I guess Apple could had removed it, and not mentioned it and no one would had really known. Heck most of the people complaining about it were the Android fanbois who wouldn't get an Apple product anyways.
But having a case where cancer was cured, is a big deal worth noting.
I expect more multi-threading and background loading of information of data.
For the most part we as developers have been taught to think sequentially towards coding. A lot of developers even really good ones, just don't think about coding in parallel. Early versions of iOS didn't even support multi-tasking (It still doesn't do it so well). Now that these devices have multi-core chips, there is a lot of code that can be better parallelized.
The client side is like a screen door. You may be able to lock it, but locking the screen door is just telling people to use a different door, not actually doing anything to stop them from getting in, especially if you leave the door behind it open.
Javascript can be stopped or changed on the client. Apps that do a system call to a server can always be packet sniffed and traced.
Programs need to be designed in a way the developer will not be able to get into the application.
Client Side, can do a lot of work, tell you what is wrong, make sure lengths are correct get rid of bad characters... The Server Side still needs to be the last line of defense. If there something wrong, wrong length bad characters, missing fields. It should reject the entry of the data into the system and at least return a general error saying it didn't do it.
In terms of hardware requirements. Most validations take such a small amount of processing, that you will not notice it on the hardware, and the end user may get a fraction of a millisecond deference in wait.
The excuse that it will effect hardware requirements on the server, may work for your boss. But technically it is just an excuse to be lazy.
Major version changes meant a significant difference while minor changes were small changes and fixes. Skipping numbers in version dictated the amount of change in the fix. So if I went from version 3.03 to 3.50 I know there was a lot of work done, but not enough that would break compatibility, or add significant features.
Linux for the most part has been rather consistent.
But google and Firefox with their full number upgrades, makes it more difficult to judge the complexity of the patch. We are on Firefox 60. but it is more like Firefox 7.28 or something like that. Then Microsoft decides to make no sense all together. The Intel Processors lineup is just as bad by hiding their generation of processors as secondary next to the type of processor.
Before AOL and CompuServe with had a distributed network of BBS's But this created some chaos with each BBS SysOp being their own little king, Some being too strict, others being too lax, some finding a good middle ground. Paid Services such as AOL, Prodigy and CompuServe. Combined the features of hundreds of BBS's to one site, and offered a consistent set of rules and liberties. Then the Web Came out, giving people access to information that these commercial sites deemed inappropriate, or just not interesting enough. So people went back on the distributed method again... However the Web is a dangerous place, to validation of information, that plugin needed to be installed will either be spyware, or just handle some vector graphics so you can play an online game. Altavista, Yahoo, AskJeves, Google, Myspace, Facebook, Wikipedia came in as a way to tame the web, so you can find information easily, try to block some dangerous information... So it then comes back to a few big companies managing all our data again.
The problem is that we ask accurate truthful information, but we want our world view to be validated, but every source has a bias and some sources take that bias to spread false information, as it will make money pandering to peoples world views. When we get too distributed we get a lot of dangerous data. when it gets too controlled to much important data is missing.
The web was designed to be a choose your own adventure book.
Then people wanted better formatting options, and then they want to fill out information with forms, then these forms would like to have a client side to validate data. Then we wanted more advanced formatting options, and be able to change the HTML without refreshing a page.
The Web is now an Application Platform. Because of this, it needs security restrictions to make it work as such.
The value is that they can control the development ecosystem.
With Github you can do a full life cycle development all on Microsoft back yard. Where they can see you, guide you, encourage you to not go too far off course.
For most development, this is actually probably a good thing, as most stuff that we make, isn't breaking the mold being something super advanced and despite what developers think of themselves they are average, not superior. Having MS Framework as a guiding hand, that will prevent too many rouge applications out there.
That said, when ever you force people to play by the rules, chances for true innovation is loss. We all hit places where the Framework just isn't flexible enough in a particular area, so we need to go outside the box. So too much guidance from MS means we cannot create something new, because Microsoft didn't think of it.
