Also started with Slackware on floppies,
then RedHat,
then Debian,
then FreeBSD for many years,
then SuSE,
then finally Ubuntu, which is where I've stayed for several years now.
And that's not all. At an ad agency or graphic design studio, to say that something is "in production" means that the graphic artists are working on it, but it's not finished yet. So "production" to them is synonymous to "development" to a programmer.
So if a programmer says in a meeting that his new application is "in production", he means that it is finished, has been deployed and is being used on a "production server" (or, in a "production environment"). But the ad agency folks think he means that it's in "development".
That's why at the ad agency I work for, we've started using the word "live" to mean that an application is "in production".
[Sorry, none of that got formatted. Here it is again, only readable this time:-) ]
> Apple might be good for a grandma or for a graphic designer
> but for a programmer it's an annoyance.
Forgive me for saying so, but this statement is patently absurd. Perhaps if your job is to write native Linux applications, a Mac would be "an annoyance". And, obviously, if your job is to write Visual Basic applications then both Mac and Linux are annoyances. But if you're writing Java apps, or any Web-based apps in any number of languages, Mac OS X has everything you need.
Let's take stock: After installing the developer tools from the installation DVD--only a few clicks away after installing OS X--you'll have: Subversion, GCC, Apache 2.2/PHP 5, Java, Perl, Python, Ruby, Expect, AppleScript, vi, emacs, as well as all of Apple's developer tools for creating native OS X applications. You can also easily install other editors/IDEs such as BBedit, TextMate, Komodo or Eclipse. OS X comes with SQLite already installed, and you can very easily install MySQL and PostgreSQL.
And you claim that OS X is an "annoyance" for developers? The only way it would be an annoyance is for the simple fact that you are more used to, and thus more comfortable with, Linux. For someone who is already used to using OS X, there's nothing annoying about it, and certainly nothing limiting as a developer.
> Apple might be good for a grandma or for a graphic designer
> but for a programmer it's an annoyance.
Forgive me for saying so, but this statement is patently absurd. Perhaps if your job is to write native Linux applications, a Mac would be "an annoyance". And, obviously, if your job is to write Visual Basic applications then both Mac and Linux are annoyances. But if you're writing Java apps, or any Web-based apps in any number of languages, Mac OS X has everything you need.
Let's take stock: After installing the developer tools from the installation DVD--only a few clicks away after installing OS X--you'll have: Subversion, GCC, Apache 2.2/PHP 5, Java, Perl, Python, Ruby, Expect, AppleScript, vi, emacs, as well as all of Apple's developer tools for creating native OS X applications. You can also easily install other editors/IDEs such as BBedit, TextMate, Komodo or Eclipse. OS X comes with SQLite already installed, and you can very easily install MySQL and PostgreSQL.
And you claim that OS X is an "annoyance" for developers? The only way it would be an annoyance is for the simple fact that you are more used to, and thus more comfortable with, Linux. For someone who is already used to using OS X, there's nothing annoying about it, and certainly nothing limiting as a developer.
I recently installed Eventum for tracking issues of the online applications our clients use. Functionally it does all the things we need it to do. But the user interface is so visually cluttered that it's difficult to use. I've had our staff using it for the past few weeks, and every one of them is very unsatisfied with how difficult the interface is to work with. (This is an ad agency, so these people are used to using things that are very well designed visually.)
It's a classic example of a good program written by good programmers, but seemingly with no input from a graphic designer to help with the layout of the user interface. There's no focus and eye-leading to the layout, it's just a hodge-podge of everything thrown onto the page wherever it will fit. Everything seems to have equal weight. Even the boxes, titles and header bars stand out more than the actual content of the issues.
Take a look at Trac, mentioned earlier. It has a very clean, easy to use interface. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to handle multiple projects (at least, nothing on their website indicates that it does.)
If Eventum had as clean of an interface as Trac, it would be fantastic. As it is, I'm still looking around at my options, because the people here who will be using it day-to-day don't like using Eventum just because of the interface layout.
