I'm pretty sure Skype doesn't work with fax machines.
There are internet based fax services you can use, you know. Just scan your document and upload it to their site to send. And download any faxes you recieve. Actually, I think some do it by email. Fax machines are SOO 90's. I can't believe they are still around.:-P
Didin't dialpad make you listen to a 20 second or so advert before connecting your call? I have often wondered why this didn't catch on.
I think you just answered your own question. Well, there is the advert thing and the fact that making phone calls from your computer is inconvenient. Might as well wonder why people don't still make phone calls standing next to a wall mounted phone box with a crank generator and 2 foot speaker cord.
Seriously, who'd get "addicted" to poor quality phone calls that need to be made through your PC (or Mac)? For a bit more a month you can get real VoIP service with an ATA which will work with all your existing phones. The quality is indistinguishable from POTS. You get unlimited calls within North America and also some other countries. I mean, unless you REALLY can't afford an extra $15 a month or whatever, come on. Might as well try to convince a heroin addict to switch to asprin because it is cheaper (to stay with the addiction theme).
I am sick and tired off people blaming their behaviour on games/movies/music/books/cave paintings. If you are an asshole that is because you are an asshole probably raised by assholes.
Studies have shown that children who are exposed to heavy violence in games tend to act more aggressively in real life. Doesn't mean they are necessarily going to go pick up a gun and shoot their parents, but it it does have an effect on them.
I do find it somewhat ironic that you would make such an aggressive post about how games don't affect children. I guess you were just raised that way...
If you read TFA, it says "Ruby on Rails (aka Rails) is a Ruby framework for database-backed Internet applications". My point was that, for this particular niche, it isn't any better than PHP using either phpGroupWare [phpgroupware.org] or eGroupWare [egroupware.org] which was forked from phpgw.
So you never have to sort arrays in databased-backed internet applications? You never have to manipulate data after it has come out of a database? Never have to manipulate data that doesn't come directly from the database?
Developing new applications in these frameworks using the eTemplates system is a really quick and painless procedure.
They're OK if you happen to be writing a phpGroupware application.
In that context, I mix SQL and PHP, using whatever language is best for a given operation. For the example you mentioned SQL works fine, although one could do it in PHP in a much shorter way than the code you presented, using "sort(array_unique($array))". Check the PHP standard library functions for array manipulations.
Yeah, I looked at the standard library and sort(array_unique($array)) would not do what what the code that I posted would do. It only works for arrays with strings or ints as values. Goto the php.net documentation for array_unique() and see all the ugly hacks that people had to do just to uniq multidimentional arrays.That is actually where I lifted the code for my PHP example from. It doesn't even work at all for objects. Same deal for the sort() function. Note how there are like 5 different sort functions, each covering a special case.
Ruby reminds me of languages like Smalltalk, created in the academic world by professors for the delight of professors. The "everyhting is an object" concept is fine for the classroom, but in the real world I fail to see real advantages in it.
I guess you missed the oneliner that I posted then. It is exactly the "everythign is an object" part that makes that oneliner so powerful.
OO offers some advantages in a very large project where you must coordinate the work of different programmers, some of which are less experienced than others. For smaller projects OO can be rather a hindrance than a help.
Uh, ya, sure, whatever you say.
I have browsed the/. comments on this article and am still unconvinced by Ruby. Unfortunately, most of the arguments are like "Hey, Ruby is great, you should try it!", without real substance behind.
So a realworld example (one that I have actually used) of ruby code vs. PHP code isn't substance? Hmm.
OK, the one-liner you showed is cool, but the PHP counter example you presented shows that you don't know PHP that well to do an objective comparison between the two languages.
But you don't know Ruby AT ALL! How do you make an "objective comparison?" Go ahead. Try to implement my ruby oneliner in PHP. I lifted the code directly from the PHP.net documentation for array_unique(). Read the comments for the function. Look at all the ugly code that people wrote to sort/uniq multi dimensional arrays. Note how it ONLY works for multidimensional arrays too. How about ANY type of array of objects? Guess what? Have to write different functions for that.
