True but two years can cover a lot of platform differences - for BB I know it's 4.6, 4.7, 5.0 and 6.0. For Android, I think it includes most - if not all - previous Android revisions?
It's really easy to do that, actually; you set up your project to use the 1.6 libraries, or the 2.1 libraries, or whatever older version you want, and only use the newer ones if they have a feature you need. Take a look at the devkit sometime, it's free.
Easy is a very relative term. This sounds similar to the BlackBerry setup - which means it's anything but easy. Each new OS iteration adds features that developers want to be able to incorporate into their applciations; however, they also need to retain compatibility with older versions. Your suggestion doesn't address that - based on what you suggest, as soon as there's a new feature you need/want, you're now stuck targeting the newest platform - in spite of the installed base of millions of handsets using older platforms.
The only practical options are a) as you suggest - use new features when you want them, and don't support older versions; b) ignore new features, which is a mistake when trying to stay competitive and c) maintain a multi-platform build.
c) is the only real option if you want to reach the broadest audience; and it's also why multiple platform versions can be so painful. It is certainly possible to manage -- there are a few different reasonably efficient approaches you can take - but it's not easy, and often means many times the amount of work required. For example: you have already implemented future platform functionality, and now must replace it with the new native version to give the best user experience -- all while not breaking your older versions. In addition (I don't know if this is true on Android, but it is on BB ) some features have slightly different variations in behavior -- which you must then work around or otherwise account for in a consistent way across all of your deployment versions.
As others have said, the changes that allow this are fairly recent.
it's unfortunate that it took something *this* invasive to make the press start to wake up to what's been happening in the name of security. THe more such reports we have, the better -- now that mainstream media coverage is kicking in, I can only hope it's a matter of time before the general US populace wakes up to the erosion of rights we've been complacently allowing to take place over the course of the last nine years (if not longer)
Not overrated, but played to death and embraced by mainstream society to the point that any rock-and-roll rebellion aspect is gone.
So let me get this straight - you're saying that you don't want it because it's embraced by mainstream society and it's no longer rebellious? What ever happened to listening to music because you liked the way it sounded?
Aside from that - only a small portion of the Beatles catalog actually gets significant airtime.
You realize that Homer Simpson has said everything, right? And that it's no longer possible to express a thought without quoting or paraphrasing Homer Simpson? Probably even this one...
Is it the action that screws up Internet principles, or is it that fact that so few people are aware; and if made aware could be bothered to care? They couldn't do this successfully without a *large* helping of complacence from the rest of the Internet.
Actually you still get flooded with crap even if you're selective -- you might have good friends who insist on posting farmville updates, and using "share this on Facebook!" a hundred times a day. The former you can already filter (one app at a time) , but not the latter. And on mobile clients - at least for BB -- you can't filter any of it.
I do agree with your assessment of whitelist for @facebook.com though... it's the only way this could be managed.
Actually I do. Anything can be decompiled - this is evidenced by the fact that every new software title w/ DRM has that DRM cracked within a few days. However, intermediate byte code is a far sight easier than binary in spite of the similarities.
Oh, wait - it goes to Facebook. Who has already demonstrated that it doesn't really care about this issue... and successfully so, since most people are happily continuing to use Facebook in spite of it.
Basically it comes down to whether Zuckerberg decides if he cares about the bad PR. If he doesn't, too bad -- unless you and a couple hundred million others are going to stop using Facebook in protest.
I think the underlying assumption is that most/many people believe that Facebook would act in good faith if they genuinely saw a problem. If such a problem-action gap became undeniable, then I think yes, people would in fact leave.
Google's spotlight on the issue should help eliminate any deniability, plausible or otherwise.
I think that's a generous assessment of most people -- seems more likely to me that they're content where they are, and simply don't think so far ahead as needing to take their data and go; remember there's no other popular service out there, so "going" isn't a consideration at all.
Terrorists don't go after low-hanging fruit... they go after the spectacular.
Tell that to the suicidal Darwin award candidates* we hear about every day.
* (Sorry, I refuse to grant them the title adopted by the media -- it seems to have become something of a badge of honor.)
Re:Think carefully. Do you want to be close to MS?
on
Which Language To Learn?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Tying one's career to careful thinking is always smart. Do you really want people easily de-compiling your code? Microsoft is the British Petroleum of software. Eventually there will be impossible problems.
