Frankly, if somebody told me that implementing to OOXML would lock me in to 90% of the world as opposed to being totally free within the 10% Open Office market share I'd rather spend my tax dollars on being accessable to the 90% overwhelmingly vast majority. And then at some point FOSS will implement a OOXML reader/writer anyway. What's the beef here?
In the spirit of open source, screw the MS Office suite. Take the open OOXML standard and write your own office suite.
Normalization is always good for a transactional system.
If you need to flatten the db structure for data mining or reports then take that normalized data and move it to a separate database in a denormalized structure.
Starting out with a de-normalized structure limits the flexability of what you can do later.
I'm glad that MS is not allowing anybody to add libraries and functionality (including bug fixes) to.NET. I don't want.NET to become a bloated pile of libraries like other open source languages have become. When I hire a programmer he doesn't have to figure out all of the cute little ways my company happens to prefer code be written. There are only a limited-but-powerful number of ways of getting the same job done. And that makes code much more readable and maintainable in the near term and long term.
All Java joking aside, MS has done a great job with the architecture of.NET so far. I think they should maintain control for at least a while longer.
The parent has the correct perspective on this whole issue.
Programmers tasked with writing another workflow app or writing another e-commerce website are not going to even think about the dynamics of paralell programming (and don't need to). The developers/engineers builting real-time robotic machinery will have been thinking about this since they were 16 years old.
I agree 100% that the moon offers a lot of value. That's why NASA's plans to reach the moon by 2037 include the first step of returning to the moon by 2020. Sometimes I wish NASA could be tasked with starting programs that bring in revenue (like moon-mining) instead of only spending billions on nothing but interesting science missions.
But as to the question of whether China has caught up to the USA or passed them in the space/moon race? They are just beginning to do what the USA and Russia were doing back in 1969. Private US companies have already put men in space. The USA has space probes that have been operating in space for so long and traveling so fast that they are completely outside solar system. The USA has rovers on Mars that have been operating for over 1300 Martian days. The USA has already landed dozens of men on the moon decades ago.
China's biggest manned space feat so far is keeping 2 men in space for 5 days. The USA and Russia have been doing that several times each year for more than 30 years already. If the USA is in no hurry to get back on the surface of the moon it is likely that they've already been there and now have moved on to more complex and scientifically interesting projects.
I've never understood why reporters brag about how the tu-160 is the heaviest bomber ever created. That's like bragging that a sports car is the heaviest sports car ever created. Weight lowers fuel efficiency and thus reduces speed. The fact is, the B-1 can carry almost 5X the number of bombs compared to the tu-16.
If a company is using software based on Pascal it is obvious that they have zero willingness to change for one reason or another. So what would motivate them to change to a different compiler?
And oh, if they are already using a for-profit Pascal compiler, they've already payed for it. If they haven't payed for it then they are getting good pirated copies and don't intend to pay for it anyway. And if they are starting a new project they will not be choosing Pascal to write it in (even if they can get a free compiler for it).
Only if you already have a server in the NTP pool. And even then, they only get freebies to give away every few months. Then they decide from the applicants who gets them. So your chances are probably pretty slim. The long-timers will get them first.
That being said, it's probably a domain controller and an Exchange server.
I would guess you are 100% corrrect about that. But aren't DCs and email servers a very central part of the infrastructure? If those 2 things are still Windows boxes then I'd say there are 2 large and very critical aspects of their infrastructure that rely on Windows servers.
Any excuse to suck on the Apple nipple is a good one. A $100 refund when I paid +$200 current retail? Being your bee-otch for 2 months before everybody else? It's definately worth it!
and they are definitely testing their boundaries constantly
Who wouldn't?
Who's just going to roll over and die? When somebody lable's you as a monopoly that means that you are an extremely agressive company and doing so well that everybody is scared of you. Why would a company in that situation just give up and let everybody take back their market share? I don't understand why people act surprised that MS would continue to constantly test their boundaries.
and not make fun of this person for asking a question that has nothing to do with our hobby horses. I hope this question has a small number of posts. Only well-meaning and helpful ones.
Fairness regarding any comparison with OSS and Microsoft? You must have forgotten what website this is. MS products are mediocre at best. And even that is being very generous.
Mind you, if there was a half-assed Mac-based IDE in this comparison it would have gotten rave reviews for ease of use. Of course, when it only has 4 features it becomes pretty simple to figure out.
It seems logical that ODF would be used more since it's the non-widely-used (read non-MS Office) software that implements that format. These people must convert to something for others to be able to read it (usually either MS Office format or ODF). MS Office users don't need to convert their docs to anything. Almost everybody can already read Word or Excel documents.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said "standards mode" is a feature that does not work out of the box? Just because it is a mode does not mean it requires it to be set manually.
Would you mind if you had to hire ($$$$) a web dev company to do it?
It would probably be automatic (looks for a specific metadata tag).
Frankly, if somebody told me that implementing to OOXML would lock me in to 90% of the world as opposed to being totally free within the 10% Open Office market share I'd rather spend my tax dollars on being accessable to the 90% overwhelmingly vast majority. And then at some point FOSS will implement a OOXML reader/writer anyway. What's the beef here?
In the spirit of open source, screw the MS Office suite. Take the open OOXML standard and write your own office suite.
Normalization is always good for a transactional system.
