If there was no OSS, there would not be simple solutions.. They would either be crippled shareware or commercial applications.
OSS was also helped along by the development of a OSS operating system, the Internet, and the development of open source languages. Without that, it would not really be possible to do OSS development.
Commercial software development flourished in the 80s because: memory was expensive, computers were expensive, languages were expensive, operating systems were simple yet expensive, people were pretty much ignorant on the overall, software was easy to distribute (remember floppies?, what was the purpose of hard drives?).
Why it doesn't work now: Smarter people, faster computers, cheaper hardware. Software as a result tends to be developed by the companies that need it now and now how. A majority of the OSS is made for enterprise systems development and by hobbyists. Its no wonder that countries outside the US are adopting OSS to reduce administrative costs, if you consider that 200 dollars here for Windows XP looks like 2000 dollars in India, it doesn't make sense to shell that out if you can get something that does the job for nothing, also particularly if you can hire indian programmers for about 5000 dollars a year to develop the software. 20 programmers is enough to develop operating systems like Linux.
Often what you see is not the stuff being developed, what the goodwill of some developers or company willing to release its custom versions of linux.. There is bound to be many closed source developements of the linux kernel being done in other countries. This is having commercial impact on Microsoft, and its no wonder Microsoft is the ones squeeling most about it. But the software developers in the rest of the country make money on a per project per hour basis, they tend not to sell software as products like Microsoft and they stand no competition from OSS because projects in OSS are sustained by common patterns in development.
Operating systems are fairly understood, therefore there is really nothing new that can be done, that's why you can get linux or free bsd or and other sort of operating system now. However software that uses multielement CCD cameras on satelites to determine oil deposits, tend not to become open source, because the technology is relatively complex and is ever changing and technology becomes available to make the process more precise. But hard technologies (not software) is what investors tend to invest in, and its software that relies on hard technologies that tends to sell..
It's just that the mass production and mass sales of software, as products is dieing away slowly.. It will get harder and harder to seperate programmers from designers, and over time the programmers will be the designers.
Therefore programmers are not sure whether to embrace technologies like OOP because OOP allows them to be written out of the picture. OOP software tends to allow designers to become programmers and programmers to lose work.
ITs only natural for the designers to want to embrace complex languages as a tactic of insuring work.
You sound like an absolutist, arguing a point that isn't really arguable..
The Internet is mostly runned by OSS, look at how many Apache, PHP,MYSQL. Perl combinations there are.. However the majority of browsers on the Internet are closed source ones like IE, the one I'm currently using..
I am also working over Windows..
However for all my web work I use PHP, Apache and Mysql.. It doesn't make sense to use ASP.NET or Java Servlets, because PHP is relatively simple and it won't suffer from drastic changes due to upgrades in the interest of making mounds of money. And OSS software is easier to deploy. And tends to be dependable.
It will be right in front of a lot of other people too, therefore it gets fixed, you recompile your executable. The difference is only a few people can fix a closed source application, whereas many people can fix (or yet choose, by observing the source) an open source application before using it, and release any source changes to the code maintainers.
The success of open source relies on the concept that people tend to want to help each other. And the reliability of open source counts on programmers that want to simplify the task of maintenence of systems, so as to reduce the complexity in their life, and others.. ITs still complex to maintain the software, but hey what counts is if you are really knowledgable of the source and the way it works, you will be able to protect your company like no other employee (value add!!).
Yeah hardware has its limitations, but as long as the CPU can continue to process instructions ten trillion billion million times without fail, its possible to develop an virtual architecture of use that reuses the instructions to produce structures useful to humans. That's what the purpose of OOP is.. The recursive feedback loop that CPU's use to feed instructions to themselves developed in the interest of making cheaper computers that were no hard wired.. But its easier to make embdedded devices dependable than to to make software dependable.
The methods for making software dependable is to adopt OOP architectures that reuse a lot of code, so that the error are easier to fix than with large procedural code bases where code is replicated (copy & paste) style from place to place.. If people had not adopted methods of code abstraction, we would still be hand coding bootstraps calculators.. Its natural for us to produce structures that make the fabrication of ideas easier, and that's the purpose of computer languages.. However its via patterns of design and reuseable OO based languages that we are able to reduce the complexity of applications to be as dependable as hardware components..
Hardware design is supremely object oriented because of the way things are connected, its massively parallel and reuses many chips.. Some who have adopted OO design for software and inspired by hardware design, even though the simulation in software don't work as fast as the procedural mechanism. The idea is if you can abstract away from the workings of the machine you can have the components work on any machine. At best the hardware could be designed to be more abstract, but its doubtful hardware manufacturers would strive to create OO language for CISC operation.. And doubtful machine designers would adopt it as a stanard, because the chips can be patented.. The software most likely cannot be patented in the same way. And it doesn't make sense for hardware designers not to patent a design.. So the only the choice is to abstract from the hardware in software, in an effort to leverage chip designers into competing in the implementation of attributes needed by the software developers.. Software is not really patentable, and its a kind of free world where ideas can be made to work regardless of copyright and patent law.
Open Source is the free zone where these concepts break loose and change the corporate landscape of hardware and software.. That's why the corporations love and hate it.. It its the inovative light on the darkness of engineering as a business.
I doubt you've tried writting software before.. You can't imagine how hard it is to make code bug free. The only way you could is if you wrote everything in LISP, which runs at least twice as slow as a regular application. The medical institutions are grasping onto XML based technologies that are slow and lathargic, example HL7 which is much more inefficient than CORBA based technologies PIDS/COAS/RAD . I worked with the individuals who developed the interface standards for these. The idea, to do away with patient record identifiers and to use fuzzy logic to correlate ID's based on biometrics, and then to standardize the patient record coding methods. For instance every insurance company has a different way of reimbursing the doctors.. The doctors must code their procedures and send the forms to the insurance company (without divulging too much about the specificsof the procedure or the state of the healthcare of the patient). The HIPAA regulations were developed to try to force a standardization of codes for healthcare betwene insurance companies and medical institutions. What they adopted was HL7 which requires that all the patient record be sent rather than only the precise information needed.. This means if your doctor needs information about your response to anesthesia, they must send the entire record including your AIDS tests, because of the way HL7 data is stored.. Whereas with the CORBA standard for healthcare, only those who you authorize can have the information, and only the information that is relevant to their use.. This means insurance companies only get codes relevant to the procedure, doctors only get information relevant to surgeries and diagnosis, everything is logged (because you are making calls to methods, not for patient records)..
