Windows Server 2012 features - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/10/10_best_server12/

<comment><USER2> Hold on!

Microsoft has a Windows Server _edition_ (not to be confused with the Hyper-V feature itself) called "Hyper-V Server 2012" that is free (runs the Core role and is CLI only), and you can virtualize it (with itself) to as many VMs as you'd like?

[http://blogs.technet.com/b/keithmayer/archive/2012/09/07/get...](http://blogs.technet.com/b/keithmayer/archive/2012/09/07/getting- started-with-hyper-v-server-2012-hyperv-virtualization-itpro.aspx)

That's huge!

<comment><USER3> Neat, a direct competitor to the VMWare's free VShere Hypervisor.

<comment><USER4> Still no PCI passthrough support though, right?

<comment><USER5> Doesn't look like it has - [http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en- US/winserverhy...](http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en- US/winserverhyperv/thread/5ca22cbe-4c75-490d-b4fd-da5225a1961c)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article reads like a Microsoft advertisement.

He does a poor job selling the new features of Server 2012, and some of the features like Powershell 3 are available on 2008 R2, heck even Windows 7.

[http://www.microsoft.com/en- us/download/details.aspx?id=3459...](http://www.microsoft.com/en- us/download/details.aspx?id=34595)

<comment><USER7> His point about Powershell was this:

"Every element of the operating system and virtually every other companion server, such as SQL, Exchange or Lync, are completely manageable through PowerShell. This is so ingrained that the GUIs are just buttons that call PowerShell scripts underneath."

Which sounds exclusive to Server 2012.

<comment><USER6> It isn't exclusive to 2012. It is exclusive to the product its self.

If the product will only run on 2012 then it is exclusive to 2012, but otherwise it will work fine on 2008 R2.

<comment><USER8> yea, but IIS, HyperV and any internal features to the OS (DNS Server, DHCP, ActiveDirectory, etc) all, on 2012, have Powershell support, but not necessarily on 2008 R2.

<comment><USER6> Right, but much of it is. Powershell has been a core part of Windows server and its respective components for a while.

<comment><USER9> "Windows Server 2008/R2 shipped with ~230 cmdlets. Windows Server 2012 beats that by a factor of over 10 shipping ~ 2,430 cmdlets."

[http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2012/05/30/...](http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2012/05/30/windows- server-2012-powershell-3-0-and-devops-part-2.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I thought one of the coolest feature was the ability to add and remove the entire UI:

[http://blogs.technet.com/b/klince/archive/2012/04/02/windows...](http://blogs.technet.com/b/klince/archive/2012/04/02/windows- server-8-switching-between-core-and-gui.aspx)

In short, the previous Standard / Core SKUs are gone, and you can switch between them as required.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, this is a nice feature that is quite useful. While you can install SQL Server on core through powershell, it's a lot simpler to just upgrade and use the GUI then downgrade back to core.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hard to take it seriously when they start off by suggesting that the web server, by itself, makes it a good investment. I have nothing against IIS (I think handlers written in C# is a solid feature compared to the alternatives for other servers)...but at best IIS is as good as _many_ free alternatives. Maybe they mean within the context of ASP.NET hosting, but they really should make that clear (and if so, say how, exactly, it's better for ASP.NET).

<comment><USER2> Microsoft licensing costs are a rounding error compared to the cost of employees for a business.

"Free" and "Alternative" are valid comparison terms if you are thinking of industries such as Shared Hosting and use-cases of PHP.

There is a reason why MS makes the billions it does every year with "free alternatives" on the market... Because they solve a lot of problems for some people.

<comment><USER3> > Microsoft licensing costs are a rounding error compared to the cost of > employees for a business.

That's not true for the product editions labeled "enterprise" or "ultimate". Just look at SQL Server Enterprise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Oddly, "Modern UI" (ie Metro) isn't in this list. Surely that's what every server admin needs, no?

<comment><USER13> Yeah, nothing beats trying to hover over a corner to get to the start menu in the midst of a panicked admin session...

<comment><USER14> The reason for not knowing the proper keyboard shortcut might also explain why this is a "panicked" session.

<comment><USER15> The keyboard shortcuts don't work in a less-than-fullscreen terminal server session. That's where a lot of my admin work happens, and having to hover over that corner sucks.

<comment><USER7> Keyboard shortcuts like Alt+Home(Start Screen) and Ctrl+Alt+End(=Ctrl+Alt+Del) should still work.

<comment><USER16> That only appears to work through one level. Right now I'm remote-desktoping a physical computer and have a Hyper-V VM open on that. Alt+Home will pass through to the VM only if the remote-desktop session to the host is full- screen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think the really operative phrase in this article is:

"Once you have assembled the list of scriptlets you need – printed, laminated and guarded by a fire elemental as in days of old – you can make the 2012 stack of Microsoft software sing."

My biggest issue with using windows server 2012 is the cognitive dissonance encountered when using the product. Are they trying to go more like unix and use command line scripts (e.g: powershell)? It sure seems that way. However, they also bolted on the most horrid and inappropriate UI ever onto the product. Is there some reason a hierarchical menu system doesn't make sense for an admin? Do they adopt a sensible convention of making all the configuration text editable? Is built in remote command line administration present (e.g: ssh?) It doesn't seem like it.

As a competent linux admin and novice windows server admin it seems very confusing.

And don't get me started on hyper-V. I really tried to use and spent almost a day of investigation. However, there really is nothing for documentation. With ESXI you download it, install, connect vmware fusion, and start working. Done. Couldn't figure out how to do that hyper-V.

<comment><USER5> Have you already looked at this - [http://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/library/cc732470(v=ws.10)...](http://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/library/cc732470\(v=ws.10\).aspx)

<comment><USER17> I think so. I do recall attempting to install the hyper-V on a server core installation. However, I think the problem was that the management tools required either windows server 2008 (which I didn't have) or Vista (which I didn't have). I don't know why the management tools aren't just a win32 binary (like VWWare Vsphere).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It seems that CSVs still require a shared storage system. The biggest thing I miss on Windows is a DRBD equivalent. I want to take a couple servers, and have them sync up their disks over the network - no need for a single point of failure SAN.

<comment><USER9> What's the scenario exactly? You can't make use of AD and DFS?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_File_System_(Micros...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_File_System_\(Microsoft\))

<comment><USER18> DRBD gives me a block device that's mirrored on 2 or 3 machines. DFS is like a file-level replication system or something. For instance, I can use DRBD as an iSCSI target for instance and then failover SQL Server. Or I can use any other app that requires no possibility of conflicts or uses open files.

AFAIK, Microsoft still has no solution in this case but to introduce a single point of failure via a SAN or other shared storage. I'd love to be wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Does it have SSH access yet? Or, does PowerShell have an encrypted remove protocol?

<comment><USER20> Yes, remote PowerShell is basically like SSH and is based on Win-RM. It can be encrypted with SSL.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> So, nothing new, then?

</comment><comment><USER22> I have been running Windows Server 2012 (Standard) as my main desktop for the past couple of months and I absolutely love it... I installed it onto an IBM x3100 M4 open box special ($400!) that I had picked up and after I added 32GB of RAM, an nVidia Quadro 600 and 5 (JBOD-configured) hard drives to it, the thing absolutely flies. Last night I had 2 VMs running in the background, 1 XP the another with an install of Win7 in progress and meanwhile I was playing a game of WoW on high-quality.

I did not replace the start menu because I like the big tiled-display. The only thing I miss on this new start screen is Jump Lists because I do not pin things to the task-bar (I prefer quick-launch), so Jump Lists are effectively useless to me now. The only usability tweaks I installed are: 7 Taskbar Tweaker and AutoHotKey. Other than that, the thing just works.</comment>


Hello, PushBullet - push anything to your Android phone from your browser - <AUTHOR> http://blog.pushbullet.com/2013/01/20/hello-pushbullet/

<comment><USER2> Pushing files is interesting, but addresses, notes, and lists are easily done already.

Pushing an address:

1\. Search address on Google Maps

2\. Open up Maps on Android

3\. Click on "My Places" from dropdown menu

4\. Swipe to Recent

Pushing notes:

1\. Create notes in Google Drive

2\. Open on Android

Pushing lists:

1\. Create list in Google Drive

2\. Open on Android

Pushing websites:

1\. Open website on laptop in Chrome

2\. Open Chrome browser on Android

3\. Select the "Other Devices" tab

4\. Open website

I suppose you could push files via Drive as well.

Pretty cool though; I may give it a try.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree there are easy ways to do most of PushBullet's functionality through other means but I think there is a lot of power in not just actually getting the list on your phone with Google Drive, but actively pushing it into your notifications.

Glad to hear you'll give it a try :)

<comment><USER3> Downloading it as I speak.

