed to save it... have the video phone display to my left... drag a doc onto the other person's face to let them see it...
Damn, now I'm just staring at my boring cube walls and monitor for the rest of the day. Thanks/. for building my dreams while I still have to suffer in this world!;-)
I use Outlook at work... because I have to. Ok, so I could get a job at a place that doesn't use Windows, but I'm trying to get the ignorant to open their eyes and migrate. I'll save that story for another time...
But I've been using Outlook at work for years, including all of its "advanced" features like custom forms. I've been using Evolution at home for maybe 6 months. I deal with up to 100 emails a day at work and I have to say Outlook's scalability absolutely sucks. To keep it running at any reasonable speed, I let it "auto-archive". When my local mail box was about 85mb, the client was just too slow. Searches could take 3 or 4 minutes (on a fast machine). And the custom forms are horrible. I'll never use them again. We also tried importing a few thousand contacts through Outlook (to Exchange), but beyond maybe 100 for a single Outlook user, it grinds to a screeching hault.
It may sound silly, but my favorite feature of Evolution that's not in Outlook (97 at least) is the discussion threaded e-mail view. On a mailing list, for example, I can see a tree of the conversation and read it in conversation order rather than date. It's such a little thing, but that's really handy. With that, it's nice, easy configuration, it's speed, and all the other great features others are posting about, overall I prefer Evolution.
One other thing about it that relates to every Windows and KDE/GNOME app: Linux desktops are multi-threaded properly so windows will never freeze with an app and the desktop won't freeze unless the destop app itself has a problem. If Outlook freezes, well I've got to see that frozen windows until if and when I can "end task" and all of the other apps run slowly around it, when the desktop doesn't feel like freezing also. When connected to a big e-mail server, proper multi-threading is a great feature for the client to have.
We were notified in December that raises for this year would be delayed until at least July. Last week we had a staff meeting in which our CTO hinted there will be no raise this year, but they'll "do what we can" for bonuses. That's BS because a couple of years ago my great private company who always gave huge bonuses where appropriate was bought by a huge public poorly managed company who gives crap bonuses. So I guess I'd be screwed even in the good times. But as far as raises go, the CTO's rationalle (sp?) is he'd rather hold back raises than lay people off. No layoffs... yet.
Many companies leave their "usual" security too simple anyway. Take the financial trading company I work for as an example (name and url left out intentionally). Sometimes a 50k jpg or mpg attached to an e-mail coming into the intranet through our firewall is moved into a "safe zone" where the employee gets notified he/she must call the help desk to request it. Other times the jpg's and mpg's of any size come through fine while only exe's and vbs's (VB Scripts) are blocked. However, all outgoing attachments are allowed, with the understanding that they're monitored. But since I know they're using Outlook and Lotus Notes on Windows to monitor, I can rename a zip file of data to.mpg, comment on the funny joke I pretend is inside, and send corporate info into or out of our intranet.
Another brilliant common hole (at least in financial companies): block ports 21 and most others through the firewall so employees won't ftp files to or from their workstations over the intranet. Of course no employee is smart enough to configure their ftp client to use port 80.
Companies are getting scared of the latest techie gadgets, but so often don't even take care of what should be obvious to any educated IT security employee.
They don't? I would assume the fees do matter because they raise the price of commercial software. I don't know any more than the average person about the commercial software industry, so please explain. I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious.
I think you're confusing modularity with object-oriented design. The Linux kernel is highly modular, especially in the massive changes for 2.4 where the code was re-organized. It's monolithic because (basically) it compiles into one executable and all parts may share the same memory. The original NT code base was meant to be object-oriented, which just naturally promotes modularity. The actual NT kernel was just a tiny program that handled messages between separate objects running in separate memory spaces. "The HURD was designed to be aggressively modular" and aggressively object oriented.
