When I first got on I was young and dumb Said many things I shouldn'a done Now I'm older and more wise But too late everyone can use their eyes So things I said come home to roost I nev'r shoulda wrote how I useta boost But at least I got four walls around Too bad cardboard dont keep out sound
M&A is all about streamlining businesses and reducing efficiencies. Why, that would require having separate advertising departments for two nations, and in this age of monoculture, what purpose would that server?
That's the kind of small that when you try to put it in your fingernail player in your car it falls on the floor and gets lost with the other pieces of dirt and leaves.
Dude, if you cleaned your car regularly, this wouldn't be a problem.
No I mean for users. They dont have schools, they dont have the gamers, they dont even have the artsy mac users.
Well whaddya know, you just happen to be talking to one of those "artsy Mac user[s]". And yet I continue to assert the argument that I do. My point is that inidividual users are not the issue: institutional use is.
Think of the movement as a tree, without roots you have no movement.
Shrubs also have roots. But they are easily torn up, roots and all, to die. Also, a small tree is stunted when in the shade of a 200-ft oak tree, likesay, MS. Your metaphor is easily perverted, my friend.;)
There is a need for roots, corperate users do not contribute back while gamers, artists, musicians do contribute back and will defend you.
I don't really understand what you mean by this: contribute to what? And to whom? And why are gamers lumped in with artists/musicians?;)
Mac is only alive because of these zealots who will defend them to the death.
Be careful who you call a zealot, pal.:) And no, they stayed alive because of, *ba-bum* applications. Apple ensured a smooth enough migration path for Mac users to OS X so they didn't get thrown off the bus into Windows path--and believe me, it has been very tempting at times.
Someone at work can afford OSX so they will never make a good niche or community, why should they? They use the software for a living, they dont really care.
Funny but Ibooks [sic] are selling pretty well and they dont run Windows. When I'm out to buy a laptop, I'm going to buy what works.
??? I'm not sure what your point is here.
No I think Linux needs a niche market to build mindshare. The corporate desktop is exactly what IBM went for with OS/2 and they got beat by Microsoft because they ignored the little guy.
Linux already has a niche market, and mindshare. They're called servers. As for OS/2, yes, IBM did ignore the "little guy" until it was too late (Warp vs. 95). OS/2 suffered from being "too good, too soon": it appealed to companies whom were not using legacy applications, yet was much more sluggish than Windows 3.1 on comparable hardware, let alone DOS. MS easily managed to dominate the gradual migration path which OS/2 could not, by design, do. Again, this came down to applications, and what businesses needed. Once NT hurtled down the pike many businesses who did use OS/2 moved off of it to NT, because by then a lot of dual-boot situations were being used in order to have access to, once again, Windows/DOS applications.
You need a niche market, the college student/business professional market is a good niche market.
Pray-tell, in this day and age of MS ubiquity, what a niche market is. As soon as it has any sort of profile the Redmond Monster will roar down upon it. Niches are hiding-places, not growth zones. BTW: what exactly is a "business professional" market, and how is that comparable to "college students"?
After a while when enough people use Linux, when its time to upgrade their friends will have already introduced them to Linux. The corperate [sic] world is pointless because most people who work at corperations [sic] have the money to buy OSX, the only market for Linux is for people who want the poor mans OSX.
You're correct about familiarity; however, you then contradict yourself with the assertion that "people who work at coporations have the money for OS X". A seriously debateable conclusion, and also, besides the point: familiarity is what matters, and what is familiar, was, and is, Windows.
If you'll just re-read my post, you'll realize that I am under-estimating the utility of "consistency".
You love conistency. I love consistency. Hell, my main machine is a G4. Your average PC-consumer? Well, like many things, consistency is in the eye of the beholder. To them, computers are intrinsically inconsistent since they are merely another type of machine to be adapted to. And thus they usually don't have any overarching expectation of consistency from any program or OS.
If you don't believe me, spend some time doing basic support, on a user level. Trust me: what seems consistent, logical and desirable to you, is yet another doohickey-whatsit to your average PC-consumer.
Your reply illustrates exactly the point you are missing. The dominance of Windows has nothing to do with its user-base in homes. Most home consumers will ultimately be passive about their usage of a machine, buying a piece of software here and there, but in the main, leaving it pretty much as it was when it was first bought.
