That is all. The fact that EVERYTHING is web based and nothing is file based except stupid USB drives would drive me fucking mental.tazz. wrote:
I'd probably choose Jolicloud.
i don't know, Zimmer - i'm rooted with su, and have an 8gb micro sd card i can move files to/from. i can connect a camera now and move pictures to/from. this tablet is rapidly becoming a laptop replacement for me . . .Zimmer wrote:
That is all. The fact that EVERYTHING is web based and nothing is file based except stupid USB drives would drive me fucking mental.tazz. wrote:
I'd probably choose Jolicloud.
That's a ridiculous article anyway. There is no such thing as the Windows killer, nor will there ever be. Not unless a Linux distro implements seamless integration with Windows executables and a consistent UI, and even then it would have to be immensely good out-of-the-box to pose a threat.CapnNismo wrote:
.
Ed Bott (a friend) wrote this article explaining why Chrome OS won't be able to really succeed in the enterprise market... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/five-rea … iller/3290
Agreed.Zimmer wrote:
Not unless a Linux distro implements seamless integration with Windows executables and a consistent UI, and even then it would have to be immensely good out-of-the-box to pose a threat.
Not for a very long time. I'm sorry, but everything doesn't just suddenly switch to Cloud Computing. There needs to be progressive change, not sudden. People will not follow sudden change, it's a psychological fact. It's also impossible to achieve because you can't get rid of all the file based systems in one go. What Chromebook has done is just that, and it's not smart. If Chromebook allowed file storage as well, then it'd be actually decent and comparable to Jolicloud... but it doesn't. Google are trying to force an idea that is far too early in development to throw out there and hope they'll make a good profit on it.Naturn wrote:
Some of you may not like cloud computing, but its the future.
But I want rounded corners now, dammit!Zimmer wrote:
Not for a very long time. I'm sorry, but everything doesn't just suddenly switch to Cloud Computing. There needs to be progressive change, not sudden. People will not follow sudden change, it's a psychological fact. It's also impossible to achieve because you can't get rid of all the file based systems in one go. What Chromebook has done is just that, and it's not smart. If Chromebook allowed file storage as well, then it'd be actually decent and comparable to Jolicloud... but it doesn't. Google are trying to force an idea that is far too early in development to throw out there and hope they'll make a good profit on it.Naturn wrote:
Some of you may not like cloud computing, but its the future.
Google do this all the time, and they're not too good at it. Pushing out baby technologies when they're not ready is not smart. They're doing it with CSS3 and HTML5, and all the idiot developers who think it's cool are jumping on the bandwagon... then realising it doesn't work on the majority of browsers, or actually just in Chrome.
Cheez wrote:
But I want rounded corners now, dammit!Zimmer wrote:
Not for a very long time. I'm sorry, but everything doesn't just suddenly switch to Cloud Computing. There needs to be progressive change, not sudden. People will not follow sudden change, it's a psychological fact. It's also impossible to achieve because you can't get rid of all the file based systems in one go. What Chromebook has done is just that, and it's not smart. If Chromebook allowed file storage as well, then it'd be actually decent and comparable to Jolicloud... but it doesn't. Google are trying to force an idea that is far too early in development to throw out there and hope they'll make a good profit on it.Naturn wrote:
Some of you may not like cloud computing, but its the future.
Google do this all the time, and they're not too good at it. Pushing out baby technologies when they're not ready is not smart. They're doing it with CSS3 and HTML5, and all the idiot developers who think it's cool are jumping on the bandwagon... then realising it doesn't work on the majority of browsers, or actually just in Chrome.
Hmmmm....Zimmer wrote:
Google do this all the time, and they're not too good at it. Pushing out baby technologies when they're not ready is not smart. They're doing it with CSS3 and HTML5, and all the idiot developers who think it's cool are jumping on the bandwagon... then realising it doesn't work on the majority of browsers, or actually just in Chrome.
I like my Cr-48.CapnNismo wrote:
You can't tell me that a price of over $400 USD is a good price for such a machine, though... I had the initial Cr-48, too, and it was a load of garbage.
