Hehe- a 2nd hard drive as a Vista performance improvement. I would take it one step further- get a 2nd computer if you want to see Vista run (other than the one you intend to use to run applications). Interesting data point: I recently bought a laptop (Athlon 64 dual core, 2.0 Ghz, 1 Gb RAM) and from when I turned it on (first time Windows boot & all that goes with that) to when I could use the desktop took longer then the wipe & install of the other operating system I found more useful after completing my 2 week evaluation of Vista.
Although I too get apprehensive when cloud computing's considered for the workplace, wouldn't using encrypted file systems address this problem? The client keeps the keys and therefore the sanctity of the corporate data, at least in theory, is protected. Certainly lots of details need adressing concerning key transport but that ground's already been covered, hasn't it?
Isn't this similar to the Webkinz business model as well (www.webkinz.com)? You buy the little animals or cards in a retail store and its get you stuff in their online world?
IANA OSS contributor but I have been a programming enthusiast since 1980 and a professional programmer for ~16 years. The last ten years I've reported to an executive (non-IT boss) for my own productivity and the productivity. Over the these years I've had several conversations with my various supervisors (again; non-IT) regarding how to plan & allocate resources for ~30 projects ranging from static web sites to projects of a much larger nature. I have not found it to be an easy task- setting aside the whole issue of programming as an art and therefore by its very nature less predictable than many corporate duties, there's still the challenge of understanding the effect of the team dynamic (or other aggregate effects such as environment & tools) on an individuals' productivity. I would think that the premise of the project featured in the article would fail to account for such a significant factor in trying to track metrics of the individual. (Sidenote: I don't think this is limited to programming either).
I don't think Mr. Torvalds is so much making statements regarding the importance on the various parts of the deliverable's "gestalt" as he is that an OS should be an independent layer. I think it's been demonstrated that a properly abstracted stack (hw, kernel, supporting o/s binaries, IPC, display manager, windows manager, desktop manager, etc) is a more sustainable model than a monolithic one over the long run. I'll leave it as a reader exercise to decide which OS's have done it right and which have learned a painful lesson by taking the opposite route.
It's not that I trust them any less than I do any vendor that puts share holder value over customer satisfaction (everybody, right?). It's that they've consistently demonstrated that they highest level they can perform at is mediocrity. Which, granted at 99% market share is probably adequate enough for Joe consumer.
However I'm not Joe Consumer, I'm a computer geek. I take satisfaction in using tools that are well designed. If I was an automobile enthusiast you wouldn't see me driving around in a Yugo.
If you don't consider development models typically found in F/OSS projects efficient, then how do you explain how they seem to deliver what their target customer wants faster and with less money than commercial counterparts? (IMO)
The more crowded the petri dish the better in my mind & I do have a few powerPC xServers in the fishbowl. However, didn't OS X get where they are today on the back of a large body of F/OSS s/w (BSD, GNU suite's, etc)? Also, I have to question the micro kernel which I've found performs poorly in contexts requiring a large # of light weight threads (ie. pretty much anything server based). I had a job that used to archive desktops back to servers, compressing & staging for dumping to tape. When I switched from OS X to OpenSuse (on the same box) the job went from 40 hrs to 12 hrs (same scripts, utils, hardware, etc- only the kernel really changed). Granted my view is server skewed- but some of this applies to workstations today (and if history is any testimony; what runs on the server today may run on the workstation tomorrow).
I think you're right on with the "realization" comment. But I suggest there's two realizations: 1. the value of the two different kinds of software & 2. (the more imporant one I think) the value of the respective development models. To me, the latter is the more interesting: how much more rapid and efficient the development models typically used by F/OSS projects are than their commercial counterparts. What I'm taking away from the last 20 years is that regardless of the state of given F/OSS project at any point in time, the real benefit is thats over the long run, more collaborative dev. models lead to better value than does typical non-F/OSS models which seem to try and maximize market share and shareholder value. And in fact s/w with a long lineage of commercial development may eventually reach an unmaintainable state with questionable value to the consumer.
Why should a company listen to their potential customers? Oh- I dunno, because maybe then the customer might be interested in purchasing the product. While I'm more of a 2-bit nerd then a business expert, I'm pretty sure listening to your customer is an important part of creating, marketing and selling a succesful product.
My first thought on seeing the title (without reading the post or article) was "I'm sure the Edsel team would have liked a do-over also." After reading the wikipedia article on Edsel & the parent Vista post, I wonder if there are parallels that could be drawn between the failures (design flaws, misalignment with market needs, timing, perception/buzz, etc). Both projects were very long, complex & represented significant investments with disappointing payoffs.
1.5 Million?! This seems like a really pathetic cry for help. They must really be scared about the revenue they're losing because they're not evolving with the times. That's too bad.
