Dr. So-and-so is defining trusted as being designed to a formal spec. That definition is constructed, whether the intention is there or not, in such a manner that he is right. Under that definition, Open Source cannot be a trusted system.
My assertion is that open source challenges the notion that you need a formal spec to develop trusted software. Much like the submitter of this story, I would hold up OpenBSD as an example of a system that I consider trusted, yet was not developed under any formal spec. Perhaps it's time to realize that formal specs help to get things done correctly, and they certainly help get things done quickly (by preventing, in theory at least, feature-creep), but they certainly are a requirement.
actually I would lean entirely in the other direction from your statement. I've always hated "cute" names like "WinAmp" that tell me very little about what programs do.
I would submit, that your dislike of "arbitrary acronyms" is more of a personal preference. Acronyms are never arbitrary, and in a command line environment, knowing that the command the function are actually related is sort of nice.
Case in point: I never liked "workman".. it was a functional cd player, but it's alot easier to remember "xmms" because it MEANS something.
In the end, It's just personal preference....and yours and mine obviously differ. Oh well. Not a big deal either way I guess.
I would tend to agree most with your last comment. Regardless of how people feel about Java as a commercial development language, it's great for learning how to program concisely (from a functional standpoint.....even if it is wordy) and it's great for doing graphical stuff (which will solve the Asker's boredom fears).
Finally, my advice to our asker is to remember that kids rarely find computer programming boring....don't worry too much if they'll lose interest. They will probably love it...most kids do.
I'm not trying to downplay the significance of this. But the arrogant statement by whoever (in the Wall St. Journal article) had the gall to imply that this would affect "every web-hosting provider" has forgotten that MOST web-hosting providers aren't dumb enough to use IIS in the first place. Just check the Netcraft Survey of websites to see that Apache whose developers probably don't think of Netscape engineers as "weenies", holds a 60% (+/- 5% I'm guessing) market share in that area.
Besides isn't the problem that many geeks are arrogant assholes and no girls put up with them for long? Not a flame just a question.
I don't think that is the problem actually. In any industry, there are arrogant assholes...and in all honesty, it seems like some of them get laid more than "the rest of us."
Instead, I think the problem is that geeks, especially computer geeks (a group to which I belong), tend to get VERY drawn up in their work, and sort of shut out the rest of the world.
To illustrate that point, we should note that geeks don't "get" enough of in their day-to-day lives often...it's not just sex....it's also: nutrition, sleep, and nearly everything else that gets in the way of accomplishing goals. Driven people make sacrifices and many geeks make sex one of their sacrifices. Add to that the culture shock of Geeks-on-Visas and you have a real fouled up situation.
That's the beauty of Red Hat and VALinux going public. You have a shot at a piece of the pie now. Granted, it's the same shot that my dad has, and lord knows he's never coded any GPL linux-ware....but still, you have a chance now. I think that a class action lawsuit would be 1) against the spirit of the linux community and 2) Shot down pretty fast. You never coded your GPL software with the expectation of getting paid, and even Red Hat offers it for free...so they're not making money directly at your expense.
Why?! Because that is what publically owned companies do. When you sell your shares, you are saying "Buy part of me, and I'll lead you to riches." If people buy your shares and then you thumb your nose at them, your overall value as a company will decline.
Most shareholders with any sense will be aware of the GPL and the -different- nature of Linux. Those who aren't are going to get burned, but it's their fault for buying shares purely for profit. WRONG. Most shareholders buy shares of a company PURELY for profit. Our feel-good Linux companies are no different. You doin't shell out $5000 for Red Hat shares just because you like them. You do it for one of two reasons....which both have the same result. Either you buy Red Hat because it's the hot thing (in which case you have ZERO knowledge of the GPL) and hope to make money. Or, you buy Red Hat because you like their corporate stance, think they are headed in the right direction long term, and hope to make money. The stock market is about only one thing: dollars. Shareholders want them, and Red Hat is obliged to provide them to the best of their ability.
I'd like to thank you for being one of the few people who actually READ the article before posting. Nice job.
My thoughts with regards to small-developer dissolusionment (or lack thereof): Money and greed corrupt....sure, we all know that. But we also know that money is a reasonably successful motivational factor, and a very appreciated reward system. Small developers will become more plentiful with the allure of money now dangling from the stick. And some existing developers (as well as the new ones lured in by $) will be more motivated to turn out great code. Those that aren't driven by money will stay the same. There will be a select few that are corrupted by the greed...but I don't see them gaining the upper hand in Linux development any time soon.
