I agree. Unless things are put on paper, the old fashioned *you have my word* means nothing these days. The *handshake* deal days are over. It is not in IBMs favor to go against Open Source at this point, but then IBM has always something up the sleeve. There is definitely a hidden message to their claim. It's good news for the Open Source initiative, but it's more publicity than actual progress. If IBM is true about their intentions, then put it on paper, sign it and then talk the BIG talk
But you cannot compare your *human* immune system to a computer's hardware/software system. Humans have the most complex immune system. I can open, dissasemble and assemble a computer in a few minutes and it'll still work fine, but...let me not think about trying the same on a human.
From a human standpoint not two people's immune system are the same. In the computer world most computers are the same. So say Windows machines have pretty much all the same immune system. They come from the same parent. They are basically clones. So a fix for one is a fix for all. Is this always the case? Hey not even Microsoft can get it right fixing their own OS plenty of times.
In my opinion there isn't enough *digital superheroes* out there. In fact they are almost non-existent. The bandwidth issue becomes obsolete as we move on, but the virus issue grows bigger. This is purely a game of good vs. evil. I'd rather see good prevail. You get to write your virus, and you get praise for it. That's what I call killing two birds with one stone.
Well let me just say that if we created software remotely as good as U2 create their music.....we'd still be using it 20 years later and loving it. So I do agree. U2 doesn't deserve to get bashed. But then this is slashdot. There's a basher for everything and everyone.
I am not a crazy U2 fan, but it's easy to recognize quality. U2 is quality
On the other hand, it is unfortunate if their music is released on the net. The *campaign* against *illegal song downloading* seems to have worked with me (or is it that as I get older I feel more guilty about things??). Haven't *illegaly* downloaded a song in almost 2 years now. Just the other day I spent $200 in CDs. Honestly....I was happy. I thought about the pain and everythign else associated with downloading and ripping all those CDs, not to mention that , hell , I should pay someone for their hard work. I get paid.
I hope I didn't sound like a RIAA spokesperson. In case I did...I fukin hate RIAA for your clarification. I was just trying to make a point which noone seems to care about siding with anymore.
I have no love for the recording *ripp off* empires, but I do respect the musicians that I like, even if they get 50 cents for a CD which cost me $20.
40% is conservative actually. In fact I'd say a more accurate figure would be 45-65% depending on the position. There is also a shortage of work. The % of unemployment has been steady between 3-3.5% higher than in the US for years now. Not to forget we are the true embodiment of a *working class taxed to death*. There is also laws which make it extremely difficult for outside companies to setup shop in canada and the tax bracket is so high that most small to medium size companies will not be willing to open up branches in Canada. Not to mention the new *medicare tax* we were slapped on this summer, (which translates into another $1000 CAD for someone in their mid 50Ks salary) to pay to the gevernment. In the mean time I haven't gone to the doctor in at least 6 years for anything......but I must give the fat a$$ed governemt beurocrats more money, so they can enjoy a better vacation. Our Liberal government is also close friends with CUBA, RUSSIA and CHINA. I wonder is that rings any bells to anyone...if not, let me just say that the Liberal flag is all red. It's only missing a star (that's because they are affraid of the US)
....a hacked computer. See, we're very materialistic people (shallow of course). We look at stealing and breaking in as a physical thing...where the *thief* takes something...and runs with it. I am sure someone that physically stole a computer is more likely to go to jail than someone who stole the content stored as 1s and 0s (if they are caught that is).
Until the danger of stealing information stored digitally is fully understood, we'll never come up with (or enforce) laws that will punish such act. I have no problem if someone stole my laptop...but I'd have a problem if they stole what's on the Hard Drive.
Just like a driver knows they should stop at the red light, or they shouldn't run people over just because they have a car and can do that, so should a computer user feel when they are presented with a chance to breaking into someone else's computer or trying to break into a computer.
Only when people drop the *..hacking is learning and discovering...blah blah...* line and accept the true intentions of hacking, will we be able to make real progress in stopping such an act.
I do not know of any hacking act in history that has really helped *...advance our knowledge of computers and security, or helped a company better it's system security....* or done any good for that matter, besides cost companies many millions of dollars, take them out of business, cost people jobs and endles furstrations for the VICTIM.
Don't try to do something EVIL in the name of GOOD. Do Something GOOD instead....which is: Stay the hell away from my systems...
1) The way we do business is dynamic. It can have unpredictable changes at any point in time, thus requiring a dynamically *adaptable* infrastructure 2) We do not yet understand software to the point where it can be *adaptable* to the changes which are required in 1).
I've said it in the past, but I'll say it again:... software can only be as advanced as we are, so, many times I look at the advancement of the human brain based on the software we write. And when it comes to advancements in software I very often hear the phrase: "....we've only discovered the tip of the iceberg...", which makes me think: is that telling us somthing about the advancement of us as humans?
It'll be another few decades before we can write *chameleon* like software that will adapt to the ever changing environment without the need for it to be rewritten from scratch or ditched and replaced by other software
A more important question is: Do we want software that lasts 200 years or are we willing to accept it? When I think of a break though idea in technology (such as building software that will last centuries) and then I think of the big companies which profit dearly from the term *software lifecycle* (which is so short of course), I think of Oil companies and Electical powered cars: until there's $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to be made in Oil the later will not suceed (unless the later eventually proves to be more profitable)
It is said but true, that just like the human brain has a sense to invent, (unfortunately) it also has a sense for greed. And usually people will lean towards greed and sometimes *forget* to invent
Far be it for me to correct Kay's logic or thought, but I must say that as human beings we tend to take every innovation, be it small or big to a new level. We adapt to the environment. In Kay's time when the Notebook was a vision at the PARC labs and Internet was at its infancy, people were also wearing bell bottom pants and sporting afros. It was simply a different time and that it was impossible to imagine then what those ideas would develop into, no matter how amazing at predicting the future some people were. Trying to cage the human creativity is impossible. What Alan and others envisioned then about technology has been surpassed by 1000000 times. Not only is technology being used for learning and creativity, but it's grown beyond that purpose in benefiting humanity in many other ways. It all depends from what point you look at it, and from certain angles the use of technology as a tool for creativity and learning is obscured....but the truth is that, yes it is being used so...full force.
