I think the really smart developers are porting their apps to the Blackberry store, the Android store, the Palm store, etc.
I've been thinking about getting into development (if there are other interested parties, feel free to contact me privately) and certainly that is the route I would take.
Even better, for some simple games obviously you just release for the various mobile platforms, but for web-based games using a third-party server, you can release the same game for Myspace, Facebook, your own third-party website, App Store, Android, Blackberry, and Palm.
The rich get richer. Browsing the App Store, you see the most popular apps at the top. There is no power search for apps with the highest user ratings. I really can't find what I'm looking for.
New app developers start at the bottom and have to compete against popular apps already ingrained at the top.
I'm writing for an App Review site right now that hopes to help alleviate that.
I don't run Ubuntu, but rather openSUSE. When I download updates (including weekly snapshot builds of KDE 4, Firefox and OpenOffice) I end up downloading around 3 gigs each time. That is practically the whole OS. Small binary diffs would make a huge difference here.
I doubt I pull 3 gigs of bandwidth from all Google sites combined in a week.
The other difference is that other Google sites generate revenue. The OS likely will not.
Google has to pay the cost for maintaining servers and handling bandwidth for all the OS updates they push out. The more efficient they are in this process, the more money the save.
The good news is that the same benefits could be applied to Red Hat, Ubuntu, openSUSE, etc. Lower costs helps the profitability of companies trying to make a profit on Linux.
The end users also see benefits in that their packages download quicker. I'd be honestly pretty disappointed in any major distro that doesn't start implementing a binary diff solution around this.
Your comment makes zero sense. A really good UT player can kill 5 other players as well. That has no relevance on whether or not AC has a good game engine.
You are insisting that you are good at playing AC, and that inherently makes the engine good.
Distros like openSUSE have been cutting staff do to the economy. In many ways, I think the Linux desktop is very close, but still has some obvious warts. Someone with the wallet and clout of Google can squash those warts. We may literally be looking at an OS launching next year that boots in 10 seconds, actually runs fast on a netbook with 1 gig of RAM (as opposed to the Vista Starer basic netbooks it will compete against) and will be vastly more secure.
However, I'm not sure Google is known for advertising. They should hire Apple's advertising firm. One thing I think is brilliant about Apple is their brief commercials where they simply demo a feature. Those iPhone commercials are simple, but brilliant. If Google can market this well, they could have a winner.
Chrome the browser wasn't much of an attack on IE. Is Chrome the OS an attack on Windows?
You can argue that Chrome the OS is more likely to cannibalize the Linux and Apple market. Consider that Chrome is supposed to be this fast, sleek, secure OS. It is built upon a posix-compliant kernel with a new windowing system thrown on top. Steve Jobs health is in question, Apple's stock keeps dipping and people are questioning the future of Apple. Honestly, I think Redmond is offended by Chrome. But Cupertino is the company that is more afraid.
Kubuntu is just terrible. They routinely ship broken packages. And I have a laundry list of gripes with plain Ubuntu to boot. I really don't get why they get all the hype and attention. Give this a spin for a day or two.
I just assume any corporation that large has separate teams that don't even really talk to each other.
For instance, a Microsoft evangelist once told me that the Outlook team is part of the Office team, and tied the Office release schedule. Even worse, they have minimal planning and communication with the Exchange team which is in a different division.
Google is a business that runs on Linux, but when they decided to develop a web browser, the chief developers were Windows-only guys who admitted they knew nothing about developing portable code, or developing on Linux.
The people who discussed an OS internally, have probably been doing so secretly on their own, without telling the whole company about it. Just like Chrome was fairly quiet for the first 2-3 years.
Chrome was in development for 3 years before annoucement. Many has suggested that the feature wasn't exactly a secret. Google said their main goal was to release the code completely open and encourage other browsers to use the concepts and features.
The entire OS will be open-source. So you can compile the whole thing. X isn't an issue.
People removed the Google-specific proprietary portions of the Chrome browser and started building "Iron" from the Chromium trunk. I imagine the same will happen with the OS right away.
Was 3.0 stable and feature rich? Was 2.0 stable and feature rich?
The release notes were clear in what features were included. It did not claim full feature parity with 3.5.9.
Don't claim this was an evil ploy to lie to you and trick you into using something you didn't want to.
I have 3.5.9 and 4.0 installed side by side. I basically never really went into the 4.0 session because it lacked features I wanted, but I integrated 4.0 apps into my 3.5.9 session.
Gnome has never once had a release with all the features I want. I doubt they ever will. Given a choice between the two, I GREATLY prefer KDE.
