No, your statistics are measuring web traffic to certain mobile websites, including those that provide J2ME apps - which would be significantly biased towards J2ME-only phones and biased towards phones with J2ME capability.
Nokia is actually losingmarketshare, both overall and in the smartphone market. RIM and Apple's sales are growing in the smartphone market, but Apple is really close to RIM (see the third link). Nokia is losing low-end market share to Korean manufacturers in particular (Samsung and LG).
No. The statistics on that page are not actual market share statistics, but are collected by counting web traffic from certain mobile websites. These kinds of statistics probably underestimate the usage of iPhone, Android, WebOS, and other phones that come with full web browsers, since these devices need not use specially designed mobile websites.
For less than $100 more you can get a much more capable x86 system. The Dell Zino HD starts at $249 and comes with a 1.6 GHz Athlon, 2 GB of RAM, 250 GB HD, and Radeon HD 3200 graphics.
If power usage is not limited by battery life, ARM hasn't been truly competitive with Intel (or AMD or IBM) for a long time. I don't think there any ARM CPUs that are even close to having as much performance as a dual-core Atom, let alone something based on the Core or Nehalem microarchitecture.
I don't know about anyone else but every person I know who uses drugs on a regular basis is a complete moron and doesn't have anything better to do than getting doped up and hanging out and talking with their friends for hours about nothing.
You never know who might be using stimulants (amphetamines, methamphetamine, methylphenidate, modafinil) - all are available with prescription, and with the probable exception of methamphetamine, are stocked in most pharmacies.
He is referring to Microsoft's Exchange ActiveSync protocol, which runs over https and provides push mail, calendaring, contacts, and has more management features than using IMAP(S) alone. There's no need to use any Microsoft software at all to use the protocol: it's implemented by open source products and by Google.
But wouldn't that be more overhead (passing an object) because now the application accepting said list of files has to understand the structure of passed object in order to process it correctly, where in Linux you simply pass text/streams as specified by the accepting application. These applications can be written by anyone with no prior knowledge of the object structure of another application that may be sending it information.
This isn't 1970; the overhead for passing labels is going to be minimal, and via reflection, functions need not know the structure of data that passes through them.
I suppose that's all fine and well if you are working on a system where there's only one contributor, but what happens down the road if the structures change? Now all the tools that used that structure must be changed.
What happens when a UNIX utility's behavior changes or is inconsistent between operating systems, such as the differences between SVR, BSD, and GNU utilities?
Anyone care to point out to me how PowerShell can be more "integrated" than bash? Unless he's talking about the fact that you can replace Bash if you like and you probably can't replace Powershell.
PowerShell operates using objects, so you can take the output from a command and then filter or sort based on columns of the output. The same filtering or sorting commands could be used for listing files, processes, or any other objects. Unix scripting operates using text streams being piped between processes and has a heavy emphasis on external processes (for example, as in the external [ or test program).
Like I said, bloat. Next you'll be claiming VB is fit for actual use.
Do you have any technical arguments regarding ASP.NET, or just bias and sarcasm based on a product last updated in 1998?
That wouldn't be included in the language any more than PHP which is far more tuned to the web than any of those languages.
Indeed. But people use frameworks with these languages. How many PHP developers use any frameworks? Many don't.
It claims to be. Microsoft jumps through a lot of hoops to run their own software and they aren't above hacks to make it happen. Just look back at when they were caught running all their web services using BSD.
Citation needed. Hotmail started on FreeBSD and some of their outsourced services (like caching via Akamai) may use Linux.
The overhead isn't in code generation, the overhead is in the bloated inefficient code that is generated. Targeted granular usage tailored and specific code is always going to be more efficient than general purpose code.
So you know about every system in existence and know they all generate inefficient code?
The more general and larger the function the general purpose code is supposed to fit, the more bloated and less efficient it needs to be to be. Every potential scenario that code needs to cover requires trade offs in performance an efficiency.
In this case, using SQL on a web application is a huge source of inefficiency. Those queries need to be passed from the client to the server, and then the server needs to parse them and then figure out how to return the data... so bloated and inefficient. Why don't they just use custom data structures instead?
In a small site that may not matter, but that bloat and inefficiency adds overhead that increases as the site scales.
And if that's the case, the inefficient parts of any code can be rewritten or replaced.
I don't think I would WANT that level of generic coding applied. The bloat would be phenomenal. I seriously doubt you could name such as platform/framework that could scale to slashdot or facebook level traffic.