Again, it was JUST an example. I could give you plenty more examples of ruby code that is concise and easy to follow where the equivilent PHP code woudl be 10x as long. I used to write PHP apps. And I still might do some PHP coding now and then if I need to get something done quick and dirty, but beyond that, PHP is a joke.
Ah, but array_unique() only works on arrays with integers or strings for values. I looked it up. Check out the documentation on php.net for the array_unique() function and see all the ugly hacks that people have come up with to do what you could do with 1 or 2 lines of Ruby. My Ruby oneliner would work with any arbitrary object type. The reason the Ruby version is so much more powerful is because strings and integers are just objects like everything else. As long has you implement the == method for an object, it can be uniq'd or sorted (and many other operations) just as easily as an integer. In PHP you have to have special functions to do even simple things.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound like such a Ruby fanboy. I am really not. It is just that it frustrates me when people like the grand parent shut themselves out to learning something new. He says that he doesn't want to "waste a minute" on Ruby but he doesn't realize that he's probably already wasted countless hours writing PHP hacks that aren't even very reusable.
They're talking about ensuring bandwidth. Probably through QoS or similar. Paying per gig doesn't do you much good if you can't guarantee interrupted streaming to TV customers.
Why either/or? Why wouldn't they just to both? P2P while not watching internet TV? P2P is already putting a load on ISPs, internet TV would only add to it. See, ISPs generally follow a plan of overselling bandwidth. They don't figure people actually using all the bandwidth they by. With internet TV, we're talking about pretty heavy usage during primetime.
select distinct (array1.col + array2.col) as combined from array1, array2 order by someattribute
Because it works on objects not coming directly from a database. That much should have been obvious. It was just an example. Doesn't have to be model objects. Could be any type of object (everything is an object in Ruby).
Let me take a crack at the PHP code to do the near equivilent to my Ruby oneliner: http://monet.pnca.edu/~misleb/phpcode.txt I say "near" because PHP doesn't treat objects and arrays the same way so this PHP code will only work for arrays. Sorry I couldn't put it in this post. It wouldn't retain formatting because slashcode seems to strip tags.
Did you follow all that PHP code? I can't tell you how many times I have had to waste my time writing shit like that in PHP when it could have been done in like 1 or 2 lines in Ruby. Note that the Ruby oneliner I gave doesn't use anything other than the core Ruby libraries..sort_by is a core method for any Enumerable object.
Until Ruby offers something that's distinctly an advantage over old things, I will not waste one minute, not to mention a week, on it.
I read TFA expecting to learn something about why people talk so much about Ruby today. Unfortunately, there was only a comparison between RoR and Java. So, if the only reason to use Ruby is that it allows an agile development method to be used, sorry, Ruby came too late for that. I have been using PHP with phpGroupWare/eGroupware, which has every one of the advantages cited in the article, plus some more.
phpGroupware? You've got to be kidding! There is just no comparison.
One reason why I have so much impedance against Ruby is the different syntax. PHP has a C-like syntax, which makes it very easy to catch for someone who knows C and Perl.
Try Ruby for a week, seriously. I came from a mostly Perl/C/PHP syntax background and had little trouble picking up on Ruby. Once you start using code blocks, closures, true OO design, and all the Ruby nicities, you'll never want to fart around with PHP again. Here is an example of some really slick (in my opinion) ruby code. Lets say you have two arrays of objects that you want to add together, remove duplicates, and sort by an arbitrary attribute:
What's wrong with Ruby's syntax? Well, the dangling "end", for instance. It's too FORTRAN-like for my taste. "end" what? With curly braces, there is never any doubt on the block structure if you use a modern editor, with Ruby's "end" you can never be sure of what ends where. I also prefer the curly braces instead of "begin"/"end" for the simple reason that it means less ink on paper, less clutter, easier to read listings. They say the Ruby syntax is "flexible", well so is Forth.
Of all the trivial complaints, that has to top them all.
