It's funny how many people are still walking around with DotCom braindamage... "Gee, this company created this cool internet service just for the helluvit and has no plan for making money off me using it"... Well, Google knows how to make money, a lot of it.
Also, is it really feasible that Google would even want to maintain a SAN Array capable of storing EVERY document for EVERY user of this thing?
If they could "monitize" your ass for 50 cents worth of disk space, why not? It would only take one AdSense clickthrough to make a profit of the endeavor.
Yeah it's not like Palm has anything in common with Apple (sarcasm). Most people who think Apple/SGI "makes sense" haven't been paying any attention whatsoever to SGI over the last 10 years or so.
I think it's clear that Mozilla was saddled by bad product management at AOL/Netscape... which lead to things like ugly skins, a mailer nobody wanted, and a bloated design with huge startup times.
While Firefox was a smart way to 'reboot' the product, I think a most of credit for Mozilla's turnaround goes to Moore's Law.
OK then, how do you explain XUL's lack of popularity? If there's a non-browser, non-mozilla XUL app out there, I haven't heard of it.
The only rational explaination that I've heard was from a XUL developer on a Mozilla list who said basically "You broke my app again, and this time I'm not going to fix it." You want others to adopt XUL, but I'm not sure that mozilla wants others to adopt XUL either.
Java and Flash might not be ideal, but they sure are established, and provide well-known targets for your applications.
There's nothing special about a Vista PC versus a "DIY" one -- the certified machines from HP etc will be basically identical to those you can buy from the local clone store. It's all the same motherboards and video hardware -- Joe hacker can't build a HD capture device, and he can't build a PC motherboard either.
The question is if CableCARD will try to limit the market by insist only certifying major OEM machines, or will they do the rational thing by granting a blanket certification to popular motherboard chipsets.
People can't seem to write a XUL application that doesn't break when there's a new Mozilla release, so it's doesn't seem like much of a standard.
Except for things specifically designed to be brower extentions, it would seem like XUL is a near total failure as a development toolkit. No wonder because "rich cross-browser apps" have been possible in both Java and Flash for some time.
I never said made any statement about Eclipse. And what good would to do to give studies to someone who obviously isn't capable of reading them?
I will admit you're an interesting psycological case. You've ingained your angry young Linux troll online persona so deeply that you actually think your thoughts on software devlepement would be taken seriously. You rail against "fanbois" in every other post, but yet being a fanboi is only way you know how to present yourself. You demand evidence but you only can provide historonics and flames. Mabye you should try to stop walking around the internet like the football team just gave you a wedgie. Might help your self-image.
I don't even think you would need anything other than HTTPS. You just need browser vendors to somehow recognize the difference between a server that claims no trust value and a one that's lying about it.
> Umm, using an outside USENET server is costing them more bandwidth than the torrents.
Well maybe it would if everyon and their cousin leeched of Usenet. But since it's relatively unpopular, it gets ignored by the traffic shapers. The ISPs are looking at aggregates here, not how much it costs to download an illegal movie to one customer.
(Also, Usenet gets a pass due to Internet seniority. Let's see anyone else start a service where one can download pirate movies and music for $25/month. They'd be shut down in an instant. But, hey, it's Usenet, maybe they're talking about alt.computer.obsolete, so eyerything's A-OK.)
You seem to have missed the point. His recommendation isn't about scaling the net, it's about downloading as much illegal stuff as possible without pissing off your ISP.
because of the design the traffic isn't proportional to how may people want to download (Usenet traffic is over 1TB a day now, for a full feed).
Not really a major consideration because there's only a handful of news services the warez hound would be interested in.
A much more sane idea would be to have bittorrent proxies (like HTTP proxies), so when multiple people from an ISP want the latest Fedora ISO the tracker can direct them to an ISP run bittorrent app.
You've forgotten what was being discussed. One can easily download Fedora from one of the 10000 available FTP mirrors within a day or two of release. This is about downloading pirate content and software.
You can tunnel over HTTPS all you want, it's still going to be easy to distingish filesharing traffic from web commerce. For the simple fact that opening 200 connections with SEXWAREZ.DE is not likely like someone doing their online banking.
Yes, and I'm sure you have all sorts of empirical studies showing that django and zope and wicket and trails and flummux and fluebee and shitstick and whatever else you read about last Thursday on sourceforge are so uber-efficient.
