That doesn't stop someone from generating an invoice number like 9911001 for November 1999 orders, then 9912001 for December 1999 orders, then kakking when it gets to January 2000.
FoxPro may be compliant, but databases created with it can be an entirely different story.
Mike van Lammeren
Re:yes, completely internal software development
on
Apocalypse Not
·
· Score: 2
"not to mention the complete lack of docs on all software"
I'm a computer science student, about to graduate in April. Are you saying that not all code is cleanly documented? What have I got myself into?
"The only reason apple was able to do it is because they didn't have very many macs in use"
There are millions of 68K-based Macs. More to the point, at the time they dumped the 68K instruction set, 100% of existing Macs were based on the 68K line of chips.
"their systems are so proprietery [sic] that whatever they say goes."
For what it's worth, this is true. Unfortunately, you go on to say:
"On the other hand, there is heavy competition in the PC world and there are too many PC's that exist to just suddenly drop support for them."
First of all, dumping the x86 instruction set from new chips will not 'drop support' from the existing PCs. The existing PCs will remain unchanged. What dropping the x86 set would do is remove backwards compatibility in the new chip. This would be a bold move, and has yet to be attempted, in spite of the 'heavy competition in the PC world.'
What is the paradox here? Perhaps 'heavy competition' does not automatically equal 'elegant new technology.' Or, perhaps there is not as much 'heavy competition' as PC-owners would like to imagine. They don't call it Wintel for nothing. Also, few people give Apple credit for heavily competing with ALL the PC companies, all the time, all by themselves.
Which brings us to Linux. Divorced from Microsoft and Intel, what are now ironically called PCs may finally see all kinds of funky new hardware and software technology. Now that IBM is selling PowerPC motherboards, we may soon see G4 and K7 boxes side by side in the computer store--both running Linux. Now that's innovation and freedom of choice!
Sure, a couple years from now, PC companies will be all installing wireless networking, except that it will be slighlty different from Apple's pioneering efforts. Then, the nanosecond that the wireless market share tips in the favour of PC companies, everyone will start whining about how Apple is always so non-standard.
The new Motorola chips save power by turning themselves off completely, whenever there are a few unused cycles. Effectively, they will seem to run at full-bore, but in reality will spend a large fraction of the time using no power. Pretty cool. Mike van Lammeren
I've had cable modem net access for almost two years, and it's always been fast and reliable. (I often get sustained download times for say a 50 meg file at around 300 K/s.) Also, we pay $40 a month for Cable or DSL, which is like $25 U.S. Dial-up ISPs start at $10/month.
We have local offices of almost all the major U.S. tech firms, plus our own, like Corel, Open Text, RIM, and thousands of small companies. Taxes are high, but have been trending down the last few years. All told, a great place to live and work. Hey, even the U.N. has declared Canada to be the best country in the world for the last few years. Mike van Lammeren
USB... had a much greater push for adoption from MS.
Don't forget to give credit where credit is due. How many USB peripherals exist because the iMac was designed with USB as it's only I/O port? Answer: However many iMac coloured USB peripherals you can count on the store shelf.
Also, I think it's funny that Dvorak's main problem with FireWire is that it only appears on Macs, iMacs, PowerBooks and CamCorders. That's really not a problem for owners of those devices! How can great equipment owned by other people be perceived as a downside for him? This sort of thinking points to why people like to dis Linux--it makes their own system look bad. And isn't his real problem with FireWire the lack of implementation by companies that he supports? Shouldn't he be chastizing Dell/HP/etc for not including great tech like FireWire?
I think, however, you would be hard pressed to put 30 diverse specimens of some species in a room and have them succesful. In fact, I bet they would starve to death in a few days.:)
Unless the room was in Canada, and the Canadian government built them a steel mill. If they're going to survive, then the government will need to create jobs.
and the collies (think lassie) were highly regarded for their long, narrow snout. 'course, when they kept breeding collies with longer and narrower snouts with each other they were inadvertantly breeding dogs with less and less room in their skulls for their brains and eyes. so collies age poorly: they're dumb, and their eyesight deteriorates quickly, so after a few years they just snap viciously at blurry and threatening things that walk near them.
