Any chance the spammer did a media honeypot? Released fake records to make marketers *think* he was successful?
All that effort just to prove that spamming works? I don't think so. On the other hand, a company that needs spammers to advertize their products may do something like that.
We'll prove to you that spamming works and then you can come and SPAM for us. Sounds like a good plan, eh?
We are using what you'd call a 'wax printer - Tektronix Phaser 850. Let me go over the list of your (dis)advantages. "Advantages" first:
very low 'ink' (read: wax cartrage) costs, Not really cheap, but, considering how long it lasts, never dries out, and the wax sticks are separate (so you can replace a color at a time), it's not bad. I'd give it a B
color Color fidelity may or may not impress a photoshop maniac - I've seen better with some (though definitely not all) inkjets. Overall, I'd say it is a B
price I'd disagree with you on that. They aren't cheap, not by a long shot! D
"Disafvantages":
long warm up times Not anything we haven't seen with older laserjets. And once you wam up, it stays that way for a while. Besides, I believe, it can remember when you usually use it and pre-warm itself up for you. A-
very slow printing Very far from that. It takes longer to get the datastream over ethernet into the printer. But once it's there, it can stomp pages out at a very remarkable speed. A+
requiring special paper Nope. I even managed to print on a transparency (though not every transparency would work - I killed a few before I found a decent one)! Most papers work just fine. In that sense, it's less picky than an ink-jet. A
poor image detail I am quite impressed with that, actually. The resolution actually does live up to the spec numbers (and expectations). There is no pixel bleeding that I have observed. Again, in this category it'll give a lot of higher-end inkjets a run for their money. I'd give it an A+ here
inability to laminate Bummer. I'd also add that leaving a printed sheet in very hot sun causes some pixels to bleed, and the whole page starts looking like @#$%^&*. Besides the price, that's my biggest complaint. C+ at best.
Not a very comprehensive overview, but I'd rate this printer an A- for my needs, if it were in my price range. Too bad it isn't:(
a.k.a "cheap laser" printer. Okidata, I believe, was one of the first to make those available at prices that I (student at the time) could afford.
And, if you think about it, there isn't much difference between a LED and a laser in this context - both are just a monochromatic (hopefully tightly focused) beam of light that polarizes the drum.
Well, if he were really looking for a "hardcore printer", as you put it, he would've checked out Tektronix. We have one at the office (model 850) and it's been printing volumes for a while. Very reliable, nice quality, works without a hinch with Linux, PostScript and all. Even supplies seem to be reasonably priced (considering how long they last).
And the coolest thing about it is that it uses ink sticks! You just feed them into the printer, so there is no catrige to replace, no scam with expiring catriges, no ink wasted. As it uses up a certain color, you add more sticks of that color. That's all.
If they ever become available in my price range, I want one at home!
Sure you can. If he's not smart enough to figure out how to do what what these people want using the Microsoft 'suit' of software (windows, sql server, ASP) or the OSS one (Linux, apache, PHP, whatever), or the Java one (some servlet engine, jsp, etc) or whatever he really doesn't deserve the contract, IMO.
Dude, wake up! When was the last time a consultant had much of a say in what environment is going to be used?
Let me re-phrase it this way: I've worked on a few (probably 10) small-ish (in terms of budget) projects lately. From those, - about 6 were restricted to a certain environment (mostly M$) because the people who would maintain that stuff knew only M$, and it wasn't worth to re-train them/hire someone else. We had no say in that. - about another 3 were also restricted to M$ stuff for no good reason (government had a "good" deal on M$ software, or just didn't trust open-source stuff, etc) - 1 was where we got to decide what it was going to be like (and we also maintain it now).
I love open source. I adore it. I contribute to it. I am typing this post on a mandrake box (honest!). And yes, it is cheaper and simplier to maintain OSS servers. And it goes without mentioning that the price of that.NET can probably pay for a better box or for allowing some sort of a clustering solution. Open source is great, M$ sucks - we all know that......But that's where the reality kicks in:( I work for a consulting company, and so does the guy who asked the question. Which means, we are stuck with whatever the client wants (unless they really don't care, or you can convince them to go OSS route, which rarely happens).
Bottom line: Unless there is (1) so much money at stake that you just can't afford not looking at the alternatives (think German Government, google, yahoo, etc) or (2) you are actually expected to innovate, you don't often have a say in what you get to implement.
A better question to consider is this: In this forum you have asked a question regarding the legality of a certain action. Imagine, it is not found to be legal, and later on you are caught red-handed when doing that very thing you were asking about (downloading an MP3 song).
You can't claim ignorance anymore; in fact, you have just incriminated yourself by talking to the very person who will aid in prosecuting you later.
I know, it's not a very likely scenario, so call me paranoid. But the typical/. crowd would probably often do things that border on legality (considering current laws), and can turn illegal by a small amendment or a new law. Therefore posting any questions at all here would put you at risk, unless you are completely clean, innocent and beyond reproach by RIAA, MPAA, BSA (and the likes) own standards.
(this is not intended as a question to be asked as the "10 highest mderated..." - it's just a thought that crossed my mind. I thouhgt: "If I were being sued, how likely would I be asking the prosecutor questions regarding my case? Not very likely at all. Why? Because quite likely I'd inadvertently incriminate myself that way." That said, how many slashdotters can ask any questions here? Do those people really represent the majority of/.? Or are people with really good questions being silent, just in case? Is it enough to ask a question as an 'AC', or is it a perceived anonymity only?)
Oh, brother... feel the need to reflect on what you said, but don't even know where to start.
