No the original poster was talking about Microsoft being scared of Java. Considering Microsoft didn't invent C, and most new development there is in C#, its reasonable to assume if they were scared of Java, it would be because they thought the language didn't stack up to C# not C.
Honestly, not to start a flame war, I think most people who have used Java and C# would disagree.
I'm a full-time Java developer, have been for ages, but Java (even 1.5) has a ways to go to be as nice to work in as C#.
1.5 is a BIG jump forward, but I find it hard to believe you could be so pro Java/anti-C# if you've ever done any real development in both. At best you could six of one/half dozen of the other between them... but its hard to imagine someone thinking Java was that much better.
Scaled Composite built SpaceShip One but the spacecraft is not owned by them, it is payed for and owned by American Mojave Aerospace Ventures, which is owned by Burt Rutan and Paul Allen.
Considering every one of your points is wrong, most of them the opposite of reality, it was a very poor attempt.
But to touch on your points:
1) yes I know several people who have worked extensively on it, and have done integration projects with it.
2) There are baseless opinions and expert opinions. You don't know my background or qualifications, so your declaraion that it is, in fact, baseless is incorrect. Keep in mind there are people who are experts in their field on/. When you, without knowing what you are talking about, flame people you risk flaming people who know a lot more about the subject at hand than you.
3) If you have ever worked in software development, much less enterprise software development, you'd know the times a blanket statement like that are true is minimal. Considering the fact of the NDAs one has to sign to know what the current cutting edge is in this space, I can say for certain no one working on OO knows what the big players are doing right now.
4) Nope, not in marketing, but to someone who does not work on a daily basis researching the fundamental ways of architecting software systems for the purpose of improving business process management, it might seem that "knowing what you're talking about" equates to "marketing speak". How many of the Fortune 100 are running enterprise software you designed?
When you are building a software platform to handle business best practices and workflow, the format your data is in really doesn't matter. Companies do not build these large scale applications themselves, they have integrators doing it or buy pre-integrated packages.
OO's system can't do 1/10th of the stuff Office 2003 is capable of doing where collaboration, workflow, process management and other important technologies are concerned.
Sure its got Java API's applications can be built with, but until someone builds a framework whereby you can actually do the stuff these businesses are wanting to do going forward, the API's are just that. Interfaces. Not applications.
There seems to be this opensource mentality of not "build a better application" but rather "lets beat Microsoft!". Thats going to get the opensource community nowhere, because very few people working in it have visibility into what these enterprises are actually doing across the board, and have very little visibility into the kind of big guns MS is readying to be able to meet those needs.
OO is, conservatively, five years behind the ball. Can it meet those needs? Of course. But not until, as I said, the people pushing the development of these applications understand where they need to go to really compete. The future isn't about office suites and file formats, its about having all the business applications working together, so the processes a business has to follow day by day can be automated.
MS isn't the only company working on the frameworks and tools to enable that, IBM is putting a lot of research into it, too. What OO needs is IBM to throw its weight behind it, because Sun doesn't get it and has never gotten it.
The document format is of no concern to me, and wasn't the subject of my reply, the editorial comment in the post claiming it might help move people off Office was.
Why? Businesses don't care about interoperability. They care about integration around business practices, workflow, rights management and collaboration.
OpenOffice has a long ways to go before it offers the sort of functionality that real businesses need, not mom-n-pop or real small businesses that don't actually manage their best practices.
I know I'm going to get modded into the toilet for saying it, but this is from years of experience in enterprise applications. OpenOffice might get there some day, but not until the people working on it and with applications around it are people who actually have made a living building advanced Fortune-50 caliber integrated information systems.
I'm not going to argue this. SEMA is wrong, their position is contrary to case law. You too can use google, if you wish, to dig the references up.
The "warranty void if removed" stickers on consumer electronics, including computers, have been tried in court and held to be legal. SEMA's position has also been tried in court over aftermarket modifications on cars and in every case its been found SEMA's position is wrong.
95% of people who argue the Magnusson-Moss relavence online seem to do so out of information they've read online from questionable sources, or in the case of car modders, wishful thinking. In the case of the car modders, I've known quite a few people to learn five-figure lessons on that one, not counting the fees they've paid to lawyers.
