I think that making every app work in a browser is the path of least resistance for companies trying to make a multi-platform product
Depends on the app. Some work better than others in a web browser. And if you have to extend all web browsers with a proprietary library, that's hardly the path of least resistance. If you really wanted this type of voice/video chat inside a browser, you could use Flash now. And it installs/updates separately from teh browser. Voice/video chat is clearly the domain of the desktop. There's little reason to put this in a browser. And if you do, it would see limited use. It certainly isn't going to replace something like Skype. Well, unless Skype continues to fuck up their UI to the point where a web app would actually be preferable.:-P
Yeah, I dunno. I have never given any money to Google and I block all ads and yet I use their services. So I guess it is sometimes surprising to me that they make any money at all.
No it won't stick because it requires the browser code base to include their code. It is dead from the start. At least with Google's other failed attempts, they leveraged existing technology. Their problem now is that they're under the delusion that the browser is the OS. When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail...
Is there a shortage of open voice/video chat specifications? Designing a protocol is the easy part. Writing the client and maintaining a viable network that people actually use is the hard part. This Google solution can't be totally Peer-to-Peer. It must have some way to manage contacts, see who is online, and do all the things required to make it a network. Even bittorrent has trackers, you know. All Google is providing as far as I can tell is C++ code to put into a browser. Right,/like that's going happen. I'm sure Microsoft will get right on top of getting this in their next browser. And Apple? Sure.... Oh, you want an updated version of the API? Gotta update your entire browser. Oh, your browser doesn't have the update? Sorry. LAME. At least Flash can be updated independently of your browser.
What's stupid is that they require browser makers to include this API code in the browser. So it isn't really a "web" API. It is just a browser plugin/extension. Why not just write a desktop client library?
I think Google is out of touch. They can't see past the browser. Take this, for example, from this project's page: "The browser is the OS." Fuck you, Google. My browser is not the OS. Google doesn't seem to get that the future is leveraging the browser to do NEW things, not try to replace existing applications with half assed browser versions. Take Google spreadsheets for example. I use it to share spreadsheets with people, but that's usually only after doing the real work offline in a proper Spreadsheet program and importing it into Google Apps. It is kind of inconvenient to do that import, but it is much better than trying to lumber through that clunky browser interface.
If it is just a P2P API, why the hell do I care if it works with in a browser or has anything to do with the web? I really don't get this obsession with putting things inside browsers. Yeah, it might be handy from time to time to be able to check something on the web like gmail, but for any serious use, I WILL want a desktop (or mobile) app. Sorry, but web apps just don't integrate like desktop apps do. I like Skype's dedicated contact list floating its own window (old Mac version). Notifications through Growl and the Dock. I would be severely crippled if I had to run any Skype replacement inside a browser. It would suck. So.. yeah. Great that it is an open API, but I don't care that it works in a browser.
Note that Skype also does neat things like screen sharing, group chats, etc. I use it very extensively for work.
I imagine you'd just program the flywheel to follow the pricing. Just tell the flywheel when your power company charges the least and it will adapt to your usage and maximize savings. That should have the effect of using power at optimal times in terms of the grid load.
If you've ever run a good SSD like OCZ or Intel, you'd know that there is much to be gained by storing often used files on there. I can't speak for desktop systems, but installing an OCZ Vertex in my laptop made a huge difference. And if I needed teh space, I'd definitly consider an SSD/HDD hybrid. I guess the problem here is that they're selling to desktop users who already have fast HDD options (if you include RAID). Either way, if 2TB is your target, I doubt speed is a huge concern.
Depends on how aggressive the cache is. It doesn't need to be very aggressive if it is non-volatile. Say for example you are caching some oft used OS file. With a smart cache controller, it shouldn't be a whole lot different than having two separate drives, one for system, one for apps. Except you dont' have to go out of your way to manage that. Nor does the OS.
Hell, the Vertex 1 is pretty amazing. I installed one of those in my 2nd gen. Macbook Pro and I go from spinning boot icon to functional desktop in like 3 seconds.
Careful what you wish for. Us Mac users finally got an updated client and it is the worst piece of shit software I've used in a long time. I reverted to version 2.8. If they force us to upgrade to that new abomination of a client, I'm going to do everything I can to break my dependency on Skype.
A GUI serves the same purpose as an API. Both are interfaces. Linux has evolved from a very poor API to a fairly polished API. Are you a programmer? What kind of API do you like to write code against?
A polished API? As if there was just one? Last time i checked t here were at least two major, completely incompatible, UI toolkits used on Linux desktops. Someone has to put their foot down and decide on one or the other.
