Where [is Java a huge success]? [Give] real data...
Caterpillar. Cargill. Tennessee Valley Authority. American Airlines. Sabre. Tricon Restaurants (Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC). These are not "mom 'n' pop" operations, they are huge corporations collectively dumping hundreds of millions into the Java industry. There are many, many more.
...even one benchmark [comparing Java with VB and Perl] would be nice.
Good point. I'll look for one or maybe take a stab at one.
...IBM also invested heavily in OS/2 and dropped it the second it lost favor...
IBM did no such thing. Not only does IBM still sell and support OS/2, but it's sales are exceeding projections. OS/2 may serve as an example of a market failure, but it also serves as an example of how IBM does not abandon its customers.
What you didn't mention is the companies aligned against Java - Microsoft and HP to name two. Both are pushing HP's Chai.
This statement is really proof that you are way too ignorant to be criticizing Java. Chai can hardly be called anti-Java. Chai is a Java Virtual Machine. Chai supports Java, albeit not necessarily Sun's strict definition. And I did mention HP -- it's another company investing in Java technology (you did read my post, right?).
Beta is dead, and I'm sure Sony can't be too pleased to see DAT relegated to a tiny market of recording enthusiasts.
ROTFLMAO. Anyone who could dismiss ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, HBO, BBC, CBC, Univision and who knows how many global networks both broadcast and cable as a "tiny market of recording enthusiasts" is irretreivably stupid. I challenge you to find a broadcast production facility (among thousands) in the civilized world that does not feature a Beta SP deck and a DAT.
Java is a huge success -- just not where it was originally hyped. People don't see Java applets on every server they visted et viola that must mean Java failed. Well, it didn't.
Java is alive and well in corporate enterprise computing. In fact, it's probably the hottest thing in client/server programming going right now.
Java isn't any slower than Perl or Visual Basic or any other wildly popular not-compiled-directly-to-native-code language. Sure, it was pretty slow two years ago, but that was half it's commercial lifetime ago.
Sun is not the only major corporation pushing Java. There are IBM and HP, as well as open-source Kaffe. This is not Sun's "OS/2."
Remember Sony's "failed" Beta technology? Remember the "failed" DAT format? Well, both are staples of professional production facilities.
In a way, the comparison of Linux and Java is fair. Linux may never overcome the drool factor needed to beat Windows, just as Java has yet to overcome the drool factor needed to beat Visual Basic (or Perl;-).
Duchovny is actually being very reasonable. There's an article in this week's Entertainment Weekly about it, with an interview.
Here's the problem: a hot property (like X-Files) goes into syndication. Despite the fact that USA Network offered more money, the syndication is granted to Fox Network... which is owned by the same people who own the show. Fox (the global entity) reaps the rewards and stakeholders, such as Duchovny, get screwed out of market potential for their work.
Alan Alda already won a similar lawsuit involving syndication of M*A*S*H.
Cheryl is a person who's lousy job it was to read a bunch of crap that people shouldn't have said in the first place.
It's nice to send flowers to people to make them feel better.
I've sent flowers to men. I have felt sorry for men who have to deal with unecessary crap in their jobs.
Drop the fake feminism, pinhead.
As far as your moral outrage over the LZW patent, get over it. They invented something. They patented it. They're enforcing their patent. Nobody has come up with a convincing arguement that it's a bad patent (except "patents are bad."). Look at countries which don't have patents. Look at their contribution to technology. You wanna be like them?
You don't like it? Promote PNG. Fire up emacs (or for someone of your limited intelligence, vi), and make sure that Mozilla supports PNG. Just stop being an asshole. Please.
In case you're wading through the wailing and moaning of the "I like a nice society, but I don't want to pay for it" crybabies, and you feel like a change of venue, you might want to check out this editorial in Network Computing. It's pretty reasonable. (Hence, it was not posted on slashdot when I submitted it.)
I can't believe the number of posts claiming "This can't be done." Read the @&*$#@&( l0pht write-up. It's not perfect. It can be circumvented (in some cases), but it does actually detect some sniffers and it's pretty clever.
I guess there aren't enough moderators to keep all of the "I don't know anything about this, and I can't think of how it could work, therefore it must not work" down to -1.
