You are absolutely right about raw speed -- I'm guessing the guy was talking about apparent GUI speed using Swing.
He's right about that, Swing apps on Mac OS X with the 1.4 JDK seem almost 99% of native Aqua apps, both in look and feel and speed. If properly written, a Jdk 1.4 - Swing app can be made virtually indistinguishable from an Aqua app on the Mac (except for some of the more flashy features like 'drawers').
Our shop writes both server-side and client side Java, we do all the development on Macs, then test/deploy on Linux servers and win clients. While the Swing performance in 1.4 is quite acceptable on win/linux -- it feels more fully formed on the mac. I don't know much about the specifics but I've heard that Apple maps the Swing widgets to native cocoa widgets where possible, and this may explain it.
all non-computer-users are idiots, all business people are PHBs, or all MBA students believe everything they read in textbooks
aren't stereotypes?
I could go on, but clearly you have some denial issues.
Re:Just to show what professional really means
on
Why PHBs Fear Linux
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Well, except you just made me think of the article again and the big problem is that the article is most likely WRONG.
We're talking about some reasonably smart people here. Most of whom don't just buy off on an idea because they see it in print, and most of whom know how to research things a bit. Hell, I know a lot of business types and I seriously doubt they remember anything from school. Most of them went to get that scrap of paper that helped 'em land the job, then learned the real stuff there.
Treat the text of this article the same way you'd treat the text of one of the referenced text books: Don't believe it just because it's on Linux Insider.
Business people are trained to think in terms of dollars and risk. They need quarterly profits to satisfy investors, they need to manage risk. I have seen very few treatments of Linux or other OSS solutions that satisfactorily address BOTH cost and risk management concerns.
Linux is growing in a somewhat organic way, and the technology of it is way ahead of our ability to actually sell it. Until we address that lop-sidedness in the community, I don't see things changing fast, but they still will change, it's happening all the time.
Re:How about the article itself?
on
Why PHBs Fear Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...but we're still very nieve when it comes to educating the decision makers in the world.
I have some ideas, how about we all agree to:
Stop referring to our bosses as PHBs
OK, I know there are alot of bad bosses out there, I'm lucky enough to not have one, but I accept they exist. But lets face it, slashdotters have come to refer to anyone in a suit with a business degree as a 'PHB' and I'm reasonably certain they don't mean it as a term of endearment
Come to work shaved, showered and neatly dressed
I know uber-geeks don't really give a damn what anyone thinks right? Well clearly you care about how Linux and Unix is percieved or wouldn't be posting on this thread would you. You'd be amazed at how much easier it is to listen to someone who looks professional, or at least doesn't smell bad.
Stop thinking anyone who doesn't understand computers is an idiot
Look, there are a heck of alot of really smart people out there who can't even check their email. They make more money than you, get laid more often than you, and are probably happier than you. So lets get over ourselves a minute and treat people with respect until they give us a real reason not to.
Learn to speak, then speak up
Speaking in public is not the average geeks strong point, but it's a learned skill. I was painfully shy as a child, a few classes and a few years of experience later, and I have the confidence to speak in front of anyone. If I can do it, so can you.
Care enough to speak the language
Most geeks would agree than if you're traveling to a foreign country, the least you can do is learn a little of the language and culture before you go. Really want to change the suits impression of your favorite technologies? How about putting it in words they can understand. Here's a dirty little secret about business: learning to write a cost-benefit analysis is easier than programming! Seems most geeks couldn't be bothered though.
There's a ot more you could do, but I'm stepping down off my soap box now, let the flaming begin!
Dude, respectfully, when I talk about random senseless violence, I'm not talking about people who are a bit ornery or spitefull. I'm talking about the kind of pure evil that would posess a man to kidnap, rape, and murder a child; Or the bizarre political and religious obsessions that drive groups of men to brutally maim and kill women and children, either in the name of Allah, or in the name of 'Anti-Terrorism'.
Show me one animal species who engages in that kind of violence and *maybe* I might give you your point.
Let me tell you, it's not just Europeans that are perplexed by this. I'm living in, and a citizen of the U.S. and not only am I perplexed by this attitude, I am frustrated, and if I may be allowed to violate the rules of my own government agencies a moment, fucking pissed off about it!
As the father of two small children, I would much rather answer the question "daddy, what are that man and woman doing?" than, "daddy, why is that man hurting that other man?".
Perhaps I am all alone in seeing that it is much easier to explain the process of procreating, which all animals engage in and is a good and understandable process even to the fairly young, than trying to explain random, senseless violence that has no perpose and is engaged in only by 'humans'. The attitude of my own goverment, and by default, a majority of my fellow citizens are absolutely inexplicable!
