Four Hour Work Week. Take it with a grain of salt, since it takes a lot longer than the author suggests to create a business. (I'd say a year of hard work at least to finally hit a product that sells easily enough in high enough quantities rather than a matter of months.) But it's possible. It's a great read with direct, practical advice. Ex: It says exact what services to use and how much they cost, rather than the more typical theoretical "think this way" of other business books.
It's the only standard for file transfer we have, and it can be secure. Why does it have to die? (NOTE: WebDav has even more issues but that's the only other standard.)
> It's the only standard for file transfer we have
No, its not.
> Why does it have to die?
Because its problematic in a whole lot of ways, and FTPS doesn't help much for most of them. [1] identifies a lot of them (in the context of implementing a MacFUSE filesystem, but the issues apply to most applications.)
> (NOTE: WebDav has even more issues but that's the only other standard.)
You keep using that word "only"; I do not think it means what you think it means.
WebDAV certainly has issues, though its probably less bad, on balance, than FTP/FTPS, but the more commonly used alternative for FTP/FTPS isn't WebDAV but SFTP (the SSH File Transfer Protocol, not the Simple File Transfer Protocol.)
WebDAV is terrible. Run, don't walk, away from it. Nobody at apache has any responsibility for it, the mod_dav author is totally MIA ... it's just a mess. Further, every single DAV implementation[1] is both broken and completely unique.
[1] Like DAV in Finder, or DAV in MS Word or in MS explorer, or in IE ... they are all completely different ... and also all of them are horribly broken.
I was mostly saying WebDAV was less bad than FTP because many of its problems are (as you note) problems with the existing implementation, rather than inherent in the protocol design (though those problems do manifest a problem with the protocol design -- it tries to do too much for what most uses need and does so in a baroque manner.)
I think all this makes it clear that it is a software issue and not a protocol issue.
That is my point here. People hate FTP (or SFTP/FTP-SSL/WebDav) because the software is implemented poorly. (NOTE: I know SFTP and FTP-SSL are different protocols.)
FTP/FTPS has serious, protocol level issues (including things that are underspecified enough that its poor as a protocol for apps on top of, and things that are just bad decisions.)
WebDAV arguably has fewer essential protocol level issues (aside from being overly large and baroque) -- that is, it has fewer problems that are necessarily included in a correct implementation -- but lots of implementation issues (which, arguably, stem largely from the spec being overly large and baroque.)
OTOH, even to the extent that the problems (e.g., with WebDAV) are issues with the existing software and not the protocol, the main benefit of building a specialized app to a standard protocol is interoperability with other tools using the protocol -- if the existing implementations are incomplete and buggy in mutually incompatible ways, that negates the benefit of writing to the standard.
The only reason FTP is insecure is because system admins still allow unencrypted FTP connections.
POP3 and HTTP is also insecure- it's up to the system admin to block insecure connections.
With most FTP server software I know (such as ServU or FileZilla Server) once you force SSL connections, the server will disconnect users on the USER command (before sending the password) if they are connected insecurely. So only if your system administrator wants to allow insecure connections, will you be allowed to transmit the password insecurely.
Why do people still connect using the old insecure FTP standard? It's the software.
I personally think FileZilla should connect using SSL Explicit by default. IQBox defaults to SSL, and prompts the user for a fallback.
So again I think it's a software issue, not a protocol issue.
dragonwriter, first, I want to say, you are correct that FTP/FTPS is not the World's Best Protocol. In fact, maybe it is the worst protocol in the world.
What I'm saying is, that doesn't matter. It's still the most common and easiest to set up for a novice user.
Trust me, I don't enjoy reading obscure RFCs on FTP's UTF8 encoding.
I'm using FTP/FTP-SSL because it's the easiest and most common for the end user. FileZilla Server does not support SFTP.
The goal of the project is simple: Let the average tech-savvy person use their own private server to sync. So it needs to be simple and free: FileZilla Server backend (runs on Windows or Linux) and IQBox front-end. I'm open to ideas but I think that's the easiest option.
Even a QNAP will support FTP out-of-the-box.
