While it's nice that Flex is open source (I also have been working with recently on a recent project), but we need an open source implementation of the Flash Player. The SWF file format being open is a start, but the libraries that implement the Flash API are not part of this. I speculate that this is why Gnash has not been able to keep up, they have to reverse engineer and reimplement the libraries for the Flash API.
I tried Eclipse while in College and it was god awful slow compare to Visual Studio(.Net 1.1). I have not tried Eclipse since.
And this is supposed to be relevant now, how?
I've actually found that all versions of Visual Studio are unbearable slow, even if you have 4GB of RAM, have recent hardware, and it's the only thing running. 2005 was actually slower than 2003. 2008 is about the same speed as 2005 in my subjective observations, though it is doing more in the background now, so I guess its a net gain.
Eclipse is blazing fast in comparison, and I don't consider Eclipse to be any sort of speed demon. If it's slow for you, you probably just haven't tweaked the JVM settings yet (which is necessary, especially if you use a lot of plugins). Also remember that, by default, it's constantly compiling every change you make (at least in Java), but you can turn that off if you like (I don't, I like my compilation errors reported right away).
I'd of course rather be using Emacs than either of those pigs, and use it for anything that's not Java/C#. It's funny, because back in the day Emacs was the pig. Now it's lightweight in comparison to the alternatives.
I have all three installed - 2008, 2005, and 2003, though I mainly use 2008 these days (just have the other ones around just in case). I don't get what people like about Visual Studio. I personally like Eclipse much much better, and like using Emacs even better than that. Maybe I'm just scarred from having to use Visual Studio's awful Winforms designer. But they could do so much more for C# editing. Intellisense is good and all, but they should look at Eclipse's quick fixes and try pressing CTRL-1 and CTRL-. (Cmd instead of CTRL if you're on a Mac) and all the little shortcuts that allow you breeze through writing Java code in Eclipse. That said, the code editor is fairly good in 2008, just not as good as the competition as far as editing for a verbose language is concerned, and there's very little in VS that really impresses me.
Ok, so if you don't want to even run Firefox 3 (which *does* support Win2k) on the system, what is the problem with Mozilla dropping support in 3.5? For running modern software, Win2k has not been a viable option for a few years now. You just can't expect to run it and be able to install recent software packages anymore. If you need to run modern software, its time to upgrade.
Unfortunately, some of my customers don't feel this way, and we are stuck using.Net 2.0 so that we can support Win2k on one of our products when we really want to be using 3.5 which is a huge improvement (don't get me started on the bad decision to even use.Net in this product). Maybe in 2010 we can finally abandon support for Win2k, but by that time we hopefully will have replaced this product with a web-based equivalent.
BTW, I have machines from around 2001 (AMD Athlon T-Bird 1.4GHz for example) that are running Ubuntu 8.04 (desktop) just fine. Supported until 2011 (Ubuntu's long term support distros are supported for 3 years for the desktop, 5 years on the server). I wouldn't be surprised if the next LTS release works ok on that machine, too, but if it doesn't, there are other distros that cater to old hardware. While its nice that MS still releases security updates for Win2k, the most common reason for not wanting to upgrade desktops to XP has been having to pay for it.
Or maybe they stayed with Windows 2000 because it was pretty identical to Windows XP API-wise, does not need activation, and Just Works.
It's true that lack of activation makes it easy for mouth breathers to pirate Win2k, and they probably couldn't handle finding a working serial and the tool to install it with to be able to run XP without activation (a site-wide EDU license serial will do this). It's too bad WinXP pirates are a bunch of clueless morons who run machines infested with viruses. Ever been to a India or China? Pretty much every computer is running a pirate copy of XP with updates turned off. I would say the idiots pirates are better off using Win2k if it weren't for the fact that they all running IE which means they would be running IE6 if they were using Win2k. So Firefox support is a non-issue for these morons.
It's pretty retarded and dumb to insist that I pay for a new operating system for a computer that is running fine and might not run the newer software as well. Microsoft is still supporting Win2K Pro, and will issue security patches until 13 July 2010. And why would I want to switch to Ubuntu if I'm using Win2K? That's dumbest suggestion I've heard for a long time.
If by "support" you mean "life support" then you are right. Microsoft has pretty much abandoned Win2k; you're lucky to be getting security updates. Try running a.Net 3.5 application for example. Microsoft has dropped support for Win2k for many of their apps. They don't even support IE7 on Win2k for crying out loud. Most software vendors have abandoned it, and are only supporting WinXP and newer. Why would you expect Mozilla to do anything different? If you insist on using an outdated, practically unsupported operating system, you're just going to have to suck it up that you won't be able to use Firefox 3.5 and a lot of other software packages that already dropped support.