Slow, unconfigurable, missing features we've used for years and more interested in fancy effects than being effective.
By "unconfigurable," you mean "can't revert back to the old way." Your main complaint seems to be that it isn't what you're used to. You just getting old. I'll get off your lawn now.
You're so wrong. A simple, clean interface says nothing about the target audience. Everyone deserves such an interface. I used LInux for 12 years exclusively on the desktop at home AND work, but you know what? I use OS X now. I love the clean, polished interfaces that you would say are for people with no clue. Get over yourself. Being able to operate a complex system does not make you special.
Higher education is not a boon to many people, and the drive to universally educate those who have no drive to be educated is more harmful than it is helpful. The people who have drive to excel in their field will still rise to the top and take the jobs that they take now.
That all depends on the field. Some fields require higher education.
Statistically speaking, it is still beneficial to have a degree. The unemployment rate for college graduates is less than half that of people with no higher education. Also, people with higher education are happier in general. There's really not that much harm in taking 4 years before your professional life to go to some state school. It will increase your chances and opportunities significantly. What you need to think twice about is dumping $100,000+ on a fancy private school. That's where people end up saddled with huge student loans.
But then, people usually don't want to hear any of the above, because it frequently conflicts with either utopian ideals or how they view people in situations other than their own.
It is a difference between general and specific advice. If you're trying to say that, in general, college education does more harm than good, then you're just plain wrong. But if you're saying there are specific situations where college is not worthwhile, then fine. Sure, if you have marketable skills and drive, by all means, skip college if you want, but most people don't have skills coming out of high school and college or at elast vocational school is their best bet no matter how many anecdotes you can come up with involving people who went to college and didnt' get anything out of it.
Instead of having separate OS for desktop, tablet, or netbook they can use one unified codebase with some variance in the UI settings for each type of device.
Apple is probably closer to this than anyone. Though I do think that there are some fundamental differences in the way mobile/touch apps behave and how desktop apps behave. Those differences can't necessarily be bridged by UI settings.
As for customizaton, I thnk it is overrated. Most customizations I've seen are cosmetic, anyway. At some point you have to learn to adapt yourself to the system rather than continually try to adapt it to you. Either that or just don't use the system. One system can't be everything to everyone. People complain that OS X is no flexible enough in teh UI. I say who cares? I use OS X because I like how it works, not because I can make it work how I like.
I do not worry in the land of Linux, because you have so much choice.
And that choice is holding Linux back in a big way.
certainly I give it credit for Active Directory (although its not that innovative, just a variant of LDAP with some automated registry alteration built into)
Innovation isn't so much who invented the underlying technology, but who got people to use it for a particular purpose. But you can't even give Microsoft credit for that with ActiveDirectory. ActiveDirectory was a direct response to Novell's NDS (later renamed eDirectory), which was in wide use in PC networks years before Active Directory came out. NDS was really f'ing cool for the mid 1990's. Even if it is based on LDAP, it added so much more like replication, partitioning, etc. Too bad Netware itself was kind of an odd duck operating system. It was only a matter of time before Microsoft leveraged their ownership of the desktop and got Windows servers in there.
I think there might be some room for some exchange between platforms in that regard. While I don't think I want my desktop completely transformed into a mobile device, there may be some basic ideas that transfer well. It is inevitable. Mobile computing devices are just so popular now, it is only a matter of time before the younger generation comes to expect to do similar things in similar ways with their desktop/laptop systems. You have to go with what is intuitive. What is intuitive to younger people will not be what is intuitive to older folks.
But don't worry, Windows is probably pretty safe from all that. Windows has way too much inertia and too many conservative business users to make any real changes.
I think the timing of the tablet was also important. You needed smart phones to get people used to idea of touch devices being used more like general computing platforms. Before iOS and Android, tablets were just not seen as useful devices. Nobody could place them. They were marketed as laptop computers with no keyboard or mouse. Nobody wanted that. But a smart phone with a huge screen, on the other hand...
This, of course, highlights Microsoft's failure in the mobile arena. They keep trying to cram a desktop experience into a mobile device. They just don't seem to get that mobile/touch devices are different.
Same here. I also went to Jr. college and then dropped out of a bachelors program to work a full time job. The thing was that I had real marketable skills. I wasn't leaving for some low paying dead end job or some vague notion that I could start my own business. Even so, I kinda wish I'd kept going to school at least part time. NOt that I really need a degree at this point, but I can't hurt.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that making every app work in a browser is the path of least resistance for companies trying to make a multi-platform product
Depends on the app. Some work better than others in a web browser. And if you have to extend all web browsers with a proprietary library, that's hardly the path of least resistance. If you really wanted this type of voice/video chat inside a browser, you could use Flash now. And it installs/updates separately from teh browser. Voice/video chat is clearly the domain of the desktop. There's little reason to put this in a browser. And if you do, it would see limited use. It certainly isn't going to replace something like Skype. Well, unless Skype continues to fuck up their UI to the point where a web app would actually be preferable. :-P
Yeah, I dunno. I have never given any money to Google and I block all ads and yet I use their services. So I guess it is sometimes surprising to me that they make any money at all.
