If something is thrown or shot, the orbit will go through the point the shot was fired. You have a problem if that is on earth surface. Even if you are fast enough for a stable orbit you need a rocket to shift that orbit away from your starting point.
"Please Mr. business man, take place in this chair. Mr. Balmer will shortly transfer some momentum to it thusly launching you to the clouds. He's very good at that. Much better than those evil bastards from that other company we can not mention and that doesn't know anything about internet search engines or phone operating systems. He said so himself. We call the program Launches for Sure"
In the agile world blaming is largely seen as counter productive - in Scrum you make the fact that you "forget" to do something visible as soon as possible by interaction with the "culprit" on a very frequent basis.
In the more classical way of working you do a lot of book keeping so that after months or even years you will be able to blame somebody for doing something wrong. That is butt covering, isn't it? It doesn't help preventing or solving the problem in the first place.
Perhaps it could help learning from past mistakes then? In theory perhaps, my experience is that people rarely dig into that kind of data to solve current problems.
[...] the app must be written against a specific cloud api (in some.net language)[...]
That's PaaS (Platform as a service), that's what I would expect from MS, leading to vendor lock-in with specific API's, it could have been more open and portable to your own servers or other PaaS providers. This is the "here are my balls, can you please hold them for a while?" IT planning strategy. It's just not good for you, the party on the squeezing side of the deal however...
From a customers point of view, IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) would make much more sense: paying for VM domains, memory, bandwidth as needed. Probably costs a few percents more than if you did it yourself. Perhaps some more risks for unavailability and nobody you can threaten to fire in that case.
From a software vendor's point of view, you would go for SaaS (Software as a Service). Pricing, continuous revenue, less versions to maintain,...
"shaped like the display screen" isn't a standard format 4:3? 16:9? 16:10? Nor is it a standard resolution...
When I have to do presentations or teach a course I often use either html or pdf - added bonus: no transition effects, animations etc. Html rendering software is always present, pdf almost always PP rarely so.
They have a key differentiator: built in theft prevention - nobody wants to touch it
Re:Oracle is doing everything they can to fuck up
on
Oracle To Monetize Java VM
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Once you're convinced you need such features, chances are you are able and willing to pay for these. The rest of the community could continue steering clear of using vendor lock-in bait for their mission critical applications in Java. It is the classical trick of offering a small incentive so that your codebase is no longer vendor neutral.
Most Application Servers support reloading classloaders, so you can already restart apps without restarting the AS (or the OS of course).
If we're talking about hot swapping parts of code (bug fixes etc. like you can in a debugger) then this will introduce a whole new class of problems - what version of the software is running at a particular point in time? Kind of Continuous Disintegration...
ATG used to have their own J2EE Application Server, so presumably their "high end e-commerce software" is based on J2EE (or JEE) technology so that Oracle has more products to sell.
I learned about them about 5 years ago - a job offer read "ATG Dynamo developer" and I had to explain the guys they better started looking for J2EE developers instead...
I was not attempting to ignore your main point, just focusing on the implied "truth" that software patents are universally accepted. They are not.
Making laws is still the prerogative of states, not companies - although sometimes it might seem that the Disneys/BSAs/Microsofts are in the driving seat.
Companies are cowards when it comes to defending liberties, that is why they prefer to pay or cross licence instead of fighting bad patents or lobbying against software patents. That doesn't mean that these patents are valid, usefull or even beneficiary for anybody. But with that behavior they also imply that they are in favor of software patents. The only ones to benefit from software patents are a few huge companies like MS, IBM etc. that can use it to scare everyone else out of the market, not to protect their so called "intelectual property".
Apparently there is something wrong with your keyboard when you're trying to type 'douchebag' or 'ass'.
But seriously, the point of the Ian Skerrett's 'Dear Oracle, Get a Clue' blog (2nd link) is that it will bite them in that general area. It is already happening - but they don't have a clue.
And such big corporations take a really long time to get aware of game changing realities...
Nah, shouldn't be that hard. As far as I know the OSX-ification of the Java UI is done via an implementation of a PLAF (Pluggable Look and Feel). In that respect Swing is well designed.
62.6% of decision makers in SME's only know about the existence of Windows as a server OS.
83.7% of decision makers would buy anything that is bought by the majority of their peers.
4.23% of decision makers are fed up having to buy extra CALs for their Windows server whenever they hire people, 68.2% don't understand their licensing obligations or how the BSA can raid their premises as a result - and 53.1% wouldn't - frankly my dear - give a damn, even when they would understand the licensing.
97.5% of marketing hype originates from the Microsoft camp - a tiny fraction from the Linux side, our POOTA 2010 (*) calculator had not enough significant decimals to describe it other than 0.0% but since this seems unprofessional, we put down the much nicer 0.0234%
You're paying for the functionality Windows provides, the laptop is just an arbitrary black box to run it on.
