Free markets lead to monopolies. This is easy to remember with the mnemonic "big companies are free to unleash ant-competitive behavior across the market." Perhaps you're thinking of "fair markets" but the only way to achieve those is to regulate the big players, which violates the concept of a "free market".
As much as I love open source, I prefer IntelliJ IDEA way more than Eclipse. For some reason, IntelliJ starts much faster, feels snappier, and runs the unit tests much faster in Linux than in Windows. It could have something to do with Windows Defender thrashing the disk as the poster above stated but it's also possible that the Linux JVM has better optimization (I haven't seen recent benchmark comparisons for JVMs of different OSes). For me, one of the biggest advantages of using Linux rather than Windows is not having to worry about NTFS locking files that are resident in memory. When that happens, processes that try to remove those files, such as refreshing Maven or Gradle dependencies, hang with no notification of why they're hanging and won't complete until the process that is using those files in memory is killed. As far as I know, no other file system in modern operating systems has this annoying limitation.
I've had the exact opposite experience developing with Java. Almost all of my tools runs noticeably faster in Linux than in Windows, including the database, IDE, and runtime executables. This is especially amplified when comparing Windows and Linux on machines with an SSD.
These clowns can't even figure out how to use a three-way handshake to verify Caller ID and we're supposed to trust them with authentication that supplants passwords?
Meanwhile, FEMA finally found [cnn.com] the 20,000 pallets of potable water bottles it shipped to Puerto Rico. On the airfield where it left them. After the expiration date.
Without devolving into absolutist Ayn Rand libertarian zealots, maybe we can all agree that there is something to this invisible hand, free market, capitalism stuff.
Anyone who has used FedEx will likely beg to differ. The fact of the matter is that there are things that the public sector does significantly better than the private sector and vice versa. The challenge is to recognize which side does better in each sector and then step out of the way and let them get the job done.
Trump only knows one thing: how to make threats until he gets what he wants. That childish behavior works really well against your parents and your sycophant "friends" but it's not a great strategy to use on the world stage. The previous tariffs are being blamed for the increased trade deficit this quarter and these additional tariffs will likely make that worse. It's like Trump is determined to erase any gains he can attempt to take credit for with the improved economy. Maybe the writer of the NYT op-ed can sabotage these tariffs.
There's a huge difference between predicting "Apple is dying/dead" and stating that Apple will likely be surpassed in the near future in a single market segment.
So they're forcing county governments to waste vast amounts of tax dollars on protracted appeals with intentionally ridiculous claims just to avoid paying their share of society's taxes. I guess they're never going to reach $2 trillion if they have to pay their fair proportion of taxes. Why do we put up this?
Other than the bureaucracy that prevents the use of new technologies, bureaucracy was oddly one of the best parts of government contracting. It guaranteed that the client actually had a decent set of requirements which meant that they had to actually think about what they wanted before development began. Of course the requirements weren't always perfect but they were way better than any of the jobs I've had in the private sector.
People stopped dreaming of working at those places because government budgets are shrinking, the work that's left goes to contracting companies that screw over their employees (no raises for many years and continually cutting benefits), and the contracts often require working on "tried and tested" technologies instead of exciting new tech. I don't necessarily disagree with that last point given that a lot of government systems are focused on safety but most people would rather work with cutting edge tech because it's more exciting and it increases their value in the marketplace.
Here on Slashdot, we all know how evil Microsoft is but we don't spend a lot of time speaking of the horrors of Oracle. Unlike Microsoft, Oracle actually creates some solid technology (at least their database and supporting technologies), but they constantly invent new ways to screw over their customers. Everyone knows Oracle is expensive and so you won't be surprised when their initial estimate comes in pretty high. What you don't realize is that they will often come back later and evaluate your use of their technologies at which time they'll realize that you're using features that have additional licensing cost that weren't included in their initial estimate. In some cases, that could make their initial estimate look cheap. Any time you have a problem, their answer is always to use an additional Oracle product but that product requires integrating these other supporting Oracle products and the whole thing is so complicated that they'll highly recommend that you hire one or more of their consultants for the bulk of the development phase. In addition to that, they will change their licensing model to virtually guarantee that you will have to pay them more money to continue using their products. Once you're entrenched in all of these technologies, it becomes prohibitively difficult to migrate away from Oracle (just look at how long it's taking a behemoth like Amazon). Therefore, unless your project has an immediate need for a crazy amount of scalability, you're probably much better off using an open source database platform. You have been warned.
