Its almost like The Register equates negativity with objectivity. Maybe they don't. Maybe they just enjoy publishing the drivel that comes out of the back end of a camel or a buzzard.
The/. OSS community reaction to this guy's article looks a lot like ranting denial. Everybody should take a deep breath or better yet take a nap before calling this guy any more bad names. OSS isn't going away. Its here to stay and for good reasons. If there were a way to kill OSS Microsoft would have found it. They haven't found a way and it isn't for a lack of effort, genius, or money.
At the same time I think that its unrealistic to push the idea that OSS is or can be all things to all software users and developers. I use and support OSS but I too am concerned that I am faced with a shrinking number of choices. The role of open competition to produce new and innovative products outside of Windows environment is almost completely dead compared to what is going on in the arena of third party Windows applications. There is an incredible amount innovation and competition within the Windows application environment and this results in high quality low priced Windows applications.
I use Linux and OSS because it meets some of my needs better than anything else and because some of my customers leave me no option. I use Microsoft office because all of the competition is dead and there is no option (Open Office doesn't cut it for my needs). I use OS X because it meets some of my needs better than anything else and its worth every penny that I paid for it. I also like the fact that OS X rests on an open source foundation.
While this guy's observations about OSS are based on a limited perspective I see some correspondence with my experience with OSS and non OSS operating systems and applications. There is no opportunity for improvement if every member of the OSS community takes sincere criticism of OSS personally. The fact that Microsoft uses some of the same arguments as this guy doesn't bother me because I can analyze the argument independently of the source. Of course Microsoft will use the best or even true arguments to divert attention away from the real issue which is their monoply.
The only thing that bothers me about this guys criticisms is that he doesn't make them in a constructive way. If he had brought these issues up in a discussion of ways for improving the OSS process it would have spawned a more constructive use of/. Invoking the government isn't a solution because the government has already been bought.
Whiteboards are awesome. When the solution won't come together on the screen or on paper then a whiteboard can be a real hammer. Its a mystery why it works so well but it does.
The last paragraph was not intended to be a slam on Linux. If you are using OS X then use an iPod. If you are using Solaris then I don't know the options for MP3 players.
At least one huge monitor. A second monitor small or large can help but most of my attention is focused on one monitor and I want that one to be big.
I would use some form of UNIX: i.e. Linux/OS X/ Solaris. Of these OS X is my pick because it combines the best of several worlds. In any case I just like UNIX because it was built by programmers for programmers and it shows when you get down to work with an open-ended attitude towards your final solution.
Get the fastest single core processor that you can find. If reliability is a concern get Opteron or Xeon. The other processors are gaming processors, maybe faster but less reliable.
If you want a second processor then just get a system with two fast single core processors. The individual cores of a dual core processor are slower. In any case it is doubtful that your build process will be distributed or threaded so that the second processor is for farting around or staring slack-jawed at your code while you wait for the last build to finish.
A good thing to do with your second processor is to run iTunes. If you are using Linux then get an MP3 player that doubles as disk storage. If you periodically back your work up to your MP3 player and your overheated cpu burns your house down when you go out for a burger then you'll still have your work on because you always wear your tunes when you go out for a burger.
Yeah yeah.
The problem with all that is dealing with the neverending worship and praise from coworkers and superiors. ACM always wanting to do an article on the first real software engineer to actually use formal methods and to market the perfect end product that accounts for the needs of an entire organization. That shite just wears me out.
Compromise a little, use LaTex. You can probably live with the crushing limitations relative to using TeX:-)
And, if there's no other way then use MS Word, its character building (bad pun intended). I'd say that it won't kill you but if you have a lot of equations it might. After about 15 pages of equation intensive stuff you end up using the find function instead of scrolling because it gets so bogged down. It also regularly decides that your equation laden document won't fit on the XX or so gigbytes of free space on your harddrive. It has a long standing bug that causes it to miscalculate the size of some formulas so that no matter how much space you have left on your drive it won't save your document until you remove the offending equation segment. Hilarious, I know. I'd send a document with the problem in it to MS so that they could see the bug but then I can't save the document to send it to them. Chuckle chuckle. Those funny guys at MS have such a great sense of humor. They're worth every hundred dollar bill I send them for their fine products (sarcasm intended). What's really over the top is that people look me straight in the eye and tell me that they never have a problem using Word. Since all my friends are completely honest about anything regarding their computer use (oh dear, more sarcasm, must be past my bedtime) you can probably safely ignore my ranting.
