It's really good to hear about this project. This is exactly what Mozilla needs -- some focus. I hope to see similar efforts on non-GNOME platforms. I really want to like Mozilla, but for me to seriously consider it as a Mac desktop user, somebody needs to fix it in such a way that it is a reasonable competitor to IE5. This would entail:
1) Reducing total number of files (most good Mac apps only have a few dozen, and can be placed anywhere)
2) Providing a default UI/skin that is a little less arcane/obscured
3) Making the thing stop crashing so much
4) Speeding up launch time -- IE5 launches in a few seconds on my G3. Mozilla takes around 15-20 seconds.
5) Cleaing up the menus and panel layout so it actually resembles a Mac app
Mozilla will probably never match the feature set and polish of IE Mac, but if somebody who knows Mozilla (and has time to do all this) can push it into the realm of reasonably usable, then I would attempt to use it as my primary browser. I might even consider paying for it, if it was good enough -- though I may be in the minority there.
This is rare right now, but I suspect that we will see a lot more of this happening. As Linux (and to a lesser extent, BSD[*]) grows, we will see much greater acceptance of Linux as an alternative platform at equal or greater standing relative to the Mac.
It's great that Linux is starting to resemble a mainstream OS choice. But let's remember, Linux and Mac are vastly different markets. In particular, there is a large bias in Linux numbers towards servers, and a desktop bias on the Mac side. These gaps will begin to fill in and we may see more overlap as 1) Mac OS X public beta ships in the next several weeks 2) Linux becomes more desktop-friendly.
But for the time being, it is not surprising that something like, say, an IDE would arrive first on Linux, and then later on the Mac. But conversely, it will be some time before Linux users will get the the full attention of graphics app and page layout developers. Either way, having two viable alternative operating systems is certainly better for everyone, particularly if developers support both equally. It sucks when you're forced to use an OS purely because that application you need to use runs on it.
The Zend Compiler, to be released later this year, allows code developers to compile their PHP script before distributing it. By saving the code in a closed Zend Intermediate Code format, the compiler allows developers to protect source code from copyright infringement, enabling companies to create exclusive software solutions and commercial PHP applications.
Business-oriented developers who want to enjoy the benefits of PHP scripting, without exposing their source code, will find the Zend Compiler indispensible for all mission critical business applications that must protect the source code from copyright infringement. This product provides copyright and intellectual property protection, opening the way for the widespread acceptance of PHP for business and commercial applications, where protection of proprietary information is of primary concern.
I was at JavaONE and I listed to Steve Jobs pledge (yet again) his "support" and "committment" to making Java awesome on the mac. i'll believe it when i see it. Apple has *never* delievered on this and never will.
It's substanially more practical to make Java "awesome" on Mac OS X (BSD/Unix/Mach) then it is on Mac OS "classic." Making Java work well on the Mac so far has basically been restricted by the OS itself, rather Apple's ability to write a good VM. Mac OS X's infrastructure is superior in every way. Remember, starting in 1997, Apple's core engineering was completely revamped after the NeXT engineers were brought in. Since that time, there have been two primary tasks for Avie Tevanian's software team:
1) Fix Mac OS 8/9 as a stopgap 2) Launch Mac OS X
I would also add that some miraculous feats have been performed to accomplish #1.
Java is a major part of Mac OS X as a whole. Some of the included apps, for example, are written in Java. WebObjects will soon be all Java, and Cocoa (Apple's recommended API set for new, non-ported applications) largerly revolves around the Java language.
I really don't understand why many people love Apple.... But the list of negatives is very, very long: inability to update their software with modern necessities (PMT, VM that's not broken, etc). Backstabbing the developers. Backstabbing the clone manufacturers. Incredible arrogance. Price gouging... Look-and-feel lawsuits. Closed hardware. Closed software. Closed minds.
Clue me in. Why does Apple get all this loyalty? The products are good in a lot of ways, but they're not that good (be honest!). Is it the home of people who just like to be different from the mainstream, and that's the attraction?
I understand your concerns, but I think the confusion lies in the fact that you seem to be forming most of your opinion of Apple based on political/industry actions rather than what the end result is for the person who uses the products.
The basic issue is that Windows and Linux are basically computer-centric operating systems. You are forced to adapt to the computer. The reason Apple has built such loyalty over the years is that it realizes that most computer users are human beings. They like to accomplish tasks quickly, and then move on. 85% of the world's population doesn't care what a kernel is or why one might want to upgrade it. This is particularly true for artists, who want to focus on the art, not the technology. So many people have told me that they like the Mac because it doesn't get in the way of the creative process. This is absolutely crucial to the concept of why Apple is popular with normal people, and creative types. And then there are those that are technically brilliant, but still think computers should be easy and fun to use. These people often become Mac developers.
