I have not yet read the original Lem story, but I have no doubt it is far superior to this awful movie. In any case, a movie is not a book and can't be judged by the same criteria. Therefore faithfulness to the original story is irrelevant. This movie sucked on its own terms.
First, the characters were boring and totally unengaging. There was no chemistry between the two leads to make us believe they really loved each other. The plastic smile, was not as someone else implied, flirting, but more likely embarassement at being stuck in such a lousy movie. The plot was nonexistent. The screenplay childish. The worst sin is that the movie is totally humorless and took itself too seriously.
As for the "deep" philosophy, give me a break. The philosophical issues, were dealt with at high-school late night heart-to-heart level, not with any intellectual seriousness. The "message" hits you over the head and is repeated often and loudly, just in case you are too stupid to figure it out yourself the first time. There are many far superior movies to this one, that deal with the same issues of guilt, loss, death, god, love etc.
Semi-spoiler warning - a key plot prop is about to be discussed (although I'm really not giving away anything since this movie has no plot beyond what you read in the reviews): Plus, anyone who actually bothers to read the Dylan Thomas poem Death Shall Have No Dominion, will see the whole plot laid out in the first paragraph. But the director takes Thomas literally. The ending is like Dylan Thomas meets "Touched by an Angel."
Speaking of the ending, why did we have to have the flashback to the ending before the actual ending? Does the Director think we are too stupid to figure out why the good Doctor makes the choice he does?
I resent that we had to see Clooney's ass instead of McElhone's. What a wasted opportunity! Jeremy Davies could have saved the movie by killing all the other characters.
That one sentance, which was Brooks' key insight, sums up why progress will always be limited. You can read commentary on that point in a paper I wrote here.
Other's have already pointed out the obvious corollary: good management practices are most important for successful, reliable software development.
I don't think the Agile people need to be trashed as much as they are here. Sure, they are gurus. But they are emphasizing human-centric instead of "software engineering" which is a Good Thing (TM). Just don't get too religious about XP and you'll be fine.
Other than that, the greatest thing for programmers since sliced bread is Python.
And yes, I also agree open source development has pushed this industry light years ahead. But it works because - it's human-centric programming!
The problem with all software methodologies is that they are usually associated with some software guru who is trying to make big bucks as a consultant selling his brand. Also methodologies very often become religions, with the head guru being the leader of the cult. This is understandeable since most software developers depend on a song and a prayer to get their code to work. XP is a good example of both trends.
I wrote a white paper on software methodology which you can download here. I am an agnostic when it comes to methodologies, but there is alot you can learn from what's out there.
While HIPAA compliance is serious, no one is going to shut you down if you aren't compliant by April. First of all, the privacy rule just was finalized a few weeks ago, and the security rules haven't even been finalized yet. This isn't Y2K - the deadlines are artificial, and, as was done for the transaction deadline, extensions no doubt will be offered.
The key though is this:
The first step you must take now is build a compliance plan! This is important because you will need it to get an extension. It is also the only way to make HIPAA compliance manageable.
Keep in mind, as well, that HIPAA is mostly about best practices regarding security and privacy. Even if HIPAA didn't exist you should be doing it. Not just you. Everyone out there. HIPAA is just a stick.
So 1. Look at your organization 2. Build a plan 3. Educate your employees why this is important 4. Implement the plan 5. Educate your employees how this will be done 6. Test the plan 7. Educate your employees what needs to be done
I think you get the picture. And don't feel pressured. Just do it right, step by step.
Well it's nice that SVG is an approved standard. But Flash just has huge market penetration so it's an uphill battle. What is cool is the built in support for SVG in Mozilla.
I have no doubt that Microsoft believes it will follow its usual startegy of v1 so so, b2 better, v3 we get it right. But what everyone seems to be forgetting here is that game consoles, while computer-based, are a consumer electronics product. Sony is a consumer electronics company - in fact the best in the world. Microsoft is a computer company. It has never done very well when it tries to enter the consuemr market, because it always runs into to many, well funded behemoth competitors that dominate those markets, in ways similar to its own domination of the desktop market.
So the whole discussion here, is frankly missing the point. Microsoft won't ever beat Aol/Time Warner with MSN. And it will never, ever beat Sony with Xbox. At best it will be a second or third player with its consumer products, but it will never be number one in any consumer market. Whether strategically it makes sense to pursue these markets, is another question. I don't think they have any choice, and they will stick it out no matter what. Microsoft's hey-day where Windows is a cash cow is quickly coming to and end. The PC market is saturated and internet boxes will eventually take over. Hence Microsoft is desparately and aggressively trying out many alternative strategies - some consumer some corporate - in hopes that one will pan out and lead the company to a brilliant future. Personally, I think they are doomed to become a second-tier company in the corporate market and a third-fourth maybe no show company in the consumer market. But that is neither here nor there. They have no choice but to use the cash they are sitting on now to find a new future direction.
You yourself say, that your temptation to "prod" him, is a result of characteristics of his personality that you don't like. His personality is irrelevant to the the truth or falsity of his position, and should never be the subject of discussion.
Moreover, I didn't complain about legitimate discussions about the principles of free software. I said that I myself don't agree with all of Stallman's positions.
The point is:
a. keep his personality and habits out of the discussion
b. even if you disagree with him, at the very least give him your respect and thanks.
His contribution was not just the invention of the copyleft, which you might argue (wrongly in my opinion) is just of philosophical value. His contribution was extremely practical too, by any standard. Without GNU Emacs and the GCC, and all the GNU utilities, GNU/Linux would never have happened, even if Linus had not decided to use the copyleft license. Moreover, while I admit I am no expert on this, as far as I am aware, the various BSDs also used the GCC. So even if he does nothing else for the rest of his life, we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude.
It continues to amaze me over and over, how uninformed people attack Richard Stallman not substantively, but personally - attacking the way he looks, the way he talks, but never substantively refuting what he says. It amazes me even more, how these ad hominem attacks get up-modded. Apparently there is a lot of hatred out there for people of principle.
