I must note that there's one possible reason that/usr/bin/env is not used more often in the Perl universe. Try starting a script out with "#!/usr/bin/env perl -w". No joy, at least on the Linux and HP-UX boxen where I tried it. Works okay on FreeBSD. I believe that the disconnect comes in the way the loaders on the non-BSD systems package up the arguments for execution. Not as portable as one might think, at least in that case. Still a nifty trick, though.
In an otherwise fairly accurate, though gushing, article about Python, the author presents an example of a Python script, and a "contrasting" example of a Perl script. The Python script starts with the line "#!/usr/bin/env python", a common idiom in the Python world to increase portability. The Perl script, however, names the Perl interpreter directly--"#!/usr/bin/perl". The author seems to tout this as a portability feature of Python.
Don't get me wrong--as much as I love Perl, I'm starting to fall just as much in love with Python the more I use it. It rocks. But the/usr/bin/env technique is totally independent of which interpreter you are calling. It's not so much a feature of Python as a common behavior of Python script authors. Not a biggie, but it seemed a bit, well, off.
I'm thinking that maybe Quigley is on to something with his comment that one tends to use the pinkies more under Dvorak than Qwerty. Especially that freakin' slash key! For which I mis-type "L" about half the time, and "=" the other half. And don't ask me how many dashes I type on command lines, either. Or semicolons or quote marks when coding. All pinkie keys. Dvorak was meant for straight English, and is less kindly treated by perl, bash, and a few of my other favorite computing linguae.
My experience tends to support his assertion, because my numbness is diminishing at about the rate I would expect if it were due to muscles strengthening. Here's hoping.
At home I just pried off the keycaps and stuck them on in the right places. At work, I keep it QWERTY to please the admins, so I hafta touch-type there. I find that I touch-type text just fine, but after I've stared at text I've just typed and then want to hit Ctrl-X Ctrl-S, I do that by sight. That is, I used to!
As for Windows, when my boss forces me to boot into NT at work, I've found that it actually has a native Dvorak keyboard mapping somewhere in the depths of its many configuration screens, don't ask me exactly where. I had to go hunt up an admin to get an install disk when I did it, but it worked fine after that. I do not know about Win9X, thank Garp.
Oh, and nowadays, I do all my NT under vmWare, and since he uses X like a good lil camper, my xmodmap works fine for him, too. Now if they'd only make an Oracle PTE client for Linux...
I had only minimal wrist and hand symptoms until earlier this year. I decided to switch to a Dvorak keyboard layout to, as the previous message says, "stave off" further deterioration.
Now, unfortunately, I have noticeable numbness in the outer pair of fingers on both hands. It started soon after I started using the Dvorak layout full-time, and intensified steadily over the next couple of months.
However! Do not run away yet. My wrist pain has stopped almost entirely, and the numbness has now begun to decrease slowly but steadily. Why the strangeness? Well, as near as I can tell, because I had been typing for so long on the QWERTY layout, I didn't have to keep my fingers on the home row--my hands sorta "floated" over the keyboard, and my motion was loose and easy. But in the time it took me to become really proficient with the Dvorak layout (and I am still not quite back to my original speed yet, but close) I kept my fingers glued to the home row like attentive schoolchildren. And my hands were tense, as were my forearms.
But now I'm loosening up, and it appears that I'll wind up better off than I was before. So yes, by all means try the Dvorak layout. Just know that it works better (and faster) for some people than for others. Be aware, not scared.
And please, do what these other folks are telling you--get away from the keyboard and do something totally unlike typing for a while each day. Like masturbating. Or rock climbing. Or whatever.
The only sure-fire way to keep people OUT of your machine is to keep yourself from being connected in the first place.
And the only surefire way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence. Yet there is a thriving contraception business. Y'see, what we really want to do is have sex, and be connected, and minimize the risk as much as possible. There's a nice wide gap between "surefire" and "please crack me cuz I'm an idiot" and that's where I want to build my house.
And while we're at it, cutting the wire is not a surefire way, either. Several years ago, a nasty little Gollum of a burglar stole my machine and the two hundred-odd floppies that made up my software development archives. I was left with only the sadly out-of-date safety-deposit-box copies, and one box of diskettes that I had taken into another room to riffle through, as memoirs of almost three years worth of design and coding. Ah, hell, most of it was crap anyway, and as fast as PCs were changing, it was all for the best, but I didn't think so at the time.
