The migration tool you speak of is just a "search and replace" script. It leaves the most difficult part of the migration to the programmer and unfortunately -- most VB programmers I know are incapable of doing the rest of the migration correctly. Most traditional VB programmers are not able to make the conceptual leap to VB.NET. This last observation is not an isolated opinion.
I know what you mean, I've used it. So far I haven't moved any of our company's VB applications to.NET, mostly because the related third-party components and other tools haven't caught up yet.
There are certain things the upgrade tool won't do, but the effort required to port the applications over is definitely nowhere near what a rewrite would entail. Fortunately, we have until 1/31/2008 before Microsoft drops official support for VB6.
Trying to get somewhat back on topic, my point was that when you decide to go out and write an application rather than purchasing one, you have to take a lot of things into account besides the inital purchase price of the software. Saving $500,000 now does you no good if you end up spending twice that in support costs over the next five to ten years making sure your system stays current and compatible. A couple of the factors to consider are the support that is behind the products that you're using and how large an installed base there is for the products you're using. How this applies to open source software vs. commercial software is an exercise left to the reader:)
If (and when) Microsoft do this it's significantly worse because they have total control of their operating system.
If the changes the Linux folk are making are indeed heinous then any one of us is permitted to fork if we so desire. With MS it would be all or nothing. With Linux if you don't like what you're being offered you can change it if you want to.
I'm not passing judgement on the merit or effect of the changes, I'm just wondering if MS did something similar how many/.ers would run to their defense as so many seem to be doing here...
As other posters have already specified, you can distribute your own kernel or patch that doesn't enforce the GPL license, but in doing so you may indeed be violating the GPL yourself. Remember, the GPL is like any other license, you must abide by it or lose the privelidge of using the software.
This is a little OT, but has anybody actually tested the GPL in court? It seems to me that it wouldn't be any more enforcable than one of those click-through licenses, but then again IANAL!:)
Most observers foresee a tightening of the limits on binary modules. This may very well break some rather expensive commercial Linux products, but that doesn't seem to bother most kernel developers.
Can you imagine the magnitude of the sh*tstorm they would create if Microsoft tried to pull something like this?? That's a pretty ballsy move for people who rely on the good will of the companies developing software for their platform.
Microsoft has already said they will stop supporting its pre-DotNET technology and they will force their customers to upgrade and rewrite everything from scratch.
There is always going to be the risk that a piece of software that you're using is no longer supported. You just need to make sure that you plan for that possibility and try to build it into your cost assessment. For example, Microsoft provides tools for migrating Visual Basic applications to.NET making the transition cost a lot less than if you actually had to "rewrite everything from scratch."
There is no way you can kill opensource software. Many companies who have bought into os/2, paradox, borland, lotus, and other things that were hot 15 years ago got burned
You're taking a risk no matter what software you use. You just need to minimize that risk. I didn't mean to imply that the open source software would be gone, just that it might not be widely used any more and the support costs might go through the roof.
Re:Article ignores most obvious example
on
Decentralization
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Many people these days tend to forget that Gates IS also a geek
Don't forget about the rest of the company. Three of the smartest, most technical people I have worked with are now employed by Microsoft. Outside the vast wastelands of the marketing and legal departments, I'd bet a large percentage of Microsoft employees fit the flimsy "geek" definition in this article a lot closer than the one for "suits".
My previous company was ready to spend 1.5 million on PeopleSoft, 500k for Microsoft technologies needed to run it, and hire three programmers and admins to keep it all going for the next 3 years. I saved them about 500k by showing them how I could replace the PeopleSoft "solutions" to run on Linux terminals and simple PHP/mySQL clients that could be used from a web browser
This has absolutely nothing to do with open source vs. commercial software. It is the age-old buy vs. build debate. You could just as easily built the same system with Active Server Pages/SQL Server or JSP/Oracle instead of PHP and mySQL and still saved your company a boatload of money.
