Poseidon has prospered by building on the ArgoUML code and increase its feature set. While ArgoUML has languished and has gone from an "award winning" application in 2003 to a basically a dead project now.
I attribute ArgoUML's lack of activity to the fact that few prospective contributers would want their work going to Poseidon's UML editor without Poseidon being obligated to return any contributions back.
I am convinced that if ArgoUML was GPL'ed that it would have progressed farther than is has now.
The iPhone has the distinction of being the first phone to be explicitly named as "not approved for business use" by my company. Admittedly, anything not explicitly approved is verboten for accessing email, but the iPhone has the distinction of being the only one explicitly called out as being forbidden.
Yea we had one of those warnings floating from IT. Funny thing the warning came out BEFORE the iPhone did. I think it had more to do with expected demand than actual threat from the phone.
One of them tried to tell me it was because proprietary data could be gathered from the device if it was stolen, and Blackberry has safeguards against this. It was around this time, I realized that we had a contract with a blackberry provider with on-site support and not AT&T or Apple. The other troubling details that dispelled this "security threat" was (1) I would violate regulations by storing confidential information unencrypted on a portable device and (2) I could use any device that supported webmail to check my email.
Actually you got me there. I was thinking phones as in Java2 ME phones when I wrote that comment this morning (WTF was I thinking?).
Now that I had my morning cups of coffee, I think #3 was way off base. But not for the reasons you bring up..
I admit #3 makes absolutely no sense due to the fact that I can by an Edge, 3G, or EVDO data card for a laptop. So if a (virus infected) windows laptop can't bring the network down, then how can a phone handset?
Actually Apple did contend with clones before the Macintosh (or Lisa) was created. Apple had a large market share of the home and educational computing market with the Apple II. Eventually there were a HUGE number of Apple II clones that Apple had to compete with. Apple did not see this as beneficial since they were (and still are) primarily a hardware manufacturer.
I'm sure memories of the Apple II clone fiasco were still fresh in Apple's mind when the idea of allowing Mac clones came around. Apple initially tried to surpress any Macintosh clones from coming to the market, then they had an idea of actually licensing the ROMs (in hope of increasing market share). I believe the costs associated with enforcing the licenses (battling non-official clones) were more than Apple was collecting in fees. When time came to renegotiate a new license fee, the cloners balked at the new terms since it would make it to where they couldn't sell by price alone and therefore no more clones.
Apple always sees itself as a hardware company and competing against hardware clones were never really a good option.
What's especially odd here is that Apple has indicated that it will eventually allow third-party developers. This is what Steve Jobs told Walt Mossberg at the D conference:
This is a very important trade-off between security and openness. We want both. We've got good ideas, and sometime later this year, we can open it up to third-party apps, and keep security.
And hackers who have explored the workings of the phone say it uses the frameworks and structures that Apple uses on its other platforms to enable development; it just hasn't been documented. So if Apple is going to allow applications later, is there any reason -- other than vindictiveness or obsessive interest in control -- that it would want to cut off those developed by the pioneers who figured things out ahead of the official launch?
What is especially odd is a NYT reporter creating a conspiracy story... wait I'm sorry that is normal operations at the times lately.
But seriously, maybe the real reason that Apple is not opening the iPhone right away is something more mundane. I base this on some of the minor clues given in the above quote.
1. The firmware API is not yet set in stone. Apple may be planning some "tweaks" to smooth over any rough edges in the firmware after releasing the phone into the wild and before publishing the currently undocumented API.
2. They haven't formulated a plan to keep the phone secure, and allow third-party programs (Sandbox anyone?).
3. The one thing that this article failed to mention that the other AT&T phones are handsets with limited OS installed and low data rate capabilities, and this is a smartphone with a reduced feature version of OS X installed and alledged high data rate capabilities. The point being that the iPhone is a little more complicated than a free Nokia or Motorolla phone.
Just wanted to point out some obvious scenarios, before the mac, windows, and linux fan-bois start the flamefest.
I have an Apple Macbook Pro and I've been using bluetooth wireless keyboard, mouse, cellphone, and headset without problems.
I'm not saying that these people aren't having problems. What I am asking is why this is "news" when the thread is old except a single post that was made this morning (maybe by the submitter?).
Anyway I'm sure that their problems will be resolved.
