Your experience is the exception, not the rule. I'm well aware that when people point out that Agile tends to result in bad software, the standard defense is that "they didn't do Agile right". And that may be true -- but after so many years where most teams that try going Agile end up "not doing it right," you have to begin to suspect that the problem might be that it's so hard to do it right. Which means that it's not a good general process.
I also tend to be skeptical when teams claim success with Agile. Yes, I've seen situations where it's worked reasonably well, but it's more common that I see teams claiming success with Agile while producing seriously substandard software.
I was going to say this, too. I haven't seen a resume in an actual word processing file format in years. PDF is the thing these days.
But that aside, I use LibreOffice and exchange documents with Microsoft Office users quite often. 95% of the time, there are no compatibility issues. The other 5% of the time, the issues are because of the use of advanced features (of the sort you wouldn't use for a resume) -- and even then, they tend to be relatively minor.
Here's my perspective about trust: nobody is trustworthy about everything all the time. So the question is, when can I trust someone and about what? When I say I "trust" someone or something, what I mean is that I believe that I have a good handle on what I can trust them about, and what I can't.
would choke any good application development because it takes way too much effort to build for every OS.
I think that what would result is that developers would stop trying to target every OS. Which, I think, could be a very good thing. Imagine how much better software would be if it actually leveraged the strength of the platform(s) it ran on rather than targeting a common denominator?
Fragmentation is annoying to developers, for sure. I'm not so sure that it's such a terrible thing for customers, though. But it all depends on the sort of fragmentation. Fragmentation within a specific platform tends to be bad. Fragmentation as in having multiple platforms available, not so much.
True. I don't have google apps installed on my phone, and was able to easily replace them all with third party apps of at least equal quality.
Except maps.
Although, there are several maps apps that are quite good. Not as feature-filled as Google's, but plenty good enough to perform the important functions of giving you maps and decent travelling directions.
But it's also true that it's hard to imagine things different from what they are when you're familiar with the way they are.
True. I'm not arguing against innovation or trying out new solutions to problems. I am arguing against the way that the tech industry has apparently settled on how those new solutions are introduced: through force rather than demonstrating value.
Now it sounds like you've probably been on the receiving end of some high handed treatment.
That depends on what you mean by "high handed treatment". If you mean having good solutions removed and replaced with substandard solutions, then yes, I have. We all have.
Let me assure you that this runs both ways. It's just something you have to get over.
I have no idea what you mean here... what runs both ways? What do I have to get over?
Well, first, I answered the question you asked. That is indeed a "fundamental problem cannot be solved by trivially tweaking or skinning the existing OSes". Whether or not it's a problem that the mass market has is a different question that you didn't ask.
The problem with that plan is that the only people who care about freedom and control, by and large, are the people who have the technical knowledge to make Android do what they want.
I actually think that's not true at all. When I talk with people about their smartphones, the problems and concerns they bring up are almost always centered around the lack of freedom and control. People do care. The problem is that people are resigned to the idea that they're never going to have these needs addressed.
When all the market offers is grapefruits, but you want an orange, the best you can do is pick the most orange-like grapefruit. That you picked it doesn't mean that it was a good solution to your problem.
How is it not a malicious and damaging thing to do even if its solely used the way that you describe?
It seems to me that the result of it will be that you'll just keep the best backstabbers and most politically savvy people and lose the ones who, while they may be truly excellent in their jobs, are too "nice" or don't have the stomach for political gamesmanship.
Competition is good. Variety is good. Right now, you pretty much have the choice between iOS and Android. If (like with me) neither really meets your needs as well as they could, it would be pretty sweet to be able to choose something else that might.
Having multiple viable operating systems would mean that no single one would dominate heavily, so companies wouldn't feel that if they don't have 50%+ of the market then they have failed. That would mean that even relatively niche market segments could get served at a reasonable price.
When there are many companies operating in a market, they feed each other and cross-pollinate ideas. The more operating systems there are, the more great ideas will be tried out, the best ones kept, and the better all the operating systems will get.
"Foisting" implies just getting to the sale and moving on.