A procedural-only program can be highly modular, execute in the same amount of time as a non-modular version, and may be developed slower or faster. Look at the Linux code base and you'll see it's very well organized. How else could so many people who are very far away from each other work on the same kernel unless it was modular? What Gates is claiming is that Windows code is disorganized when he claims it's not at all modular. Object-oriented or not, he claims the code is a mess and can't be broken into pieces. Simply breaking apart code into one.c file for each "category" of functionality is making the code modular, yet not necessarily object oriented.
Most people don't care how it works, as long as it does? Good coding does not equal a good product to the consumers.
When a corporation looks at OSs to use on their servers and/or workstations, they care it works very well, is stable, will not bite them in the butt later, etc. I've worked for financial companies for the past 8 years and I've been involved in the decision making conversations. If Sun said Solaris' code sucks, but it's great for running your data warehouse, we would not use it. So it's stable today, but when a bug is found tomorrow it'll only get worse and take longer to fix. Knowledgable buyers should know that when someone claims their software is too complicated to document and not at all modular that it's been designed poorly from the start. I don't want to run a company on someone else's sloppy software, no matter how good it appears to be today. Companies know that good coding does equal a better product, generally speaking.
Very good question. I've been a developer for a number of years and upon reading the article I wondered exactly the same thing: why make it a point to the court that use of Windows XP Embedded "requires considerable testing," which subsequently makes it sound like their other OSs don't need as much testing? Granted he didn't say it that way, but if I make 5 products and point out that one needs considerable testing, it almost implies the other 4 don't.
As for why he makes this claim, I can only think of a few reasons. 1. It's a very new product (as compared to OSs older than XP) 2. It's intended for embedded use, which no one will tolerate crashing. If an ATM OS crashes, the OS manufacturer is definitely losing a customer. If a home PC or workstation crashes, the user gets annoyed, but reboots and keeps working and usually won't make a big attempt to change OSs, while the embedded market has significant competition. It's scary enough that they claim XP use on ATMs, but that's a rant I'll save for later... 3. He's exaggerating to an ignorant court. He's done it with other topics, so he may be trying to draw sympathy from the court for his company's potential situation.
Maybe someone can come up with another deeper explanation, but that's what I'm thinking about his testimony.
Newsforge is running a very good article summarizing some of Gates' testimony with a number of links to further info. The author makes some good points. There's a claim that Windows' code is too complicated to document and it's not at all modular. Any good software developer knows that modular design is important in large projects. Only a monopoly could claim their software is poorly designed without fearing loss of customers.
Damn... I have to pay 10 cents a minute to call (via telco) the next state which is only a few miles away. But I can cut the middle-man and call the drug smuggler directly in Honduras for the same price! Mmmmmmm.... technology...
What your saying makes total sense to just about every software company making desktop apps. But you should take a look at this: Windows Desktop Product Lifecycle Guidelines. Distribution and support for Win95 ended last year, 98 and NT end mid next year, and 2000 support begins transitioning out early next year.
I guarantee they will make a.NET version of Office asap..NET does exist (my co-worker is ignorantly developing with it for one of my company's secure internet sites already). And it's distributed with WinXP. They've already dropped old Office support, forcing companies like mine to move on to newer versions. New versions at work promote new versions at home. If people can only use a supported version of Office on WinXP, I'm sure many people will upgrade.
I totally agree on both counts. Steve Ballmer has already stated that every Windows app will eventually be re-written to run in the.NET framework. And I certainly don't trust that.NET will be forever platform independant. In fact they only submitted a small portion to the standards committee. So support for the Win32 api will eventually be a moot point.
And your second point takes the words right out of my mouth as I was reading the article. I think as soon as the monopoly trials are over they will have enough wiggle room to put a requirement into the license for Office that it must run on Windows.
And no one in the US who's proposing mandatory id cards considers the fact that one of the first implementations comes from a communist country. Yes, Hong Kong was once British territory and their governement probably hasn't changed that much, but they are still under communist rule. This is a TRUE example of 1984, just a little late.
