The ones who don't make a similar competing work, and rather just use someone else's work without permission. Unlike patents, copyrights allow for competition by functionally similar software...
The GPL would not be necessary if copyright didn't exist. The GPL relies on copyright only to propagate itself. Why would you need a viral license if everything was in the public domain?
Maybe because we wouldn't be guarranteed access to the source code.
First of all, I support the GPL. I think that the concept of community supported software is great. I also like how someone can make modifications to code and be obligated to give back to the community.
Having said that, I think people who preach that we should abolish copyright are basically lazy and cheap. Oh sure they will serve us some leftist bullshit to legitimize their position, and they will throw some "Well it's not stealing because even after giving a copy of some software to a friend, the original owner still has the use of said software - NO HARM, NO FOUL!"
Of course this is Slashdot and I will get some hostile replies, but face it people who preach that we should abolish copyright are proclaiming that GPL doesn't work. They are frustrated that they don't have the time or money to make a commercial quality software, so they just want to be able to legally steal it. Basically these people rather spend their time trying to accomplish something that will never happen, rather than putting effort in a legitimate movement like GPL.
It all boils down to this. If you believe software should be free, then nothing is preventing you from using GPL license software. Hell, if you really believe software should be free, then create a GPL program. If you can't code and you can't find the software that you need, then I guess you'll have to spend money. Sponsor someone to write your GPL program, or just break down and purchase a legitimate licensed copy.
But if you just plain pirate all your software, then your just a leech and offer nothing to support your cause.
What we should be concentrating on is abolishing software patents...
I think everybody is confusing sales tax with income tax. Buying things mail order from entities outside your home state is generally non-taxable. Alabama wants us to voluntarily pay sales tax on things purchased on the internet.
IANAL or Tax specialist, but the IRS is not in the business of collecting sales taxes just income taxes. So the age old rule of all profits (regardless of what was done to generate it) is taxable. Most hobbyists will probably never generate enough real currency to actually have to pay taxes.
Personally I think this is pretty much ado about nothing, UNLESS YOUR ONE OF THOSE GD SPAMMERS ON WOW TRYING TO SALE GOLD AND ACCOUNTS...
Of course congress could go crazy and try to tax virtual money in games...
OK I used google to double check my memory, and IBM didn't actually purchase XYWrite but they did cause its demise.
From http://yesss.freeshell.org/x/_xywhat.htm
...from After XyQuest finally demo'd a new release with the hot dos feature of the previous moment, graphical preview, at a trade show, the cascade of XyQuest marketing blunders culminated in announcement of an alliance with IBM that proved to be suicidal. During the years dosWordPerfect ruled word processing and Microsoft was finishing win3, XyQuest was crippling graphical xyWrite to comply with IBM's notion of what would make a worthy dos successor to DisplayWrite. Literally on the eve of already disastrously late release, IBM left XyQuest holding the bag that contained the molasses-slow and in many respects xyWrite-incompatible software that had been renamed Signature. When XyQuest released the pathetic dog, the reception was merciless.
Ahemm... I hate that I know this but IBM was not always a "good guy". I remember when IBM purchased XYWrite sole with the purpose of shutting down their competition...
I didn't set out to defend Microsoft, but come on stop piling on bullshit to keep the evil empire looking evil.
There is a concept called "standards" which would allow any system to interact with any other based on given protocols, thus enabling any gadget or application to work on any system. Alas, Microsoft prefers to destroy standards to force anyone else out.
The problem with "standards" is that there are so many of them.
But back to the problem at hand, when Windows was created what "standard" existed for windowed applications? What standard does Gnome or KDE use? Sure I can run both types of programs in Linux, but that is because I have both libraries installed, not because of any standard.
The rest of your comment was nothing but US bashing, straw man arguments, and some bullshit about hurting society even though when I look around, I see people from around the world interacting with each other using computers and coming up with new things to do on the web... Whew, society is really doomed. Back to the cave you troll.
If, as you admit, Apple was able to do this before Microsoft, then Microsoft cannot be, as you claim a *necessary* evil.
Not necessarily. What made Microsoft a necessary evil was its monopolizing power, not its innovation. Therefore, Apple doesn't enter into the equation. As for the rest of your comment, I think its pure conjecture. I personally believe the "digital turd" was from uncontrollable feature creep (and the ridiculously stupid decisions it brought). It's easy for us to look back at a product and say "that sucks", especially since hind-sight is 20/20.
I think we would have wound up with some form of lack luster platform regardless of who became the de facto standard. I don't think that people 20 years ago would have thought that we would be so interconnected today, nor would they have immediately seen the dangers that the interconnectivity brought.
Let me start off by appologizing for this comment. I don't know why, but I am in a nit-picking mood and so I post...
Microsoft is killing Microsoft. They decided that they owned the developers and then they tried to milk them. It was only a matter of time that those who brought home the bread and butter would begin to let go and go somewhere else. It worked that way for Apple before them.
I bought an Apple II and upgraded the 48k memory to 64k way back in the stone age of computers. Then I decided to do some serious business programming and found that Apple owned programmers. They said if you want the chore done, hire Claris Works. Well I wasn't rich enough for them so I found a machine (Microsoft) OS that I could get data on.