HTTP-1.0 was a mess. POP3 was a mess. All these protocols were insecure and evolved because software makers put up with their madness and made great software.
> I'm using FTP/FTP-SSL because it's the easiest and most common for the end user.
That's quite a bit different than your original argument (which was the self-contradictory argument that FTP is the only standard for file transfer, and that WebDAV is the only other standard for file transfer.)
> It's still the most common and easiest to set up for a novice user.
I don't think there are many "novice users" that can setup an FTP server that would fall down at setting up an SFTP server.
> FileZilla Server does not support SFTP.
There are plenty of open-source SFTP servers for windows and that support linux (not necessarily the same server for both windows and linux, but see the next point.)
> So it needs to be simple and free: FileZilla Server backend (runs on Windows or Linux)
> HTTP-1.0 was a mess. POP3 was a mess. All these protocols were insecure and evolved because software makers put up with their madness and made great software.
Right, and once HTTP/1.1 and IMAP were widely available and well supported with F/OSS servers and clients for most platforms, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to tie a new product to HTTP/1.0 or POP3.
There's a difference with putting up with a protocol that is suboptimal but the best available for the role that has widespread support and, on the other hand, doing so when alternatives that address its problems have been well established.
This is it. I think I am converting to a Mac. The last reason I didn't was because there's a common perception that they're priced too high. Unless this is a misprint, that time is over.
$1700 for the next to lowest end offering is too high. Dell doesn't even break $1000 territory until you get to their upper end offerings. For $1700 you could buy two computers and a laptop (or two computers and two netbooks).
I would get a Dell 27-inch 2560 by 1440 LED display if there's one too. Just wish that Dell can manufacture one with great energy savings. That will be the deal winner.
Currently, I'm using a 2006 Mac Pro. It's still freaking powerful but I really can use with more pixels on my screen.
I was talking about the computers. $1700 is far too much for a low end system, monitor or no monitor. Those specs (sans display) are available for <$500. I'd put the price on this system at no more than $1400 at the high end. Apple is making a very nice margin on this kit.
But to that end the iMac isn't a LED display either, it's LED backlit.
If I could find a $1000 27" 2560x1440 LED or O-LED display I'd be in line in front of you.
$800 for the display
$500 for the computer components
$100 for the aluminum case
$100 for the wireless keyboard and hi-tech mouse
$100 for OS X and iLife
$100 for beautiful industrial design
$1700 sounds like a fine deal to me.
I'm tempted to buy one right now, but I'm forcing myself to wait for the first component refresh that will come in 6 or 8 months. Core 2 Duo is about to go obsolete.
No, you get a 3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo as standard. The 27" model can be upgraded to Core 2 Duo 3.33 Ghz, i5 or i7. Read the page you linked to one more time :)
You can keep lowering your component prices on your list till this makes sense to you. But let's be honest, you'd buy this machine no matter what because that's simply what you are into. The value proposition argument doesn't factor into fanhood.
not a knock, just an observation, I'm thinking these look pretty sexy as well
I find it hilarious that just a short way up the page someone is telling me you don't have to buy one because I so obviously loathe Apple products, while you're telling me my love for them is so strong that you'd buy this machine no matter what.
Looks and form factor matter to me and are something I'm happy to pay for. I'm not saying they should matter you. If you'd rather save $300 and buy a computer in a standard plastic box, with trash peripherals that are only rated 1 egg, then you're welcome to it.
The number of people who spend $300 on just a case + power supply from newegg when doing a custom pc build is not small.
But even when I threw together my last monster home machine from newegg I don't think I spent more than $150 on case and power, and I even went hog wild with lights and all kinds of fans and other sexy things.
Just because Apple felt that they needed to spent who knows how much R&D on a new plastic unibody mold that nobody is impressed with much, in order to house perfectly stock budget hardware doesn't mean that I think I should pay for that.
Have you been following the news at all? I know many non-technical people (and technical people also) who are absolutely ecstatic about getting a MacBook with the new body. People care about this shit - in fact I'd say it's the minority that does not.
By the way, don't knock the unibody till you use one. My unibody MacBook Pro has got to be the most solid machine I've ever used - handily beats any other laptop on the market, including the venerable classic ThinkPads.