How much money are they making?
No it won't stick because it requires the browser code base to include their code. It is dead from the start. At least with Google's other failed attempts, they leveraged existing technology. Their problem now is that they're under the delusion that the browser is the OS. When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail...
Is there a shortage of open voice/video chat specifications? Designing a protocol is the easy part. Writing the client and maintaining a viable network that people actually use is the hard part. This Google solution can't be totally Peer-to-Peer. It must have some way to manage contacts, see who is online, and do all the things required to make it a network. Even bittorrent has trackers, you know. All Google is providing as far as I can tell is C++ code to put into a browser. Right, /like that's going happen. I'm sure Microsoft will get right on top of getting this in their next browser. And Apple? Sure.... Oh, you want an updated version of the API? Gotta update your entire browser. Oh, your browser doesn't have the update? Sorry. LAME. At least Flash can be updated independently of your browser.
What's stupid is that they require browser makers to include this API code in the browser. So it isn't really a "web" API. It is just a browser plugin/extension. Why not just write a desktop client library?
I think Google is out of touch. They can't see past the browser. Take this, for example, from this project's page: "The browser is the OS." Fuck you, Google. My browser is not the OS. Google doesn't seem to get that the future is leveraging the browser to do NEW things, not try to replace existing applications with half assed browser versions. Take Google spreadsheets for example. I use it to share spreadsheets with people, but that's usually only after doing the real work offline in a proper Spreadsheet program and importing it into Google Apps. It is kind of inconvenient to do that import, but it is much better than trying to lumber through that clunky browser interface.
If it is just a P2P API, why the hell do I care if it works with in a browser or has anything to do with the web? I really don't get this obsession with putting things inside browsers. Yeah, it might be handy from time to time to be able to check something on the web like gmail, but for any serious use, I WILL want a desktop (or mobile) app. Sorry, but web apps just don't integrate like desktop apps do. I like Skype's dedicated contact list floating its own window (old Mac version). Notifications through Growl and the Dock. I would be severely crippled if I had to run any Skype replacement inside a browser. It would suck. So.. yeah. Great that it is an open API, but I don't care that it works in a browser.
Note that Skype also does neat things like screen sharing, group chats, etc. I use it very extensively for work.
I imagine you'd just program the flywheel to follow the pricing. Just tell the flywheel when your power company charges the least and it will adapt to your usage and maximize savings. That should have the effect of using power at optimal times in terms of the grid load.
If you've ever run a good SSD like OCZ or Intel, you'd know that there is much to be gained by storing often used files on there. I can't speak for desktop systems, but installing an OCZ Vertex in my laptop made a huge difference. And if I needed teh space, I'd definitly consider an SSD/HDD hybrid. I guess the problem here is that they're selling to desktop users who already have fast HDD options (if you include RAID). Either way, if 2TB is your target, I doubt speed is a huge concern.
Depends on how aggressive the cache is. It doesn't need to be very aggressive if it is non-volatile. Say for example you are caching some oft used OS file. With a smart cache controller, it shouldn't be a whole lot different than having two separate drives, one for system, one for apps. Except you dont' have to go out of your way to manage that. Nor does the OS.
Hell, the Vertex 1 is pretty amazing. I installed one of those in my 2nd gen. Macbook Pro and I go from spinning boot icon to functional desktop in like 3 seconds.
For one thing, good SSDs like OCZ and Intel put out are not cheap. I'm not sure you'd gain a whole lot by using one of those cheap SSDs as a cache.
Careful what you wish for. Us Mac users finally got an updated client and it is the worst piece of shit software I've used in a long time. I reverted to version 2.8. If they force us to upgrade to that new abomination of a client, I'm going to do everything I can to break my dependency on Skype.
All the choice makes it more difficult on developers to target Linux and integrate apps. One man's choice is another man's fragmentation.
A GUI serves the same purpose as an API. Both are interfaces. Linux has evolved from a very poor API to a fairly polished API. Are you a programmer? What kind of API do you like to write code against?
A polished API? As if there was just one? Last time i checked t here were at least two major, completely incompatible, UI toolkits used on Linux desktops. Someone has to put their foot down and decide on one or the other.