Additionally, being primarily visual creatures, humans appreciate asethically pleasing elements, such as a well-polished, attractive user interface, and creative approaches to industrial design. This is, of course, more attractive to designers and such. These people don't want to become the next ESR. They just want to accomplish tasks, and possibly play some games. The vast majority of computer owners' lives do not revolve around their computers. There's only a very small segment of the world that cares what database a site is running.
And I know the slashdot masses reject such ideas as blasphemy or just flat out "wrong," which is extremely frustrating. Slashdot was, at some point, a forum for alternative points of ideas to be appreciated. Yet there are still people roaming these forums that truely believe that a person doesn't "deserve" a computer unless they can use text configuration files or write their own code.
Also, as one last note -- the only PowerBook line that ever had signficant problems was the 5300, and that was more than 3 years ago. Aside from that, Apple customers have experienced considerably less hardware issues than the average person with a wintel laptop.
It's the new trend in business (especially high tech business), your customer is your enemy.
I don't see how Apple taking legal action against a rumor site is a demonstration of this theory. Apple's is primarily trying to keep information private from its competitors. Your theory only makes sense to me if you count the handful of people who run MOSR as the "users."
I'm a little unclear on why some people seem to think that if information exists anywhere in the world, it should immediately and infinitely be the property of all citizens of the internet. Apple is working on various prototypes for next generation case designs. Where is it written that everybody who has a web browser has the right to get information on these prototypes?
Specifically, why is it that we are so concerned about individual privacy concerns, but nobody cares about the privacy concerns of organizations? Why is it that Slashdot policitcal correctness sates that Bob has a right to privacy, but not Bob's company?
I can see how the people have a right information about, say, their government, as it does ultimately belong to them. But Apple's not a government. Sure, there are plenty of people with Apple stock, and those people do deserve to know what's going on, and vote on various directions of the company, but you can't give secret information to that group of people without giving it to everyone.
Additionally, let us not forget that these rumor sites sell banner ads. That is, in some cases (probably not all), rumors are posted at least in part for personal gain, at Apple's expense. Think what you will of highly-valued companies (such as the one that owns Slashdot), but the individuals that work at Apple, such as the industrial designers, are passionate, driven people. They deserve some credit. There are few things more frustrating for an artist than a work being shown before it is finished.
I would also point out that Apple frequently gets more attention for their products if they are unexpected. There's nothing unusual or devious about this. There's a natural human appreciation for the elements of surprise.
How did a buttonless mouse ever get out of the "is this gonna fly" meeting?... A hint to Apple: Change for the sake of change is not "innovation".
What meeting? This isn't a product announcement by Apple. It's a story on a rumor site. The "image" is a 3D rendering that supposedly is based on some prototype of some version of a new mouse that someone saw.
You're criticizing something that 1) you haven't used yet and even worse 2) doesn't even exist yet. And if I was a pessimistic person, I would say that you're doing it just because it's something new and different from Apple. Heaven forbid Apple try to move a 20 year old industrial design into the present.
Is the mouse really so perfect that it could never be improved upon from here on out?
How many people have just had a guts-full of anti M$ BS? IMHO that Pengiun ad just makes us look lame....
The first part of this message is just flamebait, and I'll take as much anti-MS material as I can get. However, I agree the Penguin ad definitely has issues. Although it may be amusing because everybody just loves the penguin (I actually don't), it's rather ineffective (not to mention a cliche). Using a giant Penguin is an exercise in preaching to the choir. It doesn't really attract a new audience because you have to know something about Linux to get the "joke."
If the Linux is interested in displacing MS for business products and services, there's going to have to be a more effective approach. The suits won't get anything out of such an ad.
! Microsoft would still primarily write their applications for Windows, and "Windows, Inc." would still strive for compatibility with Microsoft products above everything else
I'm so glad to hear somebody else echo the voice of logic here. People seem to think that the applications group has been secretly waiting for the day that they could port Office to Unix.
Now, if Judge Jackson had made them open the source to Windows
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this was part of the DOJ's plan, and was approved in the ruling. I know I heard this at least once on TV, and somewhere online.
If Apple ported Mac OS X to Intel, you can kiss their PPC machine sales goodbye. People would install the system on $500 PCs and say to heck with a $1000 iMac in spite of the nice color.
Yes, this is obviously a signficant issue. But perhaps equally important is selling a complete package to the customer. Companies like IBM, Compaq and Dell are somewhat limited as to how much they can improve the user experience for their customers and differentiate themselves from their competitors because at the end of the day, they all still have to ship Windows on most of their machines.
Apple is in a unique situation, as they can (and often do) simultaneously make changes to both the hardware and software to provide additionality functionality for the user. Jobs phrases this as "the complete widget." It's basically something that no other desktop computer company can offer right now.