One last thing, it is hard to tell if the old issues were resolved from a forum thread because we depend on the original poster to keep us updated... Some people don't come back and post "Hey I found the problem...".
I think Nokia is screwing around with the definition for "open".
The phone will be unlocked! Big deal, I can get unlocked smart phones already... The real question is "Can I run any application I want on it?"
Of course I can't forget that other important question "Would I want to actually use this phone, even if it was truly open?" Because, let's face it... Nokia has made some really bad phones before!
So Nokia, you have a tall order to fill: (1) Let me run anything I want on it and (2) Let the phone have nice features in a nice form factor with decent battery life.
Now what the iPhone has going for it (that I know people around here tend to overlook), it is a nice phone with features most people want and it works...
It's *definitedly* Apple's fault because they locked the iPhone with AT&T!
Apple did not want to go into the phone business, but Apple wanted to make the iPhone experience as good as it could get with easy activation with iTunes and some neat features. If Apple wanted to make a phone that was unlocked and maintain a good user experience, they would have to put out a phone with a reduced feature set.
While I personally would think an iTouch with a generic GSM phone would be a killer product, Apple wanted more. I can't blame them since there was already a failed attempt for an iTune compatible phone from Motorola and nay-sayers would be complaining that Apple didn't innovate enough.
So Apple was damned if they did and damned if they didn't... If I was going to be damned anyway, I would do what Apple did. Which was to make a product that everyone wants with features that only going with a single carrier can provide.
Personally, I think that Apple believes that after 2 years, they would have sufficiently proven demand for services to the point that other carriers would have no choice but to make their networks iPhone and iTunes friendly.
It is Apple's fault because they have forced their users into AT&T's service.
From stories leading up to the release of the iPhone (google your own links -- And with all things internet, take with a grain of salt):
One of Apple's requirements for the iPhone was to pick a single nationwide carrier that could provide the data services that the iPhone could use. I believe Verizon was their first choice, but Verizon wouldn't yield on some sticking points during negotiations. Cingular came in and offered nearly the same coverage area and gave more favorable contract terms. Prior to iPhone's release AT&T was purchased by Cingular and the AT&T brand was kept for reasons that baffled all the shareholders (especially after spending considerable money creating the Cingular brand). Now SBC has purchased AT&T. So the market consolidation continues.... So technically, Apple may not have intended AT&T and certainly SBC to be the exclusive carrier for the iPhone, but this is how it turned out.
AT&T is a telco and we all know that the suck-age of a telco is roughly proportional to 1/(amount of competition); and right now, AT&T has a monopoly on these devices.
Newsflash! All wireless providers are Telcos. otherwise they wouldn't be in the phone business.
Right, because I blame motorola for my verizon service sucking.
Not to take away from your valid point, but maybe you should blame motorola.
I thought T-Mobile sucked because they kept dropping my calls, then one day my Motorola phone died and I replaced it with a Nokia (whatever was free at the time) and I haven't experienced a drop call since.
The real problem is you care too much about what other people think. I know you're not the only one, but hey I picked your comment for reply so feel blessed.
Personally I think open-source zealots are full of shit. Oh I should know, I like open source too, but I'm not a zealot.
Open source zealots are all for the freedom of choice... just as long as your choice coincides with theirs...
I suffered through your (possibly anti-Apple) ramblings which had a premise that Apple makes inferior products and therefore must lock-in their current market share while trying to attract new converts. I digested your made up statistics and your conspiracy theories, but quite frankly you keep contradicting yourself. Either Apple has a lock with iTunes OR there are alternatives that are available. You even mention Zune which is another alternative to use.
So just when I thought that you are a person that thinks Apple products are junk, you blow me away with the following:
While I do agree that Apple computers are of great quality, the fact that I went with something else rather than a Mac should speak volumes about the way this competition is shaping up.
So basically you like the "great quality" of an Apple computer, but you are too cheap to spend money on one and you disregard Apple's growing market share and assume everybody is as cheap as you are.
So let me try to decode your comments above:
1. You are happy with your current MP3 player, and see no need for any of the bells and whistles that an iPod may have.
2. Since you have no need for those additional features, you assume no one else desires them either.
3. You have the personal opinion that Apple makes an inferior product or at least imply that Apple products are inferior.
4. People other than you buy an iPod and are happy with them, but since you question the quality of an iPod, you assume some lock-in or at least mind control exists.
