The Phone OS lockdown isn't about malware and security --- not primarily, anyway. It's straight up QA.
It's realizing that consumer-level users don't differentiate between the hardware and the software. If third-party software they want to use is slow or buggy, they will say it's the iPhone that sucks.
It's Nintendo imposing certification requirements on third-party NES developers on the heels of the console crash of the early 80s.
It's Jobs not being impressed by hundreds of apps available for PCs when most them are crap and people only use five anyway.
It's knowing that while geeks prize choice (for many good reasons), consumers will take "works well" over choice 9.5 times out of 10 (do you really think Dad cares that there are multiple browsers on the market? He just wants to use the Web.)
It's reading article after article about why Linux and Android are struggling partly because of the fragmentation brought on by choice. Netflix on Android anyone?
It's understanding that Apple went along with DRM schemes not because they love DRM but because it was necessary to get the labels to play ball.
I love Linux and Android, and I am no Apple fan boy. They are not perfect. I just get tired of geeks that think how they use computers is how everyone uses them. If you can hack the registry, install software using apt-get or hand-hack a config file, YOU/WE ARE SQUARELY IN THE MINORITY. The general public wants a device where they can watch their Youtube and could give a flyin' rip about Flash v HTML5. They just want it to work easily and well and be pretty doing it.
Apple remains successful not because they are out to get you, but because they understand this.
Concentrating on writing in a word processor is like meditating in an amusement park -- with sufficient discipline, it can be done, but it's really not a conducive environment.
Actually, it's like meditating in an amusement park while a park employee constantly pokes you and tries to tell you about the rides, and even occasionally tries to pick you up and put you on a ride.
My biggest ongoing peeve with Word, et al, is not the availability of advanced features, but the persistence with which it insists on applying those advanced features all by itself, whether I've asked it to or not. It's a huge distraction to be constantly interrupted by having to undo some change I never asked the software to make. I don't mind that they're there, but if I wanted that text to be a list or a maybe a heading I'd have used the freakin' I Want This To Be A List or Maybe a Heading button/menu/shortcut.
I know I can go through and turn all that stuff off, but 1) I can only do that if it's my computer, and 2) it usually takes a while before I find all the things I need to disable. However, at that point I now have what amounts to a $100 text editor. I've had.emacs files that were simpler than my "Make Word Tolerable" routine --- and emacs/vim/etc tends to listen to me when I tell it to do something. With Word, it seems to be more of a suggestion.
I could argue both sides of the issue, but this is a stupid question as it's currently stated.
First, it asks if blogs are better than in-depth articles. Better for what? It's nonsense to make a comparison where there is no standard. Better at giving me a complete and well-considered analysis of the topic? I'll have to go with the article. Better at giving me a quick, high-level glance at the topic along with some links to more information? I might have to go with the blogs on this one. Why does it matter that all the blogs in the world won't give me a complete treatment of a topic? Who's asking them to? They're like Wikipedia: insufficient for serious work, but often an excellent starting place, depending largely on the type of information you're seeking.
Second, the quote complains that sometimes discussions are from some time ago, and are `thus irrelevant'... because we all know that nothing said more than a day or two ago is worthwhile. That may be true if you're trying to keep up with the latest Brittney [SP?] or Paris drama, but it sounds like an argument for the `sound-bite society' rather than against it. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of useful information I've found online has come in the form of discussions that happened months or years ago, those otherwise undocumented gems in the middle of a usenet post. No, I'm not saying that all Internet content is worthwhile --- indeed, the vast majority is less than worthless --- but I'm not the one complaining that I can't use Google as a serious research tool. There are currently much better ways --- and even better ways using a tool like Google --- to target that kind of information.
I am all for raising the intellectual bar in our society, and I despise dumbed-down `fast food' news and information. I don't disagree with many of the author's observations. However, this article seems to be an incomplete answer to a poorly-stated question, hardly living up to the intellectual standard it would set for the Internet. Histograms, statistics, and lots of words do not make for a cogent argument.
Good post, pavera. There are a lot of people arguing with what the article is not saying.
The article says that SOME developers find it useful in SOME situations to use HTML/CGI, while much of this discussion is about why it won't work for ALL developers in ALL situations.
