Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC, wrote about the relational db.
Martina Navratilova, former professional tennis player, wrote about tennis.
Patricia Russo, CEO of Lucent, wrote about a laptop/cellphone.
I guess this either means they are 1) predictable or 2) boring. Perhaps both. I think old(er) people tend to have less active imaginations.
I'm not surprised that the most "fun" and innovative, if impossible, idea came from a novelist.
True. But imagine the power of drugs that give you that sort of high with no negative effects? I'm sure there's a book on this (I think I've read it but forgot the name) but essentially people would be "plugging in" 24/7.
I'm going to play Devil's advocate for a second since most people have already responded with the "No, don't go IPO! It will kill you and you have to kowtow to investors" argument.
I'm not on the board nor do I even work at Google but what about from the perspective that Google needs an IPO to survive? Well, not in the strictest sense, but how much can the search industry grow? Probably quite a bit, actually, and I'm sure they make revenue off of other services they offer but the majority of their revenue comes from selling search.
Like it or not, selling search will soon run out. Any and every company out there constantly has to have eyes on the future, 1, 5, 10, 20 years out. It's the only way to survive in the long run (much like a country). Selling search now won't be what it is in 10 (or even 5) years from now. The competitors are also quickly rising.
So Google, in its right mind, has to think big. They have to think beyond linearly improving search risking death by competitors. Google, like Sony, Microsoft, (and Sun, hopefully), needs to grow its business in a big way. They need another big idea or a big idea that involves incorporating search into a grander scheme. In the long run, if they don't, they will die.
This may sound like FUD but in the tech world this is how it work. 1) You have to stay on top of your game and 2) You've always gotta fight to get that Ace of Spades in your hand. This is especially important in tech since it mutates quickly.
Oh yeah, in case I didn't point the obvious, any such undertaking will probably require insane amounts of money. One example of what I'm talking about is Microsoft's investment in.Net.
And I am sorry, but any employee who is swayed by stock options IS A TOTAL FSCKING MORON. The only way stock options are valuable is if the stock price of the company significantly increases from the time the options are granted to the time they are vested. As other posters have pointed out, this leads to a company trying to grow continuously, which is simply not possible. As a result, eventually you will get stock options that don't significantly appreciate in value.
Absolutely wrong. Look at any blue chip company out there (the IBMs, Coca Colas, Walmarts, Eastman Kodak). These are market veterans who have average their growth probably around 10-15% a year (perhaps a quarter) every year. It is possible to continuously grow (unless you take it to infinity but last I checked we weren't that close:).
And, it's simple. They grow by increasing market share through acquisition (Peoplesoft buys JD Edwards, Coca Cola owns most all of popular Soda, Microsoft buys Great Plains), diversification (Johnson and Johnson makes every household supply from soap to cleaners), or a complete shift in markets (BMW and Mercedes initially made planes for wars and now they solely make cars).
So it IS possible to continuously grow. It's not possible to grow at the rates they do initially and most exciting companies probably grow on a log scale but it's possible.
Re:Been saying it for years
on
CNet on WinFS
·
· Score: 1
Putting any kind of standard database into the file system is not going to help with any of those. Search is already handled quite well anyway.
That's the thing. I think you have to cast aside the thought of combining a file system and traditional database. As I said in my original post:
Does it mean that MSFT is trying to make it so that you could import your Sql SERVER or Oracle database onto a WinFS system? I highly doubt it. And that's the distinction that needs to be made.
It doesn't seem like they're converting the filesystem into an enterprise level database. They're just enabling the core features of a db (search) for a filesystem that is long overdue.
So, without repeating myself, there it is.
Search, as it is now, is NOT handled well. Have you ever used Win 95/98/2000/XP? There's no useful search feature. If you want to find a document across an 80Gb hardware be ready to wait about 10 mins (more or less). When I say "good search" I mean a utility where I could go to and simply type "Jay Z" and instantly have the 10 most relevant files given to me.
Media (images, video, audio, etc.) are not well addressed by the kind of database Microsoft is proposing to put in.
Actually I don't think you can say that it can't (and, conversely, I can't say that it will). Why? Because they havent' given enough details on how this will actually work and without knowing that one cannot say. However, I think Microsoft is smart enough to notice that the explosion of media storage in the last half decade has really only been used to serve media (gifs, mp3s, and now mpgs). Storage is increasingly becoming media-centric.
My guess is that if they were going to do a useful "db" that serves media, they will have to use/create some standardized features for maintaing metadata regarding media (i.e. people in gifs, chapters in mpgs (a la DVD), and better metadata on text). All of this is quite possible and has not been done well.
And how exactly is a database supposed to help with "data transparency across machines? That's something file systems know how to do and know how to do well, but the equivalent database functionality requires high-end, costly, and complex databases--in different words, the problem gets worse.
Well, for one, I think it's a mistake to take current databases (SQL Server, Oracle, etc) and try to wrap that idea around a database. I dont' think that's what they're doing and that's what you're basing your arguments on.
