Often, bloat just doesn't matter. It's something I wish most programmers would learn. Code has to run as fast as the job needs it to.
To generalise, a main functions of an online system needs to be optimised. But things like offline processing often doesn't. Higher priorities are maintainable and reliable code.
And what you say is right about IO. When I used to work on mainframes, our senior tech guy used to tell us to not worry about the code speed except for IO. PCs are heading that way.
One problem is, no-one much hears about it. Sun rarely seem to trumpet what they are doing with it.
I don't do Java, but from what I've seen, it doesn't change much, and where it does, it adds to what was there before. That is IMO a good thing, that developers aren't sitting around poring over documentation, but are productive instead.
(One reason for not doing Java is the small number of companies doing Tomcat hosting).
I tell you something... a problem I had a while ago with Google seems to have been improved. The problem was the "find a florist in a town" which is normally scuppered by mail order operations creating a page for each town and presumably link farming it to the max.
I think Google have done some work recently, because my search now has much better results than it did before.
Does it have things like setting dependencies, autoscheduling and critical-path analysis? Those are must haves, particularly on complex projects.
I don't know what the pricing is, but I like the idea that anyone - guy on the team, client and I can all see the project plan online - no installed software.
I think they might even miss the boat, though. If Open Office gets big enough, people will not bother going back to MS Office.
Re:It would be interesting to know if...
on
Linux vs. Windows
·
· Score: 1
Who's new in the computer market, except kids?
Surely, everyone who wants and can afford a computer by now has one?
Re:Of course it'll srupass apple
on
Linux vs. Windows
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The thing is, what have Microsoft really got except Office, Windows and Windows Development tools? Well, stuff that makes them big bucks, anyway.
Microsoft basically sell software. AFAICT they don't have the consultancy of the size of IBM or HP. They don't sell hardware (except some mice and keyboards). Building up consultancy divisions takes years.
It seems to me also that the software they sell is very much in the shrink wrap area - stuff that you can install yourself or get someone in to do it quite easily. There's not really a huge sales relationship that has to go with it. People often have their own in-house people doing it.
And what you say is right - things can change in ways you'll never imagine. How many analysts said (even after the first clone PCs came out) that the winner was likely to be Microsoft?
Microsoft haven't moved out of the Windows/Office space. It seems everything else they've tried has had limited impact.
In the retail market, no-one is locked in. You can go to Wal Mart for something, choose a small online retailer for something else, go to a mom and pop store for something other.
Wal Mart don't own the stores AND the advertising space in the town.
I agree. Personally, I don't even mind paying for software, and I don't mind that much if I don't get the source code.
My number 1 priority is open protocols.
In business, I want to be able to get data from point a to point b. I don't want to have to buy something to do it, or rely on someone else to do it.
I also want the option to read the data from anywhere, and replace someone's tool with someone else's tool when it suits me, or write my own to use said data.
However, only two things will aid this - open source, or a well distributed market (like half a dozen word processor makers).
But did he mean about what children are taught, or the emotions of those kids?
Is the war on drugs being won? Or is it just the case that the politicians know it's a waste of time but fear a backlash right now? Give it 30 years, the War on Drugs will be thought of as a really bad idea like prohibition.
By "unwelcome results", do you mean that people that you don't like much get power.
I have objections to certain political groups, but I'd like them to be represented. The argument is always "but fascists will get in", but then people who support green or libertarian views also don't get a say.
It also disenfranchises people. Why vote in somewhere like Henley if you are a Labour supporter when your vote makes no difference?
Well, more fool Jospin's supporters, because the system is designed to allow a very free choice in round 1.
The system proved itself because Le Pen didn't win. The anti-tory vote in the UK was frequently split. If we had seats done like the French, people would be more involved in the democracy.
The french pres. election deals with this issue quite well.
You vote once, and from that vote the top 2 candidates go through to round 2, where people vote again.
People can choose who they really want, hope they get through, and then throw in the "negative vote" if they want later.
Really, PR is the only effective system. We have first-past-the-post in the UK and I know some seats are going to be a joke next election. Someone will win by getting something like 25% of the vote with other people getting 23% or something.
In some ways, OSS is insurance. You use a piece of software used in dozens or hundreds of companies, there's a chance someone can support some of your software. And you aren't relying on a single company that can give the same problem.
A lot of software is internal to a company and really well known by maybe 2 or 3 guys/gals. One leaves, and the impact is huge. This happens because someone becomes the "expert" in product x, and so is given all amendments and enhancements to product x. In an OSS model, people in many companies could be changing it.
I've had debates about this with people who say "how will people make a profit from Open Source Software" and my answer is "maybe they won't". It's quite a strong statement, and I think there's money to be made.
I know people who play music and make no money from it, but no-one complains that such people are threating the music industry. They do it because it serves them a purpose and is enjoyable (and there's a certain amount of giving as they make money for charities)
It's the difference between software houses/consultancies and other companies. One has software as an income, the other as a tool.
Non-software houses just want something that works. They aren't in the IP business and make their money from the stuff they sell, which isn't software.
