The judge didn't want to post this until after the markets closed on Friday, because she recognized that it would boost MSFT stock otherwise. They get a slap on the wrist, investors breath a sigh of relief, and buy, buy, buy. Unless you do it when the market is off for two days - by Monday, it's not on everyone's mind anymore.
Instead, some idiot put the PDF's up today, and Slashdot gets ahold of it. They post the links, and by tomorrow morning, everyone knows what's going to happen. Microsoft stock goes up, and michael goes down as a great Microsoft supporter.
Don't click on the above Amazon link either. Amazon is well known for their abusive business practices, and the link is for the poster's affiliate program. Instead, use Bookpool - $36.50 there.
The article is unclear on whether or not 80% of the computers actually have viruses. Even the Slashdot post uses the word "touched", not "infected". Viruses come into contact with my computer all the time. I'd bet that at least 80% of the computers in America or Western Europe have been "touched" by a virus.
I know that Microsoft KB uses this term, but why would Slashdot? The term "hack" should refer to something good, some sweet way to make something work. Instead, Slashdot chooses to further the bastardization of this term, synonymizing it with "crack"
Everytime I hear about the possibility of trashing P2P networks, the geek response is the same: "We can avoid that by using some soooper dizzy wizzy GNUPGABC123 2 quadra-trillion bit RSADSANSANASA encrypted mega-bit triple-hashed file on your public privates!" P2P networks are successful because non-geeks can use them - if you make it tougher than a username and password, no one will use them. (So if the disease doesn't kill you, the cure will)
Your statement makes absolutely no sense. C#'s VM/compiler is free as well - you can download the.NET framework for free, and it includes a command-line compiler. The IDE costs money, but so do many Java IDE's. You're the one who should feel ashamed of yourself.
I know there's a lot of blame for all the bums in the industry (Look at me ma! I read that ASP for Dummies book, and now I deserve one of dem Beamers and some stock options!).
However, I think equally to blame are the geeks (and I consider myself one of them). You know, we care more about the technical side of stuff than the actual business end. When we talk about IT spending, we want to see corporations cut the big checks for IT projects. However, if they don't impact the company's bottom line - either save or make money - the company has no business bankrolling it. No business whatsoever.
There still is IT spending - automation of systems, taking paper forms online, etc. Alot of intranet and back-office projects, developed in the most cost effective manner. This means high-level languages that offer the quickest and largest ROI.
This means that the "sexy" stuff isn't where the opportunities are. If you can crank of a fancy 3D spinning globe in Flash, or feel at home banging out kernel C or 8086 assembly, then I have some advice for your career: 1) the Big Mac has 2 buns AND the special sauce 2) ALWAYS ask them if they want fries.
If you can put together web based solutions, using ASP, CF, PHP, JSP, SQL, and maybe even some COM/.NET/servlets, etc, then you'll have an easier time finding a place with a cube and some budget money.
If Peru mandates the use of open source software, this affects all commercial software companies, not just Microsoft. The fact that Microsoft is the one spearheading this doesn't mean much; you'd expect the industry leader (put down your flame-throwers: I mean leader in the business sense, not in the "who we should follow" sense) you'd expect them to be spearheading it. In this case, Microsoft is fighting for (in addition to their own bottom-line) the principles espoused by open source: freedom of choice. You should be able to choose whatever software you want - you'd shouldn't be limited in any way.
Open source doesn't mean open development team. Interview developers you'd like to work with you. Keep the team small (4-6 perhaps). IMHO, if you release it to the mob, you really don't have any control over it, nor should you (as it becomes more a property of the community). Of course, you could go the Linus route: come up with something so revolutionary (or in the right place at the right time, or whatever the case may be) that people are convinced that they have no choice but to bow to your will.:-)
Good timeline, but they seem to spend alot of time trumpeting the incredible stock prices of Linux companies - for example, Red Hat in the 200's and VA in the 300's. However, if you're gonna present something as an advantage, you've got to present all sides of the story. RedHat dipped below $4, and VA is under a buck now. (Over the last 2 years, the Dow has lost about 20%, while RedHat has lost about 80%!) Not to mention the scores of Linux based companies that have gone under. I think they should have left the stock prices and juvenile IPO stories out; they only undermine the success and quality of the operating system.