The database, itself, I dont' think will help with data transparency. I said that in regards to the fact that much of hte metadata wil be maintained in XML (along with their comments of really globalized their use of web services).
Funny thing is: Google is using a file system for their data storage, and they are definitely not using the kinds of databases that Microsoft wants to put in. If Google did use a design like Microsoft, they would be out of business.
Again, you missed my point. My point in the original post was a response to the people who said "it's been tried before and it doesn't work". I was saying, "Look. Yes, a similar idea has been tried before but this was before the advent of really good disk drive technology. It's like saying something liek Google was impossible 10 years ago when, really, it was only due to the technology behind it." I say this because we learn, at school, about the endeavors made to combine filesystems and databases. But the context has always been around enterprise systems and enterprise use instead of individual consumer use. There are also other subtle differences that change the problem around (i.e. the primary type of data you're serving is media and not nice small chunks of text).
Anyway, another mistake you made was assuming that I waas saying that they were putting Google technology into Longhorn. All wrong. I was saying that they want to provide the same FUNCTIONALITY not TECHNOLOGY.
I'm not expert on Sun but as a hardware vendor I think they're done with. According to their current model they will lose out to Dell/Compaq (plus Linux). Anyway, hardware vendoring seems like a competition based on cost-cutting (get a decent system for cheap). So unless they can implement some critical technology that can't be easily emulated by some other hardware/software vendor I don't see their hardware business growing anytime soon. They are simply just too many cheaper alternatives.
Software. In today's IT world, software is basically dead. Well, it's not dead, but today revenue is gained through a combination of software and service. Need SAP? Ok, but we also have to charge you for 5 consultants who will be "customizing" it for 12 months. Services have taken over and I dont' know if Sun even has a real services division. IBM created their Global Services division and I believe it pulls in a major chunk of their current revenue.
Simply relying on Java would be suicide. Microsoft can realy in Windows, and Office because of the profit margins. Microsoft also makes a shitload on server software. As far as I know, that stuff is basically open source on Linux. I've never had to use server software for Linux, but unless Sun can create a suite of easy-to-use software and charge decent money for it software will mean death to them too.
Lastly, I don't think they need to "go back to what they do best" because they are simply beat. Frankly, it seems like they need to redefine their business. They're so out of touch with today's world that I, as a programmer and IT worker, have lost complete touch with them. I used a couple sunrays (? i think) several years ago but since then I've heard nothing about Sun.
Re:Been saying it for years
on
CNet on WinFS
·
· Score: 1
I'm well aware of this theory, but in the context of:
1) Increasing size and need for search on home computers.
2) Explosion of media and information on consumer machines.
3) Increasing need for data transparency across machines.
I'd say it's a task worth undertaking.
Does it mean that MSFT is trying to make it so that you could import your Sql SERVER or Oracle database onto a WinFS system? I highly doubt it. And that's the distinction that needs to be made.
It doesn't seem like they're converting the filesystem into an enterprise level database. They're just enabling the core features of a db (search) for a filesystem that is long overdue.
And, yes, this has been tried in the past but disk drive technology has come quite a way since then. I'm sure Google searches weren't possible back then either.
Re:File now or file later
on
CNet on WinFS
·
· Score: 1
"Now if you've gone to the effort of making the directory meta-data useful and explanatory then wouldn't just walking the directory tree accomplish the same goal while being less complex and more compatible?"
Maybe I didnt' read the article closely enough but I had the impression that the meta-data would be created by itself. As far as all my experiences have been, meta-data is usually something automated.
Anyway if Microsoft can enable a google type search on my personal hard drive I'd be really impressed. That's what it sounds like they are going for. And I do find this useful because:
1) Not every home user is a geek who micromanages the organization of their filesystem.
2) Hard drives are still growing. Even know if I only navigate through parts of if leaving many of my mp3s untouched. If I could access all my Cure mp3s simply by seraching for "Cure" and getting results back in
3) Yes, if you organized everything yourself maybe it woudl be easier (i doubt it..not if you had a good search and a whole bunch of files) but the question, then, is usability. If I don't have ot organize anythign but search can return a good result set (a la Google) of course it would be a valuable feature.
We all know the benefits of XML, but the question is how does this benefit us at the personal filesystem level? Here's my guess:
The article talked about how they were integrating web services largely into Longhorn and how it would be an integral part. They also talked about the ability to easy replicate data (and hard drive) remotely. By having the relational information stored as XML, you face little opposition translating this information into a webservice.
So, for example, let's say I had a bunch of business files I was working on at my home comp. Now let's say I want to easily replicate those directories at my work place, on my laptop, at teh client site, and several other spots. Sure, I coudl write a whole app to do it now, but if that's seamlessly done through file system and web services it provides wide availability integrated into an OS (assuming I'm running those same OSs on the other machines).
