Darwin eventually syncs with FreeBSD, which ends up in major OS X releases. You can be sure OS X Leopard will be synced with 6.0, as Panther was synced up to 5.0.
A GoogleOS ain't happening. Why would Google waste resources when Microsoft and Apple are perfectly happy providing client operating systems and browsers for accessing Google's REAL operating system--the Web?
Actually, Jesse James Garrett of Adaptive Path coined the term. Say what you will about Adaptive Path and their self-important website, but clueless they are not.
Yes, I'm aware of that, and it proves my point. Some website invented a term for technologies that already existed, under different terminology, and the tech media adopted it to have a buzzword.
Same with "Web 2.0." It's ridiculous.
DHTML may be more literal, but I fail to see where you get it as more or less descriptive.
Well, for one, DHTML doesn't sound like a window cleaner. Also, there's more to dynamic webpages than XML and Javascript.
But Google didn't adopt XmlHttpRequest because Mozilla did, as the poster suggested. There were still browsers like Opera and Safari that hadn't caught up (or didn't exist).
A lot of Google's stuff originally didn't work in anything but IE, including a lot of early Gmail features.
Surgical operations and landing planes aren't the same as worldwide "open" and "free" software licensing movements that are supposed to better a software community.
A software license for the free software community seems to me to require the input of, you know, the free software community.
The only input that matters to them is Richard Stallman's. That's their idea of "freedom"--i.e., it's Stallman's idea of freedom and you must conform to it, or you are not truly "free."
What's new is that browsers other than IE support xmlhttprequest object now. This has enabled companies like google to use the technology, thus creating a buzz.
Firefox's adoption XmlHttpRequest didn't "enable" Google to use the technology. It's more that Google's use of it is what caused the other browsers to support it. IE has ~90% market share. People have always been able to use this technology, and in fact, have already.
It's not like it takes 80% of my body's energy to type a post on Slashdot decrying the term "AJAX."
Dynamic web pages were just as good a term, and the big thing is that the term existed before AJAX. Then some clueless tech press bought a buzzword and spread AJAX, so that managers could make money off it.
It's like "Web 2.0." I mean, seriously, what is that? It's the same Web as before. "Oh, but now it's CSS presentation using Javascript to dynamically modify the DOM to provide an instant user interface." Uh, yeah, welcome to five years ago.
The point is that this is not new, but based on hype from Gmail it's been rebranded to appear as new, and people are buying into it.
"Dynamic HTML or DHTML is a technique of creating interactive web sites by using a combination of the static markup language HTML, a client-side scripting language (such as JavaScript), the style definition language Cascading Style Sheets and the Document Object Model."
The phrase "Dynamic HTML" pretty much sums up what AJAX is, which is nothing more than using Javascript to make server requests and modify the DOM. It's so annoying that for some reason, the press is acting like this is a new technology.
It should be DHTML. DHTML, goddammit! Dynamic HTML! Just call it a dynamic web page!
"AJAX" is so irritating and non-descriptive. It should be clumped with other turds of terminology, like "blog," and ceremoniously flushed down the toilet bowl of language integrity to rid of us these awful, awful buzzwords that make people think they're suddenly technology masters. "OMG I'M USING AJAX D00D BECAUSE OF MY LITTLE SCRIPT TAG SNIPPET, LETS START AN AJAX COMPANY."
No, why don't you shut the fuck up and get out of my Internet!
Sorry...it's been a shitty day, and seeing the word "AJAX" on the front page of Slashdot yet again was the final straw. Rawr.
Software developers don't want to have to build against and test against several grahpics APIs. A standard graphics API has made making software (games) much easier to write to target a large market (all Windows PCs as opposed to PCs with Brand X or Y video cards).
You write of Direct3D as though OpenGL didn't exist. Cheap, commodity PCs existed before Windows 95. Like I said, it's because of cheap, commodity PCs that Windows is everywhere, not the other way around.
Uh, they did? Intel bashers have been grumbling since the switch and are still confused about why. Especially after the release of the dual-core PPC and the recently announced low-power PPC from another company.
Their contribution to modern computing is to have ridden the wave of cheap commodity PCs that needed a GUI to run them. When I think of all the time and money that has been wasted keeping Windows systems from falling over themselves, I shake my head. People are now afraid of computers, paranoid of being on the Internet, and have been convinced that it's normal to require anti-virus and anti-spyware software as a layer between you and the applications you run.
Can you really name a positive contribution they were on the forefront of making?
That's the amusing part about liberals. They claim all the time how tolerant they are, how intolerant everyone else is, and how all about free speech they are.
But if you disagree with them, they'll hold petitions and scream in your face, call you an idiot, throw Oreo cookies at you (Democrats threw cookies at a black Republican politican and called him "Uncle Tom"), and make commercials comparing you to Hitler.
