School is the best way for most folks to learn data structures, etc. But when you have plenty of time and everything is so nice and clean-cut as it is in school, doing things as the instructor tells you and just hopping from project to project comes naturally.
It's when you go back and debug that code that you realize the benefit of good code. And it's when you have a manager over your shoulder screaming "FINISH IT! FINISH IT!" that you realize the pressures to write bad code.
When you get out into the real world, the requirements aren't clean cut: you have to implement something and say, "How's this?", after which you get another list of features to add. After time, it all becomes one gigantic hack.
When you debug a codebase that's 20+ years in the making and founded in Fortran, that's when you realize the importance of good code and that's when you start putting more pressure on bad management to have a clue about what they want, and even moreso, to give you a little more time to turn a hack job into something with some decent abstraction and modularity. You have to make them understand that *everyone* will pay for it (both literally and figuratively) later if you don't take some time to make the code semi-clean and semi-possible to modify.
I learned good habits before I went to school by gradually developing a semi-complex, dynamic website written in Perl. After so many times of going back and dealing with bad code, you develop good habits.
I'll echo the other reply to your post. I'm a huge perl fan (where it's applicable of course).
I've written some stuff for VB. The most complex thing I wrote was a server/client chat program. To give you the scope, it had public and private (shown or not shown) chatrooms, each with or without a password, server querying, news functions, away messages, sleep mode (a la ICQ), logging, server info posted to a website, user accounts, and custom graphics, icons and sounds. Compared to C/C++, etc., VB was an excellent choice for this because it was a program to be used by a small, loose organization. It didn't take me long at all to get this up and running.
However, when dealing with variable casting, what was, IMO, a poor look and feel and poor resolution scaling, APIs that were often poorly documented, etc., I found that VB just wasn't worth the hassle. For what it did, the chat program ran quite slow.
Now, whenever I have to do a small task, I usually just script it in Perl. I've written a handful of utilities for myself, and I've written a good number for the company I work for. Most of them involve servicing any number of our ~50 client sites. It's astounding how easy it is to automate tasks with Perl or other similar languages, especially in a *NIX environment. Most folks who use VB won't understand that and will likely blow off "that *NIX crap", but I think most folks would be surprised.
Then you run into the George Harrison problem. Under US copyright law, access plus substantial similarity equals copying. If you have seen a piece of code, and you write a similar piece of code several years later, the courts may, depending on the specific Circuit's interpretation of "substantial similarity", consider the later piece of code to be a "derivative work" of the original code and thus subject to whatever license the author of the original code wishes to impose or deny. For this reason, no Microsoft employee is permitted to read code covered by the GNU General Public License.
Good point. It never ceases to amaze me how utterly stupid US copyright law is in many situations.
- "And how does one GPL a program stored on a proprietary storage medium such as a ROM chip or cartridge?"
Offer to ship a CD with the source if the user pays the medium costs (info).
- "And how does one GPL a program for a platform whose kernel will load only binaries whose hash has been signed by a central authority?"
This doesn't relate directly to the GPL itself, but relates to a problem caused by the nature of OSS. If a particular kernel will only run signed apps, GPL is still very valid, and the benefits are still present to some degree as you can still use and port the code. I don't see a problem with "GPL'ing a program" for this type of OS.
I'm not in a position to critique their cirriculum or future repution or even actual involvement in the end, but look at the folks behind this.
"Folks from iD say I can progam a good game."
In my book that means a lot, and in the book of some hapless HR freak, I think that'd mean a lot, too. Not to mention, hanging out with a bunch of gaming geeks would definately mold your personality a little, if you're into gaming. =) I'm sure if you were interviewed for a job by a gamer geek, you'd be better off if you'd spent the last X number of years becoming friends and peers with a bunch of these folks.
"Well, there's I'm not defending bugs. I'm just saying there's a sensible place to stand."
You must be new here.
---- "And pointing out outlook as being one of Moft's flagship bug sources is just plain stupid. Both for the partisans of Moft, and the opposition."
If you're talking current events, very much so. I hate folks who keep that up. However, the point is still very valid that Outlook was about as solid as swiss cheese, and AFAIK is to some degree now without certain features disabled.
Regardless, I feel that Microsoft's biggest drawback these days is a lack of features, MS lock-in, cost, and behavior (DRM, spyware, etc.).
I think in general, the very valid concern is that these features are on by default.
The problem is that Microsoft is still doing it, and they play these things off as PR problems. From the article I just linked, regarding the Windows Help Desk vulnerability:
----- The vulnerability can only be exploited with "some degree of user interaction," MS says. "Even in the most attacker-favorable case, the Help and Support Center window would appear unexpectedly and the file deletion could not occur until the user responded. (Even selecting Cancel, though, would enable the deletion to occur). If the user killed the process rather than responding, the deletion could not occur."
That's right, MS considers this a mitigating factor. -----
Everyone has downsides, and I'm all up for supporting Windows where it has strengths (albeit few in my opinion), but I'm surprised by how many folks blindly accept this behavior as 'normal', much less those who defend it.
I am all up for pointing out the difference in the number of security holes on each side, but get with the times man... AFAIK, Outlook has been well patched for a very long time. Can anyone correct me on this?
If I'm right, you're just making everyone else look bad. =\
>However, Microsoft has also held the market back >in many ways. In many ways, we're still in 1990
"I tend to agree with that, to a certain extent. My opinion is that open source was (is) immature, so where would we be today? What would have carried the industry to where it is now? Oracle? Sun? IBM? CA? And do you really think we'd be better off? I think not."
Open source has been around longer than Microsoft has -- much of the software that went into *NIX systems was and is OSS; UNIX has been around since the 70's. I don't feel that it's immature by any stretch. Maybe in business.
As far as who the alternate evil empire would be, it's unrealistic to say that there would have been. If Gates wouldn't have done the OS for IBM, someone else would have. Apple has always been too expensive and posessive, and AFAIK, there was no other company in a better place to offer a cheap solution to computing than IBM.
---- "To date, I haven't seen a way to make money off of something that's free, and making money, unfortunately, is a primary concern of mine. The whole profit model for open source is pretty much flawed, and there's very little room for companies other than the few already there, like RedHat."
With all due respect, review your economics. Where there is a demand, there will be a supply. Currently, many companies are seeking to move away from Microsoft and get out of the lock-in. Companies like Ximian (small), Red Hat, et. al. are making this possible. There is a large market for this type of thing, and that will in-turn create even more markets.
---- >OSS is a better solution than CS simply because >you can get outside help for free. Problems are >common between people and business -- others will >help.
