Re:this situation was created by Microsoft
on
Google Wave Reviewed
·
· Score: 1, Funny
You actually believe that slow, clunky JavaScript apps are somehow less "broken" than Windows? JavaScript apps don't even have a standard GUI. We've reverted to the MS-DOS days where every app has to roll its own stuff.
You touched on my biggest reason for not buying into the hype about web applications. People are desperate to create another layer in the system via the web browser, encouraging developers to venture forth into a GUI-less world like the MS-DOS days where everyone must develop UI toolkits and other APIs from scratch, even though there are desktop APIs developed 20 years ago that were already written to do this stuff.
If the internet is supposed to be an app platform, why not develop a remote app delivery protocol for running native applications? Why rely on a web browser, which was first developed to view static, magazine-like pages that have links to other pages? That gets you thinking about other things that were supposed to deliver cross-platform remote apps in the past, like Java. But it didn't take over.
Microsoft has actually addressed this before. Many applications pay attention to the major version number and refuse to work if they don't get something they recognize, so to retain compatibility, they bump the minor version. They did the same with Windows XP. This is the reason they gave in developer blogs, anyway.
I agree. It was pretty annoying to see the author of the piece try to shoehorn the story into an open source angle multiple times. You could tell the interviewer asked, "Would you consider it open source?" and the guys responded, "Well, in the sense that the source was accessible to the other NASA engineers, sure..."
This site is full of double standards. This is the same website that is against copyrights when it comes to piracy because it gets them stuff for free, but for copyrights when it comes to a GPL violation because the GPL gets them stuff for free. Whichever is the self-serving position is the one that's adopted.
You're an idiot. Study after study proves that the media leans left and selectively bashes Christians. I'm agnostic, and even I notice it. Just because they're a majority doesn't mean the media doesn't persecute them. It's because they're a majority that the media thinks it's okay.
You guys are all about bashing copyright law......except in a GPL article. The FSF website specifically states that the GPL "assures the copyright of the software" and protects the rights of the author. Without copyright, the GPL has no power, and people can do whatever they want with your open source code, including sell it as a closed source product.
No, the reality about Slashdot's position about copyright law is that it's derived from the desire for piracy. People have adopted an anti-copyright position to make themselves feel better about using PirateBay. For crying out loud, Slashdot posted a hypothetical argument a while back claiming piracy was good and that content creators would make up the difference through "concerts and speaking tours." To expect someone like John Carmack to tour the country in a speaking tour rather than develop software--which is what he wants to do for a living--is proof that Slashdot's positions on copyright are completely self-serving.
You're against copyright when it serves you (piracy). You're for it when it serves you (the GPL).
I think it's very likely that Chrome OS will replace Windows for most non-geek consumers -- and because it's going to be open source, a lot of geeks will probably adopt it
Wow. That's a hefty prediction.
Google Chrome OS exists just to run the Chrome browser. Google even says its apps will run in any standards-compliant browser. Windows PCs, Ubuntu netbooks, and Macs can already run the Chrome browser, as well as Photoshop, MSN Messenger, The Sims, and so on. So why would you run Google OS for any reason?
As for geeks, they're paranoid about corporate branding, so do you really think all the Slashdotters are going to run a Google OS to run a Google browser and check their Google mail, type documents in Google Docs, edit photos in Google Picasa, etc.? And they won't even have access to other Linux apps, including X11?
To be honest, I think Google OS will be very niche.
Most Nintendo games are full of cartoon humor, Team Fortress 2's visual style is hilarious, Blizzard games are full of tongue-in-cheek jokes and silliness, the Grand Theft Auto series is full of adult humor...I don't feel like there's a lack of humor in gaming, and I don't think there was a lower number of more serious games in the past, from Quake to Phantasmagoria.
The web isn't what it used to be. The days when the web was mostly a collection of static pages are long gone. The web is dynamic, interactive, and user-driven. The web is email, ftp, live video, instant messaging, word processing, photo galleries, forums, flash, games, television... You get the idea.
Ftp, forums, and photo galleries count as static content and have been around for over a decade on the web. The rest is all that you'll really get with web apps--videos, some basic text chatting, and Flash games which don't really count. The web is a platform that is just now getting a video tag, for crying out loud.
