Of course it is not a game and convincing management that they need to undertake 15 million dollars of process rengineering because you want to replace a 100k in hardware because the OS is no longer made can be a difficult sell. In 100% of cases we recommend that clients move off of unsupported systems, but the reality is, they often don't. The IT is often one small (but important) part of a complex system.
Enterprise IT has very little to do with technology.
Interesting idea, it would be worth a shot, at least if you did not need any driver support.
Re:Great, another deskop environment
on
Is OS/2 Coming Back?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Because more people used OS/2 than any other dead GUI OS I can think of at the moment. The other (and more important reason) is that many companies are still using OS/2 for critical applications. If they were able to build WPS (which by the way is not what this story is really about) on Linux, your concern about 3 major desktop environments would go away within 18 months anyway. WPS was a better desktop environment 10 years ago than Gnome or KDE are today. If they spent some time actually updating it, the other two would fade into obscurity. Linux has come a long way, but it is no where near being a serious threat in the desktop market. Would OS/2 services and GUI change this, no probablly not.
Why? Because in order to support a desktop OS today, you either have to control the hardware platform or have a significant enough install base to compel every hardware manufacturer to release updated and supported drivers in a timely manner. This is why you have Windows (big install base) and OSX closed platform. Linux works on most every platform, but there are nearly always tradeoffs and limitations, no one devotes the same level of engineering to their Linux drivers as they do their Windows drivers for desktop hardware. In the server space there has been considerable progress made in driver development, in many cases Linux driver support far exceeds Windows on enterprise server hardware.
Desktops remain a difficult nut to crack. Revere engineered drivers are not a viable solution for a consumer operating system, drivers must be engineered and supported for consumer hardware , just like they are for server systems , before you will ever see Linux make any meaningful inroads into the desktop market. Since IBM does not make desktop hardware anymore, it is unlikely they will be the ones to bring a closed platform Linux solution forward (essentially like Apple did with BSD), but an OS/2 Linux hybrid could be interesting if they could partner with Lenovo (for example) and provided a fully integrated and supported solution.
For a lot of companies, if something works there is no reason to mess with it. As hardware gets old and is difficult to replace with devices supported by OS/2, this may be attractive for some companies. In the past 12 months I have visited clients running critical applications on OS/2 and Xenix, while it is easy for an outsider to say "Just upgrade it to a newer application", replicating all the business logic and surrounding process would be costly and disruptive.
Americans eat 12 hour pizza at home when it is leftover and even better cold. I am sure you are referring to pizza by the slice places, which everyone here also recognizes are not the best pizza in the world, but you can be in and out in 2 minutes, so people eat it sometimes. The US has some of the best Pizza places in the world. Except perhaps Naples, you can find better Pizza in every state in the US than anywhere else in the world.
Except you need to start over since Adobe did not create a flash runtime and did not spend $99 (for this) and this has nothing at all to do with the adding a particular adobe app to the iphone.
The problem is that apple is right in this case. Their technical reasons for limiting the compilers are very sound and it is ridiculous to expect apple to do extra work to help Adobe release a development environment that helps Apples competitors more than it helps Apple. Apple has 80 million+ iphone OS devices floating around, they will attract developers who will take the time to create apps according to the rules, in fact they already have.
Allowing easy cross platform development is of no benefit to the guy who has a platform with 80 million devices.
Because adobe wrote the program? Since there are 10s of thousands of well behave programs running on OSX how is it apples problem? Linux and Windows are not OSX! BTW flash on Linux has its share of issues:)
Actually it is, because when you include iPod touches (and you should since we are focused on Apps and not on making phone calls), there are 80 million+ devices out there all able to execute the same code. That is a fairly good sized monkety.
It has always supported ads in thrid party apps, and this only provides an alternative source for developers. Every other smartphone with 3rd party apps also supports ads in apps, so I assume you have no intention of using any smartphone 3rd party apps.