I've started using Publicon by WRI. Interesting product. A little bit beta. If you feel like just saying f&$k the editors then this is something that you might like to dink around with even though you say you don't like WYSIWYG. Given your other proclivities I'd suggest taking Publicon for a spin around a document or two. It also claims to export TeX or LaTeX or both and it uses a bibliography database and a bunch of other nice stuff. It has a Mathematica front end so its a nice outlining tool too. The cell thing takes a little getting used to but I've come to really like it.
It would be interesting to know the hourly rate rather than the salary since we all know that programmers work like sled dogs in a blizzard 12 hours a day for 8 hours of pay.
If you program for a living and are getting reasonable pay and plenty of quality time with your family and friends then you are probably a very lucky person. If this is the case then please tell me where to send my resume.
Its possible to use logic to prove things about a mathematical model but its not possible to prove that a model is an accurate description of the physical world.
A theory about the world might be proven wrong by the very next measurement/experiment. To prove a theory it would be necessary to perform all of the experiments that test every implication of a theory at all times. New measurements can support or disprove a theory but they can never prove it. In going about our day-to-day affairs its convenient to confuse the positive feelings that derive from repeated successful use of a well supported theory with the sense that the theory has been logically proven.
In addition to the unprovability of scientific theories there are additional issues that don't make it into the Jack and Jill stories about science. At any given time there is usally more than one theory that describes/organizes the facts about equally well. When new data comes in some of these theories die, others are generalized, and new ones come onto the stage.
Furthermore, it is both a practical and a cultural issue as to which theory is the dominant or textbook theory at any given time. Any theory that organizes, describes, and predicts enough of the facts with only a few assumptions and simple rules/patterns will be a useful theory. Theories that have to deal with most situations as a special case are the least useful from a scientific and engineering perspective but they can sometimes serve political and other purposes.
Good scientific theories don't explain all the data. They don't have to in order to be useful and some of the measurements are unrepeatable. Good theories explain most of the data with some margin of error that is small enough to make the theory useful.
Often times the implications of the theory are extremely complex when applied to large systems or to systems over long periods of time. Attempting to simulate a living cell starting from string theory with no approximations will take a bigger Beowulf cluster than you can afford.
Scientific theories about the world are just working models that give scientists guidance in making better measurements to form better theories to give better guidance... In the end its about being able to build things that do things that we want done.
Misunderstandings about the notion of proof are common and costly. Galileo wanted to prove to everyone that the planets went around the sun. As I understand it the pope at the time didn't object to Galileo's teaching the solar centric model. What he objected to was that Galileo kept going on and on about proof. The modern debate about Intelligent design has its origins in this same issue. The theory that satisfies religious needs is not the one that satisfies scientific and engineering needs. Maybe if scientists and engineers shut up about proof and started teaching the real process of science then the people who think that their religion has something to do with logical proof of something or other will stop trying to subvert the beneficial scientific process.
Imagine how you'd feel if your boss knew more than you about your job and had to occasionally teach you how to do parts of it. When you disagreed with them you would be SOL because they are the boss and they obviously know more than you and it would be a mistake to press any point to hard because they are in fact your boss. Haven't you ever had to deal with a "superior" boss. Look around, I'm sure that one of your brow beaten friends does. The idea that there is some ideal boss in between those too hells is a statistically insignificant dream.
In the world that you dream about you would be inferiror on all fronts. Not only would your boss be your technical superior but she would be your corporately acknowledged superior. Your posture would acquire a stoop and your sexual preferences would start to meander. You'd be bitchin about how that controlling egomaniac doesn't know as much as they think they do and you'd be constantly arguing that you really do know more than them and you'd be whining about how you'll be gettin a new job any day and then they'll see how stupid they are for treating you this way...
What will clarify this "problem" for you is to work for a boss who knows so much that they know where you should click your mouse next.
You are so lucky to have a boss that you can feel superior too. Maybe your boss isn't so dumb after all.
The boomers that I know, like GenXers, were handed lots of things but they also work like dogs i.e. they handed a lot of things back. There are two cars in many driveways because many families have to have two professionals. After they finally paid off their college loans now they are trying to pay for their kids college educations (handing it to them) and to save for a retirment that is being systematically and repeatedly stolen through a money pump known as the stock market.
Handed jobs for life ? None that I know. I believe that most will retire in poverty. The idea that social security is a significant retirement benefit is laughable. This tale of fat lazy boomers is quite a fabrication and I'm sure that you can dig up an example or two that makes you feel happy about this story. Sounds to me like you just want to blame something on someone and that you have found a socially acceptable prejudice that is disconnected from anything meaningful.