Look, I'm not fan of.net (or the company) either - but dude, it's been around for a decade now; usage isn't declinging and just like any actively developed product every couple of years brings new improvements. It's great to say th ere will be "impossible problems" - but if we're realistic, we see they will be no more impossible than any others. As far as de-compilation: wait, I thought information wanted to be free. Yeah, I know that was a straw-man - it just slipped in. Anyway... you could say the same about any language that compiles to bytecode -- singling out Microsoft because you don't like their practices is just silly. (It's no harder or easier to decompile.net than java -- though interestingly the tools to decompile.net are more mature, it's true -- stilll obfuscation goes a long way.)
A full, complete version of Microsoft's operating system, Windows 7, costs $300, about half the cost of some laptops.
And an OEM version - readily available - costs < 100, so what's your point again? That some of the tools we use cost money? And this is a reason not to use them?
Eventually Microsoft's abusiveness will cause an Enron-style breakdown, in my opinion.
First BP, now Enron. Dude, really? I suppose I should be thankful you didn't throw a couple of "M$"s in there. Perhaps you could next detail a breakdown of what or the type of impossible problems we should be expecting. Until then, you're just a troll. And one that I'm feeding, at that.
True. WHile I still don't see a lot of.net jobs posted (relative to others - there are a large number out there, just not quite as many), if the only reason for not learning a language is "it's Microsoft" then it's hard to take him seriously to begin with.
Nor Java. The common job boards still list Java postings as among the highest.
The other languages are also fine; but they're more specialized and not in as much use. If he's earning to learn something new -- pick one and have fun. If he's learning for a career path -- he's pretty much got what he needs to keep himself employed.
It won't hurt, that's true. And FB ignoring it does cast Google in a positive light; I'm just saying that they don't have the leverage they need to force Facebook's hand. As long as FB isn't losing a significant number of users (and given their user base, that would need to be quite a lot) all Google can *actually* do is give Facebook some bad PR that will be forgotten in a month anyway.
Since I'm not particularly invested in either side of this, I have to agree with the poster: watching all this chest-thumping is pretty amusing.
First, that's in TFA (if that qualifies as an "article") itself. Second, see my other comment on this article -- what good does this do? Submits an anonymous complaint to Facebook - I'm sure that'll fix them right up!
If you want them to change, get a few million people to stop using Facebook until they do. Unless that happens, it's entirely up to what FB is willing to do in the name of good PR.
Just registered a complaint. This is the right thing to do. People and corporations must be made aware that they have no right to hang on to user's personal data without giving them the choice to export it in an easy and convenient way.
The question is, what did registering a complaint do? Your name and email are not attached, so what good, exactly, is that complaint supposed to do except allow google to say "X number of users complained about your unfair practices, so there!" Oh, wait - it goes to Facebook. Who has already demonstrated that it doesn't really care about this issue... and successfully so, since most people are happily continuing to use Facebook in spite of it .
Basically it comes down to whether Zuckerberg decides if he cares about the bad PR. If he doesn't, too bad -- unless you and a couple hundred million others are going to stop using Facebook in protest.
Actually, he/they are successfully doing just that because most users don't know or care . This is an interesting move on Google's part, in that it actually increases awareness. Still, that being said, I suspect the average response would be [for those who bother to read it and don't just find the easiest way to click through - the typical response to *any* 'helpful interferences'] "Um, ok. Why would I want to to take my facebook info somewhere else? It's facebook."
The subject says it all. WHat you're looking for is a VM - full desktop control. Cloud computing (as it's generally used) means "providing computing horsepower for your use" - the means of delivery and usage may vary. On the other hand, VMs provide pseudo-dedicated hardware equivalents for your exclusive use - including desktop use if that's what you want.
Indeed, it's not accurate to call this "placebo effect". That would be what happens if - even though the Close Door button wasn't wired up - the doors closed when you pressed it anyway, so firmly do they believe in the power of the Close Door button.
Plus everybody knows that if you press the button for your floor three times in a row, the doors close right away. Or nearly so. Sometimes you have to do it six times in a row, though.
Wayland is a display server, like X. Why wouldn't it be possible to forward Wayland over SSH?
The RFC for SSH (section 6.3) has specific provisions to allow X11 forwarding which includes authentication and session information; this is implemented separately from tcp port forwarding.
If Wayland uses basic TCP and does not have the same display/auth features, then this isn't an issue - standard port forwarding would work just fine. Further -- reading quickly through the site doesn't say if it's a networked provider at all -- but given the info that *is* present, I suspect not.
