Age matters, the basic assumtion, by anyone, is that younger == ignorant.
It's hard for people to accept that younger people are stronger/smarter/better/*er than they do.
It's automatically assumed that older people has more experiance.
This is also often the case.
That you are in school is also a main factor.
If you are in school, then this mean that you "don't know enough", and automatically reduce your value.
There is no good way to deal with it, I'm afraid.
You can try and show maturity, and hope that your boss will learn that he can trust rely on you.
My suggestion, try and remain in your current job (if it pays well & you don't think you can get much better deal elsewhere, that is) until you are out of school.
By that time, you gain experiance, and education.
I think that you'll find that experiance matters much more than mere education.
Well, here are your options:
1> Dual boot
2> Get a second computer, run windows on it.
3> What OS do you run?
If I were you, I would get Win2K pro, and install VMWare to use the OS that you use now.
Win2K (All versions) has builtin support for hebrew, and VMWare can run on them.
I'll probably get modded down for saying this, but Win2K is very stable, I don't see any reason why you won't use it as a base OS for reading hebrew text (install Office 2000 viewers, and disable all the unneccecary services, this should give enough room for the other OS that you are using.
4> Get over whatever hard feeling you've toward MS Os, and use Win2k, most likely it'll be easier than using VMWare.
5> If your OS can run VMWare or some equilent, then install Win95 + office 2000 viewers (for minimal overhead).
> As you say, bidi support is due to Localized Windows, not IE. IE handles Hebrew text input only because the OS does. Netscape (non-localized) supports this just fine.
Not so, I've viewed hebrew sites via non-localized WinME.
1> Usually not an option. I can send an email that will reach anybody in the world within minutes, you can't do the same with paper mail.
2> Even plain text files containing hebrew are hard to share on non-ms (and some MS) platforms.
Latin transliteration is a MAJOR PITA. No two persons spell a word alike. If it takes me a minute to understand a text in english, half that time to understand same text in hebrew, it would take me five minutes or more to comprehend the same text in Latin transliteration of Hebrew. Five time that much to write it.
And I'm not the average user.
I've very good control of the English language, most people in Israel don't.
3> *Not* an option.
4> Multi boot would probably the best thing. I would suggest Win95 Enabled + Office 2000 viewers, it has the best boot time and all the functionality he need.
Word & Excel aren't half of it.
Sites that uses hebrew the way they should are supported only by IE.
Email that you send in hebrew wouldn't be readable on most email clients.
If you want hebrew, you need Windows.
Hell, you can't exchange *plain-text* hebrew files easily.
Let me explain you the way hebrew works on the web.
There are four standards, but only two that matters.
Hebrew Logical & Hebrew Visual
One of them is supported by Netscape, and,maybe other browsers.
This involve writing things *backward*, it doesn't handle line breaks well, and basically a PITA to do.
And there is IE way, in which you write in Hebrew just like you write in english, and it display everything correctly.
Netscape's way result in *bad* looking sites, more often than not.
IE's way works.
To be fair, AFAIK, NS6 (and probably Mozilla) support the IE's way.
I paritally agrees, before this became an option, you'll need an OSS for designing hardware.
Hardware is software in a different form, once you got the tool to work with it, they there is nothing to prevent OSS from working on OSH (Open Source Hardware).
I doubt that any exist today.
Someone need to built an OS hardware design tool, and OS hardware simulator (for debugging), then you could start talking about OSH.
Of course, there are a lot more people that know how to program than there are hardware designers.
Why can't he verify the facts first?
He claim that ftp.cdrom.com run on PII - 200, 1GB RAM & 500GB RAID-5
Here is how hard it was to find out what it *really* run:
ftp ftp.cdrom.com
Qoute from the ftp respone:
230-This machine is a Xeon/500 with 4GB of memory & 1/2 terabyte of RAID 5.
230-The operating system is FreeBSD. Should you wish to get your own copy of
230-FreeBSD, please visit http://www.freebsd.org for more information.
Not really.
