But all those opeating systems "chasing after each other and trying to trap customers" didn't run on consumer hardware. Of the few that did, Microsoft managed to be the one with the most OEM preloads.
Why is it that having the most market share is evil, but trying to gain more market share isn't? There's nothing Microsoft did that their competitors didn't do as well. What makes Microsoft the bad guy is that it succeeded.
Modded down for poking fun at Reuter's lack of journalistic integrity. I wonder how pissed the moderators would have been if I joked about AP instead...
No it's not. GNOME has a lot of people who call themseves usability experts, and have managed to fool two distros into thinking they're usability experts, but they're not really usability experts. These are people who've read an essay by Rankin or part of Apple's HIG, and now think they know everything.
This article should be a wake up call, but I predict that after denouncing Birmingham as an abberation, it will be back to business-as-usual in GNOMEland.
You're right that it's the operating system's responsibility for network transparency. Too bad the user still abandoned GNOME in favor of KDE.
Unix's great success came not from it being perfect, but from it being "good enough". Multics did things the right way, but look where it is today. HURD is trying to do things the right way, and look how many decades it's taken to get to the unfinished state it's in today. Perfectionism is the enemy of sucess.
The ordering itself is irrelevant. One way isn't any more correct than the other. That's the tree that GNOME keeps missing the forest over.
I sometimes wonder how much better GNOME would be today if all that energy spent arguing over button order was spent instead solving real usability issues.
I like the way Qt (v4) Designer does it. The output of Designer is an XML file, and during the build stage uic (ui compiler) generates a form class. This class is not a widget (as it was in v3), but a very minimal class that's only one step away from being a legitimate POD class or struct. All it essentially contains is the form's component widgets as public data members, aand setupUi() function to layout the form in the widget you pass it. It doesn't inherit from anything.
This gives you a lot of flexibility. You can use the UI object directly, as a data member, or through multiple inheritance. You can even load the XML ui file at runtime if you wish, using the QtUiTools library. It also give you a clean OO design, as the UI itself is a stand-alone object.
That goes without saying. But these same people are the ones who refuse to read Fred Brooks. Most other industry have gotten past fantasy and into reality, but the software industry still insists there must be a magical silver bullet out there.
Freedom 0: the freedom of anyone who is not a Novell customer to run the program. Why not? If someone gives me a copy of SuSE, I am free to use it. I might not be protected from any patent fireballs Microsoft may launch in the future, but I'm still free to use it. My situation is no different if MS/Novell never made this deal.
The evil in this deal isn't that it violates the license, but rather that it's an explicit patent threat by Microsoft.
A better way to put it would be: When all you have are nails, use a hammer!
Software, like hardware, should be planned before implemented. You get blueprints before building a house. You get a diagram before burning the circuit. And you design your software before you write it. Twenty five years of programming life, and I STILL can't understand why people have a problem with this concept.
Yes, you can overplan. The "classic" non-iterative waterfall model fails because of this. But just as bad is underplanning. Too many developers are latching onto Agile as an excuse to underplan. They're tired of writing requirements and getting them approved, so they advocate Agile and then pretend their skunkworks prototype is a product.
You also test your software *after* you've completed it. No matter how much unit and integration testing you've done during implementation, you STILL need a complete systems test on the FINISHED product. This is another misuse of Agile, to excuse the lack of adequate SQA testing. You can certainly write your tests before and during implementation, but you still must perform the tests *after* implementation complete.
Waterfall means you plan, then implement, then test. All the rest is variation on this theme.
Actually, most successful software uses the waterfall model. It's the only model that works, so it's why it's being used. In fact, it's the core of Agile! Waterfall doesn't have to be a two year project it can be a one week iteration. As long as you plan before you code, you're probably doing waterfall.
Do you try to figure out something about what the customer wants right up front? Do you design the software before you write code? Do you do a full systems verification before you hand it off to the customer? Do you go back and do the same thing for the next version? If so, you're using the waterfall model!
There's nothing in waterfall that precludes pair programming. There's nothing in it that says you can't write unit tests the same time you're coding. There's nothing in it saying SQA can't do integration testing on every iteration.
I meant free as in Free Software. Which of the FSF's four freedoms is Novell restricting in regards to your software?
p.s. I'm not just saying this to be contrary, as they're disributing my software as well. But I haven't found evidence that they're taking away any of those four freedoms from on of my users.
Speak up. Now! Or STFU and take it daily from Microsoft.
That's what everyone said twelve years ago. And what has happened since? Linux and BSD went from nothing to taking huge chunks out of the server and embedded markets, and they make tolerable desktop systems as well. Apple went from a dying crashfest to the skyrocketing Mac OSX. We went from IE/NS to IE, NS, Firefox, Opera, Konqueror, Safari, etc.
While the spill certainly had a short term damaging effect, it wasn't the permanent destruction everyone said it would be at the time. Go to the bay now and it's a thriving ecosystem. It did less damage than a forest fire over an equivalent area inland would have done.
I am not defending the drunken piloting of the Exxon Valdez, rather I am attacking the absolutist black/white world of the environmentalists.