I can't even install Vista x64 without making my own install DVD with RAID drivers packaged in. I can't get any printer drivers period for my printers in x64 land.
Everything works for me out of the box in x64 land with Linux. I've been running 100% x64 in Linux for about 6 years now with no hassles.
In all fairness I think the two week promotion is still going on where you can preorder Windows 7 right now for $49.99. I actually preordered a legal copy.
I love me some Linux, but I like Windows 7 as well.
I am running Windows 7 on a Phenom X2 quad-core box and it pretty slow.
I admit I like the new taskbar a whole lot. Instead of just useless thumbnails for multiple explorer windows, now I can mouse over them to "peek" at them.
That being said, I've had a lot of trouble with 7. And at the end of the day, people still call me to clear spyware and viruses off their Vista boxes all the time. I am extremely reticent to call any version of Windows secure until I see real world evidence of a Windows box on the internet with real world use that is pretty secure. Sure I can install third-party anti-spyware or anti-virus apps, browse with Firefox, disable apps, use a HOSTS file, etc. to minimize risk. But I'm talking about Windows out of the box.
As for comparisons with Ubuntu, I'm the minority that loathes Gnome and loathes Ubuntu. I too prefer Windows to Ubuntu. KDE on openSUSE is another story.
Svartalf's point, that I agree with, is for the average desktop, the client/server model of Xorg doesn't make sense.
Xorg can't hit release dates, ship features they're promising, and is somewhat of a legacy mess. Thankfully they broke it into modular bits, but no one seems to be working that hard on Xorg. I think Canonical, Novell and Red Hat would be benefited by throwing some support into the Xorg upstream development
There is a little bit of promise in Xorg land these days with KMS, DRI2 and such, but Xorg is far from perfect for a 21st century desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the really smart developers are porting their apps to the Blackberry store, the Android store, the Palm store, etc.
I've been thinking about getting into development (if there are other interested parties, feel free to contact me privately) and certainly that is the route I would take.
Even better, for some simple games obviously you just release for the various mobile platforms, but for web-based games using a third-party server, you can release the same game for Myspace, Facebook, your own third-party website, App Store, Android, Blackberry, and Palm.
The rich get richer. Browsing the App Store, you see the most popular apps at the top. There is no power search for apps with the highest user ratings. I really can't find what I'm looking for.
New app developers start at the bottom and have to compete against popular apps already ingrained at the top.
I'm writing for an App Review site right now that hopes to help alleviate that.
I don't run Ubuntu, but rather openSUSE. When I download updates (including weekly snapshot builds of KDE 4, Firefox and OpenOffice) I end up downloading around 3 gigs each time. That is practically the whole OS. Small binary diffs would make a huge difference here.
I doubt I pull 3 gigs of bandwidth from all Google sites combined in a week.
The other difference is that other Google sites generate revenue. The OS likely will not.
Apparently plainly self-promoting is now considering trolling. Oh well.
Google has to pay the cost for maintaining servers and handling bandwidth for all the OS updates they push out. The more efficient they are in this process, the more money the save.
The good news is that the same benefits could be applied to Red Hat, Ubuntu, openSUSE, etc. Lower costs helps the profitability of companies trying to make a profit on Linux.
The end users also see benefits in that their packages download quicker. I'd be honestly pretty disappointed in any major distro that doesn't start implementing a binary diff solution around this.
I think we have about 1200 apps sitting in the review queue.
Use the submit form on the website and put in there attention T. J. Brumfield and I'll look for it.
Honestly, I'd like to see a comparison of professional engines, the common free engines, and XreaL.
http://xreal-project.net/
I don't know why XreaL doesn't get more attention.
Your comment makes zero sense. A really good UT player can kill 5 other players as well. That has no relevance on whether or not AC has a good game engine.
You are insisting that you are good at playing AC, and that inherently makes the engine good.
You fail at logic.
There is really a plethora of apps out there. http://www.iphoneappreviews.net/ helps sort through the mess.
Yes, and I'm not making that statement as the usual joke.
Distros like openSUSE have been cutting staff do to the economy. In many ways, I think the Linux desktop is very close, but still has some obvious warts. Someone with the wallet and clout of Google can squash those warts. We may literally be looking at an OS launching next year that boots in 10 seconds, actually runs fast on a netbook with 1 gig of RAM (as opposed to the Vista Starer basic netbooks it will compete against) and will be vastly more secure.
However, I'm not sure Google is known for advertising. They should hire Apple's advertising firm. One thing I think is brilliant about Apple is their brief commercials where they simply demo a feature. Those iPhone commercials are simple, but brilliant. If Google can market this well, they could have a winner.