The question is what site are you going to move to next. I may not use the same solution, and someone may choose something else. Others may stay on MS GIT.
We all hate the big player in the field, but we shy away the smaller ones.
Well lets rephrase it. If Git Hub doesn't bring in a profit margin in parity with its other units. Companies drop units not because they are not bringing in profit. If you revenue is $0.01 more then your expenses that is profit. However if you want to put your time and resources behind something in the company. And you find all the other units bring in millions of dollars in profit. Why invest your resources in the lower profit unit.
Now this may be good deal for an other company where they are a not-for profit, or their profit for other units is much smaller, and there are things that can be leverage from the acquisition, that can probably make it more profitable.
Most of the complaining about Microsoft evil and problems are issues that happened 20 years ago. I am not saying Microsoft is the good company we all should love. But most of the complaints about Microsoft are with resolved issue that were fixed for over a decade.
So yes I would agree with emotional outrage without fact expresses most Microsoft hate. I would say that applies for hate towards most anything.
As a non-hater of all things Microsoft. Microsoft acquiring Git Hub is concerning for much different reasons.
1. If Git hub doesn’t bring in the money a company like Microsoft will just kill it.
2. Like Skype and linked in There will be changes to bring it into its ecosystem. Preferring updates to its platforms and delaying others.
3. How much tolerance will it have for competing/illegal products. Due to the complexity of licensing rules it is easy to break a license when developing something. This may not make it to the final release version as an audit would show you that these parts are in violation. But MS is protective of its IP so could the project of some teen learning how to code something more complex be part of a lawsuit from an MS level check of IP violations?
This would be the same for Apple, Google, Bank of America, GE...
At least apply the same rules that most browsers to in AJAX calls prevent calling a site that is on a different server. Yes it sucks for developers but if you make the serverside passthru you now have some control of the security.
Unfortunately good security doesn’t mean the easiest way to code it
Often for companies #1 and #2 are often in tight competition with each other and swapping over who is #1. They both a big user base, and normally will copy each others tricks sometimes to the consumer benefits, but is it mostly just revenue increasing tricks.
#3 is often a bit out in the distance. A well known brand, but often trying some new things to set themselves apart. However will often place themselves in parity in terms of price as #1 and #2
#4 is way behind, but is often the customers best friend, except they just are missing the money and infrastructure to grow.
However usually after an outage. The IT Company will fix that problem so it doesn't happen again. Thus after every outage, the system normally gets more secure. Especially if an outage causes so much revenue loss.
Paper money and coins are not reliable as well. If I have a $100.00 bill, not all locations will take that large bill. Heck I remember when I was in college and I had a freaken $5.00 bill that I couldn't get broken up to singles. I even wen't to the campus post office, to buy a stamp, and they didn't have change so they gave me the stamp for free. All I wanted to do is use the vending machine to get a Soda.
Most personal computer usage was never used for software development. For the most part the old PCs wern't used to compile software. Yes they had BASIC, mostly because of a lack of software options. But Early PCs were used mostly for things like Games, home/office tools and word processors.
Back in them olden days, if you were doing anything serious with a computer you would have a Mainframe or at least a Mini-computer.
Phones/Tablets are actually filling the PC's traditional roles. Today's PC's are now more for workstations. And its market needs to be setup for more workstation like features.
I need to agree. Is is a shame you used an Anonymous Coward post, as this will not get moderated to a level it deserves.
The reason why Facebook took over MySpace was due to its simplicity. Making things more and more complex. Makes using Facebook a chore vs. Something fun.
I will get ads, most likely targeted based on what my friends and myself post. But that is expected from a free service. But news feeds, political stuff, and having to see over and over again one of my friends popular post, where I am more interested in what is happening with my more boring friend.
Perhaps you need to look harder, or perhaps you may need to lower your standards for your expectation on what type of job you are qualified to do.
