They don't need to do that so directly and bluntly. I moved from NT to Windows 2000 because lack of USB support in former OS, about time when Windows 2000 was launched.
I have perfectly usable Windows 2000 Pro license. But since Windows XP Home has a faster boot time, it has Windows Media Player 10 that many hanheld MP3layers need and lot sleeker look and better DirectX support I gave up with Windows 2000. I installed Windows XP Home.
In future, all new computer will be sold with Vista, corporations will use it, drivers will use more and more Vista and due time many things will work best and maybe only on Vista. Then you have a choice do you upgrade or not. You don't have to of course, but if you plan to use latest technology and have best support & compatability, you're advised to do it. Microsoft and vendors of all sort will make it so, because all gain lot for people changing to new OS.
As a sidenote, I think the 'limited user account idea' is already dead. In a school where I study, security is so tight, Windows profiles don't migrate from desktop to another. On the other hand, the Windows XP that installed for my dada(where he had previously Windows 2000) I gladly gave him full right to install and damage himself. I don't want to be always running to his side when something needs to be installed, and I doubt will many home users either. Most users will run with admin rights, because it's far more comfortable than to exist as limited user.
So what's the diffrence to current situation MS is offering really?
If Microsoft wants similar system as linux has with superuser, it's not an technical issue with OS but more social issue how people work with operating system. People already have expectations and ways they work with Windows. If Vista doesn't bring lot good things with but lot of restricting things instead, people won't adopt it and it will flop.
Looking the list of changes that was int the articke, I see multiple ways to:
a) create new security vulnerabilities b) annoy users as some good security idea stops them doing something they want to do c) create more bugs generally as building traps and sensors within system just complicates it
Just now Vista looks in paper like overloaded and overweight bodyguard with stereoids.
Are you sure you're asking right question? Lot of people seem to think it's OK that Western companies do self censorship in China.
Argument goes that it's allright because they're(chinese) are becoming more and more capitalists and that will make them more open as wealth will create an pluralist open society. So it makes sense to jump in wagon before they're open and accomodate to Chinese goverments cencorship. Because this somehow supposedly helps China becoming more open. Very nice trail of though, especially if you're about to make money and need support of Chinese goverment.
It's bit like diffrence between banning CNN or just banning parts you don't like of their broadcast. Diffrence is between independent news source and one that is part of a goverment. For a critic of goverment, it's better to have banned source of information than a censored one. In fact, I think Chinese goverment can show way to chinese population that it can tame big Western companies and isolate them from ordinary people. It can even say 'look we have multiple news sources, we're open. If you claim something isn't told, how it is that all these multiple [b]Western[/b] sources of news and information don't report it then too?'.
And where goes the line with companies wont' cross? You tell me if companies will withdraw millions of investment if new Tianman Square happens because freedom of press? Or will they protect their investments there instead? If they now are ready to compromise their ethics before they had made huge commitments there, how they will act once they've committed themselves there fully?
I think Great Chinese Wall just got lot bigger. And most of it can't be anymore seen from orbit either. It's now electronic and moves through companies like Google or Yahoo.
But I grand that power of capitalism is amazing. When China was communist dictarship, nothing like now could have been tough. Western companies doing self censorship for sake of Chinese goverment? Unthinkable! Now as they're still undemocratic but capitalistic, they get their ways almost without asking.
Lesson 1: if you're fan of dictarship, be capitalistic one for Heavens sake!
I know it is popular, but I've found it being really limited. Last version I tried, fell to fact that it couldn't distinguish between servername and localhost.
Not a problem if you install it to some server farm, that's handled by some far away ISP. BIG problem if you're behind bridged connection where you can only access the server by localhost or local ip. And WordPress wanted to have only one and one only name or ip address it would recognize.
It didn't like ip AND domain name, or localhost AND domain. Only of one address oneway, no other way.
Many times extra time isn't really paid. IT field is still a young sector with inexperienced and too nice nerds. Well, maybe not nice anymore, but bit inexperienced atleast. People also work lone a lot, which makes organizating labour sometimes difficult.
In one teleoperator where I was in a jobinterview, they offered free ADSL conncetion as a 'benefit'. Real benefit of course was that in case of problems, the employed could quickly make necessary changes over network if he were not at work. And this was not job as operator, but a support function to one of the departments within house.
Besies, if I really think all the skills people have, not all of them all have been taught in school and lot of things are learned while at work.
Well, quite categorized view of things. Question more what one does than capabilities. Many companies would go downunder quickly without skilled labour. Very few enterpreuners has all the skills their labor has, in width or depth. However, management and business skills are their field too.
It's more about set of skills and concentrating to something than about capabilities generally.
