Not that this troll warrants a reply but since you are totally backwards I thought I'd set you straight.
Abe Ingersoll, the "MTV hacker kid," isn't dropping out of college and doing data entry for some greasy-spoon ISP. He's going to a college just down the road from my house. According to a friend of mine on the college's newspaper staff, he's pursuing a career in journalism (which seems appropriate given his story).
Whether or not he knows what he's doing is subject to debate I'm sure, I don't know him so I couldn't lend an argument to that debate. The point is that he's generally got his head on straight and doesn't deserve to be remembered in the picture you've painted.
I'm not a psychologist by any means... but I know that a lot of psychology is about finding a way into a person's subconscious (or superconscious, if you prefer) mind.
That said, even a person who answers the question honestly is faking the answers, according to some psychological opinion.
I know this is probably nitpicking, but if you're interested in this sort of thing you should read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (which I picked up per suggestion from a slashdot reader). The late Julian Jaynes believed that part of consciousness is the metaphor "I" which is comprehended by being able to look outside yourself, at yourself. Whenever we answer questions about our past or about what we would do in such and such situation, we're looking objectively at our self image (that is, we picture ourselves... we don't picture the situation through our own eyes).
As for your suggestion about playing a role... I talked to my mom (who majored in psychology) and she told me that role-playing is a commonly used method of finding a way into the subconscious mind. So... if (according to Jaynes) we're role-playing when we theorize about what we would do in a given circumstance, or what we've done in the past (by looking at the image of ourself moving about and carrying out the task in question), and we're also role-playing when we project what a different 'type' of person would do... there's a somewhat equal amount of information which can be gleamed about us, since both projections are the product of our subconscious (or superconscious) mind.
But really, these are just my ideas from what I've read so far, take them with a grain of salt.
Actually, I remember hearing that DirectX was purchased from a company which was designing an object-oriented game programming library for cross platform use. When Microsoft got it, they componentized it (thus moving the object source to binary files) and threw in a few Windows-specific programming requirements (IDirectDraw instances must be associated with a valid HWND [to be fair, this makes sense for auto-clipping if you're not in full-screen exclusive mode.], updated interface instances must be created through CoCreateInstance which is COM-specific). Still, the goal of DirectX has been to lure game programmers away from DOS so they can finally get rid of their ancient system (IMHO, this is a Good Thing). They've also been working with SGI on a new multimedia API which is supposed to replace DirectX. Sorry to you OpenGL fans, it's supposed to be componentized too (and if there's any legacy DX code, interfaces may also support IDispatch - ie: they're scriptable). Their focus has been on componentizing all aspects of their operating system, thus (the idea goes) simpler to program, and easier to update (interface names get incremental version numbers as updates are released, so that it's simple to keep the old interfaces working and add in new features of new interfaces by changing the name of an interface type, rather than using *Ex or *ExEx functions).
Now, whether or not this is true is a matter of perspective... I've written OLE-enabled applications from the base level (meaning: I play with OLE interface instances and implement interfaces required by certain features of OLE). In fact, OLE may be the only innovation to come out of Microsoft (though I'd give them a bit more credit than that). From what I've been able to learn, Microsoft's COM came out of Microsoft's research department, in their archives they've got some paper published by a Microsoftie back in '88. Of course, COM/DCOM takes its fundamentals from CORBA (its interface definition language is identical), but I digress... OLE (now called ActiveX) is built on top of the COM and thus cannot be a proprietary binary standard. It's a bunch of interfaces and interface definitions (of which you as the programmer must provide implementations) that allow such things as in-place document embedding/linking, simple scriptable objects and run-time type information retrieval, event and property notification sinks for use with scriptable controls, control container requirements, error information with a simple textual description and connection to documentation with even more information (with respect to the user's currently selected language, of course), and simple stuff that doesn't get much attention... output streams, property bags (to maintain the state of controls between loading/unloading), and the system-wide lookup table (called the "Running Object Table" or "ROT") which manages monikers for all active document objects in the system. All of these are good ideas, though Microsoft's implementation may be a bit shoddy in parts (and good luck interpreting the Microspeak in the OLE/ActiveX documentation... it's purposefully ambiguous, almost certainly because they don't want it stolen while it's so young). I believe that the real 'innovation' (I really don't like to use buzzwords but at least it's in context) from MS has been OLE... and it really makes sense that it would be. Microsoft has pawned off a lot of their 'big programs' to monkey-coders (more on this in a sec)... MS Office hasn't really changed much, the interface has been beautified and the Office programmers are just gluing together the little components which come in from other areas (yes, that talking paper clip came out of an MS Research project), MS Media Player (supposedly a new focus) has been beautified and even has some ripped off code (good thing Apple kept alive) but it's also been componentized, Internet Explorer *is* an OLE control component and a component container and uses scriptable objects (as you've seen in lots of security reports).