Sorry about that, I wasn't clear at all about what I had in mind. I was thinking in terms of wildcard SSL certificates: multiple name-based virtual websites for several third-level domains on the same second-level domain (www.example.com, staging.example.com, members.example.com, etc.) all using a wildcard SSL certificate. That setup is easy to handle in Apache, but a pain in IIS. You're right, multiple SSL certificates for different name-based virtual hosts with different second-level domain names is impossible in both Apache and IIS.
I beg to differ. Just setting up SSL in IIS is a pain with their damn wizard. In apache it's just a couple of openssl commands and a few additional lines added to the config file and you're done. (Aside from the hassle of getting the CA-signed cert itself, which is common among all HTTP servers.)
But the worst part about SSL on IIS is when you want to have multiple name-based virtual hosts on one IIS installation, all with their own SSL certificates. For some unimaginable reason, the IIS developers put an arbitrary limitation in the GUI admin for IIS that makes it impossible to set multiple sites to listen to port 443. So if you have multiple sites each with a separate SSL cert, you have to go to the command line and run a special VBS script to add them. One guy on a forum even suggested that this was a limitation of SSL itself! Hardly. Apache has no problem with multiple name-based virtual hosts all listening to port 443 and using their own certificates.
Albanach wrote: What really astonishes me is that open source has made such great leaps in other areas yet there's no apparent replacement for Outlook & Exchange.
Um...
Outlook -> EVOLUTION. I use Evolution all day, every day at work to read email and calendars from our Exchange server.
The question isn't "Why doesn't Google use the sacred Web 2.0 terminology?" The question is, why did all the Web 2.0 flunkies start using "tag" in place of "keyword"? What's wrong with calling them keywords? That's what they are. Why a new term to refer to the same thing we've been putting on Web pages since the beginning?
I would seriously look at Cyrus (http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/), which is designed to be scalable for huge numbers of email accounts. And the email users don't have to have accounts on the Unix boxes.
It stores the messages in the file system but sets up index databases so that accessing the mailboxes is fast. It can also handle single-instance storage of the messages sent to multiple mailboxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Also started with Slackware on floppies, then RedHat, then Debian, then FreeBSD for many years, then SuSE, then finally Ubuntu, which is where I've stayed for several years now.
Not necessarily.
It depends on what kind of FUD you eat.
And that's not all. At an ad agency or graphic design studio, to say that something is "in production" means that the graphic artists are working on it, but it's not finished yet. So "production" to them is synonymous to "development" to a programmer.
So if a programmer says in a meeting that his new application is "in production", he means that it is finished, has been deployed and is being used on a "production server" (or, in a "production environment"). But the ad agency folks think he means that it's in "development".
That's why at the ad agency I work for, we've started using the word "live" to mean that an application is "in production".
Confusing, 'eh?
[Sorry, none of that got formatted. Here it is again, only readable this time :-) ]
Forgive me for saying so, but this statement is patently absurd. Perhaps if your job is to write native Linux applications, a Mac would be "an annoyance". And, obviously, if your job is to write Visual Basic applications then both Mac and Linux are annoyances. But if you're writing Java apps, or any Web-based apps in any number of languages, Mac OS X has everything you need.
Let's take stock: After installing the developer tools from the installation DVD--only a few clicks away after installing OS X--you'll have: Subversion, GCC, Apache 2.2/PHP 5, Java, Perl, Python, Ruby, Expect, AppleScript, vi, emacs, as well as all of Apple's developer tools for creating native OS X applications. You can also easily install other editors/IDEs such as BBedit, TextMate, Komodo or Eclipse. OS X comes with SQLite already installed, and you can very easily install MySQL and PostgreSQL.
And you claim that OS X is an "annoyance" for developers? The only way it would be an annoyance is for the simple fact that you are more used to, and thus more comfortable with, Linux. For someone who is already used to using OS X, there's nothing annoying about it, and certainly nothing limiting as a developer.
