Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

Bass Bass Knows the way the wind is flowing.
  • Linux question

    spivonious said:

    So after 12 hours my favorite feature by far is the "Software Center". The whole online repository concept is great. I wish Microsoft had something like this. Everything is installed from one place; everything is updated from one place.

    The package management was always one of my favorite things about Linux. 

     

  • Linux question

    CannotResolveSymbol said:
    Erisan said:
    *snip*

    If you're starting out with Linux, Fedora is not for you.  Fedora tries to be on the bleeding edge of tech; while cool if you know what you're doing, their releases aren't always stable and can require some fiddling to get everything working like you expect.

     

    For a beginner who wants everything working out of the box, Ubuntu's the only way to go.  You should be fine using Intel Pro Wireless (Intel's wireless chipsets are probably the best-supported chipsets out there on Linux) and GMA945 should also be fine (Intel has committed to provide good support for all their graphics chipsets under Linux, with the notable exception of GMA500).

     

    This post written from a Fedora 12 install, which is about to get nuked for Ubuntu 9.10 (again).

     

    (Personally, my favorite *nix right now is OSX, but (understandably) you can't run that on your generic PC)

    (Personally, my favorite *nix right now is OSX, but (understandably) you can't run that on your generic PC)


    Well, hmm, I can't really say that. Smiley

  • Linux question

    Erisan said:

    Personally I prefer Fedora over Ubuntu for many reasons [1] but if you are interested in Ubuntu Linux Mint may be worth to check too.

     

    [1] Fedora: Overview

    I've never used Fedora for quite some time. I'll have to take a look at again one of these days. When is the next version out?

  • What's the magical ​percentage..​.

    CreamFilling512 said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    ..But as I said, it's already obsolete.

    By virtue of still being a developing technology, the WHATWG can see what works and what doesn't. I don't think the intention is to replicate all the functionality of browser plugins verbatim. Only the functionality people actually use on a wide scale.

  • What's the magical ​percentage..​.

    CreamFilling512 said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    Flash and Silverlight exists because web recommendations like HTML haven't kept up with the faster than light innovation that is happening on the web.  Look at the things Bing maps is doing with Silverlight, embedding live video inside a 3D panoramatic space.  Or the fact it can support ANY codec with the raw video support.  Or the smooth streaming, with seamless, no buffering time, auto-bandwidth adaptation and instant seeking, let's see <video> pull that off.  As someone who appreciates technology, I can't support HTML5, it was obsolete before they even started writing it.

     

    I can see why people can be averse to installing plugins, but if the only thing that HTML5 brings to the table is the requirement that you install a new browser (instead of a plugin), plus it's so-called "openness" (which is debateable), I don't see it as a very good proposition.  There's no new technology here, it's just a crappier version of what we can already do with plugins.

    Flash and Silverlight exists because web recommendations like HTML haven't kept up with the faster than light innovation that is happening on the web.

     

    Agreed. That's exactly why HTML5 is being produced.

  • What's the magical ​percentage..​.

    figuerres said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    Yeah and if a go to the apple web site without quicktime they do not tell me to get an html5 browser... they ask me to load quicktime.

     

    if i got to youtube and click on a video i get flashplayer, not a prompt to switch to html5.

     

    vimeo - same a youtube the default is flash.

     

    read what i said.... the default is what 90% or more of the visitors see.... and will keep seeing and using for a long time and may never switch. so great for 10% of users who want to see this video tag it's there if they know the secret handshake to get it.

     

    let's come back to this in say 2 years and see if things have changed by then.

    I think that has more to do with the fact that HTML5 video is not widely supported and does not have a universal codec.

  • What's the magical ​percentage..​.

    figuerres said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    "HTML5 is integrating things people would normally require browser plugins for into the core web language (HTML). Thus reducing the need for them, but not necessarily "replacing" them outright."

     

    Bass: 

       My stance is that they have a nice concept but the way it's stated and has been implimented so far it will IMHO probably never get the kind of broad useage we would like it to have. 

     

     I am all for a standard for adding video.

     

        But this looks to me like we will still see a huge number of web sites that just keep using flash and other methods to deliver video.  Shure the sites that foucs on Open Source and on Linux and related stuff will adopt it.  and Google might drive it up a bit via YouTube.....

    but even there many folks will just hit that site and use the default stuff they have and never  look at the option.

    and sites that are very commercial that spend lots of cash on fancy sites and flash designers wil have zero interest in this.

    also the sites that are related to TV and cable networks and Movie studios will also most likely keep using quicktime and flash and windows media due to thier vested intrests in using DRM and the related issues.

     

        So if you do not get them to switch then you will never see the numbers that would get others to follow the move to this new standard.  and it will just site there ...  and we will keep seeing say 80-90 % of video served up with the "old ways" and maby 10% with the video tag *if* that much.

     

    I may be wrong but from what i have heard so far thats what i see happening at least in V1 of that standard.

     

    YouTube has adopted HTML5 video. I think that is as high profile as it gets. Vimeo and DailyMotion has also adopted it. Wikipedia adopted it too, very early on. Apple has adopted it on their site. In general, there is a very strong interest in HTML5 video with sites that serve large amounts of video.

  • What's the magical ​percentage..​.

    magicalclick said:
    Harlequin said:
    *snip*

    I think it means every vendor can implement it differently and claim they are the "real" HTML standard.

     

    Anyway, I think this debate is kind of going to the wrong direction. Firstly I have to point out, the reason why the debate existed because some drunk HTML/"Open Standard" fanboys started trying to replace proprietary offerings. And obviously many people will see the wrong in those drunken fanboys and trying to assert their own opinions. And thus, the war is started. And because of this assumption, whenever HTML5 or Flash topic comes out, it is implicitly and quickly off-topic to this format war.

     

    It makes people all forgot what is the point of HTML5. It is only trying to make HTML development simpler. It is NOT trying to replace competition although there are large number of fanboys trying to make that happen.

     

     

    HTML5 is integrating things people would normally require browser plugins for into the core web language (HTML). Thus reducing the need for them, but not necessarily "replacing" them outright.

  • What's the magical ​percentage..​.

    Harlequin said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    Not quite sure what "openness" means.

    No problem. I know someone that can help you with that.  Or if you perfer a more Microsoft-centric solution.

     

    Wink

  • Win Phone 7 development documents leaked?

    Minh said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    Some objective-C code I've seen for the iPhone is UGLY as sin... and I would be flabergasted if Android decided to support that. Although I don't know anything about Android development.

     

    But my point is... if you were to convert an iPhone app to Windows Phone...

     

    The work will be in converting O-C to C#... not OGL ES to XNA

    Android does not use Obj-C, it however has a C API.

     

    You remember the language "C", the father of all C-like languages including C#? Perhaps you used it once or twice before?

     

    Well Objective-C is a true superset of C. As in ALL C CODE IS ALSO OBJECTIVE-C CODE.

     

    Yes. Objective-C is just how would you say, an "extention" to C. Not an entirely new language.

     

    OpenGL ES is a C API. Not an Objective-C API. That's okay, because "Objective-C is a true superset of C".

     

    "Android does not use Obj-C, it however has a C API."

     

    Do you get what I am saying?

     

    You are converting C (iPhone) -> C (Android), OpenGL ES (iPhone) -> OpenGL ES (Android). Wow, you really aren't converting anything.

     

    WinMob may very well be impossible to program with C, well then, this OpenGL ES thing is mostly a moot point.