"Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS"
Apple says that I must use a particular development tool. I cannot translate code...
Which means
1 - No lex or yacc in my application. 2 - No other "little language" 3 - No higher order programming. 4 - Some severe restrictions in what I can deliver.
Of course, the "rules" are not necessarily applied -- after all, there is an HP 41 emulator available, with user programming allowed, and a Commodore 64 emulator.
Still, I am not allowed to write my code in Scheme or any other higher order language, and then translate (automatically, or manually) into Objective C for delivery.
How would Apple KNOW if that is the route I took? Maybe they will look at my code, and comment, "Gee, that looks too functional and recursive, I guess we have to reject it...".
Now, I will give Apple the "right" to disallow any app from the app store, for any reason. But this reason?
What if I prototype in Flash, and then send the source results to India to have it converted to a native app? Will that be disallowed?
I guess it will...
What if I don't bother to COMPILE the prototype, I simply code it, and send the detailed specs (including the code) to India instead: a "human compiler" will then do the necessary conversion. Assume the process works. It will STILL be disallowed.
In point of fact, the TECHNICAL reading of the restriction forbids a detailed specification... if that specification COULD be automatically processed. I guess that eliminates most formal design tools.
On a positive note, Apple HAS increased the value of Objective C skills.
Anyway, they have lost me as a developer -- I pretty much only use Scheme or Python for new code. Especially small games and utilities.
We boosted our Internet, and canceled all TV service.
Why? OTA digital broadcast is a MUCH higher quality. The "digital service" converter that the cable company supplied never worked properly. We only watch a limited selection of programs live, anyway. American Idol and the Winter Olympics. Both available OTA.
The loss of a handful of interesting specialty channels is balanced by the cost savings - FoodTV, Space, Comedy and Cartoon were costing us $100 every month.
The only practical downside? We used to get a channel called CP24, an "ADD" channel for the morning - weather, news, traffic, time, all on the screen at the same time. Too bad.
American Idol and the odd OTA we watch? The quality is amazing, Full-tilt 1080i goodness.
The programming we "miss"? EZTV. We occasionally get a "cease&desist" (happened with CSI and a few others). When that happens, I set the show to allow 0 uploading. If the download option dries up? Don't care, won't watch anymore.
I am the TV generation. We didn't have home computers or video games growing up. "All in the Family" was considered a communal experience. My kids have never known life without home computers. The TV has always been "just another alternative". Cable was no big loss.
It's a story that is probably being played out in thousands of homes.
PS. American Idol is probably the saviour for TV. Embedded advertising (Coke, Ford, AT&T). Cheap, reality TV. Can make money immediately based on cell-phone messaging. Time sensitive due to voting.
Linux DOES solve his driver problems. Everything works. Windows needs different driver sets and this is causing deployment issues.
Of course, this is solved via extra tooling (I'm sure that "Ghost", "Clonezilla", "Sysprep", "Slipstreaming" (whatever that is, please don't comment - I don't administer Windows, and, really, don't care).
He has realized that deploying a single image Windows would work, if rolled out onto a Linux base OS using virtualization. However, multiple monitor support is desired, and he wants to know if others have had experience.
+1 for Ghost and Clonezilla
-1 for never actually answering the question
The actual answer is that most virtualization solutions (eg. VirtualBox) will run on a "headless" server -- you then want to run RDP to access the GUI. This is possible WITHOUT X, but multi-monitor becomes a serious issue. So, in short, don't do it.
It is possible to deploy X, and the penalty isn't excessive. VirtualBox even offers some 3D acceleration. However, if you don't have virtualization hardware, it can take a toll. Things just won't be as snappy. However, it is very easy to fix a bunged Windows session!
The current "best practice" is not to do this on clients, but to put up with the Windows driver pain (usually by purchasing a third party application). Cited reasons include "OS vendor support in a Virtualized environment", "Multiple OS complexity", "We just don't trust Linux yet", among others.
Sorry for the bad news.
For 20 machines, the best solution (my recommendation), is to manually install Windows on each. Use PXE boot to boot Linux from the network. After the Windows installation is complete, boot into Linux, and send a partition image of the Windows partition to a server. Keep boot images online for each of the machines (give 8GB for Windows and associated software, 8x20 = 160GB of boot image backup).
Now, your users machines should be set to boot into Windows automatically; to select Windows, F12 (or whatever the bios boot selector is), and pick PXE network boot. Set up NIS (for simplicity for the small machine base) for login and automount information for the Linux side. Use whatever Microsoft is telling you on the Windows side.
Now you drop AIX and Solaris servers as well as Linux servers into your network easily as well (for future growth).
"Yes, I certainly downloaded (song|movies|book|other copyrighted material). I did not make it available, or otherwise violate your Copyright. Go away and find the person who DID violate your Copyright. I was under the impression that the copy was fully sanctioned by you. Prosecuting me for Copyright infringement will be as effective as pounding sand."
