I installed the new Vista updates and they appear to have wiped out my user account. The account is still there, the password still works, but once logged on I see that it's like it's a brand new account. Everything was wiped out of My Documents. AppData
is cleaned out. The desktop only contains shared icons, and none of the personal icons I'd placed there. The start menu no longer has any of my recently executed applications. My home page was reset. And on and on and on. Everything is as if this were
a brand new account.
I can't say for sure that this was caused by the Vista updates, but it occurred after the reboot from the last update, so it seems likely. I'd just recommend you ensure you have a backup of your documents before applying these updates.
I installed the new Vista updates and they appear to have wiped out my user account. The account is still there, the password still works, but once logged on I see that it's like it's a brand new account. Everything was wiped out of My Documents. AppData is cleaned out. The desktop only contains shared icons, and none of the personal icons I'd placed there. The start menu no longer has any of my recently executed applications. My home page was reset. And on and on and on. Everything is as if this were a brand new account.
Of course, on the surface, he was correct. Ultimately, though, you aren't going to download an application to check your bank balance. You aren't going to download an application to trade stocks. You aren't going to download an application to shop for widgets.
The web is perfect for these 'applications'. Where it falls down is when people see a few AJAX pages and assume that we'll soon be running everything from the web.
Outlook Web Access is a classic example. It has a pretty heavy set of features, and the last version I used, while limited, still did much more than you'd expect from a web app.
That said, though, one minute spent using Outlook.exe, and you realize how much MORE you can get out of a real application. Plus, I'd bet that if you had to write identical functionality in an app and a web page, the app would take less time, resources, and money.
I only partially agree with your list of "legitimate web applications" (my summation, not literally a quote from you).
1. Check my bank balance. No, for just that, the web is fine. But there's a reason Microsoft Money and Quicken still sell. What *I* would expect is for a lot of the data access to be in web services. The bank's web site would include a very simplistic view of this data for checking my balance, viewing transactions, and possibly sending out e-payments. On that same site, I'd love to see an "icon" I can click that starts a rich application that allows me to do all of the things that Quicken and Money are so great for, and that I'd curse a blue storm if I had to do in the browser.
2. Trade stocks. Hmm... not so sure about that one. Watching a stock ticker and simple trading are one thing, but heavy analysis to do hard core trading probably still needs a richer environment. So, we're back to my banking scenario here as well.
3. Shopping for widgets. Well, yeah. That's static content with a cart. However, as some of the WPF demos showed off, a richer kiosk experience for shopping can be very "cool" and may actually help you to sell products. Works great on the Web, but may work better as a distributed application. I'm not sure here. But I'll give you this one.
Other than that, I agree with everything you said.
ScanIAm wrote:I had a boss, once, who was making fun of web applications in the late 90s. He had built his business on PC applications that ran on the client.
Anyway, he commented something to the effect that web apps were mainframe apps with pretty graphics on top.
Of course, he also felt that they'd never catch on
He was right. A web application at the time was no different from a Green Screen or dumb terminal, other than it allowed richer text and graphics. AJAX changed that to some degree, but not much. I'd also agree with him about it "catching on". I see little evidence that they've caught on even today. What has caught on is the distributed nature of web applications. Being able to run from anywhere, and having simplified deployment is huge. But who actually likes using them? The only two I care for are GMail and GReader, both of which are static document forms of applications, which is what the Web was built for.
Then again, I'm not a CEO, so my opinion is wrong.
Amen brother! I was saying this way back in '95 with Web 1.0. There's a limited number of "applications" that can actually work within the confines of the browser. Even things like Flash and Silverlight don't change my opinion about that. Use the browser to find the application (maybe even as your "desktop") but launch the applications locally in their own window with full desktop capabilities.
Red Hat helping Novell? You can't be serious. That has to be the stupidest thing, bar none, I've ever heard on Channel 9.
somehow i imaging the Linux community as singing and dancing together
freedom, peace and love and all that hippy communist stuff
Has humanity really degraded to a point where murder, rape, greed, etc are positive things and freedom, peace and love are negative things?
While Cornelius's post was out of line, this response is lacking. No one has claimed murder, rape and greed are positive things, and you have to stretch things a bit to come up with peace and love being considered negative.
johnny.NET wrote:Does anyone know if there will be a Perl implementation of .NET, maybe IronPerl?
<half-joking>Lord, I hope not! http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/blog/code/PeriodicTable.html</half-joking>
In all honesty, I despise Perl, and would use it only if I absolutely had to, whether it were a .NET version or not. But that's a personal preference thing. From a wider view point, I think an IronPerl sounds like a good idea, even if I won't use it.
Mono is very capable on Linux. However, if you want to make a living coding with .NET on Linux, your options are very narrow. In that case, Java would be your better bet, though if you get hired into a company, it's likely they'll be developing on Windows and deploying on Linux or some other Unix platform.
C is certainly viable, though again you'll find your avenues for employment fairly narrow, especially with your Linux requirement. C is used mostly for systems level work. A job working on embedded systems that use Linux and C would be one fit.
Didn't Steve Ballmer compare open source to a malignant cancer and communism just a few years back? Not saying this isn't a good idea for them, but quite out of character.
He actually compared GPL (once you use GPL'ed code you're forced to license your code under the same license) to a cancer, not open source.
Doesn't the Microsoft Community Licence have the same "viral" nature?
Similar enough for my tastes. I'd avoid that license for the same reasons I tend to avoid the GPL (I'll use GPLed applications, I won't touch GPLed code). It did seem strange to me that Microsoft made this license. It would be interesting to hear a discussion of how this differs from GPL, and more importantly, why Microsoft decided to invent such a license considering their very public stance against viral licenses.
Chinmay007 wrote:First Microsoft launches an open source website, and now they one to submit licences to the OSI? Whaaa whaaa what?
Not sure what you mean either. The "Whaa whaaa what?" could mean anything.
That said, it only makes sense for Microsoft to get into the Open Source game, at least in some areas. Development tools and languages are an area where it makes perfect sense.