This position take a bit more dedication as well, because at the end of the day, you are responsible for both the hardware and the software.
Understand that I am not discounting the fact that Apple's primary business is hardware sales, and they sell because of the software, but just saying there are reasons for this type of unification above and beyond the obvious.
very real psychological hurdle of Technologists who simply do not take Macs seriously
That's very elitist and all, but don't you think people should be given a choice? That is, if people don't really like Windows or Linux for their desktop, does it not seem reasonable that they should be able to choose a Mac, and everything that goes along with it? That is what open source is about in the end, right? Choice?
After years of marketing itself as an OS just fine for idiots
So people that don't spend most of their waking hours in front of a computer screen are idiots? Huh?
My experience is that artists tend to prefer Macs because the technology does not get in the way of the creative process. Whereas with developers, getting involved with the technology is the objective.
After years of retreating into niche markets populated by arrogant graphic artists
Though network administrators are never seen as arrogant, right?:)
I've read numerous comments that have mentioned this is what Sony and all the other console manufacturers should have done from the beginning, but I don't think it's quite that simple. If Sony did licence the PlayStation chipset years ago when it first came out, I don't think the PlayStation market would look nearly the same as it does today. There would be multiple implementation of the PlayStation architecture, all with their own particular advantages and quirks.
One only has to look at the difference between installating Linux x86 and LinuxPPC. My experience has been that the former can potentionally be a real bear, as there are such a wide variety of peripherals, cards, motherboards, CPUs, etc. By contrast, however, LinuxPPC requires virtually zero configuration. It just works.
Now, I realize that many people on slashdot don't really mind configuring hardware and hacking drivers (perhaps actually enjoy it), and I realize that some of these very same people also have a PlayStation and will likely buy a PlayStation2. However, I would bet the farm on the fact that this is not indicative of the majority of Sony's customers.
If you have a bunch of PlayStation2 "distributions" floating around in various forms in consumer electronics, you're eventually going to run into some compatbility issues. This is inevitable. This may be acceptable in the computer world, but it's totally unacceptable in the console world. If a console game doesn't work, people aren't going to go hunting for an update on a web site, they're going to return it to the store.
The whole idea of a console is that you just plug the game in and it runs. The consoles are identical, so that if it works on one PlayStation, it should work on any. Consumers have proven with their wallets that they appreciate this simplicity. It has been provent that there is a place for consoles, and a place for computers, and probably will be for some time. Ignoring this would be a mistake and reduce the level of choice available.
From what I can gather about what Sony is doing, they're actually creating a new computing platform, which may bring with it all the pros and cons of such a move. Maybe there's a way to have the best of both worlds -- somehow simpler devices like DVD players can have multiple vendors and remain completely compatible -- but it remains to be seen if that will hold true for PlayStation2.
Plus, what happens when somebody -- let's say Panasonic-- decides to augment the PlayStation2 chipset with their own 3D hardware, and make that available to developers. You then need that particular version of the PlayStation2 in order to use the game as intended. This is totally contrary to the concept of a console.
Another example is the disaster of the Macintosh clones. As soon as the machines from UMAX, Power Computing and Motorola (the worst by far!) showed up, the Mac OS became much harder to use and configure. Things weren't working because there was all this alien hardware floating around. At the time, this damaged one of the key advantages of the Mac OS -- simplicity.
I think that this might mean Sony is losing money making the PS2 console
There's no "might" about it. They are definitely losing money on each console sold in Japan. This is nothing new, though. This has been the standard practice for the last ~5 years for console makers.
No, not out of the box. Both PHP and ASP are compiled to bytecode
ASP maybe, but PHP is not (unless you mean it's recompiled in memory each time the page is requested?). I know there's a PHP4 compiler lurking on the horizon, but I believe its purpose is to encrypt the code prior to distribution rather than to speed things up.
JSP is syntactically ugly. Both ASP and PHP have an advantage there.
I would tend to agree PHP has the edge here, but have looked at very little ASP code.
JSP is nowhere as widely used as either PHP or ASP. The 1.0 and 1.1 implementation where so very different, forcing people to port stuff over. I.e. there's a much larger libary of ready-made code for either ASP or PHP over JSP
My feeling is that JSP will rapidly overtake PHP in terms of activity of developer community, because 1) it is from Sun 2) based on Java. Sun has much more influence than the PHP team. I also suspect JSP will grow quite rapidly in the next year. Not that I
nifty shortcuts to make code easier to develop and read (e.g: variables within strings, automatic conversion between strings and numbers, etc, etc).
Amen to that.
that half-baked technology Sun came up with to be in the server-side-scripting market (i.e JSP)
Like I said, I think JSP is going back in the oven for a bit.