5. Price per song is important to you, and you feel comfortable with the fact that price is important to everyone else.
6. You acknowledge that Apple knows that price is important to everyone, since this is why they try to keep prices at $0.99 per song.
7. You acknowledge that Apple is not alone with its iTunes services. There are alternatives for independent musicians and you even mention Microsoft Zune.
8. You discovered that, just like iTunes, Microsoft Media Player allows you to burn CD tracks.
9. That Apple has a market share inverse proportional to Microsoft. Being that Apple has great market share of music players and a small but growing market share for desktops, and Microsoft has a great market share of desktop machines and a small market share for music players.
10. Despite your feelings expressed in #3, you really think Apple computers are great but you are too cheap to buy one.
11. You have the opinion that others are as cheap as you are.
I use eclipse, and I have to say that getting into eclipse is like pulling teeth. The main websites give you no clue as to 'what' yo u should download, what components you need to install, even what version is current! This really puts off potentially adopters of eclipse.
The Anonymous Coward made a valid point, and I just wanted to bump it up from 0.
I think the problem is more from a cluttered webpage than the actual product itself.
I have a close mate who works for Sun on some pretty low level dev stuff. After trying to tow the company line with Netbeans, the close friend and workmates chose Eclipse? Why? It's ahead of Netbeans.
Actually this may something to do with plugin architecture than actual performance.
At work I get pummeled with vendors trying to sell me their latest and greatest RTOS (realtime operating system). An overwhelming majority of these vendors have a customized IDE (based on Eclipse) that is included in their development package. Usually this involves a simple GUI "wizard" that helps create a project, or interacts with a popular JTAG debugger. Anyway, they always provide some vendor specific improvements in an attempt to justify some of the costs associated with their developer package.
Eclipse is ahead in the open architecture IDE game and it has a very friendly licensing scheme that these vendors love. This vendor friendly plugin architecture is where Eclipse excels over all other IDEs.
Having said that... The plugin environment is also turning Eclipse into a dog. I've been using Eclipse for a very long time, and I used to be happy with the improvements they made. Unfortunately Eclipse (IMHO) may be suffering from its success. I say this because:
1. (Most significant point) Eclipse has lost focus. It is no longer trying to be a good IDE. Now they are trying to be an end-all Rapid Development/Deployment platform. Complete with crap that probably doesn't need to be in an IDE. Anyway, Eclipse is getting "scatter brained", and their attempt to rectify the situation with "Europa Packaging" is not helping much.
2. Most of the useful third party plugins require purchasing a license for that particular plugin. Nothing really wrong with this except some of the prices trend toward the ridiculous, of course some have community editions that leave a watermark or is crippled in some fashion.
3. There are inconsistencies between plugins. Take CDT for example, there are functions that are Java specific (refactoring is an example from the last version I used) and are not implemented correctly or not disabled when that function is not applicable.
4. Speed is not what it used to be. This is probably due to the IDE trying to be more "proactive" with some of its features. CDT suffers from this problem.
I liked Eclipse especially after I spend a little (well more than a little) time tweaking some of its settings and only loading plugins that I actually need (which is probably good practice anyway). But lately I find myself in need of a good really good text editor more so than a IDE that tries too hard... Anyway suffice it to say my Eclipse installation is gathering dust.
While I don't use netbeans, I think it has surpassed Eclipse on some things (eg. "Ease of Use", "Consistant UI elements", "Nice visual features"). I also think that Netbeans is trying to perform some targeted functions well, while at the same time Eclipse is trying to be a "Jack of all trades and a master of none."
They cut off his mic and he didn't take the cue so the campus police asked him to leave. It's apparent when the guards approached him. When he resisted, he became a trespasser, which is a crime in USA. Police can taser you if you're trespassing and resisting their effort to remove you from private property. His resistance escalated the police response to tasering; it was his fault.
If you overlook the fact that he was an invited attendee to a public event that featured an open microphone to ask questions to a senator who works for and on behalf of the public. Also the event was held on property owned by the public within the state of Florida in trusted to a public educational institution for which he was a paid student. Sure I can see where your argument makes sense.
Anyway, I don't think people are questioning the fact that the student may have been disruptive. I am alarmed in the manner the situation was handled and am hesitant to send my child to that college, which is a shame since I reside close enough to University of Florida to give them consideration. I think the level of violence that was reached by the police deserves investigating and steps should be taken to prevent this from happening again.