While I completely agree with the staement you've made in your final paragraph, the rest of your argument is yet another example of Apples to oranges (pun intended).
Building your own machine is cheaper than buying a similar machine from Apple, or, for that matter, from Dell, or HP, or whoever.
Even at that, recall that the cost savings only materializes if you value your time at $0.
This may work for you at this point in your life, and you reap the benefits of saving some of your dough. For others, me included, the cost of my time brings the self-built machine up to the cost of the shiny new G5, so I'll buy for now, thanks anyway.
No disrespect intended here, you deserve the +5, but I do tire of the comparison of self-built machines with 'off-the-shelf' ones on initial dollar cost alone.
Minor correction to your interpretation of Apple's DRM implementation. There is no notion of "only moving them 3 times".
The files can be 'authorized' via servers at Apple to play on three machines simultaneously. This authorization is a one-time transaction that does require a network connection when the song is first played.
After that, and from any of these three machines, the song can be burned to CD any number of times, as well as copied to any number of ipods for mobile playback.
The only way that a DRM'd AAC file could 'die' as you say, is if Apple went out of business, noone acquired their authorization scheme and music store, and you wanted/had to move the song file for some reason.
Arguments about Apple going out of business are for another thread, however in a world where DRM is a fact of life, Apple's is the most consumer-freindly that I've yet seen.
At the risk of responding to my own post, I just wanted to say thank you for the spirited discussion. Most of the reponses so far have (very politely) admonished me for missing the point. I respectfully submit that I did not miss the point, and remain unswayed in my earlier position.
Most of the posters failed to discern that I did not say that Linux was a black box, I suggested that it was the same as a black box to average computer users and even many developers.
One of the pitfalls of web-communities such as Slashdot, is that people of like mind band together to the exclusion of things outside. Given the Linux communities desire for broader acceptance in the general computer-using public, I hope to see this phenomenon subside a bit. Still the fact remains that programmers with the skill necessary to work on the core-components of an OS are a subset of the world-wide population of programmers in general, and no matter how many you might find on Slashdot, programmers of any kind are a tiny, tiny percentage of the world-wide computer-using populace.
Like any commerical enterprise, the maintainers of OSS projects have their own priorities in fixing bugs, adding features, or addressing documentation issues. This agenda, may or may not coincide with the priorities of users of the OS, application, driver, or whatever. As a result, a certain percentage of the average computer users using any application, OSS or not, will always be waiting for a fix, feature, or document.
It has often been written, even here on Slashdot, that simply GPL'ing your code does NOT result in droves of talented developers contributing to your project, and most projects are driven by a core group of very committed individuals. So, in closing I reiterate, that in a world where Linux and other OSS applications are becoming mainstream, the 'black box' argument holds no water, because to the average user, its all a black box. I continue to believe that those arguing for mainstream acceptance of OSS, should forget about invoking the 'black box' argument, because to the average computer user, it is meaningless.
With all due respect to your opinion, I've heard this "Windows is a black box and Linux/Open source software isn't" argument so often that I just want to scream.
Now before you dismiss me, keep in mind that I am not a Windows user and I like Linux as much as or more than the next geek. With the exception that I have, perhaps a little less hubris regarding my skill set. I consider myself a good applications developer, and am well paid for my efforts. But I have not the skill to debug kernels, drivers, or any of the other myriad lower-level components that make up something as complex as an OS, nor do I have the time or inclination to develop such a skill.
Most of Linux is as much a black box to me as Windows. Being able to see the code is not the same as being able to understand or work with it (or have the time to download it from cvs, for that matter). I have never been in a corporate IT department where the technical staff had that skill, and I've worked with some mighty fine programmers over the years.
So, the real difference is not that linux is a white box, or a clear box. To most potential customers its just as much a black box as the next OS, we might like to think the difference is that, with Linux/OSS, we're beholden to a more likeable and deserving community (OSS developers), but that doesn't change the core issue.
"...but the US Army chose MacOS for their webservers partially because it does not even have the possibility of a remote shell, which makes it much more difficult to penetrate.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your use of the term 'remote shell'. I secure shell into my Mac all the time, and if I was really insane, I could even run a telnet server. Or were you referring to the fact that remote login is disabled by default?
Either way, in the interest of not spreading any more FUD about OS X and its capabilities, I'd love for some clarification on what you mean.