For putting aside vendor difference and suggesting that IBM be recognized for their alleged efforts. For, in my mind, campaigning against bad spec does indeed make one masterful.
"building 'multi billion dollar industries on the back of our content without paying for it'"
This really doesn't carry much weight coming from the lips of somebody's who's basically an agent; IMO, the pinnacle of parasitic business models.
Wake up: If you're business model is based on being an intermediary or owning a channel (neither of which adds any value to the product or service)- guess what? It's time to get a new business model. There's an internet now- nobody needs intermediaries or monopolistic channels.
I evaluated Vista for a few weeks in December. Based on this evaluation: in order to compare flaw statistics, I'd suggest collecting data for twice as long a time period as the data collection time period on XP before comparing results.
I guess I'm stupid then 'cause I'd put 1/2 my little pile of $ on trees. NXD's disencumber the database developer from having to writet complex mapping code to put hierarchical data in a relational store. In my little corner of the IT wood, I'd say 50% of my data is relational and 50% is hierarchical. Experiences may very but if you have any amount of hierarchical data it sure is nice to not have to worry about that mapping layer. I've done the materialized path, nested intervals, etc. it's all a step in the right direction but for an organization looking to the minimize their code baggage, it sure is nice to make the leap to an NXD; suddenly huge buckets of esoteric code get mothballed. And you're investing in a slower changing standard like xquery (which I view as closer to the declarative end of the spectrum) instead of a more dynamically evolving convetional language (closer to the procedural end of the spectrum), the latter I believe has a higher TCO and, when architecting new systems, bears a higher risk.
Perhaps I'm being naive, but can't you use xquery for this?
I was thinking the other yesterday after the Sun/mySQL annoucement that if I had to pick something today likely to follow the same trajectory as Monty's little project that it would be eXist-db, or some other NXD.
Wouldn't this be similar to the the city of Redmond banning MS software in their offices? Is this just one of several parallels between two cultural artifacts? Who has more money and a larger monopoly I wonder?
Slashdot Mirror
Hehe- a 2nd hard drive as a Vista performance improvement. I would take it one step further- get a 2nd computer if you want to see Vista run (other than the one you intend to use to run applications). Interesting data point: I recently bought a laptop (Athlon 64 dual core, 2.0 Ghz, 1 Gb RAM) and from when I turned it on (first time Windows boot & all that goes with that) to when I could use the desktop took longer then the wipe & install of the other operating system I found more useful after completing my 2 week evaluation of Vista.
Although I too get apprehensive when cloud computing's considered for the workplace, wouldn't using encrypted file systems address this problem? The client keeps the keys and therefore the sanctity of the corporate data, at least in theory, is protected. Certainly lots of details need adressing concerning key transport but that ground's already been covered, hasn't it?
Isn't this similar to the Webkinz business model as well (www.webkinz.com)? You buy the little animals or cards in a retail store and its get you stuff in their online world?
IANA OSS contributor but I have been a programming enthusiast since 1980 and a professional programmer for ~16 years. The last ten years I've reported to an executive (non-IT boss) for my own productivity and the productivity. Over the these years I've had several conversations with my various supervisors (again; non-IT) regarding how to plan & allocate resources for ~30 projects ranging from static web sites to projects of a much larger nature. I have not found it to be an easy task- setting aside the whole issue of programming as an art and therefore by its very nature less predictable than many corporate duties, there's still the challenge of understanding the effect of the team dynamic (or other aggregate effects such as environment & tools) on an individuals' productivity. I would think that the premise of the project featured in the article would fail to account for such a significant factor in trying to track metrics of the individual. (Sidenote: I don't think this is limited to programming either).
All my friends and family use google & yahoo email. So if google or yahoo support it, then my f&f are all set.
I don't think Mr. Torvalds is so much making statements regarding the importance on the various parts of the deliverable's "gestalt" as he is that an OS should be an independent layer. I think it's been demonstrated that a properly abstracted stack (hw, kernel, supporting o/s binaries, IPC, display manager, windows manager, desktop manager, etc) is a more sustainable model than a monolithic one over the long run. I'll leave it as a reader exercise to decide which OS's have done it right and which have learned a painful lesson by taking the opposite route.
It might be cheaper given the cost of disposing of hazardous waste associated with conventional painting processes.
It's not that I trust them any less than I do any vendor that puts share holder value over customer satisfaction (everybody, right?). It's that they've consistently demonstrated that they highest level they can perform at is mediocrity. Which, granted at 99% market share is probably adequate enough for Joe consumer. However I'm not Joe Consumer, I'm a computer geek. I take satisfaction in using tools that are well designed. If I was an automobile enthusiast you wouldn't see me driving around in a Yugo.
