...Microsoft knew full well what f*cked up surrounding Vista, and they're going to fix it.
They're going to *attempt* to fix it.
I think the failure of Vista is the result of much, much more than a poorly-managed project.
I think it's the result of warring factions within Microsoft. There's the group that wants to build a good product, and have the drive, resources, and capability to do so. There's the group that wants to use their market dominance to gain control of other markets, like media distribution (in which Apple is kicking their ass). I think there's a third group, too, from the looks of things, but I haven't worked out what their goal is, or even if it's really a distinct third group.
I think *that's* what fucked up Vista. And that is something I don't think they are willing to change.
There's another phenomenon that plays into this. Because of things like VB and VBA in Office, the barrier to entry for software developers is _much_ lower in windows than on linux. The end result is that you have a lot of really really bad software developers, that are making a good living selling software that does an adequate job for the end-user, but is a horrid mess under the hood. This plays into the back-compat problems as well, because if one of those companies becomes very successful, then in windows fixing a bug, if it broke that software (that poorly relied on that bug), you'd alienate your users.
Wow. I've known about the "MS-Excel effect" for a while now. ("Dude, I'm a programmer. I wrote this bitchin' spreadsheet to manage my porn.") I didn't realize this actually provided a negative feedback on the rest of the MS-Windows ecosystem. I never thought it through that far.
Oh, I get it - you were going for a funny moderation. Seriously,.NET is one of those technologies that developers love but users absolutely, positively hate.
You are right, in that.Net has a fairly decent set of standard libraries. Otherwise, as a VM, it's only middle-of-the-road. As an environment, it sucks so hard, it blows. We have a vertical application that requires re-installation every month. The customer launches the application (which worked fine the day before), and they are presented with the little "Install now?" application. It installs the application, all right-- usually the wrong, older version. (I suspect it's because we haven't paid Microsoft for a real signing key, but I'm not sure.)
The worst sign of bad engineering decisions is in the implementation of C#. For instance, it has race conditions *built into the language*. (SEE delegates.) Why? It's a poor engineering decision that could've been easily avoid, simplifying and tightening the language at the same time.
Back when I was young, my dad taught me how to sharpen knives on a whetstone. He showed me how to hold the knife at an angle, and slide the blade across the stone. I would get the knife a little sharper, but then my angles would go all to hell, and I'd end up dulling the edge.
I don't know if.Net is indicative of Microsoft's usual approach to things. They started with a decent idea: replace their Win32 programming environment with something better. Instead of cooperating with Sun in building up Java to suit their needs, they basically copied Java, with some ideas from the Parrot project. That's okay: they got a cleaned-up API along the way, which was worth it.
Then their angles went all to hell, and they fucked it all up, in all the little ways, and a couple of big ways.
The FCC censorship doesn't serve any special purpose to me...
1. It increases the size and power of the government.
The US government is like a young beast. It is only healthy while it is growing, increasing in girth and strength. The government has only a couple of food sources: the money of its citizens, and the liberties of its citizens. If it can eat the two at the same time, it's really happy. So, by increasing the power of the FCC, it also gets to increase the money for the FCC.
2. It gives mouth breathers a sense of self-satisfaction
Nothing gives non-thinking citizens more happiness than knowing their neighbors can't do something. If it's something they don't do themselves, all the better, as then they don't lose anything. As the US Prohibition proved, all it takes is a few self-righteous individuals to pass laws restricting all kinds of things.
Laws like this make people like that very, very happy.
3. Freedom isn't free
As we are repetitively told, right is left, wrong is right, dark is light, and freedom isn't free. It's chained in a dark closet in the White House, waiting for the night some unsmiling secret service guy opens the door and caps its ass.
Actually, we really *are* bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq. And since it has to come from somewhere, we in the US are sending them ours.
I believe that is what Microsoft will try to do. But, they aren't going to spend a lot of time or money on it, because open-source and free software isn't important to Microsoft. I don't believe they even really care.
It's all about marketing. Microsoft is successful only to the extent they can control the market. Market dominance and market control are one and the same to Microsoft.
Controlling the market is two parts controlling the distribution chain, and one part controlling public opinion. Microsoft's Linux deals are about controlling Linux vendors (Linspire, Novell), and also controlling public opinion ("GPLv3 is illegal, because of the 'No Lawsuit' provisions. No, this isn't like the 'no lawsuit' provisions in our EULA at all.").
