I completely agree with Edlll. So glad someone made that point.

So often I speak to people with mindsets like:

"We don't have an obligation to solve America's problems. Our only obligation is making the best product possible."

or

"My job is not to worry about ethics, I'm driven only by business goals."
"I am not paid to think about the environmental implications of our investments."
"I only care about what's good for the business."

It's a really powerful trick, to try to separate your business role from your 'real' life. Often those who get ahead most in business follow such ideologies. But there is no such separation. All business people must consider their responsibilities to society, to mankind, to the environment, to their workers, the communities they are part of. There's no frickin' excuse.

Even worse is the 'if we didn't do it, our competitors would' argument. I don't know whether people are just ignorant, stupid or selfish, but I don't think we (society, the government, the legal system) should tolerate this behaviour.

RS

Interesting comment, but I'm with Dijkstra on this one:

http://www.ifi.uzh.ch/req/courses/kvse/uebungen/Dijkstra_Goto.pdf

RS

To answer the question: some potential cloud users will have problems with governance (compliance) issues, and the cloud may not be suitable for them. An obvious example would be some government authorities. Organisations like the military will not want to use cloud computing services for many applications, because it requires trusting a third party and the connection to that third party. However, for many people data will be *more* secure, because it will be backed up more effectively, e.g. through replication at multiple sites or through distributed storage where all of the data is not stored at any one site, and because servers may be administered better. Moving to the cloud for many organisations will be equivalent to outsourcing IT, so if you have poor quality local expertise then you can expect an improvement in your IT administration.

Also, to add an opinion on cloud: so many people have disregarded cloud as a 'buzzword' or fad. I believe that they are wrong to do so. Recently I visited a cloud hosting provider that was growing its turnover by more than 100% a year - in the middle of an economic downturn - and they really are focused on the very early stages of cloud adoption (e.g. outsourcing an Exchange server). The potential for savings is huge, particularly for business that are starting up and are need scalability. One of the big advantages of cloud computing is that you free your company of capital investment in IT infrastructure, and you can relate your running costs to your operating income.

For concrete examples, Cloud is a catch-all word that includes:
- Hosting Exchange servers
- Providing thin-client services to offices or call centres.
- Providing CRM management over a web or thin client interface.
- Scalable web frameworks such as Google's App Engine.
- Providing scalable resources such as servers booting an image provided by the client.

Of course there are issues with Cloud Computing, and not everyone will adopt it to the extent that some enthusiasts suggest. There may well be a backlash after moving some services over and finding out that latency is too poor, or that certain providers are not sufficiently well-trained to do the job. But Cloud is here to stay, I am convinced of that, and it is a trend that will dominate the computing landscape for the next decade at least.

RS

> http://www.csis.dk/en/csis/news/3321/ [www.csis.dk]

Thanks. I don't think that this webpage justifies the claim, although it is interesting.

It does not appear to be a very formal study, or at least the webpage has no report of the methodology. So when they say "37% was JRE", it's not clear what those 37% were: e.g. was it the case that 37% of the exposures of users to potential infections were exploits using the JRE? Were these the successful ones or not? And given that according to the document, their study only considers 80% of infections, that other 20% could be the important 20%. Too many unanswered questions.

There must be a published paper on this somewhere, but I can't find one :-(. It seems like such an obvious thing to study.

> I can't think of a single platform where porting Java apps is easier than porting C ones.

Linux to Mac or to Windows? I just run the same jars on all three without thinking about it. I have had plenty of problems trying to use the same C programs. Even from one version of Linux to another, I've had problems compiling C (usually due to gcc or library changes).

> The JRE is currently the #1 malware vector, even above Flash and Acrobat.

Citation needed.

Android?

Why is Java so bad (seriously)? It doesn't run much slower than C, generally, and has some benefits such as portability.

To be fair to George Osborne (and I do not like the guy one iota), the reason he is against the transaction tax currently being discussed in Europe is because he is concerned that countries like Germany are envious of the LSE and that they will use the tax as a way to make their own stock exchanges more favourable.

RS

Recently, I got a new MacBook Pro through work.

