What about analysis of algorithms? Relational calculus? Theory of computation? Numerical methods? There is a lot of mathematics in a Computer Science degree, over and above bundled first and second year maths courses.
E. Dijkstra: Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes
Anything that brags about java and.net certification is not a computer science course. It is probably not even a software engineering course. It is probably a programming course.
I work at a big company. Many people seem to enjoy Clippy and his bretheren. In fact, there is no doubt in my mind that the option to change Clippy to other characters give people a sense of control over their computer. Maybe even over their lives. Other people like to change the color of their mobile phone shell. I don't get it. But then, I have to remember to iron my shirts. One thing Microsoft is still doing is making monolithic software. A huge, do-everything for everyone OS. Huge do-everything for everyone "productivity suits". Surely this is where they will eventually fail. At some point they will not sustain backwards compatibility, ease of use and still satisfy more sophisticated users. And yes, Clippy is a fine symbol for this philosophy.
In the long run, we are all dead. Isn't this the logic that encouraged people to vote for Ralph Nader? I wonder how many of those voters would change their vote if they could go back in time.
In a federal election, you must fill in each number for the vote to count. So you have to vote for everyone, even if you don't care for some candidates -- are usally forced to vote eventually for one of the two big parties as you vote is passed from your first preference to your second preference and so on. There was a trick that you could vote eg 1 for the Greens, 2 for the Democrats, and then put 3 in each remaining square; technically a valid vote (a number in each square) but as soon as your second preference dies, you vote dies because no preference is discernible. I suppose this has been "fixed" to be an invalid vote, but I don't know.
A tip to Americans who read into Australia media coverage of this: the conservatives in Australia are called the Liberals (because they are supposed to be low tax and pro free-market, which is the meaning of liberal as in "liberal economics", American usage of "liberal" is a bit odd to other English nations). So the FTA is the initative of the conservative, free-market, low-tax Australian Liberal Party.
The slightly left-of-centre party is the Australian Labor Party. Being Australia, they are left of centre in the way that a Sydney winter is cold.
I took a dislike to Canon because I have a Canon laserprinters which was not supported on Linux because Canon would not release the driver and showed no interest in supporting Linux. Canon used not to get very good ratings from the open source printer community. see http://www.linuxprinting.org/sugg ested.html "There are few good free software drivers for Canon and Lexmark inkjets. Do not buy one and expect success.".
No. Although we do not fully understand it yet, open source probably will do better in mass infrastructure applications rather than niches. Linux is interesting as an enterprise OS because of the enormous work contributed to it by enterprises that do not see much competitive advantage in proprietary operating systems. It is like the lighting industry sharing investments in glass furnaces; there is really not much added value in the glass part of a light bulb. I think the conclusion is that open source software is by nature not likely to be very innovative, at least not where innovation requires investment and delivers competitive advantage to the investor. Why would an owner of capital outsource competitive advantage? That is not rational.
However, as the Economist article points out, it is precisely the important role that IT infrastructure plays that governments and societies should demand an open alternative, just like most of our roads are publically owned.
Companies will change for cash, as soon as they think a Linux solution is good enough (or interoperable enough, which is more the point for the type of phased introductions that large companies execute). My company pays Microsoft around $USD 20m a year for licence fees (MS Office and Windows client licences). This amount is what will really influence decisions, not which desktop looks the most or the least like Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Every second page is removed.
What about analysis of algorithms? Relational calculus? Theory of computation? Numerical methods? There is a lot of mathematics in a Computer Science degree, over and above bundled first and second year maths courses.
E. Dijkstra: Computer Science is no more about
.net certification is not a computer science course. It is probably not even a software engineering course.
computers than astronomy is about telescopes
Anything that brags about java and
It is probably a programming course.
I work at a big company. Many people seem to enjoy Clippy and his bretheren. In fact, there is no doubt in my mind that the option to change Clippy to other characters give people a sense of control over their computer. Maybe even over their lives. Other people like to change the color of their mobile phone shell. I don't get it. But then, I have to remember to iron my shirts.
One thing Microsoft is still doing is making monolithic software. A huge, do-everything for everyone OS. Huge do-everything for everyone "productivity suits". Surely this is where they will eventually fail. At some point they will not sustain backwards compatibility, ease of use and still satisfy more sophisticated users.
And yes, Clippy is a fine symbol for this philosophy.
It's harmonization dude :-)
In the long run, we are all dead. Isn't this the logic that encouraged people to vote for Ralph Nader? I wonder how many of those voters would change their vote if they could go back in time.
And is advocating this method still illegal?h 96/hrd05108.html ...
see this link where in 1996 someone did jail time for promoting this "hack" http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/ahric/hrd/Marc
I don't live in Aus anymore so I am fearless
In a federal election, you must fill in each number for the vote to count. So you have to vote for everyone, even if you don't care for some candidates -- are usally forced to vote eventually for one of the two big parties as you vote is passed from your first preference to your second preference and so on.
There was a trick that you could vote eg 1 for the Greens, 2 for the Democrats, and then put 3 in each remaining square; technically a valid vote (a number in each square) but as soon as your second preference dies, you vote dies because no preference is discernible.
I suppose this has been "fixed" to be an invalid vote, but I don't know.
A tip to Americans who read into Australia media coverage of this: the conservatives in Australia are called the Liberals (because they are supposed to be low tax and pro free-market, which is the meaning of liberal as in "liberal economics", American usage of "liberal" is a bit odd to other English nations). So the FTA is the initative of the conservative, free-market, low-tax Australian Liberal Party.
The slightly left-of-centre party is the Australian Labor Party. Being Australia, they are left of centre in the way that a Sydney winter is cold.
I took a dislike to Canon because I have a Canon laserprinters which was not supported on Linux because Canon would not release the driver and showed no interest in supporting Linux. Canon used not to get very good ratings from the open source printer community.g ested.html
see
http://www.linuxprinting.org/sug
"There are few good free software drivers for Canon and Lexmark inkjets. Do not buy one and expect success.".
Subscribing to the Economist is one of the best things I ever did (subscriptions includes total access to the electronic archives)
No. Although we do not fully understand it yet, open source probably will do better in mass infrastructure applications rather than niches. Linux is interesting as an enterprise OS because of the enormous work contributed to it by enterprises that do not see much competitive advantage in proprietary operating systems. It is like the lighting industry sharing investments in glass furnaces; there is really not much added value in the glass part of a light bulb.
I think the conclusion is that open source software is by nature not likely to be very innovative, at least not where innovation requires investment and delivers competitive advantage to the investor. Why would an owner of capital outsource competitive advantage? That is not rational.
However, as the Economist article points out, it is precisely the important role that IT infrastructure plays that governments and societies should demand an open alternative, just like most of our roads are publically owned.
Companies will change for cash, as soon as they think a Linux solution is good enough (or interoperable enough, which is more the point for the type of phased introductions that large companies execute). My company pays Microsoft around $USD 20m a year for licence fees (MS Office and Windows client licences). This amount is what will really influence decisions, not which desktop looks the most or the least like Windows.
The HP49G is very good at symbolic integration.