The GNOME 3 project seems to do its utmost best to loose the GNOME 2 user base.
I switched to KDE earlier this year after months of trying to deal with the frustration of a combination of broken and removed features.
I wish to congratulate GNOME 3 on their new business, and I know they'll do very well; and good luck -- as best as your interests don't conflict with my interests and I don't have to use that GUI.
XP was exactly what it's version says, Windows NT 5.1. It had tweaks to Windows 2K; mostly cleaning up little things that didn't work in the API (like debugging).
Windows XP was the last version of Windows that was worth development or user effort. Vista just never worked, and Windows 7 is just a fix for Vista. Windows 8 is a confused mess. MS should have written s tablet only platform and merged them later; mmm, that should like what Apple did.
Large commercial users of Windows use 2008 Server R2 on the back end and Windows XP on the front.
Why a gamer would want an OS that takes a core and huge chunk of resources to run is anyone's guess; in fact, it's not true.
Has anyone noticed how similar Linux is to Windows? And this is just following that trend.
I've been using a variety of systems lately, and I am constantly shocked at the way the Windows mindset is embedded in Linux. (For example, why on earth are they using systemd?)
I think the benevolent dictator has lost his way.
I can't see why system dependent features can't be included in system specific builds, but of course, that's not the Window way,
This is interesting, a wealthy global company taking on a powerful sovereign state and largest European market. Maybe Germany will take another look at Facebook's local tax arrangements.
Windows is more popular because it got there first, it got computers into home and followed cheaper computers into businesses. Linux started poping out some time later and still not about to replace Windows in the average home.
Commercial users of all operating systems pay for consultancy. Would you bet the farm on a labour saving device without making sure you had expertise on hand to manage it for you?
I remember when DDJ published the BSD i386 source, that was pre-Linux. It's said that Linus wanted a better Minix, but before that were the Berkeley Software Distribution and the GNU Toolset.
It's not at all clear why Linus is singled out for credit.
If they lost a number of law suites, I take it they'd be liable for costs. Presumably there wasn't a business case for building the network in the first place. And finally, no one thinks the better of TDS for the these events.
How much did this cost TDS and did anyone in a decision making position loose their job?
Let me get this straight. The Ministry of Education outsources the marking of O/A Levels to a foreign company because they're cheaper. This foreigh supplier fails to mark exam result on time in 2008 and automates marking the following year?
It's all a scam. The contract should be revoked and Edexcell replaced with a competent marker.
I can't see anything new either. Let's think about this. There are processes that look for suspicious files or configuration and does something about it. Surely the fundamentals haven't change, you still have to find a threat and then act on it. The article has conveyed no new information.
And I disagree, it is not easy to reverse engineer proprietary file formats because you are always chasing a moving target. Also, you're usually violating some term/condition when you do so.
For example, you cannot duplicate the Microsoft Office file formats because there isn't a single one. Each version of MS Word, for example, changes its file format. So which one do you follow?
MS Office products have problems with forward compatibility, i.e. it's not even compatible with itself.
Bach spelled out his name in a lot of his music and so have other composers since that time. Have you ever tried to listen to this stuff? Compare all that stuff with say, Mozart, who's music actually had melodies.
Molodies are timeless. All this "music" based on "reason" just doesn't cut it.
I haven't heard Emerald Suspension's stuff but I can guess where it's going.
C++ is more than just an OO language. It provides direct support for the procedural paradigm too.
STL, for example, is not an OO library. Yet it has proved to be immensly useful.
One place where the garbage collected languages fall down is in the management of resources. The handling of limited resources such as files or sockets must be explicitly released by the programmer. This demonstrates that you simply cannot ignore the lifetime of objects with a garbage collector. And I also assert here that memory is a limited resource too.
That silly singleton thing in the example is a demonstration of the disregard for the lifetime of that particular object. Does it really need to live for the lifetime of the application? Does it need to be cleanly released?
I think C++'s memory management model is sufficient. One can hardly say that about garbage collected languages.
