14 minutes ago, figuerres wrote

*snip*

the question was and is about a desktop app, not a phone app, not a mobile app, not a tablet app.

if I were looking at a mobile / phone / tablet app that would be a different thing.

 

I don't think Windows 8 is solely a tablet OS, also Chrome OS is obviously a desktop OS. Anyway the point is that you can in fact make desktop UIs with HTML5/CSS and without "a web server should be using a web browser to present the UI of the app".

5 hours ago, figuerres wrote

*snip*

so forget about xaml for now and please explain why a desktop applications that has no need for a web server should be using a web browser to present the UI of the app.

as far as I can see the real world benefits are very limited in that case.

I am not saying that you can't do it or that html is bad.

I am asking for facts on why having an application open a browser and depend on that html rendering engine to do the UI of the app is better than something else?

for example if I create a UI with Windows Forms or WIn32  it will be a native UI with full access to the OS  and the native Windowing system. it will also not be dependent on what browser is installed on the pc and to what happens if the browser is not there etc...

also let's talk about the issues of writing an application and how it will have to bridge to the browser runtime and exchange data with it. I can see a number of cases where the security of the data exchange may be an issue - for example in a medical facility with HIPPA compliance rules and so on ....

please explain ?

False dichotomy. You have an HTML5 based app that can make native calls as long as it is not running in the browser's security context. People have been making mobile apps in this manner with frameworks like PhoneGap for years.

Even Microsoft has been a huge proponent of this, and they have something called WinRT in the latest version of Windows that basically does that..

1 day ago, PopeDai wrote

Also the Office app is missing a lot of functionality that's present in iWork for iOS, it feels very half-baked.

I feel like iWork is a bit of a loss leader for Apple to make their iProducts enterprise friendly.

I feel like this thing is just to sweeten the deal for Office 365 subscribers who probably have Windows PCs with the full Office suite at work.

There is a couple of high profile Microsoft products that use it via WPF, but it never really hit the mainstream - there's not many success stories out there that span past the random internal app or the various apps made for Microsoft's largely obscure mobile operating systems.

With even all the talk and marketing Microsoft put behind convincing developers to use XAML, software using Android Layout XML and Mozilla's XUL (XML UI Language) is probably far more prevalent on people's computing devices in the real world. And all of course shadow in comparison to the web technologies used as a UI language for humans and machines alike.

One thing is I can't believe that they can be this completely and utterly incompetent with this. It almost feels like Microsoft is being intentionally run into the ground (tin foil hat?). But what other explanation is there?

1 minute ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

Sounds like you need to get a new job.

2 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

I know, I know! The "unfairness" is another forms of "wealth redistribution" -- that's what publishers are attempting to do and Microsoft is helping them do it (all the while trying to make it looks like they are just the tools provider). OMG! Someone call Fox News! The capitalists are redistributing wealth now too!

It's okay to redistribute the wealth in this manner because it aids in trickle down economics. Don't worry, all this excess wealth generated from increasingly f**king over the consumer will directly and "fairly" trickle down to loyal engineers like Dr Herbie. I mean, where else can it go? Wall Street bankers or upper management? Pppsssh, money? They don't want anything to do with it. The quadratically increasing global wealth gap is nothing but socialist propaganda.

I mean he's doing all the work, not them. So it is his property. I mean, its not like he is irrevocably assigning all his copyrights, moral rights and creative and intellectual output to their corporation in return for nothing more than fixed salary largely based on the overall labor market rates instead of anything remotely resembling the company's actual revenue.

That just wouldn't make any sense.

46 minutes ago, Dr Herbie wrote

*snip*

If you had actually bothered to read the rest of the thread you will have noticed that I retracted 'illegal' (because I confused downloaded digital media restrictions with physical DVDs) and replaced with 'unfair to the people who wrote it'.

Herbie

Unfair in what sense? Is it unfair that you don't give the grocer an extra $20 over what it costs when you buy food? Is it unfair that you aren't assigning all your money and assets to me (this one makes a bit more sense, obviously)?

Providing f**ked up morals to children kinda feels a bit unfair though. That's why I felt the need to reply to your ridiculous contention that lending a game to a friend is equivalent to piracy. Next time use the edit button, that kind of inane garbage doesn't belong in print.

I wish what you are seeing was driven only by money and greed. It would at least be rational in an Ayn Randian sense.

The truth of course, has always been far more disturbing. The technology industry is the new church (complete with a rapture doctrine), and the church leaders are living like gods by exploiting everyone from independent artists and creatives, engineers, to consumers. And they are exploited willingly, and will defend their own exploitation to extreme lengths.

58 minutes ago, wastingtime​withforums wrote

*snip*

Stop putting reselling games and lending them in the same category as copying and pirating, then we might talk.

Ridiculous.

I love it how some people are able to out-f*ck both Microsoft and Sony here. Over-the-top DRM that makes even conglomerates like Sony blush get defended with a stance as if it's common sense. The whoring is so extreme, It's almost like a parody forum.

You don't get it. Maintaining the ridiculous wealth of the robber barons behind Big Tech is far more important then silly things like consumer rights.

For this, all the tech robber barons need to do is take a tiny fraction of the wealth we generate for them and give us a slightly higher than normal salary than the rest of the increasingly impoverished proles. We'll go to the corners of the Earth to keep their private Boeing jumbo jets fueled up and the inspirational TED talks coming so they can feel better about themselves.

4 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

Given that you imply that you write software for a living, too, this should be YOUR agenda.

My agenda should be to lie about the first sale doctrine? No thanks.

5 hours ago, Dr Herbie wrote

*snip*

"Yes, Bobby, but that's illegal.  Because Daddy work in the software industry his income relies on people paying properly for the software to use, so even if you had a Playstation 4 I wouldn't let you share games out of principle."

Herbie

Thanks for the advice. What other things should we lie about to our children to promote Microsoft's corporate agenda?

1 day ago, kettch wrote

@Harlequin: Why in the world is it going to take 100 days?

Because of one engineer to spend 30 seconds removing the code, and 500 managers to approve the action.

18 hours ago, SteveRichter wrote

Isn't search Google's area of expertise?  Is search any better than it was 10 years ago?  Does not seem like it.

Trying to achieve different things. Google is trying to get answers quickly and with minimal computational resources, while Watson can take its time and use far greater computational resources per query.

1 hour ago, spivonious wrote

Nice quote here

*snip*

This would mirror my feelings as well. Most Office users only use 5% of the functionality. Google products would be fine for them. It seems like the real Office power users are the ones who are upset with the choice.

Obviously "the enterprise solution" is to not have one, to not "standardize" (lol) on one f**king technology stack for an entire giant organization. Because, you know, our corporate peons (errr "employees") don't all do the same exact sh!t with their computers. Yes, this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. People who use the phrase "the enterprise solution" non-ironically need to get punched in the mouth.

3 minutes ago, PaoloM wrote

*snip*

Aww... hurting much?

A little this morning, but nothing that a Sudafed can't cure.

5 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

Well, there's that.  Corporations are a way to manage risk and that is a clever way of saying "I won't go to jail if my corporation commits a crime for me". 

LLC.

8 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

Perhaps a solution would be that all corporate assets must be resolved down to the individual for tax purposes each year to avoid this kind of shenanigans.

Yup. You are taxed (via the 1099-DIV form) when you derive personal income from a corporation's profits.