Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:MS has been late to every recent tech movement (Score 1) 417

by scorp1us (#48645013) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is an Open Source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Up To the Job?

Ok ok. I always thought Angular was dependent on node because I always saw them together. I apologize for that one singular inaccuracy. The rest is true.

The point remains. To pick up .NET now, you are marring yourself to an out-of-date tech stack.

Comment: MS has been late to every recent tech movement (Score 5, Interesting) 417

by scorp1us (#48644155) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is an Open Source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Up To the Job?

I've been a cross-platform coder for about a decade now. I liked the ideas of Java and .NET when they came out, but they were lacking in execution. If you look at everything powering technology today: Big Data, Node.js, Android/iOS, cloud remember (Hotmail was bought by MS, originally on BSD servers) Microsoft hasn't done squat. Meanwhile MS has delivered a lot of failed tech: WinForms, Zune, Windows Phone. (I've only ever seen two people with a Windows Phone) Only the Xbox and .NET have succeeded. I would be very concerned hitching my trailer to MS. They don't do innovation anymore, they don't even do copying (embrace and extend) well.

A big .NET friend of mine has recently taken to web development. He develops on OSX, deploys to Linux (AWS). He loves how he can take one thing and just run it on another. He doesn't have to worry about putting IIS on Linux, Node works everywhere. The code he develops isn't tied to any specific OS platform. Angular is node dependent, but Knockout isn't.

And there in I think the real danger is realized. If you use .NET you are locked into MS stagnant mono-culture, and their failing culture of innovation. If you want bleeding edge, OS agnosticism, MS isn't going to deliver it. Their goal will always be to lock you into their vertical to protect their verticals.

With the very good developments in Linux and the Apple premium is gone, only organizations with legacy applications need consider any Microsoft technology.

PS. I use Qt for everything on Mobile and desktop, Node for server and Knockout/Angular for web client. There is a slight possibility that Qt's QML will work on the web. Python for anything else. This is crossplatform, and not one drop of MS. It is my speculation that MS is a wounded animal, realizing they are like Cadillac. Cadillac realized the average age of their customers were getting older, and over 60 and that market would be no longer driving in a few years. There's an exodus from MS platforms. Their new focus aims to fix this. Buyer beware. Where is the money in it for them?

Comment: Re:They only mean "navigable" airspace, correct? (Score 1) 129

I dug through the actual legislation (FAA charter) and that's what I found. I urge you to do the same. While controlled and uncontrolled ate the vernacular, the statutes that govern the FAA jurisdiction use "navigable". Therefore when speaking of legal matters and the FAA legal authority, we must use the same terms to prevent confusion.

Comment: Stop with the SLASHVERTISEMENTS! (Score 3, Insightful) 101

by scorp1us (#47958065) Attached to: 'Reactive' Development Turns 2.0

I've been following this reactive programming "movement" and it's all traced back to one guy who has a consultancy in "reactive programming" This is the 4th such reactive programming post that I am aware of on /.. No where else have I seen "reactive programming" and this is the only guy I know of who is pushing it.

In addition, the /. comments are highly ciritical of this "movement"

I call on slashdot to identify what articles are slashvertisements and or are carried on special grounds.

Comment: Re:Why not all apps at once? (Score 2) 133

by scorp1us (#47887005) Attached to: Chrome OS Can Now Run Android Apps With No Porting Required

Google's NaCL only works with x86[64] the majority of apps use native libraries that are ARM. Only pure Android SDK apps (Java and java dependencies) will work. So say if you use libZbar (bar code decoding library) which is supplied in x86 and ARM, will work, is that app packaged the x86 version... which they didn't do becuase no one runs android on x86....

So that's the main technical reason.

Comment: Deux Ex Machina (Score 0) 31

by scorp1us (#47814807) Attached to: Robot Dramas: Autonomous Machines In the Limelight On Stage and In Society

Now they have removed the only thing that ties drama to reality. Having to deak with existing Deux Ex Machina in modern drama was bad enough. Now we have a whole new genre, which will resemble cop dramas. We will have "robocop dramas". I for one do not welcome robocop dramas.

