The reason the folks switched from.NET were precisely productivity, reliability, scalability, and we can add ongoing maintenance costs
This is pure nonsense. I did Java for the Enterprise from 1997 through 2006. I worked for one of the first companies in the world that had significant product for the Telecom world written in Java. Back then we could not inform our customers it was Java since Java was perceived as too slow for our market segment. A colleague of mine wrote an SNMP stack at the time that was at least two orders of magnitude faster than any other stack out there. I struggled with CORBA when the Iona C++ ORB would not talk to the Iona Java ORB.
Since 2008 I've been doing about 20% Java, 60% C#/.Net and the rest a combination of Ruby, C and some Scala. C# blows Java out of the water in every single way. Tooling is heads and shoulders above what Java developers have wet dreams about. Scalability is certainly not inferior to Java in any way. The C# language has been significantly better than Java since 2008, and the distance between the two is increasing. Ongoing maintenance cost for.Net is significantly below what it is for.Net. I've spent more time on digging apps out of the horrendous monstrosity that was EJBs and J2EE than I have been actually adding features. I am soon done moving an EJB/Seam/Java/Hibernate/ app to.Net using mostly WebAPI and Angular 2. Adding features to the new app is done with half the resources in less than half the time compared to the old app. I'd say at least 50% of that is caused by the tools and the technology used, the other half is the over-engineering by the previous developers.
Java is playing catch-up, but it is playing catch-up-by-committee. It's not catching up.
Only if you don't care about image quality, and if you don't care about image qualit, wtf do you worry about 4K or even HD for? Streaming HD quality is marginally better than SD. If you have a 40-45* TV and sit ten feet away, you can not really see the difference between streaming HD and SD. Streaming 4K content today is of lower at times significantly so, quality than 1080p. Watching 4K content on Neflix is terrible. The footage is sharpened to the unwatchable. But hey, if you don't care about image quality, that's OK. Just get the biggest, cheapest TV you can get. Don't ever get a 4K TV.
node.js is just awful. Why would anyone think that is is more scalable than the LAMP stack
This is one of those comments that are too funny. A person talking up a horrible, terrible, monstrosity of a piece of junk (PHP) as a solution to another horrible, terrible, monstrosity (in their opinion) node.js.
You have a point. Science is about falsification. Science can not say much about what we know as such, it can only say things that we do not know. Now, at the moment, there are two known ways an island can disappear into the sea, subduction and rising sea levels. Since we have excluded rising sea levels, there is only one possible explanation at the moment. If someone can come up with other possibilities, then that would be another alternative to rising sea levels, which we still know it is not.
If you have alternatives to subduction and rising sea levels, I am all ears.
So you have some actual evidence that these islands sinking is due to subduction, right?
I don't think he needs it. According to the most alarming numbers, sea levels have risen some 10 cm in the past century. If we have already lost three islands to increased sea level, those islands would have to be on average 10 cm tall or so. Even assuming that the rise in sea level has strong local variations, we're talking about some really flat islands here.
In most places I've been to around the Pacific, the tide variation is more than 10 cm. So, how do we know that these islands are primarily sinking due to subduction? Easy. Here's how we know that they are gone because of rising sea levels. if the islands, 100 years ago, were under water every time the tide was high, and now are under water permanently, it is possible (but not demonstrated) that the islands are gone due to rising sea levels. If the islands were permanently dry, and they were significantly taller than 10 cm 100 years ago, then we know that their "disappearance" is due to subduction since it couldn't be cause by rising sea levels.
isn't the process that we the people have agreed upon
Actually, it is. We have long since established that civil disobedience is a valid form of political activity. So, we have in fact agreed upon that process.
Imagine if they next USED that key to enter the building on a weekend and rummaged through the offices inside. That's second-degree burglary.
If it was a private home, you'd be right, but the government is "by the people", in other words, he is part owner in said building and has done nothing but opening a door to a building he by definition has free access to with a couple of (in this case) irrelevant exceptions. There is no such thing as "the government owns".
So, nothing but facetiousness. Cool. You are debating at a level where one would expect.
Has jacking off to the Steve Jobs poster
My main desktop is a Windows box. I have my build system on a Linux VM since Linux has been my primary build, test and deployment platform for server stuff since about 1998. I was then part of a five person company that was one of the first companies to release a successful system built on Java, deployed mostly on Linux. We had to do our own application server for load balancing and stuff back then. I installed my first version of Linux, version 0.97 I think it was, when I wanted to port my Minix-based BBS software to my new 386-based PC I acquired my first Apple box a while back when I was asked to put some software on iOS. That's when I discovered that OSX was a great Unix with a great UI on top, but a terrible ecosystem behind it. The fact that it is BSD is wonderful too, I hated the day Sun changed from SunOS to Solaris and thereby from BSD to that monstrosity that is AT&T Unix (we called it back then).