Actually the battery life part is key to doing proper (which is better than true) multi-tasking on mobile device. The GP is actually 100% correct.
What really matters is functionality. What useful background process can you do on the Pre that can not be done on the iPhone. (I already know the answer, so you can just slip back into fantasyland where there are people in the world that are interested in WebOS devices).
Indeed and some people have accounts on more than one exchange server. Not just different mailboxes but different systems entirely. Employer, Client and University for example.
I have a work Exchange Account, a University Exchange Account. If I want to access both in Outlook, I have to create multiple profiles and can not use both at the same time without using the hacked outlook launcher.
So you would say the 8 month difference in release accounts for the 45% difference in Browser usage (not market share), part of that is because iPhone still provides the best mobile browsing experience and Android does provide the only serious competition, but has a ways to go still. The interface is just not there.
The APP store will not require ads, and there are tons of apps that already have ads. I suppose if Apple said "All APPS must have ADs", you might have a point. They did not say anything like that.
You used a lot of words to say "I don't understand what this discussion is about"
The ads are in APPS, not in the general use of the phone. The developers have a choice to include ads or not in their apps and you have the choice to buy or not buy APPS with ADS in them. It is actually acceptable for any app developers who wants to include ads in their app. You are always free to purchase the app or not purchase the app.
I have no evidence other than my own anecdotal experience, but MACs tend to be used by the two extremes of the user community, the power-users and the newbies. I would imagine the percentage of the mac community that could be objectively called "power-users" is significantly higher for OSX than Windows.
Re:Uh, that's why Woz was first in line to get one
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
Actually his job is to a bit of a troll...
Re:Jesus Tap Dancing Christ...
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
You sir shoul dbe modded up for hitting the nail on the head. If Apple (or Nokia) fail to aggresively protect their patents in every case, it will be used against them if they ever need to defend against a blatant theft of IP.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it is not a game and convincing management that they need to undertake 15 million dollars of process rengineering because you want to replace a 100k in hardware because the OS is no longer made can be a difficult sell. In 100% of cases we recommend that clients move off of unsupported systems, but the reality is, they often don't. The IT is often one small (but important) part of a complex system.
Enterprise IT has very little to do with technology.
Interesting idea, it would be worth a shot, at least if you did not need any driver support.
Because more people used OS/2 than any other dead GUI OS I can think of at the moment. The other (and more important reason) is that many companies are still using OS/2 for critical applications. If they were able to build WPS (which by the way is not what this story is really about) on Linux, your concern about 3 major desktop environments would go away within 18 months anyway. WPS was a better desktop environment 10 years ago than Gnome or KDE are today. If they spent some time actually updating it, the other two would fade into obscurity. Linux has come a long way, but it is no where near being a serious threat in the desktop market. Would OS/2 services and GUI change this, no probablly not.
Why? Because in order to support a desktop OS today, you either have to control the hardware platform or have a significant enough install base to compel every hardware manufacturer to release updated and supported drivers in a timely manner. This is why you have Windows (big install base) and OSX closed platform. Linux works on most every platform, but there are nearly always tradeoffs and limitations, no one devotes the same level of engineering to their Linux drivers as they do their Windows drivers for desktop hardware. In the server space there has been considerable progress made in driver development, in many cases Linux driver support far exceeds Windows on enterprise server hardware.
Desktops remain a difficult nut to crack. Revere engineered drivers are not a viable solution for a consumer operating system, drivers must be engineered and supported for consumer hardware , just like they are for server systems , before you will ever see Linux make any meaningful inroads into the desktop market. Since IBM does not make desktop hardware anymore, it is unlikely they will be the ones to bring a closed platform Linux solution forward (essentially like Apple did with BSD), but an OS/2 Linux hybrid could be interesting if they could partner with Lenovo (for example) and provided a fully integrated and supported solution.
