3636 posts • joined 31 May 2010
Re: This article reads like an ad.
"Backhanders" from Spiceworks. *snort*
If these internet piranhas had even the faintest clue in hell how much I loathe travelling (especially flying) or the unbelievable amount of shit I have to go through every time I enter the USA*...
I go to Spiceworks because it's relevant to "my people" (sysadmins). I went to VMworld because as a newly minted vExpert I wanted to meet all the other super-cool vExperts I'd met on Twitter. Both were arduous, painful, miserable experiences I didn't enjoy in the least.
Most things I do that might generate a "backhander" by piranha standards - reviews, conferences, etc - usually cost me far more (up front or in the time spent) than I'll ever make writing a few articles. I do these because they are what generate the majority of positive comments from readers. Admittedly, via e-mails from readers, rather than in the piranha pit. The piranha pit isn't happy with anything, ever. Criticize or praise, analyze or opine, they'll be a tank of piranhas demanding you for dinner.
Well, off to bed before I become completely jaded and cynical...
*I really hate being interrogated. The lights in that damned room are too bright.
That's a fair statement and an entirely reasonable complaint. I will take that under advisement when writing any future series on them, or other sysadmin-centric companies.
Re: @Titus Technophobe
Now there's a thing that hadn't even occurred. I didn't see it remotely as "advertising myself" so much as "giving context." Unsurprisingly, most of the other companies involved in marketing/content creation and so forth are very leery of talking "on record" of how they feel they fit in with Spiceworks (or any other community.) There's an awful lot of hatred for anyone that does anything remotely close to marketing, and everyone wants to keep their "secrets" of how they do things all close to the vest.
I'm terrible at lying, so I stick to "tell the truth." Make a business of honesty and you have a heck of a lot less to remember. It also comes out in my writing; I've no issue using myself or my company as examples for things where others would fear retaliation from a vendor or theft of trade secrets. If you remove my ability to find work in an area, I'll go find work in another.
If that's a problem, it leaves me curious...and perhaps a bit sad. Unfortunately, however, not surprised. "Honesty" is something with decreasing value these days. :(
The thought had occurred. I think, however, this is largely because Microsoft simply doesn't see technical folks as all that relevant anymore. For whatever reason, Microsoft doesn't feel they have to influence coalface admins or even CIOs. It's all about the consumer, or the CEO. Nothing in between.
I have to admit to a great deal of curiosity about who's right in that gamble. Microsoft seem very desperately ti want to be the new Oracle.
I have a choice every time I write an article: spend the whole article explaining every acronym, every service, every product as though my readers were dumb, deaf and blind...or presume a reasonable amount of industry knowledge on their part and move forward. No matter which of those two I choose, someone is going to get their panties in a bunch in the comments.
I could try to find a happy medium, but that ends up just upsetting everyone.
Do I need to spell out RAID for you lot? MAID? RAIN? What about Cloud, does that still need to be "defined" in every single article? Do I need to keep writing Software as a Service (SaaS) or can I finally just write SaaS and presume that readers have more than 12 functional brain cells to rub together.
There came a point where we stopped having to explain to everyone that Facebook was a Social Network, or that Twitter is a micro-blogging site that allows communication like a crippled public IM at 140 characters per second. Sure, some dude who has recently crawled out from under a rock will demand that we explain what they are, but we're at the point that anyone who works in IT and doesn't know what they are should simply not be working in IT.
At some point, as a writer, you have to make that call. You have to presume that your audience will have heard of the service/acronym/standard/etc that you are discussing. If you don't, your entire article devolves into explaining everything and you manage to convery absolutely nothing.
Spiceworks is big enough within our industry that I feel entirely confident saying "it's time to treat it like one of those services everyone in our industry does - or at least should - know about." It was a conscious choice. If you want to call that "an advertisement" you are free to do so. You'd be wrong, but you're free to be wrong.
At the end of the day I am making an assumption about Register readers: that you have access to - and know how to use - search engines. If you've missed something like "Spiceworks becoming a hugely popular service you should know about by now within the IT industry" then I make that assumption that you have the wherewithal to look up the backstory you obviously missed over the past several years.
