Basic Option Strategies - <AUTHOR> https://datanitro.com/blog/2012/11/13/Options/ <comment><USER6> I liked the intro. There is another use for options, which is insuring against lost gain. Allow me to share a couple of anecdotes.

In January of '95 I knew my 3rd child was on the way and wanted a 'sedan' type car to take the family out. (we had my sports car and a mini-van at the time) I was working at Sun and had been participating in the Employee stock purchase program forever, and Sun stock had gone up a bit so I sold 1,000 shares at $37/share which after taxes and fees netted me enough cash to buy a Chrysler sedan for cash. No loan, no payments, pink slip on the first day I owned it. That was an _awesome_ feeling. In March of that year Sun announced Java, the stock ended up doubling and splitting 3 times. The car I paid 'cash' for was worth 1.6M$ (at the peak of Sun's stock value). Youch!

So my Dad's buddy, a Swiss ex-banker, chastised me for not hedging my bet by buying an 'out of the money' call option, 12 months out. He explained that if the stock never went anywhere it would lower the effective 'gain' from my sale, but if the stock went up a lot it would protect me against having lost out on that value.

Flash forward to 2006, I'm heading for Google, I've got a chunk of NetApp stock and I having lived through the dot com crash I want to diversify. So I sell a lot of my NetApp stock at $35, _and_ buy options for the same amount of stock a year out at $40. (so 'out of the money' by $5). NetApp kept going up and up, and I sold the options a month before they were due (NetApp was trading at $55 and I wanted to keep the gain in the the right tax year) and I got a nice 'bonus' payout on what was essentially the same stock I had sold nearly a year earlier.

The option was there only to protect against missing out on a large rise in the stock price. (which it did, not as well as if I had kept it all but I didn't miss out completely either).

I found that I would keep stocks longer than I should because I was 'worried' about whether or not it was the right time to sell. Options allow you to 'buy insurance' on against that worry, and for me that has made me more willing to make significant changes in my portfolio over the years.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a great example of using options to lower risk. You can also purchase insurance outright against a stock falling - if you own a stock and buy puts for it, you'll be protected against the stock falling below the put's strike (since you can literally sell it for the strike price to the person who wrote the puts).

This was originally one of the main uses of options, which is why an option's price is called a premium - it's an insurance premium.

<comment><USER7> This is true for shares you own outright.

However, if it is stock that is under SEC "rule 144" lockup (which usually applies for 6 months following an IPO and most M&As), then the legality of doing that is murky.

It used to be outright illegal. The letter of the law has changed, and now it is unclear. I was in this situation, and personally couldn't find a single CPA or lawyer who would say "I believe it's now legal to hedge rule 144 locked shares". (And as a result, I didn't, and lost lots of money, and almost came out with a net loss on a x5 exit)

<comment><USER8> Not always true: even if you own the shares outright, you may be subject to obscure SEC regulations about what you can do. When I worked at BAC, we weren't allowed to engage in any speculative transactions in any security. Covered calls only.

At my current employer, no options transactions are permitted on company stock, not even covered calls or protective puts. Of course, you can just sell it and do whatever you want with the proceeds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not a bad intro at all.

That being said, intros to options scare me in the same way a "Beginner's Guide to Fugu Preparation' would scare me: as a novice, you have no business mucking around with such dangerous things, but as an initiate, you have no need of the article.

Still, there is a readership for such things, and the author is clear to point out the potentially unlimited downside in the intro.

Now, scripting Excel with Python? I'd forgotten about these guys. My interest is officially re-piqued.

<comment><USER7> > as a novice, you have no business mucking around with such dangerous things, > but as an initiate, you have no need of the article.

That reminds me of an ex-girlfriend's "if you don't already know what you did wrong, I'm sure not going to tell you!"

More seriously, somewhere along the path from novice to initiate, you have a need for some material, though - be it this article or another.

Also, I'm not implying you do, but I find it funny that many people think "stocks are a fine investment, but options are dangerous".

The only real difference in risk is leverage, which is always high in options, and usually low in stocks. But you CAN get high leverage for stock trading, and you CAN restrict yourself to a small part of your capital thus "deleveraging" the effect of options on your portfolio. You need to have some experience, but definitely of the calibre of a Fugu chef, to practice these.

I think the close proper analogy is the stocks are a sharp household knife, and options are a butcher's knife.

<comment><USER9> Ex for a reason, I see :)

There's a bit more to it than just leverage. Writing naked options carries huge potential downside, unlimited in the case of naked calls.

With a stock you're long, or short. Prices go up and down. Four outcomes to consider. Options are a bit more involved: covered or uncovered? call or put? long or short? Then you've got the option price _and_ the underlying price to think about. Until you're comfortable, it's more than most can manage in their heads.

Since we're doing 'sharp tool' analogies, I'd be more inclined to go with hand saw and chainsaw. The level of potential harm you can do to yourself in an instant with a chainsaw is far greater than that you can achieve with a hand saw - and it's a much bigger difference than that between the efficiency of using a chainsaw and a hand saw. Yes, it's powerful, but it's disproportionately hazardous in untrained or careless hands.

<comment><USER7> I mostly agree with what you wrote, however:

> Writing naked options carries huge potential downside, unlimited in the case > of naked calls.

The same unlimited potential downside exists when shorting a stock.

But you have to be a pro to get away from the risk & margin checking. (Unfortunately, it's actually possible to do that, and most pros do). And until you've escaped from it, the downside is limited to not much more than what you have put down as margin.

<comment><USER9> Good point. As you said above, it's the leverage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Whenever you're talking about vanilla options, _always_ mention the exercise type - European or American (or Bermudan/whatever). Single-name stocks like Facebook, Google have exchange-traded options which are American. Index- options such as those on the S&P500 are usually European.

Also, it's a good intro for buy-and-sit strategies but rarely does anyone sit on options till expiry. They try to make some gamma-based profits (delta- hedged option) or some vol-based profits (strangle/straddle etc).

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm a buy and hold long term investor for whom options seems ill suited. However sometimes I feel they might be useful to me because I could focus my investments on my area expertise and hedge against everything else.

