On top of the individual problems of those technologies you mentioned (PHP, MySQL, JavaScript, etc.), the fact is writing a "web app" requires you to be proficient in at least all 3 of these things. On top of it most of the time JavaScript and PHP end up being so intertwined you end up with what amounts to self-modifying code.
And of course HTML is not always HTML... neither is JavaScript (browser variations). I don't see how anyone can really write maintainable code for the web given all this stuff. I'm sure people can write "more" maintainable code than others. But it really doesn't compare to desktop applications.
And you just have to look around for proof. It's been 15+ years since the web took off.... and we're/still/ trying to figure out how to have windows and dialogs. Yes, maybe we finally have some decent web-based email clients now. But really the ones that existed 15-20 years ago were quite nice as well. It's true... the web has set computing back 30 years.
For the most part I agree with you. Different languages do have different conceptual models, so learning more languages is generally a good thing.
However, I think it's a mistake for schools to be abandoning C. One of the big things about all these new languages people are focusing on (Java, Python, etc.) is that they try specifically to do away with some of the main difficulties people have with C. I'm talking about things like pointers and structures/unions.
Say what you want about how dangerous they can be. But I do think it's a very fundamental thing people have to understand, especially when doing any sort of systems level programming. It's also quite handy (though not strictly required) in protocol and file format design.
I'm not saying everyone has to code everything in C. But I do think it's a basic foundation for someone getting a CompSci/CompEng degree. Even can be assembly is useful, just so you're not afraid of it. And once in a while (particularly when writing for microcontrollers or DSPs) it helps to understand what's going on there. It can be useful to understand how many instructions your line of code is translating to so you can count instruction-cycles.
Another basic I think is understanding how to write a parser (eg. using lex&yacc or whatever). I think far too many people are afraid of these things these days, and you end up with an "XML solves every problem" mentality.
I think it's still a hard sell for businesses. How many times have you loaded gmail or google maps to find small changes that were completely unannounced and you had no control over?
Businesses like stability. They like to say here's the version of software we're all using today, and we know how to deal with it's bugs and support issues. And let's evaluate and develop a plan before rolling out new software to the entire company. This is one of the reasons (besides cost of course) why a lot of businesses have stayed with Windows XP.
While there are benefits to having things in "the cloud," and certainly some things will make sense, "cloud computing" is not going to replace owning our own machines and software.
From a usage standpoint, I can actually sort of understand it. I've had many electronic devices (tv remote controls are a good example of this) where you just get crud in the battery contacts and you end up having to slide the batteries around a bit to make it work again.
You just end up with all sorts of mechanical issues when you have removable batteries. Not to mention case design... the little plastic piece that holds the battery in breaks off easily or over time (less than the lifespan of the device or batteries) wears out and doesn't really click into place anymore.
If you have the option of sealing the whole case up (even better, doing away with all external connectors), you can pretty well eliminate all those issues.
So while people like to complain that Apple's doing this to screw users over the battery, I don't think it's the case. I think it really is a matter of usability and keeping the overall user experience pleasant.
And as others mentioned, they do have external battery packs for the device.
Not only do you have legacy software. You may have up-to-date crappy software. Blackboard is definitely one of those pieces of software I'd rather stay away from.
Granted this is still anecdotal (sorry I don't have a source).
I remember in college (I think it was a comm studies class) where the professor explained the situation. The War of the Worlds radio broadcast was prefixed with a very clear message stating that it was fiction. However, there was some other really popular station/show or perhaps news report that people were listening to. When it was over, they had switched the station to hear the invasion announcement, but of course had missed the disclaimer.
The Kindle offers numerous advantages (cost, longevity, readability) over the iPad. For serious book readers, I there's not going to be a huge dent in Kindle sales.
The iPad will probably suck up any of the "casual" readers in the eBook space. But honestly, I don't think there's a huge amount of casual readers who would pay for the Kindle.
That all changes when/if the Kindle can reach a $100 price point. I don't know if that's possible, but it's certainly more likely than the iPad reaching even $200. There's also the issue of the monthly fee you won't have to deal with on the Kindle.
