Way to store your dotfiles: A bare Git repository (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/dotfiles <comment><USER2> I use something even simpler

My dotfiles git repo is meant to be cloned in my home directory. It comes with this .gitignore committed in the repo:

      /*
      !/.vim/
      /.vim/.netrwhist

Basically it ignores everything in my home directory, unless I explicitly `git add` it, which matches my workflow. For the few cases where I want to notice changes (like the entire ~/.vim/ subdirectory), I explicitly un-ignore it as you can see above.

The only downside I've experienced is my bash PS1 prompt shows the status of the dotfiles repo (branch/dirty/etc) in any directory I'm in that's inside my home dir - I've learnt to ignore it, and it doesn't interfere with CDing into an actual directory that's its own git repo.

<comment><USER3> I think that method requires git to scan all the files in the directory so it can then ignore them. The advantage of the "showUntrackedFiles no" method is that git will only look at the tracked files, which is much faster if you have a million files in your home dir, like I do. (Or so I believe.)

<comment><USER4> I tried quickly looking into this to verify the claim, but haven't yet found anything to explain why this would be the case. Do you have any details about how or why git will scan everything in this case?

I did find a pretty neat stack overflow post on the subject of gitignore whitelisting [0]. If we can get to the bottom of possible performance impact, would be cool to add the info there.

[0] [https://stackoverflow.com/a/15320746/293064](https://stackoverflow.com/a/15320746/293064)

<comment><USER2> Without spending too much time on it, I think a cursory check shows git doing "the smart thing" with ignore rules.

      $ mkdir foo
      $ cd foo
      $ mkdir $(seq 1 1000)
      $ git init .
      $ strace -c git status
        On branch master

        No commits yet

        nothing to commit (create/copy files and use "git add" to track)
        % time     seconds  usecs/call     calls    errors syscall
        </comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> </comment><comment>----- </comment><comment>----- </comment><comment>--- </comment><comment>--- </comment><comment></comment><comment>----
         75.97    0.058830          57      1035        15 openat
         16.48    0.012764           6      2002           getdents
          3.87    0.002999           3      1021           close
          2.91    0.002254           2      1022           fstat
          0.19    0.000147           8        18        14 lstat
          0.13    0.000100           4        24           read
          0.12    0.000092           6        16        12 stat
          0.09    0.000072           3        21        14 access
          0.06    0.000048          10         5           write
          0.04    0.000033          33         1           unlink
          0.03    0.000020           3         8           rt_sigaction
          0.02    0.000018           2        12           mprotect
          0.02    0.000015          15         1           munmap
          0.01    0.000010           3         4           getcwd
          0.01    0.000006           0        16           mmap
          0.01    0.000006           6         1           ioctl
          0.01    0.000005           2         3           brk
          0.01    0.000004           4         1           chdir
          0.00    0.000003           2         2           getpid
          0.00    0.000003           3         1         1 readlink
          0.00    0.000002           1         2           rt_sigprocmask
          0.00    0.000002           2         1           set_tid_address
          0.00    0.000002           2         1           set_robust_list
          0.00    0.000002           2         1           prlimit64
          0.00    0.000000           0         1           execve
          0.00    0.000000           0         1           arch_prctl
        </comment><comment> </comment><comment>----- </comment><comment>----- </comment><comment>--- </comment><comment>--- </comment><comment></comment><comment>----
        100.00    0.077437                  5221        56 total

Now let's add an ignore-all and check:

      $ echo "/*" > .gitignore
      $ strace -c git status
        On branch master

        No commits yet

        nothing to commit (create/copy files and use "git add" to track)
        % time     seconds  usecs/call     calls    errors syscall
        </comment><comment> </comment><comment>----- </comment><comment>----- </comment><comment>--- </comment><comment>--- </comment><comment></comment><comment>----
         46.25    0.000568         284         2           getdents
         16.78    0.000206           6        35        14 openat
          7.41    0.000091           6        16        12 stat
          7.17    0.000088           4        21        14 access
          5.62    0.000069           3        25           read
          4.72    0.000058           3        18        14 lstat
          4.15    0.000051           2        22           close
          2.93    0.000036          36         1           unlink
          2.28    0.000028           1        23           fstat
          0.81    0.000010           3         4           getcwd
          0.65    0.000008           1         8           rt_sigaction
          0.41    0.000005           5         1           ioctl
          0.33    0.000004           4         1           chdir
          0.24    0.000003           2         2           getpid
          0.24    0.000003           3         1         1 readlink
          0.00    0.000000           0         5           write
          0.00    0.000000           0        16           mmap
          0.00    0.000000           0        12           mprotect
          0.00    0.000000           0         1           munmap
          0.00    0.000000           0         3           brk
          0.00    0.000000           0         2           rt_sigprocmask
          0.00    0.000000           0         1           execve
          0.00    0.000000           0         1           arch_prctl
          0.00    0.000000           0         1           set_tid_address
          0.00    0.000000           0         1           set_robust_list
          0.00    0.000000           0         1           prlimit64
        </comment><comment> </comment><comment>----- </comment><comment>----- </comment><comment>--- </comment><comment>--- </comment><comment></comment><comment>----
        100.00    0.001228                   224        55 total

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't understand how the curl [http://site.com](http://site.com) | bash anti-pattern has become so widespread. Especially with -k.

<comment><USER6> It originated as a way for people who aren't familiar with CLI to install things. People have now been trained to expect this level of simplicity. I've worked with people that will blindly copy and paste these lines into terminals, having absolutely no idea what they do, and even blindly type in sudo password when prompted. It's basically the worst of all worlds from a security perspective. In my opinion this should be burned to the ground.

Normally when I see this I will manually download the bash script, read through exactly what it does, and manually type in each command instead of running the script directly. This way I know what it is doing, and it can't hide command output by piping into /dev/null and doing something without my knowledge.

Seriously people. Never. Trust. Bash Scripts.

<comment><USER7> There's these cautionary tale you might find interesting

[https://www.vidarholen.net/contents/blog/?p=746](https://www.vidarholen.net/contents/blog/?p=746)

and seriously just Shellcheck it should be in your repos.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's fair to say that the technique described by SneakyCobra is amazing. I previously used this to manage my own dotfiles but there's still a few problems with SneakyCobra's approach.

* initial setup can be tricky even for experienced users * Incorrect use can potentially destroy your home directory

So, I wrote a little utility call "SDF: Sane dotfile manager" that makes the technique used by SneakyCobra approachable to a complete novice and hence more reliable to use.

You can find the introductory text here ([https://shreyanshja.in/blog/sane- dotfiles-management/](https://shreyanshja.in/blog/sane-dotfiles-management/)) And the source code here ([https://github.com/shreyanshk/sdf](https://github.com/shreyanshk/sdf))

Let me know how it works for you. :-)

</comment><comment><USER9> Seems much more complicated compared to:

        git checkout https://github.com/my/dotfiles.git
        cd dotfiles
        # this is little more than `find . -maxdepth 1 -exec ln -sf {} ~/ \;`
        ./install

How are others here managing their dotfiles?

<comment><USER10> I use stow. But honestly, I don't think it's better than git.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h It's orthogonal, isn't it? You keep your dotfiles in a repo, then have stow "install" the checkout/clone thereof.

EDIT: Also on stow - I tried it a couple times and it never seemed flexible enough. Can it handle things like keeping ~/.config/nvim and ~/.vim in the same stow directory? (And for that matter, can it link them together? I like having the same config for vim and neovim)

<comment><USER11> Re: your edit, Yeah it can! Set up a folder, say 'vim' for your example, and then inside of that folder you have a '.vim' file and a '.config/nvim' file.