As an aside to your oil change example, one of the reasons free scheduled maintennance is included on so many high end cars now is it frees the dealer from most of the points around Magnusson-Moss. There have been a number of cases of engine warranty cases being denied using a 3rd party oil change as the reason, because the manufacturer pays for the required ones.
Either way, I have no intent on arguing it any more. I've had that arguement far too many times, and people who so strongly take your position tend to not want to sway their opinion anyway.
Do what you want, hopefully it won't bite you. A lot of people aren't that lucky.
Its not applicable, and its nice that Apple takes that route with its customers, but by no means is it required.
Magnusson-Moss makes it illegal to tie the use of manfacturer-provided parts and dealer service around scheduled maintennance to warranty coverage.
It tends to get projected onto other things frequently, where it really isn't applicable. (Aftermarket car parts is a prime example, where it in fact doesn't protect warranty rights in the slightest).
In this case, Apple would, in fact, be perfectly within their rights to void the warranty, even if in your experience they wouldn't.
Thats precisely what I did. Total time including googling for a million digits of e (massive overkill, its in the first couple hundred, iirc) and a list of primes, plus writing the perl script was about fifteen minutes.
The second question was even easier, but I'd seen a problem in that vein in an IQ test or something when I was a kid, and being a total moron when it comes to math, it was the first thing I tried.
20 minutes to solve both, just to get to teh damn google jobs page, a job I wouldn't want.
None of the well qualified software engineers I know are having any problem finding jobs. In fact we're having issues with retention, because its so easy to find software jobs now for our predominantly (80+%) senior staff.
I wouldn't want to be a standard grade software engineer right now, because there seems to be ten or more underqualified engineers for every non-senior level position, but senior people are not nearly as easy to come by.
No, thats a cop-out. As long as people are worrying themselves about the Firefox vs IE numbers, then Firefox needs to be considered on the same playing field, otherwise they could keep calling themselves pre-1.0 forever and never have to own up to significant shortcomings in it.
FWIW, Firefox is the only browser I use. But its rediculous to hold it up as an example against IE in many ways. If IE had a patch, it'd be on my Mom's computer already. Her homepage is yahoo. If I don't call her and tell her to upgrade, how is she supposed to know?
More like the beauty of a browser that hardly anyone uses, and those that do are tech people who understand when your preferences, bookmarks and other settings get nuked. Oh, and when you install, have it not work, have to uninstall the old version, then reinstall.
I put Firefox on my Mom's laptop a few months ago. I dread having to talk her through upgrading it. I may just suggest she go back to IE, since she doesn't have to worry about upgrading it and XP SP2 takes care of the issue she was concerned about.
Sucks... The firefox team should be focusing on handling upgrades with a click and not losing people's data... not adding more features.
Its an oversimplification to ensure the parallel between the parabola of the plane (elipse that would hit the ground), and parabola of the space craft (elipse that misses the ground) are the same thing. They're the ones who called it a parabolic flight.
Its a parabola from the standpoint of an objects current location, but because the angle to the center of gravity changes as it falls, it falls in an eliptical path.
To avoid the possibility any other responders to this thread demonstrate a critical need to be cracked with a cluestick:
What a person experiences in this case is *identical* to what you'd experience in Space.
You don't suddenly leave the Earths gravitational field in orbit and start floating around. You just fall in a parabola that happens to miss the ground.
One would think this was common knowledge, but from the posts on here, its clearly not.
Slashdot Mirror
No the original poster was talking about Microsoft being scared of Java. Considering Microsoft didn't invent C, and most new development there is in C#, its reasonable to assume if they were scared of Java, it would be because they thought the language didn't stack up to C# not C.
Honestly, not to start a flame war, I think most people who have used Java and C# would disagree.
I'm a full-time Java developer, have been for ages, but Java (even 1.5) has a ways to go to be as nice to work in as C#.
1.5 is a BIG jump forward, but I find it hard to believe you could be so pro Java/anti-C# if you've ever done any real development in both. At best you could six of one/half dozen of the other between them... but its hard to imagine someone thinking Java was that much better.
