Too bad you won't be modded up. There are too many posts on this article for anyone to get noticed. Anyhow, you make good points, particularly about running blended environments.
In my case, I am a TA on a large website which is spread on two RHEL servers running apache, jrun, coldfusion, and php. Early last year, we switched from windows, iis, and coldfusion and php. Actually, I have to say that the Windows servers were more stable. Same site, just about the same user base, etc etc, and yet now we have more server problems than ever. I don't know if its just because my company has better windows admins than linux admins or what, but it certainly wasn't the expected result (ironically, we moved to linux because it is recommended for 7x24 operations). On the other hand, having our code in a linux environment mandates that things be coded more carefully and therefore we have better code as a result. Ideally, we add two windows servers to our round robin setup and then if there are problems in either environment we have a live backup. Anyhow, I just put all this out there to support your statement. If I had to do it all over again, I'd have an equal number of Windows and Linux servers using round-robin DNS. That'll give you a much more reliable system than 100% one or the other. At least that's my theory.
funny you mention that. A friend said the same thing when I told him about my idea. If I'm not mistaken, you write the app in XUL, right? Now that another person is telling me essentially the same thing, that really piques my interest. I still wonder why this type of thing doesn't take off? I guess web apps are deemed "good enough". I think I may check that out, though. Thanks.
I have been thinking for a while now that we need some sort of "enhanced browser" if you will, something specifically designed to run applications, without all of the headaches that come with fat-client applications. This way you can easily deploy applications, have a common platform (the "browser"), and distribute the workload across client and server. It seems so obvious that it has to exist already.
Your statement is a bit ambiguous, but if you are implying that AJAX applications are not user-friendly then you are confusing technology with implementation. AJAX can make applications more user-friendly if done properly.
Yes folks, this is what happens when you try to legislate morality. If legislation depends on categorizing something as tasteful or distasteful, then that legislation is virtually unenforceable. And that makes it a waste of time.
If on one hand you try to educate people on how hostnames work, then yes, you cannot blame then when things go wrong.
Claims the users are responsible for what happens to them amount to blaming the victim.
No, I think the gist here is that people need to be at least somewhat responsible for their personal information. For example, if I get mugged when walking around in a bad neighborhood at night while wearing my finest leather coat, then I do share some responsibility. I should know better and take reasonable precautions. Likewise, people should know that unsolicited requests for personal information are never to be trusted, be they over the phone, in person, or online. If someone falls victim to this, well, let's just say it's not the same as ID theft where a person may comb through your trash or use some other dishonest means to bypass the person and get to his information. The thing about phishing is that it doesn't bypass the person, it uses the person. It's social engineering, and technology cannot fix that. People need to stop being so gullible.
That said, it is unfortunate when people fall victim to this. Sadly, I'd imagine it's the people who can least afford it who are most often the victims.
Of course they're inneffective. Phishing is not an IE problem or a "security" problem. It's a trust problem. If someone was going door to door claiming to be a representative of a bank and asking for account numbers, most people would turn him away and call the cops. Why do we then trust a link in some unsolicited eMail with the same information? Geez.
What's unfortunate here is that since Microsoft, via IE7, made the attempt to protect users from phishing, now they have some degree of responsibility to fix what they never can. Don't claim that you will fix something if you cannot.
So whatever field you work in should only allow 2% of its employees to earn income!?!?!
No, but Hollywood is not your typical industry. Example: even if you are a not-so-great surgeon, somewhere, some rural hospital will hire you, because hey! at least you went to med school. None of us *need* Hollywood --it's just entertainment. If corporations could get by with just the top 2% of {insert profession here}, they would. My point is this: Hollywood, if you make crap movies, don't complain that people don't go to the movies or buy DVDs and don't care enough to not pirate your stuff. I am not saying piracy is OK, I personally don't download illegal stuff. But I also am not feeling any sympathy for an industry that keeps raising prices at the box office and for DVDs, churns out lots of crap, and then turns around and tries to squeeze more $ out of everyone via DRM.
