Having worked on old computer systems I wonder whether MS really CAN document their systems. It wouldn't surprise me if much of code just worked, and the people that originally wrote it aren't with the company any more, or don't want to go back to documenting it. Given that it is much harder to reverse engineer functionality than write in the first place, and Windows is the product of 1000s of programmers over 20 years, Windows may simply be undocumentable.
OK - so not all of the system needs to be documented. But exactly which bits of the system effect interoperability? That could require detailed analysis. Network protocols may be much harder to document than GUI because so fwe people know exactly how things work. NO place I have worked has adequate documented there systems. To misquote, it might not be a conspiracy, it might be "incompetancy" (kind of). MS might be acting reasonably and still supply what many would regard as inadequate docs.
That's not to say supplying docs would fill MS with joy. I'm sure they would prefer not to. But it is very difficult to judge the situation from the outside.
(1) Copying the engineering profession does not mean that suddenly all the problems associated with software will disappear. Engineering systems are frequently late and over-budget. I can name a few hi-profile examples: the Millennium Dome (UK), the Jubilee Underground Line extension (London), the "wobbly" bridge (London), the Sydney Opera House. The first 3 were "vanilla" projects - there was no real excuse for failure.
(2) Specs don't correspond will reality because they frequently use hand-waving to achieve functionality. That's what high level design does. If it filled in all the detail, it would not be high-level design. High-level design nearly always misses detail that emerges in implementation, because the only way to discover that detail is (1) to do the implementation, or (2) have a (non-human) ability to see the consequences of every design decision.
(3) If a design methodology is complete enough so that it does not use hand-waving, then the level of design has the same level of complexity as the implementation. Having used UML for many years, I have seen it grow so that now UML editors have so many icons, shapes, dialogs, that quite frankly I'd rather go back to code. The spec (and the language used for the spec), if it has the same level of detail, only adds complexity by hiding it and organising it in an artificial manner.
The future of software, I believe, lies in good libraries. They encompass the experience of programmers in particular domains. I use the example of ASP.NET. Applications written in ASP.NET are more robust and faster to produce that those written in ASP, and the ASP application are more stable and faster to develop than early applications written in CGI (generally). The same holds true for applications developed using different generations of Java etc.
Having worked in banks for many years, nearly every server has been Sun or sometimes M$ kit. In many industries, Linux has not proved itself to those that 'matter' - cautious, anxious middle managers.
The Compture Misuse Act 1990 (available on the the Net) requires intention to secure unauthorised access, and knowledge that it is unauthorised.
Granny is still safe. If she connects accidently, she has no intention - but she has to drop her connection as soon as she realises. 3 months use by a technical savy user really won't fly as accidental.
"Unauthorised" is not defined so there's even potential for argument and precedent.
Cant speak for US courts, but in the UK, except for some specific cases, a person is guilty only if they committed the Actus Reus (guilty act) with appropriate Mens Rea(guily mind). I've watched enough US TV to have heard these phrases used often enough, and since US law is generally based on English law, I presume the same applies.
Preumably the chap was charged with some form of Theft; that usually requires proof of intent and dishonesty. "Oh, I though the other person wouldn't mind" might be enough of an excuse if a lawyer can make the court believe it.
So granny is probably quite safe if she accidently connects, and any descent lawyer could get her off.
It really is up to the courts to have final say on patent issues. It would be ridiculous to expect the USPTO expend the resources required to investigate every patent to the level that would occur in court. That would create problems of it's own.
I don't know what the solution to problem of dodgy patents is, but if the MS patents is as reported, then I think that everyone can safely ignore it. The defence in any law suit would be to simply roll a *nux box into court. Any 2nd rate lawyer could defend against it for a very small fee.
Cameras catch offenders afterwards. They don't prevent crime because the cost involved involved in retrieving tapes is very high.
If you commit murder in public in London, or are a terrorist, you will almost certainly be caught since the police will then expend the resources to retrieve the relevant tapes as you move accross London.