As a developer and tech business owner I feel I have an edge when it comes to picking stocks in the tech sector. However, I'm not very good at predicting macroeconomic issues. Even though I think my stock picks will do well compared to larger sectors and markets, I'm always nervous my savings will be decimated by such things as europe/fiscal cliff/china which I'm not very good at predicting.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to edge against those things. I read on wikipedia that I could short sell an index or buy put options to protect me against this macro volatility but I'm not sure how to decide which to do, how to do it through my online broker, how to pick the parameters, how to decide if it's worth the premium or if it's worth doing at all given my relatively small and passive portfolio I use simply for saving for retirement.

Are there resources for simple savers like me who'd like a simple solution to hedge out a bit of the unknowns out of their portfolio and focus it more on their area of expertise?

<comment><USER12> You know John Maynard Keynes was once asked the same thing:

 _> Investment board: What happens if the world goes off a cliff?

> John Maynard 'The Badass' Keynes: There will be bigger things to worry about > if that happens - stocks will be the least of your worries._

If the economy tanks - everything will tank. Your house, your job, industry production - everything. Trying to protect yourself from the market in this case is like those people who worry about possessions in a burning house - possessions mean nothing, just try and get out alive.

You can't hedge the end of the world. You can only prepare to die. Because in those situations - luck keeps people alive, not money. See all revolutions, the Holocaust, uprisings and rebellions. Money doesn't save you - <USER2> doesn't exist - titles don't matter - law vanishes into thin air - there are no rules and who you are means nothing.

If you're a passive investor - suck your shit up - that's your strategy. If you don't sell you'll be fine. If the world ends you'll be dead.

Currently, I'm long TSLA, and have been long GOOG and AAPL. I've had huge drawdowns - 10%-20% within a month, and I've had huge gains. My largest draw down on a position so far has been 60% - that's 60% gone into thin air. And guess what? I don't give a shit.

You ain't a real investor until you've had a position blow up in your face and drawn down nearly 100% at least once, and not sold because you knew you were right. That's the nature of the game. Investors are lonely - they look at the world and stand there and say: No you're wrong world, so very wrong, and here, I'll put my life on the line to prove you wrong.

I'm a value investor and I'm in here for the long haul. I play vol sometimes, huge drops below margin of safety I go all in, huge rises above, I'll just exit. But I'm always net long.

Everyone is always net long.

<comment><USER11> I get what you're saying. And you're probably right, my passive strategy is probably ok as it is. However, in 2007 the US stock market dropped by about 50% and stocks were indeed a worry while my employment remained relatively stable.

I sorta worry about a sovereign default cascade in europe with similar effects on stocks as the financial crisis of 2007. I'm not sure if trying to hedge for this is worth the premium though.

<comment><USER12> I always chortle when people say stocks fell 50%. If a house is selling for a trillion dollars, and it falls back to a million, would you be surprised? No.

Well then, if the market is overpriced by 100% and it falls 50% - why would you be surprised or worried. If the market continued to crash - you would be unemployed - as domestic consumption cycled down. We'd either end up like the Japanese or the Germans - either way - we'd all be fucked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is a good intro to something everyone analytical should know something about.

It's also worth knowing that overall, most options expire worthless, so apparently selling them is a better game than buying them. Also spreads are typically pretty large so trading them profitably requires big moves.

The built-in 'cost' of options and futures is of course 'time decay' as they are all dated and you pay more for a date further in the future.

I think they'd be very useful if you found yourself in a position with a large amount of restricted publicly-traded stock. I'd imagine you couldn't legally just lock in your equity by going short in a retail account but markets are so highly-correlated now that you probably wouldn't even need options on your particular stock to afford yourself some protection against many downside situations. Rather you might just own puts on the closest-related index. It won't be free of course but if you spent 5% of your position as "insurance" until you could sell it could prove to be worth it versus weathering a loss due to overall supply/demand forces that could take the sector and market down 50% or more without any substantial change in your own company's numbers.

<comment><USER12> Mark Cuban did this back when he sold Broadcast.com - see here: [https://www.quora.com/How-did-Mark-Cuban-survive-the-dot- com...](https://www.quora.com/How-did-Mark-Cuban-survive-the-dot-com-crash)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The more I read about the stock market the more it resembles a complex gambling scheme to me. My view of the stock-market limited to high-school economics is the straightforward "here's how you own part of a company and how you can support a company you want", and for companies "if you do good work, people will give you more money to expand and innovate" and I think at the base level that is there, but there is this whole side-show with the gambling that now totally shadows the original intent.

<comment><USER15> Well, more abstractly, anything you ever do is a gamble. Getting higher education? You're gambling that it'll pay off better than just working in a job that doesn't require a degree. Putting your savings in a bank account? You're gambling that the interest rate will be higher than inflation and also higher than the risk-adjusted returns in any other investment type. Buying a house instead of renting? You're gambling that it'll be cheaper and more convenient than renting, after capital costs and price changes. Renting instead of buying? The opposite. Any choice you make, including not making any choice, has consequences.

Putting your money in the stock market? You're gambling that the risk-adjusted returns from the stock market is higher than that of a bank account. Performing stock or option trading according to some strategy? You're betting that you're smarter than your counterparties. Trading any type of paper you don't understand? That's more akin to playing the lotto.

It's a continuum.

<comment><USER16> Can I just say that this is an incredibly good comment?

Seriously, between the finite time that one has to live and the decisions you have to make everyday, I think any notion of "satbility" is at best, an illusion. Only change is constant.

<comment><USER15> Thank you :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Basic option strategies: the TLDR; guide:

If you are buying options - you will consistently lose money. Both time and risk premia overpricing go against you. If you don't make the mark within the time period (and market dynamics are notoriously hard to predict) - you will lose 100%. Breaking even often requires a large 5-7% move in your favour - <USER3> that just doesn't happen often enough - especially in the one month buy-to- mark time frame that most options trade at. Nassim Taleb does this - <USER4> probably makes more money selling pretty books and giving fancy talks.

If you are selling options - you will consistently make fat stacks until you blow up (since you're the counterparty of the above buyers). You can push naked index puts or calls all you want, and make an absolute fucking killing. I'm not kidding. You could easily pull $10-200K a month in profit, depending on how much of a baller you think you are, and how much capital you have backing your risk-taking ass (talking individual traders here).

