I actually meant dragged their heels on Apple technologies. Although I can't really blame them for that: Apple's technologies have been a whirlwind of chaos for quite some time.
Microsoft has a good point, but I don't think that's it.
Microsoft's point seems to be that something new should be given a new name: "so we could continue supporting existing users as well as freeing the new language from constraints." That's a pretty good argument. In fact, I'd say it's an awesome argument.
Now, granted, this is probably being suggested so Microsoft can say "We support JavaScript/ECMAScript, but not XyzScript." Bah. But the point about naming incompatible things differently (or, inversely, keeping things with the same name compatible) is a pretty sound one.
Oh, I agree, they're not up to Photoshop. They'll never take that position.
But Core Image has lowered the barrier so much that these applications are introduced as good products, and have time to gradually build the features that casual Photoshop users need. They'll never replace Photoshop for everyone, but I bet over the next few years they can replace Photoshop for all but the most serious professionals.
Over time, these tools will become as alike Photoshop as they want to be. Hopefully, though, the developers will come up with something better.
I don't think any of these tools are at the level of Photoshop yet. But it's clear to me that Apple's done most of the heavy lifting (read: hard math), and these apps will get as close to Photoshop as they want over the coming year or two.
Me, I haven't bought any of them yet. I've been paralyzed by the number of options out there, and I only found out about DrawIt a few days ago. It's a good time to be looking for a Mac OS X graphics tool.
WItness that Mac OS X 10.4 and later come with a complete set of Photoshop clone construction tools. See Acorn, DrawIt, Pixelmator and even later versions of GraphicConverter. Adobe dragged their heels too long.
To be fair, Spotlight was only a complete waste in the early releases of TIger. It actually improved in one of some of the double point release and was pretty decent by the end. It's certainly better in Leopard, though.
I agree. But what would a fair price be? The $129 that Apple currently charges is an upgrade from a previous version of Mac OS or Mac OS X. What would a new license be worth? I'm thinking about the same as Vista Ultimate, so $250. Does that still seem like a good deal?
It's fun to say SCO is done, but I wouldn't be so sure there's no value left. When I last talked about SCO here, I said the stock definitely had more expected value than a lottery ticket. I was ridiculed for the suggestion. (This isn't a very strong statement, either: The EV of $1 in lottery tickets is typically less then $0.25.)
That was at 0.16. When I checked the price just now it was at 0.32. Someone investing then could have doubled their money. (I really, really wish I'd followed my hunch then.)
Sure, SCO is going down hard. But there's going to continue to be items of value in the company. Apparently YCM thinks it can extract enough cash value for it to be worth the buying price. And maybe, just maybe, they're right.
I didn't get the error until I chose Validate Fonts. For the other fonts, it returned success instantly. Cambria took much longer to validate (I forget how long, though), and failed.
On a lark. I downloaded the C family and installed it on my PowerBook. Font Book on Mac OS X complained that Cambria was damaged, but gave the unhelpful description "System Validation."
So this makes me curious: Is there a font verification tool in Windows XP SP2? Does Cambria fail there?
When I say "I expected dashboard widgets," I mean packaging HTML and javascript up as an "application," and allowing them to communicate with a developer-written web-server daemon running on the iPhone. I didn't expect to get access to the UI except through Safari, in other words. I'm quite impressed with this announcement.
Actually, I was agreeing with you. I think. Now I'm confused about what you're actually saying.:)
See, when I read the May statement by Jobs I thought immediately "Oh, sounds like they'll have something. Eventually." Then Apple started talking about the web approach, and everyone seemed to assume that was it. "Apple expects us to develop web apps forever!", basically. I always thought that assumption was flawed. People are using the web app help now to say that Apple's changed their direction, but the announcement of the SDK fits well into the May statement.
I have to admit, though, I didn't expect a full SDK from Apple. I expected dashboard widgets.