Sure it coudl be done with other technologies but the point is that if you create this low-level infrastructure you enable this sort of sharing and syncing technology across the board. You could simply do the same with media files, etc.
I was going to bring up the Java analogy but I see you already did.
This point further illustrates that this article is FUD..Net is/was introduced as an alternative to Java and, as you see, Java is still in good health and still used by many vendors (and not "abandoned").
There should be some distinction between.Net vs. Java and MS.Net vs Mono.Net (being used in parallel) and while I haven't read up on Mono details my guess is that one shouldn't expect to use the two very interdependently.
Lastly, I think we should look at the reality of the business world. In many cases it's my opinion that Microsoft provides superior value, services and technology (esp in terms if integration, dev environments and deployment). But why do people stay with Java or open source products? I'd like to believe they are superior in some way (maybe they are) but the primary reason, as I see it, is TCO (total cost ownership). You just can't beat $0.
And that's why, if Microsoft implemented it's plan of attack implied in the article, Microsoft would lose. I dont' think there's be any patent issues (if so then Java should be in court right now). And if Microsoft made business choose between something more refined by incredibly more expensive and something that worked 75% of the way and was free, I suspect that most businesses (esp business mid-sized, small, and those who don't need critical accuracy/efficiency likes banks and other financial institutions) would go with Mono.Net.
In reference to my other post, I think Neo is still on his journey much like Jesus was to free his people. Jesus doesn't die until his mission is over, much like I think Neo will.
I'd have to agree with most of that except for your prediction on the ending. Given the Biblical parallels, my guess is that in the end Neo will die. (Surprise.;)....dont' you just hate it when people do that?). My belief is that the Wachowski's wrote the story to emulate the bible and, as we all know, in the end the savior/jesus/neo dies (and is resurrected so maybe they'll do that too).
I couldn't read that whole thing but many of your assumptions don't have a firm base in the movie.
That said, here's my take:
The story has its obvious references to the bible. Zion, Neo, etc. Humans == the persecuted jews and the machines == the romans and oppressors. On this analagous note, I think Neo and Jesus are one the same both in mission and representation.
Jesus represented the divinity in human form. He represents the combination of human/divine being in one. It's my theory that Neo represents the combination of human/machine being as one. This explains much of how he's able to interact with machines at the end of the Matrix 2 in an inhuman way.
I believe this is further evidenced by Agent Smith. He represents the same combination (conversion?) as Neo but from the evil perspective. Neo is becoming part machine but Smith, as machine, is being part human. Their conflict is between good and evil of a new race man/machine. In the trailer the Oracle says they he (they?) are stuck in a world between pure program and pure reality..once again a combination man/machine world.
I know there's not much basis for this but, to me, this represents a good story that the Wachoskis could use. To simple claim that everything was a program in the end would make for a horrible story a bunch of pissed of fans. It also seems to "simple" an explanation. Matrix seems to have a deeper story than a simple plot of "recursively programmed worlds". It would also make sense in that neither humans nor machines have complete control which would explain why the Architest gives Neo the choice instead of just destroying him without question.
" What bothers me is there is no conceivable way these individuals could have performed over a billion dollars worth of labor, ever. I'm not advocating communism or socialism, I'm just pointing out a basic truth.... The money was not earned, it was stolen.
It actually DOES sound like you're advocating communism or socialism. To say the money was stolen it's wrong. You are right in pointing out that they did not perform x billions dollars worth of labor. But you're missing the big (and obvious point): capitalism.
Right now you can go buy stock in a public company. In 10 years you can sell your stock and get a return of say around 10% (theoretically). Where did that money come from? Did you exhibit any labor?
You can put money into a savings acct at a bank that also acrues interest (~1%). Where did that money come from? Did you labor for it?
No. And that's how capitalism works. Money and power is derived from holding capital and that's why money can be earned by its appreciation. These are just some basic theories but they answer the concepts you question.
All other things aside, by the mathematical principles (and the economic reality) only a very small percent will ever be as successful as the people you mentioned. 90% of business fail in their first year. Yes, one of us could do it, but it's not a total solution for the whole tech community.
Convince them through simple supply and demand. Like other people have said here, write in! But the thing you guys don't note is that they won't comply because they somehow "fear the community" or "love the community" (although they might)... they'll simply do it from a financial perspective. If enough Linux users write in then they'll analyze the cost of doing a linux port versus the profits gained from doing so. Simple as that.
Actually, I wasn't trolling. That's why I acutally provided some logical and salient points refuting what you had to say.
2) Ok, so you've repeated some economic theory to me yet you haven't proved your original point which was that if capital moves then the labor should to. You've proved to me that this should happen in economic theory, but I proved to you that that's not the reality of it. You can spew economic theory but it's pointless without economic policy.
3) Once again, more sophism. Yes, CEOs are "employees" in a public corporation (btw not all corporations of public). Yes, he is a pawn of the board. But 1) the public does not gather to create a company. What happens is a company is created FIRST AND then someone becomes a CEO AND then jobs are exported. What you are saying implies that the public would hire a foreign CEO to create a company.