Maybe Pike is amusing, but next to a language like Perl, is it really needed?
If we can accept the fact that Perl is not perfect, and take the time to understand what it is that people don't like about Perl, and do like about other languages, then everyone -- especially the Perl developer community -- will be much better off. Just thoughtlessly claiming that Perl is the best language there is or ever will be is totally counterproductive (though a great way to waste a Saturday).
I'm no expert, but these are the advantages as I undertand them:
1. Multiple JSP implementations are available from multiple vendors. Many of which are free (You either have to buy NT, or software from Chilisoft to use ASP).
2. JSP functionality can be stored in JavaBeans
3. JSPs can be deployed on virtually any platform in existence. And while ASPs can be deployed to environments other than Windows, ActiveX library support cannot. Therefore, if NT/W2K runs out of juice (witness Toys R Us), you can't move up to Solaris or AIX.
4. JSPs are compiled into servlets for faster execution (does ASP do this?)
5. JSP engine can run on a different machine than the webserver
Now, OTOH Java *servlets* (not JSP) rock! Session management, persistent objects, the ability to leverage Java's impressive APIs; it's the answer to any serious enterprise-level solution.
Hmmmm. From what I understand, JSPs are a superset of servlet functionality. JSPs, in fact, get converted into servlets before being executed. You should be able to insert any valid Java servlet code you like into an JSP page.
Maybe you were using something that only conformed to the JSP 1.0 spec? You should be working with JSP 1.1 at least. There are dozens of vendors with different implementations, which is a key advantage over ASP, BTW.
PHP4 is supposed to be able to manipulate Java objects *directly* (it's in the spec but I haven't used it). If that works, you can now throw away JSP, put all your middleware logic in Java beans and servlets and use PHP to do the string-parsing and HTML pushing...
What you describe is the entire idea behind JSP. I love PHP, but the idea that PHP will provide better connectivity to Java then JSP (which is Java), seems a bit unlikely.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone besides Apple could "innovate" something this stupid. This invention reeks of Apple.
This is hilarious. You don't even know what the product is yet (just some rumor with vague reference to features), yet you already have deemed it useless and unworthy of futher inspection. Good constructive behavior.
I think Apple's innovation ranks right up there with Microsoft's
Really?
- QuickTime - ColorSync - AppleScript - iMac - foundation for all modern-day GUIs * - WebObjects - Aqua - Newton
* And I don't want to here the bit about how Xerox "invented the Mac UI." That's a total mythology. Xerox had something running that resembled a cousin of X11. Apple gave Xerox truckloads of stock to use some basic concepts, but made all of it truely usable.
There are 6 valid reasons the PlayStation2 will fail in the US: high price,
We'll see what the price actually ends up being at launch.
no internet connectivity,
Really? What's the modem for, then?
shoddy graphics,
I definitely agree with this. PS2 very well may be a polygon-pushing fool, but where is the anti-aliasing??
a pain to code for
Yup. Apparently somebody from Konami (Metal Gear Solid) was on CNBC not to long ago discussing this very issue.
only 2 controller ports
It has USB, though, so one could probably plug in a controller expansion unit throught there. Purely a guess, though.
I have a Dreamcast, btw, and like it quite a bit. However, if Sony screws things up technologically, I don't know if that means everyone will jump ship for Dreamcast. Sega has to get their marketing act together and raise the userbase immensely in the next 4 months. The Dreamcast is free now, which is great, but WHERE are the TV ADS about this? Hello?
Sony has the advantage of an incredible brand presence and marketing power behind them. PlayStation has been such a consumer electronic phenomenon, that they will sell million of units just by the fact that the thing is called PlayStation 2. Sony also has the advantage of access to tons of third party developers.
Sony is the 800 pound gorilla on the block. Even if PlayStation2 doesn't live up to all the hype, Sega will still have a very tough road ahead. Look at how many people are still content with PlayStation 1, despite its 486-class graphics. The bigger problem is, if neither Sony nor Sega can really own then grow the market signficantly, then Microsoft will just swoop in 18 months from now and buy its way into the pole position.
Slashdot Mirror
It's really good to hear about this project. This is exactly what Mozilla needs -- some focus. I hope to see similar efforts on non-GNOME platforms. I really want to like Mozilla, but for me to seriously consider it as a Mac desktop user, somebody needs to fix it in such a way that it is a reasonable competitor to IE5. This would entail:
1) Reducing total number of files (most good Mac apps only have a few dozen, and can be placed anywhere)
2) Providing a default UI/skin that is a little less arcane/obscured
3) Making the thing stop crashing so much
4) Speeding up launch time -- IE5 launches in a few seconds on my G3. Mozilla takes around 15-20 seconds.
