It's an interesting article until he mentiones UML is a methodology. That is where it stopped being interesting. Besides that, I believe that UML is not the right tool to maintain hundreds of relationships, unless you use an automated tool like Rational's Rose. And Rose is tied to RUP, so you more or less have to use that, whether it is the right development methodology for your enterprise or not.
I'll say it once again... UML is NOT a methodology. UML stands for Unified Modelling Language. Please tell me where the methodology is in that?
The more their source is publicly available, the bigger the chance is that someone sees it. The bigger the chance that someone sees it, the harder it gest to prove you did not look at Microsoft's source code when you wrote your program, no matter if your program is open or closed source.
Well documented (for developers): because it's hard to grasp the big picture only by looking at the sources when the codebase is large: you end just seeing a lot of trees, but you lose yourself in the forest. Sources tell a developer how something is implemented and how it is supposed to be extended, but usually they tell very little on why things have been implemented that way. Intelligent comments in the code are good, but when a concept spans on several source files, a README on the subject or a tutorial are definitively needed.
I always thought design documents were supposed to tell me this. I guess I must have been building too much software in corporate environments.
On a more serious note, I see a disturbing lack of design documentation in open source software. This is in my opinion one area open source definitely should improve, togehter with project management. But that would make oss development a lot more formal, and a lot of people probably do not want that. Choices, choices.
A lot of people here critisize either the UML, or the process of designing software before actually building it. My questions to those people are:
Do you understand software design?
Do you understand UML?
For those of you who answered no to the first question: Think of system design in the same way as an architect who designs a house. Let's be honest, would you build a house without a blueprint? Now think of large software systems. Would you build a large software system without a blueprint?
That is where UML comes in. UML is a language specification to model complex systems. The idea behind it is to be able to communicate ideas in an unambigueus way. Think of UML as the blueprint for building large software systems.
Furthermore, your initial design will probably be flawed in many ways you don't anticipate until you start trying to implement it. Unless you're copying an algorithm out of a textbook or a design you've used before, you'll be lucky to be even close to your final design on your first pass. As a result, your design will evolve.
Thsi is where design patterns come in, my dear. Reusble design is a good thing. Also, the liberal use of analysis patters will help you avoid making those flawed design decisions.
When they set up the CG research group, they promised to have half the papers in Siggraph (the premier forum for computer graphics research) in a few years. This was a little scary, but not as scary as what really happened. What really happened is that these people pretty much stopped publishing at all; and stopped interacting with the rest of the graphics community.
I asked a few of the people there about it, and they seemed happy as clams, they weren't worried about it. To me, it appears that their world had shrunk to be just Microsoft. It's more than a pity, it's almost criminal.
To me this indicates a false work ethic with those researchers. It sounds to me that they are only in it for the money, not to advance science or advance themselves. Do you think a great scientist like Stephen Hawking would ever get "bought" (as you put it) by a company like Microsoft? No way, he would have to give up way too much freedom in order to work there. He would only serve Microsoft, not the world or the computer industry at large.
Okay, I know this example is flawed. Hawking doesn't work in computer science:)
On the software front, you have the magic four (or five, depending on how you look at it) of Maya 4 , Softimage XSI 2.0, 3D Studio 4, Lightwave 6.5, and Houdini.
Will you please get a clue? The magic five?? Please! Don't even try to compare the feature set of Maya with 3D studio. Don't even try to compare the workflow of Maya and Houdini to that of 3D studio and (to a lesser extent) Lightwave. Sure Lightwave and 3D studio are amazing programs, but nowhere near the same league of Maya, Houdini or SoftImage.
The same counts for renderers. The only renderer used for feature films is PRman, with some help from BMRT for scenes that really can't do without raytracing. And a Linux port for PRman has existed for quite some time now.
...you should be able to find it in some online patent database. Once you have access to the patent, it shouldn't be too hard to implement microsoft's idea different enough so that it is both interoperable and doesn't infringe the patent.
Microsoft releases a toolkit called Interix, which in essence is lot of GNU tools compiled for Windows NT/2000. You can grab the source at ftp.microsoft.com. This is interesting, if I would like to use the compiler provided with interix (gcc), I can't because of the license that goes with the Mobile Internet Tools SDK. Very interesting...