Did you really just link, as an alternative to Apple's keyboard/mouse, a product whose first review is "Garbage"?
You figure design into the cost equation all the time in your life - why would one wear anything except Wal-Mart t-shirts otherwise? Ease of use, quality of construction, and yes, even styling, is incredibly important in all aspects of life.
I've actually used that keyboard - it's nowhere near the quality of the Apple keyboard. Keys are mushy and soft, and even the chiclet keys have a more solid feel than that.
Not to mention the whole thing reeked of plasticy cheapness.
Let me put it this way. If I drive once a week, I'd save money and get a little econobox Toyota. If, however, I spent 8 hours a day behind the wheel, I'd invest in a BMW or something else nice.
In the same way, I spend at least 8 hours in front of a computer every single day - why in the world wouldn't I spend $100 on a keyboard/mouse combo? That's dirt cheap considering the mileage I get out of them. It just doesn't make sense to skimp on hardware when you spend so much time with it (and also, if it's your primary moneymaking machine).
> I spend at least 8 hours in front of a computer every single day - why in the world wouldn't I spend $100 on a keyboard/mouse combo?
Well put. I actually think that this logic justifies spending much more -- or at least buying products further along the price/feature curve -- on interface devices that have a comparatively long lifespan, than on devices that get upgraded frequently.
To each their own, of course, but I've never regretted spending money on a good keyboard, good mouse, good monitor, or good chair. You can expect 5+ years out of a mouse (sometimes more), probably 5-10 on a monitor unless your needs change significantly, 10+ on a keyboard unless you have a tendency to spill into it (and even then, if it's a buckling spring you can basically hose it out), and who knows on a good chair -- I'm still on my first "good" one.
I've found that it's the things that some folks cut corners on, things that on the surface can look like extravagances, that easily pay for themselves in terms of productivity and comfort. (Especially the chairs. Seriously, if you make your living sitting down, you deserve a good chair.) They don't have the same e-penis factor as a hotrod CPU, but it's a better use of funds in my book.
(Although with all this said, I'm not a huge fan of the latest Apple keyboards; I think they peaked back with the AEKII. But that's a matter of preference; I like one with long key travel.)
There is no other mouse like the new Apple mouse, so there's nothing to compare it to. High quality wireless mice from Logitech or Microsoft are usually around $50 though.
HN won't let me reply direct...so I'm replying to myself.
If I spend $30 on a keyboard mouse/combo. And it breaks in 6 months, I can just throw it away and get a replacement and still have coffee money. And in 6 months, the keyboard/mouse combo I buy for $30 will be better than the one that I could have bought 6 months prior for $70. No matter what I bought, I'd likely be in the market for a replacement (or would just end up with one anyways) a year later.
You've used the word "investing" in a way that makes no sense. A BMW is not an investment anymore than is a computer. Unless they are really something special (like a Veyron), both cars and computers loose value over time.
The comparison to cars is apropos, similar to the subject at hand, I could buy two or three Toyota Corollas for one BMW 3xx, get to where I want on time, more reliably, with better gas mileage (read: lower TCO), and the only thing I'll suffer for it is not looking like a pretentious prick will doing it. And I'd still have one or two backup cars for demolition derby or loaning out to friends.
The real difference is that computing technology looses value so fast (even faster than cars) that to think of them as anything other than nearly disposable is a fallacy. AND at any rate, an Apple is not a BMW as a PC is to a Corolla. They are both Corollas, just one has a bit more chrome on it, for which you'll happily pay a 40% markup for.
Apple wants you to think that what they are making is so fantastically special that you'll buy their overpriced commodity hardware thinking you will keep it forever. Only until next year when they come out with the same thing but case colors and an extra USB port.
"If I spend $30 on a keyboard mouse/combo. And it breaks in 6 months, I can just throw it away and get a replacement and still have coffee money."
And through all of this you're still using a cheap $30 keyboard. Why buy something cheap and disposable just to replace it 6 months later? Sure, your TCO is still lower than the nicer keyboard - but the ease of use and satisfaction is easily worth the difference, not to mention a hell of a lot less wasteful. Why I would skimp on my primary interface to the computer (your hands are on that damn thing all day, after all), is a mystery to me.
