The same thing that happened when you pissed off USENET, also known as the newsgrouposphere.
Nope. Thats wrong. Usenet is web1.0 tech, and therefore cannot have cool(?) meaningless buzzwords attached to it or formed as a derivative of its name. I mean, if we did that with everything we'd have tripe like:
synemailergy
www.licious
gopherjax
ftperpetual beta
httpickr
I mean, really, if we let everyone into the web2.0 club then it will completely lose meaning.
(next thing you know, they'll be posting articles here about how the Xbox 360 is powered by DEAD KITTENS...)
Now that is just silly, PETA would be all over them for this. Microsoft instead makes the system about six months in advance with a fully healthy live kitten, seals the whole deal up, and lets quantum physics take care of the argument as to if the kitt^H^H^H^H xbox power source is alive or dead.
How much better than Google does MS Search have to be to start pulling over users from Google? Does MS have any new technology that Google don't have access to? I don't think so.
They don't need to be better at search. They can settle for "about as good" at search and work on integration. It is what any smart business will do, leverage their existing product line to help out the new one.
Huh. How can their success be greater when the iTunes Music Store has a 85% market share?
The hint is that he is talking about Apple's success, not just itunes. If you compare them to Apple, Microsoft is a giant. Sure they are not competing with iTunes, but look at things like desktop system marketshare (corporate or home) and document editing products (office). No, they can't beat itunes in online music distribution, but then again it is kind of small fish, and itunes is only successful because it works on windows anyways.
I do not think Microsoft can beat Google with their current way of doing things. Unless Microsoft changes fast, it won't be here in 10 years.
They will change fast. They are like pretty much all of the money hungry individuals I have ever met. Anything that jeapordizes (or could jeapordize) the revenue stream first recieves violent backlash, then failing that is fought as intelligently as possible. Do not underestimate the motivation or capabilities of greedy people (or corporations) when their money is threatened.
This is where I see microsoft being able to get an advantage. Remember, regardless of any monopoly considerations microsoft's other tactic is to go after the developers.
I could easily see them coming up with a high developed useful api to their search system/appliances. They could easily integrate the whole deal into practically everything they make. Imagine an active-directory aware exchange/sharepoint/office integrated search appliance running on an api built into visual studio.
Do I think they can actually beat google in search, no. Google gets too much in the way of ad revenue based on being the best search engine (and thus the de-facto standard). At the same time I don't think they need to beat google in search. All they have to do is adequate search and product integration. This is a big deal, and will probably be a much bigger fight for google than most people here on slashdot expect.
There are too many selling points for this to think that the only way to attack it is "beat google at search results".
(Of course, I really don't have an explanation for the 2nd Matrix,
They made a bunch of money and tried to rush a half developed concept in order to get more
and have no idea what happened in the 3rd).
The trick for the second matrix worked, so they went from a half developed concept to no concept whatsoever, and tacket some cheesy philosophical stuff at the end when they realized they had really just made Jesus with guns and kung fu.
People really could stand to take better care of their stuff. I've had a 4G iPod for more than a year now, and there are hardly any scratches on it at all. It's simply a matter of being responsible and not tossing your precious electronic devices into a pile of nails and scorpions.
Yeah, but then that completely stops the following scenario:
rabidAppleFan: Dude, the iPod nano is like, the best thing since sliced bread, and Jesus. In fact I am pretty sure if you genetically engineered a sliced-bread-and-jesus organism it would come out as an nano.
CptScorpid: Yeah, but I bet your nano can't beat my highly trained attack scorpion in a cage match in the Super-Mega-Rusty-Nail-Thunderdome(TM).
rabidAppleFan: Oh yeah, bring it on.
I mean, would you like to live in a world where events like this are made impossible? I for one, vote for a more scratch resistant nano that can successfully defeat trained attack scorpions.
... Have anything better to worry about? I mean, we jump when our MP3 players scratch, but major issues like voting, the environment, and the homeless are all just glossed over as something too complicated to worry about, or not worth the effort. I am not trying to flame anyone in particular, since if, indeed Apple produced a shoddy practice they should be held accountable. SOmetimes, I just feel as if people don't realize there is more to life then a little piece of plastic and silicon.