So, in summary, the only surefire way to keep people out of your computer is not to have one. And that sucks almost as much as not being connected. Or not having sex.
I just got cracked a couple of weeks ago, and a colleague got owned twice in close succession shortly thereafter. And neither of us knows how the intruders gained entrance, including the third time which was on a freshly-installed brandy-new system with nearly every available security upgrade in place. Two days after his second intrusion, my colleague saw a new CERT advisory that may explain how we were penetrated. But it's only a guess.
While buying this book is certainly on our agenda now, we were both wondering if there was any useful information currently on line about the subject. Most of the security stuff I could find was aimed squarely at prevention rather than detection and tracking. While that's a laudable goal, once you've been cracked, it would be nice to know who did it and how.
Not that I would track the little rat weasels down and wear their hides for coats, but knowing which hole to plug first, or again, would make me sleep better at night and urinate more freely during the day. Or is it the other way 'round?
No, the Patriot is neither intended to, nor capable of, shooting down ICBMs. If using the Raytheon weapon is shooting down a bullet with a bullet, then using a Patriot against an ICBM is shooting down a bullet by throwing a rock at it. Just not the same scale.
There were missiles designed to defend against ICBMs, thirty years ago--the anti-ballistic missiles, or ABMs. But a series of Cold-War treaty maneuverings culminating in the ABM treaty of 1972 reduced their deployment to one selected site on each side. The Soviet Union chose the city of Moscow, and we chose some ICBM launch site (oh, thanks, Uncle Sammy!). But the limits prevent ABMs from being an effective countermeasure against a nuclear exchange.
Reagan's Star Wars program would have jeopardized the whole ABM equilibrium if it had actually produced any results beyond the political. And now, many right-wingers are arguing that, since the USSR is no more, neither is the 1972 treaty. So, all you young folks, let me introduce you to my friend Burt the Turtle. He's going to teach you all to Duck and Cover!
I am afraid to ask. So far, they have issued only one vague edict about not loading any "personal" software on PCs. Engineers seem to be pretty much exempt from that policy, which apparently only applies to "business PCs" and to software for the MS-Windows platform. All the members of my group have Linux loaded on our PCs, and our boss is aware of that fact. So is her boss. Whether they really know what that means, I cannot say and shall not speculate.
Our I.T. department is a different story. The less they know about what we do and how we do it, the happier everyone is. Asking them about OSS would be like waking up a dragon to inquire if it wanted its claws painted a nice pastel pink. The answer might well be yes, but do you really want to know that badly?
IF they had it, would they innovate? I'd be willing to grant Microsoft the freedom to innovate if they promised to actually use it.
And for the record, I agree with those folks here who have noted that Microsoft actually has had freedom to innovate all along, but that as a result of their actions, their competitors have in many cases been deprived of that freedom.
Wait, wait, wait. Now I'm starting to see the whole pattern! Rob announces the most complex addition to Slashdot to date--our so-called "meta" moderation. And what's beyond "meta"? Why, "trans-meta", of course. That's what they're up to--they've been working all this time on the next step in Slashdot moderation. It's no wonder that it will require specialized hardware--I hear that Rob has a 600mHz quad-Alpha cluster dedicated to meta-moderation, and it's badly bogged down already.
I predict that the next revelation will be that Andover.net is a fully-owned subsidiary of Transmeta. It's all so clear now.
Every time the moderation system gets more complex, I cringe. However, the best social systems have checks and balances built into them, so this move to instate them is a move in the right direction, methinks. The Knave knoweth not all, but I know that anything which adds accountability to power is a Good Thing. I keep hoping that the moderation system will undergo some simplification down the line; I hope it does so without losing these newly added checks and balances.
I won't even address the concept of trying to teach programming to everyone. Well, yes, I will, if only to say that it's inevitable that our descendants will know more about computers and how to make them work than we do. No, not everyone will be a computer programmer, but nearly everyone will know a bit about programming, enough to get by in the Information Age (whatever that is!)
Having glibly dismissed that issue, I will now address Python.