My concern for the people of Hong Kong is less about theft than government control. I hope our representatives are watching closely the actions of the largest communist country in the world. I can't wait to hear a politician say "Well if it worked for China, why not here?" My biggest fear comes from our country eventually attempting the same thing here and how similarly it'll probably get abused by the government.
That's exactly why I just joined a few minutes ago. I'd rather buy their stock, but it's very hard and expensive to get in the US. I bought the $600/yr membership to help in tough times, then I'll probably drop it to $120/yr after this year. They make a great product and put full time developers onto open source projects. It's money well spent.
I think a few thousand dollars of their stock would be a better investment (long term) and would give them much more money. Plus I'd get a return on investment years later, besides all the free software. It's really too bad their stock is difficult to purchase in the US.
Use cross-platform libraries and they won't have to. Qt, GTK, etc. are available on Windows and *nix. Write your stuff in that and you don't force users into anything. To be prepared, I'm going to start porting my apps at the company I work for to one of these cross-platform GUI solutions, with an independant app server middleware, also platform independant. That way any department in the world can do as they please. That helps in making everyone happy.
But of course you have a good point... where does integration end and the "pure" os begin? Well IE is an application, so definitely not needed in an os. A good example is Linux with GNU. Dropping some standard GNU apps, you've got the core needed for the OS to operate. The rest are apps. But then again that's just my judgement and anyone's answer would be opinion and not fact.
You definitely don't get it. You can write entire apps using MS's IE dll, embedding their browser functionality within your own app. Does that mean there has to be an IE user interface from Microsoft with an icon on your desktop, start menu, Programs menu, and "Quick Launch" bar? No. In fact, in VB you can run a wizard that creates your very own brower with their DLLs with no coding.
What you are saying is that you force your users to have IE on their desktops in order to use your software. Well that's your problem for removing the user's options. Why should they be forced to use IE when you could put your stuff in your own standalone app and still have IE functionality? This goes back to one reason people like linux: they can add and remove whatever they want from the OS. Don't force your users into using software available from one monopoly vendor. Read Roblimo's article and you may change your mind.
Background: CS degree, Full-time developer in financial compaies for over 5 years. I've worked for 2 worldwide companies with huge IT departments. I've had the opportunity to do just a little project management with consultants working for me.
So looking at it from the bottom, I've found the best managers I've met have all been past developers, at least to a small extent. For some reason, it seems managers with no programming experience can not accept many of the statements of their programmers. One common mistake is to think the programmer's adding unneeded development time - "Oh, it can't possibly take that long" as he trims the project schedule. Maybe it's a trust issue, I'm not sure, but it sure messes up lots of projects.
Trust your most knowledgeable developers and get rid of all incompetent ones. One incompetant developer on a team seems to drag many projects down and makes the rest feel like they're making up the work of the bad programmer. Very bad for morale.
My biggest problem with management right now is to get them to open their eyes to all technological options. They look to MS for everything and assume they have the best solutions. They ignore more appropriate technologies because of a few senior people who are afraid of change. And the lower managers don't care about licensing costs, but their bosses sure do. The big bosses trust their managers, however, so while complaining of cost, they go right along with MS.
... had to stop myself before this turned into a full blown rant...
I sincerely hope they fail. Unfortunately, if they succeed they'll only strengthen their monopoly. They need a better image in the area of security if the.net strategy is to really take off the way they plan. I do not want MS to succeed any longer. I despise their business practices and moral choices: destroy competition to the detrement of an industry, lie in federal court, put politics and PR above software quality. They don't deserve any more chances to change their ways, and so I hope they fail miserably while I stay as far away from their products as possible.
If they keep making a mess of their software's security, it'll help convince my company to move away from their products.
Items that will no longer receive funding...: furniture
"Son, when I was your age, I had to walk 8 miles to school... in the snow... with no shoes... uphill... in both directions. We didn't even have classroom chairs in those days!"