And while as a hacker, I understand the draw to a system that can run anything. For something like the iPhone and even iPad, I do appreciate the benefits Apple gives us in having a closed system and no multi-tasking. The thing really "just works." I don't have to worry about weird incompatibilities or how to close some backgrounded app that I didn't know was running or whatever. And it's simple to understand. I launch an app, use it for it's function, then leave it.
I've used WindowsCE/Mobile systems before and it was a pain... you're always wondering about your battery life and going into the task manager trying to close apps you thought you left. And having played a little with the Droid, I've seen some apps even in the store that just cause the thing to go dark and unresponsive for 5+ seconds on startup. I thought I broke the thing. For devices like this, as a user, I really don't want to bother with all the crap.
Yes, Apple exerts some dictatorial control for this, which at some times as a developer can be a nuisance. But overall as a user, I'm happier because of it. But I think it has a large part due to Apple's emphasis on user experience. Other companies exerting the same control would likely have much different results.
Yes, the hardware belongs to you. The App store belongs to Apple. They get to choose which apps they wish to distribute.
And if somehow a developer were able to make an app to melt down your phone, that's perfectly fine. But it's certainly within Apple's right to say they don't want to distribute it. And I as an owner of $200+ piece of hardware would prefer it if it were not easy to download software that could melt my phone.
There's no legitimate reason--ethical, legal or otherwise--that Apple should be obligated to continue supporting a processor they don't use in any of their own products.
Actually, as someone above pointed out, there is a reason: not ethical or legal, but logical. I agree they're in no obligation to support netbooks. But it is something that would help increase marketshare.
Maybe they like that position. They seem to like doing things (software-wise anyway) that decrease their marketshare.
Having said that, I'm not actually sure netbooks would help their cause so much. A lot of what Apple provides is not just "software" or "hardware" but a total user experience. That's an area that no other company really has a grasp on, probably specifically because you can't count it and put it in a "bottom line" until after the fact.
While the netbooks have a place, they are rather constrained to use. And without Apple's "total user experience" touch to it, it may actually be frustrating to use, which would devalue OSX (in terms of mindshare). Just think of how PDAs and phones were before the iPhone. Yes they had the functionality, and there's been numerous approaches to things to try to make one area or another better (hand writing recognition, background apps a la WinCE, or non-background state driven apps a la Palm, etc.). But really they were all just a bit clumsy to use and work with. The iPhone however, really revolutionized the user experience on a PDA.
However, stick the iPhone OS into an old Palm platform, and I imagine you'll have a pretty frustrating experience, even after you work around the multi-touch issues.
I was going to say that I type relatively fast, and using vi with latex worked quite well for me. The only thing that would've been nicer is a real-time viewer for what I was typing.
It sounds like from your description, LyX might be just that?
It's true that the near and far side both get equal amounts of sunlight. However, they get unequal amounts of earth-light.;-) But the far side is still called the dark side. It's a misnomer.
I think FOSS projects can survive individuals disappearing (including the founder) much better than closed/proprietary software. However, individuals can probably better survive (or at least their relatives notified) when actually going to a shared physical place of business, as the company or coworkers could better aid in tracking down the individual if he disappeared. Though I'm not sure how much chasing most employers would actually do.
I agree with the issues you've outlined with the problems of arbitrary rejections. However, I don't think that was the case here. Maybe they pulled it out after approving it, which is a separate matter. But in this case, I believe it's actually well understood that an app like this would get rejected. I believe they say somewhere specifically (might be in the signup agreement, I don't remember) is that they can not approve your app if you make excessive use of the carrier network. And if I understand Google Voice, it's basically duplicating phone functionality but using VOIP. I think it's reasonable to say that VOIP over their data lines can be var less efficient than their existing methods of transmitting voice (I'm not sure about this.. it's a guess). But if that's true, I don't think it's unreasonable or unexpected that Apple would not approve this app, regardless of how much I think they should.
Personally I think it was a calculated risk for Google, expecting they'll force Apple's hand through PR (either negative PR with the app getting rejected, or positive PR about how awesome their app is for every other mobile platform). Not that I think there's anything wrong with that either. Apple and the carriers are both being stupid in this regard. I'm just arguing that this particular app was not an inconsistent rejection, even if it slipped through the first time.
