Okay, smart one, then try to find a single document describing hierarchy of internal OO.o objects - accessible from such scripts.
OO.o documentation is ill with what I call "plug-in disease" and has very nice reference "everything is implemented with plug-ins and thus documented elsewhere" with link to dummy OO.o documentation page. There you can find the same plug-in reference quoted above. With no link to actual DOM documentation/specification/anything.
Analogy. In past we used to joke around "know how to program in assembler": knowing insn op-codes gives one nothing. Programming in assembler is impossible with knowledge of assembler syntax alone - knowledge of computer's architecture is essential. Syntax is simple and fits several documentation pages - computer architecture is described on many hundred pages. So here we have the same situation: I know Python/Java/etc but I can't program anything for OO.o in it since DOM - main subject of programming - is documented nowhere.
VBS is shitty, but you can always record macro and correct it to your needs. For sake of experiment try to record macro in OO.o and see/correct the results. Even "steep" isn't proper adjective for the learning curve.
As we have already said, productivity is a measure of the "speed of working" (the
number of documents produced divided by the time spent working). Daily productivity is
higher when using OpenOffice.org documents proving at the first sight that OOo users work
faster than MSO ones. In Figure 10, the productivity of OOo is somewhat twice as high as the
productivity of MSO.
That's really big blow into M$' face - with all its "studies" of how M$O improves productivity. That's real numbers - real statistics - gathered from whole lot of people ("1525 PCs" divided by 3 since "... one third of the users never used OpenOffice.org...") using OO.o (mostly along with MSO).
All I can say is - ZOMG!!!!! That freaking expensive. Especially costs of maintaining install base of M$Office (I expect most used application by bureaucracy organization) - 289€K/year.
Now I'm slowly getting why the topic of migration is so annoyingly pushed by so many - and everywhere.
To be honest, when I first saw the line, I also wanted to make similar post.
But then - just before hitting "Reply to This" - I recalled all the nightmares of supporting M$Office documents my company have had in past. All the bugs and regressions of OO.o cannot cover experience with M$Office in networked environment.
Our favorite biggest sucker is M$O document with global system architecture spec: opening from network drive of the 20 page (about 200k thanks to diagrams) document takes 2 to 5 minutes. Always. Nobody knows what M$Word does - but it basicly hangs and then later happily pop-ups from background with open document reporting neither error nor warning. Copy the document from networked repository to local harddrive - and it opens instantly. Open it as it is supposed to be open - and locked - on servers and... here we go. (Actually we also have several document which take ages to open regardless of where from you open them: locally or remotely. But it just everybody has to work with sys arch spec often - so it is major P.I.T.A.)
OO.o is bloated, ugly, slow, feature-poor, buggy and inconsistent. Its macro language is total and utter undocumented crap (N.B. I hate VBA - no language could be worse. Or so I thought. Before I have seen StarBasic (or whatever that thing is called)). BUT. In three years of deployment we found no single major blocker, which prevented us from using OO.o internally.
So you find dying for slipped finger and then being forced to restart from beginning... easy? Find you that entertaining? Me not. Day twisting fingers to pull out combo of 8 jumps thru three elevators and six monsters - for the opportunity lasts only few seconds? Not for me. Not even close to what I call "easy" and "entertaining".
Humor me. Or try to challenge me - no, not in Mario - e.g. in Quake3/Doom3. Exploding bodies and splashing blood? That's easy.;)
P.S. Well. Probably I just tried harder than needed game which is not for me.
Quake/Doom/HL/NWN - somehow are Ok with me. I need few seconds to come up with strategy to kill a monster in NWN. I need couple of minutes to come to normal game speed of Quake/Doom to never actually stop running and killing off monsters. But Mario (and some platformers I have seen on Sega before) are really somehow "complicated" for me: you just hit particular place where you constantly die and game often ends there for me. Wasting another week to reach the place again? To die unconditionally again? Not for me. And that's problem normally with games ported from consoles - I played some PC platformers in past and they were Ok. (e.g Prehistoric(?) I/II)
Most hated feature that one cannot adjust complexity level in such games. Ironically, most games which allow to control complexity level are Ok too - even on normal/hard setting. Most of the time I cannot force my fingers to memorize some 6/8/more key combo (series of jumps/waits/movements) to pass particular place. I can conclude that console platformers are just not for me. Or am I not for platformers.
You're the first person I've ever heard referring to Mario as "complicated".
I have New Mario on DS and it is unplayable. Even excluding the "portable" aspect of DS, Mario requires some good concentration - something I lack after 8-9 hours in office. Needless to say, playing Mario while outside is impossible due to all distractions around. And I have heard from profis that DS version is easier than GameCube one. Well, Okay, I always lack concentration - but somehow it affects Mario worst. (And DS version doesn't let you save when you want.)
Probably it is good for kids who seem to have abundance of energy always.
What a Slashdotters AND happy owners ("happy" is requirement) of PS3 can say about games? What can you recommend to old fan of Tetris and Nethack.
