Why does the premise of a girl who doesn't need to be saved turn you off?
I've dated some tough women in my time. They are FAR more interesting than the ones who "need" a hero.
I saw an interview with Joss Whedon wherein he explained the genesis of BtVS. A scene in the series pilot embodied Whedon's vision: a pretty girl walks into an alley alone, followed by a Creature of the Night. In a traditional horror film, the girl would become Monster Chow. But Whedon and crew make their living by turning convention on its head.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a tribute to, and satire of, the Horror genre. It is written by really smart people who assume that their audience is intelligent and literate.
Hmm... here's some interesting anecdotal evidence. (Counting on fingers...) 75% of the people that I know who are "die hard" Buffy fans are Macintosh users. Mangle that statistic as you please.
Remember that iTunes is clearly targeted at the casual user.
"...but it is entirely another thing when an ad agency calls you looking for just the right sound for a commercial."
If a person is capable of running a profitable business using only free software provided by Apple, more power to them. I don't advocate spending money where you don't have to. But (I hope) you wouldn't use iMovie as the basis for your video production house. You'd use Final Cut Pro, or some other powerful, made-for-professionals tool.
iTunes is a great "end-user" music player. I've never gotten the impression that it was attempting to be any more than that.
You wrote, 'When it comes to Free software, isn't "the development community" the same as "the public"?'
The two are not the same. I am a consumer of FreeBSD, by virtue of having a Virtual BSD Server from aplus.net. My use of that operating system in no way entitles me to know what transpires between the developers of that OS.
If I want to know the nitty gritty details of OS development, then I need to subscribe to the general mailing lists, read the code, and submit my own work.
Since I'm not prepared to do the above - I am quite happy to be a mere consumer in this case - I don't have any objection to people saying "this is a private matter, it doesn't concern you."
That the source code is available for your perusal is completely unrelated to the behavioral dynamics which govern the production of that code.
You write, "So it is bad when Microsoft buys up resources, but good when Apple does it?"
Most of the people that I know do NOT criticize Microsoft for buying promising products and repackaging them under the Microsoft name, as they did with Front Page and then with Visio. That's a common business tactic, practiced by virtually all large software companies. What's true for individual developers is true for businesses as well - it's easier (and cheaper) to reuse (good) existing code than it is to write new code.
It is definitely a Good Thing for Apple that they are clearly articulating a cohesive, comprehensive business strategy: "If you create digital media, buy a Macintosh."
Why is this behavior acceptable for Apple and not for Microsoft? Because Apple is NOT a law-breaking monopolist. Microsoft is. Apple is explicitly permitted to engage in behavior from which Microsoft is expressly forbidden.
Don't complain because Apple is doing something legal. Stop and think about why Microsoft isn't allowed to do the same any more.
I'm a couple of weeks into an experiment. Over the holidays I indulged a consumerist impulse and bought a Titanium Laptop. After the second credit card statement arrived, I decided I'd damned well better get some use out of a machine that I paid roughly $3,000 for. So for the past 2+ weeks I've left the Linux machine off and have used the TiBook as my sole home machine.
For the most part, I have no complaint. Many long time OS 9 users are vocally unhappy about the Aqua GUI. I'm a longtime WindowMaker user, so I'm on conceptually familiar ground. I like being able to SSH into my laptop from work and continue the project I was working on. I like the fact that fetchmail and sendmail come pre-installed on my laptop. I really, really like the OmniWeb browser (http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/). I like watching (the Pro only) QuickTime movie trailers from quicktime.apple.com when it's 1:30 AM and I really ought to be in bed. I'm very impressed with iTunes and iPhoto. I assume at this point that if I owned a digital movie camera that I would be impressed with iMovie, as well.
I do, however, have two noticeable complaints:
1) I've spent the weekend trying to compile PHP 4.1.2 on this damned machine, and I'm getting tired of reading potentially helpful posts on various mailing lists which all end in the same error message: "/usr/bin/libtool: internal link edit command failed"
If anyone has encountered this error message while compiling PHP 4.1.2 and resolved matters to their liking, I would be delighted to hear what you did.
2) I bought Civilization III for Mac OS X. I have a 677mz G4 processor with 512 MB of RAM, and the damned game is so slow its almost unplayable. That's simply unacceptable. I can't remember the last time that I cursed so much at a game. It doesn't matter if companies port their software to Mac OS X, if the port is practically unusable.
One final thought, unrelated to the previous statements:
I don't give a damn about the price. I don't use Linux because it's Beer-Free. I've happily paid for every version of the OS that I've used over the past five years; I understand how a Market Economy works. If you tell me that you didn't buy a Macintosh because it didn't do something that you needed, or because it did something you found unacceptable, I'll gladly accept that. But if you tell me you didn't buy a Mac because you were too cheap, rest assured that you won't get invited to any of my parties. I'd rather have no scotch than cheap scotch;-)
It's late, and I'm halfway through a bottle of Chianti, so bear with me on this, because this is a little long...
Even if the licensing terms of the Sorensen codec permitted Apple to release the specs for Quicktime, I'm confident that they wouldn't. I'm pretty sure I understand why. And I agree.
It's all about the brand.
Explanation By Example Once upon a time, I was a loyal Microsoft user. Dos, Windows 3.1, Windows 95. I had invested time in the system, knew how to get work done using those tools. When a knowledgeable friend suggested that I upgrade my trusty HP Vectra to the newly released Windows NT 4.0, I did so. After the third time the system crashes SO HARD that I had to reinstall the operating system from scratch, I was so irritated at Microsoft that I swore I wouldn't believe their lies again. I went and bought a copy of Red Hat Linux 4.2, and began the long, painful process of self education.
RedHat 4.2 was much, much more difficult for a casual user than MS Windows NT 4.0. But Microsoft's marketing machine was in overdrive at the time, trying to convince the world that Unix was dead, that NT was the future - and, more importantly, that NT was the best computing experience I would get. Microsoft flat out lied to me. The Linux community, on the other hand, never once suggested that I wouldn't have to sweat, curse, and study in order to use their Stone Soup operating system.
I don't mind hard work. I will not tolerate being lied to.
You might be asking at this point, "What the hell does this have to do with the parent article, or even with the subject line of this post, ferchristssake?"
