The moral is that you don't want to use the simple-to-code MS platform when you can get a best-of-breed system, based on Linux and good engineering for a lot less. IT managers around the world should be looking at this and thinking what similar lessons their IT departments could learn.
The moral of the story is, IT managers don't care and are usually incapable of critical thinking. It works like this. IT manager sees shiny.Net. Since.Net is so "powerful" and "easy", said manager can now hire an army of cheap "college students" who know little to nothing about their trade but do know a little about.Net. Manager can now brag to higher ups about how much money was saved; after all, he hired three to four students for the price one of good, qualified engineer. And since he now has an impressive head count, his visibility is increased such he can now compete for other internal, resource heavy projects.
When the manager is granted the new project, it of course fails in the long run. But more shorter term, he'll blame it on poor requirements, feature creep, third parties, vendors, and even the project lead, which may or may not be an experienced engineer. The higher ups eventually see project failure but now have a long list of reasons why it failed; including bad lead, feature creep, and poor requirements. Despite the project's overages, the higher ups see it as a contained overage as the low wages help mitigate it. After all, three * crap wages * a year overage is much lower than three * qualified engineer * year overages. Thusly, higher ups can rest assured they are sane by advancing the manager and granting a huge bonus. Of course the fact that one qualified engineer is easily worth three students and one excellent engineer is easily worth three qualified engineers. Not to mention, the cheap, inexperienced workers generally don't know enough to CYA which means the manager's account is the only account. Ultimately, heap, unqualified head counts are easier to justify and easier to lie about how much money was saved in the end; ignoring the fact that its almost always more expensive in the end, where its not trumped by complete failure.
The simple fact is, the majority of business in America is set up to reward incompetence or merely, "good enough". The vast majority of directors and managers are woefully unqualified as are CEOs. More and more CEOs go from one crash and burn business to another where their buddies are on the board. They in turn rotate each other out from business to business, using it as an excuse to increase salaries having never achieved anything other than failure and ever increasing salaries and benefits. The recession America is in is largely driven by this type of failure deserves reward mentality which has completely overtaken business in America. If the majority of businesses in America were driven by long term result driven reward, only a tiny fraction of CEOs, directors, and managers would be employed today. As is, these failures are constantly rewarded and advanced.
I still fail to see what's so amazing about this Wave. I think the "Google" brand is a large cause of the hype surrounding it.
Because the article underscores how ignorant he is. Wave is a TECHNOLOGY, not an application. He incorrectly believes its an application. Using Wave, they created applications which are capable, in a completely portable manner, supplanting all of the applications you just quoted, with more features and more power, and then a whole lot more.
The first round of Wave applications are nothing more than technology demos using a familiar facade so as to ease introduction and learning curves. And that's the entirely the point. Anyone who condemns Wave based on technology previews is hopelessly ignorant, uninformed, unimaginative, and incapable of comprehending technology. The review is completely bullshit put forward by ignorance.
He was only trying to communicate with just dozens of people and found it noisy and difficult to track.
Even this central complaint underscores how much of an idiot he is. He can go offline and suddenly he no longer receives realtime updates. Even more so, human brains are not wired to work with so many input streams and, just like people commonly multitask today, it takes time to adjust one's brain. From any knowledgeable vantage, anyway you want to look at it, the review only underscores how fully unqualified he is to be making such ignorant statements. But I believe I already addressed most of those points.
If you bother to learn more about the technology, its not hard to see the possibilities for us all down the road. And that's why I said, the wave you see today is not the wave you'll see tomorrow. Likewise, that's why I said, if there are not multiple killer applications available in a year or two, developers have failed because the technology to support far more than what people currently know is now in their hands.
So don't forget, Wave is a TECHNOLOGY and a protocol, first and foremost. As such, negative statements about Wave right now is like finding a car you don't like and writing a review about how neat cars are and that you don't understand the fad and that highways have traffic and they all suck. Anyone writing such a review would be laughed at for being such an idiot...and I present to you, the reviewer as exemplar one...
What's the big deal about networking, we already have telephones...
What's the big deal about airplanes, we already have cars...
What's the big deal about Wave, we already have dozens of popular services where none of them can communicate with each other and are all based on completely different technologies and no one can run their own services and...blah...blah...blah... Remember, Wave is a technology base, not a single application.
Yes another comment that is an obvious, uninformed troll.
People, Wave is a TECHNOLOGY, not an application. Ignorant posts such as your own are like saying, because I don't like Porches, all cars suck and are doomed to failure. Yet that's what the article basically says and that's the position you're supporting. Narrow minded and uninformed to say the least.
I was going to reply in detail but it seems the three proceeding replies pretty well covered it. I'll just add a little bit more.
