Well, ok, you are just kidding BUT.... (and be forwarned, this might be a little off-topic), one vendor that builds on top of Red Hat Linux, Sophos, is discontuning support for older Red Hat versions, notably version 2.1.
I have wondered about the justification for this, particularly since I have better things to do than reinstall an OS. What does a new version of RHEL bring that the older versions did not? Note, Sophos did not give me much of an explanation. I would love to here what Slashdot members (who I often expect are better informed than I) think of this.
I tend to agree that it is not programming, at least not as an end product. Despite the article's claim about "mature" software, when implementing systems that have hooks in other systems, like networks, e-mail systems, and public key infrastructures, I have found that it really pays to know how things work. What do you think -- is that computer science? What about knowing how buggy software works, or finding out how it does not work through deduction. Yes, it can be grungy work, but I have found that a knowledge of computer science can help.
I see programming, both low-level and scripts, as one path to finding out how things work. I can't tell you how many computer science students I ran into who could not program a lick, and had trouble grasping such things as how SMTP and DNS worked. Maybe in a sense, computer science is withering.
I would say that on principle it was easier. Red Hat, running sendmail and some web applications, required only a patch to the operating system. Microsoft requires patches to applications, such as Exchange 2000, and also patches to calendar applications and even some calendar items (patches to data). It's a whole different job with MS.
I'll apologize in advance if this is a redundant post, but it is just too good to not read. This is full of the usual Microsoft doublespeak and PR.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2102366,00.as p
It was not so hard to update my Red Hat systems.
Not likely. A lot of software is tied into back-end processes, particularly Microsoft servers, that might not be supported on a MAC. One good example: add-ins for Microsoft Outlook.
Yes, I know Outlook is terrible in many ways, but an IMAP client just is not as feature-rich.
It certainly is. I took a course in partition theory many years ago (as an undergrad math major), and I found this to be some very elegant mathematics. It is such elegance that sometimes makes me wish that I had pursued a career in mathematics instead of "computers", though like many, I followed the money.
A google on "parition theory" will turn up a much information on this.
Also, as I recall, eliptical functions (referenced in another post) were used to prove Fermat's Theorem.
VMWare ESX is the enterprise-class product from VMWare for the data center. It is not clear that the licensing changes would effect VMWare ESX, which is, I believe, a modified version of Linux that can host many virtual machines, or that they could be enforced.
I tend to agree more with the post, and not so much with the article. This is not like the Netscape fiasco. We are dealing with reliable systems and disaster recovery here, not how information is presented. What scares me a bit is that comeone at the executive level, somewhere, is going to get the idea that the product that is less reliable and less mature is somehow better because of licensing or because it is "free" (and that grunts such as myself will have to painfully explain to them otherwise). The major cost of software, especially this type of software, is not in its initial purchase price.
If you've already got consumers down, then items 1 and 2 actually seem like pretty good business strategy. Yes, it is about money first, and it does lack the integrity and inventivesness of years past, but things to evolve.
What about art? Or even something interesting? I liked Farscape, which I think the Sci-Fi channel cancelled for similar reasons.
I would also say that I thiink something is lost, artistically, when digital animation is used to replace clay. Sometimes, low-tech is better. I do some oil painting on the side, and could never imagine my work being replaced by a computer or some mechanisation (such as, for example, in the "paintings" of Thomas Kinkead).
I find the idea of "running a society" a little troubling. That turn of phrase has a totalitarian feel to it. The US is, essentially a free society, which has some consequences as the collective will of its people is played out.
Since when has business been long-sighted? I do not think that it is realistically possible to play along. Today's "skill" is tommorow's legacy technology.
What a curious word. It is certainly not one that I would apply to McAfee. Does anyone remember earlier this year when McAfee released a virus signature that caused mass-deletion of executable files?
The Netscape Navigator was, in its early incarnation, a fine work of innovative craftsman ship. That deserves reverance.
I am working on an MS in computer science. It seems that in my program, there is a noticable percentage of young students who can barely write code. ("Perl? What's that?") These students often go into computer security or some area such as networks where, supposedly programming is not required.
Having done most of my coursework, I have found that I have had a tremendous advantage in being able to program, whereas I have seen students who cannot run into problems. If nothing else, I am better at dividing and conquering, since writing and maintaining moderately complex, good code requires a way of thinking.
Maybe the University just wants a broader student ba$e.
