Paper is still the only media for books that is available to everyone cheaply (not counting overpriced textbooks). Even though I have been using a computer for over a decade, I still haven't seen enough incentives to switch to e-books for general reading.
Slashdot really isn't a book, anyway; it is a news/editorial source that people read for information. Also, Slashdot doesn't suffer from the same sort of copyright issues that books do.
Re:When will we get a proper packaging system?
on
RPM Dependency Graph
·
· Score: 2
None of this is brain-surgery people!
It isn't brain surgery, but software dependencies are a very complex problem. On a graph of all software packages, a subset of the packages are always moving forward in versions while others lag behind. Packages could depend on any range of versions of other packages, and sometimes those versions are not compatible, for any number of good or bad reasons. So, if you want to create a distribution that seems to require versions 1.3, 1.7, and 2.3 of package X, but the version 2 series is a severe change relative to the version 1 series, what do you do?
If a new package system comes about, new filesystem hierarchies should be devised to allow seamless installation of many versions of software with some sort of advanced linker that can deal with them all. This solution could be as complex as the problem!
the "slackjawed" feeling which is invoked by a good film is the same feeling that is invoked by a good book - rapt, absorbed, engaged.
Good film and good books, yes. However, for most people, the important differences between Apocalypse Now and Survivor now on DVD! or between Sergei Rachmaninoff and Saturday Night Live band X, for example, are lost.
A friend of mine proposed an interesting question after seeing a disturbing lack of books at a local flea market: "Does anyone read anymore?"
BTW, I am NOT an audiophile... anyone that calls themself that is only a poser that is trying to impress people with their lack-of-knowlege.
This is often true of many enthusiast-based industries/cliques. Other examples: kernel hacker, phophet of the second coming, fantasy novel series guru, etc.
(Ohhh you have to use $23.00 a foot speaker cable! I can hear the diference!)
Just recently, I read a review that recommended lamp cord for this very same reason (that most people can't tell the difference between $0.50 of lamp cord and $150 of "high-end" stuff). I suppose some people can tell, which would indicate that $10.00 of shielded cable from Radio Shack probably satisfies nearly all of them, too.
The advantage to me as a developer is what exactly?
Obviously rhetorical, since the advantage this question seeks does not exist.
I really do view Microsoft's future as an uncertainty. They have been competing with themselves for a while, now, and new competition is arising on at least five fronts: IBM, Sun, Apple, Linux (in general), and the free BSDs (in general). IBM, Sun, and Apple have real money to apply towards mass marketing and R&D, and Linux and the free BSDs have the unusual resource of the well-earned enthusiasm of millions of people. IBM, Sun, and Apple also have as much opportunity to purchase congressmen as Microsoft and Disney do. If Microsoft isn't morbidly worried about all this, then they are blinded by ego.
Given that most U.S. citizens cherish their privacy and their Constitutional rights to nearly unencumbered freedom within their homes, initiatives such as Palladium will fail to gain ubiquity. If we can't guarantee that, then I really do worry that this fascinating country has already peaked.
Thousands of happy Linux users can -- and must -- attest to the fact that Linux just works better for a large number of tasks. The ideas that it's more difficult to use well and involves more effort and money to deploy successfully are simply untrue, at least on the server market.
Definitely true on the server market. At first, I was thinking, "perhaps not quite as good for regular personal computer use," but given the amount of time I've fought with both Windows and Linux installations on PCs, even at home Linux has comparable TCO to Windows.
The fact is: both Windows and Linux take a fair amount of time to get them "just right". Hardware support is comparable for both, although it takes longer to set up a few things in Linux. However, Linux is more stable once configured, so the up-front time pays off in the long-term. Basically, this is the same argument that has applied to UNIX for years.
Try creating some pages that accept a credit application without using Javascript (and MS-only shit need not apply).
Now that I think about it, I can't think of a reason to use JavaScript on something like a credit application. It's just data entry, and the credit check either needs to be done on the server or by a person, anyway. (Also, see my other reply about normalizing data to avoid JavaScript altogther).
A credit application can be done well with pure HTML and a CGI program or Servlet for processing.
