I must admit that I preferred the "old" new one. Really can't put my finger on why.
I'm interested in the impact on users when one changes things several times quickly like this. Anybody here that has knowledge/experience that would like to say a few words about it. Personally I always am annoyed by change, more so when things seem to change "all the time". Anybody have some actual statistics on how people reacted to this type of design changes?
Well you obviously weren't careful enough. Nowhere in the article does he talk about a 4 GB binary or binaries. To quote him:"A 4GB Tex distribution dependant on over a 100 binaries" He is talking about the _whole_ distribution not a single or several binaries. So even though you were careful, you still misquoted the article.
"The App Store guidelines insist that any iPad app be a single executable. Jailbreaking would ease this restriction, but in this case Apple’s gatekeepers are right. A 4GB TeX distribution dependant on over 100 binaries is not acceptable on the iPad."
From that quote ("A 4GB TeX distribution dependant on over 100 binaries is not acceptable on the iPad."), it is clear that he is musing about a scenario where he ships all 4GB. As stated many times (and also in that same quote), on the iPhone you are forced to ship something as one executable. Thus, the theoretical distribution he is referring to would in fact be a single executable of about 4GB. In fact I think that's the whole point of those two sentences. So it appears that I was indeed quite careful.
> As stated many times (and also in that same quote), on the iPhone you are forced to ship something as one executable.
On the other hand, yes the executable must be "one". On the other hand you can download stuff (either directly or via DLC). The issue is that while Apple has relaxed their restrictions on bundling interpreters in applications (you can do that), they have not relaxed their restrictions on downloading interpretable code: it's not allowed. So downloading even styles would be verboten, since styles are TeX, and TeX is executable code.
I think you are missing the point. The apple guidelines do not state that a program can only consist of an executable. That would not make any sense. Rather they state that any application can only consist of a single executable in addition to whatever resource files are included. In the case of the Latex distribution in question one would have to convert all 100 executables into one executable, my guess would be perhaps 100 megabytes. In addition one would have to include lots of resource files, mainly sty-files bringing the whole bundle of an executable + resource files up to 4GB.
AFAIK Apple doesn't restrict you from bundling files in your application. That simply wouldn't make any sense.
The point here is that he is talking about an application consisting of a single runnable binary of size X with tons of bundled .sty-files that brings the whole application up to 4GB.
Previously, this would not be allowed, since .sty-files are interpreted (which in turn would make it impossible to implement LaTeX on the iPhone), but that really wasn't the point here. The point is simply that this wouldn't be a single 4GB executable, but a an executable of perhaps 100MB bundled with a whole bunch of .sty (and other) files to a total size of 4 GB.
Edit: Fixed typos. Sorry. HN doesn't work very well on my phone.
Don't think that is the case. It was limited to merchants in a few countries, but it was not limited to US customers. I once purchased a computer from UK using Google checkout, and I live in Norway.
How ironic. They talk about providing the best user experience on the web, yet their site offers a sub par experience on my phone. The text doesn't scale when zooming, so basically it's unreadable on the phone.
This article on its own simply makes no sense. First he talks about the launch of GNNS and apple including support for glonass, without mentioning any of the benefits (if producers include chipsets for multiple location estimation methods end users can expect more reliable, stable, and in some instances, more precise location estimation).
Suddenly, out of the blue, he claims that this will create an arms race to produce disruptive location based services. A claim, that on it's own, simply doesn't make sense. Further he claims that the downside is location based ads, as if this is some kind of new concept.
None of the "conclusions" in this article seem to make any sense.
I have much the same history as you. Started out in basic, but turbo pascal was what really got me going. I must admit that sometimes I really miss those days. But then I remember the horrible feeling when the diskette and the backup diskette with my hard work died, and suddenly I don't miss it that much after all.
Some of my fondest middle school memories are of hacking NIBBLES.BAS to add support for dropping mines. Nothing like the addition of weapons to spice up a game.
Me too. I added a 3rd snake that was black and controlled by the computer. Also made it so the levels wrapped so if you went off one edge you appeared on the other side. The unintended consequence was you could get into the scoreboard and eat your own score numbers!
Yeah. I read that. But I'm mainly into academia. So I'm not really referring to my professional life when I call my self a programmer, though I do program in my professional life as well. Just like I call my self I write when referring to my hobby/side-job as an online journalist.
AFAIK, based on the last talk by RMS I attended he condoned copyright on works of fiction only, not on works of fact. So no copyright on manuals, textbooks, scientific articles, etc.
I hear you. I too cringe each time I see a post about RMS here. I know I "have" to read it, at the same time as I know I will get angry and extremely disillusioned about mankind doing so.
Personally I'm not a huge fan of RMS. I agree with a lot of what he says, but at the same time I cannot agree with the way he presents it. There are two reasons why I am a member of The Linux Foundation, and not the FSF, and their names are Richard Stallman and Matt Lee. Though I feel very strong about the motives and ideology of FSF, I simply cannot condone their way of presenting them. I personally feel that RMS does as least as much to harm their goal as to aid it, and I find ML to be horribly hypocritical. No matter how much a disagree with how their do tings, I would never disrespect them as human being. But sometimes it feels like I'm alone in the world. Everybody else either adores them, or tries their darndest to disrespect them.
This is in no way unique to HN. I see it everywhere. Even in the media (here in Norway). Last time RMS talked here, all of the important IT-related media where represented. (And I noticed immediately that they were more concerned with their beers than actually listening). The articles the day after were horrible. RMS had talked about some really far out there, fairly absurd stuff, and some really smart, realistic stuff. Every single media gave their best effort to make RMS look like a loon. _None_ of the smart, realistic stuff was mentioned, even with a single word, anywhere. An they had twisted the far out stuff, to look even worse. One of them seemed even to either not have listened to a word, or was simply making stuff up. RMS said at least 6 times specifically: "I'm not talking about Micropayments, I'm talking about making pay what you like/can easier", "Don't confuse this with micropayments", etc. Yet this journalist managed to write a half an article about all of the stuff RMS had "said" about micropayments.
I'm interested in the impact on users when one changes things several times quickly like this. Anybody here that has knowledge/experience that would like to say a few words about it. Personally I always am annoyed by change, more so when things seem to change "all the time". Anybody have some actual statistics on how people reacted to this type of design changes?