Not if they use android like everyone else. In the case you mention, microsoft created an entirely new stack which it didn't license to other parties, and also deprecated the software its vendor ecosystem was using. Hardly the case here, even though the google move may be slightly antagonistic to its partner vendors and telcos.
why don't you structure the whole thing like a league? films that 'win' a match, get paired to each other and so on until you find the 'greatest film', Granted, many will disagree, but it should make the project a bit more substantial and may make people come back.
If it made IE vulnerable to a drive-by owning, and was installed without the express permission of IE's users? I find it hard to imagine an argument against blacklisting it. So far all we have is conjecture though.
I wonder if they could combine the keyboard with the touch surface. Not by having the surface be the keyboard, but by overlaying a traditional keyboard with touch sensitive key-sized tiles that together make a touch-sensitive area. Keys should still be pressable, but when you treat it like a touch surface it should behave so. If the gaps between keys are snall enough it should work for fingers. (not styluses though)
First Microsoft/Danger/Sidekick, then Apple, now this. We need a computing paradigm that does not suffer from single points of failiure, or at least fails more gracefully.
disclaimer: I am an author of the paper (but not the blog post). The title is a bit dramatic but the content conveys the idea relatively clearly. If you need more information, the paper is linked to at the bottom of the article.
I have immense respect for those working under google's shadow to create a better/different search experience. The article clearly shows that their entire product development strategy is built around what google does and does not. Although as history has shown, when these companies accomplish anything they usually get acquired rather than becoming individually successful. But I guess history can only take you so far and Google was once a search underdog. So good luck duckduckgo!
I suspect the author is lead astray by his comparison of codeplex to google code or sourceforge. The better comparison is the Apache Foundation, the Eclipse Foundation, the FSF or perhaps MySQL. The latter two also request copyright assignment.
While I think that Microsoft should have erred on the side of more freedom, things are not nearly as bad as the author makes them out to be.
transactions are unnecessary, unless you are looking for 100% consistency between cache and database at all times. Usually this is not the case and if it is, you will have extremely serious problems scaling. All i'm saying is: If you have an update that you know will invalidate some cached pages, why invalidate them and then rerender them from the database once the update is commited instead of updating them directly. and lazy queueing the update, taking the load of the database (less pressure to commit instantly, and less reads). In the facebook inbox example, you know that a new message to the user will increase their message count by one. Just update the cache directly with this new info. When/if it explodes, by all means, rerender everything.
Intresting read.. It seems it never did make it to the PC/AT line though.
"The 80186 would have been a natural successor to the 8086 in personal computers. However, because its integrated hardware was incompatible with the hardware used in the original IBM PC, the 80286 was used as the successor instead in the IBM PC/AT."
The article mentions that the explicit unsubscription of PuSH is an advantage over the implicit approach of rssCloud. With garbage collection being a major problem of publish/subscribe in distributed systems, the author needs to mention how PuSH deals with it in order to assert superiority. Without acknowledging it, the credibility of the article is limited
I was hoping it would be google that would step up to the plate, not facebook to be honest. The friendfeed team is a serious weapon for facebook to wield against google and I don't know why the FF guys would enter this war, on this side. Maybe Google did something to piss them off? On the plus side, the FF guys will now get paid for the FB dev work they have been doing anyways. If I recall correctly buchheit was also involved in adsense, another pain point for facebook. Also the real-time search assets that fb would get from ff may fill the goals that facebook had with the attempted twitter acquisition.
Well, Roy has a way of describing things from a Systems Engineering perspective. that can confuse when read from people with a different context. I think where HTTP digest etc. comes in is the 'successful mapping' bit. While the abstract API should not specify HTTP digest, the materialised API that people actually use (the mapping of the API onto HTTP) should.
First author of HTTP 1.1 is Roy Fielding, same guy who defined REST. In fact, http 1.1 was designed largely to make HTTP restful. As such, you'd be surprise how far HTTP goes towards RESTfulness. For instance the spec defines idempotency and satfety of methods. Ergo, servers may produce valid requests and responses but still fail when it comes to being valid http if their internal operation does not conform to the operation semantics. Look up the google web accelerator fiasco to see how things can go terribly wrong.
Most APIs are not restful because their designers had more important issues - Would you say the same for most web pages breaking web stanards or is that another matter entirely?
RESTful interfaces should NOT be ptotocol independent. While REST can be implemented over multiple protocols, a RESTful interface is by definition tightly coupled to the protocol it goes through. For instance REST specifies that we should use a uniform interface, but HTTP tells us what that interface is, and a REST over HTTP interface (the most common RESTful interface) has to respect that. I would be interested in where you read this fielding quote as this 'protocol inependence' and its problems is a common charge he makes agains WS-* if anything.
I really like this approach (similar to the zoho article) to helping underpriviledged groups in society. Instead of 'discrimination is bad, let's do affirmative action', this attitude is 'discrimination is bad, for those that practice it. these people are an untapped resource'. Seems much more organic and sustainable to me.