Could someone more familiar with Microsoft and their products kindly give me examples?
Visual Basic, ADO, and Access are good examples. They all allow for extremely fast creation of simple information systems. This allows for CHEAP custom solutions that would not be possible without these technologies. No, they're not "real" programming languages, but they get the job done.
The dropDownList.selectedValue vs. dropDownList.options[dropDownList.selectedIndex].v alue example is just something off the top of my head that... IE's JScript and DOM is peppered with things like this that don't comply to the standard but, none the less, make the code a lot easier to develop and work with. It's not a "make other browsers not work thing" it's more of a "make it easier for developers to develop" thing.
Well put. I myself have never considered web designers/developers (well, those who soley manipulate HTML) to be computer programmers, hence the enquoted programmers, struck me as a deregatory thing.
ASP.NET is CGI, C is, JSP is, ASP is not. PHP is not. PERL is not ... now there's a term I haven't heard used in quite a while. Is it fair to automatically say that using JSP is CGI, while ASP isn't? I mean, one could certainly make a JSP page that simply displays text, and a ASP page that calls COM objects and interfaces with an OR system... Is CGI still a term used today?
Have you ever tried to develop and integrate a client-side ActiveX control that gets embedded in the browser? It's a nightmare, even in a controlled Intranet enviornment. However,.NET SmartClients (an IE only thing), are certainly a blessing... a true innovation without the headaches of activeX! Have you had the pleasure of exploring what they're all about? I highly recommend it.
... application only supports IE5.5+... my templates will be compliant with web standards so they don't get screwed
Fair enough. But what would be wrong with saying "Okay, I can charge you $ to comply with standards, so you wont get screwed later." Or, waiting around until it's incompatable, and then charging for maintenance work? You either save money (but not doing extra work) or make money in mainteance. I guess, i dont see the point...
With IE you can stop thinking and be given viruses. With Mozilla you can stop thinking and nothing harmfull happens
The lack of virii avaiable for Mozilla doesn't mean it's more secure. It could mean that the 400 or so users have better things to do then write virii for eachother.
... MS owns the content as well as the technology, read your EULA sometime.
You've discovered the secret. And then, once everyone is finally switched over the MS, then Mr. Gates, with his pinky to his lip, will proclaim, "I Now Own All Content. Muahahaha, now you will have to pay me to use your own content! We tricked you because you never read the EULA!"
Anybody with a clue programs to a web standard, not a browser
Anybody with a clue programs to the specific requirements of the project. If the project is an Intranet where desktop standards are IE5.5, then program to only IE5.5 Who cares if doesn't work in Firefly? If the Internet site owner doesn't care less about the 3% of non-IE users, why should you, the developer?
You will always loose functionalty or efficiency when trying to make sure your system can port to everything.
If 'programmers' adhered to well documented standards, and stopped trying to make eye candy by biting on the non-standard hooks in IE, then you'd find that the problem of choking would pretty much vanish.
I like how you enquote programmers, as if those who do not adhere to the standards are not worthy of the title...
IE didn't wait around for the standards to catch up to the demands. Example, (dropDownList.selectedValue vs. the unecessarily complicated, dropDownList.options[dropDownList.selectedIndex].v alue). Who cares that the former example doesn't utilize the proper OO Struture? It's quicker, easier, and for a "disposable" application, a better solution.
MS added the features as a result of developer demand. I mean, real developers. Those of us with jobs. Those of us who can develop solutions quicker, faster, and with more functionality than other "developers" who gripe about how lame VB et al are.
An enterprise consists of all functional departments, people, and systems within an organization, and often times, includes partners, vendors, and customers. Hence, "enterprise level" would be a system that interacts and encompasses the enterprise. It generally goes without saying, but, when we say "enterprise," we're generally talking about large, Top-5000 companies.
When you're talking about information systems this complex ("enterprise level solutions"), features (i.e., the things that can be accessed through drop down menus) are of little consequence to system architects, management, etc. The "features" that are important are more along the lines of "how well can we integrate this into our ERP?"
Again, things like Biztalk, Exchange, Domino, etc, are just not things I see in openSource. If I'm missing them, please, let me know. Believe me, I'd love to save the $$$.
Just saying something over and over doesn't actually make it so.
The same holds true for your side. As I've said before, the key selling points of OO/Star are "free," "not M$," and "free." If infact it can do the enterprise level(*) things, then why not sell it. I haven't heard anyone tout these features. Let's hear them. And Leave out the "well, any competent C++ programmer could modify the xyz module and do the same thing, since it is open source after all."
