What happened to Continuous Iintegration?
That is all.
384 publicly visible posts • joined 1 May 2007
@03:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
Polycarbonate is used for bullet proof glass, a'nt it? In 2011 Nokia were machining* the phone case out of a single piece of polycarbonate, Apple are innovating again.
* I think they meant machine finishing: mould it roughly the right shape then precise cut with machine tool.
My Nokia 5800 played BBC iPlayer fine (with the option to download the video and just checked the server for the licence) and it could output to TV with the included AV lead.
However, it wasn't an N series, being much cheaper including free music subscription, so was not the same market as the iPhone.
Aren't most wars fought for acquiring and protecting resources for the greedy, the ideology thing is a marketing smoke screen to make the non-greedy support the greedy cause?
Some belief systems are for people who find science too hard, but mostly it allows oversized groups/packs of humans to live together efficiently (in towns and cities). These are the social protocols which allow trust and trade between people - think about the amount of work getting a bank account, if you did not trust them to look after your money.
Obviously this is an oversimplification.
A brand name is to indicate a level of quality in the branded product; branded bread did not contain saw dust.
If you "borrow" the brand name, but not the design and manufacture, what does the brand stand for?
The Nokia brand, in phones, stood for robust, value for money, but competent products - admittedly they had MS style cock-ups on the software sometimes.
Or get your marketing department to "create" a market in which you can be number one - like unique towns in Britain: the only town which has ... (then a long list of attributes) two public conveniences in the town square.
None of the ancient US software makers seemed to have properly integrated their services they have acquired, I think Apps on a phone are a red herring they typically only provide a "port hole" to one service - Android SDK does have the concept of providing a service to be used by many screen interfaces. MS Office applications played together poorly, obviously written by different (competing) teams, although I accept Excel was about fast calculation and not text layout like Word - there goals were different - is this the US psyche jocks competing and not sharing and helping each other?
I think I agree.
Why do companies only have to have one product (set) ?
Apple appear to have/had several products: iTunes-iPod/iPhone/iPad, Laptop-accessories and iMac-accessories; not all were madly successful, so were quietly dropped. Nokia although providing several services which made their phones better, but seemed too willing to let an incompetent carrier replace them, I think it would be better if the carriers just bought a complete package, instead of not understanding the tech they were selling.
Generalization
People will put up with an unreliable product and even say it gives it character, but when they are able and can afford a more reliable one they will switch (perhaps after a morning period). Reliability is one aspect of usability, important when you depend on it for communication with family and friends or colleagues and clients.
I think Blackberry should have been in all aspects of company - mobile device communication, a speedy, secure and reliable link between, say, architect's office and their pad/book for showing a client plans. Managing lost mobile devices, not just remote wiping private data, but providing alternate access to that private data - leave your phone on a train, just go to a phone shop at the station, get a replacement (for a cost), type in a configuration key and carry on.
It is very difficult to explain to middle management how some "innovation" is good for the business and should be invested in (unless some competitor is already doing it).
Some huddles are the IT department's own doing, and the rest (although various) can be classed as "oil - water interfaces" between different branches of an organization.
IT is often viewed as modern day typing pool or office cleaners, and are too busy with day-to-day duties. They are the nurses of IT equipment - essential and poorly paid. What is needed is a fitness instructor or personal trainer.
Poor internal marketing skills. With someone in technology with a strong clean vision and good communication skills. Innovations (to others in the company) might provide solutions looking for a problem, barriers to entry (user training, new equipment, etc.) which appear too high.
Since it is so difficult for technology departments to plead their case to the bean-counters, the few solutions which do make it, get all the love and the IT department becomes polarized and inflexible - hypothetical example, buying MS products has a clearly defined cost (fixed and variable) over a free/open product with fuzzy costs (this is why cloud services win with bean-counters); more MS tools are bought to service the MS environment, then fashion changes to BYOD and the IT department is left looking stupid.
In your face arrogance, the technology experts use complexity and jargon to exclude other business units. Other business unit leaders send their stupidest employees (from a business point of view) to interface with the technology experts, to avoid feeling stupid themselves.
I think other commentators are trying to express, they are sold on things non-technical people can measure, such as, "it is expensive it must be good" or "$famous_person person has one". There are measured by some pseudo-science (or non-provable or fuzzy) quality - intuitive (says Steve), best browser (unable to render sites my Nokia 5800 could).
How is a blank/black rectangle (with rounded corners) place-mat with an unlabelled dimple with a small square in it (a button which does not look like a button) intuitive of a phone or media player? Do four (mainly) unlabelled un-buttons which look like locator pins around the edge help?
One of the tear-down sites calculated it cost $60 to make, assuming manufacturing yield is near 100%.
Before Windows
There was X Windows, many companies had Sun and Apollo workstations
Sun allowed you to run multiple MS DOS sessions on their 386 workstation
Quarterdeck Deskview/X
NeXTSTEP
Mark Williams Company Coherent
Even VAX/VMS used Motif
No, it only has to look cheaper so you can sell the same thing at two different prices for two different markets, without culling your higher price market.