Using Ruby instead of Java, OK, I can see why it's better. But I'm still waiting to see a good explanation why should someone use Ruby instead of PHP, or Perl, or Python, the three languages that have become so much associated with the "agile development" trend of software development.
Of the 3 you mention, only Python really matches Ruby. Perl is still king for processing text, but it is somewhat specialized in that. PHP is more or less just the lowest common denomonator among modern web programming languages. As a language it is nothing special and in many ways it is sloppy on inconsistent. I haven't used PHP 5 much, but last tiem I checked, object oriented PHP was a complete joke. Its only advantages are that it is easy to learn and runs just about anywhere.
It ia matter of sensible defaults. You're free to override the table name however you wish, but having a sensible default such as naming a table the plural version of the model name makes sense. The Person model has objects in the People table. That makes sense. It is little stuff like that which makes Rails a joy to program with. You spend less time worrying about trivial configuration and framework details and more time making your application do useful stuff.
You want a site that hooks/controls multiple DBs, or want to stray too far from the paradigm? Not so much.
This is by design, obviously. And in a way it can actually encourage good modular design. Where someone doing Java or PHP might be tempted to write one monster application that controls two DBs, the Rails developer is encouraged to write separate applications that communicate with each other trough a well defined interface. And if the two databases don't represent two differnt modules/applications, maybe they shouldn't be different databases.
That said, I agree, Rails is limited and there will always be a place for other frameworks or unstructured freeform coding such as one might do in PHP.
Umm, TFA was actually making a good case for Ruby on Rails. So if they are being biased, it is in the opposite way that you would expect given IBM's interest in Java.
Four-player games are the games I grew up with, and they are the games that the kids stay glued to at family reunions.
But clearly this is not the only type of game that an indie developer could come up with. You're totally ignoring the advantages that the PC have over the console as I pointed out in the text that you snipped.
This doesn't make much sense to me. Isn't Ruby developed primarily by Japanese speaking people? You'd think unicode support would be right near the top of their list of core features of the language. Or do lists in Japanese go up intead of down?;-P
I also find "overly intuitive" things in programs like MS Word very annoying and I go out of my way to disable such "features." ON the other hand, i've found the intuitivness of RoR to be highly appropriate and predictable. When I was starting with Ruby/Rails, I was amazed at how many features were just obvious. If I wanted to do something new, I was often able to guess how it was done without ever needing to reference documentation. That is what being intuitive is about. Microsoft seems to think "intuitive" means throwing up a dialog box (or that goddamned Clippy!) telling the user what to do.
And you tend to get stagnation, where FPS/RTS/MMORPG is the only thing that any publisher tries to sell.
This could actually work in favor of a PC game developer who wants to do something different and unique. The problem for the indie developer is really competition on the PC. Everyone and their brother is trying to sell games for the PC. Go to any computer store and check out the racks of games. The market is saturated.
But the PC-only game developer is at a disadvantage against the multiplatform game developer, which has access to platforms that are typically used with larger screens, and indies can't be multiplatform developers yet.
On the other hand, the PC is a platform that typically has access to more complex and varied input devices. Some kinds of games which require keyboard or mouse input are better played on PC. Although it is changing somewhat because consoles now have 'net access, consoles typically do not support RTS or in-depth RP games very well. Most of such titles are for the PC.
I'm focusing on 4-player games that do not require a split screen. Games such as Bomberman, Custom Robo, and the like fit four players into one camera's view, not four cameras as is the case in Goldeneye or Halo.
Ok, but WHY are you focusing on these types of games?
It used to be that people would write an application for Windows then recompile for Macs.
Recompile?? Don't you mean "port?" You don't just recompile a Windows program for a Mac. You have to port it because the platforms are so vastly different. And even then, you usually have to code the Windows program in such a way that it can be easily ported... which most aren't. So how many Mac apps today are compiled from Windows source? Maybe parts of Adobe products at best. And how much of that is in a position to be exploited in a meaningful way? Almost none.