I looked around for good Linux laptops, but as people have said, you just can't find an equivalent laptop not sold by Apple with anything even close to the build quality, battery life, keyboard, screen etc. I don't think I would ever buy a MacBook for personal use - they are just too expensive - but the space I save in my bag, the length of time I can use the machine for on battery power and the quality of the screen, ergonomics etc. are fantastic. I have looked for many hours and found nothing comparable, sorry to tell you that.

That said, the issue of things 'not working' with Linux is a bit misleading... people often claim that Macs are flawless, so when I started using mine I expected it to be. But it's not: for example, I have had to reboot my Mac many times when the O/S has hung. This rarely happened with my last Linux laptop, where everything worked but the laptop itself was 'like one of those ruggedised laptops from the chemical industry' - an actual quote from an interview! Also, the wireless chipsets have problems, especially after waking the Mac up, so I often have to switch wireless on and off to get it to work again. I've had to do similar things with Linux laptops in the past. You should also be aware that Linux achieves much better performance on less powerful hardware, so you might want to manage your expectations if you switch.

Finally, if you do give up and go for Mac, OS X is a bit of a mixed bag... windows management sucks compared to Gnome unless you enjoy using the mouse extensively, but it does look pretty and a few of the apps (iCal, for instance) are excellent.

RS

I use OS X and Ubuntu.

I really don't see what the problem is with Unity. It's different from Gnome, the menu-at-the-top-thing is a bit odd, but apart from that it has some nice touches, some design decisions that are a bit odd.

As others have pointed out; if you think Unity is so bad, switch to Gnome, but I really don't think it makes all that much difference. I login to Ubuntu and launch a shell, occasionally I use the software centre etc. Likewise, I use a Mac, launch the terminal, occasionally search for something through Spotlight.

What's the big deal? For developers especially, the difference seems very small. It's for inexperienced users that GUIs make the biggest difference.

RS

I'd like to see an official Android and iPhone app for Slashdot. Not just RSS, but supporting the comment and moderating facilities. I'd happily pay for the privilege.

RS

I don't believe in rational markets. The problem with such idealistic economics is that they ignore the fact that participants may act motivated by emotions, by short-term interests, and by trying to 'play outside the rules' of the markets. Some people might describe this failing as simply not taking human nature into account, but I think it is unfair to tar the whole human race with criticism of the behaviour of a small proportion of the population dealing in finance.

In many cases, hedge fund employees value companies by estimating how long the bubble will last, i.e. if I buy into Apple, will I be able to sell those shares for a profit in the future? Is there another speculator coming along after me who will be prepared to pay even more in the hope that the shares will keep rising? This kind of speculation is nothing more than gambling, and relies on emotions of hope and fear. And it just isn't that unusual.

RS

If Microsoft went ahead with this, it wouldn't be long before the technology was broken. Then it'd take a bit longer to figure out how to incorporate that hack elegantly into a Linux install process. I don't think there's much to worry about as a Linux user, provided you believe that the open-source community is collectively able to outsmart Microsoft.

RS

Nearly everyone I know that uses Facebook hates using Facebook. So the market was ready for invasion. Hell, people are leaving Facebook in significant numbers and that's with no alternative site to go to!!! Even normal people (you know what I mean) hate Facebook!

Our efforts to promote it didn't work; Google+ has failed.

The reason? Well, there are two:

1. Google+ is a really, really, really, *really* terrible brand-name. Idiots. How does 'Google+' say 'Social Network'? In any way? For the love of God.

2. The interface is complete and utter garbage. I suspect this may have been the biggest problem.

Dear Google, you are very good at some things, but you are hopeless when it comes to interface design. Please hire some people who know what they're doing. Surely you have enough money for that? I hear Apple have a few good designers you could approach.

And now I have to live with Facebook until Microsoft launch something. Good grief.

Can't we just get together on Slashdot and code a Facebook replacement? I estimate it'll take a team of 10 people about 5 hours to surpass Facebook's design... we'll have a head start on Google if we just choose a name that is entirely composed of letters.

RS