We all knew that M$ was really pushing.NET with a new marketing campaign. We have read all the wonderful.NET snake oil masqueraiding as "legitimate journalism", even on slashdot.
It is wonderful to see Box tout anonymous services over the web (hmm, isn't SOAP part of NET?) as the downfall of static pages.
But what was HTTP for? Delivery of content in static pages. This is NOT anonymous services. It is not stateful or transactional. And it shouldn't be. The fact that people have figured out all sorts of ways to add state - fine - its grafted on top of a simple protocol with a simple implementation and low computational and bandwidth requirements.
In the Halloween document, they stated very clearly that They wanted to control the protocols. How else can you get your cut unless you have licensed out proprietary protocols?
If I had a pie for every Microsoft evangelist... I'd have a lot of pies.
Uh, a signed applet can get out of the sandbox. A signed applet has access to the file system. I should know, as we do it all the time for enterprise intranet solutions. We even had a signed applet install a JNDI library, but the client freaked out...
Hmm yes... Access does page locking... I don't have a clue... heh.
And as for exchanges... yes... heh I don't have a clue - all those S&P machines running Solaris and even (gasp) Linux with TIBCO or Smart Sockets... heh.
And heh heh... Marathon Ashland running their entire pipeline accounting system with two tiered java apps... Dupont, Gulf, Arco (hell, they even still have Macs?!)... heh.
You are funny. Bet you think OPC is hot stuff?
If Bill had $1 for every time Windows crashed, Oh wait, He does!
[ JNI and Unsafe ]
JNI was not intended to be used as a portable solution, but Unsafe is. I have to jump through serious hoops to get Applets out of the sandbox.
[ C# implementations ]
What? No good implementations... the amusing thing here is I know many companies that jumped onto the C# and.NET wagon simply to avoid the problems with ASP! Even the immature technology is better that crap that just don't work right.
[ Logical choice for Open... ]
This argument is non sequetor. Any language can be used in open source, just as any library can be written in open source. Java won't go away, and NET# won't ever be a threat, because Java somehow managed to dominate the enterprise space. I don't think the thousands of enterprise users from oil companies to stock exchanges are going to replace their Weblogic-Oracle-Solaris systems any time soon. Consider that IIS is not an effective app. server (can't scale without external clustering), Access still can't do record locking or distributed transactions, and NT Server scheduled reboots are not acceptable...
failover for reboots. What a joke.
The cynic...
p.s. Bill can lick my Salty Black Balls
Believe it or not, many MMPGs and MORPHS are based on a tried and true distributed communications architecture called... IRC. Examples: anything by Blizzard (Diablo II etc), Everquest (and Verant's new StarWars Galaxies, etc.)
My humble opinion, but check out what other people have done first...
It is amazing what the slashdot sensors publish as articles these days (and what they don't).
The answer to some of the questions...
1) Why not support MacOS X?
- Because MacOS X has irrelevant market share to support the cost of the port.
- Because companies need to focus their efforts to meet their mandate (i.e. porting brand X to linuX)
2) Why not write games directly for the hungy MacOS/Linux crowd?
- Because an A1 title costs 20 man years at the moment, and that means a cost/revenue balance. MacOS and Linux account for less than 1 percent of the gaming market. Seriously, will a potential revenue of $250k match the $2-5m required to develop the title? Basic math...
Companies that port can only exist if they are one man (or gender confused in the case of WestLake) shops. Look at the history of shops that ported games to MacOS. Lion Entertainment - gone. MacSoft - gone. MacPlay - gone and a bit of a comeback.
Loki could have learned for all the failed MacOS porting shops.
The only star was Bungie, but they hit the 5m cap and sold out to Microsoft for deeper pockets. Cross platforms games are not hard if they are designed as such up front, but again the cost needs to be weighed against the gain for this endeavor.
