the knowledge that Final Fantasy XI will truly be playable on every console
I've seen no talk of porting it to the XBox. Of course, I'd be more than happy to see someone prove me wrong (of course, it'll more than likely be met with the typical "XBox sucks" and "any MS product = world domination" garbage)
I see Macromedia going the other way
on
Photoshop for OS X
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I have no doubt that you'll see support for Macromedia products on OS X. However, I don't think it will be native. Macromedia's #2 seller, ColdFusion Server, is going to J2EE. It's rumored that the CF IDE, CF Studio, is being rewritten too, and I don't think it'd be too crazy to see it rewritten in Java. Along the same lines, a Java-base for all products would make it quite easy to move into new platforms, with little or no new development required.
Amusing - why is this such an issue? All development shops that know what they're doing have code freezes, fix bugs, and ship revisions. (Unlike Microsoft, most companies' bug fixes are preemptive, not reactionary) I'm sure Microsoft does this to some extent, but they just needed to make a spectacle of it for PR purposes (can you blame em? Everyone assumes that MS doesn't give a hoot, so sometimes they need to remind ppl that they do)
I wasn't whining. You'll notice that this was at the end of my post::-)
While most individuals with the faintest resemblance to knowledge about the Internet would recogzine what this means, my experience from when I worked an ISP help desk tells me that there are many newbies on the Internet who recently purchased a 'puter and still require the proper education. That symbol is what we call an "emoticon". That means that it expresses emotions that cannot otherwise be expressed via ASCII text (more on what ASCII means in the next lesson). The particular set of characters I used represent a "smiley", indicating humor or "no big deal". For more explanation, please visit: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gc i212057,00.html
I submitted this on Monday (I mentioned it on my website) I was logged in, not anonymous. So much for logged in users taking precedence over anonymous users:-)
hmm.. 1998 (maybe 97?) - I guess that makes me a newbie. Installed Slack on a shitty 486, using floppies (no downloading an ISO, burn it, have it come up on boot, and then calling myself a Linux guru - I love the new Mandrake distros, but there's a lot of ppl who have no clue about how Linux *really* works) Anyhow, just because these issues have been addressed doesn't mean the issue has been "answered". Anyhow, you missed my point - Linus is a developer, who developed a killer kernel, but that's all. He's not a god; he's not some great savior. The nature of open source software is democratic - if there's a desire for someone else to maintain the project, then it should happen. Cya Linus, have a nice day, here's a pink ribbon.
I don't think it's significant because of it's origins - it's significant because of the economic and social ramifications of Linux specifically. The operating system could have any architecture or kernel, and that would make it no less significant. Arguably Linux is the most successful open source application ever, and open source has provided an alternative to how software is produced and how computers envision their alternatives for computing.
Linus created what of the most significant pieces of software ever. However, as time has gone by, Linux's place in the world is becoming far more prominent. Billions of dollars are being spent worldwide, in some way related to Linux. As such, does it make sense to rely upon one man? I don't think the attention needs to be on Linus's shortcomings as a person; how about his shortcomings as a human? Humans get sick; humans die. If Linus was in a car wreck, what happens? If he developed a mentally debilitating disease, what happens? If Microsoft dropped $1B in his lap to start placing crap in the kernel, what happens? (I doubt this'd happen, but the ease of espionage and blackmail is far simpler when you have a single source) I think Linux is analagous to the early United States - yes, the "forefathers" are the ones who led and fought the battles, but it wasn't their country - the US was for the people, and as such, no one man could (or had the right to) control it.
I know that Microsoft is everyone's favorite target, but I think the claims made, while extremely valid, are widespread problems. How many websites out there maintain account and credit card information? As a web developer, I've seen numberous systems where passwords and credit cards were stored plain text in the database. So the only "gatekeeper" was the security of the database. Heck, I've even seen some sites storing information in Access databases, which were accessible below the web root! If the various attorney generals are willing to fight this fight, they should also go after all of the incompetent IT and web developers out there. Of course, to do this they would have to evaluate these various systems, to determine that they are secure or not. (I can already hear the claims of "big brother" intrusion) Wait - the request isn't to investigate "faulty" systems - it's to investigate a system that has some potential for failure (I know that many will be quick to point out that there have been some breaches with Passport, but I'm just addresses the claims made in the letter) As such, that would ruin pretty much every web site out there that has a database, as they all have a potential for failure. Of course, this will never happen; they don't carry the same "trophy potential" as Microsoft does.