If you don't consider development models typically found in F/OSS projects efficient, then how do you explain how they seem to deliver what their target customer wants faster and with less money than commercial counterparts? (IMO)
When's your birthday? I'm getting you new pans. Please leave the old ones in the garage for your freakish experiments.
The more crowded the petri dish the better in my mind & I do have a few powerPC xServers in the fishbowl. However, didn't OS X get where they are today on the back of a large body of F/OSS s/w (BSD, GNU suite's, etc)? Also, I have to question the micro kernel which I've found performs poorly in contexts requiring a large # of light weight threads (ie. pretty much anything server based). I had a job that used to archive desktops back to servers, compressing & staging for dumping to tape. When I switched from OS X to OpenSuse (on the same box) the job went from 40 hrs to 12 hrs (same scripts, utils, hardware, etc- only the kernel really changed). Granted my view is server skewed- but some of this applies to workstations today (and if history is any testimony; what runs on the server today may run on the workstation tomorrow).
I think you're right on with the "realization" comment. But I suggest there's two realizations: 1. the value of the two different kinds of software & 2. (the more imporant one I think) the value of the respective development models. To me, the latter is the more interesting: how much more rapid and efficient the development models typically used by F/OSS projects are than their commercial counterparts. What I'm taking away from the last 20 years is that regardless of the state of given F/OSS project at any point in time, the real benefit is thats over the long run, more collaborative dev. models lead to better value than does typical non-F/OSS models which seem to try and maximize market share and shareholder value. And in fact s/w with a long lineage of commercial development may eventually reach an unmaintainable state with questionable value to the consumer.
Why should a company listen to their potential customers? Oh- I dunno, because maybe then the customer might be interested in purchasing the product. While I'm more of a 2-bit nerd then a business expert, I'm pretty sure listening to your customer is an important part of creating, marketing and selling a succesful product.
My first thought on seeing the title (without reading the post or article) was "I'm sure the Edsel team would have liked a do-over also." After reading the wikipedia article on Edsel & the parent Vista post, I wonder if there are parallels that could be drawn between the failures (design flaws, misalignment with market needs, timing, perception/buzz, etc). Both projects were very long, complex & represented significant investments with disappointing payoffs.
1.5 Million?! This seems like a really pathetic cry for help. They must really be scared about the revenue they're losing because they're not evolving with the times. That's too bad.
For putting aside vendor difference and suggesting that IBM be recognized for their alleged efforts. For, in my mind, campaigning against bad spec does indeed make one masterful.
I think we know which is the majority. I searched Amazon, there are no "The Joy of Vista" books.
In the words of Basil Fawlty, "A satisfied customer- we should have him bronzed."
Food for thought: Firewalls on the box are a bit like putting the moat inside the castle walls.
"building 'multi billion dollar industries on the back of our content without paying for it'" This really doesn't carry much weight coming from the lips of somebody's who's basically an agent; IMO, the pinnacle of parasitic business models. Wake up: If you're business model is based on being an intermediary or owning a channel (neither of which adds any value to the product or service)- guess what? It's time to get a new business model. There's an internet now- nobody needs intermediaries or monopolistic channels.
I evaluated Vista for a few weeks in December. Based on this evaluation: in order to compare flaw statistics, I'd suggest collecting data for twice as long a time period as the data collection time period on XP before comparing results.
Ah, the age old "It's not me, it's you." proposition; most often heard during a relationship breakup.
I guess I'm stupid then 'cause I'd put 1/2 my little pile of $ on trees. NXD's disencumber the database developer from having to writet complex mapping code to put hierarchical data in a relational store. In my little corner of the IT wood, I'd say 50% of my data is relational and 50% is hierarchical. Experiences may very but if you have any amount of hierarchical data it sure is nice to not have to worry about that mapping layer. I've done the materialized path, nested intervals, etc. it's all a step in the right direction but for an organization looking to the minimize their code baggage, it sure is nice to make the leap to an NXD; suddenly huge buckets of esoteric code get mothballed. And you're investing in a slower changing standard like xquery (which I view as closer to the declarative end of the spectrum) instead of a more dynamically evolving convetional language (closer to the procedural end of the spectrum), the latter I believe has a higher TCO and, when architecting new systems, bears a higher risk.
Perhaps I'm being naive, but can't you use xquery for this? I was thinking the other yesterday after the Sun/mySQL annoucement that if I had to pick something today likely to follow the same trajectory as Monty's little project that it would be eXist-db, or some other NXD.
Wouldn't this be similar to the the city of Redmond banning MS software in their offices? Is this just one of several parallels between two cultural artifacts? Who has more money and a larger monopoly I wonder?
That ship, my friend, has sailed.