Also some may know that hospitals sell patient records to institutions that look for cures for cancer, its a money making business for drug companies that will use the research to release a drug usually selling for hundreds of dollars. But they must go through a process of collection of research for 5 years to pass the FDA, so they purchase people's healthcare records..
Doctors destroy records often, only because the space required to maintain paper records is limited.. But if they store the data in computers, they must then become HIPAA compliant, because HIPAA only applies to the digital storage of patient records, not the paper representation. Note Medical Manager developed the HL7 standard, and Medical manager is co-owned by Microsoft. Medical Manager also models the pattern of Microsoft, interfaces to competitors cost thousands of dollars (just for simple things like name, address, telephone data, called ID9 format data, which is no larger than a mp3 ID information tag). Medical Manager dominates about 75% of the medical informatics industry and its largely XML based, very little OOP design, standard is limited to HL7, which is changing as a result of Medical Manager's dominance int he medical industry..
Clinics cannot support it because a license of Medical Manager can cost hundreds of thousands.. Money that would normally go to paying for medical equipment..
Now the development of PIDS/COAS happened at Los Alamos National Labs and others places, but there is a rule that if anything in the lab competes with the trade industry in New Mexico, the research in the lab must stop.. This happened when OEM's of Microsoft contested the research and development of PIDS/COAS using tax payers dollars.. The OEM was fearing that people would use a fully well integrated software interface based on PIDS/COAS instead of using Microsoft's software: Medical Manager, Excel, Word, etc. So the development of the standard and technology was dropped, in the name of commercial corporate software development..
This happens everyday behind the backs of the consumers, and in the industry.. And all in the name of making money..
So I would say that the best thing we can do is develop standards, but pay attention careful attention to what Micr
Yeah I'm beginning to see this myself.. My brother when he first came upon OOP said at Xmas time that he doesn't believe it is all that useful, that he would rather code everything in C because of the efficiency. However I still believe its good to think in terms of objects, just not good to design code first with objects, its better when refactoring the codebase, like going from something C based to something C++.
Another thing is to look at design antipatterns that talk about OOP flaws, like the "blob" anti pattern, a object that is litterally an entire application or a library.. I've seen this a lot..
The one major problem I have with the industry at large is the the avoidance of pure OOP concepts, like that of agents (objects that traverse a network, jump from computer to computer, and have self knowledge). I see this great acceptance of XML, but XML is a data format, a pure object format includes methods to manage the data contained int he object, and those methods should be able to best manage themselves.. The methods for the objects can be purely data oriented, and need not any system resources to do what is needed. So why not put these agent link objects in sandboxes, limit their computational resources to managing themselves? This makes it so that libraries are not needed to manage the objects, the objects never become obsolete because the code is within, not without. The objects can be upgraded to newer methods that know how to manage them, but the code may be replicated for each object, the idea is that the code that manages the objects need not be complex. And the objects can pass from system to system without having to be rewritten because they run in a virtual machine.
You could do something like this with XML, but the reason companies like Microsoft support XML is it is not CORBA, its not a standard for interfacing, its not a object oriented design, its a structural data format (that doesn't allow overlapping of elements by the way). If Microsoft adopted a standard for objects that was open like XML, then it would be like giving too much away, because then people could write them out of the picture.. With XML, at least they can change the language, the interfacing method is harder to maintain (data objects and organization, versus functions with parameters), people still must rely on libraries to interpret and transform the data in XML..
If we put something like Perl code in a XML object, and relied on the methods in the XML to maintain itself (limiting the access of the perl interpreter to system resources), then the XML library that interprets the object is the object itself, or a reference object that knows it well. This eliminates the need for libraries in the system that must be compiled or included to use the objects.. Its allows for varying types of objects to be written, that do various things and no libraries are required.. Even if there is a lot fo object replication, each kind of object a system captures, it could reference the original object to obtain the methods to manage the data of the each type of object it sees.
This means software never becomes obsolete.. Word processor files are always readable, image files always viewable, sound files always playable, etc.. This for Microsoft would be a disaster, because for one it would not require them to be a part of the picture. Its a democracy, the objects that work the best people use.. Its platform independent, the objects manage data with local methods running on virtual or real processors (in a sandbox). Allows programmers to move onto better things, rather than wasting a lot of time adhering to standards that will change tommorow (so that management in a company can justify upgrades to the next best spanking new version of Windows..
The thing I had noticed though is that commercial software development tends to make companies adopt archaic languages so that their competitors can't adopt their projects (should management come to be disastisfied with their solutions), this is why one will use del
This is like putting a v8 engine on a tricycle.. You have a magepixel display/camera on a telephone which can't verywell utilize the content. unless using a wireless wap connection.. Kinda pointlesss.
A version of linux that runs from a cdrom, and allows me to have my home directory in a USB ram card. In fact it would be cool to be able to boot from the ram stick. The only way to make linux defacto is if somehow it is made very easy to boot from, and use, and store with.. Then it would allow users to carry their environment with them..
Once you realize how stupid the iPOD is anyhow, you begin to realize how stupid the consumers are as a result. I mean there are already DVD players about the size fo a DVD that can play lots of mp3 files, more than anyone would listen to and play movies. What is ruining america as a whole is this constant desire for more (than you will ever need). I means how long would it take for you to listen to all mp3 content on a 20 gig drive, much less a 4 gig drive. And thus expands the range of available content and hence shortens the attention span of the average American. PS you might read the articles in "Fat Company" about WalMart and how they have essentially ruined the economy by forcing companies out of business by decreasing their profit margins. Walmart is just exploiting their customer's greed. And Microsoft, they are just seeing how far this greed reaches..