BSD license says that you must dispaly copy right notice.
This mean that if the user really wants, he can track down the original BSD code.
Personally, I don't think that there is any reason to object to LGPL.
Given a choice between GPL & BSD license, I would go with BSD, always. Given a choice with BSD & LGPL, I would probably go with LGPL.
LGPL has some advantages to it over BSD, if you've release code under LGPL, anyone can build over it, just like with BSD, but if they change your code, they've to give the changes back.
It isn't as agressive as GPL, and it gives the coder the advantage.
Can someone give me a good reason to favor BSD license over LGPL?
> I've heard from a very reliable source that any MS app that causes a reboot will get increasingly pointed reminders from increasingly upper management that Thou Shalt Not Reboot. I'd bet dollars to donuts that they figure out some way around this issue for v.next.
Thank you!
It seems that some sense has been finally beaten into MS.
You might want to check VBS & JS encryption.
It make the code totally unreadable.
I think that you will something similar, or else you'll have MSIL compile it to true binary, for each and every supported platform, and distribue as binary rather than MSIL.
Take me, for example, I don't have a floppy drive, what do I do?
And my bios is set not to boot from a floppy.
So we just entered a much more complexity for the user.
But that isn't the *point*, the point is that no one is going to main their sound card, by installing a new encryption that won't let them hear what they want.
Really? *Good* to know.
I had no idea.
But why would you need to reboot for a device driver?
I've hot plugged devices (mainly HDs) into Win2K before, they worked.
I understand that for some stuff you *have* to reboot.
It should be fixed, ASAP.
> we all know that windows without a mouse is like a bicycle without wheels.
You are thinking Linux's GUI or (maybe) Macs.
You can use Windows quite well without a mouse. It's not as comfortable, but there is indeed very little that you can't do without a mouse.
> I have also seen Win2k lock hard if IE crashes.
I've'd IE crash on me several times, it *never* locked the machine.
The only hard locks that I experianced with Win2K were due to a faulty hardware (my display adapter) replacing it solved the problem.
> All MSIE does is guessing, what author could mean -- it's impossible to parse correctly all the crap that displays in MSIE without wasting huge amount of time and effort on doing it. While Mozilla supports most of broken HTML, it's impossible to make it work exactly like MSIE does without having precisely the same parsing+guessing algorithm -- precisely because that broken HTML wouldn't be broken if it was not ambiguous.
I'm not asking it to work 100% like IE, I want it to work like *Netscape*!
Before, you'd to write two sets of pages, IE & NS4. Now, you've to write *three*.
Why?
Why can't Mozilla be backward compatible?
I'm not complaining about Mozilla not being compatible with IE.
I'm complaining about Mozilla not being compatible with *Netscape*!
> If you are so dumb that you can't write a page that complies with standards and doesn't trigger known bugs/incompatibilities in IE and Netscape, you write a page "for IE4+", and this is why it doesn't work everywhere else. But that makes you a moron.
You never tried to write a complex page that would work with IE & Netscape, have you?
If you write to standards, IE would mostly show it correctly, in Netscape 4 it will look like crap.
It's *much* easier to write two set of pages, one for IE4+, the second for Netscape 4.
You *can't* write to standards in web development.
And the main reason for that is NS 4.
Slashdot Mirror
Age matters, the basic assumtion, by anyone, is that younger == ignorant.
It's hard for people to accept that younger people are stronger/smarter/better/*er than they do.
It's automatically assumed that older people has more experiance.
This is also often the case.
That you are in school is also a main factor.
If you are in school, then this mean that you "don't know enough", and automatically reduce your value.
There is no good way to deal with it, I'm afraid.
You can try and show maturity, and hope that your boss will learn that he can trust rely on you.
My suggestion, try and remain in your current job (if it pays well & you don't think you can get much better deal elsewhere, that is) until you are out of school.
By that time, you gain experiance, and education.
I think that you'll find that experiance matters much more than mere education.
You would get a much better deal this way.
