don't see to many people listing professional journals. other than a very select few, most magazines i read are trade pubs or journals.
cigar aficianado atlantic monthly dr. dobb's journal javapro information week software develoment java developer's journal wireless week computerworld
but my fav of all time, bar none, is (was) Compute!'s Gazette.
and i just found out yesterday that a cousin i haven't seen in about 15 years still has boxes and boxes full of my old C!G mags and diskettes (plus a bunch of commercial software diskettes), as well as all the old C64/128 hardware! can't wait to enjoy several years of C!G all over again...
A lot of effort goes into finding vulnerabilities in software, but there's no real evidence that it actually improves security.
of course not. fixing vulnerabilities in software is what improves security.
but on a serious note...
i would not necessarily, as the study states, "expect to see noticeable results in terms of improved software quality" due to the discovery or remedy of existing vulnerabilities for the simple reason that technologies that are implemented by software evolve over time. new technologies == new potential for vulnerabilities. (perhaps a better study would be to identify a static group of technologies and examine the effects of vulnerability disclosure over a finite period of time for those technologies)
also, in terms of publicly disclosed vulnerabilities, it does surprise me a bit that i don't see many resources geared towards preventative coding techniques (within a vulnerability disclosure context). in other words, there are resources that identify and describe vulnerabilities, and provide patches/workarounds for them; there are resources that discuss secure design/coding techniques. but i rarely see the two in a combined format. i think that would be really useful, a way to provide some concrete context (code snippets?) for an abstract description (the nature of some vulnerability).
imagine a resource that provided disclosure of and patches/workarounds for a vulnerability, and then supplmented that with a practical discussion of *why* such and such is a vulnerability, how it can be recognized, and how a developer can recognize symptoms and write code to avoid this kind of problem in the future - in other words, a sort of "design pattern" for how to recognize and/or avoid a vulnerability.
programming has been a hobby for me for 20 years. i have been employed as a programmer for a little over 5 years.
my love of programming has not decreased in the least bit; however, i have come to realize that the freedom to be creative and exercise painstaking care in design (when programming as a hobby) is often (read: almost always) in direct conflict with the business world, where profit and deadline trump quality and thoughtful design any day of the week (at least where i'm at). it's not that that's a bad thing - it's that i am incompatible with that culture/environment. it's a philosophical difference; but one which is overwhelmingly the single greatest source of work-related stress in my life.
ultimately, it is not my love for coding that has disappeared; rather, the "i'm so lucky i get paid to engage in my hobby" feeling has completely evaporated and left me with the desire to NOT be a programmer-for-a-living.
as a user (for some time) of another distro, and being quite happy with it, i'd like to pose a question to supporters of suse 9.1:
what features or aspects of suse 9.1 would you consider to be compelling reasons for me to consider suse as a replacement?
i can offer as a starting point the path that i've taken in arriving at my current distro of choice:
1. Debian (got an install disc free in an issue of wired back in 1996; nothing but problems in getting it up and running on an old compaq desktop; eventually gave up and went back to winnt). 2. Red Hat (bought a "bible" book with 5.2 install cd; install went very smoothly, and i dual-booted this with winnt for about a year(?); was still a linux "newbie" and didn't get very far in terms of productivity) 3. Mandrake (on a suggestion from a friend that it was "friendlier" than red hat; used it and enjoyed the experience for a couple years, albeit had little more than a novelty/experimental type experience) 4. TurboLinux (got a packaged install set as a demo; began to explore linux more deeply, and eventually went back to red hat after experiencing frustration with system maintenance) 5. Red Hat (acquired a 6.x version from an "unleashed" book; ran this with satisfaction for a couple years, eventually getting frustrated by the overall design and its resistance to customization - admittedly, due most likely to lack of experience/know-how on my part) 6. Slackware (downloaded 8.1; was very comfortable with the installation and config process; have been running it ever since, eventually abandoning the "winnt dual boot" safety blanket in early 2003)
i currently run slackware 9.1 on an old compaq armada notebook and am absolutely satisfied. however, as can be seen by my track record, switching distros does not cause me anxiety;) i like the simplicity of the slackware distro; admin tasks just seem to be easier, and i haven't experienced the compilation problems that frustrated me in the past (again, though, i was very much a linux tenderfoot prior to my slackware experience). i also like the slackware package managemeny system very much.
so... why would i (or should i) consider giving suse 9.1 a test drive?
and those are standard orders through openbsd.org?
even in my order receipt, it clearly states:
>> Your order currently is: >> -> 1 OpenBSD 3.5 CD @ USD $40.00 >> -> Total: USD $40.00 + Shipping. >> NOTE: Orders containing Pre-ordered OpenBSD 3.5 >> CD's Shirts, and Posters will not ship before May 1 2004
so how could they possibly arrive prior to May 1? is there some special shipping option or something that i forgot to check?
freedom of choice implies the freedom to choose to choose (or not).