* If "Enterprise" is such a stupid buzzword jargon... what term would be more appropriate for "large, organization-wide information system." Or is that just an area that isn't explored because it's "evil corporate"?
I'll agree to that. But, isn't the whole HMO concept fall a bit closer to socialism than free market doctors? Take Canada, for example, that's one gaint HMO.
I'm not anti-HMO. I have a HMO and am happy with it. But, I'm healthy and haven' thad to use it either...
Well then, best of luck to you! I've had good friends who've left the world of IT because, as they say, "it's nothing but moving around a bunch of ones and zeros." And I respect that.
I appologize for mistaking you as one of those "hardcore" programmers who believe anything but ASM/C is a "pansy" language, and that using anything but a rock to shave is the "lazy" man's way out. And everyone else is a poor excuse of a professional.
VB Macros can do quite a lot... assist in filling out forms (i.e., to make sure a Customer Number is properly formatted, to allow a search/update on a Customer Address), submitting documents to a server. They're fast and easy to write. A few lines of code, and you've got a Smart Document.
because people are lazy shits or they would have gotten a real job building things [...] I [...] just run my website and look for work.
I can't resist commenting on the on the irony here. Us "lazy sh*t, macro-programmers, who should get a real job" all seem to have well paying jobs, while you "hardcore, real ASM/C programmers" seem to be jobless. Heh.
But the fact of the matter is that it can be done with non-MS products (easier, I might add). Whether you think Microsoft's solutions are easier and quicker are, well, subjective, just as much as any other option.
Well, if that's the case, then why isn't that a key selling point? It seems to me, the big selling points of OpenOffice are "It's Free," "It's Non-MS," and, "It's free." This is the first time I have ever heard that the alternative solutions are easier (translates to developed cheaper), and I still find it incredibly hard to believe. I can't immagine *any* situation that using C++/PhP to develop something like a Sharepoint portal would be faster than.NET (assuming, of course, expertise in both technologies). I'd be very interested to see case studies, or evern anecdotes to this.
Spending $100k on software solutions may seem like a lot, but if it saves $10M, then it's chump change. I get a lot of flack by this OpenSource community becasue I use evil-M$ products, when instead i should use OpenSource. Instead of being all Luke-Skywalker vs. the Empire, why not demonstrate ease of development and maintenace.
When it comes down to it, the cost of software and tools are minute compared to the cost of developing. We'll drop $20k on a RDMS, but $50k developing a database. So please, evidence. I'm somewhat open minded.
Being anti-capitalist, anti-corporation, and anti-profit motive precludes you from comprehending the definition of such "buzzword bullshit."
I'll try to break it down into language even you can understand. Okay, so let's picture a system that isn't capitalist, corporate, and has no profit motive, and let's call this system, oh, I don't know, Communism.
So this Communism thing is going to have lots and lots of people doing lots and lots of different things: farmers, doctors, waiters, etc (none of which, of course, will be motivated by profit, just the love of being a Garbage man).
In Communism, a lot of time will be spent in something called "overhead," which well define as people not doing things that relate to their job function. A doctor managing his schedule, a delivery guy filling out forms, and so on.
Now, since no one will be motivated by saving money, we'll just assume they'll be motivated to save time. Maybe that's a bad assumption, since it seems in Communism, everyone loves their job, but still, let's work with it. To save time, we would need to cut overhead and make processes more efficient.
Some times, this will be very complicated and difficult. For a large organization, lets say, a Police Department (perhaps another bad assumption, as I'm sure communism will have no crime), they'll have lots and lots of information going from place to place that, often times, is disseminated and processed multiple times by multiple people throughout the organization. I hope I didn't loose you there.
This is where the "enterprise strength solutions" will come in. To maximize productivity, we'll need to maximize information organization and processing throughout the organization. This is a complicated task, as it involves many facets of the organization, and requires tools that can manage this task. [Open|Star|K]Office just simply can't cut it, they just simply don't have the power. Hence, "enterprise strength tools," such as MS Office, Sharepoint, exchange, etc, are the tools for the job.
Just because you haven't come across the inferiority of [Star|Open]Office, doesn't mean it isn't there. Sure, it works fine for the average home user, just as MS Works would work fine.
But, just try doing enterprise strength solutions such as Sharepoint-style document management, smart documents, and so on -- it just can't be done as quickly and easily as with MS Products. Err, I mean, M$ Products.
Slashdot Mirror
Could someone more familiar with Microsoft and their products kindly give me examples?