A lot of the time, tech workers will not look for work in a grimy manufacturing plant, or in healthcare... Just because you are not working with world changing technologies, or making the next big thing, but tweaking, and tinkering wit existing systems. The work can be challenging, and you are working with the newest and coolest stuff. However you can't point to that tool that everyone seems to love and say I made that.
We all bargain for what is on our own best interest. We cannot fault a Company for trying to bargain for something that is better for them.
However the problem is the Voice of a Company is a lot louder to policy makers then it is for the individual. Which is against the ideals that the United States was founded on.
You can create a company make it large and brings you in a lot of money so you and your family can live in luxury. However the political system has loopholes which in essence has created a position of a person with money to be a position of Power, without the democratic process to give such people actual power.
Being the ones who pay the most to the political parties gets the ear of the law makers, means their best interests will be heard, vs those who cannot afford to pay into the system.
I would think Linux would be easier, being that there is so much you can do in just a text command line interface. Compared to trying to navigate a GUI OS such as OS X and Windows. And combine that you may not be sure if that Text on the screen is actually text or a bitmap.
With China, there is a high risk of your technology and your ideas being stolen to be "innovate", even if you just want them to put it together for you. And if you get out competed because your product cost $100 a unit to sell, and they can sell it for $75 a unit, because it cost you so much to come up with the product and the hundreds of failed ideas before that. You loose out on business on a good idea. Even if that $75 unit may have a small improvement. It was your Idea, your work that got stolen.
That said, Innovation is rarely in a vacuum. Once a new idea is released, there will attempts to improve on it and make it even better. There is a limit on how much of the idea can be kept as yours alone, before the new idea tangential to yours is considered fair use.
Then finally there is a problem with fair system to complain about abuses and have a just response to your complains, with the ability to enforce it. Being that Acquired technology in China is now own by the government, they have little recourse for any complains. Because having a company even a rather large one going against a Nation such as China would be difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess Apple could had removed it, and not mentioned it and no one would had really known.
Heck most of the people complaining about it were the Android fanbois who wouldn't get an Apple product anyways.
But having a case where cancer was cured, is a big deal worth noting.
I thought all the OS X names used Cats. Now are the Deserts?
I guess I havn't cared about OS X in many years.
Why is that?
Perhaps for iPads, but these are personal devices. Normally meant for one person.
I expect more multi-threading and background loading of information of data.
For the most part we as developers have been taught to think sequentially towards coding. A lot of developers even really good ones, just don't think about coding in parallel. Early versions of iOS didn't even support multi-tasking (It still doesn't do it so well). Now that these devices have multi-core chips, there is a lot of code that can be better parallelized.
The client side is like a screen door. You may be able to lock it, but locking the screen door is just telling people to use a different door, not actually doing anything to stop them from getting in, especially if you leave the door behind it open.
Javascript can be stopped or changed on the client.
Apps that do a system call to a server can always be packet sniffed and traced.
Programs need to be designed in a way the developer will not be able to get into the application.
You should always have both.
Client Side and Server Side validation.
Client Side, can do a lot of work, tell you what is wrong, make sure lengths are correct get rid of bad characters...
The Server Side still needs to be the last line of defense. If there something wrong, wrong length bad characters, missing fields. It should reject the entry of the data into the system and at least return a general error saying it didn't do it.
In terms of hardware requirements. Most validations take such a small amount of processing, that you will not notice it on the hardware, and the end user may get a fraction of a millisecond deference in wait.
The excuse that it will effect hardware requirements on the server, may work for your boss. But technically it is just an excuse to be lazy.
Major version changes meant a significant difference while minor changes were small changes and fixes.
Skipping numbers in version dictated the amount of change in the fix. So if I went from version 3.03 to 3.50 I know there was a lot of work done, but not enough that would break compatibility, or add significant features.
Linux for the most part has been rather consistent.
But google and Firefox with their full number upgrades, makes it more difficult to judge the complexity of the patch. We are on Firefox 60. but it is more like Firefox 7.28 or something like that. Then Microsoft decides to make no sense all together. The Intel Processors lineup is just as bad by hiding their generation of processors as secondary next to the type of processor.
