Nothing (other than Windows95 perhaps) depended on IE when the browser wars were still going on (IE 4.0 and earlier). People actually downloaded IE 4 because they were still using Windows95 and didn't have it. It really was better than Navigator 4.x. In terms of features, speed, and even stability. I was using IE 4 at this time because I really did not care for where Navigator was headed.
Numbers do not lie, either. People were *using* IE more than ever. They could easily have IE simply installed with Quicken or whatever and still download Navigator 4.x, but many did not. And if you think it's because of laziness, you would be wrong. People would upgrade to IE 5 and 6 because they are actually using it and want the newer version. You must recall all the hoopla in just about every PC magazine and the newspapers about the "browser wars." It was always about the user and had nothing to do with dependencies.
management decided that they too needed to be a programming platform to survive, and Gecko was born
No. Netscape was dead long before this time. In reality, they were dead upon release of their 4.x series. They just didn't have the foresight to see it. They had millions of users, but did not figure out a way to exploit that little detail. It is common business sense to not start a business without a business plan. Netscape did just that and suffered the consequences. Something like 1/10th of all new businesses fail and many do for that reason alone. The odds were *always* against Netscape and it had nothing to do with Microsoft.
Don't assume MS has made money on the Internet. I'm sure they really took it in their pocketbook with the entire IE series. The only benefit to MS is they keep users and have a platform for developing Internet-aware apps. The monetary gain MS received from IE would likely not have been enough to sustain Netscape for any period of time. Even the AOL/Time Warner conglomerate is having trouble making sense of what Netscape should be.
Win98 is a long fucking way from the birth of IE. By that time (IE 4.0) Netscape largely did not matter, and my entire fucking point remains. You could *still* download that pile of crap NS 4.x and use it if you wanted. You were not forced to use IE.
Look at how many web pages out there require Internet Explorer because of proprietary ActiveX extentions. So, it's okay if IE requires proprietary code, but Netscape was so incredibly vile when they did the same thing? Also, where did you get the source code to IE? I don't recall Microsoft being open-source friendly either, yet apparently you are giving them a free pass even though there is no IE source code out there that I'm aware of. By the way, IE still is not 100% supportive of open standards either.
Nice logical fallacy there. Just because I say something about one company or browser does *not* mean I imply the opposite for the other.
Who's being revisionist again?
Look in the mirror. I'm guessing you started using this fashionable Internet thing in '98 or later because you obviously don't realize IE was being shipped with Windows since 1995. No one was complaining then. Maybe because Netscape was so far ahead then that they just didn't need to complain. Once IE caught up to Navigator in terms of features, financial reality hit Netscape hard. They had no plan whatsoever to profit from their enterprise. They would have died if MS was not even there to begin with. It was simply a matter of time. So what do they do? MS was a nice scapegoat for their incompetence. Jim Clark may know how to find good tech and start a business, but he doesn't know a thing about turning a profit or sustaining business. He was cornered out of his prior business, SGI, which I'm sure there was a good reason for it too. Probably the other board members could see the writing on the wall and had to cut him loose, as they seem to be doing okay or at least surviving today.
the reason for firefox's existence has no relation to IE or Navigator. IE and Navigator are about as relevant to Firefox's existance as NCSA Mosaic and SpyGlass are.
I really get sick of these damned revisionists. IE was never forced on anyone! People started downloading it because NS was a big bloated piece of proprietary lock-in FECAL MATTER. Jesus jumping-jack christ. Netscape was posed to completely fucking KILL the standardized web if MS was not around. They were not open source friendly and certainly not open standards friendly. Remember the BLINK tag? You can thank Netscape for that and many more proprietary extensions that did massive harm to the infant web and *severely* stunted the growth and acceptance of CSS.
IE was playing catch-up for years. When IE was finally better, Netscape committed suicide (their management imploded). Feeling the need to place blame because they could never figure out how to turn a profit with Navigator or their web server, they cast the stone at Microsoft. Probably to establish confidence with what remained of their shareholders--they had to do something.
If you remember, when Navigator was around as a product, IE and Navigator jumped by leaps and bounds in development and updates. When Microsoft assumed the Netscape threat was over, IE has stagnated. This is what happens when there is no competition.