Will this be a consumer protection issue, or an opportunity to gain some political karma?
Didn't Netscape make the move over to a free liscense before AOL bought them? So that means damages are $0. Additionally, if Microsoft hadn't been whooping up on poor little Netscape, wouldn't it have cost AOL more $$$ to buy the company? I can't fathom this scenario: since you saved us money, you have to pay us. Lastly, an open source community shouldn't support this. One of the most successful pieces of OSS ever is Mozilla. I would suggest that Mozilla's success was driven by the fact that Netscape commercially was a failure.
I'm sure that this is targeted at Microsoft, but there'd be a lot of $$$ made off of the folks that developed/distributed BIND and SendMail. Couldn't it also punish sites like Download.com?
I know the argument is, "If it's free, it's not liable". So Microsoft reworks its liscense in such a way that all linked libraries are free (that's an oversimplification) or that you're paying for the right to install, but not the operating system itself. If they were still liable in that instance, then RedHat/Mandrake/Debian/etc would be in deep do-do.
So how do you prove that the software vendor is liable? If you're brakes fail because you never filled your fluid, then the manufacturer is liable. If your operating system fails because you didn't patch it (and a patch was reasonably available), how different would the situation be?
What about modification? If I put aftermarket rims on my car, that will likely void my warranty and some issues of liability (oversimplification, again). So, a software vendor could make claims that "unauthorized" software (probably open to their interpretation) could have "unexpected" interaction, possibly releasing them from liability.
Another thought: safety recalls. Most of the time, there are not fines for "unsafe" products - there are voluntary or government mandated recalls. If you choose not to return the product, that's your fault. So, when there's a new "security flaw", MS recalls Windows, and you have to uninstall it from your computer and return your media for a refund or replacement. How would that fly? (Many "simple" consumers have a hard time differentiating between the computer and the software: they bought a "Dell": further complicating things)
Retrospective? Would this only apply to new shipments, or to all of the copies of Linux, Mac, and Windows already out there? That's be a tough sell.
The bottom line: this is motivated by politics and money. It would do nothing to enhance security and consumer rights. Many large companies will freely dump their waste, knowing that it's cheaper to pay the fine than it is to dispose "the right way". They just consider the fine an operating cost, which usually gets integrated into their pricing structure. So MS raises their prices to accomodate fines. I seriously doubt the fine would be significant. (Go back to the dumping example: if software flaws result in a bigger fine than destroying the environment, we're all in trouble... bits and bytes are insignificant when compared to the needs of the world and future generations, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to re-examine their humanity) I seriously doubt you'd see any improvement for the consumer - the government is the only one who stands to gain, and that kind of greed puts them on the same level as Microsoft.
Umm.. Ted Turner hasn't had any power with Time-Warner in a long time - he was relieved last spring of his duties managing the part of the company that he used to own
I have dozens of domains with them, and they're the cheapeast of the registrars (I think there's one like 20 cents cheaper). You have to provide your own DNS servers, but I've never had any problems.
As a professional developer, I can tell you that you're in a totally different world. Books and lectures suck. And they have nothing to do with IT. You're dealing with logic and theory. Out here we deal with business needs and specific technologies. I think you'll find the fun comes back when you're given a highly abstracted problem, and have to figure out how to make it work. Customers don't give a flippin fudge about arrays, structs, and pointers. They want systems that work for them. You use your creativity and energy to get the job done - in a subjective manner. Even though we're dealing with objectives here (it either works or it doesn't!), how you get it done is up to you - your creative energy, desire, and talent. Think of it like boot camp - you go through a short period of time that really sucks. If you can't handle it, you get out. If you suck it up, you make it through and then get to the fun stuff. In short: don't let your negative experience with academia dissuade you - wait until you start doing "real" programming.
Right. So eliminate millions of user's internet access, email addresses, and "suspend" the company that powers 92% of PC's worldwide. I'm sure everyone would just turn around and buy Linux, right?
