Let me propose a little thought experiment, let's call it an "analogy" if you will: say a bunch of "family men" came to you with a proposal: if you give them just a small pittance of your income, they promise nothing bad will happen to your business.
But that analogy doesn't align with reality, because it's not google paying off the other companies, it's google buying the same thing that those other companies are buying. In fact google tried to buy them on its own! So your analogy doesn't work at all.
Sure, others you do business with might not be so lucky
Why not? If you care about them then you have more patents with which to defend them.
Show me a high end XNA game. You can show me plenty of little ones that don't use much CPU or really push the machine, but you won't show me anything truly impressive graphically or from a physics engine stand point.
I dunno, i found Colloseum to be pretty impressive.
Or things like this
There's no reason you can't do visually impressive or physics-intensive stuff in XNA since you offload most of the hard work to the GPU anyway, and you do that no matter what language you're using.
It takes one tiny ass kernel module and Windows instantly becomes are real time OS.
ipso-facto windows is not a realtime OS, you might as well say windows is a 3d modeling package and all you need to do is install the required software. even then if you are switching in realtime kernel modules what's that got to do with adoption of.net?
Mac is a tiny share of computing operating systems, its share of the desktop market is about the same as WinMo's share of the smartphone market. Couple that with the fact that Windows can be run on a Mac and the issue is almost non-existent. But with smartphones and tablets become the major platforms and the fact that you can not generally just choose what OS you want on your device the issue is more pronounced in that area.
I was with a shop that whose main money comes from real-time industrial applications, which is a huge market, one you're completely unaware of, I think.
why would he be unaware of that? I think - given your post - it's actually you who are unaware of it since you're discussing realtime applications in the context of a Windows discussion. So either the point about realtime applications is completely irrelevant and has no bearing on the discussion, or you didn't know Windows isn't a realtime OS.
The company spent a ton of cash sending us to a place to train for it, and more cash re-tooling for the change. We were going to be a.NET shop. Then there was a shake up and we got a new manager of engineering and all that time and money went down the drain as we stayed with C++ for that software. Just sayin'.
Sounds like your point is that your company is being run by idiots, not a failing of.Net at all but a failing of your company's management.
Amazing, though, that Adobe is able to create a conformant (not a real word) implementation when nobody else can -- isn't it?
Not really, Adobe wrote the spec. Just like Oracle/Sun with the JVM and MS with.Net. I don't find that amazing at all, in fact i think it's pretty damn obvious.
And what is it you want me to post, exactly?
Some evidence backing your argument. The simple fact that you don't seem to be able to comprehend is that just because you have a published spec doesn't mean you'll get compliant implementations and that this is not something unique to Flash, it exists with published open specs like HTML5, JVM,.Net CLR, etc...
The simple fact is that there is not one single implementation of the supposedly "open" Flash standard that can reliably play Flash content, except one -- Adobe's.
Exactly like Mono vs CLR, HotSpot vs Harmony, etc... Flash is absolutely no different. You cant even do it with HTML5 because there is no software in existence that conforms to the whole spec.
Exactly! TFA seems to not understand the concept of free software, it's free as in freedom not free as in cost. Someone still has to pay for maintenance, features, etc...
You clearly don't work with HTML at all, because there really is no comparison between the state of Gnash and the state of Web browsers.
I didn't say it's about the state of Gnash vs Web Browsers, it's about the existence of software that conforms to open specifications and that just because the spec is open doesn't mean you'll get a conformant implementation, I agree with you on that but im not blind to the fact that this issue exists not just with non-adobe flash implementations but with all HTML5 browser implementations.
Seriously. You've already said you don't know how much each supports, so don't keep repeating yourself.
And if you did then you'd have posted it, but it's obvious you don't.
In fact, it's fairly clear the exact opposite is the case.
Oh come on, that's only the case if you actually believe he doesn't know that the ipad dominates the market yet lacks those features, which i think it's pretty obvious he does.
I prefer HTML5 for the future but if you're going to claim open flash viewers aren't capable of viewing all flash content you can't ignore the obvious fact that the same situation exists for HTML5. At least there is a way to view all flash content, there is still no such thing for HTML5.
And yet the specs for HTML5 are all there but how many browsers can run all HTML5 content? None! I'm no fan of Flash but your logic is way off.
The extent to which modern Web browsers support HTML5 vs. the extent to which the latest version of Gnash supports Flash content is what's way off.
That doesn't refute my comment at all, even with all the specs for HTML5 out there is still no browser that supports all HTML5 content, not even close, proving that even with a spec available there is still no guarantee there will be an implementation of the spec. I don't know the full feature breakdown of all modern browsers ability to implement the entire HTML5 spec vs Gnash's feature implementation of the entire Flash spec but i'd wager you don't either.
Given that his "statistical evidence" is the top 10 bestselling phones on Amazon in the USA only, and what we're talking about is my experience of the UK market, then "yes", in this case.
Well do you actually have any evidence then? (we all know anecdotal evidence isn't worth anything)
mostly due to cheap Android phones that are available
Again is this just anecdotal or do you have some evidence? Anyone could come along and say the opposite and it cancels out your entire argument. I'm not saying you're wrong but you'd have to be a complete idiot to accept anything based on anecdotal evidence alone.
How adorable. You have found a "clear winner". Too bad for your theory that the iPad 2 sells more units in 2 weeks than the Tab sells in an entire year.
That doesn't refute his theory at all, he categorically said his conclusion is based on those three metrics. Now its quite obvious that those 3 metrics are not the most important to most people given that the ipad sells far more than the galaxy tab yet doesn't satisfy those criteria, we can all see that already so at best you could be captain obvious and point that out.
As long as the only way to reliably play Flash content is to install the Adobe product, then Flash remains "closed" as a practical matter. Same is true of Microsoft's XML-based Office file formats; you can read the specs, but how many open source projects can reliably read/write.docx files? I would say none.
And yet the specs for HTML5 are all there but how many browsers can run all HTML5 content? None! I'm no fan of Flash but your logic is way off.
Today, I think the story's much the same. You can save £10-20 (big f*ing deal) and in exchange you get a device that's bulkier, ships with much worse software and doesn't work as well.
If you read TFA you'll see the featured Android device is the same thickness and is a bit lighter, so if anything the ipad is the one that is bulkier. I don't really have much experience with Android (tablet-wise i use an ipad and haven't had an Android phone) but from as much as i have used it I haven't found the software to be worse in any way nor to not work as well, maybe it depends on what you're doing with it.
Assuming you had this open surface* then in the context of cloud computing* i'd say you probably wouldn't care what the back end platform is since you could be running on any platform that implements the open surface*, in the same way that most people don't care about what OS the server that their website is hosted on is running. Then again if you want vendor lock-in then i don't see how this would be beneficial.
*yeah i don't think we need yet another term for an existing concept
"Smart phones" are grossly expensive status symbols.
Thems new-fangled smartphones are just for them there kids that want to look "cool" with their myface, their twizzler and their spacebook. I don't want no smarphones on my lawn!
Slashdot Mirror
No i got that but i assumed he that is what he meant because otherwise his post is completely pointless...duh!
Let me propose a little thought experiment, let's call it an "analogy" if you will: say a bunch of "family men" came to you with a proposal: if you give them just a small pittance of your income, they promise nothing bad will happen to your business.
But that analogy doesn't align with reality, because it's not google paying off the other companies, it's google buying the same thing that those other companies are buying. In fact google tried to buy them on its own! So your analogy doesn't work at all.
Sure, others you do business with might not be so lucky
Why not? If you care about them then you have more patents with which to defend them.
Yeah no-one ever uses XNA for games.
Show me a high end XNA game. You can show me plenty of little ones that don't use much CPU or really push the machine, but you won't show me anything truly impressive graphically or from a physics engine stand point.
I dunno, i found Colloseum to be pretty impressive.
Or things like this
There's no reason you can't do visually impressive or physics-intensive stuff in XNA since you offload most of the hard work to the GPU anyway, and you do that no matter what language you're using.
It takes one tiny ass kernel module and Windows instantly becomes are real time OS.
ipso-facto windows is not a realtime OS, you might as well say windows is a 3d modeling package and all you need to do is install the required software. even then if you are switching in realtime kernel modules what's that got to do with adoption of .net?
Mac is a tiny share of computing operating systems, its share of the desktop market is about the same as WinMo's share of the smartphone market. Couple that with the fact that Windows can be run on a Mac and the issue is almost non-existent. But with smartphones and tablets become the major platforms and the fact that you can not generally just choose what OS you want on your device the issue is more pronounced in that area.
Can you bundle your app into a single file, and run it by double-clicking it, on any one of a dozen platforms?
You can't do that across the major consumer computing operating systems anyway.
So you have the audacity to tell someone that they need to buy a new computer to run your code?
Oh come on, are you just being obtuse or is the concept of dual-booting or virtual machines actually foreign to you?
For high performance apps like games or visualization systems, it's not so hot.
Yeah no-one ever uses XNA for games.
I was with a shop that whose main money comes from real-time industrial applications, which is a huge market, one you're completely unaware of, I think.
why would he be unaware of that? I think - given your post - it's actually you who are unaware of it since you're discussing realtime applications in the context of a Windows discussion. So either the point about realtime applications is completely irrelevant and has no bearing on the discussion, or you didn't know Windows isn't a realtime OS.
The company spent a ton of cash sending us to a place to train for it, and more cash re-tooling for the change. We were going to be a .NET shop. Then there was a shake up and we got a new manager of engineering and all that time and money went down the drain as we stayed with C++ for that software. Just sayin'.
Sounds like your point is that your company is being run by idiots, not a failing of .Net at all but a failing of your company's management.
Amazing, though, that Adobe is able to create a conformant (not a real word) implementation when nobody else can -- isn't it?
Not really, Adobe wrote the spec. Just like Oracle/Sun with the JVM and MS with .Net. I don't find that amazing at all, in fact i think it's pretty damn obvious.
And what is it you want me to post, exactly?
Some evidence backing your argument. The simple fact that you don't seem to be able to comprehend is that just because you have a published spec doesn't mean you'll get compliant implementations and that this is not something unique to Flash, it exists with published open specs like HTML5, JVM, .Net CLR, etc...
The simple fact is that there is not one single implementation of the supposedly "open" Flash standard that can reliably play Flash content, except one -- Adobe's.
Exactly like Mono vs CLR, HotSpot vs Harmony, etc... Flash is absolutely no different. You cant even do it with HTML5 because there is no software in existence that conforms to the whole spec.
Exactly! TFA seems to not understand the concept of free software, it's free as in freedom not free as in cost. Someone still has to pay for maintenance, features, etc...
OK, so why does anyone think Adobe is busy making an HTML5 tool if it thinks HTML5 is going to kill Flash?
Does Adobe make any money from flash outside of the content creation suite?
You clearly don't work with HTML at all, because there really is no comparison between the state of Gnash and the state of Web browsers.
I didn't say it's about the state of Gnash vs Web Browsers, it's about the existence of software that conforms to open specifications and that just because the spec is open doesn't mean you'll get a conformant implementation, I agree with you on that but im not blind to the fact that this issue exists not just with non-adobe flash implementations but with all HTML5 browser implementations.
Seriously. You've already said you don't know how much each supports, so don't keep repeating yourself.
And if you did then you'd have posted it, but it's obvious you don't.
In fact, it's fairly clear the exact opposite is the case.
Oh come on, that's only the case if you actually believe he doesn't know that the ipad dominates the market yet lacks those features, which i think it's pretty obvious he does.