Reputable Collie breeders pay attention to eye problems, and reputable breeders of other breeds pay attention to similar problems, like deafness and hip displaysia. It's important to make a distinction between a purebred bought directly from a breeder, and supposedly purebred dogs available from pet stores. NEVER EVER BUY A DOG OR CAT FROM A PET STORE. Seek out a breeder, or visit your local humane society, or just get a free mutt from a farmer, but never buy one from a store. More often than not, store-bought puppies come from 'puppy mills' where the poor little mothers are kept pregnant their whole lives, and are extremely inbred without any attention to breeding selection. Real breeders only breed a mother 2 or 3 times, and never make a living from being a breeder. The only ways to make a living from breeding dogs are immoral.
I remember my college psy prof. being quite sure that it was all nurture.
Several studies she talked about (which of course i don't remember specificaly) claimed that it's nurture almost exlusively.
Most, however, seem to indicate it's a balance of both... not unlike most things in life.
Well, the only way we'll know for sure is with an experiment using cloned humans. I volunteer.
Apparatus: Cloning Equipment
Method: 1. Clone me. 2. Send my clone to school, then later, work. 3. I'll stay home drinking beer, watching TeleToon. 4. After a lifetime of leisure for me, and work for my clone, cut open our brains and start counting synapses!
Conclusion: Beer goes good with TeleToon.
Re:The Death Bells are Tolling for Privacy.
on
Profiling A Nation
·
· Score: 3
If privacy isn't dead now, it will be very shortly.
I used to work for a company that developed medical records software, and we were approached by the Ministry of Health for Ontario, Canada. They were looking for software to put a system in place whereby all doctors in Ontario would store their patient's incredibly private information in a central location. (Our software was not designed for this purpose, but they were interested in it because of its great front-end.)
I was part of the team that trained the civil servants on the use of the software, so that they could judge its quality. After several days working together, our two groups were getting kind of chummy, so I ventured a thought towards the government's project leader. I made the suggestion that a double-blind system could be set-up, so that aggregate information about efficacy of treatments, etc., could be compiled without anyone being able to pinpoint exactly which citizen had AIDS, etc. In response, all I got was a cold, blank stare. It was obvious to me that what this government project was after was the ability to track individuals. All noble talk about creating an incredible research tool was just to make the project more palatable.
In Canada, any bank transaction valued over $1000 is tracked by the Mounties. I believe a similar law is in place in the U.S. for the FBI. These things are both pre-internet.
I'm afraid that there are no death bells tolling, since privacy died a long time ago. I'm also afraid that there is no technological solution--even PGP cannot help. The only good solution would be to have privacy solidly entrenched in law. That's definitely a long-shot, because here in Canada, with Trudeau's iteration of our constitution, the right to private property was removed. (It was a suggestion of the socialist leader of the time, Ed Broadbent, who feared a constitutional challenge to our extortionately high income taxes, which could probably be proven to be un-constitutional.)
And I don't think any Americans should believe that they have it much better, since in many states Driver's Licences can be revoked for things having nothing to do with driving, such as failing to pay child-support. I understand that in the Netherlands, according to Pulp Fiction, policeman cannot insist on searching your person. Now that's privacy law with balls! And something to strive for.
Like the mac os or not, isn't this a further implication that the mac platform isn't as dead as everyone has said it was? And again, like the mac or not, isn't that a good thing? Anytime we're given only one choice (or some small number) doesn't it reduce the motivation for improvement and customer care/service?
Absolutely! As it stands right now, even the most MS-loving IT folks have to at least ADMIT that there is one other operating system besides the four from Microsoft that everyone pretends is just one. As Linux grows in popularity, they'll soon have to admit that there are at least two other operating systems
Imagine this rosy future scenario: Linux for all the servers and coders, Macs for the graphics/sound/video folks in creative departments, and crap from MS in all the departments that don't know any better! And IT people forced to support cross-platform standards.
"We've seen innovative companies in the past. Its even becomes hard to say what exactly is innovative."
True--sometimes it is hard to say what exactly is innovative. However, it is not difficult to say that Microsoft is NOT innovative. Is that a fault in and of itself? No. People are just bitching here, and rightfully so, because Microsoft claims they are innovative. Pointing out other non-innovative companies does not change the fact that Microsoft is non-innovative.