Coincidently, I too started programming on an Apple II and eventually went to IBM PC development about the time that Borland sold their Turbo series of compilers. However, I just don't understand what point you are trying to make. Apple never owned me, and neither has Microsoft. I don't remember ever being "forced" to use (or even using) ClarisWorks. By the way for the young people out there, using ClarisWorks (which was for the early Macintosh) to program back then would be like using Microsoft Access to program today. The only reason I move to the IBM PC was because people tended to use the same computers at home that they had in the office (not to mention 80 columns of text and a hard drive - or hard card). I still have fond memories of the Apple II.
After microsoft came out with Visual Studio, I think developer support from Microsoft has been second to none. Of course, they are ensuring that you use their public API and not the ones that they themselves use. Overtime, I think this is becoming a non-issue. (Yes I know I criticize Microsoft in an earlier post, and I still think Microsoft is guilty of many sins, but overcharging for a compiler suite is not one of them.)
Well I wasn't rich enough for them so I found a machine (Microsoft) OS that I could get data on. That by the way was a difference produced by an Industrial Spy at IBM. When the PC came out the earliest design was stolen by a Japanese spy who had clones on the market ahead of the release.
WTF? Back in the 80's, I worked part-time selling those pieces of crap made by Sanyo. Those silver boxes were relatively sleeker than the "boxy" XT, but its compatibility was lacking. It was during this time, a distinction was made between PC compatible and MS-DOS compatible. I don't remember Sanyo coming out prior to the IBM PC, but it was initially more prevelant than IBM due to its cheaper price and IBM insistance of only allowing authorized retailers to actually sell thier product. Eventually IBM loosen this requirement. Oh the days of going to the local Entre' computers and looking at the ridiculously priced computers.
The PC market didn't really take off until the Compaq portable was released. This had more to do with the BIOS being independently developed using clean room techniques and allowing a sudden market of PC clones to materialize (line Bear PC, AST, Toshiba, etc). The abundance of more compatible machines finally killed off the POS Sanyos.
Only a few years ago, I noted that I could pay a horrid price for Visual Studio because I was an American but had I lived in China or India, MS had versions for sale at less than 1/10th the US price. Often they distributed in their development centers for free. This made me pay for my competition. That is a business model doomed to die. If I pay the price I pay for the end of my business. Figure this one out.
What's to figure out? Other than your point... After the introduction of Windows, Microsoft's compilers were always inexpensive when compared to what the competitors had to offer. I think today, they even have a "free" version. I don't know how China or India figured in your argument, but if I was making a Chinese or Indian wage the compiler, even at 1/10th the US price, would still have the same relative affordability that the US pricing gives American developers.
Steve Ballmer is that you? Joking... cough.. cough..
I know this is Slashdot and we have our share of Microsoft Groupies and Haters, but seriously I almost vomitted when I read your comment. Your comments totally distorted the 20+ years of Microsoft "innovation" that I witnessed. Seriously your "how an entrepreneur thinks" (ahem "Greed is Good") mantra made me relive the 80's and "88 lines about 44 women" strangely popped in my head... But I digress..
Ok let's set the record straight. Microsoft is the product of the sweat equitity invested by Bill Gates and company. Bill Gates has publicly admitted (I wish I could find a URL for you) that he would stay up at night and worry about possible new competitors that may take the lead away from Microsoft. Microsoft actively squashed any competitor that it saw as a threat. Microsoft did this by either purchasing them outright (Visio) or poisoning the market (Netscape). Sometimes they just resorted to IP theft (STAC Electronics).
By the time Windows 3.0 came out (effectively squashing GEM - which sucked BTW - and other desktops), Microsoft had complete control of the software market since Microsoft held all the cards with Windows 3.0. All the DOS programs that everyone were familiar with like Lotus 1-2-3 and Wordperfect, did not translate well into a windows program. Why? Microsoft was smart enough to develop applications in parallel with Windows 3.0, so that when Windows was released Microsoft had a comfortable lead in the application space. Microsoft maintain this lead by sabotaging the publicly documented API that third party developers had to use. It was common for non-Microsoft products to perform poorly when compared with similar Microsoft products. This allowed Microsoft to become the 800 pound gorilla in the PC market, and ISVs had to resign to the strategy of developing enough market share to entice a buy out from Microsoft.
As Microsoft fortunes grew, so did Bill Gates wise investments in distribution (Best Buy-1999, CompUSA-2000, RadioShack-1999), and "competitors" like Apple (1997), Corel (2000), Google (2004), RealNetworks (1997). Hell, now that we are in the "Internet age" the list of last-mile companies and media content providers that Microsoft wisely invested in is impressive. Go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_ by_Microsoft_Corporation.
No I am not a "tree hugging communist" who believes that Bill Gates is Satan, but I can't ignore my memory of past events. Peronally, I think Bill Gates is a necessary "evil". If it wasn't for his tactics, desktop computing would not be so homogenous which allows for cool new gadgets that we can install on our computers. Face it - I remember entering control codes to get bold print on my Star SG10, Now thanks to Microsoft, we just let the driver API take care of it for us. Sure Apple was able to do this before Microsoft, but that's besides the point.