Well let's first get some facts straight. No one who uses GNU/Linux or any of the related free or open source software built on the Gnu/Linux platform would be enjoying the use of this stuff if it wasn't for Richard Stallman. In the mid-80s when he decided to rebuild Unix from scratch, all my geek and hacker friends who were Unix users at the time, thought he was totally nuts (just like a good part of the/. "community"). But it was precisely his unyielding, principled approach to software development that made the GNU project succeed in the end, despite the odds.
Linus Torvald, a great programmer and a man worthy of praise, finished up what Stallman had started. But he was standing on the shoulder of a giant. If Richard Stallman feels that the OS should be called GNU/Linux he is 100% justified, whether or not its an ego issue as many here contend, or an issue of principle, as he does. Either way, as the man who made it happen, he has the right to make that demand. Whether you honor it or not is your choice. But insulting him while you continue to use the fruits of his labor is worse than hypocrisy - its theft.
There is not one, not one person, in the free software or open source world who has contributed more to the existance of this stuff than Richard Stallman. So at the very least, he deserves the gratitude of anyone who uses this software, for whatever reason they might use it.
To say that Richard Stallman's radical ideas are a hindrance to the acceptance of non-proprietary alternatives is absurd. This is the guy who invented the whole concept, this is the man who made it happen. It's precisely because he is fanatical and unyielding that this movement came into being. All those willing to compromise would never have stayed the course he did.
That doesn't mean you have to accept his point of view. I personally think that in the commercial world, there is a place for BSD-style licenses, and unlike Richard Stallman I don't think these are immoral.
Nonetheless I feel tremendous gratitude for what he has done and continues to do, I respect and admire his principled approach to his work and his life. I strongly resent the ungrateful, spiteful, empty-headed sniping that gets thrown his way in this forum. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
So you think panty flashes of little girls in ADULT movies is ok, and in kids movies its perverse. Hmmmm...me thinks you got this one backwards. And why in hell did soeone uptick your comment? Sheez
If you want multimedia capability and a great planner/organizer in one device get a Handspring or the new Sony. Far more exandable and less expensive.
Let's face it. The guys who designed the palm platform just did a great job of matching the software to the device. They got the paradign right from the beginning. Hat's off to them.
WinCE is a kludge and a bad one at that. And inevitably, since they didnt get it right the first time, its getting kludgier (and hence less stable and reliable) as they get it to to fit the platform better.
If you really want to do this, you better approach the undertaking in a more business-like fashion. Start by learning about the independant publishing business. This is a well established industry, and the POD aspect is the least of the issues you have to deal with. How you going to market your stuff both to authors and consumers? How much time and money will you need to invest? Besides asking here, how do you know there is a market for what you are selling?
Buy Dan Poynter's "the Self Publishing Manual"
Joing the Publishing Marketing Association and visit their web site for lot's of great resources.
This CNET article, found on Yahoo, makes this far more significant than a testing lab. They claim it is a development lab, to be used to co-ordinate efforts of getting Linux to work well on multi-processing hardware and mainframes. If this is correct, the impact could be huge.
Many years ago (15 to be exact) I was the technology manager for a very high tech system specification tool. The first version was developed on VAX/VMS. We chose DEC Rdb v1, which just hit the market when we launched the company, over Oracle (which was four years old at the time and in V3.x). Rdb was just better performing and had a much more sophisticated feature set (including blobs, which Oracle didn't have at the time and was a must have feature for us).
After we finished our first version of our tool, we had to port it to workstations, including Suns and Apollo. Just around this time Starkey left DEC to found Interbase, along with my old boss, Dave Root (whom I had worked for in a DBMS development company called SEED). Choosing Interbase was a no brainer - it was the most advanced RDBMS of its time (the competion then was Oracle and Ingres), Starkey and Root were brilliant developers, and Apollo (now owned by HP) OEM'ed Interbase, plus the API of Interbase was almost 1 to 1 with Rdb.
I lost touch with the company many years ago, but I followed it in the news, as it was bought by A-T and then Borland. It was a great example of brilliant technology that was never marketed properly.
When I first heard Interbase was going open source, I was pretty excited. Of course, my concern was that since the original founders hadn't been involved for years, the quality of the product might have deteriorated. I haven't used Interbase in over 10 years. Hence my great excitement in reading the above article. The combination of Starkey's involvement in the new company with the open source model ensures, IMHO, that the new/old Interbase will be one hot SQL DBMS solution.
We are in the process of a radical experiment - trying to get our company to be 100% based on free software. Yes, there is a moral component to this - I strongly support Richard Stallman's perspective about the importance of free software and not just the open source model. But, we are a commercial operation with investors breathing down our neck. So we have to get the job done too. Which is why we've chosen the free software route.
Why you ask? Propietary software means people have to work the way programmers and marketeers in software companies decide they should. Free software means that we can get the software to work the way people do. For example: we are developing a content management system for our web site development. We want our writers to be able to use the word processor then hit a save button on the menu, that instead of merely sending the file to the disk, also uploads it into the CMS database and notifies the copy editor that the work was done. No way in the world can I do this with either Staroffice under the SCL (and forget about Word). Abiword however, will give me the tool that can make this happen.
Of course, this is just one very small example. But to have technology serve our people, instead of vice versa, we need free software (in the liberty sense not the free beer sense). This is besides issues of stability and reliability (the free software model is proven to create more stable and secure software) open formats (what happens when Sun cans Staroffice or when Microsoft changes the Word format - all my legacy documents need to be upgraded!) bloatware (staroffice takes up 149 MB on my disk!!!) and licensing fees (do you trust Sun to keep this free beer)
Staroffice does solve a temporary problem for us. Abiword and Gnumeric are not yet good enough for the management staff in my company (although they are fine for writers). Plus there is no good tool to replace PowerPoint. So, until there are free software replacements, we can use Staroffice instead of MSOffice and still exchange files with customers in the outside world. In fact, StarOffice is the missing component that will allow us to be 100% Linux based, except perhaps in our accounting software.