My point is that Microsoft damaged their brand. They misrepresented themselves - they created a significant negative impression in my mind, and I haven't given them a penny since. At the same time, RedHat created a positive impression on me by NOT overselling themselves, by being truthful with me, and I have happily bought a copy of every x.2 release of their software since. (I always wait until the.2 release to upgrade. I'm loyal, but not naive.)
Apple's single strongest asset is it's brand. As I sit here typing this article on my recently purchased Titanium Powerbook running OS X, I understand the truth of that. I've been a Linux user for the past six years, but never bothered to try any of the BSDs, until Mac OS X. Why? Because Steve Jobs, legendary control freak and perfectionist, has staked his professional reputation on the Apple brand. You know that if you buy a Steve-Jobs-Apple product it will be as good as anything else out there. Apple is all about providing the best computing experience that you can get as a user.
(Don't believe me? Feel the urge to say something in defense of Linux that this point? Think about how many hours it took you to become fluent with linux + the desktop manager of your choice. Spend that same amount of time with Mac OS X and the Aqua interface. After that time, you will find me happy to compare and contrast.)
Proprietary is not neccesarily bad
Apple will probably never Open Source QuickTime, and I don't mind. It's Apple's technology, and they have no social or moral obligation to release it into the wild. But while QuickTime is an Apple technology, when I am presented with multiple formats to select from when viewing multimedia on the web, I always choose QuickTime. It's not out of loyalty. It's because I know, based on experience, that Apple's technology will provide the best user experience.
Happy to spend money
How many of you work on a Windows machine during the day? How often do you use QuickTime and see that annoying "Upgrade to QuickTime Pro now" ad?
Since I began an experiment to use my Apple laptop exclusively for a month (no better teacher than experience) I have spent the $40 for Quicktime 5 Pro. I've also spent a similar amount of money for the OmniWeb browser. Why? Because I was so impressed by the experience those products provided me on this platform that I was happy to give them my money. I don't use Open Source software because I'm cheap. That's a small amount of money to give to people who make a damned fine piece of software.
It's all about the brand, and how seriously the owners take that brand. I don't trust Microsoft, because in my opinion Microsoft doesn't want to have the best damned software out there. Microsoft doesn't care if I have The Best user experience. Microsoft is happy with Good Enough. I trust Apple. Apple DOES want to have the best damned software out there. It's (mostly) not Open Source, and they want to control the experience from the hardware on up, and you have to pay more for that experience. But Apple is very, very good at what they do. Ideology aside, it's worth the money. I'll spend more money with Apple, because I'm so impressed with what i've seen so far. And I'll take a chance on the Next Big Thing that Apple produces. Again, because I've been consistently impressed by what I've seen.
It's all about the brand.
Re:...and there was much rejoicing.
on
Photoshop for OS X
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You write, "I truly cannot understand what's so great about Macs." Then you state, "...there are only two [computers] I use regularly:" a Linux server and a win2K/winXP/linux desktop.
You should be able to answer your own question. You use an operating system (Linux) in preference to other options for a particular task (as a server) because you think it's best for that task. For every task you can think of, there is probably an os/app combination that you feel will be the best environment for you to accomplish that task.
Many people believe that the Macintosh is the best platform for a set of tasks. You don't claim to have used a Macintosh, or benefitted from the graphics friendly technology which is baked into that OS, yet you suggest that you're correct and they're wrong.
Perhaps the work that you're producing on a Win32 machine is better than that of your coworkers. How much of that is because of the operating system involved? Perhaps the answer for you is "none," and since the OS doesn't help you on your current platform, you assert that it won't be a factor on other platforms.
But what if, after the unavoidable learning curve of a new platform, you discovered that you were 10% more productive on a Macintosh, because of the design and technology of the OS? What if it were only 5%, or the improvement were as great at 15%? What is 10% more time worth to you?
You don't use a Windows server. Why not? Isn't the windows server Good Enough? Or did you want the Best Available Option? Did you arrive at that opinion by reading trade magazines? By listening to your coworkers? Or by direct experimentation and observation?
If you're using your Windows desktop and Win32 ports of your preferred applications because they're Good Enough, that's your prerogative, but at least recognize your stance. But if you are interesting in using the best tool for the job, it is self-limiting for you to dismiss the Mactinosh without seriously exploring the platform.
Your final two questions: "what's the point?" and "why is this story even slashdot worthy?" should also be immediately obvious. Because the availability of Photoshop for Mac OS X will go a long way toward making or breaking the short term success of Mac OS X. Photoshop dominates its market, and its not a trvial market. This release will directly lead to increased sales for both Apple and Photoshop. In a time when many tech companies are struggling, Apple and Photoshop will post numbers that are better than their neighbors. This will translate into increased positive media attention, which will create a more receptive management, which will lead to more OS X Macs in your office.
One last question: Why is it a source of pride that none of your home computers is an Apple?
For the potential use of XML-RPC, consider the general benefits of any RPC mechanism. Now consider the benefits of a universally agreed upon specification and syntax.
Because of its XML nature, XML-RPC is verbose, and not suited for high performance RPC activities like NIS/NFS. But if your computer needs a bit of information from a remote data source, and you don't waiting a few milliseconds for that data - and you don't know or care what OS that remote data source is running - then XML-RPC is a good option.
Microsoft was not a driving force behind XML-RPC. That credit goes to Dave Winer of Userland Software. http://www.xmlrpc.org/spec
XMP-RPC predates SOAP, and in fact was a major inspiration for SOAP. If you look at the specification for the latter protocol, http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/ , you will see that Dave Winer is one of the eight authors credited.
I have not seen anything which indicates that MS "lost control" of SOAP. MS engineers are 4/8 of the credited authors behind the SOAP 1.1 protocol, and MS's entire "Web Services" initiative depends heavily on SOAP.
"It may not be illegal as such, but it is certainly immoral."
If I use someone else's password to access proprietary content on a subscription-based site, that's stealing.
If the CEO of a corporation lays off a thousand employees and is rewarded with a large bonus, that's immoral.
To suggest that I not waste my time, our mutual bandwidth, or your server's CPU time to download an ad that I'm not going to pay attention to anyway, is NOT immoral.