Here is an idea. The languages that people use to produce many applications, like Java and Visual Basic, are not the best languages for learning programming.
Speaking as a person who gave up eating cows and pigs due to adverse effects from the hormones added, I would definitely be concerned. There will always be a small group of people who will be affected adversely by what I would call "articial food" just as some people tend to have more adverse side effects of medications.
I am reminded, also, of growing up when my grandmother would serve me cow brains for breakfast. What if we cloned cows with the best brains? Would they turn around, become sentient, and start eating us? I wonder...
It was an internal company blog, using the company's facilities (paid for my the US taxpayer, not Mrs. Axsmith), so it's like e-mail. A little discretion should be shown. We all know about firings due to e-mail -- it happens all the time.
BTW, Mrs. Axsmith is also lawyer, so I wonder if she should have known better.
This seems kind of strange. These tools access the "internals" of Windows and were written without access to the Windows source code. Couldn't Microsoft, having possession of their own source code, done better? What am I missing here? If I got this right, then this is just plain sad, that this big, bloated company would actually need to make this purchase just to acquire software and knowledtge. But then again, maybe there were other reasons for the purchase.
This is the same compmny that posted a faulty virus signature earlier this year that wiped out a lot of software on a lot of computers. I personally had a lot of cleanup and reinstall time due to this problem. Since then, I discount almost anything this vendor has to say; maybe they are in need of making some noise to make people forget what a shoddy product they put out?
I agree, and it is obvious that this should not be a big deal. Don't dufferent devices run on different operating systems? EMC (example - Lynx) and Cisco devices (example - IOS) certainly do. The Linux that is in the access points is probably not much like the desktop or server Linux that Microsoft attacks, but rather is heavily modified at the kernel level to fit the devices.
An interesting question is whether Microsoft has much to say about using Windows for routers, wireless access points, and storage devices. I think they have tried on some of these fronts (example - Windows Storage Server), but made no real headway -- and hence, no envangelism (or demonizing).
I wonder if there is a virtual graveyeard out there of standards that never really took off or that died. Token Ring? X.400?
Can a standard that has only poor tools or kludgey tools every really become popular? Most of us are mere mortals, not so well adapted to strange code formats that belong to a single standard. No, this is not just hypothetical. Years ago, I did a bit of programming using IBM's System Object Model (SOM) under OS/2, using IBM's programming tools. What a mess!! Software development is expensive enough already without having to delve into arcane programming paradigms.
Aren't we really talking about "buy-in", or some similar phrase (which escapes me at the moment).
Having worked with Windows, Exchange, Linux and Sendmail, I have found that it is a great deal easier to get answers when there are a lot of people who are interested in the software. It is hard to be interested in Windows and Exchange. The systems are closed, and it is darned hard to find an answer when something goes wrong. This weekend I was "on hold" for two hours trying to get a lousy hotfix. It is really hard to be interested in that sort of thing.
On the other hand, with Linux and Sendmail, I can actually look at it and see how it works. When I needed to forward mail to port 26 from Sendmail, I did a Google and there was the answer. The one time I did have a problem with Sendmail, I was able to insert some debugging and code and recompile it --- only to find that the Windows DNS was returning a different error code than BIND. Getting to the root of problems quickly, taking a direct path, having some control over what the heck is going on --- THAT is what I can buy into. (Special thanks to the Linux and Sendmail communities.)
That's a most interesting point, thanks. I am a small business owner and am incorporated, which does make the tax law seem a little backward if a sole proprieter can take a deduction but a C-Corporation cannot. Bottom line, I think, is that if big business -- who are among those who say there is a shortage of IT talent -- wanted a tax deduction to send employees to school, they would have gotten one under a Republican President and a Republican Congress. Despite all the statements by Bill Gates and others, American IT "talent" is just not that important to them.
---- If short term thinkers get results, the results are short term.
As a long-time computer professional and contractor, when I went to grad school to get a masters in computer science, the tax law gave me no break whatsoever. I cannot deduct my tuition as a business expense. On the other hand, if I took some vendor-specific courses from Cisco or Microsoft, I could take a business deduction. How messed up is that?
It also seems that there are not very many Americans in my CS courses either, but there are many students from China and India. Does anyone have any comments on the fact that China and India sponsor education in their countries, whereas we in the US barely support it?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, ok, you are just kidding BUT .... (and be forwarned, this might be a little off-topic), one vendor that builds on top of Red Hat Linux, Sophos, is discontuning support for older Red Hat versions, notably version 2.1.