The most ridiculous part of the web app movement is that we have operating systems with standard APIs, yet web app developers think the whole world should abandon that for a platform that has no standard APIs where you have to re-implement every UI from scratch on every website. It's like going back to the DOS era. It's cute that some people think it's so amazing to have an inbox that updates in real-time when we've had that for decades in native e-mail clients. So what did we gain? A removal of privacy and an inability to browse offline because our email is stored on someone else's server. Congrats.
There are some "web apps" that don't even make sense. Quake Live plays through a browser, but you have to run a plugin installer anyway, so why not just make it a native app instead of forcing it to rely on a non-related application? The web is extremely limited as an application platform and a victim of hype. It's like the people who insisted that online music rental services were going to beat iTunes--at some point, people want to own something that can be used offline on their local machines. Not everyone wants to be tied to "the cloud" (ugh, another ridiculous media buzzword).
This whole story boils down to a plane engineer fixing a plane. Why is it news? So that the BBC News can trick people with a headline that says "Passenger fixes plane" without giving away that the passenger is actually a licensed plane engineer whose company even does work for that airline?
So don't buy an iPhone. I'm tired of Slashdotters purchasing a product and then whining that they're "forced" to use some aspect of it. Nobody's forcing you to do anything.
This is Slashdot, where content creators have ZERO rights, and copyright law is evil...except, of course, when it comes to the GPL. When it comes to the GPL, content creator rights suddenly matter, and copyrights are something to be enforced. The FSF says right on its page that the GPL "assures the copyright of the software," so Slashdot invents a double-standard where they're anti-copyrights and pro-piracy in one case and pro-copyright and anti-piracy in another.
Basically, people choose the self-serving position every time and don't want to lose any free ride. It's kind of sad.
By your own logic, Ogg Theora shouldn't have been required by the spec. The article summary conveniently leaves out Google's concern about Theora, which was that it wouldn't meet the quality-per-bandwidth requirements of YouTube when compared to H.264.
Slashdot Mirror
You actually believe that slow, clunky JavaScript apps are somehow less "broken" than Windows? JavaScript apps don't even have a standard GUI. We've reverted to the MS-DOS days where every app has to roll its own stuff.
Oh, please. No offense, but this is goofy marketing hype.
You touched on my biggest reason for not buying into the hype about web applications. People are desperate to create another layer in the system via the web browser, encouraging developers to venture forth into a GUI-less world like the MS-DOS days where everyone must develop UI toolkits and other APIs from scratch, even though there are desktop APIs developed 20 years ago that were already written to do this stuff.
If the internet is supposed to be an app platform, why not develop a remote app delivery protocol for running native applications? Why rely on a web browser, which was first developed to view static, magazine-like pages that have links to other pages? That gets you thinking about other things that were supposed to deliver cross-platform remote apps in the past, like Java. But it didn't take over.
Microsoft has actually addressed this before. Many applications pay attention to the major version number and refuse to work if they don't get something they recognize, so to retain compatibility, they bump the minor version. They did the same with Windows XP. This is the reason they gave in developer blogs, anyway.
I agree. It was pretty annoying to see the author of the piece try to shoehorn the story into an open source angle multiple times. You could tell the interviewer asked, "Would you consider it open source?" and the guys responded, "Well, in the sense that the source was accessible to the other NASA engineers, sure..."
"The GPL assures the copyright of the software." - FSF website
Jesus Christ, it was a fucking joke. And yes, my use of that phrase was intentional.
...even though the global temperature record hasn't risen since 1998. When is this hoax going to end?
This site is full of double standards. This is the same website that is against copyrights when it comes to piracy because it gets them stuff for free, but for copyrights when it comes to a GPL violation because the GPL gets them stuff for free. Whichever is the self-serving position is the one that's adopted.
You're an idiot. Study after study proves that the media leans left and selectively bashes Christians. I'm agnostic, and even I notice it. Just because they're a majority doesn't mean the media doesn't persecute them. It's because they're a majority that the media thinks it's okay.
Obviously, it is technically wrong since we're now reading a story about a null pointer exploit in the kernel...