Think about it. Is it a genetic defect and if so why don't the GenXers have it. Is it a psychological defect and if so how did they get it and why don't GenXers have it. If GenXers are somehow superior then where did they get that superiority. Who gave it to them. They didn't just wake up with it one day. If boomers are really so lucky as you see it then it must just be because of the time that they were born. The luck of the draw. You want to hold that against an entire group of people. If enough people think the way that you do then we are headed for a cataclysmic political event that will not serve you or anyone else. Please find a more constructive perspective on life.
Face it. The problems that you think you see are systemic problems and blaming what you call boomers is nowhere. If you are looking to blame something or someone then look at the system that generates situations like the Enron and WorldComm fiascos. If you want to think that its relavant to identify the boomers in those companies that did the harm then that is a distorted point of view that won't get you to the root of the problem. If you have that much personal hostility toward some particular individuals who you happen to identify as boomers then you need to stop and think for a minute or two about how constructive your perspective is.
Blaming any real or imagined predicament faced by the current generation on the boomers is misplaced and grossly prejudicial hostility. Its as bad as racism and sexism only harder to understand because it is based on a hypothesized psychological difference and the perception of the luck of the draw. We need to live in a more rational world if we are going to have a future.
The strong Linux kernal development process is its main lifeline and is essential for its use as a server. The rest of Linux development is too chaotic and unreliable for many to rely on Linux as their primary desktop work horse. You may not agree with their disposition but they do have a point of concern. Something needs to be done about this but I don't know what.
From this guy's experience I think Linux was easier to install 10 years ago. Its such a shame because if Sun ever did get it we would all benefit from having a new player.
Maybe the idea of Sun "getting it" has quietly become an oxymoron. Its so sad to see a once great and innovative company dying of chronic ineptitude. Maybe someone will eventually take pity on them and show one of their marketing people OS X or Linux.
With all of Sun's resources its hard to imagine that they haven't seen what's possible with a UNIX desktop but then you read this article and you realize that they must live in a time warp / space bubble.
My point is not contingent on your or my ability to see the ROI or on either of our abilities to predict the future of science technology. So you don't know and I don't know and the further into the future our declarations reach the more speculative and uncertain they become. Given this fact of life and given the option my preference is to be optimistic about the future of space travel.
It is not uncommon for exploration to have a financial or other practical motivation. With anticipated and unanticipated technological advances profit and defense will become the dominant motivation for space exploration even as you choose to define it.
Pointing at the bad ole baby boomers is pretty funny. Like there was some huge evolutionary advance in one generation.
The biggest problem with the boomers is that they gave everything to their kids who now expect to get rich in the stock market while replacing there 2 ton SUV every year. Unfortunately the boomers didn't pass their passion for science and technology to their children. The Chinese did though.
It'll all happen soon enough. It just won't be exciting in the way that it is on TV. In the first century space travel will be boring and dangerous. Boring and dangerous looks like excitement and adventure in a two hour movie but when your the star on reality-space-travel-TV it will just be boring, dangerous and uncomfortable. Instead of cheap airline seats you'll have cheap seat-beds, cheap air seals, cheap radiation shields and recycled slop for food.
Even in space we will still be hairless apes. When you get enough people in space then it will be boring, dangerous, uncomfortable and politically complex. When the Martian and Moon colonies declare independence for reasons of taxation without representation you might want to visit your earth relatives on the side of earth facing away from the moon until the conflict glows over. The phrase "moon rocks" will take on a whole new meaning.
Its probably not over. Its certainly too expensive to do much right now but the cost comes down as technology advances.
You also have to leave room for the possibility that someone will figure out how to make lots of money by going into space. Once that motivation is there and technology makes it cheap enough then things will happen very fast.
The real indicator of when humans have really arrived in space is when there are rats in the cargo holds. If I know rats it'll happen soon enough.
It'll happen yet.
The technology to make it affordable was just a little behind the dream. Nothing unusual there. I'm hoping to get off this rock before I'm too old to care.
You want ito reduce this to a simple thing that bolsters your position. Understood.
It isn't simple, there are many more than three issues, and you are deliberatly eliminating context. I understand that you would like to erase some of your earilier remarcks and perhaps dissociate yourself from the remarks made by others who take your position but I will address them nevertheless. Additionally your three simple points that you want to reduce this too are not sufficiently independent issues to pose them as you have.
Equating software and hardware-software service combinations with garden tools is a mistake. If enough people make the same mistake then the public in general will suffer the consequences.
