I think everyone has glossed over the single most important feature in the Postgre SQL that they have refined in this release, IMHO. Ranged data types. Let's say you have a meeting schedule DB application. Well currently if you want to restrict a room between two times (start and stop) so that no one else can have the room during that time, you are going to have to write that logic in your application.
Postgre's range data type allows you to create unique checks on ranges of time. This can in two lines of code, do every single logic check that is needed to ensure no two people schedule the same room at the same time.
How this is not showing up on anyone's radar is beyond me, or maybe we all just use Outlook or Google Calendar now. However, the range types are not just limited to the application of time, but of anything that requires uniqueness along a linear fashion, as opposed to just checking to see if any other record matches the one that you are trying to insert.
As a 30-something Linux Fanboy, I am appalled at your sterotyping! Facts are: Microsoft is the technology mafia, Steve Jobs ate children, Linus' tears cure cancer, and Richard Stallman created the universe. I don't understand why you all still get it wrong?! Geez! You are just going to have to admit you are a shamless fanboi! (note difference between the i and y, the y is perfectly acceptable, the i are the ones that need to be put down.)
I never understood why, if even just in the name of good architectural design, Linus was against it. Maybe it was cause he only thinks like a low level guy.
I'll see your question and raise you another question in about the same vein. "I never understood why, if even just in the name of making software good for end users, Miguel and his former GNOME team kept breaking everything in sight." Remove this option, change this paradigm, make this more confusing, and change this API, etc, etc etc... He switched over to Mono and tried to convince the world how awesome that platform was versus any other development platform out there. Not really worrying about others who disagreed with his stance.
Miguel going on a tirade about people breaking things first chance they get is a little like this conversation I heard this one time between a kettle and a pot. Had something to do with the color black. At no point did Linus say, that in order to to work with Linux you need to break your APIs every three to four weeks, it just needed to work with the exposed interface.
Binary compaibility is important to "closed software" not open source. It's not a priority for FOSS. That's why developers could not care less about it. It's the distros that should be the ones who worry about this kind of stuff. They pander to not only open source, but closed software as well. Trying to blame developers for the inability for commerical software to succeed on Linux, is a little like blaming the people who make the product, for a management team that cannot make up their mind about which product the people making products should be making.
Please note that the above is strictly my opinion and in no way should it be confused with reality, unless you feel that it reflects said reality that you also exist in.
I liked your reply the most. The key thing here is that what I'm getting at is something yet to come. So yes, it is just my fucking opinion. You can take it as that. However, here's the thing. Apple is all set to remove the smartphone market that doesn't include them. They'll keep Microsoft and RIM around to avoid antitrust, but do you really think they won't sue the utter shit out of them if they get over twenty percent of the market? Apple has made their Windows, they've made their Internet Explorer, that is the iPhone, that is the iPad. They have innovated to the apex, and now, they don't have to do another damn thing. They win, and now all that is left is to remove the completion to levels they see fit. We've all seen how this has played out thousands of times in multiple markets. All you have to do is get to the top, and then church anyone who tries to take a good share of the market. You mean to tell me that Apple is going to be the only company in the history of mankind to not pull this shit now that they have been made so bold? Seriously? Additional you can believe what you like about me, your answers sound like the kind Microsoft zombies gave back in the nineties. If you'd like to think I have no credibility, that's fine. I doubt you'll remember this conversation in ten years when everyone sighs as how shitty the iPhone 17 is just as shitty as the iPhone 8. But of course, it's either the iPhone or nothing. Finally, you can only say Microsoft's mono-culture wins, if the PC market wasn't in decline on the consumer side. It won't matter if they have a monopoly on desktops, if the only ones using desktops are the IT department. Additionally, you're trying to short change to make a point, which is a bit of trickery. You should include Mac sales vs PC sales, year over year before you shove your foot into your mouth. Trying to act like Macs aren't selling off the shelves does you no favor for credibility. Macs, iPhones, and iPads are mainstream, you sound, and I'm not calling you one but you sure do sound, like a Mac fanboi who thinks that Apple is fringe. No, Apple is the new "Man.". As the new Man they have got a lot of cleaning house to do, that's what I'm getting at, Apple will begin the march of the monopoly. Because investors will demand it, because people who think smart phones didn't exist before Apple will demand it, because if they want to continue this make believe world where they invented the iPhone in a complete vacuum they will have to do it... Apple has hit the tipping point of no return, they must become an abusive monopoly, they are too big, their stock price must hit a thousand per share, THEY ARE THE BEST EVER!!! Now they must continue to prove it, by year over year double digit growth, or else they'll loose it all and fall where Microsoft is. Same old cycle that's played out every twenty or so years. You think history suddenly won't repeat itself? Good luck with that.
Indeed Apple just became the most valuable company in the world, ever.
Let me just say this...With Apple now being where Microsoft was in value (and plus some now), and with Apple now suing everyone that they can get their hands on. Apple has become the new Microsoft of our age. You can almost smell the monopoly and abuse of their monopoly on the horizon. It's heart breaking and awesome to see history repeat itself.
Additionally, Apple has lost every shred of credibility in pretty much all of my circle of friends. Which I know, doesn't mean squat, but I believe that this may very well mark the start of the end for Apple. Once you become viewed as the tech bully of the world, you start to loose you're ability to attract good talent. You start to be viewed as, the creative versus The Man. I don't know any company that "won" people over by being on a platform of being "The Man".
Of course, that's just one reason why mono-culture has never won. However, please continue gushing about the iPhone and Apple like the MS fanbois of days long since past.
I hate to break the news to everyone, but six out of seven patents were upheld in the case. I'll give you all one guess as to which one was not upheld by the jury. Here's a clue, it rhymes with tounded mectangles.
People have generally started to regard him as smoke and start looking for fire.
That's not actually a fair view of Karl Rove. Smoke is indeed related to fire as some point. Karl Rove goes nosing into things that clearly do not relate to his position. No a better take on him would be to regard him as something totally unrelated. Say like scorpions to fire. You don't expect one with the other and the former is annoying as hell. However, I'll let the Slashdot crowd figure more interesting things to replace with scorpions.
Oh no, that's not at all what I meant in my reply. I don't think this is a disagree or agree kind of thing. By all means, I mean no harm to any comment that you might have posted. Sorry to have confused.
Each vendor follows pretty tightly to SQL standard with additions to SQL that separate them. The SQL standard has become most like OpenGL as opposed to ISO/C++ standard. SQL and OpenGL usually take the brightest ideas currently out there and just make them standard. That's why it feels the way as you commented.
That's pretty much rooted in SQL history. ISO SQL pretty much consists of a group who look at the extensions out there and write a standard around them. Whereas ISO/C++ is a group of engineers that sit around and postulate on how to best achieve a language that solves the current problems everyone is having, and elegantly describes an Object-Oriented Programming model.
That's why standards play such an important role with SQL. It allows you to quickly know which features are going to be implemented in the DB that you choose. I don't think I can ever go back to a database that doesn't implement SQL OVER, so that's always going to be something that I look for. Either a large amount of compliance with the standard or an explicit statement that says, "hey we support that!" It just assures me that the product that I'm getting is going to work the way I need it to work.
All the vendor specific stuff comes later. DB2 might have a way to optimize such and such function, however, it might be implemented in a vendor specific way. However, from the start I'm just going to know the standard way of doing something. If I can't do something the standard way, then there's little hope that I'm going to crack the docs and try to find the vendor specific way of doing it, unless I'm not the one who gets to call the shots and thus I *have* to look it up.
