Those reports are based on data pulled from a database. Do reporting on data in DB and not the output from singular queries. Save yourself some headache and time.
We've already got an MVC LAMP architecture here at work and I have limited Javascript development until the framework was further along. But now the designers are getting edgy because I won't let them incorporate Javascript.
My issue was that I wanted a unified javascript library so we didn't have redundant code snippets all over the place and some way to standardize the development. So after a little searching, I found the Yahoo UI toolkit that is still in beta. It's a unified javascript library released under a BSD license that has been tested in multiple browsers.
No I have a unified library, tested in multiple browsers and standardized that all I have to do is drop into a directory and hook into the framework.
I know this is probably unrelated but since we were talking about toolkits, I thought this would be handy to mention this as well since it saved us a month of work.
I'd say the initial $500 million dollar fine they forced Microsoft to pay already doesn't really qualify as NOTHING. That was the initial shot across the bow...
Seriously, it seems that the entire history of antitrust action against MS in the US and Europe has been a colossal waste of time and effort. All it has done is show that governments don't really have the teeth to cut into Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior
It's not that they don't have the teeth... it's that they don't have the BALLS! And sad to say, Europe is showing it has a helluva lot more balls than the US. Of course, this is mainly because lobbying is an industry of corruption here in the US. I'm honestly amazed that the EU hasn't been bought off yet or bribed into submission.
Right but saying that the lynch pin that Linux evolves around and that the person who maintains the kernel is insignificant sortof misses the whole point. While Linux is bigger than Linus, he DOES decide what features go into the kernel and does hold alot of sway over how the GPL reads as well.
My point was that if he doesn't matter, why does he still hold so much influence? For someone with so much ongoing influence, can he really be put into a list of people who don't matter? If companies make decisions and open source projects make decisions based on his statements and support, I think this is a person who still matters... especially when Linux sees market gains year after year; this is why Ballmer doesn't matter because Windows has not made gains but instead has LOST market share continually for several years (as have all their products).
I thinked they missed the short bus completely on this one. It's not that he doesn't matter, it's that he doesn't take the limelight... and thats another list entirely.
Ok seriously, putting these two together in the same article and calling them both losers?? Ballmer has the ability to turn the biggest ship in history and while he has been lost at sea during his entire reign (and survived ongoing mutinees), I would not say he doesn't matter. He does matter. He's just ineffectual.
Linus on the other hand claims that he is an engineer and not a revolutionary and as a result, this simple statement makes him more of a revolutionary than even he would like to be. Linus has tried to avoid being cast as that and never once thought of himself in that way. In int5erview after interview, he always downplays that aspect and promotes Linux to meet the demands of consumers AND of business and not to have the OS dictates the rules of how the computer industry must move (unlike other monopolistic companies).
I think LInus's greatest ability is his ability to lead without leading. His actions and statements have often made me pause to reconsider my zealotry at times and made me understand why he supporets some of the things that he does. While I still disagree with him on some points, he still has alot of influence... to alot of people and alot of companies.
Its news though when your burger joint starts saying that the pizza joint across the street uses human flesh and is run by nazis and then all the employees eat their on their breaks.
Sort of discredits that burger joint and makes them seem like a bunch of liars/hypocrites.
The actions of the man inside the company and the actions of the man outside the company cannot be compared unless you are separating the man FROM the company.
Here is where your logic fails yet again. You basically are stating that Microsoft is ok because Bill Gates gives money to AIDS. How does what a man does outside the company make that company any less evil. Maybe it makes Bill Gates a bit more of a humanitarian but the company is still just as evil as ever. Even if every employee gave their entire paycheck to cure AIDS, this makes every employee a humanitarian but if the company continues to be a monopolistioc agressor this does not absolve the company of wrong doing; the sum is greater than the whole of its parts.
Open source did not come about because Microsoft was big; open source came about because they promoted code as being proprietary. Priot to that, people just gave away code. It wasn't until they started selling languages and promoting code as something that could be sold that that people stopped giving away code.
Open source was a response to proprietary code. So in a sense, open source existed prior to Microsoft. Keep in mind that open source is not a business practice... it is a social movement. That social movement can be incorporated into business practices but you should not confuse one for the other.
