You know, I think some commenters here are too eager to toss the baby with the bathwater here. Gartner endorses reuse, Gartner sucks, therefore, reuse sucks.
Uh, no.
You would be dumb to not ask what third party components, libraries and frameworks could help with your project. While is it really unlikely that you will just glue a bunch of stuff together, and volia, application, it's just as unlikely that there isn't some library, framework or application that you could reuse to make the application better, or easier to perform a certain task, etc.
Also, reusable development is important; Sometimes, it's worth the effort to put in the work to make a part of system more flexible, more reusable. Sure, it's may not the most agile thing (just refactor, rewrite, and improve until, um...) but sometimes it is a win.
I think it is better for programmers. It requires more training, more skill to do reusable programming than one-off systems. It's not like you can farm out the "glue code" to the cheapest bidder. I didn't read the details of the Gartner report, but reuse doesn't save you labor, allowing you to do that same with less (less skilled programmers, less programmers) it allows you to make the most of out the talent you have. That's why reuse matters.
The snipped out part of the announcement seems to me to leave a bad impression. Given this is/., I can almost hear everybody filling the blanks with "and it's still is slow, because MS sucks" or the like, which is not the opinion or intent of the comment actually quoted.
If you read the whole comment, you will see that in fact, the CLR implementation does very well, the designer is now at MS working on the CLR, and all in all, IronPython is a decent Python implementation.
Given this work and the F# compiler work http://research.microsoft.com/fsharp/fsharp.aspx, I think CLR is done quite well as a language independent platform. Also, given the excellent work of the Mono and Portable.Net groups, I think it is also reasonably portable as well.
However, I did work at a place where two of the female workers constantly made comments about the men's "physical attributes" and was told that, "there's nothing we can do about it." When one of the male workers said, "So if she can go around to the men and say 'Nice ass', does that mean I can go to her and say, 'Nice tits?'" He was immediately reprimanded and was forced to go to sensitivity training.
Wow. Too bad you aren't still there. I'd get a lawyer. There wouldn't be a lawyer that wouldn't just jump up and shout at that case. The publicity, the novelty, the huge potential for settlement, big money.
With just a touch of documentation, it'd be huge. You'd make a huge point about double standards, how such policies can be nothing more than reverse discrimination, and so on. Oh, and if the company was big, hello payday.
Of course, you forever would be known as that guy.
The article noted that Google uses a custom tuned Linux kernel. Does anybody know what changes (if any) Google has contributed back? I'd suspect that said tuning includes some kernel changes.
I think one of the main problems lies in the question: "Do you believe in Evolution?" as if it was the same as you beliving in God or a superior power (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you wish).
Evolution, like most good science, is subject to verification. It is not a matter of if you believe in Evolution, it is a question of if you understand the theory of evolution and if so, do you accept it as scientifically valid (you can verify its findings) or if you don't, what evidence do you have that counters the presented theory. You don't have to believe in science, you understand it.
Now look, our understanding of how species develop and change is changing and (dare I say) evolving. There is a new model of how celluar regulation, DNA and RNA, etc. all interact, and the interactions may be more complex that mere random mutation. But, mutation (random or not) is still at the heart of evolution, and the evidence for that is stronger than ever.
Now, your belief or faith in a higher power or God isn't subject to verification. You can't verify that God exists (there's a long argument for it, but if you could, God wouldn't quite be God, in a sense). So, you have faith or a belief in God, but it's not the same.
Sadly, scientific understanding is much harder than belief. All belief requires is a small leap of faith, understanding requires skepticism, study, analysis, comparison, and a constant ability to accept new ideas in place of old ones. It's hard to study and completely understand any scientific idea (hell, I don't know it all about evolution), but it's really easy to just doubt and say "God said so, so there."
And because of that, we will always have doubters. I'm sad to say it, but I think it is likely true.
Re:AMD manufacture costs
on
IBM Opts for AMD
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Actually, caches are easy to lay out on chip and manufacture. In fact, it's much harder to lay out complex logic. In fact, it is interesting to speculate on how having the HT controller on the die, compared to plain cache, could affect yields for AMD compared to Intel. Of course, speculation is all you can do, because there's no way you can get those numbers from either company.
Of course, Intel will have the same challenge when CSI is supposed to be on line in the higher-end models in 2008. Also, it will be interesting to see how well the 65nm to 45nm transition goes for Intel.
But, Intel has a real advantage in that it has a great new architecture to improve on. While there is lots of talk and wonder about the next new architecture from AMD, Intel doesn't have to wait for AMD to catch up.
All in all, I think Intel will lose some ground on the high-end server space for this year and next, but I think Intel will maintain it's share in the lower-end space and may gain in the enthusiast market, as the new Core 2 models look extremely strong, and I don't think 4x4 will really impact that as much as AMD would like.
