the mp3 format has been extended and changed so much, and had stuff added and removed (vbr, abr, and tagging.... tagging shouldnt have even been there, since mp3 is a datastream not a container), over time. its hardly the same format now.
It's not? It's of great importance to the company that decides to run DB/2 on XP and then runs into difficulties
That's why you would test it before hand and see whether you actually run into any difficulties. If you're one of these people who relies on certification to give you warm fuzzy feelings of not running into any trouble, then you're not doing your job properly. It also renders the rest of your comment pointless, because you don't know what I'm talking about.
"Oh, you're using Service Pack 3? Sorry, we don't support that. We have only certified SP2, I'm afraid you'll have to verify the problem on a supported platform before I can help you." I've heard those words, or words like them, plenty of times.
You're getting certification mixed up with "We're just going to decide not to support that at all".
This is a big problem with Linux, and no amount of wishful thinking will make the problem go away. Apps not working on all distributions is exactly the sort of problem that the Linux Standards Base (went nowhere) and United Linux (supported by Caldera/SCO) were supposed to prevent.
Yer, and that's where effort needs to go - no on relying on certification.
Maybe some IT shop that doesn't care about their software actually working can do that, but actual software companies that make their living selling software MUST perform testing.
Errrrr, whereabouts did I say that testing wasn't peformed? The point is, relying on certification here gets you nowhere, as you've actually admitted, otherwise testing wouldn't be necessary;-).
Yes, there are many organizations that do that, but those are either small and/or low-quality IT shops and/or non-critical apps.
Errrrr, no. Many organisations big and small don't fly into a panic when something isn't certified - it depends on if it works. See testing comment above. With Linux systems, very little can work easily between them, and people even have an easier time installing open source software on a Windows system.
The fact of the matter is that there ARE differences between distributions, and those differences have been known to break a lot of applications.
Making that statement doesn't solve the problem.
If you certified your mega-dollar application to run on any Linux distro, what do you do the first time some clown calls up with some home-grown hybrid of five different distros and wonders why it doesn't work?
Contribute to the LSB and projects like Portland and make sure that my software works with it. It doesn't stop me from certifying for a few distributions, as before, but it ensures that many people at least have a fighting chance of getting it to work, even when upgrading to a newer version of a certified distro.
You're just skipping around the root problem, and the solution, I'm describing. You could never feasibly certify for every distro, but you certainly can help get them to work on a technical level. Again, certification doesn't solve anyone's problems.
Software companies are in the business of making money, not "helping Linux or open source software get more widely used."
The software company in question here uses Linux and makes huge amounts of money out of it.
Don't blame the software vendors for this sorry state of affairs.
Software vendors, whether they like it or not, are a part of getting this to work. If software vendors are creating specific RPMs as they are prone to do, and even trying to detect the distro and version you are installing on, then they are a part of the problem. It is up to distributors, the community, and software vendors, to work together to mitigate this problem. As a result, vendors will have far fewer installation and support headaches and they will sell more software i.e. more money.
Software vendors throwing their hands over their ears isn't going to help here.
I think they are correct and should never certify Larry Ellisons stolen Linux code. Personally speaking I don't want to do business with a self confessed software thief.
So your entire argument is null and void. Specific windows distro/version's get certified or not to work with software by the companies supporting said software. You will not that windows XP for instance is NOT certified to work with DB2.
-------> Point
-------> You
Hmmmmm. No it isn't. You've missed the point. I bet that DB2 would actually work on Windows XP absolutely fine, but the fact that IBM doesn't certify it is really not of any importance to anyone. The vast majority of software written for Windows is not certified in any way - it just runs on Windows, with some caveats between versions generally. Not so with Linux systems. The binaries may well run on a lot of systems, but paths are different, startup scripts are different etc. etc. etc. in lots of pointless ways.
The fact that the vast majority of vendors feel compelled to certify for a particular distribution, and exclude another such as Oracle Linux, shows just how bad the situation of third party software installation is on Linux systems. Hell, I can get a huge amount of open source software installed on Windows such as Ruby, and update it, better than I can on any Linux system. Go figure.
People run around pointlessly certifying software in the Linux world because third party software installation is so bad.
I just hate the whole concept of Linux distribution certification, because it tells me that there's something wrong with running software on it. I doubt whether a huge amount of older software is certified to run on Windows 2003 either, but you can bet your life that many organisations are running that software on Windows 2003. Organisations generally just try it out on a newer version of an OS, and if it works OK in a trial period (even if they have to tweak things to get it to work) they go with it, and they don't fly into a massive panic. I've done this many times, including an older piece of, now totally unsupported, software written for NT 4 in C to communicate with a mainframe that needed to run on 2003.
If Oracle can say "Yes, this will run" to their customers, and their customers try it out and it does actually run, then no one will care.