Yeah, because everything you see written on the Internet can be extrapolated into assumptions about the general population.
And you thought goatse was just one freaky guy...
Scaled Composite built SpaceShip One but the spacecraft is not owned by them, it is payed for and owned by American Mojave Aerospace Ventures, which is owned by Burt Rutan and Paul Allen.
Sorry, NDAs. I'm not sure how far I can speak to this subject beyond what I have without running into problems.
I could probably make a list but with my luck I'd include a point I shouldn't have.
In hind sight I shouldn't have replied at all to this story since I knew going in I couldn't say much.
Oops!
My what a poor attempt at flaming.
/. When you, without knowing what you are talking about, flame people you risk flaming people who know a lot more about the subject at hand than you.
Considering every one of your points is wrong, most of them the opposite of reality, it was a very poor attempt.
But to touch on your points:
1) yes I know several people who have worked extensively on it, and have done integration projects with it.
2) There are baseless opinions and expert opinions. You don't know my background or qualifications, so your declaraion that it is, in fact, baseless is incorrect. Keep in mind there are people who are experts in their field on
3) If you have ever worked in software development, much less enterprise software development, you'd know the times a blanket statement like that are true is minimal. Considering the fact of the NDAs one has to sign to know what the current cutting edge is in this space, I can say for certain no one working on OO knows what the big players are doing right now.
4) Nope, not in marketing, but to someone who does not work on a daily basis researching the fundamental ways of architecting software systems for the purpose of improving business process management, it might seem that "knowing what you're talking about" equates to "marketing speak". How many of the Fortune 100 are running enterprise software you designed?
When you are building a software platform to handle business best practices and workflow, the format your data is in really doesn't matter. Companies do not build these large scale applications themselves, they have integrators doing it or buy pre-integrated packages.
OO's system can't do 1/10th of the stuff Office 2003 is capable of doing where collaboration, workflow, process management and other important technologies are concerned.
Sure its got Java API's applications can be built with, but until someone builds a framework whereby you can actually do the stuff these businesses are wanting to do going forward, the API's are just that. Interfaces. Not applications.
There seems to be this opensource mentality of not "build a better application" but rather "lets beat Microsoft!". Thats going to get the opensource community nowhere, because very few people working in it have visibility into what these enterprises are actually doing across the board, and have very little visibility into the kind of big guns MS is readying to be able to meet those needs.
OO is, conservatively, five years behind the ball. Can it meet those needs? Of course. But not until, as I said, the people pushing the development of these applications understand where they need to go to really compete. The future isn't about office suites and file formats, its about having all the business applications working together, so the processes a business has to follow day by day can be automated.
MS isn't the only company working on the frameworks and tools to enable that, IBM is putting a lot of research into it, too. What OO needs is IBM to throw its weight behind it, because Sun doesn't get it and has never gotten it.
Um, did you even read the /. article?
The document format is of no concern to me, and wasn't the subject of my reply, the editorial comment in the post claiming it might help move people off Office was.
How is this confusing?
Why? Businesses don't care about interoperability. They care about integration around business practices, workflow, rights management and collaboration.
OpenOffice has a long ways to go before it offers the sort of functionality that real businesses need, not mom-n-pop or real small businesses that don't actually manage their best practices.
I know I'm going to get modded into the toilet for saying it, but this is from years of experience in enterprise applications. OpenOffice might get there some day, but not until the people working on it and with applications around it are people who actually have made a living building advanced Fortune-50 caliber integrated information systems.
I'm not going to argue this. SEMA is wrong, their position is contrary to case law. You too can use google, if you wish, to dig the references up.
The "warranty void if removed" stickers on consumer electronics, including computers, have been tried in court and held to be legal. SEMA's position has also been tried in court over aftermarket modifications on cars and in every case its been found SEMA's position is wrong.
95% of people who argue the Magnusson-Moss relavence online seem to do so out of information they've read online from questionable sources, or in the case of car modders, wishful thinking. In the case of the car modders, I've known quite a few people to learn five-figure lessons on that one, not counting the fees they've paid to lawyers.
