Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Jul 2012 23:39 UTC
Windows Ars Technica is running an interesting article about the Mail application on Windows 8. It's one of the first party Metro applications, and Ars' conclusion is that it's really, really not up to snuff - it can't even compare favourably to the mail application on Windows Phone. The sad thing is, however - this applies to virtually all Metro applications.
Thread beginning with comment 526883
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Too many platforms
by toast88 on Sun 15th Jul 2012 09:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too many platforms"
toast88
Member since:
2009-09-23

Yes it does, only someone that does not work as a professional software developer can make such a statement.


First sentence directly being an insult, yay, that's how we start arguments.


Try to do this with a binary compiled dynamically in 1994.


Works without problems. You just have to provide the dynamic libraries it was specifically compiled against. Same on Windows with the DLLs.

"You can see how powerful APIs like POSIX, SDL and Qt are by looking at how applications are released on POSIX systems. Virtually EVERY application you have on Linux compiles flawlessly on *BSD or MacOSX (with Macports, for example).


SDL and Qt are not operating system APIs.
"

True. But they are competing with APIs from Microsoft like DirectX, MFC and Win32 and they are gaining more and more market share due to their cross-platform compatibility.

Valve just hired the lead developer of SDL.



Deprecating parts of the API while providing good documentation on these changes is a very good thing.


"You can even compile and run Cocoa applications on Linux: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2humz9hIVM


That is GNUStep, not Cocoa, with lots of missing functionality.
"

I didn't claim that. However, GNUStep does allow to run many MacOS applications on Linux. It is demonstrated by the guy in the talk.

"Anyone who has a decent understanding and experience with programming on Windows and Unix systems knows that the Microsoft world is a mess when it comes to APIs.


Anyone with a decent experience developing software across multiple operating systems, knows that Microsoft world is quite bearable, when compared with many of the commercial enterprise systems available.
"

There aren't really any other commercial platforms left. Alpha, Solaris, HP-UX and so on don't really exist anymore.

"Their code is so messy and heavily platform-dependent, that they can't even sync the code of simple applications like Windows Messenger on different platforms (Windows and MacOS), OneNote (the non-Windows versions of OneNote lack most of the features of the desktop application) or Internet Explorer (IE has always been behind on WP7).


Different teams, even working in different buildings.
"

This doesn't justify anything. It works for Apple and it works at Google. Microsoft is just incredibly bad in this regard.

Heck, they don't even know how to read out the home directory on MacOS X using an environment variable, they always assume your home directory is in /Users (try using Microsoft software for MacOS X with a case-sensitive filesystem).

"Microsoft is suffering from their own platform-lockin and API unstabilities. It wouldn't have taken them forever otherwise to get NT ported to the mobile platform.


The same platform lockin like any other commercial vendor.
"

No. http://opensource.apple.com/

"Linux, on the other side, is already supporting soon architectures which aren't even available in hardware yet (ARM Arch 64).


Great! Where I do buy such hardware with Linux?
"

What is your problem? Most ARM devices shipped nowadays run Linux. Just use your favorite internet search engine and you will be happy.

I have developed commercial software for Aix, HP-UX, Solaris, Linux, BSD, OS/400, Symbian, NeXTStep, Mac OS X, Windows, Android.

What are your developer credentials to talk about stability of operating system APIs?


Are we going to compare penis lengths now? This is not how you're going to win an argument. It's like saying "My parents are richer than yours, so I must be right!"

You can argue whatever you want, but Microsoft is doomed to decline in the future (just like ATARI or Commodore). Just have a look how many companies are jumping the Linux bandwagon. Valve, being probably one of the most important game publishers, is hiring Linux developers like crazy. And even Microsoft itself contributes lots of code to the Linux world (Skype 4.0, Hyper-V).

I feel really sorry for people who are so attached to Microsoft that they're even willing to waive for features and usability when switching from Windows 7 to the awkward Windows 8.

Adrian

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Too many platforms
by moondevil on Sun 15th Jul 2012 11:00 in reply to "RE[4]: Too many platforms"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

"Try to do this with a binary compiled dynamically in 1994.


Works without problems. You just have to provide the dynamic libraries it was specifically compiled against. Same on Windows with the DLLs.
"

No, because those .so won't be able to link with the kernel ABI of today's Linuxes.

"[q]You can see how powerful APIs like POSIX, SDL and Qt are by looking at how applications are released on POSIX systems. Virtually EVERY application you have on Linux compiles flawlessly on *BSD or MacOSX (with Macports, for example).


SDL and Qt are not operating system APIs.
"

True. But they are competing with APIs from Microsoft like DirectX, MFC and Win32 and they are gaining more and more market share due to their cross-platform compatibility. [/q] [/q]

We were talking about operating system APIs. DirectX and MFC are also not operating system APIs.

Valve just hired the lead developer of SDL.


So what? Sam is well known in the game developers community, surely Valve hired him for more than just Linux.