You think America can continue like this, when the economy is reduced to nothing in about ten years, we will look like the mexicans and the Chinese will look like the americans, financially..
BTW - the local laboratory is eliminating all forms of weapons testing, but that is not saying anything about what China is doing now, which is expanding their weapons testing facility.. All in the name of stupid liberal/democrats who are defined more by not being replublicans and christians than by being free thinkers. Lets see how far the stupidity will go. Can you say housemade to a chinese aristocrat?
Steve Jobs and Bill Gates borrowed their ides for the GUI and mouse and such from not only Xerox PARC but from the Smalltalk environment. Smalltalk is not just a language, its a Object Oriented operating environment.. Its hard to call it an operating system even though it controlled resources on the machine, and its not really just a language because it allows the users to change the workings of the language and the operating environment at any time.. Its just a massively self-referencing OO environment.. And everything we know of GUI's and mice and such today was based on smalltalk and the machine designed around it..
Just Xerox was not smart enough to cash in on it because it was so far before its time that there were few with much power to exploit it and sell it.. PARC as was explained at the time was a campus full of nerds designing stuff that made sense without the constraints that usually hold down projects, like having to make money. They had enough money to develop this system.. But certainly nobody was foofing off.. Its hard to know exactly what was involved in the development, what led to it and if this can ever happen again..
Get a big company with lots of money and poor resource management, get a lot of smart people who are driven to solve problems, keep the lawyers off campus.. Make sure the nerds are absolutely clueless about business and making money.. Remember at the time, nobody was making money selling software much.. The idea was to sell a machine.. Xerox sold hardware not software.. I don't think this can ever happen again.. There is just too much to take for granted, like that anyone can take the software and go sell a piece of it or release it on the Internet..
Until they can encrypt and obfuscate operations on a CPU level, they will not be able to protect code from prying eyes or from backwards engineering.. But their aim is not to keep the hackers out, the aim is to assure potential buyers of their technology so that they can make money.. Who cares (they think) if it actually works or not..
Microsoft is only against OSS because its pro-consumer, and what is good for consumer is bad for Microsoft.. Its their first line of defense.
Eliminate options, make money.
If everyone had their cattle downstream from Microsoft, they would charge us millions for water rights.. But now there are multiple streams, the water comes from other places, it makes it tough for Microsoft to make money..
First poison or cut-off all the waters other than theirs..
That means for us disinformation, lies, deceit.
Also note, Bill gates personal cycle:
Philanthropy feeds reputation reputation justifies deceit deceit justifies money making people find out about deceit deceit causes bill to lose face bill performs more philanthropic acts Philanthropy feeds reputation
and so on..
PS- Philanthropy with no intent to glorify god is worthless. Something to remember Christians!!
I often tell people "100 random monkeys won't make the code any better"..
But there is something to having non-monkeys looking at the code.. Its proven that visual perception in humans can recereate favorable results in the visual field, thus overlooking syntax errors.. And that some people are better at things others are not, so semantic and logic errors could be determined pretty quickly by having many discerning eyes looking at the code..
However fewer people are going to be able to look at the big picture and say "this doesn't look very efficient, why not implement this this way".. Those are code architects, and they will help the development of a package many times over..
But the guys Microsoft hires tend to be whoever had the highest GPA's in school, and others who are so focused on what they want to do they are not stepping back to see what their technology will be used for.. To find out the technology is not going where they wanted it to because it "doesn't make Microsoft any money".. So Microsoft ends up copyrighting and patenting it such that nobody else can compete.. This would mean that disgruntled product designing geeks will either start their own companies, or will develop their standards in the form of open source applications. And this is the use of open source, to encourage a standard on code design and interfacing and to encourage standards where they make no immediate monitary sense..
Not many people search for this stuff, that's why you get these pages.. If you did the searches and spent some time on the pages (make sure you have a google toolbar) then the favorable results would appear at the top of the pages, but you would have to have more people doing this..
Doing these unlikely searches just points out that you have very uncommon tastes in search terms and there isn't very many people out there looking for what you are interested in..
Also you could use this, as if you were selling something, to determine what people were interested in.. I wonder if Google sells their search statistics to marketing comitees..
First get 100 of your best friends, get each with a google toolbar on their browser..
Have each search for the same set of keywords, but have them all click on your page..
Have then spend about 5 minutes on that page.. Then have them all close their browser..
Do this again and again for several other keyword combinations..
Do this procedure as much as possible, and you will find your page ranking at the top of the results of the keyword searches you performed..
What would be better is to automate this.. Write some viralent programs that infect people's machines then perform these rigged searches and send fake outcomes to google.. Why I suggest making a virus or a trojan hoarse? The searches are bound to be keyed to IP addresses, if you have one IP address acting like 100 users, the google search database could place less significance on result outcomes that affect only a small portion of the Internet community.. It could be the algorithm uses a ratio of users with unique IP addresses to all the IP addresses to determine relevance as well..
If you say "That's impossible, there is no way I can do that.." Precisely, that's why this whole discussion of keyword searches on a page is moot..
I thought that they just used the google
toolbar to determine what keyword searches
lead to correct results by monitoring how long someone stays on a page and using the log of events from the toolbar to feed these findings..
So if you searched for
"Pentium 4"
First hand it may do a search by keyword to
find the Pentium 4's but the product is faced up
according to how many people before you had also done this search, and the rankings of the various results based on the success of the outcome.. Like if the multitude of searchers ended up browsing the DELL page, then Dell would appear above all else at the top of the page.