If your view would be taken literally, basically nobody us should fly with planes because best pilots are in the board rooms of airliners. Same goes to hospitals, firemen and lot of academics(like Nobel prize winners).
Infact why should anybody do work at all? Since we all of those smart enterpreuners, let them do all the work as they're best at it. Bill Gates could for example clean my toilet as he obivously is better than I'm at it.
One final note, money and business can also be inherited. It doesn't need smarts for everyone.
I think the major concern is that how easy it is to store information to USB memory stick and as easy to retrieve. But it has absolutely no protection against unatuhorize retrieving, at majority of cases.
It can even happen that if you go to shower or do something else, somebody takes your USB stick and copies it's data to laptop. How do you know it hasn't happen already? It easier than doing photocopy and you can that way copy masses of sensitive information without trace.
At work I for a while copied php pages with database passwords and loginst to my USB stick and did some job functions at home. But I stopped doing it after a while as I became concerned what would happen if somebody steal the device or I'd lose it.
What I'd like to see is OS plug in that would automatically encrypt whatever is moved to portable USB stick.
No problem. I really should be better in English. It just been really long time since I've studiet it. Since I'm in the IT sector, I use bad english daily. Unfortunately. Computers are in this respect, really a bad idea.
They make communicating badly and fast, far too easy. They sort of forgive it.
Every time one writes, there should the teacher pointing out the typos and errors in the grammar.
I don't live in US, but I don't think it's just student being lazy. Much depends what people are required to do and what is given to them. Lot of education is being build on the idea of learning to do or understand some specific thing only.
What good education should be about, is teaching pupils about good common knowledge and deduction skills that make people to undestand how things connect to each other.
Intelligence itself is in fact much about how well one can handle wide wariety of things, it's mostly accomplished I think organizing information such way that it's both efficient to use and to remember. It's easier to remember why things work way they do, than to remember how happened in each specific case. It helps a lot if you also know wide variery of things, because in that case one can find common things between them. Bit like some comperssion algorithm: more there is common between diffrent things, more there is repetition and less space it takes to store and use.
However lot of schools teach just a profession and bits' of here and there without clear idea why. They teach how but not really why. Studends are left in a lone island with badly organized library that contains lot of information but where there is little help to find the relevant ones. Such an enviroment creates just lot of people who do the just what is required of them. They do the mandatory, and not much else. Main thrust of any education should be about controlling and understanding issues at hand, not about repeating what has been told.
I'm inclined to think so called 'classic education' that was a standard about century ago, was much better and flexible in a long run than nowdays more practical and profession orientated education.
Minimally, the next move is going to be utilizing client side resources, which are currently being left out of the picture of web software. Everything is about to become an internet device - mobile phones, televisions, game consoles. I think applications like Google Earth are probably typical of the future - programs that seamlessly integrate client and server resources.
And the security? Imagine above and think Microsoft. Why just to stop integrating IE to OS, why not tie both to server also directly?
And what about developers? I'm sure there are lot of good points of having things like Ajax, but GUI based systems that can provide clean looking user interfaces are really, really complex. You have to map each exception and situation flawlessly. Just like the writer of original article pointed out.
Very good point of HTML is that it is simple itself, but it can be manipulated by very complex rules by things like PHP. Now you got actually three complex layers: the presentation , business logic AND sending/receiving data.
To help in this 'simplicity', we have such wonderful error free and elegant solutions like javasctipt and XML that we all designers love without a question. Not. Both are really wondeful in theory, but quite headaches in practice.
1. Try and come up with a domain name that isn't ambiguous in how it's said or spelt.
Well, if they wouldn't know better, most of this planets inhabitants would think 'Patriot Act' is a porn movie first than anything to do with legistlation. EU has no monopology for unconvient, ponderous or just plain silly names or letters.
3. get out of the mindset that the internet is somehow defined by geographical borders and edges - just what is an EU search engine? Does it just search the EU? What?
Tell that to Chinese and for Yahoo example. Most countries do have still penalties for having illegal content on the Net.
Maybe VB has changed a lot, but it can be easier to management to send experienced VB programmaer to learn VB . NET than to hire altogether new one. It can be also more motivating to go forward with envoriment and programming syntax you're atleast familiar with.
Another important point is the spread of programming languages and easiness to get support in forms of sensible editors and ready enviroment. Programmers in fast few years or a decade, propably have learned C++ or JAVA. And lot of companies still hava lot of VB applications and code. Dot NET is also supported by MS so much that editors and are enviroment quite ready.
I've done enough with Java to know I like I, but I also say it's many times resource hug and not-so-elegant from a developores point of view. On the web front I'd wager my pets on Ruby, PHP or even.NET ASP gaining much speed, not JSP or Java application servers. On the desktop, I've not yet seen swarm of formidable Java graphical applications. Anyone who has done things in both fields, is not hard pressed to figure out why it would be so.