Face it kid, money talks and bullshit walks, and you're walking here.
The problem with ms fanbois (like you)...
And now you've succeeded in showing yourself to be both a poser *and* an ass. Good show. Now go back to your IRC channel where the other kids take you seriously.
Well, gee, I guess.NET programming isn't a job market either, and this whole article is a figment of our imagination then. (And are you seriously saying that PHP and MySQL are competitive with commercial environments. Haha.)
I work in both NET/Java environments, so I have enough evidence to qualify my statements. You want ghant charts, staffing plans? You'll just have to take my word for it. I can also tell you that the training/rampup "paradigm change" overhead is much higher on the J2EE side. This isn't about arguing with "fanbois" (eg, you) on the Internet about their favorite IDE and whether they support "choice". I've got choice. This is real money in the real world.
And if Tapestry would help, I'll use it (probably not webobjects due to client constraints), so thanks for the tip. We're always hunting corners of the Internet for the next Java Magic Bullet. But even with a half-dozen of these so far, it's still way behind ASP.NET, schedule-wise, for midsized projects.
Well it could be anything, but the general definition is an app that interfaces with more than one backend system, and contains some transactional logic.
First, I'm not dismissing anything -- discipline is a good thing for most programming. Second, while all that stuff might be coming, 99.9% of.NET dev is standard B&D C# (and only slighly lighter B&D VBNET).
Rignt now Python is nothing more than a fleaspeck in the development market. But, as I said elsewhere, Python is certainly on an upswing and will be big time in a few years. That's when those guys with "5 Years Python experience" will start bringing home the bacon. (And some hardcore MS guys are showing interest in the Python.NET thing.)
Yeah they say it all the time -- "I whipped this up in Python in one day, when it would have taken a week in Java", which when translated to PHB comes out as "cheap cheap cheap".
Slashdot Mirror
Meet Clipper, the friendly Google Keychain assistant! He's open source (in the intelligence way).
Niagra is focused Integer, corporate workloads. Cell is designed for FP, scientific. There won't be much crosssover.
Very well said.
... "Gee, this company created this cool internet service just for the helluvit and has no plan for making money off me using it" ... Well, Google knows how to make money, a lot of it.
It's funny how many people are still walking around with DotCom braindamage
Also, is it really feasible that Google would even want to maintain a SAN Array capable of storing EVERY document for EVERY user of this thing?
If they could "monitize" your ass for 50 cents worth of disk space, why not? It would only take one AdSense clickthrough to make a profit of the endeavor.
Yeah it's not like Palm has anything in common with Apple (sarcasm). Most people who think Apple/SGI "makes sense" haven't been paying any attention whatsoever to SGI over the last 10 years or so.
I think it's clear that Mozilla was saddled by bad product management at AOL/Netscape ... which lead to things like ugly skins, a mailer nobody wanted, and a bloated design with huge startup times.
While Firefox was a smart way to 'reboot' the product, I think a most of credit for Mozilla's turnaround goes to Moore's Law.
> What they should do, is at least comes up with a dialog, with all the usually properties that one would change.
That dialog is always visible in the IDE window.
What they really should do is have the compiler spit out warnings about "TextBox1" and the like.
Why would they make this a "feature"? Probably because they are fully aware that they're fucking with the API.
OK then, how do you explain XUL's lack of popularity? If there's a non-browser, non-mozilla XUL app out there, I haven't heard of it.
The only rational explaination that I've heard was from a XUL developer on a Mozilla list who said basically "You broke my app again, and this time I'm not going to fix it." You want others to adopt XUL, but I'm not sure that mozilla wants others to adopt XUL either.
Java and Flash might not be ideal, but they sure are established, and provide well-known targets for your applications.
There's nothing special about a Vista PC versus a "DIY" one -- the certified machines from HP etc will be basically identical to those you can buy from the local clone store. It's all the same motherboards and video hardware -- Joe hacker can't build a HD capture device, and he can't build a PC motherboard either.
The question is if CableCARD will try to limit the market by insist only certifying major OEM machines, or will they do the rational thing by granting a blanket certification to popular motherboard chipsets.
People can't seem to write a XUL application that doesn't break when there's a new Mozilla release, so it's doesn't seem like much of a standard.