Marble might have been used to build tiles for Kings and Queens palaces when first discovered, but Renaissance artists like Michelangelo took it to a new level...and that has been the nature of humans since the very beginning.
There is room for criticism, but we should mostly recogninze the amazing advancements we've made in such a short period of time
The only criticism I have is that we're not advancing fast enough and in paralell at all levels of Technology...other than that I must say: thanks Alan (and the others) for starting a revolution.....now let it take its own course...and please inspire us as you have been doing for decades...help us lead the way...
to *bash* Microsoft yet again. The article clearly stated that
Microsoft's MSN Messenger and Word word processing application both support a feature that could give remote users access to functions that could be used launch applications on Windows computers,.....
Unless the SECUNIA people are stupid, launching an app from within another app is what every Microsoft Application is able to do and has been able to do for many years. However I do not think that such feature exists for Microsoft products only. What I am having a hard time distingushing is between Secunia trying to stay on the news and a real vulnerability here. I am not saying it might not exist, but as of this moment I do not see anyone able to run a Shell() command within your app, unless they have gotten to your app, which means they have gotten to your computer already. Also this has existed for a long time. Why now? I might be completely wrong however, and someone at Secunia knows something they are not sharing. I advise them to share any info as soon as possible. The reason I am a little pissed is because in my company I have thousands of Word and Excel documents with thousands of lines of VBA code. With news like this, I smell a panic meeting early in the morning tomorrow which might be nothing more than FUD from Secunia. Honestly I am at a point where I am having a hard time trusting anyone anymore. Hackers want to be my security gurus, OS makers rant and rave about their respective OSes and how secure and reliable they are(only to issue security patches soon after), whole campaigns asking people to boycot a product because of vulnerabilities and use X product, only to find out that X is vulnerable as well. If you look at the stack of firewalls and security appliances at my company, it looks like we're building the walls of damn Troy. I joke with the security guys about the kind of attack they are preparing against. There is hope of course.....but how long before it's too late?
.....is yet again stregthened.
Replace for a second all IE installations with Mozilla in your mind. Can anyone see the impact of this *small* glitch?
Which is why the old age theory that if you are highly visible, you'll also be a primary target still stands strong. You'll have to fend off relentlesly those who want to break you.....and like Troy, someone with Achilles smarts will find a way to breach your walls. Does that make you dumb? Incompetent? Uncaring? Recless coder? Not at all. It's just that the more you get attacked...the better you build your walls.....or else, you'd just stick with a fence to keep the sheep away from shitting in your yard. I think holes like this can and should be expected as other versions of browsers start to become significant in their relevant markets. Welcome, and please take a moment to analyze the pain MS has been going through for a long time now. Popularity does come with a price. I am a Mozilla and Opera user. I like both browsers. But I never slept on the fact that they are *100% secure* and I had nothing to worry about. The question running thorugh my mind was: When? When will someone find a hole. And how well prepared is the Mozilla team to handle it? Fix it. Let me update it. And get me on my way. I want them to be the Ferrari pit stop team....and I am their Schumacer. In retrospcet...a fix will do however. I also stand by the fact that we do not know software deeply enough to built it bullet proof. The art of 1 and 0 is far more complicated to understand, work with and perfect than it might seem. Only when we've perfected the way to test what we build will we be able to perfect writing good software. Buildings and railway tracks for example are checked inch by inch by live human engineers, which is why they (almost never) fail. In the software world we don't have the ability to send a human at a port entrance and examine each 1 and 0 that comes in a goes out. We have (already buggy) software that does that. So we go back to step 1. In time it'll all get better.....but now is definitely not that time.
65,000,000 years ago? Since little I've doubted the accuracy of these scientific research findings. Especially when based on *carbon* dating etc etc. When we are uncertain of so many events that have happened in the past 200 years, how can we be so sure what happened 65 million years ago?
Why do I come to slashdot? I come to slashdot to read intelligent comments. It's what starts my morning. I'm here to read biased comments that make sense, anti-(put whatever you like here) comments that have merit and are backed up by relevant facts. Then I get *Microsoft's evil plans to take over the world*. Again! What a dissapointment!
If you take the idea and apply it accross the fragmented gaming world, then you can see that it makes some sense. After all, it'd make life easier for many of those who have been trying to achieve (and somewhat suceeded) what Microsoft is proposing for a very long time. Content is what matters. The delivery of it should be seamless, and we should not care what platform it's running on top of. But we do care. And in many cases that is unfortunate. Competition should be at the *content* level. After all, the consoles are not the expensive part. It is the content.
What makes me wonder is, that if it wasn't MS to propose such idea, would people have had the same reaction? My point? Noone is looking at the idea, they are concentrating on *WHO* is proposing it. And it all goes to hell from there
First, technically, people have needs and interests that are far too diverse to be served by any single platform
-- I'll answer to this one. People have no clue, what a gaming or computing platform means. Their needs is the *end result*. PEOPLE do not care how it get's there. People do not care how a fridge freezes water into ice cubes. Even more they do not give a rats bum what company makes the ICE MAKER, they just want ICE for their drink.
in short our inability to answer to people's diverse needs through technology is only limited by our brain capacity
....a search in Google for the word Googol turned up quite a few links, many belonging to COMPANIES directly capitalizing on the Googol name.
Googol
How come they are not being sued?
It's unbelievable what corrupted souls will do for money.
To me the word Google != Googol, period.
but by 2007......all those requirements will be already standard for a home PC. As humans, we tend to forget the past very quickly unless we are reminded of it once in a while. Well as I recall, in 2001 a PIII 733MHz was the fastest x86 processor you could buy, and 64MB's of RAM with a 15 GB's of ATA 100 HD was the standard. A 17 Inch Flat CRT was becomming standard for some systems. That was less than 3 years ago.
