Hmmmm.... I remember when Cold Fusion first came out. People ridiculed it because it was "tag based." But then the XML revolution came around and JSPs were a hit. All of a sudden tags were cool again. Allaire could have been taken out by Java/JSP back then...but they embraced the new technology and reinvented themselves into a servlet/jar. (Actually I think they took over an "open" project that created a cold fusion servlet copy...anyone know about that?) Anyways, it became and is a solid server side platform especially for integrating html with database data. It merged with a small company called Macromedia(Flash/Shockwave). Was bought by an even smaller company...ADOBE.
What I like about Cold Fusion is that people who understand HTML will understand Cold Fusion. Throw in some database knowledge and advanced online applications can be created. No need for advanced programming skills and for many sites, even large ones, that is all that is needed.
However it is neither free or open source, and is really quite expensive. I end up hosting my projects at an ISP that supports Cold Fusion anyways, so that is not an issue for me.
The truth is that processing is now shifting back towards the client again and away from the server. You are seeing more powerful online applications(spreadsheet, word, etc.) taking advantage of processing speeds and of course ajax/javascript/flash in the browser. The server is becoming ubiquitous as Adobe Flex and MS Silverlight are showing.
So I agree that the space is getting crowded and many other options are available...but how much do you do on the server these days anyways?
The apps are there (google spreadsheets/documents/mail, zoho, box.com, yahoo mail, etc) Even things like video editing are (jumpcut) And the big boys are gearing up the infrastructure (Google's Web Services, Amazon's Cloud/Storage Services)
I agree. This guy found a proprietary solution that fits his purpose...and he's promoting it. This is a fluff piece for Flex.
He also said "We do see relatively amazing Ajax-based tools like GMail and the other Google tools which are slowly seducing me (but I repeat: it took Google to create those, not Joe garage-programmer)."
Look, Google did not invent AJAX. They were just the large company that had the balls to launch a major application using the technology. Joe gargage-programmer had been developing "AJAX" application for years. However, they did so on smaller custom apps. Also, many programmers were forced to support legacy browsers which severely limited the role of AJAX and its ease of implementation.
Google wasn't the first company with the technology to launch an AJAX app...they were the first ones with the balls to launch it. They basically drew the line in the sand on browser compatibility (with the help of Mozilla.) Microsoft could have done this years earlier...but chose not to. They basically decided to pursue and promote web standards and protocols...and brought javascript back to the forefront.
I don't know how Flex fits into this, but didn't Adobe hand over the code to Flash to Mozilla? I believe soon, REALLY SOON, you will be seeing more Actionscript/Javascript interaction natively in the browser. When that happens maybe you could return that license of Flex you paid so much for.
Seriously, why are mac users so arrogant? They pay double for hardware that is the same as or less powerful than a pc counterpart. They claim to be technically savvy because they know how to use Photoshop. In fact, macs are FOR non technical people...that's the appeal of macs. How many mac users actually built there own mac. Probably not many as it's almost impossible. Also, macs are increasingly moving to the PC market. Mac users....get off your high horse.
Wall Street has had it out for Google since they went public. Remember, Google went public using an auction style system and set a price based on that. Wall Street was upset because they couldn't sell the low priced IPO stock to their cronies...and therefore lost a lot of money (and control.) Furthermore, they had Google lower it's initial value saying it was too high. But right after the IPO the stock value shot through the roof. They looked like chumps!
Basically Wall Street, now a public company, is just behaving like the RIAA and MPAA..they are trying to protect the status quo and maintain their lucrative business model which they put in place. Screw'em!
I'm sick of this "it's not a right it's a priviledge" concept. Is that really the law? I always considered it a ploy used by the DMV to scare teenagers into driving safely. Whatever happened to that crazy "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" concept this country used to follow. Even the Declaration of Independence declares that we have the right to PURSUE happiness. Not to let it come to us, not to find happiness locally...but to actively pursue it. Now tell me, how can I pursue happiness without a car? Don't I have a right to pursue happiness using a plane?
I guess we have the right to pursue happiness if it is within walking distance. Otherwise, if you want to pursue happiness out of your general are...show me the papers.
