[Thank God there's a new version of Windows. Vista is]
Oh, that's delightfully clever. Yes, it's almost like I actually wrote that.
I mention it because it's about this time in the non free OS cycle that M$ usually kills the old version.
I lost you at "non free" and "M$". Try again. Or don't, if you happened to forget for how long Windows XP will be supported and were just babbling for karma as usual.
Every significant non free program has roots in some kind of free software.
That's quite a sweeping statement. Since you're using it to back up your implied argument that free software is inherently superior, could you provide some examples of this?
Not to downplay the threat, but is a new version of Windows out?
Yes, thankfully. It's been out for 8 months, it has twice the market share of Linux and OS X combined, and it's much more secure than the one it's replacing.
BTW, I think it's funny that you'd give so much weight to companies that you've referred to in the past as "snake oil vendors".
Given the fact that the vast majority of computers on botnets are there because of user action instead of exploited vulnerabilities, I fail to see what a new version of Windows has to do with this or not. People will infect a mainframe if the given the chance and someone can be bothered to write the malware for it. Hmmm. BonzyBuddy for OS/390 must be quite an experience. I wonder if it runs on InfoMan...
They've been pushing this idea for years, twitter. It's not a big secret. My company demands that all the internal documents are marked as "confidential" even if they contain the cafeteria menu for the week. Ooooh, there are PPTs from Microsoft marked confidential on teh internets. You're so clever.
That's stupid. I don't "use" the GNU toolchain on Ubuntu any more than I use crypto32.dll on Windows - they are part of the system. If they're not there, things don't work. The importance of a computer is what you do with it, not what kewl compiler it happened to ship with and who wrote it or why. 99% of people could care less about toolchains and glibc and the common controls stack. They use their computers to be productive. So yes, if my PC is primarily used for graphic design then it's useless without Photoshop, regardless of the OS.
Sure. Here's a quote from an interview with the guy that created Twitter:
How has Ruby on Rails been holding up to the increased load?
By various metrics Twitter is the biggest Rails site on the net right now. Running on Rails has forced us to deal with scaling issues - issues that any growing site eventually contends with - far sooner than I think we would on another framework.The common wisdom in the Rails community at this time is that scaling Rails is a matter of cost: just throw more CPUs at it. The problem is that more instances of Rails (running as part of a Mongrel cluster, in our case) means more requests to your database. At this point in time there's no facility in Rails to talk to more than one database at a time. The solutions to this are caching the hell out of everything and setting up multiple read-only slave databases, neither of which are quick fixes to implement. So it's not just
cost, it's time, and time is that much more precious when people can['t] reach your site. None of these scaling approaches are as fun and easy as developing for Rails. All the convenience methods and syntactical sugar that makes Rails such a pleasure for coders ends up being absolutely punishing, performance-wise. Once you hit a certain threshold of traffic, either you need to strip out all the costly neat stuff that Rails does for you (RJS, ActiveRecord, ActiveSupport, etc.) or move the slow parts of your application out of Rails, or both.It's also worth mentioning that there shouldn't be doubt in anybody's mind at this point that Ruby itself is slow. It's great that people are hard at work on faster implementations of the language, but right now, it's tough. If you're looking to deploy a big web application and you're language-agnostic, realize that the same operation in Ruby will take less time in Python. All of us working on Twitter are big
Ruby fans, but I think it's worth being frank that this isn't one of those relativistic language issues. Ruby is slow.
Is that specific enough for you?
And until then, you shall remain a troll.
Would you like some salt to go with your crow? Let me know.
Nope. I know enough about high-scaling distributed applications to be dangerous, since that's what I do for a living. I know PHP runs sites like Wikipedia and Digg, among others. I know I've never seen a blogger go on record to complain about PHP not scaling as he expected, while for RoR that sort of thing seemed quite common in the last year and a half or so.
Yes, your execution can suck and so it won't really matter what language or stack you use. But the impression I have of RoR is that it falls apart a lot faster than PHP under comparable loads. Maybe the crappy internal design PHP suffers from might be an advantage in this case, because Ruby is designed better but it seems to suffer from classic bottom-heavy OO problems you see in other languages.
Ultimately the person who submitted this might be building an accounts receivable app at a little company that gets three hundred hits per day, so it won't really matter if he writes it with Ruby, PHP or Malbolge.
Can you describe some of your experiences scaling Rails?