Sorry if I offended you, but don't take it personally. Besides, we were not working with USAF, in fact, not with the military at all, so most of my statements probably do not apply to you by a long shot.
The thing I was really mad about was that they hire someone without any knowledge whatsoever to do their IT. When I was saying that installing windows was a mountain of a task, I meant it. Not kidding. For that particular person it was. For you it isn't, that's cool, and I have no problem with the government employing you to do that stuff. I have a problem with them employing someone with the computer knowledge and experience that is comparable to my grandma's (sorry, grandma!), and me having to pay for that.
>Installing.NET is something that, as they say, they 'have been working on for a while, but haven't got it quite yet'!
Probably awaiting training for.NET stuff.
Well, I have no problem with their selection of the platform and choice. It wouldn't be mu first choice, but that's cool - different tools are for different jobs, yada, yada... The problem I do have is that extremely stringent requirements are made, which, in turn make us turn out more expensive code, which, in turn we all pay for. And it turns out that the requirements did not have to be that stringent at all - not only they do not have that infrastructure in place yet, but they don't even know why/if they need it. Quite contrary to what we've been told all along till the moment came to deliver the project.
I agree, but YOU give us the money to run our systems.
Not really, if you think about it. Yes, I do decide to live in the US, and hence I indirectly decide to abide by the US laws, including paying taxes. On the other hand, I have rather limited chances to actually decide how my taxes get spent. Yes, thanks for pointing out that I can talk to my congressman. That's about the only thing I can do, and I haven't really seen much come out of it:( Not that I really expected to either. So, while, yes, I give you the money to run the systems, I don't really get to chose whether YOU run them or that other guy with an apparent total absence of any computer experience.
The American people have decided that my CCNA/CCNP, 5 years of linux experience, 8 years of Windows experience, certifications in ATM, HP Openview, Promina, etc... are worth $32k/year. I don't bitch about my paycheck.
There are two things I have to say about that. 1. That sucks. 2. I probably should take a few lessons from you on how to be content.
But seriously, this is aglaring mis-management of resources by the government in general, just as I said. Firstly, they underpay you, and thus reduce your motivation to work, and also risk loosing you - a valuable asset with tons of training, knoledge, etc. Secondly, they hire a guy who is not qualified to do the job, but nobody really knows how much he knows because they don't have an HR person who can tell a difference. The resume looked good, so he got the job. Probably for a similar salary too. Both cases are a gross mismanagement of resources entrusted to the government by the taxpayers. I would love to see that guy getting fired and someone like you getting an extra, say, 32K to your paycheck. I bet you wouldn't mind either for just a few hours a week (I doubt you need to spend any more to do that guy's job). Too bad I don't get a say in that matter... For that matter, don't invade Iran or whatever the next US target will be and add it to people's paychecks. I'd applaud this decision and even grumble less about my taxes. Too bad I have no say in that either...
If you don't like what you saw, you can either fire us or try and come up with a plan to fix the problems you saw. Either way, we both win. No, I don't like what I saw. Not a bit. No, I am not going
The quote from the original article: How hard is it to write software like this that works?
Wow! Well said! My grandma couldn't have done better. In other words, please define 'works' for me. How many blue screens a day constitute 'works' and how many are too many?
Also, since we are at it, I want to reflect back on the latest project we have done. Incidentally, for the government. Before asking if a vendor is ripping the taxpayer off we need to consider how the government mismanages the resources it has. Consider the facts:
1. The project itself was fairly small and simple. I'd say it would normally take about 2 months to develop and deploy, but it needed to be done before the end of the fiscal year, so it was a 'now-or-never' situation, and was a horrible time-crunch. We had slightly more than half the time necessary to do it, but they won't even try to install it till probably the end of the year! The quality of code would've been greately improved if we coded, say 40 hrs/week instead of pulling all-nighters.
2. They tried to keep tabs on the development by scheduling 'technical meetings' over the phone. While there is nothing wrong with that per se, in a time-crunch that was a horrible waste of time. The smartest things we've heard from them were questions like 'Are you using hungarian notation?' or 'is your code well-documented?'....
3. They insisted on.NET 2003 server with M$ SQL, etc., etc. We did our best to make them consider PHP and the like, because that's what we normally use, but they were willing to pay extra to have that stuff developed in all-M$ stuff! We were told that the reason for that was because their IT was managing only M$ software, and the server was already there, and they couldn't have anything else (e.g. PHP). Fine, I can understand some bureaucracy in IT - that's cool, but imagine my surprise when, after we shipped them a CD with the project, they called us back and asked if it would work with a win2003 server as opposed to a win2k!!! Not only they didn't have the server yet, (or the infrastructure for that matter), but they didn't even know how to install windows! Which brings me to point #4:
4. Their IT is kick-ass. As in 'their ass needs to be kicked real hard'. Installing a a windows server is a mountain of a task for them. Installing.NET is something that, as they say, they 'have been working on for a while, but haven't got it quite yet'! And, when we give them a database dump they have no idea what to do with it and you have to walk them through the process (right-click on the 'Databases', select 'Create New database', click ok...) And they are paying these people!!! Errr... Let me re-phrase that - We are paying the government to employ those dumbheads! Thatnks goodness the network on which that is installed is not connected to the internet - the same idiots are in charge of security as well.
Yes, it is true that some contractors will rip off the government (and it is really the government's responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen! But that's not the point). The point is that even if they have a perfectly good product developed by honest people, they are still remarkably talented at screwing it up. Bureaucracy and lots of idiots in charge of hiring people are to blame.