The bottom system today which I purchase for my company, for $399 Canadian Dollars ($270 US roughly) comes with an 80GB HD at 7200 RPM.
So think in terms of how *fast* computing power grows and how equally fast its price falls. By 2007 I'm thinking most of us will be running and coding for 64Bit systems.
I have Run WinXP on much much less power than MS recommended. You have to understand that Microsoft will try to take advantage of whatever they can, so if they think that a terabyte of storage will be standard by 2007, they will put that as the recommended space for Longhorn.
The concern should not lie on how much power Longhorn will require 3 to 4 years from now, the concern should be: how much better will it really be?
We got the hate mail, we got the group of people who interpreted our agreement as validating SCO or endorsing SCO or any number of things
But where is the fine line between a company's efforts to protect it's customers and business and move on as opposed to *endorsing* an evil company drawn?
Before we rush into judging someone's actions, we should sit down and think about it. I am sure until the CEO of Everyone's internet *admitted* to have made a mistake, a lot of us thought he did it *ON PURPOSE* against the Open Source, and that he's just as evil as SCO, at a time when Everyone's infrastructure runs on open source
Scaring people away just because they make a wrong move is not the way to go. Sending HATE mail and boycotting a business just because you don't agree with something they did is not the way to go. After all the guy's still using Linux as his main platform. Alienating him is just wrong.
Trying to get the word out about what to *pay SCO licencing fees* means and why NOT TO PAY them is a better idea. Some people are scared, and act in desperation. I think the key is to get the word out, as much as possible and try to emphasise the importance of *sticking together*, and not get divided by the threat. Obviously paying money to SCO not only are you endorsing a stupid agenda, evil and useless, but you are also throwing your money in a black hole. Yes indeed you'll most likely get it back when this is all over, but why give it to the bastards in the first place?
Well, yes your alternative is definitely a solution. However is it the best solution? That is the question. This might sound like whatever, but I think bundling is a better idea. Why? Here's why:
1) for most users, downloading and installing software is not the easiest of the tasks. Here you are, just paid a hefty amount of cash for a new PC with no Media Playing capabilities. Then you have to have an internet connection. High Speed (not everyone has it) otherwise it'll take you forever to download and install the program. Can you say pain in the arse?
2) since MS OWNS Windows, I'm taking a guess that soon as you turn that PC on, you'll be *PUSHED* to download Windows Media anyway, through MS's *clever marketing* ways. And they can do that without getting into any trouble, so most likely (unless you are a bit of a techie and know your media players) most people will end up with Windows Media Player anyway.
3) People want to play music, and want to have a Media Center. I see Windows Media Player adds everywhere (I wonder why? Can you say CASH COW), but I never see an add for WinAmp, or RealPlayer. Most people do not know those even exist, so how are you going to educate them about that? It's not possible. Also RealPlayer should be there for pure competitive reasons, but I do not believe for one second that it is better than WinAmp or WMP. For many years now it has been a source of frustration for many users.
so what do we do?
Give users all of them, let them test all the alternatives already installed, then decide for themselves what best fits their needs. The best way to do that is: Bundle them with Windows.
Well the IDEA was brilliant. However, there's a huge difference between thinking the idea and implementing it the was it's supposed to to be. I also think MS had the logic of implementation correctly, and a partially working.NET passport system (which personally I have never used beyond signing in to hotmail). There is a few reasons that Passport was *doomed* from the very beginning, and two come to mind right away:
1) The venerable WEB is just not able to handle such complex task. It'll fall prey to hackers and vandals. We do not understand Internet deep enough to be able to complete such tasks in total security and privacy. There's too many holes, that even those who look for them 24/7 haven't found yet. Internet has grown much faster than our ability to understand it and study it.
2) one word: Microsoft. Yes they probbably have all my info collected little by little over the years, but I'll give that the benefit of the doubt, what I don't want to do it trust something (someone) that cannot be trusted. I am not bashing MS, I know they are trying HARD....but it's gonna take time and some radical changes for that to happen.
Here are the coices I have if I go to buy a computer today:
1) Buy it piece by piece, and put it together myself, to my liking. Install any flavor of Open Source OSes or Windows I desire
2) Buy it from one of the thousands of computer stores without an OS and install the OS of my choice: Any flavor of Open Source OSes or Windows
3) Buy it preinstalled with Windows and in a smaller number preinstalled with Linux
4) (if worst came to worst) -- I can buy a Mac
As for the applications -- Well I will not even go there. Each platform has plenty
I'm sorry to confuse you, but there are several (as in free) Linux distributions, thus Linux (in the generic) is *free* as in *free beer*
There's nothing free these days my son. Look deeper, and you shall see what I mean. Mind you I never asked for anything to be free, and I do like to pay for my stuff regardless, but do not get lost in illusions. I've always been comfortable paying for what I think is worth the money. I shall continue to do so. The day I believe that some of the most important things in my life are free, that day I will need to go and have my head examined by a shrink. Screw whoever said that the best things in life are free. I don't know what he was referring to.
Wait, I'm confused. Is Linux a viable alternative to Windows, or isn't it?
-- It all depends. Other solutions (other than Linux) might be an alternative to Windows. it all depends on how smart your IT management is to understand the exact needs of the company and act upon it. Linux can make or brake your company, so can Windows, so can Unix.
Oh, and isn't Linux free?
-- as in *free speech* not *free beer*. Remember that.
And what about the Mac? What about Free/OpenBSD? What about the dozens of niche OS's and hardware vendors?
Like I said...yes and no.
It's absolutely laughable to claim Microsoft has an OS monopoly. Truly, it's beyond laughable, it's insane and ridiculous.
on the desktop market. YES. MS has an absolute monopoly. The problem is not Microsoft. The problem is the competition. We'll know when the competition is ready to compete and balance the monopoly.