"FUD =) You can get most of the help you need with CS software, especially Microsoft software, for free."
I think you took me out of context. This is in regard to in-house software. Developing in-house software. You're not going to get CS companies to help you on an internal project. However, if your project addresses a common problem, which most do, you can open it to the public and OSS folks often jump in and help in the development (read: coding) process.
---- "...*who* would have made [prices go down]. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been open source software. And again, the Evil Empire would have been someone else."
I don't buy that there would be another Evil Empire all the way. I think it's pretty obvious that another evil empire is likely, and even go so far to say that it's beneficial in that at least you have *some* set standards. However, my point was that you can't praise MS for bringing prices down. It would happen eventually regardless.
---- "Open source used to be a sort of pure, unadulterated fairy tale, and then it collided head-on with the real world. The moment you put economics into the mix, people change. I'm not going to dig up example after example of things like these, but if you've been reading Slashdot for the past four or five years you tend to get the impression that all is not OK in the fairytale."
You don't have to have read Slashdot for years to know that OSS doesn't apply to every aspect of business. In regards to applying in non-business or intra-business situations, it's been going strong for a very long time; I'd like to see examples to the contrary, if you would care to educate me. =)
---- "And again, that's normal. I'm not saying open source sucks because of that, not at all. The problem I do have is the whole "everything is OK people. Ohhhhh, look over there! Another IE vulnerability!! Weee!!!" thing that tends to bury the ugly stuff and prevent open discussion."
Don't lump the sheep and the shepherds into one group; that's a fallacy and you know it. =)
And to defend the "OOH OOH IE HOLE" crap, as I said: it's redundant, but often it's deserved. What you should be knocking down is those who won't acknowledge that there are security/etc. problems with software on the OSS side.
---- "C'mon, W2K is an excellent OS. In many ways it's far better than Linux."
Hrm.
Support: yes. That's a given.
Simplicity: yes. Often not as many options; consistent design.
Choices: not even close. Over 50 screensavers, 5 browsers, a handful of email clients, several office implementations.
Stability: In my experience, close, but not superior.
Security and viruses: it's come a long way, but 2K is still behind here.
Etc.
---- "If you've ever written system-level stuff like services (daemons) and so on you'd recognize that."
I can't say that I've written a daemon, but during the past two years working where I am, almost all of it has been spent writing system level utilities, from file storing, sorting, comparison, transfering, etc., to RCS documentation management, to queues for web interfaces. With the rich scripting environment in *NIX, I want to know how you can honestly say system level utils are easier?
---- "at the kernel level Linux doesn't hold a candle to Windows 2000, period."
I haven't found a need to do kernel related development for anything, especially things related to a business. Care to throw any good examples my way?
---- Etc. etc... "Now, is that enough to condemn the CS model? Or finally validate the OSS one? I think not. The bazaar sometimes is better, but the cathedral has its advantages."
Well, I don't know, I think you honestly just summed it up well. Microsoft, as a big corporation, is more concerned about the bottom line, and as such, the quality and attention paid to the desires of the user stop when they get paid. And they'll do everything in their power to get paid, which is obvious given their history. I don't think this is a biased view, this is a view coming from the study of their practices and history.
The cathedral has advantages, namely it's consistent. This is going to sound like a troll, but in truth, Communism has it's advantages. Just because two things are different doesn't mean you can't judge one generally better than the other.
---- >For this lack of morales, I dislike Gates.
"Now you're being idealistic =) FWIW, think about it this way - the people who made Microsoft what it is today have a different value system than you. You may not like that, but I think it's fair to say that it falls on you to respect it. Free speech and all that."
I dislike Hitler for his values. That IS idealistic, of which I am accused of being often.
My real point, and what I meant to begin with, is that I dislike Gates for his actions. Values can be respected. Actions are a different matter altogether.
For strong-arming other people into his "vision", I dislike Gates and the folks at MS.
---- "I respect people's right to practice religion. I do. But don't even think for a second that I'm going to sit here and calmly take it in the butt when you try to *push* your religion on me."
Looking at you from my perspective, I may wonder why you think system-level operations are easer in Windows and I may imply that I think you're retarded. That's almost never my intention, which it wasn't here. However, I think I will almost always ask you why. Why? Because I like hearing the other side. Why? Because the more info I have, the better decisions I make.
Pushing something down someone's throat is different from debating the issues. When you make a case, you open yourself up to rebuttal. I won't come to your doorstep, but if you happen to make a case in public for something that I disagree with, debate is fair game.
---- "If you insult my intelligence, call me a retard and pretty much compare me with navel lint because of the operating system I use, then we're going to have some spirited discussion. And my asbestos suit is *very* thick =)"
Personal insults are pretty retarded. That said, if you're driving a pinto and I mention that they're known to explode, you might consider buying a Volkswagon or a used Volvo, I think that's fair play.
---- "it's nice to engage in some intelligent discussion for a change =)"
I'm glad you're enjoying yourself. =)
I've never thought of myself as intelligent; just stubborn, open to new ideas, persistent and in certain things, well informed. In my experience, debates are almost always based on information or lack thereof, not on judgement. That's assuming the people are communicating well.
"The problem is that MS is trying to give different customers what they want in the same package. People want security, bam there you go, oh but wait we want flexibility, bam there you go, but oh wait we had to remove some of the security so you could be flexible. vice versa and repeat"
Ahh, the fun old philosophy that nothing can achieve perfect balance for everyone, applied to the extreme.
The problem with this argument is that Microsoft CAN put in TONS of features, more than they ever have. But it can still be secure. How? Defaults. Turn everything off by default, and offer to take the user on a "tour" of these options where s/he will be allowed to turn them on.
The problem is that not only do they produce software with holes, which is a declining habit of theirs, they now put in tons of 'features' such as the Windows Help Desk which are insecure by default.
--- "While ppl will argue linux gives you both, if you are a computer geek, this isn't a valid solution for the average home user."
Yes, Linux gives you both -- on most distros, services that are insecure and need to be admin'ed by default, are turned off. But there are plenty of them, if you want them. Plenty of choice and good defaults are what I love in a good OS/distro.
Regarding "a valid solution for the avg. home user", it actually is. The average home user chats on IM, emails, writes docs, listens to music and surfs the web. I won't argue points here, but many distros do this out of the box (RH 7.3), and they're as difficult to install as Windows.
Regarding the smaller group of "average users" who play games, do presentations, complex excel stuff, etc., Linux is not the solution, at least without the user learning to poke around. But, if you'll pay attention to the history of Linux, you'll notice that not only has this area come a long way in the last two years, it's almost there. Give it another year and I'll bet you can take RH's latest version, give it to an average computer user, and they'll be doing everyting out of the box.
