What's wrong with 'clone'? If you were using git direct, git clone is how you would start a new git repo for shared use too. It's probable that the 'fork' even has an 'origin' remote, or at least something equivalent since github has all those functions to do things like open pull request and it knows the 'upstream' to operate against.
Actually, in this particular case, when something like this happens with a traditional project, the users are generally totally oblivious. This isn't lack of technical advancement or relevance, it's about 'code of conduct' sorts of things. Occasionally a company will spill out, but it's generally more about the company than products of the company.
Also the above wasn't a rip on open source, but an insinuation about NodeJS specifically, which at least some view as overhyped and will indulge in any excuse for schadenfreude at the expense of NodeJS as a reaction to that hype.
On this particular point, I think I can be sympathetic. He's talking to the media and wanting this consumed by people who are likely to hear 'two atmospheres? that's crazy there's no atmosphere in space, is he an idiot?'.
Meanwhile, the people who know that to be inappropriate phrasing quickly knew what he was trying to say.
I'm skeptical that *any* space suit is a part of a mass market space travel future.. So long as there is a risk of decompression severe enough to warrant the precaution of wearing a spacesuit, I don't see it as being a 'common occurance'.
I'll agree that allowing by the application doesn't make sense, and the thing that really makes sense is the same pattern seen in dnf/yum/apt: You add trusted repositories.
Trusting the package signatures is a challenge as an exploitable package might have a valid signature and the mechanism to mitigate damage is generally to remove it from the repositories from spreading, rather than some impractical package signature revocation process.
Or conversely, you can develop the webapp and not try to pretend it's a native executable because a webapp in an exe isn't really distinct from a webapp in a browser, but it is a fair amount more maintenance work to bother.
If you want a desktop app specifically, design in a way that delivers something of value over hosting it in the users web browser. Getting an 'application' that is just a webpage in an exe file seems like the developer is being patronizing toward 'luddite' users that want to hold on to their applications instead of using the obviously superior webapps they should be using. It's annoying because you want a decent efficient well designed application and they slap a web page at you and consider the matter settled.
Using a cross-platform framework does not save you from having to make some effort to support other platforms, whether it's C++ or Java or electron. For example, you have changes like this in Atom that are having to support specific platforms: https://github.com/atom/atom/c...
So the statement that electron saves you from having to make any effort to support other platforms is just wrong. We went through all of this when Java appeared on the scene, with the 'develop once run anywhere' and subsequent attempts at that vision have not fared that much better.
Sure with C++ you have to bother to build for each supported platform, but there do exist cross-platform APIs to target that are approximately the same amount of work to create and support as Electron and Java, which is not zero for any 'magic bullet' people want to claim...
The issue being if you have to develop a web app, then what are you trying to accomplish with the 'stand alone' app?
If you just port the webapp to an executable package, why even bother? For example, as I said in mattermost, why bother with the app when the webapp is *the exact same thing*.
If you are writing something that won't really work as a browser app because it's doing something like manipulating your own files (e.g. atom), then it's never going to be a webapp, so why pretend it is?
So far my experience has been atom and mattermost desktop.
For atom, everyone was swearing*so hard* about how good an editor it is, and it's frankly not that good, a resource hog, and just generally a bit glitchy around the edges. Slow to start. Sure it's 'extensible', but the extensions have thus far for me been extremely ill-fitting and low quality. It reminds me of the 'plugin' fad of the late 90s/early 2000s when a lot of applications pretended to be incredibly extensible but really it was just providing clunky entry points to pretty much standalone apps.
For mattermost, it was basically loading the web gui in an app.... no value over the 'normal' web gui. For atom at least you have the excuse you are dealing with offline material so a 'normal' browser hosted approach doesn't fit, but in mattermost you are connecting to a server anyway. I might have found other reasons to be dissatisfied, but the complete lack of benefit over the browser version just made my interest evaporate.
I don't understand the fascination with using the web development trappings when you don't have to. It's one of the most tedious approaches to application development.
As an owner of the Pre (who actually did go begrudingly to Sprint), I'll agree, though WebOS at least was more robust UI and multitasking wise compared to Android and Apple, though frustratingly enough Palm was too invested in javascript+html only app, and only later added native app support (which was kind of neat in a way since it was SDL and very familiar to a Linux game developer, but only neat to Linux game developers really...)
And yes, the concept when they announced WebOS promised seamless capability that wouldn't appear for years in reality, and if they had pulled that off, that would have been neat.