Here's a quote that struck me as particularly galling:
"You can walk into any computer store and see the results. Every day, our industry is creating innovations and providing amazing benefits for consumers -- and prices have never been lower."
I remember what it was like to walk into a computer store 15 years ago. You could choose between computers from Apple, Atari, Commodore, Coleco, Texas Instruments, Radio Shack--and none of these used a Microsoft OS. Furthermore, the vast majority were available for a few hundred dollars, at a time when a PC clone cost thousands. Now when you walk into the computer store, you only see PC clones, only running Windows, and only if you are observant, you may notice the small Mac section in back.
I believe that a major downfall of commentators on the computer industry is that memories are too short. This is partially due to the age of the people involved, and the number of years they have been involved with computers. If you believe that the world started yesterday, then you may have trouble understanding the ire of anti-Microsoft people.
What's the realistic situation today? That if you are buying a computer for business, you should probably get a PC. If you are buying a computer for video games, then you should probably get a PC. Graphics people should probably get Macs, but would be OK with a PC too. Servers should probably run Linux, but that's not the market that walks into a computer store looking for Christmas presents.
The important thing to realize is that just because that is an accurate assessment of today's situation does not mean that it is a "good thing" that Microsoft squashed most of its competition. We will never know what we are missing as a result of that reduction in competition and innovation.
Just as a recent example, look at FireWire and USB. Do you think there would be a USB 2.0 coming if FireWire wasn't a lot better? Do you think that there would be a USB at all if Apple went under a few years ago, and took FireWire with it? Would there even be a Windows if it weren't for Macs? Would there be a Windows NT if it weren't for Unixen?
"A computer engineer may make more money, but how does he affect the lives of millions in a real sense? I have yet to find _ANY_ software that helps my parents get on with their daily life."
I believe that your argument is significantly in error here. Your assertion may be true when talking about applications intended for a PC or Mac, owned by a typical consumer, but is very very wrong when applications used behind-the-scenes are considered.
I used to work for a company that produced medical records software. Shortly after we released a new version with improved searching capabilities, a diet pill was recalled. Doctors with the software were able to quickly find all their patients who used the pill and notify them to stop doing so immediately. Doctors with other software, or no computer, could tack a notice on the front door of their office and hope that the right people read it. Other than having the right medical records software, there was no other feasible way that those patients could be identified. That 'increased productivity' was just one example of computer software saving lives.
Your parents are only unaffected by computer software if they have never: flown in an airplane, been hooked up to a machine in a hospital, benefitted from improved agricultural techniques, etc.--since all of these things are closely related to the quality of the software used in their design/production/use/improvement.
It is easy to forget that the vast majority of computer programmers have nothing to do with the next version of Word or Quake. They and their software are VERY MUCH affecting the world, every day.
"But what was the last revolutionary software product to come out first on the Mac platform? Sure, the hardware is much improved cost and feature-wise, but why bother with such poor software selection?"
BBEdit Bryce Poser Final Cut AppleScript Mac OS
Oh wait, you asked about things coming out first, and I went and made a list of Mac-only things. Sure, there are 50,000 or so programs for Windows and only 10,000 or so for Macs, but if BBEdit is not one of the 50,000 for Windows, then I don't give a crap about the rest!
"...why bother with such poor software selection?"
Poor software selection is better than a selection of poor software.
A few years ago, when Apple still allowed clones, there was a Canadian company making Mac clone portables with leather and chrome exteriors. I can't remember the name of the company. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Slashdot Mirror
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
Mike van Lammeren
That doesn't stop someone from generating an invoice number like 9911001 for November 1999 orders, then 9912001 for December 1999 orders, then kakking when it gets to January 2000.
FoxPro may be compliant, but databases created with it can be an entirely different story.
Mike van Lammeren
"not to mention the complete lack of docs on all software"
I'm a computer science student, about to graduate in April. Are you saying that not all code is cleanly documented? What have I got myself into?
The horror...the horror...