Your view of and analogies with products and services is deliberately over simplified in order to make a destructive approach sound reasonable. In spite of the current market conditions and the 95% market share obtained through illegal means by a company that is still unchained you want to squash the remaining competitors with your self serving view of the rules which are ignored by the company who's behavior you indirectly idealize in your argument. Even though you probably don't intend it you are being a shill.
I understand what you want the law to be, how you want future court cases to be settled and how you would like to believe that the great masses agree with your superficial morality. You have constructed a world view to rationalize doing things at someone elses expense without regard for the consequenses for them and other people. The heart of this seemingly rational disposition is twisted and destructive.
The customer is not right when the customer steals. If its legal to put software on another machine then it is. What's your point ? The problem is that whatever the law is people who gather behind your banner will whine about the situation until they can make every business provide service on their terms under force of law. I doubt that laws like this will serve the public interest in the long term.
This isn't about MS and Apple per se. Its about them because they are all thats left in viable service providers for the desktop. If you and yours have your way there will soon be nothing left but MS and Linux. If you think that this combination provides a viable path into the future of a technology in its infance then you are mistaken, You need to think about the reality of the situation rather than about the cohesiveness of your rational disposition.
Finally, and to be a bit repetitive, there is no merit, honor, or morality in arguing for rules that you consider to be ideal in a game with a thousand pound gorrilla that ignores your rules with your implicit blessing.
I almost don't care what MS does with Office. I paid for that product and stick to the licensing agreement even though I don't like it and even though I think that it is overpriced and that the competition has been illegally destroyed. Holding up that software and its licensing as some reference point of rectitude is nothing short of ironic.
If Sony CD's wouldn't play on Panasonic players and I didn't like it then I wouldn't buy Sony CD's. Then Sony would have a choice if they wanted my business. One difference here is that a Sony CD sounds about the same on both players. If there were a significant difference in Sony's opinion then I woudn't blame them. I still wouldn't buy their product but then thats my choice and their choice and I would respect it.
While there are some basic similarities there are also some basic differences when it comes to software. I think that Apple feels that the quality of service they provide and their ability to continue to provide it depends on them having control of the platform. Software is a complicated product and your simplistic analogies and economic theories sound like pure rationalization to me.
I don't know who "we" are but it doesn't include me. The concept of "post sales restraints" is so broad that it wouldn't be wise to impose on every possible service, product and combination of the two.
If you don't like it don't buy it and this will be a self rectifying situation from your point of view. There's no need to advocate deceitful and dishonorable behavior.
They can't make it impossible to run OS X on generic hardware but they don't have to support it and it doesn't have to work well on junk. Nevertheless I feel certain that the whining will be endless in any case.
You are being honest when you say what you want to do with the product. It is dishonest to pretend some sort of altruistic motive or to argue that the company in question is worse than criminal because it won't agree to what you want. I cannot know what is in your mind so that I could never prove the dishonesty that I'm talking about. I can only look at the style of argumentation and extra-rational verbiage being put forth and reach some speculative conclusion based on similar patterns that I've seen before. I'm telling you what I've concluded on that score for your internal consumption and entertainment.
This is a side issue but I suspect that Apple believes that the quality of there product and their ability to stay in business are substantly tied to their ability to control integration. If you haven't made extensive use of their product then you might not share their perspective. But its their product so their perspective matters and that is not a side issue.
Based on personal experience I would say that their concern for quality associated with integration has merit. If your primary experience is with Windows and you are one of the many people who feel that that experience is very good then I could see how you would not assign any value to Apple's desire to ensure a better experience through better control of integration. No matter how you feel about it its not your product and their concerns matter more to me than yours because I am a software producer and I feel that my rights are at stake when people start pushing the selve serving perspective that you are pushing. If my rights are not respected in this basic regard then I and many others can't afford to be in business. Its not about getting rich, its about getting a return on a serious outlay of effort and real risk taking.
The most important right that is at stake here is the right of people and businesses to set the terms under which they sell their products and services within the social contract and the laws of our society. If you work hard to produce something to sell then you will feel like that is a right. For the sake of argument you refuse to acknowledge this.
If you want their product then you might consider paying for it the way that they want to sell it to you for a little while and see how you like it. If it doesn't live up to their claim then bring it back. Or try a used machine or a Mac mini. Suspend judgement for a little while and forget all your notions of value and performance that derive from your use of other companies products and propaganda. Try it the way they want to serve it to you for just a little while. All you have to lose is a little time and it seems that you are already committed to that.
Slashdot Mirror
How does this compare with the other online music vendors ?
How much does Apple make per song ?