Navigator never went away. It, too, stagnated. Not from any MS doing, but because Netscape had such crap management. At a certain point you really *do* hope that your web browser doesn't change. It's a tool for godsakes, not a "let's always update the browser with new gimmicks to entertain the customer." And if you recall, Netscape started the entire "browser war" (or more like feature war) that should never have happened. Now look at the shit we have to deal with on a daily basis. We are only a few years removed from the horror of the NS 4.x series and things are only slightly better since CSS can be used. Countless man-years have been wasted due to Netscape and their insane rush to feature-creep. They alone almost competely destroyed any hope for a standardized web.
Navigator was quickly becoming a platform for which to program for. With Java and Javascript on the client side, and stuff like CGI on the server side programmers were no longer making Windows apps.
So you're basically saying the browser is becoming the OS. I mean, if *no one* was making Windows apps and everyone was doing the web thing, then shipping a OS that could not get on the web would not make a hell of a lot of sense. And I already know what NS was trying to do with Java, and I've written many times on it. They were trying to usurp Microsoft's control of the platform, but only by creating their very own proprietary lock-in. NS was not the open source and open standards friendly company it turned into, and was only Unix (Linux) friendly due to a few key individuals working there (JWZ).
If NS posed such a drastic threat to MS as you claim, you have to admit that there was extreme competition. Which there was for quite a few long hard years. It was a terrible terrible time to be in web development. In the end NS only ran itself into the ground by poor management, not IE killing Navigator.
And for what it's worth, not a single person I know paid hard earned cash for a browser. I certainly didn't, and I really can't recall a time they were actually *viewed* as a product, despite Netscape's wishful thinking. I know they have Navigator Gold or whatever that you had to purchase, but I just couldn't justify it. I mean, you get standard Navigator *free* already with any AOL disk or whatever. It wasn't MS that started giving away browsers as so many people are eager to revision history. In fact, it was NCSA Mosaic (the grandparent of both Navigator and IE) that was given away completely free for non-commercial use. Thus, before IE even existed the "browser economy" as you put it was already nonexistant!
Nonsense. Anyone ever thought that just *maybe* they wanted to use their own fucking library for once? Once you go and depend on something, it's more or less there to stay. I just reinstalled Linux with the goal of absolutely no KDE or GNOME libs, yet there are so many things that require them to work that it seems almost futile now. By the time you install all that shit, you pretty much get KDE and GNOME for *free*. In other words, there is little point in removing the user interface which makes up such a small portion of the code.
The sole argument behind removing IE was to be able to create a 3rd party drop-in replacement (or more accurately, not market IE with Windows). I seriously doubt Netscape wanted to reduplicate all that shit in its entirety. We are talking about an exact duplicate of the entire API that the rest of Windows depends on.
I don't use Windows and I don't like it either, but I'm not smoking the crack that's being passed around. If you could get Windows with the IE UI disabled (a savings of *maybe* 5megs in disk space, if that) or one with it enabled, which would I pick? Mama didn't raise no fool.
Another note: I don't recollect a time when IE could not be disabled or the default browser switched to NS or other (discounting registry bugs, etc.). I think those who wanted IE seperate bought into Netscape's PR FUD hook, line, and sinker. Frankly, I love having a web browser right there once I've installed even if I go and grab a different one right away. Just think.. Netscape wished for a level playing field, but could you actually imagine driving your ass down to Best Buy to find a cheap copy of Navigator just so you could get on the web? That's a hell of a convenience and makes me want to use your product Netscape!
This will do absolutely nothing. We are talking about a stakeholder that probably has well under 5,000 shares (probably less than 1k).
The simple solution is sell your stock and move on if you feel management is incompetent or deceitful. Trust me, it will do you a lot more good realistically than a tiny tiny tiny tiny minority vote. And the effect of your sell will send a much clearer picture to management when they notice their net worth dropping (they are the largest shareholders, thus small drops in stock price make their wealth drop rather drastically)...
Not sure why this is modded insightful. It is neither insightful or correct.
First, Netscape started the trend of piling more shit (javascript, etc.) into the browser long before IE was at the game.
Second, the given trend has no correlation to actual users' needs.
If blame needs to be thrown about, then you have to toss a great deal of it to the W3C as well. If you want to write your own web browser that "sticks to the specs" I'll be glad to observe from a distance. I'm sure the process will provide decades of entertainment.
I too am tired of Graham. It's bad enough that I see his tired harping in the Lisp/Scheme communities and now Slashdot. Sometimes I wonder if he is doing more of a disservice to Lisp than Erik Naggum did, but then I realize that at least Graham is an optimist (albeit, an incredibly naive one).
