I agree. DeMarco (and Lister?) stated that the "status" meeting is often a "status affirmation" meeting where the manager is proving they have the power to waste your time.
I should have qualified existence with "monopoly", but to say IBM didn't have a role in Microsoft's existence is wrong as well. Without the inclusion of Microsoft DOS on the IBM PC, Microsoft would probably have never had a monopoly, and Windows would have never gotten it's present market share.
If IBM hadn't unbundled it's software and hardware due to the antitrust investigation, the IBM PC probably would have been a lot less open and probably wouldn't have gone outside the company for an OS. IBM could have competed in a more closed fashion with Commodore, Apple, Atari, etc.
This is true, but if you were selectively making use of those patents, then your intent is open to judgment. There is also the question of enforceability of the patent; a large company can use a not obviously unenforceable patent as a bludgeon against a small company to force them out of business through a long, expensive litigation, which the large company wouldn't even pursue against another large company.
I believe this comment was included in the posting, "IBM likes Open Source only as long as they don't have to compete with it.", and I didn't reference the patent statement specifically...., but like you said, "Only on Slashdot..."
If IBM is using anti-competitive practices again, then maybe it's time for some external constraint. After all, Microsoft owes it's whole existence to the previous IBM anti-trust ruling, which led to Microsoft's monopoly and IBMs pledge of support for open source.
If the black box recording is based on the same sensors and software, i.e., no redundancy built into the system, then it can have the same erroneous data that the engine controller would be using to make decisions. What you really need is for the black box to record a wholly independent set of sensor data and also collect a log from the engine controller. The two sets of data can then be compared to see if the engine control software was making good choices.
Of course, such a system could easily double or triple the cost of creating an engine control system, which might not seem desirable to a company if the probability of failure and subsequent cost per incident was deemed lower than the increase in per-controller cost.
> Because we've reached the point where programming per se is not the limiting factor in programmer.
I disagree. 3GL doesn't provide a sufficient level of abstraction, so the programmer wastes a lot of time mixing the solution to the problem with the implementation of the solution in 3GL. This puts a cap on productivity, communication, and testability. We've been abstracted away from 2GL (i.e., assembly) for a long time. It's now time to be abstracted away from 3GL.
... to OS/2. I remember when the Windows FUDsters used to post comparisons of memory usage all over the OS/2 newsgroups, because OS/2 was loading DLLs into RAM and using all the memory. I guess what comes around goes around.:-D
However, even with 100% coal, you have a big advantage. You can
1. dump the CO2 into the ground.
2. Run it through a green house.
3. Run it through an algae farm.
4. etc.
but you can't restore the removed mountain tops and restore the destroyed ecosystems. You also need to account for the Hg, SO2, and NO(x) emissions, and the waste dumped into the waterways.
Sorry, but there is no such thing as "clean coal".
From the article: "Programs are idiosyncratic as sentences and no two are alike," he said. "They are not even comparable if they are independently generated. It's particularly easy to detect if they've been copied."
While it is extremely hard to independently produce duplicate programs at the 3GL level, it isn't impossible. The problem space will have only one optimal solution. The semantics of the problem space could easily lead to a common choice of classifications. The higher you go in abstraction, the more likely it is to produce identical programs.
To be successful in the long haul, you just have to be able to get by long enough to get on the management track, because the coding portion of the business will eventually go to some low-cost site.
> Open Source > - But if you want something special you will need specialists to write the software and test it for you - Cost lots > - You'll have to pay for your own training > > Closed Source > - Carefully researched product - will probably meet the needs of your business without much tailoring > - Training will be provided as part of package
This comparison is specious (at best). - Open source can be bought from a reseller with full support, including training. - Open source can be researched for applicability to business case, just as easily as closed source. - Tailoring requires knowledge and skills, which cost money, in both cases.
