Admit it, the guy is a few steps ahead of you. What do you know about him? Have you read his blog? Read his "how I made it" story, about how he hustled his ass, starting up his own companies. Sure, he hit the jackpot with the dotcom bubble, but he didn't just step in shit, he worked to get there.
He made the point that hard drive costs are continually decreasing, while size is continually increasing. Optical discs are fixed size, encumbered with "standards" wars. If they eventually want to up the capacity again, you have to move to a new format, and re-purchase your entire library.
I don't necessarily agree that hard drives are the way to go, but I think it is an interesting approach. He's willing to try something new. What is your proposal?
That is a very deceptive comparison. "Hey, GM is a big, established company, of COURSE it should have a market cap higher than this young upstart." But what is the upside of GM? It is probably more closely priced to what it is worth. Newer companies are valued closer to what they hope to be worth in the future.
Consider this: Yahoo is valued at $38 billion. Is Yahoo worth more NOW than GM?
Note, I am not arguing either way on whether Google is currently priced accurately. Just that the comparison to GM is misleading.
Yes, you can programmatically disable the firewall (just as you can in Linux), and yes you need administrative rights. This story is just an attempt to spread FUD about a feature who's goals are misunderstood.
Microsoft admits that, in some cases, malicious code could indeed switch the firewall off. However, this isn't so much a flaw as a limitation on the role firewalls should play in a company's security system, according to Microsoft. "An attacker could misuse that (administrative) capability," says David Overton, a Microsoft technical specialist. "But you're already in a compromised state, if you're at that point." He says Windows Firewall is designed to stop malicious transmissions to the PC, rather than protecting the PC once it's been infected.
So what you are saying is that Kid Pix requires Administrator rights. Not Windows XP. Sure, anyone can create a poorly-coded application that requires admin rights on ANY platform (they're probably incorrectly storing user settings in the application path, rather than the user's Application Data path). You can also create powerful applications that do not require admin rights (VS.NET 2003 for example).
Also, Internet Explorer with Windows XP SP2 will prevent websites from creating pop-up windows without a status bar, or with the status bar positioned off screen. Microsoft has recognized that the status bar should always be visible, I think the Mozilla/Firefox team should follow suit.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/win xp pro/maintain/sp2brows.mspx#XSLTsection137121120120
Does the fact that IE (which is not known for its security, lately) might have the same issue make it less of a vulnerability? Admit it, their proof of concept is pretty scary. If you care about safe browsing, you have to care about this. And the argument about it being a "feature" won't fly. That's exactly the attitude that got Microsoft in so much trouble. Security has to trump features when it comes to networked software.
You have some good points, but some of them seem uninformed. You mentioned you know there are exceptions - but I think they are pretty big exceptions, to the point that they are closer to the rule. I would agree with a previous poster that said stored procedures are neither good nor bad.
1) As of SQL Server 2005, you will be able to write stored procedures using C# or VB.NET. Oracle already allows you to write stored procedures using Java. These are all object oriented languages.
2) You CAN check in your DML scripts (I'm not saying a lot of people do...)
3) Agreed
4) I'm not sure what you mean by this. SQL Server, and the tools I used for Oracle, both give me compilation errors if I try to save invalid code.
5) None that I know of.
6) You COULD create test scripts that execute SPs with various parameters.
7) Not true. SQL Server with Visual Studio.NET (and I think Query Analyzer) allows real debugging. Stepping through code, breakpoints, and watches. As does SQL Navigator with Oracle.
8) Interesting point.
9) I wouldn't recommend SPs for performance reasons anyway. At least on SQL Server, there is no performance gain (the execution engine caches dynamic queries the same as stored proc queries).
"TiVo says the system is secure. I say its source code will end up on the box. You do the math."