Hey, if I payed $200 for a homeless guy and he scratched more easily than the more expensive, fatter model, I would be upset about that too.
Except I am not. I explicitly mentioned that you can use the type command in a batch file to get that done. My point in all this (which probably was not made as clearly as possible) is that to match what is available in a linux command line shell script you have to use wsh.
And if you really need to do it inside a script, then you simply write yourself a function to do this, and stick it your script library. Then its done once, and you just re-use it.
Done that, have a whole slew of this crap that I made to ensure I never needed to make it again. Mine is in Javascript (or Jscript or ECMAScript or whatever the hell microsoft wants to call it today) but it looks about the same.
I am starting to realize that I did not make my first point clearly. What I was getting at is that having to use a scripting system for anything more complex than "print the contents of this file" is absurd. This should be available from strait command line for one time use. I should not need to make a script to grab lines containing specified text from a file. I should be able to use already made tools to type in a couple of commands and get that information.
Maybe the problem here is that I do not know enough about the windows command line. I might just be complaining about my own ignorance here, but from what I have seen up to a certain point doing anything aside from super basic tasks (write contents of file to screen) or complex tasks (requiring true programmatic interaction with items) is simply too much effort on windows.
If you ever get the chance to look at it the windows scripting host is a pretty decent system for accessing windows components... relative to getting your info from the gui... as interpreted by a five year old with attention problems.
The problem I have with it is there are too many steps to do anything. For instance, to put the contents of a text file strait out to the screen would require the following steps:
Bind a variable to an instance of an ActiveX Control (of all things), to access the filesystem.
(optional) Define a constant for the kind of file access you are attempting (read, write, etc)
Call the opentextfile method of your filesystem object with the location of the file and the file access constant (if you needed it)
call the readall method of the textfile variable and store that in another variable.
call WScript.Echo to print out the contents of the file
So that is four (five if you need to do anything besides read the file) steps to write the contents of a file. Compare that with the bash equivalent:
cat filename
I use the windows scripting host as an example here (instead of a batch file and the type command) because in order to get a lot done with the file you need wsh. Five steps, four new variables, and an activex control are a rediculous amount of effort to do something this simple.
Hopefully the new windows shell will fix this kind of sillyness, until then I will pretty much always hate windows scripting.
There's nothing more pathetic than apps trying to emulate the look of physical appliances, like all DVD-players do for instance. It's like some idiotic idea that just won't go away, no matter how truly stupid and fugly it is.
The logic (valid or not) is that "grandma understands (mostly) how to work her dvd player. If we make the dvd software look like a dvd player her knowledge transfers." Granted what she probably knows is right-pointing-arrow means play, red square means stop, and up arrow with a bar underneath means eject, but it still sort of works.
The problem here is that the experience of working with it does not transfer. Her dvd player does not pop up a dialog box when she hits the eject button, it ejects the disk. There is no concept of less-than-full-screen display to a dvd player. Trying to minimalize your interface to make it resemble a dvd player makes roughly half of it intelligible to someone with limited computer experience. This gives you a program that only makes sense to them half the time, which leads to the conclusion that the other half should work "just like my dvd player", not that the whole piece should work like SOFTWARE.
Sorry for the rant, but sometimes I wonder if the people who come up with this stuff think about what they are doing, then I realize that they work in the same kind of places I have, and know that they don't.
It just shows how far from grokkin' the source they both are. Neither Oracle or Sun need to buy ANYTHING; if either one would simply hire a dozen decent code jocks and turn them loose on the existing open-source code base(s), donating every frikkin' line of new and/or improved code back to the project(s), they'd be the acknowleged masters of OSS database within 2 years, and every Fortune-100 wannabe would be begging to give them money in exchange for support and peace of mind. At just about a half-mil a year, it would be a bargain.
You are kidding here, right? I mean, OSS is great, and as a means of generating better version of/good alternatives to products that help sell your product it is a great idea for business. Becoming the "masters of open source databases" does not help oracle because oracle sells databases. For them the true return on investments from open source software comes from products that either depend on oracle's software or make the software oracle uses work better. If it does not make your software inherently better or inherently required it is NOT a decent business investment.
Really, what this shows is not how far from "grokkin' the source" a company is, it shows how far from understanding business some open source advocates are.
