It would also be nice not to have to use large install scripting languages (Perl, Python, Ruby), Java or Go, in order to communicate with AWS, e.g., EC2.
Let us be thankful for XML and the popular idea of "it's already done for you, just install this bloated library and read these 320 pages of documentation".
If API's mean you can't debug something without having to install Java or some huge, complex scripting language, I'm not sure they've simplifed anything. They've just added another layer of abstraction. More work should anything ever go wrong. And eventually, something always does go wrong.
Maybe S3 should just be rysnc servers running in Xen. Just cut to the chase.
How about learning to distinguish bad code from good code?
How about learning to look at Atwood's code with a view to answering some questions: 1. How does this guy's mind work? 2. Can he think clearly or does he add needless complexity to everything?
Then making a decision whether you want to use his work or not.
I've been booting with old USB sticks for years, not to mention cheap microSD cards. I'm still waiting for one to stop working. What sticks are you using? Are you booting with the stick mounted rw? Are you mounting your userland in RAM?
State machines just seem natural to me. I actually sketched out a state machine before I even knew what a state machine was. The other concept I really like is lookup tables. Reminds me of truth tables. Are state machines really just a form of lookup table? I guess it's just how my mind works because these tables seem natural to me.
This is great thread. I have only used lex/flex to make my state machines. I'd like to try something new eventually.
That write-up contains a little too much hype for my tastes. And as soon as I saw the words Java and C++ I lost 95% of any curiousity I have about ragel.
Windows support was not immediate either. It took some time. I used to use a program written by a student at Williams College. I forget the name. It was more simple and faster than iTunes. Then for a while I used a Perl script. I must admit, in retrospect, Apple knew what they were doing. I just couldn't see the point in iTunes. I doubted whether their $1/song "music store", and forcing users to use it by forcing them to install iTunes, would ever fly.
The true simplicity actually lies below those abstractions.
It seems reasonable to assume that people would not buy Apple products if they were too difficult to use.
It seems reasonable to assume people do not buy them for ease of use. Other competing systems are also easy to use. It seems reasonable to assume they buy them because they "look cool", much more so than any competing product.
It seems reasonable to assume the initial attraction to Apple products is the hardware design, not the software.
But none of this can be proved or disproved unless Apple were to unbundle the two and hackers were allowed to write software to run on the bare metal, not necessarily on top of Apple's development platform.
If Apple is afraid to try this then it shows they have something to fear. It shows they feel the need to exercise command and control over how users use Apple computers.
Apparently Apple's hardware design patents are not enough.
Lots of hackers continue to use Apple laptops because the software and hardware has combined what they perceive as the best quality in the industry. They don't do this because they look cool.
One can't also assume the iPad is the only runaway tablet success because of a cool factor or hardware design. The iPad was laughed at on first release by most geeks and pundits. But then people got to using one and found it more useable than a laptop for many daily tasks.
One also can't look at the iPhone margins without noting the key differentiator: iOS and iOS Apps. Software, in other words.
All companies have something to fear - they're in a competitive business. Apple just seems to be better at it than most (this generation).
As I said, we have no way to say whether the assumptions are true or not unless consumers are given the choice.
As you admit, no one can predict what consumers will choose.
However, a company can actively work to limit consumer choice. They can attempt to control how a consumer uses a product so as to benefit the company, not necessarily the consumer.
I ask you, "What would hackers do if they had choice?"
It's easy to look upon "success" after the fact and conclude a company is good at what they do.
Apple has failed many times. And they may fail again in the future.
I'd like to buy stuff from a "fearless company", not one that places ridiculous restrictions on users (fear of competition?), even when they are at the top.
Hackers use Apple products and endure the annoyances because there are no other choices.
Apple is the new Microsoft.
Success?
Maybe.
But at what cost to the consumer and the computing world at large?
Apple is trying to prevent people from freely programming and experimenting. Sure, people will still buy and use their products, but Apple cannot stop competition. Arguments that hackers should just accept Apple as the new Microsoft are good for a laugh.
The microcontroller being used can be setup to appear as a standard USB mouse/keyboard, so this should work with anything that supports a USB keyboard and mouse.
IIRC correctly most of the older MP3 players didn't need any software beyond what was built into Windows.
Of course this was the era of Windows 95/98 so how well that worked overall it's difficult to say.