Right, so you're going to send all the form data over the wire just to find out they put in 30/11/2000 instead of 11/30/2000. WTFever.
Or, you could normalize the data, so you don't have to parse a string at all. Much of the unnecessary JavaScript complexity in many websites stems from poor design of the data fields. Unfortunately, poor data field choices, in turn, stem from poor database designs, so a lot of JavaScript can actually point out a fundamentally screwed-up application.
If you insist on using JavaScript, it becomes trivial to check that the month field is between 0 and 13, for example, when everything is split up properly.
Database design--as much now as twenty years ago--is still the most important thing to get right (in an application that uses a database, that is).
...but from most things I've read software raid is faster than hardware.
I'm not sure where this information would have come from. Perhaps there are crappy hardware controllers out there, or the benchmark systems were otherwise lightly loaded.
For example, if the test machine had a 1GHz CPU but the RAID card had some clunky 50MHz mini-CPU, the software RAID could perform much much better. However, as that system incurs heavier processing load, having a co-processor on the RAID card can really make a difference by guaranteeing some level of disk throughput (even if the main CPU is maxed out).
There are reasons why really expensive RAID arrays have embedded CPUs and RAM. They allow the server CPUs to work at their full potential. On a regular home computer, however, I guess the real advantage of hardware RAID is debatable.
What price for Mac OS X PC Edition, then, would be fair to the consumer yet allow Apple to stay in business?
Apple's business model is fairly similar to that of Sun Microsystems: make excellent hardware that appeals to the target customers, where the operating system is the icing on the cake and clinches the deal. Although Sun does have Solaris x86, this OS was marketed specifically as an entry point to UNIX, in general, and for larger Solaris/SPARC (i.e., Solaris x86 doesn't put steak on the dinner table for Sun).
Sun is successful, because their hardware is distinguishable from PCs in a number of functional ways. Apple is successful, because their computers are very good but also beautiful, which can't be said for most PCs. For either of these companies, adopting the PC architecture on a large scale means stooping to the lowest-common-denominator of computing, which really would be bad for the industry as a whole.
This strategy is not elitist for Apple nor Sun. Their efforts keep the computing industry interesting with variety, which serves all of us better in the long run. Nothing would be worse than x86 being the only successful architecture--some of us just don't want to do valuable work on such a mucked-up kludge of a computer.
So, I just think that your classification of all MCSE's as mindless drones is a little off...there are bad sysadmins on EVERY platform.
This is very true; the BOFH parodies are good evidence. However, the rediculous market share of Microsoft in IT also means that most modern BOFHs are MCSEs. The stereotype of dumb MCSEs is just an unfortunate side-effect of Micrsoft's monopoly on the desktop.
I generally disagree with multiple distinct modes. The initial mode wears thin quickly, and, then, the user activates advanced mode and exclaims "I have seen the universe, and I understand none of it." A good example would be the normal and expert modes of the fdisk program.
Perhaps a better approach would be to have the same interface with a progressive exposure of options, where nothing get taken away and changes are additive. In a way, tabbed interfaces accomplish this, when implemented well.
I wish the KDE and Gnome developers would take OS X as a hint on the golden rule to provide a usable UI: Less is more.
I think this responsibility lies on Linux distributors as well. Example: on a fully installed Red Hat 7.3 system, GNOME is really a mess at first taking quite a bit of time to clear out the cruft, but on a fully installed Slackware 8.1 system, GNOME is pretty much what it needs to be (and the menus even match the documentation!).
KDE and GNOME are both potentially very clean and intuitive, but their flexibility gives Linux distributors equal power to make it really nice or screw it up (and, rightly, this is in the UNIX tradtition).
OS X is a great way to get people to migrate into a Unix world. The Apple servers are selling well, and its adding a great deal of Unix exposure...
It still amazes me that UNIX has made it into a Mac (as original equipment!). Does this mean it takes 30 years for a platform to mature until it meets nearly everyone's needs? UNIX for the hardcore kernel junky and Romance novelist alike? Wow.