I work mostly with ASP.NET, really. Like I said in a later post, I have the impression of RoR being problematic for a lot of people, scale-wise.
There's no doubt that Ruby and Rails especially are much slower in execution time than comparable code written in PHP. That said, the PHP code would be 2-10x as verbose, take far longer to write, and be far less maintainable.
That is a tradeoff, of course, and it's really up to each person to decide the merits of a platform based not only on raw speed.
If you're just a PHP n00b who wouldn't know decent OO-code if it punched you in the face
No, not really. BTW, 250K hits per day is really not that impressive, especially with a "handful of apps". That's ~3 requests per second. I work with a single vertical application that handles roughly three times that at peak times.
I've never used Ruby or RoR, but my impression of it seems to be one of great expectations and not a lot of delivery. I've read way too many blogs by people who built web sites with RoR only to have them crash and burn under load. Also, the language itself seems to place a lot of importance on clever syntactic sugar, which being an old fart I automatically dislike.
Now, "scale" does not mean the same thing to everyone. There's Digg and Wikipedia, and then there's the vertical business app that gets 200 hits per day. RoR might be a good choice for the latter, not so good for the former.
Also, although my experience with PHP is limited as well, it seems to me that it's a mature enough platform with a good runtime (that tends to be confusing at times) and a *massive* user base. The amount of readily available PHP code out there is amazing. It will take Ruby quite a few years to get to that point, I think. So maybe Ruby is not a good beginner's environment, application-wise. But that's just my perception of it. PHP is more to the point. On the other hand, RoR might be more mature and stable than CakePHP, just because it's been around longer.
RoR: What people build websites with because they want to be kewl and later switch to PHP when they realize it simply does not scale, complete with acerbic "I wanted to believe" blog entry and everything
You've probably never had a job at a real company, or otherwise you'd know that if those same people were installing Linux instead of "Windoze" would probably also balk at introducing an unknown and unsupported application into a mission-critical data center. That "radical removal of the problem" bit is pure ignorance with a healthy dose of misplaced hubris.
Oh wait, 'Erris' is actually twitter's sockpuppet. I thought that tone was familiar.
BTW, can you explain what you mean by "GNU demand"?
As a side note, The.NET environment (not the classlib) is implemented as a collection of COM components.
There is a bit of "truthiness" here, but it depends on how you frame it. The core CLR/CLS binaries do use COM, yes. But they do that only to play nice with the rest of the platform. You could write.NET applications of any kind for years and never run into or otherwise need COM at all.
The contact surface between the CLR and COM is extremely small and is needed only for interop, so claiming.NET is based on COM is disingenuous at best. On the other hand, if you do need COM for some reason (for example, you're hosting your components on COM+ or writing a shell extension) that tends to come in very handy. But the average.NET application doesn't need to care about COM beyond the fact that it's just another technology in the platform that can be leveraged. Or not.
Bwahahahah, I won't speak for Joe but you'll forgive me if basically regurgitating twitter's little journal and linking to Slashdot's FUD-for-revenue "news" pretty much eliminates any credibility you might have hoped for here.
Good god, you even linked to Roy Shitzforwits. Do you know who he is? He's been crapflooding COLA on USENET for two years, complete with epic flamewars and complaints to his ISP in the UK. Many people believe he's employed by Netscape or RedHat or Canonical (take your pick), who probably fund his (if "he" isn't actually multiple people, given the volume) lame attack blogs that he uses to spam Digg and other social sites to high hell.
For every single "OMFG VISTA IS TEH SUXX0RZ" article out there I can find one that claims Vista simply works. It works for me, that much I know. But people are almost scared of whispering that because of this massive FUD campaign. It has issues? Sure. It's a 1.0 release. SP1 is coming soon, and that will probably be the end of the "Vista is a failure and M$ is dying" bullshit. Unless you're one of those losers that complain about UAC, in which case I can't really do anything for you anyway.
Incidentally, what do you think about twitter consistently ignoring month-to-month OS market share numbers that put Vista at a 1-2% net growth so far? Too much reality for people like him and you, right?
Theo is basically saying, "The Linux people are hypocrites because they say they believe in software freedom but they don't believe in my definition of software freedom." Which is pretty lame.
That's interesting, because people who don't like BSD-type licenses use the same argument to claim they should not be used instead of the GPL. IOW, their definition of "freedom" is not the same - therefore, it's wrong.
