I barely use Office programs: - MSWord is used for the resume, and I only update it when companies ask. I have about 5 projects to add this year, so I may need to install it again. - MSExcel is used by me for reformatting code to a pattern. I could be using any spreadsheet program, or even a word processor that has decent pattern matching. MSExcel is extremely annoying: there are constant annoying dialog boxes, and a single typo can cause code to disappear. I usually write the formulas in Notepad, then paste it into Excel; and always regret when I forget to do so.
I prefer my information as information rather than entertainment. It is probably because I read books that have hundreds of pages of uniform text with chapter headings every 20 pages and a few blank lines to break the monotony. And I read pages of code where the only formatting is indents.
The latest Harry Potter liberally uses italics, ALL CAPS, bold, and full paragraph indenting. This helps keep the interest of the general public, and explains why the books sell well. Most people are unable to concetrate on plain text. Word processors fill the human need to make information pretty so that it might be read.
= Response =
I'll believe that [OpenOffice is the biggest threat] when OpenOffice is a feature-complete competitor. Sure, the word processor component is fine for smallish [< 200 pages] documents
I do not trust MSWord much. My resume is only 5 pages, and MSWord has destroyed the formatting a couple of times. I have managers that make my reports pretty, and some of the reports can be 50 pages, but I do not have to worry about the formatting: I just tell them what changes I want and they beat on Word until it looks right.
I cannot imagine the headaches of using Word with documents larger than 200 pages. Why aren't you using software meant for publishing?
the [OpenOffice] spreadsheet isn't anywhere near Excel, and Excel is far more firmly entrenched than Word is. There are people who've been using it their entire careers and have a whole arsenal of tricks and macros that only work in Excel, and they'll never give it up.
[Excel is] getting ever closer to high-end statistics packages.
They said the same thing about WordPerfect and Lotus123. The legal industry is still standardized on WordPerfect.
Excel may be more firmly entrenched, but it is used by far fewer people. I doubt anybody could make a program meant for the general public as annoying as Excel. (Sometimes MS is able to amaze me.) OTOH, most techies know the difference between a spreadsheet and a database. The arsenal of tricks and macros is used to force a spreadsheet to act like a database. Your example is perfect: statistics need to be processed in databases, but spreadsheets are easier to understand so people hack at spreadsheets rather than using the proper tool. You can blame this on Borland: if they had not killed DBase, then MS would have made Access competitive.
I am always surprised how many people use Access. I saw a listing of number of job postings by technology, and Access was one of the most popular. Access is truly awful, but people rarely look for alternatives. I keep hoping the PostgreSQL people finish their port to Windows. That MySQL is more popular than PostgreSQL demonstrates that ease of use is more important than being usable.
a lot of Slashbots like to criticize Access and Powerpoint too, but a lot of people rely on them far more than they rely on Word.
I have hated Access and PowerPoint since I first saw them about the time they were released. I have had to use them for specific uses every few years, and they have not improved much. Joining Slashdot was like finding long lost family.
If every presentation programs' files disappeared from the world, we would not lose much information. But they give managers somet
I don't think he meant Open Office vs MS Office, tho'.
I think OpenOffice is the biggest threat to MS. Two-thirds of MS's profits come from MSOffice. Any Office replacement is a big threat even without desktop Linux threatening the other one-third of MS's profits (MSWindows). If all the major companies switched to OpenOffice on Windows, which seems possible once v2 is released, then MS loses most of their income. That must be considered a major threat to MS.
The process can avalanche. If a few powerful companies migrate, and insist that all communications are in a format they can read, then everybody who deals with them will migrate too. This affects home users too. If a company only accepts resume submissions in OpenOffice format, then home users will need to install it to do their resume.
MS has used this process for the last 10 years to force everybody to upgrade to the latest version of MSOffice. A major company upgrades. All of their vendors have to upgrade to keep the business. Many associated businesses have to upgrade, and the process keeps spreading.
But the next "upgrade" will probably be to OpenOffice, wiping MSOffice from corporate computers in less than 3 years. MS could slow the process by teaching MSWord to default save to the new format. MS cannot extend the format when embracing it since just adding this feature is admitting that MS has lost control of the word processing document file format.
Once the users are comfortable in OpenOffice, the switch to another OS becomes much easier (and MS could lose the rest of their income.)
Creative genius and crime express themselves early in men but both are turned off almost like a tap if a man gets married and has children, a study says.
So do geniuses and criminals get married when they are ready to settle down and fit into society? Or does marriage tame them?
Will we have alternate sentences? The judge says, "You have one year to get married or you will live in jail for the next 10 years?"
Will Bill Gates set up a free matchmaking service for geniuses who are innovating in the computer field? Maybe he'll pay for pretty women to go after them?
It could be a fun experiment (speaking as a single genius who is currently designing the next revolution in information technology.)
To me, code that does not check error conditions is the primary attribute of "dirty" code. So "correct and proper" code would be longer if all you did was add error catching. But the "article" defined "correct" as properly documented, well engineered, process followed.
As a consultant, my "process" is to talk to the client, sleep on it, write code, ask for clarification, sleep, write code, demo it while mentioning additional features that occured to me as I wrote it, repeat as needed, then deploy. I take notes constantly and comment code thoroughly. (Self-defense: I was brought back in 1997 to work on an application I had written in 1991.) I doubt this process is followed by anybody else, but I have yet to have an unsuccessful project.
Design documentation happens during development. I cannot help it. I give functions and variables very descriptive names, such as "counter" instead of "i". I type my design notes as comments, then code around them, adding more comments anytime I pause to think. If there is anything tricky about the data store or the workflow, I add a note that describes how it works. - Instructions are added during the reviews with the users (demonstrations and training) because then I can see what needs more clarification. Most of the instructions appear where they are needed, rather than in dedicated "Help". - During a review to make certain that every application followed their guidelines, DuPont called me to ask where was the "Help" documentation for an application that had been in production for 16 months. I asked if anybody had complained or had difficulty using it, wanting to understand what needed to be documented. They talked to the happy users (salepeople, lawyers, and other office workers), and called back with "Nevermind."
"Well-engineered" was the point of my earlier post. A little thought at design time can cut the total amount of code. On performance-tuning contracts, I have replaced hundreds of lines of code with less than 10 lines that function the same, except the new code does MORE error checking. The original code was the "quick and dirty" code written by less knowledgable programmers. It was more error prone, had to have taken more time to type, and needed more QA, which it had not received (which is why I was hired.)
Maybe it is because of experience, maybe it is just my nature, but I cannot use any variable without checking its last use or automatically resetting it. - I also assume all input is bad. I usually work with Lotus Notes, which never guarantees a field is on a record. So my code always checks if each field exists before getting the value. The habit carries across platforms. I wrote a C program for Oracle data that had these checks in there. Yeah, they probably slowed it down a little, but my client was real happy when the DBA did an "upgrade".
--- C requires much experience in the programmer to be able to catch every possible error. I love its ability to work directly with hardware, but it is a major pain to write code that deals with every possible case. I usually add comments with every function stating what cases are not handled by the code, but this depends on programmers reading the documentation. This is why I prefer Java (today): I give up some control, but development takes less time since more possible bugs are caught during compile. (And you can decompile and read the Java code of commercial products when they do not work as expected. Decompiled C is not much fun.)
Java has the throw->try-catch-catch so that the compiler knows when the programmer was unable to deal with a particular case. It means that programmers who are writing code for reuse can tell later programmers when something is not handled. It beats the documentation method, since programmers can write code knowing the compiler will yell. - Rarely, the "error" does not matter. An example is an InterruptedException in the middle of a loop that is waiting for another process to finish. T
I think the question is wrong. It is not "quick and dirty" versus "correct and proper", with the assumption that "correct" takes longer. Usually a little thought about design can greatly reduce the amount of code required. Less code means less development effort, less documentation, and fewer bugs.
You may need to try several algorithms to prove which one is the best, but this becomes instinctive with experience. Soon you will not need to code several approaches; just list the options, picture the code in your head, and drop the longer ones.
Back in college (1989), my C teacher enjoyed my homework code because it was less than one page while the other students turned in 4 or more pages. A good portion of it was pointers and the ability in C to make one-line "for" loops that moved blocks of memory. I had to comment each line, because they were so cryptic that I would forget what they did before the code was done. But the programs were short, worked, and were maintainable with the comments.
Yesterday at a client, I refactored some code. A few minutes earlier I had copied a function to make it work with a different global list. (The lists hold configuration data, so globals make sense. And the code is loaded for each run, so there is no chance of contaminating other portions of the app.) This was now the third copy of almost identical code. AFTER PROVING THE NEW FUNCTIONALITY WORKED, I made a generic function that took the list as a parameter and replaced the calls. Tested again, then removed the original functions. - The original code worked. It was not "dirty". But the new code is shorter and more maintainable.
In the last week, we made a major architectural algorithm change to my company's product. The original code split a request into two parts, handled each request separately, then merged the results. This was "dirty" because a hack was needed to make transfer data from one portion of the request to the other during the merge. But it worked for the last 2 years: it allowed us to write the lower level code, and it did not affect the functionality. - We just added functionality where the hack would interfere. Now the requests must be handled as one. Because all of the lower level functionality existed, we were able to make the change with about 40 lines of code, replacing over 100 lines. There is still code that refers to the hack which will never be triggered because the input will never have the hacked parameters. We will remove the obsolete code AFTER the next release to save the need to retest many of the modules. (We are really close to the next release.) - This hack was almost "quick and dirty". It was done because at the time it was designed, none of the lower level code was available, and we could not envision how to integrate the two requests, and there was no need for them to be integrated. The hack to merge the data was added when we realized some data from one request was needed by the other, but it was extremely simple to pass the data. We remained aware of the issue, and were ready to "fix" it when some functionality required the integration. Since the separation occurred at a very high level, and everything was planned with awareness that this change would come, the integration was accomplished quickly. - We spent 2 days planning the change before writing any code. Because of this, the code took about 3 hours to implement. If we had just sat down and started coding, we would still be working on it, and probably have a buggy mess. Another benefit is that the new code is shorter and more maintainable.