You, like the reviewer, are limiting yourself to existing paradigms and assuming Wave has the same constraints. It doesn't. Furthermore, the face of Wave which you see now, is specifically tailored to allow introduction to Wave technology using familiar implementations of existing technologies which allows users to readily step in and test drive it. The parallels you drew with alternate communication applications exist completely by intent. Having said that, its capable for far, far more.
If you've not watched the video and you are sincerely interested in learning about the technology, I strongly urge you to watch the loooong video.
I figured it was only a matter of time before someone came sniping. Simply go watch the video and read a couple of documents and then when you come back, you'll sound exactly like a parrot.
And to be fair, I do not consider it to be the best thing ever, or since sliced bread...but it is really exciting, powerful, configurable, empowering technology. If it were not, you wouldn't find nearly the grassroots excitement which Wave has generated. So when you have someone who obviously has no idea what they're seeing, who has no imagination, and hasn't even allowed themselves the opportunity to learn/try/adjust to the technology go crap on it, it speaks exceedingly poorly of that reviewer. Which is, more or less what I said.
...because trying to actively collaborate with 100 people, even face to face, is noisy and futile. The fact this is his resulting opinion, in my opinion, doesn't validate his view in the least. No one has ever claimed using Wave will make humans suddenly super human; able to do things no other humans could previously do.
Lets be realistic about the types of things people collaborate on and how its currently done today. Try doing that with 100 people or even face to face and its pretty message. And with mediums such as IM or email, its far more likely many will walk away with differing understandings of the effort. Even worse, after the fact, people will be challenged to recall why certain conclusions were reached or decisions were made. None of those are nearly as likely to be problems with waves.
Also, what people are currently testing and using is simply a proof of concept of a series of robots and applications. These, in of themselves, are not Wave proper. In other words, as people gain more experience, the types of activities, applications, and robots which contribute and provide increased value will only grow over time. The applications which people perceived as "Wave" today is absolutely not the "Wave" people will see tomorrow.
So the real summary is, he fails to understand what is being used. Likewise, a lack of imagination is obvious, as is realistic expectation. I'm sorry but I can't seriously consider his review on any level. He only comes off as small minded and unrealistic.
Coming full circle back to expectations, only a handful of people are able to focus on more than single thread of conversation and predominantly they are women. Like any significantly new technology, it takes time to fully absorb and leverage all that the new technology has to offer. In this case, its very likely people will be forced to retrain their brains to better follow multiple, concurrent conversations to fully benefit from the technology. Everyone can do it, but it doesn't come natural to most; especially if you're not female.
Simply put, Google has provided an absolutely awesome, sky is the limit, technology. If multiple killer applications are not in place which leverage Wave within a year or two, I'd declare this a failure of developers and imagination rather than a failure of Google and/or Wave.
In this case, I'd say the reviewer has failed everyone.
EULAs squarely fall under contract law. As such, a EULA a form of contract where the user enters into a non-negotiable, non-equitable contract. This fact is why many consider EULAs unlawful and in violation of contract law.
They used to have the best Linux drivers but I have not been keeping up with ATI's progress with their closed source drivers or the open source drivers that people are working on with the specs that ATI released.
Contrary to the constant cheer leading here on slashdot, Nvidia still has the best Linux drivers by a wide margin. With steady progress being made with the open source drives, this may not always be the case, but it is likely to be so for at least another year, maybe more. The simple fact is, ATI's drivers have always been exceedingly poor and the ATI linux drivers were even worse. It takes a long time and a lot of effort to overcome the poor quality ATI worked hard to entrench.
The simple fact is, if you want quality 3D on Linux, there is only one game in town, Nvidia. And for the foreseeable future, the game will continue to be Nvidia.
If you want to purchase your 3D card based on ideology while performance, usability, and functionality doesn't matter, ATI is likely what you want. If on the other hand, you want a solution that is actually fast and reliable, then Nvidia is your only option. Anyone who says otherwise is attempting to blow their ideology up your ass, in the most dishonest means possible.
Don't believe me, feel free to do some Googling for yourself. You'll have no trouble find hordes of crashes, broken apps, per application, per drive release, custom work arounds, etc, for ATI cards on Linux. As for Nvidia, with some minor exceptions, things generally just work. Even more so, most common distros provide the nvidia drivers off the install so you typically just install and things are running with HW 3D support.
To be honest, the thought makes me cringe. It seems like it would be impossible to maintain any kind of threaded conversation with that kind of chaos.
Which is also why its supports threads, which can optionally, be compressed to its non-journalized representation at any branch/leaf in the wave's tree of branches and leafs.
I was trying to figure out exactly how the collaboration is supposed to work, or rather how it's intended to be used.
They really don't define that and the protocol supports pretty much any model I could conceive. Once such model they show is, rather than approval, each user simply updates the wave. They can collaborate via the wave about the wave, concurrently. Or, as you suggested, you can have the old approval process. The later may be used if everyone is not available. But should everyone be available to concurrently collaborate, everyone can participate at the same time.