If the counter-argument is that you (as a hypothetical publisher) get paid for the ad impression whether I pay attention to it or not, THAT is arguably immoral, since it implies that you are knowingly defrauding the advertiser. But the reality is that ad banners typically generate revenues for click-thoughs, not simple impressions. If I'm not going to click through to the advertiser's site, then making me download the ad is a waste of my time.
There is no social contract involved in advertising. I, as a consumer, do not have a moral obligation to look at your ads. You, as a (hypothetical) publisher, do not have a moral obligation to make your content freely available. If someone chooses to publish content on the web for profit, and that person decides to make their content "freely" available (with advertising) rather than pursue some other business model, then the success or failure of that person's business is a strategic, but not a moral, matter.
The obvious technical solution to this problem is to make sure that ads seen on mysite.com are actually served from mysite.com, so that the "foreign blocker" won't be activated at all. This would probably mean that instead of just creating an account with DoubleClick, you would actually install some DoubleClick software on your server, which will regularly download banners to your site. This would have several effects: - decreasing page load times for HTTP/1.1 browsers - foiling the "foreign image" blocker - making people think twice before slapping ads on their web pages.
While I enjoyed the article, I found it interesting that it did not touch on another component of IBM's long term strategy - Java.
Here's a question to the Slashdot readership: Does IBM's Linux strategy represent a compliment to its Java strategy, a refinement, or a replacement? One could make a case for either.
Compliment: IBM is aggressively and successfully pursuing Java application development across its product lines, and this standardization of languages, libraries, and tools actually makes it easier for the company to adopt Linux, where it might not have been a practical option if IBM had not already adopted Java.
Refinement: IBM is having problems deploying Java applications across all of its product lines, so spreading Linux across all the hardware reduces the overhead and complexity of the Java efforts.
Replacement: IBM has decided that Java is not going to live up to its potential as a feature-rich lowest common denominator development environment. Linux, with less onerous licensing terms permitting more technical and creative freedom, is to take the place of Java in IBM's strategy - Linux will be the lowest common denominator, rather than Java.
I quit my last job, which was primarily web development using Notes/Domino 4.6, because 4.6 was an incredibly frustrating platform upon which to develop good web applications - that is, applications which are designed to run in a web browser.
But Notes is an incredibly powerful platform if you are willing to use the Notes client. Notes has already received the necessary security certifications - otherwise the Navy wouldn't have been using it previously.
IBM, Lotus' parent company, has made Domino a central part of their larger internet strategy. IBM is making WebSphere work very closely with Domino, has greatly extended Java servlet support in Domino, and has included Domino support in their Visual Age for Java IDE.
I don't know of any other "industrial strength" groupware packages which have met the government's security requirements. They may very well be out there, but if so they definitely have a "nice" market, and a deficient Marketing department.
While the success of Open Source software in the commercial arena is a valid benchmark of the strength of the Open Source software movement, please don't make the mistake of thinking that success in the ecommerce arena is the ONLY valid area of competition.
I do NOT use the web only to buy things. In fact, about 99% of my use of the web is NOT for acquisitory purposes, but for informational ones. I don't care if Microsoft owns (now or in the future) all the ecommerce mindshare, because selling things is NOT what the internet is about! My DSL connection gives me a static IP address, and a consistently accessible platform from which I can publicize my thoughts. The Linux OS gives me an environment that I can take for granted, so that I can concentrate on the message, not the medium. The Apache web server gives me the means to say whatever I want to say, in exactly the way that I want.
The success or failure of Open Source software has NOTHING to do with the success or failure of commercial companies. It has everything to do with your ability to use that software in the way you want, to say what you want. Even if every ecommerce site on the web were running Microsoft's latest version of IIS, the Apache web server would still be a resounding success, because it would still permit me, Joe Average American, to publish my opinion, to use the Internet to communicate to anyone who will listen.
those "piss-ant" sites, those "Here is a Picture of My Cat" web sites, are much more important than you might think. Boring or unimaginative though they may be (I'm a firm believer in the theory that 90% of everything is crap), those piss-ant sites are the mundane embodiment of the real potential of the internet - the ability of the average person to express an opinion, in a non-instrusive way. If MS's products let you buy things, but Apache lets you say what's on your mind, then Apache is a winner. If the Apache web server, in conjunction with the Linux OS, lets you say whatever you want, no matter who owns what percentage of the market... well, there's simply nothing to complain about.
It doesn't matter what you own, it matters what you do with what you own
I'm not a fan of Lotus Domino - in fact, I quit my last job because my employers refused to wean themselves off Domino. But Domino is really, really powerful stuff. Zope is pretty cool, and shows tremendoues potential, but Domino really is Enterprise class software. Ugly and monstrous, and rigid in surpring (and frustrating) ways, but really, really powerful.
Yes, I'm aware that I'm implying that Zope isn't as powerful as Lotus Domino. I don't think that's debatable. But then, Zope doesn't need to be, in order to be really good software in its own right.
I'm not going to do a feature-list comparison, because I wouldn't want anyone to think that I'm a Notes/Domino booster. But Zope and Domino are not the same type of software, even though both are occasionally called "application servers."
Although I don't have any hard data to either confirm or deny your statement, I will accept as fact that Postgres has better performance on really large databases.
To me that's not a relevant selling point, while MySQL's speed is. I'm using PHP and MySQL to automate my company's intranet - content management, remote publishing, workflow, that sort of thing. The quantity of data that needs to reside in a database is relatively modest, so Postgres' superior performance at the high end is a benefit that I will never see. Our "Current Clients" or "Job Openings" databases just aren't going to get so big that MySQL strains under the load.
>But for real databases of actual size...
These are real databases, because they are storing real corporate information, reducing duplication of data, improving consistency, and generally making my fellow employees' work days better. Their actual size is very modest - much smaller than their actual benefit. Different tasks require different tools.
MySQL's speed does represent an immediate benefit to me, and to my users. Also, because I'm automating workflow, rather than handling financial transactions, I don't miss the features like commits or rollbacks that MySQL leaves out (specifically to increase the db's speed).
But the real "killer app" for me is the web-based interface to MySQL, phpMyAdmin. This is a truly wonderful utility which has saved me tons of development time. The basic interface permits me to administer MySQL from my browser, and I can crank out customized interfaces on very short notice, just by copying the php scripts to a new directory and commenting out the HTML that produces functions that I don't want to offer to the user. In a relatively "high trust" environment like the company's intranet, MySQL, PHP, and phpMyAdmin have made my job MUCH easier.