If there was no push, it wouldn't happen as quickly as it perhaps needs to. I think with the different web technologies this is a good thing. Chromebooks? Not so sure. I recall reading somewhere that Google won't be selling these in stores at all so as to avoid customers getting suckered into one. That's pretty cool of Google, a good way to protect their image, I think.tazz. wrote:
Hmmmm....Zimmer wrote:
Google do this all the time, and they're not too good at it. Pushing out baby technologies when they're not ready is not smart. They're doing it with CSS3 and HTML5, and all the idiot developers who think it's cool are jumping on the bandwagon... then realising it doesn't work on the majority of browsers, or actually just in Chrome.
But if there was no "push" would it happen at all?
I agree that it should be well thought out and they should take their sweet time, and consequently release an updated standard, but that's only good in theory. I feel CSS3/HTML5 is positive simply because it is a push. you know?
I like when people talk about "cloud computing" in conjunction with gimmicky desktop interactions (i.e. Microsoft's to the cloud ads). "saving something somewhere" really has fuck all to do with it. Having said that I agree with the statement.Naturn wrote:
Some of you may not like cloud computing, but its the future.
My god this.Zimmer wrote:
Google do this all the time, and they're not too good at it. Pushing out baby technologies when they're not ready is not smart. They're doing it with CSS3 and HTML5, and all the idiot developers who think it's cool are jumping on the bandwagon... then realising it doesn't work on the majority of browsers, or actually just in Chrome.
That's rubbish. The push is still there, what I'm saying is that Google is applying it to real world ideas and websites and therefore fucking a massive % of the population because it only works on their browser. Then idiot developers jump on the bandwagon because they think that site is really cool, and in short you have a ton of stupid websites that come up with a notice telling you THEY ONLY WORK ON WEBKIT BROWSERS. It's ridiculous and stupid. Web standards were created for a reason, not to just fill in a gap. HTML5 is developing at the speed it needs to, because the actual technologies it plans to use in conjunction STILL haven't even been fully created. Google is being stupid and wanting to push it out at an alarming rate... So that means other browsers try and implement it as well, and that ends up with a criss crossing of different rendering methods for each browser and then browser specific standards. It ends up being a mess.tazz. wrote:
Hmmmm....
But if there was no "push" would it happen at all?
I agree that it should be well thought out and they should take their sweet time, and consequently release an updated standard, but that's only good in theory. I feel CSS3/HTML5 is positive simply because it is a push. you know?
background:-webkit-gradient(linear, 0 0, 0 100%, from(#9cff00), to(#6bb000)); background:-moz-linear-gradient(#9cff00, #6bb000); background:-o-linear-gradient(#9cff00, #6bb000); background:linear-gradient(#9cff00, #6bb000);
That's why I said Webkit browsersCapnNismo wrote:
Don't forget to include Apple's Safari in on this one, Zim. They're just as guilty.
Oh it shits me something savage having to do 5 different variations of the same thing...Zimmer wrote:
That's rubbish. The push is still there, what I'm saying is that Google is applying it to real world ideas and websites and therefore fucking a massive % of the population because it only works on their browser. Then idiot developers jump on the bandwagon because they think that site is really cool, and in short you have a ton of stupid websites that come up with a notice telling you THEY ONLY WORK ON WEBKIT BROWSERS. It's ridiculous and stupid. Web standards were created for a reason, not to just fill in a gap. HTML5 is developing at the speed it needs to, because the actual technologies it plans to use in conjunction STILL haven't even been fully created. Google is being stupid and wanting to push it out at an alarming rate... So that means other browsers try and implement it as well, and that ends up with a criss crossing of different rendering methods for each browser and then browser specific standards. It ends up being a mess.tazz. wrote:
Hmmmm....
But if there was no "push" would it happen at all?
I agree that it should be well thought out and they should take their sweet time, and consequently release an updated standard, but that's only good in theory. I feel CSS3/HTML5 is positive simply because it is a push. you know?
I don't want to go about writing:To get a gradient that goes across all browsers. It's stupid and inefficient. Added to that Chrome have ACTUALLY made the fucking parameters for that gradient different to the rest. Why?!Code:
background:-webkit-gradient(linear, 0 0, 0 100%, from(#9cff00), to(#6bb000)); background:-moz-linear-gradient(#9cff00, #6bb000); background:-o-linear-gradient(#9cff00, #6bb000); background:linear-gradient(#9cff00, #6bb000);
filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.gradient(startColorstr='#9cff00', endColorstr='#6bb000');