Also, since it supports journaling and play back, imagine that "late user" coming in, and rather than disputing the meeting for thirty minutes while he comes up to speed, which was almost over, he simply replays the collaboration and can immediately begin to contribute - as he now has context which brought everyone the nonsenses of the current state of collaboration.
So imagine the major parties providing their parts, the grammar freaks walking behind to clean things up, all at the same time. Followed by each party revising and making suggestions about each other's parts. And then when you're finished, you can share your work product without a Wave, as a concise, printable document which leaves out the journaled history. Or if you like, share all or portions of the wave, as needed.
Not even in real life in ALL cases. Remember, its takes time for light to travel and you see the entire world as its reflection...and then it still has to be processed by your brain - regardless of which sense is in use.
People completely misunderstand what real time means. In this case, real time is the more loosely accepted definition, meaning updates are immediately pushed to all clients; whereby clients may actually be other servers. In other words, as user 1 updates a wave, user 2 is able to see those updates in his client as close to user 1's actual event, as bandwidth and latency allows.
Not to mention, Google made it very clear it will be easy to create fully compatible clients sporting whatever UI design and/or layout you wish. In fact, they are counting on it. The current interface is simply Google's first whack at it. Expect both additional iterations from Google and a polithera of third party options. Of the potential Wave issues, somehow I seriously doubt clients and/or user interfaces will the be obstacle to overcome in anyway, once Wave grabs any serious traction.
At a guess, I think that non-Wave email users will be able to participate in Wave discussions in a limited manner. Limited enough that if you were that user, you'd soon be tempted to move over to the "first class" experience.
Actually, a properly written Wave server can allow non-Wave email users to fully participate in Wave discussions in a nearly unlimited manner. The difference is, your interface is still the same old email interface while Wave has some very clear and powerful collaborate advantages. If you're not sure what I mean, you REALLY need to go watch Google's Wave demo video.
One of the most important difference b/w how Exchange and Wave work is that the later is hosted by Google and hence controlled by it.
The protocol is open and Google has publicly stated anyone is free to host their own server. So we can safely toss that concern right out.
With Wave we would all have to trust google with our data, which a lot of companies in the world may not be willing to do.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. The truth is, Wave is built from the ground up to concurrently integrate, in real time, both open (Google or 3rd Party) and closed (company x's own ) Wave servers in a transparent manner. With wave, you have to trust no one other than your self. Period. In fact, that is so much so the literal truth, you are less dependent on another company for your own technological collaborative destiny; which is absolutely not true for Exchange.
Wave understands locality and security so its possible to security integrate public Wave services with private Wave servers and services without ever sharing data outside your own company.
In short, nothing you've offered as fact is even remotely true.
You didn't RTFA or even attempt to understand the summary, did you? Google is NOT sending lawyers after developers. Basically everything in your post is misleading or inaccurate. As a result, your presentation of impending doom is completely baseless to the point of being laughable.
I just wish the moderators will realize your post is troll, overrated, flamebait, or even funny, but it absolutely is not insightful, interesting, or informative, by any measure.
What a miserable excuse of a zealot response. No one is being sued. A C&D is simply a notification you are perceived to be in violation. The letter is not legally binding. It is true, however, failure to respond to a C&D typically leads to legal action.
Anyone can write a C&D - lawyers need not be present or even involved. To be absolutely clear, a C&D is not a legal filing of any kind, though they can be referenced in a filing.
when are we going to stop winking at people who pull crap like this?
What "crap" are they pulling? So far I seem to only find a misinformed and irrational rant by what appears to be an Apple zealot. Can you be more specific?
it's not a mistake. it was an aggressive act.
You're right, its not likely to have been a mistake but its absolutely not an "aggressive act". C&Ds are always a reactive move which squarely places them as defensive. As it actual details have not been disclosed, its not clear what it is they hope to protect but just the same, it is a defensive move.
Yet people somehow manage to deceive themselves into thinking they'll be better about these things than Apple. At least with an Apple device you get to look trendy while being fucked over.
I know...it's awesome. With an Android phone you can look trendy and NOT get fucked over. Sounds like the way to go.
Notice I did not say X could not be used. I said its dumb to use it as such when better, faster, lighter technology exists, or can be created. X is good for many things and few even use it for its real strength.
However, we are talking about something drawing a GUI, and the usual ("orthodox"?) way of doing that is with X.
Don't even know where to start with that false position. So once again you're stuck with the notion that orthdox = desktop. Its not. Time and time again you sound like a broken record and don't even realize it. Once again, your very definition of "orthodox" is absolutely very unorthodox.
And then there's the standard C library.