Better design always requires less code, which requires less development effort.
I try not to write code the same day the specs are given to me. Tell the PHBs that the code will be need to wait for tomorrow. Your subconcious will work on it while you sleep, and the solution should be better, cleaner, and SHORTER.
The major difference is how the technology was first marketed.
Toasters Put bread in slots. Push lever. Wait. They have not changed much.
TV Initially, it was turn volume knob from OFF to desired volume. Turn other knob to change channels.
Wait a generation for everyone to understand. Add cable, so we need more input because there are too many channels to fit on the knob. Add VCRs, which people still cannot understand. Add a DVD player. Add surround sound speakers. Then add a remote control for each device. Then add universal remotes so that you destroy the cable settings when trying to change the channel. But most people can eventually learn how to treat their systems as if they had one control for volume and one for choosing channels, and that is all they need.
Phone Initially, lift handset, tell operator who you are calling, wait until connected.
Then, lift handset, dial a number, wait until connected.
Then came answering machines, caller id, voicemail, conferencing. Many business people cannot transfer a call. But most phones are still usable with the "lift handset, dial number, talk" instructions.
Car They initially had controls for "move faster", "move slower", and "turn". Then they added the clutch to change gears, but that was too complicated for most people so the automatic transmission was invented. Now a "gear" needs to be chosen, but most people only use Park, Drive, and Reverse. How many drivers understand the 1 and 2 settings? They have learned to turn on the headlights and wipers, but rarely remember to use turn signals. And please get off the road before adjusting your radio.
Computers Home computers started with kits: put the boards together and hook it to your TV with this device, then type these commands, type in a program and this command to run it.
Then came the closed box: Atari, Commodore: attach these cables to this box and your TV, and plug in this cartridge.
Then we had dedicated computers with their own monitors, but programs needed to be run from floppies, so put in the floppy and run this command.
It is not much simpler today. Plug these power cables into your computer and monitor. Attach the monitor cable. Attach the keyboard, mouse, and speakers to the color-coded connectors hidden on the back. To run a program, put in the CD, or click on this icon.
Computers are one of the few technologies to be marketed before the controls were understandable by the general public. They ARE getting simpler. The best today is the wireless laptop (and a wireless router installed by the cable company): plug in power, click icons. (And laptop pointer controls are still not very user-friendly.) No wires, no extra devices. But that is not yet inexpensive enough to be common.
First: If you truly believe this, buy MSFT. You will get the dividends as Bill guts the company. And you believe MS will recover, so you believe you will not lose on the stock price.
I agree the down stock price is due to the recession or dot com bust or whatever it is called today. But I do not believe they will recover. You can trust Bill Gates to figure out how to take control of the next path of the computer industry, but he is a follower: - MS almost missed the GUI revolution; there were several serious competitors that were a few months late. - MS did miss the Internet revolution, but was able to use its desktop monopoly to recover; that monopoly is being eroded. - Web-based enterprise software is primarily Java based today; will.net be able to keep up, nevermind destroy the installed base?
I do believe that "their core users, business and personal desktops, will be wrenched from their hands anytime soon." Many of my clients are seriously considering banning MsOffice and MsOutlook wherever possible. So we disagree.
I do not see Linux as the biggest threat to MS. It allows an alternative, but to take advantage of that alternative, companies need alternatives to the MS-based software. OpenOffice is a valid alternative to MsOffice, and that is more of a threat to MS. Without the proprietary file formats, they lose the market. (Besides, 2/3rds of their profit comes from MsOffice, 1/3rd from MsWindows. Kill MsOffice and MS is hurting!)
Those "nightmarish offerings from IBM" allow me (one person) to write and deploy applications in days that are scalable and so user-friendly that 30,000 people can understand them without one word of documentation. They also allow clueless developers to write and deploy similar applications in a few months. Give Lotus Notes Designer to your favorite PHB and watch him become a productive application developer in weeks.
IBM's Text Properties box is considered to be much easier to understand than MS's menu driven system for changing text styles. Your best argument is that MS software is more usable, but it only seems more usable because it is more familiar to the users. When the users have a chance to learn alternative software, they become more productive. (Did you curse at MsWord today? Or were you too busy reinstalling because a MsOutlook virus ate your hard drive?)
The IBM email system has many advantages from both the user and administration perspectives. I have watched several Notes to Exchange migrations: the number of IT administrators at least tripled every time. From the user perspective, MS's big advantage is that their system operates more like their file system; give the users a week with Lotus Notes and they are just as comfortable. Many companies are banning the use of MsOutlook because of the constant stream of security holes being found.
The only functional advantage for using MS is the calendaring. I admit it seems they did it right. As I understand it, IBM was attempting to implement what appeared to be becoming the industry standards. As usual, MS completely ignored the standards. Not usual is that the resulting functionality is quite good.
I dislike IDEs, so I cannot comment much about their development tools. I have used Visual Studio, and it made me wish I had a 30" screen, but that is a problem with most IDEs. The class libraries for their languages seem to be complicated for the sake of complication. IBM's languages have less levels, and so make it easier to be productive, but they sometimes leave out basic functionality. The Slashdot story about using hidden MS API tricks suggests that MS also has this problem. IBM does have the C API for when you need "hidden" functionality, but its use usually ties the code to one platform. OTOH, any use of MS software ties the code to one platform.
I only see Apples when I work with artists. I thought they had 5% of new sales, and 12% of the installed base, due to less turnover. This could be wrong.
But IBM has not ported a critical piece of their own software to Linux clients.
GOOD Clients for DB2 seem to have been ported to Linux.
Tivoli clients have been ported to RedHat and SuSE.
Rational seems to have been ported only for RedHat. It also works for SuSE if you are running IBM hardware. (Is this a marketing ploy or because of technical difficulties?)
WebSphere has a developer client for Linux. I first thought it was not available, then I found this mention of it. But I could not find it in the Buy Now area.
BAD Lotus does not have Linux clients. IBM recommends running the client under WINE, but this is not acceptable for Fortune 500 companies with tens of thousands of desktops.
This is the killer. DB2, Rational, and WebSphere are used by developers. Tivoli is used by administrators. Every employee needs to use the mail client and information resources and collaboration abilities of the Lotus Notes client. Without a Linux version of the Lotus Notes client, many companies cannot migrate to Linux desktops. Also, Lotus Notes is the only commercial software with significant marketshare to compete with MsOutlook.
So, yes, IBM is pushing Linux for servers. But they control one of the major blocks for the Linux desktop in the corporate world, and they are letting us down.
You are correct that Bill Gates is not the CEO. That means he is not officially responsible for running the company.
However, Bill Gates is the Chairmain of the Board. The Board of Directors are elected by the stockholders to represent the stockholders interests. All decisions that relate to issuing shares and paying dividends are handled by the Board. As Chairman, Bill Gates is very influential in any decision about paying dividends. The Board could declare a dividend while the company is losing money, which the a responsible CEO would normally recommend against doing.
Microsoft is about to die. Bill Gates knows this. Most of his "wealth" is due to the value of his Microsoft stock. MS has $40 billion in cash. Bill Gates needs to transfer as much of that money from Microsoft into his own pocket. Paying dividends is one of the more obvious methods to accomplish this.
Paying dividends will also keep the price of MS stock higher than it would be if MS did not pay dividends. The stock has been dropping steadily since Jan 2000. It is unlikely that MS stock will ever start climbing again. But the idea that large dividends will be paid regularly will cause many people to buy and hold the stock even as MS dies.
--- Reasons I believe MS will die: 1. MS has diversified. Most of the divisions lose money. The server software breaks even. Almost all profit comes from 2 products: MsWindows and MsOffice. Without these products, the company will need to live off its savings. IIRC, MS burns $10 billion per year. So MS could last 4 years if they did not pay dividends. They can also trim costs to last longer. I believe moving jobs to India is being done for this reason.
2. MsOffice is under atttack from OpenOffice and the supported proprietary versions. Many businesses have already converted, and many others are evaluating their options. The migration is building momentum. As more companies migrate away from MsOffice, more companies will need to transfer files in formats that the previously migrated companies can read. The proprietary MS.doc format preserved their monopoly for many years. Now it will hurt their ability to keep the market.
3. MS has never owned the server OS market. They have dominated the desktop market. 12% use Macs. 1% use "other". That means MsWindows has maintained 87%. Much of the reason to use MsWindows is to be able to use MsOffice. That is handled above; other reasons to believe MsWindows will die are below.
- Linux is gaining marketshare. It has several advantages. Its biggest advantage is mindshare among computer gurus. The GUI has become usable by the public. Computer gurus now install Linux on desktops for their friends and family, because they have less worries about viruses and crashes. Now the big problem is the availability of applications. The two biggest categories are commercial software, such as Photoshop and Lotus Notes, and games for the home consumer.
- Adobe is porting Photoshop to Mac OSX. Porting from OSX to Linux should be trivial. But most graphics professionals use Macs, so whether PS is available for Linux does not affect the corporate market much.
- IBM claims to be supporting Linux, but their most widely used product has not been ported. I am referring to the Notes client. (The Domino server was ported several years ago.) Notes is the only email/groupware/collaboration product to match corporate marketshare with MsExchange and MsOutlook. For many of the Fortune 500 to migrate from MsWindows to Linux desktops, they need the Lotus Notes client to be available on Linux. If IBM were truly commited to Linux, they would already have ported their software products. Ask them when the Lotus Notes client for Linux will be available.
