Most people know the difference between chocolate and cherry ice cream. That can't be said about the different mobile phones from the same manufacturer.
The philosophy behind Apple's way here is that their API is tied to their specific user interface concept anyways. They enabled developers to use C++ for the backend if they so choose (with all the downsides that come with it) by extending gcc (and llvm). It's perfectly possible to write games without ever touching an OS-specific API using libraries like GLUT, SDL and Ogre3D.
Cross platform user interfaces are a stupid idea that only programmers could have come up with (I'm saying that as a programmer myself). That just doesn't make any sense at all.
You hand-picked a few people out of the whole of the US population, and try to deduct some statistically relevant conclusions based on this. Unless you have some millions more people to add to this list, this proves exactly nothing.
Note that even the highest likelyhood in the summary was below 50%.
OpenOffice does open and write.docx format(if I remember correctly) and only the document standard is fixed, not the software to be used.
Only because ooo interprets files with the.docx file extension in the best way it can does not mean that it fully complies with the standard. The ooxml spec is written in a way that only Microsoft Office can ever hope to fully achieve this accomplishment.
At least for the Linux kernel (where a graphics driver would go), that's a common misconception. I guess the real issue is that most companies who invest in open source don't have anything to do with fancy graphics like games. See also xkcd.
Well, you'd need two CCDs and a CV processor on your glasses somewhere, which I imagine would be kinda bulky (don't forget that you have to wear the glasses about 18h a day, so every gram counts). But I agree that this would be the way to go sooner or later.
If, say, Apple decided they wanted to lock down their devices, they could first-off modify their EFI implementation to disable the loading of unsigned (by Apple) software as an operating system. That in itself would disable flavours of Linux from loading, and they could go further still by modifying their operating system to support installation of applications only via their App Store.
This would also prevent Windows from booting on Macs, which is something I'm sure they want to keep around for at least the next ~10 years (until Windows is obsolete).
You mean, the obvious reason that they believe that obscurity adds significantly to security in spite of the massive evidence to the contrary?
Since it's a form of DRM, doing it "right" doesn't work, since there is no right way.
btw, I'm someone who actually has implemented the recommended way of verifying those receipts. It took only four days and probably chopped off a few years until my first heart attack, so I can't really blame the devs who chose to skip the work.
You're leaving out the advertising budget, which is severely reduced when you're one search away in a central place.
Like... Google?
Individual sales might be less profitable, but the difference in exposure should be huge.
As long as there are 1000 applications in the store, yes. As soon as you're talking about iPhone-like proportions, it's actually worse than without the store altogether, because bad apps get just the same exposure as your (presumably good) apps.
Apps have to return a special exit code when the appstore verification fails (for example when the app was copied from another Mac). The global app launcher has to check for that exit code and launch the verification process in that case. I guess the dock app also needs minor modifications for that download animation.
That said, if EU mandates micro-USB, it would seem that Apple won't get much choice there for iPhone, and then it would make sense for them to align the rest of the line-up with it, even if the law doesn't apply there.
Considering that the current iPad requires more power for charging (even the iPhone charger doesn't work on it due to that), I doubt that.
Disk I/O is already the most painful performance issue on the PS3 (as far as I've heard). Clogging every file access with a hash verification algorithm won't help in getting the loading times down in any way.
People who view this as a revelation must have a very naive view of the world.
I thought so too at first, but this mission involved collecting DNA samples from the targets. Thinking about what they're planning to do with that gives me the creeps.
Here are some trains of thought:
Analyzing it for problematic traits for future blackmailing.
Skype relies on other people running Skype with a public IP address acting as a proxy. When everybody goes NAT, Skype breaks down as well.
Re:A good software company needs good programmers.
on
Joel Test Updated
·
· Score: 1
You assume by "programmers" I only mean "implementers".
No, I assume "the ones writing the sourcecode".
If you're only working on projects where the only required specialization is programming, then I envy you, because that is very rare. Even in very small projects, you need others.
For example, I've yet to meet any programmer who is able to do any significant artwork for the software (just look at Minecraft), and I've yet to meet any graphics artist who is able to do any significant software development. Those two things seem to be mutually exclusive.
Additionally, your perfect programmer might just be horrible at user workflow design, market research or manual writing (I bet most are, actually). Fire him, just because you only want to have multitalented people on the team? Or maybe you need some other specialists after all?
Re:A good software company needs good programmers.
on
Joel Test Updated
·
· Score: 2
That's it. No tools, methodology, procedures, or what have you will make up for the lack of good programmers. And good programmers will do well no matter what the tools, procedures, methodologies, etc are (barring Kafka-esque hindrances).
I disagree. You can stuff the top ten programmers of the world into a company, but without a proper team around them they'll just get nothing done that's worth it. For example, see Duke Nukem Forever. That didn't fail because of bad programmers. Other example: Microsoft Bob. That didn't fail because the programmers were crap, it failed because the product designer (user experience designer, workflow designer, product management, whatever you like to call it) was a complete failure.
Good software projects need a lot of factors to work perfectly together. You can't just isolate a single cog (the programmer) and assume that the whole mechanism will just fall into place.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people know the difference between chocolate and cherry ice cream. That can't be said about the different mobile phones from the same manufacturer.
There's a huge difference between not knowing about a requirement and not having a requirement.
The Internet enlivenment switch?