I haven't kept up with Lindows that much, but I thought their plan was to charge all along, with no free downloads. Open source is free as in speech, not beer. You only have to include the source code with what you ship. (ie, only those that pay for it in this instance) At the very least, there is NOTHING in the GPL that says that a product must be downloadable.
Secure servers require some type of resources to manage. Microsoft has more resources than most of us can comprehend. However, I still don't want my information stored with them. People don't like Microsoft because they don't like being controlled - and that's what MS does, attempt to control as much as possible in their own interests. So I don't care who has a repository - Microsoft, the US Government, the EFF - the bottom line is that the information is controlled by someone. I'm sure someone will quip in with a statement about some techie solution, like PKI - but that's not the point. You still don't control the information. If anyone in the Slashdot/OSS community advocates a central repository, they are advocating control, which violates every principle that the community stands for. I will take a Microsoft with no reigns (directly, they're only screwing other companies, whose bottom lines I could give a damn about) over a central repository (where I have a *huge* potential for getting screwed, big-time) any day.
I'm glad to see Hailstorm go. In typical FUD fashion, many critics confused.NET (the larger initiative) with Hailstorm (a "web service" that stored personal information). Now with Hailstorm gone, and.NET still very alive, it will allow people to look at the "bigger" parts of.NET (Hailstorm was an important piece of the web services strategy, but had very little to do with the development platform, aside from the fact that you could call the appropriate Hailstorm classes). Additionally, perhaps people will realize that obviously those that were crying about.NET really didn't know what they were talking about, and should be appropriately ignored in the future.
Sounds like they want the income benefits of metered, but still maintain the guaranteed income. If they wanna go metered, they should go metered. So if I download 5 gigs a day, I should pay for it (I don't have a problem with that). But if I only download 200 megs in a month, I should pay accordingly.
Also, they should open up their usage policies. The reason why certain services (like web servers) weren't permitted before was that those services had a potential to eat up a disproportionate amount of bandwidth - however, this would no longer be the case. So I should be able to host if they can bill me for excess bandwidth.
Very true - you really should produce your Fusedocs during the architecture stage. I would never argue against that. However, it's not always possible to trash and re-write - so reverse engineered documentation is better than none.
You can implement both COM objects and Beans in CF - the speed of these compiled objects doesn't make JSP or ASP faster. Also, writeOutput() and for loops inside of cfscript are painfully inefficient - you should always use CFOutput when iterating over a recordset.
Sure ya can!;) Someone posted an app/custom tag on the Fusebox list (fusebox@topica.com - subscribe from HalHelms.com to see the archives) that actually "reverse engineers" your app to produce Fusedocs.
By the way, you're double negative means the opposite of what you're trying to say:=)
The language isn't slow, expensive, or embarrassing. Like any language, it's only as good as the developer that writes it. Unfortunately, since CF is so easy to learn, there tends to be more novice code out there you'd typically find in other languages (hence the bad rap). No fault of your own, you seem to have some misunderstandings as to how CF works (for example, CFScript was never, never meant to replace compiled objects). From the sounds of it, CF isn't your primary language - however, I work in CF every day (I'm actually on the board of a CFUG and have contributed to a couple of CF books) so naturally, my perspective differs from yours.
Specific to ColdFusion: look at Fusedocs, DevNotes at HalHelms.com, look at SourceForge for Lee Borkman's WireFrameTool, and look at Fusebox.org for an overall methodology for keeping your CF apps clean. An additional advantage of Fusebox is that it's been ported over to PHP and JSP (with others to come), allowing you to develop all apps the same way, in spite of language. Also, look into Hal Helms's writings about Fusebox as an overall project management technique (Fusebox LIfecycle Process - FLIP)
One thing that Google has over AV is their lack of dumb advertising tricks - as I was reading the comments to this article, an AV window I had open brought itself to the front. I don't mind annoying ads, but when you start trying to control what I do on MY computer, you've overstepped your boundaries.