I'm not saying that everybody should do.NET, but I'm saying that Java has real life weakness where.NET is much better. I also think that denying that would not help anybody else than Microsoft.
So propably Ellison & Co are going to right direction. Another question of course is that will anything tangible come out of it?
And let's not go 'yes this language can do anything' arguments either, we bit experienced programmers propably know that almost anything can be done with most programming languages. It's eally besides the point, because real limitation is time and how much it is sensible to debug something to get it work.
There are also lot of programmers out there who don't control well the enviroment they work in. Those do or are just really dilligent, may also developed utter disintrest of debugging contiously the enviroment(I have). So lot of people do have a tendency to gravitate where everything is set ready for them, reason or another. So having support for something, doesn't tell is the support good enough so people will really want to use it.
I think It's not just about technology, but about user end and development support.
If I compare Java and.NET, I must say I think it's right now much easier to do things with.NET .
I'm not talking about being platform independent, robustness or things directly related to merits of some programming language or enviroment, but more about how many potential people have access.NET technology.
For example, VB programmer may with some training be able to move his old VB code's business logic to.NET server. Same goes to C++ programmers. Even Java developers may find C# much more intresting than Java, because it pretty close but still diffrent(and not with a negative way). In a way.NET is a culmination of many programming languages, and that way looking far ahead of Java where you can only 'plug in' with Java only.
Besides Microsoft with it's traditional method, is trying to support.NET much as it is possible.
So I can understand why Ellison is trying to do what he is. as he sees that.NET has much synergy. More I look.Net, more I've started to wonder why it has been so overlooked.
Problem with statistics is that people are taugh diffrently how to interprenet them. Person who studies statistics may have diffrent kind of perspective than one who is mainly taugh how to apply them in business. Business schools cut corners in here lot.
But even that is not the whole story. There is huge diffrence how they are used. Lot of companies and organizations do lot of statistic and surveys that use them for pretty obscure reasons. I don't live in US, but a teacher in university told my friend in a course of statistics, that he stopped doing statistics for corporations as a consult because they mostly ended to trash bin. Some companies apparently just grew their R&D budget by doing research they really didn't have need, while others simply didn't want to even look them for some other reason. So he rather taugh in school than ended doing statistics for no apparent reason.
I'm also inclined to think that lot of CEO's and other decision makers have need to show some statistics of anything, just it looks they're top of something. Even if they aren't.
So there isn't necessary isn't awful lot of utilization of new statistic tools to something sensible. Lot of it can driven by sheer belief to statistic and need to look good. There is a demand sure, but is there a corresponding gain too?
I can understand why people choose Java and do J2EE. I've studied J2EE and liked it.
But as I do work in LAMP enviroment, can't fathom why I should move to Java application servers in the web. They're far too complex, many are still buggy and costs are high for then. Jsp doesn't offer much more than does PHP, infact I think to effectively use it, one needs to do lot more.
It's not that Java is hard or difficult, using it just create lot more work than using PHP. Unless you have some uber organization that needs lot of scalability and thread safety, then the sacrifice for java is not justified.
People make things to happen, not some toolkit or technology.
Much more important than choosing tools, is choosing right people who know to use right tools for the job so they get results.
Real life problem of course many times is that lot of solutions may have been locked to certain technologies by vendors or the infastructure. While one might think PHP is good language, some project manager may prefer.NET because company has paid courses for it and they have made huge investment on MS platform.
So unforunately, tools do choose people manytimes as application development doesn't happen in vacuum. Lot of depends on the organization one works in.
So does ASP too. I have to agree with orignal poster of this thread.
I can understand why people adopt things like Tapestry and swear by it. If you have enterprise leven solutions, you may have peculiar needs that aren't visible to us rest.
However, more I have done programming and web pages, more I think simplicity is best. More there are layers and neat tricks, more there is confusion and something that you have to debug.
Programming world is anyway filled with 'silver bullets' that people swear by. So far I've mostly seen good ideas to certain needs and lot of personal choices, but no overall silver bullet for everything that would justify adopting them all or just one of them.
If something helps making something better, there is usually catch somewhere, like extra time needed to learn it and/or more things to keep track of. And if you come back years later and system is complex, you may not remember how it works - especially if you have learned dozens of 'silver bullets' after that.
Many times simplest choice is just to do it by way you know best already.
My choice is a text editor or Eclipse, and do code by hand if it just is possiböe. Not much can go wrong, and if it does, I know where the fault is.
I think it's not just up to us web developers are pages good. I mean, I can make technically good page that is well done. It isn't necessary same page or site that is good to use.
After all, customers may have their own ideas and needs that aren't good, and customers are always right.
