I wont "learn" "Visual" C++ because it is a **** POOR tool as far as I'm concerned.
Bless you, Mr. Bandersnatch: you have seen the truth - that Visual C++ is a foul abomination. Really, writing code that locks people into a single operating system or set of middleware is doing them no favours, long-term. Better to keep your integrity, and put bread on the table doing things you believe in.
In many ways, things like J2EE, XML or the.Net scheme are bringing about just that split. There will always be people who want to be anonymous and goof off while others want to use authentication services to manage their shares or shop or whatever. Chances are most of us will do both.
Whether that will lead to a split at the IP level - so the two networks are completely disconnected - I don't know. Maybe that's being too much of a tech-head about it.
I just think its a shame that authenticated virtual networks are relying on corporate leadership to make them happen. It would be good to be able to talk or play games or trade with people who weren't anonymous, and not pay through the nose for the priviledge.
I often think that giving people ladders out of that kind of world is the thing. My grandparents and parents were pretty poor for much of their lives, yet I was able to go to a very good university because someone else (in my case, the government, as I live in England) paid the tuition fees. The local high school gave me an education as good or better than fee-paying private schools because the teachers were dedicated...they gave me their spare time, for precious little thanks.
To keep myself in food and rent at college, I cleaned windows, loaded trucks, clerked as a temp, whatever, but happily I knew I was on the up and out. Don't think I could have done it alone, though, and wonder if I could do it now. The world has grown colder these last few years.
Definitely the worst. I was kind of expecting a walk down memory lane...kind of, Elite, Wolfenstein, Wing Commander, Doom, Quake, Counterstrike, er, um, anyway those.
Oh, oh, and Gauntlet! A history of gaming is not complete without phrases like, "Elf needs food badly! Valkyrie shot the food!". Gamespot..you...have..failed.
This is a very important issue (not that you'd know it from the number of responses so far!). What this is really about is letting the people who provide the connectivity for broadband connections (the cable companies and telcos) also control the content (ISP services and portals).
What this means is that they can control the portal you use, the sites you might look at. If they see you trading MP3's they can shut you down. It's about turning the open internet into a giant corporate intranet.
And you won't be able to go to someone else, because in your town there might not be someone else.
The openNet coalition goes into more details. Worth getting informed about.
The standard is the current HTML specification, not IE
Dang right. W3C compatible pages look cool to everyone, IE users included. Nobody died and left the standards-setting process to Microsoft.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who just thinks about making their pages look good in Internet Explorer is simply handing over dollars to Bill Gates.
Yeah, the truth is that here in the UK, the local monopolist is not AOL, but BT, the former nationalised telecoms company.
So, dial-up unlimited use services and broadband tend to be either very expensive or offer sucky service, since the companies offering them have to pay too much to BT. The only one who had the negotiating power to get a good deal out of BT was AOL, hence the competitive price/service combination.
Linux and AOL may be spiritually incompatible in America, but they shouldn't be incompatible on the desktop.
W3C compatibility is definitely the first step to making websites accessible to people with visual or movement difficulties. Many browsers with advanced access support rely on the page being in good HTML 4, which has many accessibility features incorporated into the design of the language.
For more information on this issue, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, in the UK, publish these guidelines:
Hehe, using CD-RWs to exchange files instead of using a network is what we used to call "DHL-net", back in the day. I personally use that method far more often to exchange, er, data files with my friends in Australia than P2P.
At AT&T we just started the roll-out to W2K at the middle of last year. All indications have been that XP will not be a part of the corperate environment for at least 3 years... Why spend tens of thousands for something that does nothing and will hurt productivity for weeks after it is released?
Of course, these days CIOs are very financially focussed. They'll be like, "benefits: marginal" vs. "costs: uncertain but probably high". Then they'll say to their CEO boss, "to be honest, boss, there's just no justification to migrate yet".
The entertainment and broadcast industries can, as far as I am concerned, put any copy protection they like on what they produce. If I don't like it, I don't have to watch or buy.
What I object to is the idea of the law being used to control the machines we might design and build, by making some non-approved designs illegal. There need to be controls on machines with military applications (like jet fighters) or which can only be used for criminal applications (like lockpicks). But the idea that a general purpose recording machine should be illegal to build because it might break copy protection laws is oppressive.