What I mean by "foisting" is when you are given the "choice" between their way or nothing, regardless of whether or not their way is actually good for you.
Also, developers who talk this way are often wrong about what people want, but in their arrogance (that is an incredibly arrogant attitude, after all), are unable to even see their error. The tech industry has gone backwards in several ways as a direct result of this.
IOS and Android are in heavy competition and feature development is at breakneck pace, no startup could compete with that.
I'm not so sure.
That iOS and Android are locked into escalating feature creep could be an opportunity. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has not interest in the vast majority of the new features they keep piling on, and who might prefer that the quality of the existing stuff be improved instead of continuing to make that pile bigger.
Perhaps my segment of the market would never be the largest one, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't large enough for someone to make a profit with.
I have never met a customer who knows what he wants until he sees it.
I'm getting really tired of hearing that. It may be true (in fact, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't), but in the last few years it only ever seems to be uttered by developers and companies who want to foist whatever they make onto people because that's what they invested in, not because customers unknowingly want it.
Microsoft doesn't support certain specific processors that Intel has moved into an "End of Interactive Support" phase.
Yes, that's their reasoning.
But your response makes it sound like their reason is so ironclad that only the delusional or deceptive would find it unpersuasive. However, it actually is unpersuasive. The ending of a processor's "interactive support" phase does not make the processor impossible for an operating system to use.
Slashdot Mirror
Your experience is the exception, not the rule. I'm well aware that when people point out that Agile tends to result in bad software, the standard defense is that "they didn't do Agile right". And that may be true -- but after so many years where most teams that try going Agile end up "not doing it right," you have to begin to suspect that the problem might be that it's so hard to do it right. Which means that it's not a good general process.
I also tend to be skeptical when teams claim success with Agile. Yes, I've seen situations where it's worked reasonably well, but it's more common that I see teams claiming success with Agile while producing seriously substandard software.
When did anyone call Microsoft evil for not supporting Linux?
I was going to say this, too. I haven't seen a resume in an actual word processing file format in years. PDF is the thing these days.
But that aside, I use LibreOffice and exchange documents with Microsoft Office users quite often. 95% of the time, there are no compatibility issues. The other 5% of the time, the issues are because of the use of advanced features (of the sort you wouldn't use for a resume) -- and even then, they tend to be relatively minor.
Yes, this.
Here's my perspective about trust: nobody is trustworthy about everything all the time. So the question is, when can I trust someone and about what? When I say I "trust" someone or something, what I mean is that I believe that I have a good handle on what I can trust them about, and what I can't.
would choke any good application development because it takes way too much effort to build for every OS.
I think that what would result is that developers would stop trying to target every OS. Which, I think, could be a very good thing. Imagine how much better software would be if it actually leveraged the strength of the platform(s) it ran on rather than targeting a common denominator?
Fragmentation is bad.
Fragmentation is annoying to developers, for sure. I'm not so sure that it's such a terrible thing for customers, though. But it all depends on the sort of fragmentation. Fragmentation within a specific platform tends to be bad. Fragmentation as in having multiple platforms available, not so much.
Try it and see. If it survives the market, the world needed what you built. If it doesn't survive, the world didn't need what you built.
That's not really how it works. Products fail every day not because they weren't needed, but because they didn't fulfill that need well enough.
Maps is the hardest one of those to replace well.
True. I don't have google apps installed on my phone, and was able to easily replace them all with third party apps of at least equal quality.
Except maps.
Although, there are several maps apps that are quite good. Not as feature-filled as Google's, but plenty good enough to perform the important functions of giving you maps and decent travelling directions.
But it's also true that it's hard to imagine things different from what they are when you're familiar with the way they are.
True. I'm not arguing against innovation or trying out new solutions to problems. I am arguing against the way that the tech industry has apparently settled on how those new solutions are introduced: through force rather than demonstrating value.
Now it sounds like you've probably been on the receiving end of some high handed treatment.
That depends on what you mean by "high handed treatment". If you mean having good solutions removed and replaced with substandard solutions, then yes, I have. We all have.
Let me assure you that this runs both ways. It's just something you have to get over.
