No, someone thinks you're in a very small minority, and wants to maximize their profits by targetting the largest audience they can.
Again, it would not have been more work for Logitech to adopt a framework other than.NET. There are other options, such as Java/Swing or C++/Qt, that would allow them to easily produce versions portable across UNIX, Linux, Mac OS, and Windows. Right now, the only thing.NET accomplishes is limiting their potential base of customers to those who use Windows. This alientates all the artists who prefer Mac OS and could benefit from digitized sketches. It alientates the "geeks" who would love a pen like this if only for a novelty. It alientates UNIX shops who could use this pen to document meetings and initial designs. There are many people who don't use Windows who would want a pen like this.
How dare they use an OS platform that 99.9999% of the audience for such a techno-gimmicky executive toy is running!
This isn't the point. It really truly is not difficult to write an application that works across Windows, UNIX, and Mac OS. Use Qt and abstract the USB interface in the code...and that's it. Java is also a good choice. There is simply no excuse for Logitech to use.NET other than some backroom deal with Microsoft.
Perhaps they know that the open-source community will take care of that themselves?
Time will tell whether they keep the interface undocumented. If they keep it undocumented and limit themselves to Windows, then Logitech is nothing more than a Microsoft sell-out. The Mac user market alone would be worth going after with this sort of product. I'm sure there would be many adopters from the UNIX and Linux segments, as well.
If you need special paper, then how is this really much different than writing on a graphics tablet?
It's like a Steno pad. You take the wireless pen and the wireless pad of paper wherever you go (meetings, brainstorming at the park, etc.). The handwritten graphics (letters, drawings) are stored within the pen's own memory to later be downloaded to a host computer via USB. Imagine the possibility of automatic meeting minutes (the most boring task imaginable now streamlined)!
An awesome application for this would be for college students in addition to professionals. Imagine being able to train an OCR program to convert class notes into plain text files which can be categorized on a disk. Imagine being able to grep for topics to avoid having to flip through hundreds of pages of notes.
The downside is the Windows XP interface in the screenshots. If Logitech is smart, they will also support UNIX/Linux/MacOS. If they are really smart, they'll use Java or really good C, so they don't have to start from scratch on each platform. If it will be truly Windows-only (and remain so at Logitech's discretion), then Logitech needs to go to hell, because there is simply no excuse for non-portable applications now-a-days especially considering the revenue potential of this pen.
I think the more practical device would be a run-of-mill-looking clipboard that you could clip any kind of paper to, write on it, and store that image.
The clipboard is a good idea, since the grid is embedded in the backing. However, clipboards can be somewhat clunky to write on due to their size. Smaller pads of paper can be more naturally held in one hand while writing and flipping pages can be done very quickly. If there is a way to make a clipboard behave like a Steno pad, that would be worthwhile.
...there is *no* other singly unified system, that can provide both ease of use, and integration.
Fallacy. Windows is an "ease of use" and "integration" nightmare in the long-term. Just try integrating something not provided by Microsoft one day...oh, you can't. That's called lock-in. They have you right where they want you and you have no choices any more! Hail, Microsoft!
UNIX and Linux offer much lower risk in the long term, as they are fully documented (UNIX is, at least) and very largely standardized. This offers much more flexibility than anything Microsoft can put forth.
It's a case of the software only running on a specific platform and the server requires it.
This is also an indication that the people writing that software were naive. Not writing software portably is simply stupid, given that it is avoidable. Portable software reduces long-term risk (like not being tied to crap like Microsoft) and creates unforeseen business oportunities (gee, perhaps a Linux version would sell?).
Find a *nix based CAD package that compares to AutoCAD.
There are many UNIX-based CAD packages, most of which bury AutoCAD in capability. Their prices are coming down to; e.g., Pro/E's basic package is under 6 or 7 thousand dollars for full-blown feature-based 3D modeling. Also, Pro/E will be available for Linux soon.
And Gimp has absolutely nothing on Photoshop
Photoshop is available for UNIX (at least when I last used it on Solaris).
Music Editing/Sound Engineering? forget it. Tax and Accounting packages (QuickBooks, TurboTax, etc.) - not there.