But this money isn't without insane risks, have no doubt - you are playing with an armed thermonuclear warhead. If all the market correlations go to one and you're the last guy holding the bag containing other people's vol - <USER5> will get decimated. LTCM did this for 3 years - blew up year 4 - lost $5 billion in one month. LTCM principals went on and started a bunch of similar firms - finance is apparently very forgiving of failure - it shouldn't be. Most of those funds went thermonuclear back during the 2007 GFC.

If you do a mixed strategy - you'll end up with mixed results - because you're just mixing the above. No option strategy outside of market making consistently makes money (computational traders making markets and taking hedged spreads).

It's exactly like insurance. Insurance buyers pay up, but they never want to actually use it (unless they are committing fraud/market manipulation), and are happy to burn that cash to protect themselves. Insurance sellers are happy to sell, but their industry is commodity, and the only way they make money is by investing the float they have on hand between cash inflows (buyer premiums today) and cash outflows (buyers claiming a year later).

Problem is shares aren't like physical goods - they aren't bound by physical laws and hence do not follow the normal distribution. Share prices can go to infinity and hit zero all over the course of a day - their just bits of data in a db somewhere in Jersey. Car crashes, geographically separated houses and diversified mega-cat risk don't do that - often :D.

If you put in a costless collar on a stock you already own, you cap both your upside and your downside relatively cheaply (this is how Mark Cuban survived the dot-com crash with $2 billion in Yahoo! stock).

Outside of those few lessons - unless you are pushing statistical liquidity or selling millions of options per day - stay the fuck away from them. Individual investors should either go passive index or if they know an industry inside and out value-growth.

Everybody else should either be supply liquidity (HFT - not too profitable anymore) or pushing relative stat arb (RenTech/Shaw's + hundreds of PhDs). Individuals should not try to compete in this area - at all. Just like you don't try to build your own car, cruise ship, 747, iPhone or tank, you shouldn't try and trade against stat. arb/HFT guys without the mental or financial backing to hold your own shit.

Value-growth/passive works because the market comes to you - hat in hand saying - here take my money please. Stat. arb/HFT also works, but it's much harder, because you have to go to the market and make sure that it isn't you that is saying - here take my money, please.

<comment><USER17> Hi there. I buy options all the time. I make lots of money doing it. You only need a 1 to 2% change in price to make decent money when working with options[1]. I don't know why you quote 5-7% as that's just not true. Even if it was Stocks regularly move by that amount on a weekly basis. I know it may not be much to some, but I made over 50k doing one or two options purchases per month last year ( 2011, 25k base investment). I had to stop this year due to me needing to liquidate my portfolio to free up some cash, but what your saying is verifiably false.

1\. As of 13 November 2012 GOOG dropped by ~1% a $650 put options rose in price by $1.70 had you owned just one contract you would have made $170 your outlay for that would have been $1180 a one day gain of ~15% even subtracting the trading fee of $10.00 to buy and $10.00 to sell you made $150 for a $1180 outlay or 12% in one day on one stock. This particular transaction is very risky as there is no hedge against a decrease in the put price. You can do that, but it will take more time to explain then I have right now. My napkin math tells me you could have placed a less risky trade and make a cool $100 on a 1% change with a 1K investment (i.e. 10%) on one day with minimal risk (risk is if stock isn't volatile enough or trailing stops are set wrong) .

<comment><USER18> You're playing with nuclear weapons. If you stand to make $10K profit, you're exposing yourself to a much more massive downside.

Being _extremely_ careful will only prolong the inevitable crunch. You're betting on a 1% hike that might be a 5% drop because some idiot in a bus ran over someone important. That 5% drop could clean you out.

If you're betting on sure things, which means you're cheating somehow, then options are your best bet. Hey, if it works for you, you've got a good racket going, but most people will be absolutely destroyed.

<comment><USER17> Here is the quick and dirty recipe for making money off volatility.

Buy a put and a call option for the same strike price. On both options place a trailing stop at a fixed point ( <\- that's where skill / statistical analysis comes in ) After one of those two orders execute cancel the second order and place a new trailing stop at a lower value to prevent additional loss.

If the stock goes up you sell the put and ride the call until the price drops or you liquidate.

If the stock falls you sell the call and ride the put.

Your risk is total to the loss in time value of the option for the duration of your trade , and is capped at a maximum of the sum total of the two trailing limits on your initial purchase. If you would like me to run the numbers for it please give me a security and I can even tell you where to set your puts ( I have computer programs I use to calculate reasonable stops , and execute this particular strategy )

<comment><USER18> So basically you can lose everything you put in. This is a slot-machine strategy. It's a load of crap.

Anything bought on margin or of a derivative nature is like this. You can bust out _hard_.

The thing with buying an actual security is a 5% drop is only a 5% drop in value, whereas in an option a 5% drop could translate to a gigantic liability.

<comment><USER17> trailing stops limit your risk to a percentage of your initial investment. Its the same thing as with purchasing a stock. That investment can also lose all its value overnight. Its less likely to happen ( less risk ) and its also less likely to really increase much ( less reward ). All options do is scale up the risk/reward.

<comment><USER18> It's extremely rare that a security loses all of its value in a short period of time. In the last twenty years I can think of only a few occasions where it's happened that quickly, and it's almost always front-page news.

Options, on the other hand, are _constantly_ declining to zero value. It's how they work. If you end up out of the money at the end of the day, you bust out on that bet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I like what these guys are doing, and we tried out their plugin for modelling.

However, you can't really do any modelling without factoring transaction costs. For the average retail investor these fees kill the profit on many otherwise theoretically profitable strategies.

<comment><USER20> I'm interested in an in-depth tutorial that shows how to use the plugin to perform this kind of analysis. While I don't work in trading, I can see a lot of good uses for a tool like this while conducting other financial analysis.

<comment><AUTHOR> Send me an email, we'll talk - email@example.com

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Do brokers typically exercise your options for you automatically at the end of the term or do you lose all the money if you forget?

<comment><AUTHOR> They'll usually either be exercised or settled for cash if they're profitable. You should look into your broker's policy, though - if they're exercised, you should be sure you have enough capital to cover the position.

You should also not be in a position to forget about your options - they can move very quickly and forgetting about the position can cost a lot of money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Gr8 intro article. Couple of tips.