Since it's for a "local polytechnic," I wouldn't think their budget allows for many high-end options. And I'd also think that most of these mobile connectivity solutions are geared for big business, and if so you'd expect them to cost a fortune. Maybe there's some way to rent or lease that kind of connectivity equipment? Or even better, if it's for educational purposes (granted the polytechnic's probably not a public school), maybe the telephone or cable companies would offer discounts.
Looks like this guy's going to be making a LOT of phone calls.
The mobile tech demos I've seen have all been in heavily modified 18-wheelers. But they've all been by big companies and I'm sure the cost is exteremely high. I certainly can't speak for how to equip it, but I would think a stripped bus would be the most economical way to go. It's easy to find a used charter or public transportation bus and rip out the passenger seats.
On the flip side, it's much easier to configure the power sources you'll need with an 18-wheeler, especially since many are already built for electric power.
While most discussion revolves around software companies moving to open source, how do you think other large companies such as the international investment firm I work for be convinced to switch to open source? I guess this is a question more of your customers. I want my company to move to GNU/Linux and open source, but being on the Microsoft train for so long they are afraid to even look at other options. How will Sun get their customers to embrace open source? (And any suggestions on how I can convince my company to switch would be much appreciated!)
Slashdot Mirror
As a large company we have to use MS apps that are a few years old for security and stability reasons. We're now slowly migrating to Windows 2000. We didn't consider it stable until the middle of last year (I still don't like it...). Most large companies, from what I've been researching, are only migrating to Win2K because support for NT is going to end soon. Most won't just to XP because of instability, too many bugs, and too many security holes. It's become an industry standard to wait a year after an MS app is released before using it in production.
Also, if Outlook 97 has worked until now, why pay many thousands of dollars to upgrade to a new version which contains at minimum the same number of bugs and security holes. Any minor new features aren't worth it. We're now forced into MS's upgrade cycle.
Only because it would get us a big step closer to freedom from Microsoft. Most of my coworkers don't see Microsoft as putting chains on us while we're so dependant on them, but I certainly do. I've come to the point where I'm happy to see any little step away from Microsoft as a good thing for us, even if we lose some features.
I've always wanted a video wall at home. That way I'm really using the available "real estate" to it's maximum capability. It would be great to have video on my cubicle walls at work. No monitor... a little to my right is my e-mail, touch the app window in front of me to bring my word processor into focus. It would be cool to have touch-support on video walls at work, along with a keyboard. Drag documents around... no more white board with smelly markers, just open a blank "window" and draw, no scanning needed to save it... have the video phone display to my left... drag a doc onto the other person's face to let them see it...
/. for building my dreams while I still have to suffer in this world! ;-)
Damn, now I'm just staring at my boring cube walls and monitor for the rest of the day. Thanks
I use Outlook at work... because I have to. Ok, so I could get a job at a place that doesn't use Windows, but I'm trying to get the ignorant to open their eyes and migrate. I'll save that story for another time...
But I've been using Outlook at work for years, including all of its "advanced" features like custom forms. I've been using Evolution at home for maybe 6 months. I deal with up to 100 emails a day at work and I have to say Outlook's scalability absolutely sucks. To keep it running at any reasonable speed, I let it "auto-archive". When my local mail box was about 85mb, the client was just too slow. Searches could take 3 or 4 minutes (on a fast machine). And the custom forms are horrible. I'll never use them again. We also tried importing a few thousand contacts through Outlook (to Exchange), but beyond maybe 100 for a single Outlook user, it grinds to a screeching hault.
It may sound silly, but my favorite feature of Evolution that's not in Outlook (97 at least) is the discussion threaded e-mail view. On a mailing list, for example, I can see a tree of the conversation and read it in conversation order rather than date. It's such a little thing, but that's really handy. With that, it's nice, easy configuration, it's speed, and all the other great features others are posting about, overall I prefer Evolution.