You guys are all about bashing copyright law... ...except in a GPL article. The FSF website specifically states that the GPL "assures the copyright of the software" and protects the rights of the author. Without copyright, the GPL has no power, and people can do whatever they want with your open source code, including sell it as a closed source product.
No, the reality about Slashdot's position about copyright law is that it's derived from the desire for piracy. People have adopted an anti-copyright position to make themselves feel better about using PirateBay. For crying out loud, Slashdot posted a hypothetical argument a while back claiming piracy was good and that content creators would make up the difference through "concerts and speaking tours." To expect someone like John Carmack to tour the country in a speaking tour rather than develop software--which is what he wants to do for a living--is proof that Slashdot's positions on copyright are completely self-serving.
You're against copyright when it serves you (piracy). You're for it when it serves you (the GPL).
Wow. That's a hefty prediction.
Google Chrome OS exists just to run the Chrome browser. Google even says its apps will run in any standards-compliant browser. Windows PCs, Ubuntu netbooks, and Macs can already run the Chrome browser, as well as Photoshop, MSN Messenger, The Sims, and so on. So why would you run Google OS for any reason?
As for geeks, they're paranoid about corporate branding, so do you really think all the Slashdotters are going to run a Google OS to run a Google browser and check their Google mail, type documents in Google Docs, edit photos in Google Picasa, etc.? And they won't even have access to other Linux apps, including X11?
To be honest, I think Google OS will be very niche.
Incomplete Emerald Dream maps in current data files.
Oh, well screw my opinion then.
Most Nintendo games are full of cartoon humor, Team Fortress 2's visual style is hilarious, Blizzard games are full of tongue-in-cheek jokes and silliness, the Grand Theft Auto series is full of adult humor...I don't feel like there's a lack of humor in gaming, and I don't think there was a lower number of more serious games in the past, from Quake to Phantasmagoria.
Neat, but it would have been even cooler to see WebKit ported to MacOS 9. I'm not keen on the idea of Mozilla's performance on the classic MacOS.
Nothing the editor said was "related" to the story. You should look the word up sometime.
Quiet, you member of the 60000+ club.
Ftp, forums, and photo galleries count as static content and have been around for over a decade on the web. The rest is all that you'll really get with web apps--videos, some basic text chatting, and Flash games which don't really count. The web is a platform that is just now getting a video tag, for crying out loud.
The most ridiculous part of the web app movement is that we have operating systems with standard APIs, yet web app developers think the whole world should abandon that for a platform that has no standard APIs where you have to re-implement every UI from scratch on every website. It's like going back to the DOS era. It's cute that some people think it's so amazing to have an inbox that updates in real-time when we've had that for decades in native e-mail clients. So what did we gain? A removal of privacy and an inability to browse offline because our email is stored on someone else's server. Congrats.
There are some "web apps" that don't even make sense. Quake Live plays through a browser, but you have to run a plugin installer anyway, so why not just make it a native app instead of forcing it to rely on a non-related application? The web is extremely limited as an application platform and a victim of hype. It's like the people who insisted that online music rental services were going to beat iTunes--at some point, people want to own something that can be used offline on their local machines. Not everyone wants to be tied to "the cloud" (ugh, another ridiculous media buzzword).
How on Earth is it a sign of that?
This whole story boils down to a plane engineer fixing a plane. Why is it news? So that the BBC News can trick people with a headline that says "Passenger fixes plane" without giving away that the passenger is actually a licensed plane engineer whose company even does work for that airline?
So don't buy an iPhone. I'm tired of Slashdotters purchasing a product and then whining that they're "forced" to use some aspect of it. Nobody's forcing you to do anything.
This is Slashdot, where content creators have ZERO rights, and copyright law is evil...except, of course, when it comes to the GPL. When it comes to the GPL, content creator rights suddenly matter, and copyrights are something to be enforced. The FSF says right on its page that the GPL "assures the copyright of the software," so Slashdot invents a double-standard where they're anti-copyrights and pro-piracy in one case and pro-copyright and anti-piracy in another.
Basically, people choose the self-serving position every time and don't want to lose any free ride. It's kind of sad.
By your own logic, Ogg Theora shouldn't have been required by the spec. The article summary conveniently leaves out Google's concern about Theora, which was that it wouldn't meet the quality-per-bandwidth requirements of YouTube when compared to H.264.