What math? Are you implying that something is insecure just because the source code is available? I can't believe Slashdot didn't jump all over you for that - so I guess I'll start;)
I agree with all of your points, and I don't think they counter any of mine. The post I was responding too sounded an awful lot like an "automatic rejection". It was pretty much flamebait, so its my fault for even responding.
The point of my original post was to bring the discussion away from the flimsy comparison points used in the article, towards the real potential power of an abstracted web application platform. An aspect completely ignored by the article.
Whether Microsoft's current implementation satisfies your needs, I think it is great step in the right direction for web application development. Admittedly, I'm not a PHP expert, but I didn't see anything to imply that PHP has progressed into anything more than beefed up server side includes (like the original ASP).
There will always be people that do not trust anything at a higher level of abstraction. It would be foolish to try and talk them out of their command-line interface and machine code nirvana.
However, a lot of developers just need to get the job done. Part of that is using the tools that are available to reduce repetitive/tedious code. I personally would never want to create code for every possible browser or device.
Are you fine with abstractions, but you just don't specifically trust Microsoft? Is there any competing dynamic web application platform that offers this abstraction?
Also, with the upcoming ASP.NET 2.0, you will have a lot more control over the way markup is rendered, based on the client's capabilities. Read about adaptive rendering if you are curioius.
Re:Memo to Dell CEOs: Mind YOUR business!
on
Dell CEO Tells All
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Are you suggesting that Dell was the inventor and exclusive practicer of being critical of their competitors? Seriously? No, seriously, is that what you are suggesting? And you mentioned Apple in the same sentence?
What is wrong with the DJ? Sure, trading in a working iPod that costs twice as much doesn't make sense. But how is this a knock on the DJ? I'm very happy with mine. Yes, it is a little bigger than the iPod, but I can live with that at almost half the price (DJ 20GB was recently on sale for $225). Functionally it works great.
ASP.NET does all DB interaction through ODBC (it can, but it also has native drivers)
ASP.NET is slower/less efficient (pointless statement without evidence)
ASP.NET is more expensive than PHP (they are both freely downloads)
ASP.NET platform is more expensive (kinda. both work on Windows - PHP also works on more expensive Unices (so can we say PHP's platform is more expensive?) - PHP works on Linux, ASP.NET can kinda work on Linux if you count Mono)
VB.NET is the "default".NET language? That statement doesn't make any sense.
The author completely ignored one of ASP.NET's greatest advantages - it is an abstraction from writing HTML (which I guess they think makes it inefficient, just like C is less efficient than machine language). When I write:
TextBox t = new TextBox();
t.Text = "Hello World";
I do not know, nor care, what actual markup will be returned to the client. Before you start worrying that you need absolute control - consider the problem of delivering to multiple browsers/devices. ASP.NET will render different markup, depending on the browsers capabilities. When browsing from a PDA or phone, it will render appropriate markup. Does PHP do that?
I thought Orkut was a Google sponsored project - part of their roadmap. If it is just a side-project of an employee, than I agree with your assessment.
Find a JP1 capable remote. You can get many great universal remotes for MUCH cheaper ($15), that have better features/compatibility than the expensive (>$100) remotes out there. JP1 capable remotes have a pin connection that lets you program them from your computer using free software developed by an avid community.
Since I bought my JP1-enabled One For All Cinema 7 two years ago, it is the only remote I've needed in my living room (with TV, DVD, VCR, Stereo, CD Player, Satellite). I'm serious, all of the other remotes are sitting in a drawer somewhere collecting dust. I think it cost me less than $20.
This is rich. I'm going to start posting "Why is Microsoft in question? It should be the employee" the next time some new IE bug is reported, or some patent issue, etc.
I do not understand how Java has the "same thing.NET has" with generics, if Java does not have value types? The original point was that the.NET implementation of generics is in the runtime, not the language/compiler. It is able to take advantage of value types to avoid boxing/casting when unnecessary.
So, does Java 1.5 now have value types too, to enable the same generics support as.NET?