You can buy stock and sell out of the money calls against them, thus reducing the overall purchase price. The stock can be called away if it rises above the strike price thereby capping the profits. However, you can always roll the options when you near the strike price and expiration. That way, you don't loose the stock when its having a great run. This also works in the specific case of sitting on FB stock from day one and being in a big hole at the moment. Keep selling out of the money calls and having them expire worthless, but keep rolling them to the next month when they get close to expiration.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm shocked to see Options being mentioned on hackernews. Though, I have been doing options for the past 6 months. Previously I had never even heard of them and knew nothing. Here are some insights as to what to expect...

Options are not for the faint of heart. If you are brand new to options and are just starting out then I suggest having a friend/expert help you. I also suggest you use very little money at first to get a feel for it. (Less than $300 at a time). Otherwise you will lose money, and quickly.

The only way you'll get good at options strategy is to practice them. There are no shortcuts to success (aside from getting lucky). You will likely lose money at first, unless you have a good teacher to hold your hand.

There are a lot of little nuances and safer ways to make money with options that I've slowly discovered over the past few months. Earnings are an exciting time. One could safely make several thousand each quarter if they are smart. I am just getting the hang of it after 2 quarters.

I personally stick to tech stocks like apple, google, and facebook. I usually only do weekly options. Ideally, you want to dabble in stocks that move as much as possible. (For example, if you had Apple PUTS this past week, you would have made a killing. This is true for Straddles or Strangles).

After dabbling in options for 6 months I would say that the average person should avoid them at all costs. You really can lose a lot of money and sleep. You need to be a certain type of person to do this as a hobby.

For those of you willing to take the risk, best of luck to you. With options, you are better to be lucky than good. It is true that you can make a lot of money if you are smart and patient. However, you will lose a lot of sleep either way.

</comment><comment><USER24> You don't mention the downside of buying options... If it goes up, but doesn't hit the strike, you lose all your money. Options are a pretty risky play and it's typically not recommended that your average investor play the options market.

<comment><USER25> From the article:

> There are lots of ways to combine options for different stock outlooks. Here > are some common ones, _not accounting for option cost_.

He does mention it, but it's not very prominent. I also agree that not including the cost of opening the position in the payoff chart is misleading (and unconventional).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I was wondering if a straddle on GRPN would make sense?

<comment><AUTHOR> A straddle is a way to trade volatility, so this makes sense if you think the stock's volatility is higher than the market thinks it is. (In other words, you'll make money if the stock will move more than the market thinks it's going to move.)

<comment><USER26> Is anyone reputable selling options on bitcoins? I'd like to bet on high volatility there...

<comment><USER15> I can sell you bitcoin options...but they'll probably be more expensive than you want :P

<comment><USER26> Are you reputable? :-P</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to pickup idioms when you aint fond of Java but have to use at work? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Read lots of Java code that's considered good? Hard to provide a better answer without some more context to this question.</comment>


ESP and the US Government: Annie Jacobsen at the Commonwealth Club (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw4gyDnDL-4 <comment><AUTHOR> Jacobsen is a mainstream journalist working in the national security field.

I am a skeptic, but there's a fascinating story here.</comment>


Debt: The first 5000 years - <AUTHOR> http://blog.longnow.org/2010/04/22/debt-the-first-five-thousand-years/

<comment><USER2> This is a duplicate submission. The original is here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1286952>

</comment><comment><USER3> PDF: <http://www.eurozine.com/pdf/2009-08-20-graeber-en.pdf></comment>


5 Chapters of O'Reilly's Ruby Best Practices – Free - <AUTHOR> http://www.rubyinside.com/free-chapters-ruby-best-practices-3004.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Now we're officially more than half way to a full creative commons release (manuscript asciidoc sources to come at the end).

There's over 150 pages of content out now, so I hope folks can make good use of it. Enjoy!</comment>


Why the Current State of Product Licensing Sucks (and What I'm Doing About It) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@ezekgabrielse/finding-issues-and-guessing-solutions-43e6b7ed823e#.yp1cty3wt <comment><USER2> I thought this was going to be about the GPL...

<comment><AUTHOR> Not quite. I didn't catch that ambiguity until now.

Edit: updated the title.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Quiver – An alternative data platform for retail investors - <AUTHOR> https://www.quiverquant.com <comment><USER2> Where are the tech momentum metrics from?</comment>


Ask HN: How do you scale analytics at your company? - <AUTHOR> I am always looking to improve service performance at my company. One of the harder services to scale is analytics driven by python. I am curious as to what underlying libraries or technology you use to run analytical code at scale hopefully without sacrificing developer speed? <comment><USER2> Mixpanel for user analytics. Can be $$$$ for high traffic

[https://mixpanel.com/](https://mixpanel.com/)

Prometheus for server monitoring

[https://prometheus.io/](https://prometheus.io/)</comment>


Uber Seeks to Patent Pricing Surges That Critics Call Gouging - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-18/uber-seeks-to-patent-pricing-surges-that-critics-call-gouging.html

<comment><USER2> >Uber applied for a U.S. patent last year for "dynamically adjusting prices for service" using mobile devices. The system measures supply (Uber drivers) and demand (passengers hailing rides with smartphones), and prices fares accordingly.

On the one hand, trying to patent the concept of supply and demand seems laughably naive. Based on the other applications that have been rejected it seems like they're grasping at straws. On the other hand, their algorithm for performing surge pricing may be patentable. I'm having trouble finding the actual patent application, anyone have a link?

<comment><USER3> Here's the patent application filed last year. Based on the Bloomberg report, it's unclear how the patent application supposedly just filed varies from the one filed last year. I'm wondering if Bloomberg is just raising the issue now given the recent publicity around price Uber's 'price gouging.' [https://www.google.com/patents/US20130246207](https://www.google.com/patents/US20130246207)</comment></comment>


"Anonymous" attacks Sony to protest PS3 hacker lawsuit - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/anonymous-attacks-sony-to-protest-ps3-hacker-lawsuit.ars <comment><USER2> They are currently attacking the company's online Playstation store in retribution for Sony's lawsuit against PS3 hacker George Hotz (aka "GeoHot"). A denial of service attack has temporarily taken down playstation.com.</comment>


"The World is Moving to HTML 5" and Other Flights of Fancy - <AUTHOR> http://richardleggett.co.uk/blog/index.php/2010/02/01/the-world-is-moving-to-html5

<comment><USER2> This basically reads, "If HTML 5 is so great, why aren't Flash developers, like myself, using it?!"