5) Cleaing up the menus and panel layout so it actually resembles a Mac app
Mozilla will probably never match the feature set and polish of IE Mac, but if somebody who knows Mozilla (and has time to do all this) can push it into the realm of reasonably usable, then I would attempt to use it as my primary browser. I might even consider paying for it, if it was good enough -- though I may be in the minority there.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
This is rare right now, but I suspect that we will see a lot more of this happening. As Linux (and to a lesser extent, BSD[*]) grows, we will see much greater acceptance of Linux as an alternative platform at equal or greater standing relative to the Mac.
It's great that Linux is starting to resemble a mainstream OS choice. But let's remember, Linux and Mac are vastly different markets. In particular, there is a large bias in Linux numbers towards servers, and a desktop bias on the Mac side. These gaps will begin to fill in and we may see more overlap as 1) Mac OS X public beta ships in the next several weeks 2) Linux becomes more desktop-friendly.
But for the time being, it is not surprising that something like, say, an IDE would arrive first on Linux, and then later on the Mac. But conversely, it will be some time before Linux users will get the the full attention of graphics app and page layout developers. Either way, having two viable alternative operating systems is certainly better for everyone, particularly if developers support both equally. It sucks when you're forced to use an OS purely because that application you need to use runs on it.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Zend Compiler
The Zend Compiler, to be released later this year, allows code developers to compile their PHP script before distributing it. By saving the code in a closed Zend Intermediate Code format, the compiler allows developers to protect source code from copyright infringement, enabling companies to create exclusive software solutions and commercial PHP applications.
Business-oriented developers who want to enjoy the benefits of PHP scripting, without exposing their source code, will find the Zend Compiler indispensible for all mission critical business applications that must protect the source code from copyright infringement. This product provides copyright and intellectual property protection, opening the way for the widespread acceptance of PHP for business and commercial applications, where protection of proprietary information is of primary concern.
http://www.zend.com/zend/products.ph p#compiler
------
Scott Stevenson
I was at JavaONE and I listed to Steve Jobs pledge (yet again) his "support" and "committment" to making Java awesome on the mac. i'll believe it when i see it. Apple has *never* delievered on this and never will.
It's substanially more practical to make Java "awesome" on Mac OS X (BSD/Unix/Mach) then it is on Mac OS "classic." Making Java work well on the Mac so far has basically been restricted by the OS itself, rather Apple's ability to write a good VM. Mac OS X's infrastructure is superior in every way. Remember, starting in 1997, Apple's core engineering was completely revamped after the NeXT engineers were brought in. Since that time, there have been two primary tasks for Avie Tevanian's software team:
1) Fix Mac OS 8/9 as a stopgap
2) Launch Mac OS X
I would also add that some miraculous feats have been performed to accomplish #1.
Java is a major part of Mac OS X as a whole. Some of the included apps, for example, are written in Java. WebObjects will soon be all Java, and Cocoa (Apple's recommended API set for new, non-ported applications) largerly revolves around the Java language.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
I really don't understand why many people love Apple. ... But the list of negatives is very, very long: inability to update their software with modern necessities (PMT, VM that's not broken, etc). Backstabbing the developers. Backstabbing the clone manufacturers. Incredible arrogance. Price gouging ... Look-and-feel lawsuits. Closed hardware. Closed software. Closed minds.
Clue me in. Why does Apple get all this loyalty? The products are good in a lot of ways, but they're not that good (be honest!). Is it the home of people who just like to be different from the mainstream, and that's the attraction?
I understand your concerns, but I think the confusion lies in the fact that you seem to be forming most of your opinion of Apple based on political/industry actions rather than what the end result is for the person who uses the products.
The basic issue is that Windows and Linux are basically computer-centric operating systems. You are forced to adapt to the computer. The reason Apple has built such loyalty over the years is that it realizes that most computer users are human beings. They like to accomplish tasks quickly, and then move on. 85% of the world's population doesn't care what a kernel is or why one might want to upgrade it. This is particularly true for artists, who want to focus on the art, not the technology. So many people have told me that they like the Mac because it doesn't get in the way of the creative process. This is absolutely crucial to the concept of why Apple is popular with normal people, and creative types. And then there are those that are technically brilliant, but still think computers should be easy and fun to use. These people often become Mac developers.
Additionally, being primarily visual creatures, humans appreciate asethically pleasing elements, such as a well-polished, attractive user interface, and creative approaches to industrial design. This is, of course, more attractive to designers and such. These people don't want to become the next ESR. They just want to accomplish tasks, and possibly play some games. The vast majority of computer owners' lives do not revolve around their computers. There's only a very small segment of the world that cares what database a site is running.