It's like banning ovens because they might be used to bake hash cakes.
I think that MS's security problems are what is slowing corporate migration to XP (with the associated purchase of new machines). Many people are finding the good old Win95 or 98 machines they have been using for a few years are no longer quite cutting it, but they can certainly wait a few months for the bug fixes.
It'll only be when the quality of the software is up to scratch that people will start thinking about its price. In the end, the total cost of ownership of software is much larger than the licence fee: putting in fixes after deployment is terribly expensive.
Oh, TA was a totally revolutionary game. It turned strategy games from being turn-based, single-player puzzles into real-time net-connected battles. Where would we be without the flash rush or porcupine strategy or fusion times or...?
The genie is definitely out of the bottle. I think the time is coming when people will simply not pay for the digital file containing music. The core product of the music industry will effectively become free: in fact, it could be said this has already happened.
Yet people will still buy music-industry products, whether as merchandise, concert tickets, CDs with decent sleeve-notes, on-line fan clubs, whatever.
People hand over a hundred bucks for a branded sweater made for two bucks in China because of the marketing/added value which surrounds the sweater, even though they could get a much cheaper one in the thrift store.
In theory, introducing a VM layer which abstracts the hardware, bios and OS should be a good thing. The MS authors are probably right when they say that what the Java VM is really good at is running Java. And developing a VM which does what the Java VM does for imperative and OO programming, and also tips the hat to other paradigms (e.g. functional programming, by allowing tailcalls which support recursion) is probably a step forward.
The question is, though, are Microsoft doing this because they believe in it, or are they just doing it to stop Sun and Java eating their lunch? Do we really see Microsoft putting serious resources into software that enables people to use non-Windows non-Intel platforms, that would start to impact their current monopoly? Or are they trying to make the VM "market" currently owned by Sun fragment, to slow down the rate at which their Windows monopoly is eroded? Might we one day find that the Microsoft VM actually ends up working better under Windows and Intel than it does under Linux on an IBM RISC chipset?
Paranoia where paranoia is due: Microsoft are not trying to stop us "pirating" DVDs...they are trying to protect their Windows monopoly. Duh!
Definitely, the right plan is to go for a business analyst job. Being able to turn business problems into code is a real art, and as his experience suggests he can do it, he could write his own ticket.
He could probably do as much or as little programming as he likes from such a position, perhaps working up prototypes with users, and definitely learn alot from the people he is working with.
There are three broad kinds of programming (called "paradigms") you might want to do:
- imperative programming: which is telling the computer all about the data, all about what you want to do with it, then going through it step by step.
- functional programming: which abstracts what you want to do with the data i.e. a functional program will calculate an answer, without necessarily telling you how it did it
- object orientated programming: which abstracts the data i.e. you tell the computer what to do with a box containing the data, but don't care as much about what might be in the box.
When people say a programming language is "functional" or "object orientated" it means that the programming language has a core set of features which make programming using that particular paradigm easy.
The kind of problems you will want to solve in engineering will typically be functional in nature: simple data, complex transformations.
You could use a pure functional language to do that: ML is popular (as, er, functional languages go), Haskell is great too.
Or you could use so-called multiparadigm languages. Scheme or Lisp, its big brother, have functional and object orientated elements. Python has all three paradigms in its core, without going into huge depth in any of them.
So, any of those would be a good choice. Python is very accessible: I'd go with that first of all.
I think the real message here is that a major Western European government, which is a very large procurer of software, has taken a close look at Free Software. The background document mentioned in the main article is very carefully considered.
Of particular interest is the recommendation that if there is a value case, government departments should be free to go with Free Software (as opposed to being tied to software from "real companies"). This hard-headed value-for-money analysis the only way to check the political and marketing muscle of the software corps. The truth is that much of the corporately-developed software available offers very little additional value over the corresponding open source equivalent.
Banging the drum for Open Source is great, but it's when procurers say, "show me the added value or give me a discount", that people like Microsoft pay attention.
I've occasionally run into similar issues, being young for the positions I have held, as well as being a woman.