Apple is marginal. To survive, Steve is heading down the path of making all Apple products consumer electronics. Even the faithful are slightly annoyed that the UI (yay Tim Wasko) breaks Apple's UI guidelines to present a mostly static face ANYONE can use - that is - even make the applications look like consumer electronics.
As Apple continues down the path of being marginal, even the devote will be ticked. Will I buy an iPod to work with my Cube? No, because I use RealJukebox on my PC and iPod uses HFS+ on the inside... I want stuff that fits-in-and-stands-out... as the faithful will remember, Nagel's credo.
Its funny even MS is going this route. MediaPlayer looks more like QuickTime Player every release. And now we have XBox. Funny MS doesn't remember their failed Printer division, their failed HandHeld division, or even remember the Pippin...
Convergence only makes sense if it saves you money.
Take any accredited field in engineering. It is like saying "We cannot architect/design/ a building because we cannot exactly figure out
how much wood/brick/rebar/concrete we need."
Yet, we build many buildings by both factored and quantitative measures. Those of course depend on metrics gathered through experience. Factored methods can be out 30-40 percent where quantitative are 10-20.
But because you can not exactly figure out the minutia, to discount planning (forethougt?) and those that treat software like construction?
If you use proof by induction, I am sure that
you could prove no software project could ever
be built.
war, good god, yah, what is it good for
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
It is FUNNY that CNN does NOT report the CASUALTIES on the Afghan side through the
DEATH FROM ABOVE policy. Imagine the frustration
of fighting a faceless enemy. I mean,
its almost as frustrating as fighting
a government's foreign policy. Who do you blame?
Who do you strike back against?
Funny, watching CNN a middle east analyst said
exactly that in response to the "Why do they hate us?" question. Unfortunately the reporter discounted the argument that a depressed, oppressed, repressed people will fight against a faceless enemy by attaching the only face they can: civilian population that supposedly is the source of economic and political Macht in a democracy.
Only a select few (those with resources) have the ability for fight
a drone war, and the consequence will be
terrorism. War on terrorism. Laughable.
Terrorism is an effect, not a cause.
What a horrible situation where a civilian population is ignorant
and isolated from the policy and the
true cost/consequence of war...
The war on Terrorism is a war against ourselves. Scary thought.
I mean, the guy is looking for work, does something stupid, and the result is another
guy over reacts, does something stupid, and
all these other stupid people jump on the bandwagon. If being stupid was a crime subject to the death penalty, then there wouldn't be a single person left on Earth, because everyone at some point in their lives does something stupid.
What should the reward be? Obviously Darwin's theories do not apply, as the less stupid survive
and procreate effectively.
I get over 80 spam messages day, from porn, to loose weight quick, and a lot in languages I have no idea what they are. I get spam on e-mail accounts I never used. I wrote my own SMTP relay to weed out the bulk of this spam, because sending mail to abuse NEVER works, and very few ISPs care. I stopped trying to get removed, because it just seems to let spammers know they
have a valid e-mail address. Sorry, "421 Are you talking to me? Are you talking talking to ME?"
Back in the old days of the Apple ][, Atari, and C64 there were all sorts of wild and wonderful games. It really was one of those Darwinian radical rapid mutation times, because I saw, played, and otherwise fiddled inside of thousands of games. Some were too wierd to describe and couldn't really fit into a genre, but genres were being evolved.
So that brings us to now. The game industry is mature. Before, anyone could spend a summer writing a cool game. But now your need 5 to 10 man years and 1 to 5 million dollars to make an A title. It is economics that is killing the game market; that and a loss of will of people to make games (shareware, freeware) for a variety of reasons. I think some of it has to do with "can't win, don't play" or "just plain out of ideas 'cause its all been done before."
The reality is that there is LOTS of good stuff out there for the old computers. Ideas that could be brought forward. The phoenix of gaming - re-write and modernize your favorite 8-bite game for FUN. Make it web-savvy and multi-player.