When I'm talking about applications, I mean exactly those applications which you dismiss out of hand. Microsoft succeeded in ensuring businesses at large used Windows, and that those businesses built their applications to work only on Windows. This allowed them to trojan horse into the home environment due to the fact that the ubiquity of Windows in the corporate workplace presents your home consumer with a simple option: get what one knows.
For Linux to achieve the same dominance, it must conquer the corporate desktop. The home will follow. This is the real issue.
There are a million different reasons to use Windows over Linux, and those reasons are all applications. Only when Linux presents a compelling platform for deployment and has that "killer app", will people migrate.
I like choice as much as the next guy, but the choice is at the wrong level here. I NEVER want to see multiple mismatched, clashing toolkits on my screen at the same time. I want to have to *force* some compatibility layer to make such a beastly occurrence happen. Everything looks consistent and doesn't hurt my eyeballs or brain in Windows (well, Windows hurts my brain, but that's mostly when I'm trying to write raw Win32 code... ugh).
Hm... I'd like to agree with you, but personally, I feel Windows apps, esp. custom, corporate apps, are as guilty if not moreso of violating rules of consistency.
Besides, once the user's level drops into the "which button do I push" variety, consistency does not become a reward, because to this type of user, EVERY app is different merely based on feature-set, gizmos or no.
So to sum up my point: "consistency" is a red herring. There is no more consistency on a Windows desktop among varying apps and types of apps than in X. It is not consistency that keeps Windows where it is--it is VB, and Win32. Period.
I think that is what could best be described as, "a specious argument".
By that logic, aim for "The Great American Novel", get "The Great American Pamphlet", no bad.
And, aim for the "World's Greatest CMS", get the "World's Best CMS on content-editing features but lacking integrated security, expiration, etc." is a good thing.
REAL project management persists in identifying a best way to reach a goal with a maximum of win-win scenarios on features and timeline. If you want to see a classic case of project mis-management, the big one would be the first version of Microsoft Word for Windows, which was FOUR YEARS LATE.
Truth be told, I'm even disgusted by companies what "pad" the workday by asking for eight hours with a one-hour lunch. Maybe it's me, but nine hours in a place makes me feel frazzled by the time I leave. Only two places I've been at have requested it and, coincidentally, they are both terrible places to work.
If computer science tachers do their job correctly, the students learn to program computers, not write programs for a specific language and operating system.
*BZZZTT*! Sorry, wrong answer! The only thing that matters is the ability to be buzzword-compliant. The ability to actually use symbolic reasoning which is the hallmark of a true programmer is irrelevant!
Please allow our highly-paid buzzword-compliant consultants whom trained in accountancy but took a six-week class at a school in Trenton to escort you out the door...
The issue, however, is that MS can be reliable enough, and at a much lower cost than 'big iron'.
Highly debatable, but let's not nip your argument in the bud.
Honestly, how many companies really need 24/7 and 99.999% uptime? Frankly, most companies arent even set up for 24/7 anymore!
I'm not sure what exactly this is supposed to mean--if a company doesn't have a full staff on the floor at all hours, it is not "24/7"? In this era of rampant globalization I would suggest more businesses have gone 24/7, not less.
So if MS can give equivalent services on systems costing at least $100k less, they win.
I think it's safe to say you are not accustomed to the cost scales in your average Fortune 500 company if you think saving $100,000 is a "big win". A single average employee with five-ten years experience can cost as much as that for such a company, if not more.
Add that to the fact it will be easier to find people to program new things in.NET than COBOL (how many college graduates *really* want to program in COBOL for the rest of their career?),
This is not a real issue. Companies with a need will hire the qualified, and train new people in-house. Remember, most COBOL development is not new development, simply maintenance work.
and its easier to find experienced people to admin WIntel boxes than big iron; companies can also afford to have their expertise 'in-house' rather than rely on consultants- another huge savings.
See above for the "in-house". And if consultants were an issue, well, what about that outsourcing I've heard so much about? But you make a good point--many young guns or lame brains will think exactly like you did, only they will have the power to put action behind their words.
Just to make my point: every large financial institution I have worked in has a hodge-podge of client-server solutions which were devised/developed in those halcyon days of the mid to late 90s, and yet, all of these companies still have people using their mainframe programs in tandem. The moral? Replacing these titans whom were built by real experts with a seriously intelligent methodology that melded business thinking with technology thinking, has proven to be that modern Holy Grail, and, as elusive.