Yes, duh. You can download the full text of the standards for the Kansas State Board of "Education" Website. It seems to be connected to the 'net with a 1200 baud modem (I think that adative modem technology must be seen as a dangerous flirtation with moral relativism), so I'll just post the quote here:
Some scientific concepts and theories (e.g. blood transfusion, human sexuality, nervous system role in consciousness, cosmological and biological evolution, etc.) may conflict with a student's religious or cultural beliefs. The goal is to enhance understanding, and a science teacher has a responsibility to enhance students' understanding of scientific concepts and theories. Compelling student belief is inconsistent with the goal of education. Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically.
A teacher is an important role model for demonstrating respect and civility, and teachers should not ridicule, belittle or embarrass a student for expressing an alternative view or belief. In doing this, teachers display and demand tolerance and respect for the diverse ideas, skills, and experiences of all students.
So...
It's not a 'law'. It's part of the recommended curriculum by the state school board.
It does not talk about 'not preventing' anyone from doing anything. It simply removes evolution from being a state tested subject.
For someone talking about fair play, you sure do get insulting pretty fast, don't you?
If you want to split hairs, it's part of the ratified curriculum. Nyah.
Re-read the paragraphs above. Basically they make it against policy to hurt the students' feelings by telling them that Santa doesn't exist or something like that. Being nice to idiots is laudable (not something I do, but laudable), but if someone is plain ignorant, you may not be able to avoid upsetting them no matter how nicely you tell them the Earth isn't flat or Jews are human and other generally agreed upon facts that have been in dispute in Kansas for some time.
As far as being a state tested subject, this is also in the standards:
As a result of their activities in grades 9-12, all students should develop an understanding of the cell, molecular basis of heredity, biological evolution, interdependence of organisms, matter, energy, and organization in living systems, and the behavior of organisms.
So, you can't tell anyone in a Kansas school that evolution is definitely true, but you are supposed to test them on it... unless it hurts their feelings or something.
Whatever. Your state. Your problem. Not mine. Good.
You're right on this. I was talking about other people's fair-mindedness. Me, I'm an elitist. Now bow before me.
This is a long way from how the US was founded, when Christianity was supported... - Badly Misinformed Dolt on Slashdot
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man and that is why the clergy oppose me. - Thomas Jefferson, American Founder
Try reading some of those books before you burn them.
It seems that it's easier to not even consider the possibility that a far greater intelligence created us.
Really?
Why did this "far greater intelligence" place the arteries which supply the retina in front of it where they block the vision process. I mean, there's no physical reason why they can't be behind the retina where they'd be out of the way.
And what's the deal with the appendix? I have an organ which does nothing, but possibly get infected and kill me. This is a feature?
Why do I have to sleep? I sit around at a computer all day -- I'd kind of like to do more in my spare time than spend 8 hours in a coma! While I'm on the subject of pep, it would be really nice if my paracrine system didn't freak out because I eat too many complex carbohydrates (gee, it's almost as if my metabolism was developed in a time before grain was cultivated... how did that happen?)
Finally, I would be a lot more popular with the ladies if my penis was on my chin. As it stands now, I have to buy a sports car.
I think this "far greater intelligence" should open-source His little project -- I'd do a much better job.
Here's the deal: In the passed proposal, it does not ban, decry, condemn, or pass any type of judgement on evolution.
Actually, it does. What this law actually does (and I've read it and understood it), is say that you can't teach any science as "dogma" and you cannot prevent anyone from promoting their belief solely because it contradicts widely agreed upon science. This places evolution, a deeply researched theory supported by mountains of evidence, on the same level as crackpot "theories" cobbled together to fit a religious agenda.
Earth is round? Sure looks flat to me... try to stop me teaching that theory to kids in Kansas. Aliens built Stonhenge! Hey, you got your theory, I got mine. Nazi Holocost? All fake!
Americans have a sense of fair play, albeit inconsistantly applied. It's considered a birthright to have the opportunity to voice an opposing view. Recently, fringe elements have been exploiting this culture artifact to gain legitimacy for their dubious opinions. It's time that people stop falling for this and realize that not all opposing viewpoints deserve "equal airtime." The Holocost did happen, the Earth is not flat and human beings were not willed into existance fully-formed by a ghost in the sky.
I was arrested in Kansas once. I was charged with trying to bring a book into the state. Luckily, I got off on a technicality. No one could prove it was a book.