I know I have a box full of "game designs". Some tres froid. But the complexity matches the maturity of industry, and I haven't started anything 'cause I haven't won the lottery yet (though I am riding the current wave making money
for others).
It doesn't have to be an A title. It needs to be fun. And OpenSource can be good too. I know in 1988 I tried to write a game as open source where
I was b.d. The design that came forth was really good, and I met some cool people, but there was so much space between people, and reliablity of moving forward was not there, that really games aren't so good for OpenSource (because they are really hard to manage, especially for free.)
I've rambled enough.
(Dan Gorlin, Eric Ball, Nasir Gebelli - you guys are my heroes.)
Soon C# and SOAP will be Microsoft firsts.
After all, Microsoft never re-writes history,
they innovate. Anyone who doubts it should
read the "Comparing MTS to EJB".
Give me a break. Anyone that invests time, effort, or money into a project needs an incentive. That's how the world works. We trade resources. To make it fair, we imply ethics - codes of conduct - for all people. We make morality to get those people that just cannot figure out that behaving unfairly is disruptive to a community.
Without Copyright, I'd be hurt as consumer, because I wouldn't be able to get access to STUFF that otherwise would be too hard/costly to do.
Will you feed Metallica while they work their trade? How about Id?
This article is hardly biased... and this thread is nothing new. Non-commercial producers are not impacted by the lawsuit. Commercial producers need to protect their investments. It's a lot like gun control - guns don't kill people, people kill people. Napster by itself doesn't pirate, people pirate. So do we make it easy for people to steal, or do we not? Any attempt at making it harder (DVD) seems to get a few skilled, unethical people on jihads to ensure their rights. "I bought the copyright, I should be able to use it. I cannot be responsible if my work-around is exploited by people to steal." But that's exactly where it leads right? It is easy to rationalize around morality (stealing is bad 'cause it hurts someone) and ethics (stealing is bad 'cause its against the law). "I'm just wanna see if I like it. Just taking a few won't hurt anyone. My actions won't make the economy fall apart. Companies (and individuals) will still invest a lot in making quality product. I'm without means, and why should I go without?" Please remind me where "greed" should be applied? The distribution method of the artist and their copyleft/right should be left to the artist, and if the right is infringed, the artist should be able to take steps to protect themselves. What is greedy about that? I guess we should all leave our doors unlocked when we leave our homes.
Why are you surprised so few people have installed it? Most of the "hard-core" developers I knew that would-a-loved Darwin, like me that did driver development and couldn't find work ~96-97, left the platform in droves during the same time period. (Actually, the death of OpenDoc and Apple's almost intentional poor treatment of faithful hard-core developers -- oh the stories I can tell -- the pooching of Copland and kernel/driver architectures -- the absolute emotional response Apple had to developers offering suggestions that were bitter pills, contrasting Apple's policy of cliquey-positive-re-enforcing blindess...).
For open source to work, you need a healthy hacker-like developer base, wraught with enthusiasm. Just think of QuickDraw 3D and OpenGL politics and hurdles! The evil cycle of no tools, (no support/hope), people that try provide going under as niche markets dry up... The resource pool to embrace Darwin is very small.
I have two copies of 1.2 X Server that arrived. I have Darwin. I don't have a Mac I can install them on (a lie, it works on my G3 upgrade with some diddling), and until the hardware discount comes back to the associate developer program, I cannot justify buying a new Macintosh. Even if I did, why would I bother? Bereskin said publically that OS X Server would never be updated! (Funny how this update appeared.) Why would the faithful support something they were told [is dead dead dead] by Apple itself?
There is a lot of bad history and bitter developers.
Bernie Wieser (bernie@octavian.com)
"Apple intends to be the premier Java development platform." WWDC '96 keynote
Slashdot Mirror
We all knew that M$ was really pushing .NET with a new marketing campaign. We have read all the wonderful .NET snake oil masqueraiding as "legitimate journalism", even on slashdot.