Soon, but not today. GNUCash is very good for personal accounting, and spreadsheets like Gnumeric are also very useful. There just aren't the drool-covered packages like Quicken available for Linux. For UNIX, however, I'm sure some research would turn up good options.
You spout the current most popular argument against Linux, and that is fine. However, please understand that things are changing. Microsoft is declining slowly (this is a fact--it is a cultural phenomenon), and, probably in five years or so, the applications argument will be bunk.
But in any case, MS never initiates contact with any system.
A Microsoft operating system initiating contact with the Microsoft home base is Microsoft initiating contact with the system. They are just automating the process from the client side of things. Going either way without the end user's explicit consent (click-through/shrink-wrap EULA isn't sufficient) is simply wrong.
Maintaining and testing two UI's on your product is considerably more difficult that maintaining one.
Then just make one UI that is accessible. It really is pretty simple.
Well structured and tastefully laid-out HTML is all that is needed. If someone is whining that JavaScript just has to be used, then use it in a way that doesn't affect the displayed content. In other words, use JavaScript only for validation and other basic client-side processing--it should never be used to generate the UI.
No matter the state or province, what happens when the locals see this "utopia" as an invasion force and organizes the militia against them? To the locals these people will appear as random lunatics trying to change the local long-standing way of life.
A large chunk of classical music manuscripts are out of copyright.
Nearly all the classical music we enjoy today was created during or before the early 20th century. Will super-long copyrights kill modern classical music for future generations?
I might owe my ability to listen to all my favorite death metal, synth-pop, and hard house/trance webcasts to a group of people who generally only support things I vehemently oppose.
Yes, the First Amendment protects them, too, and they will even admit it, when backed into a corner.
Imagine the irony of webcasts about Internet censorship and book burning events. Oh, the painful irony of it all.
She does all her computing work on her laptop (PII-266) at home now, because the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Seattle Schools has spent to put a computer on each desk has resulted in a useless, locked-down-to-the-point-of-being-a-kiosk computer on each desk.
I know this is off-topic, but this scenario is what I fear will happen if Palladium becomes popular. Millions of computers "trusted" to the point of the Internet becoming useless.
I have several, but they are ten years old, definitely not low-profile, and have a narrow fast-SCSI interface. I guess IDE drives were at around 3000RPM back then.
I think the slowest SCSI drives sold today are 7200RPM.
...their goal is to migrate everything they can to Windows 2000/Office 2000
There goes the country... Imagine the entire US Navy imprisoned to Microsoft's products. What a crock. They would have been better off with pretty much any other option, but no, they had to sell out to Bill G. and his hit men.
ut the $6.9 billion project has turned into a major technology headache for the services and the prime contractor on the job, Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS).
Isn't EDS an all-Microsoft-all-the-time company? No wonder they are having a "technology headache".
Because the Navy wants everything tied together into one large directory designed for secure communication using standard software.
What a pipe dream. This is what IT companies have been promising for decades and have never delivered . Probably the last time this was accomplished was when an entire company ran off of one mainframe. One set of software, one set of terminals, one set of administrators, etc.
Aren't corresponding IDE and SCSI drives mechanically identical, with different electronic interfaces...
SCSI drives tend to be drives that push modern technological limits (SCSI drives currently go up to 15000RPM, much faster than IDE drives today). So, my hope is that SCSI drives are manufactured to higher standards and tolerances than their IDE counterparts. Alternatively, SCSI drives could be manufactured on the same line as IDE drives but are taken from the cream of the crop (i.e., sloppy but functioning drives get IDE interfaces).
I would really like to know if this speculation is true or fantasy, because this could also account for higher prices of SCSI above and beyond the complexity of the electronic interface (the drives are just plain better all the way around).
...is anyone actually working on making a point and click interface to active/deactivate functionality......why on earth do they insist on giving you these contrived instructions on how to deactivate it?
Well, why don't you type "about:config" in your Mozilla location bar. By your argument, there should be pointy-clicky stuff for all 1100+ configurable parameters in Mozilla. Implement that, and Mozilla turns into something like Microsoft Word or the Windows Control Panel (shit everywhere piled under menu upon menu).
