Funny, that size thing really hit home with me when I saw pictures of the latest iPod Touch disassembled; it's crazy that there is an entire *nix based computer on such a tiny circuit board(s): http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/First-Look/iPod/iPod-Touch/Page-6
Have to agree! It surprises me given that Google do (or did) sell application servers for search, they didn't do the same with their Apps suite; I'm sure loads of corporates would be happy to purchase their own box with support.
Rumour has it that there's a whole army of people dedicated to the entire "chair" thing too; from purchasing, and refurbishment through to untangling and extricating. Their fate is tightly wedded to Balmers. In fact, I believe that when Steve finally passes away, the chair people are to be buried with him.*
(* may not be true)
Re:All you really need to know
on
Ubuntu Kung Fu
·
· Score: 1
I have to say, I did feel a bit cheated as an "early adoptor" of the iPod Touch. Especially since some of the updates were for software that was already running on the iPhone *before* the iPod Touch was released... it kind of looked a bit cynical to me.
On the other hand, they're not expensive updates I guess.:/
I've thought about this a lot over the years. Clearly it is/has-been in Microsofts interest to maintain legacy APIs, (in particular legacy undocumented features and bugs) whilst punting news APIs in order to prevent anyone being able to catch up.
However, there's a problem. All this legacy crap costs *them* money to maintain (albeit, they have rather a lot of money), and can adversely affect stabilty and product lead-times. I don't think all their money really helps much with the lead-times issue.... they can't just throw money/programmers at this problem.
So if we take Internet Explorer as an example, they clearly felt it was job-done, sit-back-and-ignore back in 2001 (or whenever it was) when IE6 was released. But now, what with more applications now having the very real potential to be "cloud based", Microsoft have found themselves on a back foot. Legacy support doesn't really help them much here, and as such, is perhaps more of a hindrance.
At the same time, there are more viable alternatives to Windows these days; again, legacy support doesn't help much if someone has decided to look at alternatives since if they're looking, they've clearly got them selves into a position where they can choose (they're not tied by file formats for example). At that point, Microsoft need to compete on a equal footing, which is tricky when _their_ product contains a load of legacy baggage. And that's just on the desktop. On platforms with reduced resources (smart phones. netbooks, etc), Moores-law isn't able to bail them out either... so their products look decidedly crap compared with the alternative. *AND* they can't even move as fast as their competitors.
There was a rumor a month or three ago that MS were looking at using open-source code for their web browser. Dunno if there was any truth in that, but if Microsoft wants to exist in ten years time, they need to look to doing this. Their money won't help them compete with commercial competitors who _do_ embrace open-source and all the benefits that being open brings.
So to summarize, I agree with your point, but I'm not at all convinced that Microsofts' old strategy will keep working in the future.
I think Google needed Firefox to gain greater share than it has; they've pumped money in, but afaik, the vast majority of PCs still ship with IE as their default browser. Consequently, IE is still very much the dominant browser. If (say for example) Google were to push Chrome direct to PC manufacturers, then they might be able to change this.... and I believe** that's the plan [either because I read it somewhere, or because I'm clairvoyant]. Google needs better browsers in order to punt their online apps. But whilst I think** I heard the Mozilla folks talking about getting Firefox shipped with new PCs, I don't think that's really happening. Google might do better hear since they have financial clout, and they also have a nice advertising business that could tie up nicely with this.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out; in two years time, where do you think IE's market share will be? It strikes me that if Google didn't produce Chrome, then Firefox share probably isn't going to increase too much more, so in two years, IE would have pretty much the same share... might even gain some back if IE8 actually works (and despite the negative reports here on/. , imho, it is fairly solid.... no better than anything else, but not really worse either). With Google pushing Chrome, we can reasonably hope IE will be at or below 50%.
** I've just noticed how incredibly vague everything I say actually is. I should get a job in politics!
To the extent they work and to the extent they aren't a half-assed implementation of what non-Windows users take for granted, junctions created using different methods (Windows tools, Sysinternals, etc.) all behave differently, so expect to be bitten soon enough once you step outside your Explorer window.
I no longer use Windows as my primary OS, but I did used to use it and did seem to work fine for me. I wouldn't have used it if it involved any third-party software though since that could be a World-Of-Pain... but since you can create Junctions fairly easily with the default Windows GUI tools (and command line if you're happy playing with GUIDs), I decided it _should_ be safe!