If MS were ever to try to actually do something that is covered by this patent, nothing new would come out of it.
For a second, consider a simplier concept - spellchecking. I'd say that spellchecking is a simplier task than translating, won't you agree? Yet, all the years Microsoft has spent on innovating their spellchecking resulted in a product that is inferior to, say, aspell, a one-man project.
Foregn language translation is a lot more complex. Knowing the tendency of Microsoft to innnovate through acquisition, I'd say they will just buy the best company that does translation and is for sale, re-brand whatever they had under their own name, and be done with that.
The only question is who would they buy? Babelfish? Someone else?
No, as in speech. "As in beer" wouldn't work because of the TANSTAAFL principle
MySQL situation summary
on
PHP 5 Beta 1
·
· Score: 1
a few facts:
1. MySQL support is not gone. Only the bundled library is gone. You can still compile PHP to use MySQL, and will be able to do so (in a similar way you can use Microsoft's SQL server from PHP, but that doesn't mean that PHP is shipped with Microsoft SQL's server code - see the difference?)
2. There are very good chances of MySQL making an exception from their 'GPL way or the highway' rule for PHP because close PHP+MySQL relationship is very benefitial for both of them. Such an exception is in the talks right now, as I am writing this.
3. MySQL 3 client, which has been bundled with PHP for a long time now, can still be bundled, if someone felt the need to do so. It's only MySQL 4 client that is GPLed in such a way that it's not possible to put it into PHP.
Plus, a couple of rant points: a. While it sucks, there is nothing wrong with MySQL AB creating that whole licensing mess - they have the right to do so, and, more importantly, they have the right to earn their living, which is what they are trying to do.
b. I do not know why this made it to slashdot in the first place. PHP5 beta should really (IMO) be considered alpha at best. The code is not only not in code-freeze, but a few aspects of the API have not been hashed out yet. There will be major changes coming in the new beta-2, if that's how it will be called. So, consider this a very early release, try it if you feel but do not expect it to work reliably. Moreover, do not even expect the final PHP5 to closely resemble what you see in this 'beta'.
Even if you use the same quality (compression ratio), consider that gifs are 256 colors versus pngs which is true color. All else being equal, even with superior compression algorithm, you can expect PNGs have a larger filesize, just because they have more colors.
... or we start working less when we start earning more money? It's not the corporations who are evil here (although they certainly ARE evil in general), it's us who are too greedy - that's the probelm.
Why do we still need gifs? Other image formats are available that are free and superior. The reason we used to use gifs: - some rudimentary transparency - animation - decent file size (albeit poor colors - only 256!)
As far as I know, all of those are available in PNG, including animation (MNG). Better color management, better compression, a lot better transparency, and even quite wide acceptance - all browsers I know of (except, maybe, Lynx) as well as a lot of apps support it.
So, why are we rejoicing and getting ready to make available all that semi-illegal code of ours that writes gifs? I think it would be better for humanity if unisys just kept the stupid patent, and let the format die. While it is cool to have as many technologies/formats open, sometimes we need to "prune" them to get rid of the ballast and garbage accumulated over the years. Some things just need to die already (gif, dbf, 8.3 filenames, etc.). But they won't die by themselves fast because people are too used to them. So helping them die, even by bad means, like keeping a patent on them, seems to do more good than harm.
So when you are crushed completely by the semi-truck and die instantly you will complain to St. Peter that it was the semi-truck which was responsible, not you.
Nah, not really. It's the other guy's fault (the guy next to you who was merging/drifting into your lane - read the original comment). You guys seem to have missed that.
The semi truck is there just so you know that you can't slow down to let the guy next to you merge into your lane. In fact, in that case I'd rather be hit from the side than rear-ended by a semi truck (I was rear-ended by a fully loaded garbage truck, and, believe me, it ain't fun!). You have to accelerate. And, yes, if you don't have stick-shift, the only option is to step on gas - that's fine. The thing I really DO NOT want to happen is my car stepping on brakes while I am stepping on gas. That'd just plain suck.
Yes, I know, I am a luddite to an extent, and don't trust any sufficiently advanced technology. In fact, I still feel uneasy about antilock brakes. Yet I realize that they do provide some invaluable service. Same with this concept. I think the idea is great, especially when it helps you in situations that catch you off-guard, e.g. you get distracted or something like that. The part that I don't like is that it CONTROLS MY BRAKES and I don't like that. Things that you depend on for safety MUST be as simple as possible. Complexity increases points of failure. That's why we keep important things simple.
Consider a few examples. Steering in you car is about as straight-forward as it gets (minus the power steering that is optional, and, even if it fails, you can still control the car, albeit performance is degraded. Brakes are rather simple (power brake and ABS stuff just don't help when they fail, but they don't hurt either). The same merit should be used for anything that alters the speed/direction of your car without your involvement. Otherwise you may just as well drive a ship from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy that gets to decide if it is in a good enough mood to follow your commands.
If that device was purely informative, and didn't take any action, then I have no problem with it, even if it's slightly annoying. For instance, my car has a small light that says "shift up" that lights up every time the engine gets close to 3000 RPM with little load. Yes, it's annoying at times - I can figure out myself when to shift, thank you very much. Yet, it did remind me to shift from fourth to fifth gear a few times, and it does not compromise my safety. While I felt like disconnecting the thing a few times, I never had a reason to actually do it. If I buy a car with a radar like that, it'd better have an option to disable it (like the passenger-side airbags in some cars).
exactly my point. How about a couple more confusing scenarios?