If you commit minor crime in a monitored area, then the police will not do much more than use live cameras as a extra pair of eyes. If you disappear off-screen the you get away with it
I don't believe that the govenment has the resources to use camera to become big brother.
The images, for example, are not fed into some central database (that would be scary!) I'm not aware of any politically motivated abuse in the UK.
If a governement wants to be 'big brother' (monitor everything, arrest slightest deviation) it will do so whether or not it has cameras installed. In western societies there are strong inhibitions against governments behaving in that manner. I'm more worried about (1) legislation that allows detention without the right of speedy and fair trial (e.g. for 'terrorist offences') and (2) the possibility that cameras will be used for collecting taxes, particularly road usage (e.g. London road toll),
I refer you to the Wiki page on thermodynamics. Apparently the first law is: The sum of heat flowing into a system and work done by the system is zero. Nonsense. The object might just get hot.
That particular nonsense has been corrected and modified a number of times. And it is not unique. Wiki needs a better editoral policy, or warn that it's data is unreliable.
I agree. I think it would be much better if Slashdot simply indentified score 0 posts and stopped telling us what is insightful, interesting and funny.
No doubt this posting will be heresy, and get score 0.
I would like to say that a great many Europeans are not snotty towards the US and Bush Administration. It is unfortunate that Bush-bashing has become fashionable in some parts of Europe.
A Londoner.
No such thing as international law.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There really isn't any such thing as international law. Many people equate UN resolutions with international law but resolutions are not enforcable (usually). Just ask Israel.
The status of treaties also varies from coutry to country. In the UK, treaties mean nothing until a bill is passed in Parliament. I presume the something similar is the case in the US as I remember that the SALT treaties had to be ratified.
There are various organisation that exercise what might be called international law functions (E.g. WTO), but no overall framework.
The US recently declined to support an international criminal court - possibly with good reason. It is much easier to take legal action against a country such as the US rather than North Korea, and yet millions face potential starvation in North Korea. Would an invasion or regime change in North Korea be "war crime" because it was "unprovoked", and the US could not come up with some legal pretext? That's not justice.
Re:Taboo law of human behaviour - Sterile.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Yes, humam beings are driven by some inner force, and complying with that force generates value, emotional or otherwise. So your statement really is a sterile tautology.
It much better to take an "objective" view of what humans do. I.e. not to second guess what is going on in their head. If someone gives blood they do not do it for personal gain.
Humans regularly do good things without reward, and we should be glad that is so.
I think that a fine distinction. The phrases are ambiguous. It's not unreasonable, given the potential 'incorrect' interpretation and frequent sensitivity of the material to choose your words more carefully.
If you can choose your words differently, and still convey the same meaning, and do it with greater unambiguity, it makes perfect sense to do so. Choosing not to do so is "asking for trouble".
This is not a matter of heresy. There is a scientific method that can be used to evaluate claims such as HIV != AIDS.
HIV is caused by AIDS. The virus can be isolated and sequenced. The evidence is overwhelming. It is not a conspiracy.
Ignoring the science causes deaths. President Mbeki will be remebered in history as an scientific illiterate who was responsible for the deaths of thousands because of the policies he pursued.
Actually No. The Church had not accepted that the Earth rotated about the Sun during Galileo or Copernicus time. The reason the Church was so adamant is that scripture in more than one place implies that the sun revolves around the earth.
(Sorry can't remember details) In one place God stops the Sun in the sky so there is more time for his chosen people to win a battle.
It was more a matter of maintaining a consistent world view and, of course, centralised authority.
Yes, I agree. Why does the previous article have a score of 0? I think this is a clear example of heresy.
There are real issues that OSS people seem that just do not wish to address; they are probably some of the most close-minded individuals about. The word "evangelist" says it all. At least Microsoft people are rational; they are motivated by money and familarity.
I'm afraid I've come to the conclusion that installing a java (or linux or whatever) evangelist in an organisation signals the end of rational thought, and discussion.
Believe it or not I'm not anti-OSS, just fed up with the BS.
I am sometime amazed at the rating (1-5) slashdot gives to postings. They clearly reveal a preexisting prejudice, and sometime ignorance. E.g. Has anyone heard from the BBC re online resources lately?