Nonetheless, for all the reasons listed above, we still eventually want to be 100% free software-based. So the Gnome project is still a critical part of our strategy. In fact we will be funding some Gnome development just for that reason. So Bruce, you needn't worry. There is a good business case that will support the development of free software despite these half-baked alternatives.
Q.Why are there no latches or buttons to close iBook? A. iBook uses a new $E3latchless$E4 design developed by Apple. This mechanism allows iBook to be opened and remainopen, or be closed and remain closed, without the need for cumber-some latches or buttons that may break over time.
What they mean: What do you expectfrom the company that brought you disk drives with no eject buttons.
What they say: 6.6 pounds, 1.8 inches thick.
What they mean: So its bulky. But it looks cute.
What they say: Q. Does iBook have a PCMCIA slot? A. iBook does not have any PCMCIA expansion slots. It is a fully featured system that comes standard with10/100BASE-T Ethernet capability and a 56-kilobit-per-second V.90 modem*$F7 the two most common uses forPCMCIA slots in notebook computers. In addition, iBook has a dedicated internal expansion slot for a wirelesscommunications module. And it has ample external expansion capability through the high-speed USB port, which lets you connect up to 127 USB devices.
What they mean: We know what you need!! Expansion - do it our way and pay 10 times the street price for standard peripherals.
What they say: Q. Does iBook have a fan? A. No. It does not have a built-in fan for cooling purposes. iBook does not create significant heat; thus it doesn$E2trequire a fan while in operation. The little heat that is generated dissipates quite readily.
What they mean: Just because we made a notebook that caught on fire doesn't mean you should worry.
What they say: Q. Does the new PowerBook G3 use the same kind of memory? A. No. The new PowerBook G3 has two SO-DIMM slots. The first slot accepts up to 2-inch 144- pin SO-DIMMs. The second slot accepts up to 1.5-inch, 144-pin SO-DIMMs. The PowerBook G3 SO-DIMMs must be 3.3-volt, unbuffered, 64-bit, 144-pin SO-DIMMs.
What they mean: What? you want us to lose the chance of fleecing you for more money by reusing old parts? Haven't you bought from Apple before?
What they say? Q. What video controller is used in iBook? A. iBook uses the ATI RAGE Mobility video controller for 2D and 3D graphics acceleration. The ATI RAGE Mobility comes standard with 4 megabytes of SGRAM video memory.
What they mean: Do you really expect us to use anything but the lowest end graphics card around? What us give fast graphics?
What they say: Q. What resolution can you get on the iBook screen? A. The iBook standard resolution is 24-bit color$F7millions of colors$F7at 800 by 600 pixels. You can also scale down to view millions of colors at 640 by 480 pixels.
What they mean: You think we're going to give you resolutions that can compete with our overpriced boxes for designers?
What they say:
Q. Can you connect an external display to iBook? A. No. iBook does not support video output or mirroring to an external display. The computer$E2s video architecture is designed to provide the best personal user experience. Thus, it uses the highest-quality 12.1-inch TFT screen for easy viewing and clarity. In addition, iBook has out-standing graphics. The ATI RAGE Mobility graphics controller provides at least two to three times the performance of like notebooks, and with 4 megabytes of SGRAM video memory, it has twice the video RAM of most competitive notebooks.
What they mean:
See above points....you want to replace your desktop machine...are you crazy?
What they say? Q. Does iBook support IrDA (infrared communications) capability? A. No. iBook does not support IrDA capability. Keyboard
What they mean:
What do you need Irda for anyway? Wireless printing, Palm Pilot syncing, GSM phones..what do you need all that crap for anyway?
1. Copyrights are about art. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. A copyright provides potection for specific expression (in words, music or visually) of some "idea" in a very broad sense of the word. The moral basis of copyright is to protect the financial interests of artists (and their estates) to encourage the development of artistic expressions. I find it fascinating that copyrights were used as a tool to protect software. This puts software into the category of art, as oppossed to technology (see 2).
2. Patents are about technology. Ideas cannot be patented. A patent provides protection for a specific implementation of an invention (e.g. your specific drug to cure cancer). Again, the moral basis is to encourage inventors to recoup years of R&D and to encourage the development of technology.
[3. Just for completeness sake, trademarks are about marketing]
To cut to the core issue of IP, the question is how to compensate artists and inventors while balancing the rights of society to a rich and open cultural heritage and technological benefits to all. Digital technology creates complications on both sides (its both easier to copy and also easier to protect). But these issues have been around for couple hundred years or more (until relatively recently, there was no concept of ownership of intellectual property). I recently read that in the early 1800s British books were printed in the U.S. without royalties to the author (i.e. pirated) making them cheaper (and hence more popular) than books by American authors, who, being here, could demand and get their royalties.
There was a recent post by the FSF's lawyer (noted in a/. article) which provides a very thought provoking discussion of the issues around IP and digital technology. Far more illuminating than most of the posts in this thread.
The moral outrage around the issue of IP is that in fact the law has long ago moved from its original basis of protecting the interests of artists and inventors. It is now used to protect the interests of the distributors of artist productions and inventions, which tend to be greedy corporations. Artists and investors usually end up getting very little compensation. Digital technology, by changing the means of distribution and allowing a direct connection between creator and consumer, may restore some balance where the legal system has failed.
I also had some concerns about Flashcom's over-the-phone bit and their contract, but I bit the bullet. I am on the Westside of New York, and I've been using them quite happily now for over three months. I have had one billing problem in the first month and another query, which was quickly answered/ cleared up, and two technical support issues, ditto. So the phone support is as good as any other ISP I have dealt with, and better than most. The service is super fast and very consistent and reliable.
My understanding of the no server bit, is that you can't use it to set up a web server. I have a masquerading server set up for my internal network, and specifically asked both their sales and tech people and was told there is no problem (because I was deciding if I want more than one IP or not, and with the masquerading server, one is fine).
I should mention the installation went very smoothly. A few weeks after I signed up, Bell Atlantic showed up and installed the line to my house. The next day the Flashcom guy came, and 5 minutes after he left I was up and running.