And while you put forth that Microsoft inadvertently promoted open source again your logic is flawed. It was not their portests that caused it to become popular because by the time Microsoft STARTED protesting, it had already gotten a decent foothold and had a faster adoption rate than any other company out there. No, it was word of mouth, inaction by tech companies and monopolistic practices that DROVE consumers towards open source. And to this day, it is still the three ingredients that push open source.
Should a company decide to make a decent product that doesn't lock you in and interoperates well, it has been proven that people will still buy it. But once a company thinks that consumers don't have choices, won't make choices or are unaware of choices... thats when the consumer backlash begins.
All open source did was taken advntage of the consumer backlash and give it someplace to go.
Wow. 3rd grade taunts. In case you hadn't noticed, this is a tech forum and criticism without a supporting argument is commonly referred to as 'trolling'; this is a common habit by persons lacking the intellect themselves to understand the conflict at hand. So they lash out due to some inner need for attention.
Is that what you want? Should I give you some attention now? Would that make you happy?
Hardware won't matter much if the software all acts the same. Files are files are files and if they are using NTFS or FAT, the viruses will be able to use the TCP/IP connection or crawl the network and infect files just the same.
HOWEVER... you are right in the fact that the different hardware architecture will limit what it can do. But if they all use a similar language to communicate (as I bet they do), it won't be hard to have the virus use the languages built in functionality to exploit the hardware.
They've over extended themselves. Remember Napoleon? He was doing great, he was unstoppable, he marched through Europe and everyone fell before him.
Then he decided to invade Russia. His supply lines were over extended and eventually cut off.
Microsoft is similar at this point. They tried to get into too many markets at once buying up competitors and forcing them to do things the way THEY think they should be done.
They are now in the middle of Russia with Google cutting off search, Apache cutting web server sales, Oracle and MySQL cutting off database sales, etc. Why buy Great Plains if you have a Oracle Server? Why use.NET if you run Apache? Why go to MSN if you use Google?
By having one product be a gateway to another product, it was a good strategy. However that strategy fails when you do not CEMENT those holds and just keep marching forward with aquisition after aquisition.
They have basically over extended and now are betting the farm on their 'Titanic' called Vista.
Yes... by paying off vendors who host domains names to switch. DUH. Two months of changes where they had to PAY people to use their product does not a revolution make.
Also keep in mind that those are all UNUSED domains. If their product was good enough to actually handle the traffic, don't you think they'd have a more active market share than just the stagnant sites they had to pay people to move to their product?
So basically, you are saying that bribing people makes theirs a better product? Hosting domains with zero traffic makes theirs a better product? The fact that they pulled something similar in 2000 and LOST ALL GAINS means this time it's so much different?
Are you paid directly by Microsofts marketing dept to be this ignorant or does it just come natural?
So by your logic, if Oracle wanted Oracle to 'interoperate' with Linux, they would have to GPL their code?
Well you should tell that to the CEO of Oracle because he claims to have read the GPL and that Oracle code is still proprietary. Maybe he needs someone as 'smart' as you to explain it to him. Maybe at the same time you should explain it to all the other CEO's that think the same thing because you seem to be so much smarter than they are. You're probably even better paid too.
Yes... and where in the GPL does it state that their code has to become part of a tool that they are becoming interoperable with? You mean the proprietary Nvidia drivers I have on my Linux box are now part of LINUX? You mean port of Neverwinter Nights for Linux is now part of Linux? You mean Oracle is now part of LINUX? These have all been released to interoperate with Linux and by your logic, their are now all GPL'd.
Wow. You should talk to these CEO's and see if they know as much about the GPL as you.
How does OSS inhibit Microsoft? How does making all source code available to them for viewing inhibiting their ability to integrate? How does working with open standards available for everyone to use inhibit Microsoft?
I don't see your point. Seems like only one side is using closed standards, proprietary code and closed APIs. I don't see how open source is to blame in this matter at all.
Only because you probably think that goose stepping and shouting 'George Bush, George Bush Uber Alles' is the norm. You should get out of the Bible belt more often.
Slashdot Mirror
Those reports are based on data pulled from a database. Do reporting on data in DB and not the output from singular queries. Save yourself some headache and time.
We've already got an MVC LAMP architecture here at work and I have limited Javascript development until the framework was further along. But now the designers are getting edgy because I won't let them incorporate Javascript.