On a side note, I did work for another mobile game startup developing something for the Verizon platform (before the iPhone came out). And it was actually far worse than Apple. I mean at least Apple has a low barrier to entry. But everything else was fairly similar. They won't tell you before hand whether they'll approve it or not. You have to basically write the whole thing, then submit it. Then they can accept or reject you. If they reject you, you've basically done all the work for nothing. The startup ended up folding after that, and I was out several weeks pay.
Because how else am I going to help the government once I get implanted with a super-computer and have to be protected by a super hot spy chick? I've seen Chuck; I know how the world works.
Exactly... they're doing the same the music industry always does... try to squeeze money at every turn to the point the customers get frustrated.
On the Wii for example, you can't use the same instruments between Guitar Hero and Rock Band. And the Wii version didn't really seem to support an "add on pack" or downloadable music. You can buy the "expansion" but it's really just another game with different songs.
Ideally I'd like an open standard for game-based metadata for my music. I'd like to use my existing music library but perhaps download or purchase game-play data for that music.
Why am I forced, yet again, to purchase the same exact music I already own. Or if I bought the game, why can't I play the music in my music player.
And I think that's what we're seeing. The first version is entertaining and fun. But once the competitors and variations show up, it's just too much of a hassle. I'm not going to buy a new set of controllers for every competitor that wants to enter the market.
Ah, good to know. But as I said, it's not just DotA. I've seen behavior like that in other battle.net games.
I've also seen similar behavior in entirely different online games, even chess. For example, most games calculate your score/ranking after you win/lose a game. In many systems, people will simply drop the connection if they know they're about to lose.
So unfortunately, it seems like they only way to foster "nice" players is to actually require it in the score calculations.
I've found this to be true of pretty much anything on battle.net. Or perhaps of anything remotely popular.
I think part of the problem is the complete anonymity of people and the fact that there are a lot of immature people playing the game that haven't learned yet the value of teamwork.
What may help is a psuedo social network, where players could rank each other in terms of who're good players, whether people enjoyed playing with/against them, etc. Somewhat like the feedback mechanisms of ebay and amazon. This way unpleasant players will find that they just don't get invited/allowed to many games.
But of course you still need some way for newbies to get experience and reputation, or else you'll effectively cut off experience players from new players.
A mechanism like this could also make it easier for people of similar skill levels to find and play with each other.
You make a good point. But you don't necessarily have to get the old cars off the road. Perhaps regulation to refit them to current emissions standards (don't they already do that?)... (btw, by "current emission standards" I mean whatever makes sense -- so if the old vehicles can't be as clean as current vehicles, even if they could meet half-way would be better than leaving them where they are).
I am also assuming (perhaps incorrectly?) that the homeless and such who can't afford to legally operate a car is a small percentage.
I'm not sure I understand their numbers. But if reducing all cow emissions by 12% is equivalent to half a million cars, and there are 250 million cars on the road[1], couldn't you do more by reducing emissions from all cars by even 1% ? (Someone whose still in school want to do the math for me?)
Indeed, I think he should make all of his facebook, twitter, myspace, and other online accounts and passwords available for the public. We really have to make sure he's the type of person we think he is.
I don't know of any highly optimized Python compilers for big metal.
Do you know of any moderately optimized Python for the desktop even? =) seems like all the redhat/fedora install scripts still make new computers run like they did 7 years ago. omg, and scons is awesome, but it takes longer for it to scan the source tree than it does to compile!
Just to follow onto your comment.... I'm actually surprised this hasn't been a bigger deal in distros. Port knocking is a fantastic way to virtually eliminate these sorts of threats.
I personally use knocking on my home server as if I'm really in a bind, I can attempt to use the local telnet client rather than having to have a program to create the magic packet.
While I've heard talk of it, I haven't actually seen any software that ties together with ssh (or login) that only allows the user from a particular IP to log in. That'd really be the ideal thing for ISPs or any system with lots of users. This way, even if you hack one of the codes, you still have to know which user that code is for. And of course you still have all of ssh's normal authentication mechanisms you have to go through.
Slashdot Mirror
On top of the individual problems of those technologies you mentioned (PHP, MySQL, JavaScript, etc.), the fact is writing a "web app" requires you to be proficient in at least all 3 of these things. On top of it most of the time JavaScript and PHP end up being so intertwined you end up with what amounts to self-modifying code.