That's what makes and breaks. Stuff needs to be easy for newbies and it needs to well documented or follows the standard closely so that everyone feels comfortable with going to any old site. MySQL won a lot of hearts by being insanely easy to administer and they added icing to the cake by making the thing insanely easy to scale out. However, those two points aren't winning many hearts now. Postgresql has pretty similar to MySQL documentation now, DB2 has pretty similar documentation as well, plus they've really gone back and refined a lot of their admin tools. Even Microsoft has gone back and made a serious investment in making their SQL server a product that one can jump in, do some real work, and jump back out again. Basically, the points that won a lot of hearts with MySQL are starting to be matched by the other guys.
That's what makes SQL standard compliance pretty important, it tells you exactly which one of those really neat SQL functions, your software supports. Vendor extensions are important as well but if I'm faced with either having to write a stored procedure or just use a well known SQL keyword, I'll choose the latter. You run into that more often than not, you start to value SQL standard more and more.
Oh no, you totally have an argument. DB2 has a lot of good time math but in certain cases. Are you having issues with timezones?! That's odd I don't tend to have issues like than but YMMV. Postgresql is really good with time math as well, but differently, if that makes sense. For me it "could" go either way. What version of DB2 are you using, your TZ issue sounds horrible. Maybe there's a fix for it? Let me know. Thanks!
Additionally, postgresql implements more of SQL99 than most others out there.
"Real" BOOLEAN support, CTE using WITH (which MySQL is actually the only real enterprise DB that doesn't offer this), support for FETCH cursors, HOLD cursors, one of the best implementations of date math (maybe only DB2 does this better), blows MySQL out of the water hands down on window functions (seriously MySQL, no SQL OVER support? REALLY?!), also (I know this may seem trivial) but MySQL doesn't even implement SQL OVERLAY.
In many ways postgresql brings a LOT of modern SQL to the table that it makes MySQL seem hokey, if not downright convoluted. I cannot speak for Oracle's 11g, but I've found postgresql just as capable at doing whatever it is I need to get done as I can in DB2, MS-SQL is just it's own beast altogether. However, MySQL lacks so much functionality that you constantly have to revert to procedures to get anything done.
Now I will say to MySQL's credit, that it is one of the easiest DBs to admin for and they support a good subset of SQL2003, but it's not enough, it leaves a lot to want for. I know a lot of people have invested a lot into MySQL, but the lack of a lot of modern functions that a lot of other DBs enjoy out of the box, makes using MySQL a chore to write for. Thank goodness it's easy to scale and admin, because if it didn't have that going for it, then we'd have LAPP stacks. However, this is just another pot shot for MySQL. Slowly closing source code, no test scripts, dodgy support for some of the most useful (IMHO) features of standard SQL. I don't want to diss anyone who works on the project, they have done a mighty nice job, but there are more and more negatives building up, that the scales are starting to tip in opposition to MySQL. No disrespect, but we're at that point that people on the fence are really going to look hard at the competition.
Finally, and totally off topic. IBM YOU SUCK! Seriously, you can't make a freaking function to create a CSV list from a set of rows?! I have to cast the result set to XML and then work backwards from there? Everyone else has one! I wouldn't curse you if I wasn't forced to use your product. There, glad I got to air that out.
It's not a lack. It's libraries that can be used on every platform. As in, I can select one library and it have the same interface on every platform. Usually when going between Windows and anybody else, the API changes on you with a given library. However, that's really not a fault of Qt or C++, but more along the lines that Window's libraries wanting to do things their way.
I've not run into a problem where I needed to do something and a library simply not exist for a given platform. It's just having to do IFDEFs to work around platforms that I speak about. That doesn't really exist in the Java world, but then again, I believe it to be more of a function of the person who controls the platform as opposed to the platform itself.
We have multiple Qt applications at our company that are compiled across all the platforms that we use. Apple, Microsoft, and Linux boxen. We have two camps in our company. One is of the Java school and the other is of the Qt school. I can tell you that the Qt applications feel quicker, but the Java applications tend to be more flexible and have better selection of libraries that can be used on every platform.
Writing an interface for our AS/400 system in Qt wasn't especially pain-free, but it was a whole hell of a lot better than the RPG from whence it came.
QML is essentially JavaScript, with all its costs.
While not entirely untrue, your post is quite limited in scope. QML should first and foremost be used for the problem that it is addressing, user interfaces, not actions in those interfaces. Agreed that using JavaScript within QML is a quick way of getting things done at the cost of more cycles on your CPU, however, simple tasks should not be entirely excluded. The JS engine that powers QML is made for quick one off operations that affect the UI. Implementing your applications logic at the QML level is strongly discouraged.
That is the main focus one should keep with QML, UI centric. If a programmer finds themselves doing complex testing within the JS environment they should really consider allowing the logic to be implemented in C++. Doing so is quite easy so it should become the preferred method for logic in QML applications. Remember, and I cannot stress it enough, QML is UI centric.
That brings me to the point of why QML is what it is. Many people have for years developed Qt applications with the old UI XML format and then loaded said XML via C++ code. Loading the XML created a C++ tree of what you described and then the tree could be handled by your usual C++ methods. However, the XML format for UI did not lend itself to easy operations. The cost of code required to do any single thing was equal (in access terms) to everything else. The tree had to be access, widget pulled, methods called, and so on. Reference pointers usually would be created to common widgets in an application that had a lot of action on them. With the QML engine, some of those one off operations can be implemented into the QML itself, saving the back and forth with C++. That said, the point here is that with QML, yes you loose a little cycle time to the engine, but you gain in the cycles and memory with the reference pointers for one off tasks.
I know, I keep hammering this one off gong, I apologize for that. However, I think it is one of the strongest motivators for QML adoption, IMHO. QML allows more flexibility between UI and logic, makes code more readable and easier to maintain, and can allow less C++ savvy people who don't want to muck with UI code get to the point in implementing rich UIs. However, and I'll say it again, QML is UI centric and that's where people should keep it.
I think you would have a very valid point with people who may come into Qt development and think that "Oh Gee! JavaScript! Now I am hackerz!" and start coding up a storm in JS thinking their application will run just as smooth as any other. There is always going to be that crowd, but they alone should not reduce the merit of what QML is accomplishing here.
I won't sit here and try to sugar coat QML, it is what it is. For better or worst it is where Qt is heading and it has many pros and cons to evaluate when you code your next Qt application. The good thing here is that QML isn't being force upon new developers. UI access code APIs are still there for those that want to, and in some cases should, use them. I don't see QML as an end of the world or road for Qt, but as a tool that should be carefully considered when starting a new Qt project. It offers the ability to quickly develop UI code with C++ code driving the logic and could mean the difference between weeks shaved off development time in trade for a little more overhead; versus a project that dies in inertia and headache UI logic for some of the simplest of tasks. The article deals with KWin and it exposing the needed interface for "QMLing" it. I doubt, but I have not reviewed the code here so I could stand to be wrong, but I doubt that the developers for KWin have made gross assumptions on how those binding should interact with the underlying code that could render brain-dead stubs that increase the overhead by huge margins. Instead I think, nay feel, that the KWin developers are pretty confident that in most cases QML window widgets wil
Right just like how democracy puts you at the mercy of the majority. Unless of course, you're in that majority and it's the minority (who once was the majority) that went ape shit crazy and changed everything.