Its almost like The Register equates negativity with objectivity. Maybe they don't. Maybe they just enjoy publishing the drivel that comes out of the back end of a camel or a buzzard.
The /. OSS community reaction to this guy's article looks a lot like ranting denial. Everybody should take a deep breath or better yet take a nap before calling this guy any more bad names. OSS isn't going away. Its here to stay and for good reasons. If there were a way to kill OSS Microsoft would have found it. They haven't found a way and it isn't for a lack of effort, genius, or money.
/. Invoking the government isn't a solution because the government has already been bought.
At the same time I think that its unrealistic to push the idea that OSS is or can be all things to all software users and developers. I use and support OSS but I too am concerned that I am faced with a shrinking number of choices. The role of open competition to produce new and innovative products outside of Windows environment is almost completely dead compared to what is going on in the arena of third party Windows applications. There is an incredible amount innovation and competition within the Windows application environment and this results in high quality low priced Windows applications.
I use Linux and OSS because it meets some of my needs better than anything else and because some of my customers leave me no option. I use Microsoft office because all of the competition is dead and there is no option (Open Office doesn't cut it for my needs). I use OS X because it meets some of my needs better than anything else and its worth every penny that I paid for it. I also like the fact that OS X rests on an open source foundation.
While this guy's observations about OSS are based on a limited perspective I see some correspondence with my experience with OSS and non OSS operating systems and applications. There is no opportunity for improvement if every member of the OSS community takes sincere criticism of OSS personally. The fact that Microsoft uses some of the same arguments as this guy doesn't bother me because I can analyze the argument independently of the source. Of course Microsoft will use the best or even true arguments to divert attention away from the real issue which is their monoply.
The only thing that bothers me about this guys criticisms is that he doesn't make them in a constructive way. If he had brought these issues up in a discussion of ways for improving the OSS process it would have spawned a more constructive use of
Whiteboards are awesome. When the solution won't come together on the screen or on paper then a whiteboard can be a real hammer. Its a mystery why it works so well but it does.
The last paragraph was not intended to be a slam on Linux. If you are using OS X then use an iPod. If you are using Solaris then I don't know the options for MP3 players.
At least one huge monitor. A second monitor small or large can help but most of my attention is focused on one monitor and I want that one to be big.
I would use some form of UNIX: i.e. Linux/OS X/ Solaris. Of these OS X is my pick because it combines the best of several worlds. In any case I just like UNIX because it was built by programmers for programmers and it shows when you get down to work with an open-ended attitude towards your final solution.
Get the fastest single core processor that you can find. If reliability is a concern get Opteron or Xeon. The other processors are gaming processors, maybe faster but less reliable.
If you want a second processor then just get a system with two fast single core processors. The individual cores of a dual core processor are slower. In any case it is doubtful that your build process will be distributed or threaded so that the second processor is for farting around or staring slack-jawed at your code while you wait for the last build to finish.
A good thing to do with your second processor is to run iTunes. If you are using Linux then get an MP3 player that doubles as disk storage. If you periodically back your work up to your MP3 player and your overheated cpu burns your house down when you go out for a burger then you'll still have your work on because you always wear your tunes when you go out for a burger.
Yeah yeah. The problem with all that is dealing with the neverending worship and praise from coworkers and superiors. ACM always wanting to do an article on the first real software engineer to actually use formal methods and to market the perfect end product that accounts for the needs of an entire organization. That shite just wears me out.
Compromise a little, use LaTex. :-)
You can probably live with the crushing limitations relative to using TeX
And, if there's no other way then use MS Word, its character building (bad pun intended). I'd say that it won't kill you but if you have a lot of equations it might. After about 15 pages of equation intensive stuff you end up using the find function instead of scrolling because it gets so bogged down. It also regularly decides that your equation laden document won't fit on the XX or so gigbytes of free space on your harddrive. It has a long standing bug that causes it to miscalculate the size of some formulas so that no matter how much space you have left on your drive it won't save your document until you remove the offending equation segment. Hilarious, I know. I'd send a document with the problem in it to MS so that they could see the bug but then I can't save the document to send it to them. Chuckle chuckle. Those funny guys at MS have such a great sense of humor. They're worth every hundred dollar bill I send them for their fine products (sarcasm intended). What's really over the top is that people look me straight in the eye and tell me that they never have a problem using Word. Since all my friends are completely honest about anything regarding their computer use (oh dear, more sarcasm, must be past my bedtime) you can probably safely ignore my ranting.