Hope they have a good time reinventing all the network transparency and other features..
Sounds like they don't need to, for that's not their target. When you think about it, X11 was designed for a very different architecture than its primary use in consumer linux space today.
Slashdot Mirror
True but two years can cover a lot of platform differences - for BB I know it's 4.6, 4.7, 5.0 and 6.0. For Android, I think it includes most - if not all - previous Android revisions?
It's really easy to do that, actually; you set up your project to use the 1.6 libraries, or the 2.1 libraries, or whatever older version you want, and only use the newer ones if they have a feature you need. Take a look at the devkit sometime, it's free.
Easy is a very relative term. This sounds similar to the BlackBerry setup - which means it's anything but easy. Each new OS iteration adds features that developers want to be able to incorporate into their applciations; however, they also need to retain compatibility with older versions. Your suggestion doesn't address that - based on what you suggest, as soon as there's a new feature you need/want, you're now stuck targeting the newest platform - in spite of the installed base of millions of handsets using older platforms.
The only practical options are a) as you suggest - use new features when you want them, and don't support older versions; b) ignore new features, which is a mistake when trying to stay competitive and c) maintain a multi-platform build.
c) is the only real option if you want to reach the broadest audience; and it's also why multiple platform versions can be so painful. It is certainly possible to manage -- there are a few different reasonably efficient approaches you can take - but it's not easy, and often means many times the amount of work required. For example: you have already implemented future platform functionality, and now must replace it with the new native version to give the best user experience -- all while not breaking your older versions. In addition (I don't know if this is true on Android, but it is on BB ) some features have slightly different variations in behavior -- which you must then work around or otherwise account for in a consistent way across all of your deployment versions.
it's unfortunate that it took something *this* invasive to make the press start to wake up to what's been happening in the name of security. THe more such reports we have, the better -- now that mainstream media coverage is kicking in, I can only hope it's a matter of time before the general US populace wakes up to the erosion of rights we've been complacently allowing to take place over the course of the last nine years (if not longer)
by now, most people who wanted it so badly to be willing to pay 150 dollar for it have probably downloaded it illegally already.
There's an inherent gap in logic here...
To be fair, no band could live up to the hype the Beatles get.
Not even the Beatles.
Not overrated, but played to death and embraced by mainstream society to the point that any rock-and-roll rebellion aspect is gone.
So let me get this straight - you're saying that you don't want it because it's embraced by mainstream society and it's no longer rebellious? What ever happened to listening to music because you liked the way it sounded?
Aside from that - only a small portion of the Beatles catalog actually gets significant airtime.
Well, maybe he hasn't said any of that on camera... but we only see a small window of his life. Do I have to explain everything?
PS - that was some funny shit, right there. Thanks for the laugh.
You realize that Homer Simpson has said everything, right? And that it's no longer possible to express a thought without quoting or paraphrasing Homer Simpson? Probably even this one...
Is it the action that screws up Internet principles, or is it that fact that so few people are aware; and if made aware could be bothered to care? They couldn't do this successfully without a *large* helping of complacence from the rest of the Internet.
I do agree with your assessment of whitelist for @facebook.com though... it's the only way this could be managed.
Don't have an account, won't have an account, and I wouldn't give them any access to my email.
Ah, but your real life friends did! Too bad for you, they have already cataloged your life. In fact, your profile just friended my profile.
Actually I do. Anything can be decompiled - this is evidenced by the fact that every new software title w/ DRM has that DRM cracked within a few days. However, intermediate byte code is a far sight easier than binary in spite of the similarities.
Oh, wait - it goes to Facebook. Who has already demonstrated that it doesn't really care about this issue... and successfully so, since most people are happily continuing to use Facebook in spite of it .
Basically it comes down to whether Zuckerberg decides if he cares about the bad PR. If he doesn't, too bad -- unless you and a couple hundred million others are going to stop using Facebook in protest.
I think the underlying assumption is that most/many people believe that Facebook would act in good faith if they genuinely saw a problem. If such a problem-action gap became undeniable, then I think yes, people would in fact leave.
Google's spotlight on the issue should help eliminate any deniability, plausible or otherwise.
I think that's a generous assessment of most people -- seems more likely to me that they're content where they are, and simply don't think so far ahead as needing to take their data and go; remember there's no other popular service out there, so "going" isn't a consideration at all.