This is the nature of software, especially operating systems. And if paying for a new operating system in order to run recent software is a problem for you, you are using the wrong OS. There are plenty of free operating systems after all.
I had the same reaction at first. but then thought about it a bit more.
The boneheads who are dumb enough to still be using Win2k as their desktop OS (WinXP, OS X, and Linux distros are much better choices), are probably dumb enough to be running IE6 and not knowing any better. If you're already going to be at the disadvantage of running Windows, you should at least be using XP SP3. Win2k is just plain not supported anymore, and any non-retarded Windows user will be running XP SP3. Yes, businesses can be retarded, too. And if your business app *requires* Win2k (run it in a VM!), then that machine probably doesn't specifically need newer versions of Firefox.
Alternative web browsers are the only thing keeping Win2k usable, and there are others besides Firefox. And if you have an old machine that is only used for web browsing, its asinine to be running Win2k on it when Ubuntu is so fucking easy to install and gives you so much more than Win2k.
Eclipse + VMWare... you'll love every bit above 4G.
Eclipse + VMWare Fusion running a Windows XP VM with Visual Studio and a Linux VM with Oracle installed = really glad I can at least upgrade to 8GB on my new MacBook Pro 17" (though only have 4GB right now due to cost). I would've requested a Mac Pro (upgradable to 32GB) instead if Apple had not come out with a notebook that supports 8GB. Portability is just not worth being constrained to 4GB.
People who don't understand why you'd ever want more than 4GB just aren't using VMs.
Ballmer wants the world to focus on the idea that the desktop fight is only between M$ and Apple. If he can do that then, perhaps (please -- hopefully), that people will not start using a Linux desktop.
The Linux desktop is Ballmer's real nightmare... and it is getting closer.
As someone who just switched to OS X from Linux as my main desktop OS a few years ago, I really hope you're right. But, sadly, I don't think you are. Linux is going to be a win in more locked-down devices and devices with emerging ecosystems, like cell phones, portable devices, media boxes, etc. But Linux unfortunately lacks software that Windows and OS X have, and its hard for Linux to compete because of the existing expectations people have for their desktop machines.
When I was using Linux, I still had to use Windows for some software. When I switched to OS X, I no longer needed Linux nor Windows because it had all the same software (or good alternatives) as both of those OSes combined. Granted, I still use Linux (mainly on servers and in VMs) and keep a Windows VM around just in case, but all my desktop needs are covered with OS X.
That way it'll encourage them to write efficient implementations.
If you give your programmers an 8-way 4GHz m/b with 64GB of memory (if sucha thing exists yet), they'll use all the processing power in dumb, inefficient algorithms, just because the development time is reduced. While those of us in the real world have to get by on "normal" machines.
I hear this all the time, and its completely silly because it only applies to a subset of software being developed. For example, most of the software I develop at my current job is deployed to hardware that actually has much higher specs than the hardware I am developing on, because I write mostly server-side software that is deployed to servers with generous resources. I work on the client-side as well (though a much smaller percentage), but the performance bottlenecks are not there anyway, they are when hitting the database. Of course, my development environment is unrealistic for a different reason -- it doesn't simulate the load that occurs in production. I don't think using a machine with pitiful specs for development is going to accurately simulate what happens when more than one user uses a system.
In any case, us developers need fast machines because we actually have to build/rebuild the software constantly. And sometimes our tools are resource hungry, like servers that we have to restart frequently, or heavy-weight IDE's that are fucking slow even on the badass hardware we have (yes, there are different choices that can be made here, but not everyone gets to make those choices). The end users don't have this problem; the software is already built for them, the servers started up, and the caches warmed.
I own 3 Macs (Mac Mini, MBP, and a Mac Pro), and have a MBP at work and I've always regarded the iMac as the dumbest product in their line-up. I understand that I might be in the minority, but I don't know, it seems like its a common idea that you shouldn't buy an all-in-one device (as many people found with their TV-VCR combos when the VCR portion crapped out on them).
I was pretty much forced to buy the Mac Pro for my desktop Mac. The Mac Mini is underpowered (slower hard drive), the iMac is stupid, that leaves only the Mac Pro which is overkill, I don't really need the Xeons, but I guess the RAM expandability will be handy in the future. The plus side is that I won't be replacing my Mac Pro for a LONG time.