Yes, and which of a half dozen plus a half dozen variants of each of are you talking about. Placing the word, "standard" in front of it doesn't really morph reality to suit your vision of it. Did you not read several of the replies, including my own, to this very fact? Or did reality get in the way of your bashing, which required you simply ignore it?
Your autoconf argument is ignored as it was effectively put to bed. Simply put, its nonsense. As an embedded developer, I can assure you, your position is nonsense. I can't stress enough, you need to learn to both read and comprehend what you've read. Yet more of your nonsense, which is already addressed and put to bed ignored.
By my definition, pretty much all Linux software can be compiled on most new platforms without requiring custom patches for that platform. I'm not counting autoconf as a "source change", since it's pretty much a standard build tool.
Once again, that's simply not true. Changes to autoconf and even source are par for the course on most any new platform. Some platforms place their headers in different locations. Some platforms have different libcs and/or libc++, etc. Some have different compiler configurations which break assumptions in both build and source...so on and so on...blah..blah... The point is, you point is entirely bullshit because it has already been addressed and put to bed. Since you've proven you can't read and/or comprehend what you read, there isn't much point in continuing, now is there.
Does this allow the phone to continue functioning as an Android device? If so, I'll concede that point -- if Ubuntu works, clearly the standard C library isn't an issue.
?!?! What the hell?? Still can't read?!?! So your position is now that Android running on an alternate distro somehow doesn't run Android?!!? Use some sense man. Why the fuck would someone port a framework (notice that Android is a fucking framework and OS abstraction layer) to another platform and not want it to run applications built for that framework?!? Really??!?!
Its a straw man's argument because your argument has nothing to do with the central questions. You position is nothing but hand waving, which isn't even accurate hand waving, which serves only to distract in an effort to convince people your invalid position is somehow valid. Basically, its the 'ol don't look at the man behind the curtain ploy. And even after you were repeatedly pointed to the man behind the curtain, you refuse to do so at every turn. In short, you refuse to let go of the straw man despite the fact every straw has been broken.
So to be absolutely clear, ANDROID IS A FRAMEWORK! Android is a framework just like Gnome (Gtk) or KDE (Qt) are. In fact, work has been under way for some time to allow Android applications to run natively on any Linux system. Simply put, Android is nothing but a framework running on top of a Linux system. People are already porting it to non-Google Linux distros and source trees. And that's the entirely the point. How can Android be "unorthodox Linux" which in fact, its a framework which sits atop Linux. Saying Linux plus a framework is unorthodox Linux is crazy talk and doesn't make sense at all.
And while not topical to the main subject, since you keep bringing it up, as a final sid
Likewise, I've seen javascript which manipulates large datasets, which takes the lion share of time to run; somewhere in the 30-60 second range. Recent javascript performance boosts have allows such manipulation of large datasets to become feasible and even practical.
The truth is, more and more people are attempting to use a browser as a general purpose user interface for many applications which were previously considered unattainable with older browser technology and I only see additional momentum building in this direction.
Fast rendering and javascript is a make or break for most of these types of applications.
However, if someone ships a Linux with a completely different GUI serving the same purpose X would have, especially for a platform where X was a credible option, it's not "orthodox".
I think you need to critically review your own statement. Its nonsensical. Android's GUI does not "serve the same purpose X would have". Period. Even more so, "especially for a platform where X was a credible option", is simply dumb as it doesn't apply in the least.
Phones qualify as an "embedded" platform. In this case, the platforms are typically limited in memory and bandwidth. Even more so, gaming is a target for these phones. None of these make using X "a credible option".
And even more so, none of these issues have anything to do with "orthodox", unless your definition, which seems to be your entire position, is orthodox = desktop, which means your own definition is in fact completely unorthodox as headless and GUI-less servers are in fact the orthodox Linux install.
I have no idea why you're intent of negatively painting Android but everything you've stated is completely false - to the degree where is seems you have either an ax to grind or a misinformation agenda to push. Please keep your ax-grinding, misinformation to your self.
Functionally, then, can I expect to take a Linux application and compile it for Android with no changes?
The "no changes" is the tricky part because almost no Linux applications are directly capable for compiling on an embedded system without change. This is because more often than not they use autoconf which requires execution on the target. By you definition, pretty much all Linux software is broken. But, if that is in fact your metric, no matter how invalid it is, it is possible if you use the Ubuntu Android port. But, that hardly validates you position in the least. This is because, most applications typically require some tweaking for new platforms, even when they do use tools such as autoconf.
Bluntly, not only are you wrong, but the position is simply invalid and has no merit in the discussion. Its an uninformed, straw man's argument.
Slashdot Mirror
The moral is that you don't want to use the simple-to-code MS platform when you can get a best-of-breed system, based on Linux and good engineering for a lot less. IT managers around the world should be looking at this and thinking what similar lessons their IT departments could learn.