And guess how many of these client-server "replacements" are built with MS technologies?
Ah so... most professional atheletes didn't work hard, as opposed to those oh-so-industrious bizniki?
Something tells me you've never tried to play a sport. And something tells me you're drinking the Kool-Aid Corporate America is funneling down our throats.
Remember, once upon a time, music was more single-driven than album-driven. Up until the mid-60s, it was common for people to buy singles they liked, rather than albums. Albums were for soundtracks, or for artistic purposes (full-length tone poems): in pop, the single was king, and 45s held the throne.
It wasn't until the late 60s when a lot of the popular acts decided they preferred doing full concept albums rather than single catch-alls (likesay the Beatles) that albums assumed predominance.
That singles are again assuming pre-dominance shows how pimped-out the album concept became. Your average album pre-CD was 35-40 min. of music, because that was as much as could be safely pressed, without destroying the sound quality, on vinyl. With CDs came 72 minutes, and a pressure to fill that space. The old B-sides, which made singles worth purchasing, became the filler, along with alternate/radio edits, etc.
Now the cycle has come full, and singles are resuming pre-dominance as so many acts shamelessly abused the album format with filler. The industry has adapted, will adapt.
Well isn't that a wee bit better than not knowing this to be the case at all?
Yeah, and someone could always get a duplicate of your modern luxury car's key made, thus getting in just fine. It doesn't mean security is pointless; just that more secure is better.
Should our representative democracy thus be viewed as such, as some "central authority" akin to a dictatorship? Why have government at all, then? Ah--but that is your point! "Government is best which governs least", etc.
In closing all I will say is that I disagree with your point about (other) animals. They seem much more enlightened in their approach to each other than we humans.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes... this is the real tragedy of the .net...
When I first got on I was young and dumb
Said many things I shouldn'a done
Now I'm older and more wise
But too late everyone can use their eyes
So things I said come home to roost
I nev'r shoulda wrote how I useta boost
But at least I got four walls around
Too bad cardboard dont keep out sound
Thankyouverymuch...
*ahem*
[edit]Having money is better than not having money. Take it from me. Life is totally fucked up when you don't have money
I would rather be a rich man for the TIME BEING than be free and poor :(
[/edit]
I think that's what you really meant.
Silly man!
M&A is all about streamlining businesses and reducing efficiencies. Why, that would require having separate advertising departments for two nations, and in this age of monoculture, what purpose would that server?
That's the kind of small that when you try to put it in your fingernail player in your car it falls on the floor and gets lost with the other pieces of dirt and leaves.
Dude, if you cleaned your car regularly, this wouldn't be a problem.
"Chili's... Baby Back Ribs..."
My personal most hated.
10 days PTO altogether?
Well whaddya know: happens that was true at one of the two places I mentioned too!
No I mean for users. They dont have schools, they dont have the gamers, they dont even have the artsy mac users.
Well whaddya know, you just happen to be talking to one of those "artsy Mac user[s]". And yet I continue to assert the argument that I do. My point is that inidividual users are not the issue: institutional use is.
Think of the movement as a tree, without roots you have no movement.
Shrubs also have roots. But they are easily torn up, roots and all, to die. Also, a small tree is stunted when in the shade of a 200-ft oak tree, likesay, MS. Your metaphor is easily perverted, my friend. ;)
There is a need for roots, corperate users do not contribute back while gamers, artists, musicians do contribute back and will defend you.
I don't really understand what you mean by this: contribute to what? And to whom? And why are gamers lumped in with artists/musicians? ;)
Mac is only alive because of these zealots who will defend them to the death.
Be careful who you call a zealot, pal. :) And no, they stayed alive because of, *ba-bum* applications. Apple ensured a smooth enough migration path for Mac users to OS X so they didn't get thrown off the bus into Windows path--and believe me, it has been very tempting at times.
Someone at work can afford OSX so they will never make a good niche or community, why should they? They use the software for a living, they dont really care.
I'm not sure what the point of this is, either.
Funny but Ibooks [sic] are selling pretty well and they dont run Windows. When I'm out to buy a laptop, I'm going to buy what works.
??? I'm not sure what your point is here.
No I think Linux needs a niche market to build mindshare. The corporate desktop is exactly what IBM went for with OS/2 and they got beat by Microsoft because they ignored the little guy.