Does a lux version of a car really cost twice the base model? Does the size of the engine make much difference to the cost?
From some other Reg article, the dongle does the streaming by itself from your WiFi. The phone/tab/browser just tells it what to stream.
This function was demonstrated many years ago, but then the dongle was the size of a (Linux) PC - now a Linux PC is matchbox size (e.g. Raspberry Pi). Even in the early 2000's some set-top-boxes allowed streaming from a server on a network.
These corners are spherical (ish) not cylindrical.
Anyway MS and Apple are really friends:
Apple supply the sunny Californian version and MS supply the rainy Seattle version of a thing.
Apple, Intel, Oracle..., Ca
Xerox, Ct
3M, MN
Bell Labs, NJ
IBM, NY
Comcast, PA
AT&T, Dell, TX
Novell, UT
Microsoft, WA
I agree with your statement - monolithic kernel not good, but that was not my point.
A micro-kernel with modules/drivers or kernel (with modules eh? ) *has the option of several GUI* (and CLI) environments.
Anyway, it is mainly invisible to the user, except the wait at boot time and when something is plugged in.
The micro-kernel philosophy of running things at the lowest security level possible, makes sense if that driver/module may have a bug which crashes or allows an exploit. I don't see how Windows XP did this, when a driver could BSOD and there were viruses which spread over a network from machine to machine.
Supposed micro-kernel OS:
NEXTSTEP
Windows NT
MINIX
GNU Herd
You cannot design interesting products by market research, you test can test* a design with market research, but you cannot create one. Taking the average customer will create an average product, something similar to what is already on the market with little, if any, evolution.
However, you need a range of different designers, some (prototype) products will succeed and some will fail, but hopefully you will have enough successes to pay for the failures. Or you do the venture capital thing with one product.
MS of past, with Windows would have the 'Classic' option, which hid the new features and provided a familiar theme. MS must have studied Linux with a kernel, a standard set of (Gnu) programs, and a choice of window manager. Linux was born out of USA inventions: Unix, cheap commodity PC (IBM's version of the Apple 2), and open education software (MINIX). With Linux, Android and iPhone/iPad apps, you have a choice of several that do the same thing, but in slightly different ways, so there is more of a chance of being an app you like, (except it is harder to find it).
Steve Jobs appeared to have real faith in his products and people, I had the feeling Jobs was more quality assurance than sole visionary. I think Apple got a lot of things wrong, but also they were trapped by early decisions with hindsight were now not the best way to do something (MacOsX scroll bars). The change to touch only interface allowed them to revisit those things and improve them.
* see what selling price might be and the numbers sold, thus if that provides enough profit to make the product viable.
The iWatch (surely iChronograph, iChrono, iPerpetual or iPeriod ) will be the first new product since Jobs.
The first iPhone was just an iPod Touch with a phone, not even a smartphone, but it did make existing phone manufacturers stop and take stock when it took off. And some of the lesser manufacturers cargo-cult its features.
As much as I like Ives, this recent design statement BS indicates Apple is lost.
But in the past, Apple were one of the last big companies to clean up their manufacturing.
And saying Apple is just a design company, doesn't cut it - a relation of mine is a designer and he cares deeply about the ease of manufacture and the impact on the environment.
Thunderbolt connector is too big and has too many pins to replace USB.
Each connection pin adds:
cost in the materials used,
cost to the PCB it is mounted on,
size and hence cost of the connector shell,
cost and flexibility of the cable, and
point of failure.
Also, I think they have made a mistake, it should have 4 times half-duplex lanes rather than 2 times full-duplex lanes.
It should be marketed as best connection to the processing core for docking station use, but then everyone hates plugging things in, hassle free wireless - inductive chargers (with NFC control), multichannel Wi-Fi.
HDMI has similar problem, but is compared to 15 pin VGA
HDMI Type D is user unfriendly since it looks like micro USB
What if your (smart) TV ran an X-windows server, and you send drawing commands rather than a raster? How would you connect it?
@D A M
I marked you down, but now see your point, but you still make the mistake of rubbishing something without providing an improvement or in the spirit of this article how the old way was better?
@Boris
Your design has good and bad:
It is good that you can quickly access a particular robot without setting Baud-rates, colour of the button, etc., but your file dialogue seems worse than search. I expect your users have post-it notes stuck to their screen saying which robot has which program.
And why can I not just select a robot program and send it to a preview then, if correct, send it to a robot?
The people designing the program should make as many decisions as possible for the user, then when a hard choice cannot be made, provide a sensible default and remember what the user selected last time. But nothing stops the designer/programmer providing two or more presentations of the same service.
Tungsten bulbs still vary in intensity, but they do not go completely dark.
Florescent tubes flicker in your side vision, but stop flickering when you look directly at them.
Tungsten's spectrum is smooth from red to blue, whereas others tend to have gaps and be more blue.
In the eye, the quick acting rods are more sensitive to yellow.