Secondly, let's assume the point of boards/public shareholders replacing CEOs. This is ludicrous. You have to understand the basics of why these jobs can be exported period. They can be because there are people on the other side of the world with similar training, schooling and experience. This is NOT true for all professions. Manufacturing, textiles (and now low-level IT) are occupations that can be exported because they do not require much training..or the training they require can be accomplished in foreign countries.
But this is not true for all industries (as of yet) nor is it true of all occupations. India has a large background in training software engineers. Do you think that if they didn't that we would be exporting IT jobs to them? Hell no.
Hopefully you understand that now. The logical deduction I hope you're making is that India is not "training people to be CEOs like America is" in layman's terms.
While a "CEO of India" is likely to have connection, it won't compare to a veteran of american/european industries as they represent the largest and most powerful economies in the world. Not only that, but if you find a CEO in India who DID have such connections and power (as well as skill), trust me, they will be demanding more than $100k per year since they're smart enough to realize how much their american counterparts are receiving.
However, I would think that before any of these large companies could become huge that they would become acquired by their American counterparts (IBMs, Microsofts, Big 4 consulting). This will leads to even more cash from the fat cats.
All three of these arguments are completely idiotic.
1) The reason why I wasn't "crying" when they were outsourcing manufacturing was because I was in fucking high school at the time. Not only that, I have no connections (through family, friends and beyond) WHATSOEVER to anyone in the manufacturing industry. Actually, check that, I did have one connection. My dad. They started moving manufacturing roles from his company overseas resulting in massive layoffs. And, yes, I cared back then too. Everyday we feared he would be layoff. The point is that many people dont' face hte reality..it's not insensitivity which you imply.
2) Workers can't move. There are obstacles to working in India imposed by their govt in order to avoid a situation like this (and keep the capital within the country). This isn't a question of what companies can do, but what fair rules exist in order to best create competition as well as serving our (US) own economic interests. If you completely dropped all rules and said "All is fair in love and company regulation" then there would be complete chaos. We have rules and regulation (like against monopolies, taxation on imports, etc) for a reason.
3) That's stupid. THEY are the ones doing this. That's like saying I should go out and hire a CEO to hire indians. It does't work like that. That is where the exploitation ends. What's also completely ignorant about this comment is that jobs at that level are less about scholastic experience (which IT jobs are) and more about connections and business acumen (at a very high level) which would be very difficult to find in india (let alone being substituted by an "Indian CEO with a degree from Stanford for $50K").
You obviously don't know the first thing about this or the industry period. You're riding on complete sophism. The one valid excuse you have for posting such crap is that you're young, idealistic but dont' know what you're talking about. If not, I recommend you review the facts.
I think the difference between the real world and Tom Clancy books is that in Tom Clancy books political motives affect economic motives. Essentially it's the whole patriotic struggle of "you want to screw with me? now i'll screw with you.".
I suppose that's still relevant in real life but as Wutang says: C.R.E.A.M (Cash Rules Everything Around Me). More specifically, let's look at the US / China relationship. China, the largest stronghold of Communism, should probably be the last country we should be have trade with. They are one of our biggest partners when it comes to trade..in fact we run a huge deficit. Why? Because, in this case, the economic motives outweigh the political ones.
Who cares that they suppress free speech and political leaders are appointed and not elected? We can get cheap leader that is more skilled than other parts of the world.
I didn't read your whole post nor do I know if you're an American, but in America calling Japan or Japanese people "japs" is rude, racist and ignorant. It's a throwback to the racist slur used during the WW2 days. I just thought you'd like to know before making that kind of blunder in front of other americans.
All kazaa provides is a peer-to-peer file sharing program. It does not limit itself to sharing "copyrighted mp3s" nor is that the goal of the software. That is just what most people tend to use it for. That is why they can exist and Napster can't. Ergo the law is being broken by citizens who use it to specifically download copyrighted materials.
While I'm sympathetic to poor single parents who work in the ghettos, the solution isn't to point fingers at Kazaa. If that kid happened to be 16 and shot some other kid in gang-related violence would you claim the same sort of amnesty for the parent (or child)? The truth is that we need to solve the conditions of the poor, raise the level of living for the lower class and do away with the idea of ghettos.
I know that basically seems impossible but, once again, I just wanted to point out that just because a single parents is busy doesn't exempt all their children's activities. That's what day care is for.
The situation you're depicting would most likely lead to litigation. There has got to be certain legal restrictions on corporations binding public institutions to using their own companies products.
Wow. Slashdot readers really need to realize that not everything on the internet is true. If anythign this sounds like an urban legend.
Anyway, even if the story were true, it's difficult to believe that the kid would be sent home MERELY for wearing a shirt of a competitor. If it were true most likely he was suspended for his actions after having arrived to school (where he was probably unruly, defiant and disrespectful..that type of behavior wouldn't be so uncharacteristic of a person for what he did).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but what do you expect?
Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC, wrote about the relational db.
Martina Navratilova, former professional tennis player, wrote about tennis.
Patricia Russo, CEO of Lucent, wrote about a laptop/cellphone.
I guess this either means they are 1) predictable or 2) boring. Perhaps both. I think old(er) people tend to have less active imaginations. I'm not surprised that the most "fun" and innovative, if impossible, idea came from a novelist.
True. But imagine the power of drugs that give you that sort of high with no negative effects? I'm sure there's a book on this (I think I've read it but forgot the name) but essentially people would be "plugging in" 24/7.
I'm going to play Devil's advocate for a second since most people have already responded with the "No, don't go IPO! It will kill you and you have to kowtow to investors" argument.
.Net.
I'm not on the board nor do I even work at Google but what about from the perspective that Google needs an IPO to survive? Well, not in the strictest sense, but how much can the search industry grow? Probably quite a bit, actually, and I'm sure they make revenue off of other services they offer but the majority of their revenue comes from selling search.
Like it or not, selling search will soon run out. Any and every company out there constantly has to have eyes on the future, 1, 5, 10, 20 years out. It's the only way to survive in the long run (much like a country). Selling search now won't be what it is in 10 (or even 5) years from now. The competitors are also quickly rising.
So Google, in its right mind, has to think big. They have to think beyond linearly improving search risking death by competitors. Google, like Sony, Microsoft, (and Sun, hopefully), needs to grow its business in a big way. They need another big idea or a big idea that involves incorporating search into a grander scheme. In the long run, if they don't, they will die.
This may sound like FUD but in the tech world this is how it work. 1) You have to stay on top of your game and 2) You've always gotta fight to get that Ace of Spades in your hand. This is especially important in tech since it mutates quickly.
Oh yeah, in case I didn't point the obvious, any such undertaking will probably require insane amounts of money. One example of what I'm talking about is Microsoft's investment in
Just wanted to point one thing out:
:).
And I am sorry, but any employee who is swayed by stock options IS A TOTAL FSCKING MORON. The only way stock options are valuable is if the stock price of the company significantly increases from the time the options are granted to the time they are vested. As other posters have pointed out, this leads to a company trying to grow continuously, which is simply not possible. As a result, eventually you will get stock options that don't significantly appreciate in value.
Absolutely wrong. Look at any blue chip company out there (the IBMs, Coca Colas, Walmarts, Eastman Kodak). These are market veterans who have average their growth probably around 10-15% a year (perhaps a quarter) every year. It is possible to continuously grow (unless you take it to infinity but last I checked we weren't that close
And, it's simple. They grow by increasing market share through acquisition (Peoplesoft buys JD Edwards, Coca Cola owns most all of popular Soda, Microsoft buys Great Plains), diversification (Johnson and Johnson makes every household supply from soap to cleaners), or a complete shift in markets (BMW and Mercedes initially made planes for wars and now they solely make cars).
So it IS possible to continuously grow. It's not possible to grow at the rates they do initially and most exciting companies probably grow on a log scale but it's possible.
Putting any kind of standard database into the file system is not going to help with any of those. Search is already handled quite well anyway.
That's the thing. I think you have to cast aside the thought of combining a file system and traditional database. As I said in my original post:
Does it mean that MSFT is trying to make it so that you could import your Sql SERVER or Oracle database onto a WinFS system? I highly doubt it. And that's the distinction that needs to be made.
It doesn't seem like they're converting the filesystem into an enterprise level database. They're just enabling the core features of a db (search) for a filesystem that is long overdue.
So, without repeating myself, there it is.
Search, as it is now, is NOT handled well. Have you ever used Win 95/98/2000/XP? There's no useful search feature. If you want to find a document across an 80Gb hardware be ready to wait about 10 mins (more or less). When I say "good search" I mean a utility where I could go to and simply type "Jay Z" and instantly have the 10 most relevant files given to me.
Media (images, video, audio, etc.) are not well addressed by the kind of database Microsoft is proposing to put in.
Actually I don't think you can say that it can't (and, conversely, I can't say that it will). Why? Because they havent' given enough details on how this will actually work and without knowing that one cannot say. However, I think Microsoft is smart enough to notice that the explosion of media storage in the last half decade has really only been used to serve media (gifs, mp3s, and now mpgs). Storage is increasingly becoming media-centric.
My guess is that if they were going to do a useful "db" that serves media, they will have to use/create some standardized features for maintaing metadata regarding media (i.e. people in gifs, chapters in mpgs (a la DVD), and better metadata on text). All of this is quite possible and has not been done well.
And how exactly is a database supposed to help with "data transparency across machines? That's something file systems know how to do and know how to do well, but the equivalent database functionality requires high-end, costly, and complex databases--in different words, the problem gets worse.
Well, for one, I think it's a mistake to take current databases (SQL Server, Oracle, etc) and try to wrap that idea around a database. I dont' think that's what they're doing and that's what you're basing your arguments on.