I dislike people who translate "Not at the mercy of someone else" to equal "One must support the entire stack all by-themselves." To help you out, the statement is more akin to "Change favors popular demand." "Putting yourself at the mercy of someone else," being, the majority usually have no say in the process that a few engineers somewhere have decided on.
Does anyone really buy the crock that Microsoft touts with the new design of Windows 8 being something that was driven by customer demand? Because if you ask me, it looks like some senior member of staff was having a knee jerk reaction to a board meeting that brought up the question as to when Microsoft was going to actually start competing in the tablet market. Said member of staff ran down to software development and put everyone on notice about needing a new direction. Said direction not really involving any member of this planet outside that development group, most likely time being a contributing factor to the whole "not giving a damn about the public," mentality behind the development of the product. Just like anything a company does, you have to like this (at least publicly), because if you don't like it, then they won't like it, and if they don't like it, then they won't buy it, and if they don't buy it then you don't get a paycheck. Insert PR department and well I don't think I really have to explain the rest of the process. But, yeah, that's the feeling I get when I boot up that consumer preview of this load that Microsoft has "begiven" us all.
That's what that statement is all about, at no point does anyone outside of Microsoft have a say in the process. With open source, there exist the ability for the market of popular opinion to sway the leader. That's what that whole mercy/someone else thing is about. GNOME sucked so bad, that MATE, Cinnamon, and Unity were created. It will take some time for things to shake out, but at least two of these options will win out. I'm guessing Cinnamon and Unity (if I were to guess here, just my opinion.) Winning out is based on how many pissed off people vote with their usage of a particular use of an alternative. XFCE usage has risen pretty high and that has really bolstered the ranks of developers on that project. Just look at the length of time between 4.2 to 4.4 release and 4.8 to 4.10 release. You can see the people fleeing is really starting to pay dividends for XFCE. That's what us crazy FOSS people talk about with "not at the mercy of someone else."
I don't think that all industry that uses computers is as you try to paint it. I know tons of chemical labs that use Linux to control a variety of things between gas chromatography control devices to chemical structure modeling. Additionally, the are at least three shops in the area that I live in where the wood cutting and carving machines are controlled by Linux systems. Finally, the company that I work for has it's primary ETL+BI reporting tools on Linux via an Open Source reporting tool. I know plenty of people who use the same software stack.
I think the ideas that you conjure up are pretty artificial or subjective at best. Yes, there are a lot of people who use Aperture, but they submit their images to systems that eventually go to press machines and color control machines that are usually application specific devices, driven by an embedded version of Windows, or driven by Linux. You've just decided to look at one end of a total process and I call BS on that.
Free software doesn't exist in industries that does not involve computers itself.
No that's just a load. That's like saying a hammer doesn't exist in industries that do not lend themselves to needing a hammer, or cameras do not exist in industries that do not involve shooting pictures. Linux is in a lot of places that are not computer specific, try the New York Stock Exchange. However, by your argument one could say, well that statement is true, because the Linux part of NYSE is strictly in the concept of dealing with all the computer transactions and so forth. Which is why I say your argument is a load. You've wording it in such a manner, that the system would have to be by itself in the middle of a forest in order to be shown as incorrect.
Connections between different systems has become just as important as the systems themselves. How many shops would exist if they only stuck to Aperture and had no web stack? When they do go to the web, the likelihood that their provider will be using LAMP, is pretty high. I don't care how awesome Aperture is, if you can't get that awesome picture to another machine, you're hosed.
That's were I think you've missed the point, and trust me, I know plenty of people who think exactly like you. I won't say your wrong but it's just shortsightedness. Sharing information between machines is just as important as the machine that creates the content. The majority of machines that move content on this planet are open source machines. In the context in which we are talking about, I can assure you, that a Linux workstations is about as good as any Windows or Mac workstation. Yeah, there are specific industries that require specific software. Macs dominate my company's legal and PR departments; Linux dominates the financial, AS400, are inventory control departments; Windows pretty much runs the HR and engineer's departments, along with the senior staff. We've got a mix of AS400 servers, Linux servers, and a couple of Windows servers. So each department has exactly the OS that fits their needs the best. General workstations are about a 35%/65% blend of Linux/Windows.
The parent of this whole topic has a point. Linux is just as good as Windows and Mac at general tasks. There is always going to be specific software that is required for a specific need, people are just going to have to get over themselves. One could easily toss that argument back into one's face. Aperture is only on Macs, but MS Access is only for Windows, so Windows rocks because real work is done in RDBMS. Or whatever. Then you get whiny people who chime in, "oh yeah?! Well Macs have File Maker Pro, so ha!" And so on, and so on...
So please, save us all the "well Linux doesn't have any specific software in _______ (insert some really specific industry) and thus is totally crap because they don't produce software for this one industry." No one OS serves every single freaking industry on this planet, just get over it. We're talking in general terms here buddy. Which all three of the major OSes serve quite well in.
I'm actually shocked that no one has posted this, but keeping the boxes to high dollar items is a very good idea. High dollar stuff tends to vanish or worst yet, gets taken by bashing your back door in while you're at work. Boxes have serial numbers on them and they serve as proof of purchase when you go to the insurance company. Most states have pawn registries that allow the police to put a watch out at all certified pawn stores for your stolen goods, however, you have to have the serial number for that to work.
I thought I would give it some time for someone to chime in here, but apparently no one even came close to thinking about it. If you have insurance, you owe it to yourself to save the boxes for your high dollar items. It makes dealing with insurance companies a whole hell of a lot easier.
Okay so he's got Laryngitis or something similar. Why the hell are people thinking this is news? I get Laryngitis from acid reflux from time to time, a couple of weeks Zantec usually clears it up, and I'm good for like the rest of the year.
I hate making Steve Jobs references, but I think news media is still hung up on mysterious health issues equaling pancreatic cancer or some similar terminal disease. Dude is unable to talk, and the company reports that it is not serious like most other health issues. For all we know the inability to speak is due to some contagious pathogen and he just wants to lay low so no one gets it, while he gets over it. I'm sure when Page was contemplating taking a leave of absence for a little spell, he didn't realize that he needed a press release to go along with it.
Of course there is the alternative theory could be that Page just had his meditation chamber installed and he's taking it for a spin. You know, if you're in that camp where Google is evil and all.
XNA, based on.NET CF, is still the only way for a micro-ISV to target a game console
I won't say that the statement is correct, but it is not 100% incorrect. As.NET CF is *a* way for micro-ISVs, it is hardly the *only* way. Nor is it the most popular way. However, you are correct that it is indeed a way. However, that doesn't render the fact that I said that CF will be rendered industry heavy, niche serving mostly, incorrect. The hotness is mobile development and that's where units are moving. Gaming is still big, but it's not moving like the mobile market. You can clearly see that the gaming industry is playing catch up to this mobile market with things like PS Vita, and WP7 Xbox integration.
So again, you are correct sort of, and your argument is like a pebble compared to the momentum of the avalanche that we are talking about. I know everyone loves tossing "oh but then there is gaming!" argument like it is nobodies business. However, even that market is getting pressure for the mobile market. So if gaming is feeling the heat, how for sure is CF going to stay dominant in that market? If you ask me not long before micro-ISVs (who are a dime a dozen) switch over to the next best thing. Being a small time software vendor means having to have the ability to quickly change. If CF only serves them (which it doesn't) then CF doesn't have a ghost of a chance then. The salvation of CF is legacy.NET devices that are used in single purpose/single application type environments.
What's the big difference in practice between a subnotebook and a tablet docked to a keyboard?