I am far from a beginner at programming. I almost wish I were a newbie again, what with all the weirdness and speed of evolution in the computing world today. But I also try to keep current, so as new languages emerge, I sample them. A few years ago, I became enamored of Perl. I'm now a total hound for Perl--unless the task clearly demands another language for some reason, I will use Perl. I have a ton of add-on gadgets installed on top of my Perl--the Tk (and more recently, Gtk+) bindings, all the libwww stuff, DBI, HTML, Pilot--I've taken the Swiss Army knife and added power, water, and gas. I love me some Perl.
And still I try new languages whenever I hear about them. Tried REXX (quaint), Rebol (yawn), Icon (cute), Java (ooh, trendy), even ECMA-Script (Java-who?). And while I will certainly use the appropriate language for the task, I keep returning to Perl. (And Ada95, but that's not relevant here.)
Now for the punch line. Lemme tellya--try Python. No, I'm not going to say that I had an epiphany and am ready to forsake Perl in favor of Python. I had considerable trouble adding on modules to Python--they clearly need something unifying like make-maker. Python is not without its clunky, rough, at times even scary parts. But I keep coming back to it. As much as I love Perl, I must admit that it falls down at a certain size, for certain tasks. So will Python, I'm betting, but it covers a different part of Problem Space than Perl, or even Ada. It's cool. It's spare and lean, with enough muscle to push through the weeds. Once I installed the Gtk+ and OpenGL medules and saw my first 3-D coming out of a Python script, well, I just fell about the place. No, I'm not thinking of giving up Perl. But I'm also not going to give up Python, either, at least not until I learn a lot more about it.
So if you were on the fence, let The Knave give you a friendly push. Run through the on-line Python tutorial. It's worth making up your own mind about it.
Oh, and for the record, I fully agree with the others whose advice is to learn as many languages as you can. Programming performance has been shown to correlate much more strongly to breadth of experience than depth. I'd far sooner hire a kid who had five years in the biz and knew ten languages than a veteran of ten years in a VC++-only shop.
Ignoring flamage, I'm just going to straight out tell you that Gnome will not be incorporated into KDE: it will die.
Sorry to say, you're wrong. I don't see KDE or GNOME dying. Becoming more and more alike, yes. But enough of us hate and fear C++ to refuse to use it, and when your base toolkit requires C++, you lose a lot of potential talent. I don't mind using KDE, though it feels to me to have less coherence and depth than GNOME in general, but I certainly won't be coding for it.
I also dispute your assertion that "Open-source projects are winner-take-all." Where did you get this? Actually, I take that back--the winner does take all, and with open source and free software projects, the users are the winners. But the zero-sum competition models that have prevailed so far in the commercial software world are outmoded and are dying.
I agree that StarOffice is in trouble. I haven't tried KOffice, so cannot speak to its potential. I wish it all possible success. The more choices I have, the better.
You say, "I can see the future...". I don't know what it is that you're seeing, but it isn't my future. Lessee... does it have a lot of lint on it? Are you sure it isn't the inside of your belly-button?
I'm surprised Cutler hasn't thrown a tantrum and left already...
I'm surprised that Cutler can look himself in the face long enough to shave every day. VMS was (and still is, AFAIK) renowned around the world for its absolutely unquestioned rock-solid stability and bank-vault security. NT, his current love-child, is renowned for a lot of things, but stability and security aren't two of them. In his shoes, I would be consumed with shame.
I'm guessing that he lays the blame firmly on Micros~1 management. Typical refuge of a failed technologist.
Cutler's brilliant, but history will probably remember him first for NT, and only second for VMS. Sad, really.
I'm surprised anyone would ask this question. If, in two years, 20tb drives are available for reasonable prices, then they will be half-filled by a full load of Microsoft Windows 2002 and MS-Word. And, sadly, probably by Linux 4.0 plus KnomeDE and SunOffice 8. The Peter Principle applies to software, too.
As long as the Artemis project continues to focus on the shuttle...
Where did you get this? I have never seen anything from ASI that said that they were "focussed" on the shuttle. In fact, Gregory Bennett recently said, "We could use lots of different launchers for the reference mission spacecraft.... In fact, some bits might go up on Sealaunch, others on an Arianne, and some (including the crew) might go up on Gary Hudson's Propeller Beanie.:)" (Meaning, I assume, the Roton rotary rocket.)