We fully expect global CNRP services to be offered by the likes of RealNames, AOL, etc.
Well, a detailed reading of the proposal makes it clear that this is general-purpose naming system, but the affinity with directory naming is high. I have no doubt that corporate LDAP will be the backend database for a large number of CNRP systems, if in fact they get deployed. The claim that CNRP is a flat space is in conflict with the claim that it will be "context sensitive" (context == scope == heirarchy).
If CNRP services are offered for the current web, they'll be in lieu of existing search engines. I would have to agree with the other posters in this case that the net effect (no pun intended) will be window dressing (again, no pun intended). Not until XML and/or RDF provide valuable metadata on a majority of web content will we be in a position to coherently catalog the data with "Common Names."
[A directory] does make storing vast amounts of hierachial data very fast, but so does.. well, a file system.
I think you're thinking on the wrong scale.
Let's say you're PricewaterhouseCoopers. You are the the recent merger of two huge companies that are over a century old. You have 150,000 people worldwide who need documents on everything from tax incentives in Botswana to OS/400 vulnerabilities. Even if you could organize all the data available in the firm, you'd never know when somebody who specializes in electronic banking might suddenly need to know about the Japanese fishing industry. File system? "Properly organized web site?" As if!
I've pointed it out before, but little of the slashdot readership has experience with enterprises on this scale, so I'm just offering some perspective from someone who does.
As entertaining as it is to see passionate debates on slashdot waged between people who don't really know what they're talking about, I thought I'd clear up some potential questions here.
This is aimed at Intranets. Why? Because this is, in short, a way to connect web requests with a bunch of resources listed in a directory server such as an LDAP server, Novell Directory Server or Micro~1 Active Directory (coming soon to foolish corporations everywhere). "Common Name" or CN, is a standard part of X.400(?)/X.500(?) naming schema which are used in such directories. If you look at the contents of an X.509 certificate, you'll see it as part of a "Distinguished Name" or DN. Something's DN should uniquely identify it. For example, here are some DN's:
CN="George Bush" OU="Texas Governor" CO="Republic of Texas"
CN="George Bush" OU="Ex-President" CO="United States of America"
So, allowing someone to type in a CN or partial DN into their browser is of interest to corporations in the near term, because many of them are already deploying Directory Services to centralize their information management.
The "Common Name" proposal also contains RDF schemas to describe and search for documents based on CN's and partial DN's. This might have some applicability to widely distributed, nonarchic systems such as the web. Of course, RDF is a cutting-edge application of XML which isn't even fully ratified, so don't hold your breath.
The biggest one is that computers are powerful because they are programmable.... If you are really going to get the full use out of a computer, you aren't going to do it by just surfing the web, by just using some wordprocessing program to type up a paper.... I am saying that to really be able to use a computer, programs other people have written are not going to perfectly suit your needs.
This is just techie elitism.
People don't need to program their computers. In fact, you program very few of the computers you use.
Other people wrote the programs that run my VCR, my microwave oven and my car engine. Maybe I could think of some reason to reprogram them, but I don't want to and I certain don't want to be required to know how these things work in order to use them. The computer that runs slashdot was programmed by other people and I can't do a damn thing about it. (I'd have used Java Servlets, which are much more efficient than Perl CGI.)
For the record, I'm perfectly capable of programming the computers I own. I've done assembly programming for microcontrollers in embedded environments. I can debug with a (real) ICE. This makes me considerably more 31337 than computer literacy evangelists like you. Still, embedded programming is a headache and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
Back in 1980, an MIT grad student friend of mine told me that there would eventually be two kinds of computers:
The "appliance" that you would just turn on an use with little ability to program or configure. This would be the computer for the "Masses."
The "workstation". This would be like Linux or OS/2. It would be a powerful system that was open to programming (or, in the case of Linux, anything).
In reality, we got three kinds. The third is the common "Office Workstation." This is clunky, broken piece of shit that tries to simultaniously provide a robust progrmaming environment yet be simple to use for the non-technical. This is what Windows is. This is what OS/2 became. This is what Linux is evolving into now (Gnome + E? Yikes!).
I think we should follow my friend's vision. Rather than trying to make Linux easy to use, in general, we should have "Home Linux" and "Office Linux" distros, which are much too rigid for you and me, but simple for people like my uncle Bob.