Yes, straight out of the Box, with a *single* system like that Linux will beat Windows any time. No big brainer there. I think however that cost scenarios will vary (or differ)when you have thousands of systems, desktops and of course developement and maintenace. The calculation is not as simple as 2 X 2.
second, if they compared it to *closed source* databases, how would they know that it is in fact *six times better*? I thought the whole point of proprietary databases was that you couldn't see the code. Plus, even if they somehow saw the code (impossible) how long would it take you to compare? And how would you compare them? Line by line? Function by function? I want MySQL to be 6 (or more) times better, but I think more reasearch is needed on this
We agree that progress is good. No-one regrets the passing of days when we hand-coded interface languages because XML had not been invented.
Part of my point.
But you make the mistake of many people, namely to assume that change is equal to progress.
Change in itself can be tied to progress. Changes can happen based on progress, especially when it comes to new technologies (in their infancy) like the internet. The invention of HTML (the most simplistic example) lead to the first sharing of information on the WEB. That first Web page *changed* the way we share information forever. Is information sharing new? Of course not. Is the way we share it new? Yes it is. That is advancement, it's progress. Now html is already being called *old*. So my point is change and progress go hand in hand. In many cases, that can be like the chicken or the egg story, but one thing is for sure, there is constan change and progress happening.
Change is only part of the cycle. The other part of the cycle is the refinement of techniques and maturation of knowledge that lets you exploit change to the fullest.
It all depends what type of change we're talking about. Some changes happen as a direct result of us *creating*, advancing, inventing.
Imagine if every three years we had to discard languages like HTML and XML and start with new, incompatible concepts. The market would never get into a state where mature concepts could be built: it takes 2-3 years at the least before businesses understand and trust technical platforms well enough to use them effectively.
I agree. But we are not doing that. HTML is still around, UNIX is still around, so is Windows 3.1. So after all we're not changing things that much. You are not being *forced* to adopt all these new technologies, but you do have the option, and in time you'll migrate to them. That's why there's always a strong emphasis in *backward compatibility*. I know this is a lame example, but I have an *old school geek* friend that develops Access Applications. If you look at his code the syntax is still completely in Access VBA 2.0. (now we're at Access 11 VBA 7??) I think he's affraid of change. When I mention OLE, or ADO to him he get scared to death. he won't touch them. He says they are *new* unproven technologies, and that ODBC and DAO are good enough. I do agree and strongly disagree at the same time
Yet this is the basic premise of Microsoft's marketing strategy: saturate the market with new development platforms, capture the pioneer developers and keep the customer base forever unstable and tottering in Microsoft's direction.
I couldn't comment on MSs marketing strategy, since I do not know it, but all I can say is that for me as a developer what MSs marketing says means nothing. I think marketing new things to geeks is the most difficult thing on the planet. You have to go to great lengths to convince me to be a convert, early adopter or what have you. I think the customer has the ultimate power, especially at times like these. MS cannot keep a customer *tied up* to their platform anymore. They are (actually) trying hard to keep them by comming out with decent products, rather than relying solely in the marketing and monopoly positions.
Agreed that many vendors try this: "if you're going to base your business critical application on an untested platform, at least use ours". But Microsoft's scale and marketing push make it a much more serious issue.
I don't know what to say here. They do have the money, so a bigger then average marketing campaign for a new product from MS is unavoidable.
Change is not progress. Change mixed with periods of maturation can be progress.
I hear you completely. However I think Change and Progress are two different things, tied together, and happen in no particular order.
Do we really need more technologies in their infancy?
Everything has a beginning. Second, yes we do need new technologies. The day we stop innovating and inventing we've become no more intelligent than the rest of the species on this planet. Mind as well we should start walking backwards.
Is it not one of the biggest problem in this industry that we keep inventing new ways of doing the same stuff, throwing out entire generations of products and developers each time?
I would disagree. It is not the biggest problem in this industry. It's only a problem, like many other problems. Problems like using old ways still to do new stuff, or not comming up fast enough with new ways to do old and new stuff.
We need ways to make existing good code last longer, not new frameworks to waste time on.
So we should have stopped at Linux Kernel version 0.X or Windows 95 then? We are already doing that. We are still using code from 2 decades and more ago. Actually that is part of the problem, we're using too much of the *good* old code.
But... sigh... I don't expect that kind of attitude from Microsoft. One more reason to avoid such platforms like the pest.
and what does *such platforms mean*? No hard feelings bud, but you're ranting.
I think we need more innovation and new ways of doing new things, things that old ways cannot handle or were never supposed to handle. New frameworks, faster, more secure, more compact and with longevity in mind are needed. Everyone else is doing it. Why should MS be an exception? I have no sympathy for greedy ([people],[companies]...etc) but I do recognize their offorts nevertheless. The good news as I always say is that now you have a CHOICE. You can avoid MS if you like and go with a different platform and never have to look back, but you have to cut them some slack for comming up with new and (recently) pretty good products. Please do not flame me. I'm just trying to look at it from a neutral prespective for once.
There are many details and subtleties, but for the most part it comes down to one thing: Unix culture values code which is useful to other programmers, while Windows culture values code which is useful to non-programmers."
Well, I think this is more of a lame attempt to *divide* the programming community rather than an *informative, educated* observation. Especially the *....Unix culture values code which is useful to other programmers, while Windows culture values code which is useful to non-programmers...* piece. There are obvious differences, differences that are tied to the platform you are programming in, but I strongly disagree with different *cultures*. Programmers care about a lot of things, and code is only one of them. Most programmers I know (including myself) want to write clean, fast code, and we all hate commenting it. In fact styles of code writing are quite fragmented to personal styles. I have often been able to tell that two different people wrote two different simple functions, using the same language for the same program. There is of course a *better* conformity when the projects involve managers, teams etc etc. Ultimately, I think this: As a programmer, there's a personal achievement and satisfaction when I write code and accomplish something with it, or someone else accomplishes something with the code I write. What identifies programmers with one another is not the platform or style or culture of writing code, is the love for what we do
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Unless things are put on paper, the old fashioned *you have my word* means nothing these days. The *handshake* deal days are over. It is not in IBMs favor to go against Open Source at this point, but then IBM has always something up the sleeve. There is definitely a hidden message to their claim. It's good news for the Open Source initiative, but it's more publicity than actual progress. If IBM is true about their intentions, then put it on paper, sign it and then talk the BIG talk
just move there?