I've started using Publicon by WRI. Interesting product. A little bit beta. If you feel like just saying f&$k the editors then this is something that you might like to dink around with even though you say you don't like WYSIWYG. Given your other proclivities I'd suggest taking Publicon for a spin around a document or two. It also claims to export TeX or LaTeX or both and it uses a bibliography database and a bunch of other nice stuff. It has a Mathematica front end so its a nice outlining tool too. The cell thing takes a little getting used to but I've come to really like it.
It would be interesting to know the hourly rate rather than the salary since we all know that programmers work like sled dogs in a blizzard 12 hours a day for 8 hours of pay.
If you program for a living and are getting reasonable pay and plenty of quality time with your family and friends then you are probably a very lucky person. If this is the case then please tell me where to send my resume.
Its possible to use logic to prove things about a mathematical model but its not possible to prove that a model is an accurate description of the physical world.
... In the end its about being able to build things that do things that we want done.
A theory about the world might be proven wrong by the very next measurement/experiment. To prove a theory it would be necessary to perform all of the experiments that test every implication of a theory at all times. New measurements can support or disprove a theory but they can never prove it. In going about our day-to-day affairs its convenient to confuse the positive feelings that derive from repeated successful use of a well supported theory with the sense that the theory has been logically proven.
In addition to the unprovability of scientific theories there are additional issues that don't make it into the Jack and Jill stories about science. At any given time there is usally more than one theory that describes/organizes the facts about equally well. When new data comes in some of these theories die, others are generalized, and new ones come onto the stage.
Furthermore, it is both a practical and a cultural issue as to which theory is the dominant or textbook theory at any given time. Any theory that organizes, describes, and predicts enough of the facts with only a few assumptions and simple rules/patterns will be a useful theory. Theories that have to deal with most situations as a special case are the least useful from a scientific and engineering perspective but they can sometimes serve political and other purposes.
Good scientific theories don't explain all the data. They don't have to in order to be useful and some of the measurements are unrepeatable. Good theories explain most of the data with some margin of error that is small enough to make the theory useful.
Often times the implications of the theory are extremely complex when applied to large systems or to systems over long periods of time. Attempting to simulate a living cell starting from string theory with no approximations will take a bigger Beowulf cluster than you can afford.
Scientific theories about the world are just working models that give scientists guidance in making better measurements to form better theories to give better guidance
Misunderstandings about the notion of proof are common and costly. Galileo wanted to prove to everyone that the planets went around the sun. As I understand it the pope at the time didn't object to Galileo's teaching the solar centric model. What he objected to was that Galileo kept going on and on about proof. The modern debate about Intelligent design has its origins in this same issue. The theory that satisfies religious needs is not the one that satisfies scientific and engineering needs. Maybe if scientists and engineers shut up about proof and started teaching the real process of science then the people who think that their religion has something to do with logical proof of something or other will stop trying to subvert the beneficial scientific process.
Imagine how you'd feel if your boss knew more than you about your job and had to occasionally teach you how to do parts of it. When you disagreed with them you would be SOL because they are the boss and they obviously know more than you and it would be a mistake to press any point to hard because they are in fact your boss. Haven't you ever had to deal with a "superior" boss. Look around, I'm sure that one of your brow beaten friends does. The idea that there is some ideal boss in between those too hells is a statistically insignificant dream.
...
In the world that you dream about you would be inferiror on all fronts. Not only would your boss be your technical superior but she would be your corporately acknowledged superior. Your posture would acquire a stoop and your sexual preferences would start to meander. You'd be bitchin about how that controlling egomaniac doesn't know as much as they think they do and you'd be constantly arguing that you really do know more than them and you'd be whining about how you'll be gettin a new job any day and then they'll see how stupid they are for treating you this way
What will clarify this "problem" for you is to work for a boss who knows so much that they know where you should click your mouse next.
You are so lucky to have a boss that you can feel superior too. Maybe your boss isn't so dumb after all.
The boomers that I know, like GenXers, were handed lots of things but they also work like dogs i.e. they handed a lot of things back. There are two cars in many driveways because many families have to have two professionals. After they finally paid off their college loans now they are trying to pay for their kids college educations (handing it to them) and to save for a retirment that is being systematically and repeatedly stolen through a money pump known as the stock market.
Handed jobs for life ? None that I know. I believe that most will retire in poverty. The idea that social security is a significant retirement benefit is laughable. This tale of fat lazy boomers is quite a fabrication and I'm sure that you can dig up an example or two that makes you feel happy about this story. Sounds to me like you just want to blame something on someone and that you have found a socially acceptable prejudice that is disconnected from anything meaningful.