After all, we only want the absolute best hamburger flippers, coffee makers, paper shufflers, etc, ad naseum, to wait on us
Actually, yes! If I spend my money, I want good service. I don't care about the top 2% or anything, but I don't tolerate mediocre service at restaurants, etc, which is I guess why I don't eat out a lot and when I do I go somewhere nice where they remember me or at least treat me with respect. But that's just me. Some people aren't as selective. The point I was trying to make was that if you only had 100 words to sum up your life, you'd choose your words well. If Hollywood could only put out X movies, they would be more selective and we'd have less crap to wade through. But don't take what I said so seriously -- I was just thinking and came up with something I found interesting.
And who is to determine "crap"?
Fair point, like I said, I was just musing. Of course nobody has the right to decide what's crap and what's not. It's all a matter of taste.
I have this theory that Hollywood should be allowed (by whom, I have no idea) to put out about 10-20 movies a year. That way they'd ensure that only the best directors, actors, writers, etc would be working, and anyone who has any part in the making of a movie is going to a damn good job of it. That would immediately filter out all the crap. It would also guarantee that movie production companies make money, since every movie would, at least theoretically, be great in terms of quality. And in the film industry, if you make a good movie people *will* see it. If I see a movie and rave about it, others will go too. That's buzz, one of the best forms of advertisement there is for movies.
What would be interesting to see is which movies are the most popular to illegally download. I'll bet that list would be full of total crap. I doubt many people would try to illegally obtain movies they actually care about. For example, how many geeks here have *only* pwned copies of the Star Wars movies? I'd bet most everyone here has the DVD box set at least, or if you are a *real* fan, the original (read unaltered) trilogy on Laserdisc.
This would also bring more attention to indie films, and this in turn would give Hollywood a good base from which to recruit writers, actors, etc. Not to mention that maybe people would start seeing some of the really good indie films out there.
I think perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Vista will not be a complete flop, but it will sell well under what Microsoft expects.
Unfortunately, build quality and commercial success are quite unrelated. It will be a success. Windows is too entrenched for any other outcome. If Vista is proven to cause spontaneous human combustion then maybe, just maybe, it will be unsuccessful from a sheer number-of-deployments stance.
The purpose of DRM is to motivate people who do obey the law, to buy additional copies of music they have already purchased once.
Well said, I agree with you 100%. Think about this, though: if someone from the RIAA were to admit that I am sure they would be open to all kinds of trouble. Some junior politician or consumer advocate wanting to make a name for himself would be all over that. So their only *public* justification is to prevent pirates. How much are they gonna spend to keep up the facade? Isn't it just easier to make yourself look like good guys and open things up a bit? I dunno, maybe I am assuming too many people care about DRM or the lack thereof, though.
The Economics of a matter drive behaviour. DRM is not economically viable. The RIAA is greedy, but they aren't stupid. Follow me:
*It costs money to produce new DRM schemes. *DRM is easily and routinely cracked or bypassed by pirates. *The people who want to pirate will pirate, the people who willingly buy music will continue to do so.
Abandoning, or at least containing DRM is just a matter of time and is really just an acceptance of reality. It's pointless and costly. Even if they don't totally abandon DRM, I can see them giving up on building the perfect scheme and just sticking with the easily bypassed and/or cracked schemes they have now. If someone claims that it somehow cost-effective to try and stay a step ahead of the pirates' ability to crack DRM, I'd say that person is deluding himself. And once it becomes too costly to keep up the arms race, they will stop. I'd say we're close to that point.
Not necessarily. Look at openoffice.org. I'd say that stacks up pretty well against MS Office.
There are some things that are better about MS Office, for example OOo Calc only allows 32767 (gotta love smallint datatype, no?) rows as opposed to Excel's 67xxx. Yes, I know this is a lot of rows and many people don't need this, but at work sometimes I generate large reports for clients and need 50000 or so rows. So OOo Calc would require two worksheets in this scenario. Yes, a minor quibble, but a deficiency none the less.