Prior to Visual C++/Turbo C++ IDE's, the Windows C programming was based on make files (nmake files?). You would customise it to do exactly what was required, but when C++ and MFC/OWL came about, so did new tools.
It's all about trade-offs. You can either require the developer to add a library every time he uses it, or add an unhealthy amount by default and allow the clever developer to remove the excess.
The IDE is about ease of use. You sacrifice your cool macro-language extended editor Brief, PE,...) for the colour highlighted bland editor. You don't have to configure it to get F1 help. It's got better over the years and it's available to everyone.
That is the point; availability to everyone. The tools lower the barriers to entry. It's much easier and much less frustrating to have Visual Studio create a running empty app that you can customise or prise apart, than it is create one from scratch using a set of disparate tools. (There's a lesson in here for Linux development somewhere.)
If you're knowledgeable enough to hate it, you probably know enough to work around it.
Performance over time is a measure of success. And so.NET's performance over 9 years would be a fair comparison.
Over the years I've seen many remarkable architectural designs, including the Windows NT Security Model (back when NT meant New Technology), which were thought to be ideal. 11 years on, no one could seriously claim that the Windows security model is ideal.
Mmm, as I thought, another monolithic monster who probably own the local loop. Sometimes the large old Crock needs to be removed from the pond for the good of everyone.
British Telecom have been fighting tooth and nail not to be broken up with considerable success, although they've finally agreed to give up the local loop. (They did loose Cellnet->O2 as they've found they paid too much for the G3 license.) In the mean time, I believe they've deferred the UK's adoption of broadband by about 7 years by killing off fledgling broadband ISPs with their Gold Room policy.
The evidence of the article is based on student assignements and a love of iPods. Some students know more about computing to begin with, some students have a better aptitude for programming, some students finish their assignments and others don't. iPods are beautiful. But this does not support the argument that good products need a team of really good engineers and good having good engineers means having good products.
The software products produced (for the last 15 years) are often too large for a single person to produce. Let's face it, every software development team has a mix of experienced and inexperienced developers. The tasks are usually broken up in such a way that coordination is required to pull them together to make a working system. Ad-hoc ideas need to be accomodated, but these play merry hell with project timescales and costs. Clarifications of boundary conditions need to be addressed from time to time, usually from an external team or company. Support teams have their own ways of working. They may have their own tools and methods. Invariably, the product is supported or used in a different way than the designers/builders envisaged. Finally, you need to educate the junior members of the team thru experience and good practice (and time and money).
The above all point to management. It's management that can make the engineers life easy (by resolving issues before or when they arrise) or hell (thru incompetence). You tend not to notice a good manager until he's away on holiday, then all hell breaks loose.
You simply cannot built a team of experts. They'll always keep clashing intellectually. You have to head the areas with gurus, but need more subordiate people around them to make their ideas work. This applies to development, test and support.
A brilliant programmer straight out of university tends to have no idea about building reliable systems or making the product more supportable. That comes with experience. Anyone can learn it, but yes some people are natually better and some are more willing to learn, all leading to better engineers. The knowledge has to be passed on from senior to junior, or learned the hard way.
BeOS and Coherent are examples of good products at the right time build by talented engineers that in the end, failed commercially. I'm sure readers can think of other examples too. It simply is not true that systems built by good engineers are commercially more successful. (VHS vs. BetaMax)
Microsoft's success is not based on brilliant engineering talent. Microsoft may have some excellent programmers, but you just need to try to interface with some of its subsystems, and you'll soon see that all that glitters is not gold. The operating system gained traction with version 3, which crashed regularly. And when it's not the OS, it's the apps. It is marketing brilliance that has let to their success, despite the products.
Slashdot Mirror
The GNOME 3 project seems to do its utmost best to loose the GNOME 2 user base.
I switched to KDE earlier this year after months of trying to deal with the frustration of a combination of broken and removed features.
I wish to congratulate GNOME 3 on their new business, and I know they'll do very well; and good luck -- as best as your interests don't conflict with my interests and I don't have to use that GUI.
XP was exactly what it's version says, Windows NT 5.1. It had tweaks to Windows 2K; mostly cleaning up little things that didn't work in the API (like debugging).