The NHS is one of the worst health care systems in the developed world. One of the statistics compares outcomes for stomach cancer. probability of surviving 5 years in UK: about 15%, France about 25%, Germany 35%, US about 45%. The Economist estimated that it takes 18 months off the life expectancy of the average Brit.
One could continue on about filthy wards, rates of infections etc. It's a socialist system and it doesn't work properly. Give me capitailism and choice any day
It is unfortunate that so many fellow Brits unquestioningly back the NHS. It's not really free - we pay for it in tax.
COM wasn't designed to erode differences between languages, but is cross-language in the following way: COM objects provide interfaces - if your language can handle that interface, Great! If your language can't handle that interface, then try another one.
In practise, this often meant that looking for IDispatch if you were using VB. If you want to allow your component to be used by VB then you need to stick to VB data types plus some other rules.
If you want a specialised fast C++ interface, then that fine also, but it wont be visible in VB. No surprise
It has to be said that cross language COM /.NET is far more elegant than using (ugh) JNI.
In practise, ID strings and parameter marshalling was never a major problem (at worst, C/C++ marshalling was no more difficult than RPC)
Public funding is nearly ALWAYS a bad thing. It distorts the market place and a distorted market place means inefficiently allocated recourses. That's economic 101. It's a BAD THING.
It is not a right wing myth that the free market is better than a planned economy at satisfying the needs to it citizens. Does it always get things 100% right? No, but it better than the seductive idea than an educated / informed elite will make decisions on our behalf - that conceit has intoxicated socialists and communists for a 100 years with disastrous result (unless of course you were one of the elite)
Is this political? Yes, but it on topic.
What level of support do you want for OSS? Do you want the kind of funding that will allow the development effort to tackle Microsoft in every arena? Presumably that would mean MS revenue - profits = $few billion. Why stop with MS? Why not fund an effort to rival Oracle? Another $few billion. And of course various industries have dominant packages that would be suitable targets of OSS.
I for one don't want ANY of my tax money going to support OS. If I have to pay for it, it's just not free. I'd rather my tax money was spent on health, education and transport.
I think it a good thing that Europe avoids any dependency on the US, particularly in IT - it's one less way the US can stomp it's feet and demand that you with are with us or against us. Linux doesn't belong to america!
C# and Java are fast enough for lost of apps. My god, look at how many apps use VB!
Interestingly enough I decide once to see how productive I was and kept track of no of lines of code for a while using C++, VB. It was pretty much that same. Also tracked the number of lines of well written documentation I could produce in a day and it was about the same. Perhaps the best way to improve porductivity is to put everyone on a typing course. Anyway, back on topic...
In defence of C++, the same protection from buffer overflows can be obtained using well written library classes. It then becomes part of the language anyway. The problem is that people dont use/develop/publish them. It's the old snobbery "Well if I use someone stuff, I won't know what going on underneath". (Besides it more fun to use the low level stuff). The attitude extents to GUI and much else. E.g. Maintaining makefile is considered a intelectual activity rather than boring accounting. But manual maintainence can introduce build problems and errors.
On the other hand, the same instinct produces products like LINUX. After all what was wrong with BSD?
I agree that technical people have a certain close-mindedness that means that they cannot be trusted. A trivial example showing the comtempt many techies show for their users: working on a data repository our techies attempt to enforce Java naming convention on the data standards rather than how they appeared to the users. Many aspects of the projects the techies didn't like became "impossible to implement". Being an ex-C++ programmer, now a designer, I knew much of this was BS. They were not above playing games either, by passing the normal "chain of command" and attempting to go over people heads.
The important thing here is that this is really normal behaviour for many developers. They don't see it as destructive. Their way is the "correct way". If you think most developer are flexible, just consider the response of a Unix programmer asked about MS stuff, or visa versa.
Good PM requires an ability to see the world from the other persons perspective. Often those with good technical skills do not.