Depends what one does of course, but where I work, were more a consulting architech that the architect that desigs the whole thing. We do what cusomers have visioned and inform what sucks in that context. We don't make the context , design or choose it.
Like construction company, we don' design the bulding we just build by the design and try to make it work well as possible. Within frameowork of time and expenses.
If the original idea sucks and can't work well, then it is so. It doesn't matter how good pianist you are, if acoustic sucks and composer did it all while drunk(besides being ungifted), you can't evoke miracles from absolutely nothing. You can only do best what those circumstances allow you to do.
Way I see it, I'm not going to buy all my existin DVD's soon in HDTV quality. And who is going to move all of them to HDTV quality anyway? I'm sure movie studios would like to everybody to do that, but buying 50-100 new DVD's is not sanctioned by my checkbook any near future.
Most of world, and I suspect US either, doesn't have HDTV lot of ready home yet as there aren't broadcasters on every corner. Not only I'd need new player/recorder, I'd need television set - and lot of program that would be made in HDTV. Old shows won't be, and they're rerunning them all a time. And look bloody awful on over 32" wide screen.
Don't get me wrong, I think HDTV and new DVD formats are a good thing. I just don't see where the sudden momentum to move from current DVD would come from. It can't go very fast and very far. It's inpractical right now.
The viewer side is also a big mess, with LCD's and Plasma monitors. Plus inside them allkinds of diffrent definitions of HDTV format.
Get me one standard to everything and good idea why I'd need to do do everything again. If not, I'm not jumping to wagon that I'm not sure where it's going to stop!
Re:Oblivious to the problem, or resigned to it?
on
Insider Threat
·
· Score: 1
I somewhat disagree. I think companies don't think all the fault point throughout. Sure, if you have above mentioned business, it maybe hard to ignore certain kind of losses if they come regularly. Not sure it is many times a calculated risk, but more acceptance that it doesn't matter as you can't do anything and risks are obvious.
The big risk obviously lies in things some organization haven't throughout thought or haven't yet experienced but aren't less real.
But I do agree fully that 'denie everything if it is not accepted' is not necessary a good idea. It may have justification in some places, but in many workplaces it just costs more than it saves and causes huge annoyance.
Lot of organization have to rely on trust in the end. If you don't trust people working for you, then should you hire them at all then in the first place?
In one summer I worked on one company's financial department. Head accountant there didn't have full access to all information she needed. Reasons for that weren't security related, they were finanacial. Company didn't want to pay for a additional license to our software provider. Result was the she had to ask me to fetch each time information on system she didn't have access to.
Funny thing was that she was one of the permanents, while I was a temp that was hired through a recruiting firm. Never did go an interview in that company. Still I handlet quite big sums and had wider access thant she had as a head accountant.
I think one should look company's security package as a integral whole that is tightly knitted to each company. Reason is that companies have wildly diffrent kinds of organizations, ways of doing and needs. So the way each worker is allocated rights and accesses, varies by each company, by worker's function and software he or she uses. Not only that, many CEO's or department's heads don't really know how daily work is organized in the grass root level. It easily happens that CEO and IT manager/consultant get common agreement how to do security, but if they aren't up to date about regular daily practices problems can arise quicly. Ones that are born when people can't get necessary information when they need it.
These things, if wanted to do well, don't have one-size-hat-for-all solution and go far beyond being 'just' IT.
Besides there are lot of other issues here too, like labour relations and work effiency. Good and very tight security may not earn trust of workers, but cause it being lost. Too rigid and wrong headed security practices, can hinder real life productivity too.
Remember, road to hell is paved with good intentions. Tread carefully.
Bubbles are bit like fires, they burn the forest so that more healthy vegetation can grow. And no, I'm no pro-market enthuasisth either that thinks marked will 'solve everything'.
I just think bubbles are borne out of wishful thinking, greed and lot of people usingn some smoke and mirrors. Really bad thing about them is big money always sees first problems and oppoturnities, ducking the soon coming problems with speed, while small investors and workers are left to tackle the problems by themselves. So it really doesn't work like forest fires, unfortunately(but it should).
Markets are supposed to build responsibility, wise use of resources and good risk management, but most schemes and ideas today promote greed to such extent that they all go out of window. Greed is like lust, both make many men complete idiots, unable to see the problems beforehand instead making them act foolishly on a whim.
Markets could work lot better without overwhelming greed. Just like real love does not need overwhelming lust either IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree.
To quote 'Hot Shot 2':
'They lived in total selibacy, just like their fathers and grandfathers before them'.
They don't need to do that so directly and bluntly. I moved from NT to Windows 2000 because lack of USB support in former OS, about time when Windows 2000 was launched.