And I know the slashdot masses reject such ideas as blasphemy or just flat out "wrong," which is extremely frustrating. Slashdot was, at some point, a forum for alternative points of ideas to be appreciated. Yet there are still people roaming these forums that truely believe that a person doesn't "deserve" a computer unless they can use text configuration files or write their own code.
Also, as one last note -- the only PowerBook line that ever had signficant problems was the 5300, and that was more than 3 years ago. Aside from that, Apple customers have experienced considerably less hardware issues than the average person with a wintel laptop.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
It's the new trend in business (especially high tech business), your customer is your enemy.
I don't see how Apple taking legal action against a rumor site is a demonstration of this theory. Apple's is primarily trying to keep information private from its competitors. Your theory only makes sense to me if you count the handful of people who run MOSR as the "users."
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
I'm a little unclear on why some people seem to think that if information exists anywhere in the world, it should immediately and infinitely be the property of all citizens of the internet. Apple is working on various prototypes for next generation case designs. Where is it written that everybody who has a web browser has the right to get information on these prototypes?
Specifically, why is it that we are so concerned about individual privacy concerns, but nobody cares about the privacy concerns of organizations? Why is it that Slashdot policitcal correctness sates that Bob has a right to privacy, but not Bob's company?
I can see how the people have a right information about, say, their government, as it does ultimately belong to them. But Apple's not a government. Sure, there are plenty of people with Apple stock, and those people do deserve to know what's going on, and vote on various directions of the company, but you can't give secret information to that group of people without giving it to everyone.
Additionally, let us not forget that these rumor sites sell banner ads. That is, in some cases (probably not all), rumors are posted at least in part for personal gain, at Apple's expense. Think what you will of highly-valued companies (such as the one that owns Slashdot), but the individuals that work at Apple, such as the industrial designers, are passionate, driven people. They deserve some credit. There are few things more frustrating for an artist than a work being shown before it is finished.
I would also point out that Apple frequently gets more attention for their products if they are unexpected. There's nothing unusual or devious about this. There's a natural human appreciation for the elements of surprise.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Why doesnt apple just fucking use standard mice? (we need to be proprietary) FINE! BE PROPRIETARY, but give me a standard PROPRIETARY fucking mouse.
There's nothing proprietary about it. It's a USB mouse. That's it.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
How did a buttonless mouse ever get out of the "is this gonna fly" meeting?...
A hint to Apple: Change for the sake of change is not "innovation".
What meeting? This isn't a product announcement by Apple. It's a story on a rumor site. The "image" is a 3D rendering that supposedly is based on some prototype of some version of a new mouse that someone saw.
You're criticizing something that 1) you haven't used yet and even worse 2) doesn't even exist yet. And if I was a pessimistic person, I would say that you're doing it just because it's something new and different from Apple. Heaven forbid Apple try to move a 20 year old industrial design into the present.
Is the mouse really so perfect that it could never be improved upon from here on out?
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
How many people have just had a guts-full of anti M$ BS? IMHO that Pengiun ad just makes us look lame....
The first part of this message is just flamebait, and I'll take as much anti-MS material as I can get. However, I agree the Penguin ad definitely has issues. Although it may be amusing because everybody just loves the penguin (I actually don't), it's rather ineffective (not to mention a cliche). Using a giant Penguin is an exercise in preaching to the choir. It doesn't really attract a new audience because you have to know something about Linux to get the "joke."
If the Linux is interested in displacing MS for business products and services, there's going to have to be a more effective approach. The suits won't get anything out of such an ad.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
! Microsoft would still primarily write their applications for Windows, and "Windows, Inc." would still strive for compatibility with Microsoft products above everything else
I'm so glad to hear somebody else echo the voice of logic here. People seem to think that the applications group has been secretly waiting for the day that they could port Office to Unix.
Now, if Judge Jackson had made them open the source to Windows
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this was part of the DOJ's plan, and was approved in the ruling. I know I heard this at least once on TV, and somewhere online.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
If Apple ported Mac OS X to Intel, you can kiss their PPC machine sales goodbye. People would install the system on $500 PCs and say to heck with a $1000 iMac in spite of the nice color.
Yes, this is obviously a signficant issue. But perhaps equally important is selling a complete package to the customer. Companies like IBM, Compaq and Dell are somewhat limited as to how much they can improve the user experience for their customers and differentiate themselves from their competitors because at the end of the day, they all still have to ship Windows on most of their machines.
Apple is in a unique situation, as they can (and often do) simultaneously make changes to both the hardware and software to provide additionality functionality for the user. Jobs phrases this as "the complete widget." It's basically something that no other desktop computer company can offer right now.
This position take a bit more dedication as well, because at the end of the day, you are responsible for both the hardware and the software.