In short, good technical skills are a plus, provided it doesn't also mean do-it-my-way baggage. If you can convince others you are a flexible personality you should have no problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Having worked on old computer systems I wonder whether MS really CAN document their systems. It wouldn't surprise me if much of code just worked, and the people that originally wrote it aren't with the company any more, or don't want to go back to documenting it. Given that it is much harder to reverse engineer functionality than write in the first place, and Windows is the product of 1000s of programmers over 20 years, Windows may simply be undocumentable.
OK - so not all of the system needs to be documented. But exactly which bits of the system effect interoperability? That could require detailed analysis. Network protocols may be much harder to document than GUI because so fwe people know exactly how things work. NO place I have worked has adequate documented there systems. To misquote, it might not be a conspiracy, it might be "incompetancy" (kind of). MS might be acting reasonably and still supply what many would regard as inadequate docs.
That's not to say supplying docs would fill MS with joy. I'm sure they would prefer not to. But it is very difficult to judge the situation from the outside.
(1) Copying the engineering profession does not mean that suddenly all the problems associated with software will disappear. Engineering systems are frequently late and over-budget. I can name a few hi-profile examples: the Millennium Dome (UK), the Jubilee Underground Line extension (London), the "wobbly" bridge (London), the Sydney Opera House. The first 3 were "vanilla" projects - there was no real excuse for failure.
(2) Specs don't correspond will reality because they frequently use hand-waving to achieve functionality. That's what high level design does. If it filled in all the detail, it would not be high-level design. High-level design nearly always misses detail that emerges in implementation, because the only way to discover that detail is (1) to do the implementation, or (2) have a (non-human) ability to see the consequences of every design decision.
(3) If a design methodology is complete enough so that it does not use hand-waving, then the level of design has the same level of complexity as the implementation. Having used UML for many years, I have seen it grow so that now UML editors have so many icons, shapes, dialogs, that quite frankly I'd rather go back to code. The spec (and the language used for the spec), if it has the same level of detail, only adds complexity by hiding it and organising it in an artificial manner.
The future of software, I believe, lies in good libraries. They encompass the experience of programmers in particular domains. I use the example of ASP.NET. Applications written in ASP.NET are more robust and faster to produce that those written in ASP, and the ASP application are more stable and faster to develop than early applications written in CGI (generally). The same holds true for applications developed using different generations of Java etc.
Having worked in banks for many years, nearly every server has been Sun or sometimes M$ kit. In many industries, Linux has not proved itself to those that 'matter' - cautious, anxious middle managers.
Must read article first....
The Compture Misuse Act 1990 (available on the the Net) requires intention to secure unauthorised access, and knowledge that it is unauthorised.
Granny is still safe. If she connects accidently, she has no intention - but she has to drop her connection as soon as she realises. 3 months use by a technical savy user really won't fly as accidental.
"Unauthorised" is not defined so there's even potential for argument and precedent.
Cant speak for US courts, but in the UK, except for some specific cases, a person is guilty only if they committed the Actus Reus (guilty act) with appropriate Mens Rea(guily mind). I've watched enough US TV to have heard these phrases used often enough, and since US law is generally based on English law, I presume the same applies.
Preumably the chap was charged with some form of Theft; that usually requires proof of intent and dishonesty. "Oh, I though the other person wouldn't mind" might be enough of an excuse if a lawyer can make the court believe it.
So granny is probably quite safe if she accidently connects, and any descent lawyer could get her off.
It really is up to the courts to have final say on patent issues. It would be ridiculous to expect the USPTO expend the resources required to investigate every patent to the level that would occur in court. That would create problems of it's own.
I don't know what the solution to problem of dodgy patents is, but if the MS patents is as reported, then I think that everyone can safely ignore it. The defence in any law suit would be to simply roll a *nux box into court. Any 2nd rate lawyer could defend against it for a very small fee.
Cameras catch offenders afterwards. They don't prevent crime because the cost involved involved in retrieving tapes is very high.
If you commit murder in public in London, or are a terrorist, you will almost certainly be caught since the police will then expend the resources to retrieve the relevant tapes as you move accross London.