I have perfectly usable Windows 2000 Pro license. But since Windows XP Home has a faster boot time, it has Windows Media Player 10 that many hanheld MP3layers need and lot sleeker look and better DirectX support I gave up with Windows 2000. I installed Windows XP Home.
In future, all new computer will be sold with Vista, corporations will use it, drivers will use more and more Vista and due time many things will work best and maybe only on Vista. Then you have a choice do you upgrade or not. You don't have to of course, but if you plan to use latest technology and have best support & compatability, you're advised to do it. Microsoft and vendors of all sort will make it so, because all gain lot for people changing to new OS.
As a sidenote, I think the 'limited user account idea' is already dead. In a school where I study, security is so tight, Windows profiles don't migrate from desktop to another. On the other hand, the Windows XP that installed for my dada(where he had previously Windows 2000) I gladly gave him full right to install and damage himself. I don't want to be always running to his side when something needs to be installed, and I doubt will many home users either. Most users will run with admin rights, because it's far more comfortable than to exist as limited user.
So what's the diffrence to current situation MS is offering really?
If Microsoft wants similar system as linux has with superuser, it's not an technical issue with OS but more social issue how people work with operating system. People already have expectations and ways they work with Windows. If Vista doesn't bring lot good things with but lot of restricting things instead, people won't adopt it and it will flop.
Looking the list of changes that was int the articke, I see multiple ways to:
a) create new security vulnerabilities
b) annoy users as some good security idea stops them doing something they want to do
c) create more bugs generally as building traps and sensors within system just complicates it
Just now Vista looks in paper like overloaded and overweight bodyguard with stereoids.
Because it's something we expect Microsoft to do, but not Google?
Maybe it just shows how little moral people expect from Microsoft?
Microsoft is a predator, and it's act's like predator. What's the news in that?
Are you sure you're asking right question? Lot of people seem to think it's OK that Western companies do self censorship in China.
Argument goes that it's allright because they're(chinese) are becoming more and more capitalists and that will make them more open as wealth will create an pluralist open society. So it makes sense to jump in wagon before they're open and accomodate to Chinese goverments cencorship. Because this somehow supposedly helps China becoming more open. Very nice trail of though, especially if you're about to make money and need support of Chinese goverment.
It's bit like diffrence between banning CNN or just banning parts you don't like of their broadcast. Diffrence is between independent news source and one that is part of a goverment. For a critic of goverment, it's better to have banned source of information than a censored one. In fact, I think Chinese goverment can show way to chinese population that it can tame big Western companies and isolate them from ordinary people. It can even say 'look we have multiple news sources, we're open. If you claim something isn't told, how it is that all these multiple [b]Western[/b] sources of news and information don't report it then too?'.
And where goes the line with companies wont' cross? You tell me if companies will withdraw millions of investment if new Tianman Square happens because freedom of press? Or will they protect their investments there instead? If they now are ready to compromise their ethics before they had made huge commitments there, how they will act once they've committed themselves there fully?
I think Great Chinese Wall just got lot bigger. And most of it can't be anymore seen from orbit either. It's now electronic and moves through companies like Google or Yahoo.
But I grand that power of capitalism is amazing. When China was communist dictarship, nothing like now could have been tough. Western companies doing self censorship for sake of Chinese goverment? Unthinkable! Now as they're still undemocratic but capitalistic, they get their ways almost without asking.
Lesson 1: if you're fan of dictarship, be capitalistic one for Heavens sake!
Don't recommend.
I know it is popular, but I've found it being really limited.
Last version I tried, fell to fact that it couldn't distinguish between servername and localhost.
Not a problem if you install it to some server farm, that's handled by some far away ISP. BIG problem if you're behind bridged connection where you can only access the server by localhost or local ip. And WordPress wanted to have only one and one only name or ip address it would recognize.
It didn't like ip AND domain name, or localhost AND domain. Only of one address oneway, no other way.
Many times extra time isn't really paid. IT field is still a young sector with inexperienced and too nice nerds. Well, maybe not nice anymore, but bit inexperienced atleast. People also work lone a lot, which makes organizating labour sometimes difficult.
In one teleoperator where I was in a jobinterview, they offered free ADSL conncetion as a 'benefit'. Real benefit of course was that in case of problems, the employed could quickly make necessary changes over network if he were not at work. And this was not job as operator, but a support function to one of the departments within house.
Besies, if I really think all the skills people have, not all of them all have been taught in school and lot of things are learned while at work.
Well, quite categorized view of things. Question more what one does than capabilities.
Many companies would go downunder quickly without skilled labour. Very few enterpreuners has all the skills their labor has, in width or depth. However, management and business skills are their field too.
It's more about set of skills and concentrating to something than about capabilities generally.