I'm pretty sure the US patent office fully disagrees with that (and everyone knows they do already.. hence the Amazon 1-click patent). After time, all will be "obvious"... and the fact that it's obvious after-the-fact does not mean it is less worthy of a patent. Perhaps you just think it's so silly to patent such a thing and can see no use for it. Patents are for inventions no matter how silly or obvious they seem. The fact remains, there is no prior patent and I'd really like someone to dredge up a prior usage of such a thing.
I think most people are confusing what they agree is morally/ethically/whatever correct with what is actual practice.
It seems you are the one who is on the clueless moron side. If you haven't noticed, capitalism is about selling people shit they don't need (which you do seem to notice). Very few things purchased today are truely needed. The perceived need is created by these "moron businessmen."
No Sally, you do not need that shiny new iPod, multiple GHz computer, or fancy new LCD screen. More importantly and to the point, you do not need computers. Society is entrenched in technology that they have *become* a need, but 30+ years ago there was no need. They have only become a need because of mass production's need for accounting and quality assurance purposes.
And if my point is still lost on you, then let me state it clearly. You cannot see the forest from the trees. You yourself have been bought and sold by these "moron businessmen" of capitalism. Now who is the bigger moron? Let me know when you build that log cabin out in the woods and plant your seeds.
nice fallacy you have there. you fail to realize that everything is obvious to those with enough specific knowledge, even if that knowledge is held by a minority of one. therefore, by your definition of "novel" or "non-obvious" nothing is truely novel or non-obvious. unfortunately for your argument, the US patent office has a different definition of "novel."
i was thinking more along the lines of Lisp or Scheme. please do your own research, I really don't have time to school a newbie. Java is nothing new. Hell, even pascal had P-code. Welcome to the 1980s and prior. GC is some new technology according to Java people.. what a fucking joke.
Gosling is hardly an expert at anything. He has serious NIH syndrome and raises awareness about issues that died decades ago. Only a lay person with no knowledge of programming history would consider anything he says insightful.
Of course, what he says about.NET is probably true (I don't know however, I don't use that garbage). The issue is so beaten and rehashed that most programmers get nauseous thinking that the last half century of advancements have all been in vain.
Microsoft's position has had one major benefit that no Apple monopoly would ever bring us... cheap and plentiful hardware for an open platform. Without the Microsoft of the '80s and '90s we wouldn't have the completely open platform of Linux/BSD + x86 today. We probably wouldn't even have the choice of AMD vs. Intel.
And I think you're wrong about Apple's marketshare growing. It will be a sad day if Apple's marketshare shifts the balance of x86 being the dominating architecture. If that were to occur, hardware advancement would slow down and costs would rise in the x86 land. And if Apple was ever the dominating platform, hardware advancement would move only as fast as Apple needs it to.
OS competition might be good, but you're forgetting other factors at play. And really, the entire concept of an "operating system" is quickly becoming outdated. Today it is much more of a euphemism for control, rather than what it once was--an actual software system that enables a user to interact with hardware. Microsoft, Sun, and Netscape all know this, but they were much too early and anxious and never quite figured out how to monopolize on the idea of software that is not tied to a particular machine and/or OS. Give it another decade and the entire OS debate will be moot.
I would get one myself, but only if it can run Final Cut Pro and is suitably powered for video editing. Then it would be the ideal little device for on-the-spot editing, etc.
A big part of that is the social pressure undergrads feel right out of high school.
In high school you are constantly told to prepare for college and that without college you are worthless to society. Few people can honestly say they know what they want to take in college right out of high school. You are pretty much expected to know exactly what you want to do with your life right then and there.
Most are there for completely the wrong reasons. I know I've met quite a few freshmen and sophomores that had no idea what they wanted to major in. Not a problem itself, but they weren't there to learn much either. And it doesn't help that colleges don't allow much room for exploration via electives and such early on. The colleges I've seen have the first two years pretty much decided for you... with just a few electives possible. You could take some on your own, but then that will set you back in both time and money. So what happens? They just choose something because it seems interesting.
We programming geeks that started as early as middle, elementary, or high school are lucky because we have at least some familiarity with the subject of the CS major. Unfortunately, more than a few do not realize the distinction between the programming and the science until it's too late.
Obviously they would have to know the person they are talking to. That does not make it less anti-social. They don't want to talk to new people--they want to talk to familiar people.