Even though Microsoft employ as you say "many talented software engineers", they couldn't make a product that didn't suck unless they made vacuum cleaners. This is beneficial to the economy, since all those displace competing software engineers are now employed as computer consultants, IT support services, and antivirus software companies. It is these jobs that allow geeks to buy all those cool gadgets for their computers.
FOR THE SAKE OF BALANCE, I will say that, honestly, Microsoft is only guilty of giving the customers what they want. Despite Microsoft's attempts to be the sole source of what customer's want.
here is a question, what creditationals do you need to report someones death?
Well when I was an officer of a national organization, I had to forward any reports of deaths within our membership to the editor of our national newspaper. It always required an obituary posting in the local paper, and/or confirmation by a close relative of that member.
However, I agree with your opinion on the trivial subjects.
The power or Wiki is that anyone can edit, so anyone can fix the mistake.
The problem of a Wiki that promotes itself as an encyclopedia is that only knowledgable people will be able to spot the mistakes and correct them. During the timespan of a mistake being posted and someone correcting it, someone who is not knowledgable on the subject (someone who may actually look it up in an encyclopedia) may view the information as valid. This diminishes the value of wikipedia as a reference source.
The saving grace for wikipedia is that the topics I browse, usually has a link to a more authorative source. The strike against wikipedia (which is not their fault) is that some sites republish entries (like about.com) and may not reflect any corrections made... (I haven't actually tested this).
It didn't take long for someone to start bashing Apple or mock its users. Jeez..
Besides Apple TV seems to be easily modifiable (Probably more so than your xbox media center).
Anyway, Apple delivers a product that works AS ADVERTISED. Nobody is forcing you to buy one.
If you need DVR, Tivo has a product for you.
Or just maybe, you can have a media server in another room and just use the Apple TV to view the content remotely (and without the noise of cooling fans). I think it works out of the box this way (just import your video into iTunes).
I'm sure a neat hack is coming real soon that will provide more features. I know I may get one just to play with and try to merge it with elgato's eyeTV.
I need to clarify something. When I said I performed "science" it is in the vien of "computer science"(IE. the original context of the article "Is Computer Science Dead?"), and not the science of observing and explaining natural phenomenon.
My job in the field X-Ray astronomy (IE. what people assiociate with the term scientists) and my job as software engineering (IE. computer science using process) has caused some confusion.
In my original post, I tried to counter the parent's position that "But the work of a software engineer just ain't science." I tried to articulate (rather poorly) that in fact some software engineers perform (computer) science. The fact that I perform computer science in a scientific setting is coincidental.
I tried (tongue in cheek) to not only state that not only do we (at work) perform computer science, but our computer science performs science... Yea, a train wreck.
As for debating the merits of computer science as a science... that is a whole different can of worms. At the risk of opening it (just a little) by saying that I think of computer science as a branch of mathematics. As for theoritical versus applied computer science, my opinnion is that six of one is worth half a dozen of the other. In otherwords, they both are still computer science and I believe that the difference between the two is imagined. (ha)
So back to my original comment. Do I think *Computer Science* is Dead? No, because even though I am a software engineer there are times that I resort to computer science (as in computation theory and math) to achieve the desired result. Occasionally the approach is novel enough to survive peer review on the project, and sometimes it is peer reviewed outside my center. I strive to make the approach novel enough and robust enough to survive peer review prior to being published in a trade publication (IE. ACM or IEEE). It is by this measure, that I consider myself a practitioner of computer science (that and the inevitable pursuit of a PhD so that I can finally get an office with a window;) ). Is there a scientific method involved? Sure we observe (in the physical) what we want to emulate (in the virtual), hyptothesis on the emulation, proof of concept, elimination of alternative methods, and peer review. But it is still *computer* science.
While we are splitting hairs - When I manage a project using a process that uses metrics for quality assurance, I am practicing software engineering. When I develop an algorithm to perform some advance function, I am practicing computer science.
After saying all that - I have to agree that:
That's certainly true in many areas, but it doesn't make the software engineers scientists any more than machine shop technicians are scientists.
But it is definitely possible for a software engineer to be a practitioner of computer science or even a computer scientist (PhD).
A better analogy would be -- While a scientist can offload work to a research associate, this doesn't make the research associate a scientist. However both the scientist and the research associate are practitioners of science. See both are related in the field of work.
So this would translate to -- While a software engineer can offload work to a computer scientist, this doesn't make the computer scientist a software engineer.... (ha ha)
Anyway, I hope I made things a little clearer than mud. Sorry for the confusion and the wasted bandwidth.
You are right I am an engineer who moonlights as a "scientist" when the need arises. Sometimes it takes science to build the things that scientists use. I put scientist in quotes because to become a scientist I must posess a PhD in my field of study, instead I am a Research Associate. BTW, that was my actual job title before my promotion to engineer.