Then when you run `stow vim` from the parent of the original 'vim' folder it will symlink everything in there to ~.

You can even have more folders that have a '.config/foobar' inside of them, and when you stow those it will all work itself out nicely!

Edit: You can find examples of this in my dotfiles [https://github.com/AnthonyWharton/dotfiles/](https://github.com/AnthonyWharton/dotfiles/) (I use stow if you didn't guess :P). For example look at the 'i3' folder and the 'polybar' folder, they both add things to '~/.config '

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm still looking for a good way to I'm using this approach, but looking for a way manage dotfiles for multiple machines. Having separate branches feels clunky, since there is a lot of overlap and tweak may involve making the same tweak on several branches. Any recommendations for managing this situation?

<comment><USER13> Surprised nobody has mentioned YADM - it can do per-device files and/or per- device templating too (jinja2 syntax). It's just a thin wrapper around git so you can use any git commands too.

[http://yadm.io](http://yadm.io)

<comment><USER14> There's nothing really to gain from using git directly. Yadm is awesome.

I put up my dotfiles here [https://github.com/thingfox/dotfiles](https://github.com/thingfox/dotfiles) (sample documentation repository with examples), in it I show how I did the templating for ssh hosts amongst other configs.

This allows me to remove the most sensitive data and use the [https://yadm.io/docs/encryption](https://yadm.io/docs/encryption) option for that.

The [https://yadm.io/docs/bootstrap](https://yadm.io/docs/bootstrap) feature is also awesome as is [https://yadm.io/docs/alternates](https://yadm.io/docs/alternates)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I just use vcsh combined with (optionally) myrepos to handle this.

[https://github.com/RichiH/vcsh](https://github.com/RichiH/vcsh)

[https://myrepos.branchable.com/](https://myrepos.branchable.com/)

</comment><comment><USER16> I use exactly the same approach but for convenience I use the following script as wrapper for git: [https://gist.github.com/hectorm/8891f7f1916a4379f84dfaccc6fa...](https://gist.github.com/hectorm/8891f7f1916a4379f84dfaccc6fa117f)

</comment><comment><USER17> The problem with keeping all dotfiles in a single repo is that if you want to get an older version of one particular dotfile, you'll also be getting older versions of other dotfiles as well.

I want every dotfile I use to be independent of the rest and a log that shows changes to just that one dotfile, so I store each of them in separate repos and use GNU Stow[1] to manage them.

The above is actually a bit of an oversimplification of what I do, as I store related dotfiles in a single repo as well, so that (for example) all my weechat dotfiles are in a single repo, as I rarely want to checkout a single file independantly of the rest there.

[1] = [https://www.gnu.org/software/stow/](https://www.gnu.org/software/stow/)

<comment><USER18> > you want to get an older version of one particular dotfile, you'll also be > getting older versions of other dotfiles as well.

That doesn't really follow; it is easy to check out old versions of a single file with git:

        git checkout <revision> <filename>

for ".bashrc from two commits ago on the current branch", that would be:

        git checkout HEAD~2 .bashrc

Hopefully I'm not just misunderstanding your point here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> You need just 3 lines to start storing your dotfiles in git:

        cd ~
        git init
        echo "*" >.git/info/exclude

Enjoy!

<comment><USER20> Could you explain how this works/is meant to work?

<comment><USER21> You basically make your home dir a git repo and by default ignore everything inside it. When you want to store a dotfile in that repo, you have to force add it (`git add -f`) and it will be tracked.

You can learn more about how git ignores things here: [https://git- scm.com/docs/gitignore](https://git-scm.com/docs/gitignore)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This could lead to a potential security issue. Imagine there's a misconfiguration in your dotfiles -- now it's public.

<comment><USER23> There's a lot of dotfiles on Github and it doesn't seem to be a problem (Except if you check in private credentials, but that's not a problem unique to dotfiles).

If you rely on your configuration to be secret to be secure it's just security by obscurity and not worth much anyway.

<comment><USER22> > If you rely on your configuration to be secret to be secure it's just > security by obscurity and not worth much anyway.

What I had in mind is that the average person wouldn't be a target, but publicly declaring their security vulnerability would attract attacks they wouldn't receive otherwise.

<comment><USER24> Only key harvester bots on GitHub/etc would notice. If you're being consciously attacked by someone then you have bigger problems to deal with.

The solution isn't particularly hard either, simply source a secrets file and make sure you add that to the gitignore file.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Justinmind: Interactive wireframes for web and mobile - <AUTHOR> http://www.justinmind.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> This is by far the best wireframing / mockup tool I've ever used! It is: easy to learn, free, nice-looking and full-featured enough to build a fully- functioning (read: clickable) prototype in it.</comment>


Google to Sell Heads-Up Display Glasses by Year's End - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/google-to-sell-terminator-style-glasses-by-years-end/ <comment><USER2> Great, soon it won't be enough to block browser cookies. I'll have to avoid glancing at _actual cookies_ lest my search results start filling up with Snackwells coupons and special offers from the local gym.

<comment><USER3> Man, you've been around here for two years longer than I have. You know that there's no value added by blatant sarcasm. If you're actually afraid that Google will use your captured images to serve you unwanted ads (and, btw, revolutionize computer vision in the process), then say exactly that. Crackin' wise about snackwells isn't getting anyone anywhere.

<comment><USER4> Is sarcasm always unwanted here? I actually chuckled at the beginning until it turned too serious toward the end.

There was a great TEDx talk on the (well-executed) use of humor, and satire in particular, to get points across when they would otherwise be disregarded, or to make bland points more viral: [http://www.ted.com/talks/chris_bliss_comedy_is_translation.h...](http://www.ted.com/talks/chris_bliss_comedy_is_translation.html)

I don't see a reason to discourage sarcasm out-of-hand, or any other form of humor. Based on the merits of the individual comment, sure.

<comment><USER3> I would never claim that sarcasm is _always_ unwanted, but it's probably used an order of magnitude or two more frequently than is useful.

The problem is part of a larger one, people seem to be generally more interested in pithy, memorable one liners than in starting a discussion -- the easiest way to do this is to say something vitriolically sarcastic. People who agree with you will up-vote you, and you'll get some measure of affirmation from that.

The issue with that approach is that Hacker News should be a place where discussion flourishes. If the parent had said something to the effect of "This presents a troublesome, albeit interesting, avenue for further data aggregation, which could be used to target ads or sold to third parties," it would have likely kicked off an interesting discussion (both about the feasibility of such data aggregation (computer vision, mobile aggregation, etc.) and the societal costs of allowing such aggregation).

Instead, he went for the funny one-hitter, which framed the debate in such a way (by suggesting that it was inevitable and going to be used for evil) that anyone with even a slightly differing opinion is prevented from saying anything.

I don't mean to single out mechanical_fish specifically, many people here are guilty of this, but it essentially makes Hacker News more of an announcement/sharing forum (like twitter) than a discussion forum, which was one of the things that attracted me (and I'm sure many others) to it in the first place.

So I guess my larger point is that we should be more mindful of this stuff. It's more important to frame a relevant discussion than it is to "be right," and we should embrace that by posing interesting questions and answering them deliberately (being careful to stick to facts and being careful with the speculation, which easily morphs into FUD).

<comment><USER5> For the record, _"This presents a troublesome, albeit interesting, avenue for further data aggregation, which could be used to target ads or sold to third parties"_ is a lousy comment too. The problem is not the form, it's the content. What do you mean, it's _"troublesome, albeit interesting?"_ That is totally devoid of insight.