It is wonderful to see Box tout anonymous services over the web (hmm, isn't SOAP part of NET?) as the downfall of static pages.
But what was HTTP for? Delivery of content in static pages. This is NOT anonymous services. It is not stateful or transactional. And it shouldn't be. The fact that people have figured out all sorts of ways to add state - fine - its grafted on top of a simple protocol with a simple implementation and low computational and bandwidth requirements.
In the Halloween document, they stated very clearly that They wanted to control the protocols. How else can you get your cut unless you have licensed out proprietary protocols?
If I had a pie for every Microsoft evangelist... I'd have a lot of pies.
Mm
Uh, a signed applet can get out of the sandbox. A signed applet has access to the file system. I should know, as we do it all the time for enterprise intranet solutions. We even had a signed applet install a JNDI library, but the client freaked out...
Mm
Hmm yes... Access does page locking... I don't have a clue... heh.
And as for exchanges... yes... heh I don't have a clue - all those S&P machines running Solaris and even (gasp) Linux with TIBCO or Smart Sockets... heh.
And heh heh... Marathon Ashland running their entire pipeline accounting system with two tiered java apps... Dupont, Gulf, Arco (hell, they even still have Macs?!)... heh.
You are funny. Bet you think OPC is hot stuff?
If Bill had $1 for every time Windows crashed, Oh wait, He does!
[ JNI and Unsafe ]
.NET wagon simply to avoid the problems with ASP! Even the immature technology is better that crap that just don't work right.
JNI was not intended to be used as a portable solution, but Unsafe is. I have to jump through serious hoops to get Applets out of the sandbox.
[ C# implementations ]
What? No good implementations... the amusing thing here is I know many companies that jumped onto the C# and
[ Logical choice for Open... ]
This argument is non sequetor. Any language can be used in open source, just as any library can be written in open source. Java won't go away, and NET# won't ever be a threat, because Java somehow managed to dominate the enterprise space. I don't think the thousands of enterprise users from oil companies to stock exchanges are going to replace their Weblogic-Oracle-Solaris systems any time soon. Consider that IIS is not an effective app. server (can't scale without external clustering), Access still can't do record locking or distributed transactions, and NT Server scheduled reboots are not acceptable...
failover for reboots. What a joke.
The cynic...
p.s. Bill can lick my Salty Black Balls
Believe it or not, many MMPGs and MORPHS are based on a tried and true distributed communications architecture called... IRC. Examples: anything by Blizzard (Diablo II etc), Everquest (and Verant's new StarWars Galaxies, etc.)
My humble opinion, but check out what other people have done first...
It is amazing what the slashdot sensors publish as articles these days (and what they don't).
Ah, a Macophite speaks!
The answer to some of the questions...
1) Why not support MacOS X?
- Because MacOS X has irrelevant market share to support the cost of the port.
- Because companies need to focus their efforts to meet their mandate (i.e. porting brand X to linuX)
2) Why not write games directly for the hungy MacOS/Linux crowd?
- Because an A1 title costs 20 man years at the moment, and that means a cost/revenue balance. MacOS and Linux account for less than 1 percent of the gaming market. Seriously, will a potential revenue of $250k match the $2-5m required to develop the title? Basic math...
Companies that port can only exist if they are one man (or gender confused in the case of WestLake) shops. Look at the history of shops that ported games to MacOS. Lion Entertainment - gone. MacSoft - gone. MacPlay - gone and a bit of a comeback.
Loki could have learned for all the failed MacOS porting shops.
The only star was Bungie, but they hit the 5m cap and sold out to Microsoft for deeper pockets. Cross platforms games are not hard if they are designed as such up front, but again the cost needs to be weighed against the gain for this endeavor.
OpenGL [support by developers] killed QuickDraw3D at Apple. Pablo Fernicola went from Apple to Microsoft to lead D3D.