"I love seeing a collection of Microsoft's misdeeds in one article."
I wish he would have mentioned the issue regarding Microsoft threatening to revoke Compaq's license if they removed icons from their default desktop. I'm too lazy to get a link, I think zdnet still has one in the archives.
This point falls under what he was saying about "dominating the look... and other corporations", or some such quote from the article. I didn't feel that he backed that up well enough (well, the look part), but if you're familiar with history, you'd know he was right.
It amazes me that one company can single-handedly put Compaq [nearly?] out of business. Not an abusive monopoly indeed.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if my sysadmin did do that... what an over-protective SOB.
And you know the best part? We just ditched our three year old, unpatched SSH gateway. But we've got a firewall that blocks both incoming and outgoing traffic on all ports except a select few.
First, I agree with the entire first paragraph, word for word, except for this one thing:
"Their whole world revolves around an ill-conceived "hatred" (their words) of a software company. And if that isn't stupid, I don't know what is."
My entire world is computers. Call me stupid, I'll debate you; call me pathetic, I'll whole-heartedly agree. On to my point... Microsoft's marketing has propelled the tech industry to what it is today. Seriously. If not MS, someone else would have, but MS gets kudos for that. However, Microsoft has also held the market back in many ways. In many ways, we're still in 1990. Since my entire life is computers, I have a beef with MS. For the longest time, I would constantly gawk at the difference in attitude between OSS and companies such as Microsoft, not to mention the quality of the software. Etc. etc., blah blah blah. Microsoft is a big deal to me. I've spent enough time talking about it that I'm past that stage now, just as I'm mostly past ranting about Linux. It's a maturity thing, but I think it's roots are very understandable and acceptable; everyone has a passion.
Moving on...
--- "People like RMS or ESR on the other hand, are extremists who would be happy if all the programmers in the world were starving so as to fullfill their feverish visions of Nirvana. I've always found it amusing how RMS can preach from his well-funded pulpit about the virtues of giving away software."
RMS is a nutcase. But he's a smart nutcase. I'm a programmer myself. I'm not familiar with all of RMS's stances, and sometimes I think he makes a mountain out of a mole-hill, but the guy isn't all crazy. And just as an aside, I think you might be interested in opensource.org; they have some very good, realistic arguments for giving away software.
The trouble is, OSS hasn't been tested hardly at all at the big level. On a small level, it's doubtful that it will support a programmer. On the large scale level (of software resellers), it has yet to be tested much. Regarding in-house programming (custom, internal software), which makes up most development in the world (ref: OSI homepage quote of study), OSS is a better solution than CS simply because you can get outside help for free. Problems are common between people and business -- others will help.
--- "Or how ESR can churn out his Halloween documents year after year running whatever OS it is that he runs on a computer that costs $1,000 instead of $10,000 because his hated Microsoft OSes have commoditized hardware to that point in the past 10 years."
As technology advances, and spreads, it's inevitable that prices go down. Microsoft facilitated this, but I think you'd agree that it would likely have happened without them.
--- "If anything, the OSS world is as full of hypocrisy, double dealing and backstabbing as the corporate world"
Whoa! From everything I've seen, OSS folks are the most helpful, most intelligent, most noble folks I know in the computer world. I work with people from both worlds, and I spend lots of time looking up resources (forums, mailing lists, IRC, HOWTOs, etc.) on the net that are produced by OSS folks. I really can't say that I agree with you to any degree at all. The spirit of OSS is opposite of that of corporations in every way. Sure, there's zealotry, but are you possibly putting bias into the mix when you read RMS?
That last point, BTW, is something that without examples and a sound argument, I would consider a troll. Without backup, it would fit into my "anti-OSS arguments based on ignorance." Please prove me wrong, or please look at this from an unbiased point of view and restate what you said. You're a smart guy, there's no harm in changing an opinion (including mine).
--- "And that's OK, because this is not the Microsoft FanClub. But I think we'd all benefit from looking at the negative things as wel as highlighting the positives."
That's not OK. The best way to get rid of sand in between two people causing friction is to rub harder. That's the principle of OSS -- break it and it gets fixed to be stronger. That's how philosophy should work. That's how religion should work. That's how science should work. That's how everything should work. Yes, I believe in the OSS way of things because it's the most open, honest, and productive way of getting somewhere.
--- "In any case, what's a troll to you may be insightful to me (and my signature strikes a balance between the two. Look at the moderation done to some of my posts - people can't decide whether I'm a troll or not. I think that's extremely interesting)."
Very true. But remember that you need good facts and a solid argument to back up something that won't be considered a troll. That's why I consider Twirlip of the Mists a troll; he can't. He throws FUD, and when I offer examples to the contrary, he can't shoot them down.
--- " Microsoft is not the most likeable company in the world, and they are a monopoly. They've bought a lot of the technology they sell instead of innovating."
Agreed.
--- "But they're in the business of making money, and they make damn good products, regardless of the ignorant "mwahhh, it crashes every ten seconds" posts and lame jokes galore."
Windows 2000 is worthy of being called an operating system. I use it for games.
That said, I'm really going to have to disagree on this one. Of course this is an opinion (quality), but I do hope you have or can take a look at some of the other solutions out there. I think you'll find that there are many features in, say, a GNOME desktop using Sawfish and with Ximian add-ons that will dazzle you.
And please realize that while a lot of folks throw a lot of flames about bugs and security holes, these are those 'redundant but true' comments I was talking about. Let me explain.
When Microsoft releases Win98 First Edition as production class software, I'm skeptical that they make good software. When they release Windows ME as production software, I'm skeptical as well. These were both beta quality.
When Microsoft releases features such as the "Windows Help Desk" that is so easy to exploit (ref: here), I'm skeptical that they've put any thought at all into security.
When people complain about Outlook holes that have been patched for years, I sigh. It's pretty ridiculous, but then again, the holes were there in the first place, so even though it's redundant, bringing up Microsoft's history, while annoying, is still valid. People don't change overnight, and companies less so.
Microsoft has a habit of releasing beta software and putting security last. They also have a habit of treating bugs like PR problems. I hope what I'm saying is interesting enough that you'll look into it, or expound on this whole issue more, if you are informed. I consider myself a fan of Microsoft news; I track what goes on with them, I keep up to date on their products, etc. I hope that my opinion is qualified, and if not, I hope you can counter my above points.
--- "I've always stated that Microsoft is Microsoft because no other company had the guts and vision to do what they did."