"You've used the word "investing" in a way that makes no sense."
Of course it doesn't make sense to you - you appear to think that "investment" can only occur in a monetary sense. This explains your focus on TCO without regard for the quality of the product. When I "invest" in a nice suit, I'm not expecting my garments to appreciate in monetary value - I'm expecting to receive some tangible non-monetary benefit (landing that job, for example, or better networking) for it. In the same way, "investing" in tech gear is about greater satisfaction, reduced frustration, etc etc. It is not about my computer somehow appreciating in value.
"I could buy two or three Toyota Corollas for one BMW 3xx, get to where I want on time, more reliably, with better gas mileage (read: lower TCO), and the only thing I'll suffer for it is not looking like a pretentious prick will doing it."
Your objection against Apple is apparently more about its image than any tangible complaint. This is fine - and is in fact the most common argument against Apple products ("but you look like a hipster douche!").
Question: have you driven a BMW? Or are you presuming that there's no tangible difference except the image component? I've worked in the auto industry - and have done work for both cheapo Pontiacs as well as $100K+ Mercedes Benzes. The quality difference is extreme, but of course invisible on any consumer spec sheet. This is why spec sheet tunnel vision is generally a bad idea when it comes to purchases - there's more to a car (and computer) than its engine size, mileage, CPU speed, L2 cache size, etc etc.
If you've ever been behind the wheel of a BMW you'd know the difference between it and a Corolla. It's a far more satisfying machine to drive than a Corolla, by a really, really wide margin.
But by all means, cling to your unfounded prejudices about BMW drivers and Mac users. We'll be out there enjoying our products (in a non-douchey way, I promise). It seems you're willing to deny yourself better quality products simply because you don't want to be associated with the few people who act like dicks about having them.
+1 for non-monetary/intangible benefits. Even my ancient (early 90s) 3 series is an amazing drive, and well worth the disintegrating door panels and various other problems. I've driven a variety of cars, old and new, and this is my favorite so far.
There are some products that, because of attention to detail or other design features, are a pleasure to use, even if their performance on paper is worse.
Disintegrating parts of a car does not speak to "attention to detail". :)
But I agree, there is sometimes a visceral, non-quantifiable "feel" to a product that makes it worth using. My favorite car was my late 70's Mercury. Stupid big, ate gas like there was a hole in the tank, small tasks like getting out of the driveway had lots of engine drama. But man it drove like a dream.
> Why buy something cheap and disposable just to replace it 6 months later? Sure, your TCO is still lower than the nicer keyboard...
Thanks for answering your own question.
> you appear to think that "investment" can only occur in a monetary sense
Well, we're obviously not talking about "the act of putting on vestments". So yes, "investment" only is defined in this sense as an outlay of resources or capital with an expectation of a greater return.
Buying something because it's pretty is not an investment.
You really really want to try and stretch the definition so that "can bring about higher productivity/efficiencies on a current process" which I think is reasonable since those higher efficiencies can directly lead to a greater return. But you provide no examples that an Apple branded keyboard can allow me to type at, for example 130wpm vs. 90wpm. I would be willing to put dollars down that said Apple branded keyboard would not demonstrate any increase in productivity or efficiencies over a $5 Taiwan built no-name bargain-bin keyboard. And since we both agree that the TCO is lower on the latter device, it's the better investment.
>Your objection against Apple is apparently more about its image than any tangible complaint.
To be clear, my objection against the entire Apple ecosystem is twofold:
1) Apple charges too much money for their kit. There is no sense in paying Two Thousand Dollars for a system I can find for less than half that. Unless said Apple system does bring about a massive productivity increase, it is not a rational purchase. Experience has shown me that Apple systems do not bring about any productivity increases.
2) Apple fanboys offer irrational, circular reasoning to justify their computing purchases. They offer up "design" as the deciding factor, and when I say "design makes no difference" they offer up "productivity", and when I say "show me the statistics" they say "it's an investment", and when I say "investment doesn't mean that" they say "it's about the design".