Something to think about: Was it the allure of money that sent the windows world from a primarily free-ware model in the late 80s to a primarily shareware model in the 90s? Because that is something I would hate to see in linux. The abundance of shared, free software and the helpful community attitude toward it would be somethign I'd hate to lose. My own gut tells me that the spectre of the GPL and the momentum of the community as it currently stands will help to thwart the shift...but you never know.
Technically: Easy Truthfully: Damn near impossible I think the people who write Kiplinger's and TurboTax are spending lots of money on lawyers and stuff to be sure they cover every possible situation and to be sure that they ask all the possible questions as far as forms that you might need to add to your base 1040.
Not only was this study not documented, neither was the article. We're reading 3rd hand information here.
Regardless, there are plenty of problems with this study. I would say many of the problems they reported were problems with mail-order in general.
Example: How is it different if I call in or click-in an order for dishes and they arrive broken? Mail-order business has been around for YEARS and has dealt with these problems repeatedly.
Other problem with the study: You can't count a site that is under construction as "an online transaction gone wrong." It's just a site that isn't online yet....nobody is ordering from a site that isn't even there, so why is that a transaction gone wrong?
Does anyone know if the sort of problems the Hubble is having are "routine" or if this was a problem inherent in the design of the telescope? It seems (and maybe I'm just too influenced by the media) that this project has been beset by problems from the very start. Too bad too...its images are breathtaking.
In response to your mention of football, I once heard on TV (so it must be true):) that the average lifespan of an ex-NFL pro football player was only 57. Can that be true?
I'm not trying to start a flame-war...but it's obvious that you haven't used Windowmaker in a long time. There are several tools that allow you to affect your windowmaker desktop without "compiling animated menus" as you put it.
WMPrefs comes with the default Windowmaker installation and is setup the moment you run it for the first time.
wmakerconf is a GTK+ app that does much the same thing, but with a bit of a nicer (IMHO) interface.
Try them out..i think you'll find that you like them both.
I agree. As with any other case of virus infection of computers, it is the user's fault. In this case, the user was a huge company buliding the things...but it still seems like this could have been easily prevented.
You're right...but have overlooked one small point. If their long term goal is to say, migrate to Windows NT, or at least leave that option open, then moving to Apache can be contrued as an intermediary step. Since apache is cross-platform, they will now have the option of running their site on *nix AND NT...presumably without too much re-work.
It goes beyond that even. The entire use of the computer in its current state practially screams 2 dimensions. We've replaced paper, pencil, paintbrush, canvas, books, and letters written to loved ones with virtual counterparts on a computer screen....but all of those things are 2 dimensional. Even the computer display is 2-D. I don't see a 3-D window manager being useful for that precise reason.... we don't even envision ourselves using computers for 3-D stuff really....sure there are fancy VRML mockups of virtual libraires and museums that look 3-D....but that's about it.
Sure is cool to look at though:) Maybe they'll turn it into a screensaver. Windows has that annoying "flying windows" screensaver. It would be cool to have it do that but with the actual windows that were open on your desktop...and in 3-D...
Is this book better than The Road Ahead?:) Because frankly, that road was paved with potholes.
On a more serious note, no matter what people write in books, and no matter how important they are, I am inherently skeptical of books that claim to teach you how to get rich. Add to that a title with an "e-" in the name of it, and I'm VERY skeptical. I guess I'm just jaded...but to me, the road to success in e-business is the same as the road to success in other businesses: Lots of capital, and hard hard work.
It seems that your real question pokes at something deeper. Mainly, why do web-folk use an interpreted language for their applications when it would be faster to use a compiled language like C.
I think i can shed some light on this. There are several reasons which I'll outline below.
Rapid Development - A typical software project might last for months before hitting the shelves. Most web projects have to be spec'ed, built and online in a matter of weeks. Interpreted languages (like Perl and Python) make it easier to develop things in a hurry because you can make changes without re-compiling.
The performance bottleneck is bandwidth, not performance. Usually, it's the speed of someone's modem, or the crowded internet backbones that slow down a web-page's performance. Using a faster language isn't going to help that, so typically web-folk go for the easiest solution. The easiest solution is to use an interpreted language. The reason is listed in my first bullet point.
Much of CGI scripting consists of text-prodcessing. A high percentage of CGI programming can be summed by saying "Fetch. Parse. Print". Since Perl, Tcl/Tk, and Python have built-in, powerful pattern-matching and text-processing routines, these specific languages lend themselves nicely to web-app design. This might be less true as a whole than 2 years ago, but I know personally that I'm still doing an awful lot of $x=~s/blah/blahblahblah/g; in my web programs. Can't do that any easier than in perl/python/tcl.