Some go on to say that those who do basic Web coding (I won't call it "programming") aren't real developers and that the solution is for them to become real developers. That's great and all, but I still have a job to do.
I use Perl or Python, depending on the job, to process large amounts of data from a number of different sources, and have neither the time nor really the interest to develop full-fledged desktop apps. I appreciate the need for such apps and the people who code them, but in my experience I end up with a few hundred lines of code that determine what color the buttons should be and a few dozen lines that actually do anything useful. I need to spend my time on code that does stuff. [Someone is bound to reply that if I were a better GUI programmer that I wouldn't have this problem. That's great and all, but I still have a job to do.]
To the article's point, most of my scripts stay on the command line because I think GUIs are a waste of time. However, I do occasionally have others who rely on my little apps. These people are not command line savvy, and I am not interested in going around and making sure they have correctly installed the Perl or Python interpreters. In these cases, I could port the script to VB or VBS (not gonna happen) or C# or C++ and put a GUI on it (which yes, I could do if I decided I wanted to --- I don't code in Perl because I don't know C), or I could slap together a quick Web page that uses my script as-is.
In my world, the latter option is the most elegant. It gets others the information they need and me on with my day the fastest and easiest. I am therefore part of the SOME developers for whom HTML/CGI is useful SOME of the time. I'm quite confident that if we needed a more complex application with a broader user base that we would opt for a more robust solution. In such a case the extra time and effort might be worth it. (The article even speaks to this, by the way, as it discusses the danger of unforeseen upscaling.)
I use mine when I'm working either with a machine having some sort of OS problem or an old machine I have no intention of using, but from which I need to recover some data. I can pop in the Live CD and boot to an always-working OS. From there I can either access/transfer my data or restore the disk image. It's not unlike the system restore boot disks that have come with systems for years. These are just more robust. I always have one in my desk or bag.
It's also a great way to evaluate a new or updated OS without the danger of trashing my system, though that probably falls under the Completely Obvious category.
Slashdot Mirror
The Phone OS lockdown isn't about malware and security --- not primarily, anyway. It's straight up QA.
It's realizing that consumer-level users don't differentiate between the hardware and the software. If third-party software they want to use is slow or buggy, they will say it's the iPhone that sucks.
It's Nintendo imposing certification requirements on third-party NES developers on the heels of the console crash of the early 80s.
It's Jobs not being impressed by hundreds of apps available for PCs when most them are crap and people only use five anyway.
It's knowing that while geeks prize choice (for many good reasons), consumers will take "works well" over choice 9.5 times out of 10 (do you really think Dad cares that there are multiple browsers on the market? He just wants to use the Web.)
It's reading article after article about why Linux and Android are struggling partly because of the fragmentation brought on by choice. Netflix on Android anyone?
It's understanding that Apple went along with DRM schemes not because they love DRM but because it was necessary to get the labels to play ball.
I love Linux and Android, and I am no Apple fan boy. They are not perfect. I just get tired of geeks that think how they use computers is how everyone uses them. If you can hack the registry, install software using apt-get or hand-hack a config file, YOU/WE ARE SQUARELY IN THE MINORITY. The general public wants a device where they can watch their Youtube and could give a flyin' rip about Flash v HTML5. They just want it to work easily and well and be pretty doing it.
Apple remains successful not because they are out to get you, but because they understand this.
Concentrating on writing in a word processor is like meditating in an amusement park -- with sufficient discipline, it can be done, but it's really not a conducive environment.
Actually, it's like meditating in an amusement park while a park employee constantly pokes you and tries to tell you about the rides, and even occasionally tries to pick you up and put you on a ride.
My biggest ongoing peeve with Word, et al, is not the availability of advanced features, but the persistence with which it insists on applying those advanced features all by itself, whether I've asked it to or not. It's a huge distraction to be constantly interrupted by having to undo some change I never asked the software to make. I don't mind that they're there, but if I wanted that text to be a list or a maybe a heading I'd have used the freakin' I Want This To Be A List or Maybe a Heading button/menu/shortcut.