Microsoft has no interest in building a free software community, and even if they did, I don't think they have the resources. Most of their third-party developers don't care about community; they only care about selling products. There's nothing wrong with that, but not the stuff for building a community.
That's because it's a buzzword, implying much and meaning little. It's all about Dynamic HTML! No! It's all about centralized data! No! It's all about distributed services!
It's all just a little bit of what the web's been since 1998, only we're getting better at it, so people have to make it into something to puff out their vita, and make them "marketable," even though they were part of the reason we had the other buzzword, the "dot-com bubble."
$350 million for a bridge that will service an island, Gravina, that only has 50 or so residents
The bridge would service Ketchikan, population 7,500 or thereabouts. It would also service tens of thousands of tourists each year.
The bridge is to connect Ketchikan with its airport, which is on Gravina island. Ketchikan has been trying to get enough money to build the bridge for as long as I can remember (at least 30 years). Right now, transport to and from the airport is via a couple of small ferries. There *is* a valid reason for this bridge. It's *not* a bridge to nowhere.
It's still a farce that the federal government porked up the money, though.
We haven't *had* a change of vendor. Microsoft has dominated the scene for far too long.
Unix killed NeXTStep.
Unix didn't kill NeXTStep. Unix, at that time, was almost exclusively a server OS. The NeXT was trying to bring a Unix-like OS to the desktop. It was far easier to use than MacOS or MS-Windows, had the full memory protection of Unix, and was all-around a superior OS to MS-Windows.
The fact that MS-Windows was sold by all PC vendors is what killed NeXT. It was stillborn.
BeOS (a better OS than Unix and Windows -- perhaps not in terms of features but in terms of fundamental agenda) was killed by a combination of factors but mostly just the cost that it's hard to enter a market that's already been carved up.
It's hard to enter a market in which the only real player won't let you on the playground. Be Inc. offered to let PC vendors install BeOS for free, even in a dual-boot configuration. According to Jean-Louis Gassée, the PC manufacturers told him their deals with Microsoft wouldn't let them.
Microsoft's stranglehold on the distribution chain has caused much, much damage. You can blame DR-DOS, OS/2, BeOS, NeXT, and a slew of other vendors/products on "market forces," but the only market force that matters to any degree is Microsoft's regulation of the PC distributors.
I think both NeXTStep and BeOS are living (dead) proof that Microsoft set the computer industry back over a decade. It wasn't until MS-Windows 2k that MS-Windows was even close to NeXTStep in features, and the cost was a lack of simplicity. (The only downside to the NeXT: Netware networking sucked. But Netware networking sucked on everything but DOS, so I guess it's no surprise.)
Same with BeOS. It had many features, including stability, ease-of-use, and responsiveness that MS-Windows can't seem to find today. Granted, neither can GNU/Linux or Mac OSX, but since they are hardly the predominant OS, I can't really fault them to the same extent.
Anyway, it's an old rant. Never mind the ravings of an oldster who never got over the sopranoing Microsoft gave DR-DOS. Those like me are just bitter our careers turned from fun and interesting to tedious and dull because of Microsoft. Y'all go on and play with your shiny new toys. No, really, don't mind me. I'm just gonna sit up here on my porch and get rip-roaring drunk and talk about the old days, whether anybody's listening or not.
My understanding is that Apple was still 3rd behind PET and Tandy even though they had a floppy drive.
I *loved* the PET 2001. That was a fun, cool-looking (at the time) machine.
Your memory is correct. Apple *was* behind those two, mostly because Commodore was able to produce cheaper, more-integrated machines (the 2001 having built-in monitor and cassette drive, as did some of the TRS-80 machines). Visicalc was very much responsible for Apple's early success. Visicalc came about because of the business model of Apple-- the floppy drives, the monitor source code printed in the back of the reference manual, the quiet fanless power supply design.
I loved those days, back when geeks were geeks, computers were plentiful and open, and everything was so new and fresh.
It is because Woz does not care about money and fame. He just wants enough money to play around, but is still mostly frugal. The others want money and power for the sake of money and power.
And that's why he's ten times the man that Gates is.