I would imagine they will be priced less. For exactly the reason you state. If the full "standard" edition is $100, I imagine a pared down "express" edition will be noticably less.
Microsoft knows how to market commercial software (I think they've been accused of inventing the concept), I think its fair to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that there will be a difference.
Others have pointed out that OS X includes developer tools.
But the latest Windows OS (2003) also includes the.NET Runtime, along with the C# (csc.exe) and VB.NET (vbc.exe) compilers. I'm sure all future Microsoft OS's (Windows XP Starter, Longhorn, etc) will include these as well.
You do not need Visual Studio.NET to build applications. csc.exe and notepad.exe are sufficient.
Exactly, I don't think they are targeting the secretive, unknown, no-good spyware companies.
I think they are targeting the "legitimate" companies that may be tempted to implement spyware-like functionality.
Reading their principles, three things came to mind: Real's RealPlayer, Apple's iTunes, and AOL's AIM. All three are theoretically legitimate companies/programs that make changes to your computer that are not expected by the user (i.e. they are not the primary function of the application). I'm sure there are plenty others, those are just the ones that annoyed me most recently.
Sure, I might gladly pay $.50/show that I know is worthwhile... but that would never be an option. Consider that people have somehow accepted $.99/song as reasonable - so much that the record companies want to increase it.
And how would you find out what is worth paying for without some free viewing?
Ok, maybe I unfairly targetted the GPL. I like the "spirit" of the GPL. It's the reality of its surrounding community that bothers me.
I don't understand how someone could be so resentful of a company that fulfills a need (HSF drivers), just because the company doesn't submit to their demands (source code). Is that attitude used throughout their lives, or just when it comes to computer software?
I understand there is a so-called "deceitful" aspect to this, since the company used a little hack to fool the kernel into thinking it was GPL code. But tricking software/hardware into things it wasn't intended to never seemed to bother anyone here before.
I don't begrudge the Troll rating on my parent, I stated right in the post that I didn't have all the facts - it was a kneejerk post. I just don't understand why so many developers want to be lawyers. I've written code for years without ever worrying about what license I should apply to it.
Maybe others are taking advantage of my code, robbing me of some deserved egoboo, but they have never once robbed me of the knowledge or joy I gained by creating the code.
That's a strange perspective. But admittedly, I don't know all the facts around this issue.
From my perspective, it looks like the users are screwed.
This is exactly the type of story that scares me away from GPL software. It is not for users. It is not for developers. It is for lawyers (and even more armchair lawyers).
If the GPL were for users or developers, everyone would be thanking this company for providing drivers that did not exist.
"There's no reason for me or anyone else to buy Longhorn EVER."
Either you are promoting piracy (no reason to BUY), or you know nothing about Longhorn.
Which is it? My guess is that the extent of your Longhorn knowledge is based on whatever paranoid posts you read on Slashdot.
If you are going to be "anti" something, at least know what you are railing against. Go spend some time at: http://msdn.microsoft.com/longhorn
Read the articles and whitepapers (not just the headlines). Learn what the Longhorn vision is really about. Read about WinFS and Avalon. WinFS isn't just a database filesystem and Avalon isn't just XUL/SVG/whatever.
And I don't even mean that in an argumentative sense... I honestly can't tell what you are responding to. Are you talking about "Windows Premium"? That's my first guess, since it contains the upgraded media player you mention. If so, you're argument doesn't seem to make sense. Windows Premium is not an "upgrade". You cannot "upgrade" your current OS to "Windows Premium". You can only get it on a new PC. Which means the only way this is feeding any coffers is if the new features drive sales of new computers that otherwise wouldnt have been sold (not likely). Maybe you are referring to "Longhorn", which IS an actual upgrade that may create revenue. It will contain the upgraded file system you mention (which Windows Premium will not). If you think the goal of WinFS is to match some aged filesystem, you're only getting your MS information from Slashdot (hint: there are more reliable sources). Longhorn is planned to be a dramatic new OS: a new presentation layer (not just a new color scheme), a new communication subsystem, and a new filesystem. I guess it doesn't matter what you thought you were talking about, because either way, you have completely missed the mark.
