Jim's Ramblings

Valleywag reports that Monty has decided to leave Sun (and MySQL)...

Wow... and yet, not totally unexpected, imo.

Before I even start, I want to note a coupla things. First of all, I have never really owned a Windows system. Not to say I haven't bought them, but mostly for my sons and never for myself. I do run WinXP, but under VMWare Fusion on my Mac. Secondly, I have performed tons of upgrades of systems, from FreeBSD to OS X, but the upgrade from XP to Vista was a new one for me. And finally, I've built quite a few systems (physically) from the ground up. Sometimes it's even fun.

But even with all that, the recent full upgrade of Jon's computer from a Pentium 4/WinXP system to a new Quad/Vista system was, to put it nicely, painful. Much more so, IMO, than it should have been...

Due to both my interests, as well as projects at work, I go thru phases of using various languages. Lately, it's been a C, PHP and Java cycle. It's amazing that of the 3, Java is the only one that most people consider "enterprise worthy".

For PHP, I think it's mostly due to its association of being "just" a server-side language. People forget that you can write standalone PHP applications, which is a darn shame. I'm not saying that PHP is better suited for such tasks than Python or Ruby, but it is pretty rare to see PHP apps that aren't assumed to be running in a web environment. Be that as it may, as anyone even remotely familiar with various social networking sites (and others) know, PHP is certainly more than capable of being a cornerstone of an enterprise worthy implementation.

Now C is very different. Most people don't write applications (web applications, that is) in C, and yet most of the entire service infrastructure (OS, various protocol daemons, utilities, etc...) is programmed in C. So how can C not be enterprise worthy, if it provides the underlying foundation for enterprise apps? And yet people deride C, as if it is somehow quaint and yet also stupid to "dirty your hands" with C, simply because C requires the programmer to have a better understanding of how hardware is actually implemented and how software and hardware interacts. I've met many "professional" programmers who have no idea what "native word size" or "indirect addressing" means, and yet optimal and efficient programming depends on these, and other, constructs so much. Instead, the glory is saved for precious "programming patterns", which have their place, to be sure, but are not the be-all and end-all.

And so we come to Java. IMO, there is nothing within the actual language itself which makes Java enterprise worthy. Instead, it is the vast supporting infrastructure which does so, as well as the results of years and years of external forces "convincing" people that Java is the (only) way to go. Unless you think otherwise, consider how crucial RoR was to bringing Ruby to the forefront. Now imagine if Ruby (or Python or whatever) had the same sort of supporting infrastructure that Java enjoys, and Java had none; in that case, Java would be considered the "toy", the "fringe player" as far as enterprise apps.

IMO, enterprise worthiness is more a measure of the talent of the programmers, developers and architects, and not the language itself.

It's no real surprise that the US economy is spiraling down the crapper. Prices for everything has gone up and wages have dropped and/or stagnated. The biggest increase (and impact both to the economy as well as to each individual person) has been in the cost of energy. With gasoline prices above $4 a gallon, I don't know of anyone who isn't significantly changing their driving habits.

But for the most part, there is one "habit" that is very very hard to change, even when you really want to. It's the drive back and forth to work. Mass transit in the vast majority of the areas around the US is a joke and although people would love to use it, it's not a viable alternative. You would think that companies and businesses would be smart, realize the pain and seriously look at such obvious alternatives as compressed work weeks or telecommuting (for the benefit of the employees, the economy and the global climate).

But no.

Except for some rare exceptions, the management of most companies agree that it will result in significant savings and benefits, but still refuse to offer the option. After all, we all know how devious and untrustworthy employees are. You need the watchful and ethical eyes of management on them at all times, to ensure that they do their jobs. I hope readers appreciate the sarcasm.

What really got me going about this topic was an articles in today's Baltimore Sun about this very issue. It appears that one county government actually has a flexible workweek option available for employees (including compressed), but they *actively discourage people from using it*! A spokesman states, "We're comfortable where we are." Yeah, I bet you are, but what about the employees? What a joke.

Make no mistake, of course. There are some positions where telecommuting (my favorite alternative) does not make sense. But if you are in front of a computer terminal for most of the day, either as programmer, developer, designer, administrator, accountant, etc... then there is really no valid reason why you cannot do a lot of your work from home. Heck, people bring work home all the time, to "catch up."

When will the powers that be get smart enough to realize that the days of 9-5, Monday-Friday, in the office are on their way out. We, as a society, can no longer afford such old-fashioned concepts.

Disclosure: I have been lucky enough to be able to have telecommuted for several years now... My past and present employer see the obvious value and benefits of the arrangement. Of course, one never knows what the future will bring...

Some interesting news/links:

• GPL vs BSD
• How NOT to do REST
• Protocol Buffers
• Apache HTTP Server 2.2.9

I've had facial hair (a beard and mustache, henceforth just called "a beard") for a long time. A real long time. Something like 30 years.