I don't think there's anything illegal about Novell dropping its support for the Hula project
You don't think?!?! Last time I checked there was no law forcing them to pay for Hula development. If you don't like Novell, just don't use their products. No need to pull a Redhat and imply that they're criminals.
Re:Been relatively imressed with gadget quality
on
Why Do Gadgets Break?
·
· Score: 1
I still have 4+ year old PCs happily working... I hate to break the news to you and the rest of the internet generation, but 4 years is NOTHING in terms of a product's lifespan. Bragging about the longevity of a four year old PC is like bragging you can do four push-ups.
Several years ago, an aquaintance of mine argued that I should not go see the Spiderman movie. "You're just wasting your money," he said, "I've already got it downloaded!" (He was like the pusher man, always trying to give you a free fix). After a bit more cajoling, I stepped over to his computer to see what he had. Yup, he had the movie all right. All two square inches of it. Besides confirming my belief that pirates are social ingrates, it also struck home the fact that ultra tiny video resolutions suck.
So back on topic: why the fsck do people watch videos through their microscopic mobile displays? Will iPods eventually come with fresnel lenses? Is this how we will eventually placate the MPAA, by only allowing distribution of videos too small to actually see?
Re:Standard geek viewpoint == standard geek proble
on
Why Vista Took So Long
·
· Score: 1
I wasn't replying to Microsoft's braindead management decisions, but rather the idea that choice is bad.
Re:Standard geek viewpoint == standard geek proble
on
Why Vista Took So Long
·
· Score: 1
And yet people still prefer the choice-laden "big box" stores over the three-items-only downtown boutiques. Take a look at your local grocery store. Tons of choices, but no one's passing out from brain strain from having to make all those decisions. Take a look at your restaurant menus. Tons of choices. Some exceedingly expensive restaurants frequented by the overly chic might have only one entree, but these restaurants pale in comparison to the popularity of those that have multiple items.
People WANT choices. Unfortunately, there are some like you that don't want OTHER people to have choices. The latter are commonly known as "control freaks".
Irrelevant. The grandparent post said "doing the same in C++ would be a couple hundred (or more) lines of template monstrosity." But even with a non-default constructor and explicit initialization of members, you're STILL not going to get "a couple hundred (or more) lines of template monstrosity."
Slashdot Mirror
But all those opeating systems "chasing after each other and trying to trap customers" didn't run on consumer hardware. Of the few that did, Microsoft managed to be the one with the most OEM preloads.
Why is it that having the most market share is evil, but trying to gain more market share isn't? There's nothing Microsoft did that their competitors didn't do as well. What makes Microsoft the bad guy is that it succeeded.
Modded down for poking fun at Reuter's lack of journalistic integrity. I wonder how pissed the moderators would have been if I joked about AP instead...
It's a Reuters story. Did you expect honesty?
I thought usability was Gnome's strong point?
No it's not. GNOME has a lot of people who call themseves usability experts, and have managed to fool two distros into thinking they're usability experts, but they're not really usability experts. These are people who've read an essay by Rankin or part of Apple's HIG, and now think they know everything.
This article should be a wake up call, but I predict that after denouncing Birmingham as an abberation, it will be back to business-as-usual in GNOMEland.
You're right that it's the operating system's responsibility for network transparency. Too bad the user still abandoned GNOME in favor of KDE.
Unix's great success came not from it being perfect, but from it being "good enough". Multics did things the right way, but look where it is today. HURD is trying to do things the right way, and look how many decades it's taken to get to the unfinished state it's in today. Perfectionism is the enemy of sucess.
The ordering itself is irrelevant. One way isn't any more correct than the other. That's the tree that GNOME keeps missing the forest over.
I sometimes wonder how much better GNOME would be today if all that energy spent arguing over button order was spent instead solving real usability issues.
Give a man a beer and you waste an evening.
Teach a man to brew beer and you waste a lifetime.
I like the way Qt (v4) Designer does it. The output of Designer is an XML file, and during the build stage uic (ui compiler) generates a form class. This class is not a widget (as it was in v3), but a very minimal class that's only one step away from being a legitimate POD class or struct. All it essentially contains is the form's component widgets as public data members, aand setupUi() function to layout the form in the widget you pass it. It doesn't inherit from anything.
This gives you a lot of flexibility. You can use the UI object directly, as a data member, or through multiple inheritance. You can even load the XML ui file at runtime if you wish, using the QtUiTools library. It also give you a clean OO design, as the UI itself is a stand-alone object.
Copland was a great idea that miscarried due to second system syndrome.
That goes without saying. But these same people are the ones who refuse to read Fred Brooks. Most other industry have gotten past fantasy and into reality, but the software industry still insists there must be a magical silver bullet out there.
Freedom 0: the freedom of anyone who is not a Novell customer to run the program.
Why not? If someone gives me a copy of SuSE, I am free to use it. I might not be protected from any patent fireballs Microsoft may launch in the future, but I'm still free to use it. My situation is no different if MS/Novell never made this deal.
The evil in this deal isn't that it violates the license, but rather that it's an explicit patent threat by Microsoft.