Trust me, it is a good thing that Mozilla doesn't put everything in the GUI. Be thankful that the configuration is in a plain text file and not some binary GUI database or, worse, the Registry.
How many computer authentication usernames and passwords do you have? (28)
Do we see the problem here yet?
Yes, but the problem is still Passport. Your example of 28 passwords is rediculous; instead, it is very reasonable to keep several different passwords for various systems or domains (home use vs. work use vs. general online use vs. bank). It is very easy to partition things so if my work computer is hacked it won't spell doom for my home computers or my bank account. This is a good thing.
Passport, however, is very simply a bad security policy. All or nothing. Gee, that is great.
Even more amazing is their brilliance in manipulating the system. Microsoft is like the witty bully in the playground that always twists what you say to make you look stupid in front of your friends. I can only imagine how frustrating this is to everyone close to the Justice Dept.'s case. Me, it just pisses me off.
Today's article is just another reason to advocate the marginalized competition out there: Apple, Linux, BSD, commercial UNIX (Solaris, AIX, IRIX, etc.), and any promising upstarts. So far, Microsoft has crushed the upstarts outright. That needs to change.
Actually, this is considered bad form in an OO design. The UI "Module" (classes) should only talk to the Model classes, while the Model classes may or may not talk directly to database classes.
You are right. I was just presenting a very simple example. The UI-->Model-->DBMS model has been around for a while (I have a book by Peter Coad, "Object Oriented Design", that discussed this back in 1991).
For redundancy or performance reasons you want to have the same business rules executed on the GUI as well as verified on the server.
I really hope those business rules are well-specified and documented. Otherwise the GUI and the server will never be in sync and no one will agree on the implementation. Sometimes, a development group must concede that they are incompetent at documentation and architect a system that favors simplicity over performance. Unfortunately, such self-realizing development groups are not common (if they are common, where?).
Slashdot Mirror
No, someone thinks you're in a very small minority, and wants to maximize their profits by targetting the largest audience they can.
.NET. There are other options, such as Java/Swing or C++/Qt, that would allow them to easily produce versions portable across UNIX, Linux, Mac OS, and Windows. Right now, the only thing .NET accomplishes is limiting their potential base of customers to those who use Windows. This alientates all the artists who prefer Mac OS and could benefit from digitized sketches. It alientates the "geeks" who would love a pen like this if only for a novelty. It alientates UNIX shops who could use this pen to document meetings and initial designs. There are many people who don't use Windows who would want a pen like this.
Again, it would not have been more work for Logitech to adopt a framework other than
How dare they use an OS platform that 99.9999% of the audience for such a techno-gimmicky executive toy is running!
.NET other than some backroom deal with Microsoft.
This isn't the point. It really truly is not difficult to write an application that works across Windows, UNIX, and Mac OS. Use Qt and abstract the USB interface in the code...and that's it. Java is also a good choice. There is simply no excuse for Logitech to use
Perhaps they know that the open-source community will take care of that themselves?
Time will tell whether they keep the interface undocumented. If they keep it undocumented and limit themselves to Windows, then Logitech is nothing more than a Microsoft sell-out. The Mac user market alone would be worth going after with this sort of product. I'm sure there would be many adopters from the UNIX and Linux segments, as well.
If you need special paper, then how is this really much different than writing on a graphics tablet?
It's like a Steno pad. You take the wireless pen and the wireless pad of paper wherever you go (meetings, brainstorming at the park, etc.). The handwritten graphics (letters, drawings) are stored within the pen's own memory to later be downloaded to a host computer via USB. Imagine the possibility of automatic meeting minutes (the most boring task imaginable now streamlined)!
An awesome application for this would be for college students in addition to professionals. Imagine being able to train an OCR program to convert class notes into plain text files which can be categorized on a disk. Imagine being able to grep for topics to avoid having to flip through hundreds of pages of notes.
The downside is the Windows XP interface in the screenshots. If Logitech is smart, they will also support UNIX/Linux/MacOS. If they are really smart, they'll use Java or really good C, so they don't have to start from scratch on each platform. If it will be truly Windows-only (and remain so at Logitech's discretion), then Logitech needs to go to hell, because there is simply no excuse for non-portable applications now-a-days especially considering the revenue potential of this pen.