I first started growing it in my senior year of high school. Facial hair of any kind was forbidden at Archbishop Curley (my school), but I was able to convince my dermatologist to write a note excusing me from this rule, due to "skin irritation when shaving". There was some truth to that. But the real truth was, I wanted to grow a beard. The note worked.

It also worked when I got a new college job, which also did not allow facial hair. I never understood stupid rules like that so, in addition to simply wanting to have a beard, I also felt like a rebel, and bucking the system.

I wanted a beard because, well, I thought (and still do) that I looked better with one. It gave my face that quality called "character." Back then, any sort of facial hair was rare, mostly mustaches if anything, so it made me feel somewhat unique but also helped define my jawline, which I always felt was too weak.

Over the last 30 years, I've only shaved it off once. Maybe 15-18 years ago Eileen decided she really wanted to see what I looked like without one. So I shaved it off (such is love!). She liked it. I hated it. I grew it back (love has its limits after all!). Since then I've switched between full beards and goatees (presently I'm in full-beard mode). Sometimes I let it go a little longer, and sometimes I keep it very trimmed, almost like stubble. This reminds me of another good reason for beards: you can skip shaving for a day or so and it still looks OK. Even so, I've never been able to have it fill in as much as I'd like. For example, my cheeks don't fill in much, so I tend to keep my "full beard" focused on around the jawline and chin.

When I started going gray (I didn't go gray early, but I did go sooner than I expected... I guess I started in my mid 30s), it took awhile for my beard to catch up. I used to be a light brown (back in the day, it was called "dirty blonde"... I can't recall the last time I heard that phrase, but it used to be a common description), but now am mostly gray, both on top as well as my beard. I don't mind; it gives my face character.

Oh joy. ICANN has decided to accept an explosion in the number of TLDs.

The reason, of course, should be obvious: money. Now even more people, companies and organizations will be obtaining these new TLDs to protect their marks or, more than likely, grab them so to be able to sell them to others.

I realize I'm old. I recall a time when obtaining a domain name actually required some justification. For example, you couldn't just "grab" a .org; you had to actually show you were a non-profit. If you were an ISP, you were allowed a .net, unless you could prove that your business was more "commercial" and thus be allowed a .com.

This maintained some sense of sanity and consistency in domain names. Now it's all catch as catch can. And all in the name of cashing in, even more, with this whole Internet thingie.

Each language has its own personality, advantages, warts and inconsistencies. But each also seem to have an almost singular aspect that, if you really wish to be proficient in the language, you must know really, really well. Here's my list on my top 4:

• C: pointers
• Python: name space rules
• Java: Interfaces
• Ruby: Ducking

Of course, this is far from complete, and "expertise" in each topic doesn't imply expertise in the language itself, but without getting your head around these, I feel that you are limited by what you can do.

For most men my age, a rite of passage when young was listening to "Class Clown". Even more so that sneaking a peek at a Playboy or Penthouse, a George Carlin LP signified your transition from being "a kid".

Thanks George! We'll miss you.

Hot off the stove: Apache HTTP Server 2.2.9.

Yum. Good pudding.

The ASF just finished our annual members meeting. During the meeting we elected in a new board and new members. The list of new members isn't public yet, allowing time for them to be contacted, etc... But the roster of the new board can be announced now. It is:

   Bertrand Delacretaz    Justin Erenkrantz        J. Aaron Farr

   Jim Jagielski          Geir Magnusson Jr.       William A. Rowe, Jr.

   Sam Ruby               Henning Schmiedehausen   Greg Stein

Of the above, Bertrand is the "new guy", taking over for Henri Yandell who decided not to run again this year.

Congrats!

I went ahead and upgraded my Macs to 10.5.3 yesterday (using the Combo Update, of course).

Unfortunately, even though many things are better, the most annoying bug in Mail has NOT been fixed... doing a search causes Mail to forget the field width settings in the Message Viewer window. Ugg!

Will someone please explain to me this "Internet Freedom" that Viacom's challenge is supposedly threatening?

What freedom is that? The freedom to steal copyrighted data? How did all that is good and noble about the Internet get somehow associated with the concept that "as long as I can make a copy of something, I should be able to do whatever I want to do with it whether I have permission or not."

Yes, the Internet is all about sharing information, but it doesn't also mean that copyright now flies out the window.

Let's be clear, if I create something (music, video, code, whatever) and I choose to share it, then great! If I also decide to let others share it as well, even better! But the sharing of that information is mine to choose, not yours. Don't lump my exercising my rights in protecting my property, with your perceived "rights" to take what is mine and do whatever you want with it, without my permission.

Really, that sort of mentality is totally embarrassing.

From Bileblog:

Were you so unloved as children that you’re so desperate to squeal out your emotions to every inanimate object you come across? Are you THAT insecure that you so desperately plead for attention whenever you sense sentience nearby?

Most likely crafted during an instance of clarity whilst looking in a mirror.

Geir posts this interesting blog entry. If Sun and others are really interested in figuring out how to improve the situation within the JCP, especially in really encouraging community involvement and interaction, I wonder who-oh-who could they possibly ask?