The first thing to do is give them no negative reasons to fire you. Show up a little early, go home a little late, take a shorter lunchbreak, care for your appearance and personal hygiene, that kind of stuff.
The second thing is document everything. Plan what you do and get the plan signed by your boss. Review what you do with him, and keep a record of that too. As well as covering your behind, these plans/reviews will help you improve your performance and demonstrate what you have contributed.
Once you've got the tangible things in place, remember the intangible stuff. You might benefit from improving your interpersonal skills. People who do not meet the white-middle class-middle aged - male norm which dominates companies have to manage their personal interactions very carefully. The key to this is to take the time to listen to others: give them your total attention. This is especially true when you know they are wrong.
And finally, make sure you perform so well that they would be insane to fire you. Ability is great, but nothing builds job security like solid performance.
For a sysadmin, knowledge of C programming is beneficial, and for a C programmer, knowledge of assembly is beneficial.
P
Nevertheless, much of the work of sysadmin takes place at the higher levels: so a knowledge of scripting (e.g. in Perl), information security, knowledge/data management are likely to be the areas which it is much more beneficial to focus on.
I'm pretty sure you're right. From a marketing perspective, it would make no sense for Microsoft to port Office to Linux/Unix.
Let's see, what questions might they ask themselves:
- Is there a market today? With less than 1pct of the desktop share, no there isn't.
- Would it support Microsoft's other strategies?
Not really. In fact it would tend to undermine their Windows position. Most Linux users have probably already gone to Java rather than.Net
- Would there be any partnership benefits?Would Linux users help develop Microsoft software? Er, I don't think so.
So, the hapless VP at Microsoft responsible for Office just wouldn't be able to make a case for porting it to Linux. There's just no business case.
Slashdot Mirror
Bless you, Mr. Bandersnatch: you have seen the truth - that Visual C++ is a foul abomination. Really, writing code that locks people into a single operating system or set of middleware is doing them no favours, long-term. Better to keep your integrity, and put bread on the table doing things you believe in.
Whether that will lead to a split at the IP level - so the two networks are completely disconnected - I don't know. Maybe that's being too much of a tech-head about it.
I just think its a shame that authenticated virtual networks are relying on corporate leadership to make them happen. It would be good to be able to talk or play games or trade with people who weren't anonymous, and not pay through the nose for the priviledge.
That'd make a good sig, dude :)
Only the paranoid survive and all that.
To keep myself in food and rent at college, I cleaned windows, loaded trucks, clerked as a temp, whatever, but happily I knew I was on the up and out. Don't think I could have done it alone, though, and wonder if I could do it now. The world has grown colder these last few years.
Oh, oh, and Gauntlet! A history of gaming is not complete without phrases like, "Elf needs food badly! Valkyrie shot the food!". Gamespot..you...have..failed.
What this means is that they can control the portal you use, the sites you might look at. If they see you trading MP3's they can shut you down. It's about turning the open internet into a giant corporate intranet.
And you won't be able to go to someone else, because in your town there might not be someone else.
The openNet coalition goes into more details. Worth getting informed about.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who just thinks about making their pages look good in Internet Explorer is simply handing over dollars to Bill Gates.
So, dial-up unlimited use services and broadband tend to be either very expensive or offer sucky service, since the companies offering them have to pay too much to BT. The only one who had the negotiating power to get a good deal out of BT was AOL, hence the competitive price/service combination.
Linux and AOL may be spiritually incompatible in America, but they shouldn't be incompatible on the desktop.
For more information on this issue, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, in the UK, publish these guidelines:
http://www.rnib.org.uk/digital/hints.htm
The people in Salt Lake should be ashamed of themselves.
Of course, these days CIOs are very financially focussed. They'll be like, "benefits: marginal" vs. "costs: uncertain but probably high". Then they'll say to their CEO boss, "to be honest, boss, there's just no justification to migrate yet".
That's business!
What I object to is the idea of the law being used to control the machines we might design and build, by making some non-approved designs illegal. There need to be controls on machines with military applications (like jet fighters) or which can only be used for criminal applications (like lockpicks). But the idea that a general purpose recording machine should be illegal to build because it might break copy protection laws is oppressive.
It's like banning ovens because they might be used to bake hash cakes.