I think the more practical device would be a run-of-mill-looking clipboard that you could clip any kind of paper to, write on it, and store that image.
The clipboard is a good idea, since the grid is embedded in the backing. However, clipboards can be somewhat clunky to write on due to their size. Smaller pads of paper can be more naturally held in one hand while writing and flipping pages can be done very quickly. If there is a way to make a clipboard behave like a Steno pad, that would be worthwhile.
...there is *no* other singly unified system, that can provide both ease of use, and integration.
Fallacy. Windows is an "ease of use" and "integration" nightmare in the long-term. Just try integrating something not provided by Microsoft one day...oh, you can't. That's called lock-in. They have you right where they want you and you have no choices any more! Hail, Microsoft!
UNIX and Linux offer much lower risk in the long term, as they are fully documented (UNIX is, at least) and very largely standardized. This offers much more flexibility than anything Microsoft can put forth.
It's a case of the software only running on a specific platform and the server requires it.
This is also an indication that the people writing that software were naive. Not writing software portably is simply stupid, given that it is avoidable. Portable software reduces long-term risk (like not being tied to crap like Microsoft) and creates unforeseen business oportunities (gee, perhaps a Linux version would sell?).
Find a *nix based CAD package that compares to AutoCAD.
There are many UNIX-based CAD packages, most of which bury AutoCAD in capability. Their prices are coming down to; e.g., Pro/E's basic package is under 6 or 7 thousand dollars for full-blown feature-based 3D modeling. Also, Pro/E will be available for Linux soon.
And Gimp has absolutely nothing on Photoshop
Photoshop is available for UNIX (at least when I last used it on Solaris).
Music Editing/Sound Engineering? forget it. Tax and Accounting packages (QuickBooks, TurboTax, etc.) - not there.
Soon, but not today. GNUCash is very good for personal accounting, and spreadsheets like Gnumeric are also very useful. There just aren't the drool-covered packages like Quicken available for Linux. For UNIX, however, I'm sure some research would turn up good options.
You spout the current most popular argument against Linux, and that is fine. However, please understand that things are changing. Microsoft is declining slowly (this is a fact--it is a cultural phenomenon), and, probably in five years or so, the applications argument will be bunk.
But in any case, MS never initiates contact with any system.
A Microsoft operating system initiating contact with the Microsoft home base is Microsoft initiating contact with the system. They are just automating the process from the client side of things. Going either way without the end user's explicit consent (click-through/shrink-wrap EULA isn't sufficient) is simply wrong.
Maintaining and testing two UI's on your product is considerably more difficult that maintaining one.
Then just make one UI that is accessible. It really is pretty simple.
Well structured and tastefully laid-out HTML is all that is needed. If someone is whining that JavaScript just has to be used, then use it in a way that doesn't affect the displayed content. In other words, use JavaScript only for validation and other basic client-side processing--it should never be used to generate the UI.
That's a plausible province for this scheme.
No matter the state or province, what happens when the locals see this "utopia" as an invasion force and organizes the militia against them? To the locals these people will appear as random lunatics trying to change the local long-standing way of life.
A large chunk of classical music manuscripts are out of copyright.
Nearly all the classical music we enjoy today was created during or before the early 20th century. Will super-long copyrights kill modern classical music for future generations?
I might owe my ability to listen to all my favorite death metal, synth-pop, and hard house/trance webcasts to a group of people who generally only support things I vehemently oppose.
Yes, the First Amendment protects them, too, and they will even admit it, when backed into a corner.
Imagine the irony of webcasts about Internet censorship and book burning events. Oh, the painful irony of it all.
I'm wondering how asynchronous logic stand up against transiant errors induced by a cosmic ray?
What about ECC on each internal bus? It works well for external busses (RAM, etc.).
How long until their little utopia becomes the thing they fled?
She does all her computing work on her laptop (PII-266) at home now, because the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Seattle Schools has spent to put a computer on each desk has resulted in a useless, locked-down-to-the-point-of-being-a-kiosk computer on each desk.
