I'm very excited about the Sage project. I started using Mathematica in 1989. Sage offers the ability to cut off pieces of mathematica analysis software and combine them into other apps. Especially with the web driven interface which makes for an easy API. So I think you are making the right choice. It will be hard for you to beat Maple / Mathematica on the desktop but a free web based system offers the potential to swamp them. The same way a decade ago MathCad probably had 10x the number of users of Mathematica and Maple combined, before they kept raising the price.
If I may make a suggestion, in terms of IDE I'd say get integrated with a web based word processor and offer something like Scientific Workplace.
You can use the darwin ports version and get the latest perl. Apple supports a stable Perl in line with their mainstream users and an up to the minute Perl for their development community.
It sounds like a specialized game wiki encyclopedia is what you want to create. That can be created. Wikipedia links quite freely to specialized wikis as the best source of information.
So create one and start creating the content you want.
The best is the type of discussion now going on thousands of places. Early on the argument was whether Wikipedia could create a viable encyclopedia, Wikipedia vs. Encarta essentially. A few years ago the argument was about Wikipedia vs. Britannica. Now the question is Wikipedia vs. specialized encyclopedias in their specialty.
Well a written well researches article with an editorial viewpoint you disagree with is quite often a quite valuable research tool. Wikipedia is an informational reference, editorial viewpoint doesn't matter much.
Further in all fairness Wikipedia seems to do a pretty good job in trying to control editorial bias.
No what I'm saying is you may use materials from the original copy of the work given to you by the author.
So A creates a piece of software and gives B one copy. B creates a derivative work which uses the copy directly (for example uses the actual files on disk).
No law is broken because no copy has been created.
There is the original materials clause regarding derivative works. You can utilize materials to produce a derivative work since that doesn't involve copying and thus isn't subject to copyright law.
I agree that Windows and Linux are moving downmarket but Apple:
1) Is switching the the LVVM compiler which means code will run better with multiple cores. Apple is clearing starting to move towards 4,8, or more core machines as the standard.
2) Is changing virtually component of the OS so their 32 bits will drop in performance a tad while 64 bit will get much better.
3) Is putting in all but the last piece of the puzzle to move beyond 8gb limit on ram
4) Is continuing to have OS components that use expensive graphics chips
5) Continues to run complex services automating all sorts of connections
I don't think it is the case that they are moving in the direction of cheaper hardware.
Safari customers are generally higher on the economic scale. So at 7.8% we assume that if it cost less than 8.6% of the cost of the app (7.8%/.90 =.86) to make the adjustments for Safari they would. So it must cost 10% or more of the development cost to adjust to Safari. Those are big differences.
The apps I'm talking about were enterprise apps. Just large diverse enterprises that need to distribute the app to partners, customers, 3rd party sales people....
Try and control your passion here, "retard" doesn't make the case any better. And for 1m potential user installs it isn't a single domain but rather a hundred domains with different configurations for many of them and then still thousands of odd ball systems.
I can certainly cite examples of costs like $80k + $13k / yr for $2.3m potential users. I've never developed and deployed a desktop app for $.03 a user.
Safari is currently 7.2% of the market. That's not negligible.
Moreover the GP was arguing the differences don't exist, you are arguing they do exist but don't matter because non I.E. non FF market share is too small.
Slashdot Mirror
People used Emacs on a at 1200 baud pretty effectively. Just run the app server side and serve the interface over the web.
I'm very excited about the Sage project. I started using Mathematica in 1989. Sage offers the ability to cut off pieces of mathematica analysis software and combine them into other apps. Especially with the web driven interface which makes for an easy API. So I think you are making the right choice. It will be hard for you to beat Maple / Mathematica on the desktop but a free web based system offers the potential to swamp them. The same way a decade ago MathCad probably had 10x the number of users of Mathematica and Maple combined, before they kept raising the price.
If I may make a suggestion, in terms of IDE I'd say get integrated with a web based word processor and offer something like Scientific Workplace.