That would be a much more interesting article, and the reason is basically because the market share is not there yet, although it is increasing quite a lot. However, to use this as a reason for the continued dominance of Flash is obviously extremely short sighted.

The author himself predicts that the iPad and iPhone like devices will be the future of computing, which lends even more credence to HTML 5, given that all modern mobile devices support WebKit or the equivalent HTML 5 browser.

However, instead of arguing "HTML 5 is no more powerful than Flash", the author needs to argue why an open standard, which is rapidly developing and seeing continuous growth, will not take off.

The author cites a few examples of super powerful Flash web apps and seems to imply that these are the future of desktop applications, however, these are dwarfed by the quantity of new web applications created every day.

The author basically needs to argue why Google and the countless other creators of popular web apps out there would switch to Flash, when the trend seems to be pointing in the opposite direction.

HTML 5 is not so much a "Flash killer" as it is simply "one less reason to have to use Flash".

<comment><USER3> The tools are also not there yet. In order for HTML5 to really gain momentum there needs to be a set of tools that are as easy to create with as Flash.

<comment><USER2> You should check out 280north's Atlas. <http://280atlas.com/> It's still in beta, but you can get access to it by preordering it (highly recommended).

WebKit's Web Inspector is quite awesome -- Apple actually has bankrolled a few full time employees to work on it, and many more contributors have been hacking away at it for quite some time. In my opinion, it is the best example to learn HTML 5 best practices from (it is written in HTML 5 itself).

FireBug is also great (I prefer the WebKit Web Inspector myself, since about 1 year ago, due to its rapid updates) but FireBug is quite excellent.

Apple also provides some a rudimentary IDE called Dashcode, which I don't really like, but might be helpful for others. The OS X dashboard has been 100% WebKit / HTML 5 powered for quite some time.

Not to say that these are necessarily better than Adobe's dev tools, but the writing is on the wall. The awesome thing is that all of these I have mentioned, with the exception of Dashcode, are open source and rapidly developed both by full time employees of various interested companies and the community.

<comment><USER4> Atlas looks promising.

Just as a side note, though... The introduction video uses Flash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The key error this author makes is in the title, with the word "moving". The title suggests that the general velocity of web technologies isn't towards open standards, particularly HTML5. The content of the post seems to be a mere apologetic for Flash as the status quo, arguing that at the moment HTML5 cannot do what Flash can. That is evidently true, just as it is also evidently true that the internet is moving towards HTML5.

All of the major players but Adobe are making big steps towards HTML5 as the standard for rich internet media. Even Microsoft are being forced to tag along. We simply have to answer one question - which technology is improving at a greater rate, Flash or HTML5? Basic arithmetic will tell us the rest.

Flash is a dead technology walking. The forces that want it dead are faster, smarter and better resourced than Adobe.

A previous poster said 'HTML 5 is not so much a "Flash killer" as it is simply "one less reason to have to use Flash".'. Like any open technology, HTML5 is one reason after another, with more reasons presenting themselves at a near- exponential rate.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Disclaimer: This post is not about defending Flash."

No, it really is. This is just as annoying as anyone claiming that HTML5+extras means the immediate (or even near-term) death of Flash.

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed. However when you get past the overused rhetoric of the first paragraph the author makes some good points and it is quite a balanced viewpoint.

Imo it is a lot better than the Gruber and Brimelow led style of drivel that is doing the rounds at the moment.

<comment><USER6> Not sure why your comment is being voted down. I also thought this was a balanced viewpoint of what the current situation is from a flash developer.

I pretty much agree with the summary that we are stuck supporting solutions for both platforms in the interim, also that the developers who will start ramping up on HTML5 will likely be the flash developers currently in the workforce as they slowly migrate their skillsets across. We've done it before recently from AS2 to AS3 and also Flash to Flex so its not like we don't have recent experience.

What will make this transition quicker though is if Adobe include HTML5 authoring tools in the next version of the suite. I think they are best suited to give us the tools we need. They are not married to the Flash platform, look at the recent iPhone support added to the Flash IDE, if Flash was to disappear tomorrow they will still have a market to retool the IDE and sell it. Also Adobe has to protect After Effect's market share, so a straight from After Effects to HTML5 player via Dreamweaver pipeline is likely going to happen.

This animosity towards Adobe, and the thinking they are killing the web with flash has to stop if we want to help Adobe to provide us with the tools we need to create the new HTML5 experience, and also leverage our existing RIA developer base to build it. Adobe is not killing the web we love, the marketing departments of giant corporations is killing the web we love, and will do so regardless of flash or no flash.

The interaction in one of the example links the author posted is amazing [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zuOdJQiljw&feature=youtu...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zuOdJQiljw&feature=youtu.be) seriously awesome stuff, I would never had though this would be such a closed minded group of people than to vote against anyone who argues a point and provides evidence to back it up

<comment><AUTHOR> Not sure about the down voting myself. Non populist view points I guess (even though I did not express one). I bet the guy who claims Flash is a factor in climate shift didn't have this problem.

<comment><USER6> I'd recommend always using a black background in your flash movies. It helps to offset any perceived negative carbon footprint caused by the decision to use flash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why doesn't Adobe just open source the Flash plugin? Seems like it would solve a lot of problems here.

<comment><USER8> Short phrase becomes more complex when examined... some history here: [http://blogs.adobe.com/jd/2009/07/opening_the_flash_file_for...](http://blogs.adobe.com/jd/2009/07/opening_the_flash_file_format.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > nearly all applications will be web-based in the next 5 years

I sincerely hope the author is wrong. I think the almost all the applications which function well on the internet have communication as their core function. I sick fed up of having to use 5 languages (Java/PHP/Ruby/Clojure/Python, SQL, HTML, JavaScript, CSS) just to create a moderately usable UI. Even worse, I'm fed up having to work with crappy unresponsive Enterprise Web based UIs.

<comment><USER2> This is exactly what HTML 5 changes though. You don't even need an internet connection (other than to download the web app originally, obviously).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> We should allow the Flash developers to secede from the web. It's what they seem to want, anyway.