You got modded down for shilling Slashdot, insulting people and being a general anoyance, you wrote up your little "M$ hates me" diatribe and now you're trolling it up with your sockpuppet account instead.
As far as you're concerned, hitting negative karma for the third or fourth time is just more proof that "M$" has organized a massive conspiracy that targets you personally, as opposed to giving you second thoughts about how you approach this "evangelist" thing of yours. Way to go.
He wasn't modded down, he's posting at -1 because of negative karma. Probably a result of twitter's proclivity to call people "stupid" and "liars" whenever they reply to him and dare suggest that Vista is not the existential nightmare he claims it is.
Office 2007 does not even have working support of older M$ formats.
This is not true. I can open MSO2007 documents in MSO2003 and viceversa, except when I specifically pick the 2007 format, which evidently prevents 2003 from opening the file.
With the exception of a single problem between Office 95-97 which was corrected with a filter, this has always been the behavior. No software vendor in the planet promises that older versions of an application will open newer versions of a file without problems.
That's quite the glib statement, considering that worm requires so much user action (or inaction, depending on how you look at it) to infect a Windows box, it's not even funny.
How many years do you think it will take before some court proves this was intentional?
Are you serious?
Oh, wait a minute... *slaps head* "Erris" is twitter's sockpuppet account, which he uses to shill his own posts.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, that's delightfully clever. Yes, it's almost like I actually wrote that.
I lost you at "non free" and "M$". Try again. Or don't, if you happened to forget for how long Windows XP will be supported and were just babbling for karma as usual.
That's quite a sweeping statement. Since you're using it to back up your implied argument that free software is inherently superior, could you provide some examples of this?
Yes, thankfully. It's been out for 8 months, it has twice the market share of Linux and OS X combined, and it's much more secure than the one it's replacing.
BTW, I think it's funny that you'd give so much weight to companies that you've referred to in the past as "snake oil vendors".
Given the fact that the vast majority of computers on botnets are there because of user action instead of exploited vulnerabilities, I fail to see what a new version of Windows has to do with this or not. People will infect a mainframe if the given the chance and someone can be bothered to write the malware for it. Hmmm. BonzyBuddy for OS/390 must be quite an experience. I wonder if it runs on InfoMan...
They've been pushing this idea for years, twitter. It's not a big secret. My company demands that all the internal documents are marked as "confidential" even if they contain the cafeteria menu for the week. Ooooh, there are PPTs from Microsoft marked confidential on teh internets. You're so clever.
That's stupid. I don't "use" the GNU toolchain on Ubuntu any more than I use crypto32.dll on Windows - they are part of the system. If they're not there, things don't work. The importance of a computer is what you do with it, not what kewl compiler it happened to ship with and who wrote it or why. 99% of people could care less about toolchains and glibc and the common controls stack. They use their computers to be productive. So yes, if my PC is primarily used for graphic design then it's useless without Photoshop, regardless of the OS.
Yeah, we should all be grateful for that. Most especially the people of Tibet.
If you have automatic updates, this is simply not happening, period. Just more FUD to whip up the zealots like you.
And yes, you are twitter, no matter how many ways from Friday you try to deny it. Don't make me go look for the links.
Well, that's certainly true and I believe I made that point earlier.
Thank you for that link, I wasn't aware that they had fixed it. It even looks elegant enough.
Well, I "checked" Twitter. Are the authors of the other ones also on record saying the technology they chose fails to scale?
Is that specific enough for you?
Would you like some salt to go with your crow? Let me know.
Nope. I know enough about high-scaling distributed applications to be dangerous, since that's what I do for a living. I know PHP runs sites like Wikipedia and Digg, among others. I know I've never seen a blogger go on record to complain about PHP not scaling as he expected, while for RoR that sort of thing seemed quite common in the last year and a half or so.
Yes, your execution can suck and so it won't really matter what language or stack you use. But the impression I have of RoR is that it falls apart a lot faster than PHP under comparable loads. Maybe the crappy internal design PHP suffers from might be an advantage in this case, because Ruby is designed better but it seems to suffer from classic bottom-heavy OO problems you see in other languages.
Ultimately the person who submitted this might be building an accounts receivable app at a little company that gets three hundred hits per day, so it won't really matter if he writes it with Ruby, PHP or Malbolge.
I work mostly with ASP.NET, really. Like I said in a later post, I have the impression of RoR being problematic for a lot of people, scale-wise.