So when someone says to me "I am unable to figure out what Software Defined Networking is" or "what is Spiceworks" understand that to me such individuals appear to be proclaiming publicly "I have not been paying attention to critical developments in my profession for at least four years and am completely incapable of rectifying this using a search engine. I demand that technology writers continue explaining every little detail for at least a decade after the product/service/company/standard/acronym/etc became mainstream industry knowledge."
You lot seem perfectly happy to demand that I give up on GUIs - despite my being a non-linguistic learner - because CLI/scripts/PoweShell are how "real admins" do things. Anything else is kid's stuff and GUI babies deserve nothing but contempt.
But lo! Attempt as a journalist to treat my audience as though they posses clue and might make it part of their professional advancement to keep abreast of key developments in their industry that are years old and I'm advertising, or being too hard on the poor little muffins who never heard of product/service/company/acronym before.
You lot are going to turn me into one of those jaded journos who no longer reads the comments because I'm utterly convinced there are no signs of intelligent life to be found there.
That's before we get into the bit where one half of the commentards demand that you do nothing but praise the brand to which they've attached their personal sense of self worth and the other half demand you never say a nice thing about anything ever...
Re: This article reads like an ad.
Spiceworks is a Network Management and Help Desk application. That's a very minor part of the value prop, however, despite what some of the closet-dwelling introverts around here will tell you.
The software is a hook to get you sucked into the community. The community is a social network, full stop. The application itself is evolving away from being "just an app" and towards becoming a "platform" into which vendors and dedicated coders form the community can add modules, etc.
The goal, however, is to build the community in order to buff the social network which is where the revenue comes from. Frankly, they've done a good job of that part. It isn't shocking at all to find that part of the business model pooh-poohed on The Register; of all the tech communities in the world, El Reg has one of the most openly hostile to Social Networking in any form.
Make of it what you will; it's either A) A Network Management app with some annoying stuff you have to put up with in order to get Free Stuff, B) A Social Network with some applicaiton software as a hook, C) Both or D) GET OFF MY GODDAMNED LAWN.
Mir sucks decomposed goat balls.
Ubuntu can't make an interface to save their wretched little souls. Not that they care. Ubuntu is at this point nothing more than a vanity project for a madman so utterly out of touch with what actual users want he makes Microsoft seem sane.
Who would have thunk that 4 years ago?
Oh, oh, I know, I know!
If you treat your customers like serfs and gain a sense of entitlement that you are owed X thousand dollars per endpoint shipped then don't be shocked and shaken when your market share drops. When you are a douche to the masses the masses say "up thataway" and buy somewhere else.
But holy fnord that crap you take in the comments section of a tech publication for speaking that truth to the entrenched power of brand tribalist fanboys.
El Reg has removed comments that personally attacked writers. Grousing about the publication, choice of titles or other such things is a longstanding El Reg tradition. Just look at the (mostly successful) campaign to ban
There is a difference between ad homs against writers and "come on El Reg the Foxconn rebrander thing is getting old*".
That said, there's a crazy amount of brand tribalism amongst the readership. "OMG you attacked $brand_I've_associated_my_self_wroth_with, DIE HEATHEN" is just as overplayed as any linkbait. Would you suggest that The Register is pro-Microsoft? Pro-Apple? Pro-Samsung? Pro-Google? Pro-anyone?
It's not. It's also not anti-anyone. Individual writers may have certain chips on their shoulders, but the publication as a whole does not. Consider the dichotomy between Andrew O and myself, as one example. I disagree with virtually everything that man has ever written. He certainly disagrees with me. That's perfectly fine, we stay out of eachother's way and on we go.
Tim Anderson loves Windows 8. I assuredly don't (Win 7 uber alles) while Drew - and many, many others - use Macs. Chris Mellor tears into Tintri and buffs Pernix. I love Tintri but have deep reservations about Pernix (ones that go far beyond my affiliation with a competitor.)
So perhaps what irritates you is that The Register represents a diversity of opinion. It isn't obviously one thing or another. It doesn't pick sides...or if one writer does, another is perfectly free to come along and disagree as loudly as they so desire.
What isn't cool - and what isn't remotely allowed - is attacking a writer. If you want to come into the comments of an article and say "I disagree strongly, and here's why:" you'll be left alone. That sort of reasoned debate is strongly encouraged.
Coming into the comments with things like "Trevor Pott, you are a giant douchebag who knows nothing about anything and I think you kill yourself for the good of humanity" will get your comment pulled. If it happens too many times, you'll get banned.
