Sorry, since this is Slashdot, I posted assuming everyone reading is a "Slashdot" reader. If someone has the required "background" to "appreciate" Slashdot, and they stick everything on the C drive, they're stupid. If my mother puts everything on her C drive, she's only mislead.
That being said, you have something like 10 ways of accessing your document folders, and ONE (as a normal user) to access your C drive, and when you do, the computer will freagin tell you not to play with it. If you try to put something where you shouldn't, UAC will pop up telling you not to. If you do it anyway, you really, -really- tried. Really, if you put your files anywhere that the UI lets you access without resistance, you're fine.
Ironically, when I used the word idiot, I was thinking about one of previous boss (a developer with a master in software engineering) who insisted on putting everything on the C drive. That got problematic pretty fast.
Because its not just these things. Indy music is "easy" to produce (assuming you have the talent...I mean, you don't need too much ressources, unless you want advertising). Films could be easier, could be worse. These "locks" however, don't prevent free music and movies from happening. Since commercial music, and many, many commercial movies totally SUCK, it would be no big loss.
Now however... take videogames. How many GOOD open (from launch, not 15 years later) games have you seen? Any public domain Final Fantasy-level games in the making? GnuRPG or something? No. Too much stress, time and effort required for people to do this as a hobby. There's the odd RTS or FPS popping up every now and then, but they're no Half Life 2.
Now take software development. How freakishly long did it take to have free software that had decent UI? Oh, we have 127943091274091470921 command line tools and servers: those are fun to make. But how long did it take before those tools got decent usuability? Polishing these softwares to make em usuable requires a lot more than basement-level hacking skills, and to most, it sucks. It gets done so fast in the commercial world because people are getting paychecks.
Personaly, I'm a gamer, and I'm sick of MMOs (which would still be possible without all the copyright mess), and I'm not totally willing to see all these commercial-only beauties go the way of the dodo. Maybe someday -all- of the sides of intellectual properties will be like music (that is: the indy/free stuff is GOOD), but until then, lets keep copyright around a little while longer.
My work machine is using Vista, with a measly 1 gig of ram, no readyboost or anything like that, and I have Visual Studio and SQL Management Studio running at all time (at the minimum, I often have much, much more), and I never had issues. It actually works better than XP did.
My home machine is currently at 2 gigs of RAM. I don't compile huge C++ softwares, or have 16 browser windows opened at the same time as running Bioshock, but I've only ever hit swap once, and in that situation I would have hit swap even on Windows 98.
Vista uses the available RAM, but it uses it relatively well, and will release it when you need it...so I don't see how you can have that much RAM issues. 4 gigs of RAM? Vista 32 bit can't even -access- that much. 1 gig is just as peachy as it was in XP. Machine sitting at 820 mb rigth now with a douzan software (including VS) opened. Now if I open SQL Management Studio, it goes up to.... 850. It should go up more than that, its just that Vista cache like crazy. It won't force you into swap unless it really has to...
Are you using one of the crappy anti-virus software known to shit out on Vista?
You'll see issues if, and only if, you install shitty software. Install an Anti-virus like McAfee, Norton, or AVG (the later is good, but last I saw, it had similar issues as the first two with Vista, while NOD32 did not), and your boot time goes to hell, performance goes bye bye.
Install some crappy old VB6 software made by an idiot with no knowledge of Windows development, and you'll see UAC pops quite a bit whenever that software needs to write a file in Program Files.
Aside that, as long as your hardware is well supported, no. What you see right now, is what it will stay, no more, no less problems. It really isn't bad.
Re:Is UAC really bad? (Not trolling, just asking)
on
Time for a Vista Do-Over?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I can't give you evidence I guess, but just logic should do it.
UAC will pop whenever you install anything through Windows Installer (regardless of what it installs), access anything admin-only (like changing any system-wide settings), and any files that your user isn't given access to (and thus require admin priviledge).
If you're an idiot who work on the C drive at all time, instead of in C:\User\(YourUserName), its unbearable: it will popup constantly.
Otherwise, it will pop whenever there's a windows update to install, whenever you install software through Windows Installer, or in Program Files, and whenever you ctrl+alt+delete and choose to see "process by all users", or any equivalent system-wide task.