Increasingly, the computer industry seems to be devided between Us and Them, the group of people who belive open is good and who open up their sources, technologies etc. and the group of people and companies who want to keep their stuff closed.
History has already given us enough examples of which group will win in the end.
The TVA is absolutely right on this one. Running an untrusted program is asking for trouble, and running it without approval is both theft of corporate resources and a violation of corporate guidelines.
The question remains why the users actually CAN run Seti@Home, since I expect their network to be protected by a good firewall, ad the users given no rights to install any software (it's not that hard with windows 9x, even easier with windows NT). If I were security officer, I would conduct a serious audit of the security policies, because apparently something is lacking.
Why doesn't your friend volunteer to help in the gnome/kde/... project? I am sure they are more than happy to get your friend's input on usability issues.
Anyone can contribute to open source, that is the beauty of it. I would like to see an open source marketing group, to market open source software. An open source documentation group, providing the best documentation possible. An open source test group, to test scalability, reliability et. al.
Would be good for open source, to run a little more like a business. After all, this is a business world.
I would most certainly buy their stock. I would buy RedHat stock if i could, but being in Holland that is somewhat difficult:(
But seriously, RedHat has a market share of 55%, the are the most well known linux distribution. If there is one distro i would buy stock in, it would be RedHat.
I lost 100 MB on a zip-disk, at my work we lost a 10 GB ditto backup (the ditto was not my choice, we bought a tapestreamer the same day) and I will never ever use an iomega product again. I am sure some people here have similar experiences.
Iomega products are good when you don't use them...they don't cut it is a heavy-use environment.
Soon, we will have recordabe DVD standard at around the same price we have CD-R. Great storage medium, and I'll still use tape to back up data.
It's all in the marketing!
on
Shared Source?
·
· Score: 2
So many brilliant people here seem to overlook one thing. What made microsoft big was not their incredible products. Actually the reverse is true... most of the stuff that microsoft made was complete crud. However, they were lucky and they had and still have a brilliant marketing department.
So, why will Linux lose? Not because it is not good enough, but because the marketing behind Linux is not sexy enough. Just look at microsoft. Read about them, learn from them.
Examples:
They have great case studies on their website. Just look at the technet site. Where are the Linux case studies?
Business talk. They have great white papers on their site. Where are the Linux white papers?
Sexy names for "cool new technologies". Linux doesn't have those, and as a result is not sexy enough.
freebies. My boss got a free cdrom with some windows ce junk on it, while he has a nicely working palm. He is looking into windows ce handhelds now...
I am serious. My manager is prepared to throw away his great working palm for a bigger, userUNfriendlier handheld.
This is the problem Linux faces. Marketing. And this is the area in which Linux will lose big time unless something happens. Look at microsoft, study microsoft, learn from microsoft.
Read "The Art of War". I did and learnt a lot from it. The first chapter handles about studying your enemy careful. Microsoft does this, Linux (or the whole OSS community) doesn't. This is logical, 99% of the community is coders. But when you want the suits to accept Linux (remember, the suits make the decisions, not the techs), you have to talk like a suit.
Final note: I have submitted stories like these on here before, but no one listened. I hope this time it will be different (but I doubt it...)
I am sure Microsoft will not only be able to pull this off, but also others will follow.
There are millions of.doc files all over the world, which can only be read well with... word. And don't come with AbiWord or StarOffice. One linked or embedded file and bye bye StarOfice.
There are millions of users trained in using Office products. It is too expensive (and too difficult!!) to retrain people. I am afraid a lot of users don't WANT to be retrained.. Word works for them.
Of course this model will have its problems and limitations, but in the end it is a better business model for Microsoft. I just don't want to think about what could happen... just think about a business in financial problems. No upgrade money = no software = no business.
Renting is bad... you always pay too much.
This gene kills old cells. This is a good thing. Think about this: your old cells never die. So any cell with a faulty replication process will replicate forever. Think cancer on a significantly larger scale.
Apart from some good memories about my Magic-playing time, these articles once again prove how hard it is to change organisation culture.
In my opinion, Atkinson never felt the need to change himself, it was a need dictated from outside. After that, when he brought in numerous consultants, again because he didn't know what to do. In the case as presented, as least one cunsultant wasn't worth his salt.
With Atkinson having no clue where to lead the company to, and his employees increasingly frustrated by the large amount of fairly clueless consultants, the demise of WOTC was inevitable.