And why would Jobs act against the company that owns 49% of Apple? RMS? So let's put a control freak in place that will keep the other two guys from doing their job. Linus? Good fair guy that believes in technology, not revolution CRAP. Maybe he can put MS in the right direction - hmm.. an operating sytem with Linux's power but with billions of dollars behind it. Redwho?
Yeah, but the states can't split them up. At this point, Microsoft will never be broken up. I'm not a lawyer, but at this point, it looks like the only possible actions are fines and/or injunctions per state.
Read the article - it's about charging developers for access to.NET services. However, the post sounds like MS is charging for access to the.NET platform - talk about FUD.
Also, if something like this were to fly, I'd want to see things applied universally. Everything that Microsoft is scrutinized for, every other technology company should be too. For example, to mandate that Microsoft allow easy integration of other e-commerce solutions would mean that other platforms should do the same, even for Microsoft's ecommerce solutions. I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but I'm tired of these corporate shoving matches using consumer rights as a scapegoat. (I'll believe that Microsoft is the only capitalist pig the day that every penny Linus makes from Transmeta is given to charity). I believe in Democracy (my dollars are my votes), not guerilla warfare (cowering behind lawyers and the real leaders of the open source revolution).
I think it's panic by Clear Channel Comm., but it is their station(s). The play what they choose. Just as great a panic is associating radio station adjusting their play lists with "assaults on civil liberties"
Not an impossible task, but you need to consider your approach. As developers, we like clean, pretty code. However, the people that keep us fed like profit. Saying, "I'm a geek, I like it like this" will get you nowhere. Instead, push for quality control - some sort of lifecycle methodology (in which writing code is a small part of the overall process). Point out that 80-90% of the life an application is maintenance, not original development. By pushing for a structured development process (requirements, design, development, QA, deployment) your projects will come out clean and well implemented. Of course, the bottom line is profit - if the "extra" hours to ensure quality can't be translated into billable hours, there's no hope. However, whatever you do, DON'T QUIT. The market is sh** right now. I repeat, the market is sh** right now.
Slashdot Mirror
the knowledge that Final Fantasy XI will truly be playable on every console
I've seen no talk of porting it to the XBox. Of course, I'd be more than happy to see someone prove me wrong (of course, it'll more than likely be met with the typical "XBox sucks" and "any MS product = world domination" garbage)
I have no doubt that you'll see support for Macromedia products on OS X. However, I don't think it will be native. Macromedia's #2 seller, ColdFusion Server, is going to J2EE. It's rumored that the CF IDE, CF Studio, is being rewritten too, and I don't think it'd be too crazy to see it rewritten in Java. Along the same lines, a Java-base for all products would make it quite easy to move into new platforms, with little or no new development required.
Amusing - why is this such an issue? All development shops that know what they're doing have code freezes, fix bugs, and ship revisions. (Unlike Microsoft, most companies' bug fixes are preemptive, not reactionary) I'm sure Microsoft does this to some extent, but they just needed to make a spectacle of it for PR purposes (can you blame em? Everyone assumes that MS doesn't give a hoot, so sometimes they need to remind ppl that they do)
I wasn't whining. You'll notice that this was at the end of my post: :-)
c i212057,00.html
While most individuals with the faintest resemblance to knowledge about the Internet would recogzine what this means, my experience from when I worked an ISP help desk tells me that there are many newbies on the Internet who recently purchased a 'puter and still require the proper education. That symbol is what we call an "emoticon". That means that it expresses emotions that cannot otherwise be expressed via ASCII text (more on what ASCII means in the next lesson). The particular set of characters I used represent a "smiley", indicating humor or "no big deal". For more explanation, please visit: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_g
Classic.
I submitted this on Monday (I mentioned it on my website) I was logged in, not anonymous. So much for logged in users taking precedence over anonymous users :-)
hmm.. 1998 (maybe 97?) - I guess that makes me a newbie. Installed Slack on a shitty 486, using floppies (no downloading an ISO, burn it, have it come up on boot, and then calling myself a Linux guru - I love the new Mandrake distros, but there's a lot of ppl who have no clue about how Linux *really* works) Anyhow, just because these issues have been addressed doesn't mean the issue has been "answered". Anyhow, you missed my point - Linus is a developer, who developed a killer kernel, but that's all. He's not a god; he's not some great savior. The nature of open source software is democratic - if there's a desire for someone else to maintain the project, then it should happen. Cya Linus, have a nice day, here's a pink ribbon.
