I don't believe that desktops should be in competition with mobile devices. People use both. They often times have both. They occasionally use both at the same time. As such, mobile browsing share isn't very interesting to a PC web browser market.
I would like to see mobile browsers separated (including MS mobile browsers) where they can compete on their own playing field. At least in the general sense.
Sure, it is somewhat interesting to compare mobile and PC browsing, but as separate items.. not lumping them all together as a single browsing market. iOS browser share has little to do with desktop share, other than a generic desktop vs. mobile comparison.
Chrome is also the default browser on many new ICS tablets coming out. And I mentioned Chrome/Android browser which is (Chrome)/(Android browser) not (Chrome/Android) Browser.
IE8 and IE9 are not that bad. IE10 is actually quite competitive with other browsers. I'm a web developer, and I use IE for 90% of my browsing. For a long time it was a lot safer than FF as well, as IE on Vista and W7 ran in protected low-rights mode. Chrome eventually started doing low-rights as well, and I think FF is planning to release a low-rights version as well.
Indeed. I have access to logs from entirely non-computer or technology related sites, and on average IE is still well above 50%, in many cases closer to 70%.
However, that could be because our sites appeal mostly to older users, and few technically literate people visit them (sort of the inverse of w3schools).
Certainly, if you add in Mobile browsers, IE's market share is probably more realistically in the 30%. However, since Mobile browsers are not really in the same competitive field, that means you need to remove a large percentage of safari and chrome/android browsers from the statistics.. otherwise you're not comparing apples and oranges.
What I want to know is how far IE usage ON PC'S has dropped.
Completely wrong. The 14th Amendment has what's called the Equal Protection clause, which requires states to provide equal protection to all people within its jurisdiction.
In other words, no state, and thus no private business can treat people of one race different than another. As an amendment, it is part of the constitution.
True, A salary is a recurring cost, but that's spread out over many quarters. Training is a large cost in a single quarter, which brings down the profitability of the department (which is measured on a quarterly basis, not a yearly one).
So training is not attractive, even though over the long run, it's cheaper than a higher salary.
For example, I would not expect someone with only experience in decades old mainframe cobol to be able to pick up a modern OO language and be productive in any decent time frame (if ever).
Learning is a constant challenge. Those that stop learning for a long period of time have a very difficult time re-engaging it. That's why I always keep up on everything, because if I stop learning then it will be very hard to jump the gap.
I would say someone who has several languages under their belt is a better candidate (if they don't already know the language) than someone who has only worked in one their entire life.
Ahem... the CIL is a specification. So what is it you were actually talking about?
The CLI has nothing to do with Mono, other than it's something Mono follows. The CLI is the basic "write once, run anywhere" specification, because it includes all the types and base class library definitions.
Just compiling something to CIL is pointless if it doesn't follow a type and library specification.
Further, you conflate the CIL with the VM all over your article, which is why your article did not make sense. For example, in your first paragraph you say "with it comes an interesting fact for developers looking to have apps available for both Windows 8 on Intel and Windows 8 on ARM:.NETâ(TM)s CIL virtual machine. "
That's called the CLI for the specification, and the CLR for the implementation. So please don't pretend you know what you're talking about, since you don't seem to know even the most basic things about.NET or WinRT.
Hell, the fact you didn't even know what the CLI was, and thought it meant the command line interface shows how little you know.
Metro Apps *DO* run.NET. Yes, metro apps have to be written specifically for WinRT and you can't run the same app in WinRT and The desktop, but that's not really the point. The point you were claiming was that a) WinRT apps can only be HTML5, and b) that WinRT apps written for ARM couldn't run on x86 and vice versa.. both of which just are not true.
WinRT includes a.NET runtime. Yes, on ARM. It's a subset of.NET 4.5 (same subset metro on x86 has). There is no "if they port it". It's ported.
And no, porting the.net runtime does not mean x86 apps will compile and run on ARM, although almost any app written entirely in a high level language should, unless it depends on byte ordering or some other factor that is x86 specific.
This guy is a complete moron. First, it's called the CLI, not the CIL. Second, it's called the Windows Runtime or WinRT and it runs.NET apps and HTML5/js apps. This is all quite plain to anyone that has even a tiny understanding of the system. This architecture diagram has been posted for quite some time, and clearly shows C# and VB as well as C/C++ apps running under WinRT/Metro.
Neither GCC or the Linux kernel are products of "individuals/small foundations". Both GCC and the Linux kernel have tons of money behind them, with contributions by paid developers from large corporations like IBM, Oracle, HP, Intel, etc.. Red Hat also employs a number of kernel and GCC developers, and they certainly are not small. In fact, very little in GCC or the kernel is done by any non-paid developers.
The thing is, the complexity of software like Flame pretty much guarantees someone was paid to write it. First, it was developed in a relatively short amount of time. Second, it's extremely complete in everything it does. Hobbyists working on things tend to only write enough code to get something to work. This is one of the primary problems with Open Source. You need an absolutely huge base of people to make any given software "polished" and complete, because most developers will simply not work unpaid on things they don't find to be very important (like documentation or that last 20% of the work to solve all the edge cases).