What a lot of people want is a mid-range equivalent of the Mac Pro. A desktop that has a Core 2 Duo and the possibility to easily install multiple internal hard drives (and video cards) is about all people want. I understand why we won't see this (Apple knows their market). It's just that I've never spent this kind of money on a computer. I always stayed a few generations behind, which is possible with PCs without having to buy used/refurbished. And even buying used/refurbished doesn't save you that much money on Macs (though I got a great deal on my MBP whose GPU is going to fail some day).
Despite the products being worth what they cost, it's expensive to be a Mac user (at least the initial investment, I guess it evens out in the long run). I keep telling myself I'm going to switch back to Linux as my main OS some day... Hey, I can switch back any time I want.
I think multi-language program is pretty much the norm, so not sure what this is talking about. At my current job, for our products we use PL/SQL, Java (on the server), and C# and ActionScript on the client, with a bit of JavaScript here and there. For some of the automation-type stuff we use some Python and all the typical UNIX utils including the ones that were mentioned (but these are not things that are actually part of our product).
The typical web app usually requires you to know at least 2 programming languages (some language + JavaScript). Though, JavaScript on the server side and things like GWT are making it possible to code in one programming language.
learn to do all my programming in C++/Java/(insert other well-supported, popular language here)
I would insert Python into that list, as the question author already uses it.
As a Mac user who sleeps with a different hot Mac chick every week, I fart in the direction of all Windows users. I also use Linux (just about any UNIX/UNIX-like I'm up to using), but that doesn't get me laid like the little Apple that lights up on my laptop does.
It looks much worse than before. The rounded edges don't even look rounded, it looks absolutely horrible. But the looks I don't have a huge issue with, I can live with an ugly interface. I think showing all the tab contents on the side is a waste of space. The GMail preview shows too much.
The biggest issue I have is that they took away the collapse/minimize button. You can still do it through a drop-down menu (and you have to do un-collapse through that menu too), but its annoying that they made such a frequently used option more difficult to use.
Maybe some Greasemonkey scripts can make things better.
Nah, like me, we just got older. When were were young Microsoft was pure evil, Linux was the savior. All the MS did was wrong and all that Linux did was good. Then we entered the real world. Finding the Microsoft actually makes rather competitive products. And Linux has consistently dropped the ball in some areas.
Let me correct that for you. "Then we entered the real world. Finding that OS X can do almost everything Linux can. And the problem with using Linux is that it doesn't have good enough support from hardware and commercial software manufacturers, and that's just a reality we have to accept."
In the year 2008, if you're a developer the choice should be between Linux or OS X. Windows shouldn't even be an option for your main OS unless all you do all day long is use Visual Studio (in which case I pity you). Windows runs perfectly well in VMWare (on OS X or Linux), there's no reason to use it as your main OS anymore, especially with features like Unity.
The ultimate developer workstation is a Mac Pro with about 8GB of RAM, and Linux and Windows running under VMWare; you can't go wrong with that. Toss in a 30" display or two and you're golden.
If you want to be mobile, I don't agree with Apple's choices in keyboard layout and the lack of trackpoint (Thinkpads' keyboard and trackpoint rule), but the MacBook Pro is pretty badass otherwise, especially if you get the 17" high res display (1920x1200 on a laptop is fucking sweet).
Over the years when challenges of life take effect GNU and Software freedom means less then it did before. It is about getting the Job done, and you find that software freedom has less to do with free speech then you did when your young.
Its easier to get the job done with open source languages, libraries, and platforms. When you depend on a closed source, proprietary product you are just shooting yourself in the foot in the long run (and probably in the short term, too). You might be able to get the job of releasing software done, but not the job of maintaining that software 5 years from now.
Closed/proprietary tools are only ok to use when there are alternatives (hopefully open) that you can easily switch to, but not languages, libraries, or platforms. For my software I don't depend on any closed source languages, libraries, or platforms anymore (since I currently have the power to make these decisions for my team), and I would feel uncomfortable doing so again because I (and my organization) have had enough bad experiences with closed/proprietary products to not want to go down that route again. Microsoft's development tools/platforms were among those, including.Net; and the existence of Mono doesn't help.
like the iphone which is the best phone interface i've ever used for web browsing, but is pretty useless when you want to type a text message one handed.
I hear this all the time, but I have no problems typing text one handed on my iPhone. It does help to have a case that gives you better grip, but still possible without one. One side of the iPhone is gripped with my fingers, the other side rests against my palm (near where my thumb starts), then I simply type with my thumb. Granted, I'm faster with a single index finger.