Before AOL and CompuServe with had a distributed network of BBS's But this created some chaos with each BBS SysOp being their own little king, Some being too strict, others being too lax, some finding a good middle ground. Paid Services such as AOL, Prodigy and CompuServe. Combined the features of hundreds of BBS's to one site, and offered a consistent set of rules and liberties. Then the Web Came out, giving people access to information that these commercial sites deemed inappropriate, or just not interesting enough. So people went back on the distributed method again... However the Web is a dangerous place, to validation of information, that plugin needed to be installed will either be spyware, or just handle some vector graphics so you can play an online game. Altavista, Yahoo, AskJeves, Google, Myspace, Facebook, Wikipedia came in as a way to tame the web, so you can find information easily, try to block some dangerous information... So it then comes back to a few big companies managing all our data again.
The problem is that we ask accurate truthful information, but we want our world view to be validated, but every source has a bias and some sources take that bias to spread false information, as it will make money pandering to peoples world views. When we get too distributed we get a lot of dangerous data. when it gets too controlled to much important data is missing.
The web was designed to be a choose your own adventure book.
Then people wanted better formatting options, and then they want to fill out information with forms, then these forms would like to have a client side to validate data. Then we wanted more advanced formatting options, and be able to change the HTML without refreshing a page.
The Web is now an Application Platform. Because of this, it needs security restrictions to make it work as such.
The value is that they can control the development ecosystem.
With Github you can do a full life cycle development all on Microsoft back yard. Where they can see you, guide you, encourage you to not go too far off course.
For most development, this is actually probably a good thing, as most stuff that we make, isn't breaking the mold being something super advanced and despite what developers think of themselves they are average, not superior. Having MS Framework as a guiding hand, that will prevent too many rouge applications out there.
That said, when ever you force people to play by the rules, chances for true innovation is loss. We all hit places where the Framework just isn't flexible enough in a particular area, so we need to go outside the box. So too much guidance from MS means we cannot create something new, because Microsoft didn't think of it.
Why do we flock to a single source?
The question is what site are you going to move to next.
I may not use the same solution, and someone may choose something else.
Others may stay on MS GIT.
We all hate the big player in the field, but we shy away the smaller ones.
Well lets rephrase it.
If Git Hub doesn't bring in a profit margin in parity with its other units.
Companies drop units not because they are not bringing in profit. If you revenue is $0.01 more then your expenses that is profit. However if you want to put your time and resources behind something in the company. And you find all the other units bring in millions of dollars in profit. Why invest your resources in the lower profit unit.
Now this may be good deal for an other company where they are a not-for profit, or their profit for other units is much smaller, and there are things that can be leverage from the acquisition, that can probably make it more profitable.
Most of the complaining about Microsoft evil and problems are issues that happened 20 years ago.
I am not saying Microsoft is the good company we all should love. But most of the complaints about Microsoft are with resolved issue that were fixed for over a decade.
So yes I would agree with emotional outrage without fact expresses most Microsoft hate. I would say that applies for hate towards most anything.
As a non-hater of all things Microsoft. Microsoft acquiring Git Hub is concerning for much different reasons.
1. If Git hub doesn’t bring in the money a company like Microsoft will just kill it.
2. Like Skype and linked in There will be changes to bring it into its ecosystem. Preferring updates to its platforms and delaying others.
3. How much tolerance will it have for competing/illegal products. Due to the complexity of licensing rules it is easy to break a license when developing something. This may not make it to the final release version as an audit would show you that these parts are in violation. But MS is protective of its IP so could the project of some teen learning how to code something more complex be part of a lawsuit from an MS level check of IP violations?
This would be the same for Apple, Google, Bank of America, GE...
Doesn't Erdogan only speak in rhyme?
At least apply the same rules that most browsers to in AJAX calls prevent calling a site that is on a different server. Yes it sucks for developers but if you make the serverside passthru you now have some control of the security.
Unfortunately good security doesn’t mean the easiest way to code it
4 seems to be a good bare minimum.
