>> Sadly, there's no way to use software rendering, >> but the usefulness of that is arguable.
I guess that depends. Most computers using even embedded video chipsets have some form of OpenGL or DirectX 3D hardware acceleration, even if it sucks, but there are some embedded-style devices that might support Java that may lack 3D acceleration or a common 3D library. In those cases it would be nice to have some kind of built-in software rendering default.
If you are programming portable code you want any non-Windows users to be able to run casually, Java is a better choice. The web consists of more than just Windows users, y'know.
>> I think the war could have been better executed, but to some extent we have been hindered by the lack of support from the international community.
The international community, by and large, saw it as a needless war waged on false pretenses. Sure, Saddam was a horrible leader, but there are lots of horrible leaders in the world and it's not necessarily our job to step in and "fix" them all, because often the "fix" doesn't resolve other regional problems that cause just as many problems as the "evil leader". In fact, about half, or more, of the times we step in to "fix" something we just end up with egg on our faces, another large group of people who hate us (or the same people hating us more), and no real answer to the underlying cultural conflicts.
We have this high and mighty idea that we know what's best for the world, that our moral prerogatives are somehow a prescription for the world, when in truth, what's worked for us works because it's us and because it's had time to work. We rarely think of the culture of the people we meddle with, and solutions that might work for them, even if they might seem "bad" or "immoral" or problematic to our own moral sensitivities.
However bad Iraq was, Saddam kept a certain amount of order, and there will be much bloodshed, as there has been already, trying to find a new order. I seriously doubt the new order that takes shape will be much less troublesome for the people of Iraq than the one we deposed. We must remember that Saddam made it where he was originally with our help.
The question is: who says the big name will have spare parts for you in a three year timeframe? The fact that they sell 4 and 5 year warranties means that, to a limited degree, they have to. If we buy on a 4 year cycle and pick up a 4 year warranty, or really, even a 3 year warranty, they have to be able to provide parts during the warranty period. If they can't provide parts they're on the hook for entire replacement machines. And if hard drives or other commodity parts fail, those are easy enough to replace. Only motherboards and power supplies are likely to hang us up and though both have been getting less solid over the years they are still not overly likely to go.
Here I have some wonderful news for you, my friend. Desktops these days are very standard. All the plugs, connectors, memory and cards are interchangable. I have a lovely desktop sitting under my desk. If it dies tomorrow, I can call up my local guy and get a new motherboard for like $70. You can also change suppliers at any time, and we're talking about easy-to-source, mass-produced components. In the bad old days, manufacturers did make keyed connectors that only worked on their machines.
Except that if we try to keep our models standardized so we can load standard images, changing hardware can create problems. Sure, the connectors are the same, but I don't want, 3 years down the road, to have every computer existing with a different patchwork of replacement parts and the driver hell that can go with that.
All else aside, what we can't afford is the proper tech staffing for an institution as varied as we are. And there's a difference between having the money to buy what we need and having the money to buy what would be ideal. We're trying hard to find the best compromise.
Having worked on many of these machines for years in academic environments, years ago Optiplexes and Dimensions, or Latitudes and Inspirons if you like, were quite different. These days they are almost identical except in some very minimal ways. Once upon a time the name made a difference. These days, not as much.
Since there appears to be some trouble with the question, let me clarify. We already have a lot of machines in use. Most of them are Dell, but not all of them. Dell's once great quality and support is now, according to consumer sources (and my own experience with previous workplaces), no better than anyone else's. How does an IT department reliably evaluate the big vendors to determine who's going to go the necessary distance and be a good business partner, especially for a smaller customer?
This doesn't rule out the smaller, local sources, but there can be a longevity issue there, as well as priority. Who says he can be there tomorrow with a replacement part in hand to get you back up and running? Yes, we're trying to save money, but staff time is more expensive than any single technology decision, so Linux and used computers are really not the way to go. We have adequate funding to get what we need, but we have to spend that funding wisely. When trying to standardize the products one uses, for ease of ordering, support, and keeping consumables in stock, making a bad decision can really set back the entire institution. And for that matter, when ordering 100 - 120 computers every 4 year cycle, paying an extra $50-$100 per computer can be worth it if you know you will get reliable, timely, and quality support for a quality product in return.
But how do you predict?