The next big honking program to break up and componentize is Windows itself. Windows2000 is the result of this effort, it's the result of their 'innovation' in developing a distributed component model and a large-scale model for program interoperability. Every system object now becomes an interface, every (or most every) interface exposes IDispatch, so system services are scriptable unlike ever before. This is where the monkey-coders come in, and where I believe Microsoft shows real 'innovative' genius. They bring in these monkey-coders in droves. The monkey-coders are the guys/gals who know just enough about programming to toss a few ActiveX controls on a VB form and write some simple code to invoke the services of those controls. This is exactly what corporations want. It's 'innovation' of the most effective kind... that which equates to fast cold hard cash. The monkey-coders whip out software like their butts are on fire, the PHB's (who now manage PHMC's) don't have to shell out as much cash to get software made since just about any ape can use VB effectively, and the steadily increasing prices of MS products doesn't really hurt the corporate bottom line, as they compensate with the money saved by hiring monkey-coders.
If your goal in developing or using Linux is to destroy Microsoft, you must do so by destroying all facets of their production. You have a friendly GUI, you have an office suite, you have nice media players and card games and clocks and database-access middleware... but what you don't have is a system built from the ground up with monkey-coders in mind; that's what you'll be fighting come W2K.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that this troll warrants a reply but since you are totally backwards I thought I'd set you straight.
Abe Ingersoll, the "MTV hacker kid," isn't dropping out of college and doing data entry for some greasy-spoon ISP. He's going to a college just down the road from my house. According to a friend of mine on the college's newspaper staff, he's pursuing a career in journalism (which seems appropriate given his story).
Whether or not he knows what he's doing is subject to debate I'm sure, I don't know him so I couldn't lend an argument to that debate. The point is that he's generally got his head on straight and doesn't deserve to be remembered in the picture you've painted.
Just to add on to what you've already said:
... but I know that a lot of psychology is about finding a way into a person's subconscious (or superconscious, if you prefer) mind.
... we don't picture the situation through our own eyes).
... if (according to Jaynes) we're role-playing when we theorize about what we would do in a given circumstance, or what we've done in the past (by looking at the image of ourself moving about and carrying out the task in question), and we're also role-playing when we project what a different 'type' of person would do ... there's a somewhat equal amount of information which can be gleamed about us, since both projections are the product of our subconscious (or superconscious) mind.
I'm not a psychologist by any means
That said, even a person who answers the question honestly is faking the answers, according to some psychological opinion.
I know this is probably nitpicking, but if you're interested in this sort of thing you should read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (which I picked up per suggestion from a slashdot reader). The late Julian Jaynes believed that part of consciousness is the metaphor "I" which is comprehended by being able to look outside yourself, at yourself. Whenever we answer questions about our past or about what we would do in such and such situation, we're looking objectively at our self image (that is, we picture ourselves
As for your suggestion about playing a role... I talked to my mom (who majored in psychology) and she told me that role-playing is a commonly used method of finding a way into the subconscious mind. So
But really, these are just my ideas from what I've read so far, take them with a grain of salt.