The reason I read a comment thread is because I want to find things that experts have to say. If grellas has some comment about the applicability of privacy law to the monitoring of someone's immediate surroundings, then great, let's hear it. But if I don't walk away from the comment having learned something, I would rather it not be there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not saying this is what they're selling, but: Real-time overlays are still impractical, right? My intuition is--without a really high speed camera and high fidelity environmental cues--the overlay will have a lag and high uncertainty wrt where you're actually looking... or has the state of the art moved on? Or are their labs advancing the state of the art?

Any idea how they're making the screen usable at that focal length? Don't VR headsets usually need optics much more bulky than sunglasses for comfortable viewing?

Anyway, even if it's smartphone-like functionality in a more convenient form factor, I'm looking forward to being an early adopter.

<comment><USER7> The Nintendo 3DS does AR overlays with mostly tolerable lag, though I wouldn't want to be looking at the world through it: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkbWZiZ01G0>

<comment><USER8> It needs an easily pattern-matched reference point, though.

<comment><USER7> [http://www.willowgarage.com/blog/2012/01/16/capturing- accura...](http://www.willowgarage.com/blog/2012/01/16/capturing-accurate- camera-poses)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> From the linked previous post about wearables:

[http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/wearing-your- comput...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/wearing-your-computer-on- your-sleeve/)

"Kids will play virtual games with their friends, where they meet in a park and run around chasing virtual creatures for points."

Lucky kids. I suddenly feel like Old Man Luddite because I grew up playing with sticks and crap.

Related:

[http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/01/the-5-best-toys-of- all-...](http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/01/the-5-best-toys-of-all-time/)

<comment><USER10> The funny thing is, kids already do this without special glasses...

<comment><USER11> Now poor kids will buy fake virtual glasses to look cool running around.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I am horrible at remembering names. The day these things can do facial recognition againt my address book, Facebook, and LinkedIn profiles and pop up a little box with the person I'm looking at's name is the day I will never go without glasses again.

<comment><USER13> That would be amazing, and really useful at tech conferences.

One could imagine something like Klout running in the background and telling you who's important, who has similar interest to you, etc... The social implications are mind blowing.

<comment><USER14> That's a big idea... Although I would feel a bit bad bringing the online social hierarchy / totem pole into the real world. We already care _too_ much about Klout and Karma scores, the last thing we need is twitter gods parting the seas at tech conferences.

<comment><USER15> At long last, I can see how much Whuffie people have!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Here are some high-quality sf books you can use to imagine the possibilities of this technology.

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

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

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

<comment><USER17> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash>

<comment><USER18> Are you referring to how awesome the AR seems to be in snow crash, or the horrible brain viruses they were vulnerable to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Huh, two days ago Gabe Newell was talking about Valve maybe going into the hardware business to do wearable displays:

[http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/valves- gabe...](http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/valves-gabe-newell- talks-wearable-computers-rewarding-players-and-whether-w)

Well timed.

</comment><comment><USER19> My biggest concern is if this is executed poorly it could undermine future attempts to bring wearable computing to the mainstream. It still feels a bit early for this to work well. Google can pull off the technical challenges, surely, but the usability hurdles here are outside of their comfort zone.

<comment> DanI-S The article makes it sound like this is more an 'opt in through purchase' experiment rather than a serious product launch - perhaps that is to mitigate this particular concern.

<comment><USER20> I remembering reading somewhere that they might actually test this like they did with Chromebooks (Cr-48) and distribute them to people to get feedback.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Does anyone see this actually catching on in the next five years and becoming something more than a gimmick?

I'm as excited about the prospect of viewing the world through a HUD as the next guy, but I can't imagine these glasses looking sleek in the slightest, and they will likely be rather bulky.

But beyond ugliness, it seems to me that someone would rather pull out their smartphone than put on a pair of HUD glasses for any given use case for this product. Augmented reality is "cool" but I've never used an AR app more than two days after I downloaded it.

I think for it to catch on, this technology would have to be baked into glasses that are designed to be worn all the time, not just put on when needed. People aren't going to carry around AR glasses in their back pocket with their phones and wallets. So a place to start might be enhancing the glasses used by people with vision trouble, rather than creating a whole new glasses product.

<comment><USER22> I can think of two markets that this may do well in: motorcyclists and runners.

Motorcycle HUDs have existed for quite some time now, but more competition especially from someone as big as Google will inject some much needed innovation.

I can also see this being popular with running enthusiasts. During my races I wear a paper band around my wrist with my ideal times for each mile, and then have my GPS watch set to show instantaneous pace. A race involves constantly looking between watch, paper printout and your surroundings. If I had a HUD, I might even enjoy the race a bit :) (that was slightly sarcastic)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've been waiting for this for a long time. I wear glasses currently and have always felt that some kind of overlay could provide tremendous value.

From simple reminders, augmenting my environment with meta data, or giving access to real time updates about almost anything the possibilities are almost endless.

Batteries are going to truly be the limiting factor IMO. Forget plastics, the future is batteries. I assume version 1 of the product will require some kind of external battery pack, I'd think it was certainly worth it if the tech is what it should be.

<comment><USER24> I was thinking as a glasses wearer - that I'd be excluded from the product.

Have you tried to wear 3D glasses over your existing pair?

I wonder how lightweight they'll be, especially if you factor in batteries.

<comment><USER25> If they're lightweight enough you could have the lenses replaced and just wear the digital pair. That's what I'm planning on looking into, once the technology matures a little.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Have Google figured out a way to solve the accomodation/vergence problems inherent in screen based 3D displays ([http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=6402...](http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=64028))? Because if not, these things are going to suffer from the same dismal failure that every other 3D display product has over the last 30 years.

<comment><USER17> It's not clear they're going for a 3d experience. My guess is it's just a hud without eye tracking. A camera for labeling the world a'la virtual light would be cool, but still laggy. Does not matter. I would insert the picture of a kitten with the text "want" but this is not reddit.

<comment><USER26> It needs to be 3D to pitch text. Hold a piece of text 3 inches away from your eyeball and try reading it. Then imagine how painful it would be to have that there 8 hours a day.

<comment><USER17> I disagree. Every single consumer 3d tech is a fixed focal length. Neither the 3d tv, nor the movie screen changes distance. there's nothing special in the glasses to change distance, it's simply blocking out images from one eye.

I think you mean something like the image needs to appear some distance away from the eye. Yes, i agree with that. There are old solutions to that problem.

You could show each eye a different image, and get a depth effect... but that has all of the problems you pointed out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Exciting news! Just yesterday I was watching John Carmack's interview from 2011's QuakeCon and at the end he mentioned that he was going to soon start playing with display glasses to see if anything interesting would come out of it (for id, I imagine).

Driverless car, now digital glasses. I'm positively impressed that Google keeps pushing the envelope in all these different fields.

<comment><USER28> [https://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1716253541617008...](https://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/status/171625354161700866)

"""A HMD without head tracking is counter-productive – the view feels like it swims opposite every tiny head motion."""

This guy knows his pixels. :-) Tweet was just this week, I believe. He's had a few others w.r.t. head tracking, FOV / display issues with fancy new displays. Definitely interesting to see his challenges.

<comment><USER27> That's awesome, really exciting to know that he actually started experimenting with the tech.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Relevant: <http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1994-10-12/>

</comment><comment><USER30> This is potentially awesome for two reasons:

1\. I can lay in bed and read an ebook without having to hold a device.

2\. Google can parse any situation I may be in and recommend the optimal action based on its data of every single other human on earth.