I always thought it was up to a particular distribution of Linux to specialize the kernel for server or desktop applications. Ubuntu, Redhat, Suse, and others do this.
Sounds like a blogger needs to do a some research...
I really garbled my reply, let me try one more time!
I think the point the GP poster was making is that you can't call something backward compatible if it requires users of older software to download add-ons or compatibility packs.
Office 2007 should be able to read and write older office formats. Microsoft has always warned the user that some functions will be lost when saving to an older version, so why can't they continue with the warnings?
I think the point the GP poster was making that to be truly backward compatible, you would not require users of previous versions of software to download a compatibility pack.
You see, I'm from the generation of internet users that started with BBSes and Tape-swapping. I/we take offense in people sending mail in HTML format with a bunch or rotating widgets and animated smileys, because I don't think an e-mail should be anything else than text with links in it. SMTP is not designed for funky stuff or 25 MB Home-video attachments. I take offense in the continuous mis-use of the public bandwidth with PetaBytes of uninteresting, unnecessary, blasé and objectionable data.
I fear that as time goes by, Internet is just becoming the same as commercial TV. A load of crap buzzing around with one promille of quality on the fringes.
I'm from the BBSes and Tape-swapping era myself... But I like where we are now much better. All those smileys and widgets that you lament about were the products of people experimenting with the new medium. They had to get past the learning curve and now things have improved (at least a little). If it makes you feel better, think of rotating-widgets and animated-smileys as the shag carpeting and avocado green of the internet age.
If it wasn't for the commercial success of the internet, we would not have fast access at home and we wouldn't have the fast backbone either. So be grateful for that at least. No one would spend money for telnet, ftp and gopher access. It's the http and flash video that makes the money. ISPs know this.
Comcast knows that it's the downloading of MP3s and video that generates the demand for their service. Hell, Comcast advertises how fast their network connection is, do you think that we would only use that connection for email? Of course, Comcast would prefer that you get all that content from their servers...
I think the problem we have is that people (especially slashdotters) expect more than can be accommodated. If you give some enough bandwidth to download 2 months worth of media, they will download 3 months worth...
The best thing for Comcast (All ISPs) to do is to guarantee a certain level of service for its customers, and throttle down people who are taking more than their fair share. Face it - we can't be trusted with the occasional speed boost from off-peak usage, so we need to have our bandwidth rationed to us 24/7.
We wouldn't mind this throttling if it made for a more consistent connection. I paid for unlimited access at 6Mb download speed give me that. If you don't have the resources to allocate 6Mb to me then stop advertising it. If they just throttle me down to 3 Mb during peak times and give me up to 6Mb during off-peak by all means be up front about it. I think what upsets people is the fact that Comcast can't be up front and rather use access rights rather than traffic shaping as a cheaper way of guarantee overall service in a market area.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me fix that for you:
"I don't have a problem with discrimination as long as I am not the one being discriminated against."
There that's more like it.
Don't worry, pretty soon Google will be getting old in Internet years and we will soon discriminate against it for a younger "more hip" search engine.
To counter your PostreSQL example:
ArgoUML vs. Gentleware Poseidon UML
Poseidon has prospered by building on the ArgoUML code and increase its feature set. While ArgoUML has languished and has gone from an "award winning" application in 2003 to a basically a dead project now.
I attribute ArgoUML's lack of activity to the fact that few prospective contributers would want their work going to Poseidon's UML editor without Poseidon being obligated to return any contributions back.
I am convinced that if ArgoUML was GPL'ed that it would have progressed farther than is has now.
Yea we had one of those warnings floating from IT. Funny thing the warning came out BEFORE the iPhone did. I think it had more to do with expected demand than actual threat from the phone.
One of them tried to tell me it was because proprietary data could be gathered from the device if it was stolen, and Blackberry has safeguards against this. It was around this time, I realized that we had a contract with a blackberry provider with on-site support and not AT&T or Apple. The other troubling details that dispelled this "security threat" was (1) I would violate regulations by storing confidential information unencrypted on a portable device and (2) I could use any device that supported webmail to check my email.
Well as I said to another commentor.. I don't know WTF I was thinking when I wrote #3...