It's not just computer-savvy geeks anymore. The trend is reaching into the mainstream now, with things like IM and cell phones.
Take a walk around a college campus or a mall some time. If you see someone that is not walking with another person, they will usually have a cell phone in hand. You may wonder how that is anti-social, but the reason they have a cell phone is to hide behind it. Just like geeks hide behind the keyboard, "ordinary" people hide behind cell phones to avoid conversation with new and strange people.
I'd bet good money that an increasing number of the people walking around with cell phones have anxiety when not using it. I would also wager that the act of just using a cell phone contributes to developing anxiety and anti-social behavior. Much like overusage of a computer does.
Speed isn't really the issue with changing machine word size. It's nice to have larger "native" integers as that's what makes things faster really, but the biggest plus is addressable memory size.
I think the potential killer-app for 64-bit platforms will be fully persistent OSes. Unfortunately, they are still something of a research problem. The ideal platform, or OS, IMO would be a single addressable space with a Lispish OS built on top. Protection mechanisms would be at the desired granularity at all times (i.e. if a symbol is "bound" then the user has access to the object to which the symbol points to). Combine that with orthogonal persistence and global garbage collection and you have one hell of a platform... one that is optimized for malleability and experimentation, unlike today's systems which are organized around permenanence and standard compliance (many of which are obsolete). It's 2005 and we must still worry about memory corruption and the related security issues, viruses/worms, and media issues such as saving files, disk space issues (cleaning up, etc.). All which are unrelated to getting actual work done, but all can be automated and/or eliminated to some degree.
where the hell have you been? Slashdot a community? It's never been such a thing. There might have been something nice long ago before Taco implemented "Anonymous Coward" and user logins.. and many many moons before "first post." But Slashdot was never a community organized around much more than Linux, MS hating, and pro-piracy.
This idea of a community does not work on a large scale such as the Slashdot of today. At best you could claim almost everyone on Slashdot is using Linux, but that is not true today. Plenty of Windows-only people are here, which would not be years ago. It's now just another mainstream techno-tabloid, that can barely sustain my interest (and I'm a very patient person).
overrated. His entire fame is based on a silly hand-waving generalization, that is completely obsurd and obvious to any skilled programmer.
I'm quite surprised they didn't mention Guy Steele Jr. since the article is obviously so in love with Java, and Steele has done more than most of those people. The Scheme programming language has to be computer science's best kept secret of the past twenty plus years.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing (other than Windows95 perhaps) depended on IE when the browser wars were still going on (IE 4.0 and earlier). People actually downloaded IE 4 because they were still using Windows95 and didn't have it. It really was better than Navigator 4.x. In terms of features, speed, and even stability. I was using IE 4 at this time because I really did not care for where Navigator was headed.
Numbers do not lie, either. People were *using* IE more than ever. They could easily have IE simply installed with Quicken or whatever and still download Navigator 4.x, but many did not. And if you think it's because of laziness, you would be wrong. People would upgrade to IE 5 and 6 because they are actually using it and want the newer version. You must recall all the hoopla in just about every PC magazine and the newspapers about the "browser wars." It was always about the user and had nothing to do with dependencies.
No. Netscape was dead long before this time. In reality, they were dead upon release of their 4.x series. They just didn't have the foresight to see it. They had millions of users, but did not figure out a way to exploit that little detail. It is common business sense to not start a business without a business plan. Netscape did just that and suffered the consequences. Something like 1/10th of all new businesses fail and many do for that reason alone. The odds were *always* against Netscape and it had nothing to do with Microsoft.
Don't assume MS has made money on the Internet. I'm sure they really took it in their pocketbook with the entire IE series. The only benefit to MS is they keep users and have a platform for developing Internet-aware apps. The monetary gain MS received from IE would likely not have been enough to sustain Netscape for any period of time. Even the AOL/Time Warner conglomerate is having trouble making sense of what Netscape should be.
Win98 is a long fucking way from the birth of IE. By that time (IE 4.0) Netscape largely did not matter, and my entire fucking point remains. You could *still* download that pile of crap NS 4.x and use it if you wanted. You were not forced to use IE.
Nice logical fallacy there. Just because I say something about one company or browser does *not* mean I imply the opposite for the other.
