Windows is slow because it executes too many instructions in order to perform a task. This is because it has too many non-essential features and is inefficiently coded. Next question, please.
"It is no secret that Check Point is run by mad scientists who make great product, but don't have a clue when it comes to running a business (well maybe just the bribing part)."
I'm not so sure about that "great product" part. I've replaced IPSO with OpenBSD and FreeBSD to get great product. I miss those pretty GUI's that obscure the process, though.;-)
Why finish the name with the root? Makes local reference easy? When I'm in bar.baz, I can reference foo.bar.baz as just foo. Then, you say, "But if you were in baz.bar, you could reference baz.bar.foo as just foo, too." Then I say, "Hmmm, it doesn't matter which way it's ordered, since a computer can deal with it easily either way, and lets go get a pint or two."
Hilf states: "They choose a technology - an operating system or an application - based on its ability to solve a particular problem and to serve a certain business need, not based on its development model."
I'd suggest that the development model is or should be a factor in the choice for the obvious reasons. Those include, but are not limited to: time-to-change, time-to-repair, internals documentation, and maintenance costs.
That's zero out of three, not one outh of three. Note that one _must_ include cost of opportunity in TCO. When you have to dedicate very good people to fixing MS software, then they are not available for other far more productive work. The shoddy security and reliability of MS software itself are far more of a danger to MS than competitors are. It costs blood, sweat, and tears to keep an MS shop reliable and secure. The fix of the day mentality with one fix breaking another DOES NOT HELP. Please fix your software, MS, so that we can work on our problems, not yours.
Microsoft's biggest threat is the shoddy quality of it's own product. Pretty boxes, pretty screens, and software that's shipped with fundamental flaws.
The UUCP network was a mesh in its early days and evolved to be much more tree-like in the last years before its demise because of the emergence of a major provider of services. The Internet was originally intended to be mesh-like for robustness, but the emergence of a few major backbone providers seems to be making it more tree-like as well. Would you comment on mesh vs. tree for robust networks?
Is that where you learned how to spell receiver? Just curious;-) The point is that you can use a general purpose receiver as a spectrum analyzer, whether you hook a sweep generator and o'scope to it's IF or write down the results by hand with a pencil and paper. Not as nice as a new HP, but it may serve the purpose. My spectrum analyzer is a Cary 15 UV/VIS spectrophotometer, mechanical drive. Not exactly radio, but maybe you get the point?
When's the last time I analyzed a radio specturm with my home stereo? Why just today, when I tuned the happy frequency selector on my Marantz 2270 across the band and noted where there were stations... Gee, I bet the software for the winradio could probably turn its tiny virtual knob faster than my fat fingers can spin the dial and maybe even a computer could be used to record signal strength vs. frequency. Now isn't that spectrum analysis?
"You need something better than a PC..." is argument by assertion. We route between four 1G FD fiber NIC's with a PC. It doesn't have big routing tables, just moves packets. It works. That's argument by example. (It was a careful choice of motherboard, 2x1GHz PIII, 512MB, 2 64bit PCI busses, and FreeBSD, but it's still a PC;-).
RFC 3093 is tounge-in-cheek, but it's real enough. It mocks those who think that a firewall can block selected information flow if _any_ information flow is allowed. RFC 3093 describes one of many ways of implementing a clandestine tunnel. A VPN can be implemented with such a tunnel (notice the return to topic...)
I think he's saying exactly what he said. He believes that Microsoft created the PC by the millions, and he believes that Microsoft is responsible for open source as well. Belief doesn't mean it's true, but it is belief. I don't think the folks a MS get it in that they don't believe that implementations of the client/server model can exist without MS, and they don't believe that an effective computing environment can exist without MS products. I believe they're mistaken, but that too doesn't mean it's true.
What MS has done is to put all the pieces together. Research, development, marketing, sales, production, documentation, buisiness development, legal, administration, support, training, lobbying, and the list goes on. The Open Source movement hasn't put all those pieces together.
Re:He SHOULD care about the competition...
on
Torvalds Tells All
·
· Score: 1
Ever since the beginning of the system he crafted, he seems to have been a firm believer in "Two weeks in the lab will save half an hour in the library every time." Just think how his contributions would have helped to improve systems that already existed at the time. Oh, well.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows is slow because it executes too many instructions in order to perform a task. This is because it has too many non-essential features and is inefficiently coded. Next question, please.