I seem to remember Pablo was not a fan of OpenGL. But what pattents specifically did MS buy? And the death of OpenGL is not necessarily a bad thing.
Apple is marginal. To survive, Steve is heading down the path of making all Apple products consumer electronics. Even the faithful are slightly annoyed that the UI (yay Tim Wasko) breaks Apple's UI guidelines to present a mostly static face ANYONE can use - that is - even make the applications look like consumer electronics.
As Apple continues down the path of being marginal, even the devote will be ticked. Will I buy an iPod to work with my Cube? No, because I use RealJukebox on my PC and iPod uses HFS+ on the inside... I want stuff that fits-in-and-stands-out... as the faithful will remember, Nagel's credo.
Its funny even MS is going this route. MediaPlayer looks more like QuickTime Player every release. And now we have XBox. Funny MS doesn't remember their failed Printer division, their failed HandHeld division, or even remember the Pippin...
Convergence only makes sense if it saves you money.
Take any accredited field in engineering. It is like saying "We cannot architect/design/ a building because we cannot exactly figure out
how much wood/brick/rebar/concrete we need."
Yet, we build many buildings by both factored and quantitative measures. Those of course depend on metrics gathered through experience. Factored methods can be out 30-40 percent where quantitative are 10-20.
But because you can not exactly figure out the minutia, to discount planning (forethougt?) and those that treat software like construction?
If you use proof by induction, I am sure that
you could prove no software project could ever
be built.
It is FUNNY that CNN does NOT report the CASUALTIES on the Afghan side through the
DEATH FROM ABOVE policy. Imagine the frustration
of fighting a faceless enemy. I mean,
its almost as frustrating as fighting
a government's foreign policy. Who do you blame?
Who do you strike back against?
Funny, watching CNN a middle east analyst said
exactly that in response to the "Why do they hate us?" question. Unfortunately the reporter discounted the argument that a depressed, oppressed, repressed people will fight against a faceless enemy by attaching the only face they can: civilian population that supposedly is the source of economic and political Macht in a democracy.
Only a select few (those with resources) have the ability for fight
a drone war, and the consequence will be
terrorism. War on terrorism. Laughable.
Terrorism is an effect, not a cause.
What a horrible situation where a civilian population is ignorant
and isolated from the policy and the
true cost/consequence of war...
The war on Terrorism is a war against ourselves. Scary thought.
Please discount and flame on.
I mean, the guy is looking for work, does something stupid, and the result is another
guy over reacts, does something stupid, and
all these other stupid people jump on the bandwagon. If being stupid was a crime subject to the death penalty, then there wouldn't be a single person left on Earth, because everyone at some point in their lives does something stupid.
What should the reward be? Obviously Darwin's theories do not apply, as the less stupid survive
and procreate effectively.
I get over 80 spam messages day, from porn, to loose weight quick, and a lot in languages I have no idea what they are. I get spam on e-mail accounts I never used. I wrote my own SMTP relay to weed out the bulk of this spam, because sending mail to abuse NEVER works, and very few ISPs care. I stopped trying to get removed, because it just seems to let spammers know they
have a valid e-mail address. Sorry, "421 Are you talking to me? Are you talking talking to ME?"