Actually, he included market cap as a measure. As far as "bringing things to the people," Microsoft rode the wave, it did not create it. That was my point: the "Gates is a saint" mentality infused the GP post. I think I comprehend quite a bit about the GP-- it's all about market worship.
Microsoft not only did not create the wave, it kept others *off* the wave as best it could, essentially keeping things *from* the people
My low UID indicates nothing more than I've been in the computing industry a long, long time. I was a youngster when the IBM PC was introduced, and I've watched it grow up, and I've watched Microsoft use evil means to keep other companies and products at bay. Microsoft wasn't as good at "bringing stuff to the people" as it was at keeping competitors out of the distribution chain.
The revolution was happening with or without Microsoft. Things were coming to the people with or without Microsoft. Microsoft had nothing to do with the demand.
As I see it, the XBox 360 is only about 1/6 as good as the PS3, and isn't that much cheaper.
First, the price: Microsoft charges for XBox Live. A couple of years of XBox live subscription pretty much wipes out any price advantage over the PS3. And I suspect the PS3 will continue to see price drops, but XBox Live will not. So, in the long run, the PS3 will be a bit cheaper. Not by much, but by a bit.
As far as the "goodness" of the system, the 360 is limited by the DVD, *not* by the hardware. The 360 has a better GPU, but the PS3 has quite a bit better CPU power. (Now, taking advantage of the cell architecture is a challenge; but the PS3 has quite a bit more raw horsepower than the 360.)
The 360 has about 8G of data per game. As it is, game companies often have to figure out how to fit their game into 8G. There are sacrifices, and those sacrifices are in *content*. The textures are scaled back, there's less video available, etc.
Blu-Ray can store up to 50G. That's about 6 times more storage than DVD. Sure, many games won't require more than 8G; but many will. Now, will they require 50G? Not many. But, *the option is there.* Game companies no longer have to sacrifice content just to squeeze the game onto a DVD.
So, by my reckoning, the PS3 is more than ( 100/90 )% of the 360. Quite a bit more. And since a lot of the value is on-line play, the price difference isn't that great, in the long run (though the upfront cost of the PS3 is daunting, for sure).
Sony has built a system that will take time to reach its full potential. That means the games will take more advantage of the system, and get better, just like they did with the PS2. Compare the first Rayman title with later titles like God of War or the later Ratchet & Clank titles. R:FOM is akin to the first PS2 Rayman title, in that it hardly makes use of the system.
Not that I'd pay $600 for a PS3. But I'm not a huge gamer.
The point of the Blu-Ray included in the PS3 isn't so much for the movies (though that's good, too)-- it's about game content. Today's games often fill up a DVD, and now that HD games are coming out, the Blu-Ray disc allows for better textures, larger game levels, and just all-around more content.
PS3 games will be able to take advantage of greater capacity discs, a hard drive for streaming textures (making game levels bigger and better), and so on.
The fact it'll play Blu-Ray movies is almost secondary.
There's been anti-PS3 FUD from day one. I don't know why. Microsoft has contributed with their multi-million dollar "grass-roots" PR campaign, but I don't think they are the sole reason. Sony *has* screwed up in a few ways (like shipping sixaxis controllers with no rumble), but considering how even a *price drop* causes the FUD to fly, it's hardly all due to their mis-steps.
I don't know why everyone is Sony-hating, but they've been doing it for a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, when you install MS-Windows, what icon do you get on your desktop?
That's right. "My Computer." (Among others. Stop yer quibbling.)
Who owns that icon?
That's right. Microsoft.
...Microsoft knew full well what f*cked up surrounding Vista, and they're going to fix it.
They're going to *attempt* to fix it.
I think the failure of Vista is the result of much, much more than a poorly-managed project.
I think it's the result of warring factions within Microsoft. There's the group that wants to build a good product, and have the drive, resources, and capability to do so. There's the group that wants to use their market dominance to gain control of other markets, like media distribution (in which Apple is kicking their ass). I think there's a third group, too, from the looks of things, but I haven't worked out what their goal is, or even if it's really a distinct third group.
I think *that's* what fucked up Vista. And that is something I don't think they are willing to change.