Consider "Revolution OS". I'm a geek, and I really like documentaries, so you'd think I would love a movie like that. I guess I can't really blame the subject matter - it had the potential to be interesting - but the execution was horrible. It didn't explain enough to the "outsider", and it didn't really teach anything new to anyone vaguely familiar with the history of Linux and OSI. It just came across as a yearbook to let you place faces with the names you already know.
Slashdot Mirror
Admit it, the guy is a few steps ahead of you. What do you know about him? Have you read his blog? Read his "how I made it" story, about how he hustled his ass, starting up his own companies. Sure, he hit the jackpot with the dotcom bubble, but he didn't just step in shit, he worked to get there.
He made the point that hard drive costs are continually decreasing, while size is continually increasing. Optical discs are fixed size, encumbered with "standards" wars. If they eventually want to up the capacity again, you have to move to a new format, and re-purchase your entire library.
I don't necessarily agree that hard drives are the way to go, but I think it is an interesting approach. He's willing to try something new. What is your proposal?
That is a very deceptive comparison. "Hey, GM is a big, established company, of COURSE it should have a market cap higher than this young upstart."
But what is the upside of GM? It is probably more closely priced to what it is worth.
Newer companies are valued closer to what they hope to be worth in the future.
Consider this: Yahoo is valued at $38 billion.
Is Yahoo worth more NOW than GM?
Note, I am not arguing either way on whether Google is currently priced accurately. Just that the comparison to GM is misleading.
From an article on PCWorld.com:
So what you are saying is that Kid Pix requires Administrator rights. Not Windows XP. Sure, anyone can create a poorly-coded application that requires admin rights on ANY platform (they're probably incorrectly storing user settings in the application path, rather than the user's Application Data path).
You can also create powerful applications that do not require admin rights (VS.NET 2003 for example).
Good suggestion.
n xp pro/maintain/sp2brows.mspx#XSLTsection137121120120
Also, Internet Explorer with Windows XP SP2 will prevent websites from creating pop-up windows without a status bar, or with the status bar positioned off screen. Microsoft has recognized that the status bar should always be visible, I think the Mozilla/Firefox team should follow suit.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/wi
Does the fact that IE (which is not known for its security, lately) might have the same issue make it less of a vulnerability?
Admit it, their proof of concept is pretty scary. If you care about safe browsing, you have to care about this.
And the argument about it being a "feature" won't fly. That's exactly the attitude that got Microsoft in so much trouble. Security has to trump features when it comes to networked software.
You have some good points, but some of them seem uninformed. You mentioned you know there are exceptions - but I think they are pretty big exceptions, to the point that they are closer to the rule.
.NET (and I think Query Analyzer) allows real debugging. Stepping through code, breakpoints, and watches. As does SQL Navigator with Oracle.
I would agree with a previous poster that said stored procedures are neither good nor bad.
1) As of SQL Server 2005, you will be able to write stored procedures using C# or VB.NET. Oracle already allows you to write stored procedures using Java. These are all object oriented languages.
2) You CAN check in your DML scripts (I'm not saying a lot of people do...)
3) Agreed
4) I'm not sure what you mean by this. SQL Server, and the tools I used for Oracle, both give me compilation errors if I try to save invalid code.
5) None that I know of.
6) You COULD create test scripts that execute SPs with various parameters.
7) Not true. SQL Server with Visual Studio
8) Interesting point.
9) I wouldn't recommend SPs for performance reasons anyway. At least on SQL Server, there is no performance gain (the execution engine caches dynamic queries the same as stored proc queries).
"TiVo says the system is secure. I say its source code will end up on the box. You do the math."
;)
What math?