IBM's Lotus SameTime has been able to do this for years. I saw a working demonstration of it in 1999.
Since it is IBM, I am certain that every aspect is already patented. The MS patent may have been missed, because it is the absolutle worst possible method for doing translations. (Yeah, I read the "article"/patent application.)
The differentiating point: the message is translated prior to delivery
I believe SameTime does the translation in the server. The advantage is that the dictionaries can be updated frequently, and the processing happens on a machine that can handle it. The disadvantage is that you must have a server, so this will not work with true P2P chat clients.
For P2P chat clients, the best scenario is to have the receiver translate the message. Why should the sender's PC do the work? The receiver can translate according to the receiver's dictionary, which can be changed by the receiver. So if you are in IT, "server" is translated to "central computer", and if you are in the food industry, "server" is translated to "waiter/waitress". (I love reading Google-translated technical documentation about installing software on waiters.) The receiver can also set abbreviations, so "computer", "server", and "desktop" all translate to "PC".
If having the receiver do the translation has not been patented, this post is prior art and is released into the public domain. Just to be certain it is legal, here is the abstract:
A method and system translating instant messages between users who communicate in different languages is presented. Two or more users engaged in an instant messaging session compose messages according to a source language or destination language. The source language corresponds to the preferred language of the user of the device that sends messages during the session, while the destination language corresponds to the preferred language of the user of a device that receives sent messages. During the session, devices send source language information with each message. A content translation module implemented as a computer-executable module (e.g., DLL, exe, so) utilizes the information contained in the user profile to translate messages from the source language to the destination language. The received message is translated before the message is displayed. Because the message is translated after delivery, the destination device translates the message according to its local dictionary.
Ok, BAD! I'm still using Network Solutions. Flame me later.
I have several domains for my use and the use of my own business. All of them are at Network Solutions.
I also am a consultant who needs to be able to create new domains for businesses, usually because of a merger. I have the business people brainstorm a few keywords, and then run a quick program to identify which are available. My program does not work with the new requirement for OCR.
I am certain that most spammers will have little difficulty bypassing this restriction. And I am certain that I could do it if it was important. But I taught the last customer how to do it and said call me when they have a new domain; it is not worth my time to write a program to do it when I'll only use it every 6 months, and I can easily transfer the responsibility.
I wrote to Network Soultions asking that as a customer I be given some method to check domains. It could be limited to 100 per day, and 400 per month. They make a sale if I find one that satisfies my customers. They replied with instructions for using the current system, including a line about typing in the letters in the picture. [sarcasm]It was a great help.[/sarcasm]
I have 4 domains that will need renewal this year. The last time I tried to renew with Network Solutions, it took 3 tries on the web and 4 phone calls giving my credit card each time, and 2 months later someone else owned the domain. The domain had not been advertised, so it was not a particular hardship for me, but I cannot lose any other domains. Any advice on transferring to another registrar? Especially one that makes it easy for customers to check for available domains.
People don't care about science, they don't understand science for the most part. People understand people, they like to read stories about normal people in extraordinary circumstances, that's why `reality tv' is so popular.
Could this be the way to get the funding to actually go to Mars?
Could we assemble a crew that has the technical knowledge to be successful, and the personalities to be stuck with just a small group for a very extended period while being watched by the whole TV-watching population of the world? Start with a good mix of sexually potent and liberal men and women and it could be some of the best reality entertainment. As least it would create the public interest to make it possible. It would also give the public insight into the wonders (and problems) of zero or low gravity sex, while giving the crew a method to avoid boredom. (Remember the background story of "Stranger in a Strange Land"?)
I live in the US, so it would need to be shown on a cable channel, and the media conglomerates would probably still turn it down. The show would probably be great for a startup, maybe SBC = Space Broadcasting Company. Are there any extremely rich people who would want to start a space exploration and entertainment company?
I wish you posted links. This is probably very informative, but I think I missed the message.
ADHD can be hard to distinguish from giftedness I was classified "gifted" by the time I was four years old. Everybody talked about my "great potential", but nobody could offer me the opportunity to learn at my own pace. I retreated into books for much of my childhood, since they would let me absorb knowledge quickly, and I could skip between topics as my attention moved.
Are there gifted people who do not have these traits? Are most people with these traits considered gifted?
subtle distinctions Please post a reply with more information. I am interested.
ADHD is an impairment uniform across environments The last D is for Disorder. The reason the doctors preferred not to give me drugs is because they felt my condition benefited my life more than it hurt, so it was not a disorder.
except where ADHD itself has survival value, namely combat and settling new territory I do not think of programming as combat; it could be considered new territory. In today's world, where programmers can make much money, and the bank account is one of the chief indexes of your ability to survive, then ADHD may "have survival value." But since it hurts my ability to reproduce, it is also bad for survival of my genes.
Off-topic: Actually, I have had many opportunites to have a family within or without wedlock, but I keep deciding against permanent relationships with the women. Part of the reason is their inability to deal with my focusing on many things at one time. They believe "focus" implies only one train of thought; I am either thinking about something or not thinking about it. Maybe I only "focus" when I am "in the zone", although I often program with a guitar in my lap and a book opened next to me.
giftedness is temperamental and choosy of its environment I am not certain what this means. I excelled at math, science, computers, music, drawing, painting, sculpture, care for animals, construction, many sports, and more. I realize others are more focused in their talents, but I do whatever seems fun, and tend to be really good at it.
Short attention span is not ADHD, that would be called slow learning instead. I do not have a short attention span. I just focus on many things at once.
Distractability is not ADHD Same concept. Although I must take great care to keep conversations on one track at a time, or I will say three sentences at once, one on each topic we are discussing, or on a new topic that occurred to me during the conversation. When I am excited, I go into overdrive and interrupt myself. The spoken language does not allow data transfer anywhere near the speed new ideas occur to me. Conversations with me can be difficult for most people to handle. To survive in the business world, I have learned to censor myself. While talking about one topic, I often take notes on other topics so I can remember what the other person has not heard yet.
neither is boredom I never feel bored. I just focus on something new. Although my employers and girlfriends are great about noticing my lack of interest for me.
neither are narrow focuses and passions. I do not have narrow focuses or passions. Even my computer knowledge has great breadth: business processes, hardware, software, networking, administration, programming in many languages. I work based on the highest paid niches, but the knowledge of everything else adds value.
ADHD is a neurological condition of physical unhibition when distracted; it impairs comparison of impulses and reflexes with the higher level planning located elsewhere in the brain. See the Sci. Am. article by Barkley, September 1998. Again, could you clarify this?
I do not know what "unhibition" means. Was it a typo?
It seems to say that the ability to plan your thoughts is derailed easily: that I ignore my plans for my time when something new attracts my focus, which seems accurate.
I was often in danger of failing school. The lack of focus meant I would learn many things while the teacher would focus on one. Luckily, I have good memory and almost no learning curve, so I could absorb the current lesson, and bring it back to my forebrain with a quick review just before tests. But our education system is not designed for people like me.
The hyperactivity and tendency to interrupt with the answer made me unpopular. Other students discourage "know-it-alls". Again, our education system is about conforming, and we do not.
I was fired from almost every job I had until I was 25. I would learn the job quickly and perform outstandingly for a while. By the fourth month, I was bored and it would affect my performance. I was not wise enough to quit before my performance caused my termination, even when I knew it was about to happen.
There is a perfect job for me, and that is what I have done for the last 7 years. It is called "consulting". I am not using the word to mean a worker that is not on the payroll, but is working in the same position for 6 months or more. I consult. My job is to provide a very high level of expertise to accomplish certain tasks, and then leave. My projects run from hours to about 4 months. I started two projects in February. I spent all of April working for a different company. I worked for a third company for one day in May. There have been other projects for these companies, and I am finishing the original two projects this week. If I had to only work on a single project for more than 4 months, my productivity would suffer. Luckily, I have found a niche where I can contribute and thrive.
Required for programmers
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Several girlfriends have made me go to the doctor to ask for a cure. Several doctors said that if the condition does not interfere with life, then I should not worry about it. The girlfriends were not happy with the doctors, but I was off the hook for a while. Last year, a woman broke up with me for the reason: "You get bored and distracted too easily." So it does interfere with my personal life, but I never want to take mood-altering drugs.
One doctor said that the condition was probably a large factor in my success. The ability to jump from topic to topic meant I could handle the chaos of IT in the corporate world. The hyperactivity meant I could keep moving at a fast pace and accomplish more than normal people. And the other side of ADD is that sometimes I focus on one task so much that I cannot give attention to anything else, but that symptom defines the programmer "in the zone."
It definitely has a positive effect on my work life. It definitely has a negative effect on long term relationships.
I have the choice of: 1. Being high-income and productive, OR 2. Taking drugs to keep the relationships towards having a family.
I have chosen #1. I still hope to find a woman who wants to keep me as I am. I figure that I do not want a woman who could only live with me if I am drugged. But I almost regret the lost opportunity of having a family.
BTW, this condition is the primary reason for my sig.
SCO is announcing that they are responsible for every version of Unix and have the right to protect the proprietary changesmade by any of the vendors. AIX has been heavily modified by IBM. I am fairly certain that IBM does not want SCO to protect AIX from anything.
Can SCO possibly believe they will get the rights to the modifications made by the distibutors of UNIX? The only system where custom changes are (usually) given back to the "owners" is the GPL. SCO has already proven they do not understand the GPL or how it affects business or software.
revenue from international customers accounted for 48 percent of operating system platform revenue.