No, I don't use Windows. And I've never been able to buy one without Windows - so I always paid between 50-100 € too much. For me it is really a "Windows tax".
Other OS's can not compete on an equal basis. Not on price, not on quality. In most shops in Europe you'll find Acer, HP sometimes Asus... and none offer other OS's. There is no choice.
Compared to other OSes *that are actually sold*, the cost of Windows is average, and pretty much always has been (if not on the relatively cheap side).
There is no other OS you can compare with given these rules.
FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Linux (Red Hat, SuSE, Debian, Slackware) all existed in '94. So did the GNU project. And OS/2. There was choice.
Long before that Windows 95 era, there was GEM in early '85 - a graphical shell on DOS - and later Windows 1.0 in late '85 (but that wasn't really usable until 3.1 in '92). Point is, in a normal market lots of other candidates could have won if our friend Gates would have chosen to write accounting software instead.
Buy a cheap laptop and 10-20% of the price is windows. Want a "professional" or "ultimate" version? Need Office software? Virus scanner? That part can then easily rise to 50%.
MS's anti-competitive behaviour is well documented. If anything, they kept the market closed and therefore the prices artificially high.
The recent MS office revisions strike me as revisions to justify the price, rather than revisions people want.
It is an application of Parkinson's Law, since MS Office generates a lot of revenue, a lot of people are assigned to the project - and a lot of people are looking on how they can "improve" Office and earn their keep.
Of course keeping Office 95 around would probably not generate as much revenue as running a 3-year cycle of of the latest OMG Ponies! Office.
Lots of software has this problem of changing/"improving"/adding driven by manpower instead of necessity. Besides MS Office, I think of KDE4, Adobe Reader,...
Slashdot Mirror
If something is thrown or shot, the orbit will go through the point the shot was fired. You have a problem if that is on earth surface. Even if you are fast enough for a stable orbit you need a rocket to shift that orbit away from your starting point.
Shoot twice, then move gun quickly.
This means that giving Manning the computer violated US law. Do you see anyone charged with violating such US laws? I don't.
If they did charge someone, how would you know?
There is something missing from the concept of democracy when secrecy is the norm...
How can you choose decent representation when you have no idea what your representatives and their workforce get up to?
"Please Mr. business man, take place in this chair. Mr. Balmer will shortly transfer some momentum to it thusly launching you to the clouds. He's very good at that. Much better than those evil bastards from that other company we can not mention and that doesn't know anything about internet search engines or phone operating systems. He said so himself. We call the program Launches for Sure"
Must be true, then.
The story is about the UK, you're jumping the gun here, they're not yet part of the USA. Smells like paranoia.
The AC posted a quote from the Agile Manifesto
In the agile world blaming is largely seen as counter productive - in Scrum you make the fact that you "forget" to do something visible as soon as possible by interaction with the "culprit" on a very frequent basis.
In the more classical way of working you do a lot of book keeping so that after months or even years you will be able to blame somebody for doing something wrong. That is butt covering, isn't it? It doesn't help preventing or solving the problem in the first place.
Perhaps it could help learning from past mistakes then? In theory perhaps, my experience is that people rarely dig into that kind of data to solve current problems.
Mr. Balmer, whether you rename that utter $%#& to "Unix 8" or "Unwind-ow-six" - I will still not like it. And only use it when I get paid a lot.
Why would those giant platforms not become US territory and be subject to the same laws as the mainland?
Two words for the attention span challenged: Precedent. Guantanamo.
[...] the app must be written against a specific cloud api (in some .net language)[...]
That's PaaS (Platform as a service), that's what I would expect from MS, leading to vendor lock-in with specific API's, it could have been more open and portable to your own servers or other PaaS providers. This is the "here are my balls, can you please hold them for a while?" IT planning strategy. It's just not good for you, the party on the squeezing side of the deal however...
From a customers point of view, IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) would make much more sense: paying for VM domains, memory, bandwidth as needed. Probably costs a few percents more than if you did it yourself. Perhaps some more risks for unavailability and nobody you can threaten to fire in that case.
From a software vendor's point of view, you would go for SaaS (Software as a Service). Pricing, continuous revenue, less versions to maintain,...
finding out who to defriend
"shaped like the display screen" isn't a standard format 4:3? 16:9? 16:10? Nor is it a standard resolution...
When I have to do presentations or teach a course I often use either html or pdf - added bonus: no transition effects, animations etc. Html rendering software is always present, pdf almost always PP rarely so.
They have a key differentiator: built in theft prevention - nobody wants to touch it
Once you're convinced you need such features, chances are you are able and willing to pay for these. The rest of the community could continue steering clear of using vendor lock-in bait for their mission critical applications in Java. It is the classical trick of offering a small incentive so that your codebase is no longer vendor neutral.
Most Application Servers support reloading classloaders, so you can already restart apps without restarting the AS (or the OS of course).