You're taking two distinct items (a statement and an event) and assuming they're related. There's not only no guarantee of that, but in this case it would be logical. Event B did not satisfy Statement A.
Agree with most of this, but databases should be run on a server? Come on. There's no reason for the vast majority of databases to be on a server. In fact, most databases these days couldn't, because they're used embedded in your cellphone, your car, or a simple program on your computer. Most databases are not used by multiple users. Odds are you are carrying at least one database in your pocket right now.
Big multigigabyte or massively concurrent databases should be on a server, though.
Reading it, I'm pretty sure developers are not permitted to distribute the patch. This is really not "open source": this is "viewing source." Microsoft is providing view only, and only downloading the source as you step through it.
Now, like I said, this isn't really open source in any true sense of the word. But being able to step into your framework's code to see what's really going wrong isn't anything to sneeze at, either. Being able to read the code to determine exactly what triggers a bug is quite useful, since sometimes it can lead you to a workaround.
Delphi (up to version 5 at least, I haven't used it seriously since) provided this with most of their editions, and it was very useful. Especially for some of the buggier releases.
Humphrey: You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: " Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?" Bernard: Yes Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?" Bernard: Yes Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?" Bernard: Yes Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?" Bernard: Yes Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?" Bernard: Yes Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?" Bernard: Oh...well, I suppose I might be. Humphrey: "Yes or no?" Bernard: Yes Humphrey: Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told her you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one. Bernard: Is that really what they do? Humphrey: Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result. Bernard: How? Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?" Bernard: Yes Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?" Bernard: Yes Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?" Bernard: Yes Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?" Bernard: Yes Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?" Bernard: Yes Humphrey: There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample.
Their iPhone HUIG does have a big fat "currently" in front of their "you can only develop web pages." (Too lazy to look up the exact wording, sorry. I think it's in the introduction.)
Slashdot Mirror
I actually meant dragged their heels on Apple technologies. Although I can't really blame them for that: Apple's technologies have been a whirlwind of chaos for quite some time.
Microsoft has a good point, but I don't think that's it.
Microsoft's point seems to be that something new should be given a new name: "so we could continue supporting existing users as well as freeing the new language from constraints." That's a pretty good argument. In fact, I'd say it's an awesome argument.
Now, granted, this is probably being suggested so Microsoft can say "We support JavaScript/ECMAScript, but not XyzScript." Bah. But the point about naming incompatible things differently (or, inversely, keeping things with the same name compatible) is a pretty sound one.
Oh, I agree, they're not up to Photoshop. They'll never take that position.
But Core Image has lowered the barrier so much that these applications are introduced as good products, and have time to gradually build the features that casual Photoshop users need. They'll never replace Photoshop for everyone, but I bet over the next few years they can replace Photoshop for all but the most serious professionals.
Over time, these tools will become as alike Photoshop as they want to be. Hopefully, though, the developers will come up with something better.
I don't think any of these tools are at the level of Photoshop yet. But it's clear to me that Apple's done most of the heavy lifting (read: hard math), and these apps will get as close to Photoshop as they want over the coming year or two.
Me, I haven't bought any of them yet. I've been paralyzed by the number of options out there, and I only found out about DrawIt a few days ago. It's a good time to be looking for a Mac OS X graphics tool.
WItness that Mac OS X 10.4 and later come with a complete set of Photoshop clone construction tools. See Acorn, DrawIt, Pixelmator and even later versions of GraphicConverter. Adobe dragged their heels too long.
To be fair, Spotlight was only a complete waste in the early releases of TIger. It actually improved in one of some of the double point release and was pretty decent by the end. It's certainly better in Leopard, though.
Someone who doesn't want to buy tiles from Best Buy.
I agree. But what would a fair price be? The $129 that Apple currently charges is an upgrade from a previous version of Mac OS or Mac OS X. What would a new license be worth? I'm thinking about the same as Vista Ultimate, so $250. Does that still seem like a good deal?