FYI, the makers of phpMyAdmin now have a postgresMyAdmin, too, although I've been so happy with MySQL that I don't feel compelled to change.
I agree with you completely, because this strengthens my theory about MS's server strategy.
DDNS may not be a compelling solution for a global, public network, but it sounds as though it's a very nice option for a local net, and that's where Microsoft is concentrating their efforts.
It is important to remember that the Winxx platform is not the logical center of Microsoft's empire. MS Office is. MS Office is the "killer app" which makes most businesses buy Wintel boxes on the desktop, and Windows on the desktop is why those same businesses buy NT servers. The presence of MS Office for the Mac was a significant factor in Apple's resurgence in sales.
Microsoft is leveraging this advantage very effectively, integrating Office with IIS, and with DDNS they are now making it even easier for any salesperson to connect their Windows laptop to connect to any open ethernet port in the office and start working immediately.
That, all by itself, is a good thing. What is not a good thing is for MS to specifcially design their ActiveDirectory so that it requires DDNS. Novell's NDS doesn't require DDNS, and from what I've seen ActiveDirectory does less than Novell's solution. I'm sure that the programmers behind W2K are very good at their jobs, so I must assume that the decision to make W2K DDNS dependant was a conscious choice. If MS publishes a white paper stating the reasons for this, I will read it, (and the soon-to-follow slashdot commentary) and make my mind up then.
PC Week deserves criticism for not doing their homework on this (no surprise there). To state that Unix does not offer this service, when it does, is terrible journanlism.
But then, any "news" article about Windows 2000 which is followed by a link titled "Check prices: Windows 2000" isn't actually journalism at all, it's an infomercial.
You say that Lotus Notes can do things that no other software suite can do. I agree with you, but you must admit that there are things that every other major tool can do that Notes cannot - or cannot without a great deal of effort.
Two examples (experienced under 4.6): filtering your incoming email; attaching a signature file to your outgoing email.
Yes, Notes is really, really powerful stuff, but if I spend my time as a Notes developer telling the secretaries how to filter their email, then the software really isn't maximizing my productivity the way it's supposed to.
You are under no obligation to write bad code, and while PHP permits that, it does not require it.
I agree with you that embedding executable code in your HTML is a bad idea, unless the executable content is small enough to be trivial. PHP does not REQUIRE you to embed large amounts of code directly in your page, however. If you follow sensible Object Oriented programming techniques, you can use PHP in much the same was as Java Server Pages uses JavaBeans.
Put all of the complex code necessary for a single piece of functionality in a single PHP script which is built as a class. Pass the output of that class to a utility class, like an HtmlTable rendering class, and you only need to include a couple of PHP-specific lines in your HTML. At that point switching out the HTML becomes trivially simple. If you create a "style-free" HTML template which contains all the necessary PHP includes, then you can hand this template off to any HTML production person with simple instructions.
You still have to include SOME PHP code in your HTML - enough to point to the objects that do all of the real work, and which provide HTML output.
From the example you sited above, it sounds as though you hard-wired the PHP code into your HTML. This is a very common, but bad, practice, one which runs counter to component based development.
The website www.phpbuilder.com has some good articles discussing the use of PHP classes.
The practice of embedding executable content directly in an HTML document represents a way to share some of the development burden with people who may not be qualified programmers. You can create an object tailored to your immediate needs (business or otherwise), tell your HTML producing co-workers how to use that object on a web page, and let them do the rest of the work, while you go back to building more objects.
If you follow this practice, the graphic designer doesn't have to give you HTML templates, you can give the designer your objects, and let them build the page. Tools like Macromedia's Dreamweaver allow you to define custom objects so that your HTML people don't need to leave their familiar environment in order to embed your functionality.
Everyone responsible for slashdot has done an amazing job. I am not resorting to hyperbole when I say that you have made history. People will be talking about/. for years to come, analyzing how a group of hackers in Michigan could become so influential (so quickly) that they are regularly quoted by CNN, Time/Varner, and other long established media franchises. Pretty impressive.
I'm thrilled to hear that you guys now get some time to yourselves. You have earned it.
To those readers who may not agree the/. team's decision, my only advice is to start your own business. It's a helluva lot of work!
My team develops relatively bland corporate web sites, and we do not make use of either browser's advanced features, simply because we never have enough resources to implement two versions of the cool, whizzy things that we would like to do. So NS5 not being backward compatible shouldn't break my sites, because the overlapping feature set of NS4 and IE4 defined the "lowest common denominator" for safe, robust web design.
One standard is something that you can develop to. Two incompatible "standards" are something to discuss over lunch.
First, you are an engaging, entertaining writer, and I enjoy reading your contributions to/.
Second, you have the ability, through your contributions to this site, to spark some of the most heated, polarized "debates" I've seen here. That may not be a talent you treasure, but you sure do possess plenty of it.
I can only hope that you give appropriate weight to the commentary expressed in these forums - which is to say, that you give more weight to the people who are actually willing to sign their names than to the ubiquitous Anonymous Cowards who, either through poor muscle coordination or poor impulse control, seem unable to avoid clicking those links which will take them to stories that they know in advance they will not enjoy.
If only I had the time to read every story that appeared under my mouse...
I am glad that you contribute to/. and look forward to your future efforts.
I was most impressed with the graceful failover. Unplugging one machine and having nothing more dramatic than a slight delay in one portion of the result is the kind of presentation that really makes an impression with "results" type people - you know, the ones who say, "I don't care how it works. Just show me that it does work."
I'm also pleased with IBM's recent decision to release their Websphere Application Server on Linux - although the person in marketing who thought up that name should be demoted. The acronym is "IBM WAS." Both passive and past-tense. Sheesh!
Slashdot Mirror
Why does the premise of a girl who doesn't need to be saved turn you off?
I've dated some tough women in my time. They are FAR more interesting than the ones who "need" a hero.