Anyway, as I also said. If a virus infected windows laptop using a EVDO datacard can't bring a network down, how can a phone headset.
I should always wait until after the morning coffee to post on /.
Actually you got me there. I was thinking phones as in Java2 ME phones when I wrote that comment this morning (WTF was I thinking?).
Now that I had my morning cups of coffee, I think #3 was way off base. But not for the reasons you bring up..
I admit #3 makes absolutely no sense due to the fact that I can by an Edge, 3G, or EVDO data card for a laptop. So if a (virus infected) windows laptop can't bring the network down, then how can a phone handset?
Actually Apple did contend with clones before the Macintosh (or Lisa) was created. Apple had a large market share of the home and educational computing market with the Apple II. Eventually there were a HUGE number of Apple II clones that Apple had to compete with. Apple did not see this as beneficial since they were (and still are) primarily a hardware manufacturer.
I'm sure memories of the Apple II clone fiasco were still fresh in Apple's mind when the idea of allowing Mac clones came around. Apple initially tried to surpress any Macintosh clones from coming to the market, then they had an idea of actually licensing the ROMs (in hope of increasing market share). I believe the costs associated with enforcing the licenses (battling non-official clones) were more than Apple was collecting in fees. When time came to renegotiate a new license fee, the cloners balked at the new terms since it would make it to where they couldn't sell by price alone and therefore no more clones.
Apple always sees itself as a hardware company and competing against hardware clones were never really a good option.
From the article:
What is especially odd is a NYT reporter creating a conspiracy story... wait I'm sorry that is normal operations at the times lately.
But seriously, maybe the real reason that Apple is not opening the iPhone right away is something more mundane. I base this on some of the minor clues given in the above quote.
1. The firmware API is not yet set in stone. Apple may be planning some "tweaks" to smooth over any rough edges in the firmware after releasing the phone into the wild and before publishing the currently undocumented API.
2. They haven't formulated a plan to keep the phone secure, and allow third-party programs (Sandbox anyone?).
3. The one thing that this article failed to mention that the other AT&T phones are handsets with limited OS installed and low data rate capabilities, and this is a smartphone with a reduced feature version of OS X installed and alledged high data rate capabilities. The point being that the iPhone is a little more complicated than a free Nokia or Motorolla phone.
Just wanted to point out some obvious scenarios, before the mac, windows, and linux fan-bois start the flamefest.
I have an Apple Macbook Pro and I've been using bluetooth wireless keyboard, mouse, cellphone, and headset without problems.
I'm not saying that these people aren't having problems. What I am asking is why this is "news" when the thread is old except a single post that was made this morning (maybe by the submitter?).
Anyway I'm sure that their problems will be resolved.
One last thing, it is hard to tell if the old issues were resolved from a forum thread because we depend on the original poster to keep us updated... Some people don't come back and post "Hey I found the problem...".
I think Nokia is screwing around with the definition for "open".
The phone will be unlocked! Big deal, I can get unlocked smart phones already... The real question is "Can I run any application I want on it?"
Of course I can't forget that other important question "Would I want to actually use this phone, even if it was truly open?" Because, let's face it... Nokia has made some really bad phones before!
So Nokia, you have a tall order to fill: (1) Let me run anything I want on it and (2) Let the phone have nice features in a nice form factor with decent battery life.
Now what the iPhone has going for it (that I know people around here tend to overlook), it is a nice phone with features most people want and it works...
So you have beautiful women around and all you want to do is play with your game boy?
That's it! No more slashdot for you today... LOL
Apple did not want to go into the phone business, but Apple wanted to make the iPhone experience as good as it could get with easy activation with iTunes and some neat features. If Apple wanted to make a phone that was unlocked and maintain a good user experience, they would have to put out a phone with a reduced feature set.
While I personally would think an iTouch with a generic GSM phone would be a killer product, Apple wanted more. I can't blame them since there was already a failed attempt for an iTune compatible phone from Motorola and nay-sayers would be complaining that Apple didn't innovate enough.
So Apple was damned if they did and damned if they didn't... If I was going to be damned anyway, I would do what Apple did. Which was to make a product that everyone wants with features that only going with a single carrier can provide.
Personally, I think that Apple believes that after 2 years, they would have sufficiently proven demand for services to the point that other carriers would have no choice but to make their networks iPhone and iTunes friendly.