I think "millions" qualifies as "many
Less than two percent has never qualified as "many" in any circumstance. It qualifies as "close to nobody". If I said "nobody uses Windows 3.1 anymore",most people would agree. More people use Windows 3.1 on the desktop than does Linux on the desktop.
Here's your problem. Your penis is so fucking small that any critique of something you feel attached to feels like a personal affront to you. This comes from a massive insecurity complex. Where does that come from? When your father was raping you when you were a child, did his penis bang so hard against to top of your mouth that it caused brain damage? (Just to keep the debate at your intellectual level). Oh, and getting emotionally attached to something as mundane as a poorly designed operating system (Linux is a terrible OS design born in the 1970s, BSD is a little better) shows a staggering black hole in your personal life. You really need to go out and get some sex done, even if you have to pay for it.
How can it be "shite" if there is "no such thing"?
If you'd read my post rather than being facetious, you'd have seen that I actually answered that in my post. There is no a "Linux on the desktop" since "Linux on the desktop" is a huge variety of things of varying degrees of mediocrity. Not that I could do better, the guys doing this stuff are doing very cool things, and if stuff is not good in one place. It's just too much variety, and in this case variety is a bad thing.
Linux on the desktop is a real thing and many people use Linux on the desktop
Linux on the desktop is many, many, many things and they are "all" different. The statement that "many people use Linux on the desktop" is only true for an extremely limited definition of the word "many". Statistically, it is far closer to "zero" than to "a few".
"I don't like it" isn't a "real" problem in Linux.
This is indeed true, but here's the rub. It's not an "I don't like it" problem. It's a "Nobody in the entire world likes it, they prefer Windows 3.1 over it" problem. Sadly the only response from the Linux community to the fact that more than 98% of the worlds population saying "this is crap" is "you are all idiots". Here's a clue, if 98% of the worlds population disagrees with you chances are that you are the one who's wrong. Particularly when it is about something as banal as the user experience in front of a computer.
Simple: The GUI situation on Linux is abysmal. It's not getting any better. The abysmal situation means that nobody is developing applications for the platform, and nobody wants to use it because the GUI situation is abysmal in addition to there being no applications for it. Here's a kicker. Libre Office for Windows is a significantly better user experience than is Libre Office on Linux. As long as that is the case, Linux GUI is shit piled on crap dumped on manure. Therefore there are no photography applications on Linux (no, not GiMP, GiMP continues to be crap), there are no NLEs (think video editing) on Linux, the price Office app on Linux works better on Windows etc and so forth.
The fact that this isn't blatantly obvious to Linux developers (of which I am one) is surprising to say the least. developing in Java at the moment, I use Eclipse as my IDE, and I use it on Windows only. Build and test runs on Linux, but using Eclipse on Linux has so many little, annoying, perpetual irritants that if I had to use it my monitor would suffer my pounding fists regularly. It may not be big stuff making things useless, just minor stuff. Such as the fact that when you select something in X it is automatically copied to the clipboard. It's annoying as shit. I know it can be fixed but it is still annoying as shit. Here's what the entire world does when using copy/cut and paste:
Step 1: Select what you want to copy and press Ctrl+C
Step 2: Select the text you want to replace
Step 3: Press Ctrl+V, the text you selected in step 2 is now replaced by the text you selected in Step 1.
Does this work on Linux? The answer to that is actually "maybe, it depends". That alone is ridiculous. The auto-copy-when-select "feature" of X was designed and implemented by someone with an 1980's plastic calculator watch where his brain was supposed to be.
No, it hasn't been a decade. It's not even been ten minutes.
Linux apps are inferior to their Windows equivalents.
Libre Office even works better on Windows than they do on Linux. That's what is called reality and you can like it or not.
There is no real photography software. Anyone claiming The GiMP is is not a photographer.
There is no video editing software for Linux, no, there isn't. Really. Seriously. Only specialty SW created in-house for big companies.
There is somewhere between 10 and 100 000 different GUI's for Linux, and that makes users confused and drives commercial developers away.
The best "Linux" for the desktop is OSX, and if you are a user that uses real software and would like to run a variation of Unix behind it, your options are limited to one, namely OSX. Well, almost. Now that Windows can run (some) Linux binaries natively, you should probably just install Windows, then you don't have to deal with the closed environment of Apple.
Can anyone tell me why Linux is a good choice on the desktop?