OOo Writer is, in my opinion, better than Word. Word tries to "help" you by formatting things for you. Trouble is, it's often wrong and instead comes off as intrusive. OOo Writer is much less intrusive. And guess what? I don't need the "help". Turns out I am actually capable of formatting my own documents, thank you very much.
If both cost as much as Office, which would I use? At home, since Excel and Word and the like aren't critical to my life, I'd find something free that did a fair job. You might think this proves that price trumps quality, but I disagree. For example, if you had to make a repair on your car and needed a special tool that you'd likely use just this once, would you buy the budget version or the more durable professional grade tool that costs three times as much? I have the saying 'never, ever, buy cheap tools', but in this case I'd buy the cheapie. Remember, I am someone who doesn't need an Office Suite badly enough to shell out $300 for it. I would imagine that most casual home users are in a similar boat. So I simply wouldn't pay $300 for *any* office suite. Now, if Office and OOo were both free or very modestly priced ($20-$40), well, I'd actually pick OOo over Office.
OOo should pretty well prove that F/OSS can beat proprietary software if it's done right. If that's not good enough, look at Firefox. That's what the F/OSS community should strive for -- not beating proprietary software on cost alone, but on quality too. Anything less undermines the whole open source spirit and concedes that proprietary software is in fact better. The thing I apreciate most about the F/OSS is the concept of "community developed software" being better than proprietary software. It's a can-do mentality, where normal people collaborate to produce good stuff, good work for the sake of good work. That's the way it should be.
You are right, but isn't that a lame way to get a user base? Wouldn't it actually mean something if people chose a F/OSS operating system because it was better?
were I in your shoes, I would say the same thing. However, when I called the merchant, they (mis?)informed me that Google actually chose the shipper. Unless I am confused and Google also has some shipping service, it was Google checkout. At any rate, the merchant laid the blame at Google's feet.
Yeah, and for every piece of anecdote that touts Google checkout, there are probably many more bits that say it sucks. I actually used it, and it sucked big time. It was a hassle to use (surprising, since it it Google's), took forever, didn't save any money, and my packages were evidently handled and delivered by the lowest bidder. Heck, they didn't even make it to my block (a guy three blocks down was nice enough to hand deliver them after they misdelivered them). So I am glad to see this.
Speaking of anecdotal evidence, this whole Google checkout thing is anecdotal proof that companies should stick to core business models.
I wonder how hackable this thing is? I mean, I've heard of people running Knoppix on an iPod, so why not? Anyone hear anything yet? I guess this is a start, but it'd be interesting to see if you could put a different OS on there or something, lose the DRM, and "squirt" music like a super-soaker in July. That almost makes this piece of crap worthwhile.
Oh yeah, I don't actually think the screen is bigger...I read that it's just turned sideways, so I guess perhaps one could argue it is laid out better. Yeah, I know...whatever, right?
In modern times an aglet is frequently used as an example of a common object whose name is relatively unknown. Perhaps due to this, they are occasionally referenced in popular culture.
In other words, it's pretty much unknown, and so it's known by many people (at least those who get the pop culture references, I guess) as a novelty because it's so unknown. But... that's....not....... ok, my brain hurts now...
Just goes to show you...somewhere, there is probably somebody whose job it is to design the most mundane things you could imagine. Well, I guess I'm off to find the guy whose job it is to design shoelaces!