It's not the device that I'm talking about, I'm talking about the mindset. Desktops and tablets need different OSes because they are *used* differently. Let's say I'm on a bus. Now, if I want to make a quick edit to a spreadsheet or just review it for a couple of more minutes during my commute, the tablet is great. Why? I don't need a keyboard, I don't have to take up more physical space then I really need to. The Tablet is most likely instant on, and getting to the document takes like two taps. A laptop, desktop, whatever... Bootup, keyboard in the way, log in, my documents, some other folder, application starting up, stupid bubbles about something that Window's wants to inform me on, application finally started, now I can use the 3.5 inch trackpad to view my document... PASS.
Yeah we can shoehorn crap on to crap all day long. That's the wonderful thing about technology. There is no limit to what we can say something is, and duct tape some more junk on it and call it something else. However, the point is the use. The difference between a laptop and a tablet with a keyboard physically is next to none, but experience you better believe its like day and night. That's why Win8's unified approach is just jarring to say the least. Why would I want a tablet that is as slow and clunky as my desktop? Why would I want a desktop that is as limited as my tablet? It just makes no sense and no I don't grant Microsoft the wherewithal to be able to overcome how jarring this whole thing sounds. It's most likely half baked (at least form the Win8 previews I've seen) and the thing Microsoft needs the most at this point in the game is to knock it out of the ballpark. Anything less is going to make share holders start looking at other options.
Do you want a device only to view works or also to create works?
Again, here's the thing, we can shoehorn whatever on whatever. AIDE is great and all, but where's the audience? Hell, I've got AIDE installed on my tablet, want to know how many times I've fired it up? Twice. Anything I want to do, I do in Eclipse or worst case, I open up a text editor on the tablet. AIDE is like the shawshank redemption, yeah I could tunnel out of prison with a tiny rock hammer. However, it's silly to do so when they also put a jac
Um, no. I don't know of any other JS engine that implements the WinRT namespace. The Chakra JS engine is what will separate any browser from being able to run Metro apps. A metro app isn't a web app, it is important that people understand this. Even though the two are written in the same language, they are not the same thing. Just like Java applets and Android apps are two very different things, they are both written in the same language, Java.
So yeah, Microsoft can still use HTML5 to lock in people into their product, so long as the HTML targets Metro and not the web. Granted it *might* make it easier for one to port from Metro to Web and that's exactly what Microsoft is trying to sell. I don't know how exactly true that is however. But HTML+JS for Metro and HTML+JS for Web are two different things with the same language. Pass it on.
First the Compact Framework is crap and pretty limited in comparison to what WinRT is suppose to offer. So I dare say (and this is me just guessing so don't take it as the honest truth, because what do I know?) that developers are going to want to target the option that has the most options with the most platforms, and thus they are going to really look at WinRT (ARM and Wintel + most options in common compared to everything else) as opposed to CF.
Don't get me wrong CF will still have a lot of uses. Just not consumer based, CF will become mostly a industry thing, much like Java has become (the platform, not the language).
Second, legacy applications are going to have a pretty rough transition and the desktop version of Windows 8 is suppose to be there and help this out. This is why I think tablet Win8 is dumb. We all know that it is going to take a lot of time before vendors can really bring their wares to WinRT, most likely some won't make the jump at all. That's always going to put a divide between desktop and tablet. That's going to make their unified concept look mighty dumb. I hate to say it, in fact if you see me you can have a free punch, but Apple is correct. Desktops and Tablets are different and need different platforms. WinRT will make developers fume with anger as they find that they want to target as many people as they can but suddenly they can't find parity with tablet and desktop Windows versions. Developers are going to ask, why even have this unified looking OS to begin with?!
I know for a fact that native isn't dead. I think the better way to state it is, native isn't consumer anymore. I think any tech company that forgets this has doomed themselves. Business is still going to need (if not in fact demand) native code. I think tablet focuses heavily on consumer, and aiming the OS to be tablet and desktop second is aiming the OS to be consumer. XP was such a great hit because it aimed at business first and brought some consumer added features. It was build on NT which was the "business" OS, it had business features with friendly polish.
In the end I think that tablet has been blown out of the water. Desktop isn't dead, neither is native code, but with more and more non-tech users moving onto the Internet and using computers, there has been a growing demand for consumer friendly devices. The tablet has the right mix to be this, but let's face it, it was a big uh-oh to think Joe six pack needed a full blown out computer. However consumers and businesses are all going to need stuff for consumers to consume, that's your desktops, that's your native code. That stuff isn't going anywhere, it's just not hot at the moment.
That' why I say that WinRT is going to be the target for most on Win8 and it's going to fail hardcore for legacy applications. CF is just another niche thing that Microsoft will eventually kill off, just like Silverlight (yeah I know they didn't kill it but have come as close to it as they can.) The fact that most vendors are going to be hitting native and WinRT for most of their products is going to make this whole unified Win8 think look dumb in the end. Also, the fear that Microsoft may very well kill off the Metro thing too at some point if they get bored with it. I wouldn't put it pass them, that if they see Win8 becoming a flop, that this whole Win8 fiasco disappears come Win9.
The real problem is that Sony totally blew at testing the WPA stack before release. This isn't altogether hard to fix, but it's time that could be taken away from their next great phone they want you to buy. Android vendors are hit and miss on this upgrade thing. Some vendors are really amazing at providing updates and some just blow. Being able to root one's phone is the only real salvation. So I don't think this deserves the hype to author is putting into this, Sony sucks, is there anyone of us surprised by this? Will they fix it? Who knows, maybe, however this is yet another reminder that this mobile stuff is still pretty new shit. Tread with caution.
When it comes to Microsoft, stay the course doesn't always happen. They killed COM,Silverlight and now they're on an HTML5 kick. Microsoft shifts platforms too much for anything to be a sure bet. App developers and in the know consumers stay away because if Windows Phone doesn't succeed, Microsoft will yet again change it all up again. Of course, in order for Windows Phone to succeed app developers and in the know consumers will have to buy into WP. (Chicken and egg)
Your common grade consumer doesn't care on a technical level about the damn thing. It usually has something to do with brand recognition, word of mouth suggestions from their more tech savvy friends, price point, or "ooooh shiny" factor. Microsoft is going to have the hardest time in this department (which is the largest) since no one knows about Windows Phone (in a relative sense, and that's mostly because the Lumina 900 commercials suck, but of course they would, Microsoft has one of the most shit filled ad departments ever., tech savvy people aren't suggesting it because of fear of being abandoned, the price point on the Lumina 900 is pretty good but there are a lot of Androids out there that are the same price, and the last thing the Lumina 900 has is "ooooh shiny" Apple's got the monopoly on that.
But yeah, Microsoft's history on products has been lousy. Rarely do they stand behind anything and on that point I'm very shaky about getting one. I don't want to be left in the digital dark ages because Microsoft found a new goal to go after.
In all likelihood, the extra profit will sit on the companies books or be doled out to upper management in the form of bonuses and other executive perks.
Exactly. I always like to poke holes in people's, free market, assumptions. With reducing the tax rate just ask the person, "if they do reduce the tax rate for lots of rich companies, why would they (sell their product cheaper, when you are already okay with paying more / hire more people when they already have enough people to make enough to meet demand?
My favorite is the "drill here, drill now" group. "If they did open the gulf up, why would the oil companies sell the oil in the United States, when they can make more money in China or in Europe?"
Yeah, never assume that a company will help its home country, because unlike the citizens of the country, a company can re-base its headquarters in another country.
