It's also called "Coca-Cola", "Pepsi", "Mountain Dew", "Mello Yellow", etc. All of these variations on flavored sugar water are equally bad for your health causing unnecessary stress on your pancreas among other things. The developed world is seriously addicted to high-sugar foods, such as soft drinks, white bread, and candy, and it's taking a toll on public health. For proof, just go to your local shopping mall or other public gathering place and take a look!
When advertising the compatibility of Lindows, their enormous market power allow them to be more liberal with their use of the Microsoft and Windows brandnames than your average software developer or computer retailer could ever chance.
Although Wal-Mart's enormous size does worry me, they can use their status as The World's Biggest Corporation to successfully displace Windows. Often, for every bully (i.e., Microsoft), there is always an even bigger and nastier bully (i.e., Wal-Mart).
This needs some clarification: the average Windows user is not a whore. The term "M$ whore" really applies to people who know better but still use Windows and justify it using so-called business cases. They have ideals but sell out to some ill-concieved notion that Windows programming/consulting is the only way to make money.
The difference: Wal-mart is selling their computers for $299 and up. $299! In this way, Wal-mart is not competing with Apple at all, since a person considering a really inexpensive PC will most likely not be considering a $3000 Apple workstation.
The real reason Microsoft is slow to respond is the same as any big company or government:
Bureaucracy
Open Source projects tend to lack the four layers of middle management that delay a simple task for weeks while the engineers and other "peons" just get frustrated, so when they actually get to do the work, their enthusiasm has already been spent. Sigh...
that is it basically impossible to back up and restore Windows users' data without working with whole-disk images. The registry, files strewn everywhere, who knows what else...
Just keep text-file logbooks as you learn new things about the different UNIX implementation. Keep them in a hierarchical database on an NFS file system or web server somewhere, name the directories and files consistently by OS and topic (topics such as DNS, network booting, firmware, SCSI naming conventions, package management, etc.).
I do this at home to juggle Solaris, OpenBSD, and Linux and it works well. If I forget how to setup DNS under Solaris, I just go to <base_dir>/Solaris/8/DNS_Setup.txt, for example.
Also, install all of the on-line documentation you can and have it network-accessible. For example, when the man pages aren't detailed enough, on-line Solaris Answerbooks can save the day.
Also, keep well-organized bookmark lists for useful websites, such as http://docs.sun.com or http://sunsolve.sun.com, that cover your particular UNIX.
Having any number of UNIX implementations really isn't unmanagable (unless they have broken network protocol implementations). The key to success is documentation and more documentation (and unambiguously sharp sysadmins). On that note, if you don't have faith in your system and network administrators, you should just give up and stick with one OS, since no amount of documentation helps a truly stupid human.
The problem, here, is not the OS, it is the Ultra 5. Ultra 5s were marketed as low-end workstations when they were first sold, which makes them very-low-end today. Ultra 5s were intended as basic administrator workstations with absolutely no frills.
As a counter example, I have a 440MHz UltraSPARC IIi-based workstation with UltraSCSI disk drives, 512MB of RAM, and Solaris 8, and Mozilla/Netscape works beautifully. What I have that the Ultra 5 doesn't is bandwidth.
My agency only uses IIS, Apache is not on the 'networthiness' list for this location, so no Apache for me. It's great that the NSA has made their own hardened version of Linux, but here, the security guys says only WindowsNT (not even 2000 yet) is the only approved OS secure enough for our network.
I know this is very likely true, but I still find it hard to believe that the PHBs in Goverment would make such stupid-ass decisions. Why would IIS be "networthy" and Apache not?????
1. Unless the specification for these standard file formats is very precise, there will always be interoperability problems.
Additionally, even if the specification is complete and unambiguous (which no specification is), the implementations will always be incomplete in some respect. I've been working on an ISO-standard file format implementation this past year, and, while I agree that standards are noble and neccessary, I'm becoming convinced that 100% system interoperability is a pipe dream.
The main reason that 100% interoperability is not achievable is cost. Good software is very expensive, but perfect software is almost prohibitively expensive (study, design, implement, test, study, fix, test, study, redesign,.........)
As a Web Developer is is NOT your choice alone whether javascript or flaash animations go onto a website.