In the end, it comes down to whether or not you'll get a noticable benefit from using something that runs faster. I think that for 99% of web-apps, you don't get enough of a speed increase by switching to C/C++ so people just don't even bother testing them out.
Intel is NOT running scared. I wish they were (I use AMD stuff in many of my machines). Does the elephant run from the mouse? I fables, maybe, in reality, not a chance. THey might be annoyed by AMD's persistance, and bothered by their nice chips, but they are NOT by any stretch of the imagination running anywhere....and I highly doubt that they are scared at this point either.
Slashdot Mirror
My assertion is that open source challenges the notion that you need a formal spec to develop trusted software. Much like the submitter of this story, I would hold up OpenBSD as an example of a system that I consider trusted, yet was not developed under any formal spec. Perhaps it's time to realize that formal specs help to get things done correctly, and they certainly help get things done quickly (by preventing, in theory at least, feature-creep), but they certainly are a requirement.
I would submit, that your dislike of "arbitrary acronyms" is more of a personal preference. Acronyms are never arbitrary, and in a command line environment, knowing that the command the function are actually related is sort of nice.
Case in point: I never liked "workman" .. it was a functional cd player, but it's alot easier to remember "xmms" because it MEANS something.
In the end, It's just personal preference....and yours and mine obviously differ. Oh well. Not a big deal either way I guess.
Finally, my advice to our asker is to remember that kids rarely find computer programming boring....don't worry too much if they'll lose interest. They will probably love it...most kids do.
no no no...you've got it all wrong. If you install Windows 98 backwares it says "Bill is Dead....BIll is Dead".
Yeah, you can delete them all, provided you have a Linux install disk handy.
I'm not trying to downplay the significance of this. But the arrogant statement by whoever (in the Wall St. Journal article) had the gall to imply that this would affect "every web-hosting provider" has forgotten that MOST web-hosting providers aren't dumb enough to use IIS in the first place. Just check the Netcraft Survey of websites to see that Apache whose developers probably don't think of Netscape engineers as "weenies", holds a 60% (+/- 5% I'm guessing) market share in that area.
Instead, I think the problem is that geeks, especially computer geeks (a group to which I belong), tend to get VERY drawn up in their work, and sort of shut out the rest of the world.
To illustrate that point, we should note that geeks don't "get" enough of in their day-to-day lives often...it's not just sex....it's also: nutrition, sleep, and nearly everything else that gets in the way of accomplishing goals. Driven people make sacrifices and many geeks make sex one of their sacrifices. Add to that the culture shock of Geeks-on-Visas and you have a real fouled up situation.
just my $0.02.
That's the beauty of Red Hat and VALinux going public. You have a shot at a piece of the pie now. Granted, it's the same shot that my dad has, and lord knows he's never coded any GPL linux-ware....but still, you have a chance now. I think that a class action lawsuit would be 1) against the spirit of the linux community and 2) Shot down pretty fast. You never coded your GPL software with the expectation of getting paid, and even Red Hat offers it for free...so they're not making money directly at your expense.
Because that is what publically owned companies do. When you sell your shares, you are saying "Buy part of me, and I'll lead you to riches." If people buy your shares and then you thumb your nose at them, your overall value as a company will decline.
Most shareholders with any sense will be aware of the GPL and the -different- nature of Linux. Those who aren't are going to get burned, but it's their fault for buying shares purely for profit.
WRONG. Most shareholders buy shares of a company PURELY for profit. Our feel-good Linux companies are no different. You doin't shell out $5000 for Red Hat shares just because you like them. You do it for one of two reasons....which both have the same result. Either you buy Red Hat because it's the hot thing (in which case you have ZERO knowledge of the GPL) and hope to make money. Or, you buy Red Hat because you like their corporate stance, think they are headed in the right direction long term, and hope to make money. The stock market is about only one thing: dollars. Shareholders want them, and Red Hat is obliged to provide them to the best of their ability.
My thoughts with regards to small-developer dissolusionment (or lack thereof):
Money and greed corrupt....sure, we all know that. But we also know that money is a reasonably successful motivational factor, and a very appreciated reward system. Small developers will become more plentiful with the allure of money now dangling from the stick. And some existing developers (as well as the new ones lured in by $) will be more motivated to turn out great code. Those that aren't driven by money will stay the same. There will be a select few that are corrupted by the greed...but I don't see them gaining the upper hand in Linux development any time soon.