It's nice to see SVG and canvas in benchmarks, but "IE8 will fix that compatibility issue"? Completely untrue, IE8 will not support SVG and canvas. This bit of ignorance makes me worry about the whole piece.
Beta 1 was pretty crap. Beta 2, whilst I haven't extensively tested it, does seem much better. If they carry on like this, they'll be able to match browsers from 2 or 3 years ago!:D
Problem is, it's only going to help if IE6's share is reduced. I had high hopes for IE7, but was disappointed it was _just_ a bug fixed version of IE6 rather than a new browser... AND I found I had to support both since both have significant share.
I guess eventually they will have to end-of-life the IE6 product and that should force most of the laggards to upgrade! And I guess IE8 will fully replace IE7 so there should be need to support IE7... right?! One can only hope!;)
Dumping Windows _would_ be silly. But, pushing hard with a Linux alternative would make a huge amount of sense given the current economic climate, and HP are a big enough vendor to be able to handle the additional work that would entail. In fact, I'd almost go as far as to say that it would be stupid of HP *not* too look seriously to Linux at this time.
I don't _think_ they mean that; it wouldn't really work anyway as someone would fork the project. I _think_ they meant assisting companies that was to brand the office product, so if say Dell wanted to pre-load an office suite, they could install a Dell branded Star-Office or OOo.
I could be wrong of course! But what you are suggesting is sooooo off-the-scale-dumb that really can't see that being what they meant!
The wikipedia article you link doesn't mention khtml! It does however kick off saying:
Internet Explorer for Mac (also referred to as Internet Explorer:mac, IE:mac or Internet Explorer Macintosh Edition) was a proprietary web browser developed by Microsoft for the Macintosh platform. Initial versions were developed from the same code base as Internet Explorer for Windows. Later versions diverged, particularly with the release of version 5 which included the Tasman rendering engine.
I suspect they'd only submit a form if the method is "get" rather than "post"... which technically is okay, although in practice it will likely upset some websites!
One thing I found particularly interesting was that, as I understand it, the git client can checkout from CVS or SVN repos and commit back to them. So it occurs to me that it might make sense for the various gui-based scm clients to be built against the git-client library? So for example, if TortoiseSVN was built on the git-client, it would still be possible to use it with SVN (which given its name, would rather make sense!).
Also interesting was that git also includes a CVS interface so "legacy" clients/users (Randals' words not mine!;)) can continue to work with a git repository without changing anything.
I got my first Apple computer in May this year (black MacBook), and I do love it. But, I'm not too enthusiastic about the keyboard layout; I should mention that I'm a UK user here! The layout seems very similar to the standard US layout (double quotes not about the 2 key for example) which is a pain in the arse. Also, where my old non-Apple laptop had page-up, page-down and del keys, the MacBook doesn't, even though the width of the two machines is similar.
End-of-rant.
But otherwise, it is *massively* better than my old laptop!!
It is frightening how obnoxiously cynical Microsoft is. The sad thing is, if they had any confidence in their own products, they could do themselves and the world so much good.
Balmer needs to go. Microsoft need a leader with vision who can instill confidence in their product and their abilities... that way, they might still exist in ten years time.
Whilst I'd agree that ODF probably isn't a perfect standard, it is most certainly the best one we have. AFAIK, the problems with ODF are omission rather than broken definitions... so it can (and hopefully will) be resolved in future revisions.
ODF, unlike OOXML, was *not* fast tracked through standards, *and* it is a far more concise standard; OOXML was far too large to reasonably be managed via fast-track IMO, so it shouldn't have been.
It sounds like ODF was pushed through as a standard before it was ready, and Microsoft's reaction was 'well, if you're going to approve one crappy standard for office docs, you should approve ours as well.'
No, MS couldn't really care less, but some of it's clients (large organisations/governments) were starting to demand standards-based software. If MS did care, they would've dealt with it some time earlier.... they had probably a decade or so time to do so.
Also... it's been covered a million times before, but DO NOT FORGET that OOXML currently has absolutely no working implementations. None. There is no software that currently implements this "standard". MS have said themselves that they will not implement it until the *next* version of MS-Office, and strangely, they have said that they will implement ODF in a future service-pack to MS-Office..... but time will tell!
The really odd thing [to me anyway] is that I believe that MS have recently opened up their legacy binary MS-Office standards. If they had done this, documented them, and pushed them through ECMA/ISO then there would perhaps have been less complaints given that the legacy formats are widely implemented and used.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, that size thing really hit home with me when I saw pictures of the latest iPod Touch disassembled; it's crazy that there is an entire *nix based computer on such a tiny circuit board(s): http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/First-Look/iPod/iPod-Touch/Page-6
Have to agree! It surprises me given that Google do (or did) sell application servers for search, they didn't do the same with their Apps suite; I'm sure loads of corporates would be happy to purchase their own box with support.