Think about it. Is it a genetic defect and if so why don't the GenXers have it. Is it a psychological defect and if so how did they get it and why don't GenXers have it. If GenXers are somehow superior then where did they get that superiority. Who gave it to them. They didn't just wake up with it one day. If boomers are really so lucky as you see it then it must just be because of the time that they were born. The luck of the draw. You want to hold that against an entire group of people. If enough people think the way that you do then we are headed for a cataclysmic political event that will not serve you or anyone else. Please find a more constructive perspective on life.
Face it. The problems that you think you see are systemic problems and blaming what you call boomers is nowhere. If you are looking to blame something or someone then look at the system that generates situations like the Enron and WorldComm fiascos. If you want to think that its relavant to identify the boomers in those companies that did the harm then that is a distorted point of view that won't get you to the root of the problem. If you have that much personal hostility toward some particular individuals who you happen to identify as boomers then you need to stop and think for a minute or two about how constructive your perspective is.
Blaming any real or imagined predicament faced by the current generation on the boomers is misplaced and grossly prejudicial hostility. Its as bad as racism and sexism only harder to understand because it is based on a hypothesized psychological difference and the perception of the luck of the draw. We need to live in a more rational world if we are going to have a future.
Since I'm pretty sure that angles don't need sleep or have sex its my guess that the original estimates assumed that they were vertical.
The strong Linux kernal development process is its main lifeline and is essential for its use as a server. The rest of Linux development is too chaotic and unreliable for many to rely on Linux as their primary desktop work horse. You may not agree with their disposition but they do have a point of concern. Something needs to be done about this but I don't know what.
From this guy's experience I think Linux was easier to install 10 years ago. Its such a shame because if Sun ever did get it we would all benefit from having a new player.
Maybe the idea of Sun "getting it" has quietly become an oxymoron. Its so sad to see a once great and innovative company dying of chronic ineptitude. Maybe someone will eventually take pity on them and show one of their marketing people OS X or Linux.
With all of Sun's resources its hard to imagine that they haven't seen what's possible with a UNIX desktop but then you read this article and you realize that they must live in a time warp / space bubble.
My point is not contingent on your or my ability to see the ROI or on either of our abilities to predict the future of science technology. So you don't know and I don't know and the further into the future our declarations reach the more speculative and uncertain they become. Given this fact of life and given the option my preference is to be optimistic about the future of space travel.
It is not uncommon for exploration to have a financial or other practical motivation. With anticipated and unanticipated technological advances profit and defense will become the dominant motivation for space exploration even as you choose to define it.
Pointing at the bad ole baby boomers is pretty funny. Like there was some huge evolutionary advance in one generation.
The biggest problem with the boomers is that they gave everything to their kids who now expect to get rich in the stock market while replacing there 2 ton SUV every year. Unfortunately the boomers didn't pass their passion for science and technology to their children. The Chinese did though.
It'll all happen soon enough. It just won't be exciting in the way that it is on TV. In the first century space travel will be boring and dangerous. Boring and dangerous looks like excitement and adventure in a two hour movie but when your the star on reality-space-travel-TV it will just be boring, dangerous and uncomfortable. Instead of cheap airline seats you'll have cheap seat-beds, cheap air seals, cheap radiation shields and recycled slop for food.
Even in space we will still be hairless apes. When you get enough people in space then it will be boring, dangerous, uncomfortable and politically complex. When the Martian and Moon colonies declare independence for reasons of taxation without representation you might want to visit your earth relatives on the side of earth facing away from the moon until the conflict glows over. The phrase "moon rocks" will take on a whole new meaning.
Its probably not over. Its certainly too expensive to do much right now but the cost comes down as technology advances. You also have to leave room for the possibility that someone will figure out how to make lots of money by going into space. Once that motivation is there and technology makes it cheap enough then things will happen very fast. The real indicator of when humans have really arrived in space is when there are rats in the cargo holds. If I know rats it'll happen soon enough.
It'll happen yet. The technology to make it affordable was just a little behind the dream. Nothing unusual there. I'm hoping to get off this rock before I'm too old to care.
You want ito reduce this to a simple thing that bolsters your position. Understood.
It isn't simple, there are many more than three issues, and you are deliberatly eliminating context. I understand that you would like to erase some of your earilier remarcks and perhaps dissociate yourself from the remarks made by others who take your position but I will address them nevertheless. Additionally your three simple points that you want to reduce this too are not sufficiently independent issues to pose them as you have.
Equating software and hardware-software service combinations with garden tools is a mistake. If enough people make the same mistake then the public in general will suffer the consequences.