To make things even more frustrating for those who simply want to convert all and sundry to their tribe's viewpoint, comments are adjudicated by human beings. These people - good people all, I assure you - may well pull a marginal comment when they are having a terrible day that wouldn't receive the same treatment during a happy day.
That leads to some inconsistency, but that's life. This is a world where human beings have to interact with other human beings and we - each and every one of us - bear a joint responsibility for learning to play nicely with others. (Not that any of us succeed at this all the time.)
It might seem callous and cold to say "if you don't like it go elsewhere", however, If you don't like it I strongly encourage you to go elsewhere. Publications need readers, but the truth of the matter is some people are way - way - more trouble then the two fleshy orbs at the top of their meat popsicles are worth.
If you desire, demand and expect the right to abuse, chastise, berate, belittle or demean the writers of this publication personally then quite frankly we are better off without you. Any publication - and frankly any business in any sector - is better without people such as that as customers. (Or as "product", if that is what you choose to view yourself as.)
If you don't like something about how The Registerdoes headlines, in-jokes, pith or articles, by all means speak your piece and take a stand. Do it in a reasonable and mostly professional way and I think you'll find that feedback incorporated into robust internal debates on the topic.
The Register can't be all things to all people. It will have a style that will be loved by many, hated by many. This is true of every business, every brand, every person on earth. What makes The Register different for so many others is that we actually do listen.
Me, personally, I far prefer a publication known for taking the piss out of things than republishing bland press releases. The day I become an "on message" sycophant like Ed Bott is the day I retire from writing forever.
So if you have a complaint, talk to us about it. Give rationale and use logic and evidence to back up your points. Open a professional dialogue and participate in a back and forth. Anything else will get filed under "haters gotta hate" and we'll get on with the business of doing business.
I hope that clears at least a few things up. Cheers, and have a great day.
*For the record, in my humble opinion, not only is the Foxconn rebrander thing a little tired, but I'm highly critical of this whole "peak Apple" nonsense. Peak Apple my chrome-plated ASCII.
Re: Copying from the BBC
You can be factually correct and still a douchebag. You're like one of them whiny little bitches whinging that "ain't is not a word" despite the fact that it's entry into common parlance has been accepted for decades.
I'm on your goddamned lawn, sir, and my dog's taking a shit. That rocking chair and shaken broom impress me not at all.
Re: What happened...
Expecting your vendor to do testing for you is socialism. It's nothing more than entitled sysadmins looking for a hand out. This is something everyone should be doing for themselves. If you want to have someone else do testing then you pay them for it. Specifically. Independently of the definitions.
I can't believe all the crazy socialists around here. This planet sure is going to hell.
Re: Gartner? Really?
You're hilarious. IT was hacked and cracked ages ago. Just look at all the cattle using Windows 8. It's all about whose influence you buy. Few think for themselves anymore, or beyond their immediate desires to see what business practices they are enabling and encouraging with their purchases.
The corrupt leading the blind enabling the greedy who manage the stupid. The meritocracy is long dead.
Re: What Network Virtualization is?
Abstraction layers provide easy of use at the cost of efficiency. When the cost of what's lost to inefficiency of the abstraction layers drops below the cost labour cost required to run things without the abstraction layers then the abstraction layers see widespread adoption.
That's business 101-class stuff...
Re: my comments
I feel the need to debate you somewhat here Nate.
Point for your argument: 95% of my deployments don't even use VLANs, let alone anything more complicated. (Though Trunking and 802.3ad/LACP see widespread use.)
Point against your argument: if the "advanced features" were easier to use, at least half those same clients would be on them like white on rice.
The issue - at least at the SMB end of things - isn't that SDN-like features wouldn't make lives easier, reduce OpEx costs and so forth...it's that these companies don't have "network administrators." CCIE cost muchos dineros. Even if you have the money, you have to deal with the egos...and most SMB owners I know of just don't have time for the sorts of Prima Donnas that CCXX seems to attract.
But the do use virtualisation. They are leaping headfirst into storage virtualisation. They'd dearly love to have all the promised functionality of SDN, but with a nice UI and none of those nasty attendant network admins.
Some network vendors claim they have a solution that can meet these needs. Some go on about vendors but refuse point blank to discuss ease of use with me.