> Apple might be good for a grandma or for a graphic designer > but for a programmer it's an annoyance. Forgive me for saying so, but this statement is patently absurd. Perhaps if your job is to write native Linux applications, a Mac would be "an annoyance". And, obviously, if your job is to write Visual Basic applications then both Mac and Linux are annoyances. But if you're writing Java apps, or any Web-based apps in any number of languages, Mac OS X has everything you need. Let's take stock: After installing the developer tools from the installation DVD--only a few clicks away after installing OS X--you'll have: Subversion, GCC, Apache 2.2/PHP 5, Java, Perl, Python, Ruby, Expect, AppleScript, vi, emacs, as well as all of Apple's developer tools for creating native OS X applications. You can also easily install other editors/IDEs such as BBedit, TextMate, Komodo or Eclipse. OS X comes with SQLite already installed, and you can very easily install MySQL and PostgreSQL. And you claim that OS X is an "annoyance" for developers? The only way it would be an annoyance is for the simple fact that you are more used to, and thus more comfortable with, Linux. For someone who is already used to using OS X, there's nothing annoying about it, and certainly nothing limiting as a developer.
I recently installed Eventum for tracking issues of the online applications our clients use. Functionally it does all the things we need it to do. But the user interface is so visually cluttered that it's difficult to use. I've had our staff using it for the past few weeks, and every one of them is very unsatisfied with how difficult the interface is to work with. (This is an ad agency, so these people are used to using things that are very well designed visually.) It's a classic example of a good program written by good programmers, but seemingly with no input from a graphic designer to help with the layout of the user interface. There's no focus and eye-leading to the layout, it's just a hodge-podge of everything thrown onto the page wherever it will fit. Everything seems to have equal weight. Even the boxes, titles and header bars stand out more than the actual content of the issues. Take a look at Trac, mentioned earlier. It has a very clean, easy to use interface. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to handle multiple projects (at least, nothing on their website indicates that it does.) If Eventum had as clean of an interface as Trac, it would be fantastic. As it is, I'm still looking around at my options, because the people here who will be using it day-to-day don't like using Eventum just because of the interface layout.
Sorry about that, I wasn't clear at all about what I had in mind. I was thinking in terms of wildcard SSL certificates: multiple name-based virtual websites for several third-level domains on the same second-level domain (www.example.com, staging.example.com, members.example.com, etc.) all using a wildcard SSL certificate. That setup is easy to handle in Apache, but a pain in IIS. You're right, multiple SSL certificates for different name-based virtual hosts with different second-level domain names is impossible in both Apache and IIS.
I beg to differ. Just setting up SSL in IIS is a pain with their damn wizard. In apache it's just a couple of openssl commands and a few additional lines added to the config file and you're done. (Aside from the hassle of getting the CA-signed cert itself, which is common among all HTTP servers.)
But the worst part about SSL on IIS is when you want to have multiple name-based virtual hosts on one IIS installation, all with their own SSL certificates. For some unimaginable reason, the IIS developers put an arbitrary limitation in the GUI admin for IIS that makes it impossible to set multiple sites to listen to port 443. So if you have multiple sites each with a separate SSL cert, you have to go to the command line and run a special VBS script to add them. One guy on a forum even suggested that this was a limitation of SSL itself! Hardly. Apache has no problem with multiple name-based virtual hosts all listening to port 443 and using their own certificates.
Um...
Those seem fairly apparent to me.
The question isn't "Why doesn't Google use the sacred Web 2.0 terminology?" The question is, why did all the Web 2.0 flunkies start using "tag" in place of "keyword"? What's wrong with calling them keywords? That's what they are. Why a new term to refer to the same thing we've been putting on Web pages since the beginning?
I would seriously look at Cyrus (http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/), which is designed to be scalable for huge numbers of email accounts. And the email users don't have to have accounts on the Unix boxes. It stores the messages in the file system but sets up index databases so that accessing the mailboxes is fast. It can also handle single-instance storage of the messages sent to multiple mailboxes.
Oh it still exists--everywhere you look these days, in fact. It's called "Open Source Software" :-)