Not everyone knows how to push using those apps and I hope this makes life simple. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have installed it. time will tell whether I will actually remember to use it when I need it.

One thing you should definitely fix - once you install Android app and run it for first time, it tells you that you need to sign in using your G account. I thought the reference is for the web-app since the android app already listed my G account email address at the bottom of the screen. In the web-app I checked I am signed in and yet I could not do any push. So I was frustrated why the wep-app does not recognize my android device. I touching the android app randomly and finally a random click on my email address made the connection.

Its definitely not obvious how to pair the device with the web app. You should make some button in the app

Otherwise I like it :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot for the feedback. I 100% agree I need to make pairing more clear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> How does the data get from point A to point B? Does everything pass through your servers? Do I have any reason to feel that my URLs/maps/files couldn't be snooped upon by yourself or anyone else?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good question. I use Google's Cloud Messaging to actually deliver the pushes but the data in a push is not plaintext, and the push sometimes doesn't even have the data at all (the GCM message is just a tickle). All interaction with PushBullet app servers is done by https. Overall, I don't think I've done anything stupid but I wouldn't trust PushBullet to anything you consider prudently private.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> very interesting. If this had an API and/or a chrome extension I could see myself using it a lot. If you're looking for collaborators ping me (email in my profile)

</comment><comment><USER7> Slightly OT, rather than Chrome to Phone I use [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/qr-code-tag- extens...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/qr-code-tag- extension/bcfddoencoiedfjgepnlhcpfikgaogdg), so I can send a URL to anyone in the room with a smartphone. Admittedly they have to install something like Google Goggles first

</comment><comment><USER8> Giving this a go - I do have solutions for most of these things (Evernote for notes, Maps' built-in syncing, etc) but this sounds like it might be convenient, especially for files.

One small thing... when I started the app, it fired up my Twitter client O.o What's up with that?

<comment><AUTHOR> Nothing in PushBullet should fire up your Twitter client. :? Very strange.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Downloaded app, installed, and added push URL to bookmarks bar. It's awesome as is, but as others have mentioned, any kind of browser extension that would facilitate capturing selected text to send as a note or in one of the given formats would make this superlative.

</comment><comment><USER10> For those asking for an API for something like this, take a look at PushOver(<https://pushover.net/>). While PushOver doesn't support files, it does have a nice API and can also be used in IFTTT recipes.

</comment><comment><USER11> Doesn't work for me. Latched to my email and shows my phone on the dashboard, but when I try to push something nothing appears on the phone. I've tried pushing the sync button too. Is it US only? Or does it need wifi on the computer?

<comment><AUTHOR> I did see in the logs that someone's Google account wasn't playing nicely. I should be passing along error messages better, hah. If you wanted to message me the Google account you signed up with, I'll look into it.

<comment><USER11> Yeah got it. Two factor authentication. That will kill it stone dead, won't it?

<comment><AUTHOR> I bet your right. Too funny, you'll never think of everything you should test, right? :)

<comment><USER11> Heh, ain't that the truth. :)

[Update: I apologize greatly. Both my test pushes just arrived perfectly in my notifications bar. Nice!!! ]

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad to hear they made it though the pipes!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> How does this differ from the Chrome to Phone plugin?

<comment><USER13> Just installed it. It's not a about pushing specific urls, but instead you push specific predefined data types. The ones available right now are "Note", "Address", "List", "File". Pushing is done by visiting the site at this time, though I can imaging a browser extension is in the works.

Personally, I don't think I'll use it - I use dropbox when I want to sync a file with my phone, Evernote for notes and lists, and just Chrome to Phone for addresses (via google maps) or urls.

<comment><USER14> I'm glad that it's not just through extensions, that was the major thing I didn't like about Chrome to Phone (since sometimes I use public computers).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Please add feature to direct picture send to phone. Now I have to save it to disk than using "File" to send to phone. Anyway great idea.

</comment><comment><USER16> I still email myself things, or text myself something, which sucks. This seems like a serious replacement for that. Wish it was on iOS!

<comment><USER17> I could definitely use something like this on iOS as well.

As a designer, I'm constantly making things I want to be able to show to others at any given time, so I constantly email mockups to my phone. The process currently sucks, and this would be really helpful.

<comment><USER18> Sounds like Dropbox would help you with your problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So what's your business model? How do we know that you won't sell our e-mail addresses you get by signing in via Google account?

<comment><USER19> No answer?

I guess the business model is to sell the e-mail addresses after all.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, its not. I just haven't had the time to get that far. It's a hard problem but selling emails isn't an option.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Applaud a great start! Add iOS support and a chrome extension and reverse direction as well and I'd use this all day every day.

<comment><USER21> There's something quite similar for iOS already, it's called beamapp [ <http://getbeamapp.com/> ].

<comment><USER22> Is it ready yet? it never worked for me :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Why minimum version of PushBullet is android ICS? How about people that still use Gingerbread or below?

<comment><AUTHOR> I optimized around getting the app out and supporting devices pre ICS got cut for now, that's all. (Holo theme + new apis means cleaner code and in my experience with other apps, ICS+ is much less quirky so I can guarantee a better quality of experience with much less effort)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Would love an API so I can push IRC alerts to my phone. Growl integration would also work well.

</comment><comment><USER25> OMG, yes! I was wondering why it wasn't easier to do any of this! Downloading now.

</comment><comment><USER26> Hello, why is the file limit 5MB? can you make it bigger?

</comment><comment><USER27> Care to explain the difference with Chrome To Phone?

<comment><USER28> Pushbullet is a superset of Chrome to Phone. Chrome to Phone can only send link while push bullet can send other Media as well such as addresses and todo lists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Nice!

Add:

* Contact us

* Bookmarklet</comment>


Live results from tonight's primaries on twitter - <AUTHOR> http://twitter.com/electionlive <comment><USER2> <http://www.intrade.com>

<comment><AUTHOR> Notably, "Barack Obama to be Democratic Presidential Nominee" is trading about 10pts higher than its last close right now...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Can she still win? Please answer in the negative.

<comment><USER4> There are scenarios in which she could be the nominee, but they all pretty much involve Obama being dead or in jail. He won this thing a long time ago.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> hmm... NYTimes' data is distressingly behind some of the other media org's

</comment><comment><USER5> very cool</comment>


Google gets smart glove patent, will possibly use alongside Glass project - <AUTHOR> http://www.androidauthority.com/augmented-reality-gloves-google-109752/

<comment><USER2> I wonder what Nintendo's legal department thinks <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Glove>

<comment><USER3> Wouldn't it depend on the implementation, not just the idea? I haven't read the power glove patent, so I'm not sure how close they are. Also, I think Nintendo's patents on the power glove expired several years ago.</comment></comment>


Innovations in Text Editing and IDEs - <AUTHOR> http://blog.quplo.com/2010/05/5-innovations-in-text-editing-and-ides/ <comment><USER2> <http://750words.com/> seems totally awesome - I'm definitely going to do that once summer starts.

Also, there's a good list of distraction free writing editors (my personal favorite is <http://internettypewriter.com/> for it's free-ness and simplicity).</comment>


Ask HN: easy resources for learning Python? - <AUTHOR>

I'm wondering if the community can point me to some easy resources to getting started with Python, starting from the basics of basics up to advanced usage.
I had an interview a couple weeks ago with a kickass startup company, who's owner frequents HN, for a front-end engineer position. Unfortunately, it turned out the role really needed someone with Python experience in addition to front-end skills. Needless to say, I was passed over but the interview was great and it was really cool to meet with their team.
So, what's the best way for me to transition from a creaky PHP history to Python? I have some ideas for my own startup(s), I'm sick of working where I'm at, but I don't want to fallback on PHP to launch a new service. <comment><USER2> I can recommend "Think Python: How to think like a Computer Scientist". It's free but can also be purchased (at least soon). It really starts with the basics but if you already know those you can skip them. <http://www.greenteapress.com/thinkpython/thinkpython.html>

Also I can recommend Dive Into Python: <http://www.diveintopython.org/>

</comment><comment><USER3> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=378424> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=439822> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=121779>

Also what mkuhn said - ThinkPython and Dive into Python are both great books.

</comment><comment><USER4> Pick a project and just start coding. The Python documentation is good enough that you should be able to teach yourself as you go. A coding contest site like Project Euler is a good source of quick problems to hone your skills on. Whenever you run into a tricky situation run a google search on it and you'll be surprised how often the solution is built into python.

<comment><USER5> That's exactly my experience. "Dive into Python" made my head spin, confusingly enough (it is a great book). I did a small project (a deployment system that compiles HTML from a database of Markdown text using Jinja2 templating), coded it up real fast (I was amazed), refactored the thing to read easily and extend well, and _just sat back_. Just like that. I all made so much sense, while being so concise, I didn't realize it could be so elegant to write something, something readable, something you do not have to decipher when you get back to it later. I am _absolutely_ sold.