But you cannot compare your *human* immune system to a computer's hardware/software system. Humans have the most complex immune system. I can open, dissasemble and assemble a computer in a few minutes and it'll still work fine, but...let me not think about trying the same on a human.
From a human standpoint not two people's immune system are the same. In the computer world most computers are the same. So say Windows machines have pretty much all the same immune system. They come from the same parent. They are basically clones. So a fix for one is a fix for all. Is this always the case? Hey not even Microsoft can get it right fixing their own OS plenty of times.
In my opinion there isn't enough *digital superheroes* out there. In fact they are almost non-existent. The bandwidth issue becomes obsolete as we move on, but the virus issue grows bigger. This is purely a game of good vs. evil. I'd rather see good prevail. You get to write your virus, and you get praise for it. That's what I call killing two birds with one stone.
Cheers
Well let me just say that if we created software remotely as good as U2 create their music.....we'd still be using it 20 years later and loving it. So I do agree. U2 doesn't deserve to get bashed. But then this is slashdot. There's a basher for everything and everyone.
I am not a crazy U2 fan, but it's easy to recognize quality. U2 is quality
On the other hand, it is unfortunate if their music is released on the net. The *campaign* against *illegal song downloading* seems to have worked with me (or is it that as I get older I feel more guilty about things??). Haven't *illegaly* downloaded a song in almost 2 years now. Just the other day I spent $200 in CDs. Honestly....I was happy. I thought about the pain and everythign else associated with downloading and ripping all those CDs, not to mention that , hell , I should pay someone for their hard work. I get paid.
I hope I didn't sound like a RIAA spokesperson. In case I did...I fukin hate RIAA for your clarification. I was just trying to make a point which noone seems to care about siding with anymore. I have no love for the recording *ripp off* empires, but I do respect the musicians that I like, even if they get 50 cents for a CD which cost me $20.
40% is conservative actually. In fact I'd say a more accurate figure would be 45-65% depending on the position. There is also a shortage of work. The % of unemployment has been steady between 3-3.5% higher than in the US for years now. Not to forget we are the true embodiment of a *working class taxed to death*. There is also laws which make it extremely difficult for outside companies to setup shop in canada and the tax bracket is so high that most small to medium size companies will not be willing to open up branches in Canada. Not to mention the new *medicare tax* we were slapped on this summer, (which translates into another $1000 CAD for someone in their mid 50Ks salary) to pay to the gevernment. In the mean time I haven't gone to the doctor in at least 6 years for anything......but I must give the fat a$$ed governemt beurocrats more money, so they can enjoy a better vacation. Our Liberal government is also close friends with CUBA, RUSSIA and CHINA. I wonder is that rings any bells to anyone...if not, let me just say that the Liberal flag is all red. It's only missing a star (that's because they are affraid of the US)
Stats canada
....a hacked computer. See, we're very materialistic people (shallow of course). We look at stealing and breaking in as a physical thing...where the *thief* takes something...and runs with it. I am sure someone that physically stole a computer is more likely to go to jail than someone who stole the content stored as 1s and 0s (if they are caught that is).
Until the danger of stealing information stored digitally is fully understood, we'll never come up with (or enforce) laws that will punish such act. I have no problem if someone stole my laptop...but I'd have a problem if they stole what's on the Hard Drive.
Just like a driver knows they should stop at the red light, or they shouldn't run people over just because they have a car and can do that, so should a computer user feel when they are presented with a chance to breaking into someone else's computer or trying to break into a computer.
Only when people drop the *..hacking is learning and discovering...blah blah...* line and accept the true intentions of hacking, will we be able to make real progress in stopping such an act.
I do not know of any hacking act in history that has really helped *...advance our knowledge of computers and security, or helped a company better it's system security....* or done any good for that matter, besides cost companies many millions of dollars, take them out of business, cost people jobs and endles furstrations for the VICTIM. Don't try to do something EVIL in the name of GOOD. Do Something GOOD instead....which is: Stay the hell away from my systems...
(strange...my cursor is moving on its own.....?)
...happens for two reasons in my opinion
... software can only be as advanced as we are, so, many times I look at the advancement of the human brain based on the software we write. And when it comes to advancements in software I very often hear the phrase: "....we've only discovered the tip of the iceberg...", which makes me think: is that telling us somthing about the advancement of us as humans?
1) The way we do business is dynamic. It can have unpredictable changes at any point in time, thus requiring a dynamically *adaptable* infrastructure
2) We do not yet understand software to the point where it can be *adaptable* to the changes which are required in 1).
I've said it in the past, but I'll say it again:
It'll be another few decades before we can write *chameleon* like software that will adapt to the ever changing environment without the need for it to be rewritten from scratch or ditched and replaced by other software
A more important question is: Do we want software that lasts 200 years or are we willing to accept it? When I think of a break though idea in technology (such as building software that will last centuries) and then I think of the big companies which profit dearly from the term *software lifecycle* (which is so short of course), I think of Oil companies and Electical powered cars: until there's $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to be made in Oil the later will not suceed (unless the later eventually proves to be more profitable)
It is said but true, that just like the human brain has a sense to invent, (unfortunately) it also has a sense for greed. And usually people will lean towards greed and sometimes *forget* to invent
Far be it for me to correct Kay's logic or thought, but I must say that as human beings we tend to take every innovation, be it small or big to a new level. We adapt to the environment. In Kay's time when the Notebook was a vision at the PARC labs and Internet was at its infancy, people were also wearing bell bottom pants and sporting afros. It was simply a different time and that it was impossible to imagine then what those ideas would develop into, no matter how amazing at predicting the future some people were. Trying to cage the human creativity is impossible. What Alan and others envisioned then about technology has been surpassed by 1000000 times. Not only is technology being used for learning and creativity, but it's grown beyond that purpose in benefiting humanity in many other ways. It all depends from what point you look at it, and from certain angles the use of technology as a tool for creativity and learning is obscured....but the truth is that, yes it is being used so...full force.