I have wondered about the justification for this, particularly since I have better things to do than reinstall an OS. What does a new version of RHEL bring that the older versions did not? Note, Sophos did not give me much of an explanation. I would love to here what Slashdot members (who I often expect are better informed than I) think of this.
I tend to agree that it is not programming, at least not as an end product. Despite the article's claim about "mature" software, when implementing systems that have hooks in other systems, like networks, e-mail systems, and public key infrastructures, I have found that it really pays to know how things work. What do you think -- is that computer science? What about knowing how buggy software works, or finding out how it does not work through deduction. Yes, it can be grungy work, but I have found that a knowledge of computer science can help.
I see programming, both low-level and scripts, as one path to finding out how things work. I can't tell you how many computer science students I ran into who could not program a lick, and had trouble grasping such things as how SMTP and DNS worked. Maybe in a sense, computer science is withering.
I would say that on principle it was easier. Red Hat, running sendmail and some web applications, required only a patch to the operating system. Microsoft requires patches to applications, such as Exchange 2000, and also patches to calendar applications and even some calendar items (patches to data). It's a whole different job with MS.
I'll apologize in advance if this is a redundant post, but it is just too good to not read. This is full of the usual Microsoft doublespeak and PR. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2102366,00.as p
It was not so hard to update my Red Hat systems.
Not likely. A lot of software is tied into back-end processes, particularly Microsoft servers, that might not be supported on a MAC. One good example: add-ins for Microsoft Outlook. Yes, I know Outlook is terrible in many ways, but an IMAP client just is not as feature-rich.
It certainly is. I took a course in partition theory many years ago (as an undergrad math major), and I found this to be some very elegant mathematics. It is such elegance that sometimes makes me wish that I had pursued a career in mathematics instead of "computers", though like many, I followed the money.
A google on "parition theory" will turn up a much information on this.
Also, as I recall, eliptical functions (referenced in another post) were used to prove Fermat's Theorem.
VMWare ESX is the enterprise-class product from VMWare for the data center. It is not clear that the licensing changes would effect VMWare ESX, which is, I believe, a modified version of Linux that can host many virtual machines, or that they could be enforced.
I tend to agree more with the post, and not so much with the article. This is not like the Netscape fiasco. We are dealing with reliable systems and disaster recovery here, not how information is presented. What scares me a bit is that comeone at the executive level, somewhere, is going to get the idea that the product that is less reliable and less mature is somehow better because of licensing or because it is "free" (and that grunts such as myself will have to painfully explain to them otherwise). The major cost of software, especially this type of software, is not in its initial purchase price.
Maybe the author got a free laptop prior to the pro-Windows article.
If you've already got consumers down, then items 1 and 2 actually seem like pretty good business strategy. Yes, it is about money first, and it does lack the integrity and inventivesness of years past, but things to evolve.
What about art? Or even something interesting? I liked Farscape, which I think the Sci-Fi channel cancelled for similar reasons.
I would also say that I thiink something is lost, artistically, when digital animation is used to replace clay. Sometimes, low-tech is better. I do some oil painting on the side, and could never imagine my work being replaced by a computer or some mechanisation (such as, for example, in the "paintings" of Thomas Kinkead).
I find the idea of "running a society" a little troubling. That turn of phrase has a totalitarian feel to it. The US is, essentially a free society, which has some consequences as the collective will of its people is played out.
Since when has business been long-sighted? I do not think that it is realistically possible to play along. Today's "skill" is tommorow's legacy technology.
What a curious word. It is certainly not one that I would apply to McAfee. Does anyone remember earlier this year when McAfee released a virus signature that caused mass-deletion of executable files?
The Netscape Navigator was, in its early incarnation, a fine work of innovative craftsman ship. That deserves reverance.
I am working on an MS in computer science. It seems that in my program, there is a noticable percentage of young students who can barely write code. ("Perl? What's that?") These students often go into computer security or some area such as networks where, supposedly programming is not required.
Having done most of my coursework, I have found that I have had a tremendous advantage in being able to program, whereas I have seen students who cannot run into problems. If nothing else, I am better at dividing and conquering, since writing and maintaining moderately complex, good code requires a way of thinking.
Maybe the University just wants a broader student ba$e.
