Kazza was banned in australia because of laws pertaining to the creation of media formats. I wonder if this leaves the door to have that overturned and Kazza can begin supplying its software back on Australian shores.
MS has made a big deal about how they are going to invest in R&D but just like any IT related industry the day for absorbing customer attraction is over. Google has made its money, now they are big and successful and there isnt a damn thing MS can do about it.
Just like the fact the general market has chosen to use Windows the general market has chosen Google to search with. It doesnt really matter if you have a MSN search tool in the corner of your address bar because at the end of the day even myself who has the FF google search box and the google toolbar i still find myself typing in the web address. Further to that IE's default homepage is MSN and still a click of a button and i can default it too google anyway.
Too many companys depend on adwords to successfully run their business and too many professionals in the industry sell Google Adwords Management as a product, more so Adsense is bloody everywhere. As a result its built Google to be a very lucrative business even more funnier which is what i think MS is really crapped off about is that Google was smarter with this dispursal of stock and ownership. MS relied too much of other investors once it made itself a public company even though they are bigger they've spread their stock ownership alot thinner then Google has.
And why is this you ask? Simple, Google is still bloody huge but they dont need offices all around the world to operate and they dont require to run support desks or create agreements of hardware developers, and what it all boils down to is their system is of making money is SIMPLE much much simpler then the way Microsoft makes its money.
Simplicity is the name of the game and the core of any good business. Because the similar it is to make a dallor the better, then all you do is replicate it a billion times to make a billion dallors. Google's way of making money is 100x simpler then Microsofts way. Again the general market is now hooked on it they wont let it go, of course 5% to 10% here or there might change because of some well played strategies but at the end of the day you'll never have the Google or Yahoo customerbase just go "I'll stick with MSN from now on" just wont happen.
Just like the Windows and Linux choice or your preference in cars and favorite perfume/calone.
I didnt know it would cost microsoft nearly a billion dallors to hire a bunch of people to sit on the internet, read slashdot and copy every innovation that yahoo and google comes up with.
Then send if off the to development department to have it written up with that oh so good MS flavor of light blue gradients everywhere.
According to the PEAR website, it is infact a framework, yes it is a component library but when you are using the PEAR system you see how easy it is to manage various components and you see how quite blaitently it intergrates into eachother.
EG how the error checking system, "configuration swiss army knife tools", DB intilisation classes and DB objects all tie into PEAR base library then to make it even nicer you have some real cool caching and session management classes which you can incorperate into them; some of it is really quite handy.
Though, I can see what your saying Mr AC. On a commerical point of view if they want to sell it to enterprise they'll need to focus on the "glazed" abstract elements of.PHP.
Okay granted the development of.PHP is not supposed to be about developing a set of libraries which encapuslates a various high-end operations such as abstractive interfacing. However, in.PHP v6 they are placing importance on PECL which is again just another library set which is a "part" of the.PHP development.
PECL, PEAR & Smarty are all relevant parts of.PHP in my view if you want to have a serious enterprise development environment they need to mature such elements.
At this stage for.PHP development i see the best way is to get the job done is just use bits of PEAR to create your framework to develop from, though this aspect is the time consuming process for some.
Thanks for pointing out the Zend Framework, defintly worth checking out!
The argument why.PHP is seen as being less of a programming language to.NET is its lack of framework support.
They should finish working on PEAR and getting it properly documented along with getting most of the respoitory packages out of "alpha" release. Then we wont have this stigma about.PHP being not quite enough agaisnt competeing solutions.
Its good to see that they want to "fine tune" php and they are discussing the important programming syntax elements of the langauge, but like everyone else is saying why move to v5 in the first place? Well for those.PHP hardcore users v5 is really quite nice it does allow for more sparing use of memory and allows for a bit more OO functionality but at the end of the day to make.PHP a usable piece of enterprise software it needs to have a mature framework.
Otherwise I presonally believe we'll start seeing Ruby hit the scene a bit more and.PHP will be left to catch up.
Yeah, but isnt the issue that they arnet following the wishes of the ruling set down by the EU?
I can totally understand the reasons why this fine has been put in place as for the anti-american feelings I totally agree its a bit over the top, realistically its not necessary at all.