I saw an interview with Joss Whedon wherein he explained the genesis of BtVS. A scene in the series pilot embodied Whedon's vision: a pretty girl walks into an alley alone, followed by a Creature of the Night. In a traditional horror film, the girl would become Monster Chow. But Whedon and crew make their living by turning convention on its head.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a tribute to, and satire of, the Horror genre. It is written by really smart people who assume that their audience is intelligent and literate.
Hmm... here's some interesting anecdotal evidence. (Counting on fingers...) 75% of the people that I know who are "die hard" Buffy fans are Macintosh users. Mangle that statistic as you please.
Remember that iTunes is clearly targeted at the casual user.
"...but it is entirely another thing when an ad agency calls you looking for just the right sound for a commercial."
If a person is capable of running a profitable business using only free software provided by Apple, more power to them. I don't advocate spending money where you don't have to. But (I hope) you wouldn't use iMovie as the basis for your video production house. You'd use Final Cut Pro, or some other powerful, made-for-professionals tool.
iTunes is a great "end-user" music player. I've never gotten the impression that it was attempting to be any more than that.
You wrote, 'When it comes to Free software, isn't "the development community" the same as "the public"?'
The two are not the same. I am a consumer of FreeBSD, by virtue of having a Virtual BSD Server from aplus.net. My use of that operating system in no way entitles me to know what transpires between the developers of that OS.
If I want to know the nitty gritty details of OS development, then I need to subscribe to the general mailing lists, read the code, and submit my own work.
Since I'm not prepared to do the above - I am quite happy to be a mere consumer in this case - I don't have any objection to people saying "this is a private matter, it doesn't concern you."
That the source code is available for your perusal is completely unrelated to the behavioral dynamics which govern the production of that code.
You write, "So it is bad when Microsoft buys up resources, but good when Apple does it?"
Most of the people that I know do NOT criticize Microsoft for buying promising products and repackaging them under the Microsoft name, as they did with Front Page and then with Visio. That's a common business tactic, practiced by virtually all large software companies. What's true for individual developers is true for businesses as well - it's easier (and cheaper) to reuse (good) existing code than it is to write new code.
It is definitely a Good Thing for Apple that they are clearly articulating a cohesive, comprehensive business strategy:
"If you create digital media, buy a Macintosh."
Why is this behavior acceptable for Apple and not for Microsoft? Because Apple is NOT a law-breaking monopolist. Microsoft is. Apple is explicitly permitted to engage in behavior from which Microsoft is expressly forbidden.
Don't complain because Apple is doing something legal. Stop and think about why Microsoft isn't allowed to do the same any more.
I'm a couple of weeks into an experiment. Over the holidays I indulged a consumerist impulse and bought a Titanium Laptop. After the second credit card statement arrived, I decided I'd damned well better get some use out of a machine that I paid roughly $3,000 for. So for the past 2+ weeks I've left the Linux machine off and have used the TiBook as my sole home machine.
;-)
For the most part, I have no complaint. Many long time OS 9 users are vocally unhappy about the Aqua GUI. I'm a longtime WindowMaker user, so I'm on conceptually familiar ground. I like being able to SSH into my laptop from work and continue the project I was working on. I like the fact that fetchmail and sendmail come pre-installed on my laptop. I really, really like the OmniWeb browser (http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/). I like watching (the Pro only) QuickTime movie trailers from quicktime.apple.com when it's 1:30 AM and I really ought to be in bed. I'm very impressed with iTunes and iPhoto. I assume at this point that if I owned a digital movie camera that I would be impressed with iMovie, as well.
I do, however, have two noticeable complaints:
1) I've spent the weekend trying to compile PHP 4.1.2 on this damned machine, and I'm getting tired of reading potentially helpful posts on various mailing lists which all end in the same error message:
"/usr/bin/libtool: internal link edit command failed"
If anyone has encountered this error message while compiling PHP 4.1.2 and resolved matters to their liking, I would be delighted to hear what you did.
2) I bought Civilization III for Mac OS X. I have a 677mz G4 processor with 512 MB of RAM, and the damned game is so slow its almost unplayable. That's simply unacceptable. I can't remember the last time that I cursed so much at a game. It doesn't matter if companies port their software to Mac OS X, if the port is practically unusable.
One final thought, unrelated to the previous statements:
I don't give a damn about the price. I don't use Linux because it's Beer-Free. I've happily paid for every version of the OS that I've used over the past five years; I understand how a Market Economy works. If you tell me that you didn't buy a Macintosh because it didn't do something that you needed, or because it did something you found unacceptable, I'll gladly accept that. But if you tell me you didn't buy a Mac because you were too cheap, rest assured that you won't get invited to any of my parties. I'd rather have no scotch than cheap scotch
Best regards,
Mike McC
It's late, and I'm halfway through a bottle of Chianti, so bear with me on this, because this is a little long ...
.2 release to upgrade. I'm loyal, but not naive.)
Even if the licensing terms of the Sorensen codec permitted Apple to release the specs for Quicktime, I'm confident that they wouldn't. I'm pretty sure I understand why. And I agree.
It's all about the brand.
Explanation By Example
Once upon a time, I was a loyal Microsoft user. Dos, Windows 3.1, Windows 95. I had invested time in the system, knew how to get work done using those tools. When a knowledgeable friend suggested that I upgrade my trusty HP Vectra to the newly released Windows NT 4.0, I did so. After the third time the system crashes SO HARD that I had to reinstall the operating system from scratch, I was so irritated at Microsoft that I swore I wouldn't believe their lies again. I went and bought a copy of Red Hat Linux 4.2, and began the long, painful process of self education.
RedHat 4.2 was much, much more difficult for a casual user than MS Windows NT 4.0. But Microsoft's marketing machine was in overdrive at the time, trying to convince the world that Unix was dead, that NT was the future - and, more importantly, that NT was the best computing experience I would get. Microsoft flat out lied to me. The Linux community, on the other hand, never once suggested that I wouldn't have to sweat, curse, and study in order to use their Stone Soup operating system.
I don't mind hard work. I will not tolerate being lied to.
You might be asking at this point, "What the hell does this have to do with the parent article, or even with the subject line of this post, ferchristssake?"