And to the individual who stated technology cycles every 3 years, I think that's a wonderful ideal. On a practical level, however, especially where smaller places with tighter budgets are concerned, a 4 year cycle makes more sense. Also makes it more worth investing a little extra up front.
Well, all of Microsoft's patents are public knowledge, but the specific 235 are at issue. And if Microsoft intends to make people pay money or go after them in court, they are going to have to start revealing those patents. You can't reasonably make people fear unspecified patents. At some point they have to reveal their hand.
If I were in charge of a larger company approached and asked to pay I would insist upon knowing exactly what infringed patents I was expected to pay for. And if MS can't tell me, and do so without keeping it under secrecy, let them sue me, because if they do sue the patents have to become public knowledge. You can't claim infringement of patents or copyrights and then keep the proof secret, not if you are expecting to base any actions, especially with legal consequences, on them.
I'm training to be a librarian after a few years in IT. Librarianship is a usually a 2nd - 4th career:) And IT can be really useful in the field. Degree takes 2 years and the pay sucks, but it can be pleasant and rewarding. Librarians are the best people to hang out with at parties.
Also, electricians are paid well. There's a lot of apprenticeship required, but as it's a hands-on kind of job it likely has much higher satisfaction than IT. It also pays well. You could pick up some other handyman skills and work at home improvement, or even get on Monster House at the Discovery Channel. Who knows!
But seriously, those are two I like. It doesn't mean you will. If what you're asking is if your years in IT pre-dispose you to a different field, I'd say it depends on what part of IT you were in and what you were doing.
I'm not sure I agree. Cadbury and Hershey are both bad chocolates, but for different reasons. I know Americans are more fond of dark, bitter chocolate where Europeans seem more fond of milk chocolates.
I would say, instead, we need to look to Ghiradelli and Sharffenberger as the real commercial premium American chocolates. And the little productions houses that get no commercial exposure, selling only on-line or at the larger farmers markets, as the true homegrown chocolate of America.
But yes, the annoying corn syrup trend is frustrating.
I wouldn't say it's a failed analogy completely. It was certainly overly simplistic, but it was useful to illustrate a point. But let's look at more ways the analogy breaks down.
We're just talking about moving the system itself. What about games? Games have a set cost. If every console buyer buys roughly the same number of games, having more gamers makes a lot of sense. And if the folks with money buy a few more games, they still have a lot of extra ground to cover to make up for the smaller console base. Besides that, BMW probably makes more money per car than Hyundai does. But do we know that Sony makes more off every PS3 sold than Microsoft does from every 360 sold, or Nintendo from every Wii?
We know that Nintendo has the cheapest system, the broadest console base, and the highest sales. If Nintendo makes the same money per game in licensing fees and similar profit from every console sold Sony has no hope to compete without growing the user base.
There's a reason that, in the car market, Hyundai and BMW co-exist. Some people want a raging hormone car and some people want something they can afford that gets them comfortably from point A to point B. Phil Harrison's claim that "making the PS3" more desirable does not necessarily involve dropping price really fails to address the question directed at him. There are many people who can't afford the BMW of gaming systems and who are now settling for the Hyundais and Hondas of gaming because of that. Offering these people more "reasons" to buy a PS3 is not going to suddenly supplement their income and make such a high-priced machine worth the smack to incoming cash flow. By not having a true Hyundai model PS3, many potential gamers are locked out of the market because food, the electric bill, and gas to drive to work are more important than playing EXPENSIVE video games.
Given the unique experience offered by the Wii and the more reasonably-priced Xbox360, I think Sony has made a bad move. There's a reason BMWs are not the most prevalent cars on the road, and I suspect it's the same reason the PS3 is not likely to be the most prevalent game console in homes.
I think the original message calling out the code problem was not the most polite or discreet, but it was not a direct attack. It really was a rather straight-forward message. And Theo really took the wrong approach. He's being way over-defensive. When you work around legal licenses and issues resulting from those licenses you can't afford to be defensive and see a notice of problems at an attack. Theo's response, I think, has really harmed the BSD community. Rather than calling for a little patience and calm in dealing with the situation and asking for some time to sort thinks out he immediately raised his hackles and started growling.