One other thing about it that relates to every Windows and KDE/GNOME app: Linux desktops are multi-threaded properly so windows will never freeze with an app and the desktop won't freeze unless the destop app itself has a problem. If Outlook freezes, well I've got to see that frozen windows until if and when I can "end task" and all of the other apps run slowly around it, when the desktop doesn't feel like freezing also. When connected to a big e-mail server, proper multi-threading is a great feature for the client to have.
We were notified in December that raises for this year would be delayed until at least July. Last week we had a staff meeting in which our CTO hinted there will be no raise this year, but they'll "do what we can" for bonuses. That's BS because a couple of years ago my great private company who always gave huge bonuses where appropriate was bought by a huge public poorly managed company who gives crap bonuses. So I guess I'd be screwed even in the good times. But as far as raises go, the CTO's rationalle (sp?) is he'd rather hold back raises than lay people off. No layoffs... yet.
Many companies leave their "usual" security too simple anyway. Take the financial trading company I work for as an example (name and url left out intentionally). Sometimes a 50k jpg or mpg attached to an e-mail coming into the intranet through our firewall is moved into a "safe zone" where the employee gets notified he/she must call the help desk to request it. Other times the jpg's and mpg's of any size come through fine while only exe's and vbs's (VB Scripts) are blocked. However, all outgoing attachments are allowed, with the understanding that they're monitored. But since I know they're using Outlook and Lotus Notes on Windows to monitor, I can rename a zip file of data to .mpg, comment on the funny joke I pretend is inside, and send corporate info into or out of our intranet.
Another brilliant common hole (at least in financial companies): block ports 21 and most others through the firewall so employees won't ftp files to or from their workstations over the intranet. Of course no employee is smart enough to configure their ftp client to use port 80.
Companies are getting scared of the latest techie gadgets, but so often don't even take care of what should be obvious to any educated IT security employee.
license fees don't matter in commercial software
They don't? I would assume the fees do matter because they raise the price of commercial software. I don't know any more than the average person about the commercial software industry, so please explain. I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious.
I think you're confusing modularity with object-oriented design. The Linux kernel is highly modular, especially in the massive changes for 2.4 where the code was re-organized. It's monolithic because (basically) it compiles into one executable and all parts may share the same memory. The original NT code base was meant to be object-oriented, which just naturally promotes modularity. The actual NT kernel was just a tiny program that handled messages between separate objects running in separate memory spaces. "The HURD was designed to be aggressively modular" and aggressively object oriented.
.c file for each "category" of functionality is making the code modular, yet not necessarily object oriented.
A procedural-only program can be highly modular, execute in the same amount of time as a non-modular version, and may be developed slower or faster. Look at the Linux code base and you'll see it's very well organized. How else could so many people who are very far away from each other work on the same kernel unless it was modular? What Gates is claiming is that Windows code is disorganized when he claims it's not at all modular. Object-oriented or not, he claims the code is a mess and can't be broken into pieces. Simply breaking apart code into one
Most people don't care how it works, as long as it does? Good coding does not equal a good product to the consumers.
When a corporation looks at OSs to use on their servers and/or workstations, they care it works very well, is stable, will not bite them in the butt later, etc. I've worked for financial companies for the past 8 years and I've been involved in the decision making conversations. If Sun said Solaris' code sucks, but it's great for running your data warehouse, we would not use it. So it's stable today, but when a bug is found tomorrow it'll only get worse and take longer to fix. Knowledgable buyers should know that when someone claims their software is too complicated to document and not at all modular that it's been designed poorly from the start. I don't want to run a company on someone else's sloppy software, no matter how good it appears to be today. Companies know that good coding does equal a better product, generally speaking.
Very good question. I've been a developer for a number of years and upon reading the article I wondered exactly the same thing: why make it a point to the court that use of Windows XP Embedded "requires considerable testing," which subsequently makes it sound like their other OSs don't need as much testing? Granted he didn't say it that way, but if I make 5 products and point out that one needs considerable testing, it almost implies the other 4 don't.