IBM is an international company. (The "I" in "IBM".) Oops, you mentioned that. Or is "multinational" different than "international"? Maybe they sell in several countries, but never ship anything from one country to another.
MS is an international company. They sold their source code to China, and just gave SCO money that may be half of SCO's revenue.
SCO's "international" customers may just be those terrorists taked about in other posts.
Does the SEC have a particular meaning for the phrase "international customers"? Does it mean any international company? Can it refer to US companies that have divisions outside the US? Can it refer to a company that has sold goods outside our borders? Since the SEC is US-based, can they use the word "foreign" to mean a customer does not have a presence in the US?
Disclaimer: I do not have a Zaurus and do not remember if I ever saw one in real life.
Polyphonic means able to play more than one note at a time. A flute is monophonic. A piano is polyphonic. A device claiming to be polyphonic can play chords, or have a drum beat, a bass line, and a melody.
The Nokia cell phones I've owned and my current Motorola V60 had monophonic ringers. The V60 has the ability to write music on the phone, but it is difficult to write songs with just a melody line using the cheesy tone. If it was polyphonic, or had another tone, it would be much better for composing while on the road.
I saw the Segway at DisneyWorld, and would love to play with one. Except for security guards at large campuses (educational, corporate, or entertaining), I could not think of a market for them. But ptorrone looked at his life, the Segway, and saw a good fit.
I live in the suburbs: the usual trip is 30 minutes at 50mph, except for buying groceries, and the Segway does not have a trunk. (We were discussing adding a trailer the last time the Segway was mentioned on Slashdot.)
These things would be very dangerous in the city. Are they classified as weapons in NYC yet?
Are they meant for use on sidewalks or roads? I live at the border where sidewalks disappear. Any farther from the city and there are none. Where is the market? Is it just for people who live a few miles from work? Does the culture in Seattle allow for Segways to become the dominant form of travel?
--- As far as teasing ptorrone, he fit a Segway into his life, and his life is better for it. From his website, it also saves money. Maybe someday he will save enough to buy a keyboard with a SHIFT key.
(I assume anybody who does not capitalize correctly is either a foreigner or an employee of MICROSOFT. Germans have their own rules, which leads to interesting variable and function names. MS let everything be uppercase for BASIC and DOS. Then when the standards for HTML were all uppercase, MS insisted that everything be lowercase. Since ptorrone never types an uppercase character and lives in Seattle, I assume he works for MS and started after 1996. It is better to assume they are different than to assume they are stupid.)
Every programmer who learned BASIC from the mid-70s until around 1990 learned the corrupted version of the language from MS. I believe that MS wrote that interpreter because it looked easy, they could almost understand the language, and it was not popular, so they could change anything they had difficulty programming into the interpreter. They then sold the interpreters to most of your 37 completely incompatible platforms. While you could not exchange floppy disks, you could type in the source of any BASIC program and expect it to run with a little work.
MS was able to make the deal for DOS because IBM wanted the same BASIC interpreter as every other platform.
From the first, MS took someone else's work, wrote their own incompatible and corrupt version of it, and then marketed it into the leader. They continue this tradition very well.
I am sorry that your wife chose a business that had a limited lifespan. 16 years ago was 1987, so it was not obvious at the time that it was limited, but she needs to find a new focus of the business is to survive.
"Publishers" had 3 purposes: 1. Searching: Finding interesting material. 2. Editing: Fixing the material to conform to stndards. 3. Distribution: Spreading the material geographically.
1. Searching for good material is still difficult, but only because most creators do not post their material on the web. Someone will make much money by creating a website where new material can be rated by users. Amazon and others have a good start, but they only rate materials after the materials have been selected by publishers. How can they rate my book when I have not made it available?
If authors release their works on the web, publishers could make money by providing rating systems and headlining a book per month. Can the publishers make money with this type of service? Will they pass some of the money to the authors? Can they make their service so much better than amateur websites that people will pay for it?
2. Editing is still a very useful function, but it is underrated by everyone. Spell-checkers and Grammar-checkers reduce much of the work. Style-checkers are more important.
A friend just self-published a book. He wrote it, then had it printed by a "publisher". I do not know what tools were used, but I asked about editing and he said that the publisher did none. My first criticism was that he used passive voice for the first two chapters and switched to active voice for the rest. Since most people decide whether a book is worth reading during the first few chapters, this could have a major impact on its popularity. A human editor should have caught the issue.
I recently read a book titled "The Mushroom Man". It is in the New Books section of my library, so I assume it followed the normal publication process for books. The entire story is told from the third-person perspective, which keeps the reader from getting involved with the characters. It also has the problem that the main plot is a children's story, but the main subplot is very adult-oriented, with concepts and language that will keep it out of the children's section. This is the author's first book. If the author had advice from an experienced editor, the entire book could have been rewritten from the perspective of one or two characters. The adult subplot should have been dropped. These two concepts would have made the book much more readable, and given it a clearly focused audience.
Another example was "Snow Falling on Cedar" or something like that. It had a good story, but the sections concerning sex and war were the extremely boring. How did that get past an editor? I think the author is famous for his work in other areas, so maybe he was able to bully the editor. Usually war and sex add exceitement to anything; here it was painful.
Publishers could assist authors in fixing books, but who pays? Will they work with an author for free, or will they charge the author? I doubt most beginning authors have the finances to pay for the service.
3. Distibution has been changed by the internet. The internet has reduced the cost of distribution for anything that can be transmitted as bits to almost nothing. In a few decades, publishers will not be able to make any money from distribution. Yes, this includes music and video as well as written words. Publishers may be able to provide central places for downloads, but they cannot prevent others from duplicating their work. I have not even found the questions that could make efforts at distribution profitable.
I am asking more questions than I am providing information. All industries based on providing content that can be reduced to bits are in danger, and need to transform to survive. Some have already disappeared.
A friend worked for AMEX business travel. Her job was to find the bes
Classes in this package, along with java.lang.Class accommodate applications such as debuggers, interpreters, object inspectors, class browsers, and services such as Object Serialization and JavaBeans that need access to either the public members of a target object (based on its runtime class) or the members declared by a given class.
--- I believe the reflection classes exist specifically for tasks that require run-time access to the definitions of a class. It would be very difficult to build a generic debugger without them. If the application is not a tool to work with the programming language, then the reflection classes should be avoided.
Using reflection classes for normal operations is a hack. It ALWAYS means there is a lack of programming skill somewhere. In this case, the MS.net API designers forgot to make public methods to modify ACLs.
--- I tried to avoid the security discussion. If someone can modify the run-time environment to have access to the code, the application is already cracked. If the code is in a client, then the user is cracking his own data. If there is interaction with a server, it is the server's responsibility to verify incoming commands from all clients. If it is a P2P application, then every client performs as a server and must verify incoming commands.
There are only security considerations if this allows MS apps to break MS security. But it assumes the cracker has the ability to put code on the machine. If that assumption is correct, then security is broken with or without this ability.
This is not about security. It is about good programming.
Another poor API from MS
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If the alternative to writing tons of code is accessing private functions of the internal API, then the API was designed very poorly.
Everybody seems to agree that a quick ACL changer is useful. The code already exists in private functions. If the private functions should not be public because they bypass data reliability checks, the API designers should provide a public function that provides a safe method to call the private function.
Encapsulation should be an absolute law. The maintenance headaches of ignoring encapsulation should be too great to encourage bypassing it.
Providing useful functionality in private functions without allowing the functionality through public functions is security through obscurity. It either enourages programmers to write poor code, or forces the programmers to do extra work. The whole point of "platforms" is that they greatly reduce the amount of code needed to implement an application while providing basic functionality such as security and networking.
Imagine if Apache did not exist and every application needed to implement a web server. Every web project would require much more code. Now imagine if the only method to get Apache to display a web page was to use tricks to access private functions. Everybody would do it. Now imagine MS wrote the API. Oops, that is what we have here. Really basic and useful functionality is hidden from the programmer. "Luckily" the platform security is so poor that everybody knows how to access the functions anyway.
Apparently these tricks are posted on Microsoft's web site (based on from other posts since I am not going to check.) Apparently MS knows the functions are useful. Apparently MS knows the language is broken.
Will MS fix the API? Will MS fix the language? Will MS encourage these tricks? Will MS break the code that uses these tricks? Will MS reduce the amount of work necessary to write apps on their platform? Will MS divide programmers between the - experienced ones who know the illegal tricks, - newbies who thought documentation was complete, and - good programmers who expect MS to fix the code someday and are not willing to risk using these tricks?
I am happy I am not one of those programmers who is faced with the choice to write good code or write MS code.
First, Windows 95 was so much better than Windows 3.1 that anybody who had Win3.1 immediately upgraded.
Second, Win95 appeared in 1995, just as the web became the killer app for the general populace. It wasn't Win95 that made people buy computers; it was Netscape and Amazon. Netscape had matured the year before, and Amazon opened in July 1995. Win95 is what they got stuck with because the only other OS for the general public was Apple, and a computer with the Apple OS was much more expensive. Someone walking into an electronics store wanting "that internet thing" would go home with a pre-built system running Win95. Then they would call support to ask how to plug it in.
Without checking any facts, I believe most systems sold then were Compaq or Gateway. IBM and HP were expensive. Dell was for direct sales.
Now there is much inertia to switching people from Windows. Wait until most companies have banned Windows. Then corporate workers will be comfortable with the new interface and insist on it for home.
Slashdot Mirror
= Introduction =
I barely use Office programs:
- MSWord is used for the resume, and I only update it when companies ask. I have about 5 projects to add this year, so I may need to install it again.