I don't know if you remember,r but back in the 70's and early 80's there was this thing called "Ozone Layer Depletion", and a gigantic hole in the Ozone layer.
Through changes in world-wide CFC usage, the problem was reduced greatly, and some would even say "fixed".
The key words I used are "actually trying" and "If we wanted to invest the money".
Yes, it would be expensive. Yes, it could even take almost all of the GDP of every human living on earth, but I think it could be done, if the need were dire enough, and we as a whole decided to invest in technologies to save the biosphere and seek out other planets for life.
Look how far we've come on commercial space flight in only about a decade. And that's with very little global investment.
We're not running out of natural resources any time soon... We have hundreds of years of fossil fuel supplies left, and more are discovered all the time (along with new ways of getting more out of the ones we have).
Our problem with $4 a gallon gas is one of supply and demand, but the supply problem is that we don't have enough production capacity to produce enough oil for it to be cheap (and there's no incentive for oil companies to make gas cheaper... why spend more money to make fewer profits?)
It's like Commercial Open Source like Red Hat or Cononical. There's no profit in making bug-free software that's easy to use. There would be no reason for companies to purchase training and support contracts. You think Canonical keeps fucking things up by accident? Hardly.
In any event, this doom and gloom is pointless. We're not at an "irreversible tipping point". If we can "accidentally" fuck up the earth within a few decades, we can certainly fix it if we are actually trying.
If we wanted to invest the money, we could have safe fusion power within a decade. But we don't invest the money. If we wanted to invest the money, we could have colonies on mars, and terraforming it within a generation. But we don't want to invest the money.
We're only at a "tipping point" if we assume that we won't do anything to change our behavior, ever. And I don't see that as likely.
Ideally, you want to give them a problem to solve that they understand. For instance, have them develop a simple contact management application or sales lead database..
From this point, you can provide them with help and training as needed. Perhaps have them work in pairs.
If they refuse to learn, then perhaps they should work somewhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe that desktops should be in competition with mobile devices. People use both. They often times have both. They occasionally use both at the same time. As such, mobile browsing share isn't very interesting to a PC web browser market.
I would like to see mobile browsers separated (including MS mobile browsers) where they can compete on their own playing field. At least in the general sense.
Sure, it is somewhat interesting to compare mobile and PC browsing, but as separate items.. not lumping them all together as a single browsing market. iOS browser share has little to do with desktop share, other than a generic desktop vs. mobile comparison.
Chrome is also the default browser on many new ICS tablets coming out. And I mentioned Chrome/Android browser which is (Chrome)/(Android browser) not (Chrome/Android) Browser.
IE8 and IE9 are not that bad. IE10 is actually quite competitive with other browsers. I'm a web developer, and I use IE for 90% of my browsing. For a long time it was a lot safer than FF as well, as IE on Vista and W7 ran in protected low-rights mode. Chrome eventually started doing low-rights as well, and I think FF is planning to release a low-rights version as well.
Indeed. I have access to logs from entirely non-computer or technology related sites, and on average IE is still well above 50%, in many cases closer to 70%.
However, that could be because our sites appeal mostly to older users, and few technically literate people visit them (sort of the inverse of w3schools).
Certainly, if you add in Mobile browsers, IE's market share is probably more realistically in the 30%. However, since Mobile browsers are not really in the same competitive field, that means you need to remove a large percentage of safari and chrome/android browsers from the statistics.. otherwise you're not comparing apples and oranges.
What I want to know is how far IE usage ON PC'S has dropped.
This is only the ARM tablet they are canceling, they're not canceling their x86 tablets, which will also run Windows 8.
Completely wrong. The 14th Amendment has what's called the Equal Protection clause, which requires states to provide equal protection to all people within its jurisdiction.
In other words, no state, and thus no private business can treat people of one race different than another. As an amendment, it is part of the constitution.
How exactly is Netflix a business that operates wholly "inside" a state? Or did you forget about that?
Hmm.. Have you actually read the constitution?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, also called the Commerce Clause.
You people that keep claiming "There's nothing in the constitution" should really READ the thing.
True, A salary is a recurring cost, but that's spread out over many quarters. Training is a large cost in a single quarter, which brings down the profitability of the department (which is measured on a quarterly basis, not a yearly one).
So training is not attractive, even though over the long run, it's cheaper than a higher salary.
Not sure if you're serious, but if you are.. that's fine. But don't go whining about how you can't find anyone to hire.
A programmer is not always a programmer.
For example, I would not expect someone with only experience in decades old mainframe cobol to be able to pick up a modern OO language and be productive in any decent time frame (if ever).
Learning is a constant challenge. Those that stop learning for a long period of time have a very difficult time re-engaging it. That's why I always keep up on everything, because if I stop learning then it will be very hard to jump the gap.
I would say someone who has several languages under their belt is a better candidate (if they don't already know the language) than someone who has only worked in one their entire life.
419eater is at least 5 years old, probably closer to 10. If you just found out about it, I have some money I need help getting out of my country...
Ahem... the CIL is a specification. So what is it you were actually talking about?
