Hmmm... this client-server architecture you are talking about? This wouldn't happen to be similar to a client accessing a web server would it? Oh it would? Hmmmm... fascinating. And this flaming you are attempting would be pointless? Ah, I see.
As for this being 2004, holmes, I congratulate you on your superior date reading skills. Had you not informed me of this fact, I would have assumed I was still in the year 3065. You humans are useful as well as amusing.
So you say quick easy changes occur more easily than using a web tool? And the crack you are smoking is how much?
Well for one, if the tool is data driven, it just makes more sense to have the database on ONE SERVER rather than as part of an app that you have to store on a million different boxes and then update constantly. Second, one easy interface that everyone can reach and access make it easier to maintain.
Also, everyone is familiar with the web, the way it works and how to get things done. They don't have to figure out whatever GUI you develop for the tool.
It's portable as well as long as you have a connection.
For database driven apps, it's pretty much the best way to go.
Fair? You mean as unfair as declaring Linux's TCO is 10 times that of Windows (as long as it is run on hardware that costs ten times as much as a barebones x86 system)??
Wow. Microsoft declaring unfair... Here, have another bucket of black paint for your kettle. On second thought, take two buckets.
That's not a fix, that's a FUX. It looks like a fix but if you percieve a FUX to be a FIX, you're bound to get FUXED.
Seriously though, they can't fix it without removing IE from the system. You can easily get around their FUX by using a shell call... which makes this bug even scarier.
I called them... three different times and on three different non-consecutive days (as I'm afraid my bosses may actually fall for this). They don't run Apache. They only support virus and exploit friendly IIS.
I wouldn't doubt it. We fought Barnes and Noble because they were the evil empire at the time. I've come to realize that alot of companies use their websites as propoganda machines in this sense to increase sales. Doesn't make it correct behaviour though.
Well I dunno. I am a web and database developer for a small shop at a vendor for Microsoft and I make less that most people in my field (mainly because I work for a smaller shop). I use Apache, MySQL and PHP but not Linux (because they won't let me). I find I can implement everything alot easier due to a larger online community; I save money with downtime from virus and patching.
My wife works for Expedia (which is a huge Windows shop) and she always comments that their machines running IIS constantly crash and that they require 4 times the number of machines for what one Linux machine running Apache could do.
I always hear this argument that open source people are more expensive and I wish that were true because then I would be making a decent salary... but it just isn't.
Apparently it was this last statement where Microsoft said it was a better choice over open source because it was cheaper and more secure that caused the crowd of journalists to suddenly laugh out loud.
Don't care what anyone says, you guys are a mainstay for web developers everywhere! MySQL is practically everyones first database. I love you guys... and not just in the platonic sense either!
Yes... for anyone who knows Powerpoint. Just like you point out, you have to first KNOW how to use Powerpoint. And Powerpoint is just as expensive because you cannot purchase it separate from Office.
As for being harder to use, I've seen people building Flash presentations after using the tool for 4 hours.:)
Big deal. I've been using Flash for presentations for years. I can incorporate 3D animation and have a full multimedia presentation withiout having to purchase two overly price products... I only need one overly priced product.
Wow. That single brain cell is cranking overtime. I'll bet it gets lonely in the grand canyon of a skull you've managed to excavate.
I like the way you think balance is an extreme. I'll try not to use big words so you don't get confused, ok? If you have any problems, ask your mommy to help:)
You see there is charity where you give away things for free and there is business where you sell things. In business, you make money by supplying people with stuff (whether it be goods or services). In charity, you give it away for free... like your mother on the corner.
But for a business to really succeed it has to have happy customers. Happy customers are listened to and not ignored. Ignoring your customer makes them unhappy. Are you still with me? I know this is confusing but try to stay with me. I'm almost finished.
Does this mean you give the customer everything they want? No. Does this mean you supply them with a good consumer experience making them want to come back and making them want to tell others about their good experience? YES! See? That's wasn't so hard to understand now was it?:)
Amazon used to do this. In order to build a solid customer base, they offered to replace books for free that were damaged. They offered free shipping. You used to be able to call their customer support. They offered alot of things for free. Now THAT was a charity.:)
Then they went to the other extreme and cut almost all of that. Finding their customer support line is impossible. They take down negative reviews to sell more books and even encourage fabrication of reviews to sell books they have overstocked.