Let me reiterate that I was making generalizations. I didn't mean to come off sounding like a CS degree wasn't worth it - far from it. My main point was the 'S' in the CS degree is all too frequently hyperfocused in most university curiculums. I stand by my suggestions for improving University CS programs.
In your case, clearly you get the big picture. Either you are naturally inclined to be more socialized, or you had a more evolved CS program at school or (likely) a little of both.
One point - the socialization that goes on in business is an interesting yet important phenomenon. If your talking about low-paid, clerical staff wasting 5 hours a day chatting, then clearly the business has issues setting job-descriptions and compensation levels appropriately at it's lower levels.
If, however you are referring to people even slightly higher up, especially in the marketing and sales arenas, this socialization is an actual part of their process. As a programmer for a successful software company, one of my goals is to keep those folk on the golf-course or whatever, this is where the real deals get done in business, and that is how my salary gets paid and my stock options increase in value. Interestingly, by being able to move between those worlds, I achieve higher recognition, am more informed strategically, and am in general more highly compensated that a geek of similar skill-sets who does not make that effort.
Probably not. If you are going into academia or scientific research or some similar field, then MAYBE a CS degree will teach you what you need to know.
But where do most techies end up? Programmer or network admin at a BUSINESS. Precisely where they are most destined to fail. Why does this happen, well, if you listen to the posts on slashdot, then you might infer that CS grads are unusually predispositioned to develop:
1. Arrogance about their chosen fields that causes them to think that the 'suits' running the business are somehow idiots, despite the fact that these same 'suits' make 10 times more money than they and are effectively running a real live business in most cases (of course exceptions apply, idiots do exist, but in nowhere near the numbers most slashdotters think).
2. A general disdain for their non-computer literate co-workers.
3. A complete inability to interact with other humans in person.
4. A singular lack of understanding about the most basic principles of business and economics.
5. A myopic focus on the mechanics of software, hardware, and the like, rather than focusing on delivering solutions that enable real people to work faster or smarter.
The modern CS degree program could use a major face-lift, including significant coursework in:
- Human psychology
- Principles of business and economics
- Public speaking
Until that happens, my hiring preference is humanities graduates with several years experience and proof of delivering real solutions to real user-bases.
Instead of actually discussing the story, any presumed insult of open source is immediately flamed into oblivion. Look - I love open-source as much as the next geek, but how about we talk about this type of article like adults, and provide examples of our own?
Sure the guy could've taken a less flamatory tone, and could've provided a few specific examples, if there are any, but riddle me this, all you smarties, he does have the grain of an issue here.
Lets assume that open software becomes ever more mainstream, to the point where grandma can't tell or doesn't care the difference in method by which her email client was developed. What's protecting her against malicious or incompetent open-source developers? Or are we saying that all programmers are by nature 'good' people and also brilliant at their craft?
Sure, geeks can compile source, compare binaries, review code line-by-line, but it may shock you to know that normal people don't know or care how to do this.
You're next argument is that the 'good' geeks will discover and root out the 'bad' geeks. But in a world where OSS is mainstream, this will only happen after thousands, hundreds-of-thousands, or even millions of mainstream users are already compromised.
I'm not saying that commercially developed software has proven itself better, in fact usually its much worse, so far anyway, but OSS does have some of the same problems in a world where not every user is also a programmer.
I love this question, and I'm hoping you get lots of opinion, and not modded 'offtopic'.
Here's my $0.02
For the average person, and even average geek, there is absolutely nothing to see here. I carried a PDA for years (Palms of gradually increasing fanciness). At first I would whip it out at the drop of a hat, take notes on it, etc. Kept all my calendars, addresses, the usual, even had some cool games, like a version of Galaxian with real authentic sound.
Over time - it started running out of charge more and more frequently, as i started ignoring it more and more. It was rare that I ever need to look up someones full address, and my phone has all the numbers. My calendar wasn't that busy, so I hardly ever referred to it.
I gave it to a friend - I simply didn't need another gadget weighing me down. Nowadays, I carry a good laptop in a nice backpack. The thing has decent battery life and wakes from sleep reliably, so if I really need to look something up I just open the lid. Not as convenient as the handheld, but quite a bit more powerful.
If you don't travel extensively, and work in a field where you're gonna carry a laptop and a backpack anyway (sounds like virtually every programmer I know), save the dough until you can afford a nice portable, something under 6 pounds or so, and just use it.
This works for me, as usual, your results may differ.
...You are absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, I am currently engaged in doing exactly that.
