I found this passage from the middle captures his arguments succinctly:
[Kay] says, "[Business] is basically not interested in creative uses for computers."
Depends on the busines. Most businesses want predictable, repeatably, accurate, auditable activity done with their PCs. Accounting is an example of a business that does not WANT creativity.:-) I am assuming he's not talking about this bread-n-butter computing problems but what's done on the desktop, but he also has to remember that the desktop user also has to work in that "boring" business environment, and most jobs discourage creativity in order to "maximise efficiency".
Some jobs will benefit from creativity, and in those cases, most people feel their PCs (especially the Mac crowd) do encourage their creativity. But I can't help wonder if he's so obsessed with being creative that he's ignoring the fact some people don't need creativity in their jobs, also, if they are being creative, they don't want to be creative int he way he wants to be creative.
If business users were less shortsighted, Kay says, they would seek to create computer models of their companies and constantly simulate potential changes.
Here's an example of his disconnect. Maybe they're not doing it in the way Kay wants to see it done, but it's done all the time with various tools, but mostly spreadsheet based ones using plug-ins for Excel. People find the spreadsheet the most comfortable tool for modeling things and simulating their company on paper. Hell, there are some really nifty 3rd party plug-ins for Excel that can do Monte Carlo simulation on your spreadsheet data. You provide some extra information about your values, like variance, etc., and the plug-in will calculate the outcome curve of your model. And there are some really cool tools for MS Project to model how your project works!
From my perspective, modeling happens all the time and people are using their imaginations to model and work with some really nifty things. From small businesses to the home user figuring out their portfolio balance to the engineering company using their PC to model new ways of designing structures! It just might not be the way Kay wants to do it.
I think Key is confusing the way he wants to be creative and how he thinks with how everyone else should think. Berating people for not thinking like you do is, to me, the anti-thesis of creativity.
But the computers most business people use today are not suited for that. That's because, he says, today's PC is too dedicated to replicating earlier tools, like ink and paper. "[The PC] has a slightly better erase function but it isn't as nice to look at as a printed thing.
I think he's trying to say that PCs should transcend just trying to be
a poor simulacrum of pen and paper. On the surface, that sounds
seductive: your PC should take all that drudgery away from you
leaving you free to think. Let the PC do all the thinking and work and you do
all the creativity. As someone who likes to think of himself as
creative, that sounds... stupid. Painters like the feel of paint on
canvas. Harlan Ellison loves the effort it takes to push the keys on
his mechanical typewriter. Most artists consider the "drudgery" part
of the creative process. It's a challenge to your imagination that
spurs you forward. The effort of collecting and working the clay is
considered a key part of the pottery making process. Just going to a
shop to buy the clay is considered death to the process. Being truely
creative is about taking all there is inside you and expressing it.
Making it "easier" is missing the point.
Kay also believes that the drudgery inhibits creativity; which it
doesn't. You will be creative even if you have to use a stone and
cliff face. Making it easier will not increase your creativity, nor
will it improve its quality. If you want to make PCs more use
That's the funny part. The IT group I work with is bifurcated into Infrastructure (Network, hardware, etc.) and applications. I'm on the applications side of the wall. We demanded testing complete with smaller isolation labs, testing procedures, schedules, go-no go decision points, etc. The Infrastructure group agreed.
Then they went off and implemented it ANYWAY live in production! They told us that they were assured by their "consultant" that they could just drop in Windows Server 2003 and this it would be compatible with NT 4, which it is if you a) apply some patches, b) avoid certain features in 2003 and c) fix the apps to use the new Active Directory API. Obviously, none of the above were done before going into production.
Seems like you could have avoided wasting several thousand people-hours and sounds kind of stupid to me.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I think I said almost exactly the same words too at the time.:-)
But I think MS bears some blame in this for convincing people out there that their software is upwardly migratable. You know, if you tell a kid how cool it is to set the couch on fire and that it's perfectly safe, you can bet your sweet ass the kid will set the couch on fire.
At work, we tried moving to a heterogeneous MS network: Windows Server 2003 with some legacy NT 4 servers (because the applications couldn't be migrated). Several thousand wasted people-hours later, they found out that they either had to turn off the "useful" features of 2003 or upgrade the NT boxes and re-develop the applications on them.
MS has never provided painless upward compatibility. But at least with Open Source, I can keep the older version alive for as long as I need to. And more importantly, someone can create a business just to support that old version. Oh wait, that's Open Source creating WEALTH and EMPLOYMENT!!
