..., None of the paragraphs I read had the air or regret or sorrow.
For the record, contritedoesn't mean regret or sorrow.
..., A person who works at MS is telling it the way he sees it and you call it a puff-piece...
Well, as you point out later, An employees view of their company (good or bad) is not (by definition) objective. I'm going to stick with my subjective opinion the article was a puff-piece. You're welcome to your opinion.
..., I can see your mind will not be bent by any opinion other than your own, but I've never let that stop me before...,
You seem to have the same capacity for "sight" as others who resort to ad hominem in lieu of debate.
Thank you Mr. Obvious.
You're welcome, Mr. Ad Hominem.
Many of them [companies trying to "make money"] will do it any way they can (overpricing, creative bookkeeping, screwing the customer, screwing the competition, breaking the law, etc.). MS may not be the cleanest company out there, but they are far from the dirtiest.
I never cease to be amazed at the capacity for rationalization. Rationale 1: anthromorphize the company, make it some kind of "them", and nobody need accept ethical blame or responsibility.; and Rationale 2: My company isn't as bad as some other companies.
Unethical behavior is unethical behavior, period. The fact that MS may be able to point to another company and claim that company to be dirtier changes nothing about Microsoft's behavior, period.
There hasn't been a version of Windows released since 1994 that isn't 95% identical in interface or configuration. If you stuck someone familiar with only Win95 or NT4 in front of an XP desktop or 2003 Server, is there any doubt they'd be up and running in under a minute? I'm having serious trouble trying to take an affirmative answer to that question seriously.
You make an interesting point, I'll meet you half way. While the versions as far as user interface (GUI Shell) were concerned were of the Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 flavor, how these were implemented, and the underlying technology varied wildly. Also behaviors and underlying causes were difficult to diagnose because of these differences.
Also, I'll plead to obfuscation, but not FUD. The time frame of the AIX rollout was late 80's, so I'm talking the general same time frame of large delta Windows differences and the "fragmented" Un*x era. Admittedly a long time ago, and maybe irrelevant today but an interesting comparison to be made.
A good introduction. I have to chuckle a bit at the
Fragmentation section, not because it's not
valid but because I've always marveled anyone got away with
trying to banish Un*x with it.
Even at its most fragmented (IBM/AIX, are you listening?) I
was still able to sit down in front of any
flavor Un*x and be instantly productive. Jumping from
one version of Windows to the others doesn't hold the same
promise of portable skills.
Regardless, more good information, always useful. Let me
point to this article/blog: 10,000 bugs away from
World Domination as a worthwhile read -- I have no vested
interest in this author's (Keith Curtis, a former 10+ year
Microsoft programmer) readership, but I
think it is a great
article with valuable insight into how close linux is and how far
away it is at the same time. A good read, highly recommended.
You're not being fair. The author does go into detail over some of the bad things at Microsoft including managers who are subpar, managerial "cults", and eroding benefits. That's not the kind of thing you see in a typical rose-colored, everything-is-great puff piece.
Thanks for pointing out a seeming inconsistency on my part. I'll recognize the author pointed out "bad" there, too, but it was hardly a surprising "bad". And, every good spinner knows you gain credibility by at least appearing to present two sides. I still maintain the author didn't. (How big of a deal is it to claim most middle management needs to go at ANY company?)
And, as to the authors negativity about compensation, it didn't pass the smell test (IMO). Yeah Microsoft isn't the big stock-option and benefit monster it used to be, but his comments show Microsoft is still not bad.
Again, just my opinion, but the author may have completely wore his heart on his sleeve on this one -- I was merely stating that his sleeve, and his perspective were too close to the subject to give any startling new outside world perspectives.
Aside from the obvious puff-piece nature of this article,
it's a bit of a Trojan Horse. Under the auspices of a broad view
of what life at Microsoft is like, the author gets to air out the
PR spin that Microsoft's Not Evil in seven
contrite paragraphs (the average number of paragraphs for each
segment is closer to four).
Also, assign credibility inversely proportional to the
distance from the source. This guy works there, okay so the only
way to describe "work at Microsoft" is to be there, but come on,
are we going to get objective information?
For the record, I once worked at Microsoft, and agree with his
observations that the people there are like people elsewhere, and
they're bright, and they're hard-working, etc. But, to equate
individual ethical behavior somehow with a collective corporate
ethos doesn't add up, the calculus is flawed. In my opinion,
Microsoft as a corporation exhibits behavior that could be
considered evil, certainly some/much of its behavior has been
found in a court of law to be illegal.
As for the some of the author's observations:
At Microsoft, I've had access to the source code for
Halo 1 & 2, Internet Explorer, MDAC, MSXML, the.NET Frameworks
and CLR, SQL Server, SQLXML, Virtual PC, Visual Studio, Windows,
the Xbox and Xbox Live, and probably several other projects that
I've forgotten about. Does it get better than this?
Yes.
Given that Microsoft's been convicted of monopolistic
practices, it may shock you when I say that Microsoft's upper
management strikes me as very ethical. They talk about ethical
behavior all the time...
Thou doth protest too much.