I could get (and have done, in the past) an RS/6000 for less [than the cost of an E*Trade account]
You've gotten an RS/6000 for less than US$1000? Was the CPU included? Was it 4K or 8K RAM? You are certain it wasn't a TRS-80 with the "TRS-80" scratched out and RS/6000 written over it in marker pen, right?
...do you believe that every single recipient of this is going to want to buy shares in Redhat?
Of course not. I don't believe in obviously absurd things, such as the theory that I should be exempt from any costs inherent in my completely voluntary decision to participate in certain realms of human discourse, such as the Internet. If I buy a product, I am helping to pay their advertising budget, even if I don't watch their ads. If I live in the UK, I am paying for the Universities to conduct a futile campaign of teaching drooling morons such as yourself. Every American artist who puffs on a cigarette ironically helps the tobacco lobby subsidize Jesse Helms' re-election campaigns. To quote Don Becker:"Life's like that sometimes."
If not, people are paying for something they didn't want and had no choice as to whether or not they received. This is spam.
Then spam is not harmful.
That's right, Fluffy (if that is your real name!), I'm weary of debating trivia with extremists. I realize that this may be beyond your feebleminded grasp of reality, but between the black and white in which you see the world, are grey areas. If you insist on setting inflexible boundaries so that simpletons such as yourself can grasp the definitions, so be it, but you render your delineations toothless.
If you really think that RedHat spammed, fine. Then you'll have to deal with the fact that sometimes spam is OK. Oops, another grey area. Get off the 'net, Luddite.
Irrespective of how much your network traffic costs, it's more expensive than it would be without spam.
Prove it. Cite a case study. Cite a fact. Or get professional help, you loony.
But most people can afford to invest (reasonably heavily) in Redhat's shares, I suppose?
At an anticipated opening price of US$6 a share, I'd say yes. There is plenty of real poverty in the US, but we are talking about people who can afford computers and ISPs. And Penguin Mints.
Network traffic costs money no matter where you are on the planet.
Yup, it does. And on this part of the planet it costs roughly US$20/month flat rate. If it costs more on your part of the planet, take it up with Tony Blair, Lester Bird, Ryutaro Hashimoto, the Masons or whoever runs your grubby little country.
Now, there are metered services at the commercial level, but I'd vigorously argue that blocking streaming media and graphics-heavy sites (hey, make everyone use Lynx!:-) would make much more difference than eliminating Spam.
He's just commenting on the unfairness of a system that rewards johnny-come-latelies...
That's sorta reasonable, except this isn't "the system." This is a welcome deviation from the system.
The system rewards the drinking buddies of the founders. Y'know, the guy who makes it the IPO as "Director of Nothing in Particular" and disappears after the first round when the auditors figure out he's just an oxygen thief.
A lot of companies end up with this guy -- the "Pete Best" of the corporate world. Maybe he joined the company in the beginning before people knew how useless he'd be. Maybe he invested a few thousand back when everybody was maxed-out on their credit cards. Whatever the case, he ends up a millionaire for no particular reason.
This is different. It's a a flawed attempt to reward people who deserve it but wouldn't necessarily get squat. I can't believe all the bitching it's caused.
Yes, once again, the net has failed to meet even my low expectations of human discourse.
By your definition, the junk I get offering me cheap RS/6000 hardware is perfectly justified because I've made a couple of posts to comp.unix.aix.
I think you'd have to be pretty stupid (even more stupid than you) to think that everyone who posts to comp.unix.aix is even remotely interested in actually buying RS/6000's. Most people can't afford them, even discounted.
Now, I know what you're going to say (after "duh") you are going to say that you need to indicate your interest in email in some public way before you should get it. Well, at least 75% of the email I get is unsolicited in this way. It is sent directly to me by people who think that I want to get it or should get it for some reason. Sometimes they're wrong, but I don't make a big fuss over it. Take a valium, people.
I don't care how carefully they've chosen the addresses..., the people mailed were not asked if they wanted to be mailed beforehand.
This raises an interesting question. How could they have asked? By sending email? Wouldn't that have been SPAM? I guess that could have telephoned everybody. Now that would be so much less annoying. The truth is, these people attached their email addresses to Open Source projects so that people could contact them with respect to their work. This mailing was in regards to their work, although not directly.