> Have you ever tried to read something on a monitor? Well before 30 pages your eyeballs will start to bleed
Yes.
I read several hundreds off the monitor pages weekly, I read Snow (Winter Heart prologue, 85 pages) off a monitor, in one very joyful night.
It's not as comfortable, I'll admit, but it's certainly possible.
Not to mention that the quality of monitors just keep improving.
Well, here are your options:
1> Dual boot
2> Get a second computer, run windows on it.
3> What OS do you run?
If I were you, I would get Win2K pro, and install VMWare to use the OS that you use now.
Win2K (All versions) has builtin support for hebrew, and VMWare can run on them.
I'll probably get modded down for saying this, but Win2K is very stable, I don't see any reason why you won't use it as a base OS for reading hebrew text (install Office 2000 viewers, and disable all the unneccecary services, this should give enough room for the other OS that you are using.
4> Get over whatever hard feeling you've toward MS Os, and use Win2k, most likely it'll be easier than using VMWare.
5> If your OS can run VMWare or some equilent, then install Win95 + office 2000 viewers (for minimal overhead).
P.S. Avoid using ME all at costs
> As you say, bidi support is due to Localized Windows, not IE. IE handles Hebrew text input only because the OS does. Netscape (non-localized) supports this just fine.
Not so, I've viewed hebrew sites via non-localized WinME.
Ever tried to read a plain text hebrew file on Linux?
It takes quite a bit of work to find out how to make linux display hebrew.
I don't think that POSIX OS can be call Unix variant.
If so, then NT is Unix variant.
1> Usually not an option. I can send an email that will reach anybody in the world within minutes, you can't do the same with paper mail.
2> Even plain text files containing hebrew are hard to share on non-ms (and some MS) platforms.
Latin transliteration is a MAJOR PITA. No two persons spell a word alike. If it takes me a minute to understand a text in english, half that time to understand same text in hebrew, it would take me five minutes or more to comprehend the same text in Latin transliteration of Hebrew. Five time that much to write it.
And I'm not the average user.
I've very good control of the English language, most people in Israel don't.
3> *Not* an option.
4> Multi boot would probably the best thing. I would suggest Win95 Enabled + Office 2000 viewers, it has the best boot time and all the functionality he need.
Price, Price, Price.
To put it in simple terms, if he buys a mac on the US, it will cost half about third if he buys one in Israel
A> Opera isn't free.
B> Opera's hebrew support is highly limited, and rely heavily on Windows' own ability to support hebrew.
Word & Excel aren't half of it.
Sites that uses hebrew the way they should are supported only by IE.
Email that you send in hebrew wouldn't be readable on most email clients.
If you want hebrew, you need Windows.
Hell, you can't exchange *plain-text* hebrew files easily.
Let me explain you the way hebrew works on the web.
,maybe other browsers.
There are four standards, but only two that matters.
Hebrew Logical & Hebrew Visual
One of them is supported by Netscape, and
This involve writing things *backward*, it doesn't handle line breaks well, and basically a PITA to do.
And there is IE way, in which you write in Hebrew just like you write in english, and it display everything correctly.
Netscape's way result in *bad* looking sites, more often than not.
IE's way works.
To be fair, AFAIK, NS6 (and probably Mozilla) support the IE's way.
There is a screen saver for linux that does BSOD.
I paritally agrees, before this became an option, you'll need an OSS for designing hardware.
Hardware is software in a different form, once you got the tool to work with it, they there is nothing to prevent OSS from working on OSH (Open Source Hardware).
I doubt that any exist today.
Someone need to built an OS hardware design tool, and OS hardware simulator (for debugging), then you could start talking about OSH.
Of course, there are a lot more people that know how to program than there are hardware designers.
Why can't he verify the facts first?
He claim that ftp.cdrom.com run on PII - 200, 1GB RAM & 500GB RAID-5
Here is how hard it was to find out what it *really* run:
ftp ftp.cdrom.com
Qoute from the ftp respone:
230-This machine is a Xeon/500 with 4GB of memory & 1/2 terabyte of RAID 5.