Thats it. So when I develop with IIS, I make sure the web site isn't in C:\wwwroot, but is in my user's directory. I put all my files there. And I don't use software made by idiots (read: games that put save files in the root directory instead of in your user folder...COME ON developers::slap:: ). Ok, that last one is a bit harder to avoid...guess I've been lucky so far.
That final point is really what pushes things to "either extreme". If you use software that constantly write to their executing directory, it gets very troublesome. Imagine in Linux if a software did that. You'd have to run it as root or give yourself special priviledge all over the place. Microsoft has been trying to tell those morons to stop doing that since the dawn of times, and they still do... fact remain, its where UAC succeeds or break: you have a lot of poorly written software, UAC will pop constantly. You don't have such software, you'll only see it once or twice a week.
Indeed. I have 2 Vista machines right now. One that is mine, and I installed Vista on it on the very day of RTM. Aside for the sound drivers that were in beta originally, I had zero issues with it, and I'd never go back to XP.
Then there's my work machine (I work from home). It is a more recent machine, but certain pieces of hardware haven't been replaced in too long... so while I have full Vista drivers for it, some are just afterthoughts from the devs. It is horrible. Graphic glitches all over the place, remote desktop making the system crash, no sound whatsoever... its a mess.
For UAC, its like you said. I see the popup once a week, -IF- that. What we do is turn it off during installation, then back on once we're done installing all the software. Problem solved. (Pretty sweet too, in certain cases it allows you to skip certain crapware installed with games...)
There. It has the service broker, doesn't have data driven notification... One thing thats nice, is that it can deal with "on the fly" attaching of database files...so you can use SQL Server databases a bit like you'd be using MS Access databases, or (I beleive, I've never used it) SQLite. Ship the application with the database file, and it will use it like (but not quite) it was an embedded database... Thats something the full version of SQL Server does -not- do. (pretty amusing when you have a 40 thousand dollars SQL Server install and an SQL Server feature from the free version doesn't work:) )
Unlimited users, but its a bit limited on how much hardware and RAM you can throw at it. Also limited to 4 gigs in size. Reporting Services is in, DTS (Which, as of SQL Server 2005, has been remade from scratch into the vastly superior SSIS) is NOT in (and that makes me very, very sad, since SSIS is my favorite ETL tool).
I'm not sure about the scheduling and stuff, but quite a bit of these features are there. The development tools for it are also free (they're part of a free version of Visual Studio). No Analysis Service and OLAP cubes either.
It is definately not for all scenarios, but considering the ease of development, it serves a lot of purposes. I still push the open source offering when we need an enterprise-class solution and the customer's being cheap though:) Postgres has OK dev tools, and onces its hidden behind an ORM like Hibernate or LLBLGEN, it all looks the same, aside for the business intelligence bits.
We're on Slashdot. We have an article here, that (regardless of content, I didn't read it), has in its title something about some company doing something against piracy.
And you're surprised to see people complain? This site might as well be hosted on the same servers as The Pirate Bay.
No. The web developer really has nothing to do. If the -sysadmin- configure the web server to send a certain header, web pages will be rendered correctly without anything being done by the web developer. Problem solved. The metatag is just there for when you can't change the server configuration.
What this attorney realizes, is that laws, in practice, are just suggestions, and that how the legal system works, is that you have to throw money at problems until you can bend the meaning of one of these suggestions with the purpose of getting a dumb judge to create a precedent.
it does allow you to specify the database mappings within the "class" that you write
Yeah, once upon a time that was the more common way of doing it, and most homebrew OR mappers used that (since its a lot easier to code really). As far as I can tell, the issue with that comes from separation of concern and dependency injections and all that.
If you want to change the class, you need to have the mapping redone too. A nice in between, for example, in the.NET World is LLBLGEN Pro. The mapping is computed from the schema, and is defined in a graphical IDE, and it generates the classes for you. Using.NET's partial classes you can add stuff to those classes without touching generated code, or you can alter the templates the generator use... All around, making a data access layer from an existing schema is a matter of minutes, even if it is a legacy database that isn't normalized...