Nobody talks cost, not in hard numbers, not ever.
So to an extent you're right: what's on the table today just flat out doesn't apply to a lot of companies. Where you're wrong is that this isn't because the features aren't in demand...it's that those features have to bring simplicity with them in the form of ease of use and the ability to jettison the network admin from the payroll.
That day will come. 5 years, 10....15? Who knows! But virtualisation did away with a lot of dedicated application and hardware cluster admins. It made backups and disaster recovery easier and collapsed those specialties into generic admins in all but the largest organisations. I am seeing the same thing happening to Storage today; Tintri goes in and a storage admin goes out. (Hell, Nutanix goes in and they start culling storage and virtualisation admins, but that's another story for another day...)
Somewhere in the past 10 years vendors of all sizes and in all areas of IT forgot about ease of use. Ease of use isn't sexy. Everyone at every size scripts, right? Everyone can remember every single powershell command for every single application they use, right? Everyone knows ios by heart, right?
What do you mean, you can't afford 15 dedicated admins for each area? What kind of Mickey Mouse company are you?!?
It's interesting to see you pooh-poohing SDN because the fabric portion of the exercise is inherently a layer 2 activity. As far as I'm concerned that's a good thing. Routing is inherently north-south. It's a bottleneck and SMBs like me and mine sure as hell can't afford routers that fling around multiple 10 gigabit links. We can't keep going up the aggregation stack to the top in order to go out to the edge.
I don't even understand why I should ever have to worry about that stuff. Why the hell can't I just connect switch A up to switch B and have the things figure out how to make the bandwidth work? I care about the workloads that run on top of the network, not getting into the thing and writing a script to make it go.
Routing should be something that connects the heavy lifting to the users. I shouldn't need expensive bottlenecks to connect one big-ass high bandwidth device to another so they can play nicely. I shouldn't need expensive equipment or CCwhatevers just to make the damned switches work.
This is where SDN comes in, even in the smallest of businesses. Someone please explain to me why home routers, wifi devices and switches are even capable of layer-2 broadcast loops? We've had spanning tree (and alternatives) for well over a decade, but grandma still has to worry about how many cables are plugged where?
Accounting still can't just plug another cable between switch A and switch B and they'll "just go faster"? Why is this shit still an issue?
Auto MDIx was something we could all agree on, and I haven't needed a crossover cable in at least 6 years. Innovation seems to have stopped there. Protectionism and douchbaggery have completely stalled any advancement in networking and they hold everything else back.
Openflow – or more specifically OpenDaylight – looks like it is going to be the only way out of the morass of asshattedness we find ourselves in on this.
Who wants SDN? In my experience damned near everyone. What they don't want is the protectionist charlatanery that seems wrapped up in most attempts to sell it to the hoi polloi.
Anyways, that's my $0.02. Also: listen to Drew. More sysadmin bloggers are a good thing. The world needs more than my voice (gods know that's true!) and you're a bright chap. Join in and share your wisdom with the crowds. We have cookies.
P.S. One of us. One of us. One of us…
Re: 2 ceo's needed
Please. Spend an hour in the same room as Nadella. Presence is not his problem.
Re: 2 ceo's needed
CEOs need vision. COOs need to kick ass.
Jobs + Cook.
Even if you found your unicorn CEO with all the magical qualities you desire, trying to run a corporation as big as Microsoft he'd burn out like a dry candle trying to do it all himself. That's the point of having a qualified team of executives that can work well together.
Nadella needs to run the thing. He's the only one who could actually craft a vision that would create a Microsoft end users and businesses alike would want to buy from. Elop would be a great COO, knocking heads together and organizing sales forces.
I can't disagree more. Nadella is the best choice. He doesn't need superpowers to fold in Nokia, just good VPs. He has always been a man who knows his limitations and who casts about for additional brains to overcome those limitations. Nadella would make a Microsoct that's responsive to it's customers. Not one that blackmails, threatens and dismisses them. He's not just what Microsoft needs...he's what the industry as a whole needs.
Re: @Prairie Harpy
All of the sads. You are giving them to me.
I have several, however, I do have six copies of that exact same shirt. (Pushed wrong button when e-ordering.) So I wear one of them almost all the time.