Is the BSD community getting a little too insular? Is that what's going on? Maybe they are insecure about the wide attention Linux gets and the restrictions GPLed code puts on their own work. At the same time, Theo's response was inappropriate. And while Marcus did pull the driver code, he likely didn't over the initial email. The resulting exchange probably had a greater role in pushing him out, and Theo was just as much a part of that as Michael.
I'm not sure I'd ever want to contribute work to a project with a figurehead as negatively reactive as Theo.
Why not take the view that these "self evident" rights appear to be self evident because they are somehow beneficial to the social organization of humans? Or at least that they are consistent with the nature of human intelligence.
That aside, there are many, many societies around the world that have really not found these rights to be so self evident. I'd say that the vast majority of people in the world do not live with those rights and, in fact, many of them may not be able to fathom why we would want all of them. A couple of them, sure, but all of them?
So I would argue that these "self evident" rights are not really self evident at all. There are other rights acknowledged elsewhere that we don't have, and there are rights we cherish that others may perceive no need of. I do not think the US rights model is perfect, or for that matter perfectly inclusive. And in that case it doesn't matter where they came from, god or biology or out of a group of rebellious, stubborn intellectuals following along with the popular philosophy among other intellectuals at the time.
You see, sir, your logic is sound, but logic is a process, nothing more. When you apply logic to faulty premises you end up with faulty results. What you say is is not what I believe really is just because you say it is.
I do agree with you here. These necessary steps do seem to go against the grain of the "modern" business approach, but they are much more prevalent in IT than in other industries. The automotive and children's goods industries are heavily regulated and recalls are mandates should certain standards not be met. Does that mean the only solution to this technology crisis is to implement a level of government regulation over the commercial software industry? Some of you may balk and say the market must be allowed to work itself out, but history has demonstrated that pure capitalism is essentially economic Darwinian anarchy. And if government regulation is not the solution, and I doubt anyone would call it a panacea, what is the answer?
You know, this kind of scathing response doesn't help the discussion. The poster does have a point. We have allowed the complexity of computers and software to become an excuse for releasing crap products that have not been adequately developed or tested. It does not matter if the programmer or the manager or the CEO is responsible, if the user is the one who has to effectively help beta test a commercial product the model is broken.
Let's face it, people. We have allowed our industry to become one scandalized by poor reliability, poor build quality, and rampant problems that would simply not be allowed in any other industry. And frankly, very few companies have the balls to buckle down and try hard to get things right from step one.
judges have this odd notion that the interests of the child are best served by listening to those who are responsible for his care and instruction. Given some of what at least a few school boards have been guilty of lately, and what some spectacularly "gifted" parents managed to pull on a regular basis, I can't say that I would necessarily agree with all judges on this matter. That said, I did specify that I didn't necessarily personally agree with the alternative take on things that I offered.
Unless it's a private school the school property is also public property. While I'm not sure I'd be willing to make this argument personally, it could be argued that if the filters, in any way, are not in the best interest of the children or the public then bypassing them is, if not an act of public good, an inconsequential act otherwise. However, the public property aspect may have an impact on the rules of the game. If it's a private school, the private property aspect could have an even bigger impact.
Who are you to determine what is and what is not information? Maybe most of what's on MySpace is, IMO, crap, but there's bound to be something of value in there. It could be argued that any communication at all is in some way an information-based activity. Who are any of us to say what is and isn't there without personally examining every page and every piece of content first?
Enso requires you learn far less cryptic commands than the Windows command prompt to do things, and it can affect text and contents of applications that may lack specific text functions on their own. Really, this is a product that is designed less for the massive tweaker and more for people who just like getting work done with as little fuss as possible and are willing to pay a little for it.
As a grad student, I can do without it. If I were more tied to a keyboard for many functions, I might need it.
This product is clearly not aimed at you. What you suggest strikes me as much more difficult to set up and also more difficult to use than Enso. Remind me not to ever let you design a simple and practical user inferface for me. Ever.
I fourth the Virgin Mobile recommendation. They use Sprint's network so use Sprint's coverage maps and reports to determine what coverage is like where you need to be.
I apparently don't happen across that other shit very often. I usually don't dive in so far into discussions as I did this one. Besides, it was particularly frustrating that you made some good points and then, to me, ruined them with the manner in which you made them. There could have been some useful discussion there but your response after that post was as flame-worthy as any in that discussion, including those with far less valuable content.