If you commit minor crime in a monitored area, then the police will not do much more than use live cameras as a extra pair of eyes. If you disappear off-screen the you get away with it
I don't believe that the govenment has the resources to use camera to become big brother. The images, for example, are not fed into some central database (that would be scary!) I'm not aware of any politically motivated abuse in the UK.
If a governement wants to be 'big brother' (monitor everything, arrest slightest deviation) it will do so whether or not it has cameras installed. In western societies there are strong inhibitions against governments behaving in that manner. I'm more worried about (1) legislation that allows detention without the right of speedy and fair trial (e.g. for 'terrorist offences') and (2) the possibility that cameras will be used for collecting taxes, particularly road usage (e.g. London road toll),
I refer you to the Wiki page on thermodynamics. Apparently the first law is: The sum of heat flowing into a system and work done by the system is zero. Nonsense. The object might just get hot.
That particular nonsense has been corrected and modified a number of times. And it is not unique. Wiki needs a better editoral policy, or warn that it's data is unreliable.
I agree. I think it would be much better if Slashdot simply indentified score 0 posts and stopped telling us what is insightful, interesting and funny.
No doubt this posting will be heresy, and get score 0.
I would like to say that a great many Europeans are not snotty towards the US and Bush Administration. It is unfortunate that Bush-bashing has become fashionable in some parts of Europe.
A Londoner.
There really isn't any such thing as international law. Many people equate UN resolutions with international law but resolutions are not enforcable (usually). Just ask Israel.
The status of treaties also varies from coutry to country. In the UK, treaties mean nothing until a bill is passed in Parliament. I presume the something similar is the case in the US as I remember that the SALT treaties had to be ratified.
There are various organisation that exercise what might be called international law functions (E.g. WTO), but no overall framework.
The US recently declined to support an international criminal court - possibly with good reason. It is much easier to take legal action against a country such as the US rather than North Korea, and yet millions face potential starvation in North Korea. Would an invasion or regime change in North Korea be "war crime" because it was "unprovoked", and the US could not come up with some legal pretext? That's not justice.
Yes, humam beings are driven by some inner force, and complying with that force generates value, emotional or otherwise. So your statement really is a sterile tautology.
It much better to take an "objective" view of what humans do. I.e. not to second guess what is going on in their head. If someone gives blood they do not do it for personal gain.
Humans regularly do good things without reward, and we should be glad that is so.
I think that a fine distinction. The phrases are ambiguous. It's not unreasonable, given the potential 'incorrect' interpretation and frequent sensitivity of the material to choose your words more carefully.
If you can choose your words differently, and still convey the same meaning, and do it with greater unambiguity, it makes perfect sense to do so. Choosing not to do so is "asking for trouble".
This is not a matter of heresy. There is a scientific method that can be used to evaluate claims such as HIV != AIDS.
HIV is caused by AIDS. The virus can be isolated and sequenced. The evidence is overwhelming. It is not a conspiracy.
Ignoring the science causes deaths. President Mbeki will be remebered in history as an scientific illiterate who was responsible for the deaths of thousands because of the policies he pursued.
Shame.
Actually No. The Church had not accepted that the Earth rotated about the Sun during Galileo or Copernicus time. The reason the Church was so adamant is that scripture in more than one place implies that the sun revolves around the earth. (Sorry can't remember details) In one place God stops the Sun in the sky so there is more time for his chosen people to win a battle. It was more a matter of maintaining a consistent world view and, of course, centralised authority.
Yes, I agree. Why does the previous article have a score of 0? I think this is a clear example of heresy.
There are real issues that OSS people seem that just do not wish to address; they are probably some of the most close-minded individuals about. The word "evangelist" says it all. At least Microsoft people are rational; they are motivated by money and familarity.
I'm afraid I've come to the conclusion that installing a java (or linux or whatever) evangelist in an organisation signals the end of rational thought, and discussion.
Believe it or not I'm not anti-OSS, just fed up with the BS.
I am sometime amazed at the rating (1-5) slashdot gives to postings. They clearly reveal a preexisting prejudice, and sometime ignorance. E.g. Has anyone heard from the BBC re online resources lately?