Windows XP was the last version of Windows that was worth development or user effort. Vista just never worked, and Windows 7 is just a fix for Vista. Windows 8 is a confused mess. MS should have written s tablet only platform and merged them later; mmm, that should like what Apple did.
Large commercial users of Windows use 2008 Server R2 on the back end and Windows XP on the front.
Why a gamer would want an OS that takes a core and huge chunk of resources to run is anyone's guess; in fact, it's not true.
What drug was that? And who was the professor?
Has anyone noticed how similar Linux is to Windows? And this is just following that trend.
I've been using a variety of systems lately, and I am constantly shocked at the way the Windows mindset is embedded in Linux. (For example, why on earth are they using systemd?)
I think the benevolent dictator has lost his way.
I can't see why system dependent features can't be included in system specific builds, but of course, that's not the Window way,
This is interesting, a wealthy global company taking on a powerful sovereign state and largest European market. Maybe Germany will take another look at Facebook's local tax arrangements.
It should be a dismissable offence it bring this thing any where near where you work. You probably couldn't even trust it if it were still boxed.
I think he's confusing system software with applications. The behaviour of iMovie has nothing to do with the OS it runs on.
Windows is more popular because it got there first, it got computers into home and followed cheaper computers into businesses. Linux started poping out some time later and still not about to replace Windows in the average home.
Commercial users of all operating systems pay for consultancy. Would you bet the farm on a labour saving device without making sure you had expertise on hand to manage it for you?
I remember when DDJ published the BSD i386 source, that was pre-Linux. It's said that Linus wanted a better Minix, but before that were the Berkeley Software Distribution and the GNU Toolset.
It's not at all clear why Linus is singled out for credit.
There's a lot of Java-ites who claim that Java is just as fast. They're idiots, but they're vocal.
Being wrong doesn't make them idiots.
And who pays for the downloading of all that stuff that may never be used?
Mobile devices can switch off memory that isn't used, but if the device is constantly full of clutter, the device can't power off that memory.
If they lost a number of law suites, I take it they'd be liable for costs. Presumably there wasn't a business case for building the network in the first place. And finally, no one thinks the better of TDS for the these events.
How much did this cost TDS and did anyone in a decision making position loose their job?
If you think this is news, you may want to look into what's special about Zug (Switzerland).
Let me get this straight. The Ministry of Education outsources the marking of O/A Levels to a foreign company because they're cheaper. This foreigh supplier fails to mark exam result on time in 2008 and automates marking the following year?
It's all a scam. The contract should be revoked and Edexcell replaced with a competent marker.
I can't see anything new either. Let's think about this. There are processes that look for suspicious files or configuration and does something about it. Surely the fundamentals haven't change, you still have to find a threat and then act on it. The article has conveyed no new information.
Agreed, I hope it passes too.
And I disagree, it is not easy to reverse engineer proprietary file formats because you are always chasing a moving target. Also, you're usually violating some term/condition when you do so.
For example, you cannot duplicate the Microsoft Office file formats because there isn't a single one. Each version of MS Word, for example, changes its file format. So which one do you follow?
MS Office products have problems with forward compatibility, i.e. it's not even compatible with itself.
Agreed.
All the best boring music is produced this way.
Bach spelled out his name in a lot of his music and so have other composers since that time. Have you ever tried to listen to this stuff? Compare all that stuff with say, Mozart, who's music actually had melodies.
Molodies are timeless. All this "music" based on "reason" just doesn't cut it.
I haven't heard Emerald Suspension's stuff but I can guess where it's going.
Support? No problem. It's probably all just a single product.
All except the as yet unannounced Windows Vista Universal Server, which is probably Linux with Samba 4.
C++ is more than just an OO language. It provides direct support for the procedural paradigm too.
STL, for example, is not an OO library. Yet it has proved to be immensly useful.
One place where the garbage collected languages fall down is in the management of resources. The handling of limited resources such as files or sockets must be explicitly released by the programmer. This demonstrates that you simply cannot ignore the lifetime of objects with a garbage collector. And I also assert here that memory is a limited resource too.