The moral of the story is, IT managers don't care and are usually incapable of critical thinking. It works like this. IT manager sees shiny .Net. Since .Net is so "powerful" and "easy", said manager can now hire an army of cheap "college students" who know little to nothing about their trade but do know a little about .Net. Manager can now brag to higher ups about how much money was saved; after all, he hired three to four students for the price one of good, qualified engineer. And since he now has an impressive head count, his visibility is increased such he can now compete for other internal, resource heavy projects.
When the manager is granted the new project, it of course fails in the long run. But more shorter term, he'll blame it on poor requirements, feature creep, third parties, vendors, and even the project lead, which may or may not be an experienced engineer. The higher ups eventually see project failure but now have a long list of reasons why it failed; including bad lead, feature creep, and poor requirements. Despite the project's overages, the higher ups see it as a contained overage as the low wages help mitigate it. After all, three * crap wages * a year overage is much lower than three * qualified engineer * year overages. Thusly, higher ups can rest assured they are sane by advancing the manager and granting a huge bonus. Of course the fact that one qualified engineer is easily worth three students and one excellent engineer is easily worth three qualified engineers. Not to mention, the cheap, inexperienced workers generally don't know enough to CYA which means the manager's account is the only account. Ultimately, heap, unqualified head counts are easier to justify and easier to lie about how much money was saved in the end; ignoring the fact that its almost always more expensive in the end, where its not trumped by complete failure.
The simple fact is, the majority of business in America is set up to reward incompetence or merely, "good enough". The vast majority of directors and managers are woefully unqualified as are CEOs. More and more CEOs go from one crash and burn business to another where their buddies are on the board. They in turn rotate each other out from business to business, using it as an excuse to increase salaries having never achieved anything other than failure and ever increasing salaries and benefits. The recession America is in is largely driven by this type of failure deserves reward mentality which has completely overtaken business in America. If the majority of businesses in America were driven by long term result driven reward, only a tiny fraction of CEOs, directors, and managers would be employed today. As is, these failures are constantly rewarded and advanced.
The best part about the gas mask bra is, after the masks are dawned, you now have access to two thermometers, allowing you to know if its cold or not.
I still fail to see what's so amazing about this Wave. I think the "Google" brand is a large cause of the hype surrounding it.
Because the article underscores how ignorant he is. Wave is a TECHNOLOGY, not an application. He incorrectly believes its an application. Using Wave, they created applications which are capable, in a completely portable manner, supplanting all of the applications you just quoted, with more features and more power, and then a whole lot more.
The first round of Wave applications are nothing more than technology demos using a familiar facade so as to ease introduction and learning curves. And that's the entirely the point. Anyone who condemns Wave based on technology previews is hopelessly ignorant, uninformed, unimaginative, and incapable of comprehending technology. The review is completely bullshit put forward by ignorance.
He was only trying to communicate with just dozens of people and found it noisy and difficult to track.
Even this central complaint underscores how much of an idiot he is. He can go offline and suddenly he no longer receives realtime updates. Even more so, human brains are not wired to work with so many input streams and, just like people commonly multitask today, it takes time to adjust one's brain. From any knowledgeable vantage, anyway you want to look at it, the review only underscores how fully unqualified he is to be making such ignorant statements. But I believe I already addressed most of those points.
If you bother to learn more about the technology, its not hard to see the possibilities for us all down the road. And that's why I said, the wave you see today is not the wave you'll see tomorrow. Likewise, that's why I said, if there are not multiple killer applications available in a year or two, developers have failed because the technology to support far more than what people currently know is now in their hands.
So don't forget, Wave is a TECHNOLOGY and a protocol, first and foremost. As such, negative statements about Wave right now is like finding a car you don't like and writing a review about how neat cars are and that you don't understand the fad and that highways have traffic and they all suck. Anyone writing such a review would be laughed at for being such an idiot...and I present to you, the reviewer as exemplar one...
What's the big deal about networking, we already have telephones...
What's the big deal about airplanes, we already have cars...
What's the big deal about Wave, we already have dozens of popular services where none of them can communicate with each other and are all based on completely different technologies and no one can run their own services and...blah...blah...blah... Remember, Wave is a technology base, not a single application.
Yes another comment that is an obvious, uninformed troll.
People, Wave is a TECHNOLOGY, not an application. Ignorant posts such as your own are like saying, because I don't like Porches, all cars suck and are doomed to failure. Yet that's what the article basically says and that's the position you're supporting. Narrow minded and uninformed to say the least.
Agreed. I've waiting for M-x butterfy-wave.
I was going to reply in detail but it seems the three proceeding replies pretty well covered it. I'll just add a little bit more.
You, like the reviewer, are limiting yourself to existing paradigms and assuming Wave has the same constraints. It doesn't. Furthermore, the face of Wave which you see now, is specifically tailored to allow introduction to Wave technology using familiar implementations of existing technologies which allows users to readily step in and test drive it. The parallels you drew with alternate communication applications exist completely by intent. Having said that, its capable for far, far more.