<comment><USER31> In combination, it will recommend that you finally get out of bed and do something productive ;)

<comment><USER32> i saved this, becuase thw imagry of a man sitting jyst his boxrs and a virtyal realitu device, contraposed by your commebt of a man not _doing_ anything but sittinf on the bed!

<comment><USER33> Are you high, perchance?

<comment><USER34> No, he's just having difficulties typing from his glasses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Even the smallest smartphone chipsets still need big batteries, I suspect it's going to be a pocket device with a wire or bluetooth of some kind going to the glasses.

Still an amazingly aggressive technology product.

<comment><USER36> I hadn't considered the battery aspect. Having a wire would kill this in the consumer market. Bluetooth to a central pack... Maybe.

<comment><USER37> Unless I've missed a big recent announcement, wireless energy transfer, even over a short distance like pocket-to-glasses, is a long way off from being feasible. My money is on a tiny battery built into the glasses themselves, and a screen/CPU optimized for using miniscule amounts of energy. The problem is that wireless _data_ transfer still requires quite a bit of power, so they will either need to do lots of optimization to only transfer data when absolutely necessary (and turn the transceiver off the rest of the time), or come up with a system in which the glasses talk to a central device in your pocket using a low-energy data transfer scheme, and the central device talks to the network over WiFi/3G.

(On second thought, maybe that's what you meant by "bluetooth to a central pack")

<comment><USER38> Theoretically it doesn't NEED a backlight, and it only needs to display on the (presumably) LED display.

Something along the lines of <http://croakies.com/> might be reasonable.

With no wires, it's going to be a battery that also has glass on the front. What IS the feasible distance for induction? Even the copin displays require 5v.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> i find this very hard to believe. it seems obvious to me that smartphones and tablets have completely filled the niche invented by the HUD glasses of yesteryear's science fiction. they will never be popular, because they are too invasive. people like to be able to put the internet in their pocket and take it out again when they need it.

i wouldn't be surprised if google has a bunch of engineers working on the technology that could be used in HUD glasses, but i would be very, very surprised to see anything ever come to market. google will not enter the hardware market with such a risky product.

<comment><USER40> They'll never be popular? I think the main impediment to wearable computing has been how socially awkward it is. If someone actually came up with a discrete, well-designed glasses-based computer, I think it would be immensely popular.

AR won't really come into it's own until such a platform exists. Holding a phone in front of your face is just too awkward.

\- read any language

\- never forget names

\- navigational aids (obviously)

\- identify any bird, plant, etc.

\- a whole raft of products just geared around augmenting the museum experience

\- look at a printed equation and see it solved

\- look at a printed question and see it answered (within certain constraints obviously)

\- look at binary, hexidecimal, etc. and see it converted to decimal

\- look at a color and see pantone and hex color codes

\- read existing printed books, but with access to immediate dictionary lookup, references, etc.

I could go on and on... if this ever hits, the ramifications will be extraordinary.

<comment><USER41> Your second-to-last point seems like a wonderfully simple, life-changing application- you can negate many of the problems of colorblindness by textually identifying the colors of objects and selectively enhancing the contrast between objects. (Perhaps overlaying textures or something?)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I can't imagine them not looking hideous, but i want them. i've wanted them for pretty much two decades now. I'm sure they will suck. I will happily give google a pile of money for the few weeks of usage i'm guaranteed to get out of them. It's just a bonus if they're actually useful.

</comment><comment><USER42> I wonder if this will eventually intersect with the gamification trends. This article had me imagining a crude augmented reality MMO, routine tasks are assigned point values and so are items for purchase. Walking through the store you could see that Sara Lee white bread nets you 100xp, paying your mortgage on time, Bank of America has awarded you 1000xp. A look at someone and the HUD displays their level and point value along with their various badges. Of course check-ins will be automatic.

I doubt this iteration will be very advanced, but the article definitely made me think.

<comment><USER43> This guy has something to say about that kind of thing:

[http://www.ted.com/talks/jesse_schell_when_games_invade_real...](http://www.ted.com/talks/jesse_schell_when_games_invade_real_life.html)

Worth listening to, it gets kind of scary toward the end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I"m really surprised that no-one's talking up the accessibility benefits of something like this. Imagine a version for blind users that dumped the screen in favour of a headset and mic. A little voice recognition and your glasses could tell you where you are, what you're facing, and even do basic hazard avoidance. That sounds invaluable.

Actually, it sounds like the 90s kids show Knightmare :) <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciIfcYwI6Ps>

</comment><comment><USER45> How do I opt out of all face recognition? I have a right that my personal life not be exploited for advertising by a large company.

<comment><USER46> There's always the paper bag solution.

Most scanners to date have been moderately vulnerable to blocking devices. Say, a backscatter laser of some sort. And if personal identifiers are based on you carrying a broadcast device (e.g.: an info-leaking phone), one simple solution is ... don't do that.

I suspect that both the technology and its countermeasures will first be utilized by government (and corporate) "security forces".

Hrm ... related query: is it possible to build a simple device which would short out RFID scanners? If it becomes trivial enough to destroy the readers, then ubiquitous, obnoxious uses might at least become more expensive.

<comment><USER45> I don't think you are getting rid of RFID, they are too cheap and low-tech to get rid of. I hear Aluminium foil does the trick.

<comment><USER46> RFID has its uses.

It's also got its abuses.

The tags are cheap. The scanners somewhat less so (especially when you add the labor cost of repair/replacement).

I'm not talking about killing in-store scanners and the like. However if I was aware of privacy-stealing roaming scanners in places they had no business to be in ... well. Raising the cost of data acquisition might be an entertaining hobby.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Sounds like a more generalized, urban version of the Mod Live ski goggles (<http://www.reconinstruments.com/products/mod>). The Mod Live googles look amazing, but pretty bulky (plus, I don't ski). If the Google glasses end up being half as cool I'd definitely be interested.

</comment><comment><USER48> Is this article implying the glasses will work like a HUD, with the image displayed on a transparent surface that you can also see through? Or is it an opaque screen off to the side? Or it couldn't possibly be an opaque screen over your eyes that redisplays what you would have seen behind it?

</comment><comment><USER49> I wonder what the field of view is? That's been my main problem with HMDs in the past. Maybe now I'll finally be able to build my wearable computer from COTS components.

Exercise: taking the hardware as a given, what would you do with it, what software do you need?

Steve Mann: 20 years ahead of the curve.

</comment><comment><USER50> If this is true and if the display is good enough to let you browse websites, then it's awesome!

</comment><comment><USER51> If anyone hasn't read Daemon & FreedomTM by Daniel Suarez I highly suggest it. His use of tech like this in the novels was pretty well thought out. Can't wait until Google uses these to integrate a MMORPG with RL.

</comment><comment><USER52> Google is pretty ballsy.

After their Safari tracking system fiasco they announce this: the ultimate form of tracking. It shouldn't come as a surprise that Google would make this considering the rest of their products.

I love Google and their products, but I feel this takes it over the line. At what point will Google be satisfied with the amount of information they're able to collect? Maybe the world will become some strange Utopia where products like these glasses are acceptable and Google made the right call, but Google should take a step back and realize they're making technology for humans, not robots.

If this trend continues I bet we'll see Google Children roaming our street. Ok, that's pretty hyperbolic but you get my point.

<comment><USER53> Opt out?

They're just giving you more choice, not less ala apple

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I definitely checked the date a few times, but this makes an awful lot of sense given Google's position. At this point it's really just hardware to bridge the accessibility gap.