One thing is for sure. We need Intel and AMD; we benefit from the competition. I remember how great it was to have a Dual Xeon workstation at work in 2002, and how expensive it was. Now, I can more power at home for much, much less.
Am I the only one that is hoping that Microsoft can deliver a better OS? Like it or not (or for most./ers), it's widely used, it will be in use at some point, and frankly, if it is an improvement, then doesn't that help everybody out. Less windows problems and better windows software seems to mean less headaches for everybody all round. Wouldn't three major (okay, 3.5 Sorry BSD folks 8-) great OS choices be better than two? Personally I don't think XP/2003 is all that bad, I use them everyday.
I just don't buy the whole Microsoft is hurting Linux/Apple/BSD etc. because all of those systems are growing and getting better all the time. Linux is getting better and better, OS X is super cool, and so on.
Sure, I think some people would hope that a awful Vista will sink MS. Well, it won't. because if ME didn't, I can't see Vista doing it. So, maybe it's best to hope for a good OS from MS, more secure, less bugs, less @#$@#$@#%%^ spyware/adware infections for us to all fix, etc. etc, and then just focus on using what we like.
Overall, I think the answer is yes. As far as.Net goes, there are a lot of advantages to having libraries and applications in a format that can be just-in-time compiled or pre-complied to native code on installation. Certainly, for MS it is a big advantage, as they don't have to target a lowest-common denominator of CPU features. Another advantage is that.Net does have pretty decent interoperability with native libraries. So, if you need the native performance, you can use a native library to try and gain some performance back without going totally native.
As for Java, I think it has a couple of issue that gives it a bad impression. Certainly, it's integration with native code could be improved (JNI is pretty hairy at times). Also, it seems that the current JREs don't have a lot of native tweaks to increase startup time. Certainly, I think Java could use a utility like ngen for.Net to precompile libraries to native code. Used correctly, it can improve cold start times.
Well, I can't discount that as a factor, to be sure. There is "change for the sake of change" here, but I don't think that all there is to it. It's the "we think we have a better way" and "we will go to the mat to try and prove it". Will it work? I dunno. I don't think it will be as bad as some predict, but not as smooth as MS would like either. I mean, there was a time when word processors just had text menus and you had to use lots of shortcuts. There was time when Office 95 was new and different and it still worked.
I'm sure there will be lots of interesting commentary here on Office 2007, and I'm sure a lot of it will be along the lines of "New interface is goofy/sucks/bad for users/too different/etc." and/or "OpenOffice rules, why go MS?" and so on.
Which is all fine and good. Really. But the changes in Office aren't targeted at power users. In fact, it probably is true that the new UI will frustrate power users. So, why did MS bother?
Because for every power user, there are 100s of regular users. They want to do more with Word, Excel, etc, but have a hard time finding the features they want. So, this is the first step in this direction. It won't be perfect, but what does do is break from tradition in some interesting ways.
Believe me that MS has been sticking this in front of users and doing usability studies. And I'm willing to bet that enough regular users think that the new UI isn't so bad, that it's pretty cool after you get used to it, and it's easier to find features and play around with them.
All the live preview featues and ribbon bars and so on are to make it easier to regular users to goof around with changes without making them permanent. Also, remember that this is Beta2, so it isn't clear that all the live preview features are in yet, so it could very well be that paragrpah sytle previews will be in the final product.
Finally, I think it is important to note something about the ribbons. The ribbons don't change. This is not the custom menu idea, where menus "adapted to users" whihc just translated to stuff moved on the menus, and you don't know why. You choose a ribbon, you get the tools for that ribbon period. They don't move around.
Will it work? Hard to say. But I like the idea that the idea of Office applications is being looked at in a fresh way.
Excellent points throughout. I didn't mean to generalize to most software projects, but it does seems that there are some cases it seems that the main point is to make a point.
As for getting the same questions over and over, it seems that the best way to avoid that is to capture the information and find out how to get it to the people that need it. Sure, it take a bit of effort, but if it works, hopefully you can get less questions. And if it really was obvious and in the documentation, just ignore them and move on.
I do understand the frustration, but it I think point to the need for developers and other contributors to OS projects to get compenstation for their efforts. If you get paid or some kind of real reward to explain how to use some software, dealing with newbie questions could become much more tolerable, instead of just another demand on your spare time.
Seriously. Apple and yes even Microsoft (don't laugh!) has had lots of success in listening to non-technical users and trying to meet there needs. Both companies get users in front of software, ask them to use it, ask them questions, and learn from them. Now, they all fall short (it's hard to meet everybody's demands), but they know that the simplest questions can lead to great insights and opportunities.