.. *dizzy*...
let me try that again: before i can make a choice between two or more options, i must first want (i.e. choose) to make that choice.
as an experienced computer user and programmer, i want to choose linux (or another alternative) for my desktop so that i can have the freedom of choice it offers.
as a casual user, my sister has no interest in choosing to have the kind of freedom of choice that linux offers; to her, windows 98 is still to this day "good enough" for her needs.
that one of us chose an option that leads to more choices and the other did not is immaterial; we each exercised our freedom to choose in coming to a decision that best fits our respective needs.
in my mind, there is nothing "paradoxical" (in the way that schwartz means) about not choosing in the face of myriad options, because to not choose is itself a choice.
personally, i find myself satisfied by my work, but not *happy*. i believe that this is due to a conflict in ideals between my employer and me. the company is not interested in good, thoughtful design or in quality of code ("ship now, design later" seems to be the mantra). but as a programmer who loves the art of programming, i am driven by those very same ideals that the company considers to be "optional." this difference in philosophy is (overwhelmingly) the primary source of work-related stress in my life, and the reason why i would have to answer "no" if someone asked me, "are you happy in your work?" (even though programming is my hobby/pasttime/passion before it is my career). i wonder how many other programmers are "unhappy" because of this dilemma?
ESR's failure to respond to a letter that clearly informs him of an oversight or inaccuracy on his part doesn't surprise me in the least bit.
At one time, I counted myself among his supporters; but after an experience somewhat similar to yours, I came to discover ESR's true nature: bigoted purveyor of propaganda.
I realize it's a bit off-topic, but this was an email I sent to ESR over a year ago:
------- Just a quick note on an inaccuracy I found in your comments for Halloween VII - The first bullet point under the Executive Summary states that "Familiarity and favorability for OSS and Linux was high across geographies & audiences. Eighty-one percent (81%) of respondents Worldwide said they were at least 'somewhat' familiar with OSS; 77% of respondents Worldwide said they were at least 'somewhat' familiar with Linux. Worldwide 78% of OSS familiar respondents said they had a favorable impression of OSS; Linux favorability among the Linux familiar was 86%." In your comments, you remark "{86% Linux favorability in a Microsoft survey!}" This is incorrect, and by quite a significant margin. Note (in the Executive Summary) that "Linux favorability *among the Linux familiar* was 86%" (emphasis mine) does NOT mean "86% Linux favorability" as you stated (i.e. your statement implies 86% favorability among all respondents). However, The Linux familiar were reported as 77% worldwide; 86% of _THAT_ 77% identify those who feel favorably about Linux. That works out to 66% among all respondents, which is *quite* lower than your incorrectly stated 86%. I hate to be a nitpicker, but I feel very strongly about reporting statistical data with accuracy and felt compelled to bring your attention to this miscalculation. I believe that 66% favorability is still impressive, and I would hope to see that measure improve as more people are made aware of Open Source alternatives. Thanks for your time. -------
I didn't even get a response. Ever. Even after several follow-up messages. Now, I realize that ESR is a busy guy. He doesn't have time to answer every single email he receives. But I should think that pointing out a statistical inaccuracy of 20% would warrant a response, or at least an acknowledgment.
After giving up on ever getting a response from Mr. Raymond, I was left to conclude that his failure to respond was intentional. His "statistic" on the Halloween VII memo remains uncorrected still.
i notice you have twice now cried "cognitive dissonance!" however, your "blood on our hands" argument is only your opinion; how then does *my* opinion (that we do NOT all have blood on our hands for every misdeed) qualify as cognitive dissonance?
also, you accuse me of using circular logic. if there is circular logic in my post, please be so kind as to point it out in specific terms; i.e. don't simply proclaim "this is circular" - show *why* and *how* it is circular.
let's see... two more. straw man and ad hominem. well, they're both easy to debunk, so let's go in order. my example was not a straw man. the issue at hand was very clearly the liability of citizens for acts committed by their government and/or military. my example was a concise representation of a fictitious situation that presented my opinion. an argument is not a straw man just because it is fictitious. as far as the ad hominem... my only claim was that i don't tolerate people who play the "we're all guilty; and i include myself in that group, so therefore my argument is more valid" card. i know, i know - you're not interested in my tolerance. that's comforting, since i'm not particularly interested in your interest. glad we agree on that. but ad hominem? that was the SOLE statement in my post aimed directly at you. hardly ad hominem, as it did nothing to attack your character. please check your definitions before you wax latin.
i'd also like to point out two more little tidbits: 1. ironically, your "you're too busy to actually pay attention" speech qualifies as a grade-a ad hominem attack (that is unfounded, to boot!). rather than respond to the argument i presented, you instead attack my character/qualifications/abilities/intelligence. 2. you cleverly (intentionally?) changed my example when you added the phrase "and then you vote for John Doe again." that addition significantly changes the situation *I* described, and was quite a convenient straw man for YOU to construct.
you're right on one point, though. it IS foolish to play games with logical fallacies. i hope you learned your lesson.