- MSExcel is used by me for reformatting code to a pattern. I could be using any spreadsheet program, or even a word processor that has decent pattern matching. MSExcel is extremely annoying: there are constant annoying dialog boxes, and a single typo can cause code to disappear. I usually write the formulas in Notepad, then paste it into Excel; and always regret when I forget to do so.
I prefer my information as information rather than entertainment. It is probably because I read books that have hundreds of pages of uniform text with chapter headings every 20 pages and a few blank lines to break the monotony. And I read pages of code where the only formatting is indents.
The latest Harry Potter liberally uses italics, ALL CAPS, bold, and full paragraph indenting. This helps keep the interest of the general public, and explains why the books sell well. Most people are unable to concetrate on plain text. Word processors fill the human need to make information pretty so that it might be read.
= Response =
I'll believe that [OpenOffice is the biggest threat] when OpenOffice is a feature-complete competitor. Sure, the word processor component is fine for smallish [< 200 pages] documents
I do not trust MSWord much. My resume is only 5 pages, and MSWord has destroyed the formatting a couple of times. I have managers that make my reports pretty, and some of the reports can be 50 pages, but I do not have to worry about the formatting: I just tell them what changes I want and they beat on Word until it looks right.
I cannot imagine the headaches of using Word with documents larger than 200 pages. Why aren't you using software meant for publishing?
the [OpenOffice] spreadsheet isn't anywhere near Excel, and Excel is far more firmly entrenched than Word is. There are people who've been using it their entire careers and have a whole arsenal of tricks and macros that only work in Excel, and they'll never give it up.
[Excel is] getting ever closer to high-end statistics packages.
They said the same thing about WordPerfect and Lotus123. The legal industry is still standardized on WordPerfect.
Excel may be more firmly entrenched, but it is used by far fewer people. I doubt anybody could make a program meant for the general public as annoying as Excel. (Sometimes MS is able to amaze me.) OTOH, most techies know the difference between a spreadsheet and a database. The arsenal of tricks and macros is used to force a spreadsheet to act like a database. Your example is perfect: statistics need to be processed in databases, but spreadsheets are easier to understand so people hack at spreadsheets rather than using the proper tool. You can blame this on Borland: if they had not killed DBase, then MS would have made Access competitive.
I am always surprised how many people use Access. I saw a listing of number of job postings by technology, and Access was one of the most popular. Access is truly awful, but people rarely look for alternatives. I keep hoping the PostgreSQL people finish their port to Windows. That MySQL is more popular than PostgreSQL demonstrates that ease of use is more important than being usable.
a lot of Slashbots like to criticize Access and Powerpoint too, but a lot of people rely on them far more than they rely on Word.
I have hated Access and PowerPoint since I first saw them about the time they were released. I have had to use them for specific uses every few years, and they have not improved much. Joining Slashdot was like finding long lost family.
If every presentation programs' files disappeared from the world, we would not lose much information. But they give managers somet
I don't think he meant Open Office vs MS Office, tho'.
I think OpenOffice is the biggest threat to MS. Two-thirds of MS's profits come from MSOffice. Any Office replacement is a big threat even without desktop Linux threatening the other one-third of MS's profits (MSWindows). If all the major companies switched to OpenOffice on Windows, which seems possible once v2 is released, then MS loses most of their income. That must be considered a major threat to MS.
The process can avalanche. If a few powerful companies migrate, and insist that all communications are in a format they can read, then everybody who deals with them will migrate too. This affects home users too. If a company only accepts resume submissions in OpenOffice format, then home users will need to install it to do their resume.
MS has used this process for the last 10 years to force everybody to upgrade to the latest version of MSOffice. A major company upgrades. All of their vendors have to upgrade to keep the business. Many associated businesses have to upgrade, and the process keeps spreading.
But the next "upgrade" will probably be to OpenOffice, wiping MSOffice from corporate computers in less than 3 years. MS could slow the process by teaching MSWord to default save to the new format. MS cannot extend the format when embracing it since just adding this feature is admitting that MS has lost control of the word processing document file format.
Once the users are comfortable in OpenOffice, the switch to another OS becomes much easier (and MS could lose the rest of their income.)
Creative genius and crime express themselves early in men but both are turned off almost like a tap if a man gets married and has children, a study says.
So do geniuses and criminals get married when they are ready to settle down and fit into society? Or does marriage tame them?
Will we have alternate sentences? The judge says, "You have one year to get married or you will live in jail for the next 10 years?"
Will Bill Gates set up a free matchmaking service for geniuses who are innovating in the computer field? Maybe he'll pay for pretty women to go after them?
It could be a fun experiment (speaking as a single genius who is currently designing the next revolution in information technology.)
To me, code that does not check error conditions is the primary attribute of "dirty" code. So "correct and proper" code would be longer if all you did was add error catching. But the "article" defined "correct" as properly documented, well engineered, process followed.
As a consultant, my "process" is to talk to the client, sleep on it, write code, ask for clarification, sleep, write code, demo it while mentioning additional features that occured to me as I wrote it, repeat as needed, then deploy. I take notes constantly and comment code thoroughly. (Self-defense: I was brought back in 1997 to work on an application I had written in 1991.) I doubt this process is followed by anybody else, but I have yet to have an unsuccessful project.
Design documentation happens during development. I cannot help it. I give functions and variables very descriptive names, such as "counter" instead of "i". I type my design notes as comments, then code around them, adding more comments anytime I pause to think. If there is anything tricky about the data store or the workflow, I add a note that describes how it works.
- Instructions are added during the reviews with the users (demonstrations and training) because then I can see what needs more clarification. Most of the instructions appear where they are needed, rather than in dedicated "Help".
- During a review to make certain that every application followed their guidelines, DuPont called me to ask where was the "Help" documentation for an application that had been in production for 16 months. I asked if anybody had complained or had difficulty using it, wanting to understand what needed to be documented. They talked to the happy users (salepeople, lawyers, and other office workers), and called back with "Nevermind."
"Well-engineered" was the point of my earlier post. A little thought at design time can cut the total amount of code. On performance-tuning contracts, I have replaced hundreds of lines of code with less than 10 lines that function the same, except the new code does MORE error checking. The original code was the "quick and dirty" code written by less knowledgable programmers. It was more error prone, had to have taken more time to type, and needed more QA, which it had not received (which is why I was hired.)
Maybe it is because of experience, maybe it is just my nature, but I cannot use any variable without checking its last use or automatically resetting it.
- I also assume all input is bad. I usually work with Lotus Notes, which never guarantees a field is on a record. So my code always checks if each field exists before getting the value. The habit carries across platforms. I wrote a C program for Oracle data that had these checks in there. Yeah, they probably slowed it down a little, but my client was real happy when the DBA did an "upgrade".
---
C requires much experience in the programmer to be able to catch every possible error. I love its ability to work directly with hardware, but it is a major pain to write code that deals with every possible case. I usually add comments with every function stating what cases are not handled by the code, but this depends on programmers reading the documentation. This is why I prefer Java (today): I give up some control, but development takes less time since more possible bugs are caught during compile. (And you can decompile and read the Java code of commercial products when they do not work as expected. Decompiled C is not much fun.)
Java has the throw->try-catch-catch so that the compiler knows when the programmer was unable to deal with a particular case. It means that programmers who are writing code for reuse can tell later programmers when something is not handled. It beats the documentation method, since programmers can write code knowing the compiler will yell.
- Rarely, the "error" does not matter. An example is an InterruptedException in the middle of a loop that is waiting for another process to finish. T
I think the question is wrong. It is not "quick and dirty" versus "correct and proper", with the assumption that "correct" takes longer. Usually a little thought about design can greatly reduce the amount of code required. Less code means less development effort, less documentation, and fewer bugs.
You may need to try several algorithms to prove which one is the best, but this becomes instinctive with experience. Soon you will not need to code several approaches; just list the options, picture the code in your head, and drop the longer ones.
Back in college (1989), my C teacher enjoyed my homework code because it was less than one page while the other students turned in 4 or more pages. A good portion of it was pointers and the ability in C to make one-line "for" loops that moved blocks of memory. I had to comment each line, because they were so cryptic that I would forget what they did before the code was done. But the programs were short, worked, and were maintainable with the comments.
Yesterday at a client, I refactored some code. A few minutes earlier I had copied a function to make it work with a different global list. (The lists hold configuration data, so globals make sense. And the code is loaded for each run, so there is no chance of contaminating other portions of the app.) This was now the third copy of almost identical code. AFTER PROVING THE NEW FUNCTIONALITY WORKED, I made a generic function that took the list as a parameter and replaced the calls. Tested again, then removed the original functions.
- The original code worked. It was not "dirty". But the new code is shorter and more maintainable.
In the last week, we made a major architectural algorithm change to my company's product. The original code split a request into two parts, handled each request separately, then merged the results. This was "dirty" because a hack was needed to make transfer data from one portion of the request to the other during the merge. But it worked for the last 2 years: it allowed us to write the lower level code, and it did not affect the functionality.
- We just added functionality where the hack would interfere. Now the requests must be handled as one. Because all of the lower level functionality existed, we were able to make the change with about 40 lines of code, replacing over 100 lines. There is still code that refers to the hack which will never be triggered because the input will never have the hacked parameters. We will remove the obsolete code AFTER the next release to save the need to retest many of the modules. (We are really close to the next release.)
- This hack was almost "quick and dirty". It was done because at the time it was designed, none of the lower level code was available, and we could not envision how to integrate the two requests, and there was no need for them to be integrated. The hack to merge the data was added when we realized some data from one request was needed by the other, but it was extremely simple to pass the data. We remained aware of the issue, and were ready to "fix" it when some functionality required the integration. Since the separation occurred at a very high level, and everything was planned with awareness that this change would come, the integration was accomplished quickly.