Linux already has a niche market, and mindshare. They're called servers. As for OS/2, yes, IBM did ignore the "little guy" until it was too late (Warp vs. 95). OS/2 suffered from being "too good, too soon": it appealed to companies whom were not using legacy applications, yet was much more sluggish than Windows 3.1 on comparable hardware, let alone DOS. MS easily managed to dominate the gradual migration path which OS/2 could not, by design, do. Again, this came down to applications, and what businesses needed. Once NT hurtled down the pike many businesses who did use OS/2 moved off of it to NT, because by then a lot of dual-boot situations were being used in order to have access to, once again, Windows/DOS applications.
You need a niche market, the college student/business professional market is a good niche market.
Pray-tell, in this day and age of MS ubiquity, what a niche market is. As soon as it has any sort of profile the Redmond Monster will roar down upon it. Niches are hiding-places, not growth zones. BTW: what exactly is a "business professional" market, and how is that comparable to "college students"?
After a while when enough people use Linux, when its time to upgrade their friends will have already introduced them to Linux. The corperate [sic] world is pointless because most people who work at corperations [sic] have the money to buy OSX, the only market for Linux is for people who want the poor mans OSX.
You're correct about familiarity; however, you then contradict yourself with the assertion that "people who work at coporations have the money for OS X". A seriously debateable conclusion, and also, besides the point: familiarity is what matters, and what is familiar, was, and is, Windows.
If you'll just re-read my post, you'll realize that I am under-estimating the utility of "consistency".
You love conistency. I love consistency. Hell, my main machine is a G4. Your average PC-consumer? Well, like many things, consistency is in the eye of the beholder. To them, computers are intrinsically inconsistent since they are merely another type of machine to be adapted to. And thus they usually don't have any overarching expectation of consistency from any program or OS.
If you don't believe me, spend some time doing basic support, on a user level. Trust me: what seems consistent, logical and desirable to you, is yet another doohickey-whatsit to your average PC-consumer.
Your reply illustrates exactly the point you are missing. The dominance of Windows has nothing to do with its user-base in homes. Most home consumers will ultimately be passive about their usage of a machine, buying a piece of software here and there, but in the main, leaving it pretty much as it was when it was first bought.
When I'm talking about applications, I mean exactly those applications which you dismiss out of hand. Microsoft succeeded in ensuring businesses at large used Windows, and that those businesses built their applications to work only on Windows. This allowed them to trojan horse into the home environment due to the fact that the ubiquity of Windows in the corporate workplace presents your home consumer with a simple option: get what one knows.
For Linux to achieve the same dominance, it must conquer the corporate desktop. The home will follow. This is the real issue.
Bollocks.
There are a million different reasons to use Windows over Linux, and those reasons are all applications. Only when Linux presents a compelling platform for deployment and has that "killer app", will people migrate.
I like choice as much as the next guy, but the choice is at the wrong level here. I NEVER want to see multiple mismatched, clashing toolkits on my screen at the same time. I want to have to *force* some compatibility layer to make such a beastly occurrence happen. Everything looks consistent and doesn't hurt my eyeballs or brain in Windows (well, Windows hurts my brain, but that's mostly when I'm trying to write raw Win32 code... ugh).
Hm... I'd like to agree with you, but personally, I feel Windows apps, esp. custom, corporate apps, are as guilty if not moreso of violating rules of consistency.
Besides, once the user's level drops into the "which button do I push" variety, consistency does not become a reward, because to this type of user, EVERY app is different merely based on feature-set, gizmos or no.
So to sum up my point: "consistency" is a red herring. There is no more consistency on a Windows desktop among varying apps and types of apps than in X. It is not consistency that keeps Windows where it is--it is VB, and Win32. Period.
I think that is what could best be described as, "a specious argument".
By that logic, aim for "The Great American Novel", get "The Great American Pamphlet", no bad.
And, aim for the "World's Greatest CMS", get the "World's Best CMS on content-editing features but lacking integrated security, expiration, etc." is a good thing.
REAL project management persists in identifying a best way to reach a goal with a maximum of win-win scenarios on features and timeline. If you want to see a classic case of project mis-management, the big one would be the first version of Microsoft Word for Windows, which was FOUR YEARS LATE.
If you think that's an expensive haircut, then I fear for your appeal to the opposite sex.
Ohmigod! Even so, I coulda swore we weren't allowed to say "adn"!!!
;)
P.S.
Mmmm, comprend, seor.
