>Beginner users don't use RAID, thanks for playing.;)
Some do. Some beggining users are getting into computers because they have digital cameras, digital video, or are doing audio recording. While relatively few are using linux in their first computing experience, they certainly do start out with extreme storage requirements, and many do indeed need RAID solutions at least for disk aggregation.
I wonder why you'd get into such a discussion at work. But then, your work environment would be a pretty alien place (I work in informatics with a bunch of university professors...)
Beside the point though. Man didn't "evolve from apes."
Man and Ape have a common ancestor, and the divergence was very, very long ago - probably 8 million years ago.
Phylogenists do not put forth the claim that "man evolved from apes."
Hey I went to Catholic school too -- an abbey school staffed by Cistercian monks who were among the last people to leave Hungary before the Russians took over. It was at this school, in a science course taught by a Hungarian Catholic monk, that I first heard the details of evolution explained in a proper way with respect to the prevailing theories and the scientific method.
>50% of the population has above-average intelligence.
That might make a good bumper sticker, but it's not a realistic or reasonable way of looking at the curve.
Be sure to count all those people who make use of television and web weather reports. If they use data from NOAA, USGS, or services like the streamflow/stormwater data from NWIS, or if they use data modeling service from SDSC or NCSA, they are linux users...
If you let them. You can still check your email twice a day. It won't bankrupt the company and cost you your job. You don't have to apologize for it. It's terribly inefficient to monitor email constantly. Counterproductive. I've studied this, and might actually do a journal article on the topic.
"The more sophisticated software you are running is probably more appropriate on a technically superior system."
Rope and baling wire, maintained by grad students who have much more pressing things to think about, and "technically superior" depends on what you measure. I managed to get snotty without meaning to.
>IANAL, but I am a law student studying IP law and I know a thing or two about fair use.
Then you know he has a strong argument that it's academic fair use to begin with... and thus, would have a strong defense in a hearing about copyright infringement... but has little or nothing to compel YouTube to take any risk in order to not remove his videos, which I believe they can do for any reason (or none.) Even if he prevailed against the copyright holders, he really doesn't have any cards to play in terms of YouTube.
Yes, and every year, doesn't the number of Linux users approximately double?
>I'd love to see it actually happen.
I've never seen it *not* happen, except possibly during a lull around 93-94. Not since. Lots and lots of people adopt Linux, and yes, they use it on desktops, laptops, you name it.
The problem with articles like this one, is they seem to come from a point of view that Linux is still on a fringe. That's because of what they are comparing it to. Comparing anything to Windows is silly. Like comparing recumbent bicycles to Television. Like comparing hybrid fuel vehicles to the post office. Why would you make such a comparison in the first place? What point could you be trying to make?
Linux filled an evolutionary niche, one that nothing else actually managed to fit well. Windows filled a *different* niche.
The question to me is, "Has Linux filled its niche more effectively than Windows has filled that niche?)
In all seriousness, they may be more stable in VMWare than in native Windows. Rationale? You can tune a VMWare instance to a much greater degree for a given application, and tune it differently for another application. If you are happy running all these applications natively on a regular host, then more power to you. You chose your applications and you chose your OS based on those applications -- as it should be.
What I find really surprising is how quickly finance changed computing platforms, and that now finance folks seem to think that platform is immutable now.
I'll refrain from getting snotty and asking where the desktop equivalents are of the stuff that runs on the IA-64 cluster at SDSC. (People in my research group are modeling dam stress as part of a flood warning system, so my finger is kind of on that pulse right at the moment, sort of a scary time.)
If there is any kind of contractual situation, explicitly signed or implicit in state or local law, and there is as much of this stuff going on as people claim -- it could be argued that it's an institutional policy because the level of management who knew or should have known what was happening, refused, or tried and failed to correct the problem.
In theory, people can go to jail for that, and companies can be fined into bankruptcy because of it.
"I wound up choosing Struts 2 just because it seemed the most flexible, being able to incorporate other frameworks within it."