The users of Apple products are far more the problem with the entire ecosystem than Apple ever will be -- actually to Apple they are the life's blood.
I can understand Apple's business model. They know they will never have more than low double digit market share. And they also know that that market share represents people who would purchase a pile of smoldering rubbish for a 200% markup if it had an Apple logo on it and a Jonny Ive's video spot proclaiming how this "was the best designed pile of smoldering rubbish...in the world". That's called "being smart". They can make loads of profit selling commodity hardware that the Dell's of the world make only 5-10% margins on simply by fanning the flames of rabid fanboyism.
>I've worked in the auto industry - and have done work for both cheapo Pontiacs as well as $100K+ Mercedes Benzes. The quality difference is extreme, but of course invisible on any consumer spec sheet. This is why spec sheet tunnel vision is generally a bad idea when it comes to purchases - there's more to a car (and computer) than its engine size, mileage, CPU speed, L2 cache size, etc etc.
That's correct. There is TCO. A Pontiac and a Benz (and a BMW) share one thing in common, poor TCO. Between poor build quality, reliability, trade-in value, gas mileage etc. those vehicles all demonstrate poor thinking on the part of the purchasers. The Pontiac is probably purchased for the initially low sticker price. But it will suffer from poor reliability, bad gas mileage and when the owner goes to trade it in after 5 years, a shockingly bad trade-in price. The Benz, while being built of the finest materials (leading to a high sticker price), suffers from some of the worst statistical reliability in the business across the lineup, and generally very poor trade-in value (a 2005 S500 4d in excellent condition goes for the same price as a stripped low end Accord, that's an $70,000 loss in value in 4 years).
It's no mystery why Toyota is now the #1 car maker. They don't offer anything particularly attractive, they don't use the best materials, they don't make the fastest cars or have the best handling. They don't even have a performance offering in their lineup!
The equation is simple, they make decent vehicles, that get you from A to B in the same amount of time it takes somebody in a Merc S500 or a BMW 540 or a Ferrari Enzo, it lasts longer between services than the more expensive cars and the cheaper-to-purchase cars, it offers reasonable comfort for the price, and when it comes time to trade in, you might loose only 40% of the price not 70-80%. The most important factor for the vast majority of people is TCO.
Rewrite that previous statement in computing terms and you have the reason why Apple is not a good investment. They do not offer a competitive TCO to the competing Wintel type systems.
But the comparison isn't between a Corolla and a 540. It's between a Corolla and a Civic -- only I'm going to charge you a 120% markup on the civic because I stuck a "type R" badge on the back. Applers want to compare their computing choices to higher end autos with higher end specs. But that simply doesn't jive with reality. Their systems have identical specs to any other consumer Intel style system out there.
> If you've ever been behind the wheel of a BMW you'd know the difference between it and a Corolla. It's a far more satisfying machine to drive than a Corolla, by a really, really wide margin.
Yes, it is :) I've always been happy to drive my rental BMWs and Audis whenever I'm in Germany. I've been loathe to drive the Opels I sometimes get. That being said, I would never say that I received a tangible benefit from those cars and could never justify buying one for myself along any rational lines.
>But by all means, cling to your unfounded prejudices about BMW drivers and Mac users. We'll be out there enjoying our products (in a non-douchey way, I promise).
Apple users are certainly ways less douchy than BMWers.
I think the answer to "why should I buy an Apple" should be "because I like it better". And the answer to "why?" should be "dunno, just do". All the superfluous justifications don't hold up to rational examination. But they don't really have to. I like Bach better than Beethoven, but I can't give a rational reason why.
Why would you not factor in the design? Goto NewEgg.com and price out some nice Lian-Li cases. They're expensive. Yes, you can get a junky finger slicer case with loud fans and tacky lights for ~$50 but that's not what I want
Why does th design matter beyond "look at me, I'm using an overpriced collection of stock hardware". It's the old saying "you can't polish a turd". Commodity hardware is always going to be commodity hardware no matter how shiny the case is.
"It makes sense to equally split to equally motivate though."
Yes, otherwise you have one founder with all the weight on her/his shoulders and the others can end up like employees.