</comment><comment><USER55> But can they look good? Those oakleys linked to are awful. If they look stupid then I doubt they will work... Until apple steps in and does it right, that is ;)

</comment><comment><USER56> The first thing that came to mind is Manfred Macx in _Accelerando_, and how hopelessly lost he is _without_ his AR goggles.

</comment><comment><USER57> All I have to say is: please, please, please let this actually happen and work even 50% as well as my imagination wants it to.

</comment><comment><USER58> The article implies they are a completely separate Android device. Why not just interface with Android / iOS devices?

</comment><comment><USER59> Cue the inevitable "what happened to Steve Mann's EyeTap glasses" comment. Now there was an opportunity 'missed'.

</comment><comment><USER60> _"... One Google employee said the glasses would tap into a number of Google software products that are currently available and in use today, but will display the information in an augmented reality view ..."_

wonder how many Steve Mann patents they are using? ~ <http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~mann/>

</comment><comment><USER61> I think it should just use my Android phone. Why yet another Android device on me?

</comment><comment><USER62> Will they be prescription glasses? They should team with Warby Parker.

</comment><comment><USER63> I am definitely going to write a "THEY LIVE" plugin

</comment><comment><USER4> And Google Goggles is already taken. WHY?!

</comment><comment><USER64> William Gibson, "Virtual Light".

'nuff said.

</comment><comment><USER65> How is the reading experience? Can you get 80 chars into it?

I hope there isn't a good one hand keyboard interface (chording?) so you can write email/code while bicycling/driving/etc -- with my simultaneous capacity, it would be my death...

</comment><comment><USER66> Yeah so everything I look at is going to go through Google's servers, and be processed and display Google ads constantly no matter where I'm looking. Yeah right. Google is flat-out lunatic if they think consumers want this level of invasion into their lives. They're taking the Orwellian computing idea, big brother always on everywhere, to the absolute extreme here.

</comment><comment><USER67> Google to Sell Heads-Up Display Next Time They Start Getting Bad Press

</comment><comment><USER9> Pro: Because it's Android we can hack an awesome DBZ power level widget into the HUD.

Con: The glasses hit you up to join G+ every 30 seconds.

<comment><USER68> Con: Your entire viewport lags by 10-200ms with random jitter.

<comment><USER9> Pro: Candy eating robot mascots.

Con: You show your friend the cool notification bar and they say "looks like they just took it from iOS 5"

Achievement Unlocked: _Alpha & Omega: have the highest and lowest rated comment in a top rated thread_.</comment></comment></comment>


The iPhone X reveals why Tim Cook was so mad about Palm - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/13/the-iphone-x-reveals-why-tim-cook-was-so-mad-about-palm/?ncid=rss <comment><USER2> What if I want the X - but I do not was faceID and what if I cover the dot projector with tape?

If I can disable faceID on ___MY_ __phone, if I pickup /look-at/have my picture taken in a selfie with another person and their phone - is it auto- tagging my face in those?

<comment><USER3> Face ID and face tagging are unrelated.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "Whether the Palm Pre was truly ahead of its time, or whether elements of the interface had been plucked out of a carefully planned Cupertino 10-year roadmap will be a story for Valley historians to unpick."

Anyone care to start attempting to unpick this?

<comment><USER2> Apple thinks it has the only patent on innovation.

\---

Also, from that article, it talks about how palm failed to secure good contracts with carriers.. I'd be willing to bet all my iPhones that apple worked behind the scenes leveraging its power with carriers against good carrier contracts being available to palm.

I think that back-door deals between major device players and carriers are common-enough that its just chess at this point that they likely all enjoy.

Given the track-record for these companies to leverage their size to their benefit...

With that said, I'd say that a bigger failure than the palm pre was the facebook phone.</comment></comment>


Why is Japan using cassette tapes and faxes? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34667380 <comment><USER3> The older I get, the more sympathy I have for companies that that stuck with older but working systems that don't come with a mouse and monitor.

Sometimes I feel like we're building a prison for ourselves the way things are headed in the digital world. Where I live, some schools require kids aged 5 to own iPads so they can do homework. It as fun when it was optional, but I really don't want to continue digitizing and feeding the machine my own kids.

I worry about this every day, so my first reaction and general feeling with this article was, _cool_. Reminds me of walkmans and roll skates. I'm old fashined and have no problem admitting it. I also don't think everyone should feel the same way, it's just how I see things.

<comment><USER4> I'm the opposite. As a callow youth I favoured functional brutalism in UI. After a lifetime of interacting with actual users, a bunch of HCI classes and having watched those kinds of legacy systems become productivity vampires in too many settings I have no sympathy with my former viewpoint.

<comment><USER5> It's a common misconception that newer systems bring productivity improvements, but that's not always the case in reality. While there are undoubtedly occasions when newer systems do bring vast improvements, there are also occasions when newer systems are just trying to reinvent the wheel and ultimately end up little better - or sometimes even worse - than the old system (and that's before you factor in training your staff to use the new systems). There are also occasions when the newer system is trying to change a process in ways that meet modern fashions yet fail to meet a company's core business requirements. Both of the last two points are things I've unfortunately seen a few times in previous jobs.

There are generally three points that need to be considered before upgrading an older system:

1\. Is the older system still fulfilling the needs? (often jobs change over time and some systems are rigid thus require users to perform additional steps in the modern era to continue to make use of the older system).

2\. Is support still available for the older system (eg if it breaks, is hardware available to replace it? Are engineers still available to maintain it? etc)

3\. Will the new proposed system fix the aforementioned issues?

Often you'll find that the first two points are still or that the 3rd point isn't true. Sadly it's all too common that the reason someone pushes to upgrade older systems is either down to agism ("it's old. Old is bad!") or because someone needs to justify their own job / bulk out their CV ("I was responsible for migrating Company xyz from product a to product b.").

With the greatest of respect to yourself, as you get older I think you too will start to notice just how often upgrades go wrong and how some businesses would have been better off sticking with the old system. So there does need to be a carefully considered pragmatism with regards to just how robust some older systems can be and whether the upgrade is actually offering any benefit or whether the older system is genuinely just bad / no longer fulfilling the job requirements.

<comment><USER6> I once worked as a telephone switchboard operator. I used a text user interface based system, with a monochrome green CRT and a high quality keyboard with dedicated keys for all the interface functions. The 80x24 text was clear and easy to read. Everything was extremely fast and reliable, with no perceptible interface pauses ever.

I later briefly worked there again after they had "upgraded" to a modern system. This ran a GUI on Windows on commodity hardware. The text was smaller and harder to read (on an early LCD monitor). Not all functions had keyboard shortcuts, and the keyboard itself felt worse. The interface noticeably paused sometimes.

The new system was an obvious downgrade, and the build quality of the old one was high enough that I'd expect it to have at least another 10 years of life. I can only guess that management saw the green CRT, assumed it was unacceptably primitive, and didn't bother asking the people who actually used it.

<comment><USER7> Similarly, when Bank ATM's switched from character only green screens with buttons on the side as the interface to full color "GUI" ones with touchscreens, the delays and speed at which you could run the interface went down dramatically, which was quite frustrating if you were used to the old system.

Thankfully, the newer touchscreen interfaces are much faster than before - <USER2> delays between selections went down.

The touchscreens still stink from a UI perspective - too many elements too close to each other, where inadvertent touches can result in unwanted behavior.

<comment><USER8> ATM software is an example of something that really is becoming needlessly over-engineered.