The database, itself, I dont' think will help with data transparency. I said that in regards to the fact that much of hte metadata wil be maintained in XML (along with their comments of really globalized their use of web services).
Funny thing is: Google is using a file system for their data storage, and they are definitely not using the kinds of databases that Microsoft wants to put in. If Google did use a design like Microsoft, they would be out of business.
Again, you missed my point. My point in the original post was a response to the people who said "it's been tried before and it doesn't work". I was saying, "Look. Yes, a similar idea has been tried before but this was before the advent of really good disk drive technology. It's like saying something liek Google was impossible 10 years ago when, really, it was only due to the technology behind it." I say this because we learn, at school, about the endeavors made to combine filesystems and databases. But the context has always been around enterprise systems and enterprise use instead of individual consumer use. There are also other subtle differences that change the problem around (i.e. the primary type of data you're serving is media and not nice small chunks of text).
Anyway, another mistake you made was assuming that I waas saying that they were putting Google technology into Longhorn. All wrong. I was saying that they want to provide the same FUNCTIONALITY not TECHNOLOGY.
RTFA
Well put.
I'm not expert on Sun but as a hardware vendor I think they're done with. According to their current model they will lose out to Dell/Compaq (plus Linux). Anyway, hardware vendoring seems like a competition based on cost-cutting (get a decent system for cheap). So unless they can implement some critical technology that can't be easily emulated by some other hardware/software vendor I don't see their hardware business growing anytime soon. They are simply just too many cheaper alternatives.
Software. In today's IT world, software is basically dead. Well, it's not dead, but today revenue is gained through a combination of software and service. Need SAP? Ok, but we also have to charge you for 5 consultants who will be "customizing" it for 12 months. Services have taken over and I dont' know if Sun even has a real services division. IBM created their Global Services division and I believe it pulls in a major chunk of their current revenue.
Simply relying on Java would be suicide. Microsoft can realy in Windows, and Office because of the profit margins. Microsoft also makes a shitload on server software. As far as I know, that stuff is basically open source on Linux. I've never had to use server software for Linux, but unless Sun can create a suite of easy-to-use software and charge decent money for it software will mean death to them too.
Lastly, I don't think they need to "go back to what they do best" because they are simply beat. Frankly, it seems like they need to redefine their business. They're so out of touch with today's world that I, as a programmer and IT worker, have lost complete touch with them. I used a couple sunrays (? i think) several years ago but since then I've heard nothing about Sun.
I'm well aware of this theory, but in the context of :
1) Increasing size and need for search on home computers.
2) Explosion of media and information on consumer machines.
3) Increasing need for data transparency across machines.
I'd say it's a task worth undertaking.
Does it mean that MSFT is trying to make it so that you could import your Sql SERVER or Oracle database onto a WinFS system? I highly doubt it. And that's the distinction that needs to be made.
It doesn't seem like they're converting the filesystem into an enterprise level database. They're just enabling the core features of a db (search) for a filesystem that is long overdue.
And, yes, this has been tried in the past but disk drive technology has come quite a way since then. I'm sure Google searches weren't possible back then either.
"Now if you've gone to the effort of making the directory meta-data useful and explanatory then wouldn't just walking the directory tree accomplish the same goal while being less complex and more compatible?" Maybe I didnt' read the article closely enough but I had the impression that the meta-data would be created by itself. As far as all my experiences have been, meta-data is usually something automated.
..not if you had a good search and a whole bunch of files) but the question, then, is usability. If I don't have ot organize anythign but search can return a good result set (a la Google) of course it would be a valuable feature.
Anyway if Microsoft can enable a google type search on my personal hard drive I'd be really impressed. That's what it sounds like they are going for. And I do find this useful because:
1) Not every home user is a geek who micromanages the organization of their filesystem.
2) Hard drives are still growing. Even know if I only navigate through parts of if leaving many of my mp3s untouched. If I could access all my Cure mp3s simply by seraching for "Cure" and getting results back in
3) Yes, if you organized everything yourself maybe it woudl be easier (i doubt it
We all know the benefits of XML, but the question is how does this benefit us at the personal filesystem level? Here's my guess:
The article talked about how they were integrating web services largely into Longhorn and how it would be an integral part. They also talked about the ability to easy replicate data (and hard drive) remotely. By having the relational information stored as XML, you face little opposition translating this information into a webservice.
So, for example, let's say I had a bunch of business files I was working on at my home comp. Now let's say I want to easily replicate those directories at my work place, on my laptop, at teh client site, and several other spots. Sure, I coudl write a whole app to do it now, but if that's seamlessly done through file system and web services it provides wide availability integrated into an OS (assuming I'm running those same OSs on the other machines).
Sure it coudl be done with other technologies but the point is that if you create this low-level infrastructure you enable this sort of sharing and syncing technology across the board. You could simply do the same with media files, etc.
I was going to bring up the Java analogy but I see you already did.