I wish people could realise that Microsoft's business model has suppressed jobs in the industry and suppressed the growth of the markets they "compete" in. In Microsoft's world, only a small cadre of programmers in their employ would create the world's software and the limit would be the amount of software Microsoft could crank out per annum. In our Open Source world, the market's only limit is the number of available people to do the work.
If you had really paid attention in your Harvard business classes, you would have learned the story of Standard Oil. A big monopolistic oil company that was finally forced to break up into pieces. Mr. Rockerfeller was sad until he suddenly discovered his stock portfolio went through the roof. Apparently, when Standard Oil became a bunch of smaller companies, they grew the market and their collective market capitlization was far, far greater than they were in one company.
You've had the opportunity several times now, and the last time had the feds suggested it too. But maybe it's not too late. It's time to knife the baby and split Microsoft into two or more companies. Split applications from OS. Create an Internet technology group separate from the others that encompases IE as a pluggible component for Windows or any OTHER Operating System, and provides search, MSN, Instant Messaging, VOIP, etc.. Move the Entertainment group into its own company and let it succede or fail on its own, and more importantly, let them have the freedom to chose the technologies involved. XBox has fans now, and it has a bright future. But only if the XBox division is no longer distracted by trying to save the OS group.
Come on, Steve. You know the time is right, and this is so the right thing to do.
What microscope? Eps 1 & 2 sucked to high heaven. I've talked to people who were adults when they saw the original trilogy and loved them, and can't stand the new ones.
The "classic 3" had a sense of fun and far less pretension. The humor was not forced or obviously condescending. Episode I was mostly a film that took itself way too seriously. Even the supposed comic relief, the Gun-guns, weren't all that funny. Episode II took itself WAY too seriously.
Empire, by comparison, had many moments of light banter and humor. When I watched it again a couple years ago, I had forgotten just how much funny stuff was in such a dark film. Episode II's funny scenes were... basically non-existent.
When Lucas created the classic first 3 movies, he was a child telling other children a story. Now, Lucas is a parent telling children a story: condescending and with all the sharp corners sanded down.
Oh, it's dirtier than that! I read the article (shock & awe). From the article:
"The only legitimate windows that would pop up on the company's Web site would be one-question customer surveys, she said."
What's happening, according to L.L. Bean, is the user inadvertantly installs spyware from a "free" game, etc. So you're surfing the net and go to L.L. Bean. The spyware detects the connection and then on its own launches pop-up ads from rivals. L.L. Bean says they do not use pop-up ads so it's a dead giveaway. Remember: L.L. Bean has a revenue stream. They don't need outside advertising.
The best way to explain this in bricks & mortar terms is your competition coming in and slapping their ads on or around your store. Especially without your permission!
He did show proof, but as the inspectors pointed out, it wasn't the legal standard of proof they needed. They were shown documents and videos of weapon program destruction, but because specific ammounts, etc. weren't recorded, he got in trouble because he couldn't prove he destroyed exactly 20,000 litres of VX.
But as it turns out, Hussein's scientists probably lied to him about the original estimates anyway.
This is why I chose MySQL or PostgreSQL. I needed it to run on Win32 natively without Cygwin. The problem was the install. Using PostgreSQL (which I used in another application) is not a problem. Hell, it's even easier than using MySQL. It's the install on Win32 that was the pain.
But if the installer is in the future, PostgreSQL will rightfully take its place at the head of the Open Source databases. I've used PostgreSQL, and I know how good it is. It has a lot of very nice features (not just the SQL syntax). What it came down to was the ability to install it and get it running quickly.
Maybe for you. For me, it was dead easy to set-up, quick to learn and the @#$! thing WORKED out of the box! I can't say the same about Posgress.
At anyrate, the better way to look at MySQL is the kind, gentle introduction to SQL until your needs drive you to a grown up database. For my dev team, we just needed a backend for our existing Bug database without paying exhorbitant charges to IT Support to use MS SQL. MySQL so fits the bill.
(I'm looking at you CBC & TV Ontario), is socially funded already
I thought TV Ontario was privatized by the Mike "The Knife" Harris?
For those of you wondering, section 9 outlaws DirecTV in Canada. Those will be the punishments for paying for DirecTV. Yes, paying for it gets you that punishment.