Agreed, although I feel compelled to point out that Microsoft had enough vision to buy other people's visions. They do not innovate, and if you're familiar with their history, this is indeed a true statement. But, yes, they had the guts, I agree with that 110%.
--- "Oracle and Sun can take Gates to court all they want, but does anyone think that given the right circumstances, Slashdot would have Larry Ellison or Scott McNealy in a Borg suit now?"
Oracle I'm not familiar with. Sun is all uptight in and around themselves, so yeah, probably. =P
--- "Except that Gates laughed all the way to the bank. And I respect that."
I'm not sure what to make of this. Gates had the business genius, and he's not as evil as people make him out to be, but he sure doesn't have a problem with taking a ton of money, nor selling beta software as final, nor locking in users. For this lack of morales, I dislike Gates.
But I hate Ballmer.
--- "Just as I respect someone like Linus Torvalds. In many ways, they're more alike than they'd probably care to admit."
They're both geeks who enjoy playing with features. They both like being at the head of things and starting new projects. However, I believe that Linus has the moral highground. Not that Gates is evil, just that he's more evil (read: greedy) than neutral.
--- "Sparring here with the living dead is fun, and I do it whenever I have time."
Agreed.
--- "But in the end, like I've always said, it's just software."
Software affects us all more than most think, and much less than some think. However, software affects some of us a lot. I'm one of those people, so this whole thing is a big deal to me. Please understand that and respect it. =)
--- "There are better things to fight over."
Agreed.
I hope my reply was intelligent, informed and well thought out. I hope that I took most of the biased slant out of my wording; I'm working on that skill, and Slashdot helps that a ton. Please strive for all the same in your reply so we don't waste time bickering*. =P
(*: Note, I'm just really paranoid about some intelligent folks on Slashdot who go all out when someone disagrees with them [hope this isn't hypocritical as of late]. Call it a knee-jerk reaction.)
To echo the other reply to your post, my parents* always told me that Windows was what they wanted. They were happy with it. They made sure I knew it when I brought up Linux.
*: semi computer literate; can email, use word, internet, _very_ basic use.
They're running RH 7.3 + Ximian now. They're about to be put on Gentoo (by myself), since it's easier to admin and faster.
They love it. They don't want to go back.
I felt the same way after I switched. You wonder why you were happy with what you had when there is something out there so much better.
Linux is not for everyone. But some folks really don't look into it enough to realize that it is for them.
"the bottom line is that in deep complex development and customer specific situations, the common linux guru isn't going to know difference between his/her head and a serial port."
Yeah....... same with Windows folks.
You missed my point entirely. I'm talking about support folks, not in-house folks (although the argument still applies there to a good degree). The idea is that most Linux folks are very knowledgable about the software they use. And if they don't know the answer to a question, and can't figure out a problem by poking around an app, they can hunt through code. I've done it before, people I work with have done it before.
Now take these two points and apply them to tech support folks. My entire point is that Linux folks are generally on the ball. I think it's safe to say that Linux/OSS has a good foundation to draw from when hiring support folks.
"and don't tell me the community is self supporting for those situations, unless you can find me someone right now that is going to write me problem specific software for free."
I don't see what solving app problems has to do with writing new apps... but in regard to answering questions and fixing bugs, the community is self supporting, and if you don't know that yet, check out #gentoo on irc.openprojects.net, the Gentoo forums (www.gentoo.org), or a myriad of other IRC channels, forums, newsgroups and mailing lists.
Just a comment, I'm curious to hear what you think.
In my browsing of Slashdot, I've noticed a handful of posts berating Microsoft with no backing. I've questioned other posts, but couldn't make a decision because I wasn't familiar with the issue. However, most of the comments that I've seen berating Microsoft, while redundant, are deserved.
On the other side of the fence, I've seen only a handful of arguments for Microsoft (and/or against OSS/FS) that have any decent foundation. There are a few that I had to admit were very sound arguments -- and the people who made them hold my respect. However, most of these arguments are based on myths, such as a lack of good documentation, lack of easy-to-use software, lack of easyinstalls, etc. I have people like "Twirlip of the Mists" on my foes list simply because they insist on making arguments that they seriously know next to nothing about. And it really pisses me off because Twirlip seems to have good logic.
I understand that a lot of folks here are zealots, I understand that some posts get modded down because they support MS and not because of bad content, but I want to hear your opinion of the whole thing. Be honest, please -- bias won't get anyone anywhere. =)
Some folks forget that the spammer has to have an internet connection some place. I'm not familiar with their arrangements, but all of their bandwidth tax goes through one or a few places that are directly hooked up to their networks -- unless they go distributed, which will be a bit harder than a one-office shop, their host might just say "enough is enough".
Well, look at the common user base for, say, Linux.
Look at the common user base for Windows.
Winner: Linux
----------
Look at the common Linux admin.
Look at the common Windows admin.
Winner (most times): Linux. Linux admins can admin and fix problems faster due to better knowledge of the lower levels (config files, heh), scripting abilities and remote, one-to-many admin tools, etc., and most of the time they can fix most Windows problems, too.
----------
Look at the common Linux guru.
Look at the common Windows guru.
Winner: Linux again. It's an open world. There are tons of very smart Windows gurus, but a Linux guru can hack code and not only learn that much more, but edit that much more, in the way of fixing and improving.
Bottom line? I think the Linux user base has got the cream of the crop. I think we're set for doing good support.
If it weren't for the changes required to standardize a language to operate with.NET and the platform dependance, I'd seriously look into programming with it. These days, however, I'm just interested in more info so I can consider the benefits of using another approach.
Note: I'm aware of MS's planned port to UNIX [for academic purposes] and Mono, however the former isn't likely to allow GPL or much in the room of use at all, and the ladder will always be behind.
Thank you for getting this post on the 10 hot comments list or I wouldn't have even known about the power of SWT.
I'm developing a Java server and a separate client app, but I switched the client from Java using RMI to C using CORBA because of the trouble of the JVM.
I'm going to look into this and possibly change my mind again. =)
Slashdot Mirror
Finally! After all this time, the government finally decided to "research automated factories"! I wonder if "fusion power" will be next?
School doesn't always help either.
School is the best way for most folks to learn data structures, etc. But when you have plenty of time and everything is so nice and clean-cut as it is in school, doing things as the instructor tells you and just hopping from project to project comes naturally.
It's when you go back and debug that code that you realize the benefit of good code. And it's when you have a manager over your shoulder screaming "FINISH IT! FINISH IT!" that you realize the pressures to write bad code.