For fun I have bought Wii - first console of PC casual gamer - but now I want more visual dense experience, and PS3/Xbox360 looks to me interesting. I do not like complicated games - like Mario - which might require full day of training just for one particular level. What I need - is a games for a evening, something I can play for one hour or so at time and make some progress.
Prof from my University after moving to modern DTP facilities had found that several formulas in his book had mistyped index: i v. j. Fine print was barely readable and few people noticed. 21" TFT display, Acrobat Reader, zoom 400% - ZOMG!!! - all editions have the same copy-pasted mistake.
And not that you can proof that closely everything you type. Convert that to source code - and you have bug already. In fine print.
IOW, think twice before bringing to programming the most popular legal advice - "read fine print carefully".
You can even expect automatic completion of symbols if you want.
In my experience, people who need visual help like that are normally poor programmers.
I would also expect a simple view toggle to let you see and edit the raw ASCII if that's what floats your boat.
Couple of N-week sessions looking for obscure bug hiding in syntax (or math fine print: i v. j) would make you love ASCII - once and forever. (*) If you have never experienced that - that means you never really coded anything seriously. No offense is meant.
I'm coding for a decade and I already lost count of number of such sessions. Not funny to find that release dead-line was pushed by mistyped semicolon. Dumber syntax - better. Because dumb syntax is less error prone. (Beaten example of C++ template syntax is omitted. I wish GCC had as much warnings as Perl has for suspicious syntax constructs.)
(*) That's actually why native-language translations of Pascal/Cobol/Lisp/etc all failed in past and never were reborn again.
I do not care which one dies. I'm not buying into the thing until it reaches price tag of 100€ per PC drive and say 2.50€ per recordable disk.
I do not care which one wins. Even if both do. I just want to have affordable recordable disks. Even if I would need to take the disks with me - I can always buy external (usb/firewire) drive.
P.S. I'm going to boycott the movie disks anyway - unless DRM would be completely cracked (just as I did with DVDs). And not that I am movie/tv customer anyway. I have probably only two DVDs at home - Bjork' Volumen and Rain Man - and those two were gifted to me, not purchased.
What about normal web-browser? what about some basic office suit and/or text editor? PDF reader? performance monitoring? usual for servers management software?
From my POV, hidden costs of Windows has nothing to do with M$ software - but what the M$ software lacks. And what it lacks - is very very long list. Normally installed separately from 3rd parties. I can install desktop Windows in couple of hours - just to later on waste couple of days brining system to usable state. Same goes to Windows Servers: M$ haven't forgotten to include WMP which nobody needs there - but they do not include PDF reader which basic common sense to have on server to read documentation.
Normally from my experience managing Windows is Ok. But supporting all those bizzare 3rd party tools one needs to install to make Windows machine usable - is nightmare.
To conclude, Windows lacks/etc/apt/sources.list and apt-get - unless Windows gets them it would remain pain in ass to administer. Though, in MS' current state - few people trust MS - I'm afraid nobody would trust MS to distribute her/his software.
And I hope you do realize that the only way to bring iTMS down is to visit it/try to buy something from it. And the only audience that would do that - is iPod owners.
iTMS is directly linked to iPod. Without iPod - iTMS is nothing: it doesn't sell non-protected and/or MP3/OGG and/or PlaysForSure and/or Zune compatible songs.
First they argued to labels that the liberal DRM is needed - or consumers will not buy songs. Now the coin flipped and Apple wants DRM themselves since it is one of the reasons why people buy iPods - so they can use well-integrated iTMS.
Well, it is business as usual: they have made some sacrifices in past (like $0.70 label fee on every song sold) but now they just want to maintain the position iPod has gained in market.
If Apple resorts to such tactics, we may conclude that end of iPod's rein in market is looming. And Apple is feeling that: otherwise they wouldn't have resorted to such low tactics.
But. As long as standard iPhone app stack will work and will not suck.
I have tried many smartphones in last three years (I want to have one) but they all fail because of (1) or sucky software (2) or sucky integration of whole offering. SonyEricsson's p9xx are biggest disappointment since they lack basic features and applications (like hand-writing recognition). Treo is good - but screen is too small and I do not like the tiny keys.
One thing which made Palm (PDA) as successful as it was - it is precisely 3rd party applications. And the same thing - or lack of it - made most mobile phones to suck. The comment from Jobs is frankly very disappointing. I'm sure Apple would come up with most usable/accessible phone interface - but I'm not sure that it would fit me. One size never fits all, after all.
And as a consumer (not a shareholder), why should I give a shit what their profit or loss is? As long as I get what I want for what I'm willing topay, that's all I care about as a consumer.
You as consumer would invest $600 into game console now, expecting that you would be abler to enjoy modern gaming twice longer than on e.g. Nintendo Wii. And then year later - BA-BAM!! - Sony discontinues PS3 production/sales since it is not profitable.
Sensible business plan is bit like additional insurance for consumers that company (they invest in products of) isn't going to flop under weight of taken obligations.
So this round is of course won by Nintendo. M$ and Sony here are both losers. I'm not sure about Sony - they have swallowed even bigger product failures before - but internal pressure mounts inside of M$ to dump Xbox/gaming division since they are not profitable. Company might survive many failed products, but they usually start losing good engineers who can/do design such products - and who do not like to be on losing side. Especially when product gets torpedoed by management/sales/marketing - like it seems it was in case of Sony. Changing spec on last minute did good to nobody.
