You know, I have to disagree that 3D has nothing to do with storytelling. I thought that the ashes and embers as the forest burned in Avatar very effectively enhanced the sorrow and the ability to feel empathy for the aliens.

I agree that it is usually gratuitous, but I really like how modern filmmakers are beginning to play around with perspective in new ways. Have you seen Spartacus - Blood and Sand? They play with visual layers in ways that I think transforms scenes that would otherwise be nothing but gratuitous gore into something very worthwhile and immersive.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the cinematographer is blocking the shots in three dimensions purposefully even though the show is currently shown only in 2D.

Whoever modded this offtopic should click the parent button. Does Slashdot still meta moderate?

DESPITE claimed complete rewrites of the code

Claims by who? Do you have a link? If this is true I'm not surprised your post is currently 5:Informative because I have never heard of this and I like to think I pay close attention in this space.

SharePoint 2010 does not fully support IE 6.0. It is a down-level browser. SharePoint 2010 does fully support FireFox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera.

Just thought you'd be happy to know.

Everything in the app I mentioned is compatible under mono except for the browser integration (at least it was at that point, wouldn't swear to it now). We went with IE because the full API did what was required. I appreciate that we could have created our own API to Gecko, but from what we saw, the crucial bits were missing. More to the point our goal was to create an application that happened to have some browser functionality - not to create a rich API to a platform when a ready to use alternative was already at our disposal.

Some may not like mono, but in my experience it is a pretty decent platform.

As far as the quality of the app, I'm glad you won't be using it. You sound like someone I'd give their money back to if I ever had the pleasure of taking a support call from you. You must be a super genius to know all about it based on the presence of a single component.

It has the ability to support older API's that aren't available on all platforms. Developers who care about maximum cross-platform reach just won't use them. On the flip-side, if it didn't allow interop with the old stuff, the current adopters would be pissed for obvious reasons.

This way the people creating Silverlight apps have freedom of choice and choice is good.

As far as IE goes, I have a product that integrates with IE. I looked closely at Webkit and Gecko. Neither one is very friendly to program against with .NET and the API's don't expose nearly as much automation capability as IE. If the maintainers of those browsers want developers to embed them in desktop apps as an alternative, they need to make an investment.

Why should Microsoft do it? As far as I know, anyone can create and distribute Silverlight components. If you want a good API for WPF/Silverlight for Gecko, talk to the Mozilla Foundation. I'd be glad to have it, but I'm not mad at Microsoft because it doesn't exist. (BTW, I am aware of GeckoFx and XulRunner. The API is very shallow compared to the IE COM interfaces.)

Whoever modded you offtopic must really like Google.
I have to agree.
It seems they are getting a lot of press for a pretty underwhelming idea - a browser with direct access to the underlying hardware. wow

Speaking for myself, the things that I didn't like about Vista were lots of little things related to the shell and 7 addressed those for me. The new window manager and taskbar are huge improvements and make me a lot more productive. The multi-monitor support is also better. So, as a 'regular user' I think you'll find that it really is very different from Vista and you will like it more.

As a software developer it is really compelling. I use virtualization extensively and there are many improvements here assuming you have hardware to support it. VMWare is still the technology I use the most, but I find myself drifting toward the MS technology more and more. The OS allows you to mount a VHD as a disk. More impressively, the boot manager allows you to boot from a VHD giving it direct access to all of the hardware - even the video card.

What kind? The kind that requires a building that sits on land and is full of hardware.
$32 million isn't that much when you consider that.

Here is an estimate for an empty 80000 square foot office building with no contents and no land. ~$12 million.

http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/rsmeans/models/offices3/

So what you are saying is '2013 will be the year of the Linux desktop'?

The APIs used by all of those are public and their are plenty of third party products that use them. And, you can always use the Web services API.
I can see why you posted as AC, because the idea that someone would see using Microsoft SharePoint as a downside because the easiest way get their stuff out with Windows Explorer is just silly. If they are running Windows Servers I doubt they have an issue with using a Windows client to get the files out if they want to move them elsewhere... Not much of a lock in.

The only problem I can see with your statement is that it is completely wrong.

Getting data or files out of SharePoint is dead simple. Aside from a large number of client choices including Windows Explorer, Outlook, Excel, Access, and SharePoint Designer you can create custom interfaces. If you want to create your own interfaces, there is a well documented Web Services API, a well documented RPC API, and over course a set of components if the custom code is running on the server.

The Office apps cost money, but Windows Explorer is Windows, SharePoint Designer is free, and the only things that would stop you from using the programmatic interfaces would be a decision to them to harden security or a lack of knowledge.

I still can't believe the board of directors hasn't fired this fat-ass clown. He sucks and his management team sucks too.