The result is that the exploit that worked against a Windows version of the application would likely not work on the Mac version. Since there are more Intel machines, odds were pretty good that nobody would get around to writing a Mac version of the exploit for some time. But now the odds are much better that the Windows exploit which the script kiddies are likely to have will work against the same application running on a Mac. Which does make the Mac less secure in practice going forward.
Since there are very few Windows apps "recompiled" for Macs, this is a moot point. If more exploits come from OS X running on x86, it will be because of more general x86 assembly knowledge, not common applicaiton level exploits. OS X exploits will still have to be written from scratch using a different set of exploitable holes. It'll just be a little easier because nobody has to learn a new assembly language (PPC).
If an indie developer has a PC-based prototype implementation opf a party game, which could be the next Bomberman or Smash Bros., the indie developer has no suitable platform on which to market it. All the consoles have a lockout chip, and the PC's monitor is generally too small to fit four people around it.
Ya, I get that. But somehow people still manage to make PC games without hitting this "PC screen too small" barrier. The indie PC developer is at no more a disadvantage than any other PC game developer, big or small.. at least as far as screen size goes.
Why are you focusing on party games which would require a 4 way split screen? Is this the only kind of game an indie developer could come up with?
But that is a "problem" with the PC in general, not just one for indie developers. PC and console games have slightly differnt markets. Personally, I've never considered lack of 4 players on the same screen to be a problem. I just don't play those types of games. How is this a barrier to indie developers in particular?
Anyway, back on topic - wouldn't it be easier for MS to simply write more secure software? It's rather disheartening to hear their response to the deluge of malware is a classification program.
You know what they say, when life gives you lemons...
The difference, I think, is that all these bottom feeders and me too operations are not taking in large amounts of venture capital. So when they fail, it won't be spetacular. There'll just be a few more IT people looking for jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure Skype doesn't work with fax machines.
:-P
There are internet based fax services you can use, you know. Just scan your document and upload it to their site to send. And download any faxes you recieve. Actually, I think some do it by email. Fax machines are SOO 90's. I can't believe they are still around.
-matthew
Didin't dialpad make you listen to a 20 second or so advert before connecting your call? I have often wondered why this didn't catch on.
I think you just answered your own question. Well, there is the advert thing and the fact that making phone calls from your computer is inconvenient. Might as well wonder why people don't still make phone calls standing next to a wall mounted phone box with a crank generator and 2 foot speaker cord.
-matthew
Seriously, who'd get "addicted" to poor quality phone calls that need to be made through your PC (or Mac)? For a bit more a month you can get real VoIP service with an ATA which will work with all your existing phones. The quality is indistinguishable from POTS. You get unlimited calls within North America and also some other countries. I mean, unless you REALLY can't afford an extra $15 a month or whatever, come on. Might as well try to convince a heroin addict to switch to asprin because it is cheaper (to stay with the addiction theme).
-matthew
I am sick and tired off people blaming their behaviour on games/movies/music/books/cave paintings. If you are an asshole that is because you are an asshole probably raised by assholes.
Studies have shown that children who are exposed to heavy violence in games tend to act more aggressively in real life. Doesn't mean they are necessarily going to go pick up a gun and shoot their parents, but it it does have an effect on them.
I do find it somewhat ironic that you would make such an aggressive post about how games don't affect children. I guess you were just raised that way...
-matthew
If you read TFA, it says "Ruby on Rails (aka Rails) is a Ruby framework for database-backed Internet applications". My point was that, for this particular niche, it isn't any better than PHP using either phpGroupWare [phpgroupware.org] or eGroupWare [egroupware.org] which was forked from phpgw.
/. comments on this article and am still unconvinced by Ruby. Unfortunately, most of the arguments are like "Hey, Ruby is great, you should try it!", without real substance behind.
So you never have to sort arrays in databased-backed internet applications? You never have to manipulate data after it has come out of a database? Never have to manipulate data that doesn't come directly from the database?
Developing new applications in these frameworks using the eTemplates system is a really quick and painless procedure.
