It absolutely is a political issue, since the decision to expense or not to expense was 1) made by the government, and 2) came about as a result of public outcry over the stunning lapses in corporate governance that occurred over the last few years (Enron, Tyco, etc.).
The expensing rule was implementated for reasons of transparency and fairness to investors. But that transparency was already there (since corporations already have to disclose how many shares of stock they issue and to whom). As for fairness to investors, when was the last time you did or did not purchase a company's stock based on how many options it issued to its employees? Didn't think so.
This isn't the fault of technology marketers. It's the fault of technologists.
Technology marketing at its best involves telling stories about technology to customers. It's as simple as that. Every time a technologist turns up his nose at a marketer, it makes it more difficult to tell that story. Even if you accept the fact that "engineers! are not good! at communicating! with customers!!!" it's still a fact that in the absence of input from engineers, marketers will be forced to fall back on meaningless cliches in their stories about what you build.
So you know where I'm coming from, I'm a developer-slash-marketer working for a Silicon Valley company you've heard of -- I spend part of my time writing code examples for developers and another (small) chunk of my time writing and editing marketing copy.
Breaking down the barriers between the geeks and the suits is something I've gotten very good at in the last few years. And here's a hint for geeks -- the suits are generally intimidated by you, which means it's your job to reach out to them and make them feel valued.
Let me guess. You're 25 years old and didn't see the original "Star Wars" when it came out in the theaters.
This absolutely was considered to be a stunning piece of filmmaking...when it first came out in 1978. At the time, there had been nothing else like it.
The vast majority of.NET applications in production today are actually ASP.NET applications, so it was wise of the Mono team to focus on that too -- most of the Mono cross-platform scenarios I've heard of to date involve taking a ASP.NET app running on IIS and copying it to a Linux box running Apache running mod_mono.
That said, Gtk# works on both Win and Linux, so if you really needed to create a cross-platform thick client app, you could do that today, just use Gtk#.
There is "preview" Windows Forms support in the beta released today. By the time Windows Forms actually matters Mono will have an production version of it as well.
I shouldn't be surprised that so many SlashDotBots would go along with the assertion that Microsoft will never die, but it is kind of amazing. "Never" is a pretty long time, you know.
In the absence of an Equal Rights Amendment, discrimination between men and women is absolutely constitutional. At any rate, military necessity has trumped virtually every constitutional guarantee ever extended to Americans, so whether it's constitutional or not is pretty much moot.
So what's to keep me from pulling up in a pickup truck and stealing the guard dragon itself?
I mean, I didn't see a big fricken laser mounted on its head or anything...
I'm just the opposite, after I got a job as a technical/marketing droid at BigCo, I am finding that my little after-hours coding projects are 1000% more satisfying. The downside is, without the pressure to ship or help from my peers, I'm getting almost none of these projects done.
Also untrue. To deploy Access across an organization you can install an Access runtime, which Microsoft used to market more aggressively but doesn't so much anymore. This prevents you from having to purchase Office for every client of an Access app (but you do have to purchase a semi-pricy Office developer toolkit).
Well, that's simply not true. Access is absolutely useful for databases that require 1 to 5 simultaneous users, which happens to be the profile for a pretty sizable number of databases that get created in the real world. And MSFT makes it almost trivially easy to migrate Access databases to its flagship database product if and when you need that kind of power.
Consider that the alternative to using Access is a million silos of information stored in spreadsheets on desktops across your company (or the installation and administration of a real database system like SQL Server, Oracle or MySQL) and you begin to realize that a file-sharing database is a huge step up from the alternative.
Typical/. hysteria, leaving out 90% of the facts and turning it into a geek-o-terian call to arms. It's a PRODUCT FEATURE, people. If you don't like it, TURN IT OFF.
I don't think there is one. I don't know Struts (although I do a lot of coding in ASP.NET). The Struts FAQ says that Struts is "Struts combines Java Servlets, Java ServerPages, custom tags, and message resources into a unified framework." and "Struts uses a special Servlet as a switchboard to route requests from Web browsers to the appropriate ServerPage.".NET combined with Visual Studio.NET kinda does that, but it seems like there has to be more to it than that. Is there?
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't the case that "most" companies have done this. Some have.
