Didn't this take over 10 years? I seem to recall hearing about their decision to switch sometime around the year 2000....
Sometimes, Google just baffles me. The lack of direction in their product lines makes me shake my head.
We have several distinct software platforms:
1) Android. Development in XML with Java used as glue to hold everything together. Unless you don't. You can use standard C libraries and call the Linux kernel directly, bypassing the Dalvik Java VM.
4) But Let's not forget the 4th platform in the trio: Google's Go language is clearly a contender, and it's designed to replace C, except for a few bone-headed decisions like linking everything statically resulting in enormous binaries. Because you really, really need to have the same library installed once for every app installed, because that way you get to recompile everything installed on your system any time a security update comes out for your favorite library. Except that, of course there are exceptions here, too.
And most importantly, you cannot target all these platforms with any single codebase written in any language. It's like they are trying to make their product suite as difficult as just using products from multiple vendors anyway.
By "letting" workers plug in their electric vehicles, the company not only gets to bill it as a perk of the job, but they get to push 100% of the expense of maintaining those batteries onto their workers while actually saving them money.
There, fixed that for you.
See, at the end of the day, the employees are able to drive home with a fully charged car. Said employees have already decided to invest in the electric cars, it's infrastructure that's already paid for. This deal effectively lets the company use their employee assets in a way that saves said employee money.
It's a win/win, unless said usage causes the batteries to degrade inappropriately.
Software has been eating the free lunch Moore was providing before it got to the users; the sad reality is that the typical end-user hasn't seen much in the way of performance improvements - in some cases, common tasks are even slower now than 10 years ago.
This point of view is common, even though its odd disparity with reality make it seem almost anachronistic. Software isn't bloating anywhere near as much as expectations are.
Oh, sure, it's true that much software is slower than its predecessor. Windows 7 is considerably slower, given the same hardware, than Windows XP which is a dog compared to Windows 95, on the same hardware. But the truth is that we aren't running on the same hardware, and our expectations have risen dramatically. But in actual fact, most implementations of compilers and algorithms show consistent improvements in speed. More recent compilers are considerably faster than older ones. Newer compression software is faster (often by orders of magnitude!) than earlier versions. Software processes such as voice recognition, facial pattern matching, lossy compression algorithms for video and audio, and far too many other things to name have all improved consistently over time. For a good example of this type of improvement, take a look at the recent work on "faster than fast" Fourier Transforms as an easy reference.
So why does it seem that software gets slower and slower? I remember when my Dell Inspiron 600m was a slick, fast machine. I was amazed at all the power in this little package! And yet, even running the original install of Windows XP, I can't watch Hulu on it - it simply doesn't have the power to run full screen, full motion, compressed video in real time. I was stunned at how long (a full minute?) the old copy of Open Office took to load, even though I remember running it on the same machine! (With my i7 laptop with SSD and 8 GB of RAM, OpenOffice loads in about 2 seconds)
Expectations are what changed more than the software.
Wouldn't it be nice if the facts fit your wishes? Too bad that they don't.
Microsoft pretty much does sell it's stuff with little resistance. Windows 8 sales are down, but MS has made it clear that they're willing to take a short term hiccup in order to position themselves for the mobile movement. Win 8 on the Desktop is still a pain, but reviews are that it's in league with Android/iOS as a mobile platform purely on its own technical merits. It may well be that the Desktop/Mobile schizm is resolved over time as desktops pick up mobile features, such as touch screens. As an example, my wife's new Dell laptop has a touch screen, light weight, and decent (8 hours) battery life - three things that mobile devices traditionally had over the lap/desk top.
Since the rule of thumb is "buy the 3rd one" the next update to Windows 8 (which is really a new usability model) will probably be the one that gets traction. They sold XBox at a loss for years before it finally became profitable. If you remember history, it took some time (of significant losses) before MS Word beat out Word Perfect, and for Excel to beat out Lotus 123.