I can tell you why
No, you can't. You can tell him why a particular distro, with your choice of a UI, based on your favorite Gnome/KDE/Whatever version. You can't tell him why Linux is a good thing on the desktop since there is no such thing as "Linux on the desktop" (unless you are running it without a GUI.
Here is what Linux advocates do not get. Choice is a bad thing. Not a good thing. It's terrible. People do not want choice and it has long since been documented that more options makes for more frustration, more desperation and it even makes you depressed. The fact that Linux never gave a shit about GUIs has forever doomed Linux to the server space for the vast majority of users. Linux on the desktop is shite, and it will remain so forever due to the fragmentation it is plagued by.
Some problems:
X is a monstrosity that solves all the wrong problems in all the wrong ways. It must be killed. Now.
The fact that you have Gnome, KDE, etc is terrible, it makes the user experience confusing, but more importantly, it makes impossible to develop applications for "Linux". You have to chose Linux and X, which means a lot of work and shitty looking apps. Linux and Gnome/KDE, well, then forget about the other guys etc. Developing commercial applications for Linux that has a broad appeal is nigh impossible, which means you are left with enthusiasts. Which leads to:
There are no apps for Linux.No Photoshop (no, if you think GiMP is an alternative you don't know shit about photography), the Office suite is quite good, but still there are issues (like merging, on Windows you can merge a document with data from a spread-sheet, on Linux, not so much, in Libre Office anyway).
X, did I mention X?
"Linux" for the desktop has come, and it is very, very good. It's called OSX, and sticking with Linux when you can actually have a real Unix operating system with a real GUI and real applications means you're a moron:-) Sorry, not really, but still.
You have real buttons, adjacent to your late-model Apple touchpad?
When I click the lower right hand of my touch pad, it depresses and clicks with full haptic feed back and an audible click. I am able to find the lower right corner of my trackpad without issue. The same goes for the lower left corner of the trackpad.
I said, objectively, that this touchpad has no real buttons.
Well, my does. It is integrated with the pad, but it is very obviously a button that depresses and clicks. Now, I have not tried the "taptic" touchpad, but I'll check one out, my colleague prefers it over the older one, specifically because of the haptic feedback. If you have a Mac Pro touchpad without a haptic feedback, you should have it serviced. I do not know of any that do not have that.
The GUI for OS X is atrocious. I'll take Linux over it
So, just curious, when you were falling down the stairs, landing on your head over and over and over and over, why did you not try to shield your self with your hands? Oh, and saying "I'll take Linux over it" is silly, Linux doesn't have a GUI, it has a more or less infinite number of them.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason the folks switched from .NET were precisely productivity, reliability, scalability, and we can add ongoing maintenance costs
This is pure nonsense. I did Java for the Enterprise from 1997 through 2006. I worked for one of the first companies in the world that had significant product for the Telecom world written in Java. Back then we could not inform our customers it was Java since Java was perceived as too slow for our market segment. A colleague of mine wrote an SNMP stack at the time that was at least two orders of magnitude faster than any other stack out there. I struggled with CORBA when the Iona C++ ORB would not talk to the Iona Java ORB.
Since 2008 I've been doing about 20% Java, 60% C#/.Net and the rest a combination of Ruby, C and some Scala. C# blows Java out of the water in every single way. Tooling is heads and shoulders above what Java developers have wet dreams about. Scalability is certainly not inferior to Java in any way. The C# language has been significantly better than Java since 2008, and the distance between the two is increasing. Ongoing maintenance cost for .Net is significantly below what it is for .Net. I've spent more time on digging apps out of the horrendous monstrosity that was EJBs and J2EE than I have been actually adding features. I am soon done moving an EJB/Seam/Java/Hibernate/ app to .Net using mostly WebAPI and Angular 2. Adding features to the new app is done with half the resources in less than half the time compared to the old app. I'd say at least 50% of that is caused by the tools and the technology used, the other half is the over-engineering by the previous developers.
Java is playing catch-up, but it is playing catch-up-by-committee. It's not catching up.
You need to go see an optometrist or an eye doctor, you are going blind.
Actually handling physical discs is rubbish
Only if you don't care about image quality, and if you don't care about image qualit, wtf do you worry about 4K or even HD for? Streaming HD quality is marginally better than SD. If you have a 40-45* TV and sit ten feet away, you can not really see the difference between streaming HD and SD. Streaming 4K content today is of lower at times significantly so, quality than 1080p. Watching 4K content on Neflix is terrible. The footage is sharpened to the unwatchable. But hey, if you don't care about image quality, that's OK. Just get the biggest, cheapest TV you can get. Don't ever get a 4K TV.
and I'd be pretty hard-pressed to see a difference between 1080P and 4K even at that size
How far from your "TV" are you sitting? 20 feet?
like they're going out of style
and they will, really fast.
node.js is just awful. Why would anyone think that is is more scalable than the LAMP stack
This is one of those comments that are too funny. A person talking up a horrible, terrible, monstrosity of a piece of junk (PHP) as a solution to another horrible, terrible, monstrosity (in their opinion) node.js.