There's another phenomenon that plays into this. Because of things like VB and VBA in Office, the barrier to entry for software developers is _much_ lower in windows than on linux. The end result is that you have a lot of really really bad software developers, that are making a good living selling software that does an adequate job for the end-user, but is a horrid mess under the hood. This plays into the back-compat problems as well, because if one of those companies becomes very successful, then in windows fixing a bug, if it broke that software (that poorly relied on that bug), you'd alienate your users.
Wow. I've known about the "MS-Excel effect" for a while now. ("Dude, I'm a programmer. I wrote this bitchin' spreadsheet to manage my porn.") I didn't realize this actually provided a negative feedback on the rest of the MS-Windows ecosystem. I never thought it through that far.
That's an eye-opening observation.
Oh, I get it - you were going for a funny moderation. Seriously, .NET is one of those technologies that developers love but users absolutely, positively hate.
.Net has a fairly decent set of standard libraries. Otherwise, as a VM, it's only middle-of-the-road. As an environment, it sucks so hard, it blows. We have a vertical application that requires re-installation every month. The customer launches the application (which worked fine the day before), and they are presented with the little "Install now?" application. It installs the application, all right-- usually the wrong, older version. (I suspect it's because we haven't paid Microsoft for a real signing key, but I'm not sure.)
.Net is indicative of Microsoft's usual approach to things. They started with a decent idea: replace their Win32 programming environment with something better. Instead of cooperating with Sun in building up Java to suit their needs, they basically copied Java, with some ideas from the Parrot project. That's okay: they got a cleaned-up API along the way, which was worth it.
.Net.
You are right, in that
The worst sign of bad engineering decisions is in the implementation of C#. For instance, it has race conditions *built into the language*. (SEE delegates.) Why? It's a poor engineering decision that could've been easily avoid, simplifying and tightening the language at the same time.
Back when I was young, my dad taught me how to sharpen knives on a whetstone. He showed me how to hold the knife at an angle, and slide the blade across the stone. I would get the knife a little sharper, but then my angles would go all to hell, and I'd end up dulling the edge.
I don't know if
Then their angles went all to hell, and they fucked it all up, in all the little ways, and a couple of big ways.
I'm a developer.
I hate programming in C#, and in
Fuck, we do that in our household, and I live in Ohio.
It's not like it's a big fucking deal.
You don't have to beat them...
Yes. Yes I do.
Oh! You mean as punishment. Gotcha.
The FCC censorship doesn't serve any special purpose to me...
1. It increases the size and power of the government.
The US government is like a young beast. It is only healthy while it is growing, increasing in girth and strength. The government has only a couple of food sources: the money of its citizens, and the liberties of its citizens. If it can eat the two at the same time, it's really happy. So, by increasing the power of the FCC, it also gets to increase the money for the FCC.
2. It gives mouth breathers a sense of self-satisfaction
Nothing gives non-thinking citizens more happiness than knowing their neighbors can't do something. If it's something they don't do themselves, all the better, as then they don't lose anything. As the US Prohibition proved, all it takes is a few self-righteous individuals to pass laws restricting all kinds of things.
Laws like this make people like that very, very happy.
3. Freedom isn't free
As we are repetitively told, right is left, wrong is right, dark is light, and freedom isn't free. It's chained in a dark closet in the White House, waiting for the night some unsmiling secret service guy opens the door and caps its ass.
Actually, we really *are* bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq. And since it has to come from somewhere, we in the US are sending them ours.
We weren't using them anyway.
I believe that is what Microsoft will try to do. But, they aren't going to spend a lot of time or money on it, because open-source and free software isn't important to Microsoft. I don't believe they even really care.
It's all about marketing. Microsoft is successful only to the extent they can control the market. Market dominance and market control are one and the same to Microsoft.
Controlling the market is two parts controlling the distribution chain, and one part controlling public opinion. Microsoft's Linux deals are about controlling Linux vendors (Linspire, Novell), and also controlling public opinion ("GPLv3 is illegal, because of the 'No Lawsuit' provisions. No, this isn't like the 'no lawsuit' provisions in our EULA at all.").
Microsoft has no interest in building a free software community, and even if they did, I don't think they have the resources. Most of their third-party developers don't care about community; they only care about selling products. There's nothing wrong with that, but not the stuff for building a community.
I guess I don't really get Web 2.0 then.
That's because it's a buzzword, implying much and meaning little. It's all about Dynamic HTML! No! It's all about centralized data! No! It's all about distributed services!