1. Some dork cuts you off on the freeway and steps on gas. You don't want or need to break even though the idiot is only 20 feet in front of you. 2. Wet pavement, your friend is tail-gating you. Now you neighbor's cat runs across the street. You would rather run over the stupid thing (and remove stupidity from the gene pool as an added benefit) than get rear-ended by your friend. 3. You are merging into a tight spot on the freeway. If you push the breaks, you are likely to "clip" the car in front of which you are trying to merge. 4. Some dork didn't bother looking when merging/fell asleep/whatever-else and is drifting into your lane on the freeway. Behind you is a semi truck. The only way (besides honking) to avoid a collision is to downshift into second gear and step on gas even though the car in front of you is closer than 300 feet. 5. Your example of the left-lane turn is very good too. It's a classic "looks like a head-on" scenario.
Also, sudden breaking under some circumstances (steep turn, slippery pavement, poorly distributed load in the vehicle, etc) drastically reduces responsiveness and maneurability of the vehicle.
IBM did not offer to buy them. So SCO will try to raise the noise level some more.
If a dog barks at me, I'll take note of it, maybe (if I am in a good mood) even throw it a bone. If it keeps on barking, I'll kick the stupid thing so it shuts up.
I think making noise is necessary for IBM to notice them, but you REALLY-REALLY do not want to overdo that. You can get kicked...
I personally think that this is SCO trying to get IBM to buy them out.
Yes, it is also true that the sun is going to raise in the morning tomorrow. There are a few things that are plain obvious, true.
On the other hand, they were doing a much better job trying to get bought out before today. At least they had something that resembled substantiated claims. Not anymore... I mean, it's almost a textbook example of how NOT to try to get bought out. Think of it:
1. SCO isn't worth a billion bucks. Much less likely are they to be worth 3 billion. If IBM were to buy them, they would rather spend a few million bucks to buy them out rather than a billion dollars to settle, right? By upping the settlement three-fold SCO at best ticked off IBM a bit more, and have not contributed to their worth or their chances of being bought out one bit.
2. Ticking off IBM for them is like a death warrant - if IBM was considering whether to sue them out of existence or be nice to them and buy them out, the chances of the latter happening are diminishing rapidly with every new claim against IBM SCO makes. SCO had to make sure that IBM takes them seriously. IBM understood that. SCO got IBM's attention. Now SCO has to sit back and pray that IBM will be nice to them. Instead they make more claims that makes IBM unhappy. Not very wise, if you ask me.
3. Also, if this garbage EVER makes it to court, the judge has got to just laugh at the number - 3 billion! They could as well have claimed a trillion dollars in damages! It's like me suing you for a million bucks because your dog dug up my lawn!
4. SCO tries to involve a dumb export restriction imposed by the government that never worked and has been abolished long ago because its effectiveness was zero, and pain for US companies was significant. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that whether or not IBM violated any export restrictions has nothing to do whatsoever with SCOs intellectual property. IBM has either misappropriated the IP and trade secrets or not - no government involved. If I buy a car from you and run a red light, I pay the ticket to the government; you have no right to try to take my car back!
5. It's dumb to even mention something that just made its way into 2.5.43 kernel as something you own. I mean, you are suing for years of infringement, you are threatening corporate linux users who are still using 2.2 or 2.4, and presenting code that hasn't even made it into any stable kernels yet as evidence!
6. And lastly, they just upped the number of claims of ownership on things that they clearly do not own. I thought their previous similar claims damaged their cridibility bad enough not to try that again. Looks like they haven't learned the lesson...
At times I wonder, if they just figured they have a snowball's chance in hell to be bought out by IBM and just decided to make a really cool fun show for all of us to see...
Yeah no shit. I'm awaiting the day that SCO claims that Osama himself has submitted patches to the kernel and that Alan Cox colaborated with Saddam Hussain in the mid 90's.
They aren't first to try this though. There are a few large-ish companies (and one very large in particular - guess who!) that claim that Open Source in general and Linux in particular aids terrorists by providing them with a reliable and secure tool without intentionally placed backdoors (for law enforcement or otherwise).
In other words, SCO is just a few years too late to try to claim that. Which brings up an interesting point: If MS accused Linux of something, can SCO do that now too? Or are they infringing on M$ accusation?
They are: 1. IE for mac was released when Microsoft was trying to kill Netscape. That's finished, they don't need to fight on that front anymore. They don't care about any free browsers now, or AOL's netscape - it became a non-issue since MS doesn't have to fight for browser dominance. 2. Cost cutting measure. Why waste all that money on Mac developent, if it's such a small market share, and even not your primary focus? Besides, you don't earn a dime off Mac IE. Besides, if your competitor can't ofer a product themselves that is up to par, taking away IE will... 3. Just starve apple to death. Stop releasing the apps people are used to, i.g. IE, Office, etc. Killing off a competitor (even a small one) never hurts, right? Apple started relying (to an extent) on Free Software just in time - otherwise things would get real tough for them. By the way, apple, why not invest some more into the development of that software? It'll be paying you back by keeping you in business and keeping your customer-base somewhat intact. 4. Show the court during any anti-trust trial that they are not really striving for total dominance. Just a 90% one:).
It really boils down to the fact that IE and office for Mac came out during the war for desktop and browser dominance. Now neither of the competitors (Netscape, Mac) are a threat, so the Mac versions of MS software are simply not necessary. Especially the ones that don't earn money. But even the ones that do (e.g. Office) will probably go next.
Slashdot Mirror
Any chance the spammer did a media honeypot? Released fake records to make marketers *think* he was successful?
All that effort just to prove that spamming works? I don't think so. On the other hand, a company that needs spammers to advertize their products may do something like that.