Understand that I am not discounting the fact that Apple's primary business is hardware sales, and they sell because of the software, but just saying there are reasons for this type of unification above and beyond the obvious.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
very real psychological hurdle of Technologists who simply do not take Macs seriously
:)
That's very elitist and all, but don't you think people should be given a choice? That is, if people don't really like Windows or Linux for their desktop, does it not seem reasonable that they should be able to choose a Mac, and everything that goes along with it? That is what open source is about in the end, right? Choice?
After years of marketing itself as an OS just fine for idiots
So people that don't spend most of their waking hours in front of a computer screen are idiots? Huh?
My experience is that artists tend to prefer Macs because the technology does not get in the way of the creative process. Whereas with developers, getting involved with the technology is the objective.
After years of retreating into niche markets populated by arrogant graphic artists
Though network administrators are never seen as arrogant, right?
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
I've read numerous comments that have mentioned this is what Sony and all the other console manufacturers should have done from the beginning, but I don't think it's quite that simple. If Sony did licence the PlayStation chipset years ago when it first came out, I don't think the PlayStation market would look nearly the same as it does today. There would be multiple implementation of the PlayStation architecture, all with their own particular advantages and quirks.
One only has to look at the difference between installating Linux x86 and LinuxPPC. My experience has been that the former can potentionally be a real bear, as there are such a wide variety of peripherals, cards, motherboards, CPUs, etc. By contrast, however, LinuxPPC requires virtually zero configuration. It just works.
Now, I realize that many people on slashdot don't really mind configuring hardware and hacking drivers (perhaps actually enjoy it), and I realize that some of these very same people also have a PlayStation and will likely buy a PlayStation2. However, I would bet the farm on the fact that this is not indicative of the majority of Sony's customers.
If you have a bunch of PlayStation2 "distributions" floating around in various forms in consumer electronics, you're eventually going to run into some compatbility issues. This is inevitable. This may be acceptable in the computer world, but it's totally unacceptable in the console world. If a console game doesn't work, people aren't going to go hunting for an update on a web site, they're going to return it to the store.
The whole idea of a console is that you just plug the game in and it runs. The consoles are identical, so that if it works on one PlayStation, it should work on any. Consumers have proven with their wallets that they appreciate this simplicity. It has been provent that there is a place for consoles, and a place for computers, and probably will be for some time. Ignoring this would be a mistake and reduce the level of choice available.
From what I can gather about what Sony is doing, they're actually creating a new computing platform, which may bring with it all the pros and cons of such a move. Maybe there's a way to have the best of both worlds -- somehow simpler devices like DVD players can have multiple vendors and remain completely compatible -- but it remains to be seen if that will hold true for PlayStation2.
Plus, what happens when somebody -- let's say Panasonic-- decides to augment the PlayStation2 chipset with their own 3D hardware, and make that available to developers. You then need that particular version of the PlayStation2 in order to use the game as intended. This is totally contrary to the concept of a console.
Another example is the disaster of the Macintosh clones. As soon as the machines from UMAX, Power Computing and Motorola (the worst by far!) showed up, the Mac OS became much harder to use and configure. Things weren't working because there was all this alien hardware floating around. At the time, this damaged one of the key advantages of the Mac OS -- simplicity.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
I think that this might mean Sony is losing money making the PS2 console
There's no "might" about it. They are definitely losing money on each console sold in Japan. This is nothing new, though. This has been the standard practice for the last ~5 years for console makers.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
No, not out of the box. Both PHP and ASP are compiled to bytecode
ASP maybe, but PHP is not (unless you mean it's recompiled in memory each time the page is requested?). I know there's a PHP4 compiler lurking on the horizon, but I believe its purpose is to encrypt the code prior to distribution rather than to speed things up.
JSP is syntactically ugly. Both ASP and PHP have an advantage there.
I would tend to agree PHP has the edge here, but have looked at very little ASP code.
JSP is nowhere as widely used as either PHP or ASP. The 1.0 and 1.1 implementation where so very different, forcing people to port stuff over. I.e. there's a much larger libary of ready-made code for either ASP or PHP over JSP
My feeling is that JSP will rapidly overtake PHP in terms of activity of developer community, because 1) it is from Sun 2) based on Java. Sun has much more influence than the PHP team. I also suspect JSP will grow quite rapidly in the next year. Not that I
nifty shortcuts to make code easier to develop and read (e.g: variables within strings, automatic conversion between strings and numbers, etc, etc).
Amen to that.
that half-baked technology Sun came up with to be in the server-side-scripting market (i.e JSP)
Like I said, I think JSP is going back in the oven for a bit.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
But one certainly wonders why move to pike when there's perl and python. What can one do in pike that one can't do in perl or python ?