It's all just a little bit of what the web's been since 1998, only we're getting better at it, so people have to make it into something to puff out their vita, and make them "marketable," even though they were part of the reason we had the other buzzword, the "dot-com bubble."
IT marketers do love their buzzwords.
Ketchikan has about 7500 fulltime residents, and many transients from the local area. (Here, "transient" means workers, as in loggers and fisherfolk.)
It'd cost *way* more tha $500M to move the town. And there's nothing on Gravina-- no good source of water, no good sites to build a city, etc.
$500M isn't that much, you know. We spend that for three days in Iraq.
$350 million for a bridge that will service an island, Gravina, that only has 50 or so residents
The bridge would service Ketchikan, population 7,500 or thereabouts. It would also service tens of thousands of tourists each year.
The bridge is to connect Ketchikan with its airport, which is on Gravina island. Ketchikan has been trying to get enough money to build the bridge for as long as I can remember (at least 30 years). Right now, transport to and from the airport is via a couple of small ferries. There *is* a valid reason for this bridge. It's *not* a bridge to nowhere.
It's still a farce that the federal government porked up the money, though.
There's an easier way to tell. They're lying whenever their lips move.
You can't count on that as a perfect indicator.
They also lie when their pens move, or they type things on the computer. They also lie when they give you a significant look.
The only time they don't lie is when they say they want more money.
Oh. I didn't RTFA, so I hoped it was Lisa Murkowski, the other senator. That woulda been sweet.
Maybe we can go for a perfect troika?
We haven't *had* a change of vendor. Microsoft has dominated the scene for far too long.
Unix killed NeXTStep.
Unix didn't kill NeXTStep. Unix, at that time, was almost exclusively a server OS. The NeXT was trying to bring a Unix-like OS to the desktop. It was far easier to use than MacOS or MS-Windows, had the full memory protection of Unix, and was all-around a superior OS to MS-Windows.
The fact that MS-Windows was sold by all PC vendors is what killed NeXT. It was stillborn.
BeOS (a better OS than Unix and Windows -- perhaps not in terms of features but in terms of fundamental agenda) was killed by a combination of factors but mostly just the cost that it's hard to enter a market that's already been carved up.
It's hard to enter a market in which the only real player won't let you on the playground. Be Inc. offered to let PC vendors install BeOS for free, even in a dual-boot configuration. According to Jean-Louis Gassée, the PC manufacturers told him their deals with Microsoft wouldn't let them.
Microsoft's stranglehold on the distribution chain has caused much, much damage. You can blame DR-DOS, OS/2, BeOS, NeXT, and a slew of other vendors/products on "market forces," but the only market force that matters to any degree is Microsoft's regulation of the PC distributors.
I think both NeXTStep and BeOS are living (dead) proof that Microsoft set the computer industry back over a decade. It wasn't until MS-Windows 2k that MS-Windows was even close to NeXTStep in features, and the cost was a lack of simplicity. (The only downside to the NeXT: Netware networking sucked. But Netware networking sucked on everything but DOS, so I guess it's no surprise.)
Same with BeOS. It had many features, including stability, ease-of-use, and responsiveness that MS-Windows can't seem to find today. Granted, neither can GNU/Linux or Mac OSX, but since they are hardly the predominant OS, I can't really fault them to the same extent.
Anyway, it's an old rant. Never mind the ravings of an oldster who never got over the sopranoing Microsoft gave DR-DOS. Those like me are just bitter our careers turned from fun and interesting to tedious and dull because of Microsoft. Y'all go on and play with your shiny new toys. No, really, don't mind me. I'm just gonna sit up here on my porch and get rip-roaring drunk and talk about the old days, whether anybody's listening or not.
My understanding is that Apple was still 3rd behind PET and Tandy even though they had a floppy drive.
I *loved* the PET 2001. That was a fun, cool-looking (at the time) machine.
Your memory is correct. Apple *was* behind those two, mostly because Commodore was able to produce cheaper, more-integrated machines (the 2001 having built-in monitor and cassette drive, as did some of the TRS-80 machines). Visicalc was very much responsible for Apple's early success. Visicalc came about because of the business model of Apple-- the floppy drives, the monitor source code printed in the back of the reference manual, the quiet fanless power supply design.