- We spent 2 days planning the change before writing any code. Because of this, the code took about 3 hours to implement. If we had just sat down and started coding, we would still be working on it, and probably have a buggy mess. Another benefit is that the new code is shorter and more maintainable.
Better design always requires less code, which requires less development effort.
I try not to write code the same day the specs are given to me. Tell the PHBs that the code will be need to wait for tomorrow. Your subconcious will work on it while you sleep, and the solution should be better, cleaner, and SHORTER.
The major difference is how the technology was first marketed.
Toasters
Put bread in slots. Push lever. Wait.
They have not changed much.
TV
Initially, it was turn volume knob from OFF to desired volume. Turn other knob to change channels.
Wait a generation for everyone to understand. Add cable, so we need more input because there are too many channels to fit on the knob. Add VCRs, which people still cannot understand. Add a DVD player. Add surround sound speakers. Then add a remote control for each device. Then add universal remotes so that you destroy the cable settings when trying to change the channel. But most people can eventually learn how to treat their systems as if they had one control for volume and one for choosing channels, and that is all they need.
Phone
Initially, lift handset, tell operator who you are calling, wait until connected.
Then, lift handset, dial a number, wait until connected.
Then came answering machines, caller id, voicemail, conferencing. Many business people cannot transfer a call. But most phones are still usable with the "lift handset, dial number, talk" instructions.
Car
They initially had controls for "move faster", "move slower", and "turn". Then they added the clutch to change gears, but that was too complicated for most people so the automatic transmission was invented. Now a "gear" needs to be chosen, but most people only use Park, Drive, and Reverse. How many drivers understand the 1 and 2 settings? They have learned to turn on the headlights and wipers, but rarely remember to use turn signals. And please get off the road before adjusting your radio.
Computers
Home computers started with kits: put the boards together and hook it to your TV with this device, then type these commands, type in a program and this command to run it.
Then came the closed box: Atari, Commodore: attach these cables to this box and your TV, and plug in this cartridge.
Then we had dedicated computers with their own monitors, but programs needed to be run from floppies, so put in the floppy and run this command.
It is not much simpler today. Plug these power cables into your computer and monitor. Attach the monitor cable. Attach the keyboard, mouse, and speakers to the color-coded connectors hidden on the back. To run a program, put in the CD, or click on this icon.
Computers are one of the few technologies to be marketed before the controls were understandable by the general public. They ARE getting simpler. The best today is the wireless laptop (and a wireless router installed by the cable company): plug in power, click icons. (And laptop pointer controls are still not very user-friendly.) No wires, no extra devices. But that is not yet inexpensive enough to be common.
First: If you truly believe this, buy MSFT. You will get the dividends as Bill guts the company. And you believe MS will recover, so you believe you will not lose on the stock price.
.net be able to keep up, nevermind destroy the installed base?
I agree the down stock price is due to the recession or dot com bust or whatever it is called today. But I do not believe they will recover. You can trust Bill Gates to figure out how to take control of the next path of the computer industry, but he is a follower:
- MS almost missed the GUI revolution; there were several serious competitors that were a few months late.
- MS did miss the Internet revolution, but was able to use its desktop monopoly to recover; that monopoly is being eroded.
- Web-based enterprise software is primarily Java based today; will
I do believe that "their core users, business and personal desktops, will be wrenched from their hands anytime soon." Many of my clients are seriously considering banning MsOffice and MsOutlook wherever possible. So we disagree.
I do not see Linux as the biggest threat to MS. It allows an alternative, but to take advantage of that alternative, companies need alternatives to the MS-based software. OpenOffice is a valid alternative to MsOffice, and that is more of a threat to MS. Without the proprietary file formats, they lose the market. (Besides, 2/3rds of their profit comes from MsOffice, 1/3rd from MsWindows. Kill MsOffice and MS is hurting!)
Those "nightmarish offerings from IBM" allow me (one person) to write and deploy applications in days that are scalable and so user-friendly that 30,000 people can understand them without one word of documentation. They also allow clueless developers to write and deploy similar applications in a few months. Give Lotus Notes Designer to your favorite PHB and watch him become a productive application developer in weeks.
IBM's Text Properties box is considered to be much easier to understand than MS's menu driven system for changing text styles. Your best argument is that MS software is more usable, but it only seems more usable because it is more familiar to the users. When the users have a chance to learn alternative software, they become more productive. (Did you curse at MsWord today? Or were you too busy reinstalling because a MsOutlook virus ate your hard drive?)
The IBM email system has many advantages from both the user and administration perspectives. I have watched several Notes to Exchange migrations: the number of IT administrators at least tripled every time. From the user perspective, MS's big advantage is that their system operates more like their file system; give the users a week with Lotus Notes and they are just as comfortable. Many companies are banning the use of MsOutlook because of the constant stream of security holes being found.
The only functional advantage for using MS is the calendaring. I admit it seems they did it right. As I understand it, IBM was attempting to implement what appeared to be becoming the industry standards. As usual, MS completely ignored the standards. Not usual is that the resulting functionality is quite good.
I dislike IDEs, so I cannot comment much about their development tools. I have used Visual Studio, and it made me wish I had a 30" screen, but that is a problem with most IDEs. The class libraries for their languages seem to be complicated for the sake of complication. IBM's languages have less levels, and so make it easier to be productive, but they sometimes leave out basic functionality. The Slashdot story about using hidden MS API tricks suggests that MS also has this problem. IBM does have the C API for when you need "hidden" functionality, but its use usually ties the code to one platform. OTOH, any use of MS software ties the code to one platform.
I only see Apples when I work with artists. I thought they had 5% of new sales, and 12% of the installed base, due to less turnover. This could be wrong.
Yes, IBM claims to be selling Linux solutions, and I am certain they are responsible for many installations of Linux. Also see their PDF of software available for Linux.
.
But IBM has not ported a critical piece of their own software to Linux clients.
GOOD
Clients for DB2 seem to have been ported to Linux.
Tivoli clients have been ported to RedHat and SuSE.
Rational seems to have been ported only for RedHat. It also works for SuSE if you are running IBM hardware. (Is this a marketing ploy or because of technical difficulties?)
WebSphere has a developer client for Linux. I first thought it was not available, then I found this mention of it. But I could not find it in the Buy Now area.
BAD
Lotus does not have Linux clients. IBM recommends running the client under WINE, but this is not acceptable for Fortune 500 companies with tens of thousands of desktops.
This is the killer. DB2, Rational, and WebSphere are used by developers. Tivoli is used by administrators. Every employee needs to use the mail client and information resources and collaboration abilities of the Lotus Notes client. Without a Linux version of the Lotus Notes client, many companies cannot migrate to Linux desktops. Also, Lotus Notes is the only commercial software with significant marketshare to compete with MsOutlook
So, yes, IBM is pushing Linux for servers. But they control one of the major blocks for the Linux desktop in the corporate world, and they are letting us down.
You are correct that Bill Gates is not the CEO. That means he is not officially responsible for running the company.
.doc format preserved their monopoly for many years. Now it will hurt their ability to keep the market.
However, Bill Gates is the Chairmain of the Board. The Board of Directors are elected by the stockholders to represent the stockholders interests. All decisions that relate to issuing shares and paying dividends are handled by the Board. As Chairman, Bill Gates is very influential in any decision about paying dividends. The Board could declare a dividend while the company is losing money, which the a responsible CEO would normally recommend against doing.
Microsoft is about to die. Bill Gates knows this. Most of his "wealth" is due to the value of his Microsoft stock. MS has $40 billion in cash. Bill Gates needs to transfer as much of that money from Microsoft into his own pocket. Paying dividends is one of the more obvious methods to accomplish this.
Paying dividends will also keep the price of MS stock higher than it would be if MS did not pay dividends. The stock has been dropping steadily since Jan 2000. It is unlikely that MS stock will ever start climbing again. But the idea that large dividends will be paid regularly will cause many people to buy and hold the stock even as MS dies.
---
Reasons I believe MS will die:
1. MS has diversified. Most of the divisions lose money. The server software breaks even. Almost all profit comes from 2 products: MsWindows and MsOffice. Without these products, the company will need to live off its savings. IIRC, MS burns $10 billion per year. So MS could last 4 years if they did not pay dividends. They can also trim costs to last longer. I believe moving jobs to India is being done for this reason.
2. MsOffice is under atttack from OpenOffice and the supported proprietary versions. Many businesses have already converted, and many others are evaluating their options. The migration is building momentum. As more companies migrate away from MsOffice, more companies will need to transfer files in formats that the previously migrated companies can read. The proprietary MS
3. MS has never owned the server OS market. They have dominated the desktop market. 12% use Macs. 1% use "other". That means MsWindows has maintained 87%. Much of the reason to use MsWindows is to be able to use MsOffice. That is handled above; other reasons to believe MsWindows will die are below.
- Linux is gaining marketshare. It has several advantages. Its biggest advantage is mindshare among computer gurus. The GUI has become usable by the public. Computer gurus now install Linux on desktops for their friends and family, because they have less worries about viruses and crashes. Now the big problem is the availability of applications. The two biggest categories are commercial software, such as Photoshop and Lotus Notes, and games for the home consumer.
- Adobe is porting Photoshop to Mac OSX. Porting from OSX to Linux should be trivial. But most graphics professionals use Macs, so whether PS is available for Linux does not affect the corporate market much.
- IBM claims to be supporting Linux, but their most widely used product has not been ported. I am referring to the Notes client. (The Domino server was ported several years ago.) Notes is the only email/groupware/collaboration product to match corporate marketshare with MsExchange and MsOutlook. For many of the Fortune 500 to migrate from MsWindows to Linux desktops, they need the Lotus Notes client to be available on Linux. If IBM were truly commited to Linux, they would already have ported their software products. Ask them when the Lotus Notes client for Linux will be available.