For example, a week or so ago I encountered an ATM that prompted me for my e-mail address to e-mail a receipt (or, as smaller, secondary options, buttons for printing a receipt or declining a receipt all together). It really rubbed me the wrong way. Who is trying to collect my e-mail address? How are they storing it? What else will they use it for? Why is this the default option?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'll leave the article as-is. This isn't the first article to grace HN that stated that Japanese companies tend to be slow adopters. What I want to know is why the highlight on human traffic signalers as an indicator of how "backwards" the culture is technologically.

It seems to me that if the goal is not just public safety, but to put a human face on law enforcement, a human traffic signal is exactly what is required. True, a robot can do the job, but a robot would be ineffective at the task of humanizing the reasons behind the laws and in providing assistance to people who need it.

<comment><USER10> That "traffic light" seems to actually be a watchman for a building site. Thus he is there to either stop people or trucks are needed.

And frankly i would prefer that over automated lights, as the person could compensate for elderly or kids (or other less perfect events).

Its not like they have some lone officer sanding in the middle of the most busy intersection of Tokyo, now it is?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibuya#Shibuya_Crossing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibuya#Shibuya_Crossing)

Frankly i don't see how an article of this "quality" made it onto BBC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The article is somewhat misleading. Keeping up with software evolution is something large North American companies struggle with as well, and while Japanese companies may be slower to adopt some software trends that are commonplace here, Japan lags in very few areas technologically - and leads in a lot of others. Every time I visit I'm blown away by the innovative application of technology. There are electronically controlled traffic lights aplenty in Japan, ubiquitous high speed internet, and all the accoutrements of modern electronic communication in greater abundance and density than most of North America. The "human powered traffic lights" the writer alludes to are just safety officers who assist traffic and pedestrians at some crossings where construction is underway, usually _in addition to_ to the usual traffic signals; an example of the emphasis on service and attention to detail sorely lacking on this side of the pond. If faxes are still in use it's a result of the fact that practically everybody had one in their house long before most North Americans had ever used one. Having been so widely adopted, it's not too surprising that their use has continued for longer. I think the author went a bit hyperbolic in an effort to make a headline out of something which is actually not that big of a deal, although there are likely just as many if not more opportunities for software modernization in Japan as there are elsewhere.

<comment><USER10> I wonder how much the fax thing has to do with their writing system as well.

<comment><USER12> Not a whit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> James Fallows of The Atlantic wrote a lot about Japan in the 1990s, and he had this great observation.

In Japan you drive to the station and sit in the car while several people fill your tank, wash your windows, and do other busywork. It seems like a huge waste and makes gas cost more.

We know how to do things better and more efficiently in the US. But in the US those same young people are sitting at home unemployed.

<comment><USER14> There was some story about the Japanese diplomat to the US before the war, was driving in the hills around San Francisco. He came upon two guys building a road: one in a truck dumping rock, one with a bulldozer. In Japan, that would have been 50 people with baskets and donkeys moving gravel.

He wrote a description back to his bosses, saying something like "It would be suicide to challenge the US industrial machine". Too bad they didn't listen.

<comment><USER15> Admiral Yamamoto ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto)) who was educated in the US, was against Japan declaring war with the USA for similar reasons. He had seen enough of our industrial production to realize we could build ships and planes faster than the Japanese could. His statement, "I can run wild for six months but after that I have no expectation of success." was predicated on this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I experienced this myself when I built a new browser based single dealer channel for the interest rate trading business of a large UK bank in 2008-10. Part of the motivation of single dealer channels is to get wholesale bank clients off the people intensive voice & email channels (phone calls to highly paid sales people) and on to self service electronic channels. For instance, for an index tracking block trade, we'd want to deter them from emailing a sales person a spreadsheet, and encourage them to upload via a browser for automated processing. The resistance to changing entrenched manual workflow among Japanese clients was phenomenal, and far greater than in London or New York.

</comment><comment><USER17> Using old software is not uncommon in many large companies. Not everyone is Google or Microsoft, and at the forefront of technical innovation. Change is expensive in large companies and the value proposition from new software is often vague and hard to quantize in dollars. New software means training people, changing processes to accommodate the new tech and, last but not least, paying money for the software itself. For the management, this is usually seen as a huge cost with little tangible benefit.

<comment><USER10> Cobol and mainframes anyone?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wonder if that's the norm rather than a Japanese peculiarity.

it's a bit like that in Germany too - mostly small and middle sized companies are dominating, and people don't like to upgrade that much over there. The end of support for Windows XP last year used to be a major shocker, so the issue got some media coverage and reports were generally speaking of the danger to smaller firms [1]. Still nowadays only 17% of all installations are running XP (down from 26-30% last year). [2]

[1] [http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/windows-xp-eingestellter- suppo...](http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/windows-xp-eingestellter-support- gefaehrdet-unternehmen.769.de.html?dram:article_id=282369)

[2] [http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_presse/archive/2015/04/...](http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_presse/archive/2015/04/08/windows- xp-ein-jahr-nach-support-ende-deutlich-weniger-nutzer-aber-risiken- bleiben.aspx)

<comment><USER10> Yeah, reading about the dominance of the smaller companies instantly brought to mind Germany. Then again the two nations have seemed quite similar for some time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Japan is a place where the future arrived first so now they're stuck with a lot of legacy from the 80/90's "future".

</comment><comment><USER20> The fax machine's popularity seems to be an evergreen story for slow news days. I remembered a story about it that mentioned that restaurants in japan still took a lot of orders through fax and in looking for it found lots of articles: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/world/asia/in-japan-the- fa...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/world/asia/in-japan-the-fax-machine- is-anything-but-a-relic.html) (the one I was looking for from 2013) another from 2012: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/in- japan-f...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/in-japan-fax- machines-find-a-final-place-to-thrive/2012/06/07/gJQAshFPMV_story.html) and the bbc itself wrote another one in 2012 as well [http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19045837](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19045837)

</comment><comment><USER21> Japanese people's culture is "If it's working like that, keep it like that".

I once had to make a Japanese website for a cars wholesale company that ship cars for different countries on the world and they used to do a lot of work manually on their old website wanted to update it because they lost contact with the old developer (used to HTML the website).

He was like no-no for everything that will cost money (themes, plugins...), I didn't felt comfortable dealing with him since he said no for a $50 translation plugin and he wanted translation on his website (he will get transitioned text himself somehow, don't like this step step things...) and I'm sure I will charge him more than $50 to write a translation plugin (since I won't put it on an online store).

</comment><comment><USER22> I think this article might be over-stating the lack of technological adoption at Japanese companies to the point of characterizing the nation as some backwards Kafka-esque nightmare.

I was just at the Openstack Tokyo Design Summit where there were plenty of Japanese companies sharing their stories of adopting and contributing to Openstack technologies: NTT DoCoMo, NEC, Fujitsu, Yahoo Japan, and others. These are not small companies and many of them are building critical public infrastructure on Openstack.

You can still buy cassette tapes in corner stores in Canada and there are many industries here where people still use fax machines (ie: lawyers, realtors, contractors). I don't think Japan is unique in this regard.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is an example of many other Asia countries as well, even if the host country is "hi-tech" but the excuse is always be "our company isn't hi-tech". If you're not working in trending industries, eg. e-commerce, mobile, finance, banking, etc., you'd expect to be stuck with 10yo technology.

I was using a HP Gen 3 server to query DNS to get here to input this comment.

<comment><USER24> It's not just Asia. Here in Canada I recently had to make some changes to my cell phone plan, and I watched the clerk struggle to use a system that was running on Windows XP.

I've also watched bank clerks using systems that were obviously running on 3278 simulators.