I don't think it's significant because of it's origins - it's significant because of the economic and social ramifications of Linux specifically. The operating system could have any architecture or kernel, and that would make it no less significant. Arguably Linux is the most successful open source application ever, and open source has provided an alternative to how software is produced and how computers envision their alternatives for computing.
Linus created what of the most significant pieces of software ever. However, as time has gone by, Linux's place in the world is becoming far more prominent. Billions of dollars are being spent worldwide, in some way related to Linux. As such, does it make sense to rely upon one man? I don't think the attention needs to be on Linus's shortcomings as a person; how about his shortcomings as a human? Humans get sick; humans die. If Linus was in a car wreck, what happens? If he developed a mentally debilitating disease, what happens? If Microsoft dropped $1B in his lap to start placing crap in the kernel, what happens? (I doubt this'd happen, but the ease of espionage and blackmail is far simpler when you have a single source) I think Linux is analagous to the early United States - yes, the "forefathers" are the ones who led and fought the battles, but it wasn't their country - the US was for the people, and as such, no one man could (or had the right to) control it.
I know that Microsoft is everyone's favorite target, but I think the claims made, while extremely valid, are widespread problems. How many websites out there maintain account and credit card information? As a web developer, I've seen numberous systems where passwords and credit cards were stored plain text in the database. So the only "gatekeeper" was the security of the database. Heck, I've even seen some sites storing information in Access databases, which were accessible below the web root! If the various attorney generals are willing to fight this fight, they should also go after all of the incompetent IT and web developers out there. Of course, to do this they would have to evaluate these various systems, to determine that they are secure or not. (I can already hear the claims of "big brother" intrusion) Wait - the request isn't to investigate "faulty" systems - it's to investigate a system that has some potential for failure (I know that many will be quick to point out that there have been some breaches with Passport, but I'm just addresses the claims made in the letter) As such, that would ruin pretty much every web site out there that has a database, as they all have a potential for failure. Of course, this will never happen; they don't carry the same "trophy potential" as Microsoft does.
Will this be a consumer protection issue, or an opportunity to gain some political karma?
Didn't Netscape make the move over to a free liscense before AOL bought them? So that means damages are $0. Additionally, if Microsoft hadn't been whooping up on poor little Netscape, wouldn't it have cost AOL more $$$ to buy the company? I can't fathom this scenario: since you saved us money, you have to pay us. Lastly, an open source community shouldn't support this. One of the most successful pieces of OSS ever is Mozilla. I would suggest that Mozilla's success was driven by the fact that Netscape commercially was a failure.
I'm sure that this is targeted at Microsoft, but there'd be a lot of $$$ made off of the folks that developed/distributed BIND and SendMail. Couldn't it also punish sites like Download.com?
... bits and bytes are insignificant when compared to the needs of the world and future generations, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to re-examine their humanity) I seriously doubt you'd see any improvement for the consumer - the government is the only one who stands to gain, and that kind of greed puts them on the same level as Microsoft.
I know the argument is, "If it's free, it's not liable". So Microsoft reworks its liscense in such a way that all linked libraries are free (that's an oversimplification) or that you're paying for the right to install, but not the operating system itself. If they were still liable in that instance, then RedHat/Mandrake/Debian/etc would be in deep do-do.
So how do you prove that the software vendor is liable? If you're brakes fail because you never filled your fluid, then the manufacturer is liable. If your operating system fails because you didn't patch it (and a patch was reasonably available), how different would the situation be?
What about modification? If I put aftermarket rims on my car, that will likely void my warranty and some issues of liability (oversimplification, again). So, a software vendor could make claims that "unauthorized" software (probably open to their interpretation) could have "unexpected" interaction, possibly releasing them from liability.