Comment: Re:Over complicated? Why not just VNC (Score 1) 76

by scorp1us (#47756811) Attached to: Apple CarPlay Rollout Delayed By Some Carmakers

I'm not sure where you misunderstood me. I said "virtual frame buffer" and VNC. The virtual frame buffer is a software-only framebuffer, separate from the one that drives the screen. It can have anything on it - simplified UI controls, or rather, with android, you would add settings to the app manifest to specify it uses that VFB and people would lay out for in-car use accordingly.

Comment: Re:Touch/button interaction? (Score 1) 76

by scorp1us (#47756783) Attached to: Apple CarPlay Rollout Delayed By Some Carmakers

The automobile is a challenging acoustic environment for sure, but there are several improvements that can be made to improve this:
A unidirectional mic in the steering wheel, with noise cancelling. A prompt button that turns down the stereo system for a brief time.

I'm not surprised it is as bad as it is with current equipment. In fact I'm surprised it is as good as it is.

The tactile controls are there for cost. Very cheap, but very limiting. I have proper climate control that maintains a set point, and I never have to touch anything more than a defroster button. In fact the only button I touch frequently is the stereo knob.

Comment: Re:Touch/button interaction? (Score 1) 76

by scorp1us (#47747123) Attached to: Apple CarPlay Rollout Delayed By Some Carmakers

I don't see why it shouldn't.

How complicated of gestures do you need on a screen while driving? As far as I am concerned it should all be voice interface anyway. As someone who uses a docked phone while driving (or rather attempts to) the bumps in the road combined with the reach distance conspire against virtual buttons due to lack of tactile feedback. You can't feel for the 3rd button down, or if you landed your finger on the gap between two buttons.

Comment: Over complicated? Why not just VNC (Score 1) 76

by scorp1us (#47732303) Attached to: Apple CarPlay Rollout Delayed By Some Carmakers

Each mobile platform (iOS, Android, WP?) should just have a virtual frame buffer which is connected to via VNC. There's not any reason to make it more integrated than that, unless they try to differentiate themselves, and in that case we all lose because of fractured standards. I really cringe when Google and Apple don;t back the same standard.

If you need audio, use Bluetooth, of course.

Comment: Re:What about OSS license that respects other righ (Score 1) 117

by scorp1us (#47731429) Attached to: Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

We're not going to come to any absolute decision or agreement. Which is fine. The world and morals aren't experienced in terms of absolutes.

It depends on what "weapon" means. An amalgamation of steel resembling an AK-47 is a weapon. Heck even a chunk of iron ore is a weapon. It's not the weapon that is bad it is the use. And weapons and software are used in both moral and amoral contexts. It's not the lines of code or parts of the machine. It becomes moral only when a person picks it up and carries out their intent.

By applying a morality clause, I limit the intents that the software can be used in. Importantly, I create a barrier to entry as someone would have to recreate the software to accomplish an intent. This additional effort is then is a signal of software with a malicious intent. It would allow us to ask the questions of "Why can't this software use a moral license?" Maybe it is decided that the intent is valid, and immoral software should be used because the intent is that important. But we would know it. The current state of OSS licenses makes no distinction.

Finally, as you point out "people with weapons cause suffering and need to be stopped by other people with weapons". The US has supported various rebel groups who were allies, only to have them turn around and become enemies or terrorist groups. What gets accomplished there is just killing... on both sides. One has to question if these behaviors that lead to killing on both sides is a smart idea. The idea here are allegiances are fleeting, death is permanent.

Fundamentally, I want my work or portion of my work to be used in killing someone. I'm sure there are others. And I'm not entirely a pacifist. I just want to limit the applications of my open source work to moral causes.

"It's my cookie file and if I come up with something that's lame and I like it, it goes in." -- karl (Karl Lehenbauer)

Working...