These companies ASSUME that file sharing is evil...and therefore a proper punishment would be to post free files on those networks. That is completely bogus! Actually, it is great advertising for Sony and their products. It is not a punishment at all...it's an incentive.
Perhaps ENRON should have been forced to provide free ENRON bumper stickers at gas stations as a penalty for their coroporate wrong-doings. Maybe Microsoft should be forced to give free software to students as a penalty for abusing their monopoly. Oh yeah...they almost got that deal, remember.
I am wondering how this relates at all to Google Print. I hear a lot of people on this site praise Google and Google Print, saying how great it is for the authors for Google to index book contents. I would assume that many of those people would be a little upset if Google took public personal data and indexed that as well. Could I claim any sort of copyright on my personal information and block any service from using it without my consent? Just a thought...
I posted about this later on in the thread....But I believe MP3.com was found to violate copyright not because it had given out MP3's....it was because of the original ripping of the CD into their own database. Just that act is a violation of copyright. Google may be having some serious issues if this precedent is applied to them.
Isn't this exactly what MP3.com did years ago with CDs. Behind the scenes they copied every CD they could get there hands on. Then they were able to copy these mp3's into the accounts of users that actually had the physical cd. When they were sued out of existence, they basically lost not because they were giving users mp3's...but because they had created copies of copyright works into their database. Just the act of making the original copy into their own database is where they broke the copyright. I think this is where Google might run into some serious problems.
If MP3.com could not do this years ago with CDs, why should Google be allowed to do this now with books?
I'm not saying what is right or wrong. These are just examples of how copyright is hurting the public interest rather than helping...as is the purpose of copyrights.
I agree with most of this article except for the statement that online communities are expensive to implement and maintain.
In fact, they are simple. Especially now with the many community sites such as egroups, yahoo, etc that let you manage your own community free of charge.
This is why the internet is helping communities that may otherwise never had formed. And in fact these communities exist and are thriving.
Slashdot Mirror
For the truth about this ruling and what it means I suggest you read Glenn Greenwald who actually knows what he is talking about rather than repeating right wing talking points and spin...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/15/fisa/index.html
Hmmmm....
I remember when Cold Fusion first came out. People ridiculed it because it was "tag based."
But then the XML revolution came around and JSPs were a hit. All of a sudden tags were cool again.
Allaire could have been taken out by Java/JSP back then...but they embraced the new technology and
reinvented themselves into a servlet/jar. (Actually I think they took over an "open" project that
created a cold fusion servlet copy...anyone know about that?)
Anyways, it became and is a solid server side platform especially for integrating html with database data.
It merged with a small company called Macromedia(Flash/Shockwave). Was bought by an even smaller company...ADOBE.
What I like about Cold Fusion is that people who understand HTML will understand Cold Fusion. Throw in some database knowledge and advanced online applications can be created. No need for advanced programming skills and for many sites, even large ones, that is all that is needed.
However it is neither free or open source, and is really quite expensive. I end up hosting my projects at an ISP that supports Cold Fusion anyways, so that is not an issue for me.
The truth is that processing is now shifting back towards the client again and away from the server.
You are seeing more powerful online applications(spreadsheet, word, etc.) taking advantage of processing
speeds and of course ajax/javascript/flash in the browser. The server is becoming ubiquitous as Adobe Flex
and MS Silverlight are showing.
So I agree that the space is getting crowded and many other options are available...but how much do you do on the server these days anyways?
It's already happened and is happening!
The apps are there (google spreadsheets/documents/mail, zoho, box.com, yahoo mail, etc)
Even things like video editing are (jumpcut)
And the big boys are gearing up the infrastructure (Google's Web Services, Amazon's Cloud/Storage Services)
Truth is....online apps ARE desktop apps.
I agree. This guy found a proprietary solution that fits his purpose...and he's promoting it. This is a fluff piece for Flex.
He also said "We do see relatively amazing Ajax-based tools like GMail and the other Google tools which are slowly seducing me (but I repeat: it took Google to create those, not Joe garage-programmer)."