No
So, develop in Typescrip, pure ES6 or something similar. Works fine with Node.
No, centimeters. about 4 inches.
You have a point. Science is about falsification. Science can not say much about what we know as such, it can only say things that we do not know. Now, at the moment, there are two known ways an island can disappear into the sea, subduction and rising sea levels. Since we have excluded rising sea levels, there is only one possible explanation at the moment. If someone can come up with other possibilities, then that would be another alternative to rising sea levels, which we still know it is not.
If you have alternatives to subduction and rising sea levels, I am all ears.
So you have some actual evidence that these islands sinking is due to subduction, right?
I don't think he needs it. According to the most alarming numbers, sea levels have risen some 10 cm in the past century. If we have already lost three islands to increased sea level, those islands would have to be on average 10 cm tall or so. Even assuming that the rise in sea level has strong local variations, we're talking about some really flat islands here.
In most places I've been to around the Pacific, the tide variation is more than 10 cm. So, how do we know that these islands are primarily sinking due to subduction? Easy. Here's how we know that they are gone because of rising sea levels. if the islands, 100 years ago, were under water every time the tide was high, and now are under water permanently, it is possible (but not demonstrated) that the islands are gone due to rising sea levels. If the islands were permanently dry, and they were significantly taller than 10 cm 100 years ago, then we know that their "disappearance" is due to subduction since it couldn't be cause by rising sea levels.
isn't the process that we the people have agreed upon
Actually, it is. We have long since established that civil disobedience is a valid form of political activity. So, we have in fact agreed upon that process.
I was beginning to be disillusioned with all the people here who simply can't understand how the law works
So Rosa Parks was wrong? What about Assange? Manning? W. Mark Felt? Daniel Ellsberg?
Imagine if they next USED that key to enter the building on a weekend and rummaged through the offices inside. That's second-degree burglary.
If it was a private home, you'd be right, but the government is "by the people", in other words, he is part owner in said building and has done nothing but opening a door to a building he by definition has free access to with a couple of (in this case) irrelevant exceptions. There is no such thing as "the government owns".
So, all whistle blowers are criminals?
Breaking into or executing code on a system without permission is a criminal offense.
Not if it is a system you own. Since this is a public system, the "perpetrator" is part owner, and therefore allowed.
As a member of the General Public, he was part owner of the system.
So, nothing but facetiousness. Cool. You are debating at a level where one would expect.
Has jacking off to the Steve Jobs poster
My main desktop is a Windows box. I have my build system on a Linux VM since Linux has been my primary build, test and deployment platform for server stuff since about 1998. I was then part of a five person company that was one of the first companies to release a successful system built on Java, deployed mostly on Linux. We had to do our own application server for load balancing and stuff back then. I installed my first version of Linux, version 0.97 I think it was, when I wanted to port my Minix-based BBS software to my new 386-based PC I acquired my first Apple box a while back when I was asked to put some software on iOS. That's when I discovered that OSX was a great Unix with a great UI on top, but a terrible ecosystem behind it. The fact that it is BSD is wonderful too, I hated the day Sun changed from SunOS to Solaris and thereby from BSD to that monstrosity that is AT&T Unix (we called it back then).
I think "millions" qualifies as "many
Less than two percent has never qualified as "many" in any circumstance. It qualifies as "close to nobody". If I said "nobody uses Windows 3.1 anymore",most people would agree. More people use Windows 3.1 on the desktop than does Linux on the desktop.
Here's your problem. Your penis is so fucking small that any critique of something you feel attached to feels like a personal affront to you. This comes from a massive insecurity complex. Where does that come from? When your father was raping you when you were a child, did his penis bang so hard against to top of your mouth that it caused brain damage? (Just to keep the debate at your intellectual level). Oh, and getting emotionally attached to something as mundane as a poorly designed operating system (Linux is a terrible OS design born in the 1970s, BSD is a little better) shows a staggering black hole in your personal life. You really need to go out and get some sex done, even if you have to pay for it.
How can it be "shite" if there is "no such thing"?