We'll prove to you that spamming works and then you can come and SPAM for us. Sounds like a good plan, eh?
Eat less shit
Funny? What kind of moderator moded this funny? The guy was serious!
Nuking beer and pop out of your diet will be the first step in the right direction.
Yep, morons can break any expensive piece of equipment in no time. What's your point?
very low 'ink' (read: wax cartrage) costs, Not really cheap, but, considering how long it lasts, never dries out, and the wax sticks are separate (so you can replace a color at a time), it's not bad. I'd give it a B
color Color fidelity may or may not impress a photoshop maniac - I've seen better with some (though definitely not all) inkjets. Overall, I'd say it is a B
price I'd disagree with you on that. They aren't cheap, not by a long shot! D
"Disafvantages":
long warm up times Not anything we haven't seen with older laserjets. And once you wam up, it stays that way for a while. Besides, I believe, it can remember when you usually use it and pre-warm itself up for you. A-
very slow printing Very far from that. It takes longer to get the datastream over ethernet into the printer. But once it's there, it can stomp pages out at a very remarkable speed. A+
requiring special paper Nope. I even managed to print on a transparency (though not every transparency would work - I killed a few before I found a decent one)! Most papers work just fine. In that sense, it's less picky than an ink-jet. A
poor image detail I am quite impressed with that, actually. The resolution actually does live up to the spec numbers (and expectations). There is no pixel bleeding that I have observed. Again, in this category it'll give a lot of higher-end inkjets a run for their money. I'd give it an A+ here
inability to laminate Bummer. I'd also add that leaving a printed sheet in very hot sun causes some pixels to bleed, and the whole page starts looking like @#$%^&*. Besides the price, that's my biggest complaint. C+ at best.
:(
Not a very comprehensive overview, but I'd rate this printer an A- for my needs, if it were in my price range. Too bad it isn't
I didn't know that LEDs are printers?
a.k.a "cheap laser" printer. Okidata, I believe, was one of the first to make those available at prices that I (student at the time) could afford.
And, if you think about it, there isn't much difference between a LED and a laser in this context - both are just a monochromatic (hopefully tightly focused) beam of light that polarizes the drum.
Well, if he were really looking for a "hardcore printer", as you put it, he would've checked out Tektronix. We have one at the office (model 850) and it's been printing volumes for a while. Very reliable, nice quality, works without a hinch with Linux, PostScript and all. Even supplies seem to be reasonably priced (considering how long they last).
And the coolest thing about it is that it uses ink sticks! You just feed them into the printer, so there is no catrige to replace, no scam with expiring catriges, no ink wasted. As it uses up a certain color, you add more sticks of that color. That's all.
If they ever become available in my price range, I want one at home!
Sure you can. If he's not smart enough to figure out how to do what what these people want using the Microsoft 'suit' of software (windows, sql server, ASP) or the OSS one (Linux, apache, PHP, whatever), or the Java one (some servlet engine, jsp, etc) or whatever he really doesn't deserve the contract, IMO.
.NET can probably pay for a better box or for allowing some sort of a clustering solution. Open source is great, M$ sucks - we all know that... ...But that's where the reality kicks in :( I work for a consulting company, and so does the guy who asked the question. Which means, we are stuck with whatever the client wants (unless they really don't care, or you can convince them to go OSS route, which rarely happens).
Dude, wake up! When was the last time a consultant had much of a say in what environment is going to be used?
Let me re-phrase it this way:
I've worked on a few (probably 10) small-ish (in terms of budget) projects lately. From those,
- about 6 were restricted to a certain environment (mostly M$) because the people who would maintain that stuff knew only M$, and it wasn't worth to re-train them/hire someone else. We had no say in that.
- about another 3 were also restricted to M$ stuff for no good reason (government had a "good" deal on M$ software, or just didn't trust open-source stuff, etc)
- 1 was where we got to decide what it was going to be like (and we also maintain it now).
I love open source. I adore it. I contribute to it. I am typing this post on a mandrake box (honest!). And yes, it is cheaper and simplier to maintain OSS servers. And it goes without mentioning that the price of that
Bottom line: Unless there is (1) so much money at stake that you just can't afford not looking at the alternatives (think German Government, google, yahoo, etc) or (2) you are actually expected to innovate, you don't often have a say in what you get to implement.
A better question to consider is this: In this forum you have asked a question regarding the legality of a certain action. Imagine, it is not found to be legal, and later on you are caught red-handed when doing that very thing you were asking about (downloading an MP3 song).
/. crowd would probably often do things that border on legality (considering current laws), and can turn illegal by a small amendment or a new law. Therefore posting any questions at all here would put you at risk, unless you are completely clean, innocent and beyond reproach by RIAA, MPAA, BSA (and the likes) own standards.
/.? Or are people with really good questions being silent, just in case? Is it enough to ask a question as an 'AC', or is it a perceived anonymity only?)
You can't claim ignorance anymore; in fact, you have just incriminated yourself by talking to the very person who will aid in prosecuting you later.
I know, it's not a very likely scenario, so call me paranoid. But the typical
(this is not intended as a question to be asked as the "10 highest mderated..." - it's just a thought that crossed my mind. I thouhgt: "If I were being sued, how likely would I be asking the prosecutor questions regarding my case? Not very likely at all. Why? Because quite likely I'd inadvertently incriminate myself that way." That said, how many slashdotters can ask any questions here? Do those people really represent the majority of
Oh, brother... feel the need to reflect on what you said, but don't even know where to start.