The SMS app does kinda suck though. I wish Apple would expose the APIs necessary for someone to write an alternative. It would be kinda cool to have one with an option to have a T9-like input (with a numerical keybad) for people who are used to that layout. Maybe the jailbreakers will figure it out.
Most of the wagons available in the U.S. are not fuel-efficient. I'm glad Hyandai is about to put out the Elantra Touring this year.
A lot of manufacturers are killing wagons in the U.S., including some of the ones you listed. Mazda 6 Wagon is gone and may never come back (it had a 6-cylinder engine anyways), even the Mazda 6 Hatchback (which did have a 4-cyl) is gone. Subaru Legacy Wagon is gone (it wasn't a gas sipper anyway). Impreza only has a hatchback available.
The European imports have nice wagons, there might be a fuel-sipper in there that I missed (Jetta Diesel Wagon here yet?).
Subcompact hatchbacks are awesome, but may be small for some people. I'd rather have a wagon than a hatch. A hatch shortens the car compared to its sedan equivalent. A wagon keeps the length the same but adds cargo room.
I wish Honda would bring some wagons to the U.S. instead of the SUV/CUV bullshit that we get. An Accord wagon would be nice (they have one in Europe), and a Civic wagon would be perfect. The Fit is badass and all, but may be a bit small, especially when you are 6'3" like me and want to have 3 passengers fit in your car.
Toyota's Prius is actually big enough to be considered a wagon and is actually considered a mid-sized car. Honda dropped the ball by not creating wagon/hatchback hybrids, but maybe they'll get it right with their next hybrid model. Toyota hit the nail on the head with the Prius.
The Prius is my most likely candidate for my next vehicle even though I don't like the way it handles. The Hyandai Elantra Touring is the most likely if I go non-hybrid. Or may wait a few years and see the next gen hybrids. But I most definitely want a wagon or a mid-sized hatchback, something with a decent cargo capabilities but also decent fuel economy. The car manufacturers are completely capable of providing this (and do in some cases), I'd just like to see more options instead of more bullshit CUV's.
Umm no, the Prius is not a midsized car, it is a compact car. The camry is a mid-sized, and the avalon is a full sized.
You obviously are not familiar with the Prius. You can seat four or maybe five (depending on how skinny) 6'2" people in a Prius without a problem with legroom (I know because I'm 6'2" and have been in a Prius). I pulled up a Prius I rented next to a 2006 Hyandai Sonata (mid-sized car) and it was about the same size with Sonata having a bigger trunk. The Prius may be a little narrower and have a smaller trunk area than a Camry/Accord/Sonata, but its quite certainly a mid-sized car and not a compact. Put the back seats down and you have a considerably large cargo area that no compact car can touch.
This is a common misconception that hybrid = small car. The hybrid powertrain along with aerodynamic design allows you to have a larger car with better gas mileage.
A crossover is build on a sedan chassis and is based on a passenger car. It is lighter, and by virtue of the car engines, more fuel efficient.
Crossover's are basically wagons on stilts. They have raised suspensions which are completely unnecessary, raise the center of gravity, and add weight. I wish car manufacturers would just give us proper wagons instead of these pointless vehicles.
Re:Everybody hates a truck until...
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Friends and family that own gas-sipping little munchkin cars are constantly enlisting my services as a man who owns a functional truck. Whether they are moving, cleaning out a basement or hauling a load of firewood, they all know who to call... the man with the truck.
So your excuse for using your oversized vehicle is that you're everyone elses bitch?
When I need to move something large, truck rentals are like $20/hour at Home Depot. I don't need to waste the time/energy of my truck-owning friends when its cheap and easy to rent.
Some of the rudest drivers I have ever encountered were in munchkin hybrids.
The only "munchkin" hybrid is the Honda Insight. Are all Insight drivers really that rude? The Prius is a mid-sized car comparable to a Camry/Accord/Mazda6/etc, its not a small car. The Honda Civic Hybrid is a small car (not a "sub-compact"), but the Civic has ballooned in size compared to the Civics of the 80's and 90's. But I guess all normal-sized cars are "munchkins" when you drive an F150.
Slashdot Mirror
While it's nice that Flex is open source (I also have been working with recently on a recent project), but we need an open source implementation of the Flash Player. The SWF file format being open is a start, but the libraries that implement the Flash API are not part of this. I speculate that this is why Gnash has not been able to keep up, they have to reverse engineer and reimplement the libraries for the Flash API.
I tried Eclipse while in College and it was god awful slow compare to Visual Studio(.Net 1.1). I have not tried Eclipse since.
And this is supposed to be relevant now, how?