I've described features in ASP.NET and in many frameworks for Java, Ruby, Python, etc... There's nothing really bloated about any of these features. The code only needs to be generated once. As for sites that can scale to these levels of traffic: Just about everything Microsoft does is in ASP.NET. MySpace moved to ASP.NET. There are many commercial sites using Java. Java and ASP.NET will compile entire pages to JVM/CLR bytecode.
Yeah.. that's pretty much all there is to server side web development.
Other web platforms/frameworks often have features like automatic forms processing and validation, automatic generation of CRUD pages based on a database schema, built-in user authentication and security, etc. as well as more sophisticated templating support.
There are many PHP libraries providing such functionality. But what comes with PHP out of the box is rather limited.
Absolutely. And PHP does it. That's why it's so popular. There may be even more that can be done but if no popular language is doing it already that argument is kind of pointless.
PHP is simpler than using some language without any builtin Web support. But its web functionality isn't much more sophisticated than what was in CGI libraries a decade ago. You neglected to address the specific examples of things that other systems do that make web development significantly easier.
No he doesn't. You might not like scripting / dynamic languages but taking the best (or a good stab at taking the best) of scripting, C and perl can actually make some things more straight-forward. Need a regular expression? Used to function calls rather can syntactical regex? Need perl regex? preg_match.
Patently missing the point. PHP and Apache go together so well it created the LAMP mindshare space.
There was no point to miss. The first post stated as fact that PHP was built to integrate with Apache from the start. Not that PHP works well with Apache or is commonly used with it. PHP and Apache are easily separated, and PHP applications can be used on any web server supporting CGI/FastCGI.
Who cares? His point is startup cost which is generally higher for forks vs modules and you're just plain going to get more scalability compared to the traditional perl cgi forking method. Hence mod_perl.
The poster asserted that PHP was built to integrate with Apache from the start (which is false) and that mod_perl is a "hack". Both are false. I also mentioned some of the problems with using the in-progress approach of mod_php.
And that's why mod_perl is a hack, while mod_php is just a module.
In no way does it make mod_perl a hack. mod_perl simply has more functionality than mod_php or any CGI environment can provide. It enables Perl to be used to extend the web server, whereas mod_php just lets you run PHP code in the same process instead of having to use CGI.
It's got a very rich set of features that are aimed straight at making web development dead simple.
No, features that make web development "dead simple" are those that actually do something to make web development simpler - such as built-in form input validation based on a set of easy to define rules, or generating a set of pages to create/read/update/delete data based on a database schema.
The syntax is fairly straightforward and familiar, being a typical mishmash of shell scripting, C and perlisms.
You contradict yourself.
It was built from day one to integrate with Apache, it's not a nasty bolt-on hack like mod_perl.
Patently false. PHP has no dependency on Apache now, it originally used CGI, and continues to support CGI, FastCGI, and operation as a module in web servers other than Apache (such as IIS). The CGI startup overhead problem has many solutions, such as FastCGI, AJP, proxying, etc.
It's in-process so there's no startup overhead like with CGI
But "not in-process" does not imply the use of CGI, and it does not imply the use of any system with long loading times. Furthermore, "in-process" is potentially insecure and can be less reliable - as all code runs in the same process.
Actually, most desktop people who are just after ease of use end up using Excel:)
This is true; I actually thought about saying Excel instead of Access. I chose Access because it actually is a relational database.
When used with SharePoint, Access 2007/2010 is easier - SharePoint will automatically create an Access database using SharePoint lists/libraries as tables, and Access will synchronize the content. Setting up a custom SharePoint list (or customizing an existing one) isn't too difficult - certainly easier than creating a table in Access. This is perhaps one of the easiest ways to set up a database, albeit a rather limited one.
They aren't really intended to be used in this way, but SharePoint lists/libraries can form something that resembles a simple relational database.
counts for something != counts for everything but nice try
I can't think of many criteria in which PostgreSQL is lacking compared to MySQL. In my experience, MySQL is "easier to use" only in that the default security configuration on some distribution packages is easier to understand.
Very few, I imagine. The Zino is Energy Star compliant. From what I can see, it uses at most 40 W when streaming video over the Internet (probably H.264 being decoded by the CPU, not by the GPU) - that's less than my DVR uses when idle. With an Energy Star compliant power supply, suspend to RAM it should consume less than 10 W.