Your experience is a stark contrast to this writer at Forbes (WARNING: may contain auto-playing video fuckery). I can tell it's been a while since you've used Linux because issues with sound or networking not working out of the box are rare these days.
Only the most loyal of fanboys could advocate for the removal of a feature that doesn't add any significant cost or require a large change in the design. If moving the headphone jack to a case makes so much sense, what advantages does it offer? Do those advantages outweigh the utility of people who don't want to ensnare their device in a case or have to remember to bring an adapter or buy a pair of wireless headphones that also need to be charged?
I find it funny that everyone has their own opinion of which year was the best MBP. Back in the days of Jobs, the best MBP was always the latest but now that's rarely the case. It's not surprising given that Apple's latest laptops make more headlines for the features they've removed rather than the features they've added.
I recently had to reinstall Ubuntu on several machines because of corruption on ext4 partitions due to a power failure. In all cases, it booted to a screen indicating that fsck had to be run manually and then the machine wouldn't boot after running fsck or it would boot but critical apps would crash on startup. I learned my lesson and now ext4 is completely dead to me. When I rebuilt the machines, I used xfs instead since I've been running that on all of my other machines for almost 15 years and have never had stability issues regardless of how many times the machines unexpectedly lost power. Pro tip: if your machine uses UEFI and you want to install Ubuntu with a root partition of xfs, Ubuntu will allow you to do that but it won't boot after installation - you need to create a separate partition for/boot which uses one of the ext variants and then an xfs partition for/.
Tim Cook is a bean counter, not an egghead. The only specs he cares about contain dollar signs and are related to maximum profit. Apple has been getting by with crazy profit margins because people still buy their crap even despite the outdated tech and insane markup. It looks like their computer sales have finally lost enough momentum to get the execs to take notice but the damage to their reputation is really starting to kick in and it's going to be a while before they release any new computers that could help them regain some ground. The real surprise is that it's taken this long for customers to realize it and that few, if any, other companies have stepped up to offer premium laptops for professionals.
I'd argue they're full of shit, that depression - a condition characterized by lethargy and an unwillingness to take risks - is the brain's way of preventing you (well, discouraging you) from committing suicide, which is why the two are correlated - people who aren't considering killing themselves or otherwise doing something self destructive are in no need of that self defense mechanism.
While I normally agree with your posts and I do agree with everything in the beginning of this post, I vehemently disagree with the quoted portion above. Based on your characterization of clinical depression, I can't imagine you've ever been through it. If I understand your argument, you make it seem as if thoughts of suicide induce depression as a defense mechanism in an attempt to make you too lazy to kill yourself. That characterization of the disease is so far divorced from reality that I feel I have to address it so that no one reads your statement and adopts that mindset.
Clinical depression has to be one of the most misunderstood diseases among people not involved in the medical field. It causes a chemical imbalance, often characterized by a lower availability of neurotransmitters such as serotonin, which are necessary to help your brain experience emotions. While the most notable side effect is the inability to experience happiness, at its peak it can dull all of your emotions, including negative emotions, leaving you to feel like a robot.
In addition to serotonin, dopamine is another neurotransmitter that can be reduced during a depression. Dopamine is associated with the reward center of the brain and its effects have been well studied inside and outside of the medical field. For instance, casinos are designed to release as much dopamine as possible in gamblers to keep them motivated to put more money into gaming. Now imagine I injected one of these gamblers with a substance that prevented the production or uptake of dopamine. They would have absolutely no motivation at all to continue gambling, or do much of anything else for that matter. That is very much what happens for many people who suffer from depression - absolutely nothing provides a rewarding experience, no matter how great the outcome or how little the effort. It's not necessarily rooted in pessimism, it's just completely impossible for someone to experience reward or happiness if they temporarily lack the chemicals necessary to transmit those feelings.