I have no idea what you mean here... what runs both ways? What do I have to get over?
Well, first, I answered the question you asked. That is indeed a "fundamental problem cannot be solved by trivially tweaking or skinning the existing OSes". Whether or not it's a problem that the mass market has is a different question that you didn't ask.
The problem with that plan is that the only people who care about freedom and control, by and large, are the people who have the technical knowledge to make Android do what they want.
I actually think that's not true at all. When I talk with people about their smartphones, the problems and concerns they bring up are almost always centered around the lack of freedom and control. People do care. The problem is that people are resigned to the idea that they're never going to have these needs addressed.
When all the market offers is grapefruits, but you want an orange, the best you can do is pick the most orange-like grapefruit. That you picked it doesn't mean that it was a good solution to your problem.
Microsoft has been a sociopath
In all fairness, if we're going to assign human traits to corporations, then all corporations are sociopaths.
How is it not a malicious and damaging thing to do even if its solely used the way that you describe?
It seems to me that the result of it will be that you'll just keep the best backstabbers and most politically savvy people and lose the ones who, while they may be truly excellent in their jobs, are too "nice" or don't have the stomach for political gamesmanship.
It seems really obvious to me, but here goes:
Competition is good. Variety is good. Right now, you pretty much have the choice between iOS and Android. If (like with me) neither really meets your needs as well as they could, it would be pretty sweet to be able to choose something else that might.
Having multiple viable operating systems would mean that no single one would dominate heavily, so companies wouldn't feel that if they don't have 50%+ of the market then they have failed. That would mean that even relatively niche market segments could get served at a reasonable price.
When there are many companies operating in a market, they feed each other and cross-pollinate ideas. The more operating systems there are, the more great ideas will be tried out, the best ones kept, and the better all the operating systems will get.
"Foisting" implies just getting to the sale and moving on.
What I mean by "foisting" is when you are given the "choice" between their way or nothing, regardless of whether or not their way is actually good for you.
Also, developers who talk this way are often wrong about what people want, but in their arrogance (that is an incredibly arrogant attitude, after all), are unable to even see their error. The tech industry has gone backwards in several ways as a direct result of this.
IOS and Android are in heavy competition and feature development is at breakneck pace, no startup could compete with that.
I'm not so sure.
That iOS and Android are locked into escalating feature creep could be an opportunity. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has not interest in the vast majority of the new features they keep piling on, and who might prefer that the quality of the existing stuff be improved instead of continuing to make that pile bigger.
Perhaps my segment of the market would never be the largest one, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't large enough for someone to make a profit with.
What fundamental problem cannot be solved by trivially tweaking or skinning the existing OSes?
Freedom and control.
True, you can make Android give you a lot of this, but it takes quite a bit of work and technical knowledge.
and we can put whatever OS we like on damn near any hardware.
... which is often the precise reason why we won't get such drivers or the data needed to write such drivers.
I have never met a customer who knows what he wants until he sees it.
I'm getting really tired of hearing that. It may be true (in fact, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't), but in the last few years it only ever seems to be uttered by developers and companies who want to foist whatever they make onto people because that's what they invested in, not because customers unknowingly want it.
Another viable mobile OS (or two or three) would be a very welcome thing.
you must provide spectacle that can lure massive domestic and foreign audiences to the the theater
That explains why there are so many terrible movies these days.
People need to do some research.
What can you research that would tell you whether a VPN provider is being forthright about their security practices?
It is not rocket science.
True, it's more like mind-reading or voodoo.
Microsoft doesn't support certain specific processors that Intel has moved into an "End of Interactive Support" phase.
Yes, that's their reasoning.
But your response makes it sound like their reason is so ironclad that only the delusional or deceptive would find it unpersuasive. However, it actually is unpersuasive. The ending of a processor's "interactive support" phase does not make the processor impossible for an operating system to use.
The difference is that I love my dog.
What's with the management at big companies that so many could think stack ranking was a good idea?
The same sort of brain damage that makes them think Agile is a great idea.
Monopoly is the natural result of unrestrained capitalism. I think you might be talking about free-market economics rather than capitalism.