If a user can't figure out how to do something, that is a problem to be dealt with. The reason that MS is overhauling Office 2007 so radically is based on user feedback and studies. Granted, it may not work, but if it does, it will keep Office on top of the heap (and may lead to some interesting ideas in other applications). When a user has a hard time doing something, it is a chance to make something better, more effective, and maybe, just maybe, to learn something new.
The problem is that too many open source projects seem to exist to reinforce one's view on what software should be and must be. So, negative feedback is just reinforcement that the developers "really get it", and that these "newbies" don't. After all, why bother making software anybody can use? If the cool people are using it, and want to join the club, what else do you want? How better to prove you are smarter, better, more of a hacker, whatever than to make people jump through hoops to provide they have what it takes.
I think OS projects have done a good job in attracting coders and developers, but sometimes, it takes more than that to make a successful piece of software, and too many projects suffer from a myopic mindset of what makes a piece of software work or not.
Finally, I think too many people have a overdeveloped sense of superiority from the mere fact that they use an a particular OS, browser, tool, etc. Sure, it's understandable, but meanwhile, there are tons of people that just want to do something at work or at home, and could care less if the software is open source or not, because it doesn't add any value for them. And until this mindset is address, the RTFM responses will continue.
Okay, firstly, in full disclosure, one of the authors of this book I am discussing (recommending, even) is my PhD advisor, and the other author was a fellow graduate student when I was working on my MS. So, with that in mind.
I think there is a really excellent chapter in the following book Pair Programming Illuminated which discusses this. Basically, this is a teacher and student relationship in a sense. As such, you need to encourage the novice to ask questions about what you are doing (when you are driving), and to encourage the student to talk out loud about what they are thinking when they are driving. Finally, you must slow down and explain when things are tricky, and never confuse head-nodding or awed silence for understanding.
As the expert, you do need to delegate tasks. I think it is fine to send a student off on small individual assignments on the project, and then bring it back, they can explain it to you, and you provide comments on the work. Together, you can then bring the code into the codebase. This gives the novice the sense that you don't have to watching over their shoulder all the time, and ideally, moving the code into the your project is quick and simple.
If there is an existing code base, one of those assignment could be a simple "Present it to me" task. Learn this bit of code, and explain what purpose it has in the system, and bring me a list of questions and concerns about it. Then, after that, do a pair programming task that involves that code. The novice drives, you watch.
The list goes on and on. One other thing is to try to get the less experienced person to take on more and more tasks. In fact, you can almost challenge that person to know more about a part of the project than you do. This is good, because you don't have to be the expert on everything, which is tiring. And more you aren't the sole expert on, the better for you. You can just bring your experience to bear when it is requested, allowing you to focus on other tasks.
One thing I haven't seen discussed here is taking a strategy on which parts to move. This isn't "do it all at once" kind of situation..Net 1.1 is still there, works, and having.Net 2.0 doesn't break that.
There's a couple of strategies here. Firstly, you can go for low-hanging fruit. Many of the changes in.Net 2.0 are in things that use ASP, ADO, and so on. So, if you have core frameworks that are based on the core libraries, they probably can be very quickly ported to the new language. The optimum case is a recompile, retest and it's done. So, you can pick the stuff you think will mostly easily move to.Net 2.0, and port that.
The other approach is to take a risk-aggresive approach. Take the most critical pieces you have (say, like a framework or a library that a lot of apps and so on use) and port those. Concentrate on that effort, because until those ports are done, you most likely can't move forward anyway. Repeat this approach until are well on the.Net 2.0 road. For a really hard-core approach, pick both most critical and hardest to do first.
Given your large code base, I think it is best to get the old code working first, as tempting as it may be to use all the latest features of.Net 2.0. For example, you really may want to use those spiffy Web Part APIs on your portal, but get your old stuff running first.
But, the key here is to pick those libraries, applications, etc. and work in stages. I don't think a big-bang migration will work very well here.
From the early reports (from Google News, of course), it seems that the announcement is you will be able to get the JRE from Google alongside things like the toolbar and so on, and there was announcement about "working together to promote" things like OpenOffice, etc.
It'll be interesting to see if this helps Sun get Java on more Windows desktops. I'm sure it will help get more OpenOffice installations out there, but (and here comes the karma killing part), I'm not sure that is an instant win for OpenOffice, nor is it the "death knell" for Microsoft Office either.
This is a big test for OpenOffice with a more general audience, and MS Office has done a lot to standardize the office suite interface, and I think OpenOffice is proof of that (it looks and feels like MS Office, and that's not a bad thing). But, it will be interesting to see if the rougher edges in OO are polished off enough to get people to switch and stay.
As for switching from MS Office, that's a harder battle. MS has got some compelling stuff in the way of collaboration and established training. Also, Office is often a interesting platform for third-party development. I think MS has got a few tricks up it sleeve yet. I think MS is trying to establish and solidify its very broad corporate base.