"Maybe we are doing hardware-defined networking... but if I can put that same box with better performance and better programmability in your data center, cheaper than a white box out of Taiwan, do you care?"
If the first hit is free, followed by "you pay, you pay, you pay" then you're goddamned right I care. If you consistently end up cheaper than Huawei, we'll talk. If you're just trying to get me on the crank so you can crank every bent copper from my wallet then fuck off you goddamned ecosystem leech.
Switching is a commodity now, Cisco.
Re: I like Australians
You should revolt because your choice of governments are "incompetent, bigoted jackasses" and "bigoted, incompetent jackasses."
Unless, of course, you like bigotry and incompetence. In which case, embrace both of your options.
Re: Are we approaching the problem from the wrong angle?
Whose extended bus technology? QPI? Hypertransport? Infiniband? Something even more proprietary? Who owns the patents? Who makes the money? Who makes the kit? What are the standards?
Ethernet is never the best option for anything. It is, however, something that everyone can play with. This is IT; the best technologies wither due to greed while mediocre technologies that were opened up for the entire world to innovate upon flourish.
If you don't believe me, do some research on USB...
As a general rule SDN is easier to manage than traditional networking. SDN interfaces are often modern, up-to-date GUI affairs that can be addressed via the command line or scripts, but also take into account the rest of the human race that are visual learners and/or only go modify the network a few times a year.
That doesn't cover all implementations, naturally, but in general SDN has been used as a chance to break free from the ios tyranny and open switching administration to those who excel at things other than rote memorization.
"The Internet" is low bandwidth, high latency. Datacenters are high bandwidth, low latency.
A fabric allows me to talk horizontally across a datacenter without bandwidth contention. Explain to me exactly how I accomplish that in a routed scenario without bottlenecking on the router. Or for that matter, how your very Cisco view of networking is going to be cheaper than a mesh fabric with dynamic layer-2 packet routing?
How clever! I'd never heard that one before!
You can lead people to water, but you can't make them think.
I think you just described Windows 8 users...
Re: Typical Microsoft
Apple's aim is negative carbon across the whole company. And plenty of storage vendors offer 100% uptime.
Again, you assume I am talking about datacenters there. Very "Microsoft today." Take your Azure and stuff it into your NSA-monitored by-the-minute-billed overpriced sack of shit, Redmondian.
I'll run my own stuff. Increasingly, however, that can't include Microsoft. Not stable enough and certainly not enough bang for the buck. Just Not Getting It. As ususal.
Re: Typical Microsoft
"Been low carbon for years" is not the same as "no carbon". That's like saying "Microsoft has made high uptime block storage servers for years." High uptime != 100% uptime, which is a hell of a difference to the company that's suffering an outage.
Actually, you make a good point, however, that describes Microsoft's views on the matter...and neatly ram home exactly how they Don't Get It in most things.
If it isn't Nadella, it is a slap in the face of their entire customer base. He's the only candidate who will deliver what people want to buy, not what Microsoft feels it can blackmail people into giving up more than they can afford for.
Re: Couldn't disagree more
Re: More moving the deckchairs
Lying to congress isn't a crime. Lying to a court under oath is.
"...governments should do what it says on the box; govern!"
The real power in America - the Tea Party - disagrees.
You mean the American company that wants us to store "secure" data on their American cloud?
Sell me the software to run on my own servers, away from American hands. Then we'll talk. "American" and "secure" are oxymorons.
Suave sysadmins don't stay sysadmins for long. They get a job that pays real money and doesn't come with life-altering stress, lack of appreciation and Microsoft's licensing department.
For all that VMware has it's rough spots, it's still damned amazing software.
....that and Hyper-V keeps randomly rebooting on me and blowing up at critical times...
GPS *receives and processes* signals that are broadcast *by satellites*. A GPS emits no radio. It just crunches data on a time code.
How the metric fucking banana hell do you manage to turn passive crunching of omni-present signal data into a plea for pro-authoritarianism?
Christ on a bike, you lot are truly mad...
Re: I'll wait...
Problem is, Nutanix won't sell me software. They want to sell me the stack and that's bloody expensive. More capital than I have to hand. That makes Maxta interesting.
Oik! I gots me two heads!*
*I can only use one at a time.