Are you implying that something is insecure just because the source code is available?
I can't believe Slashdot didn't jump all over you for that - so I guess I'll start
I agree with all of your points, and I don't think they counter any of mine.
The post I was responding too sounded an awful lot like an "automatic rejection". It was pretty much flamebait, so its my fault for even responding.
The point of my original post was to bring the discussion away from the flimsy comparison points used in the article, towards the real potential power of an abstracted web application platform. An aspect completely ignored by the article.
Whether Microsoft's current implementation satisfies your needs, I think it is great step in the right direction for web application development. Admittedly, I'm not a PHP expert, but I didn't see anything to imply that PHP has progressed into anything more than beefed up server side includes (like the original ASP).
There will always be people that do not trust anything at a higher level of abstraction. It would be foolish to try and talk them out of their command-line interface and machine code nirvana.
However, a lot of developers just need to get the job done. Part of that is using the tools that are available to reduce repetitive/tedious code. I personally would never want to create code for every possible browser or device.
Are you fine with abstractions, but you just don't specifically trust Microsoft? Is there any competing dynamic web application platform that offers this abstraction?
Also, with the upcoming ASP.NET 2.0, you will have a lot more control over the way markup is rendered, based on the client's capabilities. Read about adaptive rendering if you are curioius.
Are you suggesting that Dell was the inventor and exclusive practicer of being critical of their competitors? Seriously? No, seriously, is that what you are suggesting? And you mentioned Apple in the same sentence?
What is wrong with the DJ? Sure, trading in a working iPod that costs twice as much doesn't make sense. But how is this a knock on the DJ? I'm very happy with mine. Yes, it is a little bigger than the iPod, but I can live with that at almost half the price (DJ 20GB was recently on sale for $225). Functionally it works great.
The author completely ignored one of ASP.NET's greatest advantages - it is an abstraction from writing HTML (which I guess they think makes it inefficient, just like C is less efficient than machine language). When I write:
TextBox t = new TextBox();
t.Text = "Hello World";
I do not know, nor care, what actual markup will be returned to the client. Before you start worrying that you need absolute control - consider the problem of delivering to multiple browsers/devices. ASP.NET will render different markup, depending on the browsers capabilities. When browsing from a PDA or phone, it will render appropriate markup. Does PHP do that?
I thought Orkut was a Google sponsored project - part of their roadmap. If it is just a side-project of an employee, than I agree with your assessment.
Since I bought my JP1-enabled One For All Cinema 7 two years ago, it is the only remote I've needed in my living room (with TV, DVD, VCR, Stereo, CD Player, Satellite). I'm serious, all of the other remotes are sitting in a drawer somewhere collecting dust. I think it cost me less than $20.
This is rich. I'm going to start posting "Why is Microsoft in question? It should be the employee" the next time some new IE bug is reported, or some patent issue, etc.
I'll rack up the +5 Insightfuls!
I am admittedly ignorant of the latest Java.
.NET has" with generics, if Java does not have value types? The original point was that the .NET implementation of generics is in the runtime, not the language/compiler. It is able to take advantage of value types to avoid boxing/casting when unnecessary.
.NET?
I do not understand how Java has the "same thing
So, does Java 1.5 now have value types too, to enable the same generics support as
I would imagine they will be priced less. For exactly the reason you state. If the full "standard" edition is $100, I imagine a pared down "express" edition will be noticably less.
Microsoft knows how to market commercial software (I think they've been accused of inventing the concept), I think its fair to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that there will be a difference.
Of course, we won't know until they are released.
Others have pointed out that OS X includes developer tools.
.NET Runtime, along with the C# (csc.exe) and VB.NET (vbc.exe) compilers. I'm sure all future Microsoft OS's (Windows XP Starter, Longhorn, etc) will include these as well.
.NET to build applications. csc.exe and notepad.exe are sufficient.