Choice is a right that I will never not have.
We made a website for a customer lately that needed and wanted an animated demonstration on his website.
This is an example where Flash is justified. On-line computer-based training is another good application for Flash. These applications are very specific and have a well-targeted audience, who probably won't mind installing the Flash browser plugin.
However, nearly all current uses of Flash and JavaScript are simply unneccessary. They tend to break websites more than they help, and they are best avoided if at all possible.
I feel that it's hypocritical to hire a web developer who is used to using Photoshop, a nice solid text editor, and Dreamweaver, throw that developer in front of vi and the Gimp, and expect that web developer to be as productive as before.
It really seems to be neither Sun's fault nor yours. Simply, you were not a good canidate to work at a hard-core UNIX company.
I do some web development on Solaris, and vi and the GIMP are just fine for me. In UNIX, simplicity and pure functionality are key. Sure, my work appears spartan, but it works, it works well, and it works consistently. No fancy pictures, Flash animations, nor JavaScript make for a very useful website. Quite honestly, I believe JavaScript and Flash have contributed to very few good websites and many thousands of awful ones.
...the creative minds in your company will hate it.
This is an unneccessary generalization. For some people, UNIX is a haven for creativity, and the elegant simplicity of SunRay/X-terminal configurations cab be very enjoyable.
in some respects, Linux is already far ahead of it
I don't agree. Consider that with modern Solaris, one can take apart and reassemble most of a server while it is still serving. Also consider that Solaris is extremely well documented and supported. Also consider that Solaris configurations tend to be more consistent, predictable, and maintainable.
Sure, it is harder to argue for Solaris on a computer that is essentially disposable (i.e., a PC), but when that computer is indispensible, Solaris will make you very happy.
The USII bug definitely caused bad experiences, but it is not representitive of Sun hardware and Solaris as a whole.
I have an US IIi-based workstation with Solaris, and I love it. Except for one hard drive glitch, it has never had unplanned down time (24x7 for over six months at a time). It just doesn't stop taking my abuse. This experience is much more typical for hardware and software of this caliber.
On the good side, once the USII was fixed, it was fixed. We move on.
The point here is that businesses need reliable, robust, bulletproof wordprocessor.
So, how does Word fit into your argument?
Word is buggy as hell. I have Word 2000 and end up cursing at it before I'm through with something. I'm generally a nice guy, but fifteen minutes with Windows 2000 and Word 2000 is enough to make me want to destroy my computer and walk to the next city.
Fact is, you are used to the bugs in Word and didn't like StarOffice, because StarOffice comes with different bugs. Live with it.
While Mira is nifty, it is not that big of a deal. A tabletized X-terminal would be relatively trivial to produce. The only thing Microsoft brings to the table is traditional Microsoft marketing. This leads to the only problem I see with the Mira: Microsoft.
Thanks. It appears that most complaints about Qt are about things that actually made Qt better and more available during its time. As you said, if Qt can improve, there will always be future versions of Qt.
Add to this whether A to D conversion passes the Radio Shack test. How hard can it be to simply build a decent converter from scratch? Or, is this an unusually difficult task?
Can someone clarify what the awkwardness, bizzareness, and insanity of Qt are? I've used Qt on a couple of small projects and found it pretty intuitive. No flames, please, just a couple of good arguments.
Mitre also has assisted the Software Engineering Institute in its development of the Capability Maturity Models for software and other systems.
This sets precedent for Mitre's concern about quality, so I'm not suprised if Microsoft isn't #1 on their list. I am curious if anyone at Microsoft has implemented any of the CMMs--or has even heard of them.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also called "Coca-Cola", "Pepsi", "Mountain Dew", "Mello Yellow", etc. All of these variations on flavored sugar water are equally bad for your health causing unnecessary stress on your pancreas among other things. The developed world is seriously addicted to high-sugar foods, such as soft drinks, white bread, and candy, and it's taking a toll on public health. For proof, just go to your local shopping mall or other public gathering place and take a look!
When advertising the compatibility of Lindows, their enormous market power allow them to be more liberal with their use of the Microsoft and Windows brandnames than your average software developer or computer retailer could ever chance.