On the one hand, I'm making more money now than at
any other point in my life, and I have all I need so perhaps I
should be satisfied and leave it at that. Overall, I think
Microsoft's compensation and benefits package are still above
average for the industry, and well above average for the typical
American worker.
On the other hand, I and my coworkers have watched many benefits
erode or disappear during the past five years. It's public
knowledge that raises and annual bonuses have diminished, option
grants have been replaced with stock awards, employee stock
purchase plan benefits have decreased, and cafeteria and company
store prices have increased. For new employees, vacation time has
been cut from three weeks to two, and new parents have to take
their parental leave within 6 months instead of 12. It's not a
positive trend.
Microsoft's ill-gotten gains were long the easy way to sustain
the talent pipe-line. Market forces are catching up, and
Microsoft is starting to have to compete on more equal footing
with other companies to get talent in the door (no more, "you're
guaranteed to be a millionaire in fiver years" promises). And,
it's a little annoying to hear the Microsoft have-nots whine
about this -- join the rest of the world folks.
What I find curious, amazing, confounding is this whole
thing seems to be full circle for what I remember the government
doing a LONG time ago! And, it is and was one of the fundamental
original underpinnings of some of the Microsoft shenanigans in
the early 1990s.
I worked on some government contracts circa 1985, and I
remember a movement in the government contracting to require new
contracts for computer services to be POSIX compliant. I also
remember thinking how cool of an approach that was, especially
considering it was a government initiative. Anyway, lots of fun
programming, lots of fun (and hard) work and all on a Unix
(SunOS) platform... yeah, it was even fun though we were using
SunView (look it up).
Enter Microsoft, late 1980s, and 1990 on. They sorely wanted
to get into the big government contract business, and as one of
their boasts for their new and improved OS (NT), they talked loud
and long about NT being a POSIX OS (not an OS with a POSIX
subsystem, a POSIX OS). Heck they even convinced me to come work
for them for a while, until in a closed door presentation, the
project manager for the POSIX subsystem prefaced her notes by
saying (and I'm paraphrasing, but it's close to a quote), "Before
we start, I just want to point out that we don't care about this
subsystem, we don't intend to use it, and we don't intend to
support it. It's just a check-box for government contracts."
And, now the government is back to recommending Open Source
and "open innovation". I only wonder if this has any impact on
Microsoft this time. It didn't before, I'm guessing it won't
now. Sigh.
Well, I guess it's her prerogative and privilege to use the
bully pulpit to endorse, embrace, and encourage DRM, but it makes
me nervous when the government and its actors role play about
technology and how it should be meted out.
Their original responsibility (at least the FCC's) is to fairly
and equitably maintain the distribution of the commodity that is
radio spectra.
It's troubling when someone with no apparent business
background and understanding of technology to the depth necessary
to grasp what DRM has done and will do gets a bully pulpit this
high and this visible. I don't know one of the referenced
articles is accurate in describing how Ms. Tate love for DRM
really is a result of:
Apparently, her love of
country music has brought her to this studied
position
but, "love of country music" seems anemic justification and
mostly a non sequitur in justifying something of magnitude DRM.
Sometimes government just doesn't seem very representative any
more, and sometimes it just doesn't seem just.
I guess the reason I raised my eyebrows at your comment is that I'd argue that there's a real tangible difference between a 3MP camera and an 8MP one, whereas I couldn't care less about the posibility of slightly crisper pictures if and when I replace my DVD players.
Again, I agree. There is a significant difference between the two. And, I was probably a bit too glib using "mega-cropping", which overstates my point... sometimes when I'm trying to get a post typed and posted before I have to go somewhere I get too hurried and don't self-edit as much as I should.
As for the whole original discussion, sounds like we're pretty close on the DVD issues (we're watching on a 720p now, and I find:
the constraining factor for quality is always the source for now. Even high-profile network and cable shows ostensibly filming and broadcasting in HD show wild variation in quality. (btw, and for the record, one of the best network quality definition shows is Letterman though I've stopped watching him for a while now... but I find most of the prime time shows in HD to be so-so.)
the best quality shows we've seen have been the HD demo channels, usually including old IMAX movies, and sports. The most common comment we get from guests (and ourselves) is the "view" is better than real life vision, i.e., it's actually better than if you were there. Again, this is at 720p display, and with good quality DVDs upsampled, we find the view to be excellent. As you said, I would have to see more than modest improvement to be interested in moving up, and every demo I've seen so far hasn't convinced me.
Your analysis is exactly correct, and I agree with the marketing hype around megapixels being deceptive at best. And I agree the difference between 3 and 8 megapixel is huge. But, you said: Sorry to nit pick but your photography analogy is terrible. First of all if you're cropping you'll see a benefit in increased megapixels, it's not just for people who blow up pictures to wall size.
And, if you read to the end of my second paragraph, I was on that: The improvements I'm reading sound much like some digital camera reviews where they describe the difference between 8 megapixel and 3 megapixel, which unless you're blowing up to side-of-a-building size, or doing mega-cropping isn't noticeable to the casual consumer. I agree with your analysis... Thanks for fleshing it out a bit more.