:)
Thanks for proving my point.
I think we too quickly dismiss looking into Perl alternatives because people seem to feel that Perl is "good enough."
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Maybe Pike is amusing, but next to a language like Perl, is it really needed?
If we can accept the fact that Perl is not perfect, and take the time to understand what it is that people don't like about Perl, and do like about other languages, then everyone -- especially the Perl developer community -- will be much better off. Just thoughtlessly claiming that Perl is the best language there is or ever will be is totally counterproductive (though a great way to waste a Saturday).
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
I'm no expert, but these are the advantages as I undertand them:
1. Multiple JSP implementations are available from multiple vendors. Many of which are free (You either have to buy NT, or software from Chilisoft to use ASP).
2. JSP functionality can be stored in JavaBeans
3. JSPs can be deployed on virtually any platform in existence. And while ASPs can be deployed to environments other than Windows, ActiveX library support cannot. Therefore, if NT/W2K runs out of juice (witness Toys R Us), you can't move up to Solaris or AIX.
4. JSPs are compiled into servlets for faster execution (does ASP do this?)
5. JSP engine can run on a different machine than the webserver
For more information, check out The JSP FAQ.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Now, OTOH Java *servlets* (not JSP) rock! Session management, persistent objects, the ability to leverage Java's impressive APIs; it's the answer to any serious enterprise-level solution.
Hmmmm. From what I understand, JSPs are a superset of servlet functionality. JSPs, in fact, get converted into servlets before being executed. You should be able to insert any valid Java servlet code you like into an JSP page.
Maybe you were using something that only conformed to the JSP 1.0 spec? You should be working with JSP 1.1 at least. There are dozens of vendors with different implementations, which is a key advantage over ASP, BTW.
PHP4 is supposed to be able to manipulate Java objects *directly* (it's in the spec but I haven't used it). If that works, you can now throw away JSP, put all your middleware logic in Java beans and servlets and use PHP to do the string-parsing and HTML pushing...
What you describe is the entire idea behind JSP. I love PHP, but the idea that PHP will provide better connectivity to Java then JSP (which is Java), seems a bit unlikely.
BTW: I love PHP. Great platform.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
And then there's this, from the article: "It's not just another wireless, optical mouse. It's done by Apple, so it's impressive."
I believe this is meant as:
"Apple tends to spend a bit more time on design and user experience than others, so that will likely be reflected in the product"
rather than:
"APPLE STUFF RULEZ D00D!"
See the difference?
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone besides Apple could "innovate" something this stupid. This invention reeks of Apple.
This is hilarious. You don't even know what the product is yet (just some rumor with vague reference to features), yet you already have deemed it useless and unworthy of futher inspection. Good constructive behavior.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
I think Apple's innovation ranks right up there with Microsoft's
Really?
- QuickTime
- ColorSync
- AppleScript
- iMac
- foundation for all modern-day GUIs *
- WebObjects
- Aqua
- Newton
* And I don't want to here the bit about how Xerox "invented the Mac UI." That's a total mythology. Xerox had something running that resembled a cousin of X11. Apple gave Xerox truckloads of stock to use some basic concepts, but made all of it truely usable.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
There are 6 valid reasons the PlayStation2 will fail in the US: high price,
We'll see what the price actually ends up being at launch.
no internet connectivity,
Really? What's the modem for, then?
shoddy graphics,
I definitely agree with this. PS2 very well may be a polygon-pushing fool, but where is the anti-aliasing??
a pain to code for
Yup. Apparently somebody from Konami (Metal Gear Solid) was on CNBC not to long ago discussing this very issue.
only 2 controller ports
It has USB, though, so one could probably plug in a controller expansion unit throught there. Purely a guess, though.
I have a Dreamcast, btw, and like it quite a bit. However, if Sony screws things up technologically, I don't know if that means everyone will jump ship for Dreamcast. Sega has to get their marketing act together and raise the userbase immensely in the next 4 months. The Dreamcast is free now, which is great, but WHERE are the TV ADS about this? Hello?
Sony has the advantage of an incredible brand presence and marketing power behind them. PlayStation has been such a consumer electronic phenomenon, that they will sell million of units just by the fact that the thing is called PlayStation 2. Sony also has the advantage of access to tons of third party developers.
Sony is the 800 pound gorilla on the block. Even if PlayStation2 doesn't live up to all the hype, Sega will still have a very tough road ahead. Look at how many people are still content with PlayStation 1, despite its 486-class graphics. The bigger problem is, if neither Sony nor Sega can really own then grow the market signficantly, then Microsoft will just swoop in 18 months from now and buy its way into the pole position.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
The X-Box isn't even scheduled to ship Q3 or Q4 in 2001, right? Is this classic MS vaporware?
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson