>MS changed the Word97 format from Word95 to both >break compatibility with other office programs >who had created decent Word95 filters and to >create an artificial reason for Word95 users to >upgrade.
Too many X-Files watchers. Why do people assume conspiracy when stupidity fits the bill (or should I say Bill:) just as well.
Can anyone point me to a document signed by Chairman Bill that says "Note to self: Break Office 95 file format."? Is another reasonable explanation the idea that perhaps they didn't build in enough extensibility into the original? I look at it this way. I consider myself a decent coder and my programs work, but look at your source from 6 months ago. Do you ever think it's a wonder that it compiled at all?
Is it such a stretch that some PHB in Redmond told the Office95 team to do X, and he or she was out playing golf when the team decided to fix it in Office97?
Of course not. It has to be a global conspiracy that involves those at the highest levels, working to enslave us all.
So you would have us ditch one proprietary standard for another? PDF is not an open standard administered by ANSI or ISO. It's Adobe's to do with what it wills. If you would like the libraries to create PDF, you have to fork out dough.
On top of that PDF is a poor collaborative document format. It's more like a stripped down version of PostScript, which itself is a programming language for creating vector graphics and text.
PDF is a very good version of electronic paper. That's it.
Here's what we should do: Let's get the government to force Microsoft to put together a forum for people who want to look at the guts behind MS technologies. Call it the Network of Microsoft Developers. Put references to their proprietary file formats up for all to see.
Oh, wait. I guess it's been done. Does anybody here even check the facts before speaking out their @$$? MS Office 97 file formats have been available for years on MSDN. If you don't want to actually "stain" your NetScrape browser, go to www.wotsit.org.
Gee, this proprietary bohemeth which seeks to lock up your data is just so mean and evil that they will _GIVE_ you the spec for free. What a bad company.
I'm going to weigh in here, 'cuz it's as good a spot as any.
First thing. ToTC hacks me off. All to often I see people trying to fit ToTC onto something that just doesn't need it. ToTC applies to finite resources. In no way, shape or form can you consider OSS a finite resource. End of story.
Second thing: ESR mentions initially that very few developers work on external software. His paper then goes on to mention almost exclusively external software (yes, there were a few exceptions. Don't get all anal-retentive).
Imagine a large aerospace company, B:) They are mostly a manufacturing company, but haven't yet been able to outsource their IT needs. Therefore, they have some kind of internal IT. The overhead of creating a VP for open source administration, who decides (with the help of $6000/hour lawyers) what code can and cannot be distributed far outweighs any benefits from having a pool of programmers who understand any and all applications, goodwill, R&D, etc.
However, there is quite a bit of use value and very little sale value in any of their applications. How does OSS make sense for them?
I would posit that many companies with internal IT departments are in this situation. There is too much code and legal hassles to sort out what should and should not be OSS, so it's all closed source.
Can OSS make sense for some situations? Sure, but then some people do get rich off of pyramind schemes.
Some of you will be disappointed with this reply, because I didn't mention Linux or bash Microsoft. But I really think that flame wars notwithstanding, that OSS is a non issue for many programmers.
Re:NT on an Alpha?? What is wrong with that world?
on
1GHz Alphas
·
· Score: 1
Dude, drop the pipe! The most stable version of NT is the one that runs on Alpha. The Alpha Win32 compiler is light years ahead of the x86.
Is running an x86 app via FX!32 gonna cost you some speed? Sure, but you can afford it when your 400MHz 21164 is significantly faster than a PII 450.
Finally, I would imagine that the 64 bit version is unstable, as only Dave Cutler's team is running it. (That means it's still in development:)
...The company is running Linux on 36 online desktops and workstations... "And now we spend a tenth of the administration cost for those desktops that we do for the rest of the 315 we use."
Gee, 351 total computers, and 10% of the total cost is spent supporting 10% of the machines. What a statement about lower TCO!
One other thing that hacks me off. The Kirch paper, which forms the basis for one of those stories, is written by an (alleged) MCP. So I check out his resume, and he's NT 3.51 certified, and his links to the MCP program are 404s. FYI, certification runs out 6 months after a new exam (read new product) is released. Gee, has it only been 6 months since NT 4.0 replaced NT 3.51?