Anyway, I am happy being an engineer and prefer to be thought as such (especially since I make more money being an engineer than I did as a research associate). My point was never that I am a scientist, my point was that I do perform science as an engineer. I made this statement as a counterpoint to a comment that stated that "software engineers don't do science." A statement that I felt was playing to some stereotype that seperates "Software Engineers" from "Computer Scientists". Incidently the other stereotype is that "Computer Scientists" code and "Software Engineers" are their bosses. Actually, that one may be true...;)
Please read the other comment I made in reference to someone else who brought up the same excellent point you made.
You are absolutely correct. Working for a physicist doesn't make me a physicist. However, for the physicists to do their science I must perform mine. Sure, they garner headlines with their achievements. But that doesn't make my (or my co-workers) work less of a science. I don't want (or can) divulge much info, but what I (and others) do is not off the shelf and do require some computational theory.
We have hypothesis, we have established theories, we create new theories, we perform proofs, and we publish (when allowed). Sometimes, we prove ourselves wrong.... Anyway scientific method is being used. If it walks a duck and quacks like a duck, there is a good chance that it is a duck.
Maybe you accidently made a good point - That Computer Science only appears to be dying because the actual work doesn't always take center stage. Instead, it (mostly) works behind the scenes to accomplish some other task, and only seeing the light of day in some obscure paper in the IEEE or ACM repository.
Not to mention, people assume that all the fundamental rules of computing have been defined and all that is left is to hire a programmer to connect all the pieces together.
Funny the engineering community is skeptical that computer science can be made into engineering discipline, and the slashdot community is skeptical that it is actually science... Just can't seem to get a break;)
computer science might be spinning off "engineering" disciplines, but only after certain hard problems are solved; I seriously doubt that in your effort to create your positional system you discovered anything new about graph theory, cryptography, or algorithm analysis.
Have you? I admit its been a couple of years since I studied cryptography (S-Boxes, Fiestel Networks, Self synchronizing stream ciphers, oh my!). However I do perform algorithm analysis, and I use and try to improve the current working state of graph theory. You assumed that since I use engineering practices that somehow I am incapable of performing science. I admit my last internal paper was over 2 years ago, but in lieu of publishing I have been working within a couple of science missions.
I work with people like you everyday who think that because they write highly technical programs to convert their specialized knowledged into something that runs is doing "computer science." That is "applied" CS, and if you wanted to get into it you are really doing an engineering task.
I'm sorry I thought science required using specialized knowledge to prove a hypothesis (or create a program that does). I'm glad you corrected me... I have worked with people who think that because they are pursuing a PhD, that somehow they know better than the rest of us on how things are done.
I do work with people who have actual PhDs in CS (and physics), and they never once considered me a code jockey or strictly "applying" computer science. We have mutual respect in our field of work. Just because I have a degree in Software Engineering, does not mean that I just code. I am not a manager of a large software project, I am a member of a 3 person software team (within a larger program) tasked with doing cutting edge work. If current technology can't do what we need, we must invent it. Admittingly, I do need to publish more.
My point in my previous message was not that all software engineers are scientists, but rather some computer scientists are software engineers. Well, I'll let you get back to pumping lemmas...
But the work of a software engineer just ain't science.
My collegues and I, being software engineers in X-Ray astronomy, disagree with you
Sure some CS majors go on to make a new computer language or new technique for image analysis, but that doesn't make the software engineer less scientific. The systems we develop are used by X-Ray astronomers and would not exist without the Electronic Technician, Electrical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Computer Engineers, and Software Engineers.
It has been my observation that most of the science is done by physicists (and other scientists) who understand enough about computers to code their own small routine to illustrate their point, and hand it off to us software engineers to clean up, make reliable, and integrate in to a complete hardware system that is capable of performing the science work they need.
When spending millions of dollars on one-of-a-kind hardware, you not only depend on the computer algorithm being correct but also reliable, thoroughly tested, and an integral part of a well engineered system. All of our science is done in unmanned flights, so we can't simply reboot when something goes wrong.
Before you correct me and say that we are not capable of computational science, my collegue developed a tracking system that calculates vehicle orientation based on images of stars captured by a telescope mounted on the vehicle...
Anyway my point is that science is more engineering than algorithm these days. I'm not saying pure computer science is not important. I'm saying that we must introduce engineering practices into computer science to tackle the hard problems. This is why I believe that Computer Science is evolving into Software Engineering.
As for the non-scientific information systems, thats a job for a MIS graduate..:P
Microsoft stopped shipping Java long after Java had already died on the desktop.
I'm sure a judge's ruling had something to do with MS not distributing it.
No, the simple reason is that Sun Java is a p.o.s. technologically,
You speak as a person who obviously doesn't know what he is talking about... Seriously, if what you say is true then why the Microsoft copy its concept and call it C#?
and has been proprietary and highly controlled by Sun for the last decade.
You are trusting that your cable IP service won't also have tiered access. Of course, both cable and telephone companies currently provide tiered services (DSL, DSL-Lite, voicemail, premium channels, VOIP, etc) why wouldn't they charge for access to third-party media providers.
It takes more than two sources of broadband to create a free market.
JGRASP http://www.jgrasp.org/ has similar functionality and was based on papers published back in 1988 by one of its principle authors.
What is especially interesting is its acknowledments state:
"The development of jGRASP has been supported by a research grant from the National Science Foundation.