What Atkinson should have done was not listen to outsiders, but that is a: impractical and b: holds an inherent danger of becoming isolated from the corporate world. If he really felt a change in the corporate culture at WOTC was needed, he should have communicated it loud and clear to everyone in the company, make sure everyone supports it (by whatever means) and the clearly lead the way. His failure to do so cost him WOTC. We will see what Hasbro will make of it, but I am rather pessimistic.
The only cause I could think of would be to make corporations more aware of security issues with certain products. But I guess the term "ethical hacking" covers that. I don't see Greenpeace for instance hacking the Shell website... not enough exposure for them.
People have been talking about HDTV for a good 10 years or so, and I still have to see a prototype that actually has a better picture quality than my Bang & Olufsen television (and that one is still analogue... no 100Hz and all that crap). Of course, we Europeans always had the better TV systems (PAL/secam).
Besides that, there are millions and millions of old televisions out there.... it will be ages before they are all replaced with HDTV ones.
Everyone/. screams when Microsoft puts out a piece of FUD like this about Linux. This is the same thing...pure fud. The author may have some valid points, none of which he has any arguments for which support his points, but the entire piece just screams FUD.
Please remember that nothing in this world is a panacea, there are trade-offs in every decision one makes. The same counts for OO... it's no magic solution to problems the industry faces, but it is IMHO a step in the right direction.
If you are worried about your constitutional rights being taken away from you...act to prevent it. Follow political debates, write your congressman, maybe join a political party (I understood there is more than just republicans or democrats). But don't sit at home waiting for things to happen. Change doesn't happen, you have to act to achieve a change.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll say it once again... UML is NOT a methodology. UML stands for Unified Modelling Language. Please tell me where the methodology is in that?
The more their source is publicly available, the bigger the chance is that someone sees it. The bigger the chance that someone sees it, the harder it gest to prove you did not look at Microsoft's source code when you wrote your program, no matter if your program is open or closed source.
It is just a way to beat the competition to them.
I always thought design documents were supposed to tell me this. I guess I must have been building too much software in corporate environments.
On a more serious note, I see a disturbing lack of design documentation in open source software. This is in my opinion one area open source definitely should improve, togehter with project management. But that would make oss development a lot more formal, and a lot of people probably do not want that. Choices, choices.
Nah... just post some Latex source :)
- Do you understand software design?
- Do you understand UML?
For those of you who answered no to the first question: Think of system design in the same way as an architect who designs a house. Let's be honest, would you build a house without a blueprint? Now think of large software systems. Would you build a large software system without a blueprint?That is where UML comes in. UML is a language specification to model complex systems. The idea behind it is to be able to communicate ideas in an unambigueus way. Think of UML as the blueprint for building large software systems.
Thsi is where design patterns come in, my dear. Reusble design is a good thing. Also, the liberal use of analysis patters will help you avoid making those flawed design decisions.
Welcome to the 21st century, where reuse rules.
I asked a few of the people there about it, and they seemed happy as clams, they weren't worried about it. To me, it appears that their world had shrunk to be just Microsoft. It's more than a pity, it's almost criminal.
To me this indicates a false work ethic with those researchers. It sounds to me that they are only in it for the money, not to advance science or advance themselves. Do you think a great scientist like Stephen Hawking would ever get "bought" (as you put it) by a company like Microsoft? No way, he would have to give up way too much freedom in order to work there. He would only serve Microsoft, not the world or the computer industry at large.
Okay, I know this example is flawed. Hawking doesn't work in computer science :)
Will you please get a clue? The magic five?? Please! Don't even try to compare the feature set of Maya with 3D studio. Don't even try to compare the workflow of Maya and Houdini to that of 3D studio and (to a lesser extent) Lightwave. Sure Lightwave and 3D studio are amazing programs, but nowhere near the same league of Maya, Houdini or SoftImage.
The same counts for renderers. The only renderer used for feature films is PRman, with some help from BMRT for scenes that really can't do without raytracing. And a Linux port for PRman has existed for quite some time now.
...you should be able to find it in some online patent database. Once you have access to the patent, it shouldn't be too hard to implement microsoft's idea different enough so that it is both interoperable and doesn't infringe the patent.