It doesn't do the Linux/Unix community any good when the guy is misrepresenting himself as an MCP. A wise man once said, "Be yourself, but be your best self." We're not going to convert CEOs and CIOs by looking like a bunch of rabid jihaders.
Perhaps my understanding of PostScript is not what it should be, but isn't it essentially a set of drawing instructions wrapped in a wack programming language. While you can get document type information out of it, there's a hell of a lot of overhead to deal with first. (Not that RTF is all that lightweight...)
Maybe you're thinking of SGML, which is a much better (than PostScript) way to represent documents for interchange.
1) Must have features. What do you think Caldera, RedHat, and SUSE are doing? They are differentiating their products so they can make money. Just because MS doesn't sell MSLinux (TFG!), doesn't mean they shouldn't brand their stuff. It's great that Perl is a must have feature. Remember different != wrong.
2) When MS "did to Java", do you mean Java the cool OO language, Java the portable language, or Java the platform as it is preached in the Bay Area? MS likes the first, don't really care for the second, and can't stand the last. s/Java/Perl and tell me what would MS say? Larry is not out pounding the drum with IBM for PerlOS Network computers, so it's not the third. Perl is not "Write Once, (test/pray/run) anywhere" without at least an intermediate compile step for the native stuff, so it's not number two.
Finally, Perl is in competition with what MS tool? Is it the free Windows Scripting Host (that can also host PerlScript)? While you can do great things with Perl, it'll be a while before you can write video device drivers with it, so Visual C++ still has it's own niche. Visual Basic? SpecPerl is cool, but it's not as easy for the first time programmer to create a GUI as Visual Basic. Horses for courses. Perl is cool, and it can do a lot, but that doesn't mean that other tools are suddenly useless.
Damn, I meant to crank out a quick reply, and wound up writing "War and Peace"
Slashdot Mirror
>MS changed the Word97 format from Word95 to both >break compatibility with other office programs >who had created decent Word95 filters and to >create an artificial reason for Word95 users to >upgrade.
:) just as well.
Too many X-Files watchers. Why do people assume conspiracy when stupidity fits the bill (or should I say Bill
Can anyone point me to a document signed by Chairman Bill that says "Note to self: Break Office 95 file format."? Is another reasonable explanation the idea that perhaps they didn't build in enough extensibility into the original? I look at it this way. I consider myself a decent coder and my programs work, but look at your source from 6 months ago. Do you ever think it's a wonder that it compiled at all?
Is it such a stretch that some PHB in Redmond told the Office95 team to do X, and he or she was out playing golf when the team decided to fix it in Office97?
Of course not. It has to be a global conspiracy that involves those at the highest levels, working to enslave us all.
So you would have us ditch one proprietary standard for another? PDF is not an open standard administered by ANSI or ISO. It's Adobe's to do with what it wills. If you would like the libraries to create PDF, you have to fork out dough.
On top of that PDF is a poor collaborative document format. It's more like a stripped down version of PostScript, which itself is a programming language for creating vector graphics and text.
PDF is a very good version of electronic paper. That's it.
Here's what we should do:
Let's get the government to force Microsoft to
put together a forum for people who want to
look at the guts behind MS technologies. Call
it the Network of Microsoft Developers. Put references to their proprietary file formats up for all to see.
Oh, wait. I guess it's been done. Does anybody here even check the facts before speaking out their @$$? MS Office 97 file formats have been available for years on MSDN. If you don't want to actually "stain" your NetScrape browser, go to www.wotsit.org.
Gee, this proprietary bohemeth which seeks to lock up your data is just so mean and evil that they will _GIVE_ you the spec for free. What a bad company.
Five words for you:
Microsoft Word viewer is free.
I've got another comment on file formats, see
elsewhere.
I'm going to weigh in here, 'cuz it's as good a spot as any.