Despite
all the rumors about Google and how it will topple Microsoft, I
don't see that happening in the near future... people (and I
don't mean technology enthusiasts) will continue to purchase
Microsoft products simply because of the sheer familiarity and
comfort levels (BSoD et al) that they have with Microsoft
software.
I think the user community along with the
technical community approaches the tipping point with Microsoft,
especially with more and more alternatives like web based
applications. Microsoft may join that fray, but they've
sandbagged themselves, and they may not recover so nimbly this
time (though I'll never count Microsoft out).
Microsoft has spent so much ill-will capital, the collective
technology users' almost (almost) want Microsoft to go away.
Microsoft is still powerful, but a lot of that power today is
inertia as Microsoft tries to think of ways to re-invent itself
yet again in time to maintain its control. I hope it doesn't.
Meanwhile, users (though they don't quite yet know it) are
offered virtually every function as a web application, at least
for ninety percent, and in many ways the new applications surpass
the old resident application paradigm for convenience, service,
and ease of use and maintenance.
You make a most excellent point. I find it more likely than not when I'm at someone's house, they have a first-generation HDTV (720p), and they have it all out of whack in how it's set up. Typically (and this is where it really gets weird) they have become SO adapted to the distortion that if and when I correct it for them, they are uncomfortable with the undistorted pictures, and want it switched back! OMG!
And this is all further compounded by the mostly inferior quality of anything claiming to be "high-def" for the sake of selling product, for example, Dish, Echo, Comcast, etc., all boast some flavor of "digital", with hints and sometimes outright bogus claims of HD too. But in the final anaylsis, lots of it looks not so great, and when the consumers starts stretching it and skewing it trying to get the "HD" out their no-bang-for-the-buck investment, it is most surreal.
The more I read and hear about this stuff, the less
interested I become. If it were just about the difference in
quality and that difference were BIG, I'd be thinking about going
for some equipment, and some new DVDs. But, toss in all the
other BS, this one's going nowhere. I'll wait until there's one
format, or both play compatibility everywhere, DRM goes away, and
a player costs less than $150.
The differences in quality as described aren't blowing me
away, and I love upgrades in technology. The improvements I'm
reading sound much like some digital camera reviews where they
describe the difference between 8 megapixel and 3 megapixel,
which unless you're blowing up to side-of-a-building size, or
doing mega-cropping isn't noticeable to the casual consumer.
I posted on this yesterday. I guess I haven't changed my
mind, I'll go and look for a demo somewhere where they've got it
set up correctly (heh, good luck with that!), but this is going
to be a non-starter for a while.
In the meantime, to the industry, please:
make it easier
make it compatible
don't DRM it (translation, show a little faith in the
customers' integrity, assholes!)
make it cheaper
make it durable
and set it up for my friends and family, I'm tired of coming
in and fixing what you're not getting right in the first place.
consolidate the technology... I know it's complex, but the
learning curve is just too darned steep for this to be a breakout
technology (though I would agree this is "disruptive" in a
different sense)... For those who care, here is a partial list of
the technical terms and acronyms from just one of the review:
TrueHD
HDTV
HD-DVD
720i/720p/1080i/1080p
Dol by/Dolby
Digital 5.1/7.1 Surround
DD+
VHS
HD-A1/(and it's
snazzier cousin HD-XA1)
D-VHS HD
HDMI
ICT
Component
outs
For the record, I thought I was up to speed and I had to
look up a couple of these. Sigh.
From the article, I think the most key point is:
Attentions will now be turning to how well these
first-gen HD-DVD products meet expectations.
Considering I've still not been able to show my parents how to
use their system easily, I'm wondering how much backlash there
will be with the new DVDs. My prediction? (who cares?): I think
HD DVDs will have moderate success but really run the risk of
suffering the same fate as SACD (Super Audio CD). Good and
interesting technology but not better enough to offset:
complex setups
additional expense beyond new DVD players
compatibility issues (real or perceived)
DRM
I'm not even considering introducing my parents to
this technology. They're impressed when they see HDTV, but
they're not inclined to jump through the hoops to get it up and
running at their place. I'm also not recommending this to
friends... I started out optimistic, but when they asked for
advice (they always do), and I start laying out the logistical
minefield to traverse to get all of the right pieces in the right
places, their eyes quickly glaze... and for me, until this all
settles and is easier, cheaper, more assured, and unencumbered,
I'm just not going to push this stuff on others. And, you know
what? They're not pressing to get it!
(Yeah, the slashdot demographic probably statistically will be
high in adoption of this, but that demographic is going to be the
exception for a while.)
IANAL (hate that acronym), but as I recently understood it, EULA's are in almost all regards unenforcable as they are contracts forged under duress. I pretty much have stopped reading them.
I am the ONLY administrator, and mostly the only user of all and any of my machines and for various reasons I do virtually all root activity via sudo.
When I began building a home network (mostly by collecting odds and ends of old computers and connecting them) and built them up with linux I found myself automatically using sudo because that was the way I did it at work. And I found reasons that made sense in a work environment also resonated at home even in a one-user universe.