As for home, well, it will be interesting to see how MS responds there. For one, one could expect an expansion of "Work at Home" licenses for companies to get their employees MS Office at home for cheap.
Frankly, I don't want MS Office to die. I don't want to be forced into using OpenOffice any more than being forced to use MS Office, but now, if I had to choose, I'd got with the one with the long track record. (Eek! I said it. The flames await me.)
Great link. Pretty impressive work to solve an Exchange crash, and it's a good example of how to use kernel/user debuggers to solve complex crashes. I'd like to hear more stories like that one. You could learn a lot.
It just goes to show, you never can really tell what's really going on without some real effort.
Thanks for the links. This brings some light on things. Now, off to see if I can find any info on Intel fabs. (See if I can find wafer start info, for example).
And just for the record, I believe that both AMD and Intel have top-notch fabrication apabilities, which, for all the arguments about one company vs. the next, we do reap the benefit of as consumers. You know, you get a pretty amazing chip for less than 200$ these days.
Frankly, I want both companies to stick around for a while.
Yea, that's a good point. It seemed to me from the MS site that it is not the same as regular production support.
In fact, a part of it seemed that this GoLive license makes it very clear that the support recieved may not be the same as support for production software.
Now, if this does mean that they are opening more support channels than is normal for a beta product, then that is indeed a interesting point. I guess I missed that aspect in the article.
Firstly, after reading the article, I was shocked to note that AMDs processors come out of one fab line, and the American fab line was flash only. If this is the case, well, wow. That seems a bit risky. If you get a tricky or persistent process issue (and it happens, no matter how cool you are), that seems like it could really impact AMDs output and yield a good deal.
Of course, that's the main question here, and no way you are going to find out that answer. Yield. How many chips are good in a wafer?
You can guess, but the answer may speak alot about AMD and Intel. It could very well be (here comes the flames) that Intel has an advantage in being consistent in volume and yield that allows them to keep large-scale contracts.
It is a big question in my mind if AMD can currently provide the large-scale on demand volume that the big companies require in some product lines. Could an HP, a Gateway rely exclusively on AMD for chips? (I don't know)
Certainly, it seems that have one fab plant only could be a big bottleneck or issue to make major vendors concerned and place a cloud on that question.
Toss in this which the fact that you can get chipsets (heck, network chips if you'd like) from Intel as well, and you have a real competitive advantage that is tough to beat. All your motherboard bits, one vendor.
And, sure, Intel chips have disadvantages, but in real-world experiences, the performance of similarly priced AMD and Intel desktop solutions aren't so obviously different that most people will notice enough to overcome those other issues at play.
Basically, Microsoft is allowing customers, if they so choose, to develop production systems using the beta software. If they want to, and you think it's a good idea, insert usual don't come crying to us if your computer exploded boilerplate here.
The difference is that Microsoft hasn't usually allowed beta software to be used in production usage at all. They only licensed it for test usage, which, frankly, I'm sure most people were just fine with.
So, Microsoft is saying, well, heck, if you really want to, sign this piece paper (see disclamier list, etc, etc.) and enjoy.
I'd be surprised if this really had any impact, but it's interesting marketing.
Uh, I hate to point out the obvious, but the timeline you quote is according to Alacritech. Assuming that the timeline is correct, complete and factual is well, is now a subject for the courts.
It is quite possible that the TCP offloading APIs and code do not infringe, and the courts rule that way. Sure, it's/. and we all assume that Microsoft is evil and dumb (and it can be), but we'll probably never know.
Well, a couple of things. You can't lump Utah altogther. Provo is quite different from Salt Lake City, for example. Also, saying it's worse than the #1 IT market (it's Silicon Valley for a reason) doesn't seem to a very useful comparison.
But, the conversative nature of Provo (and SLC) really has hampered IT job development out here. It's sad, because we have lots of talent, space, and the quality of life is excellent and is quite affordable, but the lack of diversity really hurts us.
And, yea, there's a dominant religion here. Not in SLC (nobody has a majority), but Provo is largely Mormon, and believe me, it shows. Want to kick back with a cold beer? I think there is one, maybe two bars there now.
The local library tried to ban(!?) a local alternative city newspaper from being distributed there because it was offensive to children. (http://www.slweeky.com)
Salt Lake City? Well, you can at least get some good beer.
Wow. It really says something about the gaming market when you have a card whose outward specifications looks like a P3 machine (and a nice one). 540Mhz Core (CPU) Clock, 512MB of memory. And of course, lots of overclocking.
Here's a question. When will the GPU companies have to start playing tricks when the clock speeds finally give way to things like, oh, trying to cool a damn computer on a card without sounding like a jet plane is in your room becomes an issue. Like, well, now?