They recently went public so they have cash in their. I imagine they will be around and doing well for another 9 months, at whcih point I can decide whether or not to renew my contract. If they continue as is, I will stick with them.
Your response is based on a mechanistic world view that believes that every action anybody does is a derivative result of factors either in the environment or in their nature. I don't accept this mechanistic world view. Neither did Jesus, Mohammed, Descartes and Sartre to name just a few. I guess you think they are all idiots too.
If I was Redhat, I wouldn't do it. Publicly traded companies have to answer to Wall Street Analysts, who "represent" the interests of shareholders. In the past, economists would complain about the short horizen Wall Street forces on American business. In the over-hyped Internet market, that horizon has shruken to hours. Not a good way to run a business for the long term.
None, and I mean none, of the Internet companies have yet proven that they are viable for the long term (AOL beig perhaps an exception, but AOL was never really an Internet company). The biggest ones - Yahoo, Amazon, et al are rolling up smaller companies in a desparate attempt to ensure that some thing, anything, will help them be here tomorrow. The Jury is still out. (NB: nearly sll of Yahoo's ad revenues come from IPO money from other Internet companies; Amazon loses $7 for every book it sells, and there is no let up in site: are these businesses that have a future?).
Of course, I am not the CEO of Redhat. So its his decision to make. He and his company are the only ones to be affected.
What about the community? Yahoo and Netscape are great examples. Once they went public, they totally lost touch with the community values that got them off the ground in the first place. Does that make a difference? Not at all. There are many places on the Internet where the community values of the "early days" still thrive, despite Yahoo,/. being a great example (IW called it a portal:)). And of course, the free software ideals Netscape ripped off, live and thrive on.
So Redhat will become a sell out if it IPOs. It's inevitable. It's owners may or not become rich. Big deal. I wish them well if they do. Free software will continue to flourish and thrive.
A says X is to blame. B says Y is to blame. : : Z says Q is to blame. AA says "I notice a repeating pattern here. All these people say X,Y...Q is to blame. None of these are to blame. It''s really..." BB says..... AAA says "I notice..It's really that they are psychological mistfits" : :
I read an article in the NY Times today. It says that in fact one of these kids had a father who worked from home (so much for the absent parent theory) and people saw their parents came to their baseball games and gave them lot's of moral support (so much for the uncaring parent theory). That they went out on dates and had friends (so much for the socil misfit theory). That their friends thought they were quite normal (so much for the psycho theory). That they had counseling and came out of it great (so much for the nobody cared theory).
Well folks, how about facing up to the fact that some people are evil. Some people think killing is ok. They could have great parents, listen to mainstream music, be perfectly cultured, pass any psychological test and still think they have the right to kill. Lot's of Nazi's were like that.
Americans love to believe that EVERYTHING can be fixed. American's can't accept the idea of evil, because evil isn't something you can "fix". You can fix societal problems, you can fix a psycho, but you can't fix someone (like Milosevic and the Serbs) who have a different moral outlook than you do. That's why acknowledging evil is so scary. it goes against the fundamental tenants of American society.
Evil exists in all societies and since the beginning of time. The only solution to evil when it strikes is to fight back and destroy it. The only (very partial) solution to prevent evil from striking, is to keep it from access to the tools of destruction. America has more mass murderers than any other society, not because there are more evil people here, and not because of anything else about American society. It is only because evil people have easy access to means of mass destruction. It is their constitutional right!
More and more the Open Source Initiative looks like a group (or should I say an individual) who is trying to wrest control of the free software/GNU-Linux/your moniker here movement, since only THEY (he?) really know what's good for the rest of us.
After ESR blasted those who dared to go public on their criticism of the APSL, and denigrated the intelligence, integrity and maturity of/. commentators, the OSI is obviously trying to create a controlled environment, where only those who are worthy can comment and critique.
Anonymizer? Have they been reading too much Dilbert? Are they afraid of being nuked by Gates? Give me a break. Any company who is not willing to have an OPEN discussion of its OPEN source licence is not really interested in OPENing themselves up to the world. And if so, who cares? Most of us, I'm sure, have better things to do with our time then support a PR campaign of some greedy corporation riding the latest buzzword bandwagon.
In short, the OSI is becoming more marginal and irrelevant the harder it tries to "lead."
Why do people get into such a frenzy about every statement coming out of Redmond? Should we really care? I think not.
Scenario 1 (most likely):
M releases the W2K kernel source code under highly restrictive licensing to major corporations only. PR move only - see, they say, you have the soruce code too so you can feel warm and fuzzy.
PR Impact on GNU/Linux movement: Positive (hey, Microsoft is confirming the "business model")
Real Impact: 0. No programming talent will be diverted.
Scenario 2: (possible but Less likely) Microsoft releases the W2K Kernel source code under YAOSL
PR Impact on GNU/Linux movement: Ibid, but even more so. Of course, when no one jumps on the bandwagon, M will declare Open Source a failure and that may have some FUD impact. (notice how little permanent FUD impact wassisname's noisy resignation from Mozilla has had).
Real Impact: -.01 Alot of heat and flames on/., far more than APSL, which will waste time and energy from more productive pursuits for about 72 hours.
Prediction: ESR embraces Microsoft YAOSL as true Open Source. In which case up this to -.03
Scenario 3: M releases W2K kernel with an NPL-like license. Likelihood: In this case, I suggest you all stack up on survival kits, 'cause Armagaddon will surely come and the dead will rise from their graves.
Note I have the only code mentioned at all is the W2K kernel. M might release some other minor, useless stuff (like DOS 2.1) using YAOSL. The impact in this case will be similar to scenario 2 above.
Slashdot Mirror
I have not yet read the original Lem story, but I have no doubt it is far superior to this awful movie. In any case, a movie is not a book and can't be judged by the same criteria. Therefore faithfulness to the original story is irrelevant. This movie sucked on its own terms.
.1 out of 10 on the ST scale.
