the process is overwhelming, the design is far too rigid
I take it that you are one of the very few who have not had to maintain someone elses code. The process is in place to ensure a consistent product (not high quality, but consistent). If the implementation is consistent than some poor slob like myself will have a better chance at fixing and enhansing it. As for the rigid design, it helps prevent feature creep and delayed deadlines. Both are probably in place to fix problems in the past, not slow down development.
I do some work on FlightGear and the number of people contributing to that Open Source project is greater than the number that SF shows. I know that when I submit changes, I send them to one of the people on the SF list and they commit the changes. I would venture a guess that many programs are like this.
I was very surprised that they only had the 15 monitors when they first came out...
Considering the wieght of the 17" flat pannels, I wasn't surprised (disappointed yes, but not surprised). I just purchased one for my mother and it is very easy to move that little 15 incher around, not sure how easy it would be for a 17 or 19. I'm not sure if I would have shelled out the additional $400 for the 17", either.
One thing that is definitely missing is the power switch on the panel front, as the free standing monitors have. The power switch is in a bad place, making you reach around back, and I really like turning on my Mac via that "soft switch."
They currently are in a position to create a 'Microsoft Linux'; a linux kernel with their dll-base inserted with a proprietary kernel module (kernel fork needed because of Linus' policy).
I seem to remember reading an article, which I cannot currently find (it was in 98 when NT 5, a.k.a. Win2K, was coming out), that talked about DLLs and the problems that they caused with Windows. The article was talking about a problem with the way M$ implemented DLLs in Windows (the early versions). If memory serves, the DLLs had too much access to the kernel, and access in such as way as to restrict how M$ could make changes in the future. I do know that some Windows-on-Linux distros do provide this ability, but I bet it is the source of a major performance hit.
The CVS integration is quite nice, althought it isn't obvious how to bring in a legacy CVS program. It is also missing a way to update the entire tree (i.e., 'cvs update -dP'), but I can live with the way it handles CVS. The diff/merge and version tools are also quite nice.
Re:Better than paying 100 bucks for a Blackout Bus
on
Do-it-yourself UPS
·
· Score: 1
And is it just me or do I have the 3rd or so post?
While digital projectors may currently have hard disks, I can easily see them being removed in the future. If I provide you a movie on a hard disk, what is to prevent you from extracting the data for yourself, you pirate you:)? Since I can't trust you, or anyone but myself, I will then force you to get a dish so I can only give you the movie when you are suppose to get it. Because everyone but myself is a criminal, I will also not allow you to show the film on screens that I don't approve. After all, I may be allowing you to show the movie on one screen, but you are really showing it on two.
WRT both copyright and corporations is that they are there to support the "public good." It is quite sad when people, and corporations, forget this. It appears as if many laws established for the public good have been re-interpreted as being for the "corporate good" instead.
could it be used as in the exact oposite of M$'s "shared source" licenses? I.e., You can use these patents for GPL'd products only and not for profit. That would allow products such as Apache to use them, but they could sue M$ if they incorporated them in their software.
Microsoft, on the other hand, grabbed a bunch of off-the-shelf chips from a variety of vendors and shoved them together...
Gee, isn't that what IBM did with the PC? Taking off-the-shelf will get you to market quickly, but then you are pretty much stuck with the vendors who make the components.
Hotmail keeps your personally identifiable information private and does not share it with any third parties, unless you choose, at the time of registration, to be listed in either the Hotmail Directory or the Internet White Pages directory.
I then have the sharing of my email address and registration information checked for me. Sure, I believe them!
The company for which I work develops custom software. IANAL, but one of the ways we limit liability is through collecting and documenting requirements for the software, and testing that those requirements were met. We also follow a strict software development process, which supports out ability to develop a quality product. By developing this documentation, we are able to pass liability off to our customers. I.e., They have agreed that our software meets their requirements and our tests are sufficient to prove that it does. Now, if we knew our software didn't meet the specification, that is different (usually called FRAUD).