If you've not watched the video and you are sincerely interested in learning about the technology, I strongly urge you to watch the loooong video.
I figured it was only a matter of time before someone came sniping. Simply go watch the video and read a couple of documents and then when you come back, you'll sound exactly like a parrot.
And to be fair, I do not consider it to be the best thing ever, or since sliced bread...but it is really exciting, powerful, configurable, empowering technology. If it were not, you wouldn't find nearly the grassroots excitement which Wave has generated. So when you have someone who obviously has no idea what they're seeing, who has no imagination, and hasn't even allowed themselves the opportunity to learn/try/adjust to the technology go crap on it, it speaks exceedingly poorly of that reviewer. Which is, more or less what I said.
...because trying to actively collaborate with 100 people, even face to face, is noisy and futile. The fact this is his resulting opinion, in my opinion, doesn't validate his view in the least. No one has ever claimed using Wave will make humans suddenly super human; able to do things no other humans could previously do.
Lets be realistic about the types of things people collaborate on and how its currently done today. Try doing that with 100 people or even face to face and its pretty message. And with mediums such as IM or email, its far more likely many will walk away with differing understandings of the effort. Even worse, after the fact, people will be challenged to recall why certain conclusions were reached or decisions were made. None of those are nearly as likely to be problems with waves.
Also, what people are currently testing and using is simply a proof of concept of a series of robots and applications. These, in of themselves, are not Wave proper. In other words, as people gain more experience, the types of activities, applications, and robots which contribute and provide increased value will only grow over time. The applications which people perceived as "Wave" today is absolutely not the "Wave" people will see tomorrow.
So the real summary is, he fails to understand what is being used. Likewise, a lack of imagination is obvious, as is realistic expectation. I'm sorry but I can't seriously consider his review on any level. He only comes off as small minded and unrealistic.
Coming full circle back to expectations, only a handful of people are able to focus on more than single thread of conversation and predominantly they are women. Like any significantly new technology, it takes time to fully absorb and leverage all that the new technology has to offer. In this case, its very likely people will be forced to retrain their brains to better follow multiple, concurrent conversations to fully benefit from the technology. Everyone can do it, but it doesn't come natural to most; especially if you're not female.
Simply put, Google has provided an absolutely awesome, sky is the limit, technology. If multiple killer applications are not in place which leverage Wave within a year or two, I'd declare this a failure of developers and imagination rather than a failure of Google and/or Wave.
In this case, I'd say the reviewer has failed everyone.
EULAs squarely fall under contract law. As such, a EULA a form of contract where the user enters into a non-negotiable, non-equitable contract. This fact is why many consider EULAs unlawful and in violation of contract law.
They used to have the best Linux drivers but I have not been keeping up with ATI's progress with their closed source drivers or the open source drivers that people are working on with the specs that ATI released.
Contrary to the constant cheer leading here on slashdot, Nvidia still has the best Linux drivers by a wide margin. With steady progress being made with the open source drives, this may not always be the case, but it is likely to be so for at least another year, maybe more. The simple fact is, ATI's drivers have always been exceedingly poor and the ATI linux drivers were even worse. It takes a long time and a lot of effort to overcome the poor quality ATI worked hard to entrench.
The simple fact is, if you want quality 3D on Linux, there is only one game in town, Nvidia. And for the foreseeable future, the game will continue to be Nvidia.
If you want to purchase your 3D card based on ideology while performance, usability, and functionality doesn't matter, ATI is likely what you want. If on the other hand, you want a solution that is actually fast and reliable, then Nvidia is your only option. Anyone who says otherwise is attempting to blow their ideology up your ass, in the most dishonest means possible.
Don't believe me, feel free to do some Googling for yourself. You'll have no trouble find hordes of crashes, broken apps, per application, per drive release, custom work arounds, etc, for ATI cards on Linux. As for Nvidia, with some minor exceptions, things generally just work. Even more so, most common distros provide the nvidia drivers off the install so you typically just install and things are running with HW 3D support.
I mean have you ever heard of a used book store?
Yeah, it's called a library.
Yeah, it's called a used book store.
not be permitted to implement a system which takes this right away.
Especially on the basis of a non-negotiable, non-equitable contract, such as a EULA.
Mod up guys!
To be honest, the thought makes me cringe. It seems like it would be impossible to maintain any kind of threaded conversation with that kind of chaos.
Which is also why its supports threads, which can optionally, be compressed to its non-journalized representation at any branch/leaf in the wave's tree of branches and leafs.
I was trying to figure out exactly how the collaboration is supposed to work, or rather how it's intended to be used.