The development of previous versions of GRASP was supported by research grants from NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, the Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), and the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)."
Therefore, Microsoft wants to patent something that was developed with US taxpayer's money... I'll let you take over the rant from here.
Slashdot Mirror
The ones who don't make a similar competing work, and rather just use someone else's work without permission. Unlike patents, copyrights allow for competition by functionally similar software...
Maybe because we wouldn't be guarranteed access to the source code.
First of all, I support the GPL. I think that the concept of community supported software is great. I also like how someone can make modifications to code and be obligated to give back to the community.
Having said that, I think people who preach that we should abolish copyright are basically lazy and cheap. Oh sure they will serve us some leftist bullshit to legitimize their position, and they will throw some "Well it's not stealing because even after giving a copy of some software to a friend, the original owner still has the use of said software - NO HARM, NO FOUL!"
Of course this is Slashdot and I will get some hostile replies, but face it people who preach that we should abolish copyright are proclaiming that GPL doesn't work. They are frustrated that they don't have the time or money to make a commercial quality software, so they just want to be able to legally steal it. Basically these people rather spend their time trying to accomplish something that will never happen, rather than putting effort in a legitimate movement like GPL.
It all boils down to this. If you believe software should be free, then nothing is preventing you from using GPL license software. Hell, if you really believe software should be free, then create a GPL program. If you can't code and you can't find the software that you need, then I guess you'll have to spend money. Sponsor someone to write your GPL program, or just break down and purchase a legitimate licensed copy.
But if you just plain pirate all your software, then your just a leech and offer nothing to support your cause.
What we should be concentrating on is abolishing software patents...
No that 5-digit UID just means that he's been a stupid jackass on Slashdot a little longer than the rest of us.
I think everybody is confusing sales tax with income tax. Buying things mail order from entities outside your home state is generally non-taxable. Alabama wants us to voluntarily pay sales tax on things purchased on the internet.
IANAL or Tax specialist, but the IRS is not in the business of collecting sales taxes just income taxes. So the age old rule of all profits (regardless of what was done to generate it) is taxable. Most hobbyists will probably never generate enough real currency to actually have to pay taxes.
Personally I think this is pretty much ado about nothing, UNLESS YOUR ONE OF THOSE GD SPAMMERS ON WOW TRYING TO SALE GOLD AND ACCOUNTS...
Of course congress could go crazy and try to tax virtual money in games...
Ahemm... I hate that I know this but IBM was not always a "good guy". I remember when IBM purchased XYWrite sole with the purpose of shutting down their competition...
I didn't set out to defend Microsoft, but come on stop piling on bullshit to keep the evil empire looking evil.
There is a concept called "standards" which would allow any system to interact with any other based on given protocols, thus enabling any gadget or application to work on any system. Alas, Microsoft prefers to destroy standards to force anyone else out.
The problem with "standards" is that there are so many of them.
But back to the problem at hand, when Windows was created what "standard" existed for windowed applications? What standard does Gnome or KDE use? Sure I can run both types of programs in Linux, but that is because I have both libraries installed, not because of any standard.
The rest of your comment was nothing but US bashing, straw man arguments, and some bullshit about hurting society even though when I look around, I see people from around the world interacting with each other using computers and coming up with new things to do on the web... Whew, society is really doomed. Back to the cave you troll.
If, as you admit, Apple was able to do this before Microsoft, then Microsoft cannot be, as you claim a *necessary* evil.
Not necessarily. What made Microsoft a necessary evil was its monopolizing power, not its innovation. Therefore, Apple doesn't enter into the equation. As for the rest of your comment, I think its pure conjecture. I personally believe the "digital turd" was from uncontrollable feature creep (and the ridiculously stupid decisions it brought). It's easy for us to look back at a product and say "that sucks", especially since hind-sight is 20/20.
I think we would have wound up with some form of lack luster platform regardless of who became the de facto standard. I don't think that people 20 years ago would have thought that we would be so interconnected today, nor would they have immediately seen the dangers that the interconnectivity brought.
Let me start off by appologizing for this comment. I don't know why, but I am in a nit-picking mood and so I post...
Microsoft is killing Microsoft. They decided that they owned the developers and then they tried to milk them. It was only a matter of time that those who brought home the bread and butter would begin to let go and go somewhere else. It worked that way for Apple before them.
I bought an Apple II and upgraded the 48k memory to 64k way back in the stone age of computers. Then I decided to do some serious business programming and found that Apple owned programmers. They said if you want the chore done, hire Claris Works. Well I wasn't rich enough for them so I found a machine (Microsoft) OS that I could get data on.
Coincidently, I too started programming on an Apple II and eventually went to IBM PC development about the time that Borland sold their Turbo series of compilers. However, I just don't understand what point you are trying to make. Apple never owned me, and neither has Microsoft. I don't remember ever being "forced" to use (or even using) ClarisWorks. By the way for the young people out there, using ClarisWorks (which was for the early Macintosh) to program back then would be like using Microsoft Access to program today. The only reason I move to the IBM PC was because people tended to use the same computers at home that they had in the office (not to mention 80 columns of text and a hard drive - or hard card). I still have fond memories of the Apple II.