After dealing with that for months at a time, many people feel like they will never be capable of experiencing happiness or rewarding experiences again, so they take their lives. Therefore, the depression causes suicide, not the other way around. Fortunately, for many people the chemical imbalance resolves itself within six months but every second of a depression feels like an eternity when there is absolutely nothing that provides you with even a moderate amount of satisfaction.
Anyway, I hope that clears up some misconceptions about depression and helps provide a better understanding of what it does to a person's mental state.
In general, I agree with your point but I didn't see anything in this particular article that mentioned or implied anything about gender. Let's not needlessly inject identity politics into a subject that is already emotionally-charged for many people.
Apple is getting rid of Intel but they're not making their own chips. Instead, they're getting rid of processors in their computers entirely. Their new computers will be.2mm slimmer and processors will be made available via dongles for primitive people who refuse to let go of outdated technologies.
The word "law" in this context is taken from science to describe an effect that always holds true. After watching Moore's Law break down, could we please name this new related observation for graphics cards something more accurate and realistic? How about Huang's Principle or Huang's Observation?
I can't imagine a lot of Linux users migrating to Windows just because of the Windows Subsystem for Linux. The main reason Microsoft is interested in supporting Linux is because of Azure and they quickly realized that Docker was going to leave them in the dust if they didn't provide something caparable. Since it would've taken way too long for them to create their own solution, they developed compatibility with Docker to facilitate running Linux processes on Windows. I would be more concerned about Microsoft making changes to Docker containers or the image format that only worked on Windows than any tricks they might use to co-opt Linux itself.
Overall, I just don't see Linux users migrating to Windows anytime soon, especially developers, because they already have a superior experience using Linux. I constantly have coworkers convincing me that I should migrate to Windows because then I could have the "best of both worlds" but I think they have that backwards. Linux is a superior host environment for me because of the following reasons:
- It doesn't install updates without my permission
- Updates don't change my configuration values out from under me
- Updates almost never break my system
- It doesn't install or remove apps without my permission
- It has superior window management
- It doesn't constantly need to be rebooted anytime the OS or even an app is updated
- Many development tools and runtime environments run much faster in Linux
- Many distributions don't require spying on me
There are many more reasons that I don't have time to elaborate but I just don't see this providing a good opportunity for Microsoft to ensnare Linux users, developers, or APIs. If anything, I see this as an opportunity for people to learn the value of Linux and eventually migrate away from Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Free markets lead to monopolies. This is easy to remember with the mnemonic "big companies are free to unleash ant-competitive behavior across the market." Perhaps you're thinking of "fair markets" but the only way to achieve those is to regulate the big players, which violates the concept of a "free market".
As much as I love open source, I prefer IntelliJ IDEA way more than Eclipse. For some reason, IntelliJ starts much faster, feels snappier, and runs the unit tests much faster in Linux than in Windows. It could have something to do with Windows Defender thrashing the disk as the poster above stated but it's also possible that the Linux JVM has better optimization (I haven't seen recent benchmark comparisons for JVMs of different OSes). For me, one of the biggest advantages of using Linux rather than Windows is not having to worry about NTFS locking files that are resident in memory. When that happens, processes that try to remove those files, such as refreshing Maven or Gradle dependencies, hang with no notification of why they're hanging and won't complete until the process that is using those files in memory is killed. As far as I know, no other file system in modern operating systems has this annoying limitation.
I've had the exact opposite experience developing with Java. Almost all of my tools runs noticeably faster in Linux than in Windows, including the database, IDE, and runtime executables. This is especially amplified when comparing Windows and Linux on machines with an SSD.
According to Apple fans, people don't buy phones based on specs or benchmarks. Or is that point only relevant when Apple isn't at the top of the list?
These clowns can't even figure out how to use a three-way handshake to verify Caller ID and we're supposed to trust them with authentication that supplants passwords?
Anyone who has used FedEx will likely beg to differ. The fact of the matter is that there are things that the public sector does significantly better than the private sector and vice versa. The challenge is to recognize which side does better in each sector and then step out of the way and let them get the job done.
Trump only knows one thing: how to make threats until he gets what he wants. That childish behavior works really well against your parents and your sycophant "friends" but it's not a great strategy to use on the world stage. The previous tariffs are being blamed for the increased trade deficit this quarter and these additional tariffs will likely make that worse. It's like Trump is determined to erase any gains he can attempt to take credit for with the improved economy. Maybe the writer of the NYT op-ed can sabotage these tariffs.