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I think some commenters here are too eager to toss the baby with the bathwater here. Gartner endorses reuse, Gartner sucks, therefore, reuse sucks.
Uh, no.
You would be dumb to not ask what third party components, libraries and frameworks could help with your project. While is it really unlikely that you will just glue a bunch of stuff together, and volia, application, it's just as unlikely that there isn't some library, framework or application that you could reuse to make the application better, or easier to perform a certain task, etc.
Also, reusable development is important; Sometimes, it's worth the effort to put in the work to make a part of system more flexible, more reusable. Sure, it's may not the most agile thing (just refactor, rewrite, and improve until, um...) but sometimes it is a win.
I think it is better for programmers. It requires more training, more skill to do reusable programming than one-off systems. It's not like you can farm out the "glue code" to the cheapest bidder. I didn't read the details of the Gartner report, but reuse doesn't save you labor, allowing you to do that same with less (less skilled programmers, less programmers) it allows you to make the most of out the talent you have. That's why reuse matters.
The snipped out part of the announcement seems to me to leave a bad impression. Given this is /., I can almost hear everybody filling the blanks with "and it's still is slow, because MS sucks" or the like, which is not the opinion or intent of the comment actually quoted.
.Net groups, I think it is also reasonably portable as well.
If you read the whole comment, you will see that in fact, the CLR implementation does very well, the designer is now at MS working on the CLR, and all in all, IronPython is a decent Python implementation.
Given this work and the F# compiler work http://research.microsoft.com/fsharp/fsharp.aspx, I think CLR is done quite well as a language independent platform. Also, given the excellent work of the Mono and Portable
However, I did work at a place where two of the female workers constantly made comments about the men's "physical attributes" and was told that, "there's nothing we can do about it." When one of the male workers said, "So if she can go around to the men and say 'Nice ass', does that mean I can go to her and say, 'Nice tits?'" He was immediately reprimanded and was forced to go to sensitivity training.
Wow. Too bad you aren't still there. I'd get a lawyer. There wouldn't be a lawyer that wouldn't just jump up and shout at that case. The publicity, the novelty, the huge potential for settlement, big money.
With just a touch of documentation, it'd be huge. You'd make a huge point about double standards, how such policies can be nothing more than reverse discrimination, and so on. Oh, and if the company was big, hello payday.
Of course, you forever would be known as that guy.The article noted that Google uses a custom tuned Linux kernel. Does anybody know what changes (if any) Google has contributed back? I'd suspect that said tuning includes some kernel changes.
I think one of the main problems lies in the question: "Do you believe in Evolution?" as if it was the same as you beliving in God or a superior power (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you wish).
Evolution, like most good science, is subject to verification. It is not a matter of if you believe in Evolution, it is a question of if you understand the theory of evolution and if so, do you accept it as scientifically valid (you can verify its findings) or if you don't, what evidence do you have that counters the presented theory. You don't have to believe in science, you understand it.
Now look, our understanding of how species develop and change is changing and (dare I say) evolving. There is a new model of how celluar regulation, DNA and RNA, etc. all interact, and the interactions may be more complex that mere random mutation. But, mutation (random or not) is still at the heart of evolution, and the evidence for that is stronger than ever.
Now, your belief or faith in a higher power or God isn't subject to verification. You can't verify that God exists (there's a long argument for it, but if you could, God wouldn't quite be God, in a sense). So, you have faith or a belief in God, but it's not the same.
Sadly, scientific understanding is much harder than belief. All belief requires is a small leap of faith, understanding requires skepticism, study, analysis, comparison, and a constant ability to accept new ideas in place of old ones. It's hard to study and completely understand any scientific idea (hell, I don't know it all about evolution), but it's really easy to just doubt and say "God said so, so there."
And because of that, we will always have doubters. I'm sad to say it, but I think it is likely true.
Actually, caches are easy to lay out on chip and manufacture. In fact, it's much harder to lay out complex logic. In fact, it is interesting to speculate on how having the HT controller on the die, compared to plain cache, could affect yields for AMD compared to Intel. Of course, speculation is all you can do, because there's no way you can get those numbers from either company.
Of course, Intel will have the same challenge when CSI is supposed to be on line in the higher-end models in 2008. Also, it will be interesting to see how well the 65nm to 45nm transition goes for Intel.
But, Intel has a real advantage in that it has a great new architecture to improve on. While there is lots of talk and wonder about the next new architecture from AMD, Intel doesn't have to wait for AMD to catch up.
All in all, I think Intel will lose some ground on the high-end server space for this year and next, but I think Intel will maintain it's share in the lower-end space and may gain in the enthusiast market, as the new Core 2 models look extremely strong, and I don't think 4x4 will really impact that as much as AMD would like.