JDBC is an incredibly complete data access solution that is almost like using DAO or ADO or whatever Access guys use these days. Swing, as done in Java 1.4 is plenty quick for DB GUI's and JBuilder Foundation's GUI Builder is about what an access of VB form developer would expect. I'm using all of these with no complaints and my apps run without change or recompile on Windows, Linux, and OS X.
In fact, in the time it'll take most to read this book and adapt the first tentative hello world project, I will have completed another third of my real project.
But, since this is Slashdot: "Ooh how I hate Java!". (secretly returns to work making $$$ doing Java apps)
Maybe because some developers who believe in open-source as a development-methodology think the the FSF is so bound by mind-numbing ideology as to not represent the true beliefs of some of us in the community?
I've got nothing against the GPL, its a fine license if you want your code to to be bound to a particular belief system. But it sickens me when Stallman et-al trots out the concept of 'Free-as-in-Freedom' in reference to the GPL. I'll thank them to STOP abusing the notion of Freedom in advertising their ideology, it's becoming trite.
The GPL is NOT a poster child for Freedom(with a capital F) - in its own way, it has as many restrictions as the next commercial license - its just that the obligations you agree to are philosophical, rather than monetary.
In the end, true freedom means that certain persons or entities will have the right to do things you don't believe in. At least in the USA, freedom-of-religion does not come with the caveat that the religion must be christian, nor does freedom of speech come with the caveat that the speech must be 'politically correct'.
The closest thing we have to a open-source license that is actually 'Free-as-in-Freedom' is the BSD license.
Any fool who thinks the loggers or steel workers 'made the transition' obviously hasn't toured the trailer-shanty towns of the Pacific Northwest, or the soup-kitchens of Pittsburgh.
While I have serious internal qualms about protectionism, there is only one way we can go if the current trends keep up, we'll be a country that consists of the super-rich and the ultra-poor.
Face facts, we can't all be super-educated scientist-inventors bringing on the future. Nor will we all make it as corporate super-executives. With no middle class to fall back on, the people who can't fill those roles will have nowhere to go but on-the-dole, or worse.
The middle class has been the life-blood of this country, and it has become ever more squeezed as each decade roles on. When the country finally polarizes into 5% ruling-elite and 95% unwashed masses, which side do you think we here at slashdot are mostly likely to fall on?
Congrats on a VERY successful Karma-whore. +5 insightful, very well done. When I originally wrote it, it only got +4, informative.
Just in case anyone else cares, however, I posted this comment originally in response to "Have You Personally Used an Honest Head Hunter?" on September 30, under the subject line "Guess I've been lucky..."
All in all, this doesn't bother me too much, I figure you know you've "arrived" on/. when the whores start plagarizing your comments.
Well, I certainly can understand what its like to have a favorite product of any kind take off in a direction you don't like. I find it interesting that, as an OS 9 user, your experience is so much different than mine.
You are correct that I and most of my Mac-using friends have come from other backgrounds. For myself, windows, but many from Linux as well. We gravitated to the platform becuase of many of the features you may find impossibly unusable.
I'm in software development, and for the most recent part of my career have been focusing on Java (J2EE) apps. I never could have used a Mac as both my developer machine AND staging server pre-OS X, not because there was anything inherently wrong with the platform, it just wasn't the tool for the job. Now its the tool for that job and pretty much everything else I do.
I'm not sure that you're right about Apple intentionally abandoning its user base. There are business forces at work that I won't pretend to understand, but it seems Apple is a wildly popular company with very attractive products to most in the circles I travel in.
Anyway, I hope you take the time to check out some of the very reasonably priced software that will bring back many of the features you find missing.
Dude, he's not complaining when others do the same, the guy basically says each to his own. What he's complaining about is exactly what you're doing when you say:
"The Dock DOESN'T work for most of us."
This is simply not a defensible statement, do you have proof of it's validity? Have you done independent studies?
The only thing you can say for certain is the dock DOESN't work for you. If this is the case, try some of the suggested apps Tog mentions in his article.
I respect your opinion (and Tog's) on the shortcomings of the dock, and wholeheartedly agree with several of his points, but to me and most of the OS X users I know, the dock just isn't that big a deal, certainly not enough to warrant the amount of hatred and vitriol spewed on the subject.
Not saying I agree with the parent, but I believe his point was that at the rate we're going, you won't have a car, 'cause you'll be some millionaires bitch.
Thank you for one of the most lucid posts I've ever read on Slashdot. Clearly you've studied a little business with your CS, or vice versa. Welcome to the minority here who have.
Slashdot Mirror
I know I'm getting dangerously offtopic, but...
You are absolutely right about raw speed -- I'm guessing the guy was talking about apparent GUI speed using Swing.