I didn't mean to sound hostile to Struts; I use it also. I find that some projects are made more complex, unnecessarily complex, as a consequence of the complexity of tools that are used. I regard java frameworks as just another class of tool It occurs to me that great swaths of the common framework capabilities go unused in a given project. I strive for simplicity, introducing a library or a protocol or a container-provided service as needed.
I find the need for anything beyond implementations of JPA, JMS, JSF, a limited number of implementations from various well-known Jakarta projects, are rather rarely needed and no big deal to introduce when they are.
I also find that when you start out with a big framework (JBoss SEAM comes to mind at the moment), right from the beginning you risk running into a situation where you are provided with an implementation of some fundamental service, are painted into the corner of that specific implementation and version, and *because* of the fact that it's part of the framework, you can't easily swap in another implementation of that service.
I can understand a different point of view on this -- disdain for what is a moving target on the fringe of an emerging technology. If you want to go THERE, I would open by suggesting that it may be too soon to start using Java in a real project:-)
I will now resist making a car analogy and get back to work.
>Can you really say it's the best tool for the job?
Yes, because it is my call. At another juncture, for another job, I may say a different tool is "best", and at that time I will again thank the stars in space that there are, as you say, "too many frameworks."
Why should it be up to you to decide how many is "too many?"
The way I see it, the industry is still just getting off its feet, and we are just now beginning to get past the risks of failure to monoculture. Here you are, essentially, advocating monoculture.
>As for the "lack of discipline," I really don't think we can fault developers. Deciding on a framework should be >the job of an architect.
In the field, when I've *had* architects dedicated to that role, they have often been so far removed from most projects that they might as well not have existed, and had it been a requirement that architects be consulted, most projects would never have been developed at all -- and at least one company would have failed because of it. In other experience, I've had total budgets too tight to even hire interns, yet work had to be done and software had to be designed.
I've worked in large systems and small, large corporations and single developer projects, and granted, I've spent more time in research where the science gets the budget and the software development is adjunct to the science. I guarantee if I went to my PI and suggested that I need to stop making design decisions because we need a full-time architect, he'd look at me as if I had grown nine heads, and most likely ask me if I wanted to change my job title to "architect".
I suspect from your comments that you are, no offense, an individual in a very large, very formally managed organization. That environment creates its own risks and unique conditions that must be dealt with in certain ways, and perhaps it is correct in your current experience that certain levels of design decisions be made by people in specific roles, and instituted in a rigid top-down fashion.
Anyway, if you can make a genuine case for the notion that there are "too many choices" and that these choices cause a net loss in productivity or some other measure, I would listen, but you'd know going in that I think it's preposterous.
Sounds just like ASCAP for the US. However, you have to pay for original music? This kind of contract would not be enforceable in the US because any government interference could be defended on First Amendment grounds. ASCAP provides a prior defense for artists to play cover songs, so that live bands can play popular music without needing to get individual permission from copyright holders. Many venues in the US -- that is, any live music venue that intends to stay in business -- pay ASCAP fees, even if every artist that takes their stage plays 100% original music.
In the US, your right to play original music cannot be abridged directly by any government, and no attempt by a private party to abridge this right would be supported by any judicial ruling (in theory, corruption and incompetence aside).
It bothers me greatly whenever I hear something like this from a place that I have always believed to be, essentially, a utopian ideal of a place with liberal, functional government that serves the ideals of free people. And then I read a post like yours and Belgium becomes a place that in one very important sense, is a form of tyranny, worse for its people on a fundamental premise (free expression) than even the USA.
>You are definitely right that there are too many frameworks:).
Nonsense. There are too many people who lack the discipline to choose tools and stick to them for a project scope.
I've abandoned Struts and also EJB except for JPA, and I've grown quite fond of the combination of JSF (MyFaces + Tomahawk) bundled with the Hibernate flavor JPA.
Most other "frameworky" things have become redundant or obsolete. Once I got my head around JSF (not a small task, admittedly), I just started doing work with it. It worked and it helped me complete projects, which are for me the Alpha and Omega of whether a "framework" type of thing gets adopted.