Ahh, it all makes sense, now, and I did misunderstand you somewhat. This is a classic problem where the ends do not justify the tools, but the tools were dictated by people who want to spend lots of money and want things to sound really big. These same people tend to be insecure and incompetent, and they frequently got their jobs due to tenure when someone else retired. There is no logic to it--it's all politics and prestige. I've seen it several times, and it is very frustrating.
Making music, is, by definition, and Open Source process.
I agree, especially with regard to classical instruments, such as piano and oboe, or groups of such instruments, as in a symphony. However, it seems less true with regard to electronic music, where the artist created a "recipe" of synthesizer or amplifier settings to get a particular effect. An electronic artist's tools may be analogous to a compiler, where the input isn't always determinable from the output.
first off, I have no argument with Oracle on sun as a backend....
However, I don't like it on the front end...
I was really talking just about the back end, since I have no experience with all the new whiz-bang tools they put into recent releases.
Oracle really doesn't force the choice of anything other than the DBMS in their software. It is very common to use separate J2EE software, such as that from BEA, Macromedia, iPlanet, or even JBoss, to connect to Oracle for data only.
I've used Oracle DBMS with 3rd party J2EE on a couple projects, and my development environment is basic stuff: vi for editing, make for building, and sccs for version control. This arrangment works quite well.
In our organization, there are 3 admins for countless NT servers and 2 support folks. Meanwhile, there are four unix guys for two Sun clusters. I guarantee you, they make more as well, so your argument about administration doesn't fly.
My argument is still okay. If you have four people managing two Sun clusters, then (1) they really are just a bureaucracy and not very good, (2) they really are competent and do more than just mangage the two clusters (networking, etc.), or (3) they rotate schedules so they offer 24x7 on-site support.
If it's (1), then they know they have a good thing going, don't care, and are living a lie at your company's expense. For just a cluster, there really needs to be only two people, just so you're covered if one person dies.
The fact of the matter is, we just spec'ed out the port to Java/JSP/Oracle Portal and it is well into six figures for ZERO functionality.
You probably will pay six figures for Oracle DBMS on two clusters, anyway, but the J2EE stuff really does not need to be that expensive. Literally, even commercial J2EE software can range from just a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars for roughly comparable features with different brand-names attached. It just takes quite a bit of time to shop around, since there really are many options. Anyway, "ZERO functionality" is an understatement for any software.
If any developer can't understand what the.NET framework is all about then I would be scared to have them working on any project of mine - Windows or not.
If that developer has read Microsoft's marketing materials, read 3rd-party critiques of the software, talked over with co-workers, and still doesn't understand it, then fine, especially if you hired the developer to perform.NET-based development. However, there are plenty of very competent developers out there who still have the slightest notion of what.NET really is, and they are doing just fine and will do fine whether or not.NET is a success.
When the general public thinks about.NET, I think they are referring to the nebulous cloud of "web services" that Microsoft has alluded to, "Hailstorm", ".NET My Services", etc... Those still seem to be up in the air and not many people see the need for them.
Actually, here, you need to include everyone who principally uses non-Microsoft software for what they do. This includes many many many developers, because.NET is pretty much nebulous to everyone not already brainwashed by a Microsoft marketing presentation.
"developer community" != "Microsoft developer community". Such generaization makes me wonder if you work for Microsoft, but that's another matter entirely.
Your taxpayer dollars are paying good money to port from one completely propietary platform (2k/ASP) to another (ORACLE/SUN). The only difference? The latter costs more.
This is a bit trollish. Oracle on Sun offers tremendous flexibility, it can be extemely reliable, and it is much simpler to administer well. Conversely, I've seen Oracle on Windows NT, and it was an embarassing travesty.
I really wish people who see only up-front costs would take off their blinders and have just a little insight into the future. UNIX, believe it or not, is still cheaper in the long-term than Windows, and going with non-Microsoft applications may actually reduce risk. Perhaps this is a good thing for the taxpayers?
Microsoft has been very successful at making people put all their eggs in one basket and at providing an operating system that requires what seems to be a one-to-one ratio between administrators and computers. Is this really what you want?
It's sort of sad that Comedy Central has one of the best news shows on TV...