Good object relational mappers will map to an existing schema, they will NOT create one, as that makes for some amazingly shitty interop. Make the DB first, then map your classes to it. Or better yet, auto-generate your data access layer and data objects, then make sure that layer is not tightly coupled to the rest of the application, removing the need to map anything at all (yourself).
A while it would be great if all developers were good database architects, it isn't realistic. Knowing the basics (like its important for a Java developer to know how pointers work) is a must, and knowing how to work with a database also is, but being able to create a good schema is a world apart.... It isn't uncommon for a an average enterprise database to spawn thousand of tables, fusing several business domains together... You need to be a top notch functional analyst, and know all of the quirks and reasoning behind each design choice...
Thats a job that usually requires much more qualified people (that also happen to be paid quite a bit more than your "good developer"). Making a schema for a little blog site is something...but thats not what a database architect will do from one day to the next:)
Not everyone (or even the -close- to the majority!) of people who live directly or indirectly from intellectual property are part of a "multi billion dollar corporation". With all the manufacturing processes outsourced, if intellectual property also go the way of the dodo, there will be literally 3 things left to make a living.
Anything relative to a local market: (ie: manufacturing stuff for your own mom&pop store). Flipping burgers and washing dishes. The Service industry.
Thats not gonna make hundred of million people live, sorry.
Bah! I want to write my own DAOs, and worry about customising each one for different backend databases because their JDBC implementations handle things differently, never mind the SQL differences!
Besides, on top of everything you said, there ARE things like Hibernate...your own schema, and no need to worrie about the JDBC stuff! And I don't know about Hibernate, but many similar tools will handle stored procedures just as cleanly to boot, so it will even work at the enterprise level.
You're writing software the same way a construction worker builds a house, but the software architect, the computer scientists (the ones that actually do computer science, not code writers...), especially thse with PhDs, and such, most definately consider their work research and development, and the result is as much an invention (it the way it gets discovered, and the process to get there) as someone who invent a new medecine or a new hardware technology.
That doesn't mean that it should be patentable, because there are fundamental differences in what the invention actually is... But when I spend months (or years!) researching and trying different approaches, studying results of hypothesis that take thousand of hours to get, and it takes just as long before we have an "engine" (that in the end, is only a few douzan thousands of lines long) that we can finally use in an actual product, it sure as many properties of an "invention".
Note: I'm mostly playing devil's advocate, as I am against software patent, but for different reasons, as I definately disagree with your assertion.
and you can just hear the resounding SMACK of a million programmers at once wondering why they didn't do it first
Here's where its different. With Rails, you have thousands of hobbyist and wannabes going "Why the hell didn't I think of that?!?!", and the rest of us looking at our existing frameworks going "Check...check...check...OH WAIT I don't have this...oh wait, I didn't WANT it because last time we tried we lost a 5 million$ in wasted time.... check...check....hrm...so what is it exactly?"
Again, I remember bursting out laughing when my boss bragged about how superior Rails was because it had... a unit testing framework! "We don't have to make our own! It can even generates the base unit tests!!!!. Oh, and it can actually handles the Data Access Layer on its own!!!".
Or the priceless one: "Rail puts MVC on the map!". I mean, thats even WORSE than your Ajax example.... its like if 3 years from now some framework came out with Ajax, and everyone thought it made Ajax mainstream... MVC has been a buzzword (and an overrated one) for so long, I've been wanting to cry even BEFORE Rail...
Rails is definately great stuff, not saying any different... but really, it only makes a buzz among people who didn't know much before... At least Ajax mainstreamed async http requests in javascript (even though we were doing it in 2001ish here, we didn't have all the ajax framework available and had to do it on our own...but what Rails offer...we haven't had to do it for almost a decade...)
Who knows. The thing with Rails though, is that it brought a bunch of technologies that were big standards in the enterprise world, and packaged it as one...
Its not much more than an MVC framework, an OR Mapper, and a 4th Gen tool wrapped as one... But in many circles, like in the PHP world, or in the more hobbyist groups of the other platforms, these things were not known. Basically, the people that browsed internet forums weren't used to it, and Rails brought it to them ine one buzzword compliant package... Its still not very special...