Due to the way university education is funded...I'll be one of the people paying for [Spam].
Y'know, telecommunications tarriffing in Europe is, put simply, TOTALLY FUCKED. It's really a subject for totally different thread, but stop whining. You have a lousy cost structure for data communication. We have an overabundance of uncontrolled firearms. Count your fuckin' blessings.
I guess I'll just have to produce my own [better] distribution... (not particularly hard).
Please, please, produce a distro better than RedHat. Don't use any crappy RedHat code like their easy installer or RPM. In fact, I'll sit here and hold my breath until you do.
[turns blue]
PHEEEEW... hurry up! I can't hold my breath that long! Ok... here I go again!
Slashdot Mirror
Now go play with your Enlightenment settings or somethin -- you'll have plenty of time for grown-up things later.
Caterpillar. Cargill. Tennessee Valley Authority. American Airlines. Sabre. Tricon Restaurants (Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC). These are not "mom 'n' pop" operations, they are huge corporations collectively dumping hundreds of millions into the Java industry. There are many, many more.
Good point. I'll look for one or maybe take a stab at one.
IBM did no such thing. Not only does IBM still sell and support OS/2, but it's sales are exceeding projections. OS/2 may serve as an example of a market failure, but it also serves as an example of how IBM does not abandon its customers.
What you didn't mention is the companies aligned against Java - Microsoft and HP to name two. Both are pushing HP's Chai.
This statement is really proof that you are way too ignorant to be criticizing Java. Chai can hardly be called anti-Java. Chai is a Java Virtual Machine. Chai supports Java, albeit not necessarily Sun's strict definition. And I did mention HP -- it's another company investing in Java technology (you did read my post, right?).
Beta is dead, and I'm sure Sony can't be too pleased to see DAT relegated to a tiny market of recording enthusiasts.
ROTFLMAO. Anyone who could dismiss ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, HBO, BBC, CBC, Univision and who knows how many global networks both broadcast and cable as a "tiny market of recording enthusiasts" is irretreivably stupid. I challenge you to find a broadcast production facility (among thousands) in the civilized world that does not feature a Beta SP deck and a DAT.
- Java is a huge success -- just not where it was originally hyped. People don't see Java applets on every server they visted et viola that must mean Java failed. Well, it didn't.
- Java is alive and well in corporate enterprise computing. In fact, it's probably the hottest thing in client/server programming going right now.
- Java isn't any slower than Perl or Visual Basic or any other wildly popular not-compiled-directly-to-native-code language. Sure, it was pretty slow two years ago, but that was half it's commercial lifetime ago.
- Sun is not the only major corporation pushing Java. There are IBM and HP, as well as open-source Kaffe. This is not Sun's "OS/2."
- Remember Sony's "failed" Beta technology? Remember the "failed" DAT format? Well, both are staples of professional production facilities.
In a way, the comparison of Linux and Java is fair. Linux may never overcome the drool factor needed to beat Windows, just as Java has yet to overcome the drool factor needed to beat Visual Basic (or PerlHere is the link.
Here's the problem: a hot property (like X-Files) goes into syndication. Despite the fact that USA Network offered more money, the syndication is granted to Fox Network... which is owned by the same people who own the show. Fox (the global entity) reaps the rewards and stakeholders, such as Duchovny, get screwed out of market potential for their work.
Alan Alda already won a similar lawsuit involving syndication of M*A*S*H.
It's nice to send flowers to people to make them feel better.
I've sent flowers to men. I have felt sorry for men who have to deal with unecessary crap in their jobs.
Drop the fake feminism, pinhead.
As far as your moral outrage over the LZW patent, get over it. They invented something. They patented it. They're enforcing their patent. Nobody has come up with a convincing arguement that it's a bad patent (except "patents are bad."). Look at countries which don't have patents. Look at their contribution to technology. You wanna be like them?
You don't like it? Promote PNG. Fire up emacs (or for someone of your limited intelligence, vi), and make sure that Mozilla supports PNG. Just stop being an asshole. Please.
In case you're wading through the wailing and moaning of the "I like a nice society, but I don't want to pay for it" crybabies, and you feel like a change of venue, you might want to check out this editorial in Network Computing. It's pretty reasonable. (Hence, it was not posted on slashdot when I submitted it.)