Back when I had cable, I watched the Daily Show quite a bit. It really was an ingenious show, and they had good enough writers that it wasn't just jokes about poop and Bill Clinton.
If CNN picks it up, lets hope they don't water it down too much like they did with Headline News. I had to stop watching Headline News when it became an Entertainment Tonight/75% Commercials hybrid recently.
I wholeheartedly agree--up to a point. There are a small number of top-notch journalists, who really do objective well-rounded reporting. Unfortunately, it really is a small number of journalists. Also, unfortunately, they tend to report on lesser-viewed channels, such as some radio, public TV, and some magazines.
The rest of the journalism industry is an overpopulated mass of careless wannabees who jump on anything even remotely reportable. Just look at local TV news, local newspapers, most of the national TV networks, most national newspapers, and, recently, most Internet news sites. All they do is propogate rumors, who-cares stories about kidnapped rich kids, slanderous stories about accused criminals, and tonight's prime-time lineup. Truly pathetic, given that they are the most watched and have the greatest influence on public opinion.
Maybe its time to re-evaluate supposed technological "truths" as well.
It is always time to re-evaluate the "truth". Since nearly the beginning of computing, for example, computer manufacturers routinely unrealistically tune their latest and greatest product for high benchmark scores. As we speak, IBM, Intel, and Sun are almost slandering eachother over Itanium-this, Power4-that, or UltraSPARC-whatnot. This is nothing new.
Does the Compoobrand XYZ9000 get 1000gigaflips in the real world? Who cares, just look at these really big numbers and how much higher they are than the 238oozleflaps of the Unintellobrand PQR7500! But the Compoobrand's CPU cache is bigger than the gigaflip benchmark code; does that matter? No, not at all, Compoobrand is the best!
The sad truth is that huge numbers of people still fall for this "marketing" (just look at newsgroup flamewars for some evidence).
Slashdot Mirror
South Carolina
Well, the gaming site will be safe if it looks like a Lottery gambling site instead of a good-for-nothing Video Poker gambling site.
I'm currently reading Slashdot.
Oh wait. You meant paper books.
Paper is still the only media for books that is available to everyone cheaply (not counting overpriced textbooks). Even though I have been using a computer for over a decade, I still haven't seen enough incentives to switch to e-books for general reading.
Slashdot really isn't a book, anyway; it is a news/editorial source that people read for information. Also, Slashdot doesn't suffer from the same sort of copyright issues that books do.
None of this is brain-surgery people!
It isn't brain surgery, but software dependencies are a very complex problem. On a graph of all software packages, a subset of the packages are always moving forward in versions while others lag behind. Packages could depend on any range of versions of other packages, and sometimes those versions are not compatible, for any number of good or bad reasons. So, if you want to create a distribution that seems to require versions 1.3, 1.7, and 2.3 of package X, but the version 2 series is a severe change relative to the version 1 series, what do you do?
If a new package system comes about, new filesystem hierarchies should be devised to allow seamless installation of many versions of software with some sort of advanced linker that can deal with them all. This solution could be as complex as the problem!
the "slackjawed" feeling which is invoked by a good film is the same feeling that is invoked by a good book - rapt, absorbed, engaged.
Good film and good books, yes. However, for most people, the important differences between Apocalypse Now and Survivor now on DVD! or between Sergei Rachmaninoff and Saturday Night Live band X, for example, are lost.
A friend of mine proposed an interesting question after seeing a disturbing lack of books at a local flea market: "Does anyone read anymore?"
BTW, I am NOT an audiophile... anyone that calls themself that is only a poser that is trying to impress people with their lack-of-knowlege.
This is often true of many enthusiast-based industries/cliques. Other examples: kernel hacker, phophet of the second coming, fantasy novel series guru, etc.
(Ohhh you have to use $23.00 a foot speaker cable! I can hear the diference!)
Just recently, I read a review that recommended lamp cord for this very same reason (that most people can't tell the difference between $0.50 of lamp cord and $150 of "high-end" stuff). I suppose some people can tell, which would indicate that $10.00 of shielded cable from Radio Shack probably satisfies nearly all of them, too.
