Well, see, that's the whole point of the discussion here (at least, that was the point when I started it...). We have come to understand that applications delivered over the web in an architecture/os-neutral way can be very convenient in some situations.
We have also come to realize that HTML/*script as a platform for accomplishing this on-demand internet-delivered os-neutral application paradigm is, well, lacking.
We're trying to decide what can replace it. There seems to be general agreement that the current options (flash/silverlight/etc) are not compelling enough.
So wait. You don't like proprietary software that locks you into a single application, so instead, you propose that we use web-based proprietary software that locks you into a single application.
Right.
Just because the border around the gmail window can change with your browser preference doesn't mean gmail's purpose isn't to keep you in google's applications as long as possible.
Furthermore, I kinda like that when I'm in outlook, I only see the sort of advertisements that I can *delete*. Also, Microsoft doesn't look through my outlook mail attempting to build a consumer profile of me. That's kinda a plus, I guess.
You won't get any arguments from me there. Flash is the devil. I won't say we've gotten to the RIGHT web-app platform yet, I'm just saying that HTML definitely ISN'T it.
Are you for real? Even (maybe especially) the people who write "awesome" applications in HTML/*script will agree that it's an awful solution to the rich-internet-application problem. As circletimessquare notes, it's HTML's low barrier to entry that makes it popular, not it's power as an application development platform.
You'll notice I never said any of these "platforms" are good ones. The sooner flash is a video-only tool, the better, in my book. I only use these as examples of platforms that came into existence because HTML/*script is so horrid.
I also never said we should shut down existing HTML/*script applications. I gave examples of platforms that were produced because the existing state of HTML/*script is so poor.
The sort of applications you mentioned could be implemented much easier and more consistently in some hypothetical, standard, powerful, framework. That's my point.
The fact that it's been done for a long time, and even that you've been successful enough at doing it to make a living at it doesn't make HTML/*script a good application platform. It can be made to work, but you can imagine such BETTER ways do accomplish the same tasks.
... the browser-as-a-ui problem. Browsers are great for online brochures, and terrible for anything more complicated than that. If browsers were a good application framework, we wouldn't need Flash, Air, Silverlight, Java applets, XBAP apps, XUL, etc, etc etc. The sooner we realize that trying to build an "application" directly in html+javascript+whatever-server-side-tech-you-like is a losing strategy, the sooner we can move onto something better.
There isn't a better command line than PowerShell. If you're really hung up on bash, install SFU.
As for repairing a registry, I've been running Windows clients and servers for >10 years, and I've never needed to. If something did get that broken, I'd just reimage the box, no big deal.
I think you must be doing something wrong (or some software you're running is). My WinSxS folder is 25MB, and lots of large apps installed (several versions of Visual Studio, Office, etc, etc).
Are you running x64? If so, it's possible that Windows is storing all the x86 versions of the.dlls so your x86 applications can still run.
I run a Core 2 Duo E6550, 2GB, SATA, and a slower ATI card (Radeon HD 2400), and aero doesn't hiccup. In fact, even with 3-6 copies of Visual Studio open (2008), several PowerShell windows, and Outlook (bleh) on 2x 1680x1050 monitors, aero doesn't hiccup. I even open WoW as well once in a while just to see if it'll slow down, and it doesn't.
2.0 is the base framework. 3.0 is 2.0 plus some new libraries. 3.5 is 3.0 plus some new libraries and a new compiler.
You can use all the new neato stuff from ".NET 3.5" or "C# 3.0" like extension methods, lambdas, type inference, etc on the 2.0 framework if you compile with the 3.5 compiler.
Ah, no, Vista is blue. You can change the color of the window borders, but everything else stays blue. This awful baby blue. Everywhere. And you can't change it. Ugh. Someone please save me from the blue.
I got to work last friday and the coffee machine had been dutifully making coffee all night. The entire area was soaked. I don't think letting them at the coffee pot would be that great of an idea. Maybe a door hinge. For a closet. In an abandoned building. Yeah, that sounds ok.