Marble might have been used to build tiles for Kings and Queens palaces when first discovered, but Renaissance artists like Michelangelo took it to a new level...and that has been the nature of humans since the very beginning.
There is room for criticism, but we should mostly recogninze the amazing advancements we've made in such a short period of time
The only criticism I have is that we're not advancing fast enough and in paralell at all levels of Technology...other than that I must say: thanks Alan (and the others) for starting a revolution.....now let it take its own course...and please inspire us as you have been doing for decades...help us lead the way...
to *bash* Microsoft yet again. The article clearly stated that
.....
Microsoft's MSN Messenger and Word word processing application both support a feature that could give remote users access to functions that could be used launch applications on Windows computers,
Unless the SECUNIA people are stupid, launching an app from within another app is what every Microsoft Application is able to do and has been able to do for many years. However I do not think that such feature exists for Microsoft products only. What I am having a hard time distingushing is between Secunia trying to stay on the news and a real vulnerability here. I am not saying it might not exist, but as of this moment I do not see anyone able to run a Shell() command within your app, unless they have gotten to your app, which means they have gotten to your computer already. Also this has existed for a long time. Why now? I might be completely wrong however, and someone at Secunia knows something they are not sharing. I advise them to share any info as soon as possible. The reason I am a little pissed is because in my company I have thousands of Word and Excel documents with thousands of lines of VBA code. With news like this, I smell a panic meeting early in the morning tomorrow which might be nothing more than FUD from Secunia. Honestly I am at a point where I am having a hard time trusting anyone anymore. Hackers want to be my security gurus, OS makers rant and rave about their respective OSes and how secure and reliable they are(only to issue security patches soon after), whole campaigns asking people to boycot a product because of vulnerabilities and use X product, only to find out that X is vulnerable as well. If you look at the stack of firewalls and security appliances at my company, it looks like we're building the walls of damn Troy. I joke with the security guys about the kind of attack they are preparing against. There is hope of course.....but how long before it's too late?
.....is yet again stregthened.
Replace for a second all IE installations with Mozilla in your mind. Can anyone see the impact of this *small* glitch?
Which is why the old age theory that if you are highly visible, you'll also be a primary target still stands strong. You'll have to fend off relentlesly those who want to break you.....and like Troy, someone with Achilles smarts will find a way to breach your walls. Does that make you dumb? Incompetent? Uncaring? Recless coder? Not at all. It's just that the more you get attacked...the better you build your walls.....or else, you'd just stick with a fence to keep the sheep away from shitting in your yard. I think holes like this can and should be expected as other versions of browsers start to become significant in their relevant markets. Welcome, and please take a moment to analyze the pain MS has been going through for a long time now. Popularity does come with a price. I am a Mozilla and Opera user. I like both browsers. But I never slept on the fact that they are *100% secure* and I had nothing to worry about. The question running thorugh my mind was: When? When will someone find a hole. And how well prepared is the Mozilla team to handle it? Fix it. Let me update it. And get me on my way. I want them to be the Ferrari pit stop team....and I am their Schumacer. In retrospcet...a fix will do however. I also stand by the fact that we do not know software deeply enough to built it bullet proof. The art of 1 and 0 is far more complicated to understand, work with and perfect than it might seem. Only when we've perfected the way to test what we build will we be able to perfect writing good software. Buildings and railway tracks for example are checked inch by inch by live human engineers, which is why they (almost never) fail. In the software world we don't have the ability to send a human at a port entrance and examine each 1 and 0 that comes in a goes out. We have (already buggy) software that does that. So we go back to step 1. In time it'll all get better.....but now is definitely not that time.
65,000,000 years ago? Since little I've doubted the accuracy of these scientific research findings. Especially when based on *carbon* dating etc etc. When we are uncertain of so many events that have happened in the past 200 years, how can we be so sure what happened 65 million years ago?
Why do I come to slashdot? I come to slashdot to read intelligent comments. It's what starts my morning. I'm here to read biased comments that make sense, anti-(put whatever you like here) comments that have merit and are backed up by relevant facts. Then I get *Microsoft's evil plans to take over the world*. Again! What a dissapointment! If you take the idea and apply it accross the fragmented gaming world, then you can see that it makes some sense. After all, it'd make life easier for many of those who have been trying to achieve (and somewhat suceeded) what Microsoft is proposing for a very long time. Content is what matters. The delivery of it should be seamless, and we should not care what platform it's running on top of. But we do care. And in many cases that is unfortunate. Competition should be at the *content* level. After all, the consoles are not the expensive part. It is the content.
What makes me wonder is, that if it wasn't MS to propose such idea, would people have had the same reaction? My point? Noone is looking at the idea, they are concentrating on *WHO* is proposing it. And it all goes to hell from there
First, technically, people have needs and interests that are far too diverse to be served by any single platform
-- I'll answer to this one. People have no clue, what a gaming or computing platform means. Their needs is the *end result*. PEOPLE do not care how it get's there. People do not care how a fridge freezes water into ice cubes. Even more they do not give a rats bum what company makes the ICE MAKER, they just want ICE for their drink.
in short our inability to answer to people's diverse needs through technology is only limited by our brain capacity
....a search in Google for the word Googol turned up quite a few links, many belonging to COMPANIES directly capitalizing on the Googol name. Googol How come they are not being sued? It's unbelievable what corrupted souls will do for money. To me the word Google != Googol, period.
but by 2007......all those requirements will be already standard for a home PC. As humans, we tend to forget the past very quickly unless we are reminded of it once in a while. Well as I recall, in 2001 a PIII 733MHz was the fastest x86 processor you could buy, and 64MB's of RAM with a 15 GB's of ATA 100 HD was the standard. A 17 Inch Flat CRT was becomming standard for some systems. That was less than 3 years ago.