He's right about that, Swing apps on Mac OS X with the 1.4 JDK seem almost 99% of native Aqua apps, both in look and feel and speed. If properly written, a Jdk 1.4 - Swing app can be made virtually indistinguishable from an Aqua app on the Mac (except for some of the more flashy features like 'drawers').
Our shop writes both server-side and client side Java, we do all the development on Macs, then test/deploy on Linux servers and win clients. While the Swing performance in 1.4 is quite acceptable on win/linux -- it feels more fully formed on the mac. I don't know much about the specifics but I've heard that Apple maps the Swing widgets to native cocoa widgets where possible, and this may explain it.
Oh really?
And assuming:
all non-computer-users are idiots,
all business people are PHBs,
or all MBA students believe everything they read in textbooks
aren't stereotypes?
I could go on, but clearly you have some denial issues.
Well, except you just made me think of the article again and the big problem is that the article is most likely WRONG.
We're talking about some reasonably smart people here. Most of whom don't just buy off on an idea because they see it in print, and most of whom know how to research things a bit. Hell, I know a lot of business types and I seriously doubt they remember anything from school. Most of them went to get that scrap of paper that helped 'em land the job, then learned the real stuff there.
Treat the text of this article the same way you'd treat the text of one of the referenced text books: Don't believe it just because it's on Linux Insider.
Business people are trained to think in terms of dollars and risk. They need quarterly profits to satisfy investors, they need to manage risk. I have seen very few treatments of Linux or other OSS solutions that satisfactorily address BOTH cost and risk management concerns.
Linux is growing in a somewhat organic way, and the technology of it is way ahead of our ability to actually sell it. Until we address that lop-sidedness in the community, I don't see things changing fast, but they still will change, it's happening all the time.
I have some ideas, how about we all agree to:
Stop referring to our bosses as PHBs
OK, I know there are alot of bad bosses out there, I'm lucky enough to not have one, but I accept they exist. But lets face it, slashdotters have come to refer to anyone in a suit with a business degree as a 'PHB' and I'm reasonably certain they don't mean it as a term of endearment
Come to work shaved, showered and neatly dressed
I know uber-geeks don't really give a damn what anyone thinks right? Well clearly you care about how Linux and Unix is percieved or wouldn't be posting on this thread would you. You'd be amazed at how much easier it is to listen to someone who looks professional, or at least doesn't smell bad.
Stop thinking anyone who doesn't understand computers is an idiot
Look, there are a heck of alot of really smart people out there who can't even check their email. They make more money than you, get laid more often than you, and are probably happier than you. So lets get over ourselves a minute and treat people with respect until they give us a real reason not to.
Learn to speak, then speak up
Speaking in public is not the average geeks strong point, but it's a learned skill. I was painfully shy as a child, a few classes and a few years of experience later, and I have the confidence to speak in front of anyone. If I can do it, so can you.
Care enough to speak the language
Most geeks would agree than if you're traveling to a foreign country, the least you can do is learn a little of the language and culture before you go. Really want to change the suits impression of your favorite technologies? How about putting it in words they can understand. Here's a dirty little secret about business: learning to write a cost-benefit analysis is easier than programming! Seems most geeks couldn't be bothered though.
There's a ot more you could do, but I'm stepping down off my soap box now, let the flaming begin!
"A recent version of Windows (sorry, no Mac or Linux)"
'nuff said - I'm outta here.
Dude, respectfully, when I talk about random senseless violence, I'm not talking about people who are a bit ornery or spitefull. I'm talking about the kind of pure evil that would posess a man to kidnap, rape, and murder a child; Or the bizarre political and religious obsessions that drive groups of men to brutally maim and kill women and children, either in the name of Allah, or in the name of 'Anti-Terrorism'.
Show me one animal species who engages in that kind of violence and *maybe* I might give you your point.
Let me tell you, it's not just Europeans that are perplexed by this. I'm living in, and a citizen of the U.S. and not only am I perplexed by this attitude, I am frustrated, and if I may be allowed to violate the rules of my own government agencies a moment, fucking pissed off about it!
As the father of two small children, I would much rather answer the question "daddy, what are that man and woman doing?" than, "daddy, why is that man hurting that other man?".
Perhaps I am all alone in seeing that it is much easier to explain the process of procreating, which all animals engage in and is a good and understandable process even to the fairly young, than trying to explain random, senseless violence that has no perpose and is engaged in only by 'humans'. The attitude of my own goverment, and by default, a majority of my fellow citizens are absolutely inexplicable!