Still, my comments are no more or less irrelevant than your. You didn't like his answers, I didn't like the way your tone precluded any possibility of meaningful interchange on the topic.
Sorry about the "he" part. No intent there to offend. Written language habit.
Now, at this point, I'm going to go find other parts of my life to waste time with, like dealing with this cold that has turned my head into a faucet.
Slashdot Mirror
>> Sadly, there's no way to use software rendering,
>> but the usefulness of that is arguable.
I guess that depends. Most computers using even embedded video chipsets have some form of OpenGL or DirectX 3D hardware acceleration, even if it sucks, but there are some embedded-style devices that might support Java that may lack 3D acceleration or a common 3D library. In those cases it would be nice to have some kind of built-in software rendering default.
If you are programming portable code you want any non-Windows users to be able to run casually, Java is a better choice. The web consists of more than just Windows users, y'know.
>> I think the war could have been better executed, but to some extent we have been hindered by the lack of support from the international community.
The international community, by and large, saw it as a needless war waged on false pretenses. Sure, Saddam was a horrible leader, but there are lots of horrible leaders in the world and it's not necessarily our job to step in and "fix" them all, because often the "fix" doesn't resolve other regional problems that cause just as many problems as the "evil leader". In fact, about half, or more, of the times we step in to "fix" something we just end up with egg on our faces, another large group of people who hate us (or the same people hating us more), and no real answer to the underlying cultural conflicts.
We have this high and mighty idea that we know what's best for the world, that our moral prerogatives are somehow a prescription for the world, when in truth, what's worked for us works because it's us and because it's had time to work. We rarely think of the culture of the people we meddle with, and solutions that might work for them, even if they might seem "bad" or "immoral" or problematic to our own moral sensitivities.
However bad Iraq was, Saddam kept a certain amount of order, and there will be much bloodshed, as there has been already, trying to find a new order. I seriously doubt the new order that takes shape will be much less troublesome for the people of Iraq than the one we deposed. We must remember that Saddam made it where he was originally with our help.
Here I have some wonderful news for you, my friend. Desktops these days are very standard. All the plugs, connectors, memory and cards are interchangable. I have a lovely desktop sitting under my desk. If it dies tomorrow, I can call up my local guy and get a new motherboard for like $70. You can also change suppliers at any time, and we're talking about easy-to-source, mass-produced components. In the bad old days, manufacturers did make keyed connectors that only worked on their machines.
Except that if we try to keep our models standardized so we can load standard images, changing hardware can create problems. Sure, the connectors are the same, but I don't want, 3 years down the road, to have every computer existing with a different patchwork of replacement parts and the driver hell that can go with that.
All else aside, what we can't afford is the proper tech staffing for an institution as varied as we are. And there's a difference between having the money to buy what we need and having the money to buy what would be ideal. We're trying hard to find the best compromise.
Having worked on many of these machines for years in academic environments, years ago Optiplexes and Dimensions, or Latitudes and Inspirons if you like, were quite different. These days they are almost identical except in some very minimal ways. Once upon a time the name made a difference. These days, not as much.
Since there appears to be some trouble with the question, let me clarify. We already have a lot of machines in use. Most of them are Dell, but not all of them. Dell's once great quality and support is now, according to consumer sources (and my own experience with previous workplaces), no better than anyone else's. How does an IT department reliably evaluate the big vendors to determine who's going to go the necessary distance and be a good business partner, especially for a smaller customer?
This doesn't rule out the smaller, local sources, but there can be a longevity issue there, as well as priority. Who says he can be there tomorrow with a replacement part in hand to get you back up and running? Yes, we're trying to save money, but staff time is more expensive than any single technology decision, so Linux and used computers are really not the way to go. We have adequate funding to get what we need, but we have to spend that funding wisely. When trying to standardize the products one uses, for ease of ordering, support, and keeping consumables in stock, making a bad decision can really set back the entire institution. And for that matter, when ordering 100 - 120 computers every 4 year cycle, paying an extra $50-$100 per computer can be worth it if you know you will get reliable, timely, and quality support for a quality product in return.
But how do you predict?
And to the individual who stated technology cycles every 3 years, I think that's a wonderful ideal. On a practical level, however, especially where smaller places with tighter budgets are concerned, a 4 year cycle makes more sense. Also makes it more worth investing a little extra up front.