They really don't define that and the protocol supports pretty much any model I could conceive. Once such model they show is, rather than approval, each user simply updates the wave. They can collaborate via the wave about the wave, concurrently. Or, as you suggested, you can have the old approval process. The later may be used if everyone is not available. But should everyone be available to concurrently collaborate, everyone can participate at the same time.
Also, since it supports journaling and play back, imagine that "late user" coming in, and rather than disputing the meeting for thirty minutes while he comes up to speed, which was almost over, he simply replays the collaboration and can immediately begin to contribute - as he now has context which brought everyone the nonsenses of the current state of collaboration.
So imagine the major parties providing their parts, the grammar freaks walking behind to clean things up, all at the same time. Followed by each party revising and making suggestions about each other's parts. And then when you're finished, you can share your work product without a Wave, as a concise, printable document which leaves out the journaled history. Or if you like, share all or portions of the wave, as needed.
Not even real life in most cases.
Not even in real life in ALL cases. Remember, its takes time for light to travel and you see the entire world as its reflection...and then it still has to be processed by your brain - regardless of which sense is in use.
People completely misunderstand what real time means. In this case, real time is the more loosely accepted definition, meaning updates are immediately pushed to all clients; whereby clients may actually be other servers. In other words, as user 1 updates a wave, user 2 is able to see those updates in his client as close to user 1's actual event, as bandwidth and latency allows.
Not to mention, Google made it very clear it will be easy to create fully compatible clients sporting whatever UI design and/or layout you wish. In fact, they are counting on it. The current interface is simply Google's first whack at it. Expect both additional iterations from Google and a polithera of third party options. Of the potential Wave issues, somehow I seriously doubt clients and/or user interfaces will the be obstacle to overcome in anyway, once Wave grabs any serious traction.
At a guess, I think that non-Wave email users will be able to participate in Wave discussions in a limited manner. Limited enough that if you were that user, you'd soon be tempted to move over to the "first class" experience.
Actually, a properly written Wave server can allow non-Wave email users to fully participate in Wave discussions in a nearly unlimited manner. The difference is, your interface is still the same old email interface while Wave has some very clear and powerful collaborate advantages. If you're not sure what I mean, you REALLY need to go watch Google's Wave demo video.
One of the most important difference b/w how Exchange and Wave work is that the later is hosted by Google and hence controlled by it.
The protocol is open and Google has publicly stated anyone is free to host their own server. So we can safely toss that concern right out.
With Wave we would all have to trust google with our data, which a lot of companies in the world may not be willing to do.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. The truth is, Wave is built from the ground up to concurrently integrate, in real time, both open (Google or 3rd Party) and closed (company x's own ) Wave servers in a transparent manner. With wave, you have to trust no one other than your self. Period. In fact, that is so much so the literal truth, you are less dependent on another company for your own technological collaborative destiny; which is absolutely not true for Exchange.
Wave understands locality and security so its possible to security integrate public Wave services with private Wave servers and services without ever sharing data outside your own company.
In short, nothing you've offered as fact is even remotely true.
You didn't RTFA or even attempt to understand the summary, did you? Google is NOT sending lawyers after developers. Basically everything in your post is misleading or inaccurate. As a result, your presentation of impending doom is completely baseless to the point of being laughable.
I just wish the moderators will realize your post is troll, overrated, flamebait, or even funny, but it absolutely is not insightful, interesting, or informative, by any measure.
sueing someone isn't an accident
What a miserable excuse of a zealot response. No one is being sued. A C&D is simply a notification you are perceived to be in violation. The letter is not legally binding. It is true, however, failure to respond to a C&D typically leads to legal action.
Anyone can write a C&D - lawyers need not be present or even involved. To be absolutely clear, a C&D is not a legal filing of any kind, though they can be referenced in a filing.
when are we going to stop winking at people who pull crap like this?
What "crap" are they pulling? So far I seem to only find a misinformed and irrational rant by what appears to be an Apple zealot. Can you be more specific?
it's not a mistake. it was an aggressive act.
You're right, its not likely to have been a mistake but its absolutely not an "aggressive act". C&Ds are always a reactive move which squarely places them as defensive. As it actual details have not been disclosed, its not clear what it is they hope to protect but just the same, it is a defensive move.
Yet people somehow manage to deceive themselves into thinking they'll be better about these things than Apple. At least with an Apple device you get to look trendy while being fucked over.
I know...it's awesome. With an Android phone you can look trendy and NOT get fucked over. Sounds like the way to go.
Tell that to the Nokia. The N900 uses X.
Notice I did not say X could not be used. I said its dumb to use it as such when better, faster, lighter technology exists, or can be created. X is good for many things and few even use it for its real strength.
However, we are talking about something drawing a GUI, and the usual ("orthodox"?) way of doing that is with X.