As for why he makes this claim, I can only think of a few reasons.
1. It's a very new product (as compared to OSs older than XP)
2. It's intended for embedded use, which no one will tolerate crashing. If an ATM OS crashes, the OS manufacturer is definitely losing a customer. If a home PC or workstation crashes, the user gets annoyed, but reboots and keeps working and usually won't make a big attempt to change OSs, while the embedded market has significant competition. It's scary enough that they claim XP use on ATMs, but that's a rant I'll save for later...
3. He's exaggerating to an ignorant court. He's done it with other topics, so he may be trying to draw sympathy from the court for his company's potential situation.
Maybe someone can come up with another deeper explanation, but that's what I'm thinking about his testimony.
Newsforge is running a very good article summarizing some of Gates' testimony with a number of links to further info. The author makes some good points. There's a claim that Windows' code is too complicated to document and it's not at all modular. Any good software developer knows that modular design is important in large projects. Only a monopoly could claim their software is poorly designed without fearing loss of customers.
Damn... I have to pay 10 cents a minute to call (via telco) the next state which is only a few miles away. But I can cut the middle-man and call the drug smuggler directly in Honduras for the same price! Mmmmmmm.... technology...
What your saying makes total sense to just about every software company making desktop apps. But you should take a look at this: Windows Desktop Product Lifecycle Guidelines. Distribution and support for Win95 ended last year, 98 and NT end mid next year, and 2000 support begins transitioning out early next year.
.NET version of Office asap. .NET does exist (my co-worker is ignorantly developing with it for one of my company's secure internet sites already). And it's distributed with WinXP. They've already dropped old Office support, forcing companies like mine to move on to newer versions. New versions at work promote new versions at home. If people can only use a supported version of Office on WinXP, I'm sure many people will upgrade.
I guarantee they will make a
MS can propogate software very fast.
I totally agree on both counts. Steve Ballmer has already stated that every Windows app will eventually be re-written to run in the .NET framework. And I certainly don't trust that .NET will be forever platform independant. In fact they only submitted a small portion to the standards committee. So support for the Win32 api will eventually be a moot point.
And your second point takes the words right out of my mouth as I was reading the article. I think as soon as the monopoly trials are over they will have enough wiggle room to put a requirement into the license for Office that it must run on Windows.
And no one in the US who's proposing mandatory id cards considers the fact that one of the first implementations comes from a communist country. Yes, Hong Kong was once British territory and their governement probably hasn't changed that much, but they are still under communist rule. This is a TRUE example of 1984, just a little late.
My concern for the people of Hong Kong is less about theft than government control. I hope our representatives are watching closely the actions of the largest communist country in the world. I can't wait to hear a politician say "Well if it worked for China, why not here?" My biggest fear comes from our country eventually attempting the same thing here and how similarly it'll probably get abused by the government.
That's exactly why I just joined a few minutes ago. I'd rather buy their stock, but it's very hard and expensive to get in the US. I bought the $600/yr membership to help in tough times, then I'll probably drop it to $120/yr after this year. They make a great product and put full time developers onto open source projects. It's money well spent.
I think a few thousand dollars of their stock would be a better investment (long term) and would give them much more money. Plus I'd get a return on investment years later, besides all the free software. It's really too bad their stock is difficult to purchase in the US.
Use cross-platform libraries and they won't have to. Qt, GTK, etc. are available on Windows and *nix. Write your stuff in that and you don't force users into anything. To be prepared, I'm going to start porting my apps at the company I work for to one of these cross-platform GUI solutions, with an independant app server middleware, also platform independant. That way any department in the world can do as they please. That helps in making everyone happy.
But of course you have a good point... where does integration end and the "pure" os begin? Well IE is an application, so definitely not needed in an os. A good example is Linux with GNU. Dropping some standard GNU apps, you've got the core needed for the OS to operate. The rest are apps. But then again that's just my judgement and anyone's answer would be opinion and not fact.