And of course HTML is not always HTML... neither is JavaScript (browser variations). I don't see how anyone can really write maintainable code for the web given all this stuff. I'm sure people can write "more" maintainable code than others. But it really doesn't compare to desktop applications.
And you just have to look around for proof. It's been 15+ years since the web took off.... and we're /still/ trying to figure out how to have windows and dialogs. Yes, maybe we finally have some decent web-based email clients now. But really the ones that existed 15-20 years ago were quite nice as well. It's true... the web has set computing back 30 years.
For the most part I agree with you. Different languages do have different conceptual models, so learning more languages is generally a good thing.
However, I think it's a mistake for schools to be abandoning C. One of the big things about all these new languages people are focusing on (Java, Python, etc.) is that they try specifically to do away with some of the main difficulties people have with C. I'm talking about things like pointers and structures/unions.
Say what you want about how dangerous they can be. But I do think it's a very fundamental thing people have to understand, especially when doing any sort of systems level programming. It's also quite handy (though not strictly required) in protocol and file format design.
I'm not saying everyone has to code everything in C. But I do think it's a basic foundation for someone getting a CompSci/CompEng degree. Even can be assembly is useful, just so you're not afraid of it. And once in a while (particularly when writing for microcontrollers or DSPs) it helps to understand what's going on there. It can be useful to understand how many instructions your line of code is translating to so you can count instruction-cycles.
Another basic I think is understanding how to write a parser (eg. using lex&yacc or whatever). I think far too many people are afraid of these things these days, and you end up with an "XML solves every problem" mentality.
I think it's still a hard sell for businesses. How many times have you loaded gmail or google maps to find small changes that were completely unannounced and you had no control over?
Businesses like stability. They like to say here's the version of software we're all using today, and we know how to deal with it's bugs and support issues. And let's evaluate and develop a plan before rolling out new software to the entire company. This is one of the reasons (besides cost of course) why a lot of businesses have stayed with Windows XP.
While there are benefits to having things in "the cloud," and certainly some things will make sense, "cloud computing" is not going to replace owning our own machines and software.
From a usage standpoint, I can actually sort of understand it. I've had many electronic devices (tv remote controls are a good example of this) where you just get crud in the battery contacts and you end up having to slide the batteries around a bit to make it work again.
You just end up with all sorts of mechanical issues when you have removable batteries. Not to mention case design... the little plastic piece that holds the battery in breaks off easily or over time (less than the lifespan of the device or batteries) wears out and doesn't really click into place anymore.
If you have the option of sealing the whole case up (even better, doing away with all external connectors), you can pretty well eliminate all those issues.
So while people like to complain that Apple's doing this to screw users over the battery, I don't think it's the case. I think it really is a matter of usability and keeping the overall user experience pleasant.
And as others mentioned, they do have external battery packs for the device.
Not only do you have legacy software. You may have up-to-date crappy software. Blackboard is definitely one of those pieces of software I'd rather stay away from.
This is far worse than "do no evil." This is in fact "do good" and I will have no part in it!
Granted this is still anecdotal (sorry I don't have a source).
I remember in college (I think it was a comm studies class) where the professor explained the situation. The War of the Worlds radio broadcast was prefixed with a very clear message stating that it was fiction. However, there was some other really popular station/show or perhaps news report that people were listening to. When it was over, they had switched the station to hear the invasion announcement, but of course had missed the disclaimer.
The Kindle offers numerous advantages (cost, longevity, readability) over the iPad. For serious book readers, I there's not going to be a huge dent in Kindle sales.
The iPad will probably suck up any of the "casual" readers in the eBook space. But honestly, I don't think there's a huge amount of casual readers who would pay for the Kindle.
That all changes when/if the Kindle can reach a $100 price point. I don't know if that's possible, but it's certainly more likely than the iPad reaching even $200. There's also the issue of the monthly fee you won't have to deal with on the Kindle.
And while as a hacker, I understand the draw to a system that can run anything. For something like the iPhone and even iPad, I do appreciate the benefits Apple gives us in having a closed system and no multi-tasking. The thing really "just works." I don't have to worry about weird incompatibilities or how to close some backgrounded app that I didn't know was running or whatever. And it's simple to understand. I launch an app, use it for it's function, then leave it.