Look in the mirror. I'm guessing you started using this fashionable Internet thing in '98 or later because you obviously don't realize IE was being shipped with Windows since 1995. No one was complaining then. Maybe because Netscape was so far ahead then that they just didn't need to complain. Once IE caught up to Navigator in terms of features, financial reality hit Netscape hard. They had no plan whatsoever to profit from their enterprise. They would have died if MS was not even there to begin with. It was simply a matter of time. So what do they do? MS was a nice scapegoat for their incompetence. Jim Clark may know how to find good tech and start a business, but he doesn't know a thing about turning a profit or sustaining business. He was cornered out of his prior business, SGI, which I'm sure there was a good reason for it too. Probably the other board members could see the writing on the wall and had to cut him loose, as they seem to be doing okay or at least surviving today.
the reason for firefox's existence has no relation to IE or Navigator. IE and Navigator are about as relevant to Firefox's existance as NCSA Mosaic and SpyGlass are.
I really get sick of these damned revisionists. IE was never forced on anyone! People started downloading it because NS was a big bloated piece of proprietary lock-in FECAL MATTER. Jesus jumping-jack christ. Netscape was posed to completely fucking KILL the standardized web if MS was not around. They were not open source friendly and certainly not open standards friendly. Remember the BLINK tag? You can thank Netscape for that and many more proprietary extensions that did massive harm to the infant web and *severely* stunted the growth and acceptance of CSS.
IE was playing catch-up for years. When IE was finally better, Netscape committed suicide (their management imploded). Feeling the need to place blame because they could never figure out how to turn a profit with Navigator or their web server, they cast the stone at Microsoft. Probably to establish confidence with what remained of their shareholders--they had to do something.
Navigator never went away. It, too, stagnated. Not from any MS doing, but because Netscape had such crap management. At a certain point you really *do* hope that your web browser doesn't change. It's a tool for godsakes, not a "let's always update the browser with new gimmicks to entertain the customer." And if you recall, Netscape started the entire "browser war" (or more like feature war) that should never have happened. Now look at the shit we have to deal with on a daily basis. We are only a few years removed from the horror of the NS 4.x series and things are only slightly better since CSS can be used. Countless man-years have been wasted due to Netscape and their insane rush to feature-creep. They alone almost competely destroyed any hope for a standardized web.
So you're basically saying the browser is becoming the OS. I mean, if *no one* was making Windows apps and everyone was doing the web thing, then shipping a OS that could not get on the web would not make a hell of a lot of sense. And I already know what NS was trying to do with Java, and I've written many times on it. They were trying to usurp Microsoft's control of the platform, but only by creating their very own proprietary lock-in. NS was not the open source and open standards friendly company it turned into, and was only Unix (Linux) friendly due to a few key individuals working there (JWZ).
If NS posed such a drastic threat to MS as you claim, you have to admit that there was extreme competition. Which there was for quite a few long hard years. It was a terrible terrible time to be in web development. In the end NS only ran itself into the ground by poor management, not IE killing Navigator.
And for what it's worth, not a single person I know paid hard earned cash for a browser. I certainly didn't, and I really can't recall a time they were actually *viewed* as a product, despite Netscape's wishful thinking. I know they have Navigator Gold or whatever that you had to purchase, but I just couldn't justify it. I mean, you get standard Navigator *free* already with any AOL disk or whatever. It wasn't MS that started giving away browsers as so many people are eager to revision history. In fact, it was NCSA Mosaic (the grandparent of both Navigator and IE) that was given away completely free for non-commercial use. Thus, before IE even existed the "browser economy" as you put it was already nonexistant!
Nonsense. Anyone ever thought that just *maybe* they wanted to use their own fucking library for once? Once you go and depend on something, it's more or less there to stay. I just reinstalled Linux with the goal of absolutely no KDE or GNOME libs, yet there are so many things that require them to work that it seems almost futile now. By the time you install all that shit, you pretty much get KDE and GNOME for *free*. In other words, there is little point in removing the user interface which makes up such a small portion of the code.
The sole argument behind removing IE was to be able to create a 3rd party drop-in replacement (or more accurately, not market IE with Windows). I seriously doubt Netscape wanted to reduplicate all that shit in its entirety. We are talking about an exact duplicate of the entire API that the rest of Windows depends on.
I don't use Windows and I don't like it either, but I'm not smoking the crack that's being passed around. If you could get Windows with the IE UI disabled (a savings of *maybe* 5megs in disk space, if that) or one with it enabled, which would I pick? Mama didn't raise no fool.