It's not worth it: Result= Everyone's equity will be worth less in the end because they don't perform with the motivation of an equal team.
Also, being in that majority equity role really stinks. It's harder to take time off, people hesitate to make decisions without you...
I DONT expect work to be evenly divided tho. Just like in marriage, it is rare for a perfect 50/50 split of work. Some people are motivated to work until 4 AM each nite, and others are not. I think accepting that is important for a happy, successful partnership.
Keep in mind there is always overhead. There's no such thing as a cash machine that requires no maintenance.
I'd look at high dividend yield stock that pays out monthly (6% yield or more). This will give you monthly income with minor hassles, since the companies are large. Unless you are a fantastic investor, don't look for capital gains (making money off stock price increases) because there's lots of speculation:
http://simoniqe.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/how-to-not-lose-mon...
Domestic oil pipeline companies are a good bet because they pay high dividends and are stable in price since they get paid no matter what. Investing in oil is an ethical dilemma but there are domestic oil companies that are better. PIF.UN is an example of a domestic Canadian one that pays about 10% monthly dividends with no hassles, but if in the US you must never trade in other currencies. Preferred stock also provides a stable price and in this economy you can easily get 10% or more monthly div's. Investigate DDR.PR.G or other Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) if you like the real estate angel. Be careful if the yield is above 12% because it could be that the stock's price is falling, which inflates the yield %. I AM NOT A CERTIFIED INVESTOR. I AM A STUPID PROGRAMMER WHO FOUND THESE STOCKS IN IDLE TIME. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH BEFORE BUYING!
A great resource is Stock Chase:
http://www.stockchase.com/
It's like a Twitter but only from professional investors.
Both real estate and web acquisitions have little daily work but are very interruptive. You have leaks, storms, tenants causing problems and for the web, downtime events or security updates that often the need attention of an owner at 3 AM at night.
"I could imagine for example buying existing web sites that have proven ad revenue"
I've gotten burned bad on small website acquisitions. There is full time work involved for many months in terms of at least ensuring the acquisition is worthwhile, and often without dedicating workers full time to deal with it, things go south. Owners claim they do little work to maintain it and this is generally false.
They also have an MBET master's program that lets you incubate an idea over 11 months and you get student volunteers. It's right in their technology park next to the RIM (Blackberry) global HQ, OpenText, Google Canada, etc.
O and should mention McMaster's MEEI program which also is a master's program/incubator combo.
DISCLAIMER: Once you get it going, you are better off finding round 1 financing in the Valley than anywhere else, as far as I am told.
What is cost of attendance for an American student at a Canadian university these days? I get the impression that an applicant shopping for need-based financial aid offers (most applicants I know) has better chances of finding an affordable place at a United States private university, which is what seeded the list in my poll.
Canadian schools all post their tuition on their websites.
Actually, Canadian schools are still cheaper than private, even if you are foreign.
Waterloo Engineering Coop: $28,527.94/year
Waterloo Math/Science Coop: About $20,000/year
NOTE: You will for sure make most of that back with Waterloo's coop program. My friend worked at Google, VMware and others.
Other top Canadian schools with lower international student tuition:
- UBC
- McGill
- McMaster
- Queens *(<- Heard this school is really, really tough)
Don't go here:
- U of Toronto: This is a very UN-entrepreneurial school. Good reputation but trust me, you don't want to go there. It is just too theoretical and math based. I don't mean like studying RSA. I mean like solving the proofs behind every mathematical element of RSA, and proofs are sometimes multiple choice. Really, really only for those with a serious love of theoretical mathematics.
The trick is using university/college off-campus housing listing pages. You'll find great deals. Here's the one from SFSU:
http://sfstate.och101.com/
"Spacious Studio in Nagley Mansion" $850.00
Also check UofSF, UCSF.
I wouldn't be discouraged by that offer. Like in business, some landlords prefer to wait for that A+ tenant and take a premium, whereas other deals in bulk or have cashflow problems so they need to fill the place sooner. There are HUGE price differences. In Toronto, my friends once rented a whole house in an upper class area (the Annex) for the price of a 1-bedroom apartment.