My point is that Microsoft damaged their brand. They misrepresented themselves - they created a significant negative impression in my mind, and I haven't given them a penny since. At the same time, RedHat created a positive impression on me by NOT overselling themselves, by being truthful with me, and I have happily bought a copy of every x.2 release of their software since. (I always wait until the
Apple's single strongest asset is it's brand. As I sit here typing this article on my recently purchased Titanium Powerbook running OS X, I understand the truth of that. I've been a Linux user for the past six years, but never bothered to try any of the BSDs, until Mac OS X. Why? Because Steve Jobs, legendary control freak and perfectionist, has staked his professional reputation on the Apple brand. You know that if you buy a Steve-Jobs-Apple product it will be as good as anything else out there. Apple is all about providing the best computing experience that you can get as a user.
(Don't believe me? Feel the urge to say something in defense of Linux that this point? Think about how many hours it took you to become fluent with linux + the desktop manager of your choice. Spend that same amount of time with Mac OS X and the Aqua interface. After that time, you will find me happy to compare and contrast.)
Proprietary is not neccesarily bad
Apple will probably never Open Source QuickTime, and I don't mind. It's Apple's technology, and they have no social or moral obligation to release it into the wild. But while QuickTime is an Apple technology, when I am presented with multiple formats to select from when viewing multimedia on the web, I always choose QuickTime. It's not out of loyalty. It's because I know, based on experience, that Apple's technology will provide the best user experience.
Happy to spend money
How many of you work on a Windows machine during the day? How often do you use QuickTime and see that annoying "Upgrade to QuickTime Pro now" ad?
Since I began an experiment to use my Apple laptop exclusively for a month (no better teacher than experience) I have spent the $40 for Quicktime 5 Pro. I've also spent a similar amount of money for the OmniWeb browser. Why? Because I was so impressed by the experience those products provided me on this platform that I was happy to give them my money. I don't use Open Source software because I'm cheap. That's a small amount of money to give to people who make a damned fine piece of software.
It's all about the brand, and how seriously the owners take that brand. I don't trust Microsoft, because in my opinion Microsoft doesn't want to have the best damned software out there. Microsoft doesn't care if I have The Best user experience. Microsoft is happy with Good Enough. I trust Apple. Apple DOES want to have the best damned software out there. It's (mostly) not Open Source, and they want to control the experience from the hardware on up, and you have to pay more for that experience. But Apple is very, very good at what they do. Ideology aside, it's worth the money. I'll spend more money with Apple, because I'm so impressed with what i've seen so far. And I'll take a chance on the Next Big Thing that Apple produces. Again, because I've been consistently impressed by what I've seen.
It's all about the brand.
You write, "I truly cannot understand what's so great about Macs." Then you state, "...there are only two [computers] I use regularly:" a Linux server and a win2K/winXP/linux desktop.
You should be able to answer your own question. You use an operating system (Linux) in preference to other options for a particular task (as a server) because you think it's best for that task. For every task you can think of, there is probably an os/app combination that you feel will be the best environment for you to accomplish that task.
Many people believe that the Macintosh is the best platform for a set of tasks. You don't claim to have used a Macintosh, or benefitted from the graphics friendly technology which is baked into that OS, yet you suggest that you're correct and they're wrong.
Perhaps the work that you're producing on a Win32 machine is better than that of your coworkers. How much of that is because of the operating system involved? Perhaps the answer for you is "none," and since the OS doesn't help you on your current platform, you assert that it won't be a factor on other platforms.
But what if, after the unavoidable learning curve of a new platform, you discovered that you were 10% more productive on a Macintosh, because of the design and technology of the OS? What if it were only 5%, or the improvement were as great at 15%? What is 10% more time worth to you?
You don't use a Windows server. Why not? Isn't the windows server Good Enough? Or did you want the Best Available Option? Did you arrive at that opinion by reading trade magazines? By listening to your coworkers? Or by direct experimentation and observation?
If you're using your Windows desktop and Win32 ports of your preferred applications because they're Good Enough, that's your prerogative, but at least recognize your stance. But if you are interesting in using the best tool for the job, it is self-limiting for you to dismiss the Mactinosh without seriously exploring the platform.
Your final two questions:
"what's the point?" and
"why is this story even slashdot worthy?"
should also be immediately obvious. Because the availability of Photoshop for Mac OS X will go a long way toward making or breaking the short term success of Mac OS X. Photoshop dominates its market, and its not a trvial market. This release will directly lead to increased sales for both Apple and Photoshop. In a time when many tech companies are struggling, Apple and Photoshop will post numbers that are better than their neighbors. This will translate into increased positive media attention, which will create a more receptive management, which will lead to more OS X Macs in your office.
One last question:
Why is it a source of pride that none of your home computers is an Apple?
Wishing the two of you many happy years together.
For the potential use of XML-RPC, consider the general benefits of any RPC mechanism. Now consider the benefits of a universally agreed upon specification and syntax.
Because of its XML nature, XML-RPC is verbose, and not suited for high performance RPC activities like NIS/NFS. But if your computer needs a bit of information from a remote data source, and you don't waiting a few milliseconds for that data - and you don't know or care what OS that remote data source is running - then XML-RPC is a good option.
Microsoft was not a driving force behind XML-RPC. That credit goes to Dave Winer of Userland Software. http://www.xmlrpc.org/spec
XMP-RPC predates SOAP, and in fact was a major inspiration for SOAP. If you look at the specification for the latter protocol, http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/ , you will see that Dave Winer is one of the eight authors credited.
I have not seen anything which indicates that MS "lost control" of SOAP. MS engineers are 4/8 of the credited authors behind the SOAP 1.1 protocol, and MS's entire "Web Services" initiative depends heavily on SOAP.
"It may not be illegal as such, but it is certainly immoral."
If I use someone else's password to access proprietary content on a subscription-based site, that's stealing.
If the CEO of a corporation lays off a thousand employees and is rewarded with a large bonus, that's immoral.
To suggest that I not waste my time, our mutual bandwidth, or your server's CPU time to download an ad that I'm not going to pay attention to anyway, is NOT immoral.
If the counter-argument is that you (as a hypothetical publisher) get paid for the ad impression whether I pay attention to it or not, THAT is arguably immoral, since it implies that you are knowingly defrauding the advertiser. But the reality is that ad banners typically generate revenues for click-thoughs, not simple impressions. If I'm not going to click through to the advertiser's site, then making me download the ad is a waste of my time.