When you get out into the real world, the requirements aren't clean cut: you have to implement something and say, "How's this?", after which you get another list of features to add. After time, it all becomes one gigantic hack.
When you debug a codebase that's 20+ years in the making and founded in Fortran, that's when you realize the importance of good code and that's when you start putting more pressure on bad management to have a clue about what they want, and even moreso, to give you a little more time to turn a hack job into something with some decent abstraction and modularity. You have to make them understand that *everyone* will pay for it (both literally and figuratively) later if you don't take some time to make the code semi-clean and semi-possible to modify.
I learned good habits before I went to school by gradually developing a semi-complex, dynamic website written in Perl. After so many times of going back and dealing with bad code, you develop good habits.
I'll echo the other reply to your post. I'm a huge perl fan (where it's applicable of course).
I've written some stuff for VB. The most complex thing I wrote was a server/client chat program. To give you the scope, it had public and private (shown or not shown) chatrooms, each with or without a password, server querying, news functions, away messages, sleep mode (a la ICQ), logging, server info posted to a website, user accounts, and custom graphics, icons and sounds. Compared to C/C++, etc., VB was an excellent choice for this because it was a program to be used by a small, loose organization. It didn't take me long at all to get this up and running.
However, when dealing with variable casting, what was, IMO, a poor look and feel and poor resolution scaling, APIs that were often poorly documented, etc., I found that VB just wasn't worth the hassle. For what it did, the chat program ran quite slow.
Now, whenever I have to do a small task, I usually just script it in Perl. I've written a handful of utilities for myself, and I've written a good number for the company I work for. Most of them involve servicing any number of our ~50 client sites. It's astounding how easy it is to automate tasks with Perl or other similar languages, especially in a *NIX environment. Most folks who use VB won't understand that and will likely blow off "that *NIX crap", but I think most folks would be surprised.
[/ramble]
Two words: "commit suicide"
"Yes, Mr. Donaldson?"
[shakey voice] "Yes?"
"Sir, I'd like to interest you in"
[sob]
"Sir, are you ok?"
"Have you ever thought about suicide?"
The rest will come to you... =P
>"Don't like, don't use."
Then you run into the George Harrison problem. Under US copyright law, access plus substantial similarity equals copying. If you have seen a piece of code, and you write a similar piece of code several years later, the courts may, depending on the specific Circuit's interpretation of "substantial similarity", consider the later piece of code to be a "derivative work" of the original code and thus subject to whatever license the author of the original code wishes to impose or deny. For this reason, no Microsoft employee is permitted to read code covered by the GNU General Public License.
Good point. It never ceases to amaze me how utterly stupid US copyright law is in many situations.
-
"And how does one GPL a program stored on a proprietary storage medium such as a ROM chip or cartridge?"
Offer to ship a CD with the source if the user pays the medium costs (info).
-
"And how does one GPL a program for a platform whose kernel will load only binaries whose hash has been signed by a central authority?"
This doesn't relate directly to the GPL itself, but relates to a problem caused by the nature of OSS. If a particular kernel will only run signed apps, GPL is still very valid, and the benefits are still present to some degree as you can still use and port the code. I don't see a problem with "GPL'ing a program" for this type of OS.
I'm not in a position to critique their cirriculum or future repution or even actual involvement in the end, but look at the folks behind this.
.02
"Folks from iD say I can progam a good game."
In my book that means a lot, and in the book of some hapless HR freak, I think that'd mean a lot, too. Not to mention, hanging out with a bunch of gaming geeks would definately mold your personality a little, if you're into gaming. =) I'm sure if you were interviewed for a job by a gamer geek, you'd be better off if you'd spent the last X number of years becoming friends and peers with a bunch of these folks.
Just my
"Well, there's I'm not defending bugs. I'm just saying there's a sensible place to stand."
You must be new here.
----
"And pointing out outlook as being one of Moft's flagship bug sources is just plain stupid. Both for the partisans of Moft, and the opposition."
If you're talking current events, very much so. I hate folks who keep that up. However, the point is still very valid that Outlook was about as solid as swiss cheese, and AFAIK is to some degree now without certain features disabled.
Regardless, I feel that Microsoft's biggest drawback these days is a lack of features, MS lock-in, cost, and behavior (DRM, spyware, etc.).
But that's another thread altogether. =)
I think in general, the very valid concern is that these features are on by default.
The problem is that Microsoft is still doing it, and they play these things off as PR problems. From the article I just linked, regarding the Windows Help Desk vulnerability:
-----
The vulnerability can only be exploited with "some degree of user interaction," MS says. "Even in the most attacker-favorable case, the Help and Support Center window would appear unexpectedly and the file deletion could not occur until the user responded. (Even selecting Cancel, though, would enable the deletion to occur). If the user killed the process rather than responding, the deletion could not occur."
That's right, MS considers this a mitigating factor.
-----
Everyone has downsides, and I'm all up for supporting Windows where it has strengths (albeit few in my opinion), but I'm surprised by how many folks blindly accept this behavior as 'normal', much less those who defend it.
Negative.
I've been on the Road Runner network in Austin, TX for years.
*ssh's home*
I've been hit by an IIS rootkit 9 times in the last 24 hours.
And no, I'm not into port scanning, probing, etc.
I am all up for pointing out the difference in the number of security holes on each side, but get with the times man... AFAIK, Outlook has been well patched for a very long time. Can anyone correct me on this?
If I'm right, you're just making everyone else look bad. =\
>However, Microsoft has also held the market back
>in many ways. In many ways, we're still in 1990
"I tend to agree with that, to a certain extent. My opinion is that open source was (is) immature, so where would we be today? What would have carried the industry to where it is now? Oracle? Sun? IBM? CA? And do you really think we'd be better off? I think not."
Open source has been around longer than Microsoft has -- much of the software that went into *NIX systems was and is OSS; UNIX has been around since the 70's. I don't feel that it's immature by any stretch. Maybe in business.
As far as who the alternate evil empire would be, it's unrealistic to say that there would have been. If Gates wouldn't have done the OS for IBM, someone else would have. Apple has always been too expensive and posessive, and AFAIK, there was no other company in a better place to offer a cheap solution to computing than IBM.
----
"To date, I haven't seen a way to make money off of something that's free, and making money, unfortunately, is a primary concern of mine. The whole profit model for open source is pretty much flawed, and there's very little room for companies other than the few already there, like RedHat."
With all due respect, review your economics. Where there is a demand, there will be a supply. Currently, many companies are seeking to move away from Microsoft and get out of the lock-in. Companies like Ximian (small), Red Hat, et. al. are making this possible. There is a large market for this type of thing, and that will in-turn create even more markets.