First, the characters were boring and totally unengaging. There was no chemistry between the two leads to make us believe they really loved each other. The plastic smile, was not as someone else implied, flirting, but more likely embarassement at being stuck in such a lousy movie. The plot was nonexistent. The screenplay childish. The worst sin is that the movie is totally humorless and took itself too seriously.
As for the "deep" philosophy, give me a break. The philosophical issues, were dealt with at high-school late night heart-to-heart level, not with any intellectual seriousness. The "message" hits you over the head and is repeated often and loudly, just in case you are too stupid to figure it out yourself the first time. There are many far superior movies to this one, that deal with the same issues of guilt, loss, death, god, love etc.
Semi-spoiler warning - a key plot prop is about to be discussed (although I'm really not giving away anything since this movie has no plot beyond what you read in the reviews):
Plus, anyone who actually bothers to read the Dylan Thomas poem Death Shall Have No Dominion, will see the whole plot laid out in the first paragraph. But the director takes Thomas literally. The ending is like Dylan Thomas meets "Touched by an Angel."
Speaking of the ending, why did we have to have the flashback to the ending before the actual ending? Does the Director think we are too stupid to figure out why the good Doctor makes the choice he does?
I resent that we had to see Clooney's ass instead of McElhone's. What a wasted opportunity! Jeremy Davies could have saved the movie by killing all the other characters.
Bad, bad, bad.
That one sentance, which was Brooks' key insight, sums up why progress will always be limited. You can read commentary on that point in a paper I wrote here.
Other's have already pointed out the obvious corollary: good management practices are most important for successful, reliable software development.
I don't think the Agile people need to be trashed as much as they are here. Sure, they are gurus. But they are emphasizing human-centric instead of "software engineering" which is a Good Thing (TM). Just don't get too religious about XP and you'll be fine.
Other than that, the greatest thing for programmers since sliced bread is Python.
And yes, I also agree open source development has pushed this industry light years ahead. But it works because - it's human-centric programming!
The problem with all software methodologies is that they are usually associated with some software guru who is trying to make big bucks as a consultant selling his brand. Also methodologies very often become religions, with the head guru being the leader of the cult. This is understandeable since most software developers depend on a song and a prayer to get their code to work. XP is a good example of both trends.
I wrote a white paper on software methodology which you can download here. I am an agnostic when it comes to methodologies, but there is alot you can learn from what's out there.
If you want to know why Python is the superior choice for cross-platform development of complex systems, then check out this white paper.
And you don't have to throw out all that C++ code. Python place well with legacy code.
While HIPAA compliance is serious, no one is going to shut you down if you aren't compliant by April. First of all, the privacy rule just was finalized a few weeks ago, and the security rules haven't even been finalized yet. This isn't Y2K - the deadlines are artificial, and, as was done for the transaction deadline, extensions no doubt will be offered.
The key though is this:
The first step you must take now is build a compliance plan! This is important because you will need it to get an extension. It is also the only way to make HIPAA compliance manageable.
Keep in mind, as well, that HIPAA is mostly about best practices regarding security and privacy. Even if HIPAA didn't exist you should be doing it. Not just you. Everyone out there. HIPAA is just a stick.
So
1. Look at your organization
2. Build a plan
3. Educate your employees why this is important
4. Implement the plan
5. Educate your employees how this will be done
6. Test the plan
7. Educate your employees what needs to be done
I think you get the picture. And don't feel pressured. Just do it right, step by step.
Well it's nice that SVG is an approved standard. But Flash just has huge market penetration so it's an uphill battle. What is cool is the built in support for SVG in Mozilla.
I have no doubt that Microsoft believes it will follow its usual startegy of v1 so so, b2 better, v3 we get it right. But what everyone seems to be forgetting here is that game consoles, while computer-based, are a consumer electronics product. Sony is a consumer electronics company - in fact the best in the world. Microsoft is a computer company. It has never done very well when it tries to enter the consuemr market, because it always runs into to many, well funded behemoth competitors that dominate those markets, in ways similar to its own domination of the desktop market.
So the whole discussion here, is frankly missing the point. Microsoft won't ever beat Aol/Time Warner with MSN. And it will never, ever beat Sony with Xbox. At best it will be a second or third player with its consumer products, but it will never be number one in any consumer market. Whether strategically it makes sense to pursue these markets, is another question. I don't think they have any choice, and they will stick it out no matter what. Microsoft's hey-day where Windows is a cash cow is quickly coming to and end. The PC market is saturated and internet boxes will eventually take over. Hence Microsoft is desparately and aggressively trying out many alternative strategies - some consumer some corporate - in hopes that one will pan out and lead the company to a brilliant future. Personally, I think they are doomed to become a second-tier company in the corporate market and a third-fourth maybe no show company in the consumer market. But that is neither here nor there. They have no choice but to use the cash they are sitting on now to find a new future direction.
Has it been slashdotted or, contrary to posting here, is Sun pulling the plug on Open Office?
You yourself say, that your temptation to "prod" him, is a result of characteristics of his personality that you don't like. His personality is irrelevant to the the truth or falsity of his position, and should never be the subject of discussion.
Moreover, I didn't complain about legitimate discussions about the principles of free software. I said that I myself don't agree with all of Stallman's positions.
The point is:
a. keep his personality and habits out of the discussion
b. even if you disagree with him, at the very least give him your respect and thanks.
His contribution was not just the invention of the copyleft, which you might argue (wrongly in my opinion) is just of philosophical value. His contribution was extremely practical too, by any standard. Without GNU Emacs and the GCC, and all the GNU utilities, GNU/Linux would never have happened, even if Linus had not decided to use the copyleft license. Moreover, while I admit I am no expert on this, as far as I am aware, the various BSDs also used the GCC. So even if he does nothing else for the rest of his life, we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude.
It continues to amaze me over and over, how uninformed people attack Richard Stallman not substantively, but personally - attacking the way he looks, the way he talks, but never substantively refuting what he says. It amazes me even more, how these ad hominem attacks get up-modded. Apparently there is a lot of hatred out there for people of principle.
/. "community"). But it was precisely his unyielding, principled approach to software development that made the GNU project succeed in the end, despite the odds.