One thing is for sure. We need Intel and AMD; we benefit from the competition. I remember how great it was to have a Dual Xeon workstation at work in 2002, and how expensive it was. Now, I can more power at home for much, much less.
Am I the only one that is hoping that Microsoft can deliver a better OS? Like it or not (or for most ./ers), it's widely used, it will be in use at some point, and frankly, if it is an improvement, then doesn't that help everybody out. Less windows problems and better windows software seems to mean less headaches for everybody all round. Wouldn't three major (okay, 3.5 Sorry BSD folks 8-) great OS choices be better than two? Personally I don't think XP/2003 is all that bad, I use them everyday.
I just don't buy the whole Microsoft is hurting Linux/Apple/BSD etc. because all of those systems are growing and getting better all the time. Linux is getting better and better, OS X is super cool, and so on.
Sure, I think some people would hope that a awful Vista will sink MS. Well, it won't. because if ME didn't, I can't see Vista doing it. So, maybe it's best to hope for a good OS from MS, more secure, less bugs, less @#$@#$@#%%^ spyware/adware infections for us to all fix, etc. etc, and then just focus on using what we like.
Overall, I think the answer is yes. As far as .Net goes, there are a lot of advantages to having libraries and applications in a format that can be just-in-time compiled or pre-complied to native code on installation. Certainly, for MS it is a big advantage, as they don't have to target a lowest-common denominator of CPU features. Another advantage is that .Net does have pretty decent interoperability with native libraries. So, if you need the native performance, you can use a native library to try and gain some performance back without going totally native.
.Net to precompile libraries to native code. Used correctly, it can improve cold start times.
As for Java, I think it has a couple of issue that gives it a bad impression. Certainly, it's integration with native code could be improved (JNI is pretty hairy at times). Also, it seems that the current JREs don't have a lot of native tweaks to increase startup time. Certainly, I think Java could use a utility like ngen for
Well, I can't discount that as a factor, to be sure. There is "change for the sake of change" here, but I don't think that all there is to it. It's the "we think we have a better way" and "we will go to the mat to try and prove it". Will it work? I dunno. I don't think it will be as bad as some predict, but not as smooth as MS would like either. I mean, there was a time when word processors just had text menus and you had to use lots of shortcuts. There was time when Office 95 was new and different and it still worked.
But, at least copy and paste are most used.
I'm sure there will be lots of interesting commentary here on Office 2007, and I'm sure a lot of it will be along the lines of "New interface is goofy/sucks/bad for users/too different/etc." and/or "OpenOffice rules, why go MS?" and so on.
Which is all fine and good. Really. But the changes in Office aren't targeted at power users. In fact, it probably is true that the new UI will frustrate power users. So, why did MS bother?
Because for every power user, there are 100s of regular users. They want to do more with Word, Excel, etc, but have a hard time finding the features they want. So, this is the first step in this direction. It won't be perfect, but what does do is break from tradition in some interesting ways.
Believe me that MS has been sticking this in front of users and doing usability studies. And I'm willing to bet that enough regular users think that the new UI isn't so bad, that it's pretty cool after you get used to it, and it's easier to find features and play around with them.
All the live preview featues and ribbon bars and so on are to make it easier to regular users to goof around with changes without making them permanent. Also, remember that this is Beta2, so it isn't clear that all the live preview features are in yet, so it could very well be that paragrpah sytle previews will be in the final product.
Finally, I think it is important to note something about the ribbons. The ribbons don't change. This is not the custom menu idea, where menus "adapted to users" whihc just translated to stuff moved on the menus, and you don't know why. You choose a ribbon, you get the tools for that ribbon period. They don't move around.
Will it work? Hard to say. But I like the idea that the idea of Office applications is being looked at in a fresh way.
I think hardware upgrades should not involve needles, scapels and sutures. Call me crazy.
Excellent points throughout. I didn't mean to generalize to most software projects, but it does seems that there are some cases it seems that the main point is to make a point.
As for getting the same questions over and over, it seems that the best way to avoid that is to capture the information and find out how to get it to the people that need it. Sure, it take a bit of effort, but if it works, hopefully you can get less questions. And if it really was obvious and in the documentation, just ignore them and move on.
I do understand the frustration, but it I think point to the need for developers and other contributors to OS projects to get compenstation for their efforts. If you get paid or some kind of real reward to explain how to use some software, dealing with newbie questions could become much more tolerable, instead of just another demand on your spare time.
Seriously. Apple and yes even Microsoft (don't laugh!) has had lots of success in listening to non-technical users and trying to meet there needs. Both companies get users in front of software, ask them to use it, ask them questions, and learn from them. Now, they all fall short (it's hard to meet everybody's demands), but they know that the simplest questions can lead to great insights and opportunities.