For a lot of companies, if something works there is no reason to mess with it. As hardware gets old and is difficult to replace with devices supported by OS/2, this may be attractive for some companies. In the past 12 months I have visited clients running critical applications on OS/2 and Xenix, while it is easy for an outsider to say "Just upgrade it to a newer application", replicating all the business logic and surrounding process would be costly and disruptive.
Americans eat 12 hour pizza at home when it is leftover and even better cold. I am sure you are referring to pizza by the slice places, which everyone here also recognizes are not the best pizza in the world, but you can be in and out in 2 minutes, so people eat it sometimes. The US has some of the best Pizza places in the world. Except perhaps Naples, you can find better Pizza in every state in the US than anywhere else in the world.
I agree most people won't go wow this flash sucks. They will say damn this phone sucks.
Except you need to start over since Adobe did not create a flash runtime and did not spend $99 (for this) and this has nothing at all to do with the adding a particular adobe app to the iphone.
The problem is that apple is right in this case. Their technical reasons for limiting the compilers are very sound and it is ridiculous to expect apple to do extra work to help Adobe release a development environment that helps Apples competitors more than it helps Apple. Apple has 80 million+ iphone OS devices floating around, they will attract developers who will take the time to create apps according to the rules, in fact they already have.
Allowing easy cross platform development is of no benefit to the guy who has a platform with 80 million devices.
Because adobe wrote the program? Since there are 10s of thousands of well behave programs running on OSX how is it apples problem? Linux and Windows are not OSX! BTW flash on Linux has its share of issues :)
Actually it is, because when you include iPod touches (and you should since we are focused on Apps and not on making phone calls), there are 80 million+ devices out there all able to execute the same code. That is a fairly good sized monkety.
Adobe hurts themselves. The only tolerable implementation of flash is on Windows.
It has always supported ads in thrid party apps, and this only provides an alternative source for developers. Every other smartphone with 3rd party apps also supports ads in apps, so I assume you have no intention of using any smartphone 3rd party apps.
I also assume you will not be back to Slashdot.
Actually the battery life part is key to doing proper (which is better than true) multi-tasking on mobile device. The GP is actually 100% correct.
What really matters is functionality. What useful background process can you do on the Pre that can not be done on the iPhone. (I already know the answer, so you can just slip back into fantasyland where there are people in the world that are interested in WebOS devices).
I can SSH into my laptop with any of a half dozen apps now :)
People that want to run Sendmail on their phone are misguided geeks who think they know more than they actually do.
Indeed and some people have accounts on more than one exchange server. Not just different mailboxes but different systems entirely. Employer, Client and University for example.
I have a work Exchange Account, a University Exchange Account. If I want to access both in Outlook, I have to create multiple profiles and can not use both at the same time without using the hacked outlook launcher.
This explains why no one actually wants to pay money for a Pre.
So you would say the 8 month difference in release accounts for the 45% difference in Browser usage (not market share), part of that is because iPhone still provides the best mobile browsing experience and Android does provide the only serious competition, but has a ways to go still. The interface is just not there.
I concur, developers owe us all free applications with no possibility of generating any revenue.
Because he expects most iphone users will find ad supported Apps they want to use.
The APP store will not require ads, and there are tons of apps that already have ads. I suppose if Apple said "All APPS must have ADs", you might have a point. They did not say anything like that.
You used a lot of words to say "I don't understand what this discussion is about"
The ads are in APPS, not in the general use of the phone. The developers have a choice to include ads or not in their apps and you have the choice to buy or not buy APPS with ADS in them. It is actually acceptable for any app developers who wants to include ads in their app. You are always free to purchase the app or not purchase the app.
I have no evidence other than my own anecdotal experience, but MACs tend to be used by the two extremes of the user community, the power-users and the newbies. I would imagine the percentage of the mac community that could be objectively called "power-users" is significantly higher for OSX than Windows.
Actually his job is to a bit of a troll...
You sir shoul dbe modded up for hitting the nail on the head. If Apple (or Nokia) fail to aggresively protect their patents in every case, it will be used against them if they ever need to defend against a blatant theft of IP.