There's a huge difference between predicting "Apple is dying/dead" and stating that Apple will likely be surpassed in the near future in a single market segment.
So they're forcing county governments to waste vast amounts of tax dollars on protracted appeals with intentionally ridiculous claims just to avoid paying their share of society's taxes. I guess they're never going to reach $2 trillion if they have to pay their fair proportion of taxes. Why do we put up this?
Other than the bureaucracy that prevents the use of new technologies, bureaucracy was oddly one of the best parts of government contracting. It guaranteed that the client actually had a decent set of requirements which meant that they had to actually think about what they wanted before development began. Of course the requirements weren't always perfect but they were way better than any of the jobs I've had in the private sector.
People stopped dreaming of working at those places because government budgets are shrinking, the work that's left goes to contracting companies that screw over their employees (no raises for many years and continually cutting benefits), and the contracts often require working on "tried and tested" technologies instead of exciting new tech. I don't necessarily disagree with that last point given that a lot of government systems are focused on safety but most people would rather work with cutting edge tech because it's more exciting and it increases their value in the marketplace.
- Former government contractor
Reverse cowgirl
Here on Slashdot, we all know how evil Microsoft is but we don't spend a lot of time speaking of the horrors of Oracle. Unlike Microsoft, Oracle actually creates some solid technology (at least their database and supporting technologies), but they constantly invent new ways to screw over their customers. Everyone knows Oracle is expensive and so you won't be surprised when their initial estimate comes in pretty high. What you don't realize is that they will often come back later and evaluate your use of their technologies at which time they'll realize that you're using features that have additional licensing cost that weren't included in their initial estimate. In some cases, that could make their initial estimate look cheap. Any time you have a problem, their answer is always to use an additional Oracle product but that product requires integrating these other supporting Oracle products and the whole thing is so complicated that they'll highly recommend that you hire one or more of their consultants for the bulk of the development phase. In addition to that, they will change their licensing model to virtually guarantee that you will have to pay them more money to continue using their products. Once you're entrenched in all of these technologies, it becomes prohibitively difficult to migrate away from Oracle (just look at how long it's taking a behemoth like Amazon). Therefore, unless your project has an immediate need for a crazy amount of scalability, you're probably much better off using an open source database platform. You have been warned.
Your experience is a stark contrast to this writer at Forbes (WARNING: may contain auto-playing video fuckery). I can tell it's been a while since you've used Linux because issues with sound or networking not working out of the box are rare these days.
Only the most loyal of fanboys could advocate for the removal of a feature that doesn't add any significant cost or require a large change in the design. If moving the headphone jack to a case makes so much sense, what advantages does it offer? Do those advantages outweigh the utility of people who don't want to ensnare their device in a case or have to remember to bring an adapter or buy a pair of wireless headphones that also need to be charged?
I find it funny that everyone has their own opinion of which year was the best MBP. Back in the days of Jobs, the best MBP was always the latest but now that's rarely the case. It's not surprising given that Apple's latest laptops make more headlines for the features they've removed rather than the features they've added.
I recently had to reinstall Ubuntu on several machines because of corruption on ext4 partitions due to a power failure. In all cases, it booted to a screen indicating that fsck had to be run manually and then the machine wouldn't boot after running fsck or it would boot but critical apps would crash on startup. I learned my lesson and now ext4 is completely dead to me. When I rebuilt the machines, I used xfs instead since I've been running that on all of my other machines for almost 15 years and have never had stability issues regardless of how many times the machines unexpectedly lost power. Pro tip: if your machine uses UEFI and you want to install Ubuntu with a root partition of xfs, Ubuntu will allow you to do that but it won't boot after installation - you need to create a separate partition for /boot which uses one of the ext variants and then an xfs partition for /.
Tim Cook is a bean counter, not an egghead. The only specs he cares about contain dollar signs and are related to maximum profit. Apple has been getting by with crazy profit margins because people still buy their crap even despite the outdated tech and insane markup. It looks like their computer sales have finally lost enough momentum to get the execs to take notice but the damage to their reputation is really starting to kick in and it's going to be a while before they release any new computers that could help them regain some ground. The real surprise is that it's taken this long for customers to realize it and that few, if any, other companies have stepped up to offer premium laptops for professionals.