----
>OSS is a better solution than CS simply because
>you can get outside help for free. Problems are
>common between people and business -- others will
>help.
"FUD =) You can get most of the help you need with CS software, especially Microsoft software, for free."
I think you took me out of context. This is in regard to in-house software. Developing in-house software. You're not going to get CS companies to help you on an internal project. However, if your project addresses a common problem, which most do, you can open it to the public and OSS folks often jump in and help in the development (read: coding) process.
----
"...*who* would have made [prices go down]. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been open source software. And again, the Evil Empire would have been someone else."
I don't buy that there would be another Evil Empire all the way. I think it's pretty obvious that another evil empire is likely, and even go so far to say that it's beneficial in that at least you have *some* set standards. However, my point was that you can't praise MS for bringing prices down. It would happen eventually regardless.
----
"Open source used to be a sort of pure, unadulterated fairy tale, and then it collided head-on with the real world. The moment you put economics into the mix, people change. I'm not going to dig up example after example of things like these, but if you've been reading Slashdot for the past four or five years you tend to get the impression that all is not OK in the fairytale."
You don't have to have read Slashdot for years to know that OSS doesn't apply to every aspect of business. In regards to applying in non-business or intra-business situations, it's been going strong for a very long time; I'd like to see examples to the contrary, if you would care to educate me. =)
----
"And again, that's normal. I'm not saying open source sucks because of that, not at all. The problem I do have is the whole "everything is OK people. Ohhhhh, look over there! Another IE vulnerability!! Weee!!!" thing that tends to bury the ugly stuff and prevent open discussion."
Don't lump the sheep and the shepherds into one group; that's a fallacy and you know it. =)
And to defend the "OOH OOH IE HOLE" crap, as I said: it's redundant, but often it's deserved. What you should be knocking down is those who won't acknowledge that there are security/etc. problems with software on the OSS side.
----
"C'mon, W2K is an excellent OS. In many ways it's far better than Linux."
Hrm.
Support: yes. That's a given.
Simplicity: yes. Often not as many options; consistent design.
Choices: not even close. Over 50 screensavers, 5 browsers, a handful of email clients, several office implementations.
Stability: In my experience, close, but not superior.
Security and viruses: it's come a long way, but 2K is still behind here.
Etc.
----
"If you've ever written system-level stuff like services (daemons) and so on you'd recognize that."
I can't say that I've written a daemon, but during the past two years working where I am, almost all of it has been spent writing system level utilities, from file storing, sorting, comparison, transfering, etc., to RCS documentation management, to queues for web interfaces. With the rich scripting environment in *NIX, I want to know how you can honestly say system level utils are easier?
----
"at the kernel level Linux doesn't hold a candle to Windows 2000, period."
I haven't found a need to do kernel related development for anything, especially things related to a business. Care to throw any good examples my way?
----
Etc. etc... "Now, is that enough to condemn the CS model? Or finally validate the OSS one? I think not. The bazaar sometimes is better, but the cathedral has its advantages."
Well, I don't know, I think you honestly just summed it up well. Microsoft, as a big corporation, is more concerned about the bottom line, and as such, the quality and attention paid to the desires of the user stop when they get paid. And they'll do everything in their power to get paid, which is obvious given their history. I don't think this is a biased view, this is a view coming from the study of their practices and history.
The cathedral has advantages, namely it's consistent. This is going to sound like a troll, but in truth, Communism has it's advantages. Just because two things are different doesn't mean you can't judge one generally better than the other.
----
>For this lack of morales, I dislike Gates.
"Now you're being idealistic =) FWIW, think about it this way - the people who made Microsoft what it is today have a different value system than you. You may not like that, but I think it's fair to say that it falls on you to respect it. Free speech and all that."
I dislike Hitler for his values. That IS idealistic, of which I am accused of being often.
My real point, and what I meant to begin with, is that I dislike Gates for his actions. Values can be respected. Actions are a different matter altogether.
For strong-arming other people into his "vision", I dislike Gates and the folks at MS.
----
"I respect people's right to practice religion. I do. But don't even think for a second that I'm going to sit here and calmly take it in the butt when you try to *push* your religion on me."
Looking at you from my perspective, I may wonder why you think system-level operations are easer in Windows and I may imply that I think you're retarded. That's almost never my intention, which it wasn't here. However, I think I will almost always ask you why. Why? Because I like hearing the other side. Why? Because the more info I have, the better decisions I make.
Pushing something down someone's throat is different from debating the issues. When you make a case, you open yourself up to rebuttal. I won't come to your doorstep, but if you happen to make a case in public for something that I disagree with, debate is fair game.
----
"If you insult my intelligence, call me a retard and pretty much compare me with navel lint because of the operating system I use, then we're going to have some spirited discussion. And my asbestos suit is *very* thick =)"
Personal insults are pretty retarded. That said, if you're driving a pinto and I mention that they're known to explode, you might consider buying a Volkswagon or a used Volvo, I think that's fair play.
----
"it's nice to engage in some intelligent discussion for a change =)"
I'm glad you're enjoying yourself. =)
I've never thought of myself as intelligent; just stubborn, open to new ideas, persistent and in certain things, well informed. In my experience, debates are almost always based on information or lack thereof, not on judgement. That's assuming the people are communicating well.
That said: give me some new information!
=)
"The problem is that MS is trying to give different customers what they want in the same package. People want security, bam there you go, oh but wait we want flexibility, bam there you go, but oh wait we had to remove some of the security so you could be flexible. vice versa and repeat"
Ahh, the fun old philosophy that nothing can achieve perfect balance for everyone, applied to the extreme.
The problem with this argument is that Microsoft CAN put in TONS of features, more than they ever have. But it can still be secure. How? Defaults. Turn everything off by default, and offer to take the user on a "tour" of these options where s/he will be allowed to turn them on.
The problem is that not only do they produce software with holes, which is a declining habit of theirs, they now put in tons of 'features' such as the Windows Help Desk which are insecure by default.
---
"While ppl will argue linux gives you both, if you are a computer geek, this isn't a valid solution for the average home user."
Yes, Linux gives you both -- on most distros, services that are insecure and need to be admin'ed by default, are turned off. But there are plenty of them, if you want them. Plenty of choice and good defaults are what I love in a good OS/distro.
Regarding "a valid solution for the avg. home user", it actually is. The average home user chats on IM, emails, writes docs, listens to music and surfs the web. I won't argue points here, but many distros do this out of the box (RH 7.3), and they're as difficult to install as Windows.