It absolutely is a political issue, since the decision to expense or not to expense was 1) made by the government, and 2) came about as a result of public outcry over the stunning lapses in corporate governance that occurred over the last few years (Enron, Tyco, etc.). The expensing rule was implementated for reasons of transparency and fairness to investors. But that transparency was already there (since corporations already have to disclose how many shares of stock they issue and to whom). As for fairness to investors, when was the last time you did or did not purchase a company's stock based on how many options it issued to its employees? Didn't think so.
The point is convenience -- it's much easier to pay with PayPal than it is to have to type in your credit card number each time you buy something.
Yeah, because credit card companies are completely above board and treat their customers with complete integrity.
This isn't the fault of technology marketers. It's the fault of technologists.
Technology marketing at its best involves telling stories about technology to customers. It's as simple as that. Every time a technologist turns up his nose at a marketer, it makes it more difficult to tell that story. Even if you accept the fact that "engineers! are not good! at communicating! with customers!!!" it's still a fact that in the absence of input from engineers, marketers will be forced to fall back on meaningless cliches in their stories about what you build.
So you know where I'm coming from, I'm a developer-slash-marketer working for a Silicon Valley company you've heard of -- I spend part of my time writing code examples for developers and another (small) chunk of my time writing and editing marketing copy.
Breaking down the barriers between the geeks and the suits is something I've gotten very good at in the last few years. And here's a hint for geeks -- the suits are generally intimidated by you, which means it's your job to reach out to them and make them feel valued.
I love that you have a team of developers locked up in Provo! It's so sad yet hillarious. Godspeed!
Let me guess. You're 25 years old and didn't see the original "Star Wars" when it came out in the theaters. This absolutely was considered to be a stunning piece of filmmaking...when it first came out in 1978. At the time, there had been nothing else like it.
The vast majority of .NET applications in production today are actually ASP.NET applications, so it was wise of the Mono team to focus on that too -- most of the Mono cross-platform scenarios I've heard of to date involve taking a ASP.NET app running on IIS and copying it to a Linux box running Apache running mod_mono.
That said, Gtk# works on both Win and Linux, so if you really needed to create a cross-platform thick client app, you could do that today, just use Gtk#.
There is "preview" Windows Forms support in the beta released today. By the time Windows Forms actually matters Mono will have an production version of it as well.
I shouldn't be surprised that so many SlashDotBots would go along with the assertion that Microsoft will never die, but it is kind of amazing. "Never" is a pretty long time, you know.
In the absence of an Equal Rights Amendment, discrimination between men and women is absolutely constitutional. At any rate, military necessity has trumped virtually every constitutional guarantee ever extended to Americans, so whether it's constitutional or not is pretty much moot.
So what's to keep me from pulling up in a pickup truck and stealing the guard dragon itself? I mean, I didn't see a big fricken laser mounted on its head or anything...
I'm just the opposite, after I got a job as a technical/marketing droid at BigCo, I am finding that my little after-hours coding projects are 1000% more satisfying. The downside is, without the pressure to ship or help from my peers, I'm getting almost none of these projects done.
Because, in the words of the Subversion team, the CVS code is crufy, unmaintainable, and was long overdue for an overhaul.
Also untrue. To deploy Access across an organization you can install an Access runtime, which Microsoft used to market more aggressively but doesn't so much anymore. This prevents you from having to purchase Office for every client of an Access app (but you do have to purchase a semi-pricy Office developer toolkit).
Well, that's simply not true. Access is absolutely useful for databases that require 1 to 5 simultaneous users, which happens to be the profile for a pretty sizable number of databases that get created in the real world. And MSFT makes it almost trivially easy to migrate Access databases to its flagship database product if and when you need that kind of power.
Consider that the alternative to using Access is a million silos of information stored in spreadsheets on desktops across your company (or the installation and administration of a real database system like SQL Server, Oracle or MySQL) and you begin to realize that a file-sharing database is a huge step up from the alternative.
But you were up at 6:30AM in Glendale, CA. Being beaten with a croquet mallet would have seemed better by comparison.
Typical /. hysteria, leaving out 90% of the facts and turning it into a geek-o-terian call to arms. It's a PRODUCT FEATURE, people. If you don't like it, TURN IT OFF.
Not if you're calling from work, you're not.
I don't think there is one. I don't know Struts (although I do a lot of coding in ASP.NET). The Struts FAQ says that Struts is "Struts combines Java Servlets, Java ServerPages, custom tags, and message resources into a unified framework." and "Struts uses a special Servlet as a switchboard to route requests from Web browsers to the appropriate ServerPage." .NET combined with Visual Studio .NET kinda does that, but it seems like there has to be more to it than that. Is there?