I've used WindowsCE/Mobile systems before and it was a pain... you're always wondering about your battery life and going into the task manager trying to close apps you thought you left. And having played a little with the Droid, I've seen some apps even in the store that just cause the thing to go dark and unresponsive for 5+ seconds on startup. I thought I broke the thing. For devices like this, as a user, I really don't want to bother with all the crap.
Yes, Apple exerts some dictatorial control for this, which at some times as a developer can be a nuisance. But overall as a user, I'm happier because of it. But I think it has a large part due to Apple's emphasis on user experience. Other companies exerting the same control would likely have much different results.
Yes, the hardware belongs to you. The App store belongs to Apple. They get to choose which apps they wish to distribute.
And if somehow a developer were able to make an app to melt down your phone, that's perfectly fine. But it's certainly within Apple's right to say they don't want to distribute it. And I as an owner of $200+ piece of hardware would prefer it if it were not easy to download software that could melt my phone.
There's no legitimate reason--ethical, legal or otherwise--that Apple should be obligated to continue supporting a processor they don't use in any of their own products.
Actually, as someone above pointed out, there is a reason: not ethical or legal, but logical. I agree they're in no obligation to support netbooks. But it is something that would help increase marketshare.
Maybe they like that position. They seem to like doing things (software-wise anyway) that decrease their marketshare.
Having said that, I'm not actually sure netbooks would help their cause so much. A lot of what Apple provides is not just "software" or "hardware" but a total user experience. That's an area that no other company really has a grasp on, probably specifically because you can't count it and put it in a "bottom line" until after the fact.
While the netbooks have a place, they are rather constrained to use. And without Apple's "total user experience" touch to it, it may actually be frustrating to use, which would devalue OSX (in terms of mindshare). Just think of how PDAs and phones were before the iPhone. Yes they had the functionality, and there's been numerous approaches to things to try to make one area or another better (hand writing recognition, background apps a la WinCE, or non-background state driven apps a la Palm, etc.). But really they were all just a bit clumsy to use and work with. The iPhone however, really revolutionized the user experience on a PDA.
However, stick the iPhone OS into an old Palm platform, and I imagine you'll have a pretty frustrating experience, even after you work around the multi-touch issues.
I was going to say that I type relatively fast, and using vi with latex worked quite well for me. The only thing that would've been nicer is a real-time viewer for what I was typing.
It sounds like from your description, LyX might be just that?
Didn't we get the answer to this in an earlier article today?
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/02/0518231
The dark side and the far side are actually synonymous. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
It's true that the near and far side both get equal amounts of sunlight. However, they get unequal amounts of earth-light. ;-) But the far side is still called the dark side. It's a misnomer.
Exactly. That's why I like working in base-pi. Though it does make working with rational numbers a bit trickier...
I think FOSS projects can survive individuals disappearing (including the founder) much better than closed/proprietary software. However, individuals can probably better survive (or at least their relatives notified) when actually going to a shared physical place of business, as the company or coworkers could better aid in tracking down the individual if he disappeared. Though I'm not sure how much chasing most employers would actually do.
I agree with the issues you've outlined with the problems of arbitrary rejections. However, I don't think that was the case here. Maybe they pulled it out after approving it, which is a separate matter. But in this case, I believe it's actually well understood that an app like this would get rejected. I believe they say somewhere specifically (might be in the signup agreement, I don't remember) is that they can not approve your app if you make excessive use of the carrier network. And if I understand Google Voice, it's basically duplicating phone functionality but using VOIP. I think it's reasonable to say that VOIP over their data lines can be var less efficient than their existing methods of transmitting voice (I'm not sure about this.. it's a guess). But if that's true, I don't think it's unreasonable or unexpected that Apple would not approve this app, regardless of how much I think they should.
Personally I think it was a calculated risk for Google, expecting they'll force Apple's hand through PR (either negative PR with the app getting rejected, or positive PR about how awesome their app is for every other mobile platform). Not that I think there's anything wrong with that either. Apple and the carriers are both being stupid in this regard. I'm just arguing that this particular app was not an inconsistent rejection, even if it slipped through the first time.