There are a lot of cases where building your own software is less expensive in the short run than buying a commercial package. The real test will be over the next 5 or 10 years when the total cost of your solution becomes apparent. What happens when somebody comes out with something better and PHP becomes a "legacy" system? Will a 1st year student still be able to fix your code? What happens if mySQL isn't widely supported any more? Will you still be able to outsource development? Sure the same thing might happen to Microsoft's technology and Peoplesoft's applications, but I think the odds are a little more in their favor.
The Peoplesoft people may hate you now, but there's also the risk that your bosses will hate you down the road for locking them into supporting custom software when a widely-used commercial solution was available.
There's nothing on the Rad Tools web site about a Linux version, so I think it's safe to assume that the toolkits are still in beta. You're right though, it wouldn't have hurt them to ask!
Using the same OS does not make these people united any more than driving a car makes all automobile owners united.
It's an operating system, not a lifestyle choice. Windows gets the job done, plain and simple. If somebody comes along with something better suited to what I use computers for, I'll switch to it. I'm just amazed with some of the stuff that people will put up with just to say that they're not running Microsoft software.
I can understand porting the dedicated server to Linux, but why bother with the client? How many people are really going to use this version rather than just dual-boot into Windows which has much better video & sound driver support? This sounds like one of those "this would be fun" programmer projects that will end up costing Bioware a lot of $$$ in wasted time and effort.
Apple wants $50 for a FAKE Madonna autograph? This is the same reason non-Mac people laugh at the idiots who are willing to spend extra $$$ for the privilege of owning a slow, closed system while at the same time proclaiming that they're somehow better or smarter than the rest of us.
While the seller doesnt have to guarantee that his books can be read by the blind, the seller cant keep the blind from reading the book, ie using the software to 'open' the book and let him read it.
If that was their true intention, they could have worked with Adobe to create an eBook reader for the blind that wouldn't violate any copyrights.
As far as I know, you can't just go out and publish braille versions of the NYT bestseller list either unless you're the copyright holder.
This is what the actualy article says about the script:
"This is the most exhaustively prepared movie I have ever been associated with," said Hutch Parker, president of production at Twentieth Century Fox. "The script is as ready as they come."
I can imagine the conversation: "So how does the script look?" "It's exhaustively prepared." "Is it good?" "It's as ready as they come!" "oh...great."
So let's get this straight... I charge $.10 for a token, then my email filter says "Oh look, there's a token! This must be spam!" and summarily deletes it. I like it!!
This really does sound like a good way to build attack signatures into your intrusion detection system. It makes the task of creating and adding new signatures much easier. Too bad Cisco had to come up with it... Their software is generally a real pain in the ass to deal with.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that Tivo might be the end of commercial television. Product placement works for some products (soda, clothes, cars, etc), but it certainly doesn't deliver anything near the impact of buying 30 seconds of air time dedicated solely to advertising your product. Also how about all of the products that would be difficult at best to place effectively: pharmaceuticals, "feminine" products, political ads, movies, etc?
Also what about the broadcast networks? As far as I know, they're not allowed to charge consumers for service in exchange for free use of the airwaves.
I could die happy never watching another TV ad, but there's something to be said for the mass quantities of money poured into the industry by advertisers. Sure HBO is subscriber-based and has some of the best shows on TV, but they also only air original programming one night a week.
I've had a Tivo for years now, and can't imagine watching TV without it. The only problem I have is what happens when everybody gets a Tivo (i.e. they're in every cable box, etc)? Nobody will be watching ads any more. Would that mean that every channel would have to become subscription-based or pay-per-view? I really like the idea, but I think it only works when the number of people using them is small enough that it doesn't affect the advertising market.
Slashdot Mirror
The migration tool you speak of is just a "search and replace" script. It leaves the most difficult part of the migration to the programmer and unfortunately -- most VB programmers I know are incapable of doing the rest of the migration correctly. Most traditional VB programmers are not able to make the conceptual leap to VB.NET. This last observation is not an isolated opinion.