The philosophy behind Apple's way here is that their API is tied to their specific user interface concept anyways. They enabled developers to use C++ for the backend if they so choose (with all the downsides that come with it) by extending gcc (and llvm). It's perfectly possible to write games without ever touching an OS-specific API using libraries like GLUT, SDL and Ogre3D.
Cross platform user interfaces are a stupid idea that only programmers could have come up with (I'm saying that as a programmer myself). That just doesn't make any sense at all.
You, sir, fail at statistics:
You hand-picked a few people out of the whole of the US population, and try to deduct some statistically relevant conclusions based on this. Unless you have some millions more people to add to this list, this proves exactly nothing.
Note that even the highest likelyhood in the summary was below 50%.
Yeah, just like Frontpage can produce .html-files :)
OOXML has only become a standard due to monetary reasons (read: bribes, lots of it), not techical ones.
OpenOffice does open and write .docx format(if I remember correctly) and only the document standard is fixed, not the software to be used.
Only because ooo interprets files with the .docx file extension in the best way it can does not mean that it fully complies with the standard. The ooxml spec is written in a way that only Microsoft Office can ever hope to fully achieve this accomplishment.
At least for the Linux kernel (where a graphics driver would go), that's a common misconception. I guess the real issue is that most companies who invest in open source don't have anything to do with fancy graphics like games. See also xkcd.
Well, you'd need two CCDs and a CV processor on your glasses somewhere, which I imagine would be kinda bulky (don't forget that you have to wear the glasses about 18h a day, so every gram counts). But I agree that this would be the way to go sooner or later.
1. It applies to everyone. They invoked the small print in the contract which says that they can alter it any time they like.
I'd like that clause to be known as the "Darth Vader clause" to get things into perspective.
If, say, Apple decided they wanted to lock down their devices, they could first-off modify their EFI implementation to disable the loading of unsigned (by Apple) software as an operating system. That in itself would disable flavours of Linux from loading, and they could go further still by modifying their operating system to support installation of applications only via their App Store.
This would also prevent Windows from booting on Macs, which is something I'm sure they want to keep around for at least the next ~10 years (until Windows is obsolete).
You mean, the obvious reason that they believe that obscurity adds significantly to security in spite of the massive evidence to the contrary?
Since it's a form of DRM, doing it "right" doesn't work, since there is no right way.
btw, I'm someone who actually has implemented the recommended way of verifying those receipts. It took only four days and probably chopped off a few years until my first heart attack, so I can't really blame the devs who chose to skip the work.
You're leaving out the advertising budget, which is severely reduced when you're one search away in a central place.
Like... Google?
Individual sales might be less profitable, but the difference in exposure should be huge.
As long as there are 1000 applications in the store, yes. As soon as you're talking about iPhone-like proportions, it's actually worse than without the store altogether, because bad apps get just the same exposure as your (presumably good) apps.
Apps have to return a special exit code when the appstore verification fails (for example when the app was copied from another Mac). The global app launcher has to check for that exit code and launch the verification process in that case. I guess the dock app also needs minor modifications for that download animation.
You think small developers were really getting a better deal running stores themselves?
Actually, much better. It's more like 8.9% when going with Fastspring.
Don't ask me how the hell the dust got between those two layers.
It probably happened right at the repair facility.
Last time I tried this, the travel agent added 20% commission to the ticket price for that ten minute phone call.
That said, if EU mandates micro-USB, it would seem that Apple won't get much choice there for iPhone, and then it would make sense for them to align the rest of the line-up with it, even if the law doesn't apply there.
Considering that the current iPad requires more power for charging (even the iPhone charger doesn't work on it due to that), I doubt that.
Disk I/O is already the most painful performance issue on the PS3 (as far as I've heard). Clogging every file access with a hash verification algorithm won't help in getting the loading times down in any way.
That seems awfully sophisticated when you can just add some poison into their soup...
Some folks have shown exactly how to do that (and no, you don't have to get that sophisticated with choosing the poison)
People who view this as a revelation must have a very naive view of the world.
I thought so too at first, but this mission involved collecting DNA samples from the targets. Thinking about what they're planning to do with that gives me the creeps.
Here are some trains of thought:
Skype relies on other people running Skype with a public IP address acting as a proxy. When everybody goes NAT, Skype breaks down as well.
You assume by "programmers" I only mean "implementers".
No, I assume "the ones writing the sourcecode".
If you're only working on projects where the only required specialization is programming, then I envy you, because that is very rare. Even in very small projects, you need others.
For example, I've yet to meet any programmer who is able to do any significant artwork for the software (just look at Minecraft), and I've yet to meet any graphics artist who is able to do any significant software development. Those two things seem to be mutually exclusive.
Additionally, your perfect programmer might just be horrible at user workflow design, market research or manual writing (I bet most are, actually). Fire him, just because you only want to have multitalented people on the team? Or maybe you need some other specialists after all?
That's it. No tools, methodology, procedures, or what have you will make up for the lack of good programmers. And good programmers will do well no matter what the tools, procedures, methodologies, etc are (barring Kafka-esque hindrances).
I disagree. You can stuff the top ten programmers of the world into a company, but without a proper team around them they'll just get nothing done that's worth it. For example, see Duke Nukem Forever. That didn't fail because of bad programmers. Other example: Microsoft Bob. That didn't fail because the programmers were crap, it failed because the product designer (user experience designer, workflow designer, product management, whatever you like to call it) was a complete failure.
Good software projects need a lot of factors to work perfectly together. You can't just isolate a single cog (the programmer) and assume that the whole mechanism will just fall into place.