Auditability was reason number one for sudo at work. There was a lot of trust and there were more than one or two who had full sudo priveleges but it was handy to know who was using sudo, when, and what for. At home auditability is less an issue since it's virtually singular I'm the poser. But it is still nice to see the track of activity in syslog when you start wondering, "Did I really do that crazy thing thats f***ed up the system?"
And, just plain pragmatism was the second reason for sudo. IM(NSH)O I'm a pretty darned good admin, and know the ins and outs of all Unix flavors and can be as aware and cautious as the next person. But it only takes once as root to do something really stupid before counting to 10ms. I would rather have a command NOT do something when I inadvertantly forget to sudo a command than inadvertantly do something because I issued the command as root.
I've worked in environments where employees evaluated their bosses and it didn't (and doesn't) work!
The shortest distance between an employee and a dead-end career move is negative feedback about his boss. Note that this never works even if the following precautions are taken:
anonymous feedback (no matter how anonymous the feedback system, a boss will figure out where the noise originates, or inappropriately or in a snit of paranoia assign it incorrectly)
promises of no reprisal
(Sorry, thought I was actually going to create a list here for a moment.)
What the article describes as "the world's most modern management system" isn't... I've lived it many years ago as one of many management flavor du jour. It added nothing to our holistic health and I would even submit it had negative impacts. Nothing to see here, move along.
(I also will agree with other posters the notion of "employee above customers" is suspect. At best it's a non sequitor.)
First app I'd buy is vmware (hey, it might be free now!) so
you can run OS X on it.
No, really, all seriousness aside, I am a big user and fan in
XP of:
Photoshop Elements. Make sure you're looking at version
4 at least. I'm quite sure this is also a Mac product, so if
you're already playing with that in OS X, never mind. PSE is a
light version of Photoshop for about 1/4 the price depending on
where you purchase. It has most of the digital manipulation
functionality I need, and interestingly has some features VERY
useful not found in Photoshop.
AVG Anti
virus for antivirus. I'm using the free version -- so far
I've found it excellent, and haven't had any problems with the
machine at all (note: it's a good idea to ensure you have
de-installed all of the commercial products in the meantime --
aside from not working very well, they can step on other running
anti-virus programs).
the Ubiquitous
OpenOffice, and it's free. It can be a resource hog, but
I've not had any Office product installed on my XP boxes for
years now and never had a need, and OO just keeps getting better.
The OpenCD which
includes browsers, all kinds of cool and fun free software. Pick
and choose, these'll take you a long way.
Picasa for organizing
and sharing and printing (and minor editing) pictures. I wasn't
much of a believer in this one, but because of its simplicity I
recommended and installed and consulted this for friends and
family. And finally was hooked -- it really does a great job for
all of the organizing I need. (I believe it's probably on the
OpenCD). It may not rival the iPhoto (or whatever OS X has), but
it's a sweet product.
MoodySoft Screen
capture software. I do a lot of work requiring quick and
easy screen captures. This one's not free, but it's not
expensive either, and I've tried about a gazillion different
products, so far this has been the best for me.
Any combination, or even full suite of cygwin software. If
you have ANY scripting needs, to get real work done and already
know shell and unix utils, this is ESSENTIAL (and, it has an
excellent X Server).
This is really a tiny partial list. It's a shame I have so
many programs I like to run in XP, cuz I always prefer the linux
or some variant of unix environment. But, this is a small sample
of what gets me through an XP kind of day.
Where does it say outsourcing a job CAUSES 9 jobs to be created?
Well, it doesn't say that! I guess that's why I said I could "infer" (draw a possible conclusion from someone's implication, intentional or otherwise, in this case, I think intentional).
It just happens to be than there is a ratio of 1 outsourced job to 9 new American jobs.
Yeah? Your point?
I guess posting on Slashdot doesn't mean good understanding of cause and effect.
I get uncomfortable when I hear people trying to
rationalize outsourcing, painting it as less
insidious than it is. I'm especially confused when, from the
slashdot article quotes like:
Further, for
every job outsourced from the U.S., nine new jobs are actually
created in the U.S.
propose the ludicrous!
If there are nine U.S. jobs created for every outsourced job,
I would infer a couple of things:
someone should do the math, and calculate how many jobs we
need to create in the U.S. to achieve 100%
employment and outsource enough jobs to create those
jobs. For example, if 8 million Americans are out of work, we
should outsource 1 million American jobs (9 million jobs -- 1
million to fill the "outsourced", and the remaining jobless 8
million now have jobs).
someone should be firing management! If every outsourced
job creates 9 new ones, management fails in its cost savings
argument. (That is unless of course, the nine new jobs combined
actually pay less than the outsourced job -- which may actually
be a possibility.)
Also, from the Article (emphasis mine):
The percentage of the
total number of jobs in this space is quite small -- less than
5%. According to a government study, the voluntary attrition in
the U.S. has outpaced the number of outsourced jobs to emerging
nations. Further, for every job outsourced from the U.S., nine
new jobs are actually created in the U.S.
and then this from the article (emphasis mine):
There's even a
view that outsourcing actually will help grow jobs.
which seems to be less certain of a statement about the "created
jobs". Either there's a view new jobs get created from
outsourcing, or there's a reality that can be measured
empirically. Which is it? And if it's the latter, where are the
numbers?