If you are an American, you have blood on your hands.
i have zero tolerance for people who feel compelled to engage in self-denigration in order to feel noble and enlightened. if you have a valid point to make, it can be made without the kind of all-encompassing tripe quoted above; if it can't, it's not a valid point.
to make the claim that ALL americans are personally guilty of the horrors you mention by virtue of the fact that [unnamed evil corporate/military entity] might, through some complex web of government funding, receive "aid" from our pockets is asinine.
i am not responsible for the atrocity committed by some soldier, under command of some appointed general, appointed by some government official (who receives campaign contributions from BigEvil, Inc.), appointed by some other government official, with the support of one of my representatives, for whom i voted. ridiculous!
representative government, as we have in the U.S., is only effective when it is executed under a bond of TRUST between representative and constituency. clearly, that is all too often not the case. but the party with blood on its hands in that case is the representative, not the constituent. furthermore, that trust is null and void (and the constituent's culpability zero) if a representative, without the *express* consent of the constituency, appoints or supports a another "representative" (i.e. i voted for John Doe, but if he then appoints Bob Smith, who commits some unspeakable act, i cannot be held liable for that mistake).
if you want to crucify yourself and wallow in your guilt, be my guest. but please refrain from projecting your self-loathing onto everyone else.
fair enough, point taken. i personally have a bit of a different philosophy. to me, a focus on success presupposes a focus on points of failure. i can develop an algorithm to process foo and focus intently on getting all the little details just right (focus on the success of the algorithm). but if i fail to perform appropriate checking at critical points, then that algorithm may very well be useless in anything but an academic environment. focusing on failure begets failure, sure. but my point was that a focus on failure *analysis* is very much a vital part of the design process, at least as much so as a focus on successful implementation. good luck with your studies, and don't forget to analyze your points of failure:)
failure *absolutely* should be focused on during design. Not knowing your potential points of failure, and not designing appropriately to mitigate their chances of being realized, is irresponsible at best and disastrous at worst. i find your statement "Focus on doing your best. If you made a mistake, fix it" somewhat oxymoronic. your "best" should take into account possible failures and likely causes thereof in an attempt to *prevent* mistakes, not apologize for them afterward. mistakes will happen. it is an inevitability. but to use that inevitability as an excuse to intentionally deemphasize the importance of analyzing failure points during development is a bad practice.
to be honest, i don't understand the motivation for using vc++ in a non-professional (read: outside of work) capacity in the first place. i realize the $99-$129 "professional version" price tag that i've seen, and the even cheaper academic pricing, are not too shabby compared with "enterprise" pricing... but they're still more expensive than $0!
there are more than several freely available alternative compilers for win32 machines - cygwin gcc, borland (debugger also), djgpp, open watcom, lcc, MinGW, and Digital Mars (nb: haven't examined the license in detail) to name a few.
can anyone else shed some light on why a developer might prefer vc++, or under which circumstances vc++ might be considered a clear-cut better choice than one of the alternatives listed above?
i happen to prefer non-letterbox when renting movies. i don't own a widescreen tv (nor would i pay current prices to buy one), and it's terribly annoying to me seeing that large black void on the top/bottom of my screen when i watch something in letterbox format. i am wondering, is there anyone else who *doesn't* prefer widescreen (on a normal tv)? i mean, i would LOVE to own a widescreen tv and rent only letterbox format. but on a normal tv, i can't *stand* the letterbox format. the arguments that i get to see more of a scene and that it's "the way the director intended" don't really impress me too much - i don't particularly care how someone else "wants" me to watch a movie, and as far as those parts of a scene that get clipped in non-letterbox... my feeling is that if those parts were necessary to preserve the integrity of a scene, then they wouldn't *be* clipped in the first place. the thought of my local video store potentially stocking mostly (or only) letterbox annoys the hell out of me. any thoughts? am i missing some other wonderful benefit of widescreen?