Slashdot Mirror
I think everyone has glossed over the single most important feature in the Postgre SQL that they have refined in this release, IMHO. Ranged data types. Let's say you have a meeting schedule DB application. Well currently if you want to restrict a room between two times (start and stop) so that no one else can have the room during that time, you are going to have to write that logic in your application.
Postgre's range data type allows you to create unique checks on ranges of time. This can in two lines of code, do every single logic check that is needed to ensure no two people schedule the same room at the same time.
How this is not showing up on anyone's radar is beyond me, or maybe we all just use Outlook or Google Calendar now. However, the range types are not just limited to the application of time, but of anything that requires uniqueness along a linear fashion, as opposed to just checking to see if any other record matches the one that you are trying to insert.
As a 30-something Linux Fanboy, I am appalled at your sterotyping! Facts are: Microsoft is the technology mafia, Steve Jobs ate children, Linus' tears cure cancer, and Richard Stallman created the universe. I don't understand why you all still get it wrong?! Geez! You are just going to have to admit you are a shamless fanboi! (note difference between the i and y, the y is perfectly acceptable, the i are the ones that need to be put down.)
Grins!
I never understood why, if even just in the name of good architectural design, Linus was against it. Maybe it was cause he only thinks like a low level guy.
I'll see your question and raise you another question in about the same vein. "I never understood why, if even just in the name of making software good for end users, Miguel and his former GNOME team kept breaking everything in sight." Remove this option, change this paradigm, make this more confusing, and change this API, etc, etc etc... He switched over to Mono and tried to convince the world how awesome that platform was versus any other development platform out there. Not really worrying about others who disagreed with his stance.
Miguel going on a tirade about people breaking things first chance they get is a little like this conversation I heard this one time between a kettle and a pot. Had something to do with the color black. At no point did Linus say, that in order to to work with Linux you need to break your APIs every three to four weeks, it just needed to work with the exposed interface.
Binary compaibility is important to "closed software" not open source. It's not a priority for FOSS. That's why developers could not care less about it. It's the distros that should be the ones who worry about this kind of stuff. They pander to not only open source, but closed software as well. Trying to blame developers for the inability for commerical software to succeed on Linux, is a little like blaming the people who make the product, for a management team that cannot make up their mind about which product the people making products should be making.
Please note that the above is strictly my opinion and in no way should it be confused with reality, unless you feel that it reflects said reality that you also exist in.
I liked your reply the most. The key thing here is that what I'm getting at is something yet to come. So yes, it is just my fucking opinion. You can take it as that. However, here's the thing. Apple is all set to remove the smartphone market that doesn't include them. They'll keep Microsoft and RIM around to avoid antitrust, but do you really think they won't sue the utter shit out of them if they get over twenty percent of the market? Apple has made their Windows, they've made their Internet Explorer, that is the iPhone, that is the iPad. They have innovated to the apex, and now, they don't have to do another damn thing. They win, and now all that is left is to remove the completion to levels they see fit. We've all seen how this has played out thousands of times in multiple markets. All you have to do is get to the top, and then church anyone who tries to take a good share of the market. You mean to tell me that Apple is going to be the only company in the history of mankind to not pull this shit now that they have been made so bold? Seriously? Additional you can believe what you like about me, your answers sound like the kind Microsoft zombies gave back in the nineties. If you'd like to think I have no credibility, that's fine. I doubt you'll remember this conversation in ten years when everyone sighs as how shitty the iPhone 17 is just as shitty as the iPhone 8. But of course, it's either the iPhone or nothing. Finally, you can only say Microsoft's mono-culture wins, if the PC market wasn't in decline on the consumer side. It won't matter if they have a monopoly on desktops, if the only ones using desktops are the IT department. Additionally, you're trying to short change to make a point, which is a bit of trickery. You should include Mac sales vs PC sales, year over year before you shove your foot into your mouth. Trying to act like Macs aren't selling off the shelves does you no favor for credibility. Macs, iPhones, and iPads are mainstream, you sound, and I'm not calling you one but you sure do sound, like a Mac fanboi who thinks that Apple is fringe. No, Apple is the new "Man.". As the new Man they have got a lot of cleaning house to do, that's what I'm getting at, Apple will begin the march of the monopoly. Because investors will demand it, because people who think smart phones didn't exist before Apple will demand it, because if they want to continue this make believe world where they invented the iPhone in a complete vacuum they will have to do it... Apple has hit the tipping point of no return, they must become an abusive monopoly, they are too big, their stock price must hit a thousand per share, THEY ARE THE BEST EVER!!! Now they must continue to prove it, by year over year double digit growth, or else they'll loose it all and fall where Microsoft is. Same old cycle that's played out every twenty or so years. You think history suddenly won't repeat itself? Good luck with that.
Indeed Apple just became the most valuable company in the world, ever.
Let me just say this...With Apple now being where Microsoft was in value (and plus some now), and with Apple now suing everyone that they can get their hands on. Apple has become the new Microsoft of our age. You can almost smell the monopoly and abuse of their monopoly on the horizon. It's heart breaking and awesome to see history repeat itself.
Additionally, Apple has lost every shred of credibility in pretty much all of my circle of friends. Which I know, doesn't mean squat, but I believe that this may very well mark the start of the end for Apple. Once you become viewed as the tech bully of the world, you start to loose you're ability to attract good talent. You start to be viewed as, the creative versus The Man. I don't know any company that "won" people over by being on a platform of being "The Man".
Of course, that's just one reason why mono-culture has never won. However, please continue gushing about the iPhone and Apple like the MS fanbois of days long since past.
I hate to break the news to everyone, but six out of seven patents were upheld in the case. I'll give you all one guess as to which one was not upheld by the jury. Here's a clue, it rhymes with tounded mectangles.
People have generally started to regard him as smoke and start looking for fire.
That's not actually a fair view of Karl Rove. Smoke is indeed related to fire as some point. Karl Rove goes nosing into things that clearly do not relate to his position. No a better take on him would be to regard him as something totally unrelated. Say like scorpions to fire. You don't expect one with the other and the former is annoying as hell. However, I'll let the Slashdot crowd figure more interesting things to replace with scorpions.
Oh no, that's not at all what I meant in my reply. I don't think this is a disagree or agree kind of thing. By all means, I mean no harm to any comment that you might have posted. Sorry to have confused.
Each vendor follows pretty tightly to SQL standard with additions to SQL that separate them. The SQL standard has become most like OpenGL as opposed to ISO/C++ standard. SQL and OpenGL usually take the brightest ideas currently out there and just make them standard. That's why it feels the way as you commented.
That's pretty much rooted in SQL history. ISO SQL pretty much consists of a group who look at the extensions out there and write a standard around them. Whereas ISO/C++ is a group of engineers that sit around and postulate on how to best achieve a language that solves the current problems everyone is having, and elegantly describes an Object-Oriented Programming model.
That's why standards play such an important role with SQL. It allows you to quickly know which features are going to be implemented in the DB that you choose. I don't think I can ever go back to a database that doesn't implement SQL OVER, so that's always going to be something that I look for. Either a large amount of compliance with the standard or an explicit statement that says, "hey we support that!" It just assures me that the product that I'm getting is going to work the way I need it to work.
All the vendor specific stuff comes later. DB2 might have a way to optimize such and such function, however, it might be implemented in a vendor specific way. However, from the start I'm just going to know the standard way of doing something. If I can't do something the standard way, then there's little hope that I'm going to crack the docs and try to find the vendor specific way of doing it, unless I'm not the one who gets to call the shots and thus I *have* to look it up.