Your view of and analogies with products and services is deliberately over simplified in order to make a destructive approach sound reasonable. In spite of the current market conditions and the 95% market share obtained through illegal means by a company that is still unchained you want to squash the remaining competitors with your self serving view of the rules which are ignored by the company who's behavior you indirectly idealize in your argument. Even though you probably don't intend it you are being a shill.
I understand what you want the law to be, how you want future court cases to be settled and how you would like to believe that the great masses agree with your superficial morality. You have constructed a world view to rationalize doing things at someone elses expense without regard for the consequenses for them and other people. The heart of this seemingly rational disposition is twisted and destructive.
The customer is not right when the customer steals. If its legal to put software on another machine then it is. What's your point ? The problem is that whatever the law is people who gather behind your banner will whine about the situation until they can make every business provide service on their terms under force of law. I doubt that laws like this will serve the public interest in the long term.
This isn't about MS and Apple per se. Its about them because they are all thats left in viable service providers for the desktop. If you and yours have your way there will soon be nothing left but MS and Linux. If you think that this combination provides a viable path into the future of a technology in its infance then you are mistaken, You need to think about the reality of the situation rather than about the cohesiveness of your rational disposition.
Finally, and to be a bit repetitive, there is no merit, honor, or morality in arguing for rules that you consider to be ideal in a game with a thousand pound gorrilla that ignores your rules with your implicit blessing.
Later
I almost don't care what MS does with Office. I paid for that product and stick to the licensing agreement even though I don't like it and even though I think that it is overpriced and that the competition has been illegally destroyed. Holding up that software and its licensing as some reference point of rectitude is nothing short of ironic. If Sony CD's wouldn't play on Panasonic players and I didn't like it then I wouldn't buy Sony CD's. Then Sony would have a choice if they wanted my business. One difference here is that a Sony CD sounds about the same on both players. If there were a significant difference in Sony's opinion then I woudn't blame them. I still wouldn't buy their product but then thats my choice and their choice and I would respect it. While there are some basic similarities there are also some basic differences when it comes to software. I think that Apple feels that the quality of service they provide and their ability to continue to provide it depends on them having control of the platform. Software is a complicated product and your simplistic analogies and economic theories sound like pure rationalization to me. I don't know who "we" are but it doesn't include me. The concept of "post sales restraints" is so broad that it wouldn't be wise to impose on every possible service, product and combination of the two. If you don't like it don't buy it and this will be a self rectifying situation from your point of view. There's no need to advocate deceitful and dishonorable behavior. They can't make it impossible to run OS X on generic hardware but they don't have to support it and it doesn't have to work well on junk. Nevertheless I feel certain that the whining will be endless in any case.
You are being honest when you say what you want to do with the product. It is dishonest to pretend some sort of altruistic motive or to argue that the company in question is worse than criminal because it won't agree to what you want. I cannot know what is in your mind so that I could never prove the dishonesty that I'm talking about. I can only look at the style of argumentation and extra-rational verbiage being put forth and reach some speculative conclusion based on similar patterns that I've seen before. I'm telling you what I've concluded on that score for your internal consumption and entertainment.
This is a side issue but I suspect that Apple believes that the quality of there product and their ability to stay in business are substantly tied to their ability to control integration. If you haven't made extensive use of their product then you might not share their perspective. But its their product so their perspective matters and that is not a side issue.
Based on personal experience I would say that their concern for quality associated with integration has merit. If your primary experience is with Windows and you are one of the many people who feel that that experience is very good then I could see how you would not assign any value to Apple's desire to ensure a better experience through better control of integration. No matter how you feel about it its not your product and their concerns matter more to me than yours because I am a software producer and I feel that my rights are at stake when people start pushing the selve serving perspective that you are pushing. If my rights are not respected in this basic regard then I and many others can't afford to be in business. Its not about getting rich, its about getting a return on a serious outlay of effort and real risk taking.
The most important right that is at stake here is the right of people and businesses to set the terms under which they sell their products and services within the social contract and the laws of our society. If you work hard to produce something to sell then you will feel like that is a right. For the sake of argument you refuse to acknowledge this.
If you want their product then you might consider paying for it the way that they want to sell it to you for a little while and see how you like it. If it doesn't live up to their claim then bring it back. Or try a used machine or a Mac mini. Suspend judgement for a little while and forget all your notions of value and performance that derive from your use of other companies products and propaganda. Try it the way they want to serve it to you for just a little while. All you have to lose is a little time and it seems that you are already committed to that.