<comment><USER11> I'm a person who thinks that the web is the most important invention in the history of humanity, first, and a Flash developer second. We absolutely do not want to secede from the web. We love the web so much that we want to use the most powerful tool we can to express ourselves (even if it has its own problems). If that means developing for a closed-source(1) plugin that makes us pariahs in the development community and subject to some vitriolic Flash- bashing every time we open up HN or Proggit, so be it.

I love HTML5, too. And ES4. And CSS3. I like reading their specs, and articles about them, and flame wars on their mailing lists. I can't wait for them all to catch on. I don't care if any open web technology impinges on Flash's turf - with Video, Canvas, WebGL, Transitions, and fundamental changes to ES/JS - or even overtakes Flash. The author of the post said as much, and I know plenty of other Flash devs that agree.

I don't know what Flash developer gave you the impression that they don't want to be part of the web. I don't know why you seem to think that's "what they seem to want". I have a feeling you're scoring some easy karma. All I'm asking for is: Can we have a little less "They took our jobs!(2)" in this discourse?

(1)I have complex feelings about Flash being closed source. On one hand, I believe the web should be open. On the other, I believe open-sourcing it means Microsoft builds its own version, forks it enough to cause a fractured development space, gains a near monopoly and then lets it stagnate for seven years (sound familiar?).

(2)Just to clarify: I'm quoting from South Park here; using it as an illustration of the simple-minded populism I see a lot of. I don't believe Flash devs take HTML devs' jobs -- other way around, in fact.

<comment><USER5> By putting content inside a Flash applet you isolate it from the web. It cannot be crawled. It cannot be deep linked to. It cannot be styled as the user prefers, rendering it inaccessible to disabled users.

Flash is not a web technology. It is anti-web. It may as well be a zipped .exe, served up over Gopher. The simple act of placing content within an SWF file is tantamount to secession in itself.

<comment><USER11> It can be crawled; moreso than a bit of <canvas> (canvas is used in a similar manner to the way Flash is sometimes used). It can be deeplinked, just as asyncronous js/HTML can be deeplinked (using a code library).

Video, audio, vector graphics and bitmaps all fail to meet your criteria for a "web technology", and they're still a part of our web (and more growing more important everyday). I'm not in favor of using Flash as an Html replacement, but it works just as well as any other binary format on the web used to deliver content.

That all said, I was objecting to the idea that we Flash _developers_ don't want to be part of the web.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is it too late to start creating content on YouTube? - <AUTHOR> Is the Youtube space convoluted or is there enough areas where one can create contents? <comment><USER2> I think the answer depends on the niche. Others might argue that with the way YouTube selects recommended videos, there isn't a niche too saturated as long as you have the wherewithal to post multiple times a day hundreds of days in a row.

</comment><comment><USER3> What's your goal?

<comment><AUTHOR> deliver high quality teaching, generate passive income, become an influencer</comment></comment>


OpenBSD's traffic shaping changing in future releases - <AUTHOR> http://bsdly.blogspot.com/2011/07/anticipating-post-altq-world.html

<comment><USER2> Peter Hansteen also wrote "The Book of pf" (<http://nostarch.com/pf2.htm>), which is supposed to be quite good.

<comment><USER3> I haven't picked up the 2nd edition yet, but I can attest that the first edition at least, was indeed very good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can I get a translation please? I read the article, but all I really got out of it was that there is a different way to configure traffic shaping now. No real clue how it's different, better, or why I should be interested.

Am I correct in saying that this is a minor feature change, only of interest to people using traffic shaping in BSD already?

<comment><USER5> If you aren't already familiar with or using OpenBSD's pf, then you're right, it probably won't be very interesting to you.

(It has been a while since I've gotten armpit deep into a gnarly pf config file, so I might get part of the following a little bit wrong. I welcome corrections.)

pf has two different packet shaping mechanisms: CBQ, and prio. CBQ allowed you to allocate amounts of bandwidth, but didn't include prioritization. So, you could, say, set aside X Mb/s for ssh, Y for http, and so on, with lots of borrows and congestion management and other neat stuff.

With prio, you had to give up allocation, but you got to say instead that a particular rule always got bandwidth priority over other rules. So, if your web server is getting hammered, and you have ssh prio 7, you can still get into your machine no problem.

To use either scheduler, you had to specifically "turn it on" in your config file and essentially build a little structure for it. It _sounds like_ \-- having just glanced at Henning's messages and patches -- the "turn it on" and structuring steps have been eliminated for prio. Although on the surface that looks like a small change (and user-wise it probably is), it's still a pretty big change in the pf internals.

What I _hope_ \-- and can't tell yet -- is that this is going to get us a step closer to being able to use both scheduling mechanisms. They are complementary systems and it sucked a little to have to choose the features from only one or the other.

Either way, this is the kind of news that makes me really really miss working with pf. I prefer it, a lot, over iptables, which makes me grouchy on a regular basis.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Turn your AWS S3 bucket into an image gallery - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jamesmoriarty/poto

<comment><USER2> The idea is great, but the demo doesn't have any images.

<comment><USER3> Looks like they're just really slow to load, with no sign of them loading. After 10sec+ they started loading.</comment></comment>


Request A Hack: Turn Flickr into The Big Picture - <AUTHOR>

Some friends on Twitter came up with a great idea: convert a photo site to have a layout like The Big Picture. I'd love it for Flickr, Posterous, Tumblr etc.
Someone could probably build that with a greasemonkey script really fast.
http://twitter.com/ibeching/status/2047379234 http://twitter.com/hartsell/status/2049714995
It would be cool to see someone here post a solution. It would build some cred in this community.
On a meta level, if you like the idea of posting requests or seeing them done, make a "request a hack" yourself. <comment><USER2> Ever seen <http://flickriver.com/>? It predates the big picture. Doesn't show the images quite as big, but is still a nice way to browse.

</comment><comment><USER3> My main requests: 1) Display only "large" pictures (1024px wide). That's what makes The Big Picture special. 2) It should work on any browsing page on Flickr. I don't want to re-enter my search criteria on another site.