DirecTV isn't available in Canada anyway. Typically, an American company partners with a local Canadian company to enter the market, and even then, yes, the channels carried are limited by the CRTC and the channels themselves.
Everytime a cable channel is carried in Canada, the original channel must pay extra for their new Canadian viewers to the studios & producers. Currently, the way American specialty channels get around this is by forcing the Canadian cable companies to negotiate with the studios directly. That way A&E can come to Canada, but they don't have to fork out an extra dime for airing rights of certain movies in Canada. Thus the occasional blackout.
For specialty digital channels. $2/channel (some are more expensive). They provide package discounts (buy 5 for $1.50/channel) too. You just need some political backbone.
Re:How about the article itself?
on
Why PHBs Fear Linux
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Hi, sit down. Make yourself comfortable. I know this is a little disorienting, but this is the real world.
What? Yes, in fact, 90% of the geeks in the real world do come to work shaved, showered and neatly dressed. In fact, a lot of them would do that even without work. I know, in your little fantasy world every geeks looks liks RMS, but this is the real world where, in order to get and keep jobs, they have to shave, shower and dress nicely. Most of our work places have dress codes, you know.
I know, it must be scary for you. So many geeks aren't afraid of speaking in public, making their voices heard and arguing persuasively using logic and business language. Geeks tend to be the most outspoken people in an organization. Being a geek means learning new cultures and different ways of thinking. It's a hobby to a geek. I know, I know. In your world, geeks are quiet, meek and mumble. That's OK, you're in the real world now.
Let's take a walk. Why, yes, they are very patient, caring people who really want their users to know what they know and to be productive. You don't survive long in this business if you don't.
Oh, look, that geek is having a heart-felt conversation with a techno-neophyte boss. Notice how well it's working. That's because the boss doesn't treat the geek as an idiot child who must be restrained. The boss respects the geek's knowledge and listens, in turn, the geek understands the boss has a different set of bosses to answer to, and he's trying his damndest to help his boss. He's helpful, honest and works his damndest to provide the bosses the numbers and research he needs to fight for him.
Why am I being so condescending to you? Why were you being so condescending to geeks?
It makes people feel more secure, but it doesn't really mean anything. Mainly because the rules for getting the accreditation are pretty trivial in most cases.
I'd prefer something like the Engineering societies where you spend a few years apprenticing and have another professional engineer (who worked with you) sponsor your membership. You'd only need one or two accredited Software Security Engineers in your company, but if they say the product doesn't ship, it doesn't ship.
Professionally accredited Engineers have that kind of power because if they refuse to sign off on a design or course of action, anyone who goes against their professional advice becomes legally liable.
It would also help if companies looked at products OTHER than Microsoft. Competition does wonderful things for innovation, which is precisely why Microsoft tries to avoid competition...
I am surprised that more large companies haven't tried to make game development tools.
Of course you're surprised because big companies do make game development tools. Even mid-sized companies. EA has a big tools group for everything from sound to graphics. I used to work at a game company (which shall remain nameless) that spent quite a lot of money on tools. The problem was getting the game teams to use them.
Back in 1999, most game developers I knew insisted on writing their own code. Usually badly that would then have to be debugged over the next 2 years. When I left the industry, management had found the mantra that I and my co-workers in Tool development had been preaching for years: standard frameworks and common engines.
You could make an argument that your 3D engine needs to be custom, but you can't make that for a sound events API. I worked on 2 different games, and found their custom written sound libraries implemented the same functionality without any differences. Heck, there were even identical pieces of code in the two ('cause they both copied it from an older game).
The big companies do create tools and frameworks, and it's getting better year by year as more developers "see the light" of common tools and libraries. The big problem is now coming up with better ideas.
Cocoa maybe nice, but I don't get a choice about what I use at work. Although, if it is anything like NeXTStep (which was very pleasant to program in), I can believe you.
I hate programming now. I loathe the thought of it. Not because I hate the act of programming, but the systems I have to work with.
Sure, in the nice old days, the C64 and IBM PC were fairly easy to code for, but they also gave you very little bang for the buck. The nice thing was a couple hours of programming could get something nice out.
Now, it can take me a couple hours to do even a simple notepad application from scratch. I'm forever spending lines of code to fill in structures or respond to all the events an API wants.
The computers got more powerful, and the APIs also got more powerful, but now I spend so much time filling out basic structures that I don't need. I'd rather a lot of that stuff was user configurable or stored in an XML file somewhere. I don't want to have to know about allocating & positioning fonts! I just want to dump it in a nice scrolling box.