From stories leading up to the release of the iPhone (google your own links -- And with all things internet, take with a grain of salt):
One of Apple's requirements for the iPhone was to pick a single nationwide carrier that could provide the data services that the iPhone could use. I believe Verizon was their first choice, but Verizon wouldn't yield on some sticking points during negotiations. Cingular came in and offered nearly the same coverage area and gave more favorable contract terms. Prior to iPhone's release AT&T was purchased by Cingular and the AT&T brand was kept for reasons that baffled all the shareholders (especially after spending considerable money creating the Cingular brand). Now SBC has purchased AT&T. So the market consolidation continues.... So technically, Apple may not have intended AT&T and certainly SBC to be the exclusive carrier for the iPhone, but this is how it turned out.
Newsflash! All wireless providers are Telcos. otherwise they wouldn't be in the phone business.
Not to take away from your valid point, but maybe you should blame motorola.
I thought T-Mobile sucked because they kept dropping my calls, then one day my Motorola phone died and I replaced it with a Nokia (whatever was free at the time) and I haven't experienced a drop call since.
Just food for thought...
The real problem is you care too much about what other people think. I know you're not the only one, but hey I picked your comment for reply so feel blessed.
Personally I think open-source zealots are full of shit. Oh I should know, I like open source too, but I'm not a zealot.
Open source zealots are all for the freedom of choice... just as long as your choice coincides with theirs...
I suffered through your (possibly anti-Apple) ramblings which had a premise that Apple makes inferior products and therefore must lock-in their current market share while trying to attract new converts. I digested your made up statistics and your conspiracy theories, but quite frankly you keep contradicting yourself. Either Apple has a lock with iTunes OR there are alternatives that are available. You even mention Zune which is another alternative to use.
So just when I thought that you are a person that thinks Apple products are junk, you blow me away with the following:
So basically you like the "great quality" of an Apple computer, but you are too cheap to spend money on one and you disregard Apple's growing market share and assume everybody is as cheap as you are.
So let me try to decode your comments above:
1. You are happy with your current MP3 player, and see no need for any of the bells and whistles that an iPod may have.
2. Since you have no need for those additional features, you assume no one else desires them either.
3. You have the personal opinion that Apple makes an inferior product or at least imply that Apple products are inferior.
4. People other than you buy an iPod and are happy with them, but since you question the quality of an iPod, you assume some lock-in or at least mind control exists.
5. Price per song is important to you, and you feel comfortable with the fact that price is important to everyone else.
6. You acknowledge that Apple knows that price is important to everyone, since this is why they try to keep prices at $0.99 per song.
7. You acknowledge that Apple is not alone with its iTunes services. There are alternatives for independent musicians and you even mention Microsoft Zune.
8. You discovered that, just like iTunes, Microsoft Media Player allows you to burn CD tracks.
9. That Apple has a market share inverse proportional to Microsoft. Being that Apple has great market share of music players and a small but growing market share for desktops, and Microsoft has a great market share of desktop machines and a small market share for music players.
10. Despite your feelings expressed in #3, you really think Apple computers are great but you are too cheap to buy one.
11. You have the opinion that others are as cheap as you are.
Did I interpret everything correctly?
The Anonymous Coward made a valid point, and I just wanted to bump it up from 0.
I think the problem is more from a cluttered webpage than the actual product itself.
While we're at it, KDE and GNOME should join forces and concentrate on "THE ONE" desktop for Linux...
Sarcasm aside, I like the idea of two IDE's targeting different tastes.
Actually this may something to do with plugin architecture than actual performance.
At work I get pummeled with vendors trying to sell me their latest and greatest RTOS (realtime operating system). An overwhelming majority of these vendors have a customized IDE (based on Eclipse) that is included in their development package. Usually this involves a simple GUI "wizard" that helps create a project, or interacts with a popular JTAG debugger. Anyway, they always provide some vendor specific improvements in an attempt to justify some of the costs associated with their developer package.
Eclipse is ahead in the open architecture IDE game and it has a very friendly licensing scheme that these vendors love. This vendor friendly plugin architecture is where Eclipse excels over all other IDEs.