Well let's first get some facts straight. No one who uses GNU/Linux or any of the related free or open source software built on the Gnu/Linux platform would be enjoying the use of this stuff if it wasn't for Richard Stallman. In the mid-80s when he decided to rebuild Unix from scratch, all my geek and hacker friends who were Unix users at the time, thought he was totally nuts (just like a good part of the
Linus Torvald, a great programmer and a man worthy of praise, finished up what Stallman had started. But he was standing on the shoulder of a giant. If Richard Stallman feels that the OS should be called GNU/Linux he is 100% justified, whether or not its an ego issue as many here contend, or an issue of principle, as he does. Either way, as the man who made it happen, he has the right to make that demand. Whether you honor it or not is your choice. But insulting him while you continue to use the fruits of his labor is worse than hypocrisy - its theft.
There is not one, not one person, in the free software or open source world who has contributed more to the existance of this stuff than Richard Stallman. So at the very least, he deserves the gratitude of anyone who uses this software, for whatever reason they might use it.
To say that Richard Stallman's radical ideas are a hindrance to the acceptance of non-proprietary alternatives is absurd. This is the guy who invented the whole concept, this is the man who made it happen. It's precisely because he is fanatical and unyielding that this movement came into being. All those willing to compromise would never have stayed the course he did.
That doesn't mean you have to accept his point of view. I personally think that in the commercial world, there is a place for BSD-style licenses, and unlike Richard Stallman I don't think these are immoral.
Nonetheless I feel tremendous gratitude for what he has done and continues to do, I respect and admire his principled approach to his work and his life. I strongly resent the ungrateful, spiteful, empty-headed sniping that gets thrown his way in this forum. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
Ahem.
So you think panty flashes of little girls in ADULT movies is ok, and in kids movies its perverse. Hmmmm...me thinks you got this one backwards. And why in hell did soeone uptick your comment? Sheez
If you want multimedia capability and a great planner/organizer in one device get a Handspring or the new Sony. Far more exandable and less expensive.
Let's face it. The guys who designed the palm platform just did a great job of matching the software to the device. They got the paradign right from the beginning. Hat's off to them.
WinCE is a kludge and a bad one at that. And inevitably, since they didnt get it right the first time, its getting kludgier (and hence less stable and reliable) as they get it to to fit the platform better.
If you really want to do this, you better approach the undertaking in a more business-like fashion. Start by learning about the independant publishing business. This is a well established industry, and the POD aspect is the least of the issues you have to deal with. How you going to market your stuff both to authors and consumers? How much time and money will you need to invest? Besides asking here, how do you know there is a market for what you are selling?
Buy Dan Poynter's "the Self Publishing Manual"
Joing the Publishing Marketing Association and visit their web site for lot's of great resources.
Actually its 613, in Hebrew Taryag.
See this site.
While we're at here's a plug for our site JHOM.com, where you can get lot's of interesting persepctives on Judaism [note the spelling].
This CNET article, found on Yahoo, makes this far more significant than a testing lab. They claim it is a development lab, to be used to co-ordinate efforts of getting Linux to work well on multi-processing hardware and mainframes. If this is correct, the impact could be huge.
Read this article:
4 ,2473264,00.html
http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,416
Many years ago (15 to be exact) I was the technology manager for a very high tech system specification tool. The first version was developed on VAX/VMS. We chose DEC Rdb v1, which just hit the market when we launched the company, over Oracle (which was four years old at the time and in V3.x). Rdb was just better performing and had a much more sophisticated feature set (including blobs, which Oracle didn't have at the time and was a must have feature for us).
After we finished our first version of our tool, we had to port it to workstations, including Suns and Apollo. Just around this time Starkey left DEC to found Interbase, along with my old boss, Dave Root (whom I had worked for in a DBMS development company called SEED). Choosing Interbase was a no brainer - it was the most advanced RDBMS of its time (the competion then was Oracle and Ingres), Starkey and Root were brilliant developers, and Apollo (now owned by HP) OEM'ed Interbase, plus the API of Interbase was almost 1 to 1 with Rdb.
I lost touch with the company many years ago, but I followed it in the news, as it was bought by A-T and then Borland. It was a great example of brilliant technology that was never marketed properly.
When I first heard Interbase was going open source, I was pretty excited. Of course, my concern was that since the original founders hadn't been involved for years, the quality of the product might have deteriorated. I haven't used Interbase in over 10 years. Hence my great excitement in reading the above article. The combination of Starkey's involvement in the new company with the open source model ensures, IMHO, that the new/old Interbase will be one hot SQL DBMS solution.
We are in the process of a radical experiment - trying to get our company to be 100% based on free software. Yes, there is a moral component to this - I strongly support Richard Stallman's perspective about the importance of free software and not just the open source model. But, we are a commercial operation with investors breathing down our neck. So we have to get the job done too. Which is why we've chosen the free software route.
Why you ask? Propietary software means people have to work the way programmers and marketeers in software companies decide they should. Free software means that we can get the software to work the way people do. For example: we are developing a content management system for our web site development. We want our writers to be able to use the word processor then hit a save button on the menu, that instead of merely sending the file to the disk, also uploads it into the CMS database and notifies the copy editor that the work was done. No way in the world can I do this with either Staroffice under the SCL (and forget about Word). Abiword however, will give me the tool that can make this happen.
Of course, this is just one very small example. But to have technology serve our people, instead of vice versa, we need free software (in the liberty sense not the free beer sense). This is besides issues of stability and reliability (the free software model is proven to create more stable and secure software) open formats (what happens when Sun cans Staroffice or when Microsoft changes the Word format - all my legacy documents need to be upgraded!) bloatware (staroffice takes up 149 MB on my disk!!!) and licensing fees (do you trust Sun to keep this free beer)
Staroffice does solve a temporary problem for us. Abiword and Gnumeric are not yet good enough for the management staff in my company (although they are fine for writers). Plus there is no good tool to replace PowerPoint. So, until there are free software replacements, we can use Staroffice instead of MSOffice and still exchange files with customers in the outside world. In fact, StarOffice is the missing component that will allow us to be 100% Linux based, except perhaps in our accounting software.