Slashdot Mirror
In my case, I am a TA on a large website which is spread on two RHEL servers running apache, jrun, coldfusion, and php. Early last year, we switched from windows, iis, and coldfusion and php. Actually, I have to say that the Windows servers were more stable. Same site, just about the same user base, etc etc, and yet now we have more server problems than ever. I don't know if its just because my company has better windows admins than linux admins or what, but it certainly wasn't the expected result (ironically, we moved to linux because it is recommended for 7x24 operations). On the other hand, having our code in a linux environment mandates that things be coded more carefully and therefore we have better code as a result. Ideally, we add two windows servers to our round robin setup and then if there are problems in either environment we have a live backup. Anyhow, I just put all this out there to support your statement. If I had to do it all over again, I'd have an equal number of Windows and Linux servers using round-robin DNS. That'll give you a much more reliable system than 100% one or the other. At least that's my theory.
funny you mention that. A friend said the same thing when I told him about my idea. If I'm not mistaken, you write the app in XUL, right? Now that another person is telling me essentially the same thing, that really piques my interest. I still wonder why this type of thing doesn't take off? I guess web apps are deemed "good enough". I think I may check that out, though. Thanks.
I have been thinking for a while now that we need some sort of "enhanced browser" if you will, something specifically designed to run applications, without all of the headaches that come with fat-client applications. This way you can easily deploy applications, have a common platform (the "browser"), and distribute the workload across client and server. It seems so obvious that it has to exist already.
Your statement is a bit ambiguous, but if you are implying that AJAX applications are not user-friendly then you are confusing technology with implementation. AJAX can make applications more user-friendly if done properly.
Yes folks, this is what happens when you try to legislate morality. If legislation depends on categorizing something as tasteful or distasteful, then that legislation is virtually unenforceable. And that makes it a waste of time.
That said, it is unfortunate when people fall victim to this. Sadly, I'd imagine it's the people who can least afford it who are most often the victims.
Of course they're inneffective. Phishing is not an IE problem or a "security" problem. It's a trust problem. If someone was going door to door claiming to be a representative of a bank and asking for account numbers, most people would turn him away and call the cops. Why do we then trust a link in some unsolicited eMail with the same information? Geez.
What's unfortunate here is that since Microsoft, via IE7, made the attempt to protect users from phishing, now they have some degree of responsibility to fix what they never can. Don't claim that you will fix something if you cannot.
I have this theory that Hollywood should be allowed (by whom, I have no idea) to put out about 10-20 movies a year. That way they'd ensure that only the best directors, actors, writers, etc would be working, and anyone who has any part in the making of a movie is going to a damn good job of it. That would immediately filter out all the crap. It would also guarantee that movie production companies make money, since every movie would, at least theoretically, be great in terms of quality. And in the film industry, if you make a good movie people *will* see it. If I see a movie and rave about it, others will go too. That's buzz, one of the best forms of advertisement there is for movies.
What would be interesting to see is which movies are the most popular to illegally download. I'll bet that list would be full of total crap. I doubt many people would try to illegally obtain movies they actually care about. For example, how many geeks here have *only* pwned copies of the Star Wars movies? I'd bet most everyone here has the DVD box set at least, or if you are a *real* fan, the original (read unaltered) trilogy on Laserdisc.
This would also bring more attention to indie films, and this in turn would give Hollywood a good base from which to recruit writers, actors, etc. Not to mention that maybe people would start seeing some of the really good indie films out there.
I know if will never happen, but what if?
The Economics of a matter drive behaviour. DRM is not economically viable. The RIAA is greedy, but they aren't stupid. Follow me:
*It costs money to produce new DRM schemes.
*DRM is easily and routinely cracked or bypassed by pirates.
*The people who want to pirate will pirate, the people who willingly buy music will continue to do so.
Abandoning, or at least containing DRM is just a matter of time and is really just an acceptance of reality. It's pointless and costly. Even if they don't totally abandon DRM, I can see them giving up on building the perfect scheme and just sticking with the easily bypassed and/or cracked schemes they have now. If someone claims that it somehow cost-effective to try and stay a step ahead of the pirates' ability to crack DRM, I'd say that person is deluding himself. And once it becomes too costly to keep up the arms race, they will stop. I'd say we're close to that point.
Not necessarily. Look at openoffice.org. I'd say that stacks up pretty well against MS Office.