So now, you have a bunch of frameworks in Python, PHP,.NET, or Java, that were really just derivative of the J2EE-based world, package themselves, tweak one or two "conventions", and change their name to BlahRail... but the tool is really the same as it used to be. Its just more buzzworld compliant now.
So I guess Rails did set a milestone. A "buzzy" one. My current employer trips in his feet all over Rails (we're a.NET shop), and every few days shows me yet another "OMG!" feature of Rail...that actually was already implemented in our main product long before that buzzword came out... Oh, aside ActiveRecord::Migration. That we actually added after Rail. Thank god it brought to light that hugely complex and powerful feature! (That took exactly 6 hours to reimplement)
MS SQL 2000 has serious design flaw problems with row locking getting automatically escalated into page locks that cause deadlock situations that were undiagnosable and unfixable. This deficiency is supposed to be fixed in SQL 2005, but I haven't got to work with SQL 2K5 much yet, since we decided to stick with Oracle on all our biggest databases after getting burned by SQL 2000.
In general, while that design flaw is real, you'll rarely get into page locks if you do not use explicit cursors (and if you must, there are ways to help it out, like the fast forward option, but thats may still not always be enough). SQL Server is allergic to those, and has extreme optimisations when you do not use them. They're only ever needed if you need to call stored procedures on every rows of a table anyway, and that can be done with table variables at worse. There are ways to fix deadlocks in SQL 2000 and up (don't know about 7.0, but who cares about that scrap anyway...), but...that shouldn't be an answer:)
That being said, indeed, in SQL 2005 that is fixed, but the option is not on by default (to use Oracle-like row versioning), and most SQL Server DBAs don't know about it, thus it mostly go unnoticed. Works fine as far as I can tell.:)
Yeah, SQL Server is great. Its main drawback however, is that its walking Oracle's shadow... feature wise, it is always a bunch of steps behind. It makes up for it with usuability, but when you have 1-2 DBAs that do it as their full time job, the end result is often more important than how you got there... so while its a pain to configure Oracle, the end user (that is, the person using the software that taps into it, not the developers) are happier.
Or so I'm told, I didn't use Oracle in a very, very long time, so you probably know better than me!
I'm surprised at your comment about Server 2003 however... to me, it was by far one of the more impressive pieces of software I've seen in a long time. Probably depends on your requirements and needs.
Thats why I think even with ultimate control over biology, we will never be able to make a "perfect" being, because everything has drawbacks, everything is a compromise...
I can see it, 100 years from now. "So, how did you build your kid?" "Oh, I put 3 genes in intelligence, 2 in wisdom, 10 in learning, 5 in strength..." "What? You put 10 in learning but 3 in intelligence? Thats a bad build, your kid will be booksmart but won't be able to use what he knows" "No no! Look, if he becomes a lawyer it works out, if you put too much in intelligence it...."
They should really just be done with it and make a law saying that we'll all live in pods connected to a computer Matrix-like controlling everything, including our mind.
Save us a hundred years of time wasted on passing laws. We know it will end up there anyway, just do it already.
Depending on the doctype, firefox will not be standard compliant either, and thats not part of the specs. Its just the best workaround they found. I don't agree with IE's new metatag way, but most browsers have tricks like that to preserve backward compatibility
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, since this is Slashdot, I posted assuming everyone reading is a "Slashdot" reader. If someone has the required "background" to "appreciate" Slashdot, and they stick everything on the C drive, they're stupid. If my mother puts everything on her C drive, she's only mislead.
That being said, you have something like 10 ways of accessing your document folders, and ONE (as a normal user) to access your C drive, and when you do, the computer will freagin tell you not to play with it. If you try to put something where you shouldn't, UAC will pop up telling you not to. If you do it anyway, you really, -really- tried. Really, if you put your files anywhere that the UI lets you access without resistance, you're fine.
Ironically, when I used the word idiot, I was thinking about one of previous boss (a developer with a master in software engineering) who insisted on putting everything on the C drive. That got problematic pretty fast.
Because its not just these things. Indy music is "easy" to produce (assuming you have the talent...I mean, you don't need too much ressources, unless you want advertising). Films could be easier, could be worse. These "locks" however, don't prevent free music and movies from happening. Since commercial music, and many, many commercial movies totally SUCK, it would be no big loss.