It is really baffling how many organizations lack the common courtesy to just say "no".
Have once observed "official" hiring process I can tell that the job isn't a pleasant one.
HR are like sandwiched between management and candidates. And in many cases, HR simply do not know who had been chosen by managers. And it is often middle management charged with the stuffing tasks - the most busiest ones. They can give you feedback right away - if you would call them personally. But it is just the back link from the manager to HR isn't well established.
Also, often companies keep CV/interview results for some prolonged time - expecting that some employment opportunity would come up. IOW they cannot give immediate response, since in half of year new opening might come up. And HR are the last people to know about new openings. They are plain bureaucrats and treated as such in most companies.
P.S. Lazy to post other response. There is also another reason for no-feedback. HR people are literally afraid of bad speak. On interview do not speak badly - regardless of whom you speak. Never speak bad of your previous employers. Never speak bad of your colleagues. Never speak bad of your other interviews. And so on.
After Novell smacks down SCO/Caldera into bankruptcy, I would bet to see a lawsuit from Caldera's investors against Sun (now owners of the old Tarantella/Santa Cruz) claiming that Tarantella/Santa Cruz mislead them and misrepresented the nature of what they were buying when Caldera bought the Unix assets.
Very much doubt it. If any stone would fall - it would fall on heads of Caldera's management.
Caldera really never wanted to sell Unix - it were acquiring rights so that it can easily migrate users off Unix. Nothing else. It was Darell McBride who changed the course.
It was reported that SCO case (I mean coming of McBride & conversion from Caldera to SCO) is tied to internal Canopy group stockholders/management relationship problems. Check out the Yarro case.
Unix/Linux - they do not do any development anymore. At least all people responsible for Caldera are not there anymore. Needless to say SCO never employed any Unix folks - they acuired rights only. Also SCO recently acquired "Vultus" or something like that - web services company (no need for guesses - internal shuffles in Canopy group).
Note, that SCO is R&D company. And it is also public company. If current management would mark itself with irresponsible management, they would be crossed as management forever. If you payed attention to news, you might have noticed that SCO though paused its business for some time (in the beginning of the IBM case) never actually stopped producing... well at least press releases. They still support Unix, they still support Linux (though that hurt them in court) and they still try to develop something new - like web services.
Also, $2Mln/y is pretty humble figure. If you would take that every R&D employee on average costs $100k/y than it is only about 20 people. I bet they have even more lawyers by now.
Highlight. If you followed Novell case, you know that Novell means by bankruptcy here. SCO tried to stay the case - but Novell argues now that if SCO is allowed to stay and let to pursue IBM's case first it would very soon run out of money. And Novell wouldn't be able to collect due royalties from M$/Sun deals.
Do not know where to start. You seem to be unfamiliar with basic OS architecture. Least with security.
Vista even goes a step further than OSX or any *nix, as it REMOVES completely the concept of a root level account.
That's physically impossible: the part of OS which grants privileges automatically has the ultimate privilege. IOW we are coming back to good ol' root account. Different color of it - but it is all the same. Unix does it the same way: user info given to specially privileged program (mark to run as root) and it decides to give or not to give request privilege to application about run.
Additionally, as you also point out in comparison to most *nixes, Apples 'prompt' for root password is far less secure as it allows portions of the interface (finder for example) to run with higher priveldges than it should under ANY users. Vista on the other hand, forces Explorer to run at the User level and has no magic bypass of security at any time no MATTER what.
I'm not sure how did your draw the conclusion in first sentence. I said nothing like that. Second sentence is wrong of course - because is based on conclusion in first one.
Mac OS X doesn't reinvent square wheels: impersonation remains impersonation. M$ goes in opposite direction and from what you say with UAC removes impersonation. From your words any account can get any provilege provided user confirms that.
My point is precisely reverse of what you try to describe. What I'm trying to say is that UAC confirmation thing is much weaker compared to password prompt. Lots of confirmations Vista throws at its users (my friends during RC2 piloting complained about that - you can't leave batch overnight installation anymore) would lead only to overall weaker security. For many it wouldn't change a thing. (Recall all the problems such approaches lead with automated jobs: when confirmation pops up in middle of night/lunch - there is nobody around to click "Ok".) Such complications would ultimately lead to people disabling/weakening UAC. On other side, in MacOS/Unix I can just say that particular task would run with some privileges escalated - and that's fine as long as I trust the task in question. Who would you do that with UAC?
As long as M$ wouldn't implement privilege separation and application isolation (e.g. chroot()), no way bells'n'whistles like UAC going to change the picture. And that's my point I try to describe here.
You need to learn how OSs works - and who things like UAC - do integrate with rest of system. Otherwise it is impossible to talk with you. Better half of your parent post is plainly wrong, just because you do not understand completely how account/groups/privileges work - and what role UAC may play/plays here. It is not omnipotent.