I would think that something like this would work for the larger Open Source projects. If they could have the requirements of the project documented (i.e., what it is suppose to do) and have tests written to verify this, then they may have a out. The problem is M$ case is that they know of the problem, or their quality process is not sufficient, and do nothing about it.
For those who wanted clarification of my needs, I need to simulate an aircraft and its navigation sensors. First a preemptive strike, I am not writing a flight simulator (FlightGear does a wonderful job), but I need to simulate the aircraft as reported by its navigation sensors. Sensors such as intertial navigation (INS) or global positioning (GPS) systems have to produce their data at a very specific time interval (thus the 0.5ms jitter per 50ms period requirement). Since I have 50ms to do my computations, I am not so worried about the data being computed too late. I do need my data to be transmitted as close to its deadline as possible (jitter induces computation errors = a Very Bad Thing).
In some small way, knowing about a culture allows some of the more unsavory types to point out that bad things and say "See, they are ALL bastards! Look at what they do!" I am always amazed at how quickly people will forget the good and look at the bad.
You'll also see that Red Hat had 54 vulnerabilities while Windows 2000 had only 42.
I wonder if they lumped all RedHat distros together (6.0, 6.1, 7.0, 7.1, ad infinitum). Or all versions of each Linux distro for that matter?
Just a thought
You could go throught the same type checking that Ada does. With "checks on," you get all inline type and range checking (OK, type checking happens at compile time) and when you "trust" your application, you compile with "checks off."
Re:One simple reason why it won't work:
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
My apologies on saying EC rather than EU, but nationalism will be a major problem. There are areas in Europe that are holding grudges that are centuries old. Countries, within the EU, are having problems with their citizens concerning immigration. I don't think a common currency will solve these problems.
Nationalism is a tool used by those people who prefer that their followers not think for themselves and gives them a reason to feel opressed (You are not European, you are X and the EU is trying to opress us!).
Re:One simple reason why it won't work:
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I agree 150%. In the US, we have problems where states compete against each other for business and the political backlash that causes (S. Carolina gives incentives to pull corporations from Verginia, etc.). Here, there is a stable overseeing government to keep things civil, but the EC does not have that sort of power. I expect the next five years to be very uncomfortable in Europe as nationalism gets entered into the equasion.
Slashdot Mirror
"Tough. Adapt or die."
OK, so I don't REALLY want one, but I do wish I had enough money that I could waste $20K on one of these.
I take it that you are one of the very few who have not had to maintain someone elses code. The process is in place to ensure a consistent product (not high quality, but consistent). If the implementation is consistent than some poor slob like myself will have a better chance at fixing and enhansing it. As for the rigid design, it helps prevent feature creep and delayed deadlines. Both are probably in place to fix problems in the past, not slow down development.
I do some work on FlightGear and the number of people contributing to that Open Source project is greater than the number that SF shows. I know that when I submit changes, I send them to one of the people on the SF list and they commit the changes. I would venture a guess that many programs are like this.
Considering the wieght of the 17" flat pannels, I wasn't surprised (disappointed yes, but not surprised). I just purchased one for my mother and it is very easy to move that little 15 incher around, not sure how easy it would be for a 17 or 19. I'm not sure if I would have shelled out the additional $400 for the 17", either.
One thing that is definitely missing is the power switch on the panel front, as the free standing monitors have. The power switch is in a bad place, making you reach around back, and I really like turning on my Mac via that "soft switch."
The CVS integration is quite nice, althought it isn't obvious how to bring in a legacy CVS program. It is also missing a way to update the entire tree (i.e., 'cvs update -dP'), but I can live with the way it handles CVS. The diff/merge and version tools are also quite nice.
They must be running their site from a DV camera. Hey, at least they are using their own products!