So here's my two cents -- pick a project, a small one, not necessarily something you're going to sell or even release, some repetitive task you have to perform, for instance, and automate that with Python, bring some structure to it and see how that goes. You might be not as impressionable, but there is definitely immediate gains with this approach (besides scratching your own itch as with my example).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I addition to books, I recommend getting an account with Google App Engine, which uses Python as its de facto language IIRC. You might not ever use the platform itself again, but it would provide a sandbox to play around in (assuming you don't already have a server of your own).

</comment><comment><USER7> I think Python documentation is a great resource for learning it.

</comment><comment><USER8> Whenever I start with a new language, I read an O'Reilly book from cover to cover. For Python, this is the one I chose: "Learning Python" by Mark Lutz.

</comment><comment><USER9> <http://www.cetus-links.org/oo_python.html> is a good source</comment>


Mozilla to Bring Python to Browsers - <AUTHOR> https://venturebeat.com/2019/04/16/mozilla-details-pyodide-a-project-that-aims-to-bring-python-to-web-browsers/ <comment><USER2> This is interesting because using plot libs in the browser is very useful.

And it's also a good advertisement for the Web Assembly.

</comment><comment><USER3> This could be huge. I can already see someone getting a URL and saying they can't open it in Chrome. The answer will be use Firefox--each time this happens we have more users of FF.

</comment><comment><USER4> But why? I mean, I read the article and understand what will be done with it. But why?

Is it just to take advantage of Python tools?

<comment><USER5> So we can have other options besides Javascript for full stack development? It makes more sense to have a server-side language that runs in the browser than shoehorn a niche programming language made for web browsers into a general purpose server-side language.

<comment><USER6> It makes more sense, but that train left the station long ago.

<comment><USER7> This from the crowd that can barely stand a framework for 6 months before the luster wears off...but no, we can never ever cut ties with our 1995 Netscape roots.

We can/should/must just rewrite all the OS in Rust though, says someone nearly every day...and this is no problem in HN logic...

<comment><USER6> Multiple fallacies. Let's see one of those ideas succeed and then we'll talk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wouldn't it be faster if Python was transpiled into JavaScript? Or convert it to SpiderMonkey bytecode?</comment>


Massachusetts man gets 10 years in prison for hospital cyberattack - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-massachusetts-cyber/massachusetts-man-gets-10-years-in-prison-for-hospital-cyberattack-idUSKCN1P42J8 <comment><USER2> Kind of sad, they screwed him a couple of times</comment>


Paul Graham revisits "Microsoft is Dead" - <AUTHOR> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/04/09/paul-graham-revisits-microsoft-dead-points-new-factors-shaping-software-industry

<comment><USER2> I've never agreed with this PG essay. Granted its a couple of years old, but I think its totally off-base.

Specifically:

"Gmail also showed how much you could do with web-based software, if you took advantage of what later came to be called "Ajax." And that was the second cause of Microsoft's death: everyone can see the desktop is over. It now seems inevitable that applications will live on the web - not just email, but everything, right up to Photoshop. Even Microsoft sees that now."

I couldn't possibly disagree with this more. The idea of being forced to use all software through a browser sounds bloody awful to me. Photoshop through a browser? DO NOT WANT.

What we're more likely to see is cloud-based apps, which deliver the portability and connectivity we've come to expect from web apps. I can absolutely see myself using a cloud based version of Photoshop, but it would still be "desktop" software. Not surprisingly MS is heavily invested in the virtualization and server markets.

Surprisingly, I think PG forgot this basic point: products succeed because people want them, not because of their underlying technology. Gmail became popular not because it employed AJAX or was based online, but because it solved a hair-on-fire problem: tiny inbox sizes.

"The third cause of Microsoft's death was broadband Internet. Anyone who cares can have fast Internet access now. And the bigger the pipe to the server, the less you need the desktop."

This statement I also find ridiculous. If anything, increased broadband availability has made computers even more of a must-have product. And I've seen absolutely nothing to back up a claim that of these new computers less of them are running Windows.

"The last nail in the coffin came, of all places, from Apple. Thanks to OS X, Apple has come back from the dead in a way that is extremely rare in technology. [2] Their victory is so complete that I'm now surprised when I come across a computer running Windows."

Dude, come on. Yes, Apple made an amazing comeback. No, they haven't had anything close to a "complete victory."

Now, I say this as someone who makes custom web apps for small businesses, and someone whose father had an app completely ripped off and suffocated by MS circa 2000. A big part of me wants this to be true, but I know it isn't.

In conclusion:

The revolution in web apps was making them behave more like desktop apps. So why is it surprising to see desktop apps enjoy a renaissance by acting more like web apps?

<comment><USER3> >> "Photoshop through a browser? DO NOT WANT."

What you seem to fail to see is that you're an outlier.

Most people want photoshop through a browser. Most people already do most of their stuff through a browser. It's funny to even debate, because it's happening/happened for large amounts of people out there already. Ask your parents what they do on the computer, and it's likely to be 90%+ web, with perhaps a couple of desktop apps. If that.

Ironically, it's the techie usually early adopters that are lagging here, preferring to stick with desktop software. The people leading the webapp charge are people who don't want the fuss of downloading desktop software, with potential spyware etc, and just go to google and find a webapp instead.

The same phenomenon exists when some people discuss advertising. "No one clicks on ads anymore" - it's easy to say, if you install adblock, or just don't click on ads, but this is a total minority. The majority do click on ads. Just like the majority want, and use webapps over desktop apps.

>> "Gmail became popular not because it employed AJAX or was based online, but because it solved a hair-on-fire problem: tiny inbox sizes."

I think actually the reason it succeeded was because it had ridiculously fast searching, and unlike a desktop app, you don't have to worry about your storage. I don't think the majority of people really cared about inbox size. The fact you could easily search for things in a simple and blazingly fast webapp was key. For most people, it is _better_ than a desktop app.

>> "This statement I also find ridiculous. If anything, increased broadband availability has made computers even more of a must-have product."

The fact that broadband access has increased etc means there's less need to have a thick client. Where previously you needed to download a video, click on it, watch it, we all now just watch videos streamed to us by a webapp. When we all have 1Gbps connections, why would we need a full powerful computer each? Why would it not be in most persons better interest to just have a very thin power conserving client that connects up to the big servers doing the grunt work.

The fact is, it's happening, and will continue to happen. You can't stop it. It's inevitable. You might prefer to stick with your computer and desktop apps, but you'll be a small minority, like the people who still buy records on vinyl.

>> "The revolution in web apps was making them behave more like desktop apps."

I disagree with that. The revolution in webapps is making them work _BETTER_ than desktop apps. Gmail can search my mail much faster than my computer can. Mibbit can do things impossible with desktop IRC clients. etc etc

The reason Microsoft are 'dead' is that they don't get it. They're dead in a similar sense to the music industry IMHO - the market changed around them and they completely failed to adapt.

<comment><USER4> _What you seem to fail to see is that you're an outlier._

When PG says stuff like "I'm now surprised when I come across a computer running Windows", I think he's more of an outlier than the parent poster.

 _Gmail can search my mail much faster than my computer can._

There's no technological reason for this to be true. Gmail takes a second or two to answer search queries over my mail; that is _plenty_ of time for a typical desktop machine to process full-text search queries over a few GB of indexed and largely static data.

 _The reason Microsoft are 'dead' is that they don't get it._

I think most of my objection to the original PG article is the shameless hyperbole it engages in. Microsoft isn't "dead" by any stretch of the imagination -- they are poorly positioned for cloud computing, but the game is certainly not over yet. Claiming that Microsoft is "no longer a factor one has to consider when doing something in technology" is simply wrong -- even if you narrow your focus to consumer-facing web apps, Microsoft still provides the dominant client platform (IE), and a very popular backend infrastructure (SQL + ASP.NET + CLR + ...).

<comment><USER5> _When PG says stuff like "I'm now surprised when I come across a computer running Windows", I think he's more of an outlier than the parent poster._

Different kind of outlier though: when you're an outlier because you spend an inordinate amount of time among people creating new technology, then your anomalous experience makes you better at predicting the future, not worse.

<comment><USER4> _when you're an outlier because you spend an inordinate amount of time among people creating new technology, then your anomalous experience makes you better at predicting the future, not worse._

Sometimes, but not always. If you spent all your time hanging out with people creating new technology in the mid 1980s, you might have been convinced that Lisp machines would soon become the dominant computing platform.

<comment><USER6> Mid 1980s one would have predicted Unix/C and distributed computing using Internet protocols would soon dominate, and would have been wrong...about the "soon" part.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> How I understand it is that Paul is saying Microsoft is irrelevant to those trying to build at the forefronts. That it is not going to spot you, the startup, and eat your lunch, because its core business, its competencies are not where you are "feeding" (for want of a better metaphor).