Another note: I don't recollect a time when IE could not be disabled or the default browser switched to NS or other (discounting registry bugs, etc.). I think those who wanted IE seperate bought into Netscape's PR FUD hook, line, and sinker. Frankly, I love having a web browser right there once I've installed even if I go and grab a different one right away. Just think.. Netscape wished for a level playing field, but could you actually imagine driving your ass down to Best Buy to find a cheap copy of Navigator just so you could get on the web? That's a hell of a convenience and makes me want to use your product Netscape!
This will do absolutely nothing. We are talking about a stakeholder that probably has well under 5,000 shares (probably less than 1k).
The simple solution is sell your stock and move on if you feel management is incompetent or deceitful. Trust me, it will do you a lot more good realistically than a tiny tiny tiny tiny minority vote. And the effect of your sell will send a much clearer picture to management when they notice their net worth dropping (they are the largest shareholders, thus small drops in stock price make their wealth drop rather drastically)...
Not sure why this is modded insightful. It is neither insightful or correct.
First, Netscape started the trend of piling more shit (javascript, etc.) into the browser long before IE was at the game.
Second, the given trend has no correlation to actual users' needs.
If blame needs to be thrown about, then you have to toss a great deal of it to the W3C as well. If you want to write your own web browser that "sticks to the specs" I'll be glad to observe from a distance. I'm sure the process will provide decades of entertainment.
I too am tired of Graham. It's bad enough that I see his tired harping in the Lisp/Scheme communities and now Slashdot. Sometimes I wonder if he is doing more of a disservice to Lisp than Erik Naggum did, but then I realize that at least Graham is an optimist (albeit, an incredibly naive one).
thank you for sharing. please take it up with the patent office, i really don't give two shits.
I'm pretty sure the US patent office fully disagrees with that (and everyone knows they do already.. hence the Amazon 1-click patent). After time, all will be "obvious"... and the fact that it's obvious after-the-fact does not mean it is less worthy of a patent. Perhaps you just think it's so silly to patent such a thing and can see no use for it. Patents are for inventions no matter how silly or obvious they seem. The fact remains, there is no prior patent and I'd really like someone to dredge up a prior usage of such a thing.
I think most people are confusing what they agree is morally/ethically/whatever correct with what is actual practice.
i think you have a reading comprehension problem or ADD. either case, you haven't a clue what I wrote about.
It seems you are the one who is on the clueless moron side. If you haven't noticed, capitalism is about selling people shit they don't need (which you do seem to notice). Very few things purchased today are truely needed. The perceived need is created by these "moron businessmen."
No Sally, you do not need that shiny new iPod, multiple GHz computer, or fancy new LCD screen. More importantly and to the point, you do not need computers. Society is entrenched in technology that they have *become* a need, but 30+ years ago there was no need. They have only become a need because of mass production's need for accounting and quality assurance purposes.
And if my point is still lost on you, then let me state it clearly. You cannot see the forest from the trees. You yourself have been bought and sold by these "moron businessmen" of capitalism. Now who is the bigger moron? Let me know when you build that log cabin out in the woods and plant your seeds.
nice fallacy you have there. you fail to realize that everything is obvious to those with enough specific knowledge, even if that knowledge is held by a minority of one. therefore, by your definition of "novel" or "non-obvious" nothing is truely novel or non-obvious. unfortunately for your argument, the US patent office has a different definition of "novel."
you assume i don't know this. or think it is relevant to what i am saying about Gosling's NIH. neither is the case.
i was thinking more along the lines of Lisp or Scheme. please do your own research, I really don't have time to school a newbie. Java is nothing new. Hell, even pascal had P-code. Welcome to the 1980s and prior. GC is some new technology according to Java people.. what a fucking joke.
Gosling is hardly an expert at anything. He has serious NIH syndrome and raises awareness about issues that died decades ago. Only a lay person with no knowledge of programming history would consider anything he says insightful.
.NET is probably true (I don't know however, I don't use that garbage). The issue is so beaten and rehashed that most programmers get nauseous thinking that the last half century of advancements have all been in vain.
Of course, what he says about
a little devil's advocate here, but...
Microsoft's position has had one major benefit that no Apple monopoly would ever bring us... cheap and plentiful hardware for an open platform. Without the Microsoft of the '80s and '90s we wouldn't have the completely open platform of Linux/BSD + x86 today. We probably wouldn't even have the choice of AMD vs. Intel.