.NET, mostly because the related third-party components and other tools haven't caught up yet.
:)
I know what you mean, I've used it. So far I haven't moved any of our company's VB applications to
There are certain things the upgrade tool won't do, but the effort required to port the applications over is definitely nowhere near what a rewrite would entail. Fortunately, we have until 1/31/2008 before Microsoft drops official support for VB6.
Trying to get somewhat back on topic, my point was that when you decide to go out and write an application rather than purchasing one, you have to take a lot of things into account besides the inital purchase price of the software. Saving $500,000 now does you no good if you end up spending twice that in support costs over the next five to ten years making sure your system stays current and compatible. A couple of the factors to consider are the support that is behind the products that you're using and how large an installed base there is for the products you're using. How this applies to open source software vs. commercial software is an exercise left to the reader
Thanks, I'll give it a read.
The spam that I get about hardcore rape porn is pretty evil...
If (and when) Microsoft do this it's significantly worse because they have total control of their operating system. If the changes the Linux folk are making are indeed heinous then any one of us is permitted to fork if we so desire. With MS it would be all or nothing. With Linux if you don't like what you're being offered you can change it if you want to.
/.ers would run to their defense as so many seem to be doing here...
I'm not passing judgement on the merit or effect of the changes, I'm just wondering if MS did something similar how many
As other posters have already specified, you can distribute your own kernel or patch that doesn't enforce the GPL license, but in doing so you may indeed be violating the GPL yourself. Remember, the GPL is like any other license, you must abide by it or lose the privelidge of using the software.
:)
This is a little OT, but has anybody actually tested the GPL in court? It seems to me that it wouldn't be any more enforcable than one of those click-through licenses, but then again IANAL!
Most observers foresee a tightening of the limits on binary modules. This may very well break some rather expensive commercial Linux products, but that doesn't seem to bother most kernel developers.
Can you imagine the magnitude of the sh*tstorm they would create if Microsoft tried to pull something like this?? That's a pretty ballsy move for people who rely on the good will of the companies developing software for their platform.
Microsoft has already said they will stop supporting its pre-DotNET technology and they will force their customers to upgrade and rewrite everything from scratch.
.NET making the transition cost a lot less than if you actually had to "rewrite everything from scratch."
There is always going to be the risk that a piece of software that you're using is no longer supported. You just need to make sure that you plan for that possibility and try to build it into your cost assessment. For example, Microsoft provides tools for migrating Visual Basic applications to
There is no way you can kill opensource software. Many companies who have bought into os/2, paradox, borland, lotus, and other things that were hot 15 years ago got burned
You're taking a risk no matter what software you use. You just need to minimize that risk. I didn't mean to imply that the open source software would be gone, just that it might not be widely used any more and the support costs might go through the roof.
Many people these days tend to forget that Gates IS also a geek
Don't forget about the rest of the company. Three of the smartest, most technical people I have worked with are now employed by Microsoft. Outside the vast wastelands of the marketing and legal departments, I'd bet a large percentage of Microsoft employees fit the flimsy "geek" definition in this article a lot closer than the one for "suits".
My previous company was ready to spend 1.5 million on PeopleSoft, 500k for Microsoft technologies needed to run it, and hire three programmers and admins to keep it all going for the next 3 years. I saved them about 500k by showing them how I could replace the PeopleSoft "solutions" to run on Linux terminals and simple PHP/mySQL clients that could be used from a web browser
This has absolutely nothing to do with open source vs. commercial software. It is the age-old buy vs. build debate. You could just as easily built the same system with Active Server Pages/SQL Server or JSP/Oracle instead of PHP and mySQL and still saved your company a boatload of money.