.NET is something that, as they say, they 'have been working on for a while, but haven't got it quite yet'!
.NET stuff.
:( Not that I really expected to either. So, while, yes, I give you the money to run the systems, I don't really get to chose whether YOU run them or that other guy with an apparent total absence of any computer experience.
Sorry if I offended you, but don't take it personally. Besides, we were not working with USAF, in fact, not with the military at all, so most of my statements probably do not apply to you by a long shot.
The thing I was really mad about was that they hire someone without any knowledge whatsoever to do their IT. When I was saying that installing windows was a mountain of a task, I meant it. Not kidding. For that particular person it was. For you it isn't, that's cool, and I have no problem with the government employing you to do that stuff. I have a problem with them employing someone with the computer knowledge and experience that is comparable to my grandma's (sorry, grandma!), and me having to pay for that.
>Installing
Probably awaiting training for
Well, I have no problem with their selection of the platform and choice. It wouldn't be mu first choice, but that's cool - different tools are for different jobs, yada, yada... The problem I do have is that extremely stringent requirements are made, which, in turn make us turn out more expensive code, which, in turn we all pay for. And it turns out that the requirements did not have to be that stringent at all - not only they do not have that infrastructure in place yet, but they don't even know why/if they need it. Quite contrary to what we've been told all along till the moment came to deliver the project.
I agree, but YOU give us the money to run our systems.
Not really, if you think about it. Yes, I do decide to live in the US, and hence I indirectly decide to abide by the US laws, including paying taxes. On the other hand, I have rather limited chances to actually decide how my taxes get spent. Yes, thanks for pointing out that I can talk to my congressman. That's about the only thing I can do, and I haven't really seen much come out of it
The American people have decided that my CCNA/CCNP, 5 years of linux experience, 8 years of Windows experience, certifications in ATM, HP Openview, Promina, etc... are worth $32k/year. I don't bitch about my paycheck.
There are two things I have to say about that.
1. That sucks.
2. I probably should take a few lessons from you on how to be content.
But seriously, this is aglaring mis-management of resources by the government in general, just as I said. Firstly, they underpay you, and thus reduce your motivation to work, and also risk loosing you - a valuable asset with tons of training, knoledge, etc. Secondly, they hire a guy who is not qualified to do the job, but nobody really knows how much he knows because they don't have an HR person who can tell a difference. The resume looked good, so he got the job. Probably for a similar salary too. Both cases are a gross mismanagement of resources entrusted to the government by the taxpayers. I would love to see that guy getting fired and someone like you getting an extra, say, 32K to your paycheck. I bet you wouldn't mind either for just a few hours a week (I doubt you need to spend any more to do that guy's job). Too bad I don't get a say in that matter... For that matter, don't invade Iran or whatever the next US target will be and add it to people's paychecks. I'd applaud this decision and even grumble less about my taxes. Too bad I have no say in that either...
If you don't like what you saw, you can either fire us or try and come up with a plan to fix the problems you saw. Either way, we both win.
No, I don't like what I saw. Not a bit. No, I am not going
The quote from the original article:
.NET 2003 server with M$ SQL, etc., etc. We did our best to make them consider PHP and the like, because that's what we normally use, but they were willing to pay extra to have that stuff developed in all-M$ stuff! We were told that the reason for that was because their IT was managing only M$ software, and the server was already there, and they couldn't have anything else (e.g. PHP). Fine, I can understand some bureaucracy in IT - that's cool, but imagine my surprise when, after we shipped them a CD with the project, they called us back and asked if it would work with a win2003 server as opposed to a win2k!!! Not only they didn't have the server yet, (or the infrastructure for that matter), but they didn't even know how to install windows! Which brings me to point #4:
.NET is something that, as they say, they 'have been working on for a while, but haven't got it quite yet'! And, when we give them a database dump they have no idea what to do with it and you have to walk them through the process (right-click on the 'Databases', select 'Create New database', click ok...) And they are paying these people!!! Errr... Let me re-phrase that - We are paying the government to employ those dumbheads! Thatnks goodness the network on which that is installed is not connected to the internet - the same idiots are in charge of security as well.
How hard is it to write software like this that works?
Wow! Well said! My grandma couldn't have done better. In other words, please define 'works' for me. How many blue screens a day constitute 'works' and how many are too many?
Also, since we are at it, I want to reflect back on the latest project we have done. Incidentally, for the government. Before asking if a vendor is ripping the taxpayer off we need to consider how the government mismanages the resources it has. Consider the facts:
1. The project itself was fairly small and simple. I'd say it would normally take about 2 months to develop and deploy, but it needed to be done before the end of the fiscal year, so it was a 'now-or-never' situation, and was a horrible time-crunch. We had slightly more than half the time necessary to do it, but they won't even try to install it till probably the end of the year! The quality of code would've been greately improved if we coded, say 40 hrs/week instead of pulling all-nighters.
2. They tried to keep tabs on the development by scheduling 'technical meetings' over the phone. While there is nothing wrong with that per se, in a time-crunch that was a horrible waste of time. The smartest things we've heard from them were questions like 'Are you using hungarian notation?' or 'is your code well-documented?'....
3. They insisted on
4. Their IT is kick-ass. As in 'their ass needs to be kicked real hard'. Installing a a windows server is a mountain of a task for them. Installing
Yes, it is true that some contractors will rip off the government (and it is really the government's responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen! But that's not the point). The point is that even if they have a perfectly good product developed by honest people, they are still remarkably talented at screwing it up. Bureaucracy and lots of idiots in charge of hiring people are to blame.