There is always the possibility that scotty, being the only person on the ship with a good deal of engineering/materials experience, knew that the guy he was giving it to was supposed to invent transparent alumin(i)um in a few weeks/months. I think he actually made a reference to this in the movie. Really I think what we are seeing is not illogical mucking around with the space-time continuum, but a not-so-well-orchestrated attempt at suggesting that mucking around with the space-time continuum was necessary to get the invention in the first place.
True that. You can't bring up anything related to web apps without some rails drone coming out an spewing how wonderful rails is and that if jesus were a programmer, that's what he'd be using./yawn
Which, as we all know, is an outright lie. If jesus were a programmer he would write a lisp routine so advanced that A) only god could actually understand it, and B) he would just have to think about a website for it to be written.
After all, if I were jesus, that is what I would do.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. Thats wrong. Usenet is web1.0 tech, and therefore cannot have cool(?) meaningless buzzwords attached to it or formed as a derivative of its name. I mean, if we did that with everything we'd have tripe like:
Oh, wait...
No, but I have heard that in the wake of his first chair flinging stint a petition was made to replace his current chairs with bean bags.
Microsoft should be declaring bankruptcy any moment, now, give me karma.
Now that is just silly, PETA would be all over them for this. Microsoft instead makes the system about six months in advance with a fully healthy live kitten, seals the whole deal up, and lets quantum physics take care of the argument as to if the kitt^H^H^H^H xbox power source is alive or dead.
They don't need to be better at search. They can settle for "about as good" at search and work on integration. It is what any smart business will do, leverage their existing product line to help out the new one.
Huh. How can their success be greater when the iTunes Music Store has a 85% market share?
The hint is that he is talking about Apple's success, not just itunes. If you compare them to Apple, Microsoft is a giant. Sure they are not competing with iTunes, but look at things like desktop system marketshare (corporate or home) and document editing products (office). No, they can't beat itunes in online music distribution, but then again it is kind of small fish, and itunes is only successful because it works on windows anyways.
They will change fast. They are like pretty much all of the money hungry individuals I have ever met. Anything that jeapordizes (or could jeapordize) the revenue stream first recieves violent backlash, then failing that is fought as intelligently as possible. Do not underestimate the motivation or capabilities of greedy people (or corporations) when their money is threatened.
Its called a profanity driven interface, and yes, I have filed a patent for it.
Exactly.
This is where I see microsoft being able to get an advantage. Remember, regardless of any monopoly considerations microsoft's other tactic is to go after the developers.
I could easily see them coming up with a high developed useful api to their search system/appliances. They could easily integrate the whole deal into practically everything they make. Imagine an active-directory aware exchange/sharepoint/office integrated search appliance running on an api built into visual studio.
Do I think they can actually beat google in search, no. Google gets too much in the way of ad revenue based on being the best search engine (and thus the de-facto standard). At the same time I don't think they need to beat google in search. All they have to do is adequate search and product integration. This is a big deal, and will probably be a much bigger fight for google than most people here on slashdot expect.
There are too many selling points for this to think that the only way to attack it is "beat google at search results".
They made a bunch of money and tried to rush a half developed concept in order to get more
and have no idea what happened in the 3rd).
The trick for the second matrix worked, so they went from a half developed concept to no concept whatsoever, and tacket some cheesy philosophical stuff at the end when they realized they had really just made Jesus with guns and kung fu.
Now, the true question is, are you wasting more brain cells reading what I say about dvorak or what he says about anything?
Hah, and at this point you have a -1 overrated.
I really try to think that I am not strictly smarter than most people, but I have had so many prove me wrong...
Yeah, but then that completely stops the following scenario:
rabidAppleFan: Dude, the iPod nano is like, the best thing since sliced bread, and Jesus. In fact I am pretty sure if you genetically engineered a sliced-bread-and-jesus organism it would come out as an nano.
CptScorpid: Yeah, but I bet your nano can't beat my highly trained attack scorpion in a cage match in the Super-Mega-Rusty-Nail-Thunderdome(TM). rabidAppleFan: Oh yeah, bring it on.
I mean, would you like to live in a world where events like this are made impossible? I for one, vote for a more scratch resistant nano that can successfully defeat trained attack scorpions.