So no matter how many keywords you have in your page, it won't have a chance against the pages that people tend to look at.. However if you can flood the database with pages with all relevant keywords, then maybe you can keep people from ever getting favorable results for those keyword searches, then nothing ever gets ranked.. That's the experience you've had if you've gone looking for (ahem) "swimsuit" and you get all the porn pages with 10,000 keywords in them. Unless people actually go weeding out the swimsuit pages from the crap, nobody will see anything relevant at the top of the page..
This is why it seems google can read our minds, as yahoo doesn't even come close.. Yahoo doesn't use the outcome of the search in the computation of future searches.. So Faaaa to Yahoo, keyword searches in pages is only half the problem..
Windows is not nearly as complex as organisms..
The theory behind the survival of organisms is unproven, just as evolution is unproven..
This has been a theory put forth to those
fighting harmful bacteria/viruses that if you give people are the drugs quickly it will kill off everything, but if not applied well enough the resistent strains will survive and grow, and will be drug resistent.. However this relies on evolution of species, that the drug resistent strain is strong enough to overcome other organisms that would eat up or break apart the virus..
Anyhow, computer viruses are fairly simple, they
are interpretted as instructions when given right to execution.. The primary problem with Windows is not that its random/unpredictable enough to thwart attacks, but that its overly complex, and is made so every year, through the purpose of making money, whereas Linux is relatively simple and can be protected from attacks.. Making an operating system more complex is about the same as security through obscurity, its more of a burden than a solution..
The solution for windows is to reduce the crap between the hardware and teh applications.. Microsoft money maker has always been controlling access to resources, not from hackers but from low-paying vendors, the more money you can shell out for a compiler, the closer you get to the resources and the better your applications can be made.. Its like selling seats to a Football game, those wiht the more insider information into Microsoft and those willing to pay for that information, get closer to the hardware.. And when that new version of winodws comes out that obscures the language and interface design (actually a marketing idea more than for virus reduction), the layers increase, people pay more to understand the obscurity, while holes develop in the architecture, due to complexity.. As you increase the complexity of software, you increase the vulnerability, its proven!!
Linux is also not immune to this, if open source developments fail to refactor the sources, they will become more complex, and less dependable, more crackable, hackable..
The best thing to do is embrace good abstraction and ways to reduce points of failure. With the linux, this is to increase eyes... WIth Microsoft its to advertise a lot, brainwash customers with positive reassurance (eg. "no nothing is wrong, everything is okay"), while at the same time making those with something to argue look like fools.. Its like something out of a Ayn Rand book, somewhere between communism and capitalism, respect the social order, but do what you want until you can't get away
with it, then give to charity or put forth a positive message such that people will instill more trust, then do what you want until you can't get away with it.. So on..
Come on guys, get it..
I can nail all your butts with it over a 56Kbps
modem, you don't even need a DSL line and can
still manage to do team speak with a few of your friends.. Its fully 3D and over a modem I
was able to play about 22 others last friday..
And it kicks Quake's sorry butt..
Its a bute!!
Java, C#, C++, Objective C, etc..
on
How C# Was Made
·
· Score: 1
All stole from smalltalk and c, its
c's syntax with smalltalk's concepts..
Java: smalltalk in the form of c++, with parts of object hiearchy located in libraries, with the added problem of deprecation of object classes which keeps developers on their toes.
C++: like java only compileable, and just as indecisive about the structure..
c: a form of assembly that evolved into higher forms of expression through clever syntax..
Smalltalk: higher concept and form of design, based on objects and the development of applciations by the usage and inheritance of object classes, but to share applications, due to the dependence on underlying object classes, one must deliver all underlying objects that
the application depends on, resulting in usually copying the entire smalltalk system (this is like, if we wanted to get a copy of Emacs, we need to get Lisp as well, or if we want IE we need Windows as well).
C#: who knows, looks like its massively dependent on another architecture, that being.NET.. The grand being that programs will be based on disparate objects across the world, or alternatively all at Microsoft where they can suck the wallets of everyone dynamically: I'm sorry, you can't use MSWord today, the text object was deprecated last night, to use Word you will have to upgrade, that will cost you 250,000 dollars..
Of course this is a pipe dream for Bill Gates..
But.. Eventually it will be true..
PS- Javascript is not a Java language, it was a name stollen by Netscape to attribute value ro their browser language. I would expect that C# stole C in the name to attribute glory to it from the C world.. Microsoft is forever changign the language and stealing names, this is what they are good at.
Furthermore where is the source of your statistics, what tests did they do? You could take any marketing group in the world and find someone who would give you favorable results.. But if you don't give references, its not very useful.. The reason so many people are led astray by Microsoft is they are too gullable, they are led to believe in simple advertising ploys.. Like the one above..
Furthermore you sound like a paid evangelist, a postion that would not have existed without Microsoft.. Paid actors..
Maybe some big companies don't recognize the difference, but those who do are on the road to independence.. And your special knowledge about such is obsoleted.. You stand to lose.. Its obvious..
I hate to mention this, but aren't we talking about a encrypted audio format that is also compressed at a lower quality than what can be had at CD-quality.. Not only are you paying for less, you are getting less.. These are probably the same people who buy DVD-RAM Video Camcorders, note these camcorders use MPEG compression which is ten times more lossy than DV-CAM's that use MJPEG (JPEG per frame, no bidirectional compression, etc..).
Just like the guys who purchased color palm pilots.. And the advertising/marketing/sales
people win yet again pulling more than just wool over your eyes.. Might as well have the bear rug as well..
I hear that they are outsourcing medical professionals and lawyers.. Business people you are playing with fire.. What goes around comes around y'know.. Soon business people will be outsourced, and you will be thrown into the darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth..
Netherlands has nothing else to lose,
and making Kazaa legal would level the playingfield, what is the Netherlands primary
means of support? Tourism, drugs, prostitution,
gambling.. Oh yes and farming!! What a combination..
Slashdot Mirror
If there was no OSS, there would not be simple solutions.. They would either be crippled shareware or commercial applications.
