World: r3wp
[Tech News] Interesting technology
older newer | first last |
Henrik 11-Feb-2009 [3678] | http://nettuts.com/videos/screencasts/how-ubiquity-will-change-the-way-you-browse-the-web/ From the mailing list. This is pretty interesting. |
Izkata 11-Feb-2009 [3679] | One of my friends has used Ubiquity for a while now. He definiely likes it - but it doesn't work well with Vimperator, so I can't really use it in Firefox. |
Pekr 11-Feb-2009 [3680] | nothing special, but now every magazine will talk about it, and it will become the next big thing. That is how many things became popular in the past :-) |
AdrianS 11-Feb-2009 [3681x3] | I've been using it for a while - I thought the same as you, Petr, but once you use it you can see that there is a bit more to it |
the thing that maybe isn't clear when you first hear about it is how it can make use of the context of what you're browsing or what you've selected, in what you can write on the command line | |
they plan on making it work out of the browser too | |
Pekr 11-Feb-2009 [3684] | AdrianS: the thing is, that this news was posted to some of rebol worlds some few weeks ago, by me :-) I am well aware of what it means, or might mean. I know it is interesting, but it is also how things should be, for many many years. This is one of those small things, which can turn into something bigger. With a bit of luck though - sometimes media choose one thing, and make it become the next big thing. E.g. look like Ruby got popular because of Rails, a killer app. I wish R3 some killer app too :-) |
yeksoon 11-Feb-2009 [3685] | For what it is worth, Palm CEO mentions that there's a few apps that he would like to be launched with Pre. Epocrates, a medical app is one of them. Source: http://www.precentral.net/palm-ceo-ed-colligan-talks-pre-investors |
btiffin 12-Feb-2009 [3686] | http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7242 Microsoft posts Help Wanted ad for Director of Open Source Strategy |
btiffin 15-Feb-2009 [3687] | Debian 5.0, err I mean DEBIAN 5.0! http://debian.orgWoohoo! |
Graham 15-Feb-2009 [3688] | What's important? |
btiffin 15-Feb-2009 [3689] | For us fans? We get to apt-get out of Squeeze now instead of Lenny? ;) Too bad there was no Hawaii character in Toy Story; we could have had Hawaii 5.0 For technical bits; http://debian.org/News/2009/20090214 |
yeksoon 16-Feb-2009 [3690] | iPhone not welcome in LAS Vegas http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/16/card-counting-iphones-021609/ |
Reichart 17-Feb-2009 [3691] | http://www.wimp.com/videotrace/3D video tracing... |
Graham 17-Feb-2009 [3692] | Windows 7 starter version will have a limit of 3 third party apps that can be run concurrrently ..... what is MS thinking??? |
BrianH 17-Feb-2009 [3693x2] | They are thinking that they are only selling this to people in third-world countries to give them an alternative to Linux. |
You and I won't be able to buy starter, which we might think is worth the $3 they are charging, iirc. | |
Graham 17-Feb-2009 [3695] | I guess just rename each app and call it office. |
BrianH 17-Feb-2009 [3696x2] | Or go with the multi-purpose single-exe multi-dll suite model for your third-party apps. |
You need a cryptographic signiature to make it look like it's not third-party. | |
Henrik 17-Feb-2009 [3698x2] | I wonder if their previous strategy with doing 3 limited exes on Windows XP starter edition was really a success. I doubt it, though. |
I think their idea of physical stores is more amusing. They really have to do that right, or it will fail big time. | |
Pekr 17-Feb-2009 [3700] | One of those two phones is going to be my phone choice later this year - http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/smartphones/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=214303414&subSection=All+Stories |
Graham 17-Feb-2009 [3701] | XP starter edition . never knew about that one! |
Robert 18-Feb-2009 [3702] | XP: This is one example of an idea that's created on the whiteboard, everyone internal get thrilled about it, a lot of effort is spent etc. and that will completely fail in the market. Than everyone is totally shocked why this happend. Good example how miss-management results in bad products no one cares about. |
Pekr 18-Feb-2009 [3703] | How new WebOS (Palm Pre) is going to work - http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/02/palm-pulls-back-the-curtain-on-webos-technical-details.ars# |
Henrik 24-Feb-2009 [3704] | http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/02/24/apple_releases_public_beta_of_safari_4_browser.html New Safari beta with some eyepopping features. |