Exactly! Extortion is perfectly fine if your target has a lot of money.
While I normally agree with your posts and I do agree with everything in the beginning of this post, I vehemently disagree with the quoted portion above. Based on your characterization of clinical depression, I can't imagine you've ever been through it. If I understand your argument, you make it seem as if thoughts of suicide induce depression as a defense mechanism in an attempt to make you too lazy to kill yourself. That characterization of the disease is so far divorced from reality that I feel I have to address it so that no one reads your statement and adopts that mindset.
Clinical depression has to be one of the most misunderstood diseases among people not involved in the medical field. It causes a chemical imbalance, often characterized by a lower availability of neurotransmitters such as serotonin, which are necessary to help your brain experience emotions. While the most notable side effect is the inability to experience happiness, at its peak it can dull all of your emotions, including negative emotions, leaving you to feel like a robot.
In addition to serotonin, dopamine is another neurotransmitter that can be reduced during a depression. Dopamine is associated with the reward center of the brain and its effects have been well studied inside and outside of the medical field. For instance, casinos are designed to release as much dopamine as possible in gamblers to keep them motivated to put more money into gaming. Now imagine I injected one of these gamblers with a substance that prevented the production or uptake of dopamine. They would have absolutely no motivation at all to continue gambling, or do much of anything else for that matter. That is very much what happens for many people who suffer from depression - absolutely nothing provides a rewarding experience, no matter how great the outcome or how little the effort. It's not necessarily rooted in pessimism, it's just completely impossible for someone to experience reward or happiness if they temporarily lack the chemicals necessary to transmit those feelings.
After dealing with that for months at a time, many people feel like they will never be capable of experiencing happiness or rewarding experiences again, so they take their lives. Therefore, the depression causes suicide, not the other way around. Fortunately, for many people the chemical imbalance resolves itself within six months but every second of a depression feels like an eternity when there is absolutely nothing that provides you with even a moderate amount of satisfaction.
Anyway, I hope that clears up some misconceptions about depression and helps provide a better understanding of what it does to a person's mental state.
In general, I agree with your point but I didn't see anything in this particular article that mentioned or implied anything about gender. Let's not needlessly inject identity politics into a subject that is already emotionally-charged for many people.
The person that stole your car only deprived you of transportation but this motherfucker was COPYING BITS!
Apple is getting rid of Intel but they're not making their own chips. Instead, they're getting rid of processors in their computers entirely. Their new computers will be .2mm slimmer and processors will be made available via dongles for primitive people who refuse to let go of outdated technologies.
The word "law" in this context is taken from science to describe an effect that always holds true. After watching Moore's Law break down, could we please name this new related observation for graphics cards something more accurate and realistic? How about Huang's Principle or Huang's Observation?
I can't imagine a lot of Linux users migrating to Windows just because of the Windows Subsystem for Linux. The main reason Microsoft is interested in supporting Linux is because of Azure and they quickly realized that Docker was going to leave them in the dust if they didn't provide something caparable. Since it would've taken way too long for them to create their own solution, they developed compatibility with Docker to facilitate running Linux processes on Windows. I would be more concerned about Microsoft making changes to Docker containers or the image format that only worked on Windows than any tricks they might use to co-opt Linux itself.
Overall, I just don't see Linux users migrating to Windows anytime soon, especially developers, because they already have a superior experience using Linux. I constantly have coworkers convincing me that I should migrate to Windows because then I could have the "best of both worlds" but I think they have that backwards. Linux is a superior host environment for me because of the following reasons:
- It doesn't install updates without my permission
- Updates don't change my configuration values out from under me
- Updates almost never break my system
- It doesn't install or remove apps without my permission
- It has superior window management
- It doesn't constantly need to be rebooted anytime the OS or even an app is updated
- Many development tools and runtime environments run much faster in Linux
- Many distributions don't require spying on me
There are many more reasons that I don't have time to elaborate but I just don't see this providing a good opportunity for Microsoft to ensnare Linux users, developers, or APIs. If anything, I see this as an opportunity for people to learn the value of Linux and eventually migrate away from Windows.