Mike van Lammeren
Confused on several points:
"The only reason apple was able to do it is because they didn't have very many macs in use"
There are millions of 68K-based Macs. More to the point, at the time they dumped the 68K instruction set, 100% of existing Macs were based on the 68K line of chips.
"their systems are so proprietery [sic] that whatever they say goes."
For what it's worth, this is true. Unfortunately, you go on to say:
"On the other hand, there is heavy competition in the PC world and there are too many PC's that exist to just suddenly drop support for them."
First of all, dumping the x86 instruction set from new chips will not 'drop support' from the existing PCs. The existing PCs will remain unchanged. What dropping the x86 set would do is remove backwards compatibility in the new chip. This would be a bold move, and has yet to be attempted, in spite of the 'heavy competition in the PC world.'
What is the paradox here? Perhaps 'heavy competition' does not automatically equal 'elegant new technology.' Or, perhaps there is not as much 'heavy competition' as PC-owners would like to imagine. They don't call it Wintel for nothing. Also, few people give Apple credit for heavily competing with ALL the PC companies, all the time, all by themselves.
Which brings us to Linux. Divorced from Microsoft and Intel, what are now ironically called PCs may finally see all kinds of funky new hardware and software technology. Now that IBM is selling PowerPC motherboards, we may soon see G4 and K7 boxes side by side in the computer store--both running Linux. Now that's innovation and freedom of choice!
Mike van Lammeren
Sure, a couple years from now, PC companies will be all installing wireless networking, except that it will be slighlty different from Apple's pioneering efforts. Then, the nanosecond that the wireless market share tips in the favour of PC companies, everyone will start whining about how Apple is always so non-standard.
That darn Apple!
Mike van Lammeren
The new Motorola chips save power by turning themselves off completely, whenever there are a few unused cycles. Effectively, they will seem to run at full-bore, but in reality will spend a large fraction of the time using no power. Pretty cool.
Mike van Lammeren
I've had cable modem net access for almost two years, and it's always been fast and reliable. (I often get sustained download times for say a 50 meg file at around 300 K/s.) Also, we pay $40 a month for Cable or DSL, which is like $25 U.S. Dial-up ISPs start at $10/month.
We have local offices of almost all the major U.S. tech firms, plus our own, like Corel, Open Text, RIM, and thousands of small companies. Taxes are high, but have been trending down the last few years. All told, a great place to live and work. Hey, even the U.N. has declared Canada to be the best country in the world for the last few years.
Mike van Lammeren
I agree with everything you say about Toronto, but dude, paint your ceiling!
Mike van Lammeren
USB ... had a much greater push for adoption from MS.
Don't forget to give credit where credit is due. How many USB peripherals exist because the iMac was designed with USB as it's only I/O port? Answer: However many iMac coloured USB peripherals you can count on the store shelf.
Also, I think it's funny that Dvorak's main problem with FireWire is that it only appears on Macs, iMacs, PowerBooks and CamCorders. That's really not a problem for owners of those devices! How can great equipment owned by other people be perceived as a downside for him? This sort of thinking points to why people like to dis Linux--it makes their own system look bad. And isn't his real problem with FireWire the lack of implementation by companies that he supports? Shouldn't he be chastizing Dell/HP/etc for not including great tech like FireWire?
Mike van Lammeren
I think that LinuxOne in the IPO market has the real potential to make a few suicidal drunk wifebeating daytraders. :)
Well, I guess that there is a first time for everything. This is the first time that the use of a smiley has left me feeling uneasy.
Mike van Lammeren
any investor who buys a stock based on a what ticker sounds like deserves what he gets
Check out E, which trades on the TSE. It's gone up 5 times the IPO price. If you don't get the "E" joke, then find some raver to explain it.
Mike van Lammeren
I think, however, you would be hard pressed to put 30 diverse specimens of some species in a room and have them succesful. In fact, I bet they would starve to death in a few days. :)
Unless the room was in Canada, and the Canadian government built them a steel mill. If they're going to survive, then the government will need to create jobs.
and the collies (think lassie) were highly regarded for their long, narrow snout. 'course, when they kept breeding collies with longer and narrower snouts with each other they were inadvertantly breeding dogs with less and less room in their skulls for their brains and eyes. so collies age poorly: they're dumb, and their eyesight deteriorates quickly, so after a few years they just snap viciously at blurry and threatening things that walk near them.