That's what makes and breaks. Stuff needs to be easy for newbies and it needs to well documented or follows the standard closely so that everyone feels comfortable with going to any old site. MySQL won a lot of hearts by being insanely easy to administer and they added icing to the cake by making the thing insanely easy to scale out. However, those two points aren't winning many hearts now. Postgresql has pretty similar to MySQL documentation now, DB2 has pretty similar documentation as well, plus they've really gone back and refined a lot of their admin tools. Even Microsoft has gone back and made a serious investment in making their SQL server a product that one can jump in, do some real work, and jump back out again. Basically, the points that won a lot of hearts with MySQL are starting to be matched by the other guys.
That's what makes SQL standard compliance pretty important, it tells you exactly which one of those really neat SQL functions, your software supports. Vendor extensions are important as well but if I'm faced with either having to write a stored procedure or just use a well known SQL keyword, I'll choose the latter. You run into that more often than not, you start to value SQL standard more and more.
Oh no, you totally have an argument. DB2 has a lot of good time math but in certain cases. Are you having issues with timezones?! That's odd I don't tend to have issues like than but YMMV. Postgresql is really good with time math as well, but differently, if that makes sense. For me it "could" go either way. What version of DB2 are you using, your TZ issue sounds horrible. Maybe there's a fix for it? Let me know. Thanks!
Additionally, postgresql implements more of SQL99 than most others out there.
"Real" BOOLEAN support, CTE using WITH (which MySQL is actually the only real enterprise DB that doesn't offer this), support for FETCH cursors, HOLD cursors, one of the best implementations of date math (maybe only DB2 does this better), blows MySQL out of the water hands down on window functions (seriously MySQL, no SQL OVER support? REALLY?!), also (I know this may seem trivial) but MySQL doesn't even implement SQL OVERLAY.
In many ways postgresql brings a LOT of modern SQL to the table that it makes MySQL seem hokey, if not downright convoluted. I cannot speak for Oracle's 11g, but I've found postgresql just as capable at doing whatever it is I need to get done as I can in DB2, MS-SQL is just it's own beast altogether. However, MySQL lacks so much functionality that you constantly have to revert to procedures to get anything done.
Now I will say to MySQL's credit, that it is one of the easiest DBs to admin for and they support a good subset of SQL2003, but it's not enough, it leaves a lot to want for. I know a lot of people have invested a lot into MySQL, but the lack of a lot of modern functions that a lot of other DBs enjoy out of the box, makes using MySQL a chore to write for. Thank goodness it's easy to scale and admin, because if it didn't have that going for it, then we'd have LAPP stacks. However, this is just another pot shot for MySQL. Slowly closing source code, no test scripts, dodgy support for some of the most useful (IMHO) features of standard SQL. I don't want to diss anyone who works on the project, they have done a mighty nice job, but there are more and more negatives building up, that the scales are starting to tip in opposition to MySQL. No disrespect, but we're at that point that people on the fence are really going to look hard at the competition.
Finally, and totally off topic. IBM YOU SUCK! Seriously, you can't make a freaking function to create a CSV list from a set of rows?! I have to cast the result set to XML and then work backwards from there? Everyone else has one! I wouldn't curse you if I wasn't forced to use your product. There, glad I got to air that out.
It's not a lack. It's libraries that can be used on every platform. As in, I can select one library and it have the same interface on every platform. Usually when going between Windows and anybody else, the API changes on you with a given library. However, that's really not a fault of Qt or C++, but more along the lines that Window's libraries wanting to do things their way.
I've not run into a problem where I needed to do something and a library simply not exist for a given platform. It's just having to do IFDEFs to work around platforms that I speak about. That doesn't really exist in the Java world, but then again, I believe it to be more of a function of the person who controls the platform as opposed to the platform itself.
We have multiple Qt applications at our company that are compiled across all the platforms that we use. Apple, Microsoft, and Linux boxen. We have two camps in our company. One is of the Java school and the other is of the Qt school. I can tell you that the Qt applications feel quicker, but the Java applications tend to be more flexible and have better selection of libraries that can be used on every platform.
Writing an interface for our AS/400 system in Qt wasn't especially pain-free, but it was a whole hell of a lot better than the RPG from whence it came.
QML is essentially JavaScript, with all its costs.
While not entirely untrue, your post is quite limited in scope. QML should first and foremost be used for the problem that it is addressing, user interfaces, not actions in those interfaces. Agreed that using JavaScript within QML is a quick way of getting things done at the cost of more cycles on your CPU, however, simple tasks should not be entirely excluded. The JS engine that powers QML is made for quick one off operations that affect the UI. Implementing your applications logic at the QML level is strongly discouraged.
That is the main focus one should keep with QML, UI centric. If a programmer finds themselves doing complex testing within the JS environment they should really consider allowing the logic to be implemented in C++. Doing so is quite easy so it should become the preferred method for logic in QML applications. Remember, and I cannot stress it enough, QML is UI centric.
That brings me to the point of why QML is what it is. Many people have for years developed Qt applications with the old UI XML format and then loaded said XML via C++ code. Loading the XML created a C++ tree of what you described and then the tree could be handled by your usual C++ methods. However, the XML format for UI did not lend itself to easy operations. The cost of code required to do any single thing was equal (in access terms) to everything else. The tree had to be access, widget pulled, methods called, and so on. Reference pointers usually would be created to common widgets in an application that had a lot of action on them. With the QML engine, some of those one off operations can be implemented into the QML itself, saving the back and forth with C++. That said, the point here is that with QML, yes you loose a little cycle time to the engine, but you gain in the cycles and memory with the reference pointers for one off tasks.
I know, I keep hammering this one off gong, I apologize for that. However, I think it is one of the strongest motivators for QML adoption, IMHO. QML allows more flexibility between UI and logic, makes code more readable and easier to maintain, and can allow less C++ savvy people who don't want to muck with UI code get to the point in implementing rich UIs. However, and I'll say it again, QML is UI centric and that's where people should keep it.
I think you would have a very valid point with people who may come into Qt development and think that "Oh Gee! JavaScript! Now I am hackerz!" and start coding up a storm in JS thinking their application will run just as smooth as any other. There is always going to be that crowd, but they alone should not reduce the merit of what QML is accomplishing here.
I won't sit here and try to sugar coat QML, it is what it is. For better or worst it is where Qt is heading and it has many pros and cons to evaluate when you code your next Qt application. The good thing here is that QML isn't being force upon new developers. UI access code APIs are still there for those that want to, and in some cases should, use them. I don't see QML as an end of the world or road for Qt, but as a tool that should be carefully considered when starting a new Qt project. It offers the ability to quickly develop UI code with C++ code driving the logic and could mean the difference between weeks shaved off development time in trade for a little more overhead; versus a project that dies in inertia and headache UI logic for some of the simplest of tasks. The article deals with KWin and it exposing the needed interface for "QMLing" it. I doubt, but I have not reviewed the code here so I could stand to be wrong, but I doubt that the developers for KWin have made gross assumptions on how those binding should interact with the underlying code that could render brain-dead stubs that increase the overhead by huge margins. Instead I think, nay feel, that the KWin developers are pretty confident that in most cases QML window widgets wil
Right just like how democracy puts you at the mercy of the majority. Unless of course, you're in that majority and it's the minority (who once was the majority) that went ape shit crazy and changed everything.