Now however... take videogames. How many GOOD open (from launch, not 15 years later) games have you seen? Any public domain Final Fantasy-level games in the making? GnuRPG or something? No. Too much stress, time and effort required for people to do this as a hobby. There's the odd RTS or FPS popping up every now and then, but they're no Half Life 2.
Now take software development. How freakishly long did it take to have free software that had decent UI? Oh, we have 127943091274091470921 command line tools and servers: those are fun to make. But how long did it take before those tools got decent usuability? Polishing these softwares to make em usuable requires a lot more than basement-level hacking skills, and to most, it sucks. It gets done so fast in the commercial world because people are getting paychecks.
Personaly, I'm a gamer, and I'm sick of MMOs (which would still be possible without all the copyright mess), and I'm not totally willing to see all these commercial-only beauties go the way of the dodo. Maybe someday -all- of the sides of intellectual properties will be like music (that is: the indy/free stuff is GOOD), but until then, lets keep copyright around a little while longer.
My work machine is using Vista, with a measly 1 gig of ram, no readyboost or anything like that, and I have Visual Studio and SQL Management Studio running at all time (at the minimum, I often have much, much more), and I never had issues. It actually works better than XP did.
My home machine is currently at 2 gigs of RAM. I don't compile huge C++ softwares, or have 16 browser windows opened at the same time as running Bioshock, but I've only ever hit swap once, and in that situation I would have hit swap even on Windows 98.
Vista uses the available RAM, but it uses it relatively well, and will release it when you need it...so I don't see how you can have that much RAM issues. 4 gigs of RAM? Vista 32 bit can't even -access- that much. 1 gig is just as peachy as it was in XP. Machine sitting at 820 mb rigth now with a douzan software (including VS) opened. Now if I open SQL Management Studio, it goes up to.... 850. It should go up more than that, its just that Vista cache like crazy. It won't force you into swap unless it really has to...
Are you using one of the crappy anti-virus software known to shit out on Vista?
You'll see issues if, and only if, you install shitty software. Install an Anti-virus like McAfee, Norton, or AVG (the later is good, but last I saw, it had similar issues as the first two with Vista, while NOD32 did not), and your boot time goes to hell, performance goes bye bye.
Install some crappy old VB6 software made by an idiot with no knowledge of Windows development, and you'll see UAC pops quite a bit whenever that software needs to write a file in Program Files.
Aside that, as long as your hardware is well supported, no. What you see right now, is what it will stay, no more, no less problems. It really isn't bad.
I can't give you evidence I guess, but just logic should do it.
::slap:: ). Ok, that last one is a bit harder to avoid...guess I've been lucky so far.
UAC will pop whenever you install anything through Windows Installer (regardless of what it installs), access anything admin-only (like changing any system-wide settings), and any files that your user isn't given access to (and thus require admin priviledge).
If you're an idiot who work on the C drive at all time, instead of in C:\User\(YourUserName), its unbearable: it will popup constantly.
Otherwise, it will pop whenever there's a windows update to install, whenever you install software through Windows Installer, or in Program Files, and whenever you ctrl+alt+delete and choose to see "process by all users", or any equivalent system-wide task.
Thats it. So when I develop with IIS, I make sure the web site isn't in C:\wwwroot, but is in my user's directory. I put all my files there. And I don't use software made by idiots (read: games that put save files in the root directory instead of in your user folder...COME ON developers
That final point is really what pushes things to "either extreme". If you use software that constantly write to their executing directory, it gets very troublesome. Imagine in Linux if a software did that. You'd have to run it as root or give yourself special priviledge all over the place. Microsoft has been trying to tell those morons to stop doing that since the dawn of times, and they still do... fact remain, its where UAC succeeds or break: you have a lot of poorly written software, UAC will pop constantly. You don't have such software, you'll only see it once or twice a week.
In the end, you can just turn it off though.
Indeed. I have 2 Vista machines right now. One that is mine, and I installed Vista on it on the very day of RTM. Aside for the sound drivers that were in beta originally, I had zero issues with it, and I'd never go back to XP.