That silly singleton thing in the example is a demonstration of the disregard for the lifetime of that particular object. Does it really need to live for the lifetime of the application? Does it need to be cleanly released?
I think C++'s memory management model is sufficient. One can hardly say that about garbage collected languages.
Prior to Visual C++/Turbo C++ IDE's, the Windows C programming was based on make files (nmake files?). You would customise it to do exactly what was required, but when C++ and MFC/OWL came about, so did new tools.
...) for the colour highlighted bland editor. You don't have to configure it to get F1 help. It's got better over the years and it's available to everyone.
It's all about trade-offs. You can either require the developer to add a library every time he uses it, or add an unhealthy amount by default and allow the clever developer to remove the excess.
The IDE is about ease of use. You sacrifice your cool macro-language extended editor Brief, PE,
That is the point; availability to everyone. The tools lower the barriers to entry. It's much easier and much less frustrating to have Visual Studio create a running empty app that you can customise or prise apart, than it is create one from scratch using a set of disparate tools. (There's a lesson in here for Linux development somewhere.)
If you're knowledgeable enough to hate it, you probably know enough to work around it.
The new graduate who how made the decision is now known as Bill the Janitor.
More interestingly, how did they get the rats to sustain wrist injuries?
Did they use mice?
Performance over time is a measure of success. And so .NET's performance over 9 years would be a fair comparison.
Over the years I've seen many remarkable architectural designs, including the Windows NT Security Model (back when NT meant New Technology), which were thought to be ideal. 11 years on, no one could seriously claim that the Windows security model is ideal.
Mmm, as I thought, another monolithic monster who probably own the local loop. Sometimes the large old Crock needs to be removed from the pond for the good of everyone.
British Telecom have been fighting tooth and nail not to be broken up with considerable success, although they've finally agreed to give up the local loop. (They did loose Cellnet->O2 as they've found they paid too much for the G3 license.) In the mean time, I believe they've deferred the UK's adoption of broadband by about 7 years by killing off fledgling broadband ISPs with their Gold Room policy.
The evidence of the article is based on student assignements and a love of iPods. Some students know more about computing to begin with, some students have a better aptitude for programming, some students finish their assignments and others don't. iPods are beautiful. But this does not support the argument that good products need a team of really good engineers and good having good engineers means having good products.
The software products produced (for the last 15 years) are often too large for a single person to produce. Let's face it, every software development team has a mix of experienced and inexperienced developers. The tasks are usually broken up in such a way that coordination is required to pull them together to make a working system. Ad-hoc ideas need to be accomodated, but these play merry hell with project timescales and costs. Clarifications of boundary conditions need to be addressed from time to time, usually from an external team or company. Support teams have their own ways of working. They may have their own tools and methods. Invariably, the product is supported or used in a different way than the designers/builders envisaged. Finally, you need to educate the junior members of the team thru experience and good practice (and time and money).
The above all point to management. It's management that can make the engineers life easy (by resolving issues before or when they arrise) or hell (thru incompetence). You tend not to notice a good manager until he's away on holiday, then all hell breaks loose.
You simply cannot built a team of experts. They'll always keep clashing intellectually. You have to head the areas with gurus, but need more subordiate people around them to make their ideas work. This applies to development, test and support.
A brilliant programmer straight out of university tends to have no idea about building reliable systems or making the product more supportable. That comes with experience. Anyone can learn it, but yes some people are natually better and some are more willing to learn, all leading to better engineers. The knowledge has to be passed on from senior to junior, or learned the hard way.
BeOS and Coherent are examples of good products at the right time build by talented engineers that in the end, failed commercially. I'm sure readers can think of other examples too. It simply is not true that systems built by good engineers are commercially more successful. (VHS vs. BetaMax)
Microsoft's success is not based on brilliant engineering talent. Microsoft may have some excellent programmers, but you just need to try to interface with some of its subsystems, and you'll soon see that all that glitters is not gold. The operating system gained traction with version 3, which crashed regularly. And when it's not the OS, it's the apps. It is marketing brilliance that has let to their success, despite the products.