The site is called "BitLaw" and it focuses on law and technology (US only).
I guess there aren't enough moderators to keep all of the "I don't know anything about this, and I can't think of how it could work, therefore it must not work" down to -1.
- HuH? You have a reference for this?
Yes, duh. You can download the full text of the standards for the Kansas State Board of "Education" Website. It seems to be connected to the 'net with a 1200 baud modem (I think that adative modem technology must be seen as a dangerous flirtation with moral relativism), so I'll just post the quote here:- Some scientific concepts and theories (e.g. blood transfusion, human sexuality, nervous system role in consciousness, cosmological and biological evolution, etc.) may conflict with a student's religious or cultural beliefs. The goal is to enhance understanding, and a science teacher has a responsibility to enhance students' understanding of scientific concepts and theories. Compelling student belief is inconsistent with the goal of education. Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically.
So...A teacher is an important role model for demonstrating respect and civility, and teachers should not ridicule, belittle or embarrass a student for expressing an alternative view or belief. In doing this, teachers display and demand tolerance and respect for the diverse ideas, skills, and experiences of all students.
As far as being a state tested subject, this is also in the standards:
As a result of their activities in grades 9-12, all students should develop an understanding of the cell, molecular basis of heredity, biological evolution, interdependence of organisms, matter, energy, and organization in living systems, and the behavior of organisms.
So, you can't tell anyone in a Kansas school that evolution is definitely true, but you are supposed to test them on it... unless it hurts their feelings or something.
Whatever. Your state. Your problem. Not mine. Good.
- Badly Misinformed Dolt on Slashdot
- I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man and that is why the clergy oppose me.
Try reading some of those books before you burn them.- Thomas Jefferson, American Founder
- It seems that it's easier to not even consider the possibility that a far greater intelligence created us.
Really?Why did this "far greater intelligence" place the arteries which supply the retina in front of it where they block the vision process. I mean, there's no physical reason why they can't be behind the retina where they'd be out of the way.
And what's the deal with the appendix? I have an organ which does nothing, but possibly get infected and kill me. This is a feature?
Why do I have to sleep? I sit around at a computer all day -- I'd kind of like to do more in my spare time than spend 8 hours in a coma! While I'm on the subject of pep, it would be really nice if my paracrine system didn't freak out because I eat too many complex carbohydrates (gee, it's almost as if my metabolism was developed in a time before grain was cultivated... how did that happen?)
Finally, I would be a lot more popular with the ladies if my penis was on my chin. As it stands now, I have to buy a sports car.
I think this "far greater intelligence" should open-source His little project -- I'd do a much better job.
- Here's the deal: In the passed proposal, it does not ban, decry, condemn, or pass any type of judgement on evolution.
Actually, it does. What this law actually does (and I've read it and understood it), is say that you can't teach any science as "dogma" and you cannot prevent anyone from promoting their belief solely because it contradicts widely agreed upon science. This places evolution, a deeply researched theory supported by mountains of evidence, on the same level as crackpot "theories" cobbled together to fit a religious agenda.Earth is round? Sure looks flat to me... try to stop me teaching that theory to kids in Kansas. Aliens built Stonhenge! Hey, you got your theory, I got mine. Nazi Holocost? All fake!
Americans have a sense of fair play, albeit inconsistantly applied. It's considered a birthright to have the opportunity to voice an opposing view. Recently, fringe elements have been exploiting this culture artifact to gain legitimacy for their dubious opinions. It's time that people stop falling for this and realize that not all opposing viewpoints deserve "equal airtime." The Holocost did happen, the Earth is not flat and human beings were not willed into existance fully-formed by a ghost in the sky.
I was arrested in Kansas once. I was charged with trying to bring a book into the state. Luckily, I got off on a technicality. No one could prove it was a book.
- [A directory] does make storing vast amounts of hierachial data very fast, but so does
.. well, a file system.
I think you're thinking on the wrong scale.Let's say you're PricewaterhouseCoopers. You are the the recent merger of two huge companies that are over a century old. You have 150,000 people worldwide who need documents on everything from tax incentives in Botswana to OS/400 vulnerabilities. Even if you could organize all the data available in the firm, you'd never know when somebody who specializes in electronic banking might suddenly need to know about the Japanese fishing industry. File system? "Properly organized web site?" As if!