After microsoft came out with Visual Studio, I think developer support from Microsoft has been second to none. Of course, they are ensuring that you use their public API and not the ones that they themselves use. Overtime, I think this is becoming a non-issue. (Yes I know I criticize Microsoft in an earlier post, and I still think Microsoft is guilty of many sins, but overcharging for a compiler suite is not one of them.)
Well I wasn't rich enough for them so I found a machine (Microsoft) OS that I could get data on. That by the way was a difference produced by an Industrial Spy at IBM. When the PC came out the earliest design was stolen by a Japanese spy who had clones on the market ahead of the release.
WTF? Back in the 80's, I worked part-time selling those pieces of crap made by Sanyo. Those silver boxes were relatively sleeker than the "boxy" XT, but its compatibility was lacking. It was during this time, a distinction was made between PC compatible and MS-DOS compatible. I don't remember Sanyo coming out prior to the IBM PC, but it was initially more prevelant than IBM due to its cheaper price and IBM insistance of only allowing authorized retailers to actually sell thier product. Eventually IBM loosen this requirement. Oh the days of going to the local Entre' computers and looking at the ridiculously priced computers.
The PC market didn't really take off until the Compaq portable was released. This had more to do with the BIOS being independently developed using clean room techniques and allowing a sudden market of PC clones to materialize (line Bear PC, AST, Toshiba, etc). The abundance of more compatible machines finally killed off the POS Sanyos.
Only a few years ago, I noted that I could pay a horrid price for Visual Studio because I was an American but had I lived in China or India, MS had versions for sale at less than 1/10th the US price. Often they distributed in their development centers for free. This made me pay for my competition. That is a business model doomed to die. If I pay the price I pay for the end of my business. Figure this one out.
What's to figure out? Other than your point... After the introduction of Windows, Microsoft's compilers were always inexpensive when compared to what the competitors had to offer. I think today, they even have a "free" version. I don't know how China or India figured in your argument, but if I was making a Chinese or Indian wage the compiler, even at 1/10th the US price, would still have the same relative affordability that the US pricing gives American developers.
Steve Ballmer is that you? Joking... cough.. cough..
I know this is Slashdot and we have our share of Microsoft Groupies and Haters, but seriously I almost vomitted when I read your comment. Your comments totally distorted the 20+ years of Microsoft "innovation" that I witnessed. Seriously your "how an entrepreneur thinks" (ahem "Greed is Good") mantra made me relive the 80's and "88 lines about 44 women" strangely popped in my head... But I digress..
Ok let's set the record straight. Microsoft is the product of the sweat equitity invested by Bill Gates and company. Bill Gates has publicly admitted (I wish I could find a URL for you) that he would stay up at night and worry about possible new competitors that may take the lead away from Microsoft. Microsoft actively squashed any competitor that it saw as a threat. Microsoft did this by either purchasing them outright (Visio) or poisoning the market (Netscape). Sometimes they just resorted to IP theft (STAC Electronics).
By the time Windows 3.0 came out (effectively squashing GEM - which sucked BTW - and other desktops), Microsoft had complete control of the software market since Microsoft held all the cards with Windows 3.0. All the DOS programs that everyone were familiar with like Lotus 1-2-3 and Wordperfect, did not translate well into a windows program. Why? Microsoft was smart enough to develop applications in parallel with Windows 3.0, so that when Windows was released Microsoft had a comfortable lead in the application space. Microsoft maintain this lead by sabotaging the publicly documented API that third party developers had to use. It was common for non-Microsoft products to perform poorly when compared with similar Microsoft products. This allowed Microsoft to become the 800 pound gorilla in the PC market, and ISVs had to resign to the strategy of developing enough market share to entice a buy out from Microsoft.
As Microsoft fortunes grew, so did Bill Gates wise investments in distribution (Best Buy-1999, CompUSA-2000, RadioShack-1999), and "competitors" like Apple (1997), Corel (2000), Google (2004), RealNetworks (1997). Hell, now that we are in the "Internet age" the list of last-mile companies and media content providers that Microsoft wisely invested in is impressive. Go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_ by_Microsoft_Corporation.
No I am not a "tree hugging communist" who believes that Bill Gates is Satan, but I can't ignore my memory of past events. Peronally, I think Bill Gates is a necessary "evil". If it wasn't for his tactics, desktop computing would not be so homogenous which allows for cool new gadgets that we can install on our computers. Face it - I remember entering control codes to get bold print on my Star SG10, Now thanks to Microsoft, we just let the driver API take care of it for us. Sure Apple was able to do this before Microsoft, but that's besides the point.
Even though Microsoft employ as you say "many talented software engineers", they couldn't make a product that didn't suck unless they made vacuum cleaners. This is beneficial to the economy, since all those displace competing software engineers are now employed as computer consultants, IT support services, and antivirus software companies. It is these jobs that allow geeks to buy all those cool gadgets for their computers.
FOR THE SAKE OF BALANCE, I will say that, honestly, Microsoft is only guilty of giving the customers what they want. Despite Microsoft's attempts to be the sole source of what customer's want.
here is a question, what creditationals do you need to report someones death?