My issue was that I wanted a unified javascript library so we didn't have redundant code snippets all over the place and some way to standardize the development. So after a little searching, I found the Yahoo UI toolkit that is still in beta. It's a unified javascript library released under a BSD license that has been tested in multiple browsers.
No I have a unified library, tested in multiple browsers and standardized that all I have to do is drop into a directory and hook into the framework.
I know this is probably unrelated but since we were talking about toolkits, I thought this would be handy to mention this as well since it saved us a month of work.
I'd say the initial $500 million dollar fine they forced Microsoft to pay already doesn't really qualify as NOTHING. That was the initial shot across the bow...
I was going to say 'until he meets a magic bullet' but same effect :)
True but all it takes is one honest one to fuck it up for everybody. :)
It's not that they don't have the teeth... it's that they don't have the BALLS! And sad to say, Europe is showing it has a helluva lot more balls than the US. Of course, this is mainly because lobbying is an industry of corruption here in the US. I'm honestly amazed that the EU hasn't been bought off yet or bribed into submission.
Right but saying that the lynch pin that Linux evolves around and that the person who maintains the kernel is insignificant sortof misses the whole point. While Linux is bigger than Linus, he DOES decide what features go into the kernel and does hold alot of sway over how the GPL reads as well.
My point was that if he doesn't matter, why does he still hold so much influence? For someone with so much ongoing influence, can he really be put into a list of people who don't matter? If companies make decisions and open source projects make decisions based on his statements and support, I think this is a person who still matters... especially when Linux sees market gains year after year; this is why Ballmer doesn't matter because Windows has not made gains but instead has LOST market share continually for several years (as have all their products).
I thinked they missed the short bus completely on this one. It's not that he doesn't matter, it's that he doesn't take the limelight... and thats another list entirely.
Ok seriously, putting these two together in the same article and calling them both losers?? Ballmer has the ability to turn the biggest ship in history and while he has been lost at sea during his entire reign (and survived ongoing mutinees), I would not say he doesn't matter. He does matter. He's just ineffectual.
Linus on the other hand claims that he is an engineer and not a revolutionary and as a result, this simple statement makes him more of a revolutionary than even he would like to be. Linus has tried to avoid being cast as that and never once thought of himself in that way. In int5erview after interview, he always downplays that aspect and promotes Linux to meet the demands of consumers AND of business and not to have the OS dictates the rules of how the computer industry must move (unlike other monopolistic companies).
I think LInus's greatest ability is his ability to lead without leading. His actions and statements have often made me pause to reconsider my zealotry at times and made me understand why he supporets some of the things that he does. While I still disagree with him on some points, he still has alot of influence... to alot of people and alot of companies.
I knew someonewas going to pick that out... geez. Would you give someone with a reading disorder a break?
Its news though when your burger joint starts saying that the pizza joint across the street uses human flesh and is run by nazis and then all the employees eat their on their breaks.
Sort of discredits that burger joint and makes them seem like a bunch of liars/hypocrites.
I feel sorry for the people who played 'musical chairs' with him as a child.
I heard his wife was getting him a Lazy Boy for Christmas. Expect to find her mysteriously crushed by New Years day.
The actions of the man inside the company and the actions of the man outside the company cannot be compared unless you are separating the man FROM the company.
Here is where your logic fails yet again. You basically are stating that Microsoft is ok because Bill Gates gives money to AIDS. How does what a man does outside the company make that company any less evil. Maybe it makes Bill Gates a bit more of a humanitarian but the company is still just as evil as ever. Even if every employee gave their entire paycheck to cure AIDS, this makes every employee a humanitarian but if the company continues to be a monopolistioc agressor this does not absolve the company of wrong doing; the sum is greater than the whole of its parts.
Open source did not come about because Microsoft was big; open source came about because they promoted code as being proprietary. Priot to that, people just gave away code. It wasn't until they started selling languages and promoting code as something that could be sold that that people stopped giving away code.
Open source was a response to proprietary code. So in a sense, open source existed prior to Microsoft. Keep in mind that open source is not a business practice... it is a social movement. That social movement can be incorporated into business practices but you should not confuse one for the other.
And while you put forth that Microsoft inadvertently promoted open source again your logic is flawed. It was not their portests that caused it to become popular because by the time Microsoft STARTED protesting, it had already gotten a decent foothold and had a faster adoption rate than any other company out there. No, it was word of mouth, inaction by tech companies and monopolistic practices that DROVE consumers towards open source. And to this day, it is still the three ingredients that push open source.