That said, I guess it's nice to hear the CS career path and
job market is healthy and alive.
I like gmail.
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Here's why I use gmail (over PINE):
web based, can get to it from any browser anywhere
indexed by Google for me! I'd venture a
guess that if you had a gigabyte of e-mail to search from pine,
and you did searches all of the time, you'd not find PINE even
capable of achieving the "within one magnitude" result you found.
search is implemented as in Google, i.e., you can enter
keywords in any order, any case, etc., and Google pretty much
knows what to do. (some may not realize but Google even has
nuance in what is returned in what order based on the order
keywords are entered -- while still managing to preserve
meaningful and complete results)
when there are new and wonderful features (there sometimes
are) they're their without having to install our update.
html/graphics and multimedia capabilities. While I haven't
used PINE in a long time, last time I did, mime was almost an
add-on, and a bit gnarly to use.
gmail is nicely folded into my browser interface experience.
When I send e-mail from Windows, the e-mail is instantiated in a
new tab that automatically disappears when the transaction is
completed.
gmail auto-saves drafts for me - I've been saved by this a
couple of times.
keyboard shortcuts (I know the author complains about the
inconsistent overloading, but I've found them comfortable and
decent especially for being implemented in a browser... maybe a
"vi" background is handy after all!)
gmail keeps all of my data handy, indexed, and available for
that future day someone wants to subpoena my records! (kidding)
Also, this is a comparison of a completely integrated package
(gmail) with a Mail User Agent (MUA). I think for my purposes I
enjoy finally letting someone else manage all of the pieces for
me. I still have my personal favorite MUA for transferring all
of my gmail to local storage and archive (just in case something
goes terribly wrong) but so far I think gmail is a great piece of
work.
NPR hasn't been NPR for a LONG time, nor has PBS been PBS for a long time. The reason? Their "business models" failed long ago and they've maintained a facade ever since -- I'm amazed the public has been taken in for so long.
I think some of the very best programming available has been some of the show both on NPR and PBS. And, for the longest time I was always willing and happy to fund them with donations, etc.
But about 10-15 years ago the openings and closings of their shows attributions to "funding" started sounding more and more like commercials and not attributions. I'd be hard pressed today to discern a PBS or NPR "attribution" from any other genuine ad from commercial radio or television.
While I found that to be annoying I figure it was a price to pay to have the quality and availability of "public" media.
But the other more disturbing trend I found with NPR and PBS was the direct relationship between the high-octane shows (Les Mis, e.g.) and the membership drives. I found that the likelihood my local affiliate was mid-membership drive directly correlated to the popularity of the programming.
Okay, that might be okay, but what they affiliates have done is hook the viewer, then insert 20 minutes (I timed one interval... on the Seattle affiliate) of barking for money. And, on top of that, they would so badly maul the programming schedule that I could no longer reliably tivo the shows and not risk getting a 20 minutes "non-commercial" interruption, sans conclusion of the program.... Shazbot!
You know what? What the final result is is something worse than commercial television! Or, at least something far more annoying. I find the approach of NPR and PBS today to be intellectually dishonest.... it isn't commercial-free and it isn't even the best television around anymore!
I'll take commercial television any day -- at least it's a known quantity, and is candid about being a whore.
"The music industry is
broadly unhappy with the fixed pricing and lack of subscription
options at the market-leading iTunes Music Store and likely to
support alternative services," wrote the analyst in a recent
report.
One of two things has to give here: either the music
industry's unhappiness is sustained because Google has enough
principle to do on-line music equitably (which, by definition
will be unhappiness for the music industry); or Google
capitulates and in the process violates their "Do No Evil" credo.
This could be a misstep for Google if they appear to be in the
pockets of an increasingly strident and miserable music industry.
Please let them do the right thing.
Of course, for the gazillionth time, the only right way to do
this is unencumbered media. Hey, I can hope.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
For the record, contrite doesn't mean regret or sorrow.
Well, as you point out later, An employees view of their company (good or bad) is not (by definition) objective. I'm going to stick with my subjective opinion the article was a puff-piece. You're welcome to your opinion.
You seem to have the same capacity for "sight" as others who resort to ad hominem in lieu of debate.
Thank you Mr. Obvious.
You're welcome, Mr. Ad Hominem.
Many of them [companies trying to "make money"] will do it any way they can (overpricing, creative bookkeeping, screwing the customer, screwing the competition, breaking the law, etc.). MS may not be the cleanest company out there, but they are far from the dirtiest.
I never cease to be amazed at the capacity for rationalization. Rationale 1: anthromorphize the company, make it some kind of "them", and nobody need accept ethical blame or responsibility.; and Rationale 2: My company isn't as bad as some other companies.
Unethical behavior is unethical behavior, period. The fact that MS may be able to point to another company and claim that company to be dirtier changes nothing about Microsoft's behavior, period.