- The
IBM's Lotus SameTime has been able to do this for years. I saw a working demonstration of it in 1999.
Since it is IBM, I am certain that every aspect is already patented. The MS patent may have been missed, because it is the absolutle worst possible method for doing translations. (Yeah, I read the "article"/patent application.)
The differentiating point:
the message is translated prior to delivery
I believe SameTime does the translation in the server. The advantage is that the dictionaries can be updated frequently, and the processing happens on a machine that can handle it. The disadvantage is that you must have a server, so this will not work with true P2P chat clients.
For P2P chat clients, the best scenario is to have the receiver translate the message. Why should the sender's PC do the work? The receiver can translate according to the receiver's dictionary, which can be changed by the receiver. So if you are in IT, "server" is translated to "central computer", and if you are in the food industry, "server" is translated to "waiter/waitress". (I love reading Google-translated technical documentation about installing software on waiters.) The receiver can also set abbreviations, so "computer", "server", and "desktop" all translate to "PC".
If having the receiver do the translation has not been patented, this post is prior art and is released into the public domain. Just to be certain it is legal, here is the abstract:
A method and system translating instant messages between users who communicate in different languages is presented. Two or more users engaged in an instant messaging session compose messages according to a source language or destination language. The source language corresponds to the preferred language of the user of the device that sends messages during the session, while the destination language corresponds to the preferred language of the user of a device that receives sent messages. During the session, devices send source language information with each message. A content translation module implemented as a computer-executable module (e.g., DLL, exe, so) utilizes the information contained in the user profile to translate messages from the source language to the destination language. The received message is translated before the message is displayed. Because the message is translated after delivery, the destination device translates the message according to its local dictionary.
Ok, BAD! I'm still using Network Solutions. Flame me later.
I have several domains for my use and the use of my own business. All of them are at Network Solutions.
I also am a consultant who needs to be able to create new domains for businesses, usually because of a merger. I have the business people brainstorm a few keywords, and then run a quick program to identify which are available. My program does not work with the new requirement for OCR.
I am certain that most spammers will have little difficulty bypassing this restriction. And I am certain that I could do it if it was important. But I taught the last customer how to do it and said call me when they have a new domain; it is not worth my time to write a program to do it when I'll only use it every 6 months, and I can easily transfer the responsibility.
I wrote to Network Soultions asking that as a customer I be given some method to check domains. It could be limited to 100 per day, and 400 per month. They make a sale if I find one that satisfies my customers. They replied with instructions for using the current system, including a line about typing in the letters in the picture. [sarcasm]It was a great help.[/sarcasm]
I have 4 domains that will need renewal this year. The last time I tried to renew with Network Solutions, it took 3 tries on the web and 4 phone calls giving my credit card each time, and 2 months later someone else owned the domain. The domain had not been advertised, so it was not a particular hardship for me, but I cannot lose any other domains. Any advice on transferring to another registrar? Especially one that makes it easy for customers to check for available domains.
People don't care about science, they don't understand science for the most part. People understand people, they like to read stories about normal people in extraordinary circumstances, that's why `reality tv' is so popular.
Could this be the way to get the funding to actually go to Mars?
Could we assemble a crew that has the technical knowledge to be successful, and the personalities to be stuck with just a small group for a very extended period while being watched by the whole TV-watching population of the world? Start with a good mix of sexually potent and liberal men and women and it could be some of the best reality entertainment. As least it would create the public interest to make it possible. It would also give the public insight into the wonders (and problems) of zero or low gravity sex, while giving the crew a method to avoid boredom. (Remember the background story of "Stranger in a Strange Land"?)
I live in the US, so it would need to be shown on a cable channel, and the media conglomerates would probably still turn it down. The show would probably be great for a startup, maybe SBC = Space Broadcasting Company. Are there any extremely rich people who would want to start a space exploration and entertainment company?
Nice dream.
That the receiver may not want it is no reason to violate the GPL. If you distribute the binary code, you must distribute the source code.
Just include the source code in the "package".
I wish you posted links. This is probably very informative, but I think I missed the message.
ADHD can be hard to distinguish from giftedness
I was classified "gifted" by the time I was four years old. Everybody talked about my "great potential", but nobody could offer me the opportunity to learn at my own pace. I retreated into books for much of my childhood, since they would let me absorb knowledge quickly, and I could skip between topics as my attention moved.
Are there gifted people who do not have these traits? Are most people with these traits considered gifted?
subtle distinctions
Please post a reply with more information. I am interested.
ADHD is an impairment uniform across environments
The last D is for Disorder. The reason the doctors preferred not to give me drugs is because they felt my condition benefited my life more than it hurt, so it was not a disorder.
except where ADHD itself has survival value, namely combat and settling new territory
I do not think of programming as combat; it could be considered new territory. In today's world, where programmers can make much money, and the bank account is one of the chief indexes of your ability to survive, then ADHD may "have survival value." But since it hurts my ability to reproduce, it is also bad for survival of my genes.
Off-topic: Actually, I have had many opportunites to have a family within or without wedlock, but I keep deciding against permanent relationships with the women. Part of the reason is their inability to deal with my focusing on many things at one time. They believe "focus" implies only one train of thought; I am either thinking about something or not thinking about it. Maybe I only "focus" when I am "in the zone", although I often program with a guitar in my lap and a book opened next to me.
giftedness is temperamental and choosy of its environment
I am not certain what this means. I excelled at math, science, computers, music, drawing, painting, sculpture, care for animals, construction, many sports, and more. I realize others are more focused in their talents, but I do whatever seems fun, and tend to be really good at it.
Short attention span is not ADHD, that would be called slow learning instead.
I do not have a short attention span. I just focus on many things at once.
Distractability is not ADHD
Same concept. Although I must take great care to keep conversations on one track at a time, or I will say three sentences at once, one on each topic we are discussing, or on a new topic that occurred to me during the conversation. When I am excited, I go into overdrive and interrupt myself. The spoken language does not allow data transfer anywhere near the speed new ideas occur to me. Conversations with me can be difficult for most people to handle. To survive in the business world, I have learned to censor myself. While talking about one topic, I often take notes on other topics so I can remember what the other person has not heard yet.
neither is boredom
I never feel bored. I just focus on something new. Although my employers and girlfriends are great about noticing my lack of interest for me.
neither are narrow focuses and passions.
I do not have narrow focuses or passions. Even my computer knowledge has great breadth: business processes, hardware, software, networking, administration, programming in many languages. I work based on the highest paid niches, but the knowledge of everything else adds value.
ADHD is a neurological condition of physical unhibition when distracted; it impairs comparison of impulses and reflexes with the higher level planning located elsewhere in the brain. See the Sci. Am. article by Barkley, September 1998.
Again, could you clarify this?
I do not know what "unhibition" means. Was it a typo?
It seems to say that the ability to plan your thoughts is derailed easily: that I ignore my plans for my time when something new attracts my focus, which seems accurate.
Is the article available online?
I was often in danger of failing school. The lack of focus meant I would learn many things while the teacher would focus on one. Luckily, I have good memory and almost no learning curve, so I could absorb the current lesson, and bring it back to my forebrain with a quick review just before tests. But our education system is not designed for people like me.
The hyperactivity and tendency to interrupt with the answer made me unpopular. Other students discourage "know-it-alls". Again, our education system is about conforming, and we do not.
I was fired from almost every job I had until I was 25. I would learn the job quickly and perform outstandingly for a while. By the fourth month, I was bored and it would affect my performance. I was not wise enough to quit before my performance caused my termination, even when I knew it was about to happen.
There is a perfect job for me, and that is what I have done for the last 7 years. It is called "consulting". I am not using the word to mean a worker that is not on the payroll, but is working in the same position for 6 months or more. I consult. My job is to provide a very high level of expertise to accomplish certain tasks, and then leave. My projects run from hours to about 4 months. I started two projects in February. I spent all of April working for a different company. I worked for a third company for one day in May. There have been other projects for these companies, and I am finishing the original two projects this week. If I had to only work on a single project for more than 4 months, my productivity would suffer. Luckily, I have found a niche where I can contribute and thrive.
Several girlfriends have made me go to the doctor to ask for a cure. Several doctors said that if the condition does not interfere with life, then I should not worry about it. The girlfriends were not happy with the doctors, but I was off the hook for a while. Last year, a woman broke up with me for the reason: "You get bored and distracted too easily." So it does interfere with my personal life, but I never want to take mood-altering drugs.
One doctor said that the condition was probably a large factor in my success. The ability to jump from topic to topic meant I could handle the chaos of IT in the corporate world. The hyperactivity meant I could keep moving at a fast pace and accomplish more than normal people. And the other side of ADD is that sometimes I focus on one task so much that I cannot give attention to anything else, but that symptom defines the programmer "in the zone."
It definitely has a positive effect on my work life.
It definitely has a negative effect on long term relationships.
I have the choice of:
1. Being high-income and productive,
OR
2. Taking drugs to keep the relationships towards having a family.
I have chosen #1. I still hope to find a woman who wants to keep me as I am. I figure that I do not want a woman who could only live with me if I am drugged. But I almost regret the lost opportunity of having a family.
BTW, this condition is the primary reason for my sig.
All your (code) base belong to us. -- SCO
SCO is announcing that they are responsible for every version of Unix and have the right to protect the proprietary changesmade by any of the vendors. AIX has been heavily modified by IBM. I am fairly certain that IBM does not want SCO to protect AIX from anything.