If MS were ever to try to actually do something that is covered by this patent, nothing new would come out of it.
For a second, consider a simplier concept - spellchecking. I'd say that spellchecking is a simplier task than translating, won't you agree? Yet, all the years Microsoft has spent on innovating their spellchecking resulted in a product that is inferior to, say, aspell, a one-man project.
Foregn language translation is a lot more complex. Knowing the tendency of Microsoft to innnovate through acquisition, I'd say they will just buy the best company that does translation and is for sale, re-brand whatever they had under their own name, and be done with that.
The only question is who would they buy? Babelfish? Someone else?
No, as in speech. "As in beer" wouldn't work because of the TANSTAAFL principle
a few facts:
1. MySQL support is not gone. Only the bundled library is gone. You can still compile PHP to use MySQL, and will be able to do so (in a similar way you can use Microsoft's SQL server from PHP, but that doesn't mean that PHP is shipped with Microsoft SQL's server code - see the difference?)
2. There are very good chances of MySQL making an exception from their 'GPL way or the highway' rule for PHP because close PHP+MySQL relationship is very benefitial for both of them. Such an exception is in the talks right now, as I am writing this.
3. MySQL 3 client, which has been bundled with PHP for a long time now, can still be bundled, if someone felt the need to do so. It's only MySQL 4 client that is GPLed in such a way that it's not possible to put it into PHP.
Plus, a couple of rant points:
a. While it sucks, there is nothing wrong with MySQL AB creating that whole licensing mess - they have the right to do so, and, more importantly, they have the right to earn their living, which is what they are trying to do.
b. I do not know why this made it to slashdot in the first place. PHP5 beta should really (IMO) be considered alpha at best. The code is not only not in code-freeze, but a few aspects of the API have not been hashed out yet. There will be major changes coming in the new beta-2, if that's how it will be called. So, consider this a very early release, try it if you feel but do not expect it to work reliably. Moreover, do not even expect the final PHP5 to closely resemble what you see in this 'beta'.
resulting filesize will be larger than with GIF
Even if you use the same quality (compression ratio), consider that gifs are 256 colors versus pngs which is true color. All else being equal, even with superior compression algorithm, you can expect PNGs have a larger filesize, just because they have more colors.
... or we start working less when we start earning more money? It's not the corporations who are evil here (although they certainly ARE evil in general), it's us who are too greedy - that's the probelm.
Why do we still need gifs? Other image formats are available that are free and superior. The reason we used to use gifs:
- some rudimentary transparency
- animation
- decent file size (albeit poor colors - only 256!)
As far as I know, all of those are available in PNG, including animation (MNG). Better color management, better compression, a lot better transparency, and even quite wide acceptance - all browsers I know of (except, maybe, Lynx) as well as a lot of apps support it.
So, why are we rejoicing and getting ready to make available all that semi-illegal code of ours that writes gifs? I think it would be better for humanity if unisys just kept the stupid patent, and let the format die. While it is cool to have as many technologies/formats open, sometimes we need to "prune" them to get rid of the ballast and garbage accumulated over the years. Some things just need to die already (gif, dbf, 8.3 filenames, etc.). But they won't die by themselves fast because people are too used to them. So helping them die, even by bad means, like keeping a patent on them, seems to do more good than harm.
So when you are crushed completely by the semi-truck and die instantly you will complain to St. Peter that it was the semi-truck which was responsible, not you.
Nah, not really. It's the other guy's fault (the guy next to you who was merging/drifting into your lane - read the original comment). You guys seem to have missed that.
The semi truck is there just so you know that you can't slow down to let the guy next to you merge into your lane. In fact, in that case I'd rather be hit from the side than rear-ended by a semi truck (I was rear-ended by a fully loaded garbage truck, and, believe me, it ain't fun!). You have to accelerate. And, yes, if you don't have stick-shift, the only option is to step on gas - that's fine. The thing I really DO NOT want to happen is my car stepping on brakes while I am stepping on gas. That'd just plain suck.
Yes, I know, I am a luddite to an extent, and don't trust any sufficiently advanced technology. In fact, I still feel uneasy about antilock brakes. Yet I realize that they do provide some invaluable service. Same with this concept. I think the idea is great, especially when it helps you in situations that catch you off-guard, e.g. you get distracted or something like that. The part that I don't like is that it CONTROLS MY BRAKES and I don't like that. Things that you depend on for safety MUST be as simple as possible. Complexity increases points of failure. That's why we keep important things simple.
Consider a few examples. Steering in you car is about as straight-forward as it gets (minus the power steering that is optional, and, even if it fails, you can still control the car, albeit performance is degraded. Brakes are rather simple (power brake and ABS stuff just don't help when they fail, but they don't hurt either). The same merit should be used for anything that alters the speed/direction of your car without your involvement. Otherwise you may just as well drive a ship from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy that gets to decide if it is in a good enough mood to follow your commands.
If that device was purely informative, and didn't take any action, then I have no problem with it, even if it's slightly annoying. For instance, my car has a small light that says "shift up" that lights up every time the engine gets close to 3000 RPM with little load. Yes, it's annoying at times - I can figure out myself when to shift, thank you very much. Yet, it did remind me to shift from fourth to fifth gear a few times, and it does not compromise my safety. While I felt like disconnecting the thing a few times, I never had a reason to actually do it. If I buy a car with a radar like that, it'd better have an option to disable it (like the passenger-side airbags in some cars).
exactly my point. How about a couple more confusing scenarios?
1. Some dork cuts you off on the freeway and steps on gas. You don't want or need to break even though the idiot is only 20 feet in front of you.