But yes MS does have that huge amount of power which means they have the power to fix it aswell they are just being the good old Microsoft which all of us have come to expect:) and that is MS does whatever MS wishes to do regardless of what others want.
As for running back to Microsoft, dont be so sure, Frankfurt in Germany is run totally on linux and has the highest amount of linux run systems in the world and linux itself comes for Finland. A large amount of europe has leant over to linux because of such policitcal concerns which have been raised before the EU comission anti-trust problems.
If MS were to shut the door it would disadvantage a lot of people but it would be not nearly as bad as if they shut the doors to Asia for instance.
Though i wouldnt be able to see the whole of Europe run on Linux, there is after all OSX:P Maybe EU is playing this card a bit to hard and fast, but in a few years if that card was played it wouldnt be so detrimental.
Well I'm thinking of the MS strategy here, whos to stop them from charging in the future?
But yes anti-trust lawsuits maybe the case if it does go through, but it seems like their on the other end of the stick if you think about it because the telcos usually control the distribution of the mobile phones in the market place (which is in the TFA)
It just goes to show how much the underground actually retains as far as exploit code is concered. Makes you think what else is circulating which the general public doesnt know about.
Well from what i know about the TCP/IP protocal is that downloading it is pretty much the same as buring it on a CD in the sense that its merely replicating data from one media device on to another media device. So if your talking rationally isnt downloading Child Pornography also producing it?
I can understand being charged with "distributing" child pronography because thats what hes done, but producing it not the case...
Maybe i'm a purist but abstraction to me usually resides with a/dev system then having things like vfs or network interfaces sit of top of them. Again i dont know about Windows and how it abstractivly handles its block devices or peripherals you'd have to take it up with a driver coder for windows to get a proper run down.
From an application point of view though and this is only going from what "i hear" because i dont program windows apps, is that things like syscall protection is an internal library written into.NET which you evoke with certian constraints, perhaps not the best example. And yes the argument about HT where people were saying to restrict cache usage to stop thrashing for certain operations, personally i dont think such things should be tured and benchmarked by programmers and a nicly built os could handle such things without needing to have hacks implemented in them.
As far as memory management is concerned though (the most abstractive aspect of a pc) OpenBSD gets around a lot of secruity issues by making various memory regions non-executable, though in linux you have to obtain patches to do this it is possible. With windows its uncharted waters which looks like they are attempting to venture down.
So while OpenBSD has done a good job of hardening their kernel, they don't seem to also audit important software that are used commonly by customers, such as PHP, Perl, etc. for security vulnerabilities. At Microsoft we're focusing on the entire software stack, from the Hardware Abstraction Layer in Windows, all the way through the memory manager, network stack, file systems, UI and shell, Internet Explorer, Internet Information Services, compilers (C/C++,.NET), Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft Office, Microsoft SQL Server and much, much more
I think he needs to be very careful with that statement, I'm by no means a Windows expert nor can I even program Windows applications in any way shape or form (once a nux user always a nux user:))
I'm not too sure about memory protection with MS but from what I can gather they dont have a non-executable stack region. Also, from the look of the Windows exploits that I've seen they remind me of linux type nop slide style exploits that hit the net 5 years ago. The only way to nab OpenBSD is creating heap based injections and again I havent kept on top of OpenBSD all that much either so that itself could even be outdated, therefore improved.
Where the failing with the MS model lays (which it has always been) is that they rely on the programmer to handle architectual issues (sort of like the HT inefficeny discussion that was being spoken about on/. a few months ago) while when dealing with *nix its different because they deal in proper abstraction of hardware and always have.
Now they are saying when Vista comes out (which mind you is just the os and not the compiler) its supposed to implement all this new abstraction now all of a sudden? What happened there? its taken a 200B+ dallor business 5 years to actually obtain compentent programmers that can write this? while the guys at Berkley have had it for nearly a decade?
It seems to me that they cant just go off and do this and expect legacy apps to just suddenly work after all these rapid system changes. Especially when dealing with memory management? or will it? again i'm not a Windows programmer so I cant really say. So maybe others who know better could comment.