Well when I was an officer of a national organization, I had to forward any reports of deaths within our membership to the editor of our national newspaper. It always required an obituary posting in the local paper, and/or confirmation by a close relative of that member.
However, I agree with your opinion on the trivial subjects.
The power or Wiki is that anyone can edit, so anyone can fix the mistake.
The problem of a Wiki that promotes itself as an encyclopedia is that only knowledgable people will be able to spot the mistakes and correct them. During the timespan of a mistake being posted and someone correcting it, someone who is not knowledgable on the subject (someone who may actually look it up in an encyclopedia) may view the information as valid. This diminishes the value of wikipedia as a reference source.
The saving grace for wikipedia is that the topics I browse, usually has a link to a more authorative source. The strike against wikipedia (which is not their fault) is that some sites republish entries (like about.com) and may not reflect any corrections made... (I haven't actually tested this).
It didn't take long for someone to start bashing Apple or mock its users. Jeez..
Besides Apple TV seems to be easily modifiable (Probably more so than your xbox media center).
Anyway, Apple delivers a product that works AS ADVERTISED. Nobody is forcing you to buy one. If you need DVR, Tivo has a product for you.
Or just maybe, you can have a media server in another room and just use the Apple TV to view the content remotely (and without the noise of cooling fans). I think it works out of the box this way (just import your video into iTunes).
I'm sure a neat hack is coming real soon that will provide more features. I know I may get one just to play with and try to merge it with elgato's eyeTV.
Live weather radar would be cool in Google Earth.
You can do this with NASA's World Wind...
The link is http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/.
I need to clarify something. When I said I performed "science" it is in the vien of "computer science"(IE. the original context of the article "Is Computer Science Dead?"), and not the science of observing and explaining natural phenomenon.
My job in the field X-Ray astronomy (IE. what people assiociate with the term scientists) and my job as software engineering (IE. computer science using process) has caused some confusion.
In my original post, I tried to counter the parent's position that "But the work of a software engineer just ain't science." I tried to articulate (rather poorly) that in fact some software engineers perform (computer) science. The fact that I perform computer science in a scientific setting is coincidental.
I tried (tongue in cheek) to not only state that not only do we (at work) perform computer science, but our computer science performs science... Yea, a train wreck.
As for debating the merits of computer science as a science... that is a whole different can of worms. At the risk of opening it (just a little) by saying that I think of computer science as a branch of mathematics. As for theoritical versus applied computer science, my opinnion is that six of one is worth half a dozen of the other. In otherwords, they both are still computer science and I believe that the difference between the two is imagined. (ha)
So back to my original comment. Do I think *Computer Science* is Dead? No, because even though I am a software engineer there are times that I resort to computer science (as in computation theory and math) to achieve the desired result. Occasionally the approach is novel enough to survive peer review on the project, and sometimes it is peer reviewed outside my center. I strive to make the approach novel enough and robust enough to survive peer review prior to being published in a trade publication (IE. ACM or IEEE). It is by this measure, that I consider myself a practitioner of computer science (that and the inevitable pursuit of a PhD so that I can finally get an office with a window ;) ). Is there a scientific method involved? Sure we observe (in the physical) what we want to emulate (in the virtual), hyptothesis on the emulation, proof of concept, elimination of alternative methods, and peer review. But it is still *computer* science.
While we are splitting hairs - When I manage a project using a process that uses metrics for quality assurance, I am practicing software engineering. When I develop an algorithm to perform some advance function, I am practicing computer science.
After saying all that - I have to agree that:
That's certainly true in many areas, but it doesn't make the software engineers scientists any more than machine shop technicians are scientists.
But it is definitely possible for a software engineer to be a practitioner of computer science or even a computer scientist (PhD).
A better analogy would be -- While a scientist can offload work to a research associate, this doesn't make the research associate a scientist. However both the scientist and the research associate are practitioners of science. See both are related in the field of work.
So this would translate to -- While a software engineer can offload work to a computer scientist, this doesn't make the computer scientist a software engineer.... (ha ha)
Anyway, I hope I made things a little clearer than mud. Sorry for the confusion and the wasted bandwidth.
You are right I am an engineer who moonlights as a "scientist" when the need arises. Sometimes it takes science to build the things that scientists use. I put scientist in quotes because to become a scientist I must posess a PhD in my field of study, instead I am a Research Associate. BTW, that was my actual job title before my promotion to engineer.
Anyway, I am happy being an engineer and prefer to be thought as such (especially since I make more money being an engineer than I did as a research associate). My point was never that I am a scientist, my point was that I do perform science as an engineer. I made this statement as a counterpoint to a comment that stated that "software engineers don't do science." A statement that I felt was playing to some stereotype that seperates "Software Engineers" from "Computer Scientists". Incidently the other stereotype is that "Computer Scientists" code and "Software Engineers" are their bosses. Actually, that one may be true... ;)
Please read the other comment I made in reference to someone else who brought up the same excellent point you made.