While I completely agree with the staement you've made in your final paragraph, the rest of your argument is yet another example of Apples to oranges (pun intended).
Building your own machine is cheaper than buying a similar machine from Apple, or, for that matter, from Dell, or HP, or whoever.
Even at that, recall that the cost savings only materializes if you value your time at $0.
This may work for you at this point in your life, and you reap the benefits of saving some of your dough. For others, me included, the cost of my time brings the self-built machine up to the cost of the shiny new G5, so I'll buy for now, thanks anyway.
No disrespect intended here, you deserve the +5, but I do tire of the comparison of self-built machines with 'off-the-shelf' ones on initial dollar cost alone.
Minor correction to your interpretation of Apple's DRM implementation. There is no notion of "only moving them 3 times".
The files can be 'authorized' via servers at Apple to play on three machines simultaneously. This authorization is a one-time transaction that does require a network connection when the song is first played.
After that, and from any of these three machines, the song can be burned to CD any number of times, as well as copied to any number of ipods for mobile playback.
The only way that a DRM'd AAC file could 'die' as you say, is if Apple went out of business, noone acquired their authorization scheme and music store, and you wanted/had to move the song file for some reason.
Arguments about Apple going out of business are for another thread, however in a world where DRM is a fact of life, Apple's is the most consumer-freindly that I've yet seen.
At the risk of responding to my own post, I just wanted to say thank you for the spirited discussion. Most of the reponses so far have (very politely) admonished me for missing the point. I respectfully submit that I did not miss the point, and remain unswayed in my earlier position.
Most of the posters failed to discern that I did not say that Linux was a black box, I suggested that it was the same as a black box to average computer users and even many developers.
One of the pitfalls of web-communities such as Slashdot, is that people of like mind band together to the exclusion of things outside. Given the Linux communities desire for broader acceptance in the general computer-using public, I hope to see this phenomenon subside a bit. Still the fact remains that programmers with the skill necessary to work on the core-components of an OS are a subset of the world-wide population of programmers in general, and no matter how many you might find on Slashdot, programmers of any kind are a tiny, tiny percentage of the world-wide computer-using populace.
Like any commerical enterprise, the maintainers of OSS projects have their own priorities in fixing bugs, adding features, or addressing documentation issues. This agenda, may or may not coincide with the priorities of users of the OS, application, driver, or whatever. As a result, a certain percentage of the average computer users using any application, OSS or not, will always be waiting for a fix, feature, or document.
It has often been written, even here on Slashdot, that simply GPL'ing your code does NOT result in droves of talented developers contributing to your project, and most projects are driven by a core group of very committed individuals. So, in closing I reiterate, that in a world where Linux and other OSS applications are becoming mainstream, the 'black box' argument holds no water, because to the average user, its all a black box. I continue to believe that those arguing for mainstream acceptance of OSS, should forget about invoking the 'black box' argument, because to the average computer user, it is meaningless.
With all due respect to your opinion, I've heard this "Windows is a black box and Linux/Open source software isn't" argument so often that I just want to scream.
Now before you dismiss me, keep in mind that I am not a Windows user and I like Linux as much as or more than the next geek. With the exception that I have, perhaps a little less hubris regarding my skill set. I consider myself a good applications developer, and am well paid for my efforts. But I have not the skill to debug kernels, drivers, or any of the other myriad lower-level components that make up something as complex as an OS, nor do I have the time or inclination to develop such a skill.
Most of Linux is as much a black box to me as Windows. Being able to see the code is not the same as being able to understand or work with it (or have the time to download it from cvs, for that matter). I have never been in a corporate IT department where the technical staff had that skill, and I've worked with some mighty fine programmers over the years.
So, the real difference is not that linux is a white box, or a clear box. To most potential customers its just as much a black box as the next OS, we might like to think the difference is that, with Linux/OSS, we're beholden to a more likeable and deserving community (OSS developers), but that doesn't change the core issue.
"...but the US Army chose MacOS for their webservers partially because it does not even have the possibility of a remote shell, which makes it much more difficult to penetrate.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your use of the term 'remote shell'. I secure shell into my Mac all the time, and if I was really insane, I could even run a telnet server. Or were you referring to the fact that remote login is disabled by default?
Either way, in the interest of not spreading any more FUD about OS X and its capabilities, I'd love for some clarification on what you mean.
Let me reiterate that I was making generalizations. I didn't mean to come off sounding like a CS degree wasn't worth it - far from it. My main point was the 'S' in the CS degree is all too frequently hyperfocused in most university curiculums. I stand by my suggestions for improving University CS programs.