There are some things that are better about MS Office, for example OOo Calc only allows 32767 (gotta love smallint datatype, no?) rows as opposed to Excel's 67xxx. Yes, I know this is a lot of rows and many people don't need this, but at work sometimes I generate large reports for clients and need 50000 or so rows. So OOo Calc would require two worksheets in this scenario. Yes, a minor quibble, but a deficiency none the less.
OOo Writer is, in my opinion, better than Word. Word tries to "help" you by formatting things for you. Trouble is, it's often wrong and instead comes off as intrusive. OOo Writer is much less intrusive. And guess what? I don't need the "help". Turns out I am actually capable of formatting my own documents, thank you very much.
If both cost as much as Office, which would I use? At home, since Excel and Word and the like aren't critical to my life, I'd find something free that did a fair job. You might think this proves that price trumps quality, but I disagree. For example, if you had to make a repair on your car and needed a special tool that you'd likely use just this once, would you buy the budget version or the more durable professional grade tool that costs three times as much? I have the saying 'never, ever, buy cheap tools', but in this case I'd buy the cheapie. Remember, I am someone who doesn't need an Office Suite badly enough to shell out $300 for it. I would imagine that most casual home users are in a similar boat. So I simply wouldn't pay $300 for *any* office suite. Now, if Office and OOo were both free or very modestly priced ($20-$40), well, I'd actually pick OOo over Office.
OOo should pretty well prove that F/OSS can beat proprietary software if it's done right. If that's not good enough, look at Firefox. That's what the F/OSS community should strive for -- not beating proprietary software on cost alone, but on quality too. Anything less undermines the whole open source spirit and concedes that proprietary software is in fact better. The thing I apreciate most about the F/OSS is the concept of "community developed software" being better than proprietary software. It's a can-do mentality, where normal people collaborate to produce good stuff, good work for the sake of good work. That's the way it should be.
You are right, but isn't that a lame way to get a user base? Wouldn't it actually mean something if people chose a F/OSS operating system because it was better?
were I in your shoes, I would say the same thing. However, when I called the merchant, they (mis?)informed me that Google actually chose the shipper. Unless I am confused and Google also has some shipping service, it was Google checkout. At any rate, the merchant laid the blame at Google's feet.
Yeah, and for every piece of anecdote that touts Google checkout, there are probably many more bits that say it sucks. I actually used it, and it sucked big time. It was a hassle to use (surprising, since it it Google's), took forever, didn't save any money, and my packages were evidently handled and delivered by the lowest bidder. Heck, they didn't even make it to my block (a guy three blocks down was nice enough to hand deliver them after they misdelivered them). So I am glad to see this.
Speaking of anecdotal evidence, this whole Google checkout thing is anecdotal proof that companies should stick to core business models.
Actually, you make a good point...
I wonder how hackable this thing is? I mean, I've heard of people running Knoppix on an iPod, so why not? Anyone hear anything yet? I guess this is a start, but it'd be interesting to see if you could put a different OS on there or something, lose the DRM, and "squirt" music like a super-soaker in July. That almost makes this piece of crap worthwhile.
Oh yeah, I don't actually think the screen is bigger...I read that it's just turned sideways, so I guess perhaps one could argue it is laid out better. Yeah, I know...whatever, right?
Don't forget a tic-tac (or a box of them) and some febreeze! You'll need it!
...just in time for you to play Duke Nukem Forever!
You insensitive clod! It says she did it for her children! Will somebody please, for just this once, think of the children?!?
oooOOOooo, that hurts, coming from a shoe salesman. And we're not just monkeys, we're Orangutans, you insensitive clod!
Yeah, I guess it's not a no-html thing, is it? It's a no IE thing. My bad.
But then again if CSS doesn't work, then it might as well be no html for some people.
Dang, you beat me to it!
Just goes to show you...somewhere, there is probably somebody whose job it is to design the most mundane things you could imagine. Well, I guess I'm off to find the guy whose job it is to design shoelaces!