H.264 decoding by NVidia cards is locked away to only a few companies. There are no docs or specs available to open source developers. Moan to NVidia, they can release API docs tomorrow, and within a few days the active open source video players will add hardware decoding on NV cards that support it when using NV's proprietary drivers.
Why are you telling me this? I was specifically describing a problem with OS X, which supports accelerated H.264 decoding only on the nVidia GeForce 9400M IGP (as in my MBP). OS X does not support decoding on older nVidia GeForce (8000 series) or ATI Radeon (2000 series and newer), even though most/all of these cards have HW decoding support and have working acceleration out of the box in Windows 7 (just add a MKV demultiplexer, and if the GPU is too new for Windows to have one built-in, the display driver.)
Furthermore, if you read my message I stated that a Windows player is able to play the same video without hardware decoding on the same system on which Mac OS X cannot.
If you want 1080p mkv on your nice TV, scrap the computer, buy a dedicated media player for $300. They use Sigma ICs that are used in blu-ray players, they also happen to have mkv support and ethernet built into simple linux devices. Check out Netgear's EVA9000 range and it's competitors. Life is so much simpler when you do.
I use a PC with Windows instead.
$300 is enough to get a PC with hardware decoding and Windows 7, which will do a lot more. The Dell Zino HD with Windows 7 costs $259 retail, and its GPU has H.264, VC-1, and MPEG-2 decoding.
Slashdot Mirror
Nokia's market share overall has been falling, and Samsung and LG's growing.
No, your statistics are measuring web traffic to certain mobile websites, including those that provide J2ME apps - which would be significantly biased towards J2ME-only phones and biased towards phones with J2ME capability.
Nokia is actually losing market share, both overall and in the smartphone market. RIM and Apple's sales are growing in the smartphone market, but Apple is really close to RIM (see the third link). Nokia is losing low-end market share to Korean manufacturers in particular (Samsung and LG).
No. The statistics on that page are not actual market share statistics, but are collected by counting web traffic from certain mobile websites. These kinds of statistics probably underestimate the usage of iPhone, Android, WebOS, and other phones that come with full web browsers, since these devices need not use specially designed mobile websites.
For less than $100 more you can get a much more capable x86 system. The Dell Zino HD starts at $249 and comes with a 1.6 GHz Athlon, 2 GB of RAM, 250 GB HD, and Radeon HD 3200 graphics.
If power usage is not limited by battery life, ARM hasn't been truly competitive with Intel (or AMD or IBM) for a long time. I don't think there any ARM CPUs that are even close to having as much performance as a dual-core Atom, let alone something based on the Core or Nehalem microarchitecture.
You never know who might be using stimulants (amphetamines, methamphetamine, methylphenidate, modafinil) - all are available with prescription, and with the probable exception of methamphetamine, are stocked in most pharmacies.
Who uses POP/IMAP when there's ActiveSync?
He is referring to Microsoft's Exchange ActiveSync protocol, which runs over https and provides push mail, calendaring, contacts, and has more management features than using IMAP(S) alone. There's no need to use any Microsoft software at all to use the protocol: it's implemented by open source products and by Google.
The -r flag to cp is implementation specific and obsolete in POSIX:2004 and no longer in in POSIX:2008.
Neither are part of POSIX.
Like what? I think it's the other way around, and BSD and GNU ps often support nonstandard behavior.
It doesn't. BSD and OS X usually have BSD derived tools too, although with more nonstandard extensions.
This isn't 1970; the overhead for passing labels is going to be minimal, and via
reflection, functions need not know the structure of data that passes through them.
What happens when a UNIX utility's behavior changes or is inconsistent between operating systems, such as the differences between SVR, BSD, and GNU utilities?
I would argue it's simply not polluted with nonstandard GNU extensions...
PowerShell operates using objects, so you can take the output from a command and then filter or sort based on columns of the output. The same filtering or sorting commands could be used for listing files, processes, or any other objects. Unix scripting operates using text streams being piped between processes and has a heavy emphasis on external processes (for example, as in the external [ or test program).
Makes no sense: the 945G and variants had a GMA 950.
Do you have any technical arguments regarding ASP.NET, or just bias and sarcasm based on a product last updated in 1998?
Indeed. But people use frameworks with these languages. How many PHP developers use any frameworks? Many don't.
Citation needed.
Hotmail started on FreeBSD and some of their outsourced services (like caching via Akamai) may use Linux.
So you know about every system in existence and know they all generate inefficient code?