Should a company decide to make a decent product that doesn't lock you in and interoperates well, it has been proven that people will still buy it. But once a company thinks that consumers don't have choices, won't make choices or are unaware of choices... thats when the consumer backlash begins.
All open source did was taken advntage of the consumer backlash and give it someplace to go.
At this rate, this will just leave Ballmer in a room full of empty chairs! SOMEONE CALL THE NATIONAL GUARD!!
Wow. 3rd grade taunts. In case you hadn't noticed, this is a tech forum and criticism without a supporting argument is commonly referred to as 'trolling'; this is a common habit by persons lacking the intellect themselves to understand the conflict at hand. So they lash out due to some inner need for attention.
Is that what you want? Should I give you some attention now? Would that make you happy?
Hardware won't matter much if the software all acts the same. Files are files are files and if they are using NTFS or FAT, the viruses will be able to use the TCP/IP connection or crawl the network and infect files just the same.
HOWEVER... you are right in the fact that the different hardware architecture will limit what it can do. But if they all use a similar language to communicate (as I bet they do), it won't be hard to have the virus use the languages built in functionality to exploit the hardware.
They've over extended themselves. Remember Napoleon? He was doing great, he was unstoppable, he marched through Europe and everyone fell before him.
.NET if you run Apache? Why go to MSN if you use Google?
Then he decided to invade Russia. His supply lines were over extended and eventually cut off.
Microsoft is similar at this point. They tried to get into too many markets at once buying up competitors and forcing them to do things the way THEY think they should be done.
They are now in the middle of Russia with Google cutting off search, Apache cutting web server sales, Oracle and MySQL cutting off database sales, etc. Why buy Great Plains if you have a Oracle Server? Why use
By having one product be a gateway to another product, it was a good strategy. However that strategy fails when you do not CEMENT those holds and just keep marching forward with aquisition after aquisition.
They have basically over extended and now are betting the farm on their 'Titanic' called Vista.
One virus to rule them all...
Yes... by paying off vendors who host domains names to switch. DUH. Two months of changes where they had to PAY people to use their product does not a revolution make.
Also keep in mind that those are all UNUSED domains. If their product was good enough to actually handle the traffic, don't you think they'd have a more active market share than just the stagnant sites they had to pay people to move to their product?
So basically, you are saying that bribing people makes theirs a better product? Hosting domains with zero traffic makes theirs a better product? The fact that they pulled something similar in 2000 and LOST ALL GAINS means this time it's so much different?
Are you paid directly by Microsofts marketing dept to be this ignorant or does it just come natural?
And oddly enough, exploits were already found that affect XP as well as VISTA. But since Vista isn't even out yet, they don't have to patch anything.
Honestly, I think Vista is their Titanic and they just solidified this feeling by claiming that it's 'unsinkable'
Ahoy! Iceberg ahead...
In other news, rain is wet!
And an echo of NO DUH rings around the world.
So by your logic, if Oracle wanted Oracle to 'interoperate' with Linux, they would have to GPL their code?
Well you should tell that to the CEO of Oracle because he claims to have read the GPL and that Oracle code is still proprietary. Maybe he needs someone as 'smart' as you to explain it to him. Maybe at the same time you should explain it to all the other CEO's that think the same thing because you seem to be so much smarter than they are. You're probably even better paid too.
Yes... and where in the GPL does it state that their code has to become part of a tool that they are becoming interoperable with? You mean the proprietary Nvidia drivers I have on my Linux box are now part of LINUX? You mean port of Neverwinter Nights for Linux is now part of Linux? You mean Oracle is now part of LINUX? These have all been released to interoperate with Linux and by your logic, their are now all GPL'd.
Wow. You should talk to these CEO's and see if they know as much about the GPL as you.
How does OSS inhibit Microsoft? How does making all source code available to them for viewing inhibiting their ability to integrate? How does working with open standards available for everyone to use inhibit Microsoft?
I don't see your point. Seems like only one side is using closed standards, proprietary code and closed APIs. I don't see how open source is to blame in this matter at all.
Only because you probably think that goose stepping and shouting 'George Bush, George Bush Uber Alles' is the norm. You should get out of the Bible belt more often.