<comment><USER8> Well I can see how choosing a flamebait title helps get that message across.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> People misunderstood PG's essay because he misstated his thesis. "Dead", put simply, was the wrong word to use.

Microsoft is not "dead" any more than Apple was dead in the mid to late nineties (and boy, was _that_ a popular statement at the time).

Microsoft still has cash, people, and a position in the industry that, with the right leadership, can be turned around to be competitive with Google, Amazon and Apple.

Please back up all prognostications with evidence, or submit yourself to wrongtomorrow.com :)

<comment><USER10> No it was not the wrong wording at all. "X is dead" is a very well-established rhetorical phrase. The only controversy that resulted was due to the enormously over-literal nature of argument on the net.

The "Microsoft" in the title means the "Microsoft as bogeyman of the tech industry". This is implied. That Microsoft "still has cash, people, and ... position" is neither here nor there.

<comment><USER9> To me, "dead" means something like "checkmated". "X is dead" means that X is in a situation that it can't get out of. Can you please point me to your definition?

<comment><USER10> Yes that is it. Microsoft _as the bogeyman of the tech industry_ (i.e. a factor one _must_ consider). That concept is "checkmated"/dead. It no longer holds true. And there's nothing immediately obvious MS can do to reverse that situation ("get out of it").

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> IMO, Sharepoint is Microsoft's next big thing. They are becoming indispensable to midsized and large companies and creating a foundation that helps them keep selling copy's of Windows, and Office while setting up yet another revenue stream. Granted selling to other companies seems to be what large organizations do when they die, but it's still a huge source of revenue with little real competition.

So, if you are building a web app you can probably ignore Microsoft, but if you are building an OS, or Office product there is still a huge shark swimming in those waters.

<comment><USER2> Could you explain this:

"Granted selling [products] to other companies seems to be what large organizations do when they die"

I couldn't disagree more. Could you please elaborate?

<comment><USER11> I think focusing on selling to other companies is a difficult trap to get out of. After the first sale companies can be milked for an extended period for support contracts / upgrades. Innovation is not really needed and growth / profit are an easy to understand process. You can even make money by bribing middle managers (see: drug companies for an example of this).

However, individuals require far more bang for the buck. So the margins tend to be far smaller and you need to sell to large numbers of people constantly to keep up.

At the same time selling to companies tends to focus on boring products so most of your innovative people tend to leave. It's not exactly a binary choice, but companies like AT&T often go from selling to individuals, to making money from companies, to making money from the government. In the end the quality of your competition tends to drop the closer you are to working for the government which is why I think it's a death spiral. Overtime the company becomes unable to deal with change and the next round of innovative companies tend to disrupt them.

PS: Which is not to say old companies like GM can't sell products to customers it's just they stop being able to make much money doing so unless they can leverage a monopoly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> PG, if you're around, are you able to post your entire response? This article reads like there's a lot more you said that wasn't printed.

<comment><USER5> from Paul Graham

to Ian Lamont

date Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 9:22 AM

subject Re: 2nd anniversary of "Microsoft is Dead" essay - new factors to consider?

A lot of people misunderstood that essay, and asked how I could claim a company making so much money was dead. Obviously I didn't mean Microsoft was bankrupt. What I meant was that they were no longer a factor one had to consider when doing something in technology.

That's still true today. The big stories in the 2 years since have been AWS and iPhone apps. Microsoft's mindshare has continued to slowly erode.

Thanks to AWS, someone starting a startup today thinks more about Amazon than Microsoft. An online retailer! It would have seemed almost impossible to people in 1999 that anyone would be saying that in 2009.

\--pg

<comment><USER12> Thanks

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Technology startups don't have to worry about what Microsoft is doing? Microsoft is losing in a few fields but is still the world's largest and most lucrative software company. Just because it's no longer the youngest, hippest, and fastest growing company doesn't mean that it is dying.

<comment><USER14> Put it this way: Fifteen years ago, if you were trying to convince someone to invest in you, the question on their lips might have been "What if Microsoft move into your market?"

Now the question is "What if Google move into your market?"

Far from being a threat, Microsoft is now an opportunity target... "We're going to steal this market from Microsoft" is a plausible claim. And so, they are no longer a big worry.

<comment><USER15> 15 years ago, Stac Electronics was on everyone's mind. Where Microsoft might say they wanted to buy your company, or license your technology, then go on to steal it anyway.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Most of the criticism of this essay could be eliminated by replacing "dead" with "irrelevant".

What has Microsoft done in the last five years that has been copied by a competitor (the sincerest form of flattery and all)

<comment><USER17> Wow I honestly can't believe that pg is so short sighted.

Let's compare work that's being directly copied by competitors:

Microsoft: C#, actually for that matter the entire .NET Framework, Singularity, Gazelle, Visual Studio, Powershell, Office, WPF, Silverlight, Photosynth, the list goes on and on

Apple: iPhone

Microsoft is by no means "dead" or "irrelevant". Generally I like reading Paul Graham's essays, but I think this one is a bunch of gibberish.

<comment><USER16> Fascinating.

What would be illuminating is if you would point to the competitor and the copied product instead of just listing Microsoft products.

also, what does the line "Apple:iPhone" have to do with this?

(admittedly, Singularity is very, very cool)

<comment><USER17> Sure, I'll provide some examples

The companies copying Microsoft products:

C# -> Novell

Visual Studio -> Just about every other IDE out there rips off features that appear in Visual Studio first.Intellisense is the obvious example here.

Office -> Open Office, parts of Google Docs

Powershell -> Open source projects are directly copying this shell for linux

WPF -> KDE 4, Nokia

Gazelle -> Google is doing something very similar to this

As for the line: Apple: IPhone

I was trying to get the point across that this was the only product from apple that I could think of which has been copied by others. Perhaps you could make a case for parts of OSX as well. Either way my main point was that it's easy to find products that illustrate Microsoft's innovation.

I find it frustrating when people dismiss Microsoft's products as inferior to the alternatives when they haven't even given them a fair evaluation. I find I encounter a lot of people where I work that immediately dismiss Microsoft's products, just because it's Microsoft or because it costs more than the open source alternatives. In my mind this is nothing more than "software racism". It shows that these people are just closed minded.

<comment><USER16> I see your point, and I do agree that it is stupid to dismiss something just because it's from Microsoft (the same goes for any vendor/platform/etc.).

I disagree however with your list. I'm not familiar with Gazelle or WPF, but the rest of these items were not "invented" by Microsoft either and can be sourced back to some other point of origin. So it's not fair to say Microsoft's technology is being copied in these cases because they themselves copied the ideas.

The frustrating part is that, similar to General Motors, Microsoft does have good engineering going on but most of the results that come from these efforts never see the light of day in commercial productions. This is the nature of a large company organized in this way, and why we tend to see innovation in newer, smaller companies that don't know any better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> iPhone apps are a media sensation for sure, but the real money is more in social network apps. The top Facebook app makes every month what the top iPhone app has made in total.

<comment><USER16> Do you have evidence to back up this statement?

<comment><USER18> Sure. It's actually fairly public. Everyone celebrated iShoot making $700k. It's well-known that Mob Wars and a few other apps make more than that monthly. And as an app developer, I can attest to the sort of eCPMs that requires among Facebook RPGs.

To put it in perspective, I'll probably bring in more rev than iShoot this year, and I'm nowhere near Mob Wars in traffic numbers. There have to be hundreds of guys out there bigger than me. And unlike iShoot, I'll keep doing it indefinitely, not just until I fall off of the top 25 (which I never even had to hit).

When it comes to third party apps, Facebook is really the leader right now. In fact, I'd argue that in the tech world, they're setting the terms more than Apple at the moment, just in a different sphere.

<comment><USER16> Is iShoot the number one selling app (in volume or revenue) in the app store? Do you have Mob War's specific numbers?

This is what I mean by "evidence". The reason I ask is that most developers (other than publicly held companies) don't discuss these details with the general public.

<comment><USER18> I don't have any evidence that would be permissible in court, no. Nonetheless I know a lot of people involved in both worlds (including on the monetization angle) and unless there's a wide-spread, concerted conspiracy to trick me into not releasing an iPhone app, Facebook/Myspace ones monetize at least an order of magnitude better.

<comment><USER16> Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you, Matt ; )

Kidding aside, one other aspect to consider is the amount of investment required to get an application released on either platform (the true profit vs. just revenue). A game like iShoot can be put together by a single developer using commodity hardware in less than 100 hours. This application, once released incurs no maintenance cost in order to generate revenue (see note below). A developer can therefore turn out additional applications of this class with little support overhead required.

