Hello Jack,
> Alas, I am growing fatigued of this discussion, but must needs that
> I respond once more -
Please don't stop now ... there is so much to learn and better understand ... it appears that some of your responses are starting to clarify the specifics of the miscommunications ...
Part of the problem, I now understand, is that you impart your own meaning into other peoples statements, and then reiterate those personal meanings, not as a question, but as fact. Now that I understand this, I'll attempt to better understand that you are asking me what I said, not telling me what you think ...
> I reread my post, I think I expressed the issues very succinctly
> and answered your responses that were lucid as best possible. I
> didn't attack you personally, or call any of your responses "lame"
> as you did above, I even paid homage to your software acumen as
> follows -
> "You are impressive in your posts that reference your knowledge
> as a software architect, but your strategic thinking and
> arguments regarding Microsoft are weak."
I guess that we disagree here, and I guess that I could say the same of your thinking. But this is where it becomes personal. I tried not to state that your logic is flawed, and your thinking skills are "weak" ... but you decided to, in several places, to turn the conversation to me ... instead of the topic at hand. If you want to ask me a question ... ask it. If you want to try and insinuate the reasons behind any of my actions or statements, then expect the responses you are getting. Ask away ...
No matter what arguments you want to throw around, it's obvious that we'll never agree ... no problem. You won't convince me ... I won't convince you. If you want to state facts, go ahead ... if you want to try to explain to me about the "evil empire", I don't buy it. Numerous other companies have had the equal opportunity to compete and succeed, but "stupid" decisions have limited their own success. I've grown-up in this industry and watched this first hand.
> So I advised that your strategic thinking and arguments regarding
> Microsoft are weak, not you. YOU took it personally, which you seem
> to do with nearly every poster on this thread.
No Jack, only the ones who move away from the discussion at hand to start making comments about the people involved. Again, I guess that I could say that your logical thinking is weak ... but to me that would be a personal attack. Somehow you seem to indicate that this isn't a "personal" comment or attack? Hmmm ... gotta think about that one.
> This is a strange response, considering you posted the day before
> to the effect 'Where is the mighty Java now' Well, it appears it is
> alive and well and being used for development by Scott Lemon !
I appreciate that you acknowledge my expertise in this area! (;-) But this is where you choose to put your own meaning on other peoples words ... something that I'm not as comfortable as you doing.
How did you ever get "alive and well" from anything that I posted? Again, this is where I have to remember that you don't always frame your questions as questions. I guess that I have to just understand that what you are really asking is "So what is your first hand experience with Java, as opposed to all these hype articles that I read?"
Well Jack, I'm glad that you asked! I choose not to live in a world of hype and hearsay, but instead try to learn by experience and decided to make an attempt at using Java. And the experience has been difficult and unimpressive. Even today at lunch, I asked three other developers about their perceptions ... just to again get first hand knowledge ... and they agreed. Java has some wonderful stories around it ... it even provides some neat features, and ease in programming ... but as for deploying real applications written in Java, it has just never delivered.
Now admitted, there are a lot of reasons why, but the final issue is that Java applications do not look as "clean" as Windows applications, they do not visibly run as fast, they are often huge to install because of JVM/JRE/Swing issues, and the install process is a real pain. What I've found is that although customers will ask about Java, and give some lip-service to wanting it, the pain is not worth the gain.
So it's not a strange response ... it's simple proof that I choose not to live in a world of hearsay and hype.
> They only want Java developers, they want as many applications as
> possible written in Java, something about "strategic direction".
> Again, this was in response to your sarcastic "Where is the mighty
> Java now?" query.
So my response is that the simple statement doesn't provide this breadth of information. One ad, looking for Java developers, doesn't seem to convey the same importance to me as it obviously does to you. I understand that people are looking for Java developers ... but I am looking for Java solutions. I believe in the concept, but the delivery just isn't there ... yet.
> When you used this term "SuperNOS", I thought you meant it as a
> euphemism, and were deriding Netware in a sarcastic manner, not in
> its context as an actual product name.
I guess that I could have picked from numerous Novell announcements that never were delivered, but I chose SuperNOS. And I guess this was my point. People act as though Microsoft is the only company to announce a product, project, or strategic direction and to never deliver on it. On a NOVL thread, I decided that I would pick an example that I figured would be well known ... but then again, I guess it was easily forgotten. Novell has made countless press releases that sound really good ... but never delivered. It's not just a Microsoft thing ...
> Regarding the "SuperNOS" Netware 5.1, I did read the announcement
> today for Netware 5.1, highlighting HTTP support and bundled
> WebSphere. I get great comments regarding WebSphere from some
> friends at Keane.