If we're talking about hot swapping parts of code (bug fixes etc. like you can in a debugger) then this will introduce a whole new class of problems - what version of the software is running at a particular point in time? Kind of Continuous Disintegration...
ATG used to have their own J2EE Application Server, so presumably their "high end e-commerce software" is based on J2EE (or JEE) technology so that Oracle has more products to sell.
I learned about them about 5 years ago - a job offer read "ATG Dynamo developer" and I had to explain the guys they better started looking for J2EE developers instead...
I was not attempting to ignore your main point, just focusing on the implied "truth" that software patents are universally accepted. They are not.
Making laws is still the prerogative of states, not companies - although sometimes it might seem that the Disneys/BSAs/Microsofts are in the driving seat.
Companies are cowards when it comes to defending liberties, that is why they prefer to pay or cross licence instead of fighting bad patents or lobbying against software patents. That doesn't mean that these patents are valid, usefull or even beneficiary for anybody. But with that behavior they also imply that they are in favor of software patents. The only ones to benefit from software patents are a few huge companies like MS, IBM etc. that can use it to scare everyone else out of the market, not to protect their so called "intelectual property".
[...]patent license fees everyone else has already agreed are valid.
Europe, India, China. I think most inhabitants of our planet still live in jurisdictions that would not recognize such a patent.
It already is
Apparently there is something wrong with your keyboard when you're trying to type 'douchebag' or 'ass'.
But seriously, the point of the Ian Skerrett's 'Dear Oracle, Get a Clue' blog (2nd link) is that it will bite them in that general area. It is already happening - but they don't have a clue.
And such big corporations take a really long time to get aware of game changing realities...
Nah, shouldn't be that hard. As far as I know the OSX-ification of the Java UI is done via an implementation of a PLAF (Pluggable Look and Feel). In that respect Swing is well designed.
62.6% of decision makers in SME's only know about the existence of Windows as a server OS.
83.7% of decision makers would buy anything that is bought by the majority of their peers.
4.23% of decision makers are fed up having to buy extra CALs for their Windows server whenever they hire people, 68.2% don't understand their licensing obligations or how the BSA can raid their premises as a result - and 53.1% wouldn't - frankly my dear - give a damn, even when they would understand the licensing.
97.5% of marketing hype originates from the Microsoft camp - a tiny fraction from the Linux side, our POOTA 2010 (*) calculator had not enough significant decimals to describe it other than 0.0% but since this seems unprofessional, we put down the much nicer 0.0234%
* Pull Out of Thin Air - model 2010
My first thought was about DRM too, and from there immediately to "it 'll only last for a few days"
You're paying for the functionality Windows provides, the laptop is just an arbitrary black box to run it on.
No, I don't use Windows. And I've never been able to buy one without Windows - so I always paid between 50-100 € too much. For me it is really a "Windows tax".
Other OS's can not compete on an equal basis. Not on price, not on quality. In most shops in Europe you'll find Acer, HP sometimes Asus... and none offer other OS's. There is no choice.
Compared to other OSes *that are actually sold*, the cost of Windows is average, and pretty much always has been (if not on the relatively cheap side).
There is no other OS you can compare with given these rules.
No, but she had a long beard.
FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Linux (Red Hat, SuSE, Debian, Slackware) all existed in '94. So did the GNU project. And OS/2. There was choice.
Long before that Windows 95 era, there was GEM in early '85 - a graphical shell on DOS - and later Windows 1.0 in late '85 (but that wasn't really usable until 3.1 in '92). Point is, in a normal market lots of other candidates could have won if our friend Gates would have chosen to write accounting software instead.
Buy a cheap laptop and 10-20% of the price is windows. Want a "professional" or "ultimate" version? Need Office software? Virus scanner? That part can then easily rise to 50%.
MS's anti-competitive behaviour is well documented. If anything, they kept the market closed and therefore the prices artificially high.
Outlook? There are tons of email programs, and Outlook is the very worst email client I've ever used.
Agreed, because Lotus Notes is not an email program.
If OO has an equivalent to PP, someone please correct me.
Impress. And it exports nicely to PDF, Flash and a bunch of other formats. I used that when giving training as fallback....
Still, I prefer using a PDF to underpin a course over presentation software. Prevents one from using distracting animations, transitions etc.
The recent MS office revisions strike me as revisions to justify the price, rather than revisions people want.
It is an application of Parkinson's Law, since MS Office generates a lot of revenue, a lot of people are assigned to the project - and a lot of people are looking on how they can "improve" Office and earn their keep.
Of course keeping Office 95 around would probably not generate as much revenue as running a 3-year cycle of of the latest OMG Ponies! Office.
Lots of software has this problem of changing/"improving"/adding driven by manpower instead of necessity. Besides MS Office, I think of KDE4, Adobe Reader, ...