Worse to that I could futher pull apart that comment by the way hes stating that "Microsoft cares about what applications people use" how the hell does that work? Last time I checked Microsoft wont audit anything that isnt Microsoft (which up to this point has been a bit of global embarressment for them) but what hes crapping on about are application sets that are not directly associated with the OpenBSD project any way shape or form?
Also hes saying that they audit c/c++ how ambigous is that? and how the hell is that going to work? is MS implementing idiot proof automated security checking in their compilers? I dare say that would be a mission and a half to complete.
My overall sum of that comment sort of reminds me of a politican who promises all these wonderful things before the election just to get votes....
Since when did anything.au become New Zealands responsibility? Usually its the other way around! I.e blaming the existance of Russle Crow on Australians. This wasnt our fault HE WAS BORN IN NZ! Now they NZ is stealing our conferences. I for one find this an outrage!
Re:Always picking no Windows... its better then li
on
WMF Flaw not a Backdoor
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Excuse me if i'm wrong but i believe this post was stolen from a previous artical way back when. I know this why? because i sit at home in my mothers basement looking at slashdot all day and have a kick ass memory... almost as good as ecc ram!
If i wasnt a lazy slashdot junky i would actually go looking for this posting but at the end of the day the GP being the 1st post and being so long at the same time makes obvious sense that it was c&p from somewhere.
If they want to have aspects of OpenVZ added to the kernel to support the lower level functionality like they do for UML and XEN then really this artical isnt anything really worth talking about it just seems normal and i wouldnt see Tovalds knocking back such a request.
If its anything more then that then yeah, they'll get told to bugger off (and so they should).
BTW i didnt RTFA on this one:)
Re:Web 2.0: Where solutions don't need problems?
on
Web 3.0
·
· Score: 1
Two things.... (not here to flame though)
AJAX is NOT a new thing people are so hyped over what some stoopid object that MS thought up ages ago but people have actually caught on and figured out that is in fact useful. Further to that there are ways to do the same thing as AJAX without utilising the XMLHttpRequest object. Like hidden iframes for instance (i know nasty as it is and sounds).
Second thing, usually doesnt the webs development cycle these days work more like this;
But aside from that dry level of humor i've attempted to bring to my comment i would like to mention that AJAX isnt a very costly system to implement on a development side of things. If done correctly by having a few standard bits of code that you just drop into the clients site, building AJAX elements into site can infact save a lot of time.
RTFC: the 31 step process is for getting permission to install the JDK.
My bad.
That's not what he said. It's more like "my company is insane."
I stick by this one hey, sometimes you have to read between the lines on some issues and in his posting is just oozing of attempts at showing the "over" complex nature of implementing Open Source solutions (even though Java isnt opensrc). If it was an envorinment of pros who know whats up the problem the it would be resolved in a day or two.
The only reason why these things crop up is because somewhere down the line there was a "yes" man and hes just gone off and BSed to his bosses but now someone actually has to implement the proposal, as a direct downfall the GP suffers.
Happens more often then people would imagine, i remeber once i had to write an XML web based solution, i was given a spec document with the whole XML structure explained, i asked for an access point and tried to feed it requests only to find that during the sales meeting the client was told all these wonderful things that could be done and that XML can be used to do this this and this, though because none of the previous clients have required useage of the XML interface no one bothered to freaking write it.... what can i say
Well put I must say, and from a fresh prospective which i like.
I wouldnt worry about articals like this, it goes down in the books as "someone is being paid along the line by some software vendor somewhere" otherwise why would waste their breath writing such trash.
You've explained IT experts (sys admins) upper hand in just a few sentences and why they think they are god half the time.
I dont really think that has much to do with open source. I've done dev contracts for a few companies which I have relied on services to be pre established for me, EG a soap interface for instance.
It took nearly 3 months to get the damn thing established for me before i could do what was required. So likewise weather its Java SDK,.NET, MySQL setup, ISAPI filters on IIS, or whatever. I'd be blaming your companies policy for addressing the technical needs of the employees in such ways or worse yet the fact you have to "befriend" a sys admin to establish a fairly standard software package on a server for you.
Seems like more of an internal political/process issue then software related.