I've actually found that all versions of Visual Studio are unbearable slow, even if you have 4GB of RAM, have recent hardware, and it's the only thing running. 2005 was actually slower than 2003. 2008 is about the same speed as 2005 in my subjective observations, though it is doing more in the background now, so I guess its a net gain.
Eclipse is blazing fast in comparison, and I don't consider Eclipse to be any sort of speed demon. If it's slow for you, you probably just haven't tweaked the JVM settings yet (which is necessary, especially if you use a lot of plugins). Also remember that, by default, it's constantly compiling every change you make (at least in Java), but you can turn that off if you like (I don't, I like my compilation errors reported right away).
I'd of course rather be using Emacs than either of those pigs, and use it for anything that's not Java/C#. It's funny, because back in the day Emacs was the pig. Now it's lightweight in comparison to the alternatives.
I have all three installed - 2008, 2005, and 2003, though I mainly use 2008 these days (just have the other ones around just in case). I don't get what people like about Visual Studio. I personally like Eclipse much much better, and like using Emacs even better than that. Maybe I'm just scarred from having to use Visual Studio's awful Winforms designer. But they could do so much more for C# editing. Intellisense is good and all, but they should look at Eclipse's quick fixes and try pressing CTRL-1 and CTRL-. (Cmd instead of CTRL if you're on a Mac) and all the little shortcuts that allow you breeze through writing Java code in Eclipse. That said, the code editor is fairly good in 2008, just not as good as the competition as far as editing for a verbose language is concerned, and there's very little in VS that really impresses me.
I do development, and even when software crashes, the OS stays up and running.
It's pretty sad that you even have to make a statement like that in 2009. I mean, we're not talking about Windows 3.x/95/98/ME here.
Ok, so if you don't want to even run Firefox 3 (which *does* support Win2k) on the system, what is the problem with Mozilla dropping support in 3.5? For running modern software, Win2k has not been a viable option for a few years now. You just can't expect to run it and be able to install recent software packages anymore. If you need to run modern software, its time to upgrade.
Unfortunately, some of my customers don't feel this way, and we are stuck using .Net 2.0 so that we can support Win2k on one of our products when we really want to be using 3.5 which is a huge improvement (don't get me started on the bad decision to even use .Net in this product). Maybe in 2010 we can finally abandon support for Win2k, but by that time we hopefully will have replaced this product with a web-based equivalent.
BTW, I have machines from around 2001 (AMD Athlon T-Bird 1.4GHz for example) that are running Ubuntu 8.04 (desktop) just fine. Supported until 2011 (Ubuntu's long term support distros are supported for 3 years for the desktop, 5 years on the server). I wouldn't be surprised if the next LTS release works ok on that machine, too, but if it doesn't, there are other distros that cater to old hardware. While its nice that MS still releases security updates for Win2k, the most common reason for not wanting to upgrade desktops to XP has been having to pay for it.
Or maybe they stayed with Windows 2000 because it was pretty identical to Windows XP API-wise, does not need activation, and Just Works.
It's true that lack of activation makes it easy for mouth breathers to pirate Win2k, and they probably couldn't handle finding a working serial and the tool to install it with to be able to run XP without activation (a site-wide EDU license serial will do this). It's too bad WinXP pirates are a bunch of clueless morons who run machines infested with viruses. Ever been to a India or China? Pretty much every computer is running a pirate copy of XP with updates turned off. I would say the idiots pirates are better off using Win2k if it weren't for the fact that they all running IE which means they would be running IE6 if they were using Win2k. So Firefox support is a non-issue for these morons.
It's pretty retarded and dumb to insist that I pay for a new operating system for a computer that is running fine and might not run the newer software as well. Microsoft is still supporting Win2K Pro, and will issue security patches until 13 July 2010. And why would I want to switch to Ubuntu if I'm using Win2K? That's dumbest suggestion I've heard for a long time.
If by "support" you mean "life support" then you are right. Microsoft has pretty much abandoned Win2k; you're lucky to be getting security updates. Try running a .Net 3.5 application for example. Microsoft has dropped support for Win2k for many of their apps. They don't even support IE7 on Win2k for crying out loud. Most software vendors have abandoned it, and are only supporting WinXP and newer. Why would you expect Mozilla to do anything different? If you insist on using an outdated, practically unsupported operating system, you're just going to have to suck it up that you won't be able to use Firefox 3.5 and a lot of other software packages that already dropped support.
This is the nature of software, especially operating systems. And if paying for a new operating system in order to run recent software is a problem for you, you are using the wrong OS. There are plenty of free operating systems after all.