In this case, using SQL on a web application is a huge source of inefficiency. Those queries need to be passed from the client to the server, and then the server needs to parse them and then figure out how to return the data... so bloated and inefficient. Why don't they just use custom data structures instead?
And if that's the case, the inefficient parts of any code can be rewritten or replaced.
I've described features in ASP.NET and in many frameworks for Java, Ruby, Python, etc... There's nothing really bloated about any of these features. The code only needs to be generated once. As for sites that can scale to these levels of traffic: Just about everything Microsoft does is in ASP.NET. MySpace moved to ASP.NET. There are many commercial sites using Java.
Java and ASP.NET will compile entire pages to JVM/CLR bytecode.
Other web platforms/frameworks often have features like automatic forms processing and validation, automatic generation of CRUD pages based on a database schema, built-in user authentication and security, etc. as well as more sophisticated templating support.
There are many PHP libraries providing such functionality. But what comes with PHP out of the box is rather limited.
PHP is simpler than using some language without any builtin Web support. But its web functionality isn't much more sophisticated than what was in CGI libraries a decade ago. You neglected to address the specific examples of things that other systems do that make web development significantly easier.
There is nothing straightforward about much of PHP.
There was no point to miss. The first post stated as fact that PHP was built to integrate with Apache from the start. Not that PHP works well with Apache or is commonly used with it. PHP and Apache are easily separated, and PHP applications can be used on any web server supporting CGI/FastCGI.
The poster asserted that PHP was built to integrate with Apache from the start (which is false) and that mod_perl is a "hack". Both are false. I also mentioned some of the problems with using the in-progress approach of mod_php.
In no way does it make mod_perl a hack. mod_perl simply has more functionality than mod_php or any CGI environment can provide. It enables Perl to be used to extend the web server, whereas mod_php just lets you run PHP code in the same process instead of having to use CGI.
No, features that make web development "dead simple" are those that actually do something to make web development simpler - such as built-in form input validation based on a set of easy to define rules, or generating a set of pages to create/read/update/delete data based on a database schema.
You contradict yourself.
Patently false. PHP has no dependency on Apache now, it originally used CGI, and continues to support CGI, FastCGI, and operation as a module in web servers other than Apache (such as IIS). The CGI startup overhead problem has many solutions, such as FastCGI, AJP, proxying, etc.
But "not in-process" does not imply the use of CGI, and it does not imply the use of any system with long loading times. Furthermore, "in-process" is potentially insecure and can be less reliable - as all code runs in the same process.
And you know this because... you have used one, right? The one you bought from a major retailer?
Oh.
This is true; I actually thought about saying Excel instead of Access. I chose Access because it actually is a relational database.
When used with SharePoint, Access 2007/2010 is easier - SharePoint will automatically create an Access database using SharePoint lists/libraries as tables, and Access will synchronize the content. Setting up a custom SharePoint list (or customizing an existing one) isn't too difficult - certainly easier than creating a table in Access. This is perhaps one of the easiest ways to set up a database, albeit a rather limited one.
They aren't really intended to be used in this way, but SharePoint lists/libraries can form something that resembles a simple relational database.
I can't think of many criteria in which PostgreSQL is lacking compared to MySQL. In my experience, MySQL is "easier to use" only in that the default security configuration on some distribution packages is easier to understand.
By that metric, MS Access wins every time...
Very few, I imagine. The Zino is Energy Star compliant. From what I can see, it uses at most 40 W when streaming video over the Internet (probably H.264 being decoded by the CPU, not by the GPU) - that's less than my DVR uses when idle.
With an Energy Star compliant power supply, suspend to RAM it should consume less than 10 W.
Why are you telling me this? I was specifically describing a problem with OS X, which supports accelerated H.264 decoding only on the nVidia GeForce 9400M IGP (as in my MBP). OS X does not support decoding on older nVidia GeForce (8000 series) or ATI Radeon (2000 series and newer), even though most/all of these cards have HW decoding support and have working acceleration out of the box in Windows 7 (just add a MKV demultiplexer, and if the GPU is too new for Windows to have one built-in, the display driver.)
Furthermore, if you read my message I stated that a Windows player is able to play the same video without hardware decoding on the same system on which Mac OS X cannot.
I use a PC with Windows instead.
$300 is enough to get a PC with hardware decoding and Windows 7, which will do a lot more. The Dell Zino HD with Windows 7 costs $259 retail, and its GPU has H.264, VC-1, and MPEG-2 decoding.