Please don't spread the meme that "Downloading is Copyright Infringement". It isn't. Uploading may be. Simply, everything is Copyrighted. This very article is Copyrighted. By the Author. Quite naturally, you are under the impression that you are allowed to download this article. After all, you downloaded it to read it. Now, what you are not allowed to do is to repost or republish this article. Because it's Copyrighted. Except that you can repost or republish for certain reasons. For example, quoting parts of (possibly the complete article) for purposes of criticism. That is "fair use". But, I would have to take you to court to determine if it was or wasn't.
Read the Copyright on the/. site itself.
Downloading is not Copyright infringement. Downloading is not Theft. Downloading is just downloading.
Or have your forgotten? There is a copy control device on VHS tape containing movies. So, the library of movies cannot legally (in the US) be transferred to another format. Well, you cannot purchase the device that would allow you to do that.
My Portuguese sucks. Hurts the Kerbesa (sp?). Anyway, the article lamented the CHOICE. My point was to simply put a stake in it. Pick something, and go with it. It's the same as the Windows vs. Mac decision. You pick one.
Gnome, KDE, pick one. Development may or may not occur on the other -- but after your choice, it doesn't matter. As long as your choice is good for you. "Future" may matter, but (perhaps surprisingly), not that much.
Current choices ARE stable enough to be used.
Now, I never simply recommend Linux (or Windows, or Mac). Instead, I say "Choose the platform you are comfortable with. If you have a reason to use Linux, then, ok, go with it. If you have a reason to go with another platform, go for that".
If a user CHOOSES something like Linux, and COMMITS to it, they are going to use it. Reasons for the choice? Let me give you a (real) example.
Some family friends were using a computer for email, mailing lists, ballet organization, web browsing. They were using Windows 98, and were reasonably happy. After all, it came with the computer (but was probably bootlegged), and it worked.
Fast forward 4 years. Their daughter started dating a "Web Designer". He thought it wholly offensive and very uncool that they should be using Windows 98. He put Windows XP on the machine. Better, right? Wrong... It now took 40 minutes to boot up to a usable desktop.
They asked me "what should we do"? I gave then some choices (1) a new(er) computer, (2) restore Windows 98, or (3) Linux. They decided to try Linux (a newer computer was not in the budget, and Windows 98 crashed a lot).
We (the family, with my assistance) chose a distribution, and some applications. They have been happy with the choice. After all, they committed to it. When they purchased a new computer (3 years later), they specified Linux, and their application choice.
They never vacillated between Gnome or KDE, Koffice or OpenOffice.org, ARTS or ESD. Because (after they committed), I assisted them in the base (workable) selection. Indeed, one of the reasons for using a (Linux, BSD, other) system is that the user has someone around who can assist this way. It's simply part of the network effect. I think that having a good deal of choice (as a technical person) is a good thing -- but the users don't need to see it.
I don't think it's a problem. But then, I don't really care what platform someone uses. I do care that they have chosen it for (reasonably) rational reasons.
Sounds like you don't like the "rough and tumble".
Sure, I have clients in that space. They are served by Redhat Enterprise Linux. With a support contract. If they feel frisky, they may go with CentOS. What are the important new features in RHEL (according to one of those customers)? Not the window manager. Gnome is fine (it's default), but, honestly, they don't care... Kernel crash handling and SystemTap, on the other hand, are to drool over.
Ubuntu? Fedora? Those distributions are for people who like it a little rough.
I went to your website. Seems that you are a bit young to be in the belt AND suspenders set, but you never can tell...
Now you DO seem to be obsessing over the desktop. KDE, GNOME, PulseAudio, ALSA, OpenOffice, Totem, Amarok, etc. May I suggest that you just pick, and go with something workable? Otherwise, you will never have a stable desktop to work with. Or, use Mac or Windows. Just pick!
For guidance, here is what I use.
Fedora Core 8 base (hardened). XFCE GUI. Thunar file manager. FireFox 3.03. OpenOffice 3.1, Amarok 1.4, ALSA for audio, Evolution (whatever version comes with Fedora 8) for email, contacts and calendar. Multisync (whatever version comes with Fedora 8) for Blackberry sync. Smplayer (mplayer) for A/V.
And, no, its not perfect. Let me give you my laundry list:
Evolution won't call on Multisync. It is insisting that the only mobile device it likes is a Palm. Mplayer won't play the audio on.3gp videos taken on my Blackberry. Evince (PDF viewer) that I prefer blows when displaying bitmapped PDF documents.
Nothing critical, making it a very useful desktop (for me). How did I get this together? Usually, I set a deadline for a decision -- and then just make it. I don't hop between stuff. So, I code audio to ALSA. Well... not exactly. I don't care much about high quality sound, so I usually just heave out ulaw to/dev/audio. Works for me; if I need anything fancier I'll revisit, but for 90% of my needs? It's ok. For other stuff, it's the same. About the only "regret" I have is that I seem to be locked into Evolution, but, it works, and it seems stable enough.