It's like a bureacratic nightmare writing code now. Sure, there's MFC, etc., but that's like the "easy" tax form. The moment you want to do just one thing different, you're back to square one. And the learning curve, sheesh!
That's why I like projects like XUL. We've made the APIs so programmer centric, that I can't breathe anymore. I just want to code the important stuff then let someone else make the GUI pretty.
Now, granted, I did make a connection that SOAP was the only protocol for inter-device communication in.Net (it isn't). But considering Microsoft has been encouraging developers to think about making every.NET service SOAP enabled, it's hard not to wonder...
.Net, conceptually, sounds neat but Microsoft still has a single, non-networked PC mentality. I didn't even mention Linux/Apache/PHP/Java/etc becuase it's not about them being better or worse. It's about the fact that.Net was an idea pushed out as a "neat idea" without thinking through its implications.
I'd read the first things Microsoft officially published about it back when they were hot of the keyboards of the developers..NET is a neat idea, but the security implications are scary..NET applications are expected to exchange code and run remotely. They have a grand vision of.NET code being swapped across the planet and running on everything from your cellphone to mission critical servers. Creating a monoculture where a malicious worm can spread like wildfire before anyone can even react is a frightning thought.
Saying "Well, it's up to the developer to make it secure" is like saying "Well, it's up to the sysadmin to apply the Blaster patches". They should, but they won't.
But when Microsoft's "source" is Dotnet a whole class of security vulnerabilities will be eliminated...
*splutter*
.Net is going to make Melissa et al look like a minor cold compared to the digital Pearl Harbor that is.Net. This thing was built without security in mind, then it was "Oh, we need to secure it!". Cringely had a good column about this just last week.
SOAP (the communication protocol of.Net) was designed to deliberately to bypass firewalls by using the HTTP port by default. That alone is enough reason to shut down.Net. If you cannot block off.Net communication without breaking another (relatively more secure) protocol, you'll either cripple.Net or a lot of companies will be caught with their pants down.
Listen, I know you're all excited after reading the.NET and C# technology papers, etc. But I've been victimized by MS technology for nearly 15 years (Oh dear, has it been that long already??), and I can guarantee you:.NET will not provide half of what they claim it can do.
Slashdot Mirror
I found this passage from the middle captures his arguments succinctly:
Depends on the busines. Most businesses want predictable, repeatably, accurate, auditable activity done with their PCs. Accounting is an example of a business that does not WANT creativity. :-) I am assuming he's not talking about this bread-n-butter computing problems but what's done on the desktop, but he also has to remember that the desktop user also has to work in that "boring" business environment, and most jobs discourage creativity in order to "maximise efficiency".
Some jobs will benefit from creativity, and in those cases, most people feel their PCs (especially the Mac crowd) do encourage their creativity. But I can't help wonder if he's so obsessed with being creative that he's ignoring the fact some people don't need creativity in their jobs, also, if they are being creative, they don't want to be creative int he way he wants to be creative.
Here's an example of his disconnect. Maybe they're not doing it in the way Kay wants to see it done, but it's done all the time with various tools, but mostly spreadsheet based ones using plug-ins for Excel. People find the spreadsheet the most comfortable tool for modeling things and simulating their company on paper. Hell, there are some really nifty 3rd party plug-ins for Excel that can do Monte Carlo simulation on your spreadsheet data. You provide some extra information about your values, like variance, etc., and the plug-in will calculate the outcome curve of your model. And there are some really cool tools for MS Project to model how your project works!
From my perspective, modeling happens all the time and people are using their imaginations to model and work with some really nifty things. From small businesses to the home user figuring out their portfolio balance to the engineering company using their PC to model new ways of designing structures! It just might not be the way Kay wants to do it.
I think Key is confusing the way he wants to be creative and how he thinks with how everyone else should think. Berating people for not thinking like you do is, to me, the anti-thesis of creativity.
I think he's trying to say that PCs should transcend just trying to be a poor simulacrum of pen and paper. On the surface, that sounds seductive: your PC should take all that drudgery away from you leaving you free to think. Let the PC do all the thinking and work and you do all the creativity. As someone who likes to think of himself as creative, that sounds... stupid. Painters like the feel of paint on canvas. Harlan Ellison loves the effort it takes to push the keys on his mechanical typewriter. Most artists consider the "drudgery" part of the creative process. It's a challenge to your imagination that spurs you forward. The effort of collecting and working the clay is considered a key part of the pottery making process. Just going to a shop to buy the clay is considered death to the process. Being truely creative is about taking all there is inside you and expressing it. Making it "easier" is missing the point.