There is no social contract involved in advertising. I, as a consumer, do not have a moral obligation to look at your ads. You, as a (hypothetical) publisher, do not have a moral obligation to make your content freely available. If someone chooses to publish content on the web for profit, and that person decides to make their content "freely" available (with advertising) rather than pursue some other business model, then the success or failure of that person's business is a strategic, but not a moral, matter.
The obvious technical solution to this problem is to make sure that ads seen on mysite.com are actually served from mysite.com, so that the "foreign blocker" won't be activated at all. This would probably mean that instead of just creating an account with DoubleClick, you would actually install some DoubleClick software on your server, which will regularly download banners to your site. This would have several effects:
- decreasing page load times for HTTP/1.1 browsers
- foiling the "foreign image" blocker
- making people think twice before slapping ads on their web pages.
While I enjoyed the article, I found it interesting that it did not touch on another component of IBM's long term strategy - Java.
Here's a question to the Slashdot readership:
Does IBM's Linux strategy represent a compliment to its Java strategy, a refinement, or a replacement? One could make a case for either.
Compliment:
IBM is aggressively and successfully pursuing Java application development across its product lines, and this standardization of languages, libraries, and tools actually makes it easier for the company to adopt Linux, where it might not have been a practical option if IBM had not already adopted Java.
Refinement:
IBM is having problems deploying Java applications across all of its product lines, so spreading Linux across all the hardware reduces the overhead and complexity of the Java efforts.
Replacement:
IBM has decided that Java is not going to live up to its potential as a feature-rich lowest common denominator development environment. Linux, with less onerous licensing terms permitting more technical and creative freedom, is to take the place of Java in IBM's strategy - Linux will be the lowest common denominator, rather than Java.
Comments, suggestions, refutations?
My bet is that they'll return to Lotus Notes.
I quit my last job, which was primarily web development using Notes/Domino 4.6, because 4.6 was an incredibly frustrating platform upon which to develop good web applications - that is, applications which are designed to run in a web browser.
But Notes is an incredibly powerful platform if you are willing to use the Notes client. Notes has already received the necessary security certifications - otherwise the Navy wouldn't have been using it previously.
IBM, Lotus' parent company, has made Domino a central part of their larger internet strategy. IBM is making WebSphere work very closely with Domino, has greatly extended Java servlet support in Domino, and has included Domino support in their Visual Age for Java IDE.
I don't know of any other "industrial strength" groupware packages which have met the government's security requirements. They may very well be out there, but if so they definitely have a "nice" market, and a deficient Marketing department.
While the success of Open Source software in the commercial arena is a valid benchmark of the strength of the Open Source software movement, please don't make the mistake of thinking that success in the ecommerce arena is the ONLY valid area of competition.
I do NOT use the web only to buy things. In fact, about 99% of my use of the web is NOT for acquisitory purposes, but for informational ones. I don't care if Microsoft owns (now or in the future) all the ecommerce mindshare, because selling things is NOT what the internet is about! My DSL connection gives me a static IP address, and a consistently accessible platform from which I can publicize my thoughts. The Linux OS gives me an environment that I can take for granted, so that I can concentrate on the message, not the medium. The Apache web server gives me the means to say whatever I want to say, in exactly the way that I want.
The success or failure of Open Source software has NOTHING to do with the success or failure of commercial companies. It has everything to do with your ability to use that software in the way you want, to say what you want. Even if every ecommerce site on the web were running Microsoft's latest version of IIS, the Apache web server would still be a resounding success, because it would still permit me, Joe Average American, to publish my opinion, to use the Internet to communicate to anyone who will listen.
those "piss-ant" sites, those "Here is a Picture of My Cat" web sites, are much more important than you might think. Boring or unimaginative though they may be (I'm a firm believer in the theory that 90% of everything is crap), those piss-ant sites are the mundane embodiment of the real potential of the internet - the ability of the average person to express an opinion, in a non-instrusive way. If MS's products let you buy things, but Apache lets you say what's on your mind, then Apache is a winner. If the Apache web server, in conjunction with the Linux OS, lets you say whatever you want, no matter who owns what percentage of the market... well, there's simply nothing to complain about.
It doesn't matter what you own,
it matters what you do with what you own
- Mike McCafferty
Zope and Lotus Domino are not in the same league.
I'm not a fan of Lotus Domino - in fact, I quit my last job because my employers refused to wean themselves off Domino. But Domino is really, really powerful stuff. Zope is pretty cool, and shows tremendoues potential, but Domino really is Enterprise class software. Ugly and monstrous, and rigid in surpring (and frustrating) ways, but really, really powerful.
Yes, I'm aware that I'm implying that Zope isn't as powerful as Lotus Domino. I don't think that's debatable. But then, Zope doesn't need to be, in order to be really good software in its own right.
I'm not going to do a feature-list comparison, because I wouldn't want anyone to think that I'm a Notes/Domino booster. But Zope and Domino are not the same type of software, even though both are occasionally called "application servers."
My two cents...
Although I don't have any hard data to either confirm or deny your statement, I will accept as fact that Postgres has better performance on really large databases.
To me that's not a relevant selling point, while MySQL's speed is. I'm using PHP and MySQL to automate my company's intranet - content management, remote publishing, workflow, that sort of thing. The quantity of data that needs to reside in a database is relatively modest, so Postgres' superior performance at the high end is a benefit that I will never see. Our "Current Clients" or "Job Openings" databases just aren't going to get so big that MySQL strains under the load.
>But for real databases of actual size...
These are real databases, because they are storing real corporate information, reducing duplication of data, improving consistency, and generally making my fellow employees' work days better. Their actual size is very modest - much smaller than their actual benefit. Different tasks require different tools.
MySQL's speed does represent an immediate benefit to me, and to my users. Also, because I'm automating workflow, rather than handling financial transactions, I don't miss the features like commits or rollbacks that MySQL leaves out (specifically to increase the db's speed).
But the real "killer app" for me is the web-based interface to MySQL, phpMyAdmin. This is a truly wonderful utility which has saved me tons of development time. The basic interface permits me to administer MySQL from my browser, and I can crank out customized interfaces on very short notice, just by copying the php scripts to a new directory and commenting out the HTML that produces functions that I don't want to offer to the user. In a relatively "high trust" environment like the company's intranet, MySQL, PHP, and phpMyAdmin have made my job MUCH easier.