Slashdot Mirror
The judge didn't want to post this until after the markets closed on Friday, because she recognized that it would boost MSFT stock otherwise. They get a slap on the wrist, investors breath a sigh of relief, and buy, buy, buy. Unless you do it when the market is off for two days - by Monday, it's not on everyone's mind anymore.
Instead, some idiot put the PDF's up today, and Slashdot gets ahold of it. They post the links, and by tomorrow morning, everyone knows what's going to happen. Microsoft stock goes up, and michael goes down as a great Microsoft supporter.
Don't click on the above Amazon link either. Amazon is well known for their abusive business practices, and the link is for the poster's affiliate program. Instead, use Bookpool - $36.50 there.
The article is unclear on whether or not 80% of the computers actually have viruses. Even the Slashdot post uses the word "touched", not "infected". Viruses come into contact with my computer all the time. I'd bet that at least 80% of the computers in America or Western Europe have been "touched" by a virus.
I know that Microsoft KB uses this term, but why would Slashdot? The term "hack" should refer to something good, some sweet way to make something work. Instead, Slashdot chooses to further the bastardization of this term, synonymizing it with "crack"
Everytime I hear about the possibility of trashing P2P networks, the geek response is the same: "We can avoid that by using some soooper dizzy wizzy GNUPGABC123 2 quadra-trillion bit RSADSANSANASA encrypted mega-bit triple-hashed file on your public privates!" P2P networks are successful because non-geeks can use them - if you make it tougher than a username and password, no one will use them. (So if the disease doesn't kill you, the cure will)
Your statement makes absolutely no sense. C#'s VM/compiler is free as well - you can download the .NET framework for free, and it includes a command-line compiler. The IDE costs money, but so do many Java IDE's. You're the one who should feel ashamed of yourself.
I know there's a lot of blame for all the bums in the industry (Look at me ma! I read that ASP for Dummies book, and now I deserve one of dem Beamers and some stock options!).
However, I think equally to blame are the geeks (and I consider myself one of them). You know, we care more about the technical side of stuff than the actual business end. When we talk about IT spending, we want to see corporations cut the big checks for IT projects. However, if they don't impact the company's bottom line - either save or make money - the company has no business bankrolling it. No business whatsoever.
There still is IT spending - automation of systems, taking paper forms online, etc. Alot of intranet and back-office projects, developed in the most cost effective manner. This means high-level languages that offer the quickest and largest ROI.
This means that the "sexy" stuff isn't where the opportunities are. If you can crank of a fancy 3D spinning globe in Flash, or feel at home banging out kernel C or 8086 assembly, then I have some advice for your career: 1) the Big Mac has 2 buns AND the special sauce 2) ALWAYS ask them if they want fries.
If you can put together web based solutions, using ASP, CF, PHP, JSP, SQL, and maybe even some COM/.NET/servlets, etc, then you'll have an easier time finding a place with a cube and some budget money.
I know Slashdot didn't just post someone's email address on the home page ...
If Peru mandates the use of open source software, this affects all commercial software companies, not just Microsoft. The fact that Microsoft is the one spearheading this doesn't mean much; you'd expect the industry leader (put down your flame-throwers: I mean leader in the business sense, not in the "who we should follow" sense) you'd expect them to be spearheading it. In this case, Microsoft is fighting for (in addition to their own bottom-line) the principles espoused by open source: freedom of choice. You should be able to choose whatever software you want - you'd shouldn't be limited in any way.
Open source doesn't mean open development team. Interview developers you'd like to work with you. Keep the team small (4-6 perhaps). IMHO, if you release it to the mob, you really don't have any control over it, nor should you (as it becomes more a property of the community). Of course, you could go the Linus route: come up with something so revolutionary (or in the right place at the right time, or whatever the case may be) that people are convinced that they have no choice but to bow to your will. :-)
Good timeline, but they seem to spend alot of time trumpeting the incredible stock prices of Linux companies - for example, Red Hat in the 200's and VA in the 300's. However, if you're gonna present something as an advantage, you've got to present all sides of the story. RedHat dipped below $4, and VA is under a buck now. (Over the last 2 years, the Dow has lost about 20%, while RedHat has lost about 80%!) Not to mention the scores of Linux based companies that have gone under. I think they should have left the stock prices and juvenile IPO stories out; they only undermine the success and quality of the operating system.
will be point and cluck
You're right, everyone should wait for Version 2 before they waste their money.