They're OK if you happen to be writing a phpGroupware application.
In that context, I mix SQL and PHP, using whatever language is best for a given operation. For the example you mentioned SQL works fine, although one could do it in PHP in a much shorter way than the code you presented, using "sort(array_unique($array))". Check the PHP standard library functions for array manipulations.
Yeah, I looked at the standard library and sort(array_unique($array)) would not do what what the code that I posted would do. It only works for arrays with strings or ints as values. Goto the php.net documentation for array_unique() and see all the ugly hacks that people had to do just to uniq multidimentional arrays.That is actually where I lifted the code for my PHP example from. It doesn't even work at all for objects. Same deal for the sort() function. Note how there are like 5 different sort functions, each covering a special case.
Ruby reminds me of languages like Smalltalk, created in the academic world by professors for the delight of professors. The "everyhting is an object" concept is fine for the classroom, but in the real world I fail to see real advantages in it.
I guess you missed the oneliner that I posted then. It is exactly the "everythign is an object" part that makes that oneliner so powerful.
OO offers some advantages in a very large project where you must coordinate the work of different programmers, some of which are less experienced than others. For smaller projects OO can be rather a hindrance than a help.
Uh, ya, sure, whatever you say.
I have browsed the
So a realworld example (one that I have actually used) of ruby code vs. PHP code isn't substance? Hmm.
OK, the one-liner you showed is cool, but the PHP counter example you presented shows that you don't know PHP that well to do an objective comparison between the two languages.
But you don't know Ruby AT ALL! How do you make an "objective comparison?" Go ahead. Try to implement my ruby oneliner in PHP. I lifted the code directly from the PHP.net documentation for array_unique(). Read the comments for the function. Look at all the ugly code that people wrote to sort/uniq multi dimensional arrays. Note how it ONLY works for multidimensional arrays too. How about ANY type of array of objects? Guess what? Have to write different functions for that.
Again, it was JUST an example. I could give you plenty more examples of ruby code that is concise and easy to follow where the equivilent PHP code woudl be 10x as long. I used to write PHP apps. And I still might do some PHP coding now and then if I need to get something done quick and dirty, but beyond that, PHP is a joke.
-matthew
Ah, but array_unique() only works on arrays with integers or strings for values. I looked it up. Check out the documentation on php.net for the array_unique() function and see all the ugly hacks that people have come up with to do what you could do with 1 or 2 lines of Ruby. My Ruby oneliner would work with any arbitrary object type. The reason the Ruby version is so much more powerful is because strings and integers are just objects like everything else. As long has you implement the == method for an object, it can be uniq'd or sorted (and many other operations) just as easily as an integer. In PHP you have to have special functions to do even simple things.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound like such a Ruby fanboy. I am really not. It is just that it frustrates me when people like the grand parent shut themselves out to learning something new. He says that he doesn't want to "waste a minute" on Ruby but he doesn't realize that he's probably already wasted countless hours writing PHP hacks that aren't even very reusable.
-matthew
They're talking about ensuring bandwidth. Probably through QoS or similar. Paying per gig doesn't do you much good if you can't guarantee interrupted streaming to TV customers.
-matthew
Why either/or? Why wouldn't they just to both? P2P while not watching internet TV? P2P is already putting a load on ISPs, internet TV would only add to it. See, ISPs generally follow a plan of overselling bandwidth. They don't figure people actually using all the bandwidth they by. With internet TV, we're talking about pretty heavy usage during primetime.
-matthew
select distinct (array1.col + array2.col) as combined from array1, array2 order by someattribute
Because it works on objects not coming directly from a database. That much should have been obvious. It was just an example. Doesn't have to be model objects. Could be any type of object (everything is an object in Ruby).
Let me take a crack at the PHP code to do the near equivilent to my Ruby oneliner: http://monet.pnca.edu/~misleb/phpcode.txt I say "near" because PHP doesn't treat objects and arrays the same way so this PHP code will only work for arrays. Sorry I couldn't put it in this post. It wouldn't retain formatting because slashcode seems to strip tags.