You definitely don't get it. You can write entire apps using MS's IE dll, embedding their browser functionality within your own app. Does that mean there has to be an IE user interface from Microsoft with an icon on your desktop, start menu, Programs menu, and "Quick Launch" bar? No. In fact, in VB you can run a wizard that creates your very own brower with their DLLs with no coding.
What you are saying is that you force your users to have IE on their desktops in order to use your software. Well that's your problem for removing the user's options. Why should they be forced to use IE when you could put your stuff in your own standalone app and still have IE functionality? This goes back to one reason people like linux: they can add and remove whatever they want from the OS. Don't force your users into using software available from one monopoly vendor. Read Roblimo's article and you may change your mind.
And I almost forgot: free coffee... ;-)
Background: CS degree, Full-time developer in financial compaies for over 5 years. I've worked for 2 worldwide companies with huge IT departments. I've had the opportunity to do just a little project management with consultants working for me.
So looking at it from the bottom, I've found the best managers I've met have all been past developers, at least to a small extent. For some reason, it seems managers with no programming experience can not accept many of the statements of their programmers. One common mistake is to think the programmer's adding unneeded development time - "Oh, it can't possibly take that long" as he trims the project schedule. Maybe it's a trust issue, I'm not sure, but it sure messes up lots of projects.
Trust your most knowledgeable developers and get rid of all incompetent ones. One incompetant developer on a team seems to drag many projects down and makes the rest feel like they're making up the work of the bad programmer. Very bad for morale.
My biggest problem with management right now is to get them to open their eyes to all technological options. They look to MS for everything and assume they have the best solutions. They ignore more appropriate technologies because of a few senior people who are afraid of change. And the lower managers don't care about licensing costs, but their bosses sure do. The big bosses trust their managers, however, so while complaining of cost, they go right along with MS.
... had to stop myself before this turned into a full blown rant...
Troll me if you will, but...
.net strategy is to really take off the way they plan. I do not want MS to succeed any longer. I despise their business practices and moral choices: destroy competition to the detrement of an industry, lie in federal court, put politics and PR above software quality. They don't deserve any more chances to change their ways, and so I hope they fail miserably while I stay as far away from their products as possible.
I sincerely hope they fail. Unfortunately, if they succeed they'll only strengthen their monopoly. They need a better image in the area of security if the
If they keep making a mess of their software's security, it'll help convince my company to move away from their products.
Items that will no longer receive funding ...: furniture
"Son, when I was your age, I had to walk 8 miles to school... in the snow... with no shoes... uphill... in both directions. We didn't even have classroom chairs in those days!"
Since it's for a "local polytechnic," I wouldn't think their budget allows for many high-end options. And I'd also think that most of these mobile connectivity solutions are geared for big business, and if so you'd expect them to cost a fortune. Maybe there's some way to rent or lease that kind of connectivity equipment? Or even better, if it's for educational purposes (granted the polytechnic's probably not a public school), maybe the telephone or cable companies would offer discounts.
Looks like this guy's going to be making a LOT of phone calls.
The mobile tech demos I've seen have all been in heavily modified 18-wheelers. But they've all been by big companies and I'm sure the cost is exteremely high. I certainly can't speak for how to equip it, but I would think a stripped bus would be the most economical way to go. It's easy to find a used charter or public transportation bus and rip out the passenger seats.
On the flip side, it's much easier to configure the power sources you'll need with an 18-wheeler, especially since many are already built for electric power.
While most discussion revolves around software companies moving to open source, how do you think other large companies such as the international investment firm I work for be convinced to switch to open source? I guess this is a question more of your customers. I want my company to move to GNU/Linux and open source, but being on the Microsoft train for so long they are afraid to even look at other options. How will Sun get their customers to embrace open source? (And any suggestions on how I can convince my company to switch would be much appreciated!)