FYI, the makers of phpMyAdmin now have a postgresMyAdmin , too, although I've been so happy with MySQL that I don't feel compelled to change.
"in a coperate envoiornment, this isn't an issue"
I agree with you completely, because this strengthens my theory about MS's server strategy.
DDNS may not be a compelling solution for a global, public network, but it sounds as though it's a very nice option for a local net, and that's where Microsoft is concentrating their efforts.
It is important to remember that the Winxx platform is not the logical center of Microsoft's empire. MS Office is. MS Office is the "killer app" which makes most businesses buy Wintel boxes on the desktop, and Windows on the desktop is why those same businesses buy NT servers. The presence of MS Office for the Mac was a significant factor in Apple's resurgence in sales.
Microsoft is leveraging this advantage very effectively, integrating Office with IIS, and with DDNS they are now making it even easier for any salesperson to connect their Windows laptop to connect to any open ethernet port in the office and start working immediately.
That, all by itself, is a good thing. What is not a good thing is for MS to specifcially design their ActiveDirectory so that it requires DDNS. Novell's NDS doesn't require DDNS, and from what I've seen ActiveDirectory does less than Novell's solution. I'm sure that the programmers behind W2K are very good at their jobs, so I must assume that the decision to make W2K DDNS dependant was a conscious choice. If MS publishes a white paper stating the reasons for this, I will read it, (and the soon-to-follow slashdot commentary) and make my mind up then.
PC Week deserves criticism for not doing their homework on this (no surprise there). To state that Unix does not offer this service, when it does, is terrible journanlism.
But then, any "news" article about Windows 2000 which is followed by a link titled
"Check prices: Windows 2000" isn't actually journalism at all, it's an infomercial.
HeUnique prints an excerpt from a separate work to provide context, and provides a reference to the original source.
Short and to the point, and follows the standards for good journalism.
You say that Lotus Notes can do things that no other software suite can do. I agree with you, but you must admit that there are things that every other major tool can do that Notes cannot - or cannot without a great deal of effort.
Two examples (experienced under 4.6):
filtering your incoming email;
attaching a signature file to your outgoing email.
Yes, Notes is really, really powerful stuff, but if I spend my time as a Notes developer telling the secretaries how to filter their email, then the software really isn't maximizing my productivity the way it's supposed to.
You are under no obligation to write bad code, and while PHP permits that, it does not require it.
I agree with you that embedding executable code in your HTML is a bad idea, unless the executable content is small enough to be trivial. PHP does not REQUIRE you to embed large amounts of code directly in your page, however. If you follow sensible Object Oriented programming techniques, you can use PHP in much the same was as Java Server Pages uses JavaBeans.
Put all of the complex code necessary for a single piece of functionality in a single PHP script which is built as a class. Pass the output of that class to a utility class, like an HtmlTable rendering class, and you only need to include a couple of PHP-specific lines in your HTML. At that point switching out the HTML becomes trivially simple. If you create a "style-free" HTML template which contains all the necessary PHP includes, then you can hand this template off to any HTML production person with simple instructions.
You still have to include SOME PHP code in your HTML - enough to point to the objects that do all of the real work, and which provide HTML output.
From the example you sited above, it sounds as though you hard-wired the PHP code into your HTML. This is a very common, but bad, practice, one which runs counter to component based development.
The website www.phpbuilder.com has some good articles discussing the use of PHP classes.
The practice of embedding executable content directly in an HTML document represents a way to share some of the development burden with people who may not be qualified programmers. You can create an object tailored to your immediate needs (business or otherwise), tell your HTML producing co-workers how to use that object on a web page, and let them do the rest of the work, while you go back to building more objects.
If you follow this practice, the graphic designer doesn't have to give you HTML templates, you can give the designer your objects, and let them build the page. Tools like Macromedia's Dreamweaver allow you to define custom objects so that your HTML people don't need to leave their familiar environment in order to embed your functionality.
Congrats, guys!
/. for years to come, analyzing how a group of hackers in Michigan could become so influential (so quickly) that they are regularly quoted by CNN, Time/Varner, and other long established media franchises. Pretty impressive.
/. team's decision, my only advice is to start your own business. It's a helluva lot of work!
Everyone responsible for slashdot has done an amazing job. I am not resorting to hyperbole when I say that you have made history. People will be talking about
I'm thrilled to hear that you guys now get some time to yourselves. You have earned it.
To those readers who may not agree the
As a web developer ( http://www.idg.com, http://www.solutionsintegrator.com , http://www.idgmediagallery.com ) I am very pleased to hear this news.
My team develops relatively bland corporate web sites, and we do not make use of either browser's advanced features, simply because we never have enough resources to implement two versions of the cool, whizzy things that we would like to do. So NS5 not being backward compatible shouldn't break my sites, because the overlapping feature set of NS4 and IE4 defined the "lowest common denominator" for safe, robust web design.
One standard is something that you can develop to. Two incompatible "standards" are something to discuss over lunch.
"Ahab" is at least as possible as "Adama."
More than one, actually.
/.
/. and look forward to your future efforts.
First, you are an engaging, entertaining writer, and I enjoy reading your contributions to
Second, you have the ability, through your contributions to this site, to spark some of the most heated, polarized "debates" I've seen here. That may not be a talent you treasure, but you sure do possess plenty of it.
I can only hope that you give appropriate weight to the commentary expressed in these forums - which is to say, that you give more weight to the people who are actually willing to sign their names than to the ubiquitous Anonymous Cowards who, either through poor muscle coordination or poor impulse control, seem unable to avoid clicking those links which will take them to stories that they know in advance they will not enjoy.
If only I had the time to read every story that appeared under my mouse...
I am glad that you contribute to
I was most impressed with the graceful failover. Unplugging one machine and having nothing more dramatic than a slight delay in one portion of the result is the kind of presentation that really makes an impression with "results" type people - you know, the ones who say, "I don't care how it works. Just show me that it does work."
I'm also pleased with IBM's recent decision to release their Websphere Application Server on Linux - although the person in marketing who thought up that name should be demoted. The acronym is "IBM WAS." Both passive and past-tense. Sheesh!