Visual Basic, ADO, and Access are good examples. They all allow for extremely fast creation of simple information systems. This allows for CHEAP custom solutions that would not be possible without these technologies. No, they're not "real" programming languages, but they get the job done.
... I'm sold!
IE Handles standards fine. Other browsers don't handle the nonStandard stuff that IE does. The nonStandard shortcuts make it easier to develop on.
The dropDownList.selectedValue vs. dropDownList.options[dropDownList.selectedIndex].v alue example is just something off the top of my head that ... IE's JScript and DOM is peppered with things like this that don't comply to the standard but, none the less, make the code a lot easier to develop and work with. It's not a "make other browsers not work thing" it's more of a "make it easier for developers to develop" thing.
Well put. I myself have never considered web designers/developers (well, those who soley manipulate HTML) to be computer programmers, hence the enquoted programmers, struck me as a deregatory thing.
ASP.NET is CGI, C is, JSP is, ASP is not. PHP is not. PERL is not
... now there's a term I haven't heard used in quite a while. Is it fair to automatically say that using JSP is CGI, while ASP isn't? I mean, one could certainly make a JSP page that simply displays text, and a ASP page that calls COM objects and interfaces with an OR system ... Is CGI still a term used today?
Have you ever tried to develop and integrate a client-side ActiveX control that gets embedded in the browser? .NET SmartClients (an IE only thing), are certainly a blessing ... a true innovation without the headaches of activeX! Have you had the pleasure of exploring what they're all about? I highly recommend it.
It's a nightmare, even in a controlled Intranet enviornment. However,
Fair enough. But what would be wrong with saying "Okay, I can charge you $ to comply with standards, so you wont get screwed later." Or, waiting around until it's incompatable, and then charging for maintenance work? You either save money (but not doing extra work) or make money in mainteance. I guess, i dont see the point ...
With IE you can stop thinking and be given viruses. With Mozilla you can stop thinking and nothing harmfull happens
The lack of virii avaiable for Mozilla doesn't mean it's more secure. It could mean that the 400 or so users have better things to do then write virii for eachother.
You've discovered the secret. And then, once everyone is finally switched over the MS, then Mr. Gates, with his pinky to his lip, will proclaim, "I Now Own All Content. Muahahaha, now you will have to pay me to use your own content! We tricked you because you never read the EULA!"
Yes, that's the exact way the plan to do it.
Anybody with a clue programs to a web standard, not a browser
Anybody with a clue programs to the specific requirements of the project. If the project is an Intranet where desktop standards are IE5.5, then program to only IE5.5 Who cares if doesn't work in Firefly? If the Internet site owner doesn't care less about the 3% of non-IE users, why should you, the developer?
You will always loose functionalty or efficiency when trying to make sure your system can port to everything.
If 'programmers' adhered to well documented standards, and stopped trying to make eye candy by biting on the non-standard hooks in IE, then you'd find that the problem of choking would pretty much vanish.
I like how you enquote programmers, as if those who do not adhere to the standards are not worthy of the title ...
IE didn't wait around for the standards to catch up to the demands. Example, (dropDownList.selectedValue vs. the unecessarily complicated, dropDownList.options[dropDownList.selectedIndex].v alue). Who cares that the former example doesn't utilize the proper OO Struture? It's quicker, easier, and for a "disposable" application, a better solution.
MS added the features as a result of developer demand. I mean, real developers. Those of us with jobs. Those of us who can develop solutions quicker, faster, and with more functionality than other "developers" who gripe about how lame VB et al are.
... shooting for a 1.3% of the browser market share?
An enterprise consists of all functional departments, people, and systems within an organization, and often times, includes partners, vendors, and customers. Hence, "enterprise level" would be a system that interacts and encompasses the enterprise. It generally goes without saying, but, when we say "enterprise," we're generally talking about large, Top-5000 companies.
When you're talking about information systems this complex ("enterprise level solutions"), features (i.e., the things that can be accessed through drop down menus) are of little consequence to system architects, management, etc. The "features" that are important are more along the lines of "how well can we integrate this into our ERP?"
Again, things like Biztalk, Exchange, Domino, etc, are just not things I see in openSource. If I'm missing them, please, let me know. Believe me, I'd love to save the $$$.
Just saying something over and over doesn't actually make it so.
The same holds true for your side. As I've said before, the key selling points of OO/Star are "free," "not M$," and "free." If infact it can do the enterprise level(*) things, then why not sell it. I haven't heard anyone tout these features. Let's hear them. And Leave out the "well, any competent C++ programmer could modify the xyz module and do the same thing, since it is open source after all."