MS seems to trust an administrator in Vista to give them Approval authenication, Apple apparently doesn't think their users should be able to control their own computer and forces a password everytime.
It is just common sense on Apple's part: any admin would tell you that having any task with excessive privileges poses threat. Mac OS X reuses the concept from Unix world: run with fewest possible privileges and request them if need arises. (Okay, Mac OS runs with tons of excessive privileges - compared to normal Unices.)
I even can't recall any everyday task which requires any special privilege Mac OS would ask user a password for. Installing software globally, modifying system setting - that's common sense to have that privileged. Local software installation (in your home directory) of course requires no password.
At moment, most of the time when Mac OS X would ask user for password, WinNT/2k/XP hangs for several seconds and then throws at you "Access denied" error box. I think former behavior is better. For admin with highest privileges in system to receive "access denied" error is really ridiculous - though that's what Windows does all the time.
1) UAC dialogs can be automatically ignored or suppressed
IOW return to good ol' way of dealing with security - blame user. First annoy user with bunch of dialogs - and then when s/he turns them off - claim that M$ has nothing to do with it. Yeah, improved security. Greatly.
4) applications can't snoop the password as its being entered (contrast with MacOS)
Bullshit. Vista is Win32 compatible => support keyboard hooks => keyboard can be monitored. Period. (Otherwise things like VNC/pcAnywhere/RemoteDesktop wouldn't have let you input password at all. They use that feature.)
[ And where did you get the notion that Mac OS passwords can be snooped? (Well first of course user's computer needs to infiltrated wit malware, what's not so easy Mac OS). Both NeWS (that's what Mac OS X based on) and X (that's *nix is using) implement secure passing of events for as long I know them. Passwords input isn't only application - almost any user interaction with application can be secured. ]
-- UAC provides virtualization of registry hives to make older applications work well under the new system
The functionality is available since NT 3.5. I wonder what you really meant.
-- UAC makes GREAT use of color to highlight potentially untrustoworth applications that have requested credentials
As web has shown, that means that rogue applications would start using the "safe" colors to fool users. Not really any kind of advancement.
-- UAC behavior can be centrally managed through group policy
Funnily enough, for two years I have used Mac in past, never really missed that. Nor do I miss that on Windows. Most of the group policies can be bypassed anyway, so they are good only as efficiency bumper for users to hate Windows even more.
For the security-conscious among us, UAC will preovide a great deal of control unavailable on MacOS.
It provides great deal of "Windows-specific" stuff few really care about - outside Windows-only/M$-only shops.
For uncle Bob, it will save him from a lot of malware even if he runs as admin all the time.
You mean that uncle Bob would be calling his IT friend every time UAC asks him something? Then I believe you. Otherwise he would be clicking "Ok" - just as he did with Windows for last decade.
As long as M$ plays games with security - there will be no way that "uncle Bob" can be safe by himself. Especially running with local admin privileges.
Windows (Vista included) is stupid moronic system which doesn't allow even basic privilege separation. And as long as M$ wouldn't move its fat ass to actually implement proper privilege separation (as it was done eons ago in *nix/BSD/MacOS) - no way applications can be hardened against external attacks. As long as implementing provilege separation in Windows is what it is now - pain in the arse - developers will be very reluctant to actually use it. I programmed that once under Windows - and do not want to even try that again. (Under *nix you need about 10 copy'n'pasted lines of code to implement privilege separation: between main non-privileges process and privileged child process. And you can do all that right from single executable.)
In the end, you need to read less of crap from Redmond and start using different systems. Try to work on Mac or Linux for couple of month to get a feeling - and understand how stuff really works - then you can jump and make claims.
There were other inconsistencies in the review. Two examples: First, he slammed Vista for requiring UAC approval for installations where it might not seem necessary, where OS X does the same thing.
You missed the bit that Vista asks user twice - whereas Mac OS X asks only once. Vista asks user to confirm his actions (as it is seen by user), whereas Mac OS X asks user to authenticate the installer with privilege to perform the installation. IOW, Vista throws at his user two pointless dialogs (after few day users would use to automatically press Ok w/o actually reading what's going on - not that Vista tells precisely what's going on), while Mac OS X asks its user to provide password: action which would alarm any user that something dangerous covered by specified privilege (which has human readable name) can happen.
Second, he praised Vista's interface consistency, without mentioning the lack of consistency that has been typical of Mac OS X in recent years.
The applications shipped by Apple normally stick with standard interface. There are exceptions and there are also applications which are used to pilot new interfaces (like Mail.app). Normally, you would find that applications released by Apple at the same time have same interface. (e.g. Mac OS X 10.4 Mail.app 2 + iTunes 7 + Safari 2 has all same interface).
The UI inconsistency the reviewer speaks about is that applications released by Microsoft at the same time feature nearly incompatible interfaces: M$Office v. IE7 v. Windows Explorer.
Apple has its own problems, but beleive me as to guy who worked with GUIs from M$ for a decade (DOS 3.x to Win2k) - that's normal practice for M$ to release at the same time different and inconsistent UIs. Tech hint (invisible to normal users): M$Office 97-2007, IE 3-7, M$Project - as well as many other M$ developped apps - do not use standard WinAPI for GUI. They cannot be consistent just because they use different GUI code base - they all reimplement WinAPI on their own. M$ can afford that - Apple can't.