And in all due respect the Java SDK comes as a rpm or a deb file in Linux most of the time and requires you to type in a command or click a button (you cant get much easier then that dood). So a 31 step manual is perhaps, some dork in your FOSS has gone to the Sun website and just downloaded some dumb ass doco and sent the thing to you while thinking "here ya go now piss off i have other things to do".
What you have done in your posting is prove something which i've been saying a long time, people blame open source because its hard to use sometimes but really we should be blaming the cheese churning IT industry for producing dimwits under a 6 month time frame by shipping them off to MCSE courses and paying them an upwards of 60K a year to sit of their fat lazy asses. While you can hire a decent industry experienced system admin with a few years Unix experience for 10 or 20k extra and can do the same thing 5 the other idiots can achieve in less time.
Remember a good trade mens NEVER blames the tools, and if he does then hes a fool, though if the tools are broken you have to consider that the tradesman usually picks the tools most of the time and therefore if he cant use them he shouldn't have them.
Further to that i dont want to hear this "oh it has to be easy otherwise no body will use it" because your dealing on a different level here. You don't hear doctors chucking a tantrum because the process of a heart transplant is difficult and only a few people can pull it off.. Thats why they are called professionals and it should be the same in IT, up to this point i cant see why it cant be in many occations for IT.
Starting nmap 3.81 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2006-01-14 02:42 EST Warning: OS detection will be MUCH less reliable because we did not find at lea st 1 open and 1 closed TCP port Interesting ports on mail.hotmail.com (65.54.244.40): PORT STATE SERVICE 25/tcp open smtp 26/tcp filtered unknown Device type: general purpose Running (JUST GUESSING) : Cray UNICOS 8.X (91%) Aggressive OS guesses: Cray UNICOS/mk 8.6 (91%) No exact OS matches for host (test conditions non-ideal).
Slashdot Mirror
Kazza was banned in australia because of laws pertaining to the creation of media formats. I wonder if this leaves the door to have that overturned and Kazza can begin supplying its software back on Australian shores.
In related news, however, it means Google's GTalk client will be ported to Linux
About frigging time!Now we want to combine that with a world full of peoples personal opinions and daily lives.
:)
Then have it uploaded on the internet?
Internet pollution it definatly makes you feel like those damned hippies with their W3C compliancy will start protesting soon
MS has made a big deal about how they are going to invest in R&D but just like any IT related industry the day for absorbing customer attraction is over. Google has made its money, now they are big and successful and there isnt a damn thing MS can do about it.
Just like the fact the general market has chosen to use Windows the general market has chosen Google to search with. It doesnt really matter if you have a MSN search tool in the corner of your address bar because at the end of the day even myself who has the FF google search box and the google toolbar i still find myself typing in the web address. Further to that IE's default homepage is MSN and still a click of a button and i can default it too google anyway.
Too many companys depend on adwords to successfully run their business and too many professionals in the industry sell Google Adwords Management as a product, more so Adsense is bloody everywhere. As a result its built Google to be a very lucrative business even more funnier which is what i think MS is really crapped off about is that Google was smarter with this dispursal of stock and ownership. MS relied too much of other investors once it made itself a public company even though they are bigger they've spread their stock ownership alot thinner then Google has.
And why is this you ask? Simple, Google is still bloody huge but they dont need offices all around the world to operate and they dont require to run support desks or create agreements of hardware developers, and what it all boils down to is their system is of making money is SIMPLE much much simpler then the way Microsoft makes its money.
Simplicity is the name of the game and the core of any good business. Because the similar it is to make a dallor the better, then all you do is replicate it a billion times to make a billion dallors. Google's way of making money is 100x simpler then Microsofts way. Again the general market is now hooked on it they wont let it go, of course 5% to 10% here or there might change because of some well played strategies but at the end of the day you'll never have the Google or Yahoo customerbase just go "I'll stick with MSN from now on" just wont happen.
Just like the Windows and Linux choice or your preference in cars and favorite perfume/calone.
I didnt know it would cost microsoft nearly a billion dallors to hire a bunch of people to sit on the internet, read slashdot and copy every innovation that yahoo and google comes up with. Then send if off the to development department to have it written up with that oh so good MS flavor of light blue gradients everywhere.
It is believed by the jewish faith that the real document format has yet to come
According to the PEAR website, it is infact a framework, yes it is a component library but when you are using the PEAR system you see how easy it is to manage various components and you see how quite blaitently it intergrates into eachother.