It'll only be when the quality of the software is up to scratch that people will start thinking about its price. In the end, the total cost of ownership of software is much larger than the licence fee: putting in fixes after deployment is terribly expensive.
Definitely the Doom of the rts genre.
Yet people will still buy music-industry products, whether as merchandise, concert tickets, CDs with decent sleeve-notes, on-line fan clubs, whatever.
People hand over a hundred bucks for a branded sweater made for two bucks in China because of the marketing/added value which surrounds the sweater, even though they could get a much cheaper one in the thrift store.
The question is, though, are Microsoft doing this because they believe in it, or are they just doing it to stop Sun and Java eating their lunch? Do we really see Microsoft putting serious resources into software that enables people to use non-Windows non-Intel platforms, that would start to impact their current monopoly? Or are they trying to make the VM "market" currently owned by Sun fragment, to slow down the rate at which their Windows monopoly is eroded? Might we one day find that the Microsoft VM actually ends up working better under Windows and Intel than it does under Linux on an IBM RISC chipset?
Paranoia where paranoia is due: Microsoft are not trying to stop us "pirating" DVDs...they are trying to protect their Windows monopoly. Duh!
You can get much further by doing a good job and kissing ass than you can by just doing a good job.
Not only did they miss out Tom Bombadil, but they also missed out the barrow-wight (scary!) and Fatty Lumpkin, Tom's boss pony (cute!).
He could probably do as much or as little programming as he likes from such a position, perhaps working up prototypes with users, and definitely learn alot from the people he is working with.
- imperative programming: which is telling the computer all about the data, all about what you want to do with it, then going through it step by step.
- functional programming: which abstracts what you want to do with the data i.e. a functional program will calculate an answer, without necessarily telling you how it did it
- object orientated programming: which abstracts the data i.e. you tell the computer what to do with a box containing the data, but don't care as much about what might be in the box.
When people say a programming language is "functional" or "object orientated" it means that the programming language has a core set of features which make programming using that particular paradigm easy.
The kind of problems you will want to solve in engineering will typically be functional in nature: simple data, complex transformations.
You could use a pure functional language to do that: ML is popular (as, er, functional languages go), Haskell is great too.
Or you could use so-called multiparadigm languages. Scheme or Lisp, its big brother, have functional and object orientated elements. Python has all three paradigms in its core, without going into huge depth in any of them.
So, any of those would be a good choice. Python is very accessible: I'd go with that first of all.
Of particular interest is the recommendation that if there is a value case, government departments should be free to go with Free Software (as opposed to being tied to software from "real companies"). This hard-headed value-for-money analysis the only way to check the political and marketing muscle of the software corps. The truth is that much of the corporately-developed software available offers very little additional value over the corresponding open source equivalent.
Banging the drum for Open Source is great, but it's when procurers say, "show me the added value or give me a discount", that people like Microsoft pay attention.
The first thing to do is give them no negative reasons to fire you. Show up a little early, go home a little late, take a shorter lunchbreak, care for your appearance and personal hygiene, that kind of stuff.
The second thing is document everything. Plan what you do and get the plan signed by your boss. Review what you do with him, and keep a record of that too. As well as covering your behind, these plans/reviews will help you improve your performance and demonstrate what you have contributed.
Once you've got the tangible things in place, remember the intangible stuff. You might benefit from improving your interpersonal skills. People who do not meet the white-middle class-middle aged - male norm which dominates companies have to manage their personal interactions very carefully. The key to this is to take the time to listen to others: give them your total attention. This is especially true when you know they are wrong.
And finally, make sure you perform so well that they would be insane to fire you. Ability is great, but nothing builds job security like solid performance.
Good luck!
Let's see, what questions might they ask themselves:
- Is there a market today? With less than 1pct of the desktop share, no there isn't.
- Would it support Microsoft's other strategies? Not really. In fact it would tend to undermine their Windows position. Most Linux users have probably already gone to Java rather than .Net
- Would there be any partnership benefits?Would Linux users help develop Microsoft software? Er, I don't think so.
So, the hapless VP at Microsoft responsible for Office just wouldn't be able to make a case for porting it to Linux. There's just no business case.