Although Wal-Mart's enormous size does worry me, they can use their status as The World's Biggest Corporation to successfully displace Windows. Often, for every bully (i.e., Microsoft), there is always an even bigger and nastier bully (i.e., Wal-Mart).
This needs some clarification: the average Windows user is not a whore. The term "M$ whore" really applies to people who know better but still use Windows and justify it using so-called business cases. They have ideals but sell out to some ill-concieved notion that Windows programming/consulting is the only way to make money.
The difference: Wal-mart is selling their computers for $299 and up. $299! In this way, Wal-mart is not competing with Apple at all, since a person considering a really inexpensive PC will most likely not be considering a $3000 Apple workstation.
The real reason Microsoft is slow to respond is the same as any big company or government:
Bureaucracy
Open Source projects tend to lack the four layers of middle management that delay a simple task for weeks while the engineers and other "peons" just get frustrated, so when they actually get to do the work, their enthusiasm has already been spent. Sigh...
that is it basically impossible to back up and restore Windows users' data without working with whole-disk images. The registry, files strewn everywhere, who knows what else...
Just keep text-file logbooks as you learn new things about the different UNIX implementation. Keep them in a hierarchical database on an NFS file system or web server somewhere, name the directories and files consistently by OS and topic (topics such as DNS, network booting, firmware, SCSI naming conventions, package management, etc.).
I do this at home to juggle Solaris, OpenBSD, and Linux and it works well. If I forget how to setup DNS under Solaris, I just go to <base_dir>/Solaris/8/DNS_Setup.txt, for example.
Also, install all of the on-line documentation you can and have it network-accessible. For example, when the man pages aren't detailed enough, on-line Solaris Answerbooks can save the day.
Also, keep well-organized bookmark lists for useful websites, such as http://docs.sun.com or http://sunsolve.sun.com, that cover your particular UNIX.
Having any number of UNIX implementations really isn't unmanagable (unless they have broken network protocol implementations). The key to success is documentation and more documentation (and unambiguously sharp sysadmins). On that note, if you don't have faith in your system and network administrators, you should just give up and stick with one OS, since no amount of documentation helps a truly stupid human.
They don't call it "Slowaris" for nothing.
The problem, here, is not the OS, it is the Ultra 5. Ultra 5s were marketed as low-end workstations when they were first sold, which makes them very-low-end today. Ultra 5s were intended as basic administrator workstations with absolutely no frills.
As a counter example, I have a 440MHz UltraSPARC IIi-based workstation with UltraSCSI disk drives, 512MB of RAM, and Solaris 8, and Mozilla/Netscape works beautifully. What I have that the Ultra 5 doesn't is bandwidth.
My agency only uses IIS, Apache is not on the 'networthiness' list for this location, so no Apache for me. It's great that the NSA has made their own hardened version of Linux, but here, the security guys says only WindowsNT (not even 2000 yet) is the only approved OS secure enough for our network.
I know this is very likely true, but I still find it hard to believe that the PHBs in Goverment would make such stupid-ass decisions. Why would IIS be "networthy" and Apache not?????
1. Unless the specification for these standard file formats is very precise, there will always be interoperability problems.
.........)
Additionally, even if the specification is complete and unambiguous (which no specification is), the implementations will always be incomplete in some respect. I've been working on an ISO-standard file format implementation this past year, and, while I agree that standards are noble and neccessary, I'm becoming convinced that 100% system interoperability is a pipe dream.
The main reason that 100% interoperability is not achievable is cost. Good software is very expensive, but perfect software is almost prohibitively expensive (study, design, implement, test, study, fix, test, study, redesign,
As a Web Developer is is NOT your choice alone whether javascript or flaash animations go onto a website.
Choice is a right that I will never not have.
We made a website for a customer lately that needed and wanted an animated demonstration on his website.
This is an example where Flash is justified. On-line computer-based training is another good application for Flash. These applications are very specific and have a well-targeted audience, who probably won't mind installing the Flash browser plugin.
However, nearly all current uses of Flash and JavaScript are simply unneccessary. They tend to break websites more than they help, and they are best avoided if at all possible.
I suggest you change your solution to run on Win2k.
You are absolutely right. No one can break into a computer that is always down due to reboots and virus infections!