There are a lot of cases where building your own software is less expensive in the short run than buying a commercial package. The real test will be over the next 5 or 10 years when the total cost of your solution becomes apparent. What happens when somebody comes out with something better and PHP becomes a "legacy" system? Will a 1st year student still be able to fix your code? What happens if mySQL isn't widely supported any more? Will you still be able to outsource development? Sure the same thing might happen to Microsoft's technology and Peoplesoft's applications, but I think the odds are a little more in their favor.
The Peoplesoft people may hate you now, but there's also the risk that your bosses will hate you down the road for locking them into supporting custom software when a widely-used commercial solution was available.
Sounds like a lot more work than just booting into Windows and playing it there... :)
There's nothing on the Rad Tools web site about a Linux version, so I think it's safe to assume that the toolkits are still in beta. You're right though, it wouldn't have hurt them to ask!
Using the same OS does not make these people united any more than driving a car makes all automobile owners united.
It's an operating system, not a lifestyle choice. Windows gets the job done, plain and simple. If somebody comes along with something better suited to what I use computers for, I'll switch to it. I'm just amazed with some of the stuff that people will put up with just to say that they're not running Microsoft software.
You mean that packets sent out over the Internet might be subject to interception?? The horror.
I can understand porting the dedicated server to Linux, but why bother with the client? How many people are really going to use this version rather than just dual-boot into Windows which has much better video & sound driver support? This sounds like one of those "this would be fun" programmer projects that will end up costing Bioware a lot of $$$ in wasted time and effort.
Apple wants $50 for a FAKE Madonna autograph? This is the same reason non-Mac people laugh at the idiots who are willing to spend extra $$$ for the privilege of owning a slow, closed system while at the same time proclaiming that they're somehow better or smarter than the rest of us.
Infocom.
While the seller doesnt have to guarantee that his books can be read by the blind, the seller cant keep the blind from reading the book, ie using the software to 'open' the book and let him read it.
If that was their true intention, they could have worked with Adobe to create an eBook reader for the blind that wouldn't violate any copyrights.
As far as I know, you can't just go out and publish braille versions of the NYT bestseller list either unless you're the copyright holder.
Sorry for sounding like a newbie... is this better?
"Wow, I didn't know Slashdot was in the business of giving away beowulf clusters of free advertising in Soviet Russia... Good to know!"
Wow, I didn't know Slashdot was in the business of giving away free advertising... Good to know!
This is what the actualy article says about the script:
"This is the most exhaustively prepared movie I have ever been associated with," said Hutch Parker, president of production at Twentieth Century Fox. "The script is as ready as they come."
I can imagine the conversation:
"So how does the script look?"
"It's exhaustively prepared."
"Is it good?"
"It's as ready as they come!"
"oh...great."
So let's get this straight... I charge $.10 for a token, then my email filter says "Oh look, there's a token! This must be spam!" and summarily deletes it. I like it!!
This really does sound like a good way to build attack signatures into your intrusion detection system. It makes the task of creating and adding new signatures much easier. Too bad Cisco had to come up with it... Their software is generally a real pain in the ass to deal with.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that Tivo might be the end of commercial television. Product placement works for some products (soda, clothes, cars, etc), but it certainly doesn't deliver anything near the impact of buying 30 seconds of air time dedicated solely to advertising your product. Also how about all of the products that would be difficult at best to place effectively: pharmaceuticals, "feminine" products, political ads, movies, etc?
Also what about the broadcast networks? As far as I know, they're not allowed to charge consumers for service in exchange for free use of the airwaves.
I could die happy never watching another TV ad, but there's something to be said for the mass quantities of money poured into the industry by advertisers. Sure HBO is subscriber-based and has some of the best shows on TV, but they also only air original programming one night a week.
I've had a Tivo for years now, and can't imagine watching TV without it. The only problem I have is what happens when everybody gets a Tivo (i.e. they're in every cable box, etc)? Nobody will be watching ads any more. Would that mean that every channel would have to become subscription-based or pay-per-view? I really like the idea, but I think it only works when the number of people using them is small enough that it doesn't affect the advertising market.