While digital projectors may currently have hard disks, I can easily see them being removed in the future. If I provide you a movie on a hard disk, what is to prevent you from extracting the data for yourself, you pirate you :)? Since I can't trust you, or anyone but myself, I will then force you to get a dish so I can only give you the movie when you are suppose to get it. Because everyone but myself is a criminal, I will also not allow you to show the film on screens that I don't approve. After all, I may be allowing you to show the movie on one screen, but you are really showing it on two.
WRT both copyright and corporations is that they are there to support the "public good." It is quite sad when people, and corporations, forget this. It appears as if many laws established for the public good have been re-interpreted as being for the "corporate good" instead.
*sigh*
could it be used as in the exact oposite of M$'s "shared source" licenses? I.e., You can use these patents for GPL'd products only and not for profit. That would allow products such as Apache to use them, but they could sue M$ if they incorporated them in their software.
Just a thought.
Gee, isn't that what IBM did with the PC? Taking off-the-shelf will get you to market quickly, but then you are pretty much stuck with the vendors who make the components.
Hotmail keeps your personally identifiable information private and does not share it with any third parties, unless you choose, at the time of registration, to be listed in either the Hotmail Directory or the Internet White Pages directory.
I then have the sharing of my email address and registration information checked for me. Sure, I believe them!
The company for which I work develops custom software. IANAL, but one of the ways we limit liability is through collecting and documenting requirements for the software, and testing that those requirements were met. We also follow a strict software development process, which supports out ability to develop a quality product. By developing this documentation, we are able to pass liability off to our customers. I.e., They have agreed that our software meets their requirements and our tests are sufficient to prove that it does. Now, if we knew our software didn't meet the specification, that is different (usually called FRAUD).
I would think that something like this would work for the larger Open Source projects. If they could have the requirements of the project documented (i.e., what it is suppose to do) and have tests written to verify this, then they may have a out. The problem is M$ case is that they know of the problem, or their quality process is not sufficient, and do nothing about it.
For those who wanted clarification of my needs, I need to simulate an aircraft and its navigation sensors. First a preemptive strike, I am not writing a flight simulator (FlightGear does a wonderful job), but I need to simulate the aircraft as reported by its navigation sensors. Sensors such as intertial navigation (INS) or global positioning (GPS) systems have to produce their data at a very specific time interval (thus the 0.5ms jitter per 50ms period requirement). Since I have 50ms to do my computations, I am not so worried about the data being computed too late. I do need my data to be transmitted as close to its deadline as possible (jitter induces computation errors = a Very Bad Thing).
In some small way, knowing about a culture allows some of the more unsavory types to point out that bad things and say "See, they are ALL bastards! Look at what they do!" I am always amazed at how quickly people will forget the good and look at the bad.
Their business model depended on several fat internet pipes running underseas.
Gee, let me count the number of bankrupt telco's that description fits. One... Umm, I guess only one.
I'm sorry, but a product called Senior Moment sounds too much like an adult diaper.
Wouldn't that make them the GNUperfriends?
just a thought
You'll also see that Red Hat had 54 vulnerabilities while Windows 2000 had only 42.
I wonder if they lumped all RedHat distros together (6.0, 6.1, 7.0, 7.1, ad infinitum). Or all versions of each Linux distro for that matter? Just a thought
You could go throught the same type checking that Ada does. With "checks on," you get all inline type and range checking (OK, type checking happens at compile time) and when you "trust" your application, you compile with "checks off."
My apologies on saying EC rather than EU, but nationalism will be a major problem. There are areas in Europe that are holding grudges that are centuries old. Countries, within the EU, are having problems with their citizens concerning immigration. I don't think a common currency will solve these problems.
Nationalism is a tool used by those people who prefer that their followers not think for themselves and gives them a reason to feel opressed (You are not European, you are X and the EU is trying to opress us!).
I agree 150%. In the US, we have problems where states compete against each other for business and the political backlash that causes (S. Carolina gives incentives to pull corporations from Verginia, etc.). Here, there is a stable overseeing government to keep things civil, but the EC does not have that sort of power. I expect the next five years to be very uncomfortable in Europe as nationalism gets entered into the equasion.