Well, all of Microsoft's patents are public knowledge, but the specific 235 are at issue. And if Microsoft intends to make people pay money or go after them in court, they are going to have to start revealing those patents. You can't reasonably make people fear unspecified patents. At some point they have to reveal their hand.
If I were in charge of a larger company approached and asked to pay I would insist upon knowing exactly what infringed patents I was expected to pay for. And if MS can't tell me, and do so without keeping it under secrecy, let them sue me, because if they do sue the patents have to become public knowledge. You can't claim infringement of patents or copyrights and then keep the proof secret, not if you are expecting to base any actions, especially with legal consequences, on them.
I'm training to be a librarian after a few years in IT. Librarianship is a usually a 2nd - 4th career :) And IT can be really useful in the field. Degree takes 2 years and the pay sucks, but it can be pleasant and rewarding. Librarians are the best people to hang out with at parties.
Also, electricians are paid well. There's a lot of apprenticeship required, but as it's a hands-on kind of job it likely has much higher satisfaction than IT. It also pays well. You could pick up some other handyman skills and work at home improvement, or even get on Monster House at the Discovery Channel. Who knows!
But seriously, those are two I like. It doesn't mean you will. If what you're asking is if your years in IT pre-dispose you to a different field, I'd say it depends on what part of IT you were in and what you were doing.
I'm not sure I agree. Cadbury and Hershey are both bad chocolates, but for different reasons. I know Americans are more fond of dark, bitter chocolate where Europeans seem more fond of milk chocolates.
I would say, instead, we need to look to Ghiradelli and Sharffenberger as the real commercial premium American chocolates. And the little productions houses that get no commercial exposure, selling only on-line or at the larger farmers markets, as the true homegrown chocolate of America.
But yes, the annoying corn syrup trend is frustrating.
I wouldn't say it's a failed analogy completely. It was certainly overly simplistic, but it was useful to illustrate a point. But let's look at more ways the analogy breaks down.
We're just talking about moving the system itself. What about games? Games have a set cost. If every console buyer buys roughly the same number of games, having more gamers makes a lot of sense. And if the folks with money buy a few more games, they still have a lot of extra ground to cover to make up for the smaller console base. Besides that, BMW probably makes more money per car than Hyundai does. But do we know that Sony makes more off every PS3 sold than Microsoft does from every 360 sold, or Nintendo from every Wii?
We know that Nintendo has the cheapest system, the broadest console base, and the highest sales. If Nintendo makes the same money per game in licensing fees and similar profit from every console sold Sony has no hope to compete without growing the user base.
There's a reason that, in the car market, Hyundai and BMW co-exist. Some people want a raging hormone car and some people want something they can afford that gets them comfortably from point A to point B. Phil Harrison's claim that "making the PS3" more desirable does not necessarily involve dropping price really fails to address the question directed at him. There are many people who can't afford the BMW of gaming systems and who are now settling for the Hyundais and Hondas of gaming because of that. Offering these people more "reasons" to buy a PS3 is not going to suddenly supplement their income and make such a high-priced machine worth the smack to incoming cash flow. By not having a true Hyundai model PS3, many potential gamers are locked out of the market because food, the electric bill, and gas to drive to work are more important than playing EXPENSIVE video games.
Given the unique experience offered by the Wii and the more reasonably-priced Xbox360, I think Sony has made a bad move. There's a reason BMWs are not the most prevalent cars on the road, and I suspect it's the same reason the PS3 is not likely to be the most prevalent game console in homes.
I think the original message calling out the code problem was not the most polite or discreet, but it was not a direct attack. It really was a rather straight-forward message. And Theo really took the wrong approach. He's being way over-defensive. When you work around legal licenses and issues resulting from those licenses you can't afford to be defensive and see a notice of problems at an attack. Theo's response, I think, has really harmed the BSD community. Rather than calling for a little patience and calm in dealing with the situation and asking for some time to sort thinks out he immediately raised his hackles and started growling.
Is the BSD community getting a little too insular? Is that what's going on? Maybe they are insecure about the wide attention Linux gets and the restrictions GPLed code puts on their own work. At the same time, Theo's response was inappropriate. And while Marcus did pull the driver code, he likely didn't over the initial email. The resulting exchange probably had a greater role in pushing him out, and Theo was just as much a part of that as Michael.