OSS was also helped along by the development of a OSS operating system, the Internet, and the development of open source languages. Without that, it would not really be possible to do OSS development.
Commercial software development flourished in the 80s because: memory was expensive, computers were expensive, languages were expensive, operating systems were simple yet expensive, people were pretty much ignorant on the overall, software was easy to distribute (remember floppies?, what was the purpose of hard drives?).
Why it doesn't work now: Smarter people, faster computers, cheaper hardware. Software as a result tends to be developed by the companies that need it now and now how. A majority of the OSS is made for enterprise systems development and by hobbyists. Its no wonder that countries outside the US are adopting OSS to reduce administrative costs, if you consider that 200 dollars here for Windows XP looks like 2000 dollars in India, it doesn't make sense to shell that out if you can get something that does the job for nothing, also particularly if you can hire indian programmers for about 5000 dollars a year to develop the software. 20 programmers is enough to develop operating systems like Linux.
Often what you see is not the stuff being developed, what the goodwill of some developers or company willing to release its custom versions of linux.. There is bound to be many closed source developements of the linux kernel being done in other countries. This is having
commercial impact on Microsoft, and its no wonder Microsoft is the ones squeeling most about it. But the software developers in the rest of the country make money on a per project per hour basis, they tend not to sell software as products like Microsoft and they stand no competition from OSS because projects in OSS are sustained by common patterns in development.
Operating systems are fairly understood, therefore there is really nothing new that can be done, that's why you can get linux or free bsd or and other sort of operating system now. However software that uses multielement CCD cameras on satelites to determine oil deposits, tend not to become open source, because the technology is relatively complex and is ever changing and technology becomes available to make the process more precise. But hard technologies (not software) is what investors tend to invest in, and its software that relies on hard technologies that tends to sell..
It's just that the mass production and mass sales of software, as products is dieing away slowly.. It will get harder and harder to seperate programmers from designers, and over time the programmers will be the designers.
Therefore programmers are not sure whether to embrace technologies like OOP because OOP allows them to be written out of the picture. OOP software tends to allow designers to become programmers and programmers to lose work.
ITs only natural for the designers to want to embrace complex languages as a tactic of insuring work.
You sound like an absolutist, arguing a point that isn't really arguable..
The Internet is mostly runned by OSS, look at how many Apache, PHP,MYSQL. Perl combinations there are.. However the majority of browsers on the Internet are closed source ones like IE, the one I'm currently using..
I am also working over Windows..
However for all my web work I use PHP, Apache and Mysql.. It doesn't make sense to use ASP.NET or Java Servlets, because PHP is relatively simple and it won't suffer from drastic changes due to upgrades in the interest of making mounds of money. And OSS software is easier to deploy.
And tends to be dependable.
It will be right in front of a lot of other people too, therefore it gets fixed, you recompile your executable. The difference is
only a few people can fix a closed source application, whereas many people can fix (or yet choose, by observing the source) an open source application before using it, and release any source changes to the code maintainers.
The success of open source relies on the concept that people tend to want to help each other. And the reliability of open source counts on programmers that want to simplify the task of maintenence of systems, so as to reduce the complexity in their life, and others.. ITs still complex to maintain the software, but hey what counts is if you are really knowledgable of the source and the way it works, you will be able to protect your company like no other employee (value add!!).
Yeah hardware has its limitations, but as long as the CPU can continue to process instructions ten trillion billion million times without fail, its possible to develop an virtual architecture of use that reuses the instructions to produce structures useful to humans. That's what the purpose of OOP is.. The recursive feedback loop that CPU's use to feed instructions to themselves developed in the interest of making cheaper computers that were no hard wired.. But its easier to make embdedded devices dependable than to to make software dependable.
The methods for making software dependable is to adopt OOP architectures that reuse a lot of code, so that the error are easier to fix than with large procedural code bases where code is replicated (copy & paste) style from place to place.. If people had not adopted methods of code abstraction, we would still be hand coding bootstraps calculators.. Its natural for us to produce structures that make the fabrication of ideas easier, and that's the purpose of computer languages.. However its via patterns of design and reuseable OO based languages that we are able to reduce the complexity of applications to be as dependable as hardware components..
Hardware design is supremely object oriented because of the way things are connected, its massively parallel and reuses many chips.. Some who have adopted OO design for software and inspired by hardware design, even though the simulation in software don't work as fast as the procedural mechanism. The idea is if you can abstract away from the workings of the machine you can have the components work on any machine.
At best the hardware could be designed to be more abstract, but its doubtful hardware manufacturers would strive to create OO language for CISC operation.. And doubtful machine designers would adopt it as a stanard, because the chips can be patented.. The software most likely cannot be patented in the same way. And it doesn't make sense for hardware designers not to patent a design.. So the only the choice is to abstract from the hardware in software, in an effort to leverage chip designers into competing in the implementation of attributes needed by the software developers.. Software is not really patentable, and its a kind of free world where ideas can be made to work regardless of copyright and patent law.
Open Source is the free zone where these concepts break loose and change the corporate landscape of hardware and software.. That's why the corporations love and hate it.. It its the inovative light on the darkness of engineering as a business.
I doubt you've tried writting software before..
You can't imagine how hard it is to make code bug free. The only way you could is if you wrote everything in LISP, which runs at least twice as slow as a regular application. The medical institutions are grasping onto XML based technologies that are slow and lathargic, example HL7 which is much more inefficient than CORBA based technologies PIDS/COAS/RAD . I worked with the individuals who developed the interface standards for these. The idea, to do away with patient record identifiers and to use fuzzy logic to correlate ID's based on biometrics, and then to standardize the patient record coding methods. For instance every insurance company has a different way of reimbursing the doctors.. The doctors must code their procedures and send the forms to the insurance company (without divulging too much about the specificsof the procedure or the state of the healthcare of the patient). The HIPAA regulations were developed to try to force a standardization of codes for healthcare betwene insurance companies and medical institutions. What they adopted was HL7 which requires that all the patient record be sent rather than only the precise information needed.. This means if your doctor needs information about your response to anesthesia, they must send the entire record including your AIDS tests, because of the way HL7 data is stored.. Whereas with the CORBA standard for healthcare, only those who you authorize can have the information, and only the information that is relevant to their use.. This means insurance companies only get codes relevant to the procedure, doctors only get information relevant to surgeries and diagnosis, everything is logged (because you are making calls to methods, not for patient records)..