RMS doesn't seem to think the MS/Novell deal violates the GPL: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=16595
A better way to put it would be: When all you have are nails, use a hammer!
Software, like hardware, should be planned before implemented. You get blueprints before building a house. You get a diagram before burning the circuit. And you design your software before you write it. Twenty five years of programming life, and I STILL can't understand why people have a problem with this concept.
Yes, you can overplan. The "classic" non-iterative waterfall model fails because of this. But just as bad is underplanning. Too many developers are latching onto Agile as an excuse to underplan. They're tired of writing requirements and getting them approved, so they advocate Agile and then pretend their skunkworks prototype is a product.
You also test your software *after* you've completed it. No matter how much unit and integration testing you've done during implementation, you STILL need a complete systems test on the FINISHED product. This is another misuse of Agile, to excuse the lack of adequate SQA testing. You can certainly write your tests before and during implementation, but you still must perform the tests *after* implementation complete.
Waterfall means you plan, then implement, then test. All the rest is variation on this theme.
Actually, most successful software uses the waterfall model. It's the only model that works, so it's why it's being used. In fact, it's the core of Agile! Waterfall doesn't have to be a two year project it can be a one week iteration. As long as you plan before you code, you're probably doing waterfall.
Analyse, Design, Implement, Verify, Deploy, Maintain, Repeat.
Do you try to figure out something about what the customer wants right up front? Do you design the software before you write code? Do you do a full systems verification before you hand it off to the customer? Do you go back and do the same thing for the next version? If so, you're using the waterfall model!
There's nothing in waterfall that precludes pair programming. There's nothing in it that says you can't write unit tests the same time you're coding. There's nothing in it saying SQA can't do integration testing on every iteration.
I meant free as in Free Software. Which of the FSF's four freedoms is Novell restricting in regards to your software?
p.s. I'm not just saying this to be contrary, as they're disributing my software as well. But I haven't found evidence that they're taking away any of those four freedoms from on of my users.
There are some good parts of Agile Development. But unfortunately, it's greatest impact has been as an excuse not to have a process.
Speak up. Now! Or STFU and take it daily from Microsoft.
That's what everyone said twelve years ago. And what has happened since? Linux and BSD went from nothing to taking huge chunks out of the server and embedded markets, and they make tolerable desktop systems as well. Apple went from a dying crashfest to the skyrocketing Mac OSX. We went from IE/NS to IE, NS, Firefox, Opera, Konqueror, Safari, etc.
I'm one of the guys who wrote "their" products.
Let me wipe the spittle off of the inside of my screen, and rephrase my advice: "If you don't want Novell using your software, don't make it free."
While the spill certainly had a short term damaging effect, it wasn't the permanent destruction everyone said it would be at the time. Go to the bay now and it's a thriving ecosystem. It did less damage than a forest fire over an equivalent area inland would have done.
I am not defending the drunken piloting of the Exxon Valdez, rather I am attacking the absolutist black/white world of the environmentalists.
I don't think there's anything illegal about Novell dropping its support for the Hula project
You don't think?!?! Last time I checked there was no law forcing them to pay for Hula development. If you don't like Novell, just don't use their products. No need to pull a Redhat and imply that they're criminals.
I still have 4+ year old PCs happily working...
I hate to break the news to you and the rest of the internet generation, but 4 years is NOTHING in terms of a product's lifespan. Bragging about the longevity of a four year old PC is like bragging you can do four push-ups.
Several years ago, an aquaintance of mine argued that I should not go see the Spiderman movie. "You're just wasting your money," he said, "I've already got it downloaded!" (He was like the pusher man, always trying to give you a free fix). After a bit more cajoling, I stepped over to his computer to see what he had. Yup, he had the movie all right. All two square inches of it. Besides confirming my belief that pirates are social ingrates, it also struck home the fact that ultra tiny video resolutions suck.
So back on topic: why the fsck do people watch videos through their microscopic mobile displays? Will iPods eventually come with fresnel lenses? Is this how we will eventually placate the MPAA, by only allowing distribution of videos too small to actually see?
I wasn't replying to Microsoft's braindead management decisions, but rather the idea that choice is bad.
And yet people still prefer the choice-laden "big box" stores over the three-items-only downtown boutiques. Take a look at your local grocery store. Tons of choices, but no one's passing out from brain strain from having to make all those decisions. Take a look at your restaurant menus. Tons of choices. Some exceedingly expensive restaurants frequented by the overly chic might have only one entree, but these restaurants pale in comparison to the popularity of those that have multiple items.
People WANT choices. Unfortunately, there are some like you that don't want OTHER people to have choices. The latter are commonly known as "control freaks".
Irrelevant. The grandparent post said "doing the same in C++ would be a couple hundred (or more) lines of template monstrosity." But even with a non-default constructor and explicit initialization of members, you're STILL not going to get "a couple hundred (or more) lines of template monstrosity."
Doing the same in C++ would be a couple hundred (or more) lines of template monstrosity.
Huh? I can write an oject factory in three lines:
MyClass *MyClass::factory() {
return new MyClass();
}