I have DOOM on my phone, and it runs WINDOWS! *GASP*
Jailbreak? What's jailbreak? I just downloaded one of several SDKs that I liked and started writing applications. I thought that's how smartphones worked? Did I forget to "break" out of some sort of "jail"? Am I going to get in trouble for not breaking out?
Information and education are at the top of the list (if you're hungry, what you need is information on getting fed! if you could be feeding yourself but don't know how, what you need is education, to find out how!) and the OLPC is intended as a means of providing both.
Yikes, you've never been to a third-world country, have you? It's not a problem of knowing how to feed yourself. The people KNOW how, they've been doing it successfully for a lot longer than the concept of "third world" has been around. If you're hungry, what you need is FOOD. Shortly thereafter, it would be great to have a means to produce food. As you observed, I'm not up-to-speed on the OLPC project, but I doubt they work as shovels.
I'm not an economist, so I'm not going to pretend to know what keeps the peoples in these countries poor, but I do know that those who starve don't go hungry for lack of an internet connection, or because they don't know that you stick the seeds in the ground and water them.
As long as this project is being put together by the governments of these places, it'll never work. Computers will get passed out to family members and friends of those in the government, those who least need them.
If you want to pretend that the OLPC project will educate people, then fine, maybe it will. I have my doubts, but, I could be wrong. If you want to pretend that the OLPC project will feed the hungry, well, I think you need your head checked.
You know, I've run a -LOT- of large-scale.ASP (3.0) and.ASPX web applications and web services on IIS (5.x and 6), and I've NEVER, EVER had to set a virtual dir to anything other than scripts, and it's NEVER, EVER "failed" to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, see, that's the whole point of the discussion here (at least, that was the point when I started it...). We have come to understand that applications delivered over the web in an architecture/os-neutral way can be very convenient in some situations.
We have also come to realize that HTML/*script as a platform for accomplishing this on-demand internet-delivered os-neutral application paradigm is, well, lacking.
We're trying to decide what can replace it. There seems to be general agreement that the current options (flash/silverlight/etc) are not compelling enough.
So wait. You don't like proprietary software that locks you into a single application, so instead, you propose that we use web-based proprietary software that locks you into a single application.
Right.
Just because the border around the gmail window can change with your browser preference doesn't mean gmail's purpose isn't to keep you in google's applications as long as possible.
Furthermore, I kinda like that when I'm in outlook, I only see the sort of advertisements that I can *delete*. Also, Microsoft doesn't look through my outlook mail attempting to build a consumer profile of me. That's kinda a plus, I guess.
You won't get any arguments from me there. Flash is the devil. I won't say we've gotten to the RIGHT web-app platform yet, I'm just saying that HTML definitely ISN'T it.
Are you for real? Even (maybe especially) the people who write "awesome" applications in HTML/*script will agree that it's an awful solution to the rich-internet-application problem. As circletimessquare notes, it's HTML's low barrier to entry that makes it popular, not it's power as an application development platform.
You'll notice I never said any of these "platforms" are good ones. The sooner flash is a video-only tool, the better, in my book. I only use these as examples of platforms that came into existence because HTML/*script is so horrid.
I also never said we should shut down existing HTML/*script applications. I gave examples of platforms that were produced because the existing state of HTML/*script is so poor.
The sort of applications you mentioned could be implemented much easier and more consistently in some hypothetical, standard, powerful, framework. That's my point.
Right. I even gave several examples of such platforms (I'm talking platforms, you're talking protocol, but I think you mean platform).
Air, Flash, Sliverlight, Applets, ActiveX, there've been lots of entries.
The fact that it's been done for a long time, and even that you've been successful enough at doing it to make a living at it doesn't make HTML/*script a good application platform. It can be made to work, but you can imagine such BETTER ways do accomplish the same tasks.
... the browser-as-a-ui problem. Browsers are great for online brochures, and terrible for anything more complicated than that. If browsers were a good application framework, we wouldn't need Flash, Air, Silverlight, Java applets, XBAP apps, XUL, etc, etc etc. The sooner we realize that trying to build an "application" directly in html+javascript+whatever-server-side-tech-you-like is a losing strategy, the sooner we can move onto something better.