I'm not saying you're wrong, but where did you get this information? It appears to be outdated and should be changed.
And I agree that relying on the shuttle probably won't prove effective over the long term. I think most of the Artemis people realize that.
I believe the figures that Mr. Bennett cited were the returns from the first Star Trek movie. They were, what--forty million? A hundred and forty? I don't recall. But they were more than the Pioneer and Voyager space probe programs (not Apollo) cost in their entirety--spacecraft, launches, ground operations for twenty years, etc. Which got some folks to thinking whether you could fund a moon base by making a movie about trying to get there. I believe that was one of the prime foundations of Artemis, and entertainment revenues still make up a large part of their initial funding. Those living in Los Angeles usually are aware firsthand of what big business entertainment really is; others may be, but often only peripherally.
Ada95 supports OO programming, but unlike, say, Smalltalk, it doesn't restrict you to that model. You are correct that an Ada kernel would be easier to maintain, and yes it would be more portable--at least in my experience, Ada is more portable not only between platforms, but between compilers, than C, and even moreso than C++. The "not as efficient" is a myth. One can write inefficient code in any language. Real efficiency comes from choosing your algorithms wisely--a warrior thinks of tactics, a good warrior of strategy, but a great warrior thinks of logistics. And besides all that, since an Ada compiler has more information than, say, a C compiler, about what the programmer actually wants, it can make better decisions and actually generate more efficient code, especially for today's pipelined multiple-functional-unit CPUs. Not that GNU Ada necessarily does better than GNU C, but in practice the efficiency question is a red herring.
I applaud the fact that you didn't just blindly flame what you do not know. I would suggest that you learn a bit about it--who knows, you might like it!
Are you saying that you think Microsoft has the same level of respect and admiration among their customers that they had in, say, 1993? They've been in a decline since about 1995--I maintain that they peaked at about the release of Win95, and have been on a downward trajectory ever since. Oh, it was slow at first, manifested in small ways, but it's accelerating every day. No, it hasn't been reflected in their stock prices or earnings yet, but that's only a matter of time. You can't keep customers forever when everyone thinks you are scum.
Don't give up on that moonbase just yet, Hemos. Check out the info on the Artemis Project web site. They intend to establish a permanent moonbase within the next several years, and start commercial tourist flights soon thereafter. All totally private, no government involvement. Where is the money coming from? To quote their FAQ, "shameless commercialism"! They have a pretty convincing business plan, that results in ordinary slobs like me being able to take a vacation on the moon within my lifetime. They need skills of all sorts, so go see 'em.
AFAIK a linux kernel written in Ada would never get up to the complexity level of Minix, because all the coders would get fed up.
"AFAIK"? That tells me that you know very little. Some of the most complex programs in the world are written in Ada. It scales far better than C or C++.
Many in the hacker/free-software/open-source communities disparage Ada because:
They were forced to use Ada83 in an undergraduate programming class.
Their friends and role models disparage it.
I can understand why a hack programmer wouldn't like Ada (which is what we now call the modern OO language formerly known as Ada95), but most software engineers and disciplined programmers absolutely love it. Loving it, and being able to use it in a project because of political reasons, are often two different things. But on a purely technical basis, Ada rules for complex programs.
On the chance that anyone here might like to learn more, maybe try GNU Ada on their Linux box, see the Home of the Brave Ada Programmers, the starting point for All Things Ada on the web.
And I have to agree with the first poster--an Ada kernel would kick some serious butt. But I'm not convinced that it will never happen. That's what they said about the rise of Linux, and the decline and fall of Microsoft.
I must apologize to you for my snappish response. It is not my style, and I fear I let the heat of the moment get the better of me. My comments tell more about me than about you, as do your own of you. Please, feel free to impugn my character in the strongest possible terms--I can take it.
I make no apologies, however, for being suspicious of Microsoft's motivations. I do believe, having now read Mr. Christiansen's assurance, that this is not an attack by Microsoft, at least not yet. There will be an attack, but apparently this isn't it. So sorry for having gotten your dander up.
In future, however, it might behoove you to know a bit more about those you insult. Just in general, as it were.
