Two words, Hasbro:
Don't mess with a classic.
7 posts • joined 21 Jun 2007
Don't mess with a classic.
The reason people don’t write about Hadoop is that good Hadoop programming is really old school Lisp programming. If you are capable of doing data analysis in Lisp without resorting to mutators, Hadoop will seem eerily familiar.
My biggest complaint about Hadoop is its sucky documentation. It almost *has* to be open source just so you can figure out what the damn map-join classes are supposed to do.
But what it does do right, it does so wonderfully.
As for Yahoo, they unfortunately view Hadoop as the panacea for all their computing woes: applying it to all problems even where it should not be applied, then gnashing and wailing when it fails to yield performance benefits. Case in point: the project I am working on is willing to take a 50% performance hit to achieve Hadoopification, just because it’s fucking Hadoop, bitches. Another sad tale of using a power drill for a hammer.
I agree with Steven Dick: a build system is a build system is a build system; it should be independent of the underlying IDE. There's no reason I'd stop using Maven if they strive for stronger integration with Eclipse, *provided* that they don't exclude other IDEs.
If they did, Maven would simply fork and the Eclipse-only version would wither away. It's just too useful to become dependent on Eclipse. One of the reasons I switched from Eclipse to Netbeans was that Eclipse's build process back then required the IDE to be locally installed (don't know if that's still true; probably not) while Netbeans used Ant as its default. In any case, this is definitely a Chicken Little story.
Now for the troll: Has anyone noticed that the quality of Eclipse is inversely proportional to the size of its governance board? Do they really want new members? Software by committee has never been a good idea.
(I'd rather have a "WTF?" icon to display my amazement at this fluff, but the thumbs-down would have to do.)
If people think a Psystar win will force Apple to license MacOS X for beige boxes, think again.
Apple will simply stop selling MacOS X starting with Snow Leopard. You get a box, the OS will be preloaded. System updates will work as usual. Want a new release? Take your machine into an Apple Store (or via mail) and for a nominal service charge (around $130, natch) they'll upgrade your machine. They'll probably make you sign a contract, too; no EULA problems there since you actively agreed. Obviously, they have the right to refuse to service a competitor's machine.
That won't stop people from making and distributing images of a clean MacOS X drive, but since those will be patently illegal copies Apple won't care; they'll just sic the BSA on the distributors. Psystar will have no options open: Leopard will no longer be available via retail, and Snow Leopard won't be available period.
Expect new machines to come with the TPM fully activated to limit the cloning. Also expect the MacMacs to vigorously defend the practice even though it sucks for everyone else, and the Freetards to claim "Well, now I'm switching to Linux!" even though Apple couldn't care less about them (which causes them to hate Apple more). Finally, with the death of the EULA, expect to be forced to sign a contract for ANY software since companies won't be able to enforce their terms any other way.
Apple isn't going to slit their own throat to make the customer's life easier; nor should they. Most of their customers wouldn't upgrade anyway: the average consumer is content with the OS that comes with the machine.
Fine, you people need it spelled out? Here ya go:
Note that I had to dredge through her (his? its?) collection of inanity to find the correct article. The sacrifices I make for you people...
(Dead vulture, because this parody flopped, and flopped badly.)
Actually, there was an article in El Reg a couple of months ago where a group of (Australian?) scientists were trying to do exactly that: count the number of atoms in a given sample of ultrapure silicon. Once complete, the sample would be the new standard for the mole and Avagadro's number would be derived from that sample.
If instead Avagadro's number is fixed by convention, then that sample would also be standard for mass.
Imagine that, an operating system whose sole purpose is to allow applications to pretend they're sitting directly on top of the bare metal. Why, a system to enable virtual machines should have a snappy name, like Virtual Memory System (VMS for short).
And people say that the only thing reinvented (badly) nowadays is UNIX...