I had the same reaction at first. but then thought about it a bit more.
The boneheads who are dumb enough to still be using Win2k as their desktop OS (WinXP, OS X, and Linux distros are much better choices), are probably dumb enough to be running IE6 and not knowing any better. If you're already going to be at the disadvantage of running Windows, you should at least be using XP SP3. Win2k is just plain not supported anymore, and any non-retarded Windows user will be running XP SP3. Yes, businesses can be retarded, too. And if your business app *requires* Win2k (run it in a VM!), then that machine probably doesn't specifically need newer versions of Firefox.
Alternative web browsers are the only thing keeping Win2k usable, and there are others besides Firefox. And if you have an old machine that is only used for web browsing, its asinine to be running Win2k on it when Ubuntu is so fucking easy to install and gives you so much more than Win2k.
Eclipse + VMWare ... you'll love every bit above 4G.
Eclipse + VMWare Fusion running a Windows XP VM with Visual Studio and a Linux VM with Oracle installed = really glad I can at least upgrade to 8GB on my new MacBook Pro 17" (though only have 4GB right now due to cost). I would've requested a Mac Pro (upgradable to 32GB) instead if Apple had not come out with a notebook that supports 8GB. Portability is just not worth being constrained to 4GB.
People who don't understand why you'd ever want more than 4GB just aren't using VMs.
Ballmer wants the world to focus on the idea that the desktop fight is only between M$ and Apple. If he can do that then, perhaps (please -- hopefully), that people will not start using a Linux desktop.
The Linux desktop is Ballmer's real nightmare... and it is getting closer.
As someone who just switched to OS X from Linux as my main desktop OS a few years ago, I really hope you're right. But, sadly, I don't think you are. Linux is going to be a win in more locked-down devices and devices with emerging ecosystems, like cell phones, portable devices, media boxes, etc. But Linux unfortunately lacks software that Windows and OS X have, and its hard for Linux to compete because of the existing expectations people have for their desktop machines.
When I was using Linux, I still had to use Windows for some software. When I switched to OS X, I no longer needed Linux nor Windows because it had all the same software (or good alternatives) as both of those OSes combined. Granted, I still use Linux (mainly on servers and in VMs) and keep a Windows VM around just in case, but all my desktop needs are covered with OS X.
Not that I would, I'm a geek and prefer the company of the Penguin flock to the mindless swarms of the Mac Zealots.
Seems like you're just as image-conscious as those you despise.
That way it'll encourage them to write efficient implementations.
If you give your programmers an 8-way 4GHz m/b with 64GB of memory (if sucha thing exists yet), they'll use all the processing power in dumb, inefficient algorithms, just because the development time is reduced. While those of us in the real world have to get by on "normal" machines.
I hear this all the time, and its completely silly because it only applies to a subset of software being developed. For example, most of the software I develop at my current job is deployed to hardware that actually has much higher specs than the hardware I am developing on, because I write mostly server-side software that is deployed to servers with generous resources. I work on the client-side as well (though a much smaller percentage), but the performance bottlenecks are not there anyway, they are when hitting the database. Of course, my development environment is unrealistic for a different reason -- it doesn't simulate the load that occurs in production. I don't think using a machine with pitiful specs for development is going to accurately simulate what happens when more than one user uses a system.
In any case, us developers need fast machines because we actually have to build/rebuild the software constantly. And sometimes our tools are resource hungry, like servers that we have to restart frequently, or heavy-weight IDE's that are fucking slow even on the badass hardware we have (yes, there are different choices that can be made here, but not everyone gets to make those choices). The end users don't have this problem; the software is already built for them, the servers started up, and the caches warmed.
I own 3 Macs (Mac Mini, MBP, and a Mac Pro), and have a MBP at work and I've always regarded the iMac as the dumbest product in their line-up. I understand that I might be in the minority, but I don't know, it seems like its a common idea that you shouldn't buy an all-in-one device (as many people found with their TV-VCR combos when the VCR portion crapped out on them).
I was pretty much forced to buy the Mac Pro for my desktop Mac. The Mac Mini is underpowered (slower hard drive), the iMac is stupid, that leaves only the Mac Pro which is overkill, I don't really need the Xeons, but I guess the RAM expandability will be handy in the future. The plus side is that I won't be replacing my Mac Pro for a LONG time.