Most businesses are no more high tech and up to date than they have to be.

<comment><USER25> Couple of smaller local banks here in the UK are using kit I recognise from the 90's.

Co-incidentally the other bank I use with state of the art kit (relatively at least) is worse in every other way.

I don't much care what kit they use as long as they get the important stuff right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> HN user patio11 got mentioned.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=patio11](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=patio11)

</comment><comment><USER4> tl;dr: Super conservative business culture, arguably not news but :

 _> "Japanese companies generally lag foreign companies by roughly five-to-10 years in adoption of modern IT practices, particularly those specific to the software industry," says Patrick McKenzie, boss of Starfighter, a software company with operations in Tokyo and Chicago._

Didn't know it was quite that much lag.

<comment><USER27> How much is that technology lag, and Japan's conservative take on things in general, responsible for the economic morass they've been in for more than a decade now?

<comment><USER10> Or how about the other way round, given the economic morass they try to get as much bang out of each buck spent as they can?

After all, the reason for said morass was the private debt accrued during the 80s.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I actually quite like Fax as an idea, Put in the number, and send it over. The problem is Fax is too slow.

Over the years I have been trying, testing and implementing a paperless office. But Not in a tech industry, and you can imagine how hard that is.

Yes we even tried iPad or tablet rather, it didn't work as well. There is digital whiteboard, I dont have the budget to test those out. But I guess it still wont replace stickers and massive whiteboard.

You still draw and sketch or design on a piece of scrap paper. I haven't try the iPad Pro ( its not out yet ), but i am not convinced this will improve my work flow either.

Then I start to question the notion of paperless. And it turns out may be getting rid of paper isn't the solution at all. Pen and Paper is the possibly the easiest form of recording down information. The problem with paper is how we find and file these information later. ( And its environmental issues. )

</comment><comment><USER29> Fax machines -- They are single-function machines, and they are easy to use. No viruses or malware. Reminds me of the calculator I sometimes use ...

<comment><USER14> Fax machines were invented before the telephone. Before the telegraph! They were originally a needle on a wax engraving for the send side; a pen on paper on the receive side. They scanned the wax cylinder, and a dot-skip-dot pattern on the receive side rendered the message. And all this was done in China.

Why? Because the character set in Eastern languages was far too large to fit into something like Morse Code. There was no real alternative.

I wonder if fax persists today for some similar reason?

<comment><USER30> Interesting hypothesis. I found little reference to fax being used in China early, only this [http://mentalfloss.com/article/33586/idea-fax-machine-has- be...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/33586/idea-fax-machine-has-been- around-170-years).

<comment><USER31> I ran a hotel reservation network here in China about 7 years ago. We signed over 3000 contracts nearly exclusively by fax (I think one or two were email). All of our rates updates from partner hotels were faxed in. I built an Asterix/Hylafax based solution with a custom workqueue that worked brilliantly and XMPP IM'd employees to let them know how their fax send was progressing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> One overlooked reason is that it's just plain harder to build searchable indexable clean databases with the writing system (kanji, hiragana, katakani, romaji and English all in use simultaneously). Manual methods often work better.

</comment><comment><USER33> Old computers never die. Their users do. This is something that the Japanese culture seems to really understand.

It doesn't matter if its fashionable, fast, or efficient. If it _works_ , _use_ it.

</comment><comment><USER34> I am very fascinated and curious as to what Japan did / does to mitigate the formation of business conglomerates. I am skeptical but open minded to the fact that this could just be cultural - many US laws and tax policies encourage scale. Googling around now but if anyone has thoughts or a book recommendation please let me know.

<comment><USER35> But has Japan mitigated it? The statistic quoted is that 99.7% of companies are SMEs.

But in the US, 98.2% of companies have less than 100 people (ie, they're SMEs): [http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/](http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/)

So, that statistic might not be telling you what you think it's telling you.

<comment><USER14> And 100% of the 150 companies in my local rural village chamber of commerce are guys with a truck and a ladder. In the US, private enterprise is alive and well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Japan's big problem here is that they don't see a need for a car when a horse works just fine.

And if that's the world they want to live in, that's fine - no judgment here.

I, however, choose to live with and embrace a culture of advancement and change. That requires living in the USA. Maybe in Europe.

<comment><USER37> Cars are much safer than horses: [http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive- free/pdf?res=990DE0DC1E...](http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive- free/pdf?res=990DE0DC1E39E633A25752C0A9659C946596D6CF)

And they produce more jobs, from all of the people needed to create the plastics, glass, metal, to the engines, etc. and the oil companies, quicky- marts, etc.

However, horses are more environmentally friendly, as long as you don't mind their feces, urine, and gas.

<comment><USER15> Horses will get you home automatically if you're drunk, sick or injured.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I prefer the security of sending a fax over sending an email.

To eavesdrop on a fax transmission would require you to eavesdrop on a telephone line just at the right time.

It's a point to point communication over a private line, as opposed to email that travels over public trunks, and past At&T 'closets' full of FBI/NSA equipment.

So for sending sensitive documents like passports etc, I'd much rather scan and fax than send an email.

(Now of course, the first thing the office worker does on receiving my fax is surely to scan and email it to some other coworker, but that is beyond my control.)

</comment><comment><USER39> Well, it's a country with the chronic debate of whether résumé should be handwritten or printed. (Yes, really.)

For the worse or the better, it's the country where the posture of commitment counts. There are so many people who take printed out material "cold" or sign of slack, for example.

I can certainly relate to this article when a fairly recent project I worked involved passing around bug report as spreadsheet file instead of a bug tracking system...

</comment><comment><USER40> fax is still very useful in France if you want to quickly solve an issue with a bank. Most of the banks do not accept documents send by mails, they ask to use post mail. If we insist a bit, they often accept to use fax. My ISP (Free is the best ISP in France) provides a fax number to send and receive pdf documents. It is not as handy as a mail, but it is a lot faster than post mail.

<comment><USER10> I wonder how much that has to do with law rather than tech.

Meaning that a faxed document holds more power in court.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> The analysis seems flawed. If "10 year old software" works, why upgrade it? If SMEs are conservative about software practices, the solution would be education of business owners, not trying to create more massive companies.

</comment><comment><USER42> Because they lack young people?

If the ageing workforce just keeps doing its thing, without a your person showing them the new stuff, the new stuff does not happen.

Simple demographics.</comment>


Show HN: A template for slide presentations using the browser - <AUTHOR> https://beothorn.github.io/lightpoint <comment><AUTHOR> I've done this after needing to heavily customize slide using reveal js. Reveal js programmatically changes the slides and made styling them difficult. Besides, the grid layout is perfect for this kind of whole page design.</comment>


A quote about philosophers and political power - <AUTHOR>

"The human race will have no respite from evils until those who are really philosophers acquire political power or until, through some divine dispensation, those who rule and have political authority in the cities become real philosophers" (Republic, Plato, 326a-326b). <comment><USER2> Lenin and Stalin are what you get when you take Hegel's philosophy, filter it through Marx, and have a leader believe the result.

That is: Spare us philosophers with political power, or at least those who believe such appallingly misguided philosophies.

<comment><USER3> AnimalMuppet, I was going to respond. But then it doesn't matter since you're an idiot

<comment><USER4> From HN's approach to comments:

"The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: both civil and substantial.

The test for substance is a lot like it is for links. Does your comment teach us anything? There are two ways to do that: by pointing out some consideration that hadn't previously been mentioned, and by giving more information about the topic, perhaps from personal experience."

"What we especially discourage are comments that are empty and negative—comments that are mere name-calling."