You make an interesting point, I'll meet you half way. While the versions as far as user interface (GUI Shell) were concerned were of the Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 flavor, how these were implemented, and the underlying technology varied wildly. Also behaviors and underlying causes were difficult to diagnose because of these differences.
Also, I'll plead to obfuscation, but not FUD. The time frame of the AIX rollout was late 80's, so I'm talking the general same time frame of large delta Windows differences and the "fragmented" Un*x era. Admittedly a long time ago, and maybe irrelevant today but an interesting comparison to be made.
A good introduction. I have to chuckle a bit at the Fragmentation section, not because it's not valid but because I've always marveled anyone got away with trying to banish Un*x with it.
Even at its most fragmented (IBM/AIX, are you listening?) I was still able to sit down in front of any flavor Un*x and be instantly productive. Jumping from one version of Windows to the others doesn't hold the same promise of portable skills.
Regardless, more good information, always useful. Let me point to this article/blog: 10,000 bugs away from World Domination as a worthwhile read -- I have no vested interest in this author's (Keith Curtis, a former 10+ year Microsoft programmer) readership, but I think it is a great article with valuable insight into how close linux is and how far away it is at the same time. A good read, highly recommended.
Thanks for pointing out a seeming inconsistency on my part. I'll recognize the author pointed out "bad" there, too, but it was hardly a surprising "bad". And, every good spinner knows you gain credibility by at least appearing to present two sides. I still maintain the author didn't. (How big of a deal is it to claim most middle management needs to go at ANY company?)
And, as to the authors negativity about compensation, it didn't pass the smell test (IMO). Yeah Microsoft isn't the big stock-option and benefit monster it used to be, but his comments show Microsoft is still not bad.
Again, just my opinion, but the author may have completely wore his heart on his sleeve on this one -- I was merely stating that his sleeve, and his perspective were too close to the subject to give any startling new outside world perspectives.
Aside from the obvious puff-piece nature of this article, it's a bit of a Trojan Horse. Under the auspices of a broad view of what life at Microsoft is like, the author gets to air out the PR spin that Microsoft's Not Evil in seven contrite paragraphs (the average number of paragraphs for each segment is closer to four).
Also, assign credibility inversely proportional to the distance from the source. This guy works there, okay so the only way to describe "work at Microsoft" is to be there, but come on, are we going to get objective information?
For the record, I once worked at Microsoft, and agree with his observations that the people there are like people elsewhere, and they're bright, and they're hard-working, etc. But, to equate individual ethical behavior somehow with a collective corporate ethos doesn't add up, the calculus is flawed. In my opinion, Microsoft as a corporation exhibits behavior that could be considered evil, certainly some/much of its behavior has been found in a court of law to be illegal.
As for the some of the author's observations:
Yes.
Thou doth protest too much.
Microsoft's ill-gotten gains were long the easy way to sustain the talent pipe-line. Market forces are catching up, and Microsoft is starting to have to compete on more equal footing with other companies to get talent in the door (no more, "you're guaranteed to be a millionaire in fiver years" promises). And, it's a little annoying to hear the Microsoft have-nots whine about this -- join the rest of the world folks.
Why, yes, I have filed comments. Thank you for asking.
Is it okay to keep wondering since I have filed?
Glad to be in good company.
Count me in.
What I find curious, amazing, confounding is this whole thing seems to be full circle for what I remember the government doing a LONG time ago! And, it is and was one of the fundamental original underpinnings of some of the Microsoft shenanigans in the early 1990s.
I worked on some government contracts circa 1985, and I remember a movement in the government contracting to require new contracts for computer services to be POSIX compliant. I also remember thinking how cool of an approach that was, especially considering it was a government initiative. Anyway, lots of fun programming, lots of fun (and hard) work and all on a Unix (SunOS) platform... yeah, it was even fun though we were using SunView (look it up).
Enter Microsoft, late 1980s, and 1990 on. They sorely wanted to get into the big government contract business, and as one of their boasts for their new and improved OS (NT), they talked loud and long about NT being a POSIX OS (not an OS with a POSIX subsystem, a POSIX OS). Heck they even convinced me to come work for them for a while, until in a closed door presentation, the project manager for the POSIX subsystem prefaced her notes by saying (and I'm paraphrasing, but it's close to a quote), "Before we start, I just want to point out that we don't care about this subsystem, we don't intend to use it, and we don't intend to support it. It's just a check-box for government contracts."
And, now the government is back to recommending Open Source and "open innovation". I only wonder if this has any impact on Microsoft this time. It didn't before, I'm guessing it won't now. Sigh.
Well, I guess it's her prerogative and privilege to use the bully pulpit to endorse, embrace, and encourage DRM, but it makes me nervous when the government and its actors role play about technology and how it should be meted out. Their original responsibility (at least the FCC's) is to fairly and equitably maintain the distribution of the commodity that is radio spectra.
It's troubling when someone with no apparent business background and understanding of technology to the depth necessary to grasp what DRM has done and will do gets a bully pulpit this high and this visible. I don't know one of the referenced articles is accurate in describing how Ms. Tate love for DRM really is a result of:
but, "love of country music" seems anemic justification and mostly a non sequitur in justifying something of magnitude DRM.Sometimes government just doesn't seem very representative any more, and sometimes it just doesn't seem just.