230-The operating system is FreeBSD. Should you wish to get your own copy of
230-FreeBSD, please visit http://www.freebsd.org for more information.
> What is stopping MS from modifing the TCP/IP stack so that their desktops can only connect to their servers? Nothing.
100% hold of both server & client markts.
Not really.
BSD license says that you must dispaly copy right notice.
This mean that if the user really wants, he can track down the original BSD code.
Personally, I don't think that there is any reason to object to LGPL.
Given a choice between GPL & BSD license, I would go with BSD, always. Given a choice with BSD & LGPL, I would probably go with LGPL.
LGPL has some advantages to it over BSD, if you've release code under LGPL, anyone can build over it, just like with BSD, but if they change your code, they've to give the changes back.
It isn't as agressive as GPL, and it gives the coder the advantage.
Can someone give me a good reason to favor BSD license over LGPL?
IIS doesn't run in kernel space.
It's a service, that is all.
And, no, TUX 1.0 doesn't hold the SPECWeb99, it's TUX 2.0, closely followed by IIS5.
IIS6 will be able to run in the kernel, but not IIS5. And IIS6 will have it as an option.
Check www.spec.com for the fastest web servers, it has zeus, but I don't know if it uses FreeBSD.
> I've heard from a very reliable source that any MS app that causes a reboot will get increasingly pointed reminders from increasingly upper management that Thou Shalt Not Reboot. I'd bet dollars to donuts that they figure out some way around this issue for v.next.
Thank you!
It seems that some sense has been finally beaten into MS.
You might want to check VBS & JS encryption.
It make the code totally unreadable.
I think that you will something similar, or else you'll have MSIL compile it to true binary, for each and every supported platform, and distribue as binary rather than MSIL.
But is it legal to forbid it?
Take me, for example, I don't have a floppy drive, what do I do?
And my bios is set not to boot from a floppy.
So we just entered a much more complexity for the user.
But that isn't the *point*, the point is that no one is going to main their sound card, by installing a new encryption that won't let them hear what they want.
Really? *Good* to know.
I had no idea.
But why would you need to reboot for a device driver?
I've hot plugged devices (mainly HDs) into Win2K before, they worked.
I understand that for some stuff you *have* to reboot.
It should be fixed, ASAP.
> we all know that windows without a mouse is like a bicycle without wheels.
You are thinking Linux's GUI or (maybe) Macs.
You can use Windows quite well without a mouse. It's not as comfortable, but there is indeed very little that you can't do without a mouse.
> I have also seen Win2k lock hard if IE crashes.
I've'd IE crash on me several times, it *never* locked the machine.
The only hard locks that I experianced with Win2K were due to a faulty hardware (my display adapter) replacing it solved the problem.
YMMV, but I find Win2K very stable.
> All MSIE does is guessing, what author could mean -- it's impossible to parse correctly all the crap that displays in MSIE without wasting huge amount of time and effort on doing it. While Mozilla supports most of broken HTML, it's impossible to make it work exactly like MSIE does without having precisely the same parsing+guessing algorithm -- precisely because that broken HTML wouldn't be broken if it was not ambiguous.
I'm not asking it to work 100% like IE, I want it to work like *Netscape*!
Before, you'd to write two sets of pages, IE & NS4. Now, you've to write *three*.
Why?
Why can't Mozilla be backward compatible?
I'm not complaining about Mozilla not being compatible with IE.
I'm complaining about Mozilla not being compatible with *Netscape*!
> If you are so dumb that you can't write a page that complies with standards and doesn't trigger known bugs/incompatibilities in IE and Netscape, you write a page "for IE4+", and this is why it doesn't work everywhere else. But that makes you a moron.
You never tried to write a complex page that would work with IE & Netscape, have you?
If you write to standards, IE would mostly show it correctly, in Netscape 4 it will look like crap.
It's *much* easier to write two set of pages, one for IE4+, the second for Netscape 4.
You *can't* write to standards in web development.
And the main reason for that is NS 4.