Kay also believes that the drudgery inhibits creativity; which it doesn't. You will be creative even if you have to use a stone and cliff face. Making it easier will not increase your creativity, nor will it improve its quality. If you want to make PCs more use
Reminds me of Microsoft's campaign to displace Novell with Windows NT. Microsoft called the program Visine: It gets the red out.
But I worry more for the poor Unix admins whos PHBs will use this as an excuse to throw out their UNIX systems.
Then they went off and implemented it ANYWAY live in production! They told us that they were assured by their "consultant" that they could just drop in Windows Server 2003 and this it would be compatible with NT 4, which it is if you a) apply some patches, b) avoid certain features in 2003 and c) fix the apps to use the new Active Directory API. Obviously, none of the above were done before going into production.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I think I said almost exactly the same words too at the time.
But I think MS bears some blame in this for convincing people out there that their software is upwardly migratable. You know, if you tell a kid how cool it is to set the couch on fire and that it's perfectly safe, you can bet your sweet ass the kid will set the couch on fire.
Lessee...
At work, we tried moving to a heterogeneous MS network: Windows Server 2003 with some legacy NT 4 servers (because the applications couldn't be migrated). Several thousand wasted people-hours later, they found out that they either had to turn off the "useful" features of 2003 or upgrade the NT boxes and re-develop the applications on them.
MS has never provided painless upward compatibility. But at least with Open Source, I can keep the older version alive for as long as I need to. And more importantly, someone can create a business just to support that old version. Oh wait, that's Open Source creating WEALTH and EMPLOYMENT!!
I wish people could realise that Microsoft's business model has suppressed jobs in the industry and suppressed the growth of the markets they "compete" in. In Microsoft's world, only a small cadre of programmers in their employ would create the world's software and the limit would be the amount of software Microsoft could crank out per annum. In our Open Source world, the market's only limit is the number of available people to do the work.
Dear Steve,
If you had really paid attention in your Harvard business classes, you would have learned the story of Standard Oil. A big monopolistic oil company that was finally forced to break up into pieces. Mr. Rockerfeller was sad until he suddenly discovered his stock portfolio went through the roof. Apparently, when Standard Oil became a bunch of smaller companies, they grew the market and their collective market capitlization was far, far greater than they were in one company.
You've had the opportunity several times now, and the last time had the feds suggested it too. But maybe it's not too late. It's time to knife the baby and split Microsoft into two or more companies. Split applications from OS. Create an Internet technology group separate from the others that encompases IE as a pluggible component for Windows or any OTHER Operating System, and provides search, MSN, Instant Messaging, VOIP, etc.. Move the Entertainment group into its own company and let it succede or fail on its own, and more importantly, let them have the freedom to chose the technologies involved. XBox has fans now, and it has a bright future. But only if the XBox division is no longer distracted by trying to save the OS group.
Come on, Steve. You know the time is right, and this is so the right thing to do.
What microscope? Eps 1 & 2 sucked to high heaven. I've talked to people who were adults when they saw the original trilogy and loved them, and can't stand the new ones.
The "classic 3" had a sense of fun and far less pretension. The humor was not forced or obviously condescending. Episode I was mostly a film that took itself way too seriously. Even the supposed comic relief, the Gun-guns, weren't all that funny. Episode II took itself WAY too seriously.
Empire, by comparison, had many moments of light banter and humor. When I watched it again a couple years ago, I had forgotten just how much funny stuff was in such a dark film. Episode II's funny scenes were... basically non-existent.
When Lucas created the classic first 3 movies, he was a child telling other children a story. Now, Lucas is a parent telling children a story: condescending and with all the sharp corners sanded down.
Oh, it's dirtier than that! I read the article (shock & awe). From the article:
"The only legitimate windows that would pop up on the company's Web site would be one-question customer surveys, she said."
What's happening, according to L.L. Bean, is the user inadvertantly installs spyware from a "free" game, etc. So you're surfing the net and go to L.L. Bean. The spyware detects the connection and then on its own launches pop-up ads from rivals. L.L. Bean says they do not use pop-up ads so it's a dead giveaway. Remember: L.L. Bean has a revenue stream. They don't need outside advertising.