And I think you're wrong about Apple's marketshare growing. It will be a sad day if Apple's marketshare shifts the balance of x86 being the dominating architecture. If that were to occur, hardware advancement would slow down and costs would rise in the x86 land. And if Apple was ever the dominating platform, hardware advancement would move only as fast as Apple needs it to.
OS competition might be good, but you're forgetting other factors at play. And really, the entire concept of an "operating system" is quickly becoming outdated. Today it is much more of a euphemism for control, rather than what it once was--an actual software system that enables a user to interact with hardware. Microsoft, Sun, and Netscape all know this, but they were much too early and anxious and never quite figured out how to monopolize on the idea of software that is not tied to a particular machine and/or OS. Give it another decade and the entire OS debate will be moot.
I would get one myself, but only if it can run Final Cut Pro and is suitably powered for video editing. Then it would be the ideal little device for on-the-spot editing, etc.
A big part of that is the social pressure undergrads feel right out of high school.
In high school you are constantly told to prepare for college and that without college you are worthless to society. Few people can honestly say they know what they want to take in college right out of high school. You are pretty much expected to know exactly what you want to do with your life right then and there.
Most are there for completely the wrong reasons. I know I've met quite a few freshmen and sophomores that had no idea what they wanted to major in. Not a problem itself, but they weren't there to learn much either. And it doesn't help that colleges don't allow much room for exploration via electives and such early on. The colleges I've seen have the first two years pretty much decided for you... with just a few electives possible. You could take some on your own, but then that will set you back in both time and money. So what happens? They just choose something because it seems interesting.
We programming geeks that started as early as middle, elementary, or high school are lucky because we have at least some familiarity with the subject of the CS major. Unfortunately, more than a few do not realize the distinction between the programming and the science until it's too late.
Obviously they would have to know the person they are talking to. That does not make it less anti-social. They don't want to talk to new people--they want to talk to familiar people.
It's not just computer-savvy geeks anymore. The trend is reaching into the mainstream now, with things like IM and cell phones.
Take a walk around a college campus or a mall some time. If you see someone that is not walking with another person, they will usually have a cell phone in hand. You may wonder how that is anti-social, but the reason they have a cell phone is to hide behind it. Just like geeks hide behind the keyboard, "ordinary" people hide behind cell phones to avoid conversation with new and strange people.
I'd bet good money that an increasing number of the people walking around with cell phones have anxiety when not using it. I would also wager that the act of just using a cell phone contributes to developing anxiety and anti-social behavior. Much like overusage of a computer does.
Speed isn't really the issue with changing machine word size. It's nice to have larger "native" integers as that's what makes things faster really, but the biggest plus is addressable memory size.
I think the potential killer-app for 64-bit platforms will be fully persistent OSes. Unfortunately, they are still something of a research problem. The ideal platform, or OS, IMO would be a single addressable space with a Lispish OS built on top. Protection mechanisms would be at the desired granularity at all times (i.e. if a symbol is "bound" then the user has access to the object to which the symbol points to). Combine that with orthogonal persistence and global garbage collection and you have one hell of a platform... one that is optimized for malleability and experimentation, unlike today's systems which are organized around permenanence and standard compliance (many of which are obsolete). It's 2005 and we must still worry about memory corruption and the related security issues, viruses/worms, and media issues such as saving files, disk space issues (cleaning up, etc.). All which are unrelated to getting actual work done, but all can be automated and/or eliminated to some degree.
where the hell have you been? Slashdot a community? It's never been such a thing. There might have been something nice long ago before Taco implemented "Anonymous Coward" and user logins.. and many many moons before "first post." But Slashdot was never a community organized around much more than Linux, MS hating, and pro-piracy.
This idea of a community does not work on a large scale such as the Slashdot of today. At best you could claim almost everyone on Slashdot is using Linux, but that is not true today. Plenty of Windows-only people are here, which would not be years ago. It's now just another mainstream techno-tabloid, that can barely sustain my interest (and I'm a very patient person).
overrated. His entire fame is based on a silly hand-waving generalization, that is completely obsurd and obvious to any skilled programmer.
I'm quite surprised they didn't mention Guy Steele Jr. since the article is obviously so in love with Java, and Steele has done more than most of those people. The Scheme programming language has to be computer science's best kept secret of the past twenty plus years.