They should probably replace the entire keyboard with a wheel or something! ;)
Rumour has it that there's a whole army of people dedicated to the entire "chair" thing too; from purchasing, and refurbishment through to untangling and extricating. Their fate is tightly wedded to Balmers. In fact, I believe that when Steve finally passes away, the chair people are to be buried with him.*
(* may not be true)
sudo apt-get install firefox
;)
Anyway... it's installed by default!!
I have to say, I did feel a bit cheated as an "early adoptor" of the iPod Touch. Especially since some of the updates were for software that was already running on the iPhone *before* the iPod Touch was released... it kind of looked a bit cynical to me.
:/
On the other hand, they're not expensive updates I guess.
I've thought about this a lot over the years. Clearly it is/has-been in Microsofts interest to maintain legacy APIs, (in particular legacy undocumented features and bugs) whilst punting news APIs in order to prevent anyone being able to catch up.
However, there's a problem. All this legacy crap costs *them* money to maintain (albeit, they have rather a lot of money), and can adversely affect stabilty and product lead-times. I don't think all their money really helps much with the lead-times issue.... they can't just throw money/programmers at this problem.
So if we take Internet Explorer as an example, they clearly felt it was job-done, sit-back-and-ignore back in 2001 (or whenever it was) when IE6 was released. But now, what with more applications now having the very real potential to be "cloud based", Microsoft have found themselves on a back foot. Legacy support doesn't really help them much here, and as such, is perhaps more of a hindrance.
At the same time, there are more viable alternatives to Windows these days; again, legacy support doesn't help much if someone has decided to look at alternatives since if they're looking, they've clearly got them selves into a position where they can choose (they're not tied by file formats for example). At that point, Microsoft need to compete on a equal footing, which is tricky when _their_ product contains a load of legacy baggage. And that's just on the desktop. On platforms with reduced resources (smart phones. netbooks, etc), Moores-law isn't able to bail them out either... so their products look decidedly crap compared with the alternative. *AND* they can't even move as fast as their competitors.
There was a rumor a month or three ago that MS were looking at using open-source code for their web browser. Dunno if there was any truth in that, but if Microsoft wants to exist in ten years time, they need to look to doing this. Their money won't help them compete with commercial competitors who _do_ embrace open-source and all the benefits that being open brings.
So to summarize, I agree with your point, but I'm not at all convinced that Microsofts' old strategy will keep working in the future.
I think Google needed Firefox to gain greater share than it has; they've pumped money in, but afaik, the vast majority of PCs still ship with IE as their default browser. Consequently, IE is still very much the dominant browser. If (say for example) Google were to push Chrome direct to PC manufacturers, then they might be able to change this.... and I believe** that's the plan [either because I read it somewhere, or because I'm clairvoyant]. Google needs better browsers in order to punt their online apps. But whilst I think** I heard the Mozilla folks talking about getting Firefox shipped with new PCs, I don't think that's really happening. Google might do better hear since they have financial clout, and they also have a nice advertising business that could tie up nicely with this.
/. , imho, it is fairly solid.... no better than anything else, but not really worse either). With Google pushing Chrome, we can reasonably hope IE will be at or below 50%.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out; in two years time, where do you think IE's market share will be? It strikes me that if Google didn't produce Chrome, then Firefox share probably isn't going to increase too much more, so in two years, IE would have pretty much the same share... might even gain some back if IE8 actually works (and despite the negative reports here on
** I've just noticed how incredibly vague everything I say actually is. I should get a job in politics!
I'm using NewNet and they don't. You should switch!
I remember marveling at how easy it was when I discovered (okay, "read" about) it.... but I must admit I've forgotten now. Can you remind me?
To the extent they work and to the extent they aren't a half-assed implementation of what non-Windows users take for granted, junctions created using different methods (Windows tools, Sysinternals, etc.) all behave differently, so expect to be bitten soon enough once you step outside your Explorer window.
I no longer use Windows as my primary OS, but I did used to use it and did seem to work fine for me. I wouldn't have used it if it involved any third-party software though since that could be a World-Of-Pain... but since you can create Junctions fairly easily with the default Windows GUI tools (and command line if you're happy playing with GUIDs), I decided it _should_ be safe!