Questions: 1) Should the script use AJAX & DOM manipulation to modify the Flickr page? Or just redirect to a page on another domain? 2) Should it ever run automatically on page load? 3) Do we need to use any Flickr authentication for the browsing user?</comment>


Ask HN: What are you using as an issue tracker in 2019? - <AUTHOR> Issue trackers are something every development team needs,we use pivotal tracker but the experience is not good and looking for simple intuitive solution.What you guys are using to track issues for your project / API / UI etc ? <comment><USER2> GitLab. Combines my planning, SCM and CI/CD needs in a single app, and it's open source.

My top focus has been consolidating the apps I use.

</comment><comment><USER3> We use github. So it's great having git, prs, and issues wrapped together. My only complaints of github are:

1\. Built in wiki does not have the option to be tracked in same repo as a dev repo. That is to say, the Built in wiki for a particular repo can't track the same branches as The code. You need to roll your own.

2\. There is not image uploaded for wiki (though there is for prs and issues).

</comment><comment><USER4> We run our own instance of Gitea, which is used as an issue tracker as well. Sometimes things do end up as discussions in Basecamp, but mostly, we try to keep it in Gitea.

</comment><comment><USER5> GitHub now but Pivotal Tracker was a bit more featureful than Trello. Had no problems with it though a visual board would be nice.

</comment><comment><USER6> Clubhouse.

Very happy with it so far. It's free up to 10 users.

<comment><USER7> +! here. Was on it since it was $10 for 6 users :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Jira (sigh)

<comment><USER9> I'm also using Jira and see it's problems, but is there a significantly better solution (the answer obviously depends on your context) ?

<comment><USER8> I prefer BugZilla or Redmine.. a much lighter interface and focused to do one thing well. Jira is also misused to make Agile Sprint planning, which is IMHO a bad solution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> clubhouse. it's a tool built for software engineering teams.

not like others where it's one-size-fits-all. try it

</comment><comment><USER11> Targetprocess

</comment><comment><USER12> Phabricator

</comment><comment><USER13> Apache Bloodhound.

</comment><comment><USER14> Youtrack

</comment><comment><USER15> Azure devops

</comment><comment><USER16> gitlab's issue tracker.

</comment><comment><USER17> MantisBT

</comment><comment><USER18> ClickUp

<comment><USER19> +1 for ClickUp. We went through Trello, Jira, Pivotal, then Jira again, Airtable, and now we're finally happy with ClickUp.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> redmine/trello

<comment><USER21> redmine works well enough!

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> airtable</comment>


Object Oriented CSS - <AUTHOR> http://oocss.org/

<comment><USER2> Some good ideas about leveraging the cascade. Her grid technique is similar to the latest YUI3 Grids.</comment>


The Art of Subdomain Enumeration (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://blog.sweepatic.com/art-of-subdomain-enumeration/ <comment><USER2> They should add Certificate Transparency logs too, but otherwise a good list.

<comment><USER3> They do via crt.sh, the article just doesn't note what crt.sh sources are: [https://crt.sh/monitored-logs](https://crt.sh/monitored-logs)</comment></comment>


Java is preparing to co-bundling and native binaries - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.oracle.com/talkingjavadeployment/entry/native_packaging_for_javafx <comment><USER2> The Java way has always been: To run this, click on the .bat file or type java -jar myapp.jar. And some people wonder why Java has been such a failure on the desktop.

This should have been in Java from the beginning, instead of outsourcing this functionality to third parties (Mainly Windows only installer applications that sucks, and also isnt used that much).

That said, I think it is misguided to include a JRE in the bundle. The correct way would be something like OS X Lion has, promt the user if Java is not installed. and then do a more or less automatic install of Java, in the system.

<comment><USER3> IMO the correct way is to include subset of JRE that's actually required for given application. This can lead to relatively small total application size and deployments that do not require any knowledge of java and java world from end user. Having one JRE for all apps on the system is nice but it's usually not needed.

<comment><USER2> Yes, but still parts of the JVM would be duplicated between apps and updated on app developer X's own schedule.

<comment><USER4> Part of what this seems to be there to solve is the situation where the user doesn't have access rights to install a JRE.

<comment><USER5> Why "installing" almost anything requires "access rights" is still confusing to me. I don't understand why there's not been a movement to 'install' things in to my own home directory structured, vs "c:\program files" on windows "/usr/bin" and such on linux. - Fall back to c:\mystuff or ~/bin.

<comment><USER6> ClickOnce[1] does this.

Some other apps have their own mechanisms to do the same, e.g. Google Chrome.

I don't think it's a good idea though, as it makes those apps more susceptible to being modified by malware.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClickOnce>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Finally - why did this come now, and not 4-5 years ago? I apologize for asking such a question, but it's the first thing that comes to mind. Principally I do like JavaFX, and this approach will work - given that these binary bundles don't end up like 80MB monsters.

<comment><USER8> (Disclaimer: I'm a Java developer since 1.0)

For the same reasons that Sun had no nice theme and no nice icons for 15 years for Swing applications (do they now?)

They are horrible thinking about desktop deployments, end users, marketing etc.

<comment><USER9> Surely that's just because the money is in backend business processes, rather than desktop stuff?

<comment><USER8> Then why even bother with Swing and desktop? Why then add JavaFX?

<comment><USER10> For mobile applications?

<comment><USER7> Maybe they're a bit late to the party if JavaFX is meant specifically for mobile applications. There are lots, literally tons of solutions out there, e.g. Appcelerator Titanium, PhoneGap, and others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> One thing that makes managing .NET easier compared to Java, is that there is always executable produced (.exe). So the transition between C/C++ to .NET or (vice-versa) is transparent to the user (or a more complicated process launching the executables).

With Java, it seems wrapping (at least on Windows) is done only through batch files, which among other thing have terrible Ctrl+C handling (asking for prompt and such).

Maybe I'm naive, but if I was to solve this, I would've done it the way many self-extracting tools work - a small .exe with your stuff at the end (or look at the same directory at the wrapped executable, same name, different extension), and run it like this. And then java itself would've be a dll itself, loaded by this process.

This way migration between languges/runtimes would be easier if Java is to play some part of it.

<comment><USER12> It's easier when your target is just one OS.

<comment><USER13> Funny.

I use Mono, other people use Mono, it works fine. It means I can target Linux and Mac OS X, and even develop on those platforms.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anyone using JavaFX? I remember it came out as a Flash/Flex contender, but didn't make the cut (which is too bad, I kinda like the language). Considering Adobe pushing HTML5, I find it weird Oracle still pushing Java for Rich Internet Applications.

