gill_bates

20 ms·

1.
by gill_bates 16y ago
Go back through the history of Apple's (and its many, many sycophantic fans) proclamations - such as apps on the phone, push notifications, multitasking - and there is a disturbing trend of Apple (and its followeres) making moral pontifica
2.
by gill_bates 16y ago
Ugh. Their.
3.
by gill_bates 16y ago
Always with the mouse hover. You know that the DOM/HTML(5) includes mouse hover, right? I guess the web just doesn't work.
4.
by gill_bates 16y ago
I makes total sense. Shall I reword it slightly for you? Were Apple and Adobe to work together, as we are with a number of other partners, we feel confident that we could provide a terrific experience with Flash on the iPhone, iPad and iPod
5.
by gill_bates 16y ago
Are you kidding? There response was brilliant, and it is right on the money. Steve Jobs arguments are contradictory and largely asinine, and they aren't worth retort. Adobe has essentially wiped their hands and said "Whatever, troll" which
6.
by gill_bates 16y ago
> would estimate Android has more ad-supported applications so I'm not surprised at all Always interesting when people refute metrics with hand waving. "I would estimate" is a good sign that you shouldn't. AdMob isn't secret about their
7.
by gill_bates 16y ago
> Andriod will be the cheaper but less polished product sold to the masses, while the iPhone will be a more upscale, more expensive product for the people with discriminating taste Okay a lot of people have given you a pass for this (as
8.
by gill_bates 16y ago
Couldn't agree more. We need case studies and proposed solutions from both camps, putting them to real tests.
9.
by gill_bates 16y ago
Does such an article exist? I actually prefer these debates because they don't pretend to be unbiased. They put their cards on the table. If someone seems unbiased it just means it hid the bias well, but achieved the same result.
10.
by gill_bates 16y ago
Wow, did the article say somewhere that Google and Amazon don't know what they're doing? I don't believe it did. In fact I think it quite specifically questioned some performance claims that aren't valid.
11.
by gill_bates 16y ago
And you think this article started the holy war? I believe I just saw another article on his about how you should do SQL sorting in PHP until you graduate to MySQL, or so claims Digg's former architect.
12.
by gill_bates 16y ago
Did we read the same article? The one I read made ample disclaimers about it being nothing even remotely approximating a serious benchmark.
13.
by gill_bates 16y ago
So while SO runs on a minimal amount of closet-room hardware efficiently and without incident, Digg has heroics and clusters and scale-outs and all sorts of drama to handle just 10x the load? I'm not sure what angle you were coming from, bu
14.
by gill_bates 16y ago
>Digg did not release a benchmark, and trying to treat their findings as a repeatable benchmark is wrong. Yet they released record counts, schema, and then performance numbers, and then used their results to demonstrate the failure of t
15.
by gill_bates 16y ago
The original Digg entry specifically makes the entire point that Digg is willing to sacrifice write performance to improve read performance (which they did to a massive degree with Cassandra), and then demonstrated how absolutely horrendous
16.
by gill_bates 16y ago
Digg couldn't do a rudimentary join. I'm sorry but if you can read their original entry and not picture an almost comical scene, that you are out of your league. Now the Joe Plump or whatever guy is telling people that you should sort in PH
17.
by gill_bates 17y ago
To be fair, if so many are so bad at relational databases, maybe it is best for the world that they just move away from it before they injure someone.