Now that JSF and JPA are Java standards, it's not even a hard sell when bringing others into my workflow.
>A president disconnected from his intelligence department is far worse than facing bipartisanship in *every other >branch of government*.
I would not be so sure he's as disconnected as you might think. It could be the people YOU hear from in the "CIA", a perfunctory figurehead "Head", and administrative ruperts who talk to the press might not be the people *actually* in charge... Those folks might not even *know* about the *real* intel agency. The whole "CIA" might be a cover story from top to bottom.
Easy to say. A little harder to actually put a case together that will persuade Congress. What passes for a foregone conclusion in a political forum or talk show, falls on its face when you really need to make a genuine legal argument with evidence and valid premises.
The people who would have to make the case, have seen this and realized it's not workable, not really, not to the degree that the people who see red when they hear the name Bush seem to have convinced themselves.
Politically, Bush is his own worst enemy.
But a criminal case? As much as people claim it's an open and shut case, none of the arguments serve to the degree that would be required. There are a few questions that might take the form of such an argument, depending on the answers, but those questions cannot yet be answered. This secrecy and obfuscation alone, like it or not, cannot legitimately be brought to the table as "high crimes and misdemeanors" in and of themselves. If Congress tried this today, the case would drag on through next year, and lead to acquittal. The people who need to understand that, do, and that's exactly why there's been no serious movement toward impeachment, despite a widespread public view that it would be a simple matter, that the crimes are plainly obvious, etc.
>> Yes but where is he given the power to commute?
>The same sentence that gives him the power to pardon:
>> he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States,
The doctrine of Executive Clemency is well established. The President's authority here stands on precedent as roundly in support as probably any other clause in the Constitution, at least as far as federal criminal sentences are concerned. If he has the power to grant "Reprieves and Pardons", then by more than one legal doctrine, he also has the power to grant a commutation of sentence, remission of fine or restitution, and reprieve.
What's controversial today is not the process, or the privilege, but the timimg and the proximity of the case to officials in the administration, especially the Vice President. It is obvious that Bush had the order written before the court even ruled.
Look at it this way: The Bush administration has routinely and consistently held itself to be above the law, not subject to any meaningful scrutiny, and generally hostile to any suggestion that it do otherwise. That's nothing new and surprises no one. But the more they act, the more public the acts, the more outrageous they seem, the better for not only the opposition movement to the Bush administration, but also, for the political opponents of the Republican Party in coming campaigns.
It's better that Bush continue to behave in a manner that is perceived as consistent with that of insane kings of bygone eras, than if he were to suddenly appear reasonable. He is the best campaign message against his own party! NOTHING the opposition party could possibly do, will resonate better than the general perception that Bush himself clearly considers the executive administration to be above the rule of law and beyond the reach of any consequences of its actions.
What's more, the next President, being of any party, will need to do nothing more than cite Bush doctrine when making policy. Bush has set the stage for the next President, likely a polar opposite of his own party, to adopt the kind of policies Bush has created, and to wield the very same authoritarian control that Bush has set aside into the office of the Chief Executive during his term. He clearly has not considered what will happen when that same power is used for different purposes.
Thanks for proofreading your rant. Nothing is more embarrassing than to correct someone on grammar, while making an equivalent error in your correction.
Slashdot Mirror
>Beginner users don't use RAID, thanks for playing. ;)
Some do. Some beggining users are getting into computers because they have digital cameras, digital video, or are doing audio recording. While relatively few are using linux in their first computing experience, they certainly do start out with extreme storage requirements, and many do indeed need RAID solutions at least for disk aggregation.
I wonder why you'd get into such a discussion at work. But then, your work environment would be a pretty alien place (I work in informatics with a bunch of university professors...)
Beside the point though. Man didn't "evolve from apes."
Man and Ape have a common ancestor, and the divergence was very, very long ago - probably 8 million years ago.