It's fun to say SCO is done, but I wouldn't be so sure there's no value left. When I last talked about SCO here, I said the stock definitely had more expected value than a lottery ticket. I was ridiculed for the suggestion. (This isn't a very strong statement, either: The EV of $1 in lottery tickets is typically less then $0.25.)
That was at 0.16. When I checked the price just now it was at 0.32. Someone investing then could have doubled their money. (I really, really wish I'd followed my hunch then.)
Sure, SCO is going down hard. But there's going to continue to be items of value in the company. Apparently YCM thinks it can extract enough cash value for it to be worth the buying price. And maybe, just maybe, they're right.
I didn't get the error until I chose Validate Fonts. For the other fonts, it returned success instantly. Cambria took much longer to validate (I forget how long, though), and failed.
text is right, subject is wrong
On a lark. I downloaded the C family and installed it on my PowerBook. Font Book on Mac OS X complained that Cambria was damaged, but gave the unhelpful description "System Validation."
So this makes me curious:
Is there a font verification tool in Windows XP SP2?
Does Cambria fail there?
When I say "I expected dashboard widgets," I mean packaging HTML and javascript up as an "application," and allowing them to communicate with a developer-written web-server daemon running on the iPhone. I didn't expect to get access to the UI except through Safari, in other words. I'm quite impressed with this announcement.
Actually, I was agreeing with you. I think. Now I'm confused about what you're actually saying. :)
See, when I read the May statement by Jobs I thought immediately "Oh, sounds like they'll have something. Eventually." Then Apple started talking about the web approach, and everyone seemed to assume that was it. "Apple expects us to develop web apps forever!", basically. I always thought that assumption was flawed. People are using the web app help now to say that Apple's changed their direction, but the announcement of the SDK fits well into the May statement.
I have to admit, though, I didn't expect a full SDK from Apple. I expected dashboard widgets.
Thanks. That is indeed a terrifying seequence of events.
You're taking two distinct items (a statement and an event) and assuming they're related. There's not only no guarantee of that, but in this case it would be logical. Event B did not satisfy Statement A.
Oddly, I don't see a single Steve Jobs quote in there. Where did you see one? Do you mean the "source"? There's a reason rumors are rumors, you know.
(I've always expected a SDK at some point, but I have to admit, this one sounds like more access than I expected.)
I don't doubt you, but have you got a link for more information on this handy? It sounds very interesting, in a terrifying kind of way.
"No Abstain" wouldn't work as a rule. Then they'll pick Yes or No, depending on what Microsoft thinks, or pick one at random.
Web 2.0 was, like, so summer 2007. This is, like, fall. We're on web 2012 now.
Agree with most of this, but databases should be run on a server? Come on. There's no reason for the vast majority of databases to be on a server. In fact, most databases these days couldn't, because they're used embedded in your cellphone, your car, or a simple program on your computer. Most databases are not used by multiple users. Odds are you are carrying at least one database in your pocket right now.
Big multigigabyte or massively concurrent databases should be on a server, though.
Thanks for the info -- I'm glad to know Borland's changed this for the better.
Reading it, I'm pretty sure developers are not permitted to distribute the patch. This is really not "open source": this is "viewing source." Microsoft is providing view only, and only downloading the source as you step through it.
Now, like I said, this isn't really open source in any true sense of the word. But being able to step into your framework's code to see what's really going wrong isn't anything to sneeze at, either. Being able to read the code to determine exactly what triggers a bug is quite useful, since sometimes it can lead you to a workaround.
Delphi (up to version 5 at least, I haven't used it seriously since) provided this with most of their editions, and it was very useful. Especially for some of the buggier releases.
I think Yes Minister said it best.
Humphrey: You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: " Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard: Oh...well, I suppose I might be.
Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told her you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one.
Bernard: Is that really what they do?
Humphrey: Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result.
Bernard: How?
Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample.
Their iPhone HUIG does have a big fat "currently" in front of their "you can only develop web pages." (Too lazy to look up the exact wording, sorry. I think it's in the introduction.)