.Net is/was introduced as an alternative to Java and, as you see, Java is still in good health and still used by many vendors (and not "abandoned").
.Net vs. Java and MS.Net vs Mono.Net (being used in parallel) and while I haven't read up on Mono details my guess is that one shouldn't expect to use the two very interdependently.
.
This point further illustrates that this article is FUD.
There should be some distinction between
Lastly, I think we should look at the reality of the business world. In many cases it's my opinion that Microsoft provides superior value, services and technology (esp in terms if integration, dev environments and deployment). But why do people stay with Java or open source products? I'd like to believe they are superior in some way (maybe they are) but the primary reason, as I see it, is TCO (total cost ownership). You just can't beat $0
And that's why, if Microsoft implemented it's plan of attack implied in the article, Microsoft would lose. I dont' think there's be any patent issues (if so then Java should be in court right now). And if Microsoft made business choose between something more refined by incredibly more expensive and something that worked 75% of the way and was free, I suspect that most businesses (esp business mid-sized, small, and those who don't need critical accuracy/efficiency likes banks and other financial institutions) would go with Mono.Net.
Hmm maybe.
In reference to my other post, I think Neo is still on his journey much like Jesus was to free his people. Jesus doesn't die until his mission is over, much like I think Neo will.
I'd have to agree with most of that except for your prediction on the ending. Given the Biblical parallels, my guess is that in the end Neo will die. (Surprise. ;)....dont' you just hate it when people do that?). My belief is that the Wachowski's wrote the story to emulate the bible and, as we all know, in the end the savior/jesus/neo dies (and is resurrected so maybe they'll do that too).
I couldn't read that whole thing but many of your assumptions don't have a firm base in the movie.
That said, here's my take:
The story has its obvious references to the bible. Zion, Neo, etc. Humans == the persecuted jews and the machines == the romans and oppressors. On this analagous note, I think Neo and Jesus are one the same both in mission and representation.
Jesus represented the divinity in human form. He represents the combination of human/divine being in one. It's my theory that Neo represents the combination of human/machine being as one. This explains much of how he's able to interact with machines at the end of the Matrix 2 in an inhuman way.
I believe this is further evidenced by Agent Smith. He represents the same combination (conversion?) as Neo but from the evil perspective. Neo is becoming part machine but Smith, as machine, is being part human. Their conflict is between good and evil of a new race man/machine. In the trailer the Oracle says they he (they?) are stuck in a world between pure program and pure reality..once again a combination man/machine world.
I know there's not much basis for this but, to me, this represents a good story that the Wachoskis could use. To simple claim that everything was a program in the end would make for a horrible story a bunch of pissed of fans. It also seems to "simple" an explanation. Matrix seems to have a deeper story than a simple plot of "recursively programmed worlds". It would also make sense in that neither humans nor machines have complete control which would explain why the Architest gives Neo the choice instead of just destroying him without question.
" What bothers me is there is no conceivable way these individuals could have performed over a billion dollars worth of labor, ever. I'm not advocating communism or socialism, I'm just pointing out a basic truth. ... The money was not earned, it was stolen.
It actually DOES sound like you're advocating communism or socialism. To say the money was stolen it's wrong. You are right in pointing out that they did not perform x billions dollars worth of labor. But you're missing the big (and obvious point): capitalism.
Right now you can go buy stock in a public company. In 10 years you can sell your stock and get a return of say around 10% (theoretically). Where did that money come from? Did you exhibit any labor?
You can put money into a savings acct at a bank that also acrues interest (~1%). Where did that money come from? Did you labor for it?
No. And that's how capitalism works. Money and power is derived from holding capital and that's why money can be earned by its appreciation. These are just some basic theories but they answer the concepts you question.
It's pure numbers that we can't do it.
All other things aside, by the mathematical principles (and the economic reality) only a very small percent will ever be as successful as the people you mentioned. 90% of business fail in their first year. Yes, one of us could do it, but it's not a total solution for the whole tech community.
Convince them through simple supply and demand. Like other people have said here, write in! But the thing you guys don't note is that they won't comply because they somehow "fear the community" or "love the community" (although they might)... they'll simply do it from a financial perspective. If enough Linux users write in then they'll analyze the cost of doing a linux port versus the profits gained from doing so. Simple as that.
Actually, I wasn't trolling. That's why I acutally provided some logical and salient points refuting what you had to say.
2) Ok, so you've repeated some economic theory to me yet you haven't proved your original point which was that if capital moves then the labor should to. You've proved to me that this should happen in economic theory, but I proved to you that that's not the reality of it. You can spew economic theory but it's pointless without economic policy.
3) Once again, more sophism. Yes, CEOs are "employees" in a public corporation (btw not all corporations of public). Yes, he is a pawn of the board. But 1) the public does not gather to create a company. What happens is a company is created FIRST AND then someone becomes a CEO AND then jobs are exported. What you are saying implies that the public would hire a foreign CEO to create a company.