Piece of advice - especially since D boasts linking compatibility with C/C++ - is to start using it in existing C/C++ projects (along with C/C++) to pilot it in real world applications.
C is fine as it is - it fits its designers' purpose. But C++ really annoys me. I am all for C compatibility, but in the end, some C++ projects start looking like written in C and vice versa: some C projects build completely on OO paradigms. (Just recall GTK & GNOME.) Ojective-C often fits the bill but few know about it.
Also, as Perl programmer, I welcome inclusion of primitive data structures ("associative arrays, array slicing") into language itself. C++' STL really does good job obfuscating programs up to the point of complete unreadability. Also its syntax makes any kind of serious programming really hard: you cannot make STL using code both readable and optimal. Overloaded operators is curse.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, smart one, then try to find a single document describing hierarchy of internal OO.o objects - accessible from such scripts.
OO.o documentation is ill with what I call "plug-in disease" and has very nice reference "everything is implemented with plug-ins and thus documented elsewhere" with link to dummy OO.o documentation page. There you can find the same plug-in reference quoted above. With no link to actual DOM documentation/specification/anything.
Analogy. In past we used to joke around "know how to program in assembler": knowing insn op-codes gives one nothing. Programming in assembler is impossible with knowledge of assembler syntax alone - knowledge of computer's architecture is essential. Syntax is simple and fits several documentation pages - computer architecture is described on many hundred pages. So here we have the same situation: I know Python/Java/etc but I can't program anything for OO.o in it since DOM - main subject of programming - is documented nowhere.
VBS is shitty, but you can always record macro and correct it to your needs. For sake of experiment try to record macro in OO.o and see/correct the results. Even "steep" isn't proper adjective for the learning curve.
Page 257 of TFPDF.
That's really big blow into M$' face - with all its "studies" of how M$O improves productivity. That's real numbers - real statistics - gathered from whole lot of people ("1525 PCs" divided by 3 since "... one third of the users never used OpenOffice.org ...") using OO.o (mostly along with MSO).
Page 254 has table with M$ stack costs.
All I can say is - ZOMG!!!!! That freaking expensive. Especially costs of maintaining install base of M$Office (I expect most used application by bureaucracy organization) - 289€K/year.
Now I'm slowly getting why the topic of migration is so annoyingly pushed by so many - and everywhere.
To be honest, when I first saw the line, I also wanted to make similar post.
But then - just before hitting "Reply to This" - I recalled all the nightmares of supporting M$Office documents my company have had in past. All the bugs and regressions of OO.o cannot cover experience with M$Office in networked environment.
Our favorite biggest sucker is M$O document with global system architecture spec: opening from network drive of the 20 page (about 200k thanks to diagrams) document takes 2 to 5 minutes. Always. Nobody knows what M$Word does - but it basicly hangs and then later happily pop-ups from background with open document reporting neither error nor warning. Copy the document from networked repository to local harddrive - and it opens instantly. Open it as it is supposed to be open - and locked - on servers and ... here we go. (Actually we also have several document which take ages to open regardless of where from you open them: locally or remotely. But it just everybody has to work with sys arch spec often - so it is major P.I.T.A.)
OO.o is bloated, ugly, slow, feature-poor, buggy and inconsistent. Its macro language is total and utter undocumented crap (N.B. I hate VBA - no language could be worse. Or so I thought. Before I have seen StarBasic (or whatever that thing is called)). BUT. In three years of deployment we found no single major blocker, which prevented us from using OO.o internally.
So you find dying for slipped finger and then being forced to restart from beginning ... easy? Find you that entertaining? Me not. Day twisting fingers to pull out combo of 8 jumps thru three elevators and six monsters - for the opportunity lasts only few seconds? Not for me. Not even close to what I call "easy" and "entertaining".
Humor me. Or try to challenge me - no, not in Mario - e.g. in Quake3/Doom3. Exploding bodies and splashing blood? That's easy. ;)
P.S. Well. Probably I just tried harder than needed game which is not for me.
Thanks. I'll check them.
Quake/Doom/HL/NWN - somehow are Ok with me. I need few seconds to come up with strategy to kill a monster in NWN. I need couple of minutes to come to normal game speed of Quake/Doom to never actually stop running and killing off monsters. But Mario (and some platformers I have seen on Sega before) are really somehow "complicated" for me: you just hit particular place where you constantly die and game often ends there for me. Wasting another week to reach the place again? To die unconditionally again? Not for me. And that's problem normally with games ported from consoles - I played some PC platformers in past and they were Ok. (e.g Prehistoric(?) I/II)
Most hated feature that one cannot adjust complexity level in such games. Ironically, most games which allow to control complexity level are Ok too - even on normal/hard setting. Most of the time I cannot force my fingers to memorize some 6/8/more key combo (series of jumps/waits/movements) to pass particular place. I can conclude that console platformers are just not for me. Or am I not for platformers.