Phylogenists do not put forth the claim that "man evolved from apes."
Hey I went to Catholic school too -- an abbey school staffed by Cistercian monks who were among the last people to leave Hungary before the Russians took over. It was at this school, in a science course taught by a Hungarian Catholic monk, that I first heard the details of evolution explained in a proper way with respect to the prevailing theories and the scientific method.
>50% of the population has above-average intelligence.
That might make a good bumper sticker, but it's not a realistic or reasonable way of looking at the curve.
>Now it's just a bunch of faux-lawyers gumming up the works
There *are* some real lawyers gumming up the works as well.
Be sure to count all those people who make use of television and web weather reports. If they use data from NOAA, USGS, or services like the streamflow/stormwater data from NWIS, or if they use data modeling service from SDSC or NCSA, they are linux users...
When guitars are outlawed only outlaws will have guitars. Some coffee shop patrons will welcome this.
>Virtual teams have changed how management works.
If you let them. You can still check your email twice a day. It won't bankrupt the company and cost you your job. You don't have to apologize for it. It's terribly inefficient to monitor email constantly. Counterproductive. I've studied this, and might actually do a journal article on the topic.
Wes, you're young and passionate, you put together really good training materials, and I really didn't mean to come across as adversarial.
"The more sophisticated software you are running is probably more appropriate on a technically superior system."
Rope and baling wire, maintained by grad students who have much more pressing things to think about, and "technically superior" depends on what you measure. I managed to get snotty without meaning to.
"In both US (whether the RIAA thinks so or not) and Sweden, a tracker is not illegal."
Bird-dogging. People have been convicted of drug dealing because they told people where to find the dope house.
>IANAL, but I am a law student studying IP law and I know a thing or two about fair use.
Then you know he has a strong argument that it's academic fair use to begin with... and thus, would have a strong defense in a hearing about copyright infringement... but has little or nothing to compel YouTube to take any risk in order to not remove his videos, which I believe they can do for any reason (or none.) Even if he prevailed against the copyright holders, he really doesn't have any cards to play in terms of YouTube.
>Haven't they said this every year?
Yes, and every year, doesn't the number of Linux users approximately double?
>I'd love to see it actually happen.
I've never seen it *not* happen, except possibly during a lull around 93-94. Not since. Lots and lots of people adopt Linux, and yes, they use it on desktops, laptops, you name it.
The problem with articles like this one, is they seem to come from a point of view that Linux is still on a fringe. That's because of what they are comparing it to. Comparing anything to Windows is silly. Like comparing recumbent bicycles to Television. Like comparing hybrid fuel vehicles to the post office. Why would you make such a comparison in the first place? What point could you be trying to make?
Linux filled an evolutionary niche, one that nothing else actually managed to fit well. Windows filled a *different* niche.
The question to me is, "Has Linux filled its niche more effectively than Windows has filled that niche?)
>am I supposed to run all of this with WINE?
In all seriousness, they may be more stable in VMWare than in native Windows. Rationale? You can tune a VMWare instance to a much greater degree for a given application, and tune it differently for another application. If you are happy running all these applications natively on a regular host, then more power to you. You chose your applications and you chose your OS based on those applications -- as it should be.
What I find really surprising is how quickly finance changed computing platforms, and that now finance folks seem to think that platform is immutable now.
I'll refrain from getting snotty and asking where the desktop equivalents are of the stuff that runs on the IA-64 cluster at SDSC. (People in my research group are modeling dam stress as part of a flood warning system, so my finger is kind of on that pulse right at the moment, sort of a scary time.)
>Honestly I don't see what the big deal is.
If there is any kind of contractual situation, explicitly signed or implicit in state or local law, and there is as much of this stuff going on as people claim -- it could be argued that it's an institutional policy because the level of management who knew or should have known what was happening, refused, or tried and failed to correct the problem.
In theory, people can go to jail for that, and companies can be fined into bankruptcy because of it.
The Chinese stuff you get in Europe and the US, etc., is different than the Chinese stuff you get in Africa.