In your case, clearly you get the big picture. Either you are naturally inclined to be more socialized, or you had a more evolved CS program at school or (likely) a little of both.
One point - the socialization that goes on in business is an interesting yet important phenomenon. If your talking about low-paid, clerical staff wasting 5 hours a day chatting, then clearly the business has issues setting job-descriptions and compensation levels appropriately at it's lower levels.
If, however you are referring to people even slightly higher up, especially in the marketing and sales arenas, this socialization is an actual part of their process. As a programmer for a successful software company, one of my goals is to keep those folk on the golf-course or whatever, this is where the real deals get done in business, and that is how my salary gets paid and my stock options increase in value. Interestingly, by being able to move between those worlds, I achieve higher recognition, am more informed strategically, and am in general more highly compensated that a geek of similar skill-sets who does not make that effort.
Honest answer?
Probably not. If you are going into academia or scientific research or some similar field, then MAYBE a CS degree will teach you what you need to know.
But where do most techies end up? Programmer or network admin at a BUSINESS. Precisely where they are most destined to fail. Why does this happen, well, if you listen to the posts on slashdot, then you might infer that CS grads are unusually predispositioned to develop:
1. Arrogance about their chosen fields that causes them to think that the 'suits' running the business are somehow idiots, despite the fact that these same 'suits' make 10 times more money than they and are effectively running a real live business in most cases (of course exceptions apply, idiots do exist, but in nowhere near the numbers most slashdotters think).
2. A general disdain for their non-computer literate co-workers.
3. A complete inability to interact with other humans in person.
4. A singular lack of understanding about the most basic principles of business and economics.
5. A myopic focus on the mechanics of software, hardware, and the like, rather than focusing on delivering solutions that enable real people to work faster or smarter.
The modern CS degree program could use a major face-lift, including significant coursework in:
- Human psychology
- Principles of business and economics
- Public speaking
Until that happens, my hiring preference is humanities graduates with several years experience and proof of delivering real solutions to real user-bases.
Instead of actually discussing the story, any presumed insult of open source is immediately flamed into oblivion. Look - I love open-source as much as the next geek, but how about we talk about this type of article like adults, and provide examples of our own?
Sure the guy could've taken a less flamatory tone, and could've provided a few specific examples, if there are any, but riddle me this, all you smarties, he does have the grain of an issue here.
Lets assume that open software becomes ever more mainstream, to the point where grandma can't tell or doesn't care the difference in method by which her email client was developed. What's protecting her against malicious or incompetent open-source developers? Or are we saying that all programmers are by nature 'good' people and also brilliant at their craft?
Sure, geeks can compile source, compare binaries, review code line-by-line, but it may shock you to know that normal people don't know or care how to do this.
You're next argument is that the 'good' geeks will discover and root out the 'bad' geeks. But in a world where OSS is mainstream, this will only happen after thousands, hundreds-of-thousands, or even millions of mainstream users are already compromised.
I'm not saying that commercially developed software has proven itself better, in fact usually its much worse, so far anyway, but OSS does have some of the same problems in a world where not every user is also a programmer.
OK, discuss...
I love this question, and I'm hoping you get lots of opinion, and not modded 'offtopic'.
Here's my $0.02
For the average person, and even average geek, there is absolutely nothing to see here. I carried a PDA for years (Palms of gradually increasing fanciness). At first I would whip it out at the drop of a hat, take notes on it, etc. Kept all my calendars, addresses, the usual, even had some cool games, like a version of Galaxian with real authentic sound.
Over time - it started running out of charge more and more frequently, as i started ignoring it more and more. It was rare that I ever need to look up someones full address, and my phone has all the numbers. My calendar wasn't that busy, so I hardly ever referred to it.
I gave it to a friend - I simply didn't need another gadget weighing me down. Nowadays, I carry a good laptop in a nice backpack. The thing has decent battery life and wakes from sleep reliably, so if I really need to look something up I just open the lid. Not as convenient as the handheld, but quite a bit more powerful.
If you don't travel extensively, and work in a field where you're gonna carry a laptop and a backpack anyway (sounds like virtually every programmer I know), save the dough until you can afford a nice portable, something under 6 pounds or so, and just use it.
This works for me, as usual, your results may differ.
...You are absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, I am currently engaged in doing exactly that.
JDBC is an incredibly complete data access solution that is almost like using DAO or ADO or whatever Access guys use these days. Swing, as done in Java 1.4 is plenty quick for DB GUI's and JBuilder Foundation's GUI Builder is about what an access of VB form developer would expect. I'm using all of these with no complaints and my apps run without change or recompile on Windows, Linux, and OS X.