Me thinks it wasn't a very good review!
It's nice to see SVG and canvas in benchmarks, but "IE8 will fix that compatibility issue"? Completely untrue, IE8 will not support SVG and canvas. This bit of ignorance makes me worry about the whole piece.
That bothered me too -- well spotted! :D
Beta 1 was pretty crap. Beta 2, whilst I haven't extensively tested it, does seem much better. If they carry on like this, they'll be able to match browsers from 2 or 3 years ago! :D
Problem is, it's only going to help if IE6's share is reduced. I had high hopes for IE7, but was disappointed it was _just_ a bug fixed version of IE6 rather than a new browser... AND I found I had to support both since both have significant share.
;)
I guess eventually they will have to end-of-life the IE6 product and that should force most of the laggards to upgrade! And I guess IE8 will fully replace IE7 so there should be need to support IE7... right?! One can only hope!
Dumping Windows _would_ be silly. But, pushing hard with a Linux alternative would make a huge amount of sense given the current economic climate, and HP are a big enough vendor to be able to handle the additional work that would entail. In fact, I'd almost go as far as to say that it would be stupid of HP *not* too look seriously to Linux at this time.
I don't _think_ they mean that; it wouldn't really work anyway as someone would fork the project. I _think_ they meant assisting companies that was to brand the office product, so if say Dell wanted to pre-load an office suite, they could install a Dell branded Star-Office or OOo.
I could be wrong of course! But what you are suggesting is sooooo off-the-scale-dumb that really can't see that being what they meant!
Internet Explorer for Mac (also referred to as Internet Explorer:mac, IE:mac or Internet Explorer Macintosh Edition) was a proprietary web browser developed by Microsoft for the Macintosh platform. Initial versions were developed from the same code base as Internet Explorer for Windows. Later versions diverged, particularly with the release of version 5 which included the Tasman rendering engine.
So I think you _may_ be mistaken. ;)
I'm sure I don't need permission!
I suspect they'd only submit a form if the method is "get" rather than "post"... which technically is okay, although in practice it will likely upset some websites!
Thanks for that; it was very informative!
;)) can continue to work with a git repository without changing anything.
One thing I found particularly interesting was that, as I understand it, the git client can checkout from CVS or SVN repos and commit back to them. So it occurs to me that it might make sense for the various gui-based scm clients to be built against the git-client library? So for example, if TortoiseSVN was built on the git-client, it would still be possible to use it with SVN (which given its name, would rather make sense!).
Also interesting was that git also includes a CVS interface so "legacy" clients/users (Randals' words not mine!
I got my first Apple computer in May this year (black MacBook), and I do love it. But, I'm not too enthusiastic about the keyboard layout; I should mention that I'm a UK user here! The layout seems very similar to the standard US layout (double quotes not about the 2 key for example) which is a pain in the arse. Also, where my old non-Apple laptop had page-up, page-down and del keys, the MacBook doesn't, even though the width of the two machines is similar.
End-of-rant.
But otherwise, it is *massively* better than my old laptop!!
You think that's bad? The file system check command is buttfsck!
It is frightening how obnoxiously cynical Microsoft is. The sad thing is, if they had any confidence in their own products, they could do themselves and the world so much good.
Balmer needs to go. Microsoft need a leader with vision who can instill confidence in their product and their abilities... that way, they might still exist in ten years time.
ODF, unlike OOXML, was *not* fast tracked through standards, *and* it is a far more concise standard; OOXML was far too large to reasonably be managed via fast-track IMO, so it shouldn't have been.
It sounds like ODF was pushed through as a standard before it was ready, and Microsoft's reaction was 'well, if you're going to approve one crappy standard for office docs, you should approve ours as well.'
No, MS couldn't really care less, but some of it's clients (large organisations/governments) were starting to demand standards-based software. If MS did care, they would've dealt with it some time earlier.... they had probably a decade or so time to do so.
Also... it's been covered a million times before, but DO NOT FORGET that OOXML currently has absolutely no working implementations. None. There is no software that currently implements this "standard". MS have said themselves that they will not implement it until the *next* version of MS-Office, and strangely, they have said that they will implement ODF in a future service-pack to MS-Office..... but time will tell!
The really odd thing [to me anyway] is that I believe that MS have recently opened up their legacy binary MS-Office standards. If they had done this, documented them, and pushed them through ECMA/ISO then there would perhaps have been less complaints given that the legacy formats are widely implemented and used.