Anders Hejlsberg wrote MFC? While working at Borland in 1992? Huh, I never knew that...
No, Vista Business x86, SP1. Maybe because the very first thing I did was install SP1, it didn't feel the need to copy over anything it replaced?
There isn't a better command line than PowerShell. If you're really hung up on bash, install SFU.
As for repairing a registry, I've been running Windows clients and servers for >10 years, and I've never needed to. If something did get that broken, I'd just reimage the box, no big deal.
I think you must be doing something wrong (or some software you're running is). My WinSxS folder is 25MB, and lots of large apps installed (several versions of Visual Studio, Office, etc, etc).
Are you running x64? If so, it's possible that Windows is storing all the x86 versions of the .dlls so your x86 applications can still run.
Meh.
I run a Core 2 Duo E6550, 2GB, SATA, and a slower ATI card (Radeon HD 2400), and aero doesn't hiccup. In fact, even with 3-6 copies of Visual Studio open (2008), several PowerShell windows, and Outlook (bleh) on 2x 1680x1050 monitors, aero doesn't hiccup. I even open WoW as well once in a while just to see if it'll slow down, and it doesn't.
So much for anecdotal evidence.
We've been using it since 0.27. Been great.
More accurately,
2.0 is the base framework.
3.0 is 2.0 plus some new libraries.
3.5 is 3.0 plus some new libraries and a new compiler.
You can use all the new neato stuff from ".NET 3.5" or "C# 3.0" like extension methods, lambdas, type inference, etc on the 2.0 framework if you compile with the 3.5 compiler.
Ah, no, Vista is blue. You can change the color of the window borders, but everything else stays blue. This awful baby blue. Everywhere. And you can't change it. Ugh. Someone please save me from the blue.
I got to work last friday and the coffee machine had been dutifully making coffee all night. The entire area was soaked. I don't think letting them at the coffee pot would be that great of an idea. Maybe a door hinge. For a closet. In an abandoned building. Yeah, that sounds ok.
... and 19 seconds using the offices' 10mbit connection over wi-fi (HTC Apache)
31 seconds on my HTC Apache (with a WM6 ROM and IE) on Verizon's EV-DO.
I have DOOM on my phone, and it runs WINDOWS! *GASP*
/facepalm
Jailbreak? What's jailbreak? I just downloaded one of several SDKs that I liked and started writing applications. I thought that's how smartphones worked? Did I forget to "break" out of some sort of "jail"? Am I going to get in trouble for not breaking out?
To quote the 12-year-olds:
Yikes, you've never been to a third-world country, have you? It's not a problem of knowing how to feed yourself. The people KNOW how, they've been doing it successfully for a lot longer than the concept of "third world" has been around. If you're hungry, what you need is FOOD. Shortly thereafter, it would be great to have a means to produce food. As you observed, I'm not up-to-speed on the OLPC project, but I doubt they work as shovels.
I'm not an economist, so I'm not going to pretend to know what keeps the peoples in these countries poor, but I do know that those who starve don't go hungry for lack of an internet connection, or because they don't know that you stick the seeds in the ground and water them.
As long as this project is being put together by the governments of these places, it'll never work. Computers will get passed out to family members and friends of those in the government, those who least need them.
If you want to pretend that the OLPC project will educate people, then fine, maybe it will. I have my doubts, but, I could be wrong. If you want to pretend that the OLPC project will feed the hungry, well, I think you need your head checked.
I lived in the Ivory Coast for a while. Kids have electricity. Computers, however, aren't at the top of the list of stuff they need.
Wireless internet? Right, just hop on the WiFi there at home, right? Right?
Nope, just .idc, because that's the only one that allows PUT by default. I've never HAD an IDC and I never would.
Besides, why is one verb more or less secure than any other verb? I fail to see your point, and I believe you're grasping at straws.
I've never had to change a verb list for a page, on any server, on any platform.
You know, I've run a -LOT- of large-scale .ASP (3.0) and .ASPX web applications and web services on IIS (5.x and 6), and I've NEVER, EVER had to set a virtual dir to anything other than scripts, and it's NEVER, EVER "failed" to work.