... over 3,000 square feet of private office/meeting/washroom space... almost as much space as an average size house!
Geez, I'd like to know where 3000 sq. ft. is average. Can I move in with you?
(just kidding, but 1500 sq. ft. is a much more realistic average for the rest of us)
I feel that it's hypocritical to hire a web developer who is used to using Photoshop, a nice solid text editor, and Dreamweaver, throw that developer in front of vi and the Gimp, and expect that web developer to be as productive as before.
...the creative minds in your company will hate it.
It really seems to be neither Sun's fault nor yours. Simply, you were not a good canidate to work at a hard-core UNIX company.
I do some web development on Solaris, and vi and the GIMP are just fine for me. In UNIX, simplicity and pure functionality are key. Sure, my work appears spartan, but it works, it works well, and it works consistently. No fancy pictures, Flash animations, nor JavaScript make for a very useful website. Quite honestly, I believe JavaScript and Flash have contributed to very few good websites and many thousands of awful ones.
This is an unneccessary generalization. For some people, UNIX is a haven for creativity, and the elegant simplicity of SunRay/X-terminal configurations cab be very enjoyable.
in some respects, Linux is already far ahead of it
I don't agree. Consider that with modern Solaris, one can take apart and reassemble most of a server while it is still serving. Also consider that Solaris is extremely well documented and supported. Also consider that Solaris configurations tend to be more consistent, predictable, and maintainable.
Sure, it is harder to argue for Solaris on a computer that is essentially disposable (i.e., a PC), but when that computer is indispensible, Solaris will make you very happy.
The USII bug definitely caused bad experiences, but it is not representitive of Sun hardware and Solaris as a whole.
I have an US IIi-based workstation with Solaris, and I love it. Except for one hard drive glitch, it has never had unplanned down time (24x7 for over six months at a time). It just doesn't stop taking my abuse. This experience is much more typical for hardware and software of this caliber.
On the good side, once the USII was fixed, it was fixed. We move on.
Absolutely. From one of the slides "All projections based on Intel estimates[emphasis mine]...using...workload testing at Intel[emphasis mine]."
And, absolutely none of the benchmarks are substantiated with real data!!!
Only a fool would accept any of this presentation as fact. An even bigger fool would use this presentation in a decision whether to buy Sun or Intel.
The gist of the article is that the two new Star Wars movies are missing any sort of Han Solo character.
:)
Well, this is true, but some of us are content with Natalie Portman in his place.
In the new movies, only robots get shot.
I guess all those dead Jedi in Attack of the Clones don't count? Episodes One and Two are no less violent than Episodes Three, Four, and Five.
The point here is that businesses need reliable, robust, bulletproof wordprocessor.
So, how does Word fit into your argument?
Word is buggy as hell. I have Word 2000 and end up cursing at it before I'm through with something. I'm generally a nice guy, but fifteen minutes with Windows 2000 and Word 2000 is enough to make me want to destroy my computer and walk to the next city.
Fact is, you are used to the bugs in Word and didn't like StarOffice, because StarOffice comes with different bugs. Live with it.
While Mira is nifty, it is not that big of a deal. A tabletized X-terminal would be relatively trivial to produce. The only thing Microsoft brings to the table is traditional Microsoft marketing. This leads to the only problem I see with the Mira: Microsoft.
Thanks. It appears that most complaints about Qt are about things that actually made Qt better and more available during its time. As you said, if Qt can improve, there will always be future versions of Qt.
Or, having the thermometer pondering these issues when the nurse puts it...well, you know where.
Add to this whether A to D conversion passes the Radio Shack test. How hard can it be to simply build a decent converter from scratch? Or, is this an unusually difficult task?
Can someone clarify what the awkwardness, bizzareness, and insanity of Qt are? I've used Qt on a couple of small projects and found it pretty intuitive. No flames, please, just a couple of good arguments.
Mitre also has assisted the Software Engineering Institute in its development of the Capability Maturity Models for software and other systems.
This sets precedent for Mitre's concern about quality, so I'm not suprised if Microsoft isn't #1 on their list. I am curious if anyone at Microsoft has implemented any of the CMMs--or has even heard of them.