I dislike people who translate "Not at the mercy of someone else" to equal "One must support the entire stack all by-themselves." To help you out, the statement is more akin to "Change favors popular demand." "Putting yourself at the mercy of someone else," being, the majority usually have no say in the process that a few engineers somewhere have decided on.
Does anyone really buy the crock that Microsoft touts with the new design of Windows 8 being something that was driven by customer demand? Because if you ask me, it looks like some senior member of staff was having a knee jerk reaction to a board meeting that brought up the question as to when Microsoft was going to actually start competing in the tablet market. Said member of staff ran down to software development and put everyone on notice about needing a new direction. Said direction not really involving any member of this planet outside that development group, most likely time being a contributing factor to the whole "not giving a damn about the public," mentality behind the development of the product. Just like anything a company does, you have to like this (at least publicly), because if you don't like it, then they won't like it, and if they don't like it, then they won't buy it, and if they don't buy it then you don't get a paycheck. Insert PR department and well I don't think I really have to explain the rest of the process. But, yeah, that's the feeling I get when I boot up that consumer preview of this load that Microsoft has "begiven" us all.
That's what that statement is all about, at no point does anyone outside of Microsoft have a say in the process. With open source, there exist the ability for the market of popular opinion to sway the leader. That's what that whole mercy/someone else thing is about. GNOME sucked so bad, that MATE, Cinnamon, and Unity were created. It will take some time for things to shake out, but at least two of these options will win out. I'm guessing Cinnamon and Unity (if I were to guess here, just my opinion.) Winning out is based on how many pissed off people vote with their usage of a particular use of an alternative. XFCE usage has risen pretty high and that has really bolstered the ranks of developers on that project. Just look at the length of time between 4.2 to 4.4 release and 4.8 to 4.10 release. You can see the people fleeing is really starting to pay dividends for XFCE. That's what us crazy FOSS people talk about with "not at the mercy of someone else."
I think the ideas that you conjure up are pretty artificial or subjective at best. Yes, there are a lot of people who use Aperture, but they submit their images to systems that eventually go to press machines and color control machines that are usually application specific devices, driven by an embedded version of Windows, or driven by Linux. You've just decided to look at one end of a total process and I call BS on that.
Free software doesn't exist in industries that does not involve computers itself.
No that's just a load. That's like saying a hammer doesn't exist in industries that do not lend themselves to needing a hammer, or cameras do not exist in industries that do not involve shooting pictures. Linux is in a lot of places that are not computer specific, try the New York Stock Exchange. However, by your argument one could say, well that statement is true, because the Linux part of NYSE is strictly in the concept of dealing with all the computer transactions and so forth. Which is why I say your argument is a load. You've wording it in such a manner, that the system would have to be by itself in the middle of a forest in order to be shown as incorrect.
Connections between different systems has become just as important as the systems themselves. How many shops would exist if they only stuck to Aperture and had no web stack? When they do go to the web, the likelihood that their provider will be using LAMP, is pretty high. I don't care how awesome Aperture is, if you can't get that awesome picture to another machine, you're hosed.
That's were I think you've missed the point, and trust me, I know plenty of people who think exactly like you. I won't say your wrong but it's just shortsightedness. Sharing information between machines is just as important as the machine that creates the content. The majority of machines that move content on this planet are open source machines. In the context in which we are talking about, I can assure you, that a Linux workstations is about as good as any Windows or Mac workstation. Yeah, there are specific industries that require specific software. Macs dominate my company's legal and PR departments; Linux dominates the financial, AS400, are inventory control departments; Windows pretty much runs the HR and engineer's departments, along with the senior staff. We've got a mix of AS400 servers, Linux servers, and a couple of Windows servers. So each department has exactly the OS that fits their needs the best. General workstations are about a 35%/65% blend of Linux/Windows.
The parent of this whole topic has a point. Linux is just as good as Windows and Mac at general tasks. There is always going to be specific software that is required for a specific need, people are just going to have to get over themselves. One could easily toss that argument back into one's face. Aperture is only on Macs, but MS Access is only for Windows, so Windows rocks because real work is done in RDBMS. Or whatever. Then you get whiny people who chime in, "oh yeah?! Well Macs have File Maker Pro, so ha!" And so on, and so on...
So please, save us all the "well Linux doesn't have any specific software in _______ (insert some really specific industry) and thus is totally crap because they don't produce software for this one industry." No one OS serves every single freaking industry on this planet, just get over it. We're talking in general terms here buddy. Which all three of the major OSes serve quite well in.
I'm actually shocked that no one has posted this, but keeping the boxes to high dollar items is a very good idea. High dollar stuff tends to vanish or worst yet, gets taken by bashing your back door in while you're at work. Boxes have serial numbers on them and they serve as proof of purchase when you go to the insurance company. Most states have pawn registries that allow the police to put a watch out at all certified pawn stores for your stolen goods, however, you have to have the serial number for that to work.
I thought I would give it some time for someone to chime in here, but apparently no one even came close to thinking about it. If you have insurance, you owe it to yourself to save the boxes for your high dollar items. It makes dealing with insurance companies a whole hell of a lot easier.
Okay so he's got Laryngitis or something similar. Why the hell are people thinking this is news? I get Laryngitis from acid reflux from time to time, a couple of weeks Zantec usually clears it up, and I'm good for like the rest of the year.
I hate making Steve Jobs references, but I think news media is still hung up on mysterious health issues equaling pancreatic cancer or some similar terminal disease. Dude is unable to talk, and the company reports that it is not serious like most other health issues. For all we know the inability to speak is due to some contagious pathogen and he just wants to lay low so no one gets it, while he gets over it. I'm sure when Page was contemplating taking a leave of absence for a little spell, he didn't realize that he needed a press release to go along with it.
Of course there is the alternative theory could be that Page just had his meditation chamber installed and he's taking it for a spin. You know, if you're in that camp where Google is evil and all.
XNA, based on .NET CF, is still the only way for a micro-ISV to target a game console
I won't say that the statement is correct, but it is not 100% incorrect. As .NET CF is *a* way for micro-ISVs, it is hardly the *only* way. Nor is it the most popular way. However, you are correct that it is indeed a way. However, that doesn't render the fact that I said that CF will be rendered industry heavy, niche serving mostly, incorrect. The hotness is mobile development and that's where units are moving. Gaming is still big, but it's not moving like the mobile market. You can clearly see that the gaming industry is playing catch up to this mobile market with things like PS Vita, and WP7 Xbox integration.
.NET devices that are used in single purpose/single application type environments.
So again, you are correct sort of, and your argument is like a pebble compared to the momentum of the avalanche that we are talking about. I know everyone loves tossing "oh but then there is gaming!" argument like it is nobodies business. However, even that market is getting pressure for the mobile market. So if gaming is feeling the heat, how for sure is CF going to stay dominant in that market? If you ask me not long before micro-ISVs (who are a dime a dozen) switch over to the next best thing. Being a small time software vendor means having to have the ability to quickly change. If CF only serves them (which it doesn't) then CF doesn't have a ghost of a chance then. The salvation of CF is legacy
What's the big difference in practice between a subnotebook and a tablet docked to a keyboard?