Look, Google did not invent AJAX. They were just the large company that had the balls to launch a major application using the technology. Joe gargage-programmer had been developing "AJAX" application for years. However, they did so on smaller custom apps. Also, many programmers were forced to support legacy browsers which severely limited the role of AJAX and its ease of implementation.
Google wasn't the first company with the technology to launch an AJAX app...they were the first ones with the balls to launch it. They basically drew the line in the sand on browser compatibility (with the help of Mozilla.) Microsoft could have done this years earlier...but chose not to. They basically decided to pursue and promote web standards and protocols...and brought javascript back to the forefront.
I don't know how Flex fits into this, but didn't Adobe hand over the code to Flash to Mozilla? I believe soon, REALLY SOON, you will be seeing more Actionscript/Javascript interaction natively in the browser. When that happens maybe you could return that license of Flex you paid so much for.
Seriously, why are mac users so arrogant? They pay double for hardware that is the same as or less powerful than a pc counterpart. They claim to be technically savvy because they know how to use Photoshop. In fact, macs are FOR non technical people...that's the appeal of macs. How many mac users actually built there own mac. Probably not many as it's almost impossible. Also, macs are increasingly moving to the PC market. Mac users....get off your high horse.
Wall Street has had it out for Google since they went public. Remember, Google went public using an auction style system and set a price based on that. Wall Street was upset because they couldn't sell the low priced IPO stock to their cronies...and therefore lost a lot of money (and control.) Furthermore, they had Google lower it's initial value saying it was too high. But right after the IPO the stock value shot through the roof. They looked like chumps!
..they are trying to protect the status quo and maintain their lucrative business model which they put in place. Screw'em!
Basically Wall Street, now a public company, is just behaving like the RIAA and MPAA
I'm not sure about that....but I like where you are going with it!
I'm sick of this "it's not a right it's a priviledge" concept. Is that really the law? I always considered it a ploy used by the DMV to scare teenagers into driving safely. Whatever happened to that crazy "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" concept this country used to follow. Even the Declaration of Independence declares that we have the right to PURSUE happiness. Not to let it come to us, not to find happiness locally...but to actively pursue it. Now tell me, how can I pursue happiness without a car? Don't I have a right to pursue happiness using a plane?
I guess we have the right to pursue happiness if it is within walking distance. Otherwise, if you want to pursue happiness out of your general are...show me the papers.
These companies ASSUME that file sharing is evil...and therefore a proper punishment would be to post free files on those networks. That is completely bogus! Actually, it is great advertising for Sony and their products. It is not a punishment at all...it's an incentive.
Perhaps ENRON should have been forced to provide free ENRON bumper stickers at gas stations as a penalty for their coroporate wrong-doings. Maybe Microsoft should be forced to give free software to students as a penalty for abusing their monopoly. Oh yeah...they almost got that deal, remember.
I am wondering how this relates at all to Google Print. I hear a lot of people on this site praise Google and Google Print, saying how great it is for the authors for Google to index book contents. I would assume that many of those people would be a little upset if Google took public personal data and indexed that as well. Could I claim any sort of copyright on my personal information and block any service from using it without my consent? Just a thought...
I posted about this later on in the thread....But I believe MP3.com was found to violate copyright not because it had given out MP3's....it was because of the original ripping of the CD into their own database. Just that act is a violation of copyright. Google may be having some serious issues if this precedent is applied to them.
Isn't this exactly what MP3.com did years ago with CDs. Behind the scenes they copied every CD they could get there hands on. Then they were able to copy these mp3's into the accounts of users that actually had the physical cd.
When they were sued out of existence, they basically lost not because they were giving users mp3's...but because they had created copies of copyright works into their database.
Just the act of making the original copy into their own database is where they broke the copyright. I think this is where Google might run into some serious problems.
If MP3.com could not do this years ago with CDs, why should Google be allowed to do this now with books?
I'm not saying what is right or wrong. These are just examples of how copyright is hurting the public interest rather than helping...as is the purpose of copyrights.
I agree with most of this article except for the statement that online communities are expensive to implement and maintain. In fact, they are simple. Especially now with the many community sites such as egroups, yahoo, etc that let you manage your own community free of charge. This is why the internet is helping communities that may otherwise never had formed. And in fact these communities exist and are thriving.