If you need to flatten the db structure for data mining or reports then take that normalized data and move it to a separate database in a denormalized structure.
Starting out with a de-normalized structure limits the flexability of what you can do later.
Is "Russian" a race?
Google helped? Rednoize.com helped.
It must be open source so we can figure out it's weaknesses and hack it to pieces.
I'm glad that MS is not allowing anybody to add libraries and functionality (including bug fixes) to .NET. I don't want .NET to become a bloated pile of libraries like other open source languages have become. When I hire a programmer he doesn't have to figure out all of the cute little ways my company happens to prefer code be written. There are only a limited-but-powerful number of ways of getting the same job done. And that makes code much more readable and maintainable in the near term and long term.
.NET so far. I think they should maintain control for at least a while longer.
All Java joking aside, MS has done a great job with the architecture of
The parent has the correct perspective on this whole issue.
Programmers tasked with writing another workflow app or writing another e-commerce website are not going to even think about the dynamics of paralell programming (and don't need to). The developers/engineers builting real-time robotic machinery will have been thinking about this since they were 16 years old.
I agree 100% that the moon offers a lot of value. That's why NASA's plans to reach the moon by 2037 include the first step of returning to the moon by 2020. Sometimes I wish NASA could be tasked with starting programs that bring in revenue (like moon-mining) instead of only spending billions on nothing but interesting science missions.
But as to the question of whether China has caught up to the USA or passed them in the space/moon race? They are just beginning to do what the USA and Russia were doing back in 1969. Private US companies have already put men in space. The USA has space probes that have been operating in space for so long and traveling so fast that they are completely outside solar system. The USA has rovers on Mars that have been operating for over 1300 Martian days. The USA has already landed dozens of men on the moon decades ago.
China's biggest manned space feat so far is keeping 2 men in space for 5 days. The USA and Russia have been doing that several times each year for more than 30 years already. If the USA is in no hurry to get back on the surface of the moon it is likely that they've already been there and now have moved on to more complex and scientifically interesting projects.
Yea, we have no plants that manufacture vacuum tubes anymore. So I guess we're just headed back to the stone age, huh? Great logic.
The USA/NASA is focusing on landing on MARS. The moon? Been there done that . . .
In order to go "back" to somewhere don't you have to have gone there at least once already?
Nobody but the USA has landed on the moon so far. The USA can go back.
Nobody else can go "back." Because they haven't already been there in first place. China can go for the FIRST time. Like USA did almost 4 decades ago.
China is simply telling the whole world, "Look, we're 40 years behind the USA!" Not very impressive IMHO.
I've never understood why reporters brag about how the tu-160 is the heaviest bomber ever created. That's like bragging that a sports car is the heaviest sports car ever created. Weight lowers fuel efficiency and thus reduces speed. The fact is, the B-1 can carry almost 5X the number of bombs compared to the tu-16.
If a company is using software based on Pascal it is obvious that they have zero willingness to change for one reason or another. So what would motivate them to change to a different compiler?
And oh, if they are already using a for-profit Pascal compiler, they've already payed for it. If they haven't payed for it then they are getting good pirated copies and don't intend to pay for it anyway. And if they are starting a new project they will not be choosing Pascal to write it in (even if they can get a free compiler for it).
Only if you already have a server in the NTP pool. And even then, they only get freebies to give away every few months. Then they decide from the applicants who gets them. So your chances are probably pretty slim. The long-timers will get them first.
That being said, it's probably a domain controller and an Exchange server.
I would guess you are 100% corrrect about that. But aren't DCs and email servers a very central part of the infrastructure? If those 2 things are still Windows boxes then I'd say there are 2 large and very critical aspects of their infrastructure that rely on Windows servers.
Any excuse to suck on the Apple nipple is a good one. A $100 refund when I paid +$200 current retail? Being your bee-otch for 2 months before everybody else? It's definately worth it!
I love you long time, Mr. Jobs.
and they are definitely testing their boundaries constantly
Who wouldn't?
Who's just going to roll over and die? When somebody lable's you as a monopoly that means that you are an extremely agressive company and doing so well that everybody is scared of you. Why would a company in that situation just give up and let everybody take back their market share? I don't understand why people act surprised that MS would continue to constantly test their boundaries.
I noticed that immediately and got quite a kick out of it! I've licked postage but not posts. =)
and not make fun of this person for asking a question that has nothing to do with our hobby horses. I hope this question has a small number of posts. Only well-meaning and helpful ones.
Fairness regarding any comparison with OSS and Microsoft? You must have forgotten what website this is. MS products are mediocre at best. And even that is being very generous.
Mind you, if there was a half-assed Mac-based IDE in this comparison it would have gotten rave reviews for ease of use. Of course, when it only has 4 features it becomes pretty simple to figure out.
Flame away. Censor this post into oblivion.
Also, his threat to leave Vista for Linux rings hollow to me...
Maybe he's going to pop up next working for a Linux outfit?
It seems logical that ODF would be used more since it's the non-widely-used (read non-MS Office) software that implements that format. These people must convert to something for others to be able to read it (usually either MS Office format or ODF). MS Office users don't need to convert their docs to anything. Almost everybody can already read Word or Excel documents.
Is this proof that nobody really cares about an open document format?
How does it benefit most people? Not at all. Everybody can already read the MS docs they create since everybody already has MS Office.