Then there's my work machine (I work from home). It is a more recent machine, but certain pieces of hardware haven't been replaced in too long... so while I have full Vista drivers for it, some are just afterthoughts from the devs. It is horrible. Graphic glitches all over the place, remote desktop making the system crash, no sound whatsoever... its a mess.
For UAC, its like you said. I see the popup once a week, -IF- that. What we do is turn it off during installation, then back on once we're done installing all the software. Problem solved. (Pretty sweet too, in certain cases it allows you to skip certain crapware installed with games...)
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
:) )
There. It has the service broker, doesn't have data driven notification... One thing thats nice, is that it can deal with "on the fly" attaching of database files...so you can use SQL Server databases a bit like you'd be using MS Access databases, or (I beleive, I've never used it) SQLite. Ship the application with the database file, and it will use it like (but not quite) it was an embedded database... Thats something the full version of SQL Server does -not- do. (pretty amusing when you have a 40 thousand dollars SQL Server install and an SQL Server feature from the free version doesn't work
Unlimited users, but its a bit limited on how much hardware and RAM you can throw at it. Also limited to 4 gigs in size. Reporting Services is in, DTS (Which, as of SQL Server 2005, has been remade from scratch into the vastly superior SSIS) is NOT in (and that makes me very, very sad, since SSIS is my favorite ETL tool).
:) Postgres has OK dev tools, and onces its hidden behind an ORM like Hibernate or LLBLGEN, it all looks the same, aside for the business intelligence bits.
I'm not sure about the scheduling and stuff, but quite a bit of these features are there. The development tools for it are also free (they're part of a free version of Visual Studio). No Analysis Service and OLAP cubes either.
It is definately not for all scenarios, but considering the ease of development, it serves a lot of purposes. I still push the open source offering when we need an enterprise-class solution and the customer's being cheap though
You do realise that for small installations and small projects, SQL Server is free, yes?
We're on Slashdot.
We have an article here, that (regardless of content, I didn't read it), has in its title something about some company doing something against piracy.
And you're surprised to see people complain? This site might as well be hosted on the same servers as The Pirate Bay.
No. The web developer really has nothing to do. If the -sysadmin- configure the web server to send a certain header, web pages will be rendered correctly without anything being done by the web developer. Problem solved. The metatag is just there for when you can't change the server configuration.
What this attorney realizes, is that laws, in practice, are just suggestions, and that how the legal system works, is that you have to throw money at problems until you can bend the meaning of one of these suggestions with the purpose of getting a dumb judge to create a precedent.
If you want to change the class, you need to have the mapping redone too. A nice in between, for example, in the
Good object relational mappers will map to an existing schema, they will NOT create one, as that makes for some amazingly shitty interop. Make the DB first, then map your classes to it. Or better yet, auto-generate your data access layer and data objects, then make sure that layer is not tightly coupled to the rest of the application, removing the need to map anything at all (yourself). A while it would be great if all developers were good database architects, it isn't realistic. Knowing the basics (like its important for a Java developer to know how pointers work) is a must, and knowing how to work with a database also is, but being able to create a good schema is a world apart.... It isn't uncommon for a an average enterprise database to spawn thousand of tables, fusing several business domains together... You need to be a top notch functional analyst, and know all of the quirks and reasoning behind each design choice...
Thats a job that usually requires much more qualified people (that also happen to be paid quite a bit more than your "good developer"). Making a schema for a little blog site is something...but thats not what a database architect will do from one day to the next
Not everyone (or even the -close- to the majority!) of people who live directly or indirectly from intellectual property are part of a "multi billion dollar corporation". With all the manufacturing processes outsourced, if intellectual property also go the way of the dodo, there will be literally 3 things left to make a living.
Anything relative to a local market: (ie: manufacturing stuff for your own mom&pop store).
Flipping burgers and washing dishes.
The Service industry.
Thats not gonna make hundred of million people live, sorry.
You're writing software the same way a construction worker builds a house, but the software architect, the computer scientists (the ones that actually do computer science, not code writers...), especially thse with PhDs, and such, most definately consider their work research and development, and the result is as much an invention (it the way it gets discovered, and the process to get there) as someone who invent a new medecine or a new hardware technology.