If your view would be taken literally, basically nobody us should fly with planes because best pilots are in the board rooms of airliners. Same goes to hospitals, firemen and lot of academics(like Nobel prize winners).
Infact why should anybody do work at all? Since we all of those smart enterpreuners, let them do all the work as they're best at it. Bill Gates could for example clean my toilet as he obivously is better than I'm at it.
One final note, money and business can also be inherited. It doesn't need smarts for everyone.
I think the major concern is that how easy it is to store information to USB memory stick and as easy to retrieve. But it has absolutely no protection against unatuhorize retrieving, at majority of cases.
It can even happen that if you go to shower or do something else, somebody takes your USB stick and copies it's data to laptop. How do you know it hasn't happen already? It easier than doing photocopy and you can that way copy masses of sensitive information without trace.
At work I for a while copied php pages with database passwords and loginst to my USB stick and did some job functions at home. But I stopped doing it after a while as I became concerned what would happen if somebody steal the device or I'd lose it.
What I'd like to see is OS plug in that would automatically encrypt whatever is moved to portable USB stick.
No problem. I really should be better in English. It just been really long time since I've studiet it. Since I'm in the IT sector, I use bad english daily. Unfortunately. Computers are in this respect, really a bad idea.
They make communicating badly and fast, far too easy. They sort of forgive it.
Every time one writes, there should the teacher pointing out the typos and errors in the grammar.
Yes, there are huge diffrences between schools. And I do agree that it's not a plot either.
Still, I think it has become quite fuzzy what a good education is.
It has become a commodity almost, not an achievement.
I don't live in US, but I don't think it's just student being lazy. Much depends what people are required to do and what is given to them. Lot of education is being build on the idea of learning to do or understand some specific thing only.
What good education should be about, is teaching pupils about good common knowledge and deduction skills that make people to undestand how things connect to each other.
Intelligence itself is in fact much about how well one can handle wide wariety of things, it's mostly accomplished I think organizing information such way that it's both efficient to use and to remember. It's easier to remember why things work way they do, than to remember how happened in each specific case. It helps a lot if you also know wide variery of things, because in that case one can find common things between them. Bit like some comperssion algorithm: more there is common between diffrent things, more there is repetition and less space it takes to store and use.
However lot of schools teach just a profession and bits' of here and there without clear idea why. They teach how but not really why. Studends are left in a lone island with badly organized library that contains lot of information but where there is little help to find the relevant ones.
Such an enviroment creates just lot of people who do the just what is required of them. They do the mandatory, and not much else. Main thrust of any education should be about controlling and understanding issues at hand, not about repeating what has been told.
I'm inclined to think so called 'classic education' that was a standard about century ago, was much better and flexible in a long run than nowdays more practical and profession orientated education.
Minimally, the next move is going to be utilizing client side resources, which are currently being left out of the picture of web software. Everything is about to become an internet device - mobile phones, televisions, game consoles. I think applications like Google Earth are probably typical of the future - programs that seamlessly integrate client and server resources.
And the security? Imagine above and think Microsoft. Why just to stop integrating IE to OS, why not tie both to server also directly?
And what about developers? I'm sure there are lot of good points of having things like Ajax, but GUI based systems that can provide clean looking user interfaces are really, really complex. You have to map each exception and situation flawlessly. Just like the writer of original article pointed out.
Very good point of HTML is that it is simple itself, but it can be manipulated by very complex rules by things like PHP.
Now you got actually three complex layers: the presentation , business logic AND sending/receiving data.
To help in this 'simplicity', we have such wonderful error free and elegant solutions like javasctipt and XML that we all designers love without a question. Not. Both are really wondeful in theory, but quite headaches in practice.
1. Try and come up with a domain name that isn't ambiguous in how it's said or spelt.
Well, if they wouldn't know better, most of this planets inhabitants would think 'Patriot Act' is a porn movie first than anything to do with legistlation. EU has no monopology for unconvient, ponderous or just plain silly names or letters.
3. get out of the mindset that the internet is somehow defined by geographical borders and edges - just what is an EU search engine? Does it just search the EU? What?
Tell that to Chinese and for Yahoo example. Most countries do have still penalties for having illegal content on the Net.
My point was that how people work.
.NET ASP gaining much speed, not JSP or Java application servers. On the desktop, I've not yet seen swarm of formidable Java graphical applications. Anyone who has done things in both fields, is not hard pressed to figure out why it would be so.
.NET, but I'm saying that Java has real life weakness where .NET is much better. I also think that denying that would not help anybody else than Microsoft.
Maybe VB has changed a lot, but it can be easier to management to send experienced VB programmaer to learn VB . NET than to hire altogether new one. It can be also more motivating to go forward with envoriment and programming syntax you're atleast familiar with.