The advantage to me as a developer is what exactly?
Obviously rhetorical, since the advantage this question seeks does not exist.
I really do view Microsoft's future as an uncertainty. They have been competing with themselves for a while, now, and new competition is arising on at least five fronts: IBM, Sun, Apple, Linux (in general), and the free BSDs (in general). IBM, Sun, and Apple have real money to apply towards mass marketing and R&D, and Linux and the free BSDs have the unusual resource of the well-earned enthusiasm of millions of people. IBM, Sun, and Apple also have as much opportunity to purchase congressmen as Microsoft and Disney do. If Microsoft isn't morbidly worried about all this, then they are blinded by ego.
Given that most U.S. citizens cherish their privacy and their Constitutional rights to nearly unencumbered freedom within their homes, initiatives such as Palladium will fail to gain ubiquity. If we can't guarantee that, then I really do worry that this fascinating country has already peaked.
Thousands of happy Linux users can -- and must -- attest to the fact that Linux just works better for a large number of tasks. The ideas that it's more difficult to use well and involves more effort and money to deploy successfully are simply untrue, at least on the server market.
Definitely true on the server market. At first, I was thinking, "perhaps not quite as good for regular personal computer use," but given the amount of time I've fought with both Windows and Linux installations on PCs, even at home Linux has comparable TCO to Windows.
The fact is: both Windows and Linux take a fair amount of time to get them "just right". Hardware support is comparable for both, although it takes longer to set up a few things in Linux. However, Linux is more stable once configured, so the up-front time pays off in the long-term. Basically, this is the same argument that has applied to UNIX for years.
Try creating some pages that accept a credit application without using Javascript (and MS-only shit need not apply).
Now that I think about it, I can't think of a reason to use JavaScript on something like a credit application. It's just data entry, and the credit check either needs to be done on the server or by a person, anyway. (Also, see my other reply about normalizing data to avoid JavaScript altogther).
A credit application can be done well with pure HTML and a CGI program or Servlet for processing.
Right, so you're going to send all the form data over the wire just to find out they put in 30/11/2000 instead of 11/30/2000. WTFever.
Or, you could normalize the data, so you don't have to parse a string at all. Much of the unnecessary JavaScript complexity in many websites stems from poor design of the data fields. Unfortunately, poor data field choices, in turn, stem from poor database designs, so a lot of JavaScript can actually point out a fundamentally screwed-up application.
If you insist on using JavaScript, it becomes trivial to check that the month field is between 0 and 13, for example, when everything is split up properly.
Database design--as much now as twenty years ago--is still the most important thing to get right (in an application that uses a database, that is).
...but from most things I've read software raid is faster than hardware.
I'm not sure where this information would have come from. Perhaps there are crappy hardware controllers out there, or the benchmark systems were otherwise lightly loaded.
For example, if the test machine had a 1GHz CPU but the RAID card had some clunky 50MHz mini-CPU, the software RAID could perform much much better. However, as that system incurs heavier processing load, having a co-processor on the RAID card can really make a difference by guaranteeing some level of disk throughput (even if the main CPU is maxed out).
There are reasons why really expensive RAID arrays have embedded CPUs and RAM. They allow the server CPUs to work at their full potential. On a regular home computer, however, I guess the real advantage of hardware RAID is debatable.
...offer Mac OS X on the PC platform.
What price for Mac OS X PC Edition, then, would be fair to the consumer yet allow Apple to stay in business?
Apple's business model is fairly similar to that of Sun Microsystems: make excellent hardware that appeals to the target customers, where the operating system is the icing on the cake and clinches the deal. Although Sun does have Solaris x86, this OS was marketed specifically as an entry point to UNIX, in general, and for larger Solaris/SPARC (i.e., Solaris x86 doesn't put steak on the dinner table for Sun).
Sun is successful, because their hardware is distinguishable from PCs in a number of functional ways. Apple is successful, because their computers are very good but also beautiful, which can't be said for most PCs. For either of these companies, adopting the PC architecture on a large scale means stooping to the lowest-common-denominator of computing, which really would be bad for the industry as a whole.