The best way to explain this in bricks & mortar terms is your competition coming in and slapping their ads on or around your store. Especially without your permission!
"Then we must use Desert Power."
Sorry, I had to say it. You can't have a post about Egypt without a quote from "Dune". :-)
He did show proof, but as the inspectors pointed out, it wasn't the legal standard of proof they needed. They were shown documents and videos of weapon program destruction, but because specific ammounts, etc. weren't recorded, he got in trouble because he couldn't prove he destroyed exactly 20,000 litres of VX.
But as it turns out, Hussein's scientists probably lied to him about the original estimates anyway.
The OPEIU represents a fair # of coders, myself included. It's a really mixed bag. Great for job security and benefits. That's about it.
This is why I chose MySQL or PostgreSQL. I needed it to run on Win32 natively without Cygwin. The problem was the install. Using PostgreSQL (which I used in another application) is not a problem. Hell, it's even easier than using MySQL. It's the install on Win32 that was the pain.
But if the installer is in the future, PostgreSQL will rightfully take its place at the head of the Open Source databases. I've used PostgreSQL, and I know how good it is. It has a lot of very nice features (not just the SQL syntax). What it came down to was the ability to install it and get it running quickly.
Maybe for you. For me, it was dead easy to set-up, quick to learn and the @#$! thing WORKED out of the box! I can't say the same about Posgress.
At anyrate, the better way to look at MySQL is the kind, gentle introduction to SQL until your needs drive you to a grown up database. For my dev team, we just needed a backend for our existing Bug database without paying exhorbitant charges to IT Support to use MS SQL. MySQL so fits the bill.
That's just crazy talk! Those two traits are unwanted in investors, politicians and even voters!
I thought TV Ontario was privatized by the Mike "The Knife" Harris?
DirecTV isn't available in Canada anyway. Typically, an American company partners with a local Canadian company to enter the market, and even then, yes, the channels carried are limited by the CRTC and the channels themselves.
Everytime a cable channel is carried in Canada, the original channel must pay extra for their new Canadian viewers to the studios & producers. Currently, the way American specialty channels get around this is by forcing the Canadian cable companies to negotiate with the studios directly. That way A&E can come to Canada, but they don't have to fork out an extra dime for airing rights of certain movies in Canada. Thus the occasional blackout.
For specialty digital channels. $2/channel (some are more expensive). They provide package discounts (buy 5 for $1.50/channel) too. You just need some political backbone.
<Insert political joke here>
Does anyone still care?
Hi, sit down. Make yourself comfortable. I know this is a little disorienting, but this is the real world.
What? Yes, in fact, 90% of the geeks in the real world do come to work shaved, showered and neatly dressed. In fact, a lot of them would do that even without work. I know, in your little fantasy world every geeks looks liks RMS, but this is the real world where, in order to get and keep jobs, they have to shave, shower and dress nicely. Most of our work places have dress codes, you know.
I know, it must be scary for you. So many geeks aren't afraid of speaking in public, making their voices heard and arguing persuasively using logic and business language. Geeks tend to be the most outspoken people in an organization. Being a geek means learning new cultures and different ways of thinking. It's a hobby to a geek. I know, I know. In your world, geeks are quiet, meek and mumble. That's OK, you're in the real world now.
Let's take a walk. Why, yes, they are very patient, caring people who really want their users to know what they know and to be productive. You don't survive long in this business if you don't.
Oh, look, that geek is having a heart-felt conversation with a techno-neophyte boss. Notice how well it's working. That's because the boss doesn't treat the geek as an idiot child who must be restrained. The boss respects the geek's knowledge and listens, in turn, the geek understands the boss has a different set of bosses to answer to, and he's trying his damndest to help his boss. He's helpful, honest and works his damndest to provide the bosses the numbers and research he needs to fight for him.
Why am I being so condescending to you? Why were you being so condescending to geeks?
I guess Windows 2000 doesn't allow file serving and multi-tasking, that's more secure.
I felt physically ill reading this article. At least Tanenbaum is gracious in his latest version of his OS text book to Linux and other *nixes.
It makes people feel more secure, but it doesn't really mean anything. Mainly because the rules for getting the accreditation are pretty trivial in most cases.