Hey, if I payed $200 for a homeless guy and he scratched more easily than the more expensive, fatter model, I would be upset about that too.
Except I am not. I explicitly mentioned that you can use the type command in a batch file to get that done. My point in all this (which probably was not made as clearly as possible) is that to match what is available in a linux command line shell script you have to use wsh.
And if you really need to do it inside a script, then you simply write yourself a function to do this, and stick it your script library. Then its done once, and you just re-use it.
Done that, have a whole slew of this crap that I made to ensure I never needed to make it again. Mine is in Javascript (or Jscript or ECMAScript or whatever the hell microsoft wants to call it today) but it looks about the same.
I am starting to realize that I did not make my first point clearly. What I was getting at is that having to use a scripting system for anything more complex than "print the contents of this file" is absurd. This should be available from strait command line for one time use. I should not need to make a script to grab lines containing specified text from a file. I should be able to use already made tools to type in a couple of commands and get that information.
Maybe the problem here is that I do not know enough about the windows command line. I might just be complaining about my own ignorance here, but from what I have seen up to a certain point doing anything aside from super basic tasks (write contents of file to screen) or complex tasks (requiring true programmatic interaction with items) is simply too much effort on windows.
synergy?
Actually I wonder if this could be posted as a modification of Greenspun's Tenth Rule. Which (blatantly stolen from wikipedia) states:
Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.
For some reason i am pretty sure that the adjectives used here will (mostly) apply to microsoft's "reinvention of unix"
The problem I have with it is there are too many steps to do anything. For instance, to put the contents of a text file strait out to the screen would require the following steps:
So that is four (five if you need to do anything besides read the file) steps to write the contents of a file. Compare that with the bash equivalent:
cat filename
I use the windows scripting host as an example here (instead of a batch file and the type command) because in order to get a lot done with the file you need wsh. Five steps, four new variables, and an activex control are a rediculous amount of effort to do something this simple.
Hopefully the new windows shell will fix this kind of sillyness, until then I will pretty much always hate windows scripting.
The logic (valid or not) is that "grandma understands (mostly) how to work her dvd player. If we make the dvd software look like a dvd player her knowledge transfers." Granted what she probably knows is right-pointing-arrow means play, red square means stop, and up arrow with a bar underneath means eject, but it still sort of works.
The problem here is that the experience of working with it does not transfer. Her dvd player does not pop up a dialog box when she hits the eject button, it ejects the disk. There is no concept of less-than-full-screen display to a dvd player. Trying to minimalize your interface to make it resemble a dvd player makes roughly half of it intelligible to someone with limited computer experience. This gives you a program that only makes sense to them half the time, which leads to the conclusion that the other half should work "just like my dvd player", not that the whole piece should work like SOFTWARE.
Sorry for the rant, but sometimes I wonder if the people who come up with this stuff think about what they are doing, then I realize that they work in the same kind of places I have, and know that they don't.
You are kidding here, right? I mean, OSS is great, and as a means of generating better version of/good alternatives to products that help sell your product it is a great idea for business. Becoming the "masters of open source databases" does not help oracle because oracle sells databases. For them the true return on investments from open source software comes from products that either depend on oracle's software or make the software oracle uses work better. If it does not make your software inherently better or inherently required it is NOT a decent business investment.
Really, what this shows is not how far from "grokkin' the source" a company is, it shows how far from understanding business some open source advocates are.
There is always the possibility that scotty, being the only person on the ship with a good deal of engineering/materials experience, knew that the guy he was giving it to was supposed to invent transparent alumin(i)um in a few weeks/months. I think he actually made a reference to this in the movie. Really I think what we are seeing is not illogical mucking around with the space-time continuum, but a not-so-well-orchestrated attempt at suggesting that mucking around with the space-time continuum was necessary to get the invention in the first place.
Ego.
Which, I believe, is also why seemingly 90% of perl code is unreadable. In other words: yeah, well, I can do it in two fewer lines.
That is all fine and good, but you all will have to pay royalties for my proton and electron patents.
Which, as we all know, is an outright lie. If jesus were a programmer he would write a lisp routine so advanced that A) only god could actually understand it, and B) he would just have to think about a website for it to be written.
After all, if I were jesus, that is what I would do.
More like giving people a visual description of what they have stumbled upon.