I haven't written a Facebook app yet, and perhaps a successful Facebook application can be created using the meager developer resources described above. However in addition to initial development costs, as I understand it, the developer must provide the infrastructure to run the application (web hosting, bandwidth, etc.). On an application which receives the volume of users you describe, this can add up to a significant ongoing expense.

You clearly know more and have more experience with the Facebook platform than I do, if I am incorrect in my statements please enlighten me.

*of course you can continue to spend money on promotion and advertising, but since this applies at least equally between both platforms, I consider it implicit.

<comment><USER18> Using rails and Facebooker we released our first app I think in something like 2 days. We went from 0 platform experience and an idea to a simple but functional app (that grew like crazy, but unfortunately had only 2 weeks to sign up new members) in probably under 20 developer hours. Our following app (the one that is doing fairly well today) took something like 1 developer month to launch, though we've since put probably put 1 developer year into improving it, generalizing the engine and launching two new themes on top of it, as well as porting the whole thing to Myspace. We'll be releasing game #4 onto both networks this week.

We didn't have to worry about being accepted into any store. (Facebook has an app directory that takes a couple days to get reviewed for, but honestly there's very little benefit to even being in it.) After we launched, upgrading was as simple as any website. We didn't have to make some fairly hard to achieve top 25 list to get traffic, in fact, we're hoping for the reverse.

Developing for Facebook isn't that different than any other web development (in fact a lot of apps run in an iframe). It's far easier, and gives far less control to a third party. It's far more lucrative, doesn't have the "hit or miss" aspect of the app store.

You're right about the hosting cost. Only some iPhone apps need that, many do not. All Facebook/Myspace ones do. But the greater monetization potential more than makes up for it if you're doing games (I'm not so sure about other types of apps). eCPMs on offer pages are measured in the $100s. Many people I know (in a way that would be admissible in court) are pulling in north of $500. Even if that only amounts to 1% of your traffic, that's still ludicrously high, especially on the volume you can get very quickly.

The only way in which it is inferior is it isn't sexy and nobody is going to write lots of articles about you. The iShoot guy got more coverage in bigger media outlets for bringing in $600k than Zynga did for making $40-$50m last year.

<comment><USER16> Cool stuff, thanks for all the info Matt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> IMHO if anyone has ever read Freidrich Nietzsche's "Gott ist tot" will understand what PG meant by "Microsoft is Dead".

</comment><comment><USER20> If you build a web app you must test it on IE, WM is the third biggest mobile OS for smartphones, and that's before desktops.

Sorry PG I can't agree with you on this account.

</comment><comment><USER21> How are iPhone apps a big story when the market is dominated by fart noise programs and games?

(Since when do Web 2.0 people give a crap about mobile gaming?)

</comment><comment><USER22> Maybe "de-clawed"? They're not quite DEAD yet. I think I'll go for a walk...

</comment><comment><USER23> The linked to article is weak. Summary: 1. PG wrote that article 2. I called him, and he reinforced his sentiment by giving 2 more incidents for support. iPhone Apps and the fact many web startups use Amazon's services for hostinge ect.

</comment><comment><USER24> In summary, a retarded article bragging about billions and market share without any substance at all to dispute PG's assertion.

M$ is dead, nobody fears them anymore, their products are no longer required, for every M$ product there are many competing products that work as well or better.

Like saying IE is the best browser because it has 60% of market share without saying it had 90% a year before.

Nobody uses it anymore and nobody cares.

That's the real issue.

<comment><USER25> Please don't use "M$"

<comment><USER24> From Wikipedia:

M$ (Microsoft): used to emphasize the allegation that Microsoft has business practices that focus on making money rather than producing good products or looking after the end user's needs and interests. Microsoft was convicted under United States anti-trust law of taking unfair advantage of its monopoly position. Also criticized for taking advantage of loyal customers and upgrading products annually for an expensive price, thus "shafting" the people who bought last year's products.

I don't see anything wrong with using M$ to imply all of the above in one simple and worldwide recognizable _satiric_ misspelling.

See also, _satire_

<comment><USER26> All businesses should primary focus on making money. That's what businesses do.

If you'd like to draw attention to Microsoft's illegal behavavior in the market, you have to explicitly state it, a dollar sign won't be enough for most people, who think you might simply be poor and envious.

<comment><USER27> I strongly disagree that "businesses should primarily focus on making money." They should focus on solving problems or making great products. The money follows. There's a word for "primarily focusing on making money": greed. I don't think we want more greedy companies around...

<comment><USER28> I strong agree about the greed, but would like to add one more entry to what their primary focus should be on: the customer.

<comment><USER29> In what order should a company consider customers, employees, and shareholders?

<comment><USER28> that order sounds pretty good to me. also, "employees" ought to be a subset of "shareholders", simplifying the prioritization a bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> no, no, no. Microsoft is far from dead. PG is simply wrong.

Just look at the work that Live Labs is producing. No "Web 2.0" company can compete with the brilliance behind photosynth. They are kidding themselves if they think they can.

I'll tell you why Microsoft won't survive. It's because Microsoft isn't a leader in innovation. Steve Ballmer doesn't have any balls. He's simply satisfied with being #2 and playing it safe while letting Steve Jobs create new markets and dominating them (with style).

Again, Microsoft isn't dead. If anything, this whole "Web 2.0" and Ycombinator incubation thing is dead. If the big boys think that there is any serious competition coming out of these programs then they have another thing coming. The recession has reduced a lot of this noise, and the real animals have been let out of their cage.

<comment><USER31> Microsoft Research is not Microsoft; it's like the Honors College at a large state university a small enclave of excellence set against a larger backdrop of mediocrity.

The larger culture at Microsoft is still operating under the assumptions of the 1990's when they were large and in charge. They have been coasting on the monopoly for some time. But, they are not the hundred year computing culture; by their very nature they can't be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> In that article, it's hilarious because the microsoft biz dev guy misunderstands what he seeks to establish.

</comment><comment><USER33> iPhone was changed everything.

Facebook and Twitter shows what the people really want.

No body cares about OS or PC anymore. Stay connected - it's a trend.

</comment><comment><USER24> I didn't see PG 'revisiting' his post.

Did he write a follow-up I missed?

<comment><USER34> I think it's referring to an email quote in the article.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How secure is plain text input on HTTPS web page? - <AUTHOR> Before I start, let me say that I have amateur knowledge of HTTPS and other similar protocols so this question may be simple to answer. But, as a layperson, it seems problematic.
--
Recently I was helping someone file their taxes online--nothing complicated so free software suffices--but before we could begin, they had to reset their password. Since it was related to taxes, all accounts were based around SSN and email. Again, this seems fine as it's a legitimate 501(c)(4)org and is reputable. However, the users input for their SSN was in plaintext with absolutely no delay in disguising it.
I understand this may be more user friendly as it could eliminate user error (i.e. typos in SSN) but does this then imply SSNs are being transferred in plaintext throughout their entire system? Is this type of plaintext input common industry practice? Bringing it down to the most basic level, is this type of input truly secure while being transferred over HTTPS? <comment><USER2> That's how the internet works. All fields in forms are always sent in plain text, so its up to HTTPS to secure it (as long as it is sent via POST request, not GET).

</comment><comment><USER3> HTTPS will make sure the data is secure while in transit to the server. What the server does with that data once it arrives is independent of HTTPS.</comment>


Why So Many Tech Founders Who Are Jerks Become Insanely Rich And Successful - <AUTHOR> http://www.seattlepi.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Why-So-Many-Tech-Founders-Who-Are-Jerks-Become-5155174.php

<comment><USER2> The article lied to me. It said it would tell me why so many tech founders who are jerks become insanely rich and successful.

Instead it tells me that there are rich and successful jerks, and that some people would prefer not to work with or finance jerks, and finally that there are some really great guys who are rich and successful.

It never tells me why so many tech founders who are jerks become insanely rich and successful.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's amusing they reference Michael Jordan as a "poster boy"... he's known for being a jerk too!

<comment><USER4> Everyone can be a jerk but for some it depends on the situation, where others are jerks all the time :)</comment></comment>


Alcatraz: Xcode Package Manager - <AUTHOR> http://mneorr.github.io/Alcatraz/

<comment><USER2> Interesting. At first I thought this was a rival to CocoaPods, but it's actually for installing Xcode file/project templates. See the packages.json file for examples of what it managed [https://github.com/mneorr/alcatraz- packages/blob/master/pack...](https://github.com/mneorr/alcatraz- packages/blob/master/packages.json)

<comment><USER3> It seems to be for plug-ins, color schemes and project templates.

<comment><USER4> It also has File templates. Most likely, it will support snippets soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looks very nice. But how stable is the Xcode plugin API these days?

BTW, what's the connection between the name "Alcatraz" and the idea of a package manager for Xcode plugins? Try as I might, I can't see one. I don't know why all open source projects need an arbitrary name these days - I would have simply called it "Xcode Package Manager". I don't mean this as criticism: I am just baffled by this phenomenon, and just a little bit concerned that we're going to run out of memorable names if every single niche project needs one.