Well, this isn't a port--the port already exists. I agree (to an extent) that having a program on more platforms makes it stronger, although I am of the school that asserts that having a program available for Windows tends to weaken that program on free platforms, and tends to weaken the free platforms themselves. But that's a whole separate debate. I'm basing my comment on two facts: (1) Microsoft seems to have come to think of free software as a threat, and (2) Microsoft has never failed to respond to a threat promptly and vigorously, and frequently in an underhanded manner.
It's something like having your avowed enemy build a nice brand new house next to yours. Oh, say the neighbors, it's so good for the property values! Wouldn't you be suspicious?
But I will admit, having seen Tom C.'s assurances that there is nothing up here, I am less worried for now.
However, if you think there won't be an attack by Microsoft, you are deluding yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
I must note that there's one possible reason that /usr/bin/env is not used more often in the Perl universe. Try starting a script out with "#!/usr/bin/env perl -w". No joy, at least on the Linux and HP-UX boxen where I tried it. Works okay on FreeBSD. I believe that the disconnect comes in the way the loaders on the non-BSD systems package up the arguments for execution. Not as portable as one might think, at least in that case. Still a nifty trick, though.
Don't get me wrong--as much as I love Perl, I'm starting to fall just as much in love with Python the more I use it. It rocks. But the /usr/bin/env technique is totally independent of which interpreter you are calling. It's not so much a feature of Python as a common behavior of Python script authors. Not a biggie, but it seemed a bit, well, off.
My experience tends to support his assertion, because my numbness is diminishing at about the rate I would expect if it were due to muscles strengthening. Here's hoping.
As for Windows, when my boss forces me to boot into NT at work, I've found that it actually has a native Dvorak keyboard mapping somewhere in the depths of its many configuration screens, don't ask me exactly where. I had to go hunt up an admin to get an install disk when I did it, but it worked fine after that. I do not know about Win9X, thank Garp.
Oh, and nowadays, I do all my NT under vmWare, and since he uses X like a good lil camper, my xmodmap works fine for him, too. Now if they'd only make an Oracle PTE client for Linux ...
Now, unfortunately, I have noticeable numbness in the outer pair of fingers on both hands. It started soon after I started using the Dvorak layout full-time, and intensified steadily over the next couple of months.
However! Do not run away yet. My wrist pain has stopped almost entirely, and the numbness has now begun to decrease slowly but steadily. Why the strangeness? Well, as near as I can tell, because I had been typing for so long on the QWERTY layout, I didn't have to keep my fingers on the home row--my hands sorta "floated" over the keyboard, and my motion was loose and easy. But in the time it took me to become really proficient with the Dvorak layout (and I am still not quite back to my original speed yet, but close) I kept my fingers glued to the home row like attentive schoolchildren. And my hands were tense, as were my forearms.
But now I'm loosening up, and it appears that I'll wind up better off than I was before. So yes, by all means try the Dvorak layout. Just know that it works better (and faster) for some people than for others. Be aware, not scared.
And please, do what these other folks are telling you--get away from the keyboard and do something totally unlike typing for a while each day. Like masturbating. Or rock climbing. Or whatever.
And while we're at it, cutting the wire is not a surefire way, either. Several years ago, a nasty little Gollum of a burglar stole my machine and the two hundred-odd floppies that made up my software development archives. I was left with only the sadly out-of-date safety-deposit-box copies, and one box of diskettes that I had taken into another room to riffle through, as memoirs of almost three years worth of design and coding. Ah, hell, most of it was crap anyway, and as fast as PCs were changing, it was all for the best, but I didn't think so at the time.
So, in summary, the only surefire way to keep people out of your computer is not to have one. And that sucks almost as much as not being connected. Or not having sex.
While buying this book is certainly on our agenda now, we were both wondering if there was any useful information currently on line about the subject. Most of the security stuff I could find was aimed squarely at prevention rather than detection and tracking. While that's a laudable goal, once you've been cracked, it would be nice to know who did it and how.
Not that I would track the little rat weasels down and wear their hides for coats, but knowing which hole to plug first, or again, would make me sleep better at night and urinate more freely during the day. Or is it the other way 'round?