Regarding the smaller group of "average users" who play games, do presentations, complex excel stuff, etc., Linux is not the solution, at least without the user learning to poke around. But, if you'll pay attention to the history of Linux, you'll notice that not only has this area come a long way in the last two years, it's almost there. Give it another year and I'll bet you can take RH's latest version, give it to an average computer user, and they'll be doing everyting out of the box.
But, I could be wrong.
"I love seeing a collection of Microsoft's misdeeds in one article."
I wish he would have mentioned the issue regarding Microsoft threatening to revoke Compaq's license if they removed icons from their default desktop. I'm too lazy to get a link, I think zdnet still has one in the archives.
This point falls under what he was saying about "dominating the look... and other corporations", or some such quote from the article. I didn't feel that he backed that up well enough (well, the look part), but if you're familiar with history, you'd know he was right.
It amazes me that one company can single-handedly put Compaq [nearly?] out of business. Not an abusive monopoly indeed.
No reply to my reply? =(
You honestly think Microsoft invented much of anything found in Word?
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if my sysadmin did do that... what an over-protective SOB.
And you know the best part? We just ditched our three year old, unpatched SSH gateway. But we've got a firewall that blocks both incoming and outgoing traffic on all ports except a select few.
*sigh*
Nice, long, readable, understandable, in-depth reply. Thanks. =D
A few points.
First, I agree with the entire first paragraph, word for word, except for this one thing:
"Their whole world revolves around an ill-conceived "hatred" (their words) of a software company. And if that isn't stupid, I don't know what is."
My entire world is computers. Call me stupid, I'll debate you; call me pathetic, I'll whole-heartedly agree. On to my point... Microsoft's marketing has propelled the tech industry to what it is today. Seriously. If not MS, someone else would have, but MS gets kudos for that. However, Microsoft has also held the market back in many ways. In many ways, we're still in 1990. Since my entire life is computers, I have a beef with MS. For the longest time, I would constantly gawk at the difference in attitude between OSS and companies such as Microsoft, not to mention the quality of the software. Etc. etc., blah blah blah. Microsoft is a big deal to me. I've spent enough time talking about it that I'm past that stage now, just as I'm mostly past ranting about Linux. It's a maturity thing, but I think it's roots are very understandable and acceptable; everyone has a passion.
Moving on...
---
"People like RMS or ESR on the other hand, are extremists who would be happy if all the programmers in the world were starving so as to fullfill their feverish visions of Nirvana. I've always found it amusing how RMS can preach from his well-funded pulpit about the virtues of giving away software."
RMS is a nutcase. But he's a smart nutcase. I'm a programmer myself. I'm not familiar with all of RMS's stances, and sometimes I think he makes a mountain out of a mole-hill, but the guy isn't all crazy. And just as an aside, I think you might be interested in opensource.org; they have some very good, realistic arguments for giving away software.
The trouble is, OSS hasn't been tested hardly at all at the big level. On a small level, it's doubtful that it will support a programmer. On the large scale level (of software resellers), it has yet to be tested much. Regarding in-house programming (custom, internal software), which makes up most development in the world (ref: OSI homepage quote of study), OSS is a better solution than CS simply because you can get outside help for free. Problems are common between people and business -- others will help.
---
"Or how ESR can churn out his Halloween documents year after year running whatever OS it is that he runs on a computer that costs $1,000 instead of $10,000 because his hated Microsoft OSes have commoditized hardware to that point in the past 10 years."
As technology advances, and spreads, it's inevitable that prices go down. Microsoft facilitated this, but I think you'd agree that it would likely have happened without them.
---
"If anything, the OSS world is as full of hypocrisy, double dealing and backstabbing as the corporate world"
Whoa! From everything I've seen, OSS folks are the most helpful, most intelligent, most noble folks I know in the computer world. I work with people from both worlds, and I spend lots of time looking up resources (forums, mailing lists, IRC, HOWTOs, etc.) on the net that are produced by OSS folks. I really can't say that I agree with you to any degree at all. The spirit of OSS is opposite of that of corporations in every way. Sure, there's zealotry, but are you possibly putting bias into the mix when you read RMS?
That last point, BTW, is something that without examples and a sound argument, I would consider a troll. Without backup, it would fit into my "anti-OSS arguments based on ignorance." Please prove me wrong, or please look at this from an unbiased point of view and restate what you said. You're a smart guy, there's no harm in changing an opinion (including mine).
---
"And that's OK, because this is not the Microsoft FanClub. But I think we'd all benefit from looking at the negative things as wel as highlighting the positives."
That's not OK. The best way to get rid of sand in between two people causing friction is to rub harder. That's the principle of OSS -- break it and it gets fixed to be stronger. That's how philosophy should work. That's how religion should work. That's how science should work. That's how everything should work. Yes, I believe in the OSS way of things because it's the most open, honest, and productive way of getting somewhere.
---
"In any case, what's a troll to you may be insightful to me (and my signature strikes a balance between the two. Look at the moderation done to some of my posts - people can't decide whether I'm a troll or not. I think that's extremely interesting)."
Very true. But remember that you need good facts and a solid argument to back up something that won't be considered a troll. That's why I consider Twirlip of the Mists a troll; he can't. He throws FUD, and when I offer examples to the contrary, he can't shoot them down.
---
" Microsoft is not the most likeable company in the world, and they are a monopoly. They've bought a lot of the technology they sell instead of innovating."
Agreed.
---
"But they're in the business of making money, and they make damn good products, regardless of the ignorant "mwahhh, it crashes every ten seconds" posts and lame jokes galore."
Windows 2000 is worthy of being called an operating system. I use it for games.
That said, I'm really going to have to disagree on this one. Of course this is an opinion (quality), but I do hope you have or can take a look at some of the other solutions out there. I think you'll find that there are many features in, say, a GNOME desktop using Sawfish and with Ximian add-ons that will dazzle you.
And please realize that while a lot of folks throw a lot of flames about bugs and security holes, these are those 'redundant but true' comments I was talking about. Let me explain.
When Microsoft releases Win98 First Edition as production class software, I'm skeptical that they make good software. When they release Windows ME as production software, I'm skeptical as well. These were both beta quality.
When Microsoft releases features such as the "Windows Help Desk" that is so easy to exploit (ref: here), I'm skeptical that they've put any thought at all into security.
When people complain about Outlook holes that have been patched for years, I sigh. It's pretty ridiculous, but then again, the holes were there in the first place, so even though it's redundant, bringing up Microsoft's history, while annoying, is still valid. People don't change overnight, and companies less so.