Also some may know that hospitals sell patient records to institutions that look for cures for cancer, its a money making business for drug companies that will use the research to release a drug usually selling for hundreds of dollars. But they must go through a process of collection of research for 5 years to pass the FDA, so they purchase people's healthcare records..
Doctors destroy records often, only because the space required to maintain paper records is limited.. But if they store the data in computers, they must then become HIPAA compliant, because HIPAA only applies to the digital storage of patient records, not the paper representation. Note Medical Manager developed the HL7 standard, and Medical manager is co-owned by Microsoft. Medical Manager also models the pattern of Microsoft, interfaces to competitors cost thousands of dollars (just for simple things like name, address, telephone data, called ID9 format data, which is no larger than a mp3 ID information tag). Medical Manager dominates about 75% of the medical informatics industry and its largely XML based, very little OOP design, standard is limited to HL7, which is changing as a result of Medical Manager's dominance int he medical industry..
Clinics cannot support it because a license of Medical Manager can cost hundreds of thousands.. Money that would normally go to paying for medical equipment..
Now the development of PIDS/COAS happened at Los Alamos National Labs and others places, but there is a rule that if anything in the lab competes with the trade industry in New Mexico, the research in the lab must stop.. This happened when OEM's of Microsoft contested the research and development of PIDS/COAS using tax payers dollars.. The OEM was fearing that people would use a fully well integrated software interface based on PIDS/COAS instead of using Microsoft's software: Medical Manager, Excel, Word, etc. So the development of the standard and technology was dropped, in the name of commercial corporate software development..
This happens everyday behind the backs of the consumers, and in the industry.. And all in the name of making money..
So I would say that the best thing we can do is develop standards, but pay attention careful attention to what Micr
Yeah I'm beginning to see this myself.. My brother when he first came upon OOP said at Xmas time that he doesn't believe it is all that useful, that he would rather code everything in C because of the efficiency. However I still believe its good to think in terms of objects, just not good to design code first with objects, its better when refactoring the codebase, like going from something C based to something C++.
Another thing is to look at design antipatterns that talk about OOP flaws, like the "blob" anti pattern, a object that is litterally an entire application or a library.. I've seen this a lot..
The one major problem I have with the industry at large is the the avoidance of pure OOP concepts, like that of agents (objects that traverse a network, jump from computer to computer, and have self knowledge). I see this great acceptance of XML, but XML is a data format, a pure object format includes methods to manage the data contained int he object, and those methods should be able to best manage themselves.. The methods for the objects can be purely data oriented, and need not any system resources to do what is needed. So why not put these agent link objects in sandboxes, limit their computational resources to managing themselves? This makes it so that libraries are not needed to manage the objects, the objects never become obsolete because the code is within, not without. The objects can be upgraded to newer methods that know how to manage them, but the code may be replicated for each object, the idea is that the code that manages the objects need not be complex. And the objects can pass from system to system without having to be rewritten because they run in a virtual machine.
You could do something like this with XML, but the reason companies like Microsoft support XML is it is not CORBA, its not a standard for interfacing, its not a object oriented design, its a structural data format (that doesn't allow overlapping of elements by the way). If Microsoft adopted a standard for objects that was open like XML, then it would be like giving too much away, because then people could write them out of the picture.. With XML, at least they can change the language, the interfacing method is harder to maintain (data objects and organization, versus functions with parameters), people still must rely on libraries to interpret and transform the data in XML..
If we put something like Perl code in a XML object, and relied on the methods in the XML to maintain itself (limiting the access of the perl interpreter to system resources), then the XML library that interprets the object is the object itself, or a reference object that knows it well. This eliminates the need for libraries in the system that must be compiled or included to use the objects.. Its allows for varying types of objects to be written, that do various things and no libraries are required.. Even if there is a lot fo object replication, each kind of object a system captures, it could reference the original object to obtain the methods to manage the data of the each type of object it sees.
This means software never becomes obsolete.. Word processor files are always readable, image files always viewable, sound files always playable, etc.. This for Microsoft would be a disaster, because for one it would not require them to be a part of the picture. Its a democracy, the objects that work the best people use.. Its platform independent, the objects manage data with local methods running on virtual or real processors (in a sandbox). Allows programmers to move onto better things, rather than wasting a lot of time adhering to standards that will change tommorow (so that management in a company can justify upgrades to the next best spanking new version of Windows..
The thing I had noticed though is that commercial software development tends to make companies adopt archaic languages so that their competitors can't adopt their projects (should management come to be disastisfied with their solutions), this is why one will use del
I thought he was a MIT grad that just sat around growing his dreads and pretending to be a visionary.
This is like putting a v8 engine on a tricycle..
You have a magepixel display/camera on a telephone which can't verywell utilize the content. unless using a wireless wap connection.. Kinda pointlesss.
A version of linux that runs from a cdrom, and
allows me to have my home directory in a USB ram card. In fact it would be cool to be able to boot from the ram stick. The only way to make linux defacto is if somehow it is made very easy to boot from, and use, and store with.. Then it would allow users to carry their environment with them..
Once you realize how stupid the iPOD is anyhow,
you begin to realize how stupid the consumers are as a result. I mean there are already DVD players about the size fo a DVD that can play lots of mp3 files, more than anyone would listen to and play movies. What is ruining america as a whole is this constant desire for more (than you will ever need). I means how long would it take for you to listen to all mp3 content on a 20 gig drive, much less a 4 gig drive. And thus expands the range of available content and hence shortens the attention span of the average American. PS you might read the articles in "Fat Company" about WalMart and how they have essentially ruined the economy by forcing companies out of business by decreasing their profit margins. Walmart is just exploiting their customer's greed. And Microsoft, they are just seeing how far this greed reaches..