Often for companies
#1 and #2 are often in tight competition with each other and swapping over who is #1. They both a big user base, and normally will copy each others tricks sometimes to the consumer benefits, but is it mostly just revenue increasing tricks.
#3 is often a bit out in the distance. A well known brand, but often trying some new things to set themselves apart. However will often place themselves in parity in terms of price as #1 and #2
#4 is way behind, but is often the customers best friend, except they just are missing the money and infrastructure to grow.
However usually after an outage. The IT Company will fix that problem so it doesn't happen again. Thus after every outage, the system normally gets more secure. Especially if an outage causes so much revenue loss.
Paper money and coins are not reliable as well. If I have a $100.00 bill, not all locations will take that large bill. Heck I remember when I was in college and I had a freaken $5.00 bill that I couldn't get broken up to singles. I even wen't to the campus post office, to buy a stamp, and they didn't have change so they gave me the stamp for free. All I wanted to do is use the vending machine to get a Soda.
Most personal computer usage was never used for software development.
For the most part the old PCs wern't used to compile software. Yes they had BASIC, mostly because of a lack of software options. But Early PCs were used mostly for things like Games, home/office tools and word processors.
Back in them olden days, if you were doing anything serious with a computer you would have a Mainframe or at least a Mini-computer.
Phones/Tablets are actually filling the PC's traditional roles. Today's PC's are now more for workstations. And its market needs to be setup for more workstation like features.
I need to agree. Is is a shame you used an Anonymous Coward post, as this will not get moderated to a level it deserves.
The reason why Facebook took over MySpace was due to its simplicity. Making things more and more complex. Makes using Facebook a chore vs. Something fun.
I will get ads, most likely targeted based on what my friends and myself post. But that is expected from a free service. But news feeds, political stuff, and having to see over and over again one of my friends popular post, where I am more interested in what is happening with my more boring friend.
Perhaps you need to look harder, or perhaps you may need to lower your standards for your expectation on what type of job you are qualified to do.
A lot of the time, tech workers will not look for work in a grimy manufacturing plant, or in healthcare... Just because you are not working with world changing technologies, or making the next big thing, but tweaking, and tinkering wit existing systems. The work can be challenging, and you are working with the newest and coolest stuff. However you can't point to that tool that everyone seems to love and say I made that.
We all bargain for what is on our own best interest. We cannot fault a Company for trying to bargain for something that is better for them.
However the problem is the Voice of a Company is a lot louder to policy makers then it is for the individual. Which is against the ideals that the United States was founded on.
You can create a company make it large and brings you in a lot of money so you and your family can live in luxury. However the political system has loopholes which in essence has created a position of a person with money to be a position of Power, without the democratic process to give such people actual power.
Being the ones who pay the most to the political parties gets the ear of the law makers, means their best interests will be heard, vs those who cannot afford to pay into the system.
I would think Linux would be easier, being that there is so much you can do in just a text command line interface. Compared to trying to navigate a GUI OS such as OS X and Windows. And combine that you may not be sure if that Text on the screen is actually text or a bitmap.
Both sides are idiots.
With China, there is a high risk of your technology and your ideas being stolen to be "innovate", even if you just want them to put it together for you. And if you get out competed because your product cost $100 a unit to sell, and they can sell it for $75 a unit, because it cost you so much to come up with the product and the hundreds of failed ideas before that. You loose out on business on a good idea. Even if that $75 unit may have a small improvement. It was your Idea, your work that got stolen.
That said, Innovation is rarely in a vacuum. Once a new idea is released, there will attempts to improve on it and make it even better. There is a limit on how much of the idea can be kept as yours alone, before the new idea tangential to yours is considered fair use.
Then finally there is a problem with fair system to complain about abuses and have a just response to your complains, with the ability to enforce it. Being that Acquired technology in China is now own by the government, they have little recourse for any complains. Because having a company even a rather large one going against a Nation such as China would be difficult.
I don't see Adds in Windows 10 Pro.