What a lot of people want is a mid-range equivalent of the Mac Pro. A desktop that has a Core 2 Duo and the possibility to easily install multiple internal hard drives (and video cards) is about all people want. I understand why we won't see this (Apple knows their market). It's just that I've never spent this kind of money on a computer. I always stayed a few generations behind, which is possible with PCs without having to buy used/refurbished. And even buying used/refurbished doesn't save you that much money on Macs (though I got a great deal on my MBP whose GPU is going to fail some day).
Despite the products being worth what they cost, it's expensive to be a Mac user (at least the initial investment, I guess it evens out in the long run). I keep telling myself I'm going to switch back to Linux as my main OS some day... Hey, I can switch back any time I want.
I think multi-language program is pretty much the norm, so not sure what this is talking about. At my current job, for our products we use PL/SQL, Java (on the server), and C# and ActionScript on the client, with a bit of JavaScript here and there. For some of the automation-type stuff we use some Python and all the typical UNIX utils including the ones that were mentioned (but these are not things that are actually part of our product).
The typical web app usually requires you to know at least 2 programming languages (some language + JavaScript). Though, JavaScript on the server side and things like GWT are making it possible to code in one programming language.
learn to do all my programming in C++/Java/(insert other well-supported, popular language here)
I would insert Python into that list, as the question author already uses it.
As a Mac user who sleeps with a different hot Mac chick every week, I fart in the direction of all Windows users. I also use Linux (just about any UNIX/UNIX-like I'm up to using), but that doesn't get me laid like the little Apple that lights up on my laptop does.
It looks much worse than before. The rounded edges don't even look rounded, it looks absolutely horrible. But the looks I don't have a huge issue with, I can live with an ugly interface. I think showing all the tab contents on the side is a waste of space. The GMail preview shows too much.
The biggest issue I have is that they took away the collapse/minimize button. You can still do it through a drop-down menu (and you have to do un-collapse through that menu too), but its annoying that they made such a frequently used option more difficult to use.
Maybe some Greasemonkey scripts can make things better.
Nah, like me, we just got older. When were were young Microsoft was pure evil, Linux was the savior. All the MS did was wrong and all that Linux did was good. Then we entered the real world. Finding the Microsoft actually makes rather competitive products. And Linux has consistently dropped the ball in some areas.
Let me correct that for you. "Then we entered the real world. Finding that OS X can do almost everything Linux can. And the problem with using Linux is that it doesn't have good enough support from hardware and commercial software manufacturers, and that's just a reality we have to accept."
In the year 2008, if you're a developer the choice should be between Linux or OS X. Windows shouldn't even be an option for your main OS unless all you do all day long is use Visual Studio (in which case I pity you). Windows runs perfectly well in VMWare (on OS X or Linux), there's no reason to use it as your main OS anymore, especially with features like Unity.
The ultimate developer workstation is a Mac Pro with about 8GB of RAM, and Linux and Windows running under VMWare; you can't go wrong with that. Toss in a 30" display or two and you're golden.
If you want to be mobile, I don't agree with Apple's choices in keyboard layout and the lack of trackpoint (Thinkpads' keyboard and trackpoint rule), but the MacBook Pro is pretty badass otherwise, especially if you get the 17" high res display (1920x1200 on a laptop is fucking sweet).
Over the years when challenges of life take effect GNU and Software freedom means less then it did before. It is about getting the Job done, and you find that software freedom has less to do with free speech then you did when your young.
Its easier to get the job done with open source languages, libraries, and platforms. When you depend on a closed source, proprietary product you are just shooting yourself in the foot in the long run (and probably in the short term, too). You might be able to get the job of releasing software done, but not the job of maintaining that software 5 years from now.
Closed/proprietary tools are only ok to use when there are alternatives (hopefully open) that you can easily switch to, but not languages, libraries, or platforms. For my software I don't depend on any closed source languages, libraries, or platforms anymore (since I currently have the power to make these decisions for my team), and I would feel uncomfortable doing so again because I (and my organization) have had enough bad experiences with closed/proprietary products to not want to go down that route again. Microsoft's development tools/platforms were among those, including .Net; and the existence of Mono doesn't help.
I suggest you look into the old-as-dirt Geo Metro (or Chevy Metro, or Suzuki Swift, or any of the dozens of other names it was sold under).
I suggest you look at what kind of emissions that car produces.
like the iphone which is the best phone interface i've ever used for web browsing, but is pretty useless when you want to type a text message one handed.
I hear this all the time, but I have no problems typing text one handed on my iPhone. It does help to have a case that gives you better grip, but still possible without one. One side of the iPhone is gripped with my fingers, the other side rests against my palm (near where my thumb starts), then I simply type with my thumb. Granted, I'm faster with a single index finger.