2. Wet pavement, your friend is tail-gating you. Now you neighbor's cat runs across the street. You would rather run over the stupid thing (and remove stupidity from the gene pool as an added benefit) than get rear-ended by your friend.
3. You are merging into a tight spot on the freeway. If you push the breaks, you are likely to "clip" the car in front of which you are trying to merge.
4. Some dork didn't bother looking when merging/fell asleep/whatever-else and is drifting into your lane on the freeway. Behind you is a semi truck. The only way (besides honking) to avoid a collision is to downshift into second gear and step on gas even though the car in front of you is closer than 300 feet.
5. Your example of the left-lane turn is very good too. It's a classic "looks like a head-on" scenario.
Also, sudden breaking under some circumstances (steep turn, slippery pavement, poorly distributed load in the vehicle, etc) drastically reduces responsiveness and maneurability of the vehicle.
...that I won't be able to run over my neighbour's cats anymore?
IBM did not offer to buy them. So SCO will try to raise the noise level some more.
If a dog barks at me, I'll take note of it, maybe (if I am in a good mood) even throw it a bone. If it keeps on barking, I'll kick the stupid thing so it shuts up.
I think making noise is necessary for IBM to notice them, but you REALLY-REALLY do not want to overdo that. You can get kicked...
I personally think that this is SCO trying to get IBM to buy them out.
Yes, it is also true that the sun is going to raise in the morning tomorrow. There are a few things that are plain obvious, true.
On the other hand, they were doing a much better job trying to get bought out before today. At least they had something that resembled substantiated claims. Not anymore... I mean, it's almost a textbook example of how NOT to try to get bought out. Think of it:
1. SCO isn't worth a billion bucks. Much less likely are they to be worth 3 billion. If IBM were to buy them, they would rather spend a few million bucks to buy them out rather than a billion dollars to settle, right? By upping the settlement three-fold SCO at best ticked off IBM a bit more, and have not contributed to their worth or their chances of being bought out one bit.
2. Ticking off IBM for them is like a death warrant - if IBM was considering whether to sue them out of existence or be nice to them and buy them out, the chances of the latter happening are diminishing rapidly with every new claim against IBM SCO makes. SCO had to make sure that IBM takes them seriously. IBM understood that. SCO got IBM's attention. Now SCO has to sit back and pray that IBM will be nice to them. Instead they make more claims that makes IBM unhappy. Not very wise, if you ask me.
3. Also, if this garbage EVER makes it to court, the judge has got to just laugh at the number - 3 billion! They could as well have claimed a trillion dollars in damages! It's like me suing you for a million bucks because your dog dug up my lawn!
4. SCO tries to involve a dumb export restriction imposed by the government that never worked and has been abolished long ago because its effectiveness was zero, and pain for US companies was significant. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that whether or not IBM violated any export restrictions has nothing to do whatsoever with SCOs intellectual property. IBM has either misappropriated the IP and trade secrets or not - no government involved. If I buy a car from you and run a red light, I pay the ticket to the government; you have no right to try to take my car back!
5. It's dumb to even mention something that just made its way into 2.5.43 kernel as something you own. I mean, you are suing for years of infringement, you are threatening corporate linux users who are still using 2.2 or 2.4, and presenting code that hasn't even made it into any stable kernels yet as evidence!
6. And lastly, they just upped the number of claims of ownership on things that they clearly do not own. I thought their previous similar claims damaged their cridibility bad enough not to try that again. Looks like they haven't learned the lesson...
At times I wonder, if they just figured they have a snowball's chance in hell to be bought out by IBM and just decided to make a really cool fun show for all of us to see...
Yeah no shit. I'm awaiting the day that SCO claims that Osama himself has submitted patches to the kernel and that Alan Cox colaborated with Saddam Hussain in the mid 90's.
They aren't first to try this though. There are a few large-ish companies (and one very large in particular - guess who!) that claim that Open Source in general and Linux in particular aids terrorists by providing them with a reliable and secure tool without intentionally placed backdoors (for law enforcement or otherwise).
In other words, SCO is just a few years too late to try to claim that. Which brings up an interesting point: If MS accused Linux of something, can SCO do that now too? Or are they infringing on M$ accusation?
... and also maybe their SCO license does not allow them to develop for OSX?
They are: :).
1. IE for mac was released when Microsoft was trying to kill Netscape. That's finished, they don't need to fight on that front anymore. They don't care about any free browsers now, or AOL's netscape - it became a non-issue since MS doesn't have to fight for browser dominance.
2. Cost cutting measure. Why waste all that money on Mac developent, if it's such a small market share, and even not your primary focus? Besides, you don't earn a dime off Mac IE. Besides, if your competitor can't ofer a product themselves that is up to par, taking away IE will...
3. Just starve apple to death. Stop releasing the apps people are used to, i.g. IE, Office, etc. Killing off a competitor (even a small one) never hurts, right? Apple started relying (to an extent) on Free Software just in time - otherwise things would get real tough for them. By the way, apple, why not invest some more into the development of that software? It'll be paying you back by keeping you in business and keeping your customer-base somewhat intact.
4. Show the court during any anti-trust trial that they are not really striving for total dominance. Just a 90% one
It really boils down to the fact that IE and office for Mac came out during the war for desktop and browser dominance. Now neither of the competitors (Netscape, Mac) are a threat, so the Mac versions of MS software are simply not necessary. Especially the ones that don't earn money. But even the ones that do (e.g. Office) will probably go next.
your definately not going to never use no stinkin cliches than, right? (or make types for that matter)