So, it works, I'm happy enough, and I don't have to obsess over what other people use, or what could be better.
"The shiny" is the feature that the iPod Touch/iPhone has that causes people to buy it.
"The shiny" is the stuff as Disney World sold at the exit of every ride.
"The shiny" is the stuff that every street vendor WISHES they had.
Being a "geek", I don't think much of the features of the iPhone. I did buy my wife one, and received a "free" iPod Touch when I bought a Mac computer (to support the aforementioned iPhone). Nice because I put games on the iPod, and can throw it back to the kids on car trips. Just to show you that I have gotten over my perfectly justified hate of Apple Computers (check into my history if you really want to know why).
But the iPhone is not a technical match for my Blackberry. Now, the 'berry has almost zero of "The shiny". But it gets into the trenches and works.
I was a rabid Apple hater from 1988 to 2008 -- 20 years worth. I've decided to give Apple another chance. Initially, Apple blew it (because I was reticent to dive in all the way). I drank more deeply at the Apple fount, and now I am happy.
Why? It's not the technical aspects of the product. It's all in "The Shiny".
In common English, as practiced by most people "begs the question" no longer means "petitio principii". It now means "this information begs that a question be asked, that wasn't".
Of course, we are in a transition. "Begs the question" in taken as logical fallacy by some, and as colloquial expression by others.
There is a perfectly reasonable expression used to replace "Begs the question" -- circular reasoning.
Just a quick dive -- You live in England, use Redhat Linux, have done some systems programming with Perl but not recently. You likely use a Nokia phone, likely an N800.
Blackberry Bold vs. iPhone 3G (the two I have access to):
Plug-in expandable memory. Replaceable battery. Takes videos. Has a flash. Synchs with Evolution. Synchs with Google Calendar. Better Bluetooth. Standard disk when plugged in. Free office suite. Better phone. Keyboard for accurate email entry. sms/mms. Java. Plays AVI files without transcoding needed. No special application needed on computer. Works with "other" OSs (Solaris, Linux). Comes in "unlocked" flavors not tied to carrier.
And I didn't touch on a single "corporate" feature in that entire list. (Note - the last iPhone firmware supports tethering. I haven't tried it yet, though.).
Just saying... (my wife likes the "shiny shiny" and so do my kids -- I also have an iPod Touch and we throw them at the kids to keep them amused on trips). Even though the Blackberry supports some "games", I wouldn't give it to the kids -- too much of my business data is on the phone. The iPhone is a platform that happens to communicate. The Blackberry is a communications device that happens to be a platform (mostly PDA functionality).
If you don't have regular access to a Mac OS X or Windows XP (Vista/7) computer that is a "home" for the iPhone, the Blackberry is a far superior device. If you want want a good phone and communications device, the Blackberry is a superior device. If you want a cool (shiny shiny) platform that is also a phone, go with the iPhone. Can you imagine a Blackberry without a phone/phone-email? I wouldn't touch it, either. But it IS a better smartphone ESPECIALLY for business use.
Which is why we have scroogle.org Of course, you have to take scroogles word that they erase logs after 48 hours... And, just for grins, use the FireFox "TrackMeNot" plugin, which throws random requests.
"Like it or not, the iPhone's dominance isn't because of any media blitz or cult of Apple, it's because it came out in a market where it was by far the best choice and is still superior to any other smartphone I've seen."
Really? iPhone vs. Blackberry 9000. About the only thing the iPhone wins at is Shiny Shiny.
Since software always needs hardware, and most hardware has (at least) a BIOS, or other ROM code, *or* artwork is treated separately, the code is ALMOST ALWAYS a compilation.
So, "work for hire" covers it.
Now, we could go to court... but the chances of the developer winning are pretty much slim to none.
I go the other way -- if we produce code, and wish to retain rights, THAT is put into the contract.
And, the 50Mbps service is BOUND with basic cable service. If you don't subscribe to basic cable, you can't have it!
So, the "top level" is really 25/1, at 70 dollars/month.
And, upgrading to 25/1 from 10/256 means that you MUST use a "combination" modem -- which doesn't allow such things as disabling DHCPD. So, you WILL be NATed, whether or not you want it (or have another layer to control this).
But, since "servers" aren't allowed (and the modem software is really antagonistic toward this setup), it probably doesn't matter. Hey, it's still better than Bell DSL.
"Put simply, code is owned by its developer even once the client has paid, unless that developer is legally employed by the client or a contract exists that transfers full ownership (even then it's far from clear-cut)."
A "work made for hire" is-- (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. (17 U.S.C. 101)
And a "work for hire" is considered to be owned by the employer (as author).
So, when engaging people to write code, simply include: "This is to be considered a work made for hire" in the contract.