Re:A (hopefully) unbiased opinion on Perl v. Pytho
on
Python in a Nutshell
·
· Score: 1
wow. i'm fascinated by your post because i find myself *wishing* that other languages had documentation like python's. aside from java (whose online documentation just flat-out rocks, imho), i can't think of another language that has better documentation available. i'd be very interested in hearing some specific examples that would explain your vehement hatred of Python's documentation. is it the format of the docs? do you feel the docs don't provide enough info? in my experience (i've been using python for six years; since v1.3), the documentation is top-notch and one of the main reasons i am able to develop rapidly in the language. can you offer a more in-depth description of the problems you find in it?
The reviewer makes a great point (both philosophically and as a selling point for the book) - the ability to model state is absolutely invaluable when it comes to designing systems that are both effective and efficient. My new hammer in the state modelling department is petri nets; I would recommend any developer looking to learn about state modelling investigate petri nets as a supplement and/or replacement for state charts. The translation of state chart to petri net (and vice-versa) is fairly straight-forward; petri nets also provide more robust options for modelling concurrency (it is possible to model non-deterministic choices using petri nets). Colored petri nets add the ability to factor time into the model as well. There are many petri net tools (of varying usefulness) available for a multitude of OSes; an impressive list can be found here.
A post earlier seemd to suggest that Microsoft should be congratulated on charging a lower price and that the MPEG 4 people should be ashamed for charging such a higher price.
Here's a quick lesson in economics: Microsoft has the ability to charge the price they choose because the economies of scale for WMP 9 allow them to do so. The MPEG 4 group does not have the same luxury. If both companies charged a similar price, competition in the marketplace plays the role of lowering the price over time.
The exploitation of economies of scale is what allows a monopoly to maintain a stranglehold - Microsoft should certainly NOT be given an "atta-boy" for engaging in monopolistic behavior!
bullshit. this is *exactly* the kind of elitist attitude that is directly responsible for OSS *not* being more widely accepted.
sure, you say it in a much more palatable way ("... it just has a higher learning curve to the uninitiated user."), but the meaning behind the words is always the same. people like you fear a "dumbing down" of OSS, and yet you are the same individuals who are first to champion Joe Average abandoning a platform he is comfortable with and "just works" (from *his* perspective, which, as much as you might want to disagree, is all that matters) in favor of one which is completely foreign and threatens the prospect of having to relearn even the simplest of tasks.
wake up. useability is much, much more than "something you add on the backend of a product to market it." it is ultimately what decides, after the marketing hype and initial bandwagon inertia have settled, the success or failure of anything from the simplest script to the most complex architecture.
and, oddly enough, it's actually YOU who really thinks that "useability is a nice GUI where you can get a mouse trail going." !!!!! useability != gui !!!!! a gui must take useability concerns into account just as much (in many cases moreso) than a command-line interface.
Your use of this new-fangled SmallTalk language is truly cutting edge. And abandonging OO for XP? Sheer brilliance.
You definitely stand alone! I'm 100% positive that you are the first and only consultant to completely replace OO with XP. That is certainly a mighty feat!
It's comforting to know that there are professionals out there who can maintain current. Your tesromonial is truly inspiring!
p.s. I've heard some great things about the business applications of a new language they call "Fortran" - you may want to look into it. Good luck with your consulting!
You're kidding, right? No, seriously - you've GOT to be kidding. No individual with even the most basic knowledge of Python and Lisp could possibly make such an asinine comment. You took a cursory look at Lisp and Python. You noticed some similarities (weakly typed, compiled and interpreted, excellent for prototyping, procedural and object-oriented, common key words like "def", "class", and "lambda"). You checked dates, discovering that Lisp has been around for a helluva lot longer than Python. Then, like a class-A flamer, you got the idea that by putting it all together you could manufacture some deep and meaningful "ubergeek" post on/. to intrigue and amaze slashdotters everywhere who would look in awe upon your brilliant post and say, "Hmm... it's the most insightful post I've ever read." Your post is not even good enough to be flamebait - it's just laughably misinformed.
Slashdot Mirror
don't see to many people listing professional journals. other than a very select few, most magazines i read are trade pubs or journals.
cigar aficianado
atlantic monthly
dr. dobb's journal
javapro
information week
software develoment
java developer's journal
wireless week
computerworld
but my fav of all time, bar none, is (was) Compute!'s Gazette.
and i just found out yesterday that a cousin i haven't seen in about 15 years still has boxes and boxes full of my old C!G mags and diskettes (plus a bunch of commercial software diskettes), as well as all the old C64/128 hardware! can't wait to enjoy several years of C!G all over again...
A lot of effort goes into finding vulnerabilities in software, but there's no real evidence that it actually improves security.
of course not. fixing vulnerabilities in software is what improves security.
but on a serious note...
i would not necessarily, as the study states, "expect to see noticeable results in terms of improved software quality" due to the discovery or remedy of existing vulnerabilities for the simple reason that technologies that are implemented by software evolve over time. new technologies == new potential for vulnerabilities.