Reputable Collie breeders pay attention to eye problems, and reputable breeders of other breeds pay attention to similar problems, like deafness and hip displaysia. It's important to make a distinction between a purebred bought directly from a breeder, and supposedly purebred dogs available from pet stores. NEVER EVER BUY A DOG OR CAT FROM A PET STORE. Seek out a breeder, or visit your local humane society, or just get a free mutt from a farmer, but never buy one from a store. More often than not, store-bought puppies come from 'puppy mills' where the poor little mothers are kept pregnant their whole lives, and are extremely inbred without any attention to breeding selection. Real breeders only breed a mother 2 or 3 times, and never make a living from being a breeder. The only ways to make a living from breeding dogs are immoral.
I remember my college psy prof. being quite sure that it was all nurture.
Several studies she talked about (which of course i don't remember specificaly) claimed that it's nurture almost exlusively.
Most, however, seem to indicate it's a balance of both... not unlike most things in life.
Well, the only way we'll know for sure is with an experiment using cloned humans. I volunteer.
Apparatus:
Cloning Equipment
Method:
1. Clone me.
2. Send my clone to school, then later, work.
3. I'll stay home drinking beer, watching TeleToon.
4. After a lifetime of leisure for me, and work for my clone, cut open our brains and start counting synapses!
Conclusion:
Beer goes good with TeleToon.
If privacy isn't dead now, it will be very shortly.
I used to work for a company that developed medical records software, and we were approached by the Ministry of Health for Ontario, Canada. They were looking for software to put a system in place whereby all doctors in Ontario would store their patient's incredibly private information in a central location. (Our software was not designed for this purpose, but they were interested in it because of its great front-end.)
I was part of the team that trained the civil servants on the use of the software, so that they could judge its quality. After several days working together, our two groups were getting kind of chummy, so I ventured a thought towards the government's project leader. I made the suggestion that a double-blind system could be set-up, so that aggregate information about efficacy of treatments, etc., could be compiled without anyone being able to pinpoint exactly which citizen had AIDS, etc. In response, all I got was a cold, blank stare. It was obvious to me that what this government project was after was the ability to track individuals. All noble talk about creating an incredible research tool was just to make the project more palatable.
In Canada, any bank transaction valued over $1000 is tracked by the Mounties. I believe a similar law is in place in the U.S. for the FBI. These things are both pre-internet.
I'm afraid that there are no death bells tolling, since privacy died a long time ago. I'm also afraid that there is no technological solution--even PGP cannot help. The only good solution would be to have privacy solidly entrenched in law. That's definitely a long-shot, because here in Canada, with Trudeau's iteration of our constitution, the right to private property was removed. (It was a suggestion of the socialist leader of the time, Ed Broadbent, who feared a constitutional challenge to our extortionately high income taxes, which could probably be proven to be un-constitutional.)
And I don't think any Americans should believe that they have it much better, since in many states Driver's Licences can be revoked for things having nothing to do with driving, such as failing to pay child-support. I understand that in the Netherlands, according to Pulp Fiction, policeman cannot insist on searching your person. Now that's privacy law with balls! And something to strive for.
I'd even be willing to eat fries with mayo!
Like the mac os or not, isn't this a further implication that the mac platform isn't as dead as everyone has said it was? And again, like the mac or not, isn't that a good thing? Anytime we're given only one choice (or some small number) doesn't it reduce the motivation for improvement and customer care/service?
Absolutely! As it stands right now, even the most MS-loving IT folks have to at least ADMIT that there is one other operating system besides the four from Microsoft that everyone pretends is just one. As Linux grows in popularity, they'll soon have to admit that there are at least two other operating systems
Imagine this rosy future scenario: Linux for all the servers and coders, Macs for the graphics/sound/video folks in creative departments, and crap from MS in all the departments that don't know any better! And IT people forced to support cross-platform standards.
"We've seen innovative companies in the past. Its even becomes hard to say what exactly is innovative."