Might you consider elaborating?</comment></comment></comment>


The Singularity Summit 2007: AI and the Future of Humanity - Sept 8 & 9 - <AUTHOR> http://www.singinst.org/summit2007/

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=146209889&size=l&...](http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=146209889&size=l&context=set-72057594134491541)

</comment><comment><USER2> I went last year. Lots of fun. Cory Doctorow was probably the best speaker. I hadn't read BoingBoing much before that, and now I'm a rapid fan.

I think the discussion with Luddites was fairly useless. It shows a fair amount of due diligence, where dissenting voices are given a podium far larger than the they "deserve" given the popularity of their opinions. I did enjoy that the Luddite gave a talk through teleconference.

The format last year was pretty bad at times. The Open-Mic questions wasted lots of time. Written questions were submitted but not used. There were no break-off sessions.

Also, the moderator, Peter Thiel, is as boring as watching paint dry, and didn't actually do any reasonable moderation of the discussion.

</comment><comment><USER3> Prediction: Strong AI will not exist until human consciousnesses can be copied to computers.

[http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.searle2.ht...](http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.searle2.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Searle is old hat. He's just playing word games. He assumes that "really understanding" something means something deep that he has left unspecified. The beautiful irony of his argument is that Searle's brain itself is a freakin' Chinese Room, and this is basically a Chinese Room claiming that it itself cannot be sentient! :-)

What's so special about human consciousness, anyway? or at least please provide some sort of rationale for your claim.

Here's a kinda long talk that explains why Strong AI is feasible, skip over all the introductions at the beginning: <http://ia310111.us.archive.org/2/items/FutureSalon_02_2006/> Same thing in Google Video format (lower quality): <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-821191370462819511>

<comment><USER4> I know I'm probably just bringing up an issue that has been beaten to death somewhere in a hideously long thread, but consciousness makes me think strong AI is impossible. This is my line of thought:

1\. Consciousness is essential to human intelligence, because our great mental advances come from our awareness, and objective description, of our own mind and thought processes.

2\. A consciousness is by definition irreplicable, since two different consciousnesses are essentially different.

3, If strong AI is possible (and computational), and there is no essential difference between copies of the same code, then multiple identical copies of the same IA mind can be made.

4\. If 1 and 2 hold, then 3 is false. Therefore, strong AI is impossible.

If any of these assumption need elaboration, let me know. And please, by all means, direct me to that hideously long thread instead of answering my argument in detail. I don't like to waste people's time. Much obliged.

<comment><USER3> Regarding point 2: why can't you replicate consciousness? Of course we can't today, but I don't understand why it is inherently impossible.

Just because my consciousness is different from everyone else on the earth doesn't mean future technology couldn't copy my mind to a computer fifty times over. It will be very controversial when technology progresses far enough to allow consciousness copies.

<comment><USER4> At least in terms of thought experiments, it makes no sense to me. Think about it like this. If I can copy my consciousness and place it in a different environment, then I should be aware of that other environement at the same time I'm aware of this one. But for this to happen, information has to be transported from both locations to eachother in no time. While pretty awesome if true, the laws of physics don't allow for this, as far as I know.

<comment><USER3> A copy of your consciousness is just that, a copy. Imagine that the entire body is copied while we're at it.

So then there are two separate copies of you, interacting with the world. There could be 100 copies. They have the same set of initial conditions they are operating under but they won't all see or do the same thing, the different consciousnesses are still products of their environment.

<comment><USER4> So if I said I was going to give you immortality by copying your consciousness, but you wouldn't be aware, wouldn't you feel gypped?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


AI Playbook - <AUTHOR> http://aiplaybook.a16z.com <comment><USER2> It's really quite interesting how A16z is playing this. I've been following the types of content that they release -- and I think their vision is that the a16z brand can almost function as a consultancy with (not only) direct channels to the enterprise, but also deep technical knowledge of their problems. In the old world consultancies most of the money went to the partners -- but top engineers didn't get to rake in the profits.

In the modern world, top engineers can band together, raise VC funding, build some stupid app and get acqui-hired for 5-10x the salary. Huge discrepancies in comp.

The natural progression is that VC funds build channels and in-house expertise on technical problems in enterprise. Top engineers raise funding and are guided by partners towards solving these problems.

The new model is not that enterprises pay consultancies to solve problems, but instead, they form long standing trust based relationships with VC's who then fund companies that solve their problems (and profit when the companies profit). A big part of making this differentiation happen is releasing content that educates leaders and implementers within such enterprises.

<comment><USER3> Yes, similar to what CAA did for the entertainment agency world. You may find it interesting to read, Who is Michael Ovitz?

<comment><USER4> Woah, now it suddenly makes sense why the a16z podcast interviewed people from CAA a while ago.

<comment><USER3> There's a long-standing relationship there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > We've met with hundreds of Fortune 500 / Global 2000 companies, startups, > and government policy makers asking: "How do I get started with artificial > intelligence?" and "What can I do with AI in my own product or company?"

You're definitely never in a concerning part of a hype cycle when you have a technology in search of a problem. How many of these organizations just needed someone who could write a SQL query?

<comment><USER6> I generally agree that SQL could do alot of what these companies need, and not AI/ML. That said, there is definitely proper use cases for AI/ML and SQL cannot address them all. Furthermore, employing AI/ML may not just be to solve whichever problem they are trying to solve, but it may also be used to impress investors and stakeholders through the use of buzzwords; AKA, using AI/ML may be out of FOMO, used not only to address a real business problem but also to show stakeholders that they are keeping up with trends.

Related [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16898827](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16898827)

<comment><USER5> Sure! My position is definitely not "ML is useless"! I've written plenty of ML and particularly think the current focus on DL is missing a lot of opportunities for augmented human intelligence (and risk mitigation of systematized bias) with explainable models.

As for showing stakeholders they're keeping up with trends: yeah I'd definitely categorize that as regrettable :-)

<comment><USER3> Well, one reason to "keep up with trends" is because if your direct competitor does use ML to unveil some market/product/business opportunity or optimization, and you (executive/CIO/CEO) weren't at the least looking into the technology, heads are going to roll.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It looks like this was launched in May 2017. There's more context in the post below:

> We've met with hundreds of Fortune 500/ Global 2000 companies, startups, and > government agencies asking: "How do I get started with artificial > intelligence?" and "What can I do with AI in my own product or company?"

> While there are many excellent tutorials out there that show how to use > TensorFlow or the beautiful math behind neural network training, we couldn't > find a broad overview — a "Chapter 0", if you will — for product managers, > line of business leaders, strategists, policymakers, non-AI developers to > read first before moving on to more technical materials. So building on our > popular primer on artificial intelligence, today we've launched a microsite > to help newcomers — both non-technical and technical — begin exploring > what's possible with AI. The site is designed as a resource for anyone > asking the two questions above, complete with examples and sample code to > help get started; no computer science degree required! Ultimately, it's > aimed at people who aren't only studying AI in universities or labs and just > want to get their hands and heads around it as they explore options for > their own companies.

[https://a16z.com/2017/05/12/ai-playbook/](https://a16z.com/2017/05/12/ai- playbook/)

</comment><comment><USER8> It would be useful to have a section: "What AI cannot do" or to be pedantic: "What the current AI techniques cannot do."

</comment><comment><USER9> I appreciate this article; I'm impressed when intelligent people can take complex things and explain them in laymen's terms.

I buy the idea that AI will be like RDBMS.

Except ...

RDMBS is tangible, straight forward. Easily applicable.

AI is indirect, soft.