Something to think about:
Was it the allure of money that sent the windows world from a primarily free-ware model in the late 80s to a primarily shareware model in the 90s? Because that is something I would hate to see in linux. The abundance of shared, free software and the helpful community attitude toward it would be somethign I'd hate to lose. My own gut tells me that the spectre of the GPL and the momentum of the community as it currently stands will help to thwart the shift...but you never know.
Technically: Easy
Truthfully: Damn near impossible
I think the people who write Kiplinger's and TurboTax are spending lots of money on lawyers and stuff to be sure they cover every possible situation and to be sure that they ask all the possible questions as far as forms that you might need to add to your base 1040.
Regardless, there are plenty of problems with this study. I would say many of the problems they reported were problems with mail-order in general.
Example: How is it different if I call in or click-in an order for dishes and they arrive broken? Mail-order business has been around for YEARS and has dealt with these problems repeatedly.
Other problem with the study: You can't count a site that is under construction as "an online transaction gone wrong." It's just a site that isn't online yet....nobody is ordering from a site that isn't even there, so why is that a transaction gone wrong?
Does anyone know if the sort of problems the Hubble is having are "routine" or if this was a problem inherent in the design of the telescope? It seems (and maybe I'm just too influenced by the media) that this project has been beset by problems from the very start. Too bad too...its images are breathtaking.
In response to your mention of football, I once heard on TV (so it must be true) :) that the average lifespan of an ex-NFL pro football player was only 57. Can that be true?
However, on the off chance that you're serious, try looking at Linux.com's Page of Window Manager Choices.
WMPrefs comes with the default Windowmaker installation and is setup the moment you run it for the first time.
wmakerconf is a GTK+ app that does much the same thing, but with a bit of a nicer (IMHO) interface.
Try them out..i think you'll find that you like them both.
I agree. As with any other case of virus infection of computers, it is the user's fault. In this case, the user was a huge company buliding the things...but it still seems like this could have been easily prevented.
You're right...but have overlooked one small point. If their long term goal is to say, migrate to Windows NT, or at least leave that option open, then moving to Apache can be contrued as an intermediary step. Since apache is cross-platform, they will now have the option of running their site on *nix AND NT...presumably without too much re-work.
Sure is cool to look at though :) Maybe they'll turn it into a screensaver. Windows has that annoying "flying windows" screensaver. It would be cool to have it do that but with the actual windows that were open on your desktop...and in 3-D...
Uh...yeah...whatever.
On a more serious note, no matter what people write in books, and no matter how important they are, I am inherently skeptical of books that claim to teach you how to get rich. Add to that a title with an "e-" in the name of it, and I'm VERY skeptical. I guess I'm just jaded...but to me, the road to success in e-business is the same as the road to success in other businesses: Lots of capital, and hard hard work.
I think i can shed some light on this. There are several reasons which I'll outline below.
- Rapid Development - A typical software project might last for months before hitting the shelves. Most web projects have to be spec'ed, built and online in a matter of weeks. Interpreted languages (like Perl and Python) make it easier to develop things in a hurry because you can make changes without re-compiling.
- The performance bottleneck is bandwidth, not performance. Usually, it's the speed of someone's modem, or the crowded internet backbones that slow down a web-page's performance. Using a faster language isn't going to help that, so typically web-folk go for the easiest solution. The easiest solution is to use an interpreted language. The reason is listed in my first bullet point.
- Much of CGI scripting consists of text-prodcessing. A high percentage of CGI programming can be summed by saying "Fetch. Parse. Print". Since Perl, Tcl/Tk, and Python have built-in, powerful pattern-matching and text-processing routines, these specific languages lend themselves nicely to web-app design. This might be less true as a whole than 2 years ago, but I know personally that I'm still doing an awful lot of $x=~s/blah/blahblahblah/g; in my web programs. Can't do that any easier than in perl/python/tcl.
In the end, it comes down to whether or not you'll get a noticable benefit from using something that runs faster. I think that for 99% of web-apps, you don't get enough of a speed increase by switching to C/C++ so people just don't even bother testing them out.Intel is NOT running scared. I wish they were (I use AMD stuff in many of my machines). Does the elephant run from the mouse? I fables, maybe, in reality, not a chance. THey might be annoyed by AMD's persistance, and bothered by their nice chips, but they are NOT by any stretch of the imagination running anywhere....and I highly doubt that they are scared at this point either.
On that note, I'm running a K-6-III right now. I love it. I would recommend it to anyone. (It was better than CATS!) ;)
I think "he" is a "she".
Hey!
;)
Once you're done with this project would you let me know?
Thanks.