Slow, unconfigurable, missing features we've used for years and more interested in fancy effects than being effective.
By "unconfigurable," you mean "can't revert back to the old way." Your main complaint seems to be that it isn't what you're used to. You just getting old. I'll get off your lawn now.
You're so wrong. A simple, clean interface says nothing about the target audience. Everyone deserves such an interface. I used LInux for 12 years exclusively on the desktop at home AND work, but you know what? I use OS X now. I love the clean, polished interfaces that you would say are for people with no clue. Get over yourself. Being able to operate a complex system does not make you special.
Higher education is not a boon to many people, and the drive to universally educate those who have no drive to be educated is more harmful than it is helpful. The people who have drive to excel in their field will still rise to the top and take the jobs that they take now.
That all depends on the field. Some fields require higher education.
Statistically speaking, it is still beneficial to have a degree. The unemployment rate for college graduates is less than half that of people with no higher education. Also, people with higher education are happier in general. There's really not that much harm in taking 4 years before your professional life to go to some state school. It will increase your chances and opportunities significantly. What you need to think twice about is dumping $100,000+ on a fancy private school. That's where people end up saddled with huge student loans.
But then, people usually don't want to hear any of the above, because it frequently conflicts with either utopian ideals or how they view people in situations other than their own.
It is a difference between general and specific advice. If you're trying to say that, in general, college education does more harm than good, then you're just plain wrong. But if you're saying there are specific situations where college is not worthwhile, then fine. Sure, if you have marketable skills and drive, by all means, skip college if you want, but most people don't have skills coming out of high school and college or at elast vocational school is their best bet no matter how many anecdotes you can come up with involving people who went to college and didnt' get anything out of it.
Instead of having separate OS for desktop, tablet, or netbook they can use one unified codebase with some variance in the UI settings for each type of device.
Apple is probably closer to this than anyone. Though I do think that there are some fundamental differences in the way mobile/touch apps behave and how desktop apps behave. Those differences can't necessarily be bridged by UI settings.
As for customizaton, I thnk it is overrated. Most customizations I've seen are cosmetic, anyway. At some point you have to learn to adapt yourself to the system rather than continually try to adapt it to you. Either that or just don't use the system. One system can't be everything to everyone. People complain that OS X is no flexible enough in teh UI. I say who cares? I use OS X because I like how it works, not because I can make it work how I like.
I do not worry in the land of Linux, because you have so much choice.
And that choice is holding Linux back in a big way.
certainly I give it credit for Active Directory (although its not that innovative, just a variant of LDAP with some automated registry alteration built into)
Innovation isn't so much who invented the underlying technology, but who got people to use it for a particular purpose. But you can't even give Microsoft credit for that with ActiveDirectory. ActiveDirectory was a direct response to Novell's NDS (later renamed eDirectory), which was in wide use in PC networks years before Active Directory came out. NDS was really f'ing cool for the mid 1990's. Even if it is based on LDAP, it added so much more like replication, partitioning, etc. Too bad Netware itself was kind of an odd duck operating system. It was only a matter of time before Microsoft leveraged their ownership of the desktop and got Windows servers in there.
I think there might be some room for some exchange between platforms in that regard. While I don't think I want my desktop completely transformed into a mobile device, there may be some basic ideas that transfer well. It is inevitable. Mobile computing devices are just so popular now, it is only a matter of time before the younger generation comes to expect to do similar things in similar ways with their desktop/laptop systems. You have to go with what is intuitive. What is intuitive to younger people will not be what is intuitive to older folks.
But don't worry, Windows is probably pretty safe from all that. Windows has way too much inertia and too many conservative business users to make any real changes.
Fortunately for you, it seems like Microsoft is going the other. They try to bring the desktop experience to mobile devices.
I think the timing of the tablet was also important. You needed smart phones to get people used to idea of touch devices being used more like general computing platforms. Before iOS and Android, tablets were just not seen as useful devices. Nobody could place them. They were marketed as laptop computers with no keyboard or mouse. Nobody wanted that. But a smart phone with a huge screen, on the other hand...
This, of course, highlights Microsoft's failure in the mobile arena. They keep trying to cram a desktop experience into a mobile device. They just don't seem to get that mobile/touch devices are different.
Same here. I also went to Jr. college and then dropped out of a bachelors program to work a full time job. The thing was that I had real marketable skills. I wasn't leaving for some low paying dead end job or some vague notion that I could start my own business. Even so, I kinda wish I'd kept going to school at least part time. NOt that I really need a degree at this point, but I can't hurt.
But a typical business failure ends in the entrepreneur having $0, at worst, having discharged the debt in bankruptcy court.
And jobless.