I'm not sure I'd ever want to contribute work to a project with a figurehead as negatively reactive as Theo.
Why not take the view that these "self evident" rights appear to be self evident because they are somehow beneficial to the social organization of humans? Or at least that they are consistent with the nature of human intelligence.
That aside, there are many, many societies around the world that have really not found these rights to be so self evident. I'd say that the vast majority of people in the world do not live with those rights and, in fact, many of them may not be able to fathom why we would want all of them. A couple of them, sure, but all of them?
So I would argue that these "self evident" rights are not really self evident at all. There are other rights acknowledged elsewhere that we don't have, and there are rights we cherish that others may perceive no need of. I do not think the US rights model is perfect, or for that matter perfectly inclusive. And in that case it doesn't matter where they came from, god or biology or out of a group of rebellious, stubborn intellectuals following along with the popular philosophy among other intellectuals at the time.
You see, sir, your logic is sound, but logic is a process, nothing more. When you apply logic to faulty premises you end up with faulty results. What you say is is not what I believe really is just because you say it is.
I do agree with you here. These necessary steps do seem to go against the grain of the "modern" business approach, but they are much more prevalent in IT than in other industries. The automotive and children's goods industries are heavily regulated and recalls are mandates should certain standards not be met. Does that mean the only solution to this technology crisis is to implement a level of government regulation over the commercial software industry? Some of you may balk and say the market must be allowed to work itself out, but history has demonstrated that pure capitalism is essentially economic Darwinian anarchy. And if government regulation is not the solution, and I doubt anyone would call it a panacea, what is the answer?
You know, this kind of scathing response doesn't help the discussion. The poster does have a point. We have allowed the complexity of computers and software to become an excuse for releasing crap products that have not been adequately developed or tested. It does not matter if the programmer or the manager or the CEO is responsible, if the user is the one who has to effectively help beta test a commercial product the model is broken.
Let's face it, people. We have allowed our industry to become one scandalized by poor reliability, poor build quality, and rampant problems that would simply not be allowed in any other industry. And frankly, very few companies have the balls to buckle down and try hard to get things right from step one.
Do you? And if so, doesn't that mean that, on some level, there's some value in MySpace, at least to you?
Unless it's a private school the school property is also public property. While I'm not sure I'd be willing to make this argument personally, it could be argued that if the filters, in any way, are not in the best interest of the children or the public then bypassing them is, if not an act of public good, an inconsequential act otherwise. However, the public property aspect may have an impact on the rules of the game. If it's a private school, the private property aspect could have an even bigger impact.
Who are you to determine what is and what is not information? Maybe most of what's on MySpace is, IMO, crap, but there's bound to be something of value in there. It could be argued that any communication at all is in some way an information-based activity. Who are any of us to say what is and isn't there without personally examining every page and every piece of content first?
Enso requires you learn far less cryptic commands than the Windows command prompt to do things, and it can affect text and contents of applications that may lack specific text functions on their own. Really, this is a product that is designed less for the massive tweaker and more for people who just like getting work done with as little fuss as possible and are willing to pay a little for it.
As a grad student, I can do without it. If I were more tied to a keyboard for many functions, I might need it.
This product is clearly not aimed at you. What you suggest strikes me as much more difficult to set up and also more difficult to use than Enso. Remind me not to ever let you design a simple and practical user inferface for me. Ever.
I fourth the Virgin Mobile recommendation. They use Sprint's network so use Sprint's coverage maps and reports to determine what coverage is like where you need to be.
I apparently don't happen across that other shit very often. I usually don't dive in so far into discussions as I did this one. Besides, it was particularly frustrating that you made some good points and then, to me, ruined them with the manner in which you made them. There could have been some useful discussion there but your response after that post was as flame-worthy as any in that discussion, including those with far less valuable content.
Still, my comments are no more or less irrelevant than your. You didn't like his answers, I didn't like the way your tone precluded any possibility of meaningful interchange on the topic.
Sorry about the "he" part. No intent there to offend. Written language habit.
Now, at this point, I'm going to go find other parts of my life to waste time with, like dealing with this cold that has turned my head into a faucet.