.PHP.
.PHP is not supposed to be about developing a set of libraries which encapuslates a various high-end operations such as abstractive interfacing. However, in .PHP v6 they are placing importance on PECL which is again just another library set which is a "part" of the .PHP development.
.PHP in my view if you want to have a serious enterprise development environment they need to mature such elements.
.PHP development i see the best way is to get the job done is just use bits of PEAR to create your framework to develop from, though this aspect is the time consuming process for some.
EG how the error checking system, "configuration swiss army knife tools", DB intilisation classes and DB objects all tie into PEAR base library then to make it even nicer you have some real cool caching and session management classes which you can incorperate into them; some of it is really quite handy.
Though, I can see what your saying Mr AC. On a commerical point of view if they want to sell it to enterprise they'll need to focus on the "glazed" abstract elements of
Okay granted the development of
PECL, PEAR & Smarty are all relevant parts of
At this stage for
Thanks for pointing out the Zend Framework, defintly worth checking out!
The argument why .PHP is seen as being less of a programming language to .NET is its lack of framework support.
.PHP being not quite enough agaisnt competeing solutions.
.PHP hardcore users v5 is really quite nice it does allow for more sparing use of memory and allows for a bit more OO functionality but at the end of the day to make .PHP a usable piece of enterprise software it needs to have a mature framework.
.PHP will be left to catch up.
They should finish working on PEAR and getting it properly documented along with getting most of the respoitory packages out of "alpha" release. Then we wont have this stigma about
Its good to see that they want to "fine tune" php and they are discussing the important programming syntax elements of the langauge, but like everyone else is saying why move to v5 in the first place? Well for those
Otherwise I presonally believe we'll start seeing Ruby hit the scene a bit more and
Yeah, but isnt the issue that they arnet following the wishes of the ruling set down by the EU?
:) and that is MS does whatever MS wishes to do regardless of what others want.
:P Maybe EU is playing this card a bit to hard and fast, but in a few years if that card was played it wouldnt be so detrimental.
I can totally understand the reasons why this fine has been put in place as for the anti-american feelings I totally agree its a bit over the top, realistically its not necessary at all.
But yes MS does have that huge amount of power which means they have the power to fix it aswell they are just being the good old Microsoft which all of us have come to expect
As for running back to Microsoft, dont be so sure, Frankfurt in Germany is run totally on linux and has the highest amount of linux run systems in the world and linux itself comes for Finland. A large amount of europe has leant over to linux because of such policitcal concerns which have been raised before the EU comission anti-trust problems.
If MS were to shut the door it would disadvantage a lot of people but it would be not nearly as bad as if they shut the doors to Asia for instance.
Though i wouldnt be able to see the whole of Europe run on Linux, there is after all OSX
Just another thing for a coder to hack
Well I'm thinking of the MS strategy here, whos to stop them from charging in the future?
But yes anti-trust lawsuits maybe the case if it does go through, but it seems like their on the other end of the stick if you think about it because the telcos usually control the distribution of the mobile phones in the market place (which is in the TFA)
It just goes to show how much the underground actually retains as far as exploit code is concered. Makes you think what else is circulating which the general public doesnt know about.
How the hell are crackers and skiddies going to know what the company is about if they dont spell it ... mU53ur1+y
Well from what i know about the TCP/IP protocal is that downloading it is pretty much the same as buring it on a CD in the sense that its merely replicating data from one media device on to another media device. So if your talking rationally isnt downloading Child Pornography also producing it?
I can understand being charged with "distributing" child pronography because thats what hes done, but producing it not the case...
Maybe i'm a purist but abstraction to me usually resides with a /dev system then having things like vfs or network interfaces sit of top of them. Again i dont know about Windows and how it abstractivly handles its block devices or peripherals you'd have to take it up with a driver coder for windows to get a proper run down.
.NET which you evoke with certian constraints, perhaps not the best example. And yes the argument about HT where people were saying to restrict cache usage to stop thrashing for certain operations, personally i dont think such things should be tured and benchmarked by programmers and a nicly built os could handle such things without needing to have hacks implemented in them.