Liberal tolerance extends so far as the party line.:) In truth, they're as intolerant as everyone else who has a political viewpoint. And they're funded by big shadowy billionaires like George Soros, so the "greedy" claims they make about Republicans and their money also falls apart.
Uh, most OS X apps are written in Cocoa. If you're talking USAGE, then most are Carbon, but that's because those big apps are carryovers from the pre-OS X days, like Photoshop and Dreamweaver.
Market share is determined by units sold in a year. MARKET SHARE IS NOT USERBASE. It's important for me to scream it since users here seem to repeat the same falsehoods time after time. For what is supposed to be a "tech news" site visited by nerds, there sure is a lot of non-intellectual thinking every day.
Basically, you took a market share figure (OS X has 5%...though it has 15% installbase), decided that the market share had something to do with the userbase of a language (it's at least 15% going by your logic of OS X = Objective-C), and now you magically have a "niche language."
Obscure niche language? Objective-C was the basis for Java. It actually supports C fully, unlike C++, and it supports run-time dynamic typing.
How is Gnustep a backwards step in time? Because it doesn't have 20,000 sidebars and tabs like KDE? GTK and QT absolutely suck and feel like 1998 all over again. GTK and QT have nothing on Gnustep's object-orientedness. In fact, for you to actually claim the C-based GTK is "object-oriented" is hilarious.
You haven't even used Gnustep. You're just assuming things that you've read in other comments. A typical Slashbot.
Uh, people have already posted screenshots of the other themes available in this discussion.
Not only are you 100% wrong about the visual look, but you basically admit that all that matters to you as far as a desktop is its prettiness. No wonder Linux on the desktop never seems to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would microsoft get into the gaming industry when two of the top players are more than happy to corner the market with their own games?
To get the Microsoft platform into the living room. Everything Microsoft does is about protecting and extending their platform.
It's certainly not for money--X-Boxes are sold at a loss.
Darwin eventually syncs with FreeBSD, which ends up in major OS X releases. You can be sure OS X Leopard will be synced with 6.0, as Panther was synced up to 5.0.
A GoogleOS ain't happening. Why would Google waste resources when Microsoft and Apple are perfectly happy providing client operating systems and browsers for accessing Google's REAL operating system--the Web?
Actually, Jesse James Garrett of Adaptive Path coined the term. Say what you will about Adaptive Path and their self-important website, but clueless they are not.
Yes, I'm aware of that, and it proves my point. Some website invented a term for technologies that already existed, under different terminology, and the tech media adopted it to have a buzzword.
Same with "Web 2.0." It's ridiculous.
DHTML may be more literal, but I fail to see where you get it as more or less descriptive.
Well, for one, DHTML doesn't sound like a window cleaner. Also, there's more to dynamic webpages than XML and Javascript.
But Google didn't adopt XmlHttpRequest because Mozilla did, as the poster suggested. There were still browsers like Opera and Safari that hadn't caught up (or didn't exist).
A lot of Google's stuff originally didn't work in anything but IE, including a lot of early Gmail features.
They didn't use xmlhttprequest when it was IE only.
Yes, they did.
Surgical operations and landing planes aren't the same as worldwide "open" and "free" software licensing movements that are supposed to better a software community.
A software license for the free software community seems to me to require the input of, you know, the free software community.
The only input that matters to them is Richard Stallman's. That's their idea of "freedom"--i.e., it's Stallman's idea of freedom and you must conform to it, or you are not truly "free."
What's new is that browsers other than IE support xmlhttprequest object now. This has enabled companies like google to use the technology, thus creating a buzz.
Firefox's adoption XmlHttpRequest didn't "enable" Google to use the technology. It's more that Google's use of it is what caused the other browsers to support it. IE has ~90% market share. People have always been able to use this technology, and in fact, have already.
It's not like it takes 80% of my body's energy to type a post on Slashdot decrying the term "AJAX."
Dynamic web pages were just as good a term, and the big thing is that the term existed before AJAX. Then some clueless tech press bought a buzzword and spread AJAX, so that managers could make money off it.
It's like "Web 2.0." I mean, seriously, what is that? It's the same Web as before. "Oh, but now it's CSS presentation using Javascript to dynamically modify the DOM to provide an instant user interface." Uh, yeah, welcome to five years ago.
The point is that this is not new, but based on hype from Gmail it's been rebranded to appear as new, and people are buying into it.
The definition of DHTML:
"Dynamic HTML or DHTML is a technique of creating interactive web sites by using a combination of the static markup language HTML, a client-side scripting language (such as JavaScript), the style definition language Cascading Style Sheets and the Document Object Model."
The phrase "Dynamic HTML" pretty much sums up what AJAX is, which is nothing more than using Javascript to make server requests and modify the DOM. It's so annoying that for some reason, the press is acting like this is a new technology.
Web pages can be made dynamic in several different ways.
Which is why AJAX is so stupid. There's more to dynamic webpages than Javascript and XML.