There were missiles designed to defend against ICBMs, thirty years ago--the anti-ballistic missiles, or ABMs. But a series of Cold-War treaty maneuverings culminating in the ABM treaty of 1972 reduced their deployment to one selected site on each side. The Soviet Union chose the city of Moscow, and we chose some ICBM launch site (oh, thanks, Uncle Sammy!). But the limits prevent ABMs from being an effective countermeasure against a nuclear exchange.
Reagan's Star Wars program would have jeopardized the whole ABM equilibrium if it had actually produced any results beyond the political. And now, many right-wingers are arguing that, since the USSR is no more, neither is the 1972 treaty. So, all you young folks, let me introduce you to my friend Burt the Turtle. He's going to teach you all to Duck and Cover!
Our I.T. department is a different story. The less they know about what we do and how we do it, the happier everyone is. Asking them about OSS would be like waking up a dragon to inquire if it wanted its claws painted a nice pastel pink. The answer might well be yes, but do you really want to know that badly?
And for the record, I agree with those folks here who have noted that Microsoft actually has had freedom to innovate all along, but that as a result of their actions, their competitors have in many cases been deprived of that freedom.
Freedom to innovate, indeed. Pah!
I predict that the next revelation will be that Andover.net is a fully-owned subsidiary of Transmeta. It's all so clear now.
Now where'd I put my copy of X-Files Revealed?
Every time the moderation system gets more complex, I cringe. However, the best social systems have checks and balances built into them, so this move to instate them is a move in the right direction, methinks. The Knave knoweth not all, but I know that anything which adds accountability to power is a Good Thing. I keep hoping that the moderation system will undergo some simplification down the line; I hope it does so without losing these newly added checks and balances.
Having glibly dismissed that issue, I will now address Python.
I am far from a beginner at programming. I almost wish I were a newbie again, what with all the weirdness and speed of evolution in the computing world today. But I also try to keep current, so as new languages emerge, I sample them. A few years ago, I became enamored of Perl. I'm now a total hound for Perl--unless the task clearly demands another language for some reason, I will use Perl. I have a ton of add-on gadgets installed on top of my Perl--the Tk (and more recently, Gtk+) bindings, all the libwww stuff, DBI, HTML, Pilot--I've taken the Swiss Army knife and added power, water, and gas. I love me some Perl.
And still I try new languages whenever I hear about them. Tried REXX (quaint), Rebol (yawn), Icon (cute), Java (ooh, trendy), even ECMA-Script (Java-who?). And while I will certainly use the appropriate language for the task, I keep returning to Perl. (And Ada95, but that's not relevant here.)
Now for the punch line. Lemme tellya--try Python. No, I'm not going to say that I had an epiphany and am ready to forsake Perl in favor of Python. I had considerable trouble adding on modules to Python--they clearly need something unifying like make-maker. Python is not without its clunky, rough, at times even scary parts. But I keep coming back to it. As much as I love Perl, I must admit that it falls down at a certain size, for certain tasks. So will Python, I'm betting, but it covers a different part of Problem Space than Perl, or even Ada. It's cool. It's spare and lean, with enough muscle to push through the weeds. Once I installed the Gtk+ and OpenGL medules and saw my first 3-D coming out of a Python script, well, I just fell about the place. No, I'm not thinking of giving up Perl. But I'm also not going to give up Python, either, at least not until I learn a lot more about it.
So if you were on the fence, let The Knave give you a friendly push. Run through the on-line Python tutorial. It's worth making up your own mind about it.
Oh, and for the record, I fully agree with the others whose advice is to learn as many languages as you can. Programming performance has been shown to correlate much more strongly to breadth of experience than depth. I'd far sooner hire a kid who had five years in the biz and knew ten languages than a veteran of ten years in a VC++-only shop.
Sorry to say, you're wrong. I don't see KDE or GNOME dying. Becoming more and more alike, yes. But enough of us hate and fear C++ to refuse to use it, and when your base toolkit requires C++, you lose a lot of potential talent. I don't mind using KDE, though it feels to me to have less coherence and depth than GNOME in general, but I certainly won't be coding for it.
I also dispute your assertion that "Open-source projects are winner-take-all." Where did you get this? Actually, I take that back--the winner does take all, and with open source and free software projects, the users are the winners. But the zero-sum competition models that have prevailed so far in the commercial software world are outmoded and are dying.