Nonetheless, for all the reasons listed above, we still eventually want to be 100% free software-based. So the Gnome project is still a critical part of our strategy. In fact we will be funding some Gnome development just for that reason. So Bruce, you needn't worry. There is a good business case that will support the development of free software despite these half-baked alternatives.
What they say:
Q.Why are there no latches or buttons to close iBook?
A. iBook uses a new $E3latchless$E4 design developed by Apple. This mechanism allows iBook to be opened and remainopen, or be closed and remain closed, without the need for cumber-some latches or buttons that may break over time.
What they mean:
What do you expectfrom the company that brought you disk drives with no eject buttons.
What they say:
6.6 pounds, 1.8 inches thick.
What they mean:
So its bulky. But it looks cute.
What they say:
Q. Does iBook have a PCMCIA slot?
A. iBook does not have any PCMCIA expansion slots. It is a fully featured system that comes standard with10/100BASE-T Ethernet capability and a 56-kilobit-per-second V.90 modem*$F7 the two most common uses forPCMCIA slots in notebook computers. In addition, iBook has a dedicated internal expansion slot for a wirelesscommunications module. And it has ample external expansion capability through the high-speed USB port, which lets you connect up to 127 USB devices.
What they mean:
We know what you need!! Expansion - do it our way and pay 10 times the street price for standard peripherals.
What they say:
Q. Does iBook have a fan?
A. No. It does not have a built-in fan for cooling purposes. iBook does not create significant heat; thus it doesn$E2trequire a fan while in operation. The little heat that is generated dissipates quite readily.
What they mean:
Just because we made a notebook that caught on fire doesn't mean you should worry.
What they say:
Q. Does the new PowerBook G3 use the same kind of memory?
A. No. The new PowerBook G3 has two SO-DIMM slots. The first slot accepts up to 2-inch 144- pin SO-DIMMs. The second slot accepts up to 1.5-inch, 144-pin SO-DIMMs. The PowerBook G3 SO-DIMMs must be 3.3-volt, unbuffered,
64-bit, 144-pin SO-DIMMs.
What they mean:
What? you want us to lose the chance of fleecing you for more money by reusing old parts? Haven't you bought from Apple before?
What they say?
Q. What video controller is used in iBook?
A. iBook uses the ATI RAGE Mobility video controller for 2D and 3D graphics acceleration. The ATI RAGE Mobility comes standard with 4 megabytes of SGRAM video memory.
What they mean:
Do you really expect us to use anything but the lowest end graphics card around? What us give fast graphics?
What they say:
Q. What resolution can you get on the iBook screen?
A. The iBook standard resolution is 24-bit color$F7millions of colors$F7at 800 by 600 pixels. You can also scale down to view millions of colors at 640 by 480 pixels.
What they mean:
You think we're going to give you resolutions that can compete with our overpriced boxes for designers?
What they say:
Q. Can you connect an external display to iBook?
A. No. iBook does not support video output or mirroring to an external display. The computer$E2s video architecture is designed to provide the best personal user experience. Thus, it uses the highest-quality 12.1-inch TFT screen for easy viewing and clarity. In addition, iBook has out-standing graphics. The ATI RAGE Mobility graphics controller provides at least two to three times the performance of like notebooks, and with 4 megabytes of SGRAM video memory, it has twice the video RAM of most competitive notebooks.
What they mean:
See above points....you want to replace your desktop machine...are you crazy?
What they say?
Q. Does iBook support IrDA (infrared communications) capability?
A. No. iBook does not support IrDA capability. Keyboard
What they mean:
What do you need Irda for anyway? Wireless printing, Palm Pilot syncing, GSM phones..what do you need all that crap for anyway?
Lets see what Amiga can do....
This post confuses many things.
/. article) which provides a very thought provoking discussion of the issues around IP and digital technology. Far more illuminating than most of the posts in this thread.
1. Copyrights are about art. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. A copyright provides potection for specific expression (in words, music or visually) of some "idea" in a very broad sense of the word. The moral basis of copyright is to protect the financial interests of artists (and their estates) to encourage the development of artistic expressions. I find it fascinating that copyrights were used as a tool to protect software. This puts software into the category of art, as oppossed to technology (see 2).
2. Patents are about technology. Ideas cannot be patented. A patent provides protection for a specific implementation of an invention (e.g. your specific drug to cure cancer). Again, the moral basis is to encourage inventors to recoup years of R&D and to encourage the development of technology.
[3. Just for completeness sake, trademarks are about marketing]
To cut to the core issue of IP, the question is how to compensate artists and inventors while balancing the rights of society to a rich and open cultural heritage and technological benefits to all. Digital technology creates complications on both sides (its both easier to copy and also easier to protect). But these issues have been around for couple hundred years or more (until relatively recently, there was no concept of ownership of intellectual property). I recently read that in the early 1800s British books were printed in the U.S. without royalties to the author (i.e. pirated) making them cheaper (and hence more popular) than books by American authors, who, being here, could demand and get their royalties.
There was a recent post by the FSF's lawyer (noted in a
The moral outrage around the issue of IP is that in fact the law has long ago moved from its original basis of protecting the interests of artists and inventors. It is now used to protect the interests of the distributors of artist productions and inventions, which tend to be greedy corporations. Artists and investors usually end up getting very little compensation. Digital technology, by changing the means of distribution and allowing a direct connection between creator and consumer, may restore some balance where the legal system has failed.
I also had some concerns about Flashcom's over-the-phone bit and their contract, but I bit the bullet. I am on the Westside of New York, and I've been using them quite happily now for over three months. I have had one billing problem in the first month and another query, which was quickly answered/ cleared up, and two technical support issues, ditto. So the phone support is as good as any other ISP I have dealt with, and better than most. The service is super fast and very consistent and reliable.
My understanding of the no server bit, is that you can't use it to set up a web server. I have a masquerading server set up for my internal network, and specifically asked both their sales and tech people and was told there is no problem (because I was deciding if I want more than one IP or not, and with the masquerading server, one is fine).