<comment><USER15> Because HTML5 is not adequate for complex UI development. It seems Oracle is the only company to see that the current "every app should be HTML5" trend will end in overhype and failure.

<comment><USER13> Not adequate? Perhaps not on its own, but there are libraries.

Or am I missing something?

<comment><USER16> When you are used to the fine grained control you get with a lower level language, html5 will always seem inadequate.

<comment><USER13> What kind of fine grained control?

<comment><USER16> Html5 is a heavily sandboxed abstraction layer from hardware. It's designed to sacrifice performance and hardware access to provide a safe way for websites to display rich content. Additionally for non-canvas apps, you must interact with the convoluted mess that is the DOM.

Lower level languages are generally designed for maximum performance, and full-access to hardware. The assumption is that only trusted applications will be run.

In summary, html5 is a school playground where all the kids run in slow motion and the toys are made of plastic. You can sort of make new toys out of sand, but they are fragile and not that fun.

<comment><USER13> You said complex UI development. HTML5 doesn't prevent that.

<comment><USER16> That wasn't me, but I agree. Especially for touch based and small screen devices like iPhones and iPads where HTML5 apps compete with native apps. It's much easier to create a fast and responsiveness non-standard UI natively than with HTML5. I haven't seen html5 app on mobile that has impressed me. Usually you can tell right away because they have unresponsive, laggy input.

<comment><USER13> I think the unresponsiveness is largely because of too much JS and poor event handling by browsers, myself. I refuse to believe JS execution can actually be that slow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I write internal corporate IT systems using Java. This announcement is good news because it should be easier to deploy to servers and a I can guarantee that I know what JRE I'm working with in production. I can now move to Java 7 without having to worry about breaking other systems or adding an extra deployment step for my apps.

<comment> brown9-2 1\. Couldn't you always have guaranteed this by being aware of which JAVA_HOME was on your path or which _java_ executable your startup script ran? Having multiple java installations on a server you manage has always been trivial.

2\. Isn't this announcement only for JavaFX?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's funny that they are not supporting .deb packages, this shows that they still don't get it.

<comment><USER19> Actually this is coming with Java 8 via project Jigsaw (new modularity for Java).

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Interestingly javafx seems to be 70% faster than WebGL: [http://weblogs.java.net/blog/opinali/archive/2011/11/25/java...](http://weblogs.java.net/blog/opinali/archive/2011/11/25/javafx- balls-30)

<comment><USER21> That's _dreadful_ for Java.

OpenGL support has been in Java for 6 or 7 years. WebGL has been in browsers less than 12 months and Java isn't even twice as fast?

(I'm a long time Java programmer, but I think JavaFX is the most stupid thing I've ever seen)

<comment><USER20> From the blog: "JavaFX (Hotspot Client) is 70% faster than WebGL, a great performance, considering the competition is a dedicated game engine built on top of a low-level 3D API."

</comment></comment></comment><comment> X-Istence One of the biggest problems Java faces for real adoption amongst tech people is still the perception (and I am not sure it is entirely flawed either) that it is insecure. Yes Flash is just as bad if not worse, but we are stuck with them because they are so ingrained within the Internet. Java never caught on, and I know that when I see a Java application I let out a huge sigh and go download and install Java again.

I've gone so far, and so have many of my friends, to remove Java completely and it is not like I am missing out on anything important! I just don't trust Java. I don't trust Flash either, but that is nicely sandboxed in Chrome, sure exploits may exist there, but at least it will be a lot less likely, and Click to Flash helps as well!

<comment><USER22> The biggest problem Java Applets had and still have is that it's so much pain to update the Java plugin that most users are left with old versions that have documented exploits.

I don't get why it doesn't auto-update itself - if browsers like Chrome or Firefox can auto-update themselves automatically, why can't the Java plugin?

<comment><USER23> > I don't get why it doesn't auto-update itself - if browsers like Chrome or > Firefox can auto-update themselves automatically, why can't the Java plugin?

It's better that they don't. There are often subtle differences between versions. Sometimes it causes some JDBC drivers to fail. Sometimes it can cripple entire platforms like 1.7 did with Solr for instance.

<comment><USER22> Even between minor versions / security updates?

<comment><USER23> I don't remember which exactly version I think 1.6_10 and 1.6_21 had some differences in way Hibernate communicates with JDBC, so basically app worked on my colleagues computer but not mine. It took quite some time to figure out this problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is really, really good news for me. It (hopefully) means that you can now easily provide a download of a Java executable without the user going "oh, I don't like Java" or the computer going "you need to install this whole other thing to try this program".

</comment><comment><USER25> This doesn't seem to mention Java just JavaFX. Those aren't the same, and it would be nice if this was going to eventually be supported for Java applications.

<comment><USER3> They dropped JavaFX Script in 2.0 release. So now JavaFX is just another library for java that is going to be part of JRE/JDK after Java 8 release. It's also bundled in recent releases of JRE for windows.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> does anyone know what size it is now?

<comment><USER27> 50MB zipped, 148MB unzipped

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> f@#ing finally?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The posting is about JavaFX, but in reality it will be a general mechanism for JVM apps. Oracle is doing this preparation, so that your JVM apps (Java, Clojure, Scala, etc.) can run under Android and iOS.

<comment><USER3> Nothing has been said about packaging for Android or iOS. From the info that's actually in the article -- currently it targets desktop applications.

From my point of view, iOS is extremely improbable target unless Apple changes their application requirements. Currently they do not allow use of any 3rd party JIT on iOS and Java is all about JIT.

Moreover JavaFX doesn't even run on Android or iOS at the moment (even without this new kind of packaging).

<comment><USER15> Mono apps are allowed on iOS (eg games based on the Unity3d engine) so it is likely there is way to make Java apps acceptable as well. Oracle seems confident it is going to happen ([http://www.infoworld.com/d/application- development/javafx-io...](http://www.infoworld.com/d/application- development/javafx-ios-dead-arrival-175907))

<comment><USER3> As far as I know MonoTouch uses Ahead Of Compilation [1] on iOS. So there is no JIT in compiled binaries.

[1] <http://docs.xamarin.com/ios/about/limitations></comment></comment></comment></comment>