A client wanted me to size a migration job. VMS, running Oracle, very old. A lot of the application was running in DCL scripts. With embedded SQL.
In my report I noted the possibility of SQL injection attacks. The client chose not to bother "Yes, we know about that already". This was a government branch. Nearly made me cry.
Mostly because I am too ethical to exploit it to make money.
I've converted code. NT to NT, x86 to MIPs and Alpha.
Converted a scripting language tool; just about 5,000 places in the code needed correction. Note that "endian", OS and alignment issues didn't come into it at all. Still, 5,000 changes...
I imagine that other Windows/x86 specific applications may be just as nasty.
I imagine an x86 translator would be a better idea if attempting "Windows on ARM".
If the application works, it is simply counted as a success. Conversely, if it doesn't work, it is (usually) not held against the platform. After all, other applications work, so it must be the application.
And this is actually a reasonable way to view things.
Now, you compare against this against "generic Linux". I am a bit unclear on what this is, so I am going to harden this. I am going to stay out of the phone and embedded space, simply because these are not "generic" (but would be more on-point). This leaves "generic Linux as a kernel". If you are installing a system based on this model, you had better know what the fuck you are doing. No question. Installing something like that is equivalent to building your own "mix-and-match" Windows system from source. You probably shouldn't be in the OS and application bundling and integration space, unless you know what you are doing.
To "generic Linux" credit, Gentoo and Slackware have actually made it reasonable to contemplate such a thing.
The other "generic Linux" would be Fedora/Ubuntu/Debian/Mandriva/Novell. These provide a bundled OS and application mix. As long as you stay within a supported zone, you won't have any "rabbit hole" issues. Typically, that would include something on the order of 10,000 applications. Go outside that zone? You may experience problems. Unless you purchase the application with support.
Now, what happens when an application outside the Windows "support band" doesn't work? You will see people post complaints, and then (simply) stop using that application. Why would you want to treat your "generic Linux" any differently?
Please keep in mind that I am not trying to convince you to use Linux, or any other OS. I just don't care. If you have a use or need for it, and it suits you, go ahead. But your complaint is a bit silly.
Now, I have my reasons for using Linux; #1 is that I need a POSIX compatible OS and environment. I could use Cygwin on Windows on the Windows Unix environment, but Linux does the job for less money. I could use one of the BSD's, but Linux offers more hardware support, and the application support I want (Evolution, OpenOffice.org, Blackberry sync) works "out of the box". I presume that you have reasons for using Windows; other than, of course, "I can install applications"?
The iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad have a touch surface of the entire screen. This appears to be the issue...
But it's really not. The active touch area could be constrained while running flash. At that point, the "flash" would run the same as on any touchpad laptop -- except for buttons. These can also be dedicated hot areas.
No, it may not be pretty, but it would work. I imagine a reasonable design for this feature would be a pop-in "trackpad", similar to the current keyboard. It would be a 4-way choice - none/keyboard/trackpad/both.
The reason for the PDF preference is not "me too". It is, simply, the best current trojan delivery vehicle. I send my CV in PDF format, most of the documents that I deal with are in PDF format.
And I have no way of telling if opening a particular PDF in a particular reader will cause an exploit.
Most users/blockers will not allow EXEs, and can open "ZIP" files to determine if an EXE is enclosed. Microsoft Word has been "hardened". The exploits are going for the weakest part -- output that is in a universal format and is commonly shared. That just happens to have one reader that has most of the market share.
Which means that I will continue to use "Evince" and hope that it won't be targeted soon.
I'll make some popcorn and we can all enjoy the show.
But seriously, only 100M in losses?
I don't have the figures at hand, but "McAfee forecasts $1.8 billion in revenue for 2009". I would put the cost of the extra security in; the US did that when prosecuting Gary McKinnon, so there appears to be precedent.
Last year, Canada was put on the watch list. Because... we're full of pirates!
Arrrr.
This year, please comment on just HOW ineffective it's been. Canada is (obviously) home to more pirates than ever, AND we have WAREHOUSES FULL of illegally copied goods ready to ship to the USA!
Really. I speak as a Canadian. I want to be on the "Priority Watch List", and not just on the "Watch List".
So get your comments in! Make this Canada's year!
Things to mention: "Canada has not yet implemented ex officio customs authority to allow warrentless seizures". "Canada is a massive trans-shipper of counterfeit goods". "Canada has not yet improved on its weak Internet IPR posture". And, just for good measure, state "I believe that Canada is a candidate for Section 306 monitoring at this time".
Slashdot Mirror
on the iPhone. This is my reply to the blog:
"Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS"
Apple says that I must use a particular development tool. I cannot translate code...
Which means
1 - No lex or yacc in my application.
2 - No other "little language"
3 - No higher order programming.
4 - Some severe restrictions in what I can deliver.