You think America can continue like this, when the economy is reduced to nothing in about ten years, we will look like the mexicans and the Chinese will look like the americans, financially..
BTW - the local laboratory is eliminating all forms of weapons testing, but that is not saying anything about what China is doing now, which is expanding their weapons testing facility.. All in the name of stupid liberal/democrats who are defined more by not being replublicans and christians than by being free thinkers. Lets see how far the stupidity will go. Can you say housemade to a chinese aristocrat?
This stuff ain't reall..
And the guys who talk about it, usually this is
the only social life they have.
Steve Jobs and Bill Gates borrowed
their ides for the GUI and mouse and such from
not only Xerox PARC but from the Smalltalk
environment. Smalltalk is not just a language, its a Object Oriented operating environment.. Its hard to call it an operating system even though it controlled resources on the machine,
and its not really just a language because it allows the users to change the workings of the language and the operating environment at any time.. Its just a massively self-referencing OO environment.. And everything we know of GUI's and mice and such today was based on smalltalk and the machine designed around it..
Just Xerox was not smart enough to cash in on it because it was so far before its time that there were few with much power to exploit it and sell it.. PARC as was explained at the time was a campus full of nerds designing stuff that made sense without the constraints that usually hold down projects, like having to make money. They had enough money to develop this system.. But certainly nobody was foofing off.. Its hard to know exactly what was involved in the development, what led to it and if this can ever happen again..
Get a big company with lots of money and poor resource management, get a lot of smart people who are driven to solve problems, keep the lawyers off campus.. Make sure the nerds are absolutely clueless about business and making money.. Remember at the time, nobody was making money selling software much.. The idea was to sell a machine.. Xerox sold hardware not software.. I don't think this can ever happen again.. There is just too much to take for granted, like that anyone can take the software and go sell a piece of it or release it on the Internet..
Until they can encrypt and obfuscate operations on a CPU level, they will not be able to protect code from prying eyes or from backwards engineering.. But their aim is not to keep the hackers out, the aim is to assure potential buyers of their technology so that they can make money.. Who cares (they think) if it actually works or not..
The rest is just FUD to cover up this ploy..
Well OSS isn't american. its world..
Microsoft is only against OSS because its pro-consumer, and what is good for consumer is bad for Microsoft.. Its their first line of defense.
Eliminate options, make money.
If everyone had their cattle downstream from Microsoft, they would charge us millions for water rights.. But now there are multiple streams, the water comes from other places, it makes it tough for Microsoft to make money..
First poison or cut-off all the waters other than theirs..
That means for us disinformation, lies, deceit.
Also note, Bill gates personal cycle:
Philanthropy feeds reputation
reputation justifies deceit
deceit justifies money making
people find out about deceit
deceit causes bill to lose face
bill performs more philanthropic acts
Philanthropy feeds reputation
and so on..
PS- Philanthropy with no intent to glorify god is worthless. Something to remember Christians!!
I often tell people "100 random monkeys won't make the code any better"..
But there is something to having non-monkeys looking at the code.. Its proven that visual perception in humans can recereate favorable results in the visual field, thus overlooking syntax errors.. And that some people are better at things others are not, so semantic and logic errors could be determined pretty quickly by having many discerning eyes looking at the code..
However fewer people are going to be able to look at the big picture and say "this doesn't look very efficient, why not implement this this way".. Those are code architects, and they will help the development of a package many times over..
But the guys Microsoft hires tend to be whoever had the highest GPA's in school, and others who are so focused on what they want to do they are not stepping back to see what their technology will be used for.. To find out the technology is not going where they wanted it to because it "doesn't make Microsoft any money".. So Microsoft ends up copyrighting and patenting it such that nobody else can compete.. This would mean that disgruntled product designing geeks will either start their own companies, or will develop their standards in the form of open source applications. And this is the use of open source, to encourage a standard on code design and interfacing and to encourage standards where they make no immediate monitary sense..
Not many people search for this stuff, that's why you get these pages.. If you did the searches and spent some time on the pages (make sure you have a google toolbar) then the favorable results would appear at the top of the pages, but you would have to have more people doing this.. Doing these unlikely searches just points out that you have very uncommon tastes in search terms and there isn't very many people out there looking for what you are interested in.. Also you could use this, as if you were selling something, to determine what people were interested in.. I wonder if Google sells their search statistics to marketing comitees..
First get 100 of your best friends,
get each with a google toolbar on their browser..
Have each search for the same set of keywords, but have them all click on your page..
Have then spend about 5 minutes on that page..
Then have them all close their browser..
Do this again and again for several other keyword combinations..
Do this procedure as much as possible, and you will find your page ranking at the top of the results of the keyword searches you performed..
What would be better is to automate this.. Write some viralent programs that infect people's machines then perform these rigged searches and send fake outcomes to google.. Why I suggest making a virus or a trojan hoarse? The searches are bound to be keyed to IP addresses, if you have one IP address acting like 100 users, the google search database could place less significance on result outcomes that affect only a small portion of the Internet community.. It could be the algorithm uses a ratio of users with unique IP addresses to all the IP addresses to determine relevance as well..
If you say "That's impossible, there is no way I can do that.." Precisely, that's why this whole discussion of keyword searches on a page is moot..