Another thought: safety recalls. Most of the time, there are not fines for "unsafe" products - there are voluntary or government mandated recalls. If you choose not to return the product, that's your fault. So, when there's a new "security flaw", MS recalls Windows, and you have to uninstall it from your computer and return your media for a refund or replacement. How would that fly? (Many "simple" consumers have a hard time differentiating between the computer and the software: they bought a "Dell": further complicating things)
Retrospective? Would this only apply to new shipments, or to all of the copies of Linux, Mac, and Windows already out there? That's be a tough sell.
The bottom line: this is motivated by politics and money. It would do nothing to enhance security and consumer rights. Many large companies will freely dump their waste, knowing that it's cheaper to pay the fine than it is to dispose "the right way". They just consider the fine an operating cost, which usually gets integrated into their pricing structure. So MS raises their prices to accomodate fines. I seriously doubt the fine would be significant. (Go back to the dumping example: if software flaws result in a bigger fine than destroying the environment, we're all in trouble
Umm.. Ted Turner hasn't had any power with Time-Warner in a long time - he was relieved last spring of his duties managing the part of the company that he used to own
I have dozens of domains with them, and they're the cheapeast of the registrars (I think there's one like 20 cents cheaper). You have to provide your own DNS servers, but I've never had any problems.
As a professional developer, I can tell you that you're in a totally different world. Books and lectures suck. And they have nothing to do with IT. You're dealing with logic and theory. Out here we deal with business needs and specific technologies. I think you'll find the fun comes back when you're given a highly abstracted problem, and have to figure out how to make it work. Customers don't give a flippin fudge about arrays, structs, and pointers. They want systems that work for them. You use your creativity and energy to get the job done - in a subjective manner. Even though we're dealing with objectives here (it either works or it doesn't!), how you get it done is up to you - your creative energy, desire, and talent. Think of it like boot camp - you go through a short period of time that really sucks. If you can't handle it, you get out. If you suck it up, you make it through and then get to the fun stuff. In short: don't let your negative experience with academia dissuade you - wait until you start doing "real" programming.
Right. So eliminate millions of user's internet access, email addresses, and "suspend" the company that powers 92% of PC's worldwide. I'm sure everyone would just turn around and buy Linux, right?
And why would Jobs act against the company that owns 49% of Apple? RMS? So let's put a control freak in place that will keep the other two guys from doing their job. Linus? Good fair guy that believes in technology, not revolution CRAP. Maybe he can put MS in the right direction - hmm.. an operating sytem with Linux's power but with billions of dollars behind it. Redwho?
Yeah, but the states can't split them up. At this point, Microsoft will never be broken up. I'm not a lawyer, but at this point, it looks like the only possible actions are fines and/or injunctions per state.
Read the article - it's about charging developers for access to .NET services. However, the post sounds like MS is charging for access to the .NET platform - talk about FUD.
Spend a little time on Usenet.
Also, if something like this were to fly, I'd want to see things applied universally. Everything that Microsoft is scrutinized for, every other technology company should be too. For example, to mandate that Microsoft allow easy integration of other e-commerce solutions would mean that other platforms should do the same, even for Microsoft's ecommerce solutions. I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but I'm tired of these corporate shoving matches using consumer rights as a scapegoat. (I'll believe that Microsoft is the only capitalist pig the day that every penny Linus makes from Transmeta is given to charity). I believe in Democracy (my dollars are my votes), not guerilla warfare (cowering behind lawyers and the real leaders of the open source revolution).
Didn't GeoCities have a site builder back in 95 or 96?
I think it's panic by Clear Channel Comm., but it is their station(s). The play what they choose. Just as great a panic is associating radio station adjusting their play lists with "assaults on civil liberties"
Not an impossible task, but you need to consider your approach. As developers, we like clean, pretty code. However, the people that keep us fed like profit. Saying, "I'm a geek, I like it like this" will get you nowhere. Instead, push for quality control - some sort of lifecycle methodology (in which writing code is a small part of the overall process). Point out that 80-90% of the life an application is maintenance, not original development. By pushing for a structured development process (requirements, design, development, QA, deployment) your projects will come out clean and well implemented. Of course, the bottom line is profit - if the "extra" hours to ensure quality can't be translated into billable hours, there's no hope. However, whatever you do, DON'T QUIT. The market is sh** right now. I repeat, the market is sh** right now.