Geomol 24-Feb-2009 [3705] | Dubbed Nitro," the engine in Safari 4 is said to run JavaScript 4.2 times faster than Safari 3." 4.2 times. That's a lot! I'm wondering, why they did it so bad at first? |
Henrik 24-Feb-2009 [3706x2] | Safari 3's javascript engine is supposed to only be a bit slower than Chrome's V8, so I think it's only in extreme cases that it's faster. |
wow, it's pretty slick. just installed it. | |
Geomol 24-Feb-2009 [3708] | Btw. that link make my Safari eat all CPU. |
Henrik 24-Feb-2009 [3709] | http://rebol.hmkdesign.dk/files/safari4.png |
Robert 24-Feb-2009 [3710] | Beware if you publish which sites you read... |
Henrik 24-Feb-2009 [3711] | interestingly, the URL bar looks _exactly_ like one of my earlier skin attempts for the R3 GUI :-) |
Gabriele 25-Feb-2009 [3712] | why they did it so bad at first? - they didn't, it's just that the WHOLE world has been up to optimizing JS interpreters in the last two years. |
Henrik 25-Feb-2009 [3713] | except Microsoft. It was more important for them to get Songsmith out on time. |
Gabriele 25-Feb-2009 [3714] | well, the faster JS gets, and the easier creating web apps gets, the more MS loses "dominance". so it's obvious they don't want to help ;) but they have to keep IE from losing market share, so they can't do nothing either. |
Henrik 25-Feb-2009 [3715] | and now this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/24/microsoft_gazelle_browser/ The Gazelle technology would be slower than the current IE, holds an entire operating system for sandboxing. Could things possible be going in a more wrong direction for webbrowsing? |
Gabriele 25-Feb-2009 [3716] | they should probably realize, that like IBM, their time is up. (but like IBM, they're going to be around and profitable. just give up the world domination thing.) |
Henrik 25-Feb-2009 [3717] | If all goes well, they'll fizzle out and the world quietly moves on, i.e. back on track. |
Geomol 25-Feb-2009 [3718] | One day people will realize, that it's a bad idea to build applications within a browser, and then all this browser war is over. :-) (And I at the same time have a feeling, there's a slight chance, I'm wrong, and everything will end up in browsers. I hope, it's not become that.) |
Henrik 25-Feb-2009 [3719] | Geomol, without ReBrowser to lead the way, in 5 years we will be doing 10% better webapps, just by using 8 times more CPU. :-) |
Geomol 25-Feb-2009 [3720] | or 40% worse, if we use MS technology. ;-) |
Henrik 25-Feb-2009 [3721x2] | Gabriele, as painful as it is to us, the easiest way for MS to maintain dominance is to slowly move away from W3C even further than now. For IE8 and IE9 that could grow. That could get them back to their old dream of their own internet. As hard as I would want them to, I don't think they would crash and burn on that. Since it's unfair to compare IE to other browsers, we could risk MS creating their own terms now, while IE still has dominance. |
So for an evil corp perspective, MS is doing the wrong thing. That's good for us. :-) | |
Robert 25-Feb-2009 [3723] | Geomol, I agree. And I think it will happen. The first company breaking out of the stupid "web-app" path, delivering a product that adds so much more value for customers that they use, gaining market momentum will win the game. |
Pekr 25-Feb-2009 [3724] | Robert, Geomol - I am not sure you are right, even if I do understand your message. The thing is, that the browser is not just html interpreter. It is nowadays a container for native technologies. JS is a glue. So, if HTML 5 adds video, it is done in native level, hence there is no reason why it should be slow, etc. It is just that so far guys did not agree upon media formats. |
Robert 25-Feb-2009 [3725] | I think they will never get all the different technologies playing together in such a smooth way. It's just to complex, hence to expensive. If you can provide a solution in 1/5 of time and budget, showing everyone it works as good or even better, youwill win. |
Pekr 25-Feb-2009 [3726] | I think, that for the sake of the world, it is a bad news, that JS is getting better and better. Guys trying to claim web-apps can be real-time, are almost true. However - hopefully no matter how they try, JS (web) based app will be crappy stuff even for few years coming, no matter how fast they get it running, as the problem is overall complexity of the whole web aproach ... |
BrianH 25-Feb-2009 [3727] | See, Graham, this is why there wasn't a JavaScript group before and there isn't much discussion in it now: People will discuss JavaScript everywhere else, regardless of group topic :) |
older newer | first last |