In fact, in the time it'll take most to read this book and adapt the first tentative hello world project, I will have completed another third of my real project.
But, since this is Slashdot: "Ooh how I hate Java!". (secretly returns to work making $$$ doing Java apps)
With one exception, the pirates in NYC aren't openly armed with automatic weapons.
;-)
Personally, I would LOVE to see the RIAA go to Iraq and try and stop those guys
Maybe because some developers who believe in open-source as a development-methodology think the the FSF is so bound by mind-numbing ideology as to not represent the true beliefs of some of us in the community?
I've got nothing against the GPL, its a fine license if you want your code to to be bound to a particular belief system. But it sickens me when Stallman et-al trots out the concept of 'Free-as-in-Freedom' in reference to the GPL. I'll thank them to STOP abusing the notion of Freedom in advertising their ideology, it's becoming trite.
The GPL is NOT a poster child for Freedom(with a capital F) - in its own way, it has as many restrictions as the next commercial license - its just that the obligations you agree to are philosophical, rather than monetary.
In the end, true freedom means that certain persons or entities will have the right to do things you don't believe in. At least in the USA, freedom-of-religion does not come with the caveat that the religion must be christian, nor does freedom of speech come with the caveat that the speech must be 'politically correct'.
The closest thing we have to a open-source license that is actually 'Free-as-in-Freedom' is the BSD license.
Any fool who thinks the loggers or steel workers 'made the transition' obviously hasn't toured the trailer-shanty towns of the Pacific Northwest, or the soup-kitchens of Pittsburgh.
While I have serious internal qualms about protectionism, there is only one way we can go if the current trends keep up, we'll be a country that consists of the super-rich and the ultra-poor.
Face facts, we can't all be super-educated scientist-inventors bringing on the future. Nor will we all make it as corporate super-executives. With no middle class to fall back on, the people who can't fill those roles will have nowhere to go but on-the-dole, or worse.
The middle class has been the life-blood of this country, and it has become ever more squeezed as each decade roles on. When the country finally polarizes into 5% ruling-elite and 95% unwashed masses, which side do you think we here at slashdot are mostly likely to fall on?
...Hey,
Congrats on a VERY successful Karma-whore. +5 insightful, very well done. When I originally wrote it, it only got +4, informative.
Just in case anyone else cares, however, I posted this comment originally in response to "Have You Personally Used an Honest Head Hunter?" on September 30, under the subject line "Guess I've been lucky..."
All in all, this doesn't bother me too much, I figure you know you've "arrived" on /. when the whores start plagarizing your comments.
Rock on!
Well, I certainly can understand what its like to have a favorite product of any kind take off in a direction you don't like. I find it interesting that, as an OS 9 user, your experience is so much different than mine.
You are correct that I and most of my Mac-using friends have come from other backgrounds. For myself, windows, but many from Linux as well. We gravitated to the platform becuase of many of the features you may find impossibly unusable.
I'm in software development, and for the most recent part of my career have been focusing on Java (J2EE) apps. I never could have used a Mac as both my developer machine AND staging server pre-OS X, not because there was anything inherently wrong with the platform, it just wasn't the tool for the job. Now its the tool for that job and pretty much everything else I do.
I'm not sure that you're right about Apple intentionally abandoning its user base. There are business forces at work that I won't pretend to understand, but it seems Apple is a wildly popular company with very attractive products to most in the circles I travel in.
Anyway, I hope you take the time to check out some of the very reasonably priced software that will bring back many of the features you find missing.
Dude, he's not complaining when others do the same, the guy basically says each to his own. What he's complaining about is exactly what you're doing when you say:
"The Dock DOESN'T work for most of us."
This is simply not a defensible statement, do you have proof of it's validity? Have you done independent studies?
The only thing you can say for certain is the dock DOESN't work for you. If this is the case, try some of the suggested apps Tog mentions in his article.
I respect your opinion (and Tog's) on the shortcomings of the dock, and wholeheartedly agree with several of his points, but to me and most of the OS X users I know, the dock just isn't that big a deal, certainly not enough to warrant the amount of hatred and vitriol spewed on the subject.
Not saying I agree with the parent, but I believe his point was that at the rate we're going, you won't have a car, 'cause you'll be some millionaires bitch.
Thank you for one of the most lucid posts I've ever read on Slashdot. Clearly you've studied a little business with your CS, or vice versa. Welcome to the minority here who have.
Again, very well said. Wish I had points today.