The CLI has nothing to do with Mono, other than it's something Mono follows. The CLI is the basic "write once, run anywhere" specification, because it includes all the types and base class library definitions.
Just compiling something to CIL is pointless if it doesn't follow a type and library specification.
Further, you conflate the CIL with the VM all over your article, which is why your article did not make sense. For example, in your first paragraph you say "with it comes an interesting fact for developers looking to have apps available for both Windows 8 on Intel and Windows 8 on ARM: .NETâ(TM)s CIL virtual machine. "
That's called the CLI for the specification, and the CLR for the implementation. So please don't pretend you know what you're talking about, since you don't seem to know even the most basic things about .NET or WinRT.
Hell, the fact you didn't even know what the CLI was, and thought it meant the command line interface shows how little you know.
Metro Apps *DO* run .NET. Yes, metro apps have to be written specifically for WinRT and you can't run the same app in WinRT and The desktop, but that's not really the point. The point you were claiming was that a) WinRT apps can only be HTML5, and b) that WinRT apps written for ARM couldn't run on x86 and vice versa.. both of which just are not true.
That particular keyboard has actually been around for more than 10 years... It's nothing new.
WinRT includes a .NET runtime. Yes, on ARM. It's a subset of .NET 4.5 (same subset metro on x86 has). There is no "if they port it". It's ported.
And no, porting the .net runtime does not mean x86 apps will compile and run on ARM, although almost any app written entirely in a high level language should, unless it depends on byte ordering or some other factor that is x86 specific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Language_Infrastructure
He was referring to the VM and portability in the article, not the bytecode language itself.
This guy is a complete moron. First, it's called the CLI, not the CIL. Second, it's called the Windows Runtime or WinRT and it runs .NET apps and HTML5/js apps. This is all quite plain to anyone that has even a tiny understanding of the system. This architecture diagram has been posted for quite some time, and clearly shows C# and VB as well as C/C++ apps running under WinRT/Metro.
If it opened a pandoras box, then all hell on earth would break out.. all manner of terrible things would be unleashed upon the world.
Having a few problems with your phone is not a pandoras box.. at best, you could say it opened a can of worms.
Because the best defense is a good offence.
Or so my coach used to tell me.
Neither GCC or the Linux kernel are products of "individuals/small foundations". Both GCC and the Linux kernel have tons of money behind them, with contributions by paid developers from large corporations like IBM, Oracle, HP, Intel, etc.. Red Hat also employs a number of kernel and GCC developers, and they certainly are not small. In fact, very little in GCC or the kernel is done by any non-paid developers.
The thing is, the complexity of software like Flame pretty much guarantees someone was paid to write it. First, it was developed in a relatively short amount of time. Second, it's extremely complete in everything it does. Hobbyists working on things tend to only write enough code to get something to work. This is one of the primary problems with Open Source. You need an absolutely huge base of people to make any given software "polished" and complete, because most developers will simply not work unpaid on things they don't find to be very important (like documentation or that last 20% of the work to solve all the edge cases).
I don't know if you remember,r but back in the 70's and early 80's there was this thing called "Ozone Layer Depletion", and a gigantic hole in the Ozone layer.
Through changes in world-wide CFC usage, the problem was reduced greatly, and some would even say "fixed".
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/01/15/windows-7-superbar-overview
The key words I used are "actually trying" and "If we wanted to invest the money".
Yes, it would be expensive. Yes, it could even take almost all of the GDP of every human living on earth, but I think it could be done, if the need were dire enough, and we as a whole decided to invest in technologies to save the biosphere and seek out other planets for life.
Look how far we've come on commercial space flight in only about a decade. And that's with very little global investment.
That may be true, but my only point is that it seems unlikely that any damage we've done cannot be reversed if we go about it the right way.
We're not running out of natural resources any time soon... We have hundreds of years of fossil fuel supplies left, and more are discovered all the time (along with new ways of getting more out of the ones we have).
Our problem with $4 a gallon gas is one of supply and demand, but the supply problem is that we don't have enough production capacity to produce enough oil for it to be cheap (and there's no incentive for oil companies to make gas cheaper... why spend more money to make fewer profits?)
It's like Commercial Open Source like Red Hat or Cononical. There's no profit in making bug-free software that's easy to use. There would be no reason for companies to purchase training and support contracts. You think Canonical keeps fucking things up by accident? Hardly.
In any event, this doom and gloom is pointless. We're not at an "irreversible tipping point". If we can "accidentally" fuck up the earth within a few decades, we can certainly fix it if we are actually trying.
If we wanted to invest the money, we could have safe fusion power within a decade. But we don't invest the money. If we wanted to invest the money, we could have colonies on mars, and terraforming it within a generation. But we don't want to invest the money.
We're only at a "tipping point" if we assume that we won't do anything to change our behavior, ever. And I don't see that as likely.
Ideally, you want to give them a problem to solve that they understand. For instance, have them develop a simple contact management application or sales lead database..
From this point, you can provide them with help and training as needed. Perhaps have them work in pairs.
If they refuse to learn, then perhaps they should work somewhere else.