Except for things specifically designed to be brower extentions, it would seem like XUL is a near total failure as a development toolkit. No wonder because "rich cross-browser apps" have been possible in both Java and Flash for some time.
> Except that your ISP only sees the IP address
You might want to read up on HTTPS.
No, I didn't, you illiterate.
I never said made any statement about Eclipse. And what good would to do to give studies to someone who obviously isn't capable of reading them?
I will admit you're an interesting psycological case. You've ingained your angry young Linux troll online persona so deeply that you actually think your thoughts on software devlepement would be taken seriously. You rail against "fanbois" in every other post, but yet being a fanboi is only way you know how to present yourself. You demand evidence but you only can provide historonics and flames. Mabye you should try to stop walking around the internet like the football team just gave you a wedgie. Might help your self-image.
I don't even think you would need anything other than HTTPS. You just need browser vendors to somehow recognize the difference between a server that claims no trust value and a one that's lying about it.
> Umm, using an outside USENET server is costing them more bandwidth than the torrents.
Well maybe it would if everyon and their cousin leeched of Usenet. But since it's relatively unpopular, it gets ignored by the traffic shapers. The ISPs are looking at aggregates here, not how much it costs to download an illegal movie to one customer.
(Also, Usenet gets a pass due to Internet seniority. Let's see anyone else start a service where one can download pirate movies and music for $25/month. They'd be shut down in an instant. But, hey, it's Usenet, maybe they're talking about alt.computer.obsolete, so eyerything's A-OK.)
You seem to have missed the point. His recommendation isn't about scaling the net, it's about downloading as much illegal stuff as possible without pissing off your ISP.
because of the design the traffic isn't proportional to how may people want to download (Usenet traffic is over 1TB a day now, for a full feed).
Not really a major consideration because there's only a handful of news services the warez hound would be interested in.
A much more sane idea would be to have bittorrent proxies (like HTTP proxies), so when multiple people from an ISP want the latest Fedora ISO the tracker can direct them to an ISP run bittorrent app.
You've forgotten what was being discussed. One can easily download Fedora from one of the 10000 available FTP mirrors within a day or two of release. This is about downloading pirate content and software.
You can tunnel over HTTPS all you want, it's still going to be easy to distingish filesharing traffic from web commerce. For the simple fact that opening 200 connections with SEXWAREZ.DE is not likely like someone doing their online banking.
Yes, and I'm sure you have all sorts of empirical studies showing that django and zope and wicket and trails and flummux and fluebee and shitstick and whatever else you read about last Thursday on sourceforge are so uber-efficient.
Face it kid, money talks and bullshit walks, and you're walking here.
The problem with ms fanbois (like you)...
And now you've succeeded in showing yourself to be both a poser *and* an ass. Good show. Now go back to your IRC channel where the other kids take you seriously.
Well, gee, I guess .NET programming isn't a job market either, and this whole article is a figment of our imagination then. (And are you seriously saying that PHP and MySQL are competitive with commercial environments. Haha.)
I work in both NET/Java environments, so I have enough evidence to qualify my statements. You want ghant charts, staffing plans? You'll just have to take my word for it. I can also tell you that the training/rampup "paradigm change" overhead is much higher on the J2EE side. This isn't about arguing with "fanbois" (eg, you) on the Internet about their favorite IDE and whether they support "choice". I've got choice. This is real money in the real world.
And if Tapestry would help, I'll use it (probably not webobjects due to client constraints), so thanks for the tip. We're always hunting corners of the Internet for the next Java Magic Bullet. But even with a half-dozen of these so far, it's still way behind ASP.NET, schedule-wise, for midsized projects.
> whats an enterprise level application?
Well it could be anything, but the general definition is an app that interfaces with more than one backend system, and contains some transactional logic.
First, I'm not dismissing anything -- discipline is a good thing for most programming. Second, while all that stuff might be coming, 99.9% of .NET dev is standard B&D C# (and only slighly lighter B&D VBNET).
Rignt now Python is nothing more than a fleaspeck in the development market. But, as I said elsewhere, Python is certainly on an upswing and will be big time in a few years. That's when those guys with "5 Years Python experience" will start bringing home the bacon. (And some hardcore MS guys are showing interest in the Python.NET thing.)
Yeah they say it all the time -- "I whipped this up in Python in one day, when it would have taken a week in Java", which when translated to PHB comes out as "cheap cheap cheap".