<comment><USER6> Alcatraz was a high-security prison associated with some high profile escape attempts, though no successful escapes have been confirmed. I suspect the creators of this package manager were trying to link the tech terms 'walled garden' and 'jailbreak' to real life penitentiaries. If so, I think 'Shawshank' would have been a better name, because it's a fictitious prison and the story has a happy ending.

<comment><USER4> Shawshank sounds like an awesome name; Alcatraz was just the first one that came to my mind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is worth installing just to get the plugin that disables animations when you open/close the file browser and inspector panes.

But seriously, I hadn't really known about Xcode plugins, despite using it a lot of the time. I'd used a few but they were annoying to find and install. This is perfect and with an "Xcode Plugin" template available in it, I look forward to many more plugins emerging soon!

<comment><USER8> Doesn't that work? (honest question, I don't use XCode that much):

        defaults write NSGlobalDomain NSAutomaticWindowAnimationsEnabled -bool false

<comment><USER7> This would affect animations system-wide. I prefer animations in general, but for my IDE I want it to be fast.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I like this. Having a useful central repository of 3rd party project templates is a good thing, especially as Apple seem to keep cutting back on them. (Until I saw this it hadn't even occurred to me that people might contribute their own; I must be a bit too comfortable in the walled garden).

In the spirit of sharing I've added my own, long-standing color theme.

</comment><comment><USER10> first do this:

mkdir -p '/Users/{{username}}/Library/Application Support/Developer/Shared/Xcode/Plug-ins'

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the report, adding this in the Alcatraz. He should do it instead of you ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Alcatraz is now integrated with Alfred Project Managers Workflow. <https://github.com/willfarrell/alfred-workflows>

</comment><comment><USER12> Looks great! There is an issue with installing/running it on OS X Lion, but I am sure it will get fixed soon.

</comment><comment><USER13> I get "x failed to install :( .xcodeproj not found" every time I try to install something.

<comment><USER4> You need to install Command line tools from the Preferences pane. After that you should be good to go.

We'll add that notice probably tomorrow.

<comment><USER13> I have them installed

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> needs a mkdir in that install script for people without the plugins folder

<comment><USER4> updated install script

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm getting 'curl: (6) Couldn't resolve host 's3.amazonaws.com''

<comment><USER16> Something is likely wrong with your DNS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I get "color scheme installation fail" for everything.

<comment><USER4> If you mkdir -p ~/Library/Developer/Xcode/UserData/FontAndColorThemes/ , does it work then?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Fitting name.</comment>


Ghetto up any Twitter author/tweet - <AUTHOR> http://twiggr.com/PrinceCharles/status/2481523289 twiggr.com/<twitter account> <comment><USER2> I tried pumping Ali G tweets into it - <http://twiggr.com/REAL_Ali_G>

Sadly, not quite the John Malkovich inside the head of John Malkovich experience I was looking for...

</comment><comment><USER3> To quote Ricky Gervais, "It's funny, because it's racist."</comment>


Hain-plugin-clipboard: Replay clipboard history in Windows with fuzzy search - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/notatestuser/hain-plugin-clipboard <comment><USER2> I've been using ClipX ([http://bluemars.org/clipx/](http://bluemars.org/clipx/)) for years now. It's search and UI isn't that sexy, but it does a wonderful job of keeping track of the text and images placed on the clipboard. I especially enjoy it's ability to show images inline in the context menu.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I was also very happy with ClipX while I was using Windows. Since switching the main OS to Linux a couple of years ago I've tried many other clipboard managers and found that CopyQ is the best (for me): [https://github.com/hluk/CopyQ](https://github.com/hluk/CopyQ)

It's being actively developed and also supports OSX and Windows, so it's worth giving a try.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks interesting. I've been using Ditto for some time to do clipboard management. I wrote about it here: [http://www.tidbitsfortechs.com/2016/02/clipboard- manager/](http://www.tidbitsfortechs.com/2016/02/clipboard-manager/)

<comment><USER5> Ditto!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Polling seems like a bad choice when APIs like AddClipboardFormatListener exist.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm aware of this. Right now I wanted cross-platform compatibility but will work on better non-polling solutions for individual platforms soon, where Windows will take priority. Hain is going to work on other OSs so this is something I must consider!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Cool - didn't know this was a need.

Watch-Clipboard has been part of my PowerGIL Powershell module[0] for about a month, it checks your clipboard 10 times a second and writes it to the Powershell window when your clipboard changes.

[0] [https://github.com/Gilgamech/Main](https://github.com/Gilgamech/Main)

</comment><comment><USER8> > Future work

> • Support unicode

It's 2016. Virtually every operating system and programming language in use supports Unicode. How is it still so hard to support it (especially in this case where the data being copied should not matter at all to the actual routines doing the save/restore). Am I missing something fundamental here?

<comment><USER9> The problem is that they wrote this in JS/node so it's using some sort of horrible bodged hack that interacts with the clipboard using ancient ASCIItext-only compatibility clipboard APIs.

It's also polling the clipboard on a timer instead of using clipboard change notifications, which has some relatively obvious implications for power efficiency on laptops, along with the ability for it to miss history entries. This is also a very dangerous behavior for applications that add virtual clipboard data - clipboard data is not guaranteed to be resident, so by trying to capture it as text you may be performing an RPC to the application that put the data on the clipboard and asking it to produce text for you. If the text lives across the network on another machine (this can happen :-D) you may be waiting a while.

<comment><AUTHOR> Regarding power efficiency: I've profiled this method. Its impact on battery power is negligible.

I guess the best way to ease this concern will be to make the interval variable. Polling is often the only way to access clipboard data (it's that way on OS X, by the way.)

Regarding RPC / complex data: This does not happen. Only simple text in immediate memory is captured.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I used arsclip for this. Your UI is nicer though. -- [[http://www.joejoesoft.com/vcms/97/](http://www.joejoesoft.com/vcms/97/)]

</comment><comment><USER11> Nice work! I'll be trying this out. The instructions should add that Hain must be restarted after installing the plugin.

</comment><comment><USER12> Didn't even know about hain - thanks!

</comment><comment><USER13> ClipMate is great too

<comment><USER14> I agree, I've looked at a lot of them and the $35 I paid for ClipMate is a good productivity investment. The only thing about ClipMate is that its search feature doesn't work well anymore. [http://clipmate.com/](http://clipmate.com/)</comment></comment>


P2P insurance question, need to interview for an entrepreneurship class - <AUTHOR>

Assuming a peer to peer insurance company existed, what do you think it ought to look like? Would you use it? If so, how?<p>Thanks. <comment><USER2> Thats interesting.

I would say something like the credit-default swap market where you have individuals or institutions agreeing to insure new and existing debt. As we have seen, it would be a mess unless the P2P insurance company maintained a registry recording the transactions entered by the various parties.</comment>


Quick recap of Startup Weekend Havana, first ever in Cuba [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92JE-WDoxjo <comment><USER2> This video is indistinguishable from startup parody.</comment>


The Elevator Pitch is Dead. Enter The Twitter Pitch. - <AUTHOR> http://walternaeslund.com/the-elevator-pitch-is-dead-enter-the-twitter-pitch/

<comment><USER2> That's an easy pitch.</comment>


Failure May Never Be "Accepted" - <AUTHOR> http://www.facebook.com/thestartupcentre/posts/350831888288282

<comment><USER3> It depends on what is meant by "failure" and by "acceptance".

I guess some people need simplistic slogans/mantras to get motivated. At one start-up I worked in, the founder frequently ended his emails with the phrase "Failure is NOT an option!" Well, obviously, it was "an option" because that is exactly what happened to the start-up (if you define "failure" as no longer existing). On the other hand, everyone had a great time, learned a lot, and are or will use the experience of "the failure" to succeed in another context in the future.

I generally don't have a problem with such slogans-- whatever floats your boat is fine for me. But for heaven's sake, please don't put it on a T-shirt and expect your employees to wear it proudly, it is embarrassing to folks who take a pragmatic point of view.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hehe, I can empathize with you. And Yep Failure is very much an option - <USER2> of the time it is the startup that fails, not the founder, not the team. But yet, more than anymore its those two sets of people who take it the hardest. That was the context.

My mentor used to remind me often that we are the final product, and that "phase" when we are building a startup is all towards enabling the product (aka us) to grow a skillset - or a new feature, if you'd call it that.

I worry when entrepreneurs and visionaries anticipate and call for a world that would embrace failure. I have no idea what that means, but failure - on a personal level - to accomplish that set task in a phase in a life, still would hurt, if not anything, just for the mere sake of the confidence and drive we put into it.