Microsoft has a habit of releasing beta software and putting security last. They also have a habit of treating bugs like PR problems. I hope what I'm saying is interesting enough that you'll look into it, or expound on this whole issue more, if you are informed. I consider myself a fan of Microsoft news; I track what goes on with them, I keep up to date on their products, etc. I hope that my opinion is qualified, and if not, I hope you can counter my above points.
---
"I've always stated that Microsoft is Microsoft because no other company had the guts and vision to do what they did."
Agreed, although I feel compelled to point out that Microsoft had enough vision to buy other people's visions. They do not innovate, and if you're familiar with their history, this is indeed a true statement. But, yes, they had the guts, I agree with that 110%.
---
"Oracle and Sun can take Gates to court all they want, but does anyone think that given the right circumstances, Slashdot would have Larry Ellison or Scott McNealy in a Borg suit now?"
Oracle I'm not familiar with. Sun is all uptight in and around themselves, so yeah, probably. =P
---
"Except that Gates laughed all the way to the bank. And I respect that."
I'm not sure what to make of this. Gates had the business genius, and he's not as evil as people make him out to be, but he sure doesn't have a problem with taking a ton of money, nor selling beta software as final, nor locking in users. For this lack of morales, I dislike Gates.
But I hate Ballmer.
---
"Just as I respect someone like Linus Torvalds. In many ways, they're more alike than they'd probably care to admit."
They're both geeks who enjoy playing with features. They both like being at the head of things and starting new projects. However, I believe that Linus has the moral highground. Not that Gates is evil, just that he's more evil (read: greedy) than neutral.
---
"Sparring here with the living dead is fun, and I do it whenever I have time."
Agreed.
---
"But in the end, like I've always said, it's just software."
Software affects us all more than most think, and much less than some think. However, software affects some of us a lot. I'm one of those people, so this whole thing is a big deal to me. Please understand that and respect it. =)
---
"There are better things to fight over."
Agreed.
I hope my reply was intelligent, informed and well thought out. I hope that I took most of the biased slant out of my wording; I'm working on that skill, and Slashdot helps that a ton. Please strive for all the same in your reply so we don't waste time bickering*. =P
(*: Note, I'm just really paranoid about some intelligent folks on Slashdot who go all out when someone disagrees with them [hope this isn't hypocritical as of late]. Call it a knee-jerk reaction.)
"To echo the other reply to your post"
Er... I feel dumb.
Disregard that statement.
To echo the other reply to your post, my parents* always told me that Windows was what they wanted. They were happy with it. They made sure I knew it when I brought up Linux.
*: semi computer literate; can email, use word, internet, _very_ basic use.
They're running RH 7.3 + Ximian now. They're about to be put on Gentoo (by myself), since it's easier to admin and faster.
They love it. They don't want to go back.
I felt the same way after I switched. You wonder why you were happy with what you had when there is something out there so much better.
Linux is not for everyone. But some folks really don't look into it enough to realize that it is for them.
"the bottom line is that in deep complex development and customer specific situations, the common linux guru isn't going to know difference between his/her head and a serial port."
Yeah....... same with Windows folks.
You missed my point entirely. I'm talking about support folks, not in-house folks (although the argument still applies there to a good degree). The idea is that most Linux folks are very knowledgable about the software they use. And if they don't know the answer to a question, and can't figure out a problem by poking around an app, they can hunt through code. I've done it before, people I work with have done it before.
Now take these two points and apply them to tech support folks. My entire point is that Linux folks are generally on the ball. I think it's safe to say that Linux/OSS has a good foundation to draw from when hiring support folks.
"and don't tell me the community is self supporting for those situations, unless you can find me someone right now that is going to write me problem specific software for free."
I don't see what solving app problems has to do with writing new apps... but in regard to answering questions and fixing bugs, the community is self supporting, and if you don't know that yet, check out #gentoo on irc.openprojects.net, the Gentoo forums (www.gentoo.org), or a myriad of other IRC channels, forums, newsgroups and mailing lists.
"Score: -1, Pro-Microsoft"
Just a comment, I'm curious to hear what you think.
In my browsing of Slashdot, I've noticed a handful of posts berating Microsoft with no backing. I've questioned other posts, but couldn't make a decision because I wasn't familiar with the issue. However, most of the comments that I've seen berating Microsoft, while redundant, are deserved.
On the other side of the fence, I've seen only a handful of arguments for Microsoft (and/or against OSS/FS) that have any decent foundation. There are a few that I had to admit were very sound arguments -- and the people who made them hold my respect. However, most of these arguments are based on myths, such as a lack of good documentation, lack of easy-to-use software, lack of easy installs, etc. I have people like "Twirlip of the Mists" on my foes list simply because they insist on making arguments that they seriously know next to nothing about. And it really pisses me off because Twirlip seems to have good logic.
I understand that a lot of folks here are zealots, I understand that some posts get modded down because they support MS and not because of bad content, but I want to hear your opinion of the whole thing. Be honest, please -- bias won't get anyone anywhere. =)
Some folks forget that the spammer has to have an internet connection some place. I'm not familiar with their arrangements, but all of their bandwidth tax goes through one or a few places that are directly hooked up to their networks -- unless they go distributed, which will be a bit harder than a one-office shop, their host might just say "enough is enough".
Just a thought.
Well, look at the common user base for, say, Linux.
Look at the common user base for Windows.
Winner: Linux
----------
Look at the common Linux admin.
Look at the common Windows admin.
Winner (most times): Linux. Linux admins can admin and fix problems faster due to better knowledge of the lower levels (config files, heh), scripting abilities and remote, one-to-many admin tools, etc., and most of the time they can fix most Windows problems, too.
----------
Look at the common Linux guru.
Look at the common Windows guru.
Winner: Linux again. It's an open world. There are tons of very smart Windows gurus, but a Linux guru can hack code and not only learn that much more, but edit that much more, in the way of fixing and improving.
Bottom line? I think the Linux user base has got the cream of the crop. I think we're set for doing good support.
Very informative -- thanks!
.NET and the platform dependance, I'd seriously look into programming with it. These days, however, I'm just interested in more info so I can consider the benefits of using another approach.
If it weren't for the changes required to standardize a language to operate with
Note: I'm aware of MS's planned port to UNIX [for academic purposes] and Mono, however the former isn't likely to allow GPL or much in the room of use at all, and the ladder will always be behind.
Thank you for getting this post on the 10 hot comments list or I wouldn't have even known about the power of SWT.
I'm developing a Java server and a separate client app, but I switched the client from Java using RMI to C using CORBA because of the trouble of the JVM.
I'm going to look into this and possibly change my mind again. =)