Don't even know where to start with that false position. So once again you're stuck with the notion that orthdox = desktop. Its not. Time and time again you sound like a broken record and don't even realize it. Once again, your very definition of "orthodox" is absolutely very unorthodox.
And then there's the standard C library.
Yes, and which of a half dozen plus a half dozen variants of each of are you talking about. Placing the word, "standard" in front of it doesn't really morph reality to suit your vision of it. Did you not read several of the replies, including my own, to this very fact? Or did reality get in the way of your bashing, which required you simply ignore it?
Your autoconf argument is ignored as it was effectively put to bed. Simply put, its nonsense. As an embedded developer, I can assure you, your position is nonsense. I can't stress enough, you need to learn to both read and comprehend what you've read. Yet more of your nonsense, which is already addressed and put to bed ignored.
By my definition, pretty much all Linux software can be compiled on most new platforms without requiring custom patches for that platform. I'm not counting autoconf as a "source change", since it's pretty much a standard build tool.
Once again, that's simply not true. Changes to autoconf and even source are par for the course on most any new platform. Some platforms place their headers in different locations. Some platforms have different libcs and/or libc++, etc. Some have different compiler configurations which break assumptions in both build and source...so on and so on...blah..blah... The point is, you point is entirely bullshit because it has already been addressed and put to bed. Since you've proven you can't read and/or comprehend what you read, there isn't much point in continuing, now is there.
Does this allow the phone to continue functioning as an Android device? If so, I'll concede that point -- if Ubuntu works, clearly the standard C library isn't an issue.
?!?! What the hell?? Still can't read?!?! So your position is now that Android running on an alternate distro somehow doesn't run Android?!!? Use some sense man. Why the fuck would someone port a framework (notice that Android is a fucking framework and OS abstraction layer) to another platform and not want it to run applications built for that framework?!? Really??!?!
Its a straw man's argument because your argument has nothing to do with the central questions. You position is nothing but hand waving, which isn't even accurate hand waving, which serves only to distract in an effort to convince people your invalid position is somehow valid. Basically, its the 'ol don't look at the man behind the curtain ploy. And even after you were repeatedly pointed to the man behind the curtain, you refuse to do so at every turn. In short, you refuse to let go of the straw man despite the fact every straw has been broken.
So to be absolutely clear, ANDROID IS A FRAMEWORK! Android is a framework just like Gnome (Gtk) or KDE (Qt) are. In fact, work has been under way for some time to allow Android applications to run natively on any Linux system. Simply put, Android is nothing but a framework running on top of a Linux system. People are already porting it to non-Google Linux distros and source trees. And that's the entirely the point. How can Android be "unorthodox Linux" which in fact, its a framework which sits atop Linux. Saying Linux plus a framework is unorthodox Linux is crazy talk and doesn't make sense at all.
And while not topical to the main subject, since you keep bringing it up, as a final sid
Likewise, I've seen javascript which manipulates large datasets, which takes the lion share of time to run; somewhere in the 30-60 second range. Recent javascript performance boosts have allows such manipulation of large datasets to become feasible and even practical.
The truth is, more and more people are attempting to use a browser as a general purpose user interface for many applications which were previously considered unattainable with older browser technology and I only see additional momentum building in this direction.
Fast rendering and javascript is a make or break for most of these types of applications.
However, if someone ships a Linux with a completely different GUI serving the same purpose X would have, especially for a platform where X was a credible option, it's not "orthodox".
I think you need to critically review your own statement. Its nonsensical. Android's GUI does not "serve the same purpose X would have". Period. Even more so, "especially for a platform where X was a credible option", is simply dumb as it doesn't apply in the least.
Phones qualify as an "embedded" platform. In this case, the platforms are typically limited in memory and bandwidth. Even more so, gaming is a target for these phones. None of these make using X "a credible option".
And even more so, none of these issues have anything to do with "orthodox", unless your definition, which seems to be your entire position, is orthodox = desktop, which means your own definition is in fact completely unorthodox as headless and GUI-less servers are in fact the orthodox Linux install.
I have no idea why you're intent of negatively painting Android but everything you've stated is completely false - to the degree where is seems you have either an ax to grind or a misinformation agenda to push. Please keep your ax-grinding, misinformation to your self.
Functionally, then, can I expect to take a Linux application and compile it for Android with no changes?
The "no changes" is the tricky part because almost no Linux applications are directly capable for compiling on an embedded system without change. This is because more often than not they use autoconf which requires execution on the target. By you definition, pretty much all Linux software is broken. But, if that is in fact your metric, no matter how invalid it is, it is possible if you use the Ubuntu Android port. But, that hardly validates you position in the least. This is because, most applications typically require some tweaking for new platforms, even when they do use tools such as autoconf.
Bluntly, not only are you wrong, but the position is simply invalid and has no merit in the discussion. Its an uninformed, straw man's argument.