But every entrepreneur worth his or her salt will survive it.</comment></comment>


3-character filename extensions - <AUTHOR> http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/short_filename_extensions.html <comment><USER2> First, the 3-character file extension predates CP/M. It goes at least as far back as various DEC operating systems like RT-11 and RSTS/E; probably there are antecedents further back in time. I've also seen old filesystems with 2-character extensions, but 3 has been common for quite some time.

I think that the original selection of 3 character extensions was made because it felt like a comfortable number of characters to make something meaningful while not being too burdensome to type. The fact that we still tend towards <= 3 character extensions is probably because this is still true, not because of a conscious attempt to maintain DOS compatibility.

<comment><USER3> I've only ever seen Windows-based systems adhere strictly to the 3-character extension. All 'Nix's I've worked with (Linux, BSD's, etc) usually have native files on the system with extensions longer than 3 characters. (.conf anyone?)

Also, probably should note, file extensions are largely a Windows-based OS thing as well. On the 'Nix's, an extension isn't really needed (OK, it's not needed on Windows-based OS's either, but the OS prefers it). the "file" command will tell you all you need to know about a file without an extension. Or, you can just open it with a text editor. Or, execute it if it has execute permissions, etc.

So, it seems, the 3-character extension (or extensions at all) are really a Windows-Based OS thing.

(While we're at it, Windows-Based OS's are the only OS's I've worked with that actually _require_ something in-front of the "."! For example, try to natively create a ".somefile" on Windows -- it will complain and not let you).

<comment><USER4> Windows has allowed extensions longer than 3 characters for about 20 years now. I'm not sure what you mean by "natively create" but it also definitely doesn't require anything before the "." \-- e.g. I have files called ".gitignore" etc. just as on any other OS.

<comment><USER5> Right click a text file (such as "example.txt") and try to rename to ".gitignore". You get an error popup dialog "Rename: You must type a file name."

That's what he means...you can create it in various applications though.

<comment><USER6> That is the most annoying error ever. _No, I must not! I shall decide for myself what I must and mustn 't do!_ /me opens cmd.exe and uses ren untitled.txt .gitignore

A slightly bigger challenge is a file named CON :)

<comment><USER7> Or .... , but that one is fairly easy as long as you COPY from the CONsole to a <fileName>. And remember ^Z to save and quit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Even if MS-DOS wasn't used anymore, the various MS-DOS file systems are still used; a lot of media comes from the vendor pre-formated in FAT16. Phones, cameras, USB hard disks, etc are all formatted in FAT by default. Even the file system on Spirit and Opportunity, the Martian rovers, is FAT16! ( See page 6 of [https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall09/cos109/m...](https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall09/cos109/mars.rover.pdf) )

By default MacOSX doesn't read Linux file systems (EFS, ReiserFS, etc); by default Linux doesn't read MacOSX file systems (HFS, HFS+). On the other hand, by default, most system read FAT16 or sometimes FAT32 file systems.

Therefore if you want to use those amovible media to exchange data accross file systems, you better stick to those MS-DOS file systems. Granted, you could use MS-Windows extensions, but again, nothing guarantees that the system where you will plug your USB key will have a system understanding those extensions. In all probability, it will have FAT16 or FAT32 support, ie. 8.3 file names.

<comment><USER9> It's been a very long time since I saw something that doesn't support FAT32, and probably even longer than that since I saw something that didn't support LFN. Windows '95 was 19 years ago. People have had plenty of time to switch, and it seems that they all have. Which is hardly surprising, because 8.3 file names were annoying, and everybody hated them.

(Any stragglers can simply be ignored; people still stuck on DOS are even less important in the grand scheme of things than people still using the Amiga...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't really see an argument in favor of longer extensions except in rare cases (such as with html where you only need one extra letter). `mp4` tells me just as much about a file as `mpeg4` does and is equally easy to remember, plus it saves a few keystrokes.

The same logic applies to most programming languages. I have no problem remembering `.js` is javascript or `.rs` is rust. And I think the vast majority of programmers would agree with me.

Further, filenames don't play a large role in most (nontechnical) users lives. The tools they use (e.g. Word or Excel) append the filename for them, so they don't worry about it at all. The only people who routinely write filenames by hand are coders and they're familiar enough with the extensions that shortcuts work fine.

<comment><USER11> _oldmanyellsatcloud.gif_

But seriously, it's a silly limitation from a bygone era. Why _should_ we adhere to it?

Why should we _have_ to remember these things? Some of them are easy to remember, but even less technical users change their workflows from time to time.

Sketch uses ".sketch" as its extension. Should they have gone with something ".skc" as their extension, just because that's *the way things are done?", even though the application only runs on the latest version of an operating system without that primitive limitation?

Even with Markdown, most people use ".md", but Gruber has expressed ".markdown" as his preference because the limitation doesn't really exist.

<comment><USER12> Why should we even have extensions in the first place?

Ideally the filetype should be determined from metadata or scanning the header.

(Speaking as someone who's had to fix image file processing bugs because the original coder trusted file extensions to be correct.)

<comment><USER13> And this is how the Mac has worked for a long time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> FWIW the 2007+ office file extensions are all more than 3 characters (e.g. ACCDB, ACCDT, DOCX, DOCM, DOTX, DOTM, XLAM, PPTX, PPTM, POTX, POTM, PPAM, PPSX, PPSM, SLDX, SLDM, XLSX, XLSM, XLTX, XLSM, XLSB)

</comment><comment><USER15> Abbreviations are convenient. I'd rather type .psd than .photoshop or .m than .module.

<comment><USER16> .m is just as much a Matlab file, as a module. Speaking of Matlab, .mat extension is reserved by Access somehow deep in Windows guts and up until this day I don't know how to get rid of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Heh, no respect for history. Short answer, while UNIX had its 'magic' number which looked at the first 32 bits (four bytes) of a file to figure out what kind it was (hash bang for the win) and Apple had its own awesomesauce of a 'forked' file system where the file and what it was were in two completely separate but extensible parts of the file system, CP/M (which had emulated DEC) and then DOS which had emulated CP/M used a 3 character (which is only 24 bits but still plenty) to encode the type of file in the name since it couldn't necessarily live in the file itself and there was no 'attribute fork' to stick it in.

Interestingly this is a problem that lives on, people still want to identify _what_ a file is and that requires some sort of identifier. Embedding it in the name is just as good as anything, but the important bit is that you stay consistent. If you're web documents are .htm, .html, .www, .web, etc your configuration gets unwieldy.

<comment><USER18> I really liked the Mac "forked" file system. File types and bundles were simple and worked really well. They also facilitated "drag and drop" application installs, where the Finder did most of the work keeping track of where applications lived.

The app install process on Windows makes me weep (I think that Visual Studio installs well over 10,000 keys in the registry. What the hell? This number should be _zero_ in a well designed system . . . but don't get me started on the disaster that is COM).

Incidentally, Windows NT has file forks. They're not often used, and lots of utilities don't know about them, but they can be quite useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you were going to go the whole hog, slap the entire MIME type name in the extension :) Otherwise I don't think 3-4 character file extensions have really let anyone down in the history of computing.

</comment><comment><USER6> > Perhaps the only, quite unusual, exception is the .html file name extension > for HTML files

Sounds like he has been missing out on Microsoft Office since at least 2007, though I must say I can only applaud that fact.

More seriously, the article might as well have ranted about files having any extension at all. Magic mime is much more reliable and versatile, not to mention all the viruses using .jpg.exe extensions.

<comment><USER20> .jpg.exe extensions are less of a problem when the operating system doesn't hide them.

<comment><USER6> Heh, that too. I keep saying "first thing I do when" because there's so much to do when installing Windows even if it's not for myself (nowadays Windows installs are, luckily, never for myself), but it really is one of the first things.

<comment><USER21> The "hide known file extensions" default option should have been around less than a month before someone realize, "this is very insecure". The fact that it's been around for over a decade is just lame.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Article is from 2010. For the same reason you want shorter domain names, people want shorter extensions.

Decade later you can see that there a greater amount of 4+ characters extensions.

> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_formats](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_formats)

<comment><USER6> > For the same reason you want shorter domain names

Good one, hadn't thought of the analogy to .commercial, .network and .organization yet (.com, .net and .org, incase anyone doesn't get it). It's 2014, let's use the whole name already!

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> If it ain't broke, don't fix it. (The reasons for why it is "broken" to limit to 3-char in the article aren't good enough to warrant a paradigm shift for a convention almost as old as computing itself).

</comment><comment><USER24> One of my biggest disappointments with Gnumeric is the file extension: tab completion only works sometimes, and I'd really like to change find ~ -name \ _.gnumeric to find ~ -name \_.gnm or find ~ -name \\*.gsc Also it takes up more space when listing files in a terminal.