If a user can't figure out how to do something, that is a problem to be dealt with. The reason that MS is overhauling Office 2007 so radically is based on user feedback and studies. Granted, it may not work, but if it does, it will keep Office on top of the heap (and may lead to some interesting ideas in other applications). When a user has a hard time doing something, it is a chance to make something better, more effective, and maybe, just maybe, to learn something new.
The problem is that too many open source projects seem to exist to reinforce one's view on what software should be and must be. So, negative feedback is just reinforcement that the developers "really get it", and that these "newbies" don't. After all, why bother making software anybody can use? If the cool people are using it, and want to join the club, what else do you want? How better to prove you are smarter, better, more of a hacker, whatever than to make people jump through hoops to provide they have what it takes.
I think OS projects have done a good job in attracting coders and developers, but sometimes, it takes more than that to make a successful piece of software, and too many projects suffer from a myopic mindset of what makes a piece of software work or not.
Finally, I think too many people have a overdeveloped sense of superiority from the mere fact that they use an a particular OS, browser, tool, etc. Sure, it's understandable, but meanwhile, there are tons of people that just want to do something at work or at home, and could care less if the software is open source or not, because it doesn't add any value for them. And until this mindset is address, the RTFM responses will continue.
I think there is a really excellent chapter in the following book Pair Programming Illuminated which discusses this. Basically, this is a teacher and student relationship in a sense. As such, you need to encourage the novice to ask questions about what you are doing (when you are driving), and to encourage the student to talk out loud about what they are thinking when they are driving. Finally, you must slow down and explain when things are tricky, and never confuse head-nodding or awed silence for understanding.
As the expert, you do need to delegate tasks. I think it is fine to send a student off on small individual assignments on the project, and then bring it back, they can explain it to you, and you provide comments on the work. Together, you can then bring the code into the codebase. This gives the novice the sense that you don't have to watching over their shoulder all the time, and ideally, moving the code into the your project is quick and simple.
If there is an existing code base, one of those assignment could be a simple "Present it to me" task. Learn this bit of code, and explain what purpose it has in the system, and bring me a list of questions and concerns about it. Then, after that, do a pair programming task that involves that code. The novice drives, you watch.
The list goes on and on. One other thing is to try to get the less experienced person to take on more and more tasks. In fact, you can almost challenge that person to know more about a part of the project than you do. This is good, because you don't have to be the expert on everything, which is tiring. And more you aren't the sole expert on, the better for you. You can just bring your experience to bear when it is requested, allowing you to focus on other tasks.
One thing I haven't seen discussed here is taking a strategy on which parts to move. This isn't "do it all at once" kind of situation. .Net 1.1 is still there, works, and having .Net 2.0 doesn't break that.
.Net 2.0 are in things that use ASP, ADO, and so on. So, if you have core frameworks that are based on the core libraries, they probably can be very quickly ported to the new language. The optimum case is a recompile, retest and it's done. So, you can pick the stuff you think will mostly easily move to .Net 2.0, and port that.
.Net 2.0 road. For a really hard-core approach, pick both most critical and hardest to do first.
.Net 2.0. For example, you really may want to use those spiffy Web Part APIs on your portal, but get your old stuff running first.
There's a couple of strategies here. Firstly, you can go for low-hanging fruit. Many of the changes in
The other approach is to take a risk-aggresive approach. Take the most critical pieces you have (say, like a framework or a library that a lot of apps and so on use) and port those. Concentrate on that effort, because until those ports are done, you most likely can't move forward anyway. Repeat this approach until are well on the
Given your large code base, I think it is best to get the old code working first, as tempting as it may be to use all the latest features of
But, the key here is to pick those libraries, applications, etc. and work in stages. I don't think a big-bang migration will work very well here.
From the early reports (from Google News, of course), it seems that the announcement is you will be able to get the JRE from Google alongside things like the toolbar and so on, and there was announcement about "working together to promote" things like OpenOffice, etc.
It'll be interesting to see if this helps Sun get Java on more Windows desktops. I'm sure it will help get more OpenOffice installations out there, but (and here comes the karma killing part), I'm not sure that is an instant win for OpenOffice, nor is it the "death knell" for Microsoft Office either.
This is a big test for OpenOffice with a more general audience, and MS Office has done a lot to standardize the office suite interface, and I think OpenOffice is proof of that (it looks and feels like MS Office, and that's not a bad thing). But, it will be interesting to see if the rougher edges in OO are polished off enough to get people to switch and stay.
As for switching from MS Office, that's a harder battle. MS has got some compelling stuff in the way of collaboration and established training. Also, Office is often a interesting platform for third-party development. I think MS has got a few tricks up it sleeve yet. I think MS is trying to establish and solidify its very broad corporate base.
As for home, well, it will be interesting to see how MS responds there. For one, one could expect an expansion of "Work at Home" licenses for companies to get their employees MS Office at home for cheap.