The NHS is one of the worst health care systems in the developed world. One of the statistics compares outcomes for stomach cancer. probability of surviving 5 years in UK: about 15%, France about 25%, Germany 35%, US about 45%. The Economist estimated that it takes 18 months off the life expectancy of the average Brit.
One could continue on about filthy wards, rates of infections etc. It's a socialist system and it doesn't work properly. Give me capitailism and choice any day
It is unfortunate that so many fellow Brits unquestioningly back the NHS. It's not really free - we pay for it in tax.
COM wasn't designed to erode differences between languages, but is cross-language in the following way: COM objects provide interfaces - if your language can handle that interface, Great! If your language can't handle that interface, then try another one.
In practise, this often meant that looking for IDispatch if you were using VB. If you want to allow your component to be used by VB then you need to stick to VB data types plus some other rules.
If you want a specialised fast C++ interface, then that fine also, but it wont be visible in VB. No surprise
It has to be said that cross language COM / .NET is far more elegant than using (ugh) JNI.
In practise, ID strings and parameter marshalling was never a major problem (at worst, C/C++ marshalling was no more difficult than RPC)
Public funding is nearly ALWAYS a bad thing. It distorts the market place and a distorted market place means inefficiently allocated recourses. That's economic 101. It's a BAD THING.
It is not a right wing myth that the free market is better than a planned economy at satisfying the needs to it citizens. Does it always get things 100% right? No, but it better than the seductive idea than an educated / informed elite will make decisions on our behalf - that conceit has intoxicated socialists and communists for a 100 years with disastrous result (unless of course you were one of the elite)
Is this political? Yes, but it on topic.
What level of support do you want for OSS? Do you want the kind of funding that will allow the development effort to tackle Microsoft in every arena? Presumably that would mean MS revenue - profits = $few billion. Why stop with MS? Why not fund an effort to rival Oracle? Another $few billion. And of course various industries have dominant packages that would be suitable targets of OSS.
I for one don't want ANY of my tax money going to support OS. If I have to pay for it, it's just not free. I'd rather my tax money was spent on health, education and transport.
I think it a good thing that Europe avoids any dependency on the US, particularly in IT - it's one less way the US can stomp it's feet and demand that you with are with us or against us. Linux doesn't belong to america!
C# and Java are fast enough for lost of apps. My god, look at how many apps use VB!
Interestingly enough I decide once to see how productive I was and kept track of no of lines of code for a while using C++, VB. It was pretty much that same. Also tracked the number of lines of well written documentation I could produce in a day and it was about the same. Perhaps the best way to improve porductivity is to put everyone on a typing course. Anyway, back on topic...
In defence of C++, the same protection from buffer overflows can be obtained using well written library classes. It then becomes part of the language anyway. The problem is that people dont use/develop/publish them. It's the old snobbery "Well if I use someone stuff, I won't know what going on underneath". (Besides it more fun to use the low level stuff). The attitude extents to GUI and much else. E.g. Maintaining makefile is considered a intelectual activity rather than boring accounting. But manual maintainence can introduce build problems and errors.
On the other hand, the same instinct produces products like LINUX. After all what was wrong with BSD?
I agree that technical people have a certain close-mindedness that means that they cannot be trusted. A trivial example showing the comtempt many techies show for their users: working on a data repository our techies attempt to enforce Java naming convention on the data standards rather than how they appeared to the users. Many aspects of the projects the techies didn't like became "impossible to implement". Being an ex-C++ programmer, now a designer, I knew much of this was BS. They were not above playing games either, by passing the normal "chain of command" and attempting to go over people heads. The important thing here is that this is really normal behaviour for many developers. They don't see it as destructive. Their way is the "correct way". If you think most developer are flexible, just consider the response of a Unix programmer asked about MS stuff, or visa versa. Good PM requires an ability to see the world from the other persons perspective. Often those with good technical skills do not. In short, good technical skills are a plus, provided it doesn't also mean do-it-my-way baggage. If you can convince others you are a flexible personality you should have no problems.