This strategy is not elitist for Apple nor Sun. Their efforts keep the computing industry interesting with variety, which serves all of us better in the long run. Nothing would be worse than x86 being the only successful architecture--some of us just don't want to do valuable work on such a mucked-up kludge of a computer.
So, I just think that your classification of all MCSE's as mindless drones is a little off...there are bad sysadmins on EVERY platform.
This is very true; the BOFH parodies are good evidence. However, the rediculous market share of Microsoft in IT also means that most modern BOFHs are MCSEs. The stereotype of dumb MCSEs is just an unfortunate side-effect of Micrsoft's monopoly on the desktop.
You can see in the taskmanager particularly signs of the VMS underpinings underneath.
Was VMS really that bad, or is the Windows task manager just a poor implementation?
Or just have 2 'modes'.
I generally disagree with multiple distinct modes. The initial mode wears thin quickly, and, then, the user activates advanced mode and exclaims "I have seen the universe, and I understand none of it." A good example would be the normal and expert modes of the fdisk program.
Perhaps a better approach would be to have the same interface with a progressive exposure of options, where nothing get taken away and changes are additive. In a way, tabbed interfaces accomplish this, when implemented well.
I wish the KDE and Gnome developers would take OS X as a hint on the golden rule to provide a usable UI: Less is more.
I think this responsibility lies on Linux distributors as well. Example: on a fully installed Red Hat 7.3 system, GNOME is really a mess at first taking quite a bit of time to clear out the cruft, but on a fully installed Slackware 8.1 system, GNOME is pretty much what it needs to be (and the menus even match the documentation!).
KDE and GNOME are both potentially very clean and intuitive, but their flexibility gives Linux distributors equal power to make it really nice or screw it up (and, rightly, this is in the UNIX tradtition).
OS X is a great way to get people to migrate into a Unix world. The Apple servers are selling well, and its adding a great deal of Unix exposure...
It still amazes me that UNIX has made it into a Mac (as original equipment!). Does this mean it takes 30 years for a platform to mature until it meets nearly everyone's needs? UNIX for the hardcore kernel junky and Romance novelist alike? Wow.
They are gov't employees...
Ahh, it all makes sense, now, and I did misunderstand you somewhat. This is a classic problem where the ends do not justify the tools, but the tools were dictated by people who want to spend lots of money and want things to sound really big. These same people tend to be insecure and incompetent, and they frequently got their jobs due to tenure when someone else retired. There is no logic to it--it's all politics and prestige. I've seen it several times, and it is very frustrating.
Making music, is, by definition, and Open Source process.
I agree, especially with regard to classical instruments, such as piano and oboe, or groups of such instruments, as in a symphony. However, it seems less true with regard to electronic music, where the artist created a "recipe" of synthesizer or amplifier settings to get a particular effect. An electronic artist's tools may be analogous to a compiler, where the input isn't always determinable from the output.
first off, I have no argument with Oracle on sun as a backend. ...
However, I don't like it on the front end...
I was really talking just about the back end, since I have no experience with all the new whiz-bang tools they put into recent releases.
Oracle really doesn't force the choice of anything other than the DBMS in their software. It is very common to use separate J2EE software, such as that from BEA, Macromedia, iPlanet, or even JBoss, to connect to Oracle for data only.
I've used Oracle DBMS with 3rd party J2EE on a couple projects, and my development environment is basic stuff: vi for editing, make for building, and sccs for version control. This arrangment works quite well.
In our organization, there are 3 admins for countless NT servers and 2 support folks. Meanwhile, there are four unix guys for two Sun clusters. I guarantee you, they make more as well, so your argument about administration doesn't fly.
My argument is still okay. If you have four people managing two Sun clusters, then (1) they really are just a bureaucracy and not very good, (2) they really are competent and do more than just mangage the two clusters (networking, etc.), or (3) they rotate schedules so they offer 24x7 on-site support.
If it's (1), then they know they have a good thing going, don't care, and are living a lie at your company's expense. For just a cluster, there really needs to be only two people, just so you're covered if one person dies.
The fact of the matter is, we just spec'ed out the port to Java/JSP/Oracle Portal and it is well into six figures for ZERO functionality.