I should mention the installation went very smoothly. A few weeks after I signed up, Bell Atlantic showed up and installed the line to my house. The next day the Flashcom guy came, and 5 minutes after he left I was up and running.
They recently went public so they have cash in their. I imagine they will be around and doing well for another 9 months, at whcih point I can decide whether or not to renew my contract. If they continue as is, I will stick with them.
Your response is based on a mechanistic world view that believes that every action anybody does is a derivative result of factors either in the environment or in their nature. I don't accept this mechanistic world view. Neither did Jesus, Mohammed, Descartes and Sartre to name just a few. I guess you think they are all idiots too.
If I was Redhat, I wouldn't do it. Publicly traded companies have to answer to Wall Street Analysts, who "represent" the interests of shareholders. In the past, economists would complain about the short horizen Wall Street forces on American business. In the over-hyped Internet market, that horizon has shruken to hours. Not a good way to run a business for the long term.
/. being a great example (IW called it a portal :)). And of course, the free software ideals Netscape ripped off, live and thrive on.
None, and I mean none, of the Internet companies have yet proven that they are viable for the long term (AOL beig perhaps an exception, but AOL was never really an Internet company). The biggest ones - Yahoo, Amazon, et al are rolling up smaller companies in a desparate attempt to ensure that some thing, anything, will help them be here tomorrow. The Jury is still out. (NB: nearly sll of Yahoo's ad revenues come from IPO money from other Internet companies; Amazon loses $7 for every book it sells, and there is no let up in site: are these businesses that have a future?).
Of course, I am not the CEO of Redhat. So its his decision to make. He and his company are the only ones to be affected.
What about the community? Yahoo and Netscape are great examples. Once they went public, they totally lost touch with the community values that got them off the ground in the first place. Does that make a difference? Not at all. There are many places on the Internet where the community values of the "early days" still thrive, despite Yahoo,
So Redhat will become a sell out if it IPOs. It's inevitable. It's owners may or not become rich. Big deal. I wish them well if they do. Free software will continue to flourish and thrive.
I notice a repeating pattern here.
A says X is to blame.
B says Y is to blame.
:
:
Z says Q is to blame.
AA says "I notice a repeating pattern here. All these people say X,Y...Q is to blame. None of these are to blame. It''s really..."
BB says.....
AAA says "I notice..It's really that they are psychological mistfits"
:
:
I read an article in the NY Times today. It says that in fact one of these kids had a father who worked from home (so much for the absent parent theory) and people saw their parents came to their baseball games and gave them lot's of moral support (so much for the uncaring parent theory). That they went out on dates and had friends (so much for the socil misfit theory). That their friends thought they were quite normal (so much for the psycho theory). That they had counseling and came out of it great (so much for the nobody cared theory).
Well folks, how about facing up to the fact that some people are evil. Some people think killing is ok. They could have great parents, listen to mainstream music, be perfectly cultured, pass any psychological test and still think they have the right to kill. Lot's of Nazi's were like that.
Americans love to believe that EVERYTHING can be fixed. American's can't accept the idea of evil, because evil isn't something you can "fix". You can fix societal problems, you can fix a psycho, but you can't fix someone (like Milosevic and the Serbs) who have a different moral outlook than you do. That's why acknowledging evil is so scary. it goes against the fundamental tenants of American society.
Evil exists in all societies and since the beginning of time. The only solution to evil when it strikes is to fight back and destroy it. The only (very partial) solution to prevent evil from striking, is to keep it from access to the tools of destruction. America has more mass murderers than any other society, not because there are more evil people here, and not because of anything else about American society. It is only because evil people have easy access to means of mass destruction. It is their constitutional right!
More and more the Open Source Initiative looks like a group (or should I say an individual) who is trying to wrest control of the free software/GNU-Linux/your moniker here movement, since only THEY (he?) really know what's good for the rest of us.
/. commentators, the OSI is obviously trying to create a controlled environment, where only those who are worthy can comment and critique.
After ESR blasted those who dared to go public on their criticism of the APSL, and denigrated the intelligence, integrity and maturity of
Anonymizer? Have they been reading too much Dilbert? Are they afraid of being nuked by Gates? Give me a break. Any company who is not willing to have an OPEN discussion of its OPEN source licence is not really interested in OPENing themselves up to the world. And if so, who cares? Most of us, I'm sure, have better things to do with our time then support a PR campaign of some greedy corporation riding the latest buzzword bandwagon.
In short, the OSI is becoming more marginal and irrelevant the harder it tries to "lead."
To quote a great statesman:
/., far more than APSL, which will waste time and energy from more productive pursuits for about 72 hours.
"The only thing we need fear is fear itself"
Why do people get into such a frenzy about every statement coming out of Redmond? Should we really care? I think not.
Scenario 1 (most likely):
M releases the W2K kernel source code under highly restrictive licensing to major corporations only. PR move only - see, they say, you have the soruce code too so you can feel warm and fuzzy.
PR Impact on GNU/Linux movement: Positive (hey, Microsoft is confirming the "business model")
Real Impact: 0. No programming talent will be diverted.
Scenario 2: (possible but Less likely) Microsoft releases the W2K Kernel source code under YAOSL
PR Impact on GNU/Linux movement: Ibid, but even more so. Of course, when no one jumps on the bandwagon, M will declare Open Source a failure and that may have some FUD impact. (notice how little permanent FUD impact wassisname's noisy resignation from Mozilla has had).
Real Impact: -.01 Alot of heat and flames on
Prediction: ESR embraces Microsoft YAOSL as true Open Source. In which case up this to -.03
Scenario 3: M releases W2K kernel with an NPL-like license. Likelihood: In this case, I suggest you all stack up on survival kits, 'cause Armagaddon will surely come and the dead will rise from their graves.
Note I have the only code mentioned at all is the W2K kernel. M might release some other minor, useless stuff (like DOS 2.1) using YAOSL. The impact in this case will be similar to scenario 2 above.