But the latest Windows OS (2003) also includes the
You do not need Visual Studio
Exactly, I don't think they are targeting the secretive, unknown, no-good spyware companies.
I think they are targeting the "legitimate" companies that may be tempted to implement spyware-like functionality.
Reading their principles, three things came to mind: Real's RealPlayer, Apple's iTunes, and AOL's AIM. All three are theoretically legitimate companies/programs that make changes to your computer that are not expected by the user (i.e. they are not the primary function of the application). I'm sure there are plenty others, those are just the ones that annoyed me most recently.
Sure, I might gladly pay $.50/show that I know is worthwhile... but that would never be an option. Consider that people have somehow accepted $.99/song as reasonable - so much that the record companies want to increase it.
And how would you find out what is worth paying for without some free viewing?
Ok, maybe I unfairly targetted the GPL. I like the "spirit" of the GPL. It's the reality of its surrounding community that bothers me.
I don't understand how someone could be so resentful of a company that fulfills a need (HSF drivers), just because the company doesn't submit to their demands (source code). Is that attitude used throughout their lives, or just when it comes to computer software?
I understand there is a so-called "deceitful" aspect to this, since the company used a little hack to fool the kernel into thinking it was GPL code. But tricking software/hardware into things it wasn't intended to never seemed to bother anyone here before.
I don't begrudge the Troll rating on my parent, I stated right in the post that I didn't have all the facts - it was a kneejerk post. I just don't understand why so many developers want to be lawyers. I've written code for years without ever worrying about what license I should apply to it.
Maybe others are taking advantage of my code, robbing me of some deserved egoboo, but they have never once robbed me of the knowledge or joy I gained by creating the code.
That's a strange perspective. But admittedly, I don't know all the facts around this issue.
From my perspective, it looks like the users are screwed.
This is exactly the type of story that scares me away from GPL software. It is not for users. It is not for developers. It is for lawyers (and even more armchair lawyers).
If the GPL were for users or developers, everyone would be thanking this company for providing drivers that did not exist.
"There's no reason for me or anyone else to buy Longhorn EVER."
Either you are promoting piracy (no reason to BUY), or you know nothing about Longhorn.
Which is it? My guess is that the extent of your Longhorn knowledge is based on whatever paranoid posts you read on Slashdot.
If you are going to be "anti" something, at least know what you are railing against. Go spend some time at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/longhorn
Read the articles and whitepapers (not just the headlines). Learn what the Longhorn vision is really about. Read about WinFS and Avalon. WinFS isn't just a database filesystem and Avalon isn't just XUL/SVG/whatever.
And I don't even mean that in an argumentative sense... I honestly can't tell what you are responding to.
Are you talking about "Windows Premium"? That's my first guess, since it contains the upgraded media player you mention. If so, you're argument doesn't seem to make sense. Windows Premium is not an "upgrade". You cannot "upgrade" your current OS to "Windows Premium". You can only get it on a new PC. Which means the only way this is feeding any coffers is if the new features drive sales of new computers that otherwise wouldnt have been sold (not likely).
Maybe you are referring to "Longhorn", which IS an actual upgrade that may create revenue. It will contain the upgraded file system you mention (which Windows Premium will not). If you think the goal of WinFS is to match some aged filesystem, you're only getting your MS information from Slashdot (hint: there are more reliable sources).
Longhorn is planned to be a dramatic new OS: a new presentation layer (not just a new color scheme), a new communication subsystem, and a new filesystem.
I guess it doesn't matter what you thought you were talking about, because either way, you have completely missed the mark.
Consider "Revolution OS". I'm a geek, and I really like documentaries, so you'd think I would love a movie like that. I guess I can't really blame the subject matter - it had the potential to be interesting - but the execution was horrible. It didn't explain enough to the "outsider", and it didn't really teach anything new to anyone vaguely familiar with the history of Linux and OSI. It just came across as a yearbook to let you place faces with the names you already know.