I know I can go through and turn all that stuff off, but 1) I can only do that if it's my computer, and 2) it usually takes a while before I find all the things I need to disable. However, at that point I now have what amounts to a $100 text editor. I've had .emacs files that were simpler than my "Make Word Tolerable" routine --- and emacs/vim/etc tends to listen to me when I tell it to do something. With Word, it seems to be more of a suggestion.
Dude. Write. Or don't write. Just don't write about the tool you use for writing; it's about as dull as possible.
Why not? It wasn't dull enough for you not to comment on it.
I could argue both sides of the issue, but this is a stupid question as it's currently stated.
... because we all know that nothing said more than a day or two ago is worthwhile. That may be true if you're trying to keep up with the latest Brittney [SP?] or Paris drama, but it sounds like an argument for the `sound-bite society' rather than against it. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of useful information I've found online has come in the form of discussions that happened months or years ago, those otherwise undocumented gems in the middle of a usenet post. No, I'm not saying that all Internet content is worthwhile --- indeed, the vast majority is less than worthless --- but I'm not the one complaining that I can't use Google as a serious research tool. There are currently much better ways --- and even better ways using a tool like Google --- to target that kind of information.
First, it asks if blogs are better than in-depth articles. Better for what? It's nonsense to make a comparison where there is no standard. Better at giving me a complete and well-considered analysis of the topic? I'll have to go with the article. Better at giving me a quick, high-level glance at the topic along with some links to more information? I might have to go with the blogs on this one. Why does it matter that all the blogs in the world won't give me a complete treatment of a topic? Who's asking them to? They're like Wikipedia: insufficient for serious work, but often an excellent starting place, depending largely on the type of information you're seeking.
Second, the quote complains that sometimes discussions are from some time ago, and are `thus irrelevant'
I am all for raising the intellectual bar in our society, and I despise dumbed-down `fast food' news and information. I don't disagree with many of the author's observations. However, this article seems to be an incomplete answer to a poorly-stated question, hardly living up to the intellectual standard it would set for the Internet. Histograms, statistics, and lots of words do not make for a cogent argument.
ScaryTall
Good post, pavera. There are a lot of people arguing with what the article is not saying.
The article says that SOME developers find it useful in SOME situations to use HTML/CGI, while much of this discussion is about why it won't work for ALL developers in ALL situations.
Some go on to say that those who do basic Web coding (I won't call it "programming") aren't real developers and that the solution is for them to become real developers. That's great and all, but I still have a job to do.
I use Perl or Python, depending on the job, to process large amounts of data from a number of different sources, and have neither the time nor really the interest to develop full-fledged desktop apps. I appreciate the need for such apps and the people who code them, but in my experience I end up with a few hundred lines of code that determine what color the buttons should be and a few dozen lines that actually do anything useful. I need to spend my time on code that does stuff. [Someone is bound to reply that if I were a better GUI programmer that I wouldn't have this problem. That's great and all, but I still have a job to do.]
To the article's point, most of my scripts stay on the command line because I think GUIs are a waste of time. However, I do occasionally have others who rely on my little apps. These people are not command line savvy, and I am not interested in going around and making sure they have correctly installed the Perl or Python interpreters. In these cases, I could port the script to VB or VBS (not gonna happen) or C# or C++ and put a GUI on it (which yes, I could do if I decided I wanted to --- I don't code in Perl because I don't know C), or I could slap together a quick Web page that uses my script as-is.
In my world, the latter option is the most elegant. It gets others the information they need and me on with my day the fastest and easiest. I am therefore part of the SOME developers for whom HTML/CGI is useful SOME of the time. I'm quite confident that if we needed a more complex application with a broader user base that we would opt for a more robust solution. In such a case the extra time and effort might be worth it. (The article even speaks to this, by the way, as it discusses the danger of unforeseen upscaling.)
I use mine when I'm working either with a machine having some sort of OS problem or an old machine I have no intention of using, but from which I need to recover some data. I can pop in the Live CD and boot to an always-working OS. From there I can either access/transfer my data or restore the disk image. It's not unlike the system restore boot disks that have come with systems for years. These are just more robust. I always have one in my desk or bag.
It's also a great way to evaluate a new or updated OS without the danger of trashing my system, though that probably falls under the Completely Obvious category.