I have New Mario on DS and it is unplayable. Even excluding the "portable" aspect of DS, Mario requires some good concentration - something I lack after 8-9 hours in office. Needless to say, playing Mario while outside is impossible due to all distractions around. And I have heard from profis that DS version is easier than GameCube one. Well, Okay, I always lack concentration - but somehow it affects Mario worst. (And DS version doesn't let you save when you want.)
Probably it is good for kids who seem to have abundance of energy always.
What about games?
What a Slashdotters AND happy owners ("happy" is requirement) of PS3 can say about games? What can you recommend to old fan of Tetris and Nethack.
For fun I have bought Wii - first console of PC casual gamer - but now I want more visual dense experience, and PS3/Xbox360 looks to me interesting. I do not like complicated games - like Mario - which might require full day of training just for one particular level. What I need - is a games for a evening, something I can play for one hour or so at time and make some progress.
Hm. Well, PS2 recommendation are also welcome.
That's actually not funny.
Prof from my University after moving to modern DTP facilities had found that several formulas in his book had mistyped index: i v. j. Fine print was barely readable and few people noticed. 21" TFT display, Acrobat Reader, zoom 400% - ZOMG!!! - all editions have the same copy-pasted mistake.
And not that you can proof that closely everything you type. Convert that to source code - and you have bug already. In fine print.
IOW, think twice before bringing to programming the most popular legal advice - "read fine print carefully".
In my experience, people who need visual help like that are normally poor programmers.
Couple of N-week sessions looking for obscure bug hiding in syntax (or math fine print: i v. j) would make you love ASCII - once and forever. (*) If you have never experienced that - that means you never really coded anything seriously. No offense is meant.
I'm coding for a decade and I already lost count of number of such sessions. Not funny to find that release dead-line was pushed by mistyped semicolon. Dumber syntax - better. Because dumb syntax is less error prone. (Beaten example of C++ template syntax is omitted. I wish GCC had as much warnings as Perl has for suspicious syntax constructs.)
(*) That's actually why native-language translations of Pascal/Cobol/Lisp/etc all failed in past and never were reborn again.
I do not care which one dies. I'm not buying into the thing until it reaches price tag of 100€ per PC drive and say 2.50€ per recordable disk.
I do not care which one wins. Even if both do. I just want to have affordable recordable disks. Even if I would need to take the disks with me - I can always buy external (usb/firewire) drive.
P.S. I'm going to boycott the movie disks anyway - unless DRM would be completely cracked (just as I did with DVDs). And not that I am movie/tv customer anyway. I have probably only two DVDs at home - Bjork' Volumen and Rain Man - and those two were gifted to me, not purchased.
And that's all???
What about normal web-browser? what about some basic office suit and/or text editor? PDF reader? performance monitoring? usual for servers management software?
From my POV, hidden costs of Windows has nothing to do with M$ software - but what the M$ software lacks. And what it lacks - is very very long list. Normally installed separately from 3rd parties. I can install desktop Windows in couple of hours - just to later on waste couple of days brining system to usable state. Same goes to Windows Servers: M$ haven't forgotten to include WMP which nobody needs there - but they do not include PDF reader which basic common sense to have on server to read documentation.
Normally from my experience managing Windows is Ok. But supporting all those bizzare 3rd party tools one needs to install to make Windows machine usable - is nightmare.
To conclude, Windows lacks /etc/apt/sources.list and apt-get - unless Windows gets them it would remain pain in ass to administer. Though, in MS' current state - few people trust MS - I'm afraid nobody would trust MS to distribute her/his software.
And I hope you do realize that the only way to bring iTMS down is to visit it/try to buy something from it. And the only audience that would do that - is iPod owners.
iTMS is directly linked to iPod. Without iPod - iTMS is nothing: it doesn't sell non-protected and/or MP3/OGG and/or PlaysForSure and/or Zune compatible songs.
First they argued to labels that the liberal DRM is needed - or consumers will not buy songs. Now the coin flipped and Apple wants DRM themselves since it is one of the reasons why people buy iPods - so they can use well-integrated iTMS.
Well, it is business as usual: they have made some sacrifices in past (like $0.70 label fee on every song sold) but now they just want to maintain the position iPod has gained in market.
If Apple resorts to such tactics, we may conclude that end of iPod's rein in market is looming. And Apple is feeling that: otherwise they wouldn't have resorted to such low tactics.
That's fine.
But. As long as standard iPhone app stack will work and will not suck.
I have tried many smartphones in last three years (I want to have one) but they all fail because of (1) or sucky software (2) or sucky integration of whole offering. SonyEricsson's p9xx are biggest disappointment since they lack basic features and applications (like hand-writing recognition). Treo is good - but screen is too small and I do not like the tiny keys.
One thing which made Palm (PDA) as successful as it was - it is precisely 3rd party applications. And the same thing - or lack of it - made most mobile phones to suck. The comment from Jobs is frankly very disappointing. I'm sure Apple would come up with most usable/accessible phone interface - but I'm not sure that it would fit me. One size never fits all, after all.
You as consumer would invest $600 into game console now, expecting that you would be abler to enjoy modern gaming twice longer than on e.g. Nintendo Wii. And then year later - BA-BAM!! - Sony discontinues PS3 production/sales since it is not profitable.