It's the basic tenet of all my software development direction. I find it ridiculously easy, but the average software developer doesn't program at my chosen level of abstraction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XtUML
... if management is just going to come back and say, "Well, I told the customer it would be done by "
Seriously though, you might want to read, Software Engineering Economics by Barry Boehm. Some of the examples of work products might be outdated, but the concepts are still valid and useful.
This isn't news to the court systems, or OS/2 present and former users.
Microsoft is an abusive, anti-competitive monopoly. Microsoft's been tried and found guilty in a court of law, but there's been no remedy applied. People still sign up to use the substandard OS, Windows, because of the applications barrier to entry. Until Linux gets major game and greeting card software companies on board, it'll continue to get marginalized by Microsoft.
Insert "Wardell" for "Carmack" and "OS/2" for "Linux", and you'll be reading the posts from the days when Stardock started to abandon OS/2 support.
Write your government representatives and ask for further antitrust remedies to be placed on Microsoft! Until the "applications barrier to entry" is broken, all of this blustering from 'niche' operating systems users will only be nothing more than noise.
Other actions can be to try to proliferate non-Microsoft usage as much as possible. Work to get Microsoft Office, Outlook, Sharepoint, Visio, etc. out of the workplace. Try to get family members off of Windows. Ask software providers for non-Windows versions. Refuse to take programming jobs that require C# or.NET.
10. Don't always run as root 9. Don't open attachments from unknown sources 8. Don't run Windows! 7. Don't run Windows! 6. Don't run Windows! 5. Don't run Windows! 4. Don't run Windows! 3. Don't run Windows! 2. Don't run Windows! 1. Don't run Windows!
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. DeMarco (and Lister?) stated that the "status" meeting is often a "status affirmation" meeting where the manager is proving they have the power to waste your time.
Wow! You are so wrong, that I'm tempted not to educate you!
IBM was under a consent decree until 2001. That's why there was no verdict in the antitrust case.
Try this link:
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/1996/0715.htm
I should have qualified existence with "monopoly", but to say IBM didn't have a role in Microsoft's existence is wrong as well. Without the inclusion of Microsoft DOS on the IBM PC, Microsoft would probably have never had a monopoly, and Windows would have never gotten it's present market share.
If IBM hadn't unbundled it's software and hardware due to the antitrust investigation, the IBM PC probably would have been a lot less open and probably wouldn't have gone outside the company for an OS. IBM could have competed in a more closed fashion with Commodore, Apple, Atari, etc.
... to run multi-platform? >;->
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/10/04/04/1627226/Multi-Platform-App-Created-Using-Single-Code-Base
This is true, but if you were selectively making use of those patents, then your intent is open to judgment. There is also the question of enforceability of the patent; a large company can use a not obviously unenforceable patent as a bludgeon against a small company to force them out of business through a long, expensive litigation, which the large company wouldn't even pursue against another large company.
I believe this comment was included in the posting, "IBM likes Open Source only as long as they don't have to compete with it.", and I didn't reference the patent statement specifically. ..., but like you said, "Only on Slashdot..."
If IBM is using anti-competitive practices again, then maybe it's time for some external constraint. After all, Microsoft owes it's whole existence to the previous IBM anti-trust ruling, which led to Microsoft's monopoly and IBMs pledge of support for open source.
If the black box recording is based on the same sensors and software, i.e., no redundancy built into the system, then it can have the same erroneous data that the engine controller would be using to make decisions. What you really need is for the black box to record a wholly independent set of sensor data and also collect a log from the engine controller. The two sets of data can then be compared to see if the engine control software was making good choices.
Of course, such a system could easily double or triple the cost of creating an engine control system, which might not seem desirable to a company if the probability of failure and subsequent cost per incident was deemed lower than the increase in per-controller cost.
...if they'd ever release v2.
> Because we've reached the point where programming per se is not the limiting factor in programmer.