I'm amazed, almost 100 posts, and no cocaine jokes.
Again, I agree. There is a significant difference between the two. And, I was probably a bit too glib using "mega-cropping", which overstates my point... sometimes when I'm trying to get a post typed and posted before I have to go somewhere I get too hurried and don't self-edit as much as I should.
As for the whole original discussion, sounds like we're pretty close on the DVD issues (we're watching on a 720p now, and I find:
Regards... yagu
Your analysis is exactly correct, and I agree with the marketing hype around megapixels being deceptive at best. And I agree the difference between 3 and 8 megapixel is huge. But, you said: Sorry to nit pick but your photography analogy is terrible. First of all if you're cropping you'll see a benefit in increased megapixels, it's not just for people who blow up pictures to wall size.
And, if you read to the end of my second paragraph, I was on that: The improvements I'm reading sound much like some digital camera reviews where they describe the difference between 8 megapixel and 3 megapixel, which unless you're blowing up to side-of-a-building size, or doing mega-cropping isn't noticeable to the casual consumer. I agree with your analysis... Thanks for fleshing it out a bit more.
Key moment in the slashdot article:
I think the user community along with the technical community approaches the tipping point with Microsoft, especially with more and more alternatives like web based applications. Microsoft may join that fray, but they've sandbagged themselves, and they may not recover so nimbly this time (though I'll never count Microsoft out).
Microsoft has spent so much ill-will capital, the collective technology users' almost (almost) want Microsoft to go away. Microsoft is still powerful, but a lot of that power today is inertia as Microsoft tries to think of ways to re-invent itself yet again in time to maintain its control. I hope it doesn't.
Meanwhile, users (though they don't quite yet know it) are offered virtually every function as a web application, at least for ninety percent, and in many ways the new applications surpass the old resident application paradigm for convenience, service, and ease of use and maintenance.
You make a most excellent point. I find it more likely than not when I'm at someone's house, they have a first-generation HDTV (720p), and they have it all out of whack in how it's set up. Typically (and this is where it really gets weird) they have become SO adapted to the distortion that if and when I correct it for them, they are uncomfortable with the undistorted pictures, and want it switched back! OMG!
And this is all further compounded by the mostly inferior quality of anything claiming to be "high-def" for the sake of selling product, for example, Dish, Echo, Comcast, etc., all boast some flavor of "digital", with hints and sometimes outright bogus claims of HD too. But in the final anaylsis, lots of it looks not so great, and when the consumers starts stretching it and skewing it trying to get the "HD" out their no-bang-for-the-buck investment, it is most surreal.
Just shoot me now.
The more I read and hear about this stuff, the less interested I become. If it were just about the difference in quality and that difference were BIG, I'd be thinking about going for some equipment, and some new DVDs. But, toss in all the other BS, this one's going nowhere. I'll wait until there's one format, or both play compatibility everywhere, DRM goes away, and a player costs less than $150.
The differences in quality as described aren't blowing me away, and I love upgrades in technology. The improvements I'm reading sound much like some digital camera reviews where they describe the difference between 8 megapixel and 3 megapixel, which unless you're blowing up to side-of-a-building size, or doing mega-cropping isn't noticeable to the casual consumer.
I posted on this yesterday. I guess I haven't changed my mind, I'll go and look for a demo somewhere where they've got it set up correctly (heh, good luck with that!), but this is going to be a non-starter for a while.
In the meantime, to the industry, please:
- TrueHD
- HDTV
- HD-DVD
- 720i/720p/1080i/1080p
- Do
l by/Dolby
Digital 5.1/7.1 Surround - DD+
- VHS
- HD-A1/(and it's
snazzier cousin HD-XA1)
- D-VHS HD
- HDMI
- ICT
- Component
outs
For the record, I thought I was up to speed and I had to look up a couple of these. Sigh.From the article, I think the most key point is: Attentions will now be turning to how well these first-gen HD-DVD products meet expectations.
Considering I've still not been able to show my parents how to use their system easily, I'm wondering how much backlash there will be with the new DVDs. My prediction? (who cares?): I think HD DVDs will have moderate success but really run the risk of suffering the same fate as SACD (Super Audio CD). Good and interesting technology but not better enough to offset:
I'm not even considering introducing my parents to this technology. They're impressed when they see HDTV, but they're not inclined to jump through the hoops to get it up and running at their place. I'm also not recommending this to friends... I started out optimistic, but when they asked for advice (they always do), and I start laying out the logistical minefield to traverse to get all of the right pieces in the right places, their eyes quickly glaze... and for me, until this all settles and is easier, cheaper, more assured, and unencumbered, I'm just not going to push this stuff on others. And, you know what? They're not pressing to get it!
(Yeah, the slashdot demographic probably statistically will be high in adoption of this, but that demographic is going to be the exception for a while.)