I'm skeptical there was room for another monolithic vendor, though. Apple certainly is that, but I think that is the good fortune of being peerless when launch. If iPhone launched 2 years later, I suspect even Apple wouldn't have broken into the market.
I would say the vast majority of the iPhone users don't really think about any desktop at all. Sure there are people who swear by it, just as there are people who wouldn't even think about using Android without adb or similar, but the market is dominated by that...
Well, guess I should be more specific, most mobile users don't care *that* much about being able to do sophisticated things with it, or fret much about how much data is the same/different on their handheld versus their desktop.
They probably think even trying to do WebOS at all was a bad idea, and might have been right, it might have been too late (Android and iPhone pretty much had gotten entrenched and no one has been able to displace it.
Basically that was Hurd's ambition not even getting a chance to try to be realized. He had a significant interest in revamping HP's consumer products, including having a complete mobile platform, but Apotheker didn't care about consumer, and especially not mobile, so it rotted on the vine.
I'm skeptical that it would have worked out, but the timing with Apotheker meant there wasn't even a sincere attempt.
My opinion, people don't care *that* much about their mobile platform to care so much about desktop usage or integration.
I don't use iOS, so I don't know if the default search engine is readily changed, however...
Windows defaults to Bing and Edge. No one cares about the defaults and quickly changes it over to something else because it's trivial to do. Google does not pay MS probably due to some combination of: 1) MS won't do it for any price because they want Bing to suceed 2) Google already *knows* how ineffective having the default in Windows seems to be from evidence, so it's not worth much
With iOS, it's a big unknown. Google is not sure how much the loyalty to search engine will carry over in a mobile device where the search engine branding is somewhat mitigated and in general settings are a bit more tucked out of the way than desktop. Apple doesn't even pretend to have a horse in the race of search (yet), so they are perfectly willing to sell their default to the highest bidder for now.
The answer is going to be pretty similar on all counts.
In general, the browser implementations have some pretty established things you can do from javascript, and those rule the reality. So in general:
1. NNTP: The binary and text being mixed together was weird. Either way, a standardized API accessible over https could fill this role. In fact I wonder about the popular board implementations and they likely have APIs. Or else they get disabled because advertising is easier to inject into web pages. 2. Could do something with the likes of mattermost. 3. Not really a network protocol... 4. They have multpiple CAs, but no ability to require multiple.. 5. Those were the days... Haven't had to print anything in soooo long though...
It does seem excessive, and there's probably a story behind that... Probably not quite right or missing something...
But generally speaking, reducing the number of students on the buses by 1/3 would probably not amount to 1/3 cost savings.
For example, if a school bus cost $70k and it is carrying 70 students, that bus does not cost $10k if you get 60 students to stop riding. Same goes for a lot of the expense and capital costs associated with running that transportation, I would think.
Mainly that Foxconn has a history of bailing out and it's highly likely they will bail if not before even starting, not too long down the road. Also, even if not bailing out, it means robots in here instead of overseas. Getting all excited about this as the glorious return of mfg to the US is crazy,
But people act like tax breaks are giving them money, rather than electing not to take as much money. So the claim about 'breaking even' really only applies if there was some other company was going to spend 10 billion dollars, pay the full tax rate, *and* were somehow unwilling or unable to do so because of the Foxconn deal.
I don't know what the ultimate tax bill is, but let's say it's 100 million dollars to have something to speak to. The government could have had 1% of 10 billion, or 30% of 0 dollars. It's doubtful that such a plant would represent 3 billion dollars of govermnent spend burden (e.g. lots of new roads or such). It's more likely that $10 billion is just well in excess of usual spend, so a 30%+ rrepresents better the increased government costs for smaller investments and it doesn't scale up linearly.
I've had my comments frequently interrupted and my ideas ignored until they were rephrased by
While this may be sexism at work and there certainly is sexism in the field, pretty much everyone experiences having their thoughts interrupted and ignored until rephrased by someone else, with someone else getting the credit for those thoughts.
Slashdot Mirror
What's wrong with 'clone'? If you were using git direct, git clone is how you would start a new git repo for shared use too. It's probable that the 'fork' even has an 'origin' remote, or at least something equivalent since github has all those functions to do things like open pull request and it knows the 'upstream' to operate against.
A fork carries the connotation that you are diverging on an ongoing basis.
A github fork is 99% of the time making a copy to facilitate pull requests, and nothing more.
Stems from github using the word 'fork' for 'clone'. It's a really unfortunate and confusing word choice that has nothing to do with git's vocabulary.