(perhaps a better study would be to identify a static group of technologies and examine the effects of vulnerability disclosure over a finite period of time for those technologies)
also, in terms of publicly disclosed vulnerabilities, it does surprise me a bit that i don't see many resources geared towards preventative coding techniques (within a vulnerability disclosure context). in other words, there are resources that identify and describe vulnerabilities, and provide patches/workarounds for them; there are resources that discuss secure design/coding techniques. but i rarely see the two in a combined format. i think that would be really useful, a way to provide some concrete context (code snippets?) for an abstract description (the nature of some vulnerability).
imagine a resource that provided disclosure of and patches/workarounds for a vulnerability, and then supplmented that with a practical discussion of *why* such and such is a vulnerability, how it can be recognized, and how a developer can recognize symptoms and write code to avoid this kind of problem in the future - in other words, a sort of "design pattern" for how to recognize and/or avoid a vulnerability.
"a fatal flaw in IE or showing them the contents of a local directory in an iframe"
you can do this in firefox 0.8 as well.
<html>
<body>
<iframe src="file:///C:/Program%20Files/">
</body>
</html>
programming has been a hobby for me for 20 years. i have been employed as a programmer for a little over 5 years.
my love of programming has not decreased in the least bit; however, i have come to realize that the freedom to be creative and exercise painstaking care in design (when programming as a hobby) is often (read: almost always) in direct conflict with the business world, where profit and deadline trump quality and thoughtful design any day of the week (at least where i'm at). it's not that that's a bad thing - it's that i am incompatible with that culture/environment. it's a philosophical difference; but one which is overwhelmingly the single greatest source of work-related stress in my life.
ultimately, it is not my love for coding that has disappeared; rather, the "i'm so lucky i get paid to engage in my hobby" feeling has completely evaporated and left me with the desire to NOT be a programmer-for-a-living.
as a user (for some time) of another distro, and being quite happy with it, i'd like to pose a question to supporters of suse 9.1:
;)
what features or aspects of suse 9.1 would you consider to be compelling reasons for me to consider suse as a replacement?
i can offer as a starting point the path that i've taken in arriving at my current distro of choice:
1. Debian (got an install disc free in an issue of wired back in 1996; nothing but problems in getting it up and running on an old compaq desktop; eventually gave up and went back to winnt).
2. Red Hat (bought a "bible" book with 5.2 install cd; install went very smoothly, and i dual-booted this with winnt for about a year(?); was still a linux "newbie" and didn't get very far in terms of productivity)
3. Mandrake (on a suggestion from a friend that it was "friendlier" than red hat; used it and enjoyed the experience for a couple years, albeit had little more than a novelty/experimental type experience)
4. TurboLinux (got a packaged install set as a demo; began to explore linux more deeply, and eventually went back to red hat after experiencing frustration with system maintenance)
5. Red Hat (acquired a 6.x version from an "unleashed" book; ran this with satisfaction for a couple years, eventually getting frustrated by the overall design and its resistance to customization - admittedly, due most likely to lack of experience/know-how on my part)
6. Slackware (downloaded 8.1; was very comfortable with the installation and config process; have been running it ever since, eventually abandoning the "winnt dual boot" safety blanket in early 2003)
i currently run slackware 9.1 on an old compaq armada notebook and am absolutely satisfied. however, as can be seen by my track record, switching distros does not cause me anxiety
i like the simplicity of the slackware distro; admin tasks just seem to be easier, and i haven't experienced the compilation problems that frustrated me in the past (again, though, i was very much a linux tenderfoot prior to my slackware experience). i also like the slackware package managemeny system very much.
so... why would i (or should i) consider giving suse 9.1 a test drive?
and those are standard orders through openbsd.org?
even in my order receipt, it clearly states:
>> Your order currently is:
>> -> 1 OpenBSD 3.5 CD @ USD $40.00
>> -> Total: USD $40.00 + Shipping.