That is a tradeoff, of course, and it's really up to each person to decide the merits of a platform based not only on raw speed.
No, not really. BTW, 250K hits per day is really not that impressive, especially with a "handful of apps". That's ~3 requests per second. I work with a single vertical application that handles roughly three times that at peak times.
I've never used Ruby or RoR, but my impression of it seems to be one of great expectations and not a lot of delivery. I've read way too many blogs by people who built web sites with RoR only to have them crash and burn under load. Also, the language itself seems to place a lot of importance on clever syntactic sugar, which being an old fart I automatically dislike.
Now, "scale" does not mean the same thing to everyone. There's Digg and Wikipedia, and then there's the vertical business app that gets 200 hits per day. RoR might be a good choice for the latter, not so good for the former.
Also, although my experience with PHP is limited as well, it seems to me that it's a mature enough platform with a good runtime (that tends to be confusing at times) and a *massive* user base. The amount of readily available PHP code out there is amazing. It will take Ruby quite a few years to get to that point, I think. So maybe Ruby is not a good beginner's environment, application-wise. But that's just my perception of it. PHP is more to the point. On the other hand, RoR might be more mature and stable than CakePHP, just because it's been around longer.
The best tool for the job and all that, you know?
Oh... and BTW, first post =)
Next?
Oh wait, 'Erris' is actually twitter's sockpuppet. I thought that tone was familiar.
BTW, can you explain what you mean by "GNU demand"?
There is a bit of "truthiness" here, but it depends on how you frame it. The core CLR/CLS binaries do use COM, yes. But they do that only to play nice with the rest of the platform. You could write .NET applications of any kind for years and never run into or otherwise need COM at all.
The contact surface between the CLR and COM is extremely small and is needed only for interop, so claiming .NET is based on COM is disingenuous at best. On the other hand, if you do need COM for some reason (for example, you're hosting your components on COM+ or writing a shell extension) that tends to come in very handy. But the average .NET application doesn't need to care about COM beyond the fact that it's just another technology in the platform that can be leveraged. Or not.
Good god, you even linked to Roy Shitzforwits. Do you know who he is? He's been crapflooding COLA on USENET for two years, complete with epic flamewars and complaints to his ISP in the UK. Many people believe he's employed by Netscape or RedHat or Canonical (take your pick), who probably fund his (if "he" isn't actually multiple people, given the volume) lame attack blogs that he uses to spam Digg and other social sites to high hell.
For every single "OMFG VISTA IS TEH SUXX0RZ" article out there I can find one that claims Vista simply works. It works for me, that much I know. But people are almost scared of whispering that because of this massive FUD campaign. It has issues? Sure. It's a 1.0 release. SP1 is coming soon, and that will probably be the end of the "Vista is a failure and M$ is dying" bullshit. Unless you're one of those losers that complain about UAC, in which case I can't really do anything for you anyway.
Incidentally, what do you think about twitter consistently ignoring month-to-month OS market share numbers that put Vista at a 1-2% net growth so far? Too much reality for people like him and you, right?
Thanks for the chuckle though.
That's interesting, because people who don't like BSD-type licenses use the same argument to claim they should not be used instead of the GPL. IOW, their definition of "freedom" is not the same - therefore, it's wrong.
As far as you're concerned, hitting negative karma for the third or fourth time is just more proof that "M$" has organized a massive conspiracy that targets you personally, as opposed to giving you second thoughts about how you approach this "evangelist" thing of yours. Way to go.
I believe twitter calls that "evangelization".
This is not true. I can open MSO2007 documents in MSO2003 and viceversa, except when I specifically pick the 2007 format, which evidently prevents 2003 from opening the file.
With the exception of a single problem between Office 95-97 which was corrected with a filter, this has always been the behavior. No software vendor in the planet promises that older versions of an application will open newer versions of a file without problems.
Actually, it's 5.4% in 7 months - http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid= 2&qpmr=15&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=102
Alternatively, it could only be considered a failure here.
Well, you can always make stuff up. Oh wait...
That's quite the glib statement, considering that worm requires so much user action (or inaction, depending on how you look at it) to infect a Windows box, it's not even funny.
Are you serious?
Oh, wait a minute... *slaps head* "Erris" is twitter's sockpuppet account, which he uses to shill his own posts.
I thought this looked familar.
Yes, anyone who dares suggest that Vista is not the existencial nightmare you claim it is is a liar.