"It is no secret that Check Point is run by mad scientists who make great product, but don't have a clue when it comes to running a business (well maybe just the bribing part)." I'm not so sure about that "great product" part. I've replaced IPSO with OpenBSD and FreeBSD to get great product. I miss those pretty GUI's that obscure the process, though. ;-)
Why finish the name with the root? Makes local reference easy? When I'm in bar.baz, I can reference foo.bar.baz as just foo. Then, you say, "But if you were in baz.bar, you could reference baz.bar.foo as just foo, too." Then I say, "Hmmm, it doesn't matter which way it's ordered, since a computer can deal with it easily either way, and lets go get a pint or two."
Did they teach you to use loaded questions at University?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
Hilf states: "They choose a technology - an operating system or an application - based on its ability to solve a particular problem and to serve a certain business need, not based on its development model."
I'd suggest that the development model is or should be a factor in the choice for the obvious reasons. Those include, but are not limited to: time-to-change, time-to-repair, internals documentation, and maintenance costs.
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. Napoleon Bonaparte
That's zero out of three, not one outh of three. Note that one _must_ include cost of opportunity in TCO. When you have to dedicate very good people to fixing MS software, then they are not available for other far more productive work. The shoddy security and reliability of MS software itself are far more of a danger to MS than competitors are. It costs blood, sweat, and tears to keep an MS shop reliable and secure. The fix of the day mentality with one fix breaking another DOES NOT HELP. Please fix your software, MS, so that we can work on our problems, not yours.
Microsoft's biggest threat is the shoddy quality of it's own product. Pretty boxes, pretty screens, and software that's shipped with fundamental flaws.
The UUCP network was a mesh in its early days and evolved to be much more tree-like in the last years before its demise because of the emergence of a major provider of services. The Internet was originally intended to be mesh-like for robustness, but the emergence of a few major backbone providers seems to be making it more tree-like as well. Would you comment on mesh vs. tree for robust networks?
Is that where you learned how to spell receiver? Just curious ;-) The point is that you can use a general purpose receiver as a spectrum analyzer, whether you hook a sweep generator and o'scope to it's IF or write down the results by hand with a pencil and paper. Not as nice as a new HP, but it may serve the purpose. My spectrum analyzer is a Cary 15 UV/VIS spectrophotometer, mechanical drive. Not exactly radio, but maybe you get the point?
When's the last time I analyzed a radio specturm with my home stereo? Why just today, when I tuned the happy frequency selector on my Marantz 2270 across the band and noted where there were stations... Gee, I bet the software for the winradio could probably turn its tiny virtual knob faster than my fat fingers can spin the dial and maybe even a computer could be used to record signal strength vs. frequency. Now isn't that spectrum analysis?
If some jerk rear ends me while reading an Excel spreadsheet e-mailed to his dashboard, I'm going to sue Microsoft.
No Coherent? No Plan 9? No Inferno?
"You need something better than a PC..." is argument by assertion. We route between four 1G FD fiber NIC's with a PC. It doesn't have big routing tables, just moves packets. It works. That's argument by example. (It was a careful choice of motherboard, 2x1GHz PIII, 512MB, 2 64bit PCI busses, and FreeBSD, but it's still a PC ;-).
RFC 3093 is tounge-in-cheek, but it's real enough. It mocks those who think that a firewall can block selected information flow if _any_ information flow is allowed. RFC 3093 describes one of many ways of implementing a clandestine tunnel. A VPN can be implemented with such a tunnel (notice the return to topic...)
Not write software without thinking about security?
I think he's saying exactly what he said. He believes that Microsoft created the PC by the millions, and he believes that Microsoft is responsible for open source as well. Belief doesn't mean it's true, but it is belief. I don't think the folks a MS get it in that they don't believe that implementations of the client/server model can exist without MS, and they don't believe that an effective computing environment can exist without MS products. I believe they're mistaken, but that too doesn't mean it's true. What MS has done is to put all the pieces together. Research, development, marketing, sales, production, documentation, buisiness development, legal, administration, support, training, lobbying, and the list goes on. The Open Source movement hasn't put all those pieces together.
Ever since the beginning of the system he crafted, he seems to have been a firm believer in "Two weeks in the lab will save half an hour in the library every time." Just think how his contributions would have helped to improve systems that already existed at the time. Oh, well.