Before
None. MacOS X still has the same native API it got when it was introduced, namely Cocoa which is based on NeXTStep which has been around since the 80ies.


after

Deprecating parts of the API while providing good documentation on these changes is a very good thing.


Better make your mind what Apple does.

Before
You can even compile and run Cocoa applications on Linux: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2humz9hIVM


after

I didn't claim that. However, GNUStep does allow to run many MacOS applications on Linux.


Well I read your comment as Cocoa was fully supported in Linux. Changed your mind?

There aren't really any other commercial platforms left. Alpha, Solaris, HP-UX and so on don't really exist anymore.


Better don't tell that to the guys paying for consulting support on those systems.



Where is the source code for Cocoa and iOS?

"I have developed commercial software for Aix, HP-UX, Solaris, Linux, BSD, OS/400, Symbian, NeXTStep, Mac OS X, Windows, Android.

What are your developer credentials to talk about stability of operating system APIs?


Are we going to compare penis lengths now? This is not how you're going to win an argument. It's like saying "My parents are richer than yours, so I must be right!"
"

No, it is saying that I have real life experience to know what I speak of, and am not making stuff up.

I feel really sorry for people who are so attached to Microsoft that they're even willing to waive for features and usability when switching from Windows 7 to the awkward Windows 8.


No need to feel sorry.

I don't care about programming languages or operating systems. I care for what customers want, and how much they pay.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Too many platforms
by cyrilleberger on Mon 16th Jul 2012 07:58 in reply to "RE[5]: Too many platforms"
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

No, because those .so won't be able to link with the kernel ABI of today's Linuxes.


I guess, you meant "syscall" ? Since syscalls are considered a private API, a "professional software developer" would not use them, and instead would use the POSIX API that are exposed in the glibc, which keeps backward binary compatibility.

Any professional software developer that use syscalls directly instead of POSIX should be demoted from its "professional" rank (with a few exceptions being Kernel and libc hackers).

Edited 2012-07-16 07:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

What is your problem? Most ARM devices shipped nowadays run Linux. Just use your favorite internet search engine and you will be happy.

No, he was pointing out that there aren't any arm 64 devices, as they don't exist and the support for them in linux doesn't really matter to anyone today. Well, Of course, it will matter a great deal for manufacturers who are looking build devices for the hardware, but I don't think he thought about that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Too many platforms
by Wafflez on Mon 16th Jul 2012 12:42 in reply to "RE[4]: Too many platforms"
Wafflez Member since:
2011-06-26

It's like saying "My parents are richer than yours, so I must be right!"

Well, if someone would have a flame about 'what it means to be a spoiled brat', he would be right for real.

And now you're flaming about software development and that indeed gives credibility saying 'I develop software for living'....

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Too many platforms
by ulricr on Mon 16th Jul 2012 14:19 in reply to "RE[4]: Too many platforms"
ulricr Member since:
2012-01-14


"[q]You can even compile and run Cocoa applications on Linux: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2humz9hIVM


That is GNUStep, not Cocoa, with lots of missing functionality.
"

I didn't claim that. However, GNUStep does allow to run many MacOS applications on Linux. It is demonstrated by the guy in the talk.

[/q]
and WineLib allows you to compile Win32 apps on Linux or Mac, that doens't prove anythings. There are countless Win32 porting toolkits for Linux.. One group in my company is using one called MainWin by MainSoft. The FULL Win32 API on Linux, based on NT source code licensed from microsoft.



"[q]Their code is so messy and heavily platform-dependent, that they can't even sync the code of simple applications like Windows Messenger on different platforms (Windows and MacOS), OneNote (the non-Windows versions of OneNote lack most of the features of the desktop application) or Internet Explorer (IE has always been behind on WP7).


Different teams, even working in different buildings.
"

This doesn't justify anything. It works for Apple and it works at Google. Microsoft is just incredibly bad in this regard. [/q] [/q]

Apple ports iTunes to windows using a Carbon porting library that they build for Quicktime. That framework is ultimately implemented in Win32, of course, everything is. None of this has anything to do with a greater vision of portability; they are NOT using Object C or any NextStep frameworks for this.


On the Microsoft side, microsoft also DID use a Win32 porting toolkit, with the API and MFC ported to the Mac. And made the much windows-like Word 6 for the Mac with it They even sold cross a compiler at the time, Visual C++ Macintosh Edition. Then they stopped doing that, because people and Apple asked for apps that felt more native. Apple apps made with Qt also kind of suck compared to somethign developped natively.

Google has used WINE for Picassa, and they use different native code for Chrome. It's really just a rathole, because you're confusing OS APis, GUI frameworks, clones of these frameworks like GNUstep, and other stuff together. there is no cohesive point being made here except that you are not a developer.



"[q]Microsoft is suffering from their own platform-lockin and API unstabilities. It wouldn't have taken them forever otherwise to get NT ported to the mobile platform.


The same platform lockin like any other commercial vendor.
"

No. http://opensource.apple.com/
[/q]I don't think you know what's there.

Reply Parent Score: 2