Actually, in this particular case, when something like this happens with a traditional project, the users are generally totally oblivious. This isn't lack of technical advancement or relevance, it's about 'code of conduct' sorts of things. Occasionally a company will spill out, but it's generally more about the company than products of the company.
Also the above wasn't a rip on open source, but an insinuation about NodeJS specifically, which at least some view as overhyped and will indulge in any excuse for schadenfreude at the expense of NodeJS as a reaction to that hype.
On this particular point, I think I can be sympathetic. He's talking to the media and wanting this consumed by people who are likely to hear 'two atmospheres? that's crazy there's no atmosphere in space, is he an idiot?'.
Meanwhile, the people who know that to be inappropriate phrasing quickly knew what he was trying to say.
I'm skeptical that *any* space suit is a part of a mass market space travel future.. So long as there is a risk of decompression severe enough to warrant the precaution of wearing a spacesuit, I don't see it as being a 'common occurance'.
I'll agree that allowing by the application doesn't make sense, and the thing that really makes sense is the same pattern seen in dnf/yum/apt: You add trusted repositories.
Trusting the package signatures is a challenge as an exploitable package might have a valid signature and the mechanism to mitigate damage is generally to remove it from the repositories from spreading, rather than some impractical package signature revocation process.
The do what you love and money will follow is pretty much:
https://xkcd.com/1827/
I will say I have been fortunate in this regard personally, but statistically speaking, doing what you love will leave you broke.
Or conversely, you can develop the webapp and not try to pretend it's a native executable because a webapp in an exe isn't really distinct from a webapp in a browser, but it is a fair amount more maintenance work to bother.
If you want a desktop app specifically, design in a way that delivers something of value over hosting it in the users web browser. Getting an 'application' that is just a webpage in an exe file seems like the developer is being patronizing toward 'luddite' users that want to hold on to their applications instead of using the obviously superior webapps they should be using. It's annoying because you want a decent efficient well designed application and they slap a web page at you and consider the matter settled.
Using a cross-platform framework does not save you from having to make some effort to support other platforms, whether it's C++ or Java or electron. For example, you have changes like this in Atom that are having to support specific platforms:
https://github.com/atom/atom/c...
And you have platform specific issues still:
https://github.com/atom/atom/i...
https://github.com/atom/atom/i...
https://github.com/atom/atom/i...
So the statement that electron saves you from having to make any effort to support other platforms is just wrong. We went through all of this when Java appeared on the scene, with the 'develop once run anywhere' and subsequent attempts at that vision have not fared that much better.
Sure with C++ you have to bother to build for each supported platform, but there do exist cross-platform APIs to target that are approximately the same amount of work to create and support as Electron and Java, which is not zero for any 'magic bullet' people want to claim...
The issue being if you have to develop a web app, then what are you trying to accomplish with the 'stand alone' app?
If you just port the webapp to an executable package, why even bother? For example, as I said in mattermost, why bother with the app when the webapp is *the exact same thing*.
If you are writing something that won't really work as a browser app because it's doing something like manipulating your own files (e.g. atom), then it's never going to be a webapp, so why pretend it is?
So far my experience has been atom and mattermost desktop.
For atom, everyone was swearing*so hard* about how good an editor it is, and it's frankly not that good, a resource hog, and just generally a bit glitchy around the edges. Slow to start. Sure it's 'extensible', but the extensions have thus far for me been extremely ill-fitting and low quality. It reminds me of the 'plugin' fad of the late 90s/early 2000s when a lot of applications pretended to be incredibly extensible but really it was just providing clunky entry points to pretty much standalone apps.
For mattermost, it was basically loading the web gui in an app.... no value over the 'normal' web gui. For atom at least you have the excuse you are dealing with offline material so a 'normal' browser hosted approach doesn't fit, but in mattermost you are connecting to a server anyway. I might have found other reasons to be dissatisfied, but the complete lack of benefit over the browser version just made my interest evaporate.
I don't understand the fascination with using the web development trappings when you don't have to. It's one of the most tedious approaches to application development.
As an owner of the Pre (who actually did go begrudingly to Sprint), I'll agree, though WebOS at least was more robust UI and multitasking wise compared to Android and Apple, though frustratingly enough Palm was too invested in javascript+html only app, and only later added native app support (which was kind of neat in a way since it was SDL and very familiar to a Linux game developer, but only neat to Linux game developers really...)
And yes, the concept when they announced WebOS promised seamless capability that wouldn't appear for years in reality, and if they had pulled that off, that would have been neat.