The no X11 variant isn't there because GP is wrong about apache2 wanting X11:
apache2 @2.2.10 (www)
Variants: darwin, darwin_7, darwin_9, eventmpm, no_startupitem, openbsd,
openldap, preforkmpm, universal, workermpm
Library Dependencies: apr, apr-util, expat, openssl, pcre
(and none of those are X11 either).
You can use the darwin ports version and get the latest perl. Apple supports a stable Perl in line with their mainstream users and an up to the minute Perl for their development community.
It sounds like a specialized game wiki encyclopedia is what you want to create. That can be created. Wikipedia links quite freely to specialized wikis as the best source of information.
So create one and start creating the content you want.
The best is the type of discussion now going on thousands of places. Early on the argument was whether Wikipedia could create a viable encyclopedia, Wikipedia vs. Encarta essentially. A few years ago the argument was about Wikipedia vs. Britannica. Now the question is Wikipedia vs. specialized encyclopedias in their specialty.
That's progress.
Well a written well researches article with an editorial viewpoint you disagree with is quite often a quite valuable research tool. Wikipedia is an informational reference, editorial viewpoint doesn't matter much.
Further in all fairness Wikipedia seems to do a pretty good job in trying to control editorial bias.
That you can make derivative works under certain conditions regardless of license.
No what I'm saying is you may use materials from the original copy of the work given to you by the author.
So A creates a piece of software and gives B one copy.
B creates a derivative work which uses the copy directly (for example uses the actual files on disk).
No law is broken because no copy has been created.
Copyright law doesn't apply if no copy is made. It is the act of copying that triggers the act in the first place.
There is the original materials clause regarding derivative works. You can utilize materials to produce a derivative work since that doesn't involve copying and thus isn't subject to copyright law.
I agree that Windows and Linux are moving downmarket but Apple:
1) Is switching the the LVVM compiler which means code will run better with multiple cores. Apple is clearing starting to move towards 4,8, or more core machines as the standard.
2) Is changing virtually component of the OS so their 32 bits will drop in performance a tad while 64 bit will get much better.
3) Is putting in all but the last piece of the puzzle to move beyond 8gb limit on ram
4) Is continuing to have OS components that use expensive graphics chips
5) Continues to run complex services automating all sorts of connections
I don't think it is the case that they are moving in the direction of cheaper hardware.
Safari customers are generally higher on the economic scale. So at 7.8% we assume that if it cost less than 8.6% of the cost of the app (7.8%/.90 = .86) to make the adjustments for Safari they would. So it must cost 10% or more of the development cost to adjust to Safari. Those are big differences.
I doubt that. You can deploy to a select group of confirming desktops at the click of a button.
7.8%
Good example of another type of problem!
I agree that's what is usually done.
It might be multiple companies. For example vendors, partners, 3rd party sales people....
That might work if end users all had it. Its a good idea. But end users often can't deploy their own apps.
Haven't tried the yahoo one. I've heard good things.
The apps I'm talking about were enterprise apps. Just large diverse enterprises that need to distribute the app to partners, customers, 3rd party sales people....
Try and control your passion here, "retard" doesn't make the case any better. And for 1m potential user installs it isn't a single domain but rather a hundred domains with different configurations for many of them and then still thousands of odd ball systems.
I can certainly cite examples of costs like $80k + $13k / yr for $2.3m potential users. I've never developed and deployed a desktop app for $.03 a user.
Safari is currently 7.2% of the market. That's not negligible.
Moreover the GP was arguing the differences don't exist, you are arguing they do exist but don't matter because non I.E. non FF market share is too small.
To get to 99% you are supporting something like 5 engines.
General population: .5 .1 .7 .9
Internet Explorer 69.8
Netscape
Mozilla
Firefox 20.7
Opera
Safari 7.2
Chrome
For example on technical sites usage can look like:
IE7 26.1%
IE6 19.6%
Firefox 44.4%
Chrome 3.6%
Safari 2.7%
Opera 2.4%