Making money from shrink wrap is really, really hard. Come up with something very innovative, and big guys with much bigger budgets will come along and squash you. Then there's the marketing cost and all that.
Open Source means that you might get a load of income from things like selling services/modifications etc.
You know what, to me it's partly about a "better world" view and a "giving something back" view.
I use Open Office and Mozilla, and they didn't cost me a bean (except a few small donations). So, I have a look in the forums occassionally and try and answer questions. Doesn't take much time and I'm happy to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
In these New Labour times, not a bad question to be asking.
Of course, lightweight toadies like David Frost and Trevor McDonald get knighted.
dynamic languages? I've not heard the expression before, so you could you name some?
Sometimes I get home from work and there's Celebrity Pets Makeover From Hell Revisited on, and I just think it's all a waste of money.
But then you get series like Nighty Night or The League of Gentlemen or news like this, and it's all worth it.
To generalise, a main functions of an online system needs to be optimised. But things like offline processing often doesn't. Higher priorities are maintainable and reliable code.
And what you say is right about IO. When I used to work on mainframes, our senior tech guy used to tell us to not worry about the code speed except for IO. PCs are heading that way.
I don't do Java, but from what I've seen, it doesn't change much, and where it does, it adds to what was there before. That is IMO a good thing, that developers aren't sitting around poring over documentation, but are productive instead.
(One reason for not doing Java is the small number of companies doing Tomcat hosting).
Put some goatse images on there. That ought to get the message across.
I think Google have done some work recently, because my search now has much better results than it did before.
Remember Cinemania? Replaced by the IMDB. I don't use Autoroute, because I can use the RAC or AA routefinders, and it means no software install.
I don't know what the pricing is, but I like the idea that anyone - guy on the team, client and I can all see the project plan online - no installed software.
I think they might even miss the boat, though. If Open Office gets big enough, people will not bother going back to MS Office.
Surely, everyone who wants and can afford a computer by now has one?
Microsoft basically sell software. AFAICT they don't have the consultancy of the size of IBM or HP. They don't sell hardware (except some mice and keyboards). Building up consultancy divisions takes years.
It seems to me also that the software they sell is very much in the shrink wrap area - stuff that you can install yourself or get someone in to do it quite easily. There's not really a huge sales relationship that has to go with it. People often have their own in-house people doing it.
And what you say is right - things can change in ways you'll never imagine. How many analysts said (even after the first clone PCs came out) that the winner was likely to be Microsoft?
Microsoft haven't moved out of the Windows/Office space. It seems everything else they've tried has had limited impact.
Where will they go if the software goes Linux?
In the retail market, no-one is locked in. You can go to Wal Mart for something, choose a small online retailer for something else, go to a mom and pop store for something other.
Wal Mart don't own the stores AND the advertising space in the town.
My number 1 priority is open protocols.
In business, I want to be able to get data from point a to point b. I don't want to have to buy something to do it, or rely on someone else to do it.
I also want the option to read the data from anywhere, and replace someone's tool with someone else's tool when it suits me, or write my own to use said data.
However, only two things will aid this - open source, or a well distributed market (like half a dozen word processor makers).
Is the war on drugs being won? Or is it just the case that the politicians know it's a waste of time but fear a backlash right now? Give it 30 years, the War on Drugs will be thought of as a really bad idea like prohibition.
I have objections to certain political groups, but I'd like them to be represented. The argument is always "but fascists will get in", but then people who support green or libertarian views also don't get a say.
It also disenfranchises people. Why vote in somewhere like Henley if you are a Labour supporter when your vote makes no difference?
The system proved itself because Le Pen didn't win. The anti-tory vote in the UK was frequently split. If we had seats done like the French, people would be more involved in the democracy.
Any /.ers work with Mr Enderle?
Every little thing added to Mozilla will give more people a reason to switch.
You vote once, and from that vote the top 2 candidates go through to round 2, where people vote again.
People can choose who they really want, hope they get through, and then throw in the "negative vote" if they want later.
Really, PR is the only effective system. We have first-past-the-post in the UK and I know some seats are going to be a joke next election. Someone will win by getting something like 25% of the vote with other people getting 23% or something.
A lot of software is internal to a company and really well known by maybe 2 or 3 guys/gals. One leaves, and the impact is huge. This happens because someone becomes the "expert" in product x, and so is given all amendments and enhancements to product x. In an OSS model, people in many companies could be changing it.
I've been thinking that it's also about getting everyone on an operating system that isn't run by a company that competes in your application space.
I know people who play music and make no money from it, but no-one complains that such people are threating the music industry. They do it because it serves them a purpose and is enjoyable (and there's a certain amount of giving as they make money for charities)
Non-software houses just want something that works. They aren't in the IP business and make their money from the stuff they sell, which isn't software.
Making money from shrink wrap is really, really hard. Come up with something very innovative, and big guys with much bigger budgets will come along and squash you. Then there's the marketing cost and all that.
Open Source means that you might get a load of income from things like selling services/modifications etc.
I use Open Office and Mozilla, and they didn't cost me a bean (except a few small donations). So, I have a look in the forums occassionally and try and answer questions. Doesn't take much time and I'm happy to do it.