In terms of backwards compatibility, and getting the software you want to work, Windows is still way ahead of Linux, and this whole concept of distributors and software vendors protecting themselves (and engineering some lock-in, incidentally) by certifying, or certifying for, certain distributions just isn't helping Linux or open source software get more widely used.
Testing someone on a whiteboard is the equivalent of making someone use Notepad to code. Sure, you should be able to do it, but who the hell actually does?....Answering bullshit questions like that only tests the candidate's ability to answer bullshit questions.
Having been through a few interviews like this, I can only wholeheartedly agree. Real programming people in the real world don't keep everything in their head at any time. They think about the problem properly for a while, do some research, get their reference books out and make a good job of it. Decent hacker who can slap some code down on paper in thirty seconds != good hire, and you would think people would know this by now.
I can remember one interview I did years where I had sat patiently for about an hour and a half answering various silly questions (and one interviewer getting very animated when I mentioned Linux), and then I had to do one of those stupid things where you draw lines on a piece of paper or something. I was hungry and thirsty by that point, and I was really, really hoping this was going to be worth my while, so I just got up and left. With hindsight, this was a really good decision, and back then I put up with too much in interviews when I was starting out. I didn't even get any politeness in the interview for the time and effort I was putting in either. Goodness knows who they took on eventually, but I've found out that the company in question no longer exists. Go figure.
Now we can see that Microsoft's deal with Novell was explicitly designed to create and solidify this impression amongst companies using Linux. Novell were well and truly bent over the table, despite the fact that they so innocently claim that they have not admitted any IP issues with Linux or the software they use.
You heard wrong. That was more of IBM's FUD. When are you going to understand that 99.99% of IBM's statements regarding OOXML are to be disregarded as pure FUD (FUD is an invention of IBM). You do NOT have to fully implement the standard.
You mean like how ISO rubberstamped the half-spec for ODF that OASIS submitted? You don't even have spreadsheet formulas spec'ed for crying out loud!
Simply doesn't matter. That's not the point. The point is that OOXML is trying to be an ISO standard when it doesn't even respect other ISO, or even accepted, standards - a lot outside of the IT industry. I'm not talking about how complete you might happen to think ODF is.
And the ECMA process for OOXML was far more rigorous than ISO's rubberstamping of ODF.
I've seen no evidence for that whatsoever. I wouldn't call a panic 6000 page dump of an existing closed binary format into XML rigorous in any way.
The simple fact is, if it depends on Windows, depends on features in Windows and Office and depends on the quirks of Windows rather than even other ISO standards then it is a poor pathetic attempt at getting something accepted as a show standard in order to quell any interest in ODF.
That's what OOXML is for, and that is all it's for. I know it. You know it. Microsoft knows it.
...whether ISO has simply become a dumping ground for people simply wanting to market their stuff as standards (ECMA), or a real standards body.
As it is, there is not a snowball in hell's chance that OpenXML can become an ISO standard. It is simply a dump of the existing awful doc format into a nice incomprehensible 6000 page document, and it doesn't even use existing ISO standards. There's even a set group of banners and bullet points defined in there which can by no stretch of the imagination be called international.
I know Microsoft has managed to butter the ECMA up as their usual standards dumping ground, but I simply cannot see how they can get past the shortcomings in that article. To do so would be a huge amount of work (and Office 2007 is already using this format) and it would threaten their Office monopoly - which is what this obfuscation was about in the first place.
1) Apple's DRM scheme does not work - it blocks fair use & impedes a user's rights like the others.
Wow. So most people I see do not have iPods and don't use iTunes? You're allowing your view of the whole thing to get in the way of the fact that Apple's DRM is the only scheme that is anywhere near used in a popular manner, and that it simply doesn't get in the way. You don't rent your content and you can still burn to CDs.
2) Apple did get down on their knees in front of the studios and promise them anything.
Do you have any evidence at all for that, and what they promised and implemented? You're not renting your content (which is what the suits and really want and you can still burn to CD. They didn't implement anything that Microsoft has in Vista. Jobs specifically argued for that when creating iTunes, because he recognised that they were competing against pirated content and networks. It's the primary reason why people buy anything from iTunes.
Amusingly, it's why DRM schemes and this digital home thing Microsoft funnily thinks is coming will never work. The content owners want you to buy your films and music all over again, or even better, to rent your own content to you. Stop paying and you have no content. It's how a lot of Windows Media based stores work, and as soon as people realise it, they immediately stop paying.
The only DRM scheme that works is Apple's, and that's because they were clever enough not to get down on their knees in front of the studios and promise them anything, which is what Microsoft has done.