Here is an idea. The languages that people use to produce many applications, like Java and Visual Basic, are not the best languages for learning programming.
Speaking as a person who gave up eating cows and pigs due to adverse effects from the hormones added, I would definitely be concerned. There will always be a small group of people who will be affected adversely by what I would call "articial food" just as some people tend to have more adverse side effects of medications.
...
I am reminded, also, of growing up when my grandmother would serve me cow brains for breakfast. What if we cloned cows with the best brains? Would they turn around, become sentient, and start eating us? I wonder
No, the article does not, but you could google her or see her website, axsmith.net.
It was an internal company blog, using the company's facilities (paid for my the US taxpayer, not Mrs. Axsmith), so it's like e-mail. A little discretion should be shown. We all know about firings due to e-mail -- it happens all the time.
BTW, Mrs. Axsmith is also lawyer, so I wonder if she should have known better.
This seems kind of strange. These tools access the "internals" of Windows and were written without access to the Windows source code. Couldn't Microsoft, having possession of their own source code, done better? What am I missing here? If I got this right, then this is just plain sad, that this big, bloated company would actually need to make this purchase just to acquire software and knowledtge. But then again, maybe there were other reasons for the purchase.
This is the same compmny that posted a faulty virus signature earlier this year that wiped out a lot of software on a lot of computers. I personally had a lot of cleanup and reinstall time due to this problem. Since then, I discount almost anything this vendor has to say; maybe they are in need of making some noise to make people forget what a shoddy product they put out?
Redundant Array of Expensive Satellites (RAES)
I agree, and it is obvious that this should not be a big deal. Don't dufferent devices run on different operating systems? EMC (example - Lynx) and Cisco devices (example - IOS) certainly do. The Linux that is in the access points is probably not much like the desktop or server Linux that Microsoft attacks, but rather is heavily modified at the kernel level to fit the devices.
An interesting question is whether Microsoft has much to say about using Windows for routers, wireless access points, and storage devices. I think they have tried on some of these fronts (example - Windows Storage Server), but made no real headway -- and hence, no envangelism (or demonizing).
I wonder if there is a virtual graveyeard out there of standards that never really took off or that died. Token Ring? X.400?
Can a standard that has only poor tools or kludgey tools every really become popular? Most of us are mere mortals, not so well adapted to strange code formats that belong to a single standard. No, this is not just hypothetical. Years ago, I did a bit of programming using IBM's System Object Model (SOM) under OS/2, using IBM's programming tools. What a mess!! Software development is expensive enough already without having to delve into arcane programming paradigms.
Aren't we really talking about "buy-in", or some similar phrase (which escapes me at the moment).
Having worked with Windows, Exchange, Linux and Sendmail, I have found that it is a great deal easier to get answers when there are a lot of people who are interested in the software. It is hard to be interested in Windows and Exchange. The systems are closed, and it is darned hard to find an answer when something goes wrong. This weekend I was "on hold" for two hours trying to get a lousy hotfix. It is really hard to be interested in that sort of thing.
On the other hand, with Linux and Sendmail, I can actually look at it and see how it works. When I needed to forward mail to port 26 from Sendmail, I did a Google and there was the answer. The one time I did have a problem with Sendmail, I was able to insert some debugging and code and recompile it --- only to find that the Windows DNS was returning a different error code than BIND. Getting to the root of problems quickly, taking a direct path, having some control over what the heck is going on --- THAT is what I can buy into. (Special thanks to the Linux and Sendmail communities.)
That's a most interesting point, thanks. I am a small business owner and am incorporated, which does make the tax law seem a little backward if a sole proprieter can take a deduction but a C-Corporation cannot. Bottom line, I think, is that if big business -- who are among those who say there is a shortage of IT talent -- wanted a tax deduction to send employees to school, they would have gotten one under a Republican President and a Republican Congress. Despite all the statements by Bill Gates and others, American IT "talent" is just not that important to them.
----
If short term thinkers get results, the results are short term.
As a long-time computer professional and contractor, when I went to grad school to get a masters in computer science, the tax law gave me no break whatsoever. I cannot deduct my tuition as a business expense. On the other hand, if I took some vendor-specific courses from Cisco or Microsoft, I could take a business deduction. How messed up is that?
It also seems that there are not very many Americans in my CS courses either, but there are many students from China and India. Does anyone have any comments on the fact that China and India sponsor education in their countries, whereas we in the US barely support it?