Secondly, let's assume the point of boards/public shareholders replacing CEOs. This is ludicrous. You have to understand the basics of why these jobs can be exported period. They can be because there are people on the other side of the world with similar training, schooling and experience. This is NOT true for all professions. Manufacturing, textiles (and now low-level IT) are occupations that can be exported because they do not require much training..or the training they require can be accomplished in foreign countries.
But this is not true for all industries (as of yet) nor is it true of all occupations. India has a large background in training software engineers. Do you think that if they didn't that we would be exporting IT jobs to them? Hell no.
Hopefully you understand that now. The logical deduction I hope you're making is that India is not "training people to be CEOs like America is" in layman's terms.
While a "CEO of India" is likely to have connection, it won't compare to a veteran of american/european industries as they represent the largest and most powerful economies in the world. Not only that, but if you find a CEO in India who DID have such connections and power (as well as skill), trust me, they will be demanding more than $100k per year since they're smart enough to realize how much their american counterparts are receiving.
What an interesting thought.
However, I would think that before any of these large companies could become huge that they would become acquired by their American counterparts (IBMs, Microsofts, Big 4 consulting). This will leads to even more cash from the fat cats.
All three of these arguments are completely idiotic.
1) The reason why I wasn't "crying" when they were outsourcing manufacturing was because I was in fucking high school at the time. Not only that, I have no connections (through family, friends and beyond) WHATSOEVER to anyone in the manufacturing industry. Actually, check that, I did have one connection. My dad. They started moving manufacturing roles from his company overseas resulting in massive layoffs. And, yes, I cared back then too. Everyday we feared he would be layoff. The point is that many people dont' face hte reality..it's not insensitivity which you imply.
2) Workers can't move. There are obstacles to working in India imposed by their govt in order to avoid a situation like this (and keep the capital within the country). This isn't a question of what companies can do, but what fair rules exist in order to best create competition as well as serving our (US) own economic interests. If you completely dropped all rules and said "All is fair in love and company regulation" then there would be complete chaos. We have rules and regulation (like against monopolies, taxation on imports, etc) for a reason.
3) That's stupid. THEY are the ones doing this. That's like saying I should go out and hire a CEO to hire indians. It does't work like that. That is where the exploitation ends. What's also completely ignorant about this comment is that jobs at that level are less about scholastic experience (which IT jobs are) and more about connections and business acumen (at a very high level) which would be very difficult to find in india (let alone being substituted by an "Indian CEO with a degree from Stanford for $50K").
You obviously don't know the first thing about this or the industry period. You're riding on complete sophism. The one valid excuse you have for posting such crap is that you're young, idealistic but dont' know what you're talking about. If not, I recommend you review the facts.
I think the difference between the real world and Tom Clancy books is that in Tom Clancy books political motives affect economic motives. Essentially it's the whole patriotic struggle of "you want to screw with me? now i'll screw with you.".
I suppose that's still relevant in real life but as Wutang says: C.R.E.A.M (Cash Rules Everything Around Me). More specifically, let's look at the US / China relationship. China, the largest stronghold of Communism, should probably be the last country we should be have trade with. They are one of our biggest partners when it comes to trade..in fact we run a huge deficit. Why? Because, in this case, the economic motives outweigh the political ones.
Who cares that they suppress free speech and political leaders are appointed and not elected? We can get cheap leader that is more skilled than other parts of the world.
I didn't read your whole post nor do I know if you're an American, but in America calling Japan or Japanese people "japs" is rude, racist and ignorant. It's a throwback to the racist slur used during the WW2 days. I just thought you'd like to know before making that kind of blunder in front of other americans.
All kazaa provides is a peer-to-peer file sharing program. It does not limit itself to sharing "copyrighted mp3s" nor is that the goal of the software. That is just what most people tend to use it for. That is why they can exist and Napster can't. Ergo the law is being broken by citizens who use it to specifically download copyrighted materials.
While I'm sympathetic to poor single parents who work in the ghettos, the solution isn't to point fingers at Kazaa. If that kid happened to be 16 and shot some other kid in gang-related violence would you claim the same sort of amnesty for the parent (or child)? The truth is that we need to solve the conditions of the poor, raise the level of living for the lower class and do away with the idea of ghettos.
I know that basically seems impossible but, once again, I just wanted to point out that just because a single parents is busy doesn't exempt all their children's activities. That's what day care is for.
The situation you're depicting would most likely lead to litigation. There has got to be certain legal restrictions on corporations binding public institutions to using their own companies products.
Wow. Slashdot readers really need to realize that not everything on the internet is true. If anythign this sounds like an urban legend.
Anyway, even if the story were true, it's difficult to believe that the kid would be sent home MERELY for wearing a shirt of a competitor. If it were true most likely he was suspended for his actions after having arrived to school (where he was probably unruly, defiant and disrespectful..that type of behavior wouldn't be so uncharacteristic of a person for what he did).