Can SCO possibly believe they will get the rights to the modifications made by the distibutors of UNIX? The only system where custom changes are (usually) given back to the "owners" is the GPL. SCO has already proven they do not understand the GPL or how it affects business or software.
revenue from international customers accounted for 48 percent of operating system platform revenue.
IBM is an international company. (The "I" in "IBM".) Oops, you mentioned that. Or is "multinational" different than "international"? Maybe they sell in several countries, but never ship anything from one country to another.
MS is an international company. They sold their source code to China, and just gave SCO money that may be half of SCO's revenue.
SCO's "international" customers may just be those terrorists taked about in other posts.
Does the SEC have a particular meaning for the phrase "international customers"? Does it mean any international company? Can it refer to US companies that have divisions outside the US? Can it refer to a company that has sold goods outside our borders? Since the SEC is US-based, can they use the word "foreign" to mean a customer does not have a presence in the US?
Disclaimer: I do not have a Zaurus and do not remember if I ever saw one in real life.
Polyphonic means able to play more than one note at a time. A flute is monophonic. A piano is polyphonic. A device claiming to be polyphonic can play chords, or have a drum beat, a bass line, and a melody.
The Nokia cell phones I've owned and my current Motorola V60 had monophonic ringers. The V60 has the ability to write music on the phone, but it is difficult to write songs with just a melody line using the cheesy tone. If it was polyphonic, or had another tone, it would be much better for composing while on the road.
I saw the Segway at DisneyWorld, and would love to play with one. Except for security guards at large campuses (educational, corporate, or entertaining), I could not think of a market for them. But ptorrone looked at his life, the Segway, and saw a good fit.
I live in the suburbs: the usual trip is 30 minutes at 50mph, except for buying groceries, and the Segway does not have a trunk. (We were discussing adding a trailer the last time the Segway was mentioned on Slashdot.)
These things would be very dangerous in the city. Are they classified as weapons in NYC yet?
Are they meant for use on sidewalks or roads? I live at the border where sidewalks disappear. Any farther from the city and there are none. Where is the market? Is it just for people who live a few miles from work? Does the culture in Seattle allow for Segways to become the dominant form of travel?
---
As far as teasing ptorrone, he fit a Segway into his life, and his life is better for it. From his website, it also saves money. Maybe someday he will save enough to buy a keyboard with a SHIFT key.
(I assume anybody who does not capitalize correctly is either a foreigner or an employee of MICROSOFT. Germans have their own rules, which leads to interesting variable and function names. MS let everything be uppercase for BASIC and DOS. Then when the standards for HTML were all uppercase, MS insisted that everything be lowercase. Since ptorrone never types an uppercase character and lives in Seattle, I assume he works for MS and started after 1996. It is better to assume they are different than to assume they are stupid.)
BASIC
Every programmer who learned BASIC from the mid-70s until around 1990 learned the corrupted version of the language from MS. I believe that MS wrote that interpreter because it looked easy, they could almost understand the language, and it was not popular, so they could change anything they had difficulty programming into the interpreter. They then sold the interpreters to most of your 37 completely incompatible platforms. While you could not exchange floppy disks, you could type in the source of any BASIC program and expect it to run with a little work.
MS was able to make the deal for DOS because IBM wanted the same BASIC interpreter as every other platform.
From the first, MS took someone else's work, wrote their own incompatible and corrupt version of it, and then marketed it into the leader. They continue this tradition very well.
I am sorry that your wife chose a business that had a limited lifespan. 16 years ago was 1987, so it was not obvious at the time that it was limited, but she needs to find a new focus of the business is to survive.
"Publishers" had 3 purposes:
1. Searching: Finding interesting material.
2. Editing: Fixing the material to conform to stndards.
3. Distribution: Spreading the material geographically.
1. Searching for good material is still difficult, but only because most creators do not post their material on the web. Someone will make much money by creating a website where new material can be rated by users. Amazon and others have a good start, but they only rate materials after the materials have been selected by publishers. How can they rate my book when I have not made it available?
If authors release their works on the web, publishers could make money by providing rating systems and headlining a book per month. Can the publishers make money with this type of service? Will they pass some of the money to the authors? Can they make their service so much better than amateur websites that people will pay for it?
2. Editing is still a very useful function, but it is underrated by everyone. Spell-checkers and Grammar-checkers reduce much of the work. Style-checkers are more important.
A friend just self-published a book. He wrote it, then had it printed by a "publisher". I do not know what tools were used, but I asked about editing and he said that the publisher did none. My first criticism was that he used passive voice for the first two chapters and switched to active voice for the rest. Since most people decide whether a book is worth reading during the first few chapters, this could have a major impact on its popularity. A human editor should have caught the issue.
I recently read a book titled "The Mushroom Man". It is in the New Books section of my library, so I assume it followed the normal publication process for books. The entire story is told from the third-person perspective, which keeps the reader from getting involved with the characters. It also has the problem that the main plot is a children's story, but the main subplot is very adult-oriented, with concepts and language that will keep it out of the children's section. This is the author's first book. If the author had advice from an experienced editor, the entire book could have been rewritten from the perspective of one or two characters. The adult subplot should have been dropped. These two concepts would have made the book much more readable, and given it a clearly focused audience.
Another example was "Snow Falling on Cedar" or something like that. It had a good story, but the sections concerning sex and war were the extremely boring. How did that get past an editor? I think the author is famous for his work in other areas, so maybe he was able to bully the editor. Usually war and sex add exceitement to anything; here it was painful.
Publishers could assist authors in fixing books, but who pays? Will they work with an author for free, or will they charge the author? I doubt most beginning authors have the finances to pay for the service.
3. Distibution has been changed by the internet. The internet has reduced the cost of distribution for anything that can be transmitted as bits to almost nothing. In a few decades, publishers will not be able to make any money from distribution. Yes, this includes music and video as well as written words. Publishers may be able to provide central places for downloads, but they cannot prevent others from duplicating their work. I have not even found the questions that could make efforts at distribution profitable.
I am asking more questions than I am providing information. All industries based on providing content that can be reduced to bits are in danger, and need to transform to survive. Some have already disappeared.
A friend worked for AMEX business travel. Her job was to find the bes
From the Java API documentation:
.net API designers forgot to make public methods to modify ACLs.
Package java.lang.reflect Description
Classes in this package, along with java.lang.Class accommodate applications such as debuggers, interpreters, object inspectors, class browsers, and services such as Object Serialization and JavaBeans that need access to either the public members of a target object (based on its runtime class) or the members declared by a given class.
---
I believe the reflection classes exist specifically for tasks that require run-time access to the definitions of a class. It would be very difficult to build a generic debugger without them. If the application is not a tool to work with the programming language, then the reflection classes should be avoided.
Using reflection classes for normal operations is a hack. It ALWAYS means there is a lack of programming skill somewhere. In this case, the MS
---
I tried to avoid the security discussion. If someone can modify the run-time environment to have access to the code, the application is already cracked. If the code is in a client, then the user is cracking his own data. If there is interaction with a server, it is the server's responsibility to verify incoming commands from all clients. If it is a P2P application, then every client performs as a server and must verify incoming commands.
There are only security considerations if this allows MS apps to break MS security. But it assumes the cracker has the ability to put code on the machine. If that assumption is correct, then security is broken with or without this ability.
This is not about security. It is about good programming.
If the alternative to writing tons of code is accessing private functions of the internal API, then the API was designed very poorly.
Everybody seems to agree that a quick ACL changer is useful. The code already exists in private functions. If the private functions should not be public because they bypass data reliability checks, the API designers should provide a public function that provides a safe method to call the private function.
Encapsulation should be an absolute law. The maintenance headaches of ignoring encapsulation should be too great to encourage bypassing it.
Providing useful functionality in private functions without allowing the functionality through public functions is security through obscurity. It either enourages programmers to write poor code, or forces the programmers to do extra work. The whole point of "platforms" is that they greatly reduce the amount of code needed to implement an application while providing basic functionality such as security and networking.
Imagine if Apache did not exist and every application needed to implement a web server. Every web project would require much more code. Now imagine if the only method to get Apache to display a web page was to use tricks to access private functions. Everybody would do it. Now imagine MS wrote the API. Oops, that is what we have here. Really basic and useful functionality is hidden from the programmer. "Luckily" the platform security is so poor that everybody knows how to access the functions anyway.
Apparently these tricks are posted on Microsoft's web site (based on from other posts since I am not going to check.) Apparently MS knows the functions are useful. Apparently MS knows the language is broken.
Will MS fix the API?
Will MS fix the language?
Will MS encourage these tricks?
Will MS break the code that uses these tricks?
Will MS reduce the amount of work necessary to write apps on their platform?
Will MS divide programmers between the
- experienced ones who know the illegal tricks,
- newbies who thought documentation was complete, and
- good programmers who expect MS to fix the code someday and are not willing to risk using these tricks?
I am happy I am not one of those programmers who is faced with the choice to write good code or write MS code.
First, Windows 95 was so much better than Windows 3.1 that anybody who had Win3.1 immediately upgraded.
Second, Win95 appeared in 1995, just as the web became the killer app for the general populace. It wasn't Win95 that made people buy computers; it was Netscape and Amazon. Netscape had matured the year before, and Amazon opened in July 1995. Win95 is what they got stuck with because the only other OS for the general public was Apple, and a computer with the Apple OS was much more expensive. Someone walking into an electronics store wanting "that internet thing" would go home with a pre-built system running Win95. Then they would call support to ask how to plug it in.
Without checking any facts, I believe most systems sold then were Compaq or Gateway. IBM and HP were expensive. Dell was for direct sales.
Now there is much inertia to switching people from Windows. Wait until most companies have banned Windows. Then corporate workers will be comfortable with the new interface and insist on it for home.