From an application point of view though and this is only going from what "i hear" because i dont program windows apps, is that things like syscall protection is an internal library written into
As far as memory management is concerned though (the most abstractive aspect of a pc) OpenBSD gets around a lot of secruity issues by making various memory regions non-executable, though in linux you have to obtain patches to do this it is possible. With windows its uncharted waters which looks like they are attempting to venture down.
So while OpenBSD has done a good job of hardening their kernel, they don't seem to also audit important software that are used commonly by customers, such as PHP, Perl, etc. for security vulnerabilities. At Microsoft we're focusing on the entire software stack, from the Hardware Abstraction Layer in Windows, all the way through the memory manager, network stack, file systems, UI and shell, Internet Explorer, Internet Information Services, compilers (C/C++, .NET), Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft Office, Microsoft SQL Server and much, much more
I think he needs to be very careful with that statement, I'm by no means a Windows expert nor can I even program Windows applications in any way shape or form (once a nux user always a nux user :))
I'm not too sure about memory protection with MS but from what I can gather they dont have a non-executable stack region. Also, from the look of the Windows exploits that I've seen they remind me of linux type nop slide style exploits that hit the net 5 years ago. The only way to nab OpenBSD is creating heap based injections and again I havent kept on top of OpenBSD all that much either so that itself could even be outdated, therefore improved.
Where the failing with the MS model lays (which it has always been) is that they rely on the programmer to handle architectual issues (sort of like the HT inefficeny discussion that was being spoken about on /. a few months ago) while when dealing with *nix its different because they deal in proper abstraction of hardware and always have.
Now they are saying when Vista comes out (which mind you is just the os and not the compiler) its supposed to implement all this new abstraction now all of a sudden? What happened there? its taken a 200B+ dallor business 5 years to actually obtain compentent programmers that can write this? while the guys at Berkley have had it for nearly a decade?
It seems to me that they cant just go off and do this and expect legacy apps to just suddenly work after all these rapid system changes. Especially when dealing with memory management? or will it? again i'm not a Windows programmer so I cant really say. So maybe others who know better could comment.
Worse to that I could futher pull apart that comment by the way hes stating that "Microsoft cares about what applications people use" how the hell does that work? Last time I checked Microsoft wont audit anything that isnt Microsoft (which up to this point has been a bit of global embarressment for them) but what hes crapping on about are application sets that are not directly associated with the OpenBSD project any way shape or form?
Also hes saying that they audit c/c++ how ambigous is that? and how the hell is that going to work? is MS implementing idiot proof automated security checking in their compilers? I dare say that would be a mission and a half to complete.
My overall sum of that comment sort of reminds me of a politican who promises all these wonderful things before the election just to get votes....
Linux.conf.au conference in New Zealand
What the ... HAS THE WORLD GONE MAD!
Since when did anything .au become New Zealands responsibility? Usually its the other way around! I.e blaming the existance of Russle Crow on Australians. This wasnt our fault HE WAS BORN IN NZ! Now they NZ is stealing our conferences. I for one find this an outrage!
Excuse me if i'm wrong but i believe this post was stolen from a previous artical way back when. I know this why? because i sit at home in my mothers basement looking at slashdot all day and have a kick ass memory ... almost as good as ecc ram!
If i wasnt a lazy slashdot junky i would actually go looking for this posting but at the end of the day the GP being the 1st post and being so long at the same time makes obvious sense that it was c&p from somewhere.
If they want to have aspects of OpenVZ added to the kernel to support the lower level functionality like they do for UML and XEN then really this artical isnt anything really worth talking about it just seems normal and i wouldnt see Tovalds knocking back such a request.
:)
If its anything more then that then yeah, they'll get told to bugger off (and so they should).
BTW i didnt RTFA on this one
Two things.... (not here to flame though)
AJAX is NOT a new thing people are so hyped over what some stoopid object that MS thought up ages ago but people have actually caught on and figured out that is in fact useful. Further to that there are ways to do the same thing as AJAX without utilising the XMLHttpRequest object. Like hidden iframes for instance (i know nasty as it is and sounds).