Sensible business plan is bit like additional insurance for consumers that company (they invest in products of) isn't going to flop under weight of taken obligations.
So this round is of course won by Nintendo. M$ and Sony here are both losers. I'm not sure about Sony - they have swallowed even bigger product failures before - but internal pressure mounts inside of M$ to dump Xbox/gaming division since they are not profitable. Company might survive many failed products, but they usually start losing good engineers who can/do design such products - and who do not like to be on losing side. Especially when product gets torpedoed by management/sales/marketing - like it seems it was in case of Sony. Changing spec on last minute did good to nobody.
I wish there were third option: DVD9 + H.264
Realistically speaking, new video formats allowed to put content on old media - so why not to (re)use the old media?
BD/HD-DVD are both pushed by industry heavyweights - so small opportunity like that is neglected.
Agreed.
Have once observed "official" hiring process I can tell that the job isn't a pleasant one.
HR are like sandwiched between management and candidates. And in many cases, HR simply do not know who had been chosen by managers. And it is often middle management charged with the stuffing tasks - the most busiest ones. They can give you feedback right away - if you would call them personally. But it is just the back link from the manager to HR isn't well established.
Also, often companies keep CV/interview results for some prolonged time - expecting that some employment opportunity would come up. IOW they cannot give immediate response, since in half of year new opening might come up. And HR are the last people to know about new openings. They are plain bureaucrats and treated as such in most companies.
P.S. Lazy to post other response. There is also another reason for no-feedback. HR people are literally afraid of bad speak. On interview do not speak badly - regardless of whom you speak. Never speak bad of your previous employers. Never speak bad of your colleagues. Never speak bad of your other interviews. And so on.
Very much doubt it. If any stone would fall - it would fall on heads of Caldera's management.
Caldera really never wanted to sell Unix - it were acquiring rights so that it can easily migrate users off Unix. Nothing else. It was Darell McBride who changed the course.
It was reported that SCO case (I mean coming of McBride & conversion from Caldera to SCO) is tied to internal Canopy group stockholders/management relationship problems. Check out the Yarro case.
Unix/Linux - they do not do any development anymore. At least all people responsible for Caldera are not there anymore. Needless to say SCO never employed any Unix folks - they acuired rights only. Also SCO recently acquired "Vultus" or something like that - web services company (no need for guesses - internal shuffles in Canopy group).
Note, that SCO is R&D company. And it is also public company. If current management would mark itself with irresponsible management, they would be crossed as management forever. If you payed attention to news, you might have noticed that SCO though paused its business for some time (in the beginning of the IBM case) never actually stopped producing ... well at least press releases. They still support Unix, they still support Linux (though that hurt them in court) and they still try to develop something new - like web services.
Also, $2Mln/y is pretty humble figure. If you would take that every R&D employee on average costs $100k/y than it is only about 20 people. I bet they have even more lawyers by now.
Highlight. If you followed Novell case, you know that Novell means by bankruptcy here. SCO tried to stay the case - but Novell argues now that if SCO is allowed to stay and let to pursue IBM's case first it would very soon run out of money. And Novell wouldn't be able to collect due royalties from M$/Sun deals.
Do not know where to start. You seem to be unfamiliar with basic OS architecture. Least with security.
That's physically impossible: the part of OS which grants privileges automatically has the ultimate privilege. IOW we are coming back to good ol' root account. Different color of it - but it is all the same. Unix does it the same way: user info given to specially privileged program (mark to run as root) and it decides to give or not to give request privilege to application about run.
I'm not sure how did your draw the conclusion in first sentence. I said nothing like that. Second sentence is wrong of course - because is based on conclusion in first one.
Mac OS X doesn't reinvent square wheels: impersonation remains impersonation. M$ goes in opposite direction and from what you say with UAC removes impersonation. From your words any account can get any provilege provided user confirms that.
My point is precisely reverse of what you try to describe. What I'm trying to say is that UAC confirmation thing is much weaker compared to password prompt. Lots of confirmations Vista throws at its users (my friends during RC2 piloting complained about that - you can't leave batch overnight installation anymore) would lead only to overall weaker security. For many it wouldn't change a thing. (Recall all the problems such approaches lead with automated jobs: when confirmation pops up in middle of night/lunch - there is nobody around to click "Ok".) Such complications would ultimately lead to people disabling/weakening UAC. On other side, in MacOS/Unix I can just say that particular task would run with some privileges escalated - and that's fine as long as I trust the task in question. Who would you do that with UAC?
As long as M$ wouldn't implement privilege separation and application isolation (e.g. chroot()), no way bells'n'whistles like UAC going to change the picture. And that's my point I try to describe here.
You need to learn how OSs works - and who things like UAC - do integrate with rest of system. Otherwise it is impossible to talk with you. Better half of your parent post is plainly wrong, just because you do not understand completely how account/groups/privileges work - and what role UAC may play/plays here. It is not omnipotent.