I wouldn't want to pollute the name with "SuperNOS", but NetWare 5.1 is looking very good. I'm very familiar with the product and can't wait to see it ship. I'm more interested in new versions of the client software, and also the enhancements to the "Internet" capabilities of the product ...
Speaking of WebSphere, what do you (or your friends at Keane) see as the tremendous benefit of WebSphere on NetWare? I'm trying to figure this one out ...
> Just like we (the unwashed) can't handle your posts on this board?
Ahhh ... not at all. But you always seem to question my integrity, or reasons for posting my thoughts and perspective. You seem to want to question motives for everything, but you won't just come out and ask ... if you have questions ... ask them!
> I guess this could be somewhat embarrassing for your in your new
> world. I have many shortcomings, but my memory is still razor
> sharp, you were definitely uncomplimentary of the Win 32 API when
> you were at Novell. I don't know what the archives are like here,
> but I will look. I remember that post and the one regarding NT not
> being a good "data pump" compared to Novell (that term really stuck
> with me). You sounded like you were a Novell employee who knew what
> you were talking about, so I bought more. Good for me !
;-) I'm not sure I'd want to shave with that razor! ;-)
Ok, but seriously, this again helps to explain your perception of the situation. What you remember is correct, although you are not remembering the details very well ... and the acronyms even less.
Win32 is usually a reference to the broad set of APIs that Microsoft provides on their platform. I question your memory, because I am almost always complimentary to Microsoft about Win32 and all of their API support. I have never had to call Microsoft (ever!) to get any API that I needed. As a MSDN subscriber I have always been able to locate the necessary APIs, documentation, and sample code ... I have no problems with Win32.
As for the comment about the "data pump", yes ... I have argued for quite some time that the core data I/O services of NetWare make it a much better "data pump" than NT is ... by default. But this isn't related to Win32 APIs ...
> Anyway, if you are being honest NOW, what were you doing when you
> were posting on this board as a Novell employee, tickling the wire?
> I am certainly not the only poster on this board who has noted
> this.
Again ... your assumptions get ahead of you. Your statement above seems to once again question my integrity or my motives. This is where we enter into the "personal attacks" area ... something that I just don't like. It seems to me that your misunderstanding of the technology and terminology has lead you down a bad path ...and you're trying to blame me. I'm sorry, and will try my best to clarify the situation.
If you would have asked me (while working for Novell) if Microsoft could compete with the NetWare kernel, I would have answered "Yes! But they would have to compromise some of their other services to do so."
While at Novell, and continuing now, I post what I think, and what I believe. Much of what I believed while at Novell has not changed, but somethings have. I believe firmly in the technology (for the purpose it is designed for) and the developers. But as we all are experiencing, this is not what makes for a great company ... at least when measured in shareholder value.
If you have specific questions about things, then ask them specifically ...
> What bold new features, what stability, and what customer requests,
> it was all crammed down their throat. Stability has been achieved
> only by more RAM and more powerful processors, which is exactly my
> point.
Wow ... this isn't in line with traditional thought ... but I'm sure the engineers of the world will love this. I'm not sure it's what you meant ...
Stability has *no way* of being related to processing power and amount of memory. Well, there are some very slight chances that you could eliminate some timing issues in the code, or deadlocks on memory allocation, although these would possibly pop back up if you pushed the utilization of the processor ...
Stability is more related to the procedures that are written, and the effective exception handling. It is this last part that can become very difficult in complex systems ... with huge numbers of interacting software processes (and especially in an unprotected environment like NetWare or Windows95) it becomes easy for a "bad" piece of code to cause corruption, or for a piece of code not to expect a particular parameter value, etc.
But throwing more processor or memory at this won't help at all ... the same interaction will occur and cause the same fault.
By the way, have your support folks (if you have any) asked the appropriate questions to help you track down the cause of your crashes? Also, on another note, I'd suggest NT ... I will admit that I haven't run 95 for years ... and never even installed 98. I've been waiting for feedback from respected friends on when to go to Win2K ... it's close ... they really like it! ;-)
> Well if it's that hard and complex a problem, they should have no
> problem opening up the API. Surely developers that have never been
> involved with Windows would have no clue, and could never get it
> cleaned up before MSFT could.
It's been interesting on this thread to see the talk about APIs. Could someone give me a specific example of an API that isn't open on Windows? It's talked about as though its something everyone knows ... but I've never seen it. I've heard of one example ever ... but I'm not sure that's what everyone is talking about ...
> As mentioned above, this is getting repetitive, I am through.
I agree. Instead of insinuation, ask direct questions ... you'll find that I will try to answer them directly and honestly. There's not always a conspiracy out there ...
Scott C. Lemon |