Mm
Back in the old days of the Apple ][, Atari, and C64 there were all sorts of wild and wonderful games. It really was one of those Darwinian radical rapid mutation times, because I saw, played, and otherwise fiddled inside of thousands of games. Some were too wierd to describe and couldn't really fit into a genre, but genres were being evolved. So that brings us to now. The game industry is mature. Before, anyone could spend a summer writing a cool game. But now your need 5 to 10 man years and 1 to 5 million dollars to make an A title. It is economics that is killing the game market; that and a loss of will of people to make games (shareware, freeware) for a variety of reasons. I think some of it has to do with "can't win, don't play" or "just plain out of ideas 'cause its all been done before." The reality is that there is LOTS of good stuff out there for the old computers. Ideas that could be brought forward. The phoenix of gaming - re-write and modernize your favorite 8-bite game for FUN. Make it web-savvy and multi-player. I know I have a box full of "game designs". Some tres froid. But the complexity matches the maturity of industry, and I haven't started anything 'cause I haven't won the lottery yet (though I am riding the current wave making money for others). It doesn't have to be an A title. It needs to be fun. And OpenSource can be good too. I know in 1988 I tried to write a game as open source where I was b.d. The design that came forth was really good, and I met some cool people, but there was so much space between people, and reliablity of moving forward was not there, that really games aren't so good for OpenSource (because they are really hard to manage, especially for free.) I've rambled enough. (Dan Gorlin, Eric Ball, Nasir Gebelli - you guys are my heroes.)
Soon C# and SOAP will be Microsoft firsts. After all, Microsoft never re-writes history, they innovate. Anyone who doubts it should read the "Comparing MTS to EJB".
Give me a break. Anyone that invests time, effort, or money into a project needs an incentive. That's how the world works. We trade resources. To make it fair, we imply ethics - codes of conduct - for all people. We make morality to get those people that just cannot figure out that behaving unfairly is disruptive to a community.
Without Copyright, I'd be hurt as consumer, because I wouldn't be able to get access to STUFF that otherwise would be too hard/costly to do.
Will you feed Metallica while they work their trade? How about Id?
This article is hardly biased... and this thread is nothing new. Non-commercial producers are not impacted by the lawsuit. Commercial producers need to protect their investments. It's a lot like gun control - guns don't kill people, people kill people. Napster by itself doesn't pirate, people pirate. So do we make it easy for people to steal, or do we not? Any attempt at making it harder (DVD) seems to get a few skilled, unethical people on jihads to ensure their rights. "I bought the copyright, I should be able to use it. I cannot be responsible if my work-around is exploited by people to steal." But that's exactly where it leads right? It is easy to rationalize around morality (stealing is bad 'cause it hurts someone) and ethics (stealing is bad 'cause its against the law). "I'm just wanna see if I like it. Just taking a few won't hurt anyone. My actions won't make the economy fall apart. Companies (and individuals) will still invest a lot in making quality product. I'm without means, and why should I go without?" Please remind me where "greed" should be applied? The distribution method of the artist and their copyleft/right should be left to the artist, and if the right is infringed, the artist should be able to take steps to protect themselves. What is greedy about that? I guess we should all leave our doors unlocked when we leave our homes.
Why are you surprised so few people have installed it? Most of the "hard-core" developers I knew that would-a-loved Darwin, like me that did driver development and couldn't find work ~96-97, left the platform in droves during the same time period. (Actually, the death of OpenDoc and Apple's almost intentional poor treatment of faithful hard-core developers -- oh the stories I can tell -- the pooching of Copland and kernel/driver architectures -- the absolute emotional response Apple had to developers offering suggestions that were bitter pills, contrasting Apple's policy of cliquey-positive-re-enforcing blindess...).
For open source to work, you need a healthy hacker-like developer base, wraught with enthusiasm. Just think of QuickDraw 3D and OpenGL politics and hurdles! The evil cycle of no tools, (no support/hope), people that try provide going under as niche markets dry up... The resource pool to embrace Darwin is very small.
I have two copies of 1.2 X Server that arrived. I have Darwin. I don't have a Mac I can install them on (a lie, it works on my G3 upgrade with some diddling), and until the hardware discount comes back to the associate developer program, I cannot justify buying a new Macintosh. Even if I did, why would I bother? Bereskin said publically that OS X Server would never be updated! (Funny how this update appeared.) Why would the faithful support something they were told [is dead dead dead] by Apple itself?
There is a lot of bad history and bitter developers.
Bernie Wieser (bernie@octavian.com)
"Apple intends to be the premier Java development platform." WWDC '96 keynote