* If "Enterprise" is such a stupid buzzword jargon ... what term would be more appropriate for "large, organization-wide information system." Or is that just an area that isn't explored because it's "evil corporate"?
I'll agree to that. But, isn't the whole HMO concept fall a bit closer to socialism than free market doctors? Take Canada, for example, that's one gaint HMO.
I'm not anti-HMO. I have a HMO and am happy with it. But, I'm healthy and haven' thad to use it either ...
Well then, best of luck to you! I've had good friends who've left the world of IT because, as they say, "it's nothing but moving around a bunch of ones and zeros." And I respect that.
I appologize for mistaking you as one of those "hardcore" programmers who believe anything but ASM/C is a "pansy" language, and that using anything but a rock to shave is the "lazy" man's way out. And everyone else is a poor excuse of a professional.
VB Macros can do quite a lot ... assist in filling out forms (i.e., to make sure a Customer Number is properly formatted, to allow a search/update on a Customer Address), submitting documents to a server. They're fast and easy to write. A few lines of code, and you've got a Smart Document.
because people are lazy shits or they would have gotten a real job building things [...] I [...] just run my website and look for work.
I can't resist commenting on the on the irony here. Us "lazy sh*t, macro-programmers, who should get a real job" all seem to have well paying jobs, while you "hardcore, real ASM/C programmers" seem to be jobless. Heh.
But the fact of the matter is that it can be done with non-MS products (easier, I might add). Whether you think Microsoft's solutions are easier and quicker are, well, subjective, just as much as any other option.
Well, if that's the case, then why isn't that a key selling point? It seems to me, the big selling points of OpenOffice are "It's Free," "It's Non-MS," and, "It's free." This is the first time I have ever heard that the alternative solutions are easier (translates to developed cheaper), and I still find it incredibly hard to believe. I can't immagine *any* situation that using C++/PhP to develop something like a Sharepoint portal would be faster than .NET (assuming, of course, expertise in both technologies). I'd be very interested to see case studies, or evern anecdotes to this.
Spending $100k on software solutions may seem like a lot, but if it saves $10M, then it's chump change. I get a lot of flack by this OpenSource community becasue I use evil-M$ products, when instead i should use OpenSource. Instead of being all Luke-Skywalker vs. the Empire, why not demonstrate ease of development and maintenace.
When it comes down to it, the cost of software and tools are minute compared to the cost of developing. We'll drop $20k on a RDMS, but $50k developing a database. So please, evidence. I'm somewhat open minded.
Being anti-capitalist, anti-corporation, and anti-profit motive precludes you from comprehending the definition of such "buzzword bullshit." I'll try to break it down into language even you can understand. Okay, so let's picture a system that isn't capitalist, corporate, and has no profit motive, and let's call this system, oh, I don't know, Communism. So this Communism thing is going to have lots and lots of people doing lots and lots of different things: farmers, doctors, waiters, etc (none of which, of course, will be motivated by profit, just the love of being a Garbage man). In Communism, a lot of time will be spent in something called "overhead," which well define as people not doing things that relate to their job function. A doctor managing his schedule, a delivery guy filling out forms, and so on. Now, since no one will be motivated by saving money, we'll just assume they'll be motivated to save time. Maybe that's a bad assumption, since it seems in Communism, everyone loves their job, but still, let's work with it. To save time, we would need to cut overhead and make processes more efficient. Some times, this will be very complicated and difficult. For a large organization, lets say, a Police Department (perhaps another bad assumption, as I'm sure communism will have no crime), they'll have lots and lots of information going from place to place that, often times, is disseminated and processed multiple times by multiple people throughout the organization. I hope I didn't loose you there. This is where the "enterprise strength solutions" will come in. To maximize productivity, we'll need to maximize information organization and processing throughout the organization. This is a complicated task, as it involves many facets of the organization, and requires tools that can manage this task. [Open|Star|K]Office just simply can't cut it, they just simply don't have the power. Hence, "enterprise strength tools," such as MS Office, Sharepoint, exchange, etc, are the tools for the job.
Just because you haven't come across the inferiority of [Star|Open]Office, doesn't mean it isn't there. Sure, it works fine for the average home user, just as MS Works would work fine.
But, just try doing enterprise strength solutions such as Sharepoint-style document management, smart documents, and so on -- it just can't be done as quickly and easily as with MS Products. Err, I mean, M$ Products.