Dear Web 2.0,
Hi, is there a free patch for my current Web 1.0 to upgrade it to 2.0, and will my Web 1.0 sites continue to work in Web 2.0?
Also, should I wait for the Web 2.1 patch before I make the switch? I usually avoid x.0 releases because I hear they're buggy.
Thanks for the info on Web 2.0.
Signed,
Victim of buzzwords
The editor made a mistake in posting this article. The title should read:
"Ajax Is the Buzzword of Silicon Valley."
Thanks.
It should be DHTML. DHTML, goddammit! Dynamic HTML! Just call it a dynamic web page!
"AJAX" is so irritating and non-descriptive. It should be clumped with other turds of terminology, like "blog," and ceremoniously flushed down the toilet bowl of language integrity to rid of us these awful, awful buzzwords that make people think they're suddenly technology masters. "OMG I'M USING AJAX D00D BECAUSE OF MY LITTLE SCRIPT TAG SNIPPET, LETS START AN AJAX COMPANY."
No, why don't you shut the fuck up and get out of my Internet!
Sorry...it's been a shitty day, and seeing the word "AJAX" on the front page of Slashdot yet again was the final straw. Rawr.
Software developers don't want to have to build against and test against several grahpics APIs. A standard graphics API has made making software (games) much easier to write to target a large market (all Windows PCs as opposed to PCs with Brand X or Y video cards).
You write of Direct3D as though OpenGL didn't exist. Cheap, commodity PCs existed before Windows 95. Like I said, it's because of cheap, commodity PCs that Windows is everywhere, not the other way around.
No, it's written in Sing# which is an extension of Spec# which is an extension of C#.
:)
Cough. So it's written in C#.
Even the Channel 9 presentation linked to on the page is entitled, "Singularity: A research OS written in C#."
Uh, they did? Intel bashers have been grumbling since the switch and are still confused about why. Especially after the release of the dual-core PPC and the recently announced low-power PPC from another company.
Their contribution to modern computing is to have ridden the wave of cheap commodity PCs that needed a GUI to run them. When I think of all the time and money that has been wasted keeping Windows systems from falling over themselves, I shake my head. People are now afraid of computers, paranoid of being on the Internet, and have been convinced that it's normal to require anti-virus and anti-spyware software as a layer between you and the applications you run.
Can you really name a positive contribution they were on the forefront of making?
This is just a research OS written in C#.
Microsoft Research is always making things Microsoft never uses. Remember all the 3D navigator stuff they were crowing about years ago?
I think Microsoft Research is a place to keep eggheads working and happy so they don't go working somewhere else.
That's the amusing part about liberals. They claim all the time how tolerant they are, how intolerant everyone else is, and how all about free speech they are.
:) In truth, they're as intolerant as everyone else who has a political viewpoint. And they're funded by big shadowy billionaires like George Soros, so the "greedy" claims they make about Republicans and their money also falls apart.
:)
But if you disagree with them, they'll hold petitions and scream in your face, call you an idiot, throw Oreo cookies at you (Democrats threw cookies at a black Republican politican and called him "Uncle Tom"), and make commercials comparing you to Hitler.
Liberal tolerance extends so far as the party line.
Yep, Virginia, you're all idiots too.
In an office somewhere in Cupertino, Steve Jobs read about this in one of his many memos, laughed, farted, and went to go have lunch with Yo-Yo Ma.
Short answer to article question: NO.
Uh, most OS X apps are written in Cocoa. If you're talking USAGE, then most are Carbon, but that's because those big apps are carryovers from the pre-OS X days, like Photoshop and Dreamweaver.
Market share is determined by units sold in a year. MARKET SHARE IS NOT USERBASE. It's important for me to scream it since users here seem to repeat the same falsehoods time after time. For what is supposed to be a "tech news" site visited by nerds, there sure is a lot of non-intellectual thinking every day.
Basically, you took a market share figure (OS X has 5%...though it has 15% installbase), decided that the market share had something to do with the userbase of a language (it's at least 15% going by your logic of OS X = Objective-C), and now you magically have a "niche language."
I love Slashbot logic.
Obscure niche language? Objective-C was the basis for Java. It actually supports C fully, unlike C++, and it supports run-time dynamic typing.
How is Gnustep a backwards step in time? Because it doesn't have 20,000 sidebars and tabs like KDE? GTK and QT absolutely suck and feel like 1998 all over again. GTK and QT have nothing on Gnustep's object-orientedness. In fact, for you to actually claim the C-based GTK is "object-oriented" is hilarious.
You haven't even used Gnustep. You're just assuming things that you've read in other comments. A typical Slashbot.
Uh, people have already posted screenshots of the other themes available in this discussion.
Not only are you 100% wrong about the visual look, but you basically admit that all that matters to you as far as a desktop is its prettiness. No wonder Linux on the desktop never seems to happen.