Frankly, I don't want MS Office to die. I don't want to be forced into using OpenOffice any more than being forced to use MS Office, but now, if I had to choose, I'd got with the one with the long track record. (Eek! I said it. The flames await me.)
Great link. Pretty impressive work to solve an Exchange crash, and it's a good example of how to use kernel/user debuggers to solve complex crashes. I'd like to hear more stories like that one. You could learn a lot.
It just goes to show, you never can really tell what's really going on without some real effort.
Thanks for the links. This brings some light on things. Now, off to see if I can find any info on Intel fabs. (See if I can find wafer start info, for example).
And just for the record, I believe that both AMD and Intel have top-notch fabrication apabilities, which, for all the arguments about one company vs. the next, we do reap the benefit of as consumers. You know, you get a pretty amazing chip for less than 200$ these days.
Frankly, I want both companies to stick around for a while.
Yea, that's a good point. It seemed to me from the MS site that it is not the same as regular production support.
In fact, a part of it seemed that this GoLive license makes it very clear that the support recieved may not be the same as support for production software.
Now, if this does mean that they are opening more support channels than is normal for a beta product, then that is indeed a interesting point. I guess I missed that aspect in the article.
Firstly, after reading the article, I was shocked to note that AMDs processors come out of one fab line, and the American fab line was flash only. If this is the case, well, wow. That seems a bit risky. If you get a tricky or persistent process issue (and it happens, no matter how cool you are), that seems like it could really impact AMDs output and yield a good deal.
Of course, that's the main question here, and no way you are going to find out that answer. Yield. How many chips are good in a wafer?
You can guess, but the answer may speak alot about AMD and Intel. It could very well be (here comes the flames) that Intel has an advantage in being consistent in volume and yield that allows them to keep large-scale contracts.
It is a big question in my mind if AMD can currently provide the large-scale on demand volume that the big companies require in some product lines. Could an HP, a Gateway rely exclusively on AMD for chips? (I don't know)
Certainly, it seems that have one fab plant only could be a big bottleneck or issue to make major vendors concerned and place a cloud on that question.
Toss in this which the fact that you can get chipsets (heck, network chips if you'd like) from Intel as well, and you have a real competitive advantage that is tough to beat. All your motherboard bits, one vendor.
And, sure, Intel chips have disadvantages, but in real-world experiences, the performance of similarly priced AMD and Intel desktop solutions aren't so obviously different that most people will notice enough to overcome those other issues at play.
Just a thought.
Well, if you think that's an issue, I think it'd be best if you didn't sign the GoLive license. (One of many things to consider, I'm sure).
Right now, it's optional.
Basically, Microsoft is allowing customers, if they so choose, to develop production systems using the beta software. If they want to, and you think it's a good idea, insert usual don't come crying to us if your computer exploded boilerplate here.
The difference is that Microsoft hasn't usually allowed beta software to be used in production usage at all. They only licensed it for test usage, which, frankly, I'm sure most people were just fine with.
So, Microsoft is saying, well, heck, if you really want to, sign this piece paper (see disclamier list, etc, etc.) and enjoy.
I'd be surprised if this really had any impact, but it's interesting marketing.
Uh, I hate to point out the obvious, but the timeline you quote is according to Alacritech. Assuming that the timeline is correct, complete and factual is well, is now a subject for the courts.
/. and we all assume that Microsoft is evil and dumb (and it can be), but we'll probably never know.
It is quite possible that the TCP offloading APIs and code do not infringe, and the courts rule that way. Sure, it's
Well, a couple of things. You can't lump Utah altogther. Provo is quite different from Salt Lake City, for example. Also, saying it's worse than the #1 IT market (it's Silicon Valley for a reason) doesn't seem to a very useful comparison.
But, the conversative nature of Provo (and SLC) really has hampered IT job development out here. It's sad, because we have lots of talent, space, and the quality of life is excellent and is quite affordable, but the lack of diversity really hurts us.
And, yea, there's a dominant religion here. Not in SLC (nobody has a majority), but Provo is largely Mormon, and believe me, it shows. Want to kick back with a cold beer? I think there is one, maybe two bars there now.
The local library tried to ban(!?) a local alternative city newspaper from being distributed there because it was offensive to children. (http://www.slweeky.com)
Salt Lake City? Well, you can at least get some good beer.
Wow. It really says something about the gaming market when you have a card whose outward specifications looks like a P3 machine (and a nice one). 540Mhz Core (CPU) Clock, 512MB of memory. And of course, lots of overclocking.
Here's a question. When will the GPU companies have to start playing tricks when the clock speeds finally give way to things like, oh, trying to cool a damn computer on a card without sounding like a jet plane is in your room becomes an issue. Like, well, now?