I loved those days, back when geeks were geeks, computers were plentiful and open, and everything was so new and fresh.
It is because Woz does not care about money and fame. He just wants enough money to play around, but is still mostly frugal. The others want money and power for the sake of money and power.
And that's why he's ten times the man that Gates is.
Actually, he included market cap as a measure. As far as "bringing things to the people," Microsoft rode the wave, it did not create it. That was my point: the "Gates is a saint" mentality infused the GP post. I think I comprehend quite a bit about the GP-- it's all about market worship.
Microsoft not only did not create the wave, it kept others *off* the wave as best it could, essentially keeping things *from* the people
My low UID indicates nothing more than I've been in the computing industry a long, long time. I was a youngster when the IBM PC was introduced, and I've watched it grow up, and I've watched Microsoft use evil means to keep other companies and products at bay. Microsoft wasn't as good at "bringing stuff to the people" as it was at keeping competitors out of the distribution chain.
The revolution was happening with or without Microsoft. Things were coming to the people with or without Microsoft. Microsoft had nothing to do with the demand.
They just had *everything* to do with supply.
Why can't they just leave a good thing alone?
Someone hit C with an ugly stick and called it a language. C++ was *never* a good thing.
Python: for the verbose obsessive-compulsive in all of us.
As I see it, the XBox 360 is only about 1/6 as good as the PS3, and isn't that much cheaper.
First, the price: Microsoft charges for XBox Live. A couple of years of XBox live subscription pretty much wipes out any price advantage over the PS3. And I suspect the PS3 will continue to see price drops, but XBox Live will not. So, in the long run, the PS3 will be a bit cheaper. Not by much, but by a bit.
As far as the "goodness" of the system, the 360 is limited by the DVD, *not* by the hardware. The 360 has a better GPU, but the PS3 has quite a bit better CPU power. (Now, taking advantage of the cell architecture is a challenge; but the PS3 has quite a bit more raw horsepower than the 360.)
The 360 has about 8G of data per game. As it is, game companies often have to figure out how to fit their game into 8G. There are sacrifices, and those sacrifices are in *content*. The textures are scaled back, there's less video available, etc.
Blu-Ray can store up to 50G. That's about 6 times more storage than DVD. Sure, many games won't require more than 8G; but many will. Now, will they require 50G? Not many. But, *the option is there.* Game companies no longer have to sacrifice content just to squeeze the game onto a DVD.
So, by my reckoning, the PS3 is more than ( 100/90 )% of the 360. Quite a bit more. And since a lot of the value is on-line play, the price difference isn't that great, in the long run (though the upfront cost of the PS3 is daunting, for sure).
Sony has built a system that will take time to reach its full potential. That means the games will take more advantage of the system, and get better, just like they did with the PS2. Compare the first Rayman title with later titles like God of War or the later Ratchet & Clank titles. R:FOM is akin to the first PS2 Rayman title, in that it hardly makes use of the system.
Not that I'd pay $600 for a PS3. But I'm not a huge gamer.
The point of the Blu-Ray included in the PS3 isn't so much for the movies (though that's good, too)-- it's about game content. Today's games often fill up a DVD, and now that HD games are coming out, the Blu-Ray disc allows for better textures, larger game levels, and just all-around more content.
PS3 games will be able to take advantage of greater capacity discs, a hard drive for streaming textures (making game levels bigger and better), and so on.
The fact it'll play Blu-Ray movies is almost secondary.
What's with all the anti-Sony FUD lately?
There's been anti-PS3 FUD from day one. I don't know why. Microsoft has contributed with their multi-million dollar "grass-roots" PR campaign, but I don't think they are the sole reason. Sony *has* screwed up in a few ways (like shipping sixaxis controllers with no rumble), but considering how even a *price drop* causes the FUD to fly, it's hardly all due to their mis-steps.
I don't know why everyone is Sony-hating, but they've been doing it for a long time.
And with their death, will die a whole age worth of art. (Emphasis added.)
You haven't listened to Nickelback, have you?
Bah. All you *really* need to do is give 'em a razor and make them watch a bootleg copy of "Transformers."
They'll take care of it themselves.
Ho ho ho isn't the world becoming an interesting place to live.
As in the curse, "May you live in interesting times?"
Yes it is, Santa.