There are degrees to "quality."
>If it cost $50 to make in the US and $20 to make in China, the product would have a $30 tariff on it.
That model doesn't work either. Please take an economics course before you hold up something like this as an ideal utopian plan.
"I wound up choosing Struts 2 just because it seemed the most flexible, being able to incorporate other frameworks within it."
:-)
I didn't mean to sound hostile to Struts; I use it also. I find that some projects are made more complex, unnecessarily complex, as a consequence of the complexity of tools that are used. I regard java frameworks as just another class of tool It occurs to me that great swaths of the common framework capabilities go unused in a given project. I strive for simplicity, introducing a library or a protocol or a container-provided service as needed.
I find the need for anything beyond implementations of JPA, JMS, JSF, a limited number of implementations from various well-known Jakarta projects, are rather rarely needed and no big deal to introduce when they are.
I also find that when you start out with a big framework (JBoss SEAM comes to mind at the moment), right from the beginning you risk running into a situation where you are provided with an implementation of some fundamental service, are painted into the corner of that specific implementation and version, and *because* of the fact that it's part of the framework, you can't easily swap in another implementation of that service.
I can understand a different point of view on this -- disdain for what is a moving target on the fringe of an emerging technology. If you want to go THERE, I would open by suggesting that it may be too soon to start using Java in a real project
I will now resist making a car analogy and get back to work.
>Can you really say it's the best tool for the job?
Yes, because it is my call. At another juncture, for another job, I may say a different tool is "best", and at that time I will again thank the stars in space that there are, as you say, "too many frameworks."
Why should it be up to you to decide how many is "too many?"
The way I see it, the industry is still just getting off its feet, and we are just now beginning to get past the risks of failure to monoculture. Here you are, essentially, advocating monoculture.
>As for the "lack of discipline," I really don't think we can fault developers. Deciding on a framework should be
>the job of an architect.
In the field, when I've *had* architects dedicated to that role, they have often been so far removed from most projects that they might as well not have existed, and had it been a requirement that architects be consulted, most projects would never have been developed at all -- and at least one company would have failed because of it. In other experience, I've had total budgets too tight to even hire interns, yet work had to be done and software had to be designed.
I've worked in large systems and small, large corporations and single developer projects, and granted, I've spent more time in research where the science gets the budget and the software development is adjunct to the science. I guarantee if I went to my PI and suggested that I need to stop making design decisions because we need a full-time architect, he'd look at me as if I had grown nine heads, and most likely ask me if I wanted to change my job title to "architect".
I suspect from your comments that you are, no offense, an individual in a very large, very formally managed organization. That environment creates its own risks and unique conditions that must be dealt with in certain ways, and perhaps it is correct in your current experience that certain levels of design decisions be made by people in specific roles, and instituted in a rigid top-down fashion.
Anyway, if you can make a genuine case for the notion that there are "too many choices" and that these choices cause a net loss in productivity or some other measure, I would listen, but you'd know going in that I think it's preposterous.
Sounds just like ASCAP for the US. However, you have to pay for original music? This kind of contract would not be enforceable in the US because any government interference could be defended on First Amendment grounds. ASCAP provides a prior defense for artists to play cover songs, so that live bands can play popular music without needing to get individual permission from copyright holders. Many venues in the US -- that is, any live music venue that intends to stay in business -- pay ASCAP fees, even if every artist that takes their stage plays 100% original music.
In the US, your right to play original music cannot be abridged directly by any government, and no attempt by a private party to abridge this right would be supported by any judicial ruling (in theory, corruption and incompetence aside).
It bothers me greatly whenever I hear something like this from a place that I have always believed to be, essentially, a utopian ideal of a place with liberal, functional government that serves the ideals of free people. And then I read a post like yours and Belgium becomes a place that in one very important sense, is a form of tyranny, worse for its people on a fundamental premise (free expression) than even the USA.
>You are definitely right that there are too many frameworks
Nonsense. There are too many people who lack the discipline to choose tools and stick to them for a project scope.