As an aside to your oil change example, one of the reasons free scheduled maintennance is included on so many high end cars now is it frees the dealer from most of the points around Magnusson-Moss. There have been a number of cases of engine warranty cases being denied using a 3rd party oil change as the reason, because the manufacturer pays for the required ones.
Either way, I have no intent on arguing it any more. I've had that arguement far too many times, and people who so strongly take your position tend to not want to sway their opinion anyway.
Do what you want, hopefully it won't bite you. A lot of people aren't that lucky.
Its not applicable, and its nice that Apple takes that route with its customers, but by no means is it required.
Magnusson-Moss makes it illegal to tie the use of manfacturer-provided parts and dealer service around scheduled maintennance to warranty coverage.
It tends to get projected onto other things frequently, where it really isn't applicable. (Aftermarket car parts is a prime example, where it in fact doesn't protect warranty rights in the slightest).
In this case, Apple would, in fact, be perfectly within their rights to void the warranty, even if in your experience they wouldn't.
Windows user!
/.?
er...
Theif!
er... wait a second, which one is the bad one on
Thats precisely what I did. Total time including googling for a million digits of e (massive overkill, its in the first couple hundred, iirc) and a list of primes, plus writing the perl script was about fifteen minutes.
The second question was even easier, but I'd seen a problem in that vein in an IQ test or something when I was a kid, and being a total moron when it comes to math, it was the first thing I tried.
20 minutes to solve both, just to get to teh damn google jobs page, a job I wouldn't want.
Oh well.
I don't believe for a second that Bush could even successfully read his responses in there, much less understand what they mean.
Clearly the questions were provided in writing where others could answer, not verbally where they had to answer for themselves.
That makes both sets of answers largely meaningless.
View out, I suppose.
You let your parents on the internet without a fully locked down hardware firewall?
*shudder*
None of the well qualified software engineers I know are having any problem finding jobs. In fact we're having issues with retention, because its so easy to find software jobs now for our predominantly (80+%) senior staff.
I wouldn't want to be a standard grade software engineer right now, because there seems to be ten or more underqualified engineers for every non-senior level position, but senior people are not nearly as easy to come by.
No, thats a cop-out. As long as people are worrying themselves about the Firefox vs IE numbers, then Firefox needs to be considered on the same playing field, otherwise they could keep calling themselves pre-1.0 forever and never have to own up to significant shortcomings in it.
FWIW, Firefox is the only browser I use. But its rediculous to hold it up as an example against IE in many ways. If IE had a patch, it'd be on my Mom's computer already. Her homepage is yahoo. If I don't call her and tell her to upgrade, how is she supposed to know?
More like the beauty of a browser that hardly anyone uses, and those that do are tech people who understand when your preferences, bookmarks and other settings get nuked. Oh, and when you install, have it not work, have to uninstall the old version, then reinstall.
I put Firefox on my Mom's laptop a few months ago. I dread having to talk her through upgrading it. I may just suggest she go back to IE, since she doesn't have to worry about upgrading it and XP SP2 takes care of the issue she was concerned about.
Sucks... The firefox team should be focusing on handling upgrades with a click and not losing people's data... not adding more features.
My parents have an LCD window in their bathroom. Flip a switch and it goes in a blink of an eye from frosted to clear.
That was put in there five years ago, and I think its pretty common in high end homes these days.
Its an oversimplification to ensure the parallel between the parabola of the plane (elipse that would hit the ground), and parabola of the space craft (elipse that misses the ground) are the same thing. They're the ones who called it a parabolic flight.
Its a parabola from the standpoint of an objects current location, but because the angle to the center of gravity changes as it falls, it falls in an eliptical path.
Good thing you weren't surfing pr0n...
To avoid the possibility any other responders to this thread demonstrate a critical need to be cracked with a cluestick:
What a person experiences in this case is *identical* to what you'd experience in Space.
You don't suddenly leave the Earths gravitational field in orbit and start floating around. You just fall in a parabola that happens to miss the ground.
One would think this was common knowledge, but from the posts on here, its clearly not.
Insightful?
Skydiving has wind rushing by you at 140mph. There's no real sensation of weightlessness, just thirty seconds of rush followed by a nuclear wedgie.