I disagree. 3GL doesn't provide a sufficient level of abstraction, so the programmer wastes a lot of time mixing the solution to the problem with the implementation of the solution in 3GL. This puts a cap on productivity, communication, and testability. We've been abstracted away from 2GL (i.e., assembly) for a long time. It's now time to be abstracted away from 3GL.
The programming community has been stuck at 3GL for way too long.
... to OS/2. I remember when the Windows FUDsters used to post comparisons of memory usage all over the OS/2 newsgroups, because OS/2 was loading DLLs into RAM and using all the memory. I guess what comes around goes around. :-D
However, even with 100% coal, you have a big advantage. You can 1. dump the CO2 into the ground. 2. Run it through a green house. 3. Run it through an algae farm. 4. etc.
but you can't restore the removed mountain tops and restore the destroyed ecosystems. You also need to account for the Hg, SO2, and NO(x) emissions, and the waste dumped into the waterways.
Sorry, but there is no such thing as "clean coal".
From the article: "Programs are idiosyncratic as sentences and no two are alike," he said. "They are not even comparable if they are independently generated. It's particularly easy to detect if they've been copied."
While it is extremely hard to independently produce duplicate programs at the 3GL level, it isn't impossible. The problem space will have only one optimal solution. The semantics of the problem space could easily lead to a common choice of classifications. The higher you go in abstraction, the more likely it is to produce identical programs.
To be successful in the long haul, you just have to be able to get by long enough to get on the management track, because the coding portion of the business will eventually go to some low-cost site.
> Open Source
> - But if you want something special you will need specialists to write the software and test it for you - Cost lots
> - You'll have to pay for your own training
>
> Closed Source
> - Carefully researched product - will probably meet the needs of your business without much tailoring
> - Training will be provided as part of package
This comparison is specious (at best).
- Open source can be bought from a reseller with full support, including training.
- Open source can be researched for applicability to business case, just as easily as closed source.
- Tailoring requires knowledge and skills, which cost money, in both cases.
It's the basic tenet of all my software development direction. I find it ridiculously easy, but the average software developer doesn't program at my chosen level of abstraction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XtUML
... if management is just going to come back and say, "Well, I told the customer it would be done by "
Seriously though, you might want to read, Software Engineering Economics by Barry Boehm. Some of the examples of work products might be outdated, but the concepts are still valid and useful.
OS/2 and eComStation users should get a 75% discount!
This isn't news to the court systems, or OS/2 present and former users.
Microsoft is an abusive, anti-competitive monopoly. Microsoft's been tried and found guilty in a court of law, but there's been no remedy applied. People still sign up to use the substandard OS, Windows, because of the applications barrier to entry. Until Linux gets major game and greeting card software companies on board, it'll continue to get marginalized by Microsoft.
Windows. The sample of reports listed had W32, Win32, or a virus targeting Windows (e.g., Conficker).
I think the results and the solution is pretty clear, and it's the same that it has been for more than 25 years.
Read Peopleware by DeMarco and Lister, and then take another look at your workplace.
T-Mobile bears responsibility for choosing Danger. Anyone who chooses a Microsoft server solution is taking on all the associated risks.
Insert "Wardell" for "Carmack" and "OS/2" for "Linux", and you'll be reading the posts from the days when Stardock started to abandon OS/2 support. .NET.
Write your government representatives and ask for further antitrust remedies to be placed on Microsoft! Until the "applications barrier to entry" is broken, all of this blustering from 'niche' operating systems users will only be nothing more than noise.
Other actions can be to try to proliferate non-Microsoft usage as much as possible. Work to get Microsoft Office, Outlook, Sharepoint, Visio, etc. out of the workplace. Try to get family members off of Windows. Ask software providers for non-Windows versions. Refuse to take programming jobs that require C# or
10. Don't always run as root
9. Don't open attachments from unknown sources
8. Don't run Windows!
7. Don't run Windows!
6. Don't run Windows!
5. Don't run Windows!
4. Don't run Windows!
3. Don't run Windows!
2. Don't run Windows!
1. Don't run Windows!