>> NOTE: Orders containing Pre-ordered OpenBSD 3.5
>> CD's Shirts, and Posters will not ship before May 1 2004
so how could they possibly arrive prior to May 1? is there some special shipping option or something that i forgot to check?
i've ordered 3.0 and 3.5 on CD, both 2-3 weeks before the release date. i didn't get 3.0 until a week after it was available via ftp.
and today's the 3rd... still no 3.5 yet...
i usually do the reinstall dance every 3-6 months. the steps remain relatively constant, unless i find a new app to replace a former favorite.
on Windows:
1. Adaptec drivers to access installations kept on cd-rw media
2. Kerio Personal Firewall
3. AVG Anti-Virus
3. PowerArchiver
4. gVim
5. Firefox
6. AbiWord
7. Acrobat Reader
8. Python
9. JDK/WTK
10. The Sims
on Linux:
1. grub
2. blackbox
3. rxvt
4. gkrellm
5. Firefox
6. Thunderbird
7. Python
8. JDK/WTK
9. (rebuild stock kernel)
10. (build latest 2.6 series kernel)
on Mac:
1. Apple Developer Tools
2. X (Apple)
3. Firefox
4. Fink
5. blackbox
6. apache2/berkeley db/subversion
7. mysql
8. php
9. SubEthaEdit
10. ArgoUML
freedom of choice implies the freedom to choose to choose (or not).
.. *dizzy* ...
let me try that again: before i can make a choice between two or more options, i must first want (i.e. choose) to make that choice.
as an experienced computer user and programmer, i want to choose linux (or another alternative) for my desktop so that i can have the freedom of choice it offers.
as a casual user, my sister has no interest in choosing to have the kind of freedom of choice that linux offers; to her, windows 98 is still to this day "good enough" for her needs.
that one of us chose an option that leads to more choices and the other did not is immaterial; we each exercised our freedom to choose in coming to a decision that best fits our respective needs.
in my mind, there is nothing "paradoxical" (in the way that schwartz means) about not choosing in the face of myriad options, because to not choose is itself a choice.
personally, i find myself satisfied by my work, but not *happy*. i believe that this is due to a conflict in ideals between my employer and me.
the company is not interested in good, thoughtful design or in quality of code ("ship now, design later" seems to be the mantra). but as a programmer who loves the art of programming, i am driven by those very same ideals that the company considers to be "optional."
this difference in philosophy is (overwhelmingly) the primary source of work-related stress in my life, and the reason why i would have to answer "no" if someone asked me, "are you happy in your work?" (even though programming is my hobby/pasttime/passion before it is my career).
i wonder how many other programmers are "unhappy" because of this dilemma?
ESR's failure to respond to a letter that clearly informs him of an oversight or inaccuracy on his part doesn't surprise me in the least bit.
At one time, I counted myself among his supporters; but after an experience somewhat similar to yours, I came to discover ESR's true nature: bigoted purveyor of propaganda.
I realize it's a bit off-topic, but this was an email I sent to ESR over a year ago:
-------
Just a quick note on an inaccuracy I found in your comments for Halloween VII -
The first bullet point under the Executive Summary states that "Familiarity and favorability for OSS and Linux was high across geographies & audiences. Eighty-one percent (81%) of respondents Worldwide said they were at least 'somewhat' familiar with OSS; 77% of respondents Worldwide said they were at least 'somewhat' familiar with Linux. Worldwide 78% of OSS familiar respondents said they had a favorable impression of OSS; Linux favorability among the Linux familiar was 86%."
In your comments, you remark "{86% Linux favorability in a Microsoft survey!}"
This is incorrect, and by quite a significant margin.
Note (in the Executive Summary) that "Linux favorability *among the Linux familiar* was 86%" (emphasis mine) does NOT mean "86% Linux favorability" as you stated (i.e. your statement implies 86% favorability among all respondents). However, The Linux familiar were reported as 77% worldwide; 86% of _THAT_ 77% identify those who feel favorably about Linux. That works out to 66% among all respondents, which is *quite* lower than your incorrectly stated 86%.
I hate to be a nitpicker, but I feel very strongly about reporting statistical data with accuracy and felt compelled to bring your attention to this miscalculation. I believe that 66% favorability is still impressive, and I would hope to see that measure improve as more people are made aware of Open Source alternatives.
Thanks for your time.
-------
I didn't even get a response. Ever. Even after several follow-up messages. Now, I realize that ESR is a busy guy. He doesn't have time to answer every single email he receives. But I should think that pointing out a statistical inaccuracy of 20% would warrant a response, or at least an acknowledgment.
After giving up on ever getting a response from Mr. Raymond, I was left to conclude that his failure to respond was intentional. His "statistic" on the Halloween VII memo remains uncorrected still.
i notice you have twice now cried "cognitive dissonance!" however, your "blood on our hands" argument is only your opinion; how then does *my* opinion (that we do NOT all have blood on our hands for every misdeed) qualify as cognitive dissonance?