I thought that they just used the google toolbar to determine what keyword searches lead to correct results by monitoring how long someone stays on a page and using the log of events from the toolbar to feed these findings.. So if you searched for "Pentium 4" First hand it may do a search by keyword to find the Pentium 4's but the product is faced up according to how many people before you had also done this search, and the rankings of the various results based on the success of the outcome.. Like if the multitude of searchers ended up browsing the DELL page, then Dell would appear above all else at the top of the page. So no matter how many keywords you have in your page, it won't have a chance against the pages that people tend to look at.. However if you can flood the database with pages with all relevant keywords, then maybe you can keep people from ever getting favorable results for those keyword searches, then nothing ever gets ranked.. That's the experience you've had if you've gone looking for (ahem) "swimsuit" and you get all the porn pages with 10,000 keywords in them. Unless people actually go weeding out the swimsuit pages from the crap, nobody will see anything relevant at the top of the page.. This is why it seems google can read our minds, as yahoo doesn't even come close.. Yahoo doesn't use the outcome of the search in the computation of future searches.. So Faaaa to Yahoo, keyword searches in pages is only half the problem..
Windows is not nearly as complex as organisms.. The theory behind the survival of organisms is unproven, just as evolution is unproven.. This has been a theory put forth to those fighting harmful bacteria/viruses that if you give people are the drugs quickly it will kill off everything, but if not applied well enough the resistent strains will survive and grow, and will be drug resistent.. However this relies on evolution of species, that the drug resistent strain is strong enough to overcome other organisms that would eat up or break apart the virus.. Anyhow, computer viruses are fairly simple, they are interpretted as instructions when given right to execution.. The primary problem with Windows is not that its random/unpredictable enough to thwart attacks, but that its overly complex, and is made so every year, through the purpose of making money, whereas Linux is relatively simple and can be protected from attacks.. Making an operating system more complex is about the same as security through obscurity, its more of a burden than a solution.. The solution for windows is to reduce the crap between the hardware and teh applications.. Microsoft money maker has always been controlling access to resources, not from hackers but from low-paying vendors, the more money you can shell out for a compiler, the closer you get to the resources and the better your applications can be made.. Its like selling seats to a Football game, those wiht the more insider information into Microsoft and those willing to pay for that information, get closer to the hardware.. And when that new version of winodws comes out that obscures the language and interface design (actually a marketing idea more than for virus reduction), the layers increase, people pay more to understand the obscurity, while holes develop in the architecture, due to complexity.. As you increase the complexity of software, you increase the vulnerability, its proven!! Linux is also not immune to this, if open source developments fail to refactor the sources, they will become more complex, and less dependable, more crackable, hackable.. The best thing to do is embrace good abstraction and ways to reduce points of failure. With the linux, this is to increase eyes... WIth Microsoft its to advertise a lot, brainwash customers with positive reassurance (eg. "no nothing is wrong, everything is okay"), while at the same time making those with something to argue look like fools.. Its like something out of a Ayn Rand book, somewhere between communism and capitalism, respect the social order, but do what you want until you can't get away with it, then give to charity or put forth a positive message such that people will instill more trust, then do what you want until you can't get away with it.. So on..
Come on guys, get it.. I can nail all your butts with it over a 56Kbps modem, you don't even need a DSL line and can still manage to do team speak with a few of your friends.. Its fully 3D and over a modem I was able to play about 22 others last friday.. And it kicks Quake's sorry butt.. Its a bute!!
All stole from smalltalk and c, its c's syntax with smalltalk's concepts.. Java: smalltalk in the form of c++, with parts of object hiearchy located in libraries, with the added problem of deprecation of object classes which keeps developers on their toes. C++: like java only compileable, and just as indecisive about the structure.. c: a form of assembly that evolved into higher forms of expression through clever syntax.. Smalltalk: higher concept and form of design, based on objects and the development of applciations by the usage and inheritance of object classes, but to share applications, due to the dependence on underlying object classes, one must deliver all underlying objects that the application depends on, resulting in usually copying the entire smalltalk system (this is like, if we wanted to get a copy of Emacs, we need to get Lisp as well, or if we want IE we need Windows as well). C#: who knows, looks like its massively dependent on another architecture, that being .NET .. The grand being that programs will be based on disparate objects across the world, or alternatively all at Microsoft where they can suck the wallets of everyone dynamically: I'm sorry, you can't use MSWord today, the text object was deprecated last night, to use Word you will have to upgrade, that will cost you 250,000 dollars..
Of course this is a pipe dream for Bill Gates..
But.. Eventually it will be true..
PS- Javascript is not a Java language, it was a name stollen by Netscape to attribute value ro their browser language. I would expect that C# stole C in the name to attribute glory to it from the C world.. Microsoft is forever changign the language and stealing names, this is what they are good at.
Who has more to lose if linux is right..
You, so why should we believe you..
We don't..
And why are you concerned..
Furthermore where is the source of your statistics, what tests did they do? You could take any marketing group in the world and find someone who would give you favorable results.. But if you don't give references, its not very useful.. The reason so many people are led astray by Microsoft is they are too gullable, they are led to believe in simple advertising ploys.. Like the one above..
Furthermore you sound like a paid evangelist, a postion that would not have existed without Microsoft.. Paid actors..
Maybe some big companies don't recognize the difference, but those who do are on the road to independence.. And your special knowledge about such is obsoleted.. You stand to lose.. Its obvious..
I hate to mention this, but aren't we talking about a encrypted audio format that is also compressed at a lower quality than what can be had at CD-quality.. Not only are you paying for less, you are getting less.. These are probably the same people who buy DVD-RAM Video Camcorders, note these camcorders use MPEG compression which is ten times more lossy than DV-CAM's that use MJPEG (JPEG per frame, no bidirectional compression, etc..). Just like the guys who purchased color palm pilots.. And the advertising/marketing/sales people win yet again pulling more than just wool over your eyes.. Might as well have the bear rug as well..
I hear that they are outsourcing medical professionals and lawyers.. Business people you are playing with fire.. What goes around comes around y'know.. Soon business people will be outsourced, and you will be thrown into the darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth..
Netherlands has nothing else to lose, and making Kazaa legal would level the playingfield, what is the Netherlands primary means of support? Tourism, drugs, prostitution, gambling.. Oh yes and farming!! What a combination..