The SMS app does kinda suck though. I wish Apple would expose the APIs necessary for someone to write an alternative. It would be kinda cool to have one with an option to have a T9-like input (with a numerical keybad) for people who are used to that layout. Maybe the jailbreakers will figure it out.
Wait till you get a programming job that consists of coding the same thing over and over for a series of your company's clients.
That would give you the opportunity to create a framework to make all the repetitive stuff faster/easier.
Most of the wagons available in the U.S. are not fuel-efficient. I'm glad Hyandai is about to put out the Elantra Touring this year.
A lot of manufacturers are killing wagons in the U.S., including some of the ones you listed. Mazda 6 Wagon is gone and may never come back (it had a 6-cylinder engine anyways), even the Mazda 6 Hatchback (which did have a 4-cyl) is gone. Subaru Legacy Wagon is gone (it wasn't a gas sipper anyway). Impreza only has a hatchback available.
The European imports have nice wagons, there might be a fuel-sipper in there that I missed (Jetta Diesel Wagon here yet?).
Subcompact hatchbacks are awesome, but may be small for some people. I'd rather have a wagon than a hatch. A hatch shortens the car compared to its sedan equivalent. A wagon keeps the length the same but adds cargo room.
I wish Honda would bring some wagons to the U.S. instead of the SUV/CUV bullshit that we get. An Accord wagon would be nice (they have one in Europe), and a Civic wagon would be perfect. The Fit is badass and all, but may be a bit small, especially when you are 6'3" like me and want to have 3 passengers fit in your car.
Toyota's Prius is actually big enough to be considered a wagon and is actually considered a mid-sized car. Honda dropped the ball by not creating wagon/hatchback hybrids, but maybe they'll get it right with their next hybrid model. Toyota hit the nail on the head with the Prius.
The Prius is my most likely candidate for my next vehicle even though I don't like the way it handles. The Hyandai Elantra Touring is the most likely if I go non-hybrid. Or may wait a few years and see the next gen hybrids. But I most definitely want a wagon or a mid-sized hatchback, something with a decent cargo capabilities but also decent fuel economy. The car manufacturers are completely capable of providing this (and do in some cases), I'd just like to see more options instead of more bullshit CUV's.
Umm no, the Prius is not a midsized car, it is a compact car. The camry is a mid-sized, and the avalon is a full sized.
You obviously are not familiar with the Prius. You can seat four or maybe five (depending on how skinny) 6'2" people in a Prius without a problem with legroom (I know because I'm 6'2" and have been in a Prius). I pulled up a Prius I rented next to a 2006 Hyandai Sonata (mid-sized car) and it was about the same size with Sonata having a bigger trunk. The Prius may be a little narrower and have a smaller trunk area than a Camry/Accord/Sonata, but its quite certainly a mid-sized car and not a compact. Put the back seats down and you have a considerably large cargo area that no compact car can touch.
This is a common misconception that hybrid = small car. The hybrid powertrain along with aerodynamic design allows you to have a larger car with better gas mileage.
Take Eclipse for example. Look at how many commercial tools are built on top of it.
At work we use MyEclipse which is a $30/year subscription. It is mostly a package of open source extensions with a few proprietary closed-source ones.
Commercial tools no longer have to do all the work of building an IDE, they just have to create extensions on top of Eclipse.
A crossover is build on a sedan chassis and is based on a passenger car. It is lighter, and by virtue of the car engines, more fuel efficient.
Crossover's are basically wagons on stilts. They have raised suspensions which are completely unnecessary, raise the center of gravity, and add weight. I wish car manufacturers would just give us proper wagons instead of these pointless vehicles.
Friends and family that own gas-sipping little munchkin cars are constantly enlisting my services as a man who owns a functional truck. Whether they are moving, cleaning out a basement or hauling a load of firewood, they all know who to call... the man with the truck.
So your excuse for using your oversized vehicle is that you're everyone elses bitch?
When I need to move something large, truck rentals are like $20/hour at Home Depot. I don't need to waste the time/energy of my truck-owning friends when its cheap and easy to rent.
Some of the rudest drivers I have ever encountered were in munchkin hybrids.
The only "munchkin" hybrid is the Honda Insight. Are all Insight drivers really that rude? The Prius is a mid-sized car comparable to a Camry/Accord/Mazda6/etc, its not a small car. The Honda Civic Hybrid is a small car (not a "sub-compact"), but the Civic has ballooned in size compared to the Civics of the 80's and 90's. But I guess all normal-sized cars are "munchkins" when you drive an F150.