I haven't kept up with Lindows that much, but I thought their plan was to charge all along, with no free downloads. Open source is free as in speech, not beer. You only have to include the source code with what you ship. (ie, only those that pay for it in this instance) At the very least, there is NOTHING in the GPL that says that a product must be downloadable.
I don't know that this'll make a difference - I doubt many companies purchase directly from Microsoft, but rather from Dell or Compaq
Secure servers require some type of resources to manage. Microsoft has more resources than most of us can comprehend. However, I still don't want my information stored with them. People don't like Microsoft because they don't like being controlled - and that's what MS does, attempt to control as much as possible in their own interests. So I don't care who has a repository - Microsoft, the US Government, the EFF - the bottom line is that the information is controlled by someone. I'm sure someone will quip in with a statement about some techie solution, like PKI - but that's not the point. You still don't control the information. If anyone in the Slashdot/OSS community advocates a central repository, they are advocating control, which violates every principle that the community stands for. I will take a Microsoft with no reigns (directly, they're only screwing other companies, whose bottom lines I could give a damn about) over a central repository (where I have a *huge* potential for getting screwed, big-time) any day.
I'm glad to see Hailstorm go. In typical FUD fashion, many critics confused .NET (the larger initiative) with Hailstorm (a "web service" that stored personal information). Now with Hailstorm gone, and .NET still very alive, it will allow people to look at the "bigger" parts of .NET (Hailstorm was an important piece of the web services strategy, but had very little to do with the development platform, aside from the fact that you could call the appropriate Hailstorm classes). Additionally, perhaps people will realize that obviously those that were crying about .NET really didn't know what they were talking about, and should be appropriately ignored in the future.
Sounds like they want the income benefits of metered, but still maintain the guaranteed income. If they wanna go metered, they should go metered. So if I download 5 gigs a day, I should pay for it (I don't have a problem with that). But if I only download 200 megs in a month, I should pay accordingly.
Also, they should open up their usage policies. The reason why certain services (like web servers) weren't permitted before was that those services had a potential to eat up a disproportionate amount of bandwidth - however, this would no longer be the case. So I should be able to host if they can bill me for excess bandwidth.
How about DeCSS turned into music? Also, would it be possible to coopt other people's work by converting it into music?
Very true - you really should produce your Fusedocs during the architecture stage. I would never argue against that. However, it's not always possible to trash and re-write - so reverse engineered documentation is better than none.
You can implement both COM objects and Beans in CF - the speed of these compiled objects doesn't make JSP or ASP faster. Also, writeOutput() and for loops inside of cfscript are painfully inefficient - you should always use CFOutput when iterating over a recordset.
By the way, you're double negative means the opposite of what you're trying to say
The language isn't slow, expensive, or embarrassing. Like any language, it's only as good as the developer that writes it. Unfortunately, since CF is so easy to learn, there tends to be more novice code out there you'd typically find in other languages (hence the bad rap). No fault of your own, you seem to have some misunderstandings as to how CF works (for example, CFScript was never, never meant to replace compiled objects). From the sounds of it, CF isn't your primary language - however, I work in CF every day (I'm actually on the board of a CFUG and have contributed to a couple of CF books) so naturally, my perspective differs from yours.
Specific to ColdFusion: look at Fusedocs, DevNotes at HalHelms.com, look at SourceForge for Lee Borkman's WireFrameTool, and look at Fusebox.org for an overall methodology for keeping your CF apps clean. An additional advantage of Fusebox is that it's been ported over to PHP and JSP (with others to come), allowing you to develop all apps the same way, in spite of language. Also, look into Hal Helms's writings about Fusebox as an overall project management technique (Fusebox LIfecycle Process - FLIP)
One thing that Google has over AV is their lack of dumb advertising tricks - as I was reading the comments to this article, an AV window I had open brought itself to the front. I don't mind annoying ads, but when you start trying to control what I do on MY computer, you've overstepped your boundaries.