That doesn't mean that it should be patentable, because there are fundamental differences in what the invention actually is... But when I spend months (or years!) researching and trying different approaches, studying results of hypothesis that take thousand of hours to get, and it takes just as long before we have an "engine" (that in the end, is only a few douzan thousands of lines long) that we can finally use in an actual product, it sure as many properties of an "invention".
Note: I'm mostly playing devil's advocate, as I am against software patent, but for different reasons, as I definately disagree with your assertion.
Again, I remember bursting out laughing when my boss bragged about how superior Rails was because it had... a unit testing framework! "We don't have to make our own! It can even generates the base unit tests!!!!. Oh, and it can actually handles the Data Access Layer on its own!!!".
Or the priceless one: "Rail puts MVC on the map!". I mean, thats even WORSE than your Ajax example.... its like if 3 years from now some framework came out with Ajax, and everyone thought it made Ajax mainstream... MVC has been a buzzword (and an overrated one) for so long, I've been wanting to cry even BEFORE Rail...
Rails is definately great stuff, not saying any different... but really, it only makes a buzz among people who didn't know much before... At least Ajax mainstreamed async http requests in javascript (even though we were doing it in 2001ish here, we didn't have all the ajax framework available and had to do it on our own...but what Rails offer...we haven't had to do it for almost a decade...)
Who knows. The thing with Rails though, is that it brought a bunch of technologies that were big standards in the enterprise world, and packaged it as one...
.NET, or Java, that were really just derivative of the J2EE-based world, package themselves, tweak one or two "conventions", and change their name to BlahRail... but the tool is really the same as it used to be. Its just more buzzworld compliant now.
.NET shop), and every few days shows me yet another "OMG!" feature of Rail...that actually was already implemented in our main product long before that buzzword came out... Oh, aside ActiveRecord::Migration. That we actually added after Rail. Thank god it brought to light that hugely complex and powerful feature! (That took exactly 6 hours to reimplement)
Its not much more than an MVC framework, an OR Mapper, and a 4th Gen tool wrapped as one... But in many circles, like in the PHP world, or in the more hobbyist groups of the other platforms, these things were not known. Basically, the people that browsed internet forums weren't used to it, and Rails brought it to them ine one buzzword compliant package... Its still not very special...
So now, you have a bunch of frameworks in Python, PHP,
So I guess Rails did set a milestone. A "buzzy" one. My current employer trips in his feet all over Rails (we're a
That being said, indeed, in SQL 2005 that is fixed, but the option is not on by default (to use Oracle-like row versioning), and most SQL Server DBAs don't know about it, thus it mostly go unnoticed. Works fine as far as I can tell.:)
This is not a software patent, however.
Yeah, SQL Server is great. Its main drawback however, is that its walking Oracle's shadow... feature wise, it is always a bunch of steps behind. It makes up for it with usuability, but when you have 1-2 DBAs that do it as their full time job, the end result is often more important than how you got there... so while its a pain to configure Oracle, the end user (that is, the person using the software that taps into it, not the developers) are happier.
Or so I'm told, I didn't use Oracle in a very, very long time, so you probably know better than me!
I'm surprised at your comment about Server 2003 however... to me, it was by far one of the more impressive pieces of software I've seen in a long time. Probably depends on your requirements and needs.
Thats why I think even with ultimate control over biology, we will never be able to make a "perfect" being, because everything has drawbacks, everything is a compromise...
I can see it, 100 years from now. "So, how did you build your kid?" "Oh, I put 3 genes in intelligence, 2 in wisdom, 10 in learning, 5 in strength..." "What? You put 10 in learning but 3 in intelligence? Thats a bad build, your kid will be booksmart but won't be able to use what he knows" "No no! Look, if he becomes a lawyer it works out, if you put too much in intelligence it...."
You get the idea...
They should really just be done with it and make a law saying that we'll all live in pods connected to a computer Matrix-like controlling everything, including our mind.
Save us a hundred years of time wasted on passing laws. We know it will end up there anyway, just do it already.
Depending on the doctype, firefox will not be standard compliant either, and thats not part of the specs. Its just the best workaround they found. I don't agree with IE's new metatag way, but most browsers have tricks like that to preserve backward compatibility