Terrorists don't go after low-hanging fruit... they go after the spectacular.
Tell that to the suicidal Darwin award candidates* we hear about every day.
* (Sorry, I refuse to grant them the title adopted by the media -- it seems to have become something of a badge of honor.)
Tying one's career to careful thinking is always smart. Do you really want people easily de-compiling your code? Microsoft is the British Petroleum of software. Eventually there will be impossible problems.
Look, I'm not fan of .net (or the company) either - but dude, it's been around for a decade now; usage isn't declinging and just like any actively developed product every couple of years brings new improvements. It's great to say th ere will be "impossible problems" - but if we're realistic, we see they will be no more impossible than any others. As far as de-compilation: wait, I thought information wanted to be free. Yeah, I know that was a straw-man - it just slipped in. Anyway... you could say the same about any language that compiles to bytecode -- singling out Microsoft because you don't like their practices is just silly. (It's no harder or easier to decompile .net than java -- though interestingly the tools to decompile .net are more mature, it's true -- stilll obfuscation goes a long way.)
A full, complete version of Microsoft's operating system, Windows 7, costs $300, about half the cost of some laptops.
And an OEM version - readily available - costs < 100, so what's your point again? That some of the tools we use cost money? And this is a reason not to use them?
Eventually Microsoft's abusiveness will cause an Enron-style breakdown, in my opinion.
First BP, now Enron. Dude, really? I suppose I should be thankful you didn't throw a couple of "M$"s in there. Perhaps you could next detail a breakdown of what or the type of impossible problems we should be expecting. Until then, you're just a troll. And one that I'm feeding, at that.
True. WHile I still don't see a lot of .net jobs posted (relative to others - there are a large number out there, just not quite as many), if the only reason for not learning a language is "it's Microsoft" then it's hard to take him seriously to begin with.
Nor Java. The common job boards still list Java postings as among the highest. The other languages are also fine; but they're more specialized and not in as much use. If he's earning to learn something new -- pick one and have fun. If he's learning for a career path -- he's pretty much got what he needs to keep himself employed.
Since I'm not particularly invested in either side of this, I have to agree with the poster: watching all this chest-thumping is pretty amusing.
If you want them to change, get a few million people to stop using Facebook until they do. Unless that happens, it's entirely up to what FB is willing to do in the name of good PR.
Just registered a complaint. This is the right thing to do. People and corporations must be made aware that they have no right to hang on to user's personal data without giving them the choice to export it in an easy and convenient way.
The question is, what did registering a complaint do? Your name and email are not attached, so what good, exactly, is that complaint supposed to do except allow google to say "X number of users complained about your unfair practices, so there!" Oh, wait - it goes to Facebook. Who has already demonstrated that it doesn't really care about this issue... and successfully so, since most people are happily continuing to use Facebook in spite of it .
Basically it comes down to whether Zuckerberg decides if he cares about the bad PR. If he doesn't, too bad -- unless you and a couple hundred million others are going to stop using Facebook in protest.
Actually, he/they are successfully doing just that because most users don't know or care . This is an interesting move on Google's part, in that it actually increases awareness. Still, that being said, I suspect the average response would be [for those who bother to read it and don't just find the easiest way to click through - the typical response to *any* 'helpful interferences'] "Um, ok. Why would I want to to take my facebook info somewhere else? It's facebook."
The subject says it all. WHat you're looking for is a VM - full desktop control. Cloud computing (as it's generally used) means "providing computing horsepower for your use" - the means of delivery and usage may vary. On the other hand, VMs provide pseudo-dedicated hardware equivalents for your exclusive use - including desktop use if that's what you want.
Plus everybody knows that if you press the button for your floor three times in a row, the doors close right away. Or nearly so. Sometimes you have to do it six times in a row, though.
Wayland is a display server, like X. Why wouldn't it be possible to forward Wayland over SSH?
The RFC for SSH (section 6.3) has specific provisions to allow X11 forwarding which includes authentication and session information; this is implemented separately from tcp port forwarding.
If Wayland uses basic TCP and does not have the same display/auth features, then this isn't an issue - standard port forwarding would work just fine. Further -- reading quickly through the site doesn't say if it's a networked provider at all -- but given the info that *is* present, I suspect not.
Hope they have a good time reinventing all the network transparency and other features..
Sounds like they don't need to, for that's not their target. When you think about it, X11 was designed for a very different architecture than its primary use in consumer linux space today.