Frets On Fire is nearly unplayable shit. Have you even tried to play it? The available songs suck (and no I do not want to make songs for them) and you can't properly use PS2 controllers.
Tunneling through Tor is a really shitty thing to do; it's not made to facilitate your downloading, and you put undue stress on people who are running Tor nodes for you.
I agree. He says MonoDevelop is good, but Visual Studio isn't. That doesn't make any sense. I wouldn't say this to mhutch himself, but it really seems like MonoDevelop is trying to be Visual Studio (which is quite a good thing, IMO).
Visual Studio is one of the very few good Microsoft projects.
You can't compile for Window Mobile with the free Express edition, so that's not going to be of much use in this situation. I'm sure the book is good, though... He's a PHP developer. It's going to take him a good long time to write C# code that doesn't suck anyway.
They could, but they could also increase their market share by selling low end equipment. Well, yes, but that's not my point. Most people strongly resist change and will pay a premium not to change.
If you don't, you'd better like the default theme, cos you'll not be changing it. Upload a zip file or a tarball. Bam. You've got a new template.
It's not easy, but it's not hard whatsoever. The admin panel has one big issue: the fact that the "save" button isn't keyable like a normal submit button (hit enter in a text box, it automatically saves).
I haven't changed the favicon on my site mostly because I don't have a better one.:D
MS themselves can create the situation where it is the cheap Linux PC that does more than the not as cheap Windows PC.
But there's the thing: it's still a Windows PC, and thus familiar. Linux is strange and weird and different to your average user, and the price difference isn't that much. Heck, look at Apple--they could turn around and double their prices across the board and there's a large core of users who'd just pay it because they're familiar with and comfortable with OS X.
It's only a matter of time before Windows becomes too high of a percentage of the cost of a PC for it to offered for free. When you are talking about a sub-$100 computer, the cost of a $25 windows license (big discount) starts to become pretty noticeable.
I don't disagree. But Microsoft can, and likely will, continue to cut OEM licensing costs. Linux may get some traction there, and some competition would be nice, but I'm not betting on it.
I think the bigger problem is the ISO process that saw OOXML get fast tracked as a standard, despite not being even close to meeting the requirements for it. What was supposed to be a technical forum was turned into a pissing match between IBM/Sun and MS. The voting process was so corrupt as to be useless. Microsoft deserves the majority (though not the entirely) of the blame for that.
I agree, but that isn't the point. The grandparent made a claim, and I haven't seen it backed up.
There are definitely poorly defined chunks of OOXML that require reverse engineering to master, but the previous file formats required reverse engineering for EVERYTHING.
Examples of required, non-deprecated bits of OOXML that are poorly defined? (Hint: "render X like Office 97" aren't required and are deprecated, and their hinting can be ignored without display difficulties.)
There are more holes in ODF than OOXML. I'm not terribly fond of OOXML, but frankly they got it more right than ODF has.
Slashdot Mirror
Frets On Fire is nearly unplayable shit. Have you even tried to play it? The available songs suck (and no I do not want to make songs for them) and you can't properly use PS2 controllers.
Rock Band is way too easy. The songs aren't as hard as Guitar Hero.
Not really. .NET CF feels very snappy on every PocketPC device I've ever used.
Tunneling through Tor is a really shitty thing to do; it's not made to facilitate your downloading, and you put undue stress on people who are running Tor nodes for you.
You are a bad man, sir.
There is no good reason to write an application in C++ unless you absolutely have to.
So just write the app in VS2005 using CF1.1 and download the 2003 tools for CE 4.2 compilation. They're a free download.
Now, I think SharpDevelop looks like a copy of VS. MonoDevelop is quite different, from what I saw.
MonoDevelop is the better fork of SharpDevelop. They both are endeavoring to hold down Visual Studio and bloodily rip it off.
I agree. He says MonoDevelop is good, but Visual Studio isn't. That doesn't make any sense. I wouldn't say this to mhutch himself, but it really seems like MonoDevelop is trying to be Visual Studio (which is quite a good thing, IMO).
Visual Studio is one of the very few good Microsoft projects.
.NET is extremely fast on Windows CE. Java simply is not. Go try it yourself.
CodeGear is terrible. It's seriously not worth using. VS2005/2008 are far superior.
VS.NET was pretty bad. VS2005 was far better. VS2008 is excellent (the changes from VS2005 were small and noticeable).
The VB6 IDE is terrible, and I don't see why anyone would prefer it to ANYTHING.
...It's an image.
Change the image.
It's not easy, but it's not hard whatsoever. The admin panel has one big issue: the fact that the "save" button isn't keyable like a normal submit button (hit enter in a text box, it automatically saves).
I haven't changed the favicon on my site mostly because I don't have a better one.
I use Joomla for many sites where I don't want to dick around with writing code itself. And I do have a favorite scripting language.
Excuse me, did you just call Rails "clean"? Are you high? It may be the worst production environment I have ever seen. And I used ASP.
Django is okay, but only if you want to use Python; frankly Python gives me an eye twitch and I have no interest in using it.
MS themselves can create the situation where it is the cheap Linux PC that does more than the not as cheap Windows PC.
But there's the thing: it's still a Windows PC, and thus familiar. Linux is strange and weird and different to your average user, and the price difference isn't that much. Heck, look at Apple--they could turn around and double their prices across the board and there's a large core of users who'd just pay it because they're familiar with and comfortable with OS X.
Incorrect, the price of windows is included in the price of the computer. Hence they are paying for it, period!
You know that. I know that. Joe Average doesn't know that, and doesn't care. It's free to him, and you won't convince him otherwise.
Also, they pay when the have an existing computer that they upgrade to the latest.
Very few people do that and you know it. Windows upgrades happen primarily via hardware upgrades.
So, stop spreading Microsoft mist over the eyes of the general public.
Oh, please. Someone disagrees with you and he's spreading FUD (or "mist", which must be the polite form)? Grow up.
It's only a matter of time before Windows becomes too high of a percentage of the cost of a PC for it to offered for free. When you are talking about a sub-$100 computer, the cost of a $25 windows license (big discount) starts to become pretty noticeable.
I don't disagree. But Microsoft can, and likely will, continue to cut OEM licensing costs. Linux may get some traction there, and some competition would be nice, but I'm not betting on it.
I think the bigger problem is the ISO process that saw OOXML get fast tracked as a standard, despite not being even close to meeting the requirements for it. What was supposed to be a technical forum was turned into a pissing match between IBM/Sun and MS. The voting process was so corrupt as to be useless. Microsoft deserves the majority (though not the entirely) of the blame for that.
I agree, but that isn't the point. The grandparent made a claim, and I haven't seen it backed up.
I am? Woah, this is news.
There are definitely poorly defined chunks of OOXML that require reverse engineering to master, but the previous file formats required reverse engineering for EVERYTHING.
Examples of required, non-deprecated bits of OOXML that are poorly defined? (Hint: "render X like Office 97" aren't required and are deprecated, and their hinting can be ignored without display difficulties.)
There are more holes in ODF than OOXML. I'm not terribly fond of OOXML, but frankly they got it more right than ODF has.