Of course, the "rules" are not necessarily applied -- after all, there is an HP 41 emulator available, with user programming allowed, and a Commodore 64 emulator.
Still, I am not allowed to write my code in Scheme or any other higher order language, and then translate (automatically, or manually) into Objective C for delivery.
How would Apple KNOW if that is the route I took? Maybe they will look at my code, and comment, "Gee, that looks too functional and recursive, I guess we have to reject it...".
Now, I will give Apple the "right" to disallow any app from the app store, for any reason. But this reason?
What if I prototype in Flash, and then send the source results to India to have it converted to a native app? Will that be disallowed?
I guess it will...
What if I don't bother to COMPILE the prototype, I simply code it, and send the detailed specs (including the code) to India instead: a "human compiler" will then do the necessary conversion. Assume the process works. It will STILL be disallowed.
In point of fact, the TECHNICAL reading of the restriction forbids a detailed specification... if that specification COULD be automatically processed. I guess that eliminates most formal design tools.
On a positive note, Apple HAS increased the value of Objective C skills.
Anyway, they have lost me as a developer -- I pretty much only use Scheme or Python for new code. Especially small games and utilities.
We (my family) cut Cable this year.
We boosted our Internet, and canceled all TV service.
Why? OTA digital broadcast is a MUCH higher quality. The "digital service" converter that the cable company supplied never worked properly. We only watch a limited selection of programs live, anyway. American Idol and the Winter Olympics. Both available OTA.
The loss of a handful of interesting specialty channels is balanced by the cost savings - FoodTV, Space, Comedy and Cartoon were costing us $100 every month.
The only practical downside? We used to get a channel called CP24, an "ADD" channel for the morning - weather, news, traffic, time, all on the screen at the same time. Too bad.
American Idol and the odd OTA we watch? The quality is amazing, Full-tilt 1080i goodness.
The programming we "miss"? EZTV. We occasionally get a "cease&desist" (happened with CSI and a few others). When that happens, I set the show to allow 0 uploading. If the download option dries up? Don't care, won't watch anymore.
I am the TV generation. We didn't have home computers or video games growing up. "All in the Family" was considered a communal experience. My kids have never known life without home computers. The TV has always been "just another alternative". Cable was no big loss.
It's a story that is probably being played out in thousands of homes.
PS. American Idol is probably the saviour for TV. Embedded advertising (Coke, Ford, AT&T). Cheap, reality TV. Can make money immediately based on cell-phone messaging. Time sensitive due to voting.
-1 for comprehension
Linux DOES solve his driver problems. Everything works. Windows needs different driver sets and this is causing deployment issues.
Of course, this is solved via extra tooling (I'm sure that "Ghost", "Clonezilla", "Sysprep", "Slipstreaming" (whatever that is, please don't comment - I don't administer Windows, and, really, don't care).
He has realized that deploying a single image Windows would work, if rolled out onto a Linux base OS using virtualization. However, multiple monitor support is desired, and he wants to know if others have had experience.
+1 for Ghost and Clonezilla
-1 for never actually answering the question
The actual answer is that most virtualization solutions (eg. VirtualBox) will run on a "headless" server -- you then want to run RDP to access the GUI. This is possible WITHOUT X, but multi-monitor becomes a serious issue. So, in short, don't do it.
It is possible to deploy X, and the penalty isn't excessive. VirtualBox even offers some 3D acceleration. However, if you don't have virtualization hardware, it can take a toll. Things just won't be as snappy. However, it is very easy to fix a bunged Windows session!
The current "best practice" is not to do this on clients, but to put up with the Windows driver pain (usually by purchasing a third party application). Cited reasons include "OS vendor support in a Virtualized environment", "Multiple OS complexity", "We just don't trust Linux yet", among others.
Sorry for the bad news.
For 20 machines, the best solution (my recommendation), is to manually install Windows on each. Use PXE boot to boot Linux from the network. After the Windows installation is complete, boot into Linux, and send a partition image of the Windows partition to a server. Keep boot images online for each of the machines (give 8GB for Windows and associated software, 8x20 = 160GB of boot image backup).
Now, your users machines should be set to boot into Windows automatically; to select Windows, F12 (or whatever the bios boot selector is), and pick PXE network boot. Set up NIS (for simplicity for the small machine base) for login and automount information for the Linux side. Use whatever Microsoft is telling you on the Windows side.
Now you drop AIX and Solaris servers as well as Linux servers into your network easily as well (for future growth).
And to that, my reply would be
"Yes, I certainly downloaded (song|movies|book|other copyrighted material). I did not make it available, or otherwise violate your Copyright. Go away and find the person who DID violate your Copyright. I was under the impression that the copy was fully sanctioned by you. Prosecuting me for Copyright infringement will be as effective as pounding sand."