Additionally, didn't the director in EST (Irving Kershner I think) tell George Lucas to take a hike on more than one occasion as to how various scenes were done in the film, and with the dialogue? Certainly, Kershner was almost completely responsible for the good dialogue like "Impressive. Most impressive", "Your destiny lies with me", "I am your Father!" type good stuff. For example (http://www.salon.com/ent/col/srag/1999/05/13/kers hner/print.html):
The director says his one extended disagreement with Lucas came over the film's biggest laugh line. Just before he's put into carbon freeze, Princess Leia tells Han Solo, "I love you," and Lucas wanted Han to say, "I love you, too." But at Kershner's prodding, Ford came up with just the right piece of macho wit: instead of "I love you, too," a sardonic "I know."
Now that's what's wrong with the so called prequels. A line that corny simply has to be delivered with some humour or people just cringe like hell in their seats.
Small wonder that Kershner's name, and those of the writers, were put to the back of the credits and Lucasfilm was put up prominently. The guy is utter shite and extremely lucky, and the only reason why Indiana Jones works is because he has Stephen Spielberg to keep him in check.
I know of a few people who recently bought Macs because Apple switched to Intel based processors
So? That's not the reason why Apple moved to Intel, and the vast majority of people don't know that Apple changed CPUs at all. An Apple is an Apple, and that's kind of the point.
Being able to buy a Mac, run OSX, Windows, and Linux gives people the flexability they have never had before.
Again. That wasn't the reason that Apple switched at all, and Apple would much prefer that Windows didn't run on a Mac, so they're not going to make it too easy for people.
The Far East, and in particular the Japanese, are absolutely light years ahead when it comes to robotics. This is one party that you have come to far, far, far too late to.
They should have talked to a person who knows what he's talking about, from Honda or someone like that, rather than drivel from someone who doesn't care about the robotics industry but simply wasn't to make some money.
No doubt all the robotics hobbyists currently doing their thing, and shaping the whole area of robotics, are criminals and thieves. The whole article was just a meaningless load of drivel from someone who obviously has dollar signs in his eyes.
Don't know where you get that idea. EVMS wasn't the default for anything in my copy of Ubuntu. It may be installed by default (haven't checked), but it certainly isn't the default in creating filesystems.
Slashdot Mirror
You're getting certification mixed up with "We're just going to decide not to support that at all".
Errrrr, whereabouts did I say that testing wasn't peformed? The point is, relying on certification here gets you nowhere, as you've actually admitted, otherwise testing wouldn't be necessary
Errrrr, no. Many organisations big and small don't fly into a panic when something isn't certified - it depends on if it works. See testing comment above. With Linux systems, very little can work easily between them, and people even have an easier time installing open source software on a Windows system.
Making that statement doesn't solve the problem.
Contribute to the LSB and projects like Portland and make sure that my software works with it. It doesn't stop me from certifying for a few distributions, as before, but it ensures that many people at least have a fighting chance of getting it to work, even when upgrading to a newer version of a certified distro.
You're just skipping around the root problem, and the solution, I'm describing. You could never feasibly certify for every distro, but you certainly can help get them to work on a technical level. Again, certification doesn't solve anyone's problems.
The software company in question here uses Linux and makes huge amounts of money out of it.
Software vendors, whether they like it or not, are a part of getting this to work. If software vendors are creating specific RPMs as they are prone to do, and even trying to detect the distro and version you are installing on, then they are a part of the problem. It is up to distributors, the community, and software vendors, to work together to mitigate this problem. As a result, vendors will have far fewer installation and support headaches and they will sell more software i.e. more money.
Software vendors throwing their hands over their ears isn't going to help here.
-------> You
Hmmmmm. No it isn't. You've missed the point. I bet that DB2 would actually work on Windows XP absolutely fine, but the fact that IBM doesn't certify it is really not of any importance to anyone. The vast majority of software written for Windows is not certified in any way - it just runs on Windows, with some caveats between versions generally. Not so with Linux systems. The binaries may well run on a lot of systems, but paths are different, startup scripts are different etc. etc. etc. in lots of pointless ways.
The fact that the vast majority of vendors feel compelled to certify for a particular distribution, and exclude another such as Oracle Linux, shows just how bad the situation of third party software installation is on Linux systems. Hell, I can get a huge amount of open source software installed on Windows such as Ruby, and update it, better than I can on any Linux system. Go figure.
People run around pointlessly certifying software in the Linux world because third party software installation is so bad.
I just hate the whole concept of Linux distribution certification, because it tells me that there's something wrong with running software on it. I doubt whether a huge amount of older software is certified to run on Windows 2003 either, but you can bet your life that many organisations are running that software on Windows 2003. Organisations generally just try it out on a newer version of an OS, and if it works OK in a trial period (even if they have to tweak things to get it to work) they go with it, and they don't fly into a massive panic. I've done this many times, including an older piece of, now totally unsupported, software written for NT 4 in C to communicate with a mainframe that needed to run on 2003.