2. you cleverly (intentionally?) changed my example when you added the phrase "and then you vote for John Doe again." that addition significantly changes the situation *I* described, and was quite a convenient straw man for YOU to construct.
also, you accuse me of using circular logic. if there is circular logic in my post, please be so kind as to point it out in specific terms; i.e. don't simply proclaim "this is circular" - show *why* and *how* it is circular.
let's see... two more. straw man and ad hominem. well, they're both easy to debunk, so let's go in order. my example was not a straw man. the issue at hand was very clearly the liability of citizens for acts committed by their government and/or military. my example was a concise representation of a fictitious situation that presented my opinion. an argument is not a straw man just because it is fictitious.
as far as the ad hominem... my only claim was that i don't tolerate people who play the "we're all guilty; and i include myself in that group, so therefore my argument is more valid" card. i know, i know - you're not interested in my tolerance. that's comforting, since i'm not particularly interested in your interest. glad we agree on that. but ad hominem? that was the SOLE statement in my post aimed directly at you. hardly ad hominem, as it did nothing to attack your character. please check your definitions before you wax latin.
i'd also like to point out two more little tidbits:
1. ironically, your "you're too busy to actually pay attention" speech qualifies as a grade-a ad hominem attack (that is unfounded, to boot!). rather than respond to the argument i presented, you instead attack my character/qualifications/abilities/intelligence.
you're right on one point, though. it IS foolish to play games with logical fallacies.
i hope you learned your lesson.
If you are an American, you have blood on your hands.
i have zero tolerance for people who feel compelled to engage in self-denigration in order to feel noble and enlightened. if you have a valid point to make, it can be made without the kind of all-encompassing tripe quoted above; if it can't, it's not a valid point.
to make the claim that ALL americans are personally guilty of the horrors you mention by virtue of the fact that [unnamed evil corporate/military entity] might, through some complex web of government funding, receive "aid" from our pockets is asinine.
i am not responsible for the atrocity committed by some soldier, under command of some appointed general, appointed by some government official (who receives campaign contributions from BigEvil, Inc.), appointed by some other government official, with the support of one of my representatives, for whom i voted. ridiculous!
representative government, as we have in the U.S., is only effective when it is executed under a bond of TRUST between representative and constituency. clearly, that is all too often not the case. but the party with blood on its hands in that case is the representative, not the constituent. furthermore, that trust is null and void (and the constituent's culpability zero) if a representative, without the *express* consent of the constituency, appoints or supports a another "representative" (i.e. i voted for John Doe, but if he then appoints Bob Smith, who commits some unspeakable act, i cannot be held liable for that mistake).
if you want to crucify yourself and wallow in your guilt, be my guest. but please refrain from projecting your self-loathing onto everyone else.
fair enough, point taken. :)
i personally have a bit of a different philosophy. to me, a focus on success presupposes a focus on points of failure.
i can develop an algorithm to process foo and focus intently on getting all the little details just right (focus on the success of the algorithm). but if i fail to perform appropriate checking at critical points, then that algorithm may very well be useless in anything but an academic environment.
focusing on failure begets failure, sure. but my point was that a focus on failure *analysis* is very much a vital part of the design process, at least as much so as a focus on successful implementation.
good luck with your studies, and don't forget to analyze your points of failure
failure *absolutely* should be focused on during design. Not knowing your potential points of failure, and not designing appropriately to mitigate their chances of being realized, is irresponsible at best and disastrous at worst.
i find your statement "Focus on doing your best. If you made a mistake, fix it" somewhat oxymoronic. your "best" should take into account possible failures and likely causes thereof in an attempt to *prevent* mistakes, not apologize for them afterward.
mistakes will happen. it is an inevitability. but to use that inevitability as an excuse to intentionally deemphasize the importance of analyzing failure points during development is a bad practice.
to be honest, i don't understand the motivation for using vc++ in a non-professional (read: outside of work) capacity in the first place. i realize the $99-$129 "professional version" price tag that i've seen, and the even cheaper academic pricing, are not too shabby compared with "enterprise" pricing... but they're still more expensive than $0! there are more than several freely available alternative compilers for win32 machines - cygwin gcc, borland (debugger also), djgpp, open watcom, lcc, MinGW, and Digital Mars (nb: haven't examined the license in detail) to name a few. can anyone else shed some light on why a developer might prefer vc++, or under which circumstances vc++ might be considered a clear-cut better choice than one of the alternatives listed above?
i happen to prefer non-letterbox when renting movies. i don't own a widescreen tv (nor would i pay current prices to buy one), and it's terribly annoying to me seeing that large black void on the top/bottom of my screen when i watch something in letterbox format.
i am wondering, is there anyone else who *doesn't* prefer widescreen (on a normal tv)? i mean, i would LOVE to own a widescreen tv and rent only letterbox format. but on a normal tv, i can't *stand* the letterbox format. the arguments that i get to see more of a scene and that it's "the way the director intended" don't really impress me too much - i don't particularly care how someone else "wants" me to watch a movie, and as far as those parts of a scene that get clipped in non-letterbox... my feeling is that if those parts were necessary to preserve the integrity of a scene, then they wouldn't *be* clipped in the first place.