They have a monopoly on Desktop OSs, something they are now using (again) to leverage their way into a new market. (Mobile) And slowly, it's working. Windows 8 phone passed 10% market share in Europe recently. It became #3 in the USA some time ago. And while these milestones seem meager, if they only increase their percentage marginally from year to year, eventually they'll rule the roost as they've done with their Desktop OS. And they have more money than many countries, which buys them a *lot* of a time. That's no guarantee of success, but they are, in no fashion, doomed to fail, regardless of how many "fumbles" you may perceive.
The real question to be answered over the next 2-5 years is whether or not Android can become replace Windows faster than Windows can replace Android.
... a position which is frightfully naive. Of course making things more illegal is a deterrent. It used to be totally legal to drive with your kids in the back of your truck on the open freeway. It's now more illegal (at least in California) and you don't see (very many) people driving on the freeway with kids in the back of their truck.
All officially recognized crimes are punished with the intent of deterring future crime, and you live in a time and place which ranks as among the most peaceful and civilized periods in all of known history. To suggest that this concept does not work betrays a stunning lack of understanding and respect for all the work put in by the millions of people who worked to establish and maintain the system that provides such domestic peace and tranquility.
Did you actually think that spending 10 years in jail actually compensates the parents and loved ones of a murder victim? Sorry, if they're dead, no amount of punishment will ever bring them back, and until you've personally experienced the loss of a close loved one, you cannot really understand just how devastating such a loss can be.
However, even sociopaths can understand personal injury and suffering even if they lack the ability empathize in any way with their victims.
Or did, until you commented on TFA...
[this is some random stuff so that slashot will take my post.]
If you think SSDs fail because a part "fails" you lack understanding of how they work.
SSDs have a property called "write endurance" - their data cells are rated to a specific number of writes. Every time you write, you consume some of the remaining write capacity of the drive. It works like a salt shaker: works find until you run out of salt.
Enterprise drives can have dozens to hundreds of times the write endurance of a consumer drive. For example, the Intel SSDs we use are rated to withstand 100% of the drive's capacity in writes every 24 hours for many years on end. A consumer drive couldn't do that for more than a few weeks, perhaps a month or two.
I'd happily pay 2x or 3x the money to get 20x the write endurance.
Unless maybe we stop subsidizing fossil fuels?
Pay less? I doubt it, especially over the long term. It doesn't matter if we overpay the insurance companies or the state..both are experts at wasting other people's money.
Doubt all you want. I prefer to get some facts and base my opinions on them rather than "gut feelings".
If this an actual thing, where people are able to be scammed (and invoiced!) for f**king over their computers, what about simply cold calling people with a spiel like this but actually FIX their !@#$ computer?
Most everybody has a crapton of malware on their computer, so if you call with a semi-legitimate intro, but actually do at least a half-assed job of fixing their computer, get a remote session going, etc. then why not make a few honest bucks?
Call back the people you've helped in 2-3 weeks and make sure they're happy. Next thing you know, you'll have a following and a legitimate business model.
Stranger things have happened, you know...
Why not add the ability to revoke permissions to an app?
Great, so the flashlight app wants to read my contact list: how about NOPE? 2D game wants to access my camera? How about NOPE? Other OS's include the ability to reject permissions to an app.
Why not Android?
Happy Comcast customer here.
I can log into their portal and see that I've not been within their 250 "cap" for months, yet I've received no communication from them. The instant I get a letter from them, I start with the alternative that doesn't cap. I'll go back to 5 Mbit DSL if I have to if it comes without caps.
I'd rather give my money to a company that increases profits by serving their customers.
As somebody who's been in the software industry for well over 10 years, this is both blindingly obvious (to the experienced) and highly useful information. (to new entrants)
It's why articles on screen or pidof on *nixCraft are useful: there are always people who haven't already been doing this for more than a decade, and we, as the more experienced, should rightly welcome informative articles like this as it improves the general pool of competent professionals.
The most important thing is that it works reasonably well and doesn't require excessive administrative overhead. You've described a reasonably well managed configuration, so it's tough to justify changing everything "just because".
Exactly what would you accomplish by switching to an "open" technology? Answer that, and then you can make the best decision.