If Oracle can say "Yes, this will run" to their customers, and their customers try it out and it does actually run, then no one will care.
In terms of backwards compatibility, and getting the software you want to work, Windows is still way ahead of Linux, and this whole concept of distributors and software vendors protecting themselves (and engineering some lock-in, incidentally) by certifying, or certifying for, certain distributions just isn't helping Linux or open source software get more widely used.
I can remember one interview I did years where I had sat patiently for about an hour and a half answering various silly questions (and one interviewer getting very animated when I mentioned Linux), and then I had to do one of those stupid things where you draw lines on a piece of paper or something. I was hungry and thirsty by that point, and I was really, really hoping this was going to be worth my while, so I just got up and left. With hindsight, this was a really good decision, and back then I put up with too much in interviews when I was starting out. I didn't even get any politeness in the interview for the time and effort I was putting in either. Goodness knows who they took on eventually, but I've found out that the company in question no longer exists. Go figure.
At a guess, I'd say there was sarcasm in there. Besides, what are non-MSFT products? I'm not aware of any............
Now we can see that Microsoft's deal with Novell was explicitly designed to create and solidify this impression amongst companies using Linux. Novell were well and truly bent over the table, despite the fact that they so innocently claim that they have not admitted any IP issues with Linux or the software they use.
Maybe it's Sarbanes Oxley? (tongue firmly in cheek)
Did anyone really believe that Apple would make it remotely easy for people to dual boot Windows and Mac OS?
I've seen no evidence for that whatsoever. I wouldn't call a panic 6000 page dump of an existing closed binary format into XML rigorous in any way.
The simple fact is, if it depends on Windows, depends on features in Windows and Office and depends on the quirks of Windows rather than even other ISO standards then it is a poor pathetic attempt at getting something accepted as a show standard in order to quell any interest in ODF.
That's what OOXML is for, and that is all it's for. I know it. You know it. Microsoft knows it.
...whether ISO has simply become a dumping ground for people simply wanting to market their stuff as standards (ECMA), or a real standards body.
As it is, there is not a snowball in hell's chance that OpenXML can become an ISO standard. It is simply a dump of the existing awful doc format into a nice incomprehensible 6000 page document, and it doesn't even use existing ISO standards. There's even a set group of banners and bullet points defined in there which can by no stretch of the imagination be called international.
I know Microsoft has managed to butter the ECMA up as their usual standards dumping ground, but I simply cannot see how they can get past the shortcomings in that article. To do so would be a huge amount of work (and Office 2007 is already using this format) and it would threaten their Office monopoly - which is what this obfuscation was about in the first place.
Do you have any evidence at all for that, and what they promised and implemented? You're not renting your content (which is what the suits and really want and you can still burn to CD. They didn't implement anything that Microsoft has in Vista. Jobs specifically argued for that when creating iTunes, because he recognised that they were competing against pirated content and networks. It's the primary reason why people buy anything from iTunes.
Amusingly, it's why DRM schemes and this digital home thing Microsoft funnily thinks is coming will never work. The content owners want you to buy your films and music all over again, or even better, to rent your own content to you. Stop paying and you have no content. It's how a lot of Windows Media based stores work, and as soon as people realise it, they immediately stop paying.
The only DRM scheme that works is Apple's, and that's because they were clever enough not to get down on their knees in front of the studios and promise them anything, which is what Microsoft has done.
Now that's what's wrong with the so called prequels. A line that corny simply has to be delivered with some humour or people just cringe like hell in their seats.
Small wonder that Kershner's name, and those of the writers, were put to the back of the credits and Lucasfilm was put up prominently. The guy is utter shite and extremely lucky, and the only reason why Indiana Jones works is because he has Stephen Spielberg to keep him in check.
I don't know why they bothered on Patrick Stewart. He looks exactly the same!
Digital Rights Management for physical objects?
So? That's not the reason why Apple moved to Intel, and the vast majority of people don't know that Apple changed CPUs at all. An Apple is an Apple, and that's kind of the point.
Again. That wasn't the reason that Apple switched at all, and Apple would much prefer that Windows didn't run on a Mac, so they're not going to make it too easy for people.
The Far East, and in particular the Japanese, are absolutely light years ahead when it comes to robotics. This is one party that you have come to far, far, far too late to.
They should have talked to a person who knows what he's talking about, from Honda or someone like that, rather than drivel from someone who doesn't care about the robotics industry but simply wasn't to make some money.
No doubt all the robotics hobbyists currently doing their thing, and shaping the whole area of robotics, are criminals and thieves. The whole article was just a meaningless load of drivel from someone who obviously has dollar signs in his eyes.
Don't know where you get that idea. EVMS wasn't the default for anything in my copy of Ubuntu. It may be installed by default (haven't checked), but it certainly isn't the default in creating filesystems.
There's that stupidity word again......