If you'd read my post rather than being facetious, you'd have seen that I actually answered that in my post. There is no a "Linux on the desktop" since "Linux on the desktop" is a huge variety of things of varying degrees of mediocrity. Not that I could do better, the guys doing this stuff are doing very cool things, and if stuff is not good in one place. It's just too much variety, and in this case variety is a bad thing.
Linux on the desktop is a real thing and many people use Linux on the desktop
Linux on the desktop is many, many, many things and they are "all" different. The statement that "many people use Linux on the desktop" is only true for an extremely limited definition of the word "many". Statistically, it is far closer to "zero" than to "a few".
"I don't like it" isn't a "real" problem in Linux.
This is indeed true, but here's the rub. It's not an "I don't like it" problem. It's a "Nobody in the entire world likes it, they prefer Windows 3.1 over it" problem. Sadly the only response from the Linux community to the fact that more than 98% of the worlds population saying "this is crap" is "you are all idiots". Here's a clue, if 98% of the worlds population disagrees with you chances are that you are the one who's wrong. Particularly when it is about something as banal as the user experience in front of a computer.
Simple: The GUI situation on Linux is abysmal. It's not getting any better. The abysmal situation means that nobody is developing applications for the platform, and nobody wants to use it because the GUI situation is abysmal in addition to there being no applications for it. Here's a kicker. Libre Office for Windows is a significantly better user experience than is Libre Office on Linux. As long as that is the case, Linux GUI is shit piled on crap dumped on manure. Therefore there are no photography applications on Linux (no, not GiMP, GiMP continues to be crap), there are no NLEs (think video editing) on Linux, the price Office app on Linux works better on Windows etc and so forth.
The fact that this isn't blatantly obvious to Linux developers (of which I am one) is surprising to say the least. developing in Java at the moment, I use Eclipse as my IDE, and I use it on Windows only. Build and test runs on Linux, but using Eclipse on Linux has so many little, annoying, perpetual irritants that if I had to use it my monitor would suffer my pounding fists regularly. It may not be big stuff making things useless, just minor stuff. Such as the fact that when you select something in X it is automatically copied to the clipboard. It's annoying as shit. I know it can be fixed but it is still annoying as shit. Here's what the entire world does when using copy/cut and paste:
Does this work on Linux? The answer to that is actually "maybe, it depends". That alone is ridiculous. The auto-copy-when-select "feature" of X was designed and implemented by someone with an 1980's plastic calculator watch where his brain was supposed to be.
No, it hasn't been a decade. It's not even been ten minutes.
Linux apps are inferior to their Windows equivalents.
The best "Linux" for the desktop is OSX, and if you are a user that uses real software and would like to run a variation of Unix behind it, your options are limited to one, namely OSX. Well, almost. Now that Windows can run (some) Linux binaries natively, you should probably just install Windows, then you don't have to deal with the closed environment of Apple.
Can anyone tell me why Linux is a good choice on the desktop?
I can tell you why
No, you can't. You can tell him why a particular distro, with your choice of a UI, based on your favorite Gnome/KDE/Whatever version. You can't tell him why Linux is a good thing on the desktop since there is no such thing as "Linux on the desktop" (unless you are running it without a GUI.
Here is what Linux advocates do not get. Choice is a bad thing. Not a good thing. It's terrible. People do not want choice and it has long since been documented that more options makes for more frustration, more desperation and it even makes you depressed. The fact that Linux never gave a shit about GUIs has forever doomed Linux to the server space for the vast majority of users. Linux on the desktop is shite, and it will remain so forever due to the fragmentation it is plagued by.
Some problems:
"Linux" for the desktop has come, and it is very, very good. It's called OSX, and sticking with Linux when you can actually have a real Unix operating system with a real GUI and real applications means you're a moron :-) Sorry, not really, but still.
You have real buttons, adjacent to your late-model Apple touchpad?
When I click the lower right hand of my touch pad, it depresses and clicks with full haptic feed back and an audible click. I am able to find the lower right corner of my trackpad without issue. The same goes for the lower left corner of the trackpad.
I said, objectively, that this touchpad has no real buttons.
Well, my does. It is integrated with the pad, but it is very obviously a button that depresses and clicks. Now, I have not tried the "taptic" touchpad, but I'll check one out, my colleague prefers it over the older one, specifically because of the haptic feedback. If you have a Mac Pro touchpad without a haptic feedback, you should have it serviced. I do not know of any that do not have that.
The GUI for OS X is atrocious. I'll take Linux over it
So, just curious, when you were falling down the stairs, landing on your head over and over and over and over, why did you not try to shield your self with your hands? Oh, and saying "I'll take Linux over it" is silly, Linux doesn't have a GUI, it has a more or less infinite number of them.
and is WAY more useful than any Chromebook ever made