I've abandoned Struts and also EJB except for JPA, and I've grown quite fond of the combination of JSF (MyFaces + Tomahawk) bundled with the Hibernate flavor JPA.
Most other "frameworky" things have become redundant or obsolete. Once I got my head around JSF (not a small task, admittedly), I just started doing work with it. It worked and it helped me complete projects, which are for me the Alpha and Omega of whether a "framework" type of thing gets adopted.
Now that JSF and JPA are Java standards, it's not even a hard sell when bringing others into my workflow.
>Why should a virtual not be beholden to the laws of a specific nation?
So if somebody sells virtual drugs in a virtual game, should he go to brick&mortar jail?
>A president disconnected from his intelligence department is far worse than facing bipartisanship in *every other
>branch of government*.
I would not be so sure he's as disconnected as you might think. It could be the people YOU hear from in the "CIA", a perfunctory figurehead "Head", and administrative ruperts who talk to the press might not be the people *actually* in charge... Those folks might not even *know* about the *real* intel agency. The whole "CIA" might be a cover story from top to bottom.
Easy to say. A little harder to actually put a case together that will persuade Congress. What passes for a foregone conclusion in a political forum or talk show, falls on its face when you really need to make a genuine legal argument with evidence and valid premises.
The people who would have to make the case, have seen this and realized it's not workable, not really, not to the degree that the people who see red when they hear the name Bush seem to have convinced themselves.
Politically, Bush is his own worst enemy.
But a criminal case? As much as people claim it's an open and shut case, none of the arguments serve to the degree that would be required. There are a few questions that might take the form of such an argument, depending on the answers, but those questions cannot yet be answered. This secrecy and obfuscation alone, like it or not, cannot legitimately be brought to the table as "high crimes and misdemeanors" in and of themselves. If Congress tried this today, the case would drag on through next year, and lead to acquittal. The people who need to understand that, do, and that's exactly why there's been no serious movement toward impeachment, despite a widespread public view that it would be a simple matter, that the crimes are plainly obvious, etc.
>Yup, Bush should have commuted Paris' sentence as well.
Bush can only affect Federal criminal sentences.
>> Yes but where is he given the power to commute?
>The same sentence that gives him the power to pardon:
>> he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States,
The doctrine of Executive Clemency is well established. The President's authority here stands on precedent as roundly in support as probably any other clause in the Constitution, at least as far as federal criminal sentences are concerned. If he has the power to grant "Reprieves and Pardons", then by more than one legal doctrine, he also has the power to grant a commutation of sentence, remission of fine or restitution, and reprieve.
What's controversial today is not the process, or the privilege, but the timimg and the proximity of the case to officials in the administration, especially the Vice President. It is obvious that Bush had the order written before the court even ruled.
Look at it this way: The Bush administration has routinely and consistently held itself to be above the law, not subject to any meaningful scrutiny, and generally hostile to any suggestion that it do otherwise. That's nothing new and surprises no one. But the more they act, the more public the acts, the more outrageous they seem, the better for not only the opposition movement to the Bush administration, but also, for the political opponents of the Republican Party in coming campaigns.
It's better that Bush continue to behave in a manner that is perceived as consistent with that of insane kings of bygone eras, than if he were to suddenly appear reasonable. He is the best campaign message against his own party!
NOTHING the opposition party could possibly do, will resonate better than the general perception that Bush himself clearly considers the executive administration to be above the rule of law and beyond the reach of any consequences of its actions.
What's more, the next President, being of any party, will need to do nothing more than cite Bush doctrine when making policy. Bush has set the stage for the next President, likely a polar opposite of his own party, to adopt the kind of policies Bush has created, and to wield the very same authoritarian control that Bush has set aside into the office of the Chief Executive during his term. He clearly has not considered what will happen when that same power is used for different purposes.
Thanks for proofreading your rant. Nothing is more embarrassing than to correct someone on grammar, while making an equivalent error in your correction.