I've pointed it out before, but little of the slashdot readership has experience with enterprises on this scale, so I'm just offering some perspective from someone who does.
This is aimed at Intranets. Why? Because this is, in short, a way to connect web requests with a bunch of resources listed in a directory server such as an LDAP server, Novell Directory Server or Micro~1 Active Directory (coming soon to foolish corporations everywhere). "Common Name" or CN, is a standard part of X.400(?)/X.500(?) naming schema which are used in such directories. If you look at the contents of an X.509 certificate, you'll see it as part of a "Distinguished Name" or DN. Something's DN should uniquely identify it. For example, here are some DN's:
- CN="George Bush" OU="Texas Governor" CO="Republic of Texas"
So, allowing someone to type in a CN or partial DN into their browser is of interest to corporations in the near term, because many of them are already deploying Directory Services to centralize their information management.CN="George Bush" OU="Ex-President" CO="United States of America"
The "Common Name" proposal also contains RDF schemas to describe and search for documents based on CN's and partial DN's. This might have some applicability to widely distributed, nonarchic systems such as the web. Of course, RDF is a cutting-edge application of XML which isn't even fully ratified, so don't hold your breath.
Java Servlets are also much more efficient than Perl CGI. You don't want to bog down your server for a cute little graphic effect!
The USPS saved US$3M on a project a couple of years ago. Anyone have a link?
- The biggest one is that computers are powerful because they are programmable.
... If you are really going to get the full use out of a computer, you aren't going to do it by just surfing the web, by just using some wordprocessing program to type up a paper.... I am saying that to really be able to use a computer, programs other people have written are not going to perfectly suit your needs.
This is just techie elitism.People don't need to program their computers. In fact, you program very few of the computers you use.
Other people wrote the programs that run my VCR, my microwave oven and my car engine. Maybe I could think of some reason to reprogram them, but I don't want to and I certain don't want to be required to know how these things work in order to use them. The computer that runs slashdot was programmed by other people and I can't do a damn thing about it. (I'd have used Java Servlets, which are much more efficient than Perl CGI.)
For the record, I'm perfectly capable of programming the computers I own. I've done assembly programming for microcontrollers in embedded environments. I can debug with a (real) ICE. This makes me considerably more 31337 than computer literacy evangelists like you. Still, embedded programming is a headache and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
Back in 1980, an MIT grad student friend of mine told me that there would eventually be two kinds of computers:
- The "appliance" that you would just turn on an use with little ability to program or configure. This would be the computer for the "Masses."
- The "workstation". This would be like Linux or OS/2. It would be a powerful system that was open to programming (or, in the case of Linux, anything).
In reality, we got three kinds. The third is the common "Office Workstation." This is clunky, broken piece of shit that tries to simultaniously provide a robust progrmaming environment yet be simple to use for the non-technical. This is what Windows is. This is what OS/2 became. This is what Linux is evolving into now (Gnome + E? Yikes!).I think we should follow my friend's vision. Rather than trying to make Linux easy to use, in general, we should have "Home Linux" and "Office Linux" distros, which are much too rigid for you and me, but simple for people like my uncle Bob.
Sigh... something to do in my "spare" time. Ha!
- I could get (and have done, in the past) an RS/6000 for less [than the cost of an E*Trade account]
You've gotten an RS/6000 for less than US$1000? Was the CPU included? Was it 4K or 8K RAM? You are certain it wasn't a TRS-80 with the "TRS-80" scratched out and RS/6000 written over it in marker pen, right? - ...do you believe that every single recipient of this is going to want to buy shares in Redhat?
Of course not. I don't believe in obviously absurd things, such as the theory that I should be exempt from any costs inherent in my completely voluntary decision to participate in certain realms of human discourse, such as the Internet. If I buy a product, I am helping to pay their advertising budget, even if I don't watch their ads. If I live in the UK, I am paying for the Universities to conduct a futile campaign of teaching drooling morons such as yourself. Every American artist who puffs on a cigarette ironically helps the tobacco lobby subsidize Jesse Helms' re-election campaigns. To quote Don Becker:"Life's like that sometimes."- If not, people are paying for something they didn't want and had no choice as to whether or not they received. This is spam.