Also, the 3 letter convention is a somewhat helpful limitation in the same way that countries defining which side of the road to use is actually helpful. For instance, it is nice to have all of my JPEGs ending in .jpg rather than a mix of .jpg, .jpeg, .JPG .JPEG.

</comment><comment><USER25> The .html 'exception' shouldn't really be that surprising. How many web servers do you know that run on MS-DOS?

<comment><USER26> The "htm" extension was a lot more common back when some consumer systems still had the three character limit. The web server limitations don't matter that much on something like a web hotel where users typically FTP their files over from whatever OS they are using themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The only reason to make a file extension longer is to avoid collisions.

NTFS has a file length limit fo 255 characters. And if the company you work for does things like this:

\\\SERVER1\Data\Region\SubRegion\SubSubRegion\Reports\Weekly\2014-25\WidgetReport\SubWidgetReports\\..... you can eat up space pretty quickly. You might need those extra characters.

<comment><USER28> Just a little nit that I feel compelled to pick: The path length limitation is part of Windows, not NTFS. NTFS has a 255-character limit on individual path components, but it allows for much longer paths than that, just like all modern filesystems do. It's the Windows API that sets MAX_PATH to 260.

<comment><USER27> Feel free to nitpick. I remember writing to an NTFS parition from Linux. I finally managed to delete the unresponsive directories in Powershell except for one straggler which also had special characters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> .html isn't quite served exactly the same way as .htm on a Windows OS. Although both .html and .htm will open up a page in your default browser, the latter will attempt to locate predefined folders that presumably contains images/scripts for your .htm file.

</comment><comment><USER30> Three letter extensions can also be important for compatibility with poorly- written software. I work with an "enterprise" (hah) document management system which refuses to believe that .docx files are a thing.</comment>


Entertainment Weekly Mag Has A Smartphone Bound In 1000 Issues - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/entertainment-weekly-mag-has-a-smartphone-bound-in-if-you-can-find-it.php

<comment><USER2> This title is misleading. It should say Entertainment Weekly bound 1,000 issues with smartphones.

</comment><comment><USER3> This really surprised me... and then it didn't. When I first read about the CW ad I figured oh, it'll be a little 320x240 screen with a battery and wireless unit attached, some simple bios-type display and wireless driver, etc.

But I imagine as they were looking at options, they found they were paying for essentially 3/4 of a phone, and it probably would run them more to design and assemble this custom solution than it would to just buy 10,000 surplus phone skeletons with everything included and write a simple Android app.

That said, it's pretty insane that this thing will make calls and everything. I wonder what kind of restrictions are on the SIMs - time, data, minutes?

</comment><comment><USER4> Heard about this years ago. It's cool, but also quite sad. All these thousand or so manufactured just to be thrown out in one or two weeks, never again to see the light of day?

</comment><comment><USER5> 2 days ago, 71 points, 34 comments: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4605295>

...which is a submission of <http://mashable.com/2012/10/02/ew-has-smartphone- inside/>

</comment><comment><USER6> So, what's the trick to finding one? Bring a metal detector?

<comment><USER7> The trick is to go to Los Angeles or New York where the limited 1,000 issues were actually distributed.</comment></comment>


An Open Letter to Peter Thiel - <AUTHOR> http://gawker.com/an-open-letter-to-peter-thiel-1778991227 <comment><USER2> Thiel aspires to a political career doesn't he?

This level of vindictiveness towards the media does not bode well.

Imagine all billionaires behaving like this, a war on the media by the rich.

Imagine all US Senators conducting long term campaigns to bankrupt companies that they don't like.

And why stop at attacking media? Maybe you have a company that competes with Thiel.... he has now seen he can destroy companies with lawsuits.. Maybe in future this will be the strategy for destroying competition.

<comment><USER3> > vindictiveness towards the media

The 'media' that is wrapping itself in 'Freedom of Speech' so it can distribute videos of Hogan/Terry's cock and ignore direct orders from the courts?

This must be some weird John Lennon song.

Imagine all the witch hunts by hyper socialized ninnies destroying people's lives. At least 4chan recognizes what it's actually trolling for outrage when it goes on raids.

I've seen so much handwaving in the last 24 hrs.

Everything is about what 'could' happen. Well it hasn't. Now what is your argument? Chilling effects? Well people with a similar position to yours are also arguing that he was acting as a clandestine puppet master pushing cats paws around. Bit of a mixed metaphor but you get the picture. Secretly perverting democracy and the public interest, no matter which option is chosen. Then apparently the argument becomes he broke laws of Anglo-Saxon England. Yeah.... I wouldn't continue pulling on that thread if I were you.

Your tribe cannot be pulling for two contradictory arguments like this. The reality is that a rapidly going out of business media conglomerate is trying to pull anybody into the ditch with them so they can distribute the mud they're so adept at raking.

You must at least concede the possibility of the public interest and a private interest being the same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's a little dismaying that the HN community seems to be so universally, 100% supportive of Thiel in this matter. As I wrote in another comment, we should perhaps be thinking less of the specifics of this case than of the precedent.

"The precedent that if you write scandalous gossip about someone, your company can be destroyed? What's wrong with that?"

Well, first off, _scandalous gossip_ is a little subjective, and as Denton correctly points out, Gawker's sites aren't all trashy gossip in the first place. But, second and more importantly: no. That's not the precedent. The precedent is a billionaire who doesn't like what's being written about him funding _other_ lawsuits to take down a media company.

"But look at the Hogan case. They were found guilty. Thiel had to find a case that could be won, because Gawker really is that bad!"

No. I mean, yes, maybe Gawker really _is_ that bad, but Thiel--or anyone following in his footsteps--only has to find cases that are _good enough to get to court._ He could effectively cripple or destroy Gawker with cases that _weren 't_ winnable, as long as they were expensive enough to defend against and just kept coming. All our "philanthropist" needs is enough money.

The thing is, maybe the next target _isn 't_ going to be a site like Gawker. Maybe it's going to be the Intercept, or the Atavist, or Mother Jones (which has already been threatened with similar suits, IIRC), or Reason. Maybe the philanthropist _won 't_ be someone we're all quite so willing to give the benefit of the doubt to.

Look: these sort of cases are very often _not_ ones that are over tasteful stories written by people you'd be comfortable sharing an elevator with. I'm not a fan of Gawker-the-site (although I'm a fan of some of Gawker's other properties, which these discussions seem to keep eliding). But I'm still, however reluctantly, on their side in this.

The world will survive just fine without Gawker, sure. But what if the press-- not just Gawker, but _any_ site that's got Gawker-level resources or less--has to start thinking, "If someone rich enough and vindictive enough to start funding libel lawsuits against me hates what I write, can I defend myself against them even if they're frivolous?" Do you really think there's no chance that won't make journalism a little more timid? A little more risk-averse?

Do you really think that's a good thing?

<comment><USER3> > It's a little dismaying that the HN community seems to be so universally, > 100% supportive of Thiel in this matter.

It is so simple. Thiel is right! Pragmatically. Ethically. Preventing character assassinations of blameless people is the work of somebody stopping a bully in the playground. If the bully whines he's being bullied because he can't bully others I'm sorry, we don't have too much sympathy for the argument.

Gawker is not just a tabloid. It is a tabloid motivated by political thinking associated with the social justice fanatics. It has been using its press and money to act as a political actor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder how many others feel so uncomfortable visiting Gawker that they'll debate whether to click this link.

I did click it, and read the letter in its entirety. I found it utterly unconvincing: a last-ditch moral appeal from someone with absolutely no moral credibility.

<comment><USER6> > I found it utterly unconvincing: a last-ditch moral appeal from someone with > absolutely no moral credibility.

Meh, didn't really seem like that to me. I mean if what they wrote is 100% true I still wouldn't expect Peter to "debate" them. It's just another news piece targeted at one of their enemies. I don't think it's much more than that.

I do get the impression that they're going to drag Peter into their court cases. That should be...interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So disingenuous. Clarium was a bit ... volatile, but as I understand it generated 8 percent and change compounded returns over the life of the fund, and it likely wasn't that correlated with other funds in your portfolio, which means the idiosyncratic volatility was less of a concern than it might have been investing in a guy that ran with the herd.

A fund that does well can shape its returns, but you cannot control investor behaviour. So talking about a 90 percent loss of assets without mentioning the compounded return of the fund is really a sign that you aren't trying to be fair, but just stick the knife in. Or, throw enough mud and some of it will stick.

</comment><comment><USER8> "A.J. Daulerio, author of the 2012 story on Hulk Hogan, is out of work and unable to pay the $100,000 in punitive damages awarded by the jury."

Odd that Gawker wasn't (isn't?) covering its journalists under its libel insurance policy, and is now relying on its failure to do so to justify publishing arguably libelous, or at least close to libelous, material.</comment>