Truth be told, I'm even disgusted by companies what "pad" the workday by asking for eight hours with a one-hour lunch. Maybe it's me, but nine hours in a place makes me feel frazzled by the time I leave. Only two places I've been at have requested it and, coincidentally, they are both terrible places to work.
If computer science tachers do their job correctly, the students learn to program computers, not write programs for a specific language and operating system.
*BZZZTT*! Sorry, wrong answer! The only thing that matters is the ability to be buzzword-compliant. The ability to actually use symbolic reasoning which is the hallmark of a true programmer is irrelevant!
Please allow our highly-paid buzzword-compliant consultants whom trained in accountancy but took a six-week class at a school in Trenton to escort you out the door...
Oy!
So true, so true... *sigh*
The issue, however, is that MS can be reliable enough, and at a much lower cost than 'big iron'.
Highly debatable, but let's not nip your argument in the bud.
Honestly, how many companies really need 24/7 and 99.999% uptime? Frankly, most companies arent even set up for 24/7 anymore!
I'm not sure what exactly this is supposed to mean--if a company doesn't have a full staff on the floor at all hours, it is not "24/7"? In this era of rampant globalization I would suggest more businesses have gone 24/7, not less.
So if MS can give equivalent services on systems costing at least $100k less, they win.
I think it's safe to say you are not accustomed to the cost scales in your average Fortune 500 company if you think saving $100,000 is a "big win". A single average employee with five-ten years experience can cost as much as that for such a company, if not more.
Add that to the fact it will be easier to find people to program new things in .NET than COBOL (how many college graduates *really* want to program in COBOL for the rest of their career?),
This is not a real issue. Companies with a need will hire the qualified, and train new people in-house. Remember, most COBOL development is not new development, simply maintenance work.
and its easier to find experienced people to admin WIntel boxes than big iron; companies can also afford to have their expertise 'in-house' rather than rely on consultants- another huge savings.
See above for the "in-house". And if consultants were an issue, well, what about that outsourcing I've heard so much about? But you make a good point--many young guns or lame brains will think exactly like you did, only they will have the power to put action behind their words.
Just to make my point: every large financial institution I have worked in has a hodge-podge of client-server solutions which were devised/developed in those halcyon days of the mid to late 90s, and yet, all of these companies still have people using their mainframe programs in tandem. The moral? Replacing these titans whom were built by real experts with a seriously intelligent methodology that melded business thinking with technology thinking, has proven to be that modern Holy Grail, and, as elusive.
And guess how many of these client-server "replacements" are built with MS technologies?
Ah so... most professional atheletes didn't work hard, as opposed to those oh-so-industrious bizniki?
Something tells me you've never tried to play a sport. And something tells me you're drinking the Kool-Aid Corporate America is funneling down our throats.
Hear hear... ...once I believed, now my cynicism says I should just get what I can. Oh well. :(
Shot in the dark here, but... CD-RW? CD-R? DVD-R? etc.
What's the issue with this?
Remember, once upon a time, music was more single-driven than album-driven. Up until the mid-60s, it was common for people to buy singles they liked, rather than albums. Albums were for soundtracks, or for artistic purposes (full-length tone poems): in pop, the single was king, and 45s held the throne.
It wasn't until the late 60s when a lot of the popular acts decided they preferred doing full concept albums rather than single catch-alls (likesay the Beatles) that albums assumed predominance.
That singles are again assuming pre-dominance shows how pimped-out the album concept became. Your average album pre-CD was 35-40 min. of music, because that was as much as could be safely pressed, without destroying the sound quality, on vinyl. With CDs came 72 minutes, and a pressure to fill that space. The old B-sides, which made singles worth purchasing, became the filler, along with alternate/radio edits, etc.
Now the cycle has come full, and singles are resuming pre-dominance as so many acts shamelessly abused the album format with filler. The industry has adapted, will adapt.
Well isn't that a wee bit better than not knowing this to be the case at all?
Yeah, and someone could always get a duplicate of your modern luxury car's key made, thus getting in just fine. It doesn't mean security is pointless; just that more secure is better.
Should our representative democracy thus be viewed as such, as some "central authority" akin to a dictatorship? Why have government at all, then? Ah--but that is your point! "Government is best which governs least", etc.
In closing all I will say is that I disagree with your point about (other) animals. They seem much more enlightened in their approach to each other than we humans.