Did you follow all that PHP code? I can't tell you how many times I have had to waste my time writing shit like that in PHP when it could have been done in like 1 or 2 lines in Ruby. Note that the Ruby oneliner I gave doesn't use anything other than the core Ruby libraries. .sort_by is a core method for any Enumerable object.
Until Ruby offers something that's distinctly an advantage over old things, I will not waste one minute, not to mention a week, on it.
How much is your time worth?
-matthew
I read TFA expecting to learn something about why people talk so much about Ruby today. Unfortunately, there was only a comparison between RoR and Java. So, if the only reason to use Ruby is that it allows an agile development method to be used, sorry, Ruby came too late for that. I have been using PHP with phpGroupWare/eGroupware, which has every one of the advantages cited in the article, plus some more.
phpGroupware? You've got to be kidding! There is just no comparison.
One reason why I have so much impedance against Ruby is the different syntax. PHP has a C-like syntax, which makes it very easy to catch for someone who knows C and Perl.
Try Ruby for a week, seriously. I came from a mostly Perl/C/PHP syntax background and had little trouble picking up on Ruby. Once you start using code blocks, closures, true OO design, and all the Ruby nicities, you'll never want to fart around with PHP again. Here is an example of some really slick (in my opinion) ruby code. Lets say you have two arrays of objects that you want to add together, remove duplicates, and sort by an arbitrary attribute:
combined = (array1 + array2).uniq.sort_by { |obj| obj.someattribute }
What's wrong with Ruby's syntax? Well, the dangling "end", for instance. It's too FORTRAN-like for my taste. "end" what? With curly braces, there is never any doubt on the block structure if you use a modern editor, with Ruby's "end" you can never be sure of what ends where. I also prefer the curly braces instead of "begin"/"end" for the simple reason that it means less ink on paper, less clutter, easier to read listings. They say the Ruby syntax is "flexible", well so is Forth.
Of all the trivial complaints, that has to top them all.
Using Ruby instead of Java, OK, I can see why it's better. But I'm still waiting to see a good explanation why should someone use Ruby instead of PHP, or Perl, or Python, the three languages that have become so much associated with the "agile development" trend of software development.
Of the 3 you mention, only Python really matches Ruby. Perl is still king for processing text, but it is somewhat specialized in that. PHP is more or less just the lowest common denomonator among modern web programming languages. As a language it is nothing special and in many ways it is sloppy on inconsistent. I haven't used PHP 5 much, but last tiem I checked, object oriented PHP was a complete joke. Its only advantages are that it is easy to learn and runs just about anywhere.
-matthew
It ia matter of sensible defaults. You're free to override the table name however you wish, but having a sensible default such as naming a table the plural version of the model name makes sense. The Person model has objects in the People table. That makes sense. It is little stuff like that which makes Rails a joy to program with. You spend less time worrying about trivial configuration and framework details and more time making your application do useful stuff.
-matthew
You want a site that hooks/controls multiple DBs, or want to stray too far from the paradigm? Not so much.
This is by design, obviously. And in a way it can actually encourage good modular design. Where someone doing Java or PHP might be tempted to write one monster application that controls two DBs, the Rails developer is encouraged to write separate applications that communicate with each other trough a well defined interface. And if the two databases don't represent two differnt modules/applications, maybe they shouldn't be different databases.
That said, I agree, Rails is limited and there will always be a place for other frameworks or unstructured freeform coding such as one might do in PHP.
-matthew
Umm, TFA was actually making a good case for Ruby on Rails. So if they are being biased, it is in the opposite way that you would expect given IBM's interest in Java.
-matthew
Four-player games are the games I grew up with, and they are the games that the kids stay glued to at family reunions.
But clearly this is not the only type of game that an indie developer could come up with. You're totally ignoring the advantages that the PC have over the console as I pointed out in the text that you snipped.