I'd prefer something like the Engineering societies where you spend a few years apprenticing and have another professional engineer (who worked with you) sponsor your membership. You'd only need one or two accredited Software Security Engineers in your company, but if they say the product doesn't ship, it doesn't ship.
Professionally accredited Engineers have that kind of power because if they refuse to sign off on a design or course of action, anyone who goes against their professional advice becomes legally liable.
It would also help if companies looked at products OTHER than Microsoft. Competition does wonderful things for innovation, which is precisely why Microsoft tries to avoid competition...
You forgot the hand gesture to go along with that.
(Makes sweeping hand gesture) You will mod this post 'funny'.
Of course you're surprised because big companies do make game development tools. Even mid-sized companies. EA has a big tools group for everything from sound to graphics. I used to work at a game company (which shall remain nameless) that spent quite a lot of money on tools. The problem was getting the game teams to use them.
Back in 1999, most game developers I knew insisted on writing their own code. Usually badly that would then have to be debugged over the next 2 years. When I left the industry, management had found the mantra that I and my co-workers in Tool development had been preaching for years: standard frameworks and common engines.
You could make an argument that your 3D engine needs to be custom, but you can't make that for a sound events API. I worked on 2 different games, and found their custom written sound libraries implemented the same functionality without any differences. Heck, there were even identical pieces of code in the two ('cause they both copied it from an older game).
The big companies do create tools and frameworks, and it's getting better year by year as more developers "see the light" of common tools and libraries. The big problem is now coming up with better ideas.
Cocoa maybe nice, but I don't get a choice about what I use at work. Although, if it is anything like NeXTStep (which was very pleasant to program in), I can believe you.
I hate programming now. I loathe the thought of it. Not because I hate the act of programming, but the systems I have to work with.
Sure, in the nice old days, the C64 and IBM PC were fairly easy to code for, but they also gave you very little bang for the buck. The nice thing was a couple hours of programming could get something nice out.
Now, it can take me a couple hours to do even a simple notepad application from scratch. I'm forever spending lines of code to fill in structures or respond to all the events an API wants.
The computers got more powerful, and the APIs also got more powerful, but now I spend so much time filling out basic structures that I don't need. I'd rather a lot of that stuff was user configurable or stored in an XML file somewhere. I don't want to have to know about allocating & positioning fonts! I just want to dump it in a nice scrolling box.
It's like a bureacratic nightmare writing code now. Sure, there's MFC, etc., but that's like the "easy" tax form. The moment you want to do just one thing different, you're back to square one. And the learning curve, sheesh!
That's why I like projects like XUL. We've made the APIs so programmer centric, that I can't breathe anymore. I just want to code the important stuff then let someone else make the GUI pretty.
Now, granted, I did make a connection that SOAP was the only protocol for inter-device communication in .Net (it isn't). But considering Microsoft has been encouraging developers to think about making every .NET service SOAP enabled, it's hard not to wonder...
.Net, conceptually, sounds neat but Microsoft still has a single, non-networked PC mentality. I didn't even mention Linux/Apache/PHP/Java/etc becuase it's not about them being better or worse. It's about the fact that .Net was an idea pushed out as a "neat idea" without thinking through its implications.
I'd read the first things Microsoft officially published about it back when they were hot of the keyboards of the developers. .NET is a neat idea, but the security implications are scary. .NET applications are expected to exchange code and run remotely. They have a grand vision of .NET code being swapped across the planet and running on everything from your cellphone to mission critical servers. Creating a monoculture where a malicious worm can spread like wildfire before anyone can even react is a frightning thought.
Saying "Well, it's up to the developer to make it secure" is like saying "Well, it's up to the sysadmin to apply the Blaster patches". They should, but they won't.
*splutter*
.Net is going to make Melissa et al look like a minor cold compared to the digital Pearl Harbor that is .Net. This thing was built without security in mind, then it was "Oh, we need to secure it!". Cringely had a good column about this just last week.
SOAP (the communication protocol of .Net) was designed to deliberately to bypass firewalls by using the HTTP port by default. That alone is enough reason to shut down .Net. If you cannot block off .Net communication without breaking another (relatively more secure) protocol, you'll either cripple .Net or a lot of companies will be caught with their pants down.
Listen, I know you're all excited after reading the .NET and C# technology papers, etc. But I've been victimized by MS technology for nearly 15 years (Oh dear, has it been that long already??), and I can guarantee you: .NET will not provide half of what they claim it can do.