They came up with the stupid "Windows Starter" version, that's the only affordable version and this is shipping like cancer on OEMs.
Way to treat your consumers, MS. Of course it gets home a 'technician' installs pirated regular Windows. Of course MS is ok with this, they got the money.
As for the conclusion, color me shocked. Everybody said correctly.
Yes, but I meant in the science way (null hypothesis, etc, etc)
"Prove that aspirin works" is easy.
"Study the effects of statins on heart disease" Ok, statins lower cholesterol (easy to measure), check, so it should be good for heart disease, right?
But then they "prove" that it doesn't. That, or pharma companies lost interest in statins and are going to market something else.
But one of the strengths of science is that, if the tests are confident enough, to allow for transitivity. (that is, aspirin has anti-clotting effects, atherosclerosis is caused by blood-clotting mechanisms, hence aspirin is good for arteries - or , hydrogen irradiates at a certain frequency, we know stars use hydrogen, so we measure the frequency and know their speed)
One day, a paper published that says X, next day, another one says Not X
Things are getting more difficult to prove.
Not to mention that in physics for example, you have a much higher degree of confidence than in medicine. (If only by the sheer repeatability of experiments)
Earth, as it was, had all of the necessary building blocks for the formation of life
It's funny how scientists prove me that the whole 'skeptic' thing is BS everyday
No, WE DON'T KNOW Earth had all the element necessary to life. Experiments certainly point that way, BUT THEY NEVER PRODUCED LIFE. We DON'T KNOW what all the necessary elements are. Maybe we're missing, I dunno, rare earths, or something like that.
If this was any other (new) discussion, with double the evidence, everybody would call BS on them
And even if Earth had everything, was on its way, a meteorite could have gone 'bam' and brought 'ready-made' life here.
Some distributions allow their build system to be downloaded as part of the distribution. Of course CentOS can't have it as part of the distribution because it's not from the 'preeminent Linux vendor'
And most importantly, strips of paper may be a good idea on the physical world.
The developers may have tried to mimic the strips and it is not that simple on the computer screen, or did something not quite similar but a lot worse (for example more difficult to read)
Transporting analogies and usage models is very complicated
Actually you are wrong. The Java haters are so funny. I have worked in Pascal, Fortran, Modula-2, c, c++, objective c, JAVA, BASIC, COBOL, PHP, Perl, and Python.
SO? You may have worked, but 99% of java programmers haven't.
And for a desktop app that deals with a database I like Java the best.
Fair enough.
The problems you see with Java tend to be caused by the fact it is so easy to get a program to work even if you use terrible design. BTW yes I know about javascript and HTML5 but those are really new and frankly do not have the control and performance that Java gives a programmer IMHO.
Yes, you probably can get the control you want if you dig through a mess of an API, as opposed to clean an to-the-point actions of other languages/standard libraries (and yes, not even C# is that contrived).
I can see one reason for using this that you probably missed., portability. The US ATC system was so tightly designed that we where stuck with using old slow computers for years. The old system just couldn't be run on modern hardware. Java should prevent that issue. As long as you can make a JVM work you are good. You could in theory use c++ and QT or Mono but I would consider those higher risk decisions than Java.
Yes, portability is important. And even though Java is supposed to facilitate this, It still can be painful even on a desktop situation!
Interestingly enough, I've come to know of (critical) systems running very old codebases (on Pascal) on modern hardware (of course with a recompile). (Yes, I'd take Java any day over that mess)
Yeah, but the issue is: the main reason for choosing Java is because the architect/developers are incompetent in anything else
Of course you can have a high-performance system in Java, IBM Watson was mainly in Java EXCEPT for the critical parts, because of speed (and they used Prolog as well).
Probably for ATC speed is not a problem IF you use the correct algorithms, which they probably didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
So, PHBs and BOFHs
Are there chances of a Cell 2 or only Sony can get that?!
Yeah, but they didn't reduce the price.
They came up with the stupid "Windows Starter" version, that's the only affordable version and this is shipping like cancer on OEMs.
Way to treat your consumers, MS. Of course it gets home a 'technician' installs pirated regular Windows. Of course MS is ok with this, they got the money.
As for the conclusion, color me shocked. Everybody said correctly.
Well it's your choice
Like it's your choice to buy a hundred thousand dollar gaz-guzzler giant SUV
At least the SUV is cheaper and you can torch it and pretend it was stolen (not that I'm advocating insurance fraud)
Exactly
There's nothing wrong with being for-profit.
But they probably won't charge you 10 years of debt for that, as opposed to the 'big-name' non-profits.
I guess one of the issues is with the scope of the results.
Like the main media saying "blah cures cancer", when the studies say "pacients with Blasphyliomilioma who took blah had a % better cure rate"
It's all too easy to present an argument and have it taken seriously, because the rigor in filtering out bad science is lacking
And the rigor of finding bad science is lacking as well when bad science is part of the mainstream thought.
Yes, but I meant in the science way (null hypothesis, etc, etc)
"Prove that aspirin works" is easy.