The bottom system today which I purchase for my company, for $399 Canadian Dollars ($270 US roughly) comes with an 80GB HD at 7200 RPM.
So think in terms of how *fast* computing power grows and how equally fast its price falls. By 2007 I'm thinking most of us will be running and coding for 64Bit systems.
I have Run WinXP on much much less power than MS recommended. You have to understand that Microsoft will try to take advantage of whatever they can, so if they think that a terabyte of storage will be standard by 2007, they will put that as the recommended space for Longhorn.
The concern should not lie on how much power Longhorn will require 3 to 4 years from now, the concern should be: how much better will it really be?
I completely agree,
We got the hate mail, we got the group of people who interpreted our agreement as validating SCO or endorsing SCO or any number of things
But where is the fine line between a company's efforts to protect it's customers and business and move on as opposed to *endorsing* an evil company drawn?
Before we rush into judging someone's actions, we should sit down and think about it. I am sure until the CEO of Everyone's internet *admitted* to have made a mistake, a lot of us thought he did it *ON PURPOSE* against the Open Source, and that he's just as evil as SCO, at a time when Everyone's infrastructure runs on open source
Scaring people away just because they make a wrong move is not the way to go. Sending HATE mail and boycotting a business just because you don't agree with something they did is not the way to go. After all the guy's still using Linux as his main platform. Alienating him is just wrong.
Trying to get the word out about what to *pay SCO licencing fees* means and why NOT TO PAY them is a better idea. Some people are scared, and act in desperation. I think the key is to get the word out, as much as possible and try to emphasise the importance of *sticking together*, and not get divided by the threat. Obviously paying money to SCO not only are you endorsing a stupid agenda, evil and useless, but you are also throwing your money in a black hole. Yes indeed you'll most likely get it back when this is all over, but why give it to the bastards in the first place?
Well, yes your alternative is definitely a solution. However is it the best solution? That is the question. This might sound like whatever, but I think bundling is a better idea. Why? Here's why:
.02 cents
1) for most users, downloading and installing software is not the easiest of the tasks. Here you are, just paid a hefty amount of cash for a new PC with no Media Playing capabilities. Then you have to have an internet connection. High Speed (not everyone has it) otherwise it'll take you forever to download and install the program. Can you say pain in the arse?
2) since MS OWNS Windows, I'm taking a guess that soon as you turn that PC on, you'll be *PUSHED* to download Windows Media anyway, through MS's *clever marketing* ways. And they can do that without getting into any trouble, so most likely (unless you are a bit of a techie and know your media players) most people will end up with Windows Media Player anyway.
3) People want to play music, and want to have a Media Center. I see Windows Media Player adds everywhere (I wonder why? Can you say CASH COW), but I never see an add for WinAmp, or RealPlayer. Most people do not know those even exist, so how are you going to educate them about that? It's not possible. Also RealPlayer should be there for pure competitive reasons, but I do not believe for one second that it is better than WinAmp or WMP. For many years now it has been a source of frustration for many users.
so what do we do? Give users all of them, let them test all the alternatives already installed, then decide for themselves what best fits their needs. The best way to do that is: Bundle them with Windows.
my
Well the IDEA was brilliant. However, there's a huge difference between thinking the idea and implementing it the was it's supposed to to be. I also think MS had the logic of implementation correctly, and a partially working .NET passport system (which personally I have never used beyond signing in to hotmail). There is a few reasons that Passport was *doomed* from the very beginning, and two come to mind right away:
1) The venerable WEB is just not able to handle such complex task. It'll fall prey to hackers and vandals. We do not understand Internet deep enough to be able to complete such tasks in total security and privacy. There's too many holes, that even those who look for them 24/7 haven't found yet. Internet has grown much faster than our ability to understand it and study it.
2) one word: Microsoft. Yes they probbably have all my info collected little by little over the years, but I'll give that the benefit of the doubt, what I don't want to do it trust something (someone) that cannot be trusted. I am not bashing MS, I know they are trying HARD....but it's gonna take time and some radical changes for that to happen.
Here are the coices I have if I go to buy a computer today: 1) Buy it piece by piece, and put it together myself, to my liking. Install any flavor of Open Source OSes or Windows I desire 2) Buy it from one of the thousands of computer stores without an OS and install the OS of my choice: Any flavor of Open Source OSes or Windows 3) Buy it preinstalled with Windows and in a smaller number preinstalled with Linux 4) (if worst came to worst) -- I can buy a Mac As for the applications -- Well I will not even go there. Each platform has plenty
I'm sorry to confuse you, but there are several (as in free) Linux distributions, thus Linux (in the generic) is *free* as in *free beer*
There's nothing free these days my son. Look deeper, and you shall see what I mean. Mind you I never asked for anything to be free, and I do like to pay for my stuff regardless, but do not get lost in illusions. I've always been comfortable paying for what I think is worth the money. I shall continue to do so. The day I believe that some of the most important things in my life are free, that day I will need to go and have my head examined by a shrink. Screw whoever said that the best things in life are free. I don't know what he was referring to.
Wait, I'm confused. Is Linux a viable alternative to Windows, or isn't it?
-- It all depends. Other solutions (other than Linux) might be an alternative to Windows. it all depends on how smart your IT management is to understand the exact needs of the company and act upon it. Linux can make or brake your company, so can Windows, so can Unix.
Oh, and isn't Linux free?
-- as in *free speech* not *free beer*. Remember that.
And what about the Mac? What about Free/OpenBSD? What about the dozens of niche OS's and hardware vendors?
Like I said...yes and no.
It's absolutely laughable to claim Microsoft has an OS monopoly. Truly, it's beyond laughable, it's insane and ridiculous.
on the desktop market. YES. MS has an absolute monopoly. The problem is not Microsoft. The problem is the competition. We'll know when the competition is ready to compete and balance the monopoly.