Re: Watch out FusionIO
Wow. You people don't think laterally. You turn Whiptail into a "like a FusionIO card" by making it one blade per chassis. That will then connect via the chassis' internal network infrastructure to the other blades in the chassis. The chassis-local Whiptail accelerates the local UCS nodes while also going using cross-chassis communication channels to make sure data is replicated in another blade in one of the other chassis.
This isn't fucking rocket science here.
It's also how you make the claim that "Whiptail isn't there to compete with EMC." It's not...at least not EMC's spinning disk stuff. EMC will provide you bulk storage that all your chassis will talk to. Whiptail will provide chassis-local acceleration and serve as a new tier of "fast storage".
Whiptail isn't a broadside at EMC, it's slitting Pernix Data's throat, along with it the margins that currently go to FusionIO, Micron or LSI in the form of their PCI-E cards.
That EMC wants to get into the same space is of no consequence. there are plenty of players.
Mark my words; Whiptail will evolve from a SAN into something closer to an acceleration tier. A hybrid, if you will, between Pernix and Tintri. Dangerous stuff...
Re: core components of the service, such as networking, remain critically unstable
Openstack doesn't have to be balls-to-the-wall fast and take advantage of every single feature or eek out every single % of performance. It needs to be "good enough". It needs to provide freedom from lockin and - most of all - a means to escape the "just one more license" fetish that companies like Microsoft have.
The "best" technology doesn't always win. Now go cuy in your betamax. I'm going to spin up a cloud whose software costs don't go up 15%+ per year.
Re: Still don't see any reasons to buy it @Bucky O'Hare
To be fair "runs fast, is well built and has Microsoft Office" fulfills most requirements that I have to deploy a field unit to my staff and most of my customers. All that's missing is:
1) Genuine "all day" batter life. (12 hours of RDP or 16 hours of Web).
2) A price point that is closer to $500 than $1000
Right now, if I am going to drop $1200+ on something it will be a Lenovo X230. Why? Because - while expensive - it can be equipped with an additional battery and an expanded internal one to meet the battery life requirements without giving up on the others.
So surface is close. If only they'd make the damned thing into a netbook form factor and replace Windows 8 with Windows 7...
Man, I'd love a notebook that well designed.
Re: a f*#k 'em attitude?
"A f*#k 'em attitude" is pretty standard for most developers, as this forum thread would seem to obviate.
You are arguing a point I never made and trying to change the discussion past your original assertion, which it the point I was arguing to begin with.
You asserted that the fundamental platform of standards-based browser-delivered apps is inadequate. I said it is not.
You then went on a tangent about how "so many developers are producing native apps for mobile devices."
I said "but standards-based apps are still being developed that are just as good as those native apps and continue to be supported."
I am not talking about why developers choose to be egocentric assholes that place their needs above those of their customers. I merely said that standards-based development was possible, is the superior choice for the end users and that companies should avoid lock-in by moving their applications to said standards-based platforms.
It is possible to do. It is being done even by the very same companies you hold up as producing native mobile clients and ultimately helps companies escape lockin.
Your arguments have fucking nothing to do with "the fundamental suitability of the platform".
There are many reasons that people choose one design choice over another that have nothing to do with the platform capability. As I stated before, it's a lot more about the psychology of the matter than anything else. (And the lock-in political power games played by the platform owners specifically designed to prevent companies from building cross platform apps.)
Your arguments made a claim and backed it up with bloody nothing that was related to it.
Oh, and as for "be nice when I talk to you," here's a giggle: no.
You have no more right to dictate my behavior in a forum than you do dictating my purchasing decisions to suit your personal agenda. My irritating and flagranty douchily trolly behavior is purposeful and chosen specifically to illustrate my point. I'm the consumer. I get to do what I want. You're the vendor. Do what I say or I go elsewhere. I have no reason to listen to you; on the forum, as a vendor or anywhere else. You do not compel or have a reason to expect my obedience. If you want my compliance you fucking earn it.
In fact, I have a better idea: why don't you stop wasting time on internet forums and go put some effort into actually developing things that are good for your customers and meet their needs without imposing externalities upon them. (In this case, in the form of locking them into closed platforms where the costs constantly ratchet upwards.)
I'm exactly as nice as the situation warrants. Address your actual assertion - rather than arguing past it with irrelevant dogma - and we'll be fine. If you want to argue the politics of platform selection, then start a new thread. Your assertion was about the fundamental capability. That's to do with tech, and you've provided zero evidence that the technology behind standards-based application development is lacking.