Having said that... The plugin environment is also turning Eclipse into a dog. I've been using Eclipse for a very long time, and I used to be happy with the improvements they made. Unfortunately Eclipse (IMHO) may be suffering from its success. I say this because:
1. (Most significant point) Eclipse has lost focus. It is no longer trying to be a good IDE. Now they are trying to be an end-all Rapid Development/Deployment platform. Complete with crap that probably doesn't need to be in an IDE. Anyway, Eclipse is getting "scatter brained", and their attempt to rectify the situation with "Europa Packaging" is not helping much.
2. Most of the useful third party plugins require purchasing a license for that particular plugin. Nothing really wrong with this except some of the prices trend toward the ridiculous, of course some have community editions that leave a watermark or is crippled in some fashion.
3. There are inconsistencies between plugins. Take CDT for example, there are functions that are Java specific (refactoring is an example from the last version I used) and are not implemented correctly or not disabled when that function is not applicable.
4. Speed is not what it used to be. This is probably due to the IDE trying to be more "proactive" with some of its features. CDT suffers from this problem.
I liked Eclipse especially after I spend a little (well more than a little) time tweaking some of its settings and only loading plugins that I actually need (which is probably good practice anyway). But lately I find myself in need of a good really good text editor more so than a IDE that tries too hard... Anyway suffice it to say my Eclipse installation is gathering dust.
While I don't use netbeans, I think it has surpassed Eclipse on some things (eg. "Ease of Use", "Consistant UI elements", "Nice visual features"). I also think that Netbeans is trying to perform some targeted functions well, while at the same time Eclipse is trying to be a "Jack of all trades and a master of none."
If you overlook the fact that he was an invited attendee to a public event that featured an open microphone to ask questions to a senator who works for and on behalf of the public. Also the event was held on property owned by the public within the state of Florida in trusted to a public educational institution for which he was a paid student. Sure I can see where your argument makes sense.
Anyway, I don't think people are questioning the fact that the student may have been disruptive. I am alarmed in the manner the situation was handled and am hesitant to send my child to that college, which is a shame since I reside close enough to University of Florida to give them consideration. I think the level of violence that was reached by the police deserves investigating and steps should be taken to prevent this from happening again.
I always thought it was up to a particular distribution of Linux to specialize the kernel for server or desktop applications. Ubuntu, Redhat, Suse, and others do this.
Sounds like a blogger needs to do a some research...
I really garbled my reply, let me try one more time!
I think the point the GP poster was making is that you can't call something backward compatible if it requires users of older software to download add-ons or compatibility packs.
Office 2007 should be able to read and write older office formats. Microsoft has always warned the user that some functions will be lost when saving to an older version, so why can't they continue with the warnings?
I think the point the GP poster was making that to be truly backward compatible, you would not require users of previous versions of software to download a compatibility pack.
I'm from the BBSes and Tape-swapping era myself... But I like where we are now much better. All those smileys and widgets that you lament about were the products of people experimenting with the new medium. They had to get past the learning curve and now things have improved (at least a little). If it makes you feel better, think of rotating-widgets and animated-smileys as the shag carpeting and avocado green of the internet age.
If it wasn't for the commercial success of the internet, we would not have fast access at home and we wouldn't have the fast backbone either. So be grateful for that at least. No one would spend money for telnet, ftp and gopher access. It's the http and flash video that makes the money. ISPs know this.
Comcast knows that it's the downloading of MP3s and video that generates the demand for their service. Hell, Comcast advertises how fast their network connection is, do you think that we would only use that connection for email? Of course, Comcast would prefer that you get all that content from their servers...
I think the problem we have is that people (especially slashdotters) expect more than can be accommodated. If you give some enough bandwidth to download 2 months worth of media, they will download 3 months worth...
The best thing for Comcast (All ISPs) to do is to guarantee a certain level of service for its customers, and throttle down people who are taking more than their fair share. Face it - we can't be trusted with the occasional speed boost from off-peak usage, so we need to have our bandwidth rationed to us 24/7.
We wouldn't mind this throttling if it made for a more consistent connection. I paid for unlimited access at 6Mb download speed give me that. If you don't have the resources to allocate 6Mb to me then stop advertising it. If they just throttle me down to 3 Mb during peak times and give me up to 6Mb during off-peak by all means be up front about it. I think what upsets people is the fact that Comcast can't be up front and rather use access rights rather than traffic shaping as a cheaper way of guarantee overall service in a market area.
I saw a Wii at a garage sale in Mobile, AL. 6 games w/ 2 controllers for $350....