True--sometimes it is hard to say what exactly is innovative. However, it is not difficult to say that Microsoft is NOT innovative. Is that a fault in and of itself? No. People are just bitching here, and rightfully so, because Microsoft claims they are innovative. Pointing out other non-innovative companies does not change the fact that Microsoft is non-innovative.
You are right about the Basic. All except the Atari machines used a Basic licenced from MS. However, the OS was not.
Here's a quote that struck me as particularly galling:
"You can walk into any computer store and see the results. Every day, our industry is creating innovations and providing amazing benefits for consumers -- and prices have never been lower."
I remember what it was like to walk into a computer store 15 years ago. You could choose between computers from Apple, Atari, Commodore, Coleco, Texas Instruments, Radio Shack--and none of these used a Microsoft OS. Furthermore, the vast majority were available for a few hundred dollars, at a time when a PC clone cost thousands. Now when you walk into the computer store, you only see PC clones, only running Windows, and only if you are observant, you may notice the small Mac section in back.
I believe that a major downfall of commentators on the computer industry is that memories are too short. This is partially due to the age of the people involved, and the number of years they have been involved with computers. If you believe that the world started yesterday, then you may have trouble understanding the ire of anti-Microsoft people.
What's the realistic situation today? That if you are buying a computer for business, you should probably get a PC. If you are buying a computer for video games, then you should probably get a PC. Graphics people should probably get Macs, but would be OK with a PC too. Servers should probably run Linux, but that's not the market that walks into a computer store looking for Christmas presents.
The important thing to realize is that just because that is an accurate assessment of today's situation does not mean that it is a "good thing" that Microsoft squashed most of its competition. We will never know what we are missing as a result of that reduction in competition and innovation.
Just as a recent example, look at FireWire and USB. Do you think there would be a USB 2.0 coming if FireWire wasn't a lot better? Do you think that there would be a USB at all if Apple went under a few years ago, and took FireWire with it? Would there even be a Windows if it weren't for Macs? Would there be a Windows NT if it weren't for Unixen?
"A computer engineer may make more money, but how does he affect the lives of millions in a real sense? I have yet to find _ANY_ software that helps my parents get on with their daily life."
I believe that your argument is significantly in error here. Your assertion may be true when talking about applications intended for a PC or Mac, owned by a typical consumer, but is very very wrong when applications used behind-the-scenes are considered.
I used to work for a company that produced medical records software. Shortly after we released a new version with improved searching capabilities, a diet pill was recalled. Doctors with the software were able to quickly find all their patients who used the pill and notify them to stop doing so immediately. Doctors with other software, or no computer, could tack a notice on the front door of their office and hope that the right people read it. Other than having the right medical records software, there was no other feasible way that those patients could be identified. That 'increased productivity' was just one example of computer software saving lives.
Your parents are only unaffected by computer software if they have never: flown in an airplane, been hooked up to a machine in a hospital, benefitted from improved agricultural techniques, etc.--since all of these things are closely related to the quality of the software used in their design/production/use/improvement.
It is easy to forget that the vast majority of computer programmers have nothing to do with the next version of Word or Quake. They and their software are VERY MUCH affecting the world, every day.
If only there were a SlashDot Moderation for Dummies...
It would be a shame if copies of this page made it into search engines, thus making IDG's life very hard.
I read partway through your list of "For Dummies" books, and am interested in the ALGOL for Dummies. Let me know when it is released.
"But what was the last revolutionary software product to come out first on the Mac platform? Sure, the hardware is much improved cost and feature-wise, but why bother with such poor software selection?"
BBEdit
Bryce
Poser
Final Cut
AppleScript
Mac OS
Oh wait, you asked about things coming out first, and I went and made a list of Mac-only things. Sure, there are 50,000 or so programs for Windows and only 10,000 or so for Macs, but if BBEdit is not one of the 50,000 for Windows, then I don't give a crap about the rest!
"...why bother with such poor software selection?"
Poor software selection is better than a selection of poor software.
The Mac version of the QuickTime player has had drag and drop editing for years. Before that, it was copy and paste editing.
A few years ago, when Apple still allowed clones, there was a Canadian company making Mac clone portables with leather and chrome exteriors. I can't remember the name of the company. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?