I know this is off-topic, but this scenario is what I fear will happen if Palladium becomes popular. Millions of computers "trusted" to the point of the Internet becoming useless.
I'd like to see a 5400 RPM SCSI drive.
I have several, but they are ten years old, definitely not low-profile, and have a narrow fast-SCSI interface. I guess IDE drives were at around 3000RPM back then.
I think the slowest SCSI drives sold today are 7200RPM.
...their goal is to migrate everything they can to Windows 2000/Office 2000
There goes the country... Imagine the entire US Navy imprisoned to Microsoft's products. What a crock. They would have been better off with pretty much any other option, but no, they had to sell out to Bill G. and his hit men.
ut the $6.9 billion project has turned into a major technology headache for the services and the prime contractor on the job, Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS).
Isn't EDS an all-Microsoft-all-the-time company? No wonder they are having a "technology headache".
Because the Navy wants everything tied together into one large directory designed for secure communication using standard software.
What a pipe dream. This is what IT companies have been promising for decades and have never delivered . Probably the last time this was accomplished was when an entire company ran off of one mainframe. One set of software, one set of terminals, one set of administrators, etc.
Aren't corresponding IDE and SCSI drives mechanically identical, with different electronic interfaces...
SCSI drives tend to be drives that push modern technological limits (SCSI drives currently go up to 15000RPM, much faster than IDE drives today). So, my hope is that SCSI drives are manufactured to higher standards and tolerances than their IDE counterparts. Alternatively, SCSI drives could be manufactured on the same line as IDE drives but are taken from the cream of the crop (i.e., sloppy but functioning drives get IDE interfaces).
I would really like to know if this speculation is true or fantasy, because this could also account for higher prices of SCSI above and beyond the complexity of the electronic interface (the drives are just plain better all the way around).
...is anyone actually working on making a point and click interface to active/deactivate functionality... ...why on earth do they insist on giving you these contrived instructions on how to deactivate it?
Well, why don't you type "about:config" in your Mozilla location bar. By your argument, there should be pointy-clicky stuff for all 1100+ configurable parameters in Mozilla. Implement that, and Mozilla turns into something like Microsoft Word or the Windows Control Panel (shit everywhere piled under menu upon menu).
Trust me, it is a good thing that Mozilla doesn't put everything in the GUI. Be thankful that the configuration is in a plain text file and not some binary GUI database or, worse, the Registry.
How many PINs do you have? (2)
How many computer authentication usernames and passwords do you have? (28)
Do we see the problem here yet?
Yes, but the problem is still Passport. Your example of 28 passwords is rediculous; instead, it is very reasonable to keep several different passwords for various systems or domains (home use vs. work use vs. general online use vs. bank). It is very easy to partition things so if my work computer is hacked it won't spell doom for my home computers or my bank account. This is a good thing.
Passport, however, is very simply a bad security policy. All or nothing. Gee, that is great.
Their audacity (and arrogence) amazes me...
Even more amazing is their brilliance in manipulating the system. Microsoft is like the witty bully in the playground that always twists what you say to make you look stupid in front of your friends. I can only imagine how frustrating this is to everyone close to the Justice Dept.'s case. Me, it just pisses me off.
Today's article is just another reason to advocate the marginalized competition out there: Apple, Linux, BSD, commercial UNIX (Solaris, AIX, IRIX, etc.), and any promising upstarts. So far, Microsoft has crushed the upstarts outright. That needs to change.
Actually, this is considered bad form in an OO design. The UI "Module" (classes) should only talk to the Model classes, while the Model classes may or may not talk directly to database classes.
You are right. I was just presenting a very simple example. The UI-->Model-->DBMS model has been around for a while (I have a book by Peter Coad, "Object Oriented Design", that discussed this back in 1991).
For redundancy or performance reasons you want to have the same business rules executed on the GUI as well as verified on the server.
I really hope those business rules are well-specified and documented. Otherwise the GUI and the server will never be in sync and no one will agree on the implementation. Sometimes, a development group must concede that they are incompetent at documentation and architect a system that favors simplicity over performance. Unfortunately, such self-realizing development groups are not common (if they are common, where?).