Please don't spread the meme that "Downloading is Copyright Infringement". It isn't. Uploading may be. Simply, everything is Copyrighted. This very article is Copyrighted. By the Author. Quite naturally, you are under the impression that you are allowed to download this article. After all, you downloaded it to read it. Now, what you are not allowed to do is to repost or republish this article. Because it's Copyrighted. Except that you can repost or republish for certain reasons. For example, quoting parts of (possibly the complete article) for purposes of criticism. That is "fair use". But, I would have to take you to court to determine if it was or wasn't.
Read the Copyright on the /. site itself.
Downloading is not Copyright infringement. Downloading is not Theft. Downloading is just downloading.
Macrovision.
Or have your forgotten? There is a copy control device on VHS tape containing movies. So, the library of movies cannot legally (in the US) be transferred to another format. Well, you cannot purchase the device that would allow you to do that.
The home movies should be transferred.
Sure they did
http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html
Note though, that the feature is gone (read the red part at the top).
And, let's look at the original version of the page
http://web.archive.org/web/20061118073923/http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html
My Portuguese sucks. Hurts the Kerbesa (sp?). Anyway, the article lamented the CHOICE. My point was to simply put a stake in it. Pick something, and go with it. It's the same as the Windows vs. Mac decision. You pick one.
Gnome, KDE, pick one. Development may or may not occur on the other -- but after your choice, it doesn't matter. As long as your choice is good for you. "Future" may matter, but (perhaps surprisingly), not that much.
Current choices ARE stable enough to be used.
Now, I never simply recommend Linux (or Windows, or Mac). Instead, I say "Choose the platform you are comfortable with. If you have a reason to use Linux, then, ok, go with it. If you have a reason to go with another platform, go for that".
If a user CHOOSES something like Linux, and COMMITS to it, they are going to use it. Reasons for the choice? Let me give you a (real) example.
Some family friends were using a computer for email, mailing lists, ballet organization, web browsing. They were using Windows 98, and were reasonably happy. After all, it came with the computer (but was probably bootlegged), and it worked.
Fast forward 4 years. Their daughter started dating a "Web Designer". He thought it wholly offensive and very uncool that they should be using Windows 98. He put Windows XP on the machine. Better, right? Wrong... It now took 40 minutes to boot up to a usable desktop.
They asked me "what should we do"? I gave then some choices (1) a new(er) computer, (2) restore Windows 98, or (3) Linux. They decided to try Linux (a newer computer was not in the budget, and Windows 98 crashed a lot).
We (the family, with my assistance) chose a distribution, and some applications. They have been happy with the choice. After all, they committed to it. When they purchased a new computer (3 years later), they specified Linux, and their application choice.
They never vacillated between Gnome or KDE, Koffice or OpenOffice.org, ARTS or ESD. Because (after they committed), I assisted them in the base (workable) selection. Indeed, one of the reasons for using a (Linux, BSD, other) system is that the user has someone around who can assist this way. It's simply part of the network effect. I think that having a good deal of choice (as a technical person) is a good thing -- but the users don't need to see it.
I don't think it's a problem. But then, I don't really care what platform someone uses. I do care that they have chosen it for (reasonably) rational reasons.
Sounds like you don't like the "rough and tumble".
Sure, I have clients in that space. They are served by Redhat Enterprise Linux. With a support contract. If they feel frisky, they may go with CentOS. What are the important new features in RHEL (according to one of those customers)? Not the window manager. Gnome is fine (it's default), but, honestly, they don't care... Kernel crash handling and SystemTap, on the other hand, are to drool over.
Ubuntu? Fedora? Those distributions are for people who like it a little rough.
I went to your website. Seems that you are a bit young to be in the belt AND suspenders set, but you never can tell...
Now you DO seem to be obsessing over the desktop. KDE, GNOME, PulseAudio, ALSA, OpenOffice, Totem, Amarok, etc. May I suggest that you just pick, and go with something workable? Otherwise, you will never have a stable desktop to work with. Or, use Mac or Windows. Just pick!
For guidance, here is what I use.
Fedora Core 8 base (hardened). XFCE GUI. Thunar file manager. FireFox 3.03. OpenOffice 3.1, Amarok 1.4, ALSA for audio, Evolution (whatever version comes with Fedora 8) for email, contacts and calendar. Multisync (whatever version comes with Fedora 8) for Blackberry sync. Smplayer (mplayer) for A/V.
And, no, its not perfect. Let me give you my laundry list:
Evolution won't call on Multisync. It is insisting that the only mobile device it likes is a Palm. Mplayer won't play the audio on .3gp videos taken on my Blackberry. Evince (PDF viewer) that I prefer blows when displaying bitmapped PDF documents.
Nothing critical, making it a very useful desktop (for me). How did I get this together? Usually, I set a deadline for a decision -- and then just make it. I don't hop between stuff. So, I code audio to ALSA. Well... not exactly. I don't care much about high quality sound, so I usually just heave out ulaw to /dev/audio. Works for me; if I need anything fancier I'll revisit, but for 90% of my needs? It's ok. For other stuff, it's the same. About the only "regret" I have is that I seem to be locked into Evolution, but, it works, and it seems stable enough.