It is just common sense on Apple's part: any admin would tell you that having any task with excessive privileges poses threat. Mac OS X reuses the concept from Unix world: run with fewest possible privileges and request them if need arises. (Okay, Mac OS runs with tons of excessive privileges - compared to normal Unices.)
I even can't recall any everyday task which requires any special privilege Mac OS would ask user a password for. Installing software globally, modifying system setting - that's common sense to have that privileged. Local software installation (in your home directory) of course requires no password.
At moment, most of the time when Mac OS X would ask user for password, WinNT/2k/XP hangs for several seconds and then throws at you "Access denied" error box. I think former behavior is better. For admin with highest privileges in system to receive "access denied" error is really ridiculous - though that's what Windows does all the time.
IOW return to good ol' way of dealing with security - blame user. First annoy user with bunch of dialogs - and then when s/he turns them off - claim that M$ has nothing to do with it. Yeah, improved security. Greatly.
Bullshit. Vista is Win32 compatible => support keyboard hooks => keyboard can be monitored. Period. (Otherwise things like VNC/pcAnywhere/RemoteDesktop wouldn't have let you input password at all. They use that feature.)
[ And where did you get the notion that Mac OS passwords can be snooped? (Well first of course user's computer needs to infiltrated wit malware, what's not so easy Mac OS). Both NeWS (that's what Mac OS X based on) and X (that's *nix is using) implement secure passing of events for as long I know them. Passwords input isn't only application - almost any user interaction with application can be secured. ]
The functionality is available since NT 3.5. I wonder what you really meant.
As web has shown, that means that rogue applications would start using the "safe" colors to fool users. Not really any kind of advancement.
Funnily enough, for two years I have used Mac in past, never really missed that. Nor do I miss that on Windows. Most of the group policies can be bypassed anyway, so they are good only as efficiency bumper for users to hate Windows even more.
It provides great deal of "Windows-specific" stuff few really care about - outside Windows-only/M$-only shops.
You mean that uncle Bob would be calling his IT friend every time UAC asks him something? Then I believe you. Otherwise he would be clicking "Ok" - just as he did with Windows for last decade.
As long as M$ plays games with security - there will be no way that "uncle Bob" can be safe by himself. Especially running with local admin privileges.
Windows (Vista included) is stupid moronic system which doesn't allow even basic privilege separation. And as long as M$ wouldn't move its fat ass to actually implement proper privilege separation (as it was done eons ago in *nix/BSD/MacOS) - no way applications can be hardened against external attacks. As long as implementing provilege separation in Windows is what it is now - pain in the arse - developers will be very reluctant to actually use it. I programmed that once under Windows - and do not want to even try that again. (Under *nix you need about 10 copy'n'pasted lines of code to implement privilege separation: between main non-privileges process and privileged child process. And you can do all that right from single executable.)
In the end, you need to read less of crap from Redmond and start using different systems. Try to work on Mac or Linux for couple of month to get a feeling - and understand how stuff really works - then you can jump and make claims.
You missed the bit that Vista asks user twice - whereas Mac OS X asks only once. Vista asks user to confirm his actions (as it is seen by user), whereas Mac OS X asks user to authenticate the installer with privilege to perform the installation. IOW, Vista throws at his user two pointless dialogs (after few day users would use to automatically press Ok w/o actually reading what's going on - not that Vista tells precisely what's going on), while Mac OS X asks its user to provide password: action which would alarm any user that something dangerous covered by specified privilege (which has human readable name) can happen.
The applications shipped by Apple normally stick with standard interface. There are exceptions and there are also applications which are used to pilot new interfaces (like Mail.app). Normally, you would find that applications released by Apple at the same time have same interface. (e.g. Mac OS X 10.4 Mail.app 2 + iTunes 7 + Safari 2 has all same interface).
The UI inconsistency the reviewer speaks about is that applications released by Microsoft at the same time feature nearly incompatible interfaces: M$Office v. IE7 v. Windows Explorer.
Apple has its own problems, but beleive me as to guy who worked with GUIs from M$ for a decade (DOS 3.x to Win2k) - that's normal practice for M$ to release at the same time different and inconsistent UIs. Tech hint (invisible to normal users): M$Office 97-2007, IE 3-7, M$Project - as well as many other M$ developped apps - do not use standard WinAPI for GUI. They cannot be consistent just because they use different GUI code base - they all reimplement WinAPI on their own. M$ can afford that - Apple can't.
Good Luck lobbying the new language.
Piece of advice - especially since D boasts linking compatibility with C/C++ - is to start using it in existing C/C++ projects (along with C/C++) to pilot it in real world applications.
C is fine as it is - it fits its designers' purpose. But C++ really annoys me. I am all for C compatibility, but in the end, some C++ projects start looking like written in C and vice versa: some C projects build completely on OO paradigms. (Just recall GTK & GNOME.) Ojective-C often fits the bill but few know about it.
Also, as Perl programmer, I welcome inclusion of primitive data structures ("associative arrays, array slicing") into language itself. C++' STL really does good job obfuscating programs up to the point of complete unreadability. Also its syntax makes any kind of serious programming really hard: you cannot make STL using code both readable and optimal. Overloaded operators is curse.