You probably will pay six figures for Oracle DBMS on two clusters, anyway, but the J2EE stuff really does not need to be that expensive. Literally, even commercial J2EE software can range from just a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars for roughly comparable features with different brand-names attached. It just takes quite a bit of time to shop around, since there really are many options. Anyway, "ZERO functionality" is an understatement for any software.
If any developer can't understand what the .NET framework is all about then I would be scared to have them working on any project of mine - Windows or not.
.NET-based development. However, there are plenty of very competent developers out there who still have the slightest notion of what .NET really is, and they are doing just fine and will do fine whether or not .NET is a success.
If that developer has read Microsoft's marketing materials, read 3rd-party critiques of the software, talked over with co-workers, and still doesn't understand it, then fine, especially if you hired the developer to perform
When the general public thinks about .NET, I think they are referring to the nebulous cloud of "web services" that Microsoft has alluded to, "Hailstorm", ".NET My Services", etc... Those still seem to be up in the air and not many people see the need for them.
.NET is pretty much nebulous to everyone not already brainwashed by a Microsoft marketing presentation.
Actually, here, you need to include everyone who principally uses non-Microsoft software for what they do. This includes many many many developers, because
"developer community" != "Microsoft developer community". Such generaization makes me wonder if you work for Microsoft, but that's another matter entirely.
Your taxpayer dollars are paying good money to port from one completely propietary platform (2k/ASP) to another (ORACLE/SUN). The only difference? The latter costs more.
This is a bit trollish. Oracle on Sun offers tremendous flexibility, it can be extemely reliable, and it is much simpler to administer well. Conversely, I've seen Oracle on Windows NT, and it was an embarassing travesty.
I really wish people who see only up-front costs would take off their blinders and have just a little insight into the future. UNIX, believe it or not, is still cheaper in the long-term than Windows, and going with non-Microsoft applications may actually reduce risk. Perhaps this is a good thing for the taxpayers?
Microsoft has been very successful at making people put all their eggs in one basket and at providing an operating system that requires what seems to be a one-to-one ratio between administrators and computers. Is this really what you want?
It's sort of sad that Comedy Central has one of the best news shows on TV...
Back when I had cable, I watched the Daily Show quite a bit. It really was an ingenious show, and they had good enough writers that it wasn't just jokes about poop and Bill Clinton.
If CNN picks it up, lets hope they don't water it down too much like they did with Headline News. I had to stop watching Headline News when it became an Entertainment Tonight/75% Commercials hybrid recently.
Moral: The media are stupid and lazy
I wholeheartedly agree--up to a point. There are a small number of top-notch journalists, who really do objective well-rounded reporting. Unfortunately, it really is a small number of journalists. Also, unfortunately, they tend to report on lesser-viewed channels, such as some radio, public TV, and some magazines.
The rest of the journalism industry is an overpopulated mass of careless wannabees who jump on anything even remotely reportable. Just look at local TV news, local newspapers, most of the national TV networks, most national newspapers, and, recently, most Internet news sites. All they do is propogate rumors, who-cares stories about kidnapped rich kids, slanderous stories about accused criminals, and tonight's prime-time lineup. Truly pathetic, given that they are the most watched and have the greatest influence on public opinion.
Maybe its time to re-evaluate supposed technological "truths" as well.
It is always time to re-evaluate the "truth". Since nearly the beginning of computing, for example, computer manufacturers routinely unrealistically tune their latest and greatest product for high benchmark scores. As we speak, IBM, Intel, and Sun are almost slandering eachother over Itanium-this, Power4-that, or UltraSPARC-whatnot. This is nothing new.
Does the Compoobrand XYZ9000 get 1000gigaflips in the real world? Who cares, just look at these really big numbers and how much higher they are than the 238oozleflaps of the Unintellobrand PQR7500! But the Compoobrand's CPU cache is bigger than the gigaflip benchmark code; does that matter? No, not at all, Compoobrand is the best!
The sad truth is that huge numbers of people still fall for this "marketing" (just look at newsgroup flamewars for some evidence).