Yes, straight out of the Box, with a *single* system like that Linux will beat Windows any time. No big brainer there. I think however that cost scenarios will vary (or differ)when you have thousands of systems, desktops and of course developement and maintenace. The calculation is not as simple as 2 X 2.
You asked my first question
second, if they compared it to *closed source* databases, how would they know that it is in fact *six times better*? I thought the whole point of proprietary databases was that you couldn't see the code. Plus, even if they somehow saw the code (impossible) how long would it take you to compare? And how would you compare them? Line by line? Function by function? I want MySQL to be 6 (or more) times better, but I think more reasearch is needed on this
We agree that progress is good. No-one regrets the passing of days when we hand-coded interface languages because XML had not been invented.
Part of my point.
But you make the mistake of many people, namely to assume that change is equal to progress.
Change in itself can be tied to progress. Changes can happen based on progress, especially when it comes to new technologies (in their infancy) like the internet. The invention of HTML (the most simplistic example) lead to the first sharing of information on the WEB. That first Web page *changed* the way we share information forever. Is information sharing new? Of course not. Is the way we share it new? Yes it is. That is advancement, it's progress. Now html is already being called *old*. So my point is change and progress go hand in hand. In many cases, that can be like the chicken or the egg story, but one thing is for sure, there is constan change and progress happening.
Change is only part of the cycle. The other part of the cycle is the refinement of techniques and maturation of knowledge that lets you exploit change to the fullest.
It all depends what type of change we're talking about. Some changes happen as a direct result of us *creating*, advancing, inventing.
Imagine if every three years we had to discard languages like HTML and XML and start with new, incompatible concepts. The market would never get into a state where mature concepts could be built: it takes 2-3 years at the least before businesses understand and trust technical platforms well enough to use them effectively.
I agree. But we are not doing that. HTML is still around, UNIX is still around, so is Windows 3.1. So after all we're not changing things that much. You are not being *forced* to adopt all these new technologies, but you do have the option, and in time you'll migrate to them. That's why there's always a strong emphasis in *backward compatibility*. I know this is a lame example, but I have an *old school geek* friend that develops Access Applications. If you look at his code the syntax is still completely in Access VBA 2.0. (now we're at Access 11 VBA 7??) I think he's affraid of change. When I mention OLE, or ADO to him he get scared to death. he won't touch them. He says they are *new* unproven technologies, and that ODBC and DAO are good enough. I do agree and strongly disagree at the same time
Yet this is the basic premise of Microsoft's marketing strategy: saturate the market with new development platforms, capture the pioneer developers and keep the customer base forever unstable and tottering in Microsoft's direction.
I couldn't comment on MSs marketing strategy, since I do not know it, but all I can say is that for me as a developer what MSs marketing says means nothing. I think marketing new things to geeks is the most difficult thing on the planet. You have to go to great lengths to convince me to be a convert, early adopter or what have you. I think the customer has the ultimate power, especially at times like these. MS cannot keep a customer *tied up* to their platform anymore. They are (actually) trying hard to keep them by comming out with decent products, rather than relying solely in the marketing and monopoly positions.
Agreed that many vendors try this: "if you're going to base your business critical application on an untested platform, at least use ours". But Microsoft's scale and marketing push make it a much more serious issue.
I don't know what to say here. They do have the money, so a bigger then average marketing campaign for a new product from MS is unavoidable.
Change is not progress. Change mixed with periods of maturation can be progress.
I hear you completely. However I think Change and Progress are two different things, tied together, and happen in no particular order.
Do we really need more technologies in their infancy?
Everything has a beginning. Second, yes we do need new technologies. The day we stop innovating and inventing we've become no more intelligent than the rest of the species on this planet. Mind as well we should start walking backwards.
Is it not one of the biggest problem in this industry that we keep inventing new ways of doing the same stuff, throwing out entire generations of products and developers each time?
I would disagree. It is not the biggest problem in this industry. It's only a problem, like many other problems. Problems like using old ways still to do new stuff, or not comming up fast enough with new ways to do old and new stuff.
We need ways to make existing good code last longer, not new frameworks to waste time on.
So we should have stopped at Linux Kernel version 0.X or Windows 95 then? We are already doing that. We are still using code from 2 decades and more ago. Actually that is part of the problem, we're using too much of the *good* old code.
But... sigh... I don't expect that kind of attitude from Microsoft. One more reason to avoid such platforms like the pest.
and what does *such platforms mean*? No hard feelings bud, but you're ranting.
I think we need more innovation and new ways of doing new things, things that old ways cannot handle or were never supposed to handle. New frameworks, faster, more secure, more compact and with longevity in mind are needed. Everyone else is doing it. Why should MS be an exception? I have no sympathy for greedy ([people],[companies]...etc) but I do recognize their offorts nevertheless. The good news as I always say is that now you have a CHOICE. You can avoid MS if you like and go with a different platform and never have to look back, but you have to cut them some slack for comming up with new and (recently) pretty good products. Please do not flame me. I'm just trying to look at it from a neutral prespective for once.
There are many details and subtleties, but for the most part it comes down to one thing: Unix culture values code which is useful to other programmers, while Windows culture values code which is useful to non-programmers."
Well, I think this is more of a lame attempt to *divide* the programming community rather than an *informative, educated* observation. Especially the *....Unix culture values code which is useful to other programmers, while Windows culture values code which is useful to non-programmers...* piece. There are obvious differences, differences that are tied to the platform you are programming in, but I strongly disagree with different *cultures*. Programmers care about a lot of things, and code is only one of them. Most programmers I know (including myself) want to write clean, fast code, and we all hate commenting it. In fact styles of code writing are quite fragmented to personal styles. I have often been able to tell that two different people wrote two different simple functions, using the same language for the same program. There is of course a *better* conformity when the projects involve managers, teams etc etc. Ultimately, I think this: As a programmer, there's a personal achievement and satisfaction when I write code and accomplish something with it, or someone else accomplishes something with the code I write. What identifies programmers with one another is not the platform or style or culture of writing code, is the love for what we do