I agree that StarOffice is in trouble. I haven't tried KOffice, so cannot speak to its potential. I wish it all possible success. The more choices I have, the better.
You say, "I can see the future ...". I don't know what it is that you're seeing, but it isn't my future. Lessee ... does it have a lot of lint on it? Are you sure it isn't the inside of your belly-button?
I'm surprised that Cutler can look himself in the face long enough to shave every day. VMS was (and still is, AFAIK) renowned around the world for its absolutely unquestioned rock-solid stability and bank-vault security. NT, his current love-child, is renowned for a lot of things, but stability and security aren't two of them. In his shoes, I would be consumed with shame.
I'm guessing that he lays the blame firmly on Micros~1 management. Typical refuge of a failed technologist.
Cutler's brilliant, but history will probably remember him first for NT, and only second for VMS. Sad, really.
I'm surprised anyone would ask this question. If, in two years, 20tb drives are available for reasonable prices, then they will be half-filled by a full load of Microsoft Windows 2002 and MS-Word. And, sadly, probably by Linux 4.0 plus KnomeDE and SunOffice 8. The Peter Principle applies to software, too.
The only thing that will help Linux more than the delay of Windows 2000 will be the release of Windows 2000.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but where did you get this information? It appears to be outdated and should be changed.
And I agree that relying on the shuttle probably won't prove effective over the long term. I think most of the Artemis people realize that.
I believe the figures that Mr. Bennett cited were the returns from the first Star Trek movie. They were, what--forty million? A hundred and forty? I don't recall. But they were more than the Pioneer and Voyager space probe programs (not Apollo) cost in their entirety--spacecraft, launches, ground operations for twenty years, etc. Which got some folks to thinking whether you could fund a moon base by making a movie about trying to get there. I believe that was one of the prime foundations of Artemis, and entertainment revenues still make up a large part of their initial funding. Those living in Los Angeles usually are aware firsthand of what big business entertainment really is; others may be, but often only peripherally.
I applaud the fact that you didn't just blindly flame what you do not know. I would suggest that you learn a bit about it--who knows, you might like it!
Are you saying that you think Microsoft has the same level of respect and admiration among their customers that they had in, say, 1993? They've been in a decline since about 1995--I maintain that they peaked at about the release of Win95, and have been on a downward trajectory ever since. Oh, it was slow at first, manifested in small ways, but it's accelerating every day. No, it hasn't been reflected in their stock prices or earnings yet, but that's only a matter of time. You can't keep customers forever when everyone thinks you are scum.
Don't give up on that moonbase just yet, Hemos. Check out the info on the Artemis Project web site. They intend to establish a permanent moonbase within the next several years, and start commercial tourist flights soon thereafter. All totally private, no government involvement. Where is the money coming from? To quote their FAQ, "shameless commercialism"! They have a pretty convincing business plan, that results in ordinary slobs like me being able to take a vacation on the moon within my lifetime. They need skills of all sorts, so go see 'em.
Many in the hacker/free-software/open-source communities disparage Ada because:
I can understand why a hack programmer wouldn't like Ada (which is what we now call the modern OO language formerly known as Ada95), but most software engineers and disciplined programmers absolutely love it. Loving it, and being able to use it in a project because of political reasons, are often two different things. But on a purely technical basis, Ada rules for complex programs.
On the chance that anyone here might like to learn more, maybe try GNU Ada on their Linux box, see the Home of the Brave Ada Programmers, the starting point for All Things Ada on the web.
And I have to agree with the first poster--an Ada kernel would kick some serious butt. But I'm not convinced that it will never happen. That's what they said about the rise of Linux, and the decline and fall of Microsoft.
I make no apologies, however, for being suspicious of Microsoft's motivations. I do believe, having now read Mr. Christiansen's assurance, that this is not an attack by Microsoft, at least not yet. There will be an attack, but apparently this isn't it. So sorry for having gotten your dander up.
In future, however, it might behoove you to know a bit more about those you insult. Just in general, as it were.
It's something like having your avowed enemy build a nice brand new house next to yours. Oh, say the neighbors, it's so good for the property values! Wouldn't you be suspicious?
But I will admit, having seen Tom C.'s assurances that there is nothing up here, I am less worried for now.
However, if you think there won't be an attack by Microsoft, you are deluding yourself.