So, it works, I'm happy enough, and I don't have to obsess over what other people use, or what could be better.
"The shiny". (I may have coined the phrase).
"The shiny" is the feature that the iPod Touch/iPhone has that causes people to buy it.
"The shiny" is the stuff as Disney World sold at the exit of every ride.
"The shiny" is the stuff that every street vendor WISHES they had.
Being a "geek", I don't think much of the features of the iPhone. I did buy my wife one, and received a "free" iPod Touch when I bought a Mac computer (to support the aforementioned iPhone). Nice because I put games on the iPod, and can throw it back to the kids on car trips. Just to show you that I have gotten over my perfectly justified hate of Apple Computers (check into my history if you really want to know why).
But the iPhone is not a technical match for my Blackberry. Now, the 'berry has almost zero of "The shiny". But it gets into the trenches and works.
I was a rabid Apple hater from 1988 to 2008 -- 20 years worth. I've decided to give Apple another chance. Initially, Apple blew it (because I was reticent to dive in all the way). I drank more deeply at the Apple fount, and now I am happy.
Why? It's not the technical aspects of the product. It's all in "The Shiny".
In common English, as practiced by most people "begs the question" no longer means "petitio principii". It now means "this information begs that a question be asked, that wasn't".
Of course, we are in a transition. "Begs the question" in taken as logical fallacy by some, and as colloquial expression by others.
There is a perfectly reasonable expression used to replace "Begs the question" -- circular reasoning.
Just a quick dive -- You live in England, use Redhat Linux, have done some systems programming with Perl but not recently. You likely use a Nokia phone, likely an N800.
And, hey, I'm not Google.
Blackberry Bold vs. iPhone 3G (the two I have access to):
Plug-in expandable memory. Replaceable battery. Takes videos. Has a flash. Synchs with Evolution. Synchs with Google Calendar. Better Bluetooth. Standard disk when plugged in. Free office suite. Better phone. Keyboard for accurate email entry. sms/mms. Java. Plays AVI files without transcoding needed. No special application needed on computer. Works with "other" OSs (Solaris, Linux). Comes in "unlocked" flavors not tied to carrier.
And I didn't touch on a single "corporate" feature in that entire list. (Note - the last iPhone firmware supports tethering. I haven't tried it yet, though.).
Just saying... (my wife likes the "shiny shiny" and so do my kids -- I also have an iPod Touch and we throw them at the kids to keep them amused on trips). Even though the Blackberry supports some "games", I wouldn't give it to the kids -- too much of my business data is on the phone. The iPhone is a platform that happens to communicate. The Blackberry is a communications device that happens to be a platform (mostly PDA functionality).
If you don't have regular access to a Mac OS X or Windows XP (Vista/7) computer that is a "home" for the iPhone, the Blackberry is a far superior device. If you want want a good phone and communications device, the Blackberry is a superior device. If you want a cool (shiny shiny) platform that is also a phone, go with the iPhone. Can you imagine a Blackberry without a phone/phone-email? I wouldn't touch it, either. But it IS a better smartphone ESPECIALLY for business use.
Which is why we have scroogle.org Of course, you have to take scroogles word that they erase logs after 48 hours... And, just for grins, use the FireFox "TrackMeNot" plugin, which throws random requests.
And, yes, Virginia, you SHOULD be that paranoid.
"Like it or not, the iPhone's dominance isn't because of any media blitz or cult of Apple, it's because it came out in a market where it was by far the best choice and is still superior to any other smartphone I've seen."
Really? iPhone vs. Blackberry 9000. About the only thing the iPhone wins at is Shiny Shiny.
Since software always needs hardware, and most hardware has (at least) a BIOS, or other ROM code, *or* artwork is treated separately, the code is ALMOST ALWAYS a compilation.
So, "work for hire" covers it.
Now, we could go to court... but the chances of the developer winning are pretty much slim to none.
I go the other way -- if we produce code, and wish to retain rights, THAT is put into the contract.
And, the 50Mbps service is BOUND with basic cable service. If you don't subscribe to basic cable, you can't have it!
So, the "top level" is really 25/1, at 70 dollars/month.
And, upgrading to 25/1 from 10/256 means that you MUST use a "combination" modem -- which doesn't allow such things as disabling DHCPD. So, you WILL be NATed, whether or not you want it (or have another layer to control this).
But, since "servers" aren't allowed (and the modem software is really antagonistic toward this setup), it probably doesn't matter. Hey, it's still better than Bell DSL.
"Put simply, code is owned by its developer even once the client has paid, unless that developer is legally employed by the client or a contract exists that transfers full ownership (even then it's far from clear-cut)."