Microsoft releases a toolkit called Interix, which in essence is lot of GNU tools compiled for Windows NT/2000. You can grab the source at ftp.microsoft.com. This is interesting, if I would like to use the compiler provided with interix (gcc), I can't because of the license that goes with the Mobile Internet Tools SDK. Very interesting...
Remember, it is the artist that creates, the computer is just a tool to create it with.
History has already given us enough examples of which group will win in the end.
The question remains why the users actually CAN run Seti@Home, since I expect their network to be protected by a good firewall, ad the users given no rights to install any software (it's not that hard with windows 9x, even easier with windows NT). If I were security officer, I would conduct a serious audit of the security policies, because apparently something is lacking.
Anyone can contribute to open source, that is the beauty of it. I would like to see an open source marketing group, to market open source software. An open source documentation group, providing the best documentation possible. An open source test group, to test scalability, reliability et. al.
Would be good for open source, to run a little more like a business. After all, this is a business world.
But seriously, RedHat has a market share of 55%, the are the most well known linux distribution. If there is one distro i would buy stock in, it would be RedHat.
Iomega products are good when you don't use them...they don't cut it is a heavy-use environment.
Soon, we will have recordabe DVD standard at around the same price we have CD-R. Great storage medium, and I'll still use tape to back up data.
So, why will Linux lose? Not because it is not good enough, but because the marketing behind Linux is not sexy enough. Just look at microsoft. Read about them, learn from them.
Examples:
I am serious. My manager is prepared to throw away his great working palm for a bigger, userUNfriendlier handheld.
This is the problem Linux faces. Marketing. And this is the area in which Linux will lose big time unless something happens. Look at microsoft, study microsoft, learn from microsoft.
Read "The Art of War". I did and learnt a lot from it. The first chapter handles about studying your enemy careful. Microsoft does this, Linux (or the whole OSS community) doesn't. This is logical, 99% of the community is coders. But when you want the suits to accept Linux (remember, the suits make the decisions, not the techs), you have to talk like a suit.
Final note: I have submitted stories like these on here before, but no one listened. I hope this time it will be different (but I doubt it...)
There are millions of .doc files all over the world, which can only be read well with... word. And don't come with AbiWord or StarOffice. One linked or embedded file and bye bye StarOfice.
There are millions of users trained in using Office products. It is too expensive (and too difficult!!) to retrain people. I am afraid a lot of users don't WANT to be retrained.. Word works for them.
Of course this model will have its problems and limitations, but in the end it is a better business model for Microsoft. I just don't want to think about what could happen... just think about a business in financial problems. No upgrade money = no software = no business. Renting is bad... you always pay too much.
This gene kills old cells. This is a good thing. Think about this: your old cells never die. So any cell with a faulty replication process will replicate forever. Think cancer on a significantly larger scale.
In my opinion, Atkinson never felt the need to change himself, it was a need dictated from outside. After that, when he brought in numerous consultants, again because he didn't know what to do. In the case as presented, as least one cunsultant wasn't worth his salt.
With Atkinson having no clue where to lead the company to, and his employees increasingly frustrated by the large amount of fairly clueless consultants, the demise of WOTC was inevitable.
What Atkinson should have done was not listen to outsiders, but that is a: impractical and b: holds an inherent danger of becoming isolated from the corporate world. If he really felt a change in the corporate culture at WOTC was needed, he should have communicated it loud and clear to everyone in the company, make sure everyone supports it (by whatever means) and the clearly lead the way. His failure to do so cost him WOTC. We will see what Hasbro will make of it, but I am rather pessimistic.
The only cause I could think of would be to make corporations more aware of security issues with certain products. But I guess the term "ethical hacking" covers that. I don't see Greenpeace for instance hacking the Shell website... not enough exposure for them.
Besides that, there are millions and millions of old televisions out there.... it will be ages before they are all replaced with HDTV ones.
Please remember that nothing in this world is a panacea, there are trade-offs in every decision one makes. The same counts for OO... it's no magic solution to problems the industry faces, but it is IMHO a step in the right direction.
If you are worried about your constitutional rights being taken away from you...act to prevent it. Follow political debates, write your congressman, maybe join a political party (I understood there is more than just republicans or democrats). But don't sit at home waiting for things to happen. Change doesn't happen, you have to act to achieve a change.
Now let's hope RedHat's x.0 64 bit version won't be too bad...