I prefer HTML5 for the future but if you're going to claim open flash viewers aren't capable of viewing all flash content you can't ignore the obvious fact that the same situation exists for HTML5. At least there is a way to view all flash content, there is still no such thing for HTML5.
And yet the specs for HTML5 are all there but how many browsers can run all HTML5 content? None! I'm no fan of Flash but your logic is way off.
The extent to which modern Web browsers support HTML5 vs. the extent to which the latest version of Gnash supports Flash content is what's way off.
That doesn't refute my comment at all, even with all the specs for HTML5 out there is still no browser that supports all HTML5 content, not even close, proving that even with a spec available there is still no guarantee there will be an implementation of the spec. I don't know the full feature breakdown of all modern browsers ability to implement the entire HTML5 spec vs Gnash's feature implementation of the entire Flash spec but i'd wager you don't either.
Given that his "statistical evidence" is the top 10 bestselling phones on Amazon in the USA only, and what we're talking about is my experience of the UK market, then "yes", in this case.
Well do you actually have any evidence then? (we all know anecdotal evidence isn't worth anything)
mostly due to cheap Android phones that are available
Again is this just anecdotal or do you have some evidence? Anyone could come along and say the opposite and it cancels out your entire argument. I'm not saying you're wrong but you'd have to be a complete idiot to accept anything based on anecdotal evidence alone.
Except he didn't just say, "based on those three metrics", but also claimed that those three metrics are the only ones that are important
And clearly they are for him, since we all know they aren't for everyone, that's already blindingly obvious given ipad sales figures.
So who's buying them, or is that list skewed by people who buy phones online, and not via a carrier store?
My personal experience of seeing actual phones in the wild is the opposite. I think I've seen one Incredible.
Oh come on, are you seriously refuting statistical evidence with anecdotal evidence or are you just being obtuse?
How adorable. You have found a "clear winner". Too bad for your theory that the iPad 2 sells more units in 2 weeks than the Tab sells in an entire year.
That doesn't refute his theory at all, he categorically said his conclusion is based on those three metrics. Now its quite obvious that those 3 metrics are not the most important to most people given that the ipad sells far more than the galaxy tab yet doesn't satisfy those criteria, we can all see that already so at best you could be captain obvious and point that out.
As long as the only way to reliably play Flash content is to install the Adobe product, then Flash remains "closed" as a practical matter. Same is true of Microsoft's XML-based Office file formats; you can read the specs, but how many open source projects can reliably read/write .docx files? I would say none.
And yet the specs for HTML5 are all there but how many browsers can run all HTML5 content? None! I'm no fan of Flash but your logic is way off.
Today, I think the story's much the same. You can save £10-20 (big f*ing deal) and in exchange you get a device that's bulkier, ships with much worse software and doesn't work as well.
If you read TFA you'll see the featured Android device is the same thickness and is a bit lighter, so if anything the ipad is the one that is bulkier. I don't really have much experience with Android (tablet-wise i use an ipad and haven't had an Android phone) but from as much as i have used it I haven't found the software to be worse in any way nor to not work as well, maybe it depends on what you're doing with it.
You (and most news articles I have read on this) fail to miss the point: this is locally public information.
fail to miss the point?
Publishing it worldwide
where can i find this data? i never saw it published.
But since each license plate can be uniquely tied to its owner, it is still a breach of privacy, whether the owner is near the car or not.
how is a fixed wireless access point MAC ties uniquely to its owner?
Assuming you had this open surface* then in the context of cloud computing* i'd say you probably wouldn't care what the back end platform is since you could be running on any platform that implements the open surface*, in the same way that most people don't care about what OS the server that their website is hosted on is running. Then again if you want vendor lock-in then i don't see how this would be beneficial.
*yeah i don't think we need yet another term for an existing concept
"Smart phones" are grossly expensive status symbols.
Thems new-fangled smartphones are just for them there kids that want to look "cool" with their myface, their twizzler and their spacebook. I don't want no smarphones on my lawn!
Why couldn't they just store a hash?
What would be the point of that?