A "work made for hire" is-- (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. (17 U.S.C. 101)
And a "work for hire" is considered to be owned by the employer (as author).
So, when engaging people to write code, simply include: "This is to be considered a work made for hire" in the contract.
How confusing is that?
A client wanted me to size a migration job. VMS, running Oracle, very old. A lot of the application was running in DCL scripts. With embedded SQL.
In my report I noted the possibility of SQL injection attacks. The client chose not to bother "Yes, we know about that already". This was a government branch. Nearly made me cry.
Mostly because I am too ethical to exploit it to make money.
I've converted code. NT to NT, x86 to MIPs and Alpha.
Converted a scripting language tool; just about 5,000 places in the code needed correction. Note that "endian", OS and alignment issues didn't come into it at all. Still, 5,000 changes...
I imagine that other Windows/x86 specific applications may be just as nasty.
I imagine an x86 translator would be a better idea if attempting "Windows on ARM".
Really? I (seriously) beg to differ.
If the application works, it is simply counted as a success. Conversely, if it doesn't work, it is (usually) not held against the platform. After all, other applications work, so it must be the application.
And this is actually a reasonable way to view things.
Now, you compare against this against "generic Linux". I am a bit unclear on what this is, so I am going to harden this. I am going to stay out of the phone and embedded space, simply because these are not "generic" (but would be more on-point). This leaves "generic Linux as a kernel". If you are installing a system based on this model, you had better know what the fuck you are doing. No question. Installing something like that is equivalent to building your own "mix-and-match" Windows system from source. You probably shouldn't be in the OS and application bundling and integration space, unless you know what you are doing.
To "generic Linux" credit, Gentoo and Slackware have actually made it reasonable to contemplate such a thing.
The other "generic Linux" would be Fedora/Ubuntu/Debian/Mandriva/Novell. These provide a bundled OS and application mix. As long as you stay within a supported zone, you won't have any "rabbit hole" issues. Typically, that would include something on the order of 10,000 applications. Go outside that zone? You may experience problems. Unless you purchase the application with support.
Now, what happens when an application outside the Windows "support band" doesn't work? You will see people post complaints, and then (simply) stop using that application. Why would you want to treat your "generic Linux" any differently?
Please keep in mind that I am not trying to convince you to use Linux, or any other OS. I just don't care. If you have a use or need for it, and it suits you, go ahead. But your complaint is a bit silly.
Now, I have my reasons for using Linux; #1 is that I need a POSIX compatible OS and environment. I could use Cygwin on Windows on the Windows Unix environment, but Linux does the job for less money. I could use one of the BSD's, but Linux offers more hardware support, and the application support I want (Evolution, OpenOffice.org, Blackberry sync) works "out of the box". I presume that you have reasons for using Windows; other than, of course, "I can install applications"?
And what IS the problem?
The iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad have a touch surface of the entire screen. This appears to be the issue...
But it's really not. The active touch area could be constrained while running flash. At that point, the "flash" would run the same as on any touchpad laptop -- except for buttons. These can also be dedicated hot areas.
No, it may not be pretty, but it would work. I imagine a reasonable design for this feature would be a pop-in "trackpad", similar to the current keyboard. It would be a 4-way choice - none/keyboard/trackpad/both.
And, no, I don't see Apple offering this ever.
The reason for the PDF preference is not "me too". It is, simply, the best current trojan delivery vehicle. I send my CV in PDF format, most of the documents that I deal with are in PDF format.
And I have no way of telling if opening a particular PDF in a particular reader will cause an exploit.
Most users/blockers will not allow EXEs, and can open "ZIP" files to determine if an EXE is enclosed. Microsoft Word has been "hardened". The exploits are going for the weakest part -- output that is in a universal format and is commonly shared. That just happens to have one reader that has most of the market share.
Which means that I will continue to use "Evince" and hope that it won't be targeted soon.
I'll make some popcorn and we can all enjoy the show.
But seriously, only 100M in losses?
I don't have the figures at hand, but "McAfee forecasts $1.8 billion in revenue for 2009". I would put the cost of the extra security in; the US did that when prosecuting Gary McKinnon, so there appears to be precedent.
Last year, Canada was put on the watch list. Because... we're full of pirates!
Arrrr.
This year, please comment on just HOW ineffective it's been. Canada is (obviously) home to more pirates than ever, AND we have WAREHOUSES FULL of illegally copied goods ready to ship to the USA!
Really. I speak as a Canadian. I want to be on the "Priority Watch List", and not just on the "Watch List".
So get your comments in! Make this Canada's year!
Things to mention: "Canada has not yet implemented ex officio customs authority to allow warrentless seizures". "Canada is a massive trans-shipper of counterfeit goods". "Canada has not yet improved on its weak Internet IPR posture". And, just for good measure, state "I believe that Canada is a candidate for Section 306 monitoring at this time".
Both kinds.
Country AND Western.