"Study the effects of statins on heart disease" Ok, statins lower cholesterol (easy to measure), check, so it should be good for heart disease, right?
But then they "prove" that it doesn't. That, or pharma companies lost interest in statins and are going to market something else.
But one of the strengths of science is that, if the tests are confident enough, to allow for transitivity. (that is, aspirin has anti-clotting effects, atherosclerosis is caused by blood-clotting mechanisms, hence aspirin is good for arteries - or , hydrogen irradiates at a certain frequency, we know stars use hydrogen, so we measure the frequency and know their speed)
And then we lose it...
Exactly
One day, a paper published that says X, next day, another one says Not X
Things are getting more difficult to prove.
Not to mention that in physics for example, you have a much higher degree of confidence than in medicine. (If only by the sheer repeatability of experiments)
I'm not sure how it was on IA64, I guess it was a virtual machine kind of thing, but I remember people not being that happy
(guess what http://news.cnet.com/Intel-scraps-once-crucial-Itanium-feature/2100-1006_3-6028817.html)
Yes, but
is Office 100% .NET? Most likely not
MS Live Messenger?
(apart from that IE should be easier to convert, I guess)
At least MS has some experiences with ARM tools.
MS needed to have wakened up some 10 years ago.
Do they have a Windows version running on HW other than x86? Apart from XBOX 360, of course not
They used to have, but they believed their own crap about Wintel blah blah blah
Granted, they did a version for Itanic
But MS are the ones who where ultra-sluggish with AMD64
Apple had something like 3 versions of OS X on x86 before switching to Intel
And then people will buy and complain their 5 year old program doesn't work anymore.
Earth, as it was, had all of the necessary building blocks for the formation of life
It's funny how scientists prove me that the whole 'skeptic' thing is BS everyday
No, WE DON'T KNOW Earth had all the element necessary to life. Experiments certainly point that way, BUT THEY NEVER PRODUCED LIFE. We DON'T KNOW what all the necessary elements are. Maybe we're missing, I dunno, rare earths, or something like that.
If this was any other (new) discussion, with double the evidence, everybody would call BS on them
And even if Earth had everything, was on its way, a meteorite could have gone 'bam' and brought 'ready-made' life here.
Yes, interesting
Some distributions allow their build system to be downloaded as part of the distribution. Of course CentOS can't have it as part of the distribution because it's not from the 'preeminent Linux vendor'
Doesn't matter much. CentOs would benefit from having its own build system.
RHs build system is very old and based on CVS (ya rly)
thanks for the very insightful comment
And most importantly, strips of paper may be a good idea on the physical world.
The developers may have tried to mimic the strips and it is not that simple on the computer screen, or did something not quite similar but a lot worse (for example more difficult to read)
Transporting analogies and usage models is very complicated
Actually you are wrong.
The Java haters are so funny. I have worked in Pascal, Fortran, Modula-2, c, c++, objective c, JAVA, BASIC, COBOL, PHP, Perl, and Python.
SO? You may have worked, but 99% of java programmers haven't.
And for a desktop app that deals with a database I like Java the best.
Fair enough.
The problems you see with Java tend to be caused by the fact it is so easy to get a program to work even if you use terrible design. BTW yes I know about javascript and HTML5 but those are really new and frankly do not have the control and performance that Java gives a programmer IMHO.
Yes, you probably can get the control you want if you dig through a mess of an API, as opposed to clean an to-the-point actions of other languages/standard libraries (and yes, not even C# is that contrived).
I can see one reason for using this that you probably missed., portability. The US ATC system was so tightly designed that we where stuck with using old slow computers for years. The old system just couldn't be run on modern hardware.
Java should prevent that issue. As long as you can make a JVM work you are good. You could in theory use c++ and QT or Mono but I would consider those higher risk decisions than Java.
Yes, portability is important. And even though Java is supposed to facilitate this, It still can be painful even on a desktop situation!
Interestingly enough, I've come to know of (critical) systems running very old codebases (on Pascal) on modern hardware (of course with a recompile). (Yes, I'd take Java any day over that mess)
Yeah, but the issue is: the main reason for choosing Java is because the architect/developers are incompetent in anything else
Of course you can have a high-performance system in Java, IBM Watson was mainly in Java EXCEPT for the critical parts, because of speed (and they used Prolog as well).
Probably for ATC speed is not a problem IF you use the correct algorithms, which they probably didn't.
Yes, sorry if it wasn't clear, of course the failure was not due to financing by MS, but the 'stubborness' of SCO was due to financing.
That's what you get when you have the kind of money MS has
Yeah, there are no real-world applications of number theory
cryptography, data compression, error correction, no sir, number theory is good for nothing sir
Integrating anti-virus onto a chip is as likely as integrating a giraffe into a Ferrari
Gotta love 'non-specialist' ideas
Yeah, he's going to implement GNU Hurd in Lisp as a module of Emacs
oh wait...
Thanks for the tip, I'll take a look
I wouldn't trust Thunderbird not to mess this up...
For a Mozilla product, TB is really poor.
AMEN brother