It's not the device that I'm talking about, I'm talking about the mindset. Desktops and tablets need different OSes because they are *used* differently. Let's say I'm on a bus. Now, if I want to make a quick edit to a spreadsheet or just review it for a couple of more minutes during my commute, the tablet is great. Why? I don't need a keyboard, I don't have to take up more physical space then I really need to. The Tablet is most likely instant on, and getting to the document takes like two taps. A laptop, desktop, whatever... Bootup, keyboard in the way, log in, my documents, some other folder, application starting up, stupid bubbles about something that Window's wants to inform me on, application finally started, now I can use the 3.5 inch trackpad to view my document... PASS.
Yeah we can shoehorn crap on to crap all day long. That's the wonderful thing about technology. There is no limit to what we can say something is, and duct tape some more junk on it and call it something else. However, the point is the use. The difference between a laptop and a tablet with a keyboard physically is next to none, but experience you better believe its like day and night. That's why Win8's unified approach is just jarring to say the least. Why would I want a tablet that is as slow and clunky as my desktop? Why would I want a desktop that is as limited as my tablet? It just makes no sense and no I don't grant Microsoft the wherewithal to be able to overcome how jarring this whole thing sounds. It's most likely half baked (at least form the Win8 previews I've seen) and the thing Microsoft needs the most at this point in the game is to knock it out of the ballpark. Anything less is going to make share holders start looking at other options.
Do you want a device only to view works or also to create works?
Again, here's the thing, we can shoehorn whatever on whatever. AIDE is great and all, but where's the audience? Hell, I've got AIDE installed on my tablet, want to know how many times I've fired it up? Twice. Anything I want to do, I do in Eclipse or worst case, I open up a text editor on the tablet. AIDE is like the shawshank redemption, yeah I could tunnel out of prison with a tiny rock hammer. However, it's silly to do so when they also put a jac
Um, no. I don't know of any other JS engine that implements the WinRT namespace. The Chakra JS engine is what will separate any browser from being able to run Metro apps. A metro app isn't a web app, it is important that people understand this. Even though the two are written in the same language, they are not the same thing. Just like Java applets and Android apps are two very different things, they are both written in the same language, Java.
So yeah, Microsoft can still use HTML5 to lock in people into their product, so long as the HTML targets Metro and not the web. Granted it *might* make it easier for one to port from Metro to Web and that's exactly what Microsoft is trying to sell. I don't know how exactly true that is however. But HTML+JS for Metro and HTML+JS for Web are two different things with the same language. Pass it on.
First the Compact Framework is crap and pretty limited in comparison to what WinRT is suppose to offer. So I dare say (and this is me just guessing so don't take it as the honest truth, because what do I know?) that developers are going to want to target the option that has the most options with the most platforms, and thus they are going to really look at WinRT (ARM and Wintel + most options in common compared to everything else) as opposed to CF.
Don't get me wrong CF will still have a lot of uses. Just not consumer based, CF will become mostly a industry thing, much like Java has become (the platform, not the language).
Second, legacy applications are going to have a pretty rough transition and the desktop version of Windows 8 is suppose to be there and help this out. This is why I think tablet Win8 is dumb. We all know that it is going to take a lot of time before vendors can really bring their wares to WinRT, most likely some won't make the jump at all. That's always going to put a divide between desktop and tablet. That's going to make their unified concept look mighty dumb. I hate to say it, in fact if you see me you can have a free punch, but Apple is correct. Desktops and Tablets are different and need different platforms. WinRT will make developers fume with anger as they find that they want to target as many people as they can but suddenly they can't find parity with tablet and desktop Windows versions. Developers are going to ask, why even have this unified looking OS to begin with?!
I know for a fact that native isn't dead. I think the better way to state it is, native isn't consumer anymore. I think any tech company that forgets this has doomed themselves. Business is still going to need (if not in fact demand) native code. I think tablet focuses heavily on consumer, and aiming the OS to be tablet and desktop second is aiming the OS to be consumer. XP was such a great hit because it aimed at business first and brought some consumer added features. It was build on NT which was the "business" OS, it had business features with friendly polish.
In the end I think that tablet has been blown out of the water. Desktop isn't dead, neither is native code, but with more and more non-tech users moving onto the Internet and using computers, there has been a growing demand for consumer friendly devices. The tablet has the right mix to be this, but let's face it, it was a big uh-oh to think Joe six pack needed a full blown out computer. However consumers and businesses are all going to need stuff for consumers to consume, that's your desktops, that's your native code. That stuff isn't going anywhere, it's just not hot at the moment.
That' why I say that WinRT is going to be the target for most on Win8 and it's going to fail hardcore for legacy applications. CF is just another niche thing that Microsoft will eventually kill off, just like Silverlight (yeah I know they didn't kill it but have come as close to it as they can.) The fact that most vendors are going to be hitting native and WinRT for most of their products is going to make this whole unified Win8 think look dumb in the end. Also, the fear that Microsoft may very well kill off the Metro thing too at some point if they get bored with it. I wouldn't put it pass them, that if they see Win8 becoming a flop, that this whole Win8 fiasco disappears come Win9.
I have to agree, it sounds like that guy was indeed talking about Microsoft writing a VM for CIL as oppose to any VM in general or specifically.
Sony sucks at proper software upgrades.
The real problem is that Sony totally blew at testing the WPA stack before release. This isn't altogether hard to fix, but it's time that could be taken away from their next great phone they want you to buy. Android vendors are hit and miss on this upgrade thing. Some vendors are really amazing at providing updates and some just blow. Being able to root one's phone is the only real salvation. So I don't think this deserves the hype to author is putting into this, Sony sucks, is there anyone of us surprised by this? Will they fix it? Who knows, maybe, however this is yet another reminder that this mobile stuff is still pretty new shit. Tread with caution.
When it comes to Microsoft, stay the course doesn't always happen. They killed COM,Silverlight and now they're on an HTML5 kick. Microsoft shifts platforms too much for anything to be a sure bet. App developers and in the know consumers stay away because if Windows Phone doesn't succeed, Microsoft will yet again change it all up again. Of course, in order for Windows Phone to succeed app developers and in the know consumers will have to buy into WP. (Chicken and egg)
Your common grade consumer doesn't care on a technical level about the damn thing. It usually has something to do with brand recognition, word of mouth suggestions from their more tech savvy friends, price point, or "ooooh shiny" factor. Microsoft is going to have the hardest time in this department (which is the largest) since no one knows about Windows Phone (in a relative sense, and that's mostly because the Lumina 900 commercials suck, but of course they would, Microsoft has one of the most shit filled ad departments ever., tech savvy people aren't suggesting it because of fear of being abandoned, the price point on the Lumina 900 is pretty good but there are a lot of Androids out there that are the same price, and the last thing the Lumina 900 has is "ooooh shiny" Apple's got the monopoly on that.
But yeah, Microsoft's history on products has been lousy. Rarely do they stand behind anything and on that point I'm very shaky about getting one. I don't want to be left in the digital dark ages because Microsoft found a new goal to go after.
In all likelihood, the extra profit will sit on the companies books or be doled out to upper management in the form of bonuses and other executive perks.
Exactly. I always like to poke holes in people's, free market, assumptions. With reducing the tax rate just ask the person, "if they do reduce the tax rate for lots of rich companies, why would they (sell their product cheaper, when you are already okay with paying more / hire more people when they already have enough people to make enough to meet demand?
My favorite is the "drill here, drill now" group. "If they did open the gulf up, why would the oil companies sell the oil in the United States, when they can make more money in China or in Europe?"
Yeah, never assume that a company will help its home country, because unlike the citizens of the country, a company can re-base its headquarters in another country.
Don't know, I click stuff on Slashdot all the time and not really know wtf I just hit. Nothing personal.