On a side note, I did work for another mobile game startup developing something for the Verizon platform (before the iPhone came out). And it was actually far worse than Apple. I mean at least Apple has a low barrier to entry. But everything else was fairly similar. They won't tell you before hand whether they'll approve it or not. You have to basically write the whole thing, then submit it. Then they can accept or reject you. If they reject you, you've basically done all the work for nothing. The startup ended up folding after that, and I was out several weeks pay.
Because how else am I going to help the government once I get implanted with a super-computer and have to be protected by a super hot spy chick? I've seen Chuck; I know how the world works.
Exactly... they're doing the same the music industry always does... try to squeeze money at every turn to the point the customers get frustrated.
On the Wii for example, you can't use the same instruments between Guitar Hero and Rock Band. And the Wii version didn't really seem to support an "add on pack" or downloadable music. You can buy the "expansion" but it's really just another game with different songs.
Ideally I'd like an open standard for game-based metadata for my music. I'd like to use my existing music library but perhaps download or purchase game-play data for that music.
Why am I forced, yet again, to purchase the same exact music I already own. Or if I bought the game, why can't I play the music in my music player.
And I think that's what we're seeing. The first version is entertaining and fun. But once the competitors and variations show up, it's just too much of a hassle. I'm not going to buy a new set of controllers for every competitor that wants to enter the market.
Ah, good to know. But as I said, it's not just DotA. I've seen behavior like that in other battle.net games.
I've also seen similar behavior in entirely different online games, even chess. For example, most games calculate your score/ranking after you win/lose a game. In many systems, people will simply drop the connection if they know they're about to lose.
So unfortunately, it seems like they only way to foster "nice" players is to actually require it in the score calculations.
I've found this to be true of pretty much anything on battle.net. Or perhaps of anything remotely popular.
I think part of the problem is the complete anonymity of people and the fact that there are a lot of immature people playing the game that haven't learned yet the value of teamwork.
What may help is a psuedo social network, where players could rank each other in terms of who're good players, whether people enjoyed playing with/against them, etc. Somewhat like the feedback mechanisms of ebay and amazon. This way unpleasant players will find that they just don't get invited/allowed to many games.
But of course you still need some way for newbies to get experience and reputation, or else you'll effectively cut off experience players from new players.
A mechanism like this could also make it easier for people of similar skill levels to find and play with each other.
You make a good point. But you don't necessarily have to get the old cars off the road. Perhaps regulation to refit them to current emissions standards (don't they already do that?)... (btw, by "current emission standards" I mean whatever makes sense -- so if the old vehicles can't be as clean as current vehicles, even if they could meet half-way would be better than leaving them where they are).
I am also assuming (perhaps incorrectly?) that the homeless and such who can't afford to legally operate a car is a small percentage.
I'm not sure I understand their numbers. But if reducing all cow emissions by 12% is equivalent to half a million cars, and there are 250 million cars on the road[1], couldn't you do more by reducing emissions from all cars by even 1% ? (Someone whose still in school want to do the math for me?)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States
Indeed, I think he should make all of his facebook, twitter, myspace, and other online accounts and passwords available for the public. We really have to make sure he's the type of person we think he is.
I don't know of any highly optimized Python compilers for big metal.
Do you know of any moderately optimized Python for the desktop even? =) seems like all the redhat/fedora install scripts still make new computers run like they did 7 years ago. omg, and scons is awesome, but it takes longer for it to scan the source tree than it does to compile!
Just to follow onto your comment.... I'm actually surprised this hasn't been a bigger deal in distros. Port knocking is a fantastic way to virtually eliminate these sorts of threats.
For a home server, this one's nice and easy to use:
http://www.zeroflux.org/projects/knock
ISPs may want to run an SPA tool like fwknop, allowing each user to have their own code:
http://www.cipherdyne.org/fwknop/
I personally use knocking on my home server as if I'm really in a bind, I can attempt to use the local telnet client rather than having to have a program to create the magic packet.
While I've heard talk of it, I haven't actually seen any software that ties together with ssh (or login) that only allows the user from a particular IP to log in. That'd really be the ideal thing for ISPs or any system with lots of users. This way, even if you hack one of the codes, you still have to know which user that code is for. And of course you still have all of ssh's normal authentication mechanisms you have to go through.
references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_knocking
http://www.portknocking.org/