-matthew
This doesn't make much sense to me. Isn't Ruby developed primarily by Japanese speaking people? You'd think unicode support would be right near the top of their list of core features of the language. Or do lists in Japanese go up intead of down? ;-P
-matthew
Try bringing up Rails in a Java forum.
-matthew
I also find "overly intuitive" things in programs like MS Word very annoying and I go out of my way to disable such "features." ON the other hand, i've found the intuitivness of RoR to be highly appropriate and predictable. When I was starting with Ruby/Rails, I was amazed at how many features were just obvious. If I wanted to do something new, I was often able to guess how it was done without ever needing to reference documentation. That is what being intuitive is about. Microsoft seems to think "intuitive" means throwing up a dialog box (or that goddamned Clippy!) telling the user what to do.
-matthew
Yeah, next thing you know it will try to pluralize "dog" as "dogs" or something crazy and unpredictable like that!
-matthew
And you tend to get stagnation, where FPS/RTS/MMORPG is the only thing that any publisher tries to sell.
This could actually work in favor of a PC game developer who wants to do something different and unique. The problem for the indie developer is really competition on the PC. Everyone and their brother is trying to sell games for the PC. Go to any computer store and check out the racks of games. The market is saturated.
But the PC-only game developer is at a disadvantage against the multiplatform game developer, which has access to platforms that are typically used with larger screens, and indies can't be multiplatform developers yet.
On the other hand, the PC is a platform that typically has access to more complex and varied input devices. Some kinds of games which require keyboard or mouse input are better played on PC. Although it is changing somewhat because consoles now have 'net access, consoles typically do not support RTS or in-depth RP games very well. Most of such titles are for the PC.
I'm focusing on 4-player games that do not require a split screen. Games such as Bomberman, Custom Robo, and the like fit four players into one camera's view, not four cameras as is the case in Goldeneye or Halo.
Ok, but WHY are you focusing on these types of games?
-matthew
It used to be that people would write an application for Windows then recompile for Macs.
Recompile?? Don't you mean "port?" You don't just recompile a Windows program for a Mac. You have to port it because the platforms are so vastly different. And even then, you usually have to code the Windows program in such a way that it can be easily ported... which most aren't. So how many Mac apps today are compiled from Windows source? Maybe parts of Adobe products at best. And how much of that is in a position to be exploited in a meaningful way? Almost none.
The result is that the exploit that worked against a Windows version of the application would likely not work on the Mac version. Since there are more Intel machines, odds were pretty good that nobody would get around to writing a Mac version of the exploit for some time. But now the odds are much better that the Windows exploit which the script kiddies are likely to have will work against the same application running on a Mac. Which does make the Mac less secure in practice going forward.
Since there are very few Windows apps "recompiled" for Macs, this is a moot point. If more exploits come from OS X running on x86, it will be because of more general x86 assembly knowledge, not common applicaiton level exploits. OS X exploits will still have to be written from scratch using a different set of exploitable holes. It'll just be a little easier because nobody has to learn a new assembly language (PPC).
-matthew
If an indie developer has a PC-based prototype implementation opf a party game,
which could be the next Bomberman or Smash Bros., the indie developer has no suitable platform on which to market it. All the consoles have a lockout chip, and the PC's monitor is generally too small to fit four people around it.
Ya, I get that. But somehow people still manage to make PC games without hitting this "PC screen too small" barrier. The indie PC developer is at no more a disadvantage than any other PC game developer, big or small.. at least as far as screen size goes.
Why are you focusing on party games which would require a 4 way split screen? Is this the only kind of game an indie developer could come up with?
-matthew
But that is a "problem" with the PC in general, not just one for indie developers. PC and console games have slightly differnt markets. Personally, I've never considered lack of 4 players on the same screen to be a problem. I just don't play those types of games. How is this a barrier to indie developers in particular?
-matthew
PC: Typically used with a screen too small to fit four players.
How is this a barrier to indie development?
-matthew
The difference, I think, is that all these bottom feeders and me too operations are not taking in large amounts of venture capital. So when they fail, it won't be spetacular. There'll just be a few more IT people looking for jobs.
-matthew