Then spam is not harmful.That's right, Fluffy (if that is your real name!), I'm weary of debating trivia with extremists. I realize that this may be beyond your feebleminded grasp of reality, but between the black and white in which you see the world, are grey areas. If you insist on setting inflexible boundaries so that simpletons such as yourself can grasp the definitions, so be it, but you render your delineations toothless.
If you really think that RedHat spammed, fine. Then you'll have to deal with the fact that sometimes spam is OK. Oops, another grey area. Get off the 'net, Luddite.
- Irrespective of how much your network traffic costs, it's more expensive than it would be without spam.
Prove it. Cite a case study. Cite a fact. Or get professional help, you loony.- But most people can afford to invest (reasonably heavily) in Redhat's shares, I suppose?
At an anticipated opening price of US$6 a share, I'd say yes. There is plenty of real poverty in the US, but we are talking about people who can afford computers and ISPs. And Penguin Mints.- Network traffic costs money no matter where you are on the planet.
Yup, it does. And on this part of the planet it costs roughly US$20/month flat rate. If it costs more on your part of the planet, take it up with Tony Blair, Lester Bird, Ryutaro Hashimoto, the Masons or whoever runs your grubby little country.Now, there are metered services at the commercial level, but I'd vigorously argue that blocking streaming media and graphics-heavy sites (hey, make everyone use Lynx! :-) would make much more difference than eliminating Spam.
- He's just commenting on the unfairness of a system that rewards johnny-come-latelies...
That's sorta reasonable, except this isn't "the system." This is a welcome deviation from the system.The system rewards the drinking buddies of the founders. Y'know, the guy who makes it the IPO as "Director of Nothing in Particular" and disappears after the first round when the auditors figure out he's just an oxygen thief.
A lot of companies end up with this guy -- the "Pete Best" of the corporate world. Maybe he joined the company in the beginning before people knew how useless he'd be. Maybe he invested a few thousand back when everybody was maxed-out on their credit cards. Whatever the case, he ends up a millionaire for no particular reason.
This is different. It's a a flawed attempt to reward people who deserve it but wouldn't necessarily get squat. I can't believe all the bitching it's caused.
Yes, once again, the net has failed to meet even my low expectations of human discourse.
- you might lay off the lame gay comments.
Don't edit my comments to suit you're... or whatever you said, twit. I never said anything about being gay.- And I assume
... I guess you think ... [blah blah blah]
And I assume you don't have a lot of friends?- And I ask you too, can I redirect all spam I get to YOUR mailbox?
Well, Mr. "I do everything I can to prevent SPAM", you'll have to find it first.- Overly juvenile.
Not possible.- By your definition, the junk I get offering me cheap RS/6000 hardware is perfectly justified because I've made a couple of posts to comp.unix.aix.
I think you'd have to be pretty stupid (even more stupid than you) to think that everyone who posts to comp.unix.aix is even remotely interested in actually buying RS/6000's. Most people can't afford them, even discounted.Now, I know what you're going to say (after "duh") you are going to say that you need to indicate your interest in email in some public way before you should get it. Well, at least 75% of the email I get is unsolicited in this way. It is sent directly to me by people who think that I want to get it or should get it for some reason. Sometimes they're wrong, but I don't make a big fuss over it. Take a valium, people.
- I don't care how carefully they've chosen the addresses
..., the people mailed were not asked if they wanted to be mailed beforehand.
This raises an interesting question. How could they have asked? By sending email? Wouldn't that have been SPAM? I guess that could have telephoned everybody. Now that would be so much less annoying. The truth is, these people attached their email addresses to Open Source projects so that people could contact them with respect to their work. This mailing was in regards to their work, although not directly.- Due to the way university education is funded...I'll be one of the people paying for [Spam].
Y'know, telecommunications tarriffing in Europe is, put simply, TOTALLY FUCKED. It's really a subject for totally different thread, but stop whining. You have a lousy cost structure for data communication. We have an overabundance of uncontrolled firearms. Count your fuckin' blessings.- I guess I'll just have to produce my own [better] distribution
... (not particularly hard).
Please, please, produce a distro better than RedHat. Don't use any crappy RedHat code like their easy installer or RPM. In fact, I'll sit here and hold my breath until you do.[turns blue]
PHEEEEW... hurry up! I can't hold my breath that long! Ok... here I go again!