Chrome the browser wasn't much of an attack on IE. Is Chrome the OS an attack on Windows?
You can argue that Chrome the OS is more likely to cannibalize the Linux and Apple market. Consider that Chrome is supposed to be this fast, sleek, secure OS. It is built upon a posix-compliant kernel with a new windowing system thrown on top. Steve Jobs health is in question, Apple's stock keeps dipping and people are questioning the future of Apple. Honestly, I think Redmond is offended by Chrome. But Cupertino is the company that is more afraid.
Kubuntu is just terrible. They routinely ship broken packages. And I have a laundry list of gripes with plain Ubuntu to boot. I really don't get why they get all the hype and attention. Give this a spin for a day or two.
http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/KDE:/Medias/images/iso/openSUSE-11.1-KDE4-Reloaded-LiveCD.i686-4.2.4-Build1.2.iso
Check out the new notification system and the new system tray. Notice how stable Plasma is, even in these "unstable" builds.
Now you are just outright lying.
I just assume any corporation that large has separate teams that don't even really talk to each other.
For instance, a Microsoft evangelist once told me that the Outlook team is part of the Office team, and tied the Office release schedule. Even worse, they have minimal planning and communication with the Exchange team which is in a different division.
Google is a business that runs on Linux, but when they decided to develop a web browser, the chief developers were Windows-only guys who admitted they knew nothing about developing portable code, or developing on Linux.
The people who discussed an OS internally, have probably been doing so secretly on their own, without telling the whole company about it. Just like Chrome was fairly quiet for the first 2-3 years.
Chrome was in development for 3 years before annoucement. Many has suggested that the feature wasn't exactly a secret. Google said their main goal was to release the code completely open and encourage other browsers to use the concepts and features.
The entire OS will be open-source. So you can compile the whole thing. X isn't an issue.
People removed the Google-specific proprietary portions of the Chrome browser and started building "Iron" from the Chromium trunk. I imagine the same will happen with the OS right away.
Was 3.0 stable and feature rich? Was 2.0 stable and feature rich?
The release notes were clear in what features were included. It did not claim full feature parity with 3.5.9.
Don't claim this was an evil ploy to lie to you and trick you into using something you didn't want to.
I have 3.5.9 and 4.0 installed side by side. I basically never really went into the 4.0 session because it lacked features I wanted, but I integrated 4.0 apps into my 3.5.9 session.
Gnome has never once had a release with all the features I want. I doubt they ever will. Given a choice between the two, I GREATLY prefer KDE.
And my Windows box without other software is pretty useless as well. But we don't call it Adobe/Windows or Mozilla/Windows.
Just the same, we don't call it GNU/Linux.
Next time, read my post, and respond with something coherent that relates or don't respond at all.
Didn't the Chrome browser leave beta right away.
I can't even install Vista x64 without making my own install DVD with RAID drivers packaged in. I can't get any printer drivers period for my printers in x64 land.
Everything works for me out of the box in x64 land with Linux. I've been running 100% x64 in Linux for about 6 years now with no hassles.
In all fairness I think the two week promotion is still going on where you can preorder Windows 7 right now for $49.99. I actually preordered a legal copy.
I love me some Linux, but I like Windows 7 as well.
I am running Windows 7 on a Phenom X2 quad-core box and it pretty slow.
I admit I like the new taskbar a whole lot. Instead of just useless thumbnails for multiple explorer windows, now I can mouse over them to "peek" at them.
That being said, I've had a lot of trouble with 7. And at the end of the day, people still call me to clear spyware and viruses off their Vista boxes all the time. I am extremely reticent to call any version of Windows secure until I see real world evidence of a Windows box on the internet with real world use that is pretty secure. Sure I can install third-party anti-spyware or anti-virus apps, browse with Firefox, disable apps, use a HOSTS file, etc. to minimize risk. But I'm talking about Windows out of the box.
As for comparisons with Ubuntu, I'm the minority that loathes Gnome and loathes Ubuntu. I too prefer Windows to Ubuntu. KDE on openSUSE is another story.
Whether or not Chrome is adopted and used as a browser, the project was a success in spurring needed innovation.
Svartalf's point, that I agree with, is for the average desktop, the client/server model of Xorg doesn't make sense.
Xorg can't hit release dates, ship features they're promising, and is somewhat of a legacy mess. Thankfully they broke it into modular bits, but no one seems to be working that hard on Xorg. I think Canonical, Novell and Red Hat would be benefited by throwing some support into the Xorg upstream development
There is a little bit of promise in Xorg land these days with KMS, DRI2 and such, but Xorg is far from perfect for a 21st century desktop.