the thought of my local video store potentially stocking mostly (or only) letterbox annoys the hell out of me. any thoughts? am i missing some other wonderful benefit of widescreen?
wow.
i'm fascinated by your post because i find myself *wishing* that other languages had documentation like python's. aside from java (whose online documentation just flat-out rocks, imho), i can't think of another language that has better documentation available.
i'd be very interested in hearing some specific examples that would explain your vehement hatred of Python's documentation. is it the format of the docs? do you feel the docs don't provide enough info?
in my experience (i've been using python for six years; since v1.3), the documentation is top-notch and one of the main reasons i am able to develop rapidly in the language. can you offer a more in-depth description of the problems you find in it?
The reviewer makes a great point (both philosophically and as a selling point for the book) - the ability to model state is absolutely invaluable when it comes to designing systems that are both effective and efficient.
My new hammer in the state modelling department is petri nets; I would recommend any developer looking to learn about state modelling investigate petri nets as a supplement and/or replacement for state charts.
The translation of state chart to petri net (and vice-versa) is fairly straight-forward; petri nets also provide more robust options for modelling concurrency (it is possible to model non-deterministic choices using petri nets). Colored petri nets add the ability to factor time into the model as well.
There are many petri net tools (of varying usefulness) available for a multitude of OSes; an impressive list can be found here.
A post earlier seemd to suggest that Microsoft should be congratulated on charging a lower price and that the MPEG 4 people should be ashamed for charging such a higher price.
Here's a quick lesson in economics: Microsoft has the ability to charge the price they choose because the economies of scale for WMP 9 allow them to do so. The MPEG 4 group does not have the same luxury. If both companies charged a similar price, competition in the marketplace plays the role of lowering the price over time.
The exploitation of economies of scale is what allows a monopoly to maintain a stranglehold - Microsoft should certainly NOT be given an "atta-boy" for engaging in monopolistic behavior!
it's amusing how many gui-centric posts sprouted as i was commenting on the MISCONCEPTION that useability is tied to gui design...
newsflash - useability concerns existed long before gui design (hell, for that matter, long before computers)
not until the errant opinion that "useability" and "gui" are inextricably tied is overcome will significant, meaningful gains be made.
bullshit. this is *exactly* the kind of elitist attitude that is directly responsible for OSS *not* being more widely accepted.
sure, you say it in a much more palatable way ("... it just has a higher learning curve to the uninitiated user."), but the meaning behind the words is always the same.
people like you fear a "dumbing down" of OSS, and yet you are the same individuals who are first to champion Joe Average abandoning a platform he is comfortable with and "just works" (from *his* perspective, which, as much as you might want to disagree, is all that matters) in favor of one which is completely foreign and threatens the prospect of having to relearn even the simplest of tasks.
wake up. useability is much, much more than "something you add on the backend of a product to market it." it is ultimately what decides, after the marketing hype and initial bandwagon inertia have settled, the success or failure of anything from the simplest script to the most complex architecture.
and, oddly enough, it's actually YOU who really thinks that "useability is a nice GUI where you can get a mouse trail going."
!!!!! useability != gui !!!!!
a gui must take useability concerns into account just as much (in many cases moreso) than a command-line interface.
Wow, Jack. Kudos to you!
Your use of this new-fangled SmallTalk language is truly cutting edge. And abandonging OO for XP? Sheer brilliance.
You definitely stand alone! I'm 100% positive that you are the first and only consultant to completely replace OO with XP. That is certainly a mighty feat!
It's comforting to know that there are professionals out there who can maintain current. Your tesromonial is truly inspiring!
p.s. I've heard some great things about the business applications of a new language they call "Fortran" - you may want to look into it. Good luck with your consulting!
You're kidding, right? No, seriously - you've GOT to be kidding. No individual with even the most basic knowledge of Python and Lisp could possibly make such an asinine comment. /. to intrigue and amaze slashdotters everywhere who would look in awe upon your brilliant post and say, "Hmm... it's the most insightful post I've ever read."
You took a cursory look at Lisp and Python. You noticed some similarities (weakly typed, compiled and interpreted, excellent for prototyping, procedural and object-oriented, common key words like "def", "class", and "lambda"). You checked dates, discovering that Lisp has been around for a helluva lot longer than Python. Then, like a class-A flamer, you got the idea that by putting it all together you could manufacture some deep and meaningful "ubergeek" post on
Your post is not even good enough to be flamebait - it's just laughably misinformed.