DirectX was probably thier only innovation
... I've written OLE-enabled applications from the base level (meaning: I play with OLE interface instances and implement interfaces required by certain features of OLE). In fact, OLE may be the only innovation to come out of Microsoft (though I'd give them a bit more credit than that). From what I've been able to learn, Microsoft's COM came out of Microsoft's research department, in their archives they've got some paper published by a Microsoftie back in '88. Of course, COM/DCOM takes its fundamentals from CORBA (its interface definition language is identical), but I digress... OLE (now called ActiveX) is built on top of the COM and thus cannot be a proprietary binary standard. It's a bunch of interfaces and interface definitions (of which you as the programmer must provide implementations) that allow such things as in-place document embedding/linking, simple scriptable objects and run-time type information retrieval, event and property notification sinks for use with scriptable controls, control container requirements, error information with a simple textual description and connection to documentation with even more information (with respect to the user's currently selected language, of course), and simple stuff that doesn't get much attention ... output streams, property bags (to maintain the state of controls between loading/unloading), and the system-wide lookup table (called the "Running Object Table" or "ROT") which manages monikers for all active document objects in the system. All of these are good ideas, though Microsoft's implementation may be a bit shoddy in parts (and good luck interpreting the Microspeak in the OLE/ActiveX documentation ... it's purposefully ambiguous, almost certainly because they don't want it stolen while it's so young). I believe that the real 'innovation' (I really don't like to use buzzwords but at least it's in context) from MS has been OLE ... and it really makes sense that it would be. Microsoft has pawned off a lot of their 'big programs' to monkey-coders (more on this in a sec) ... MS Office hasn't really changed much, the interface has been beautified and the Office programmers are just gluing together the little components which come in from other areas (yes, that talking paper clip came out of an MS Research project), MS Media Player (supposedly a new focus) has been beautified and even has some ripped off code (good thing Apple kept alive) but it's also been componentized, Internet Explorer *is* an OLE control component and a component container and uses scriptable objects (as you've seen in lots of security reports).
... that which equates to fast cold hard cash. The monkey-coders whip out software like their butts are on fire, the PHB's (who now manage PHMC's) don't have to shell out as much cash to get software made since just about any ape can use VB effectively, and the steadily increasing prices of MS products doesn't really hurt the corporate bottom line, as they compensate with the money saved by hiring monkey-coders.
... but what you don't have is a system built from the ground up with monkey-coders in mind; that's what you'll be fighting come W2K.
Actually, I remember hearing that DirectX was purchased from a company which was designing an object-oriented game programming library for cross platform use. When Microsoft got it, they componentized it (thus moving the object source to binary files) and threw in a few Windows-specific programming requirements (IDirectDraw instances must be associated with a valid HWND [to be fair, this makes sense for auto-clipping if you're not in full-screen exclusive mode.], updated interface instances must be created through CoCreateInstance which is COM-specific). Still, the goal of DirectX has been to lure game programmers away from DOS so they can finally get rid of their ancient system (IMHO, this is a Good Thing). They've also been working with SGI on a new multimedia API which is supposed to replace DirectX. Sorry to you OpenGL fans, it's supposed to be componentized too (and if there's any legacy DX code, interfaces may also support IDispatch - ie: they're scriptable). Their focus has been on componentizing all aspects of their operating system, thus (the idea goes) simpler to program, and easier to update (interface names get incremental version numbers as updates are released, so that it's simple to keep the old interfaces working and add in new features of new interfaces by changing the name of an interface type, rather than using *Ex or *ExEx functions).
Now, whether or not this is true is a matter of perspective
The next big honking program to break up and componentize is Windows itself. Windows2000 is the result of this effort, it's the result of their 'innovation' in developing a distributed component model and a large-scale model for program interoperability. Every system object now becomes an interface, every (or most every) interface exposes IDispatch, so system services are scriptable unlike ever before. This is where the monkey-coders come in, and where I believe Microsoft shows real 'innovative' genius. They bring in these monkey-coders in droves. The monkey-coders are the guys/gals who know just enough about programming to toss a few ActiveX controls on a VB form and write some simple code to invoke the services of those controls. This is exactly what corporations want. It's 'innovation' of the most effective kind
If your goal in developing or using Linux is to destroy Microsoft, you must do so by destroying all facets of their production. You have a friendly GUI, you have an office suite, you have nice media players and card games and clocks and database-access middleware
Thank you for your time,
-Kalani