You are absolutely correct. Working for a physicist doesn't make me a physicist. However, for the physicists to do their science I must perform mine. Sure, they garner headlines with their achievements. But that doesn't make my (or my co-workers) work less of a science. I don't want (or can) divulge much info, but what I (and others) do is not off the shelf and do require some computational theory.
We have hypothesis, we have established theories, we create new theories, we perform proofs, and we publish (when allowed). Sometimes, we prove ourselves wrong.... Anyway scientific method is being used. If it walks a duck and quacks like a duck, there is a good chance that it is a duck.
Maybe you accidently made a good point - That Computer Science only appears to be dying because the actual work doesn't always take center stage. Instead, it (mostly) works behind the scenes to accomplish some other task, and only seeing the light of day in some obscure paper in the IEEE or ACM repository.
Not to mention, people assume that all the fundamental rules of computing have been defined and all that is left is to hire a programmer to connect all the pieces together.
Funny the engineering community is skeptical that computer science can be made into engineering discipline, and the slashdot community is skeptical that it is actually science... Just can't seem to get a break ;)
computer science might be spinning off "engineering" disciplines, but only after certain hard problems are solved; I seriously doubt that in your effort to create your positional system you discovered anything new about graph theory, cryptography, or algorithm analysis.
Have you? I admit its been a couple of years since I studied cryptography (S-Boxes, Fiestel Networks, Self synchronizing stream ciphers, oh my!). However I do perform algorithm analysis, and I use and try to improve the current working state of graph theory. You assumed that since I use engineering practices that somehow I am incapable of performing science. I admit my last internal paper was over 2 years ago, but in lieu of publishing I have been working within a couple of science missions.
I work with people like you everyday who think that because they write highly technical programs to convert their specialized knowledged into something that runs is doing "computer science." That is "applied" CS, and if you wanted to get into it you are really doing an engineering task.
I'm sorry I thought science required using specialized knowledge to prove a hypothesis (or create a program that does). I'm glad you corrected me... I have worked with people who think that because they are pursuing a PhD, that somehow they know better than the rest of us on how things are done.
I do work with people who have actual PhDs in CS (and physics), and they never once considered me a code jockey or strictly "applying" computer science. We have mutual respect in our field of work. Just because I have a degree in Software Engineering, does not mean that I just code. I am not a manager of a large software project, I am a member of a 3 person software team (within a larger program) tasked with doing cutting edge work. If current technology can't do what we need, we must invent it. Admittingly, I do need to publish more.
My point in my previous message was not that all software engineers are scientists, but rather some computer scientists are software engineers. Well, I'll let you get back to pumping lemmas...
But the work of a software engineer just ain't science.
My collegues and I, being software engineers in X-Ray astronomy, disagree with you
Sure some CS majors go on to make a new computer language or new technique for image analysis, but that doesn't make the software engineer less scientific. The systems we develop are used by X-Ray astronomers and would not exist without the Electronic Technician, Electrical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Computer Engineers, and Software Engineers.
It has been my observation that most of the science is done by physicists (and other scientists) who understand enough about computers to code their own small routine to illustrate their point, and hand it off to us software engineers to clean up, make reliable, and integrate in to a complete hardware system that is capable of performing the science work they need.
When spending millions of dollars on one-of-a-kind hardware, you not only depend on the computer algorithm being correct but also reliable, thoroughly tested, and an integral part of a well engineered system. All of our science is done in unmanned flights, so we can't simply reboot when something goes wrong.
Before you correct me and say that we are not capable of computational science, my collegue developed a tracking system that calculates vehicle orientation based on images of stars captured by a telescope mounted on the vehicle...
Anyway my point is that science is more engineering than algorithm these days. I'm not saying pure computer science is not important. I'm saying that we must introduce engineering practices into computer science to tackle the hard problems. This is why I believe that Computer Science is evolving into Software Engineering.
As for the non-scientific information systems, thats a job for a MIS graduate.. :P
Microsoft stopped shipping Java long after Java had already died on the desktop.
I'm sure a judge's ruling had something to do with MS not distributing it.
No, the simple reason is that Sun Java is a p.o.s. technologically,
You speak as a person who obviously doesn't know what he is talking about... Seriously, if what you say is true then why the Microsoft copy its concept and call it C#?
and has been proprietary and highly controlled by Sun for the last decade.
As opposed to C#?
You are trusting that your cable IP service won't also have tiered access. Of course, both cable and telephone companies currently provide tiered services (DSL, DSL-Lite, voicemail, premium channels, VOIP, etc) why wouldn't they charge for access to third-party media providers.
It takes more than two sources of broadband to create a free market.
JGRASP http://www.jgrasp.org/ has similar functionality and was based on papers published back in 1988 by one of its principle authors. What is especially interesting is its acknowledments state: "The development of jGRASP has been supported by a research grant from the National Science Foundation. The development of previous versions of GRASP was supported by research grants from NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, the Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), and the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)." Therefore, Microsoft wants to patent something that was developed with US taxpayer's money... I'll let you take over the rant from here.
Note to self: edit your one line comments! (should be "are" not "is" --- doh!)...
I would take both actions... Firing incompetent security personel and closing down a website is not mutually exclusive.
Of course and even better lawyer will argue that the publishing of other people's confidential information is not protected speech.