Another important point is the spread of programming languages and easiness to get support in forms of sensible editors and ready enviroment. Programmers in fast few years or a decade, propably have learned C++ or JAVA. And lot of companies still hava lot of VB applications and code. Dot NET is also supported by MS so much that editors and are enviroment quite ready.
I've done enough with Java to know I like I, but I also say it's many times resource hug and not-so-elegant from a developores point of view. On the web front I'd wager my pets on Ruby, PHP or even
I'm not saying that everybody should do
So propably Ellison & Co are going to right direction. Another question of course is that will anything tangible come out of it?
And let's not go 'yes this language can do anything' arguments either, we bit experienced programmers propably know that almost anything can be done with most programming languages. It's eally besides the point, because real limitation is time and how much it is sensible to debug something to get it work.
There are also lot of programmers out there who don't control well the enviroment they work in. Those do or are just really dilligent, may also developed utter disintrest of debugging contiously the enviroment(I have). So lot of people do have a tendency to gravitate where everything is set ready for them, reason or another. So having support for something, doesn't tell is the support good enough so people will really want to use it.
Damn!
They're on to me!
I think It's not just about technology, but about user end and development support.
.NET, I must say I think it's right now much easier to do things with .NET .
.NET technology.
.NET server. Same goes to C++ programmers. Even Java developers may find C# much more intresting than Java, because it pretty close but still diffrent(and not with a negative way). In a way .NET is a culmination of many programming languages, and that way looking far ahead of Java where you can only 'plug in' with Java only.
.NET much as it is possible.
.NET has much synergy. More I look .Net, more I've started to wonder why it has been so overlooked.
If I compare Java and
I'm not talking about being platform independent, robustness or things directly related to merits of some programming language or enviroment, but more about how many potential people have access
For example, VB programmer may with some training be able to move his old VB code's business logic to
Besides Microsoft with it's traditional method, is trying to support
So I can understand why Ellison is trying to do what he is. as he sees that
It's coming fast, where I'm looking at it.
Problem with statistics is that people are taugh diffrently how to interprenet them. Person who studies statistics may have diffrent kind of perspective than one who is mainly taugh how to apply them in business. Business schools cut corners in here lot.
But even that is not the whole story. There is huge diffrence how they are used. Lot of companies and organizations do lot of statistic and surveys that use them for pretty obscure reasons. I don't live in US, but a teacher in university told my friend in a course of statistics, that he stopped doing statistics for corporations as a consult because they mostly ended to trash bin. Some companies apparently just grew their R&D budget by doing research they really didn't have need, while others simply didn't want to even look them for some other reason. So he rather taugh in school than ended doing statistics for no apparent reason.
I'm also inclined to think that lot of CEO's and other decision makers have need to show some statistics of anything, just it looks they're top of something. Even if they aren't.
So there isn't necessary isn't awful lot of utilization of new statistic tools to something sensible. Lot of it can driven by sheer belief to statistic and need to look good. There is a demand sure, but is there a corresponding gain too?
Anyone got statistic for this?
Yeah, I agree.
I can understand why people choose Java and do J2EE. I've studied J2EE and liked it.
But as I do work in LAMP enviroment, can't fathom why I should move to Java application servers in the web.
They're far too complex, many are still buggy and costs are high for then. Jsp doesn't offer much more than does PHP, infact I think to effectively use it, one needs to do lot more.
It's not that Java is hard or difficult, using it just create lot more work than using PHP. Unless you have some uber organization that needs lot of scalability and thread safety, then the sacrifice for java is not justified.
I agree completely.
.NET because company has paid courses for it and they have made huge investment on MS platform.
People make things to happen, not some toolkit or technology.
Much more important than choosing tools, is choosing right people who know to use right tools for the job so they get results.
Real life problem of course many times is that lot of solutions may have been locked to certain technologies by vendors or the infastructure. While one might think PHP is good language, some project manager may prefer
So unforunately, tools do choose people manytimes as application development doesn't happen in vacuum. Lot of depends on the organization one works in.
So does ASP too. I have to agree with orignal poster of this thread.
I can understand why people adopt things like Tapestry and swear by it.
If you have enterprise leven solutions, you may have peculiar needs that aren't visible to us rest.
However, more I have done programming and web pages, more I think simplicity is best. More there are layers and neat tricks, more there is confusion and something that you have to debug.
Programming world is anyway filled with 'silver bullets' that people swear by. So far I've mostly seen good ideas to certain needs and lot of personal choices, but no overall silver bullet for everything that would justify adopting them all or just one of them.
If something helps making something better, there is usually catch somewhere, like extra time needed to learn it and/or more things to keep track of. And if you come back years later and system is complex, you may not remember how it works - especially if you have learned dozens of 'silver bullets' after that.