IANAL (hate that acronym), but as I recently understood it, EULA's are in almost all regards unenforcable as they are contracts forged under duress. I pretty much have stopped reading them.
I am the ONLY administrator, and mostly the only user of all and any of my machines and for various reasons I do virtually all root activity via sudo.
When I began building a home network (mostly by collecting odds and ends of old computers and connecting them) and built them up with linux I found myself automatically using sudo because that was the way I did it at work. And I found reasons that made sense in a work environment also resonated at home even in a one-user universe.
Auditability was reason number one for sudo at work. There was a lot of trust and there were more than one or two who had full sudo priveleges but it was handy to know who was using sudo, when, and what for. At home auditability is less an issue since it's virtually singular I'm the poser. But it is still nice to see the track of activity in syslog when you start wondering, "Did I really do that crazy thing thats f***ed up the system?"
And, just plain pragmatism was the second reason for sudo. IM(NSH)O I'm a pretty darned good admin, and know the ins and outs of all Unix flavors and can be as aware and cautious as the next person. But it only takes once as root to do something really stupid before counting to 10ms. I would rather have a command NOT do something when I inadvertantly forget to sudo a command than inadvertantly do something because I issued the command as root.
Nuff said.
I've worked in environments where employees evaluated their bosses and it didn't (and doesn't) work!
The shortest distance between an employee and a dead-end career move is negative feedback about his boss. Note that this never works even if the following precautions are taken:
(Sorry, thought I was actually going to create a list here for a moment.)
What the article describes as "the world's most modern management system" isn't... I've lived it many years ago as one of many management flavor du jour. It added nothing to our holistic health and I would even submit it had negative impacts. Nothing to see here, move along.
(I also will agree with other posters the notion of "employee above customers" is suspect. At best it's a non sequitor.)
First app I'd buy is vmware (hey, it might be free now!) so you can run OS X on it.
No, really, all seriousness aside, I am a big user and fan in XP of:
This is really a tiny partial list. It's a shame I have so many programs I like to run in XP, cuz I always prefer the linux or some variant of unix environment. But, this is a small sample of what gets me through an XP kind of day.
Guess I should have posted with my cynicism flag. Sorry you missed it.
-Best Regards...
I get uncomfortable when I hear people trying to rationalize outsourcing, painting it as less insidious than it is. I'm especially confused when, from the slashdot article quotes like:
propose the ludicrous!If there are nine U.S. jobs created for every outsourced job, I would infer a couple of things:
Also, from the Article (emphasis mine):
and then this from the article (emphasis mine):
which seems to be less certain of a statement about the "created jobs". Either there's a view new jobs get created from outsourcing, or there's a reality that can be measured empirically. Which is it? And if it's the latter, where are the numbers?That said, I guess it's nice to hear the CS career path and job market is healthy and alive.
Here's why I use gmail (over PINE):
Also, this is a comparison of a completely integrated package (gmail) with a Mail User Agent (MUA). I think for my purposes I enjoy finally letting someone else manage all of the pieces for me. I still have my personal favorite MUA for transferring all of my gmail to local storage and archive (just in case something goes terribly wrong) but so far I think gmail is a great piece of work.
NPR hasn't been NPR for a LONG time, nor has PBS been PBS for a long time. The reason? Their "business models" failed long ago and they've maintained a facade ever since -- I'm amazed the public has been taken in for so long.
I think some of the very best programming available has been some of the show both on NPR and PBS. And, for the longest time I was always willing and happy to fund them with donations, etc.
But about 10-15 years ago the openings and closings of their shows attributions to "funding" started sounding more and more like commercials and not attributions. I'd be hard pressed today to discern a PBS or NPR "attribution" from any other genuine ad from commercial radio or television.
While I found that to be annoying I figure it was a price to pay to have the quality and availability of "public" media.
But the other more disturbing trend I found with NPR and PBS was the direct relationship between the high-octane shows (Les Mis, e.g.) and the membership drives. I found that the likelihood my local affiliate was mid-membership drive directly correlated to the popularity of the programming.
Okay, that might be okay, but what they affiliates have done is hook the viewer, then insert 20 minutes (I timed one interval... on the Seattle affiliate) of barking for money. And, on top of that, they would so badly maul the programming schedule that I could no longer reliably tivo the shows and not risk getting a 20 minutes "non-commercial" interruption, sans conclusion of the program.... Shazbot!
You know what? What the final result is is something worse than commercial television! Or, at least something far more annoying. I find the approach of NPR and PBS today to be intellectually dishonest.... it isn't commercial-free and it isn't even the best television around anymore!
I'll take commercial television any day -- at least it's a known quantity, and is candid about being a whore.
I've long since abandoned that (sinking) ship!
From the Fine Article:
One of two things has to give here: either the music industry's unhappiness is sustained because Google has enough principle to do on-line music equitably (which, by definition will be unhappiness for the music industry); or Google capitulates and in the process violates their "Do No Evil" credo.
This could be a misstep for Google if they appear to be in the pockets of an increasingly strident and miserable music industry. Please let them do the right thing.
Of course, for the gazillionth time, the only right way to do this is unencumbered media. Hey, I can hope.