I'm skeptical there was room for another monolithic vendor, though. Apple certainly is that, but I think that is the good fortune of being peerless when launch. If iPhone launched 2 years later, I suspect even Apple wouldn't have broken into the market.
I would say the vast majority of the iPhone users don't really think about any desktop at all. Sure there are people who swear by it, just as there are people who wouldn't even think about using Android without adb or similar, but the market is dominated by that...
Well, guess I should be more specific, most mobile users don't care *that* much about being able to do sophisticated things with it, or fret much about how much data is the same/different on their handheld versus their desktop.
They probably think even trying to do WebOS at all was a bad idea, and might have been right, it might have been too late (Android and iPhone pretty much had gotten entrenched and no one has been able to displace it.
Basically that was Hurd's ambition not even getting a chance to try to be realized. He had a significant interest in revamping HP's consumer products, including having a complete mobile platform, but Apotheker didn't care about consumer, and especially not mobile, so it rotted on the vine.
I'm skeptical that it would have worked out, but the timing with Apotheker meant there wasn't even a sincere attempt.
My opinion, people don't care *that* much about their mobile platform to care so much about desktop usage or integration.
Your proposal: $3B in ad revenue - $3B in development, hosting and indexing = $0 profit.
Well, actually, that shouldn't be the case.
Presumably there's more revenue than that, else Google probably wouldn't do it.
I don't use iOS, so I don't know if the default search engine is readily changed, however...
Windows defaults to Bing and Edge. No one cares about the defaults and quickly changes it over to something else because it's trivial to do. Google does not pay MS probably due to some combination of:
1) MS won't do it for any price because they want Bing to suceed
2) Google already *knows* how ineffective having the default in Windows seems to be from evidence, so it's not worth much
With iOS, it's a big unknown. Google is not sure how much the loyalty to search engine will carry over in a mobile device where the search engine branding is somewhat mitigated and in general settings are a bit more tucked out of the way than desktop. Apple doesn't even pretend to have a horse in the race of search (yet), so they are perfectly willing to sell their default to the highest bidder for now.
Now, why are both my hands in the air again?
Like you just don't care?
I don't want to know how you are typing with both your hands in the air.
The answer is going to be pretty similar on all counts.
In general, the browser implementations have some pretty established things you can do from javascript, and those rule the reality. So in general:
1. NNTP: The binary and text being mixed together was weird. Either way, a standardized API accessible over https could fill this role. In fact I wonder about the popular board implementations and they likely have APIs. Or else they get disabled because advertising is easier to inject into web pages.
2. Could do something with the likes of mattermost.
3. Not really a network protocol...
4. They have multpiple CAs, but no ability to require multiple..
5. Those were the days... Haven't had to print anything in soooo long though...
It does seem excessive, and there's probably a story behind that... Probably not quite right or missing something...
But generally speaking, reducing the number of students on the buses by 1/3 would probably not amount to 1/3 cost savings.
For example, if a school bus cost $70k and it is carrying 70 students, that bus does not cost $10k if you get 60 students to stop riding. Same goes for a lot of the expense and capital costs associated with running that transportation, I would think.
Mainly that Foxconn has a history of bailing out and it's highly likely they will bail if not before even starting, not too long down the road. Also, even if not bailing out, it means robots in here instead of overseas. Getting all excited about this as the glorious return of mfg to the US is crazy,
But people act like tax breaks are giving them money, rather than electing not to take as much money. So the claim about 'breaking even' really only applies if there was some other company was going to spend 10 billion dollars, pay the full tax rate, *and* were somehow unwilling or unable to do so because of the Foxconn deal.
I don't know what the ultimate tax bill is, but let's say it's 100 million dollars to have something to speak to. The government could have had 1% of 10 billion, or 30% of 0 dollars. It's doubtful that such a plant would represent 3 billion dollars of govermnent spend burden (e.g. lots of new roads or such). It's more likely that $10 billion is just well in excess of usual spend, so a 30%+ rrepresents better the increased government costs for smaller investments and it doesn't scale up linearly.
It said 'later on stage', so they might have learned after the fact and decided to fight then.
Of course, it's hard to imagine they would be completely oblivious to what was likely a controversial discussion...
Well, at least around here, if I give them two weeks notice, then I'll give them two weeks of my time.
If they lay me off, they will give me 6 months of pay.
I don't mind being kicked out of the building, I care about my pay.
I've had my comments frequently interrupted and my ideas ignored until they were rephrased by
While this may be sexism at work and there certainly is sexism in the field, pretty much everyone experiences having their thoughts interrupted and ignored until rephrased by someone else, with someone else getting the credit for those thoughts.