Now I know that this is going to be hard for your mind to wrap around (especially since it's so one dimensional) but do you see how both of those are extremes? Shouldn't someone at least be able to phone your customer support easily? I doubt that you'd understand but maybe one day you will evolve and get it. By the way, put some bandaids on those knuckles... they're bleeding.
Just because you are fair with your customers does not make it a charity. You are confusing the concept. If I allow my customers the ability to review products but then selectively delete the negative ones when I am trying to push a product, am I being fair to the consumer?
People tend to think that corporations HAVE no responsibilities to anyone but their shareholders but this is entirely irresponsible; this is how we get Enrons and corporate irresponsibility... by obeying that bottomline and not remembering that you are there to serve your customers as well as your stockholders.
A classic example of what I am talking about is represented by Google who actually put it into their companies 'bylaws': don't be evil.
Pretty simple eh? Why don't all companies put this into their business plans and charters? Well because for some reason, people think that making money IS evil and that to make money you have to BE evil.
This is not true.
You can make money and be fair to your customers. You can please your stockholders and please your clients. It's a bit harder but you have a more solid base in the longrun (and fewer lawsuits).
Welll yes they were prior to 96 when they went corporate. Once they went corporate though, all common sense went out the window and the almighty dollar and stock holder concerns rule out any sense of fairness and responsibility. *shrug*
I was with Amazon from 95-97 and helped build there buying dept and one of the things we fought against was marketing have direct control over reviews and stuff.
After I left, they started removing bad reviews of books all the time... especially when they were overstocked and wanted to sell more. Amazon is not the friendly business it used to be and I try to purchase everything I can through alternate sources.
Yep, you just have to deal with all the worms, viruses and exploits until they decide to get off their ass and give you that service pack for these errors that they were told of 3 years in advance.:)
Ain't Microsoft great? They should change their motto to: 'What do you need us to patch today?'
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm... this client-server architecture you are talking about? This wouldn't happen to be similar to a client accessing a web server would it? Oh it would? Hmmmm... fascinating. And this flaming you are attempting would be pointless? Ah, I see.
As for this being 2004, holmes, I congratulate you on your superior date reading skills. Had you not informed me of this fact, I would have assumed I was still in the year 3065. You humans are useful as well as amusing.
So you say quick easy changes occur more easily than using a web tool? And the crack you are smoking is how much?
A client app? You mean like a web browser? :)
Firefox is a fix for a fux which is IE.
Well for one, if the tool is data driven, it just makes more sense to have the database on ONE SERVER rather than as part of an app that you have to store on a million different boxes and then update constantly. Second, one easy interface that everyone can reach and access make it easier to maintain.
Also, everyone is familiar with the web, the way it works and how to get things done. They don't have to figure out whatever GUI you develop for the tool.
It's portable as well as long as you have a connection.
For database driven apps, it's pretty much the best way to go.
Totally... in fact, depending on what you are doing, there are loads of MySQL+PHP projects out there that may already fit your needs.
He's using Firefox 0.1 and just updated this morning.
Fair? You mean as unfair as declaring Linux's TCO is 10 times that of Windows (as long as it is run on hardware that costs ten times as much as a barebones x86 system)??
Wow. Microsoft declaring unfair... Here, have another bucket of black paint for your kettle. On second thought, take two buckets.
That's not a fix, that's a FUX. It looks like a fix but if you percieve a FUX to be a FIX, you're bound to get FUXED.
Seriously though, they can't fix it without removing IE from the system. You can easily get around their FUX by using a shell call... which makes this bug even scarier.
I called them... three different times and on three different non-consecutive days (as I'm afraid my bosses may actually fall for this). They don't run Apache. They only support virus and exploit friendly IIS.
I wouldn't doubt it. We fought Barnes and Noble because they were the evil empire at the time. I've come to realize that alot of companies use their websites as propoganda machines in this sense to increase sales. Doesn't make it correct behaviour though.
Well I dunno. I am a web and database developer for a small shop at a vendor for Microsoft and I make less that most people in my field (mainly because I work for a smaller shop). I use Apache, MySQL and PHP but not Linux (because they won't let me). I find I can implement everything alot easier due to a larger online community; I save money with downtime from virus and patching.
My wife works for Expedia (which is a huge Windows shop) and she always comments that their machines running IIS constantly crash and that they require 4 times the number of machines for what one Linux machine running Apache could do.
I always hear this argument that open source people are more expensive and I wish that were true because then I would be making a decent salary... but it just isn't.
Apparently it was this last statement where Microsoft said it was a better choice over open source because it was cheaper and more secure that caused the crowd of journalists to suddenly laugh out loud.
Don't care what anyone says, you guys are a mainstay for web developers everywhere! MySQL is practically everyones first database. I love you guys... and not just in the platonic sense either!
Yes... for anyone who knows Powerpoint. Just like you point out, you have to first KNOW how to use Powerpoint. And Powerpoint is just as expensive because you cannot purchase it separate from Office.
:)
As for being harder to use, I've seen people building Flash presentations after using the tool for 4 hours.
Big deal. I've been using Flash for presentations for years. I can incorporate 3D animation and have a full multimedia presentation withiout having to purchase two overly price products... I only need one overly priced product.
Hmmm sounds like Darl has started the astroturfing early this season. :)
Hmmm ... all silent on the moron front. The zookeeper must have locked up the monkeys for the night. :)
Wow. That single brain cell is cranking overtime. I'll bet it gets lonely in the grand canyon of a skull you've managed to excavate.
:)
:)
I like the way you think balance is an extreme. I'll try not to use big words so you don't get confused, ok? If you have any problems, ask your mommy to help
You see there is charity where you give away things for free and there is business where you sell things. In business, you make money by supplying people with stuff (whether it be goods or services). In charity, you give it away for free... like your mother on the corner.
But for a business to really succeed it has to have happy customers. Happy customers are listened to and not ignored. Ignoring your customer makes them unhappy. Are you still with me? I know this is confusing but try to stay with me. I'm almost finished.
Does this mean you give the customer everything they want? No. Does this mean you supply them with a good consumer experience making them want to come back and making them want to tell others about their good experience? YES! See? That's wasn't so hard to understand now was it?
Amazon used to do this. In order to build a solid customer base, they offered to replace books for free that were damaged. They offered free shipping. You used to be able to call their customer support. They offered alot of things for free. Now THAT was a charity.:)
Then they went to the other extreme and cut almost all of that. Finding their customer support line is impossible. They take down negative reviews to sell more books and even encourage fabrication of reviews to sell books they have overstocked.
Now I know that this is going to be hard for your mind to wrap around (especially since it's so one dimensional) but do you see how both of those are extremes? Shouldn't someone at least be able to phone your customer support easily? I doubt that you'd understand but maybe one day you will evolve and get it. By the way, put some bandaids on those knuckles... they're bleeding.
Heh. Hippy dippy? Caring about your customer is hippy dippy? Is this Dick Cheney? How's Halliburton these days Dick?
Just because you are fair with your customers does not make it a charity. You are confusing the concept. If I allow my customers the ability to review products but then selectively delete the negative ones when I am trying to push a product, am I being fair to the consumer?
People tend to think that corporations HAVE no responsibilities to anyone but their shareholders but this is entirely irresponsible; this is how we get Enrons and corporate irresponsibility... by obeying that bottomline and not remembering that you are there to serve your customers as well as your stockholders.
A classic example of what I am talking about is represented by Google who actually put it into their companies 'bylaws': don't be evil.
Pretty simple eh? Why don't all companies put this into their business plans and charters? Well because for some reason, people think that making money IS evil and that to make money you have to BE evil.
This is not true.
You can make money and be fair to your customers. You can please your stockholders and please your clients. It's a bit harder but you have a more solid base in the longrun (and fewer lawsuits).
Welll yes they were prior to 96 when they went corporate. Once they went corporate though, all common sense went out the window and the almighty dollar and stock holder concerns rule out any sense of fairness and responsibility. *shrug*
I was with Amazon from 95-97 and helped build there buying dept and one of the things we fought against was marketing have direct control over reviews and stuff.
After I left, they started removing bad reviews of books all the time... especially when they were overstocked and wanted to sell more. Amazon is not the friendly business it used to be and I try to purchase everything I can through alternate sources.
My ego isn't over inflated. Nor is my instrument of typing. :)
No. I typed this with body parts that you don't want to know about.
Yep, you just have to deal with all the worms, viruses and exploits until they decide to get off their ass and give you that service pack for these errors that they were told of 3 years in advance. :)
Ain't Microsoft great? They should change their motto to: 'What do you need us to patch today?'