If you honestly think that the fundamental capabilities of the platform to deliver a smooth and fast experience aren't there for standards-based platforms then you haven't been paying attention for some time.
I will agree with you 100% if you are trying to limit yourself to the top-end applications requiring breaking performance. But I will disagree vehemently about the other 99.99999% of applications. Even on a moderns smartphone. For the overwhelming majority of apps, web-based is more than fast enough and has been for some time.
The fact that existing web developers don't know how to use the functionality enabling acceleration is more a function of shitty developers than "the fundamental capabilities of the platform."
AS to you "but it's *hard* to code for the differences in multiple browsers" whinge; Bullshit. I flat out don't buy it. It's far harder to recode native apps for every platform. The only way that native apps are easier than standards-based apps is if you are telling a goodly chunk of the user population to eat shit because you're lazy and you get to dictate which native platform they use. That's not actually solving the problem, that's just the developer being a dickwad.
And then you finish off by saying "well, except Google seem to have solved all of this." Which sort of makes your entire rant about "the fundamental capabilities of the platform" a steaming sack of horseshit, doesn't it?
Standards-based development in browsers is a fine platform for 99.9%+ of non-video-game applications out there. (There it's probably only about 80% ready.) Everything else has nothing to do with the fundamental capabilities of the platform and everything to do with whiny, arrogant developers who feel that the end user should bent to suit them instead of providing applications that suit the end user.
I have zero sympathy for any developer who just wants to be able to use the objective-C skills they've honed for years. They're the ones selling a product. I'll not buy it unless it's what I want.
Well, if so, that's one example amongst literally thousands of others who choose standards-compliant means to reaching multiple platforms over native apps. Facebook has the resources to write multiple apps for multiple platforms and maintain umpteen separate code bases. Most don't.
Of course, if one is a True Believer in native apps (like you seem to be) then "multiple separate code bases" isn't a problem. You just tell your users to use whatever you dictate and believe that they'll meekly comply.
Frankly, I don't put developers on such a pedestal. They're disposable. They comply with my demands as a customer or they fuck the hell off. It isn't my job to alter my business model, OS selection or device selection to meet the desires of some jumped-up code monkey. It's the code monkey's job to write what I want for the platform I want if they want to get paid.
If you're Facebook you can do that with native apps (apparently) and fuck the inefficiencies of the process. Very - very - few others can afford that.
But...wait...what's this? Can it be?!?
Facebook's primary offering is a web application using standards after all! They merely have peripheral applications that may (or may not, depending on your view) provide a subjectively "better" experience on different form factors that are coded natively.
Even the enormous behemoth that you rip up as your example of native appness still seems to believe that providing it's wares primarily through a cross-platform, standards-compliant application delivery mechanism is critical to their business. Whodathunkit?
Users are used to the "native app" style of presentation; I.E. that it has it's own dedicated window, does not appear to be in a browser, etc. This is psychology and sophistry not technological requirement.
The difference between this and a true "native app", however, is that this development is still a standards-compliant development that is portable between systems. In fact, it typically calls the native system renderer and expects it "just work" with the relevant standards.
Psychologically, users are trained to think of "native apps" as "real apps". So you have to present them as such. Realistically, however, you code them using open standards and you use internetworked APIs to communicate information. The days of truly native apps that are coded to be platform specific are coming to a close.
I know you're a tech god that doesn't even need to read an article before making completely misinformed comments...but YOU'RE AND YOUR. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR OWN INFLATED EGO.
Thank you, and have a nice day.
Re: We don't care how the data gets there, only that it does get there
When your car breaks down, you take it to the mechanic. If you have enough cars in your fleet you might employ a full time mechanic. Should you employ a full-time mechanic if you have only one car? Two? Ten?
The network admin is never going to go away. The number of them required, however, will diminish.
- Updated Zucker punched: Google gobbles Facebook-wooed Titan Aerospace
- Elon Musk's LEAKY THRUSTER gas stalls Space Station supply run
- Windows 8.1, which you probably haven't upgraded to yet, ALREADY OBSOLETE
- Mounties always get their man: Heartbleed 'hacker', 19, CUFFED
- Android engineer: We DIDN'T copy Apple OR follow Samsung's orders