:)
First thing. ToTC hacks me off. All to often I see people trying to fit ToTC onto something that just doesn't need it. ToTC applies to finite resources. In no way, shape or form can you consider OSS a finite resource. End of story.
Second thing: ESR mentions initially that very few developers work on external software. His paper then goes on to mention almost exclusively external software (yes, there were a few exceptions. Don't get all anal-retentive).
Imagine a large aerospace company, B
They are mostly a manufacturing company, but haven't yet been able to outsource their IT needs. Therefore, they have some kind of internal IT. The overhead of creating a VP for open source administration, who decides (with the help of $6000/hour lawyers) what code can and cannot be distributed far outweighs any benefits from having a pool of programmers who understand any and all applications, goodwill, R&D, etc.
However, there is quite a bit of use value and very little sale value in any of their applications. How does OSS make sense for them?
I would posit that many companies with internal IT departments are in this situation. There is too much code and legal hassles to sort out what should and should not be OSS, so it's all closed source.
Can OSS make sense for some situations? Sure, but then some people do get rich off of pyramind schemes.
Some of you will be disappointed with this reply,
because I didn't mention Linux or bash Microsoft. But I really think that flame wars notwithstanding, that OSS is a non issue for many programmers.
Dude, drop the pipe! The most stable version
:)
of NT is the one that runs on Alpha. The Alpha Win32 compiler is light years ahead of the x86.
Is running an x86 app via FX!32 gonna cost you some speed? Sure, but you can afford it when your 400MHz 21164 is significantly faster than a PII 450.
Finally, I would imagine that the 64 bit version is unstable, as only Dave Cutler's team is running it. (That means it's still in development
Let's take even more scissors to it:
...The company is running Linux on 36 online desktops and workstations...
"And now we spend a tenth of the administration cost for those desktops that we do for the rest of the 315 we use."
Gee, 351 total computers, and 10% of the total
cost is spent supporting 10% of the machines. What a statement about lower TCO!
One other thing that hacks me off. The Kirch paper, which forms the basis for one of those stories, is written by an (alleged) MCP. So I check out his resume, and he's NT 3.51 certified, and his links to the MCP program are 404s. FYI, certification runs out 6 months after a new exam (read new product) is released. Gee, has it only been 6 months since NT 4.0 replaced NT 3.51?
It doesn't do the Linux/Unix community any good when the guy is misrepresenting himself as an MCP.
A wise man once said, "Be yourself, but be your best self." We're not going to convert CEOs and CIOs by looking like a bunch of rabid jihaders.
Perhaps my understanding of PostScript is not what it should be, but isn't it essentially a set of drawing instructions wrapped in a wack programming language. While you can get document type information out of it, there's a hell of a lot of overhead to deal with first. (Not that RTF is all that lightweight...)
Maybe you're thinking of SGML, which is a much better (than PostScript) way to represent documents for interchange.
A few points:
1) Must have features. What do you think Caldera, RedHat, and SUSE are doing? They are differentiating their products so they can make money. Just because MS doesn't sell MSLinux (TFG!), doesn't mean they shouldn't brand their stuff. It's great that Perl is a must have feature. Remember different != wrong.
2) When MS "did to Java", do you mean Java the cool OO language, Java the portable language, or Java the platform as it is preached in the Bay Area? MS likes the first, don't really care for the second, and can't stand the last. s/Java/Perl and tell me what would MS say? Larry is not out pounding the drum with IBM for PerlOS Network computers, so it's not the third. Perl is not "Write Once, (test/pray/run) anywhere" without at least an intermediate compile step for the native stuff, so it's not number two.
Finally, Perl is in competition with what MS tool? Is it the free Windows Scripting Host (that can also host PerlScript)? While you can do great things with Perl, it'll be a while before you can write video device drivers with it, so Visual C++ still has it's own niche. Visual Basic? SpecPerl is cool, but it's not as easy for the first time programmer to create a GUI as Visual Basic. Horses for courses. Perl is cool, and it can do a lot, but that doesn't mean that other tools are suddenly useless.
Damn, I meant to crank out a quick reply, and wound up writing "War and Peace"