Many times simplest choice is just to do it by way you know best already.
My choice is a text editor or Eclipse, and do code by hand if it just is possiböe. Not much can go wrong, and if it does, I know where the fault is.
I think it's not just up to us web developers are pages good. I mean, I can make technically good page that is well done. It isn't necessary same page or site that is good to use.
After all, customers may have their own ideas and needs that aren't good, and customers are always right.
Depends what one does of course, but where I work, were more a consulting architech that the architect that desigs the whole thing. We do what cusomers have visioned and inform what sucks in that context. We don't make the context , design or choose it.
Like construction company, we don' design the bulding we just build by the design and try to make it work well as possible. Within frameowork of time and expenses.
If the original idea sucks and can't work well, then it is so. It doesn't matter how good pianist you are, if acoustic sucks and composer did it all while drunk(besides being ungifted), you can't evoke miracles from absolutely nothing. You can only do best what those circumstances allow you to do.
Way I see it, I'm not going to buy all my existin DVD's soon in HDTV quality. And who is going to move all of them to HDTV quality anyway? I'm sure movie studios would like to everybody to do that, but buying 50-100 new DVD's is not sanctioned by my checkbook any near future.
Most of world, and I suspect US either, doesn't have HDTV lot of ready home yet as there aren't broadcasters on every corner. Not only I'd need new player/recorder, I'd need television set - and lot of program that would be made in HDTV. Old shows won't be, and they're rerunning them all a time. And look bloody awful on over 32" wide screen.
Don't get me wrong, I think HDTV and new DVD formats are a good thing. I just don't see where the sudden momentum to move from current DVD would come from. It can't go very fast and very far. It's inpractical right now.
The viewer side is also a big mess, with LCD's and Plasma monitors. Plus inside them allkinds of diffrent definitions of HDTV format.
Get me one standard to everything and good idea why I'd need to do do everything again. If not, I'm not jumping to wagon that I'm not sure where it's going to stop!
I somewhat disagree. I think companies don't think all the fault point throughout. Sure, if you have above mentioned business, it maybe hard to ignore certain kind of losses if they come regularly. Not sure it is many times a calculated risk, but more acceptance that it doesn't matter as you can't do anything and risks are obvious.
The big risk obviously lies in things some organization haven't throughout thought or haven't yet experienced but aren't less real.
But I do agree fully that 'denie everything if it is not accepted' is not necessary a good idea. It may have justification in some places, but in many workplaces it just costs more than it saves and causes huge annoyance.
Lot of organization have to rely on trust in the end. If you don't trust people working for you, then should you hire them at all then in the first place?
In one summer I worked on one company's financial department. Head accountant there didn't have full access to all information she needed. Reasons for that weren't security related, they were finanacial. Company didn't want to pay for a additional license to our software provider. Result was the she had to ask me to fetch each time information on system she didn't have access to.
Funny thing was that she was one of the permanents, while I was a temp that was hired through a recruiting firm. Never did go an interview in that company. Still I handlet quite big sums and had wider access thant she had as a head accountant.
I think one should look company's security package as a integral whole that is tightly knitted to each company. Reason is that companies have wildly diffrent kinds of organizations, ways of doing and needs. So the way each worker is allocated rights and accesses, varies by each company, by worker's function and software he or she uses. Not only that, many CEO's or department's heads don't really know how daily work is organized in the grass root level. It easily happens that CEO and IT manager/consultant get common agreement how to do security, but if they aren't up to date about regular daily practices problems can arise quicly. Ones that are born when people can't get necessary information when they need it.
These things, if wanted to do well, don't have one-size-hat-for-all solution and go far beyond being 'just' IT.
Besides there are lot of other issues here too, like labour relations and work effiency. Good and very tight security may not earn trust of workers, but cause it being lost. Too rigid and wrong headed security practices, can hinder real life productivity too.
Remember, road to hell is paved with good intentions. Tread carefully.
Bubbles are bit like fires, they burn the forest so that more healthy vegetation can grow. And no, I'm no pro-market enthuasisth either that thinks marked will 'solve everything'.
I just think bubbles are borne out of wishful thinking, greed and lot of people usingn some smoke and mirrors. Really bad thing about them is big money always sees first problems and oppoturnities, ducking the soon coming problems with speed, while small investors and workers are left to tackle the problems by themselves. So it really doesn't work like forest fires, unfortunately(but it should).
Markets are supposed to build responsibility, wise use of resources and good risk management, but most schemes and ideas today promote greed to such extent that they all go out of window. Greed is like lust, both make many men complete idiots, unable to see the problems beforehand instead making them act foolishly on a whim.
Markets could work lot better without overwhelming greed. Just like real love does not need overwhelming lust either IMHO.