Second thing, usually doesnt the webs development cycle these days work more like this;
while(developing) {
if(client==HAPPY) {
break;
}
if(client==WASTES_TIME) {
overallcost++;
}
}
sendClientInvoice(client, overallcost);
But aside from that dry level of humor i've attempted to bring to my comment i would like to mention that AJAX isnt a very costly system to implement on a development side of things. If done correctly by having a few standard bits of code that you just drop into the clients site, building AJAX elements into site can infact save a lot of time.
Web 360, Web Vista, Web IIe and lastly Web v1.2.3pre4(alpha-build5)
RTFC: the 31 step process is for getting permission to install the JDK.
My bad.
That's not what he said. It's more like "my company is insane."
I stick by this one hey, sometimes you have to read between the lines on some issues and in his posting is just oozing of attempts at showing the "over" complex nature of implementing Open Source solutions (even though Java isnt opensrc). If it was an envorinment of pros who know whats up the problem the it would be resolved in a day or two.
The only reason why these things crop up is because somewhere down the line there was a "yes" man and hes just gone off and BSed to his bosses but now someone actually has to implement the proposal, as a direct downfall the GP suffers.
Happens more often then people would imagine, i remeber once i had to write an XML web based solution, i was given a spec document with the whole XML structure explained, i asked for an access point and tried to feed it requests only to find that during the sales meeting the client was told all these wonderful things that could be done and that XML can be used to do this this and this, though because none of the previous clients have required useage of the XML interface no one bothered to freaking write it.... what can i say
Well put I must say, and from a fresh prospective which i like.
I wouldnt worry about articals like this, it goes down in the books as "someone is being paid along the line by some software vendor somewhere" otherwise why would waste their breath writing such trash.
You've explained IT experts (sys admins) upper hand in just a few sentences and why they think they are god half the time.
.NET, MySQL setup, ISAPI filters on IIS, or whatever. I'd be blaming your companies policy for addressing the technical needs of the employees in such ways or worse yet the fact you have to "befriend" a sys admin to establish a fairly standard software package on a server for you.
I dont really think that has much to do with open source. I've done dev contracts for a few companies which I have relied on services to be pre established for me, EG a soap interface for instance.
It took nearly 3 months to get the damn thing established for me before i could do what was required. So likewise weather its Java SDK,
Seems like more of an internal political/process issue then software related.
And in all due respect the Java SDK comes as a rpm or a deb file in Linux most of the time and requires you to type in a command or click a button (you cant get much easier then that dood). So a 31 step manual is perhaps, some dork in your FOSS has gone to the Sun website and just downloaded some dumb ass doco and sent the thing to you while thinking "here ya go now piss off i have other things to do".
What you have done in your posting is prove something which i've been saying a long time, people blame open source because its hard to use sometimes but really we should be blaming the cheese churning IT industry for producing dimwits under a 6 month time frame by shipping them off to MCSE courses and paying them an upwards of 60K a year to sit of their fat lazy asses. While you can hire a decent industry experienced system admin with a few years Unix experience for 10 or 20k extra and can do the same thing 5 the other idiots can achieve in less time.
Remember a good trade mens NEVER blames the tools, and if he does then hes a fool, though if the tools are broken you have to consider that the tradesman usually picks the tools most of the time and therefore if he cant use them he shouldn't have them.
Further to that i dont want to hear this "oh it has to be easy otherwise no body will use it" because your dealing on a different level here. You don't hear doctors chucking a tantrum because the process of a heart transplant is difficult and only a few people can pull it off.. Thats why they are called professionals and it should be the same in IT, up to this point i cant see why it cant be in many occations for IT.
This looks like it isn't v accurate but
fortress:/home/oztiks# nmap -O -P0 -p 25-26 mail.hotmail.com
Starting nmap 3.81 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2006-01-14 02:42 EST
Warning: OS detection will be MUCH less reliable because we did not find at lea st 1 open and 1 closed TCP port
Interesting ports on mail.hotmail.com (65.54.244.40):
PORT STATE SERVICE
25/tcp open smtp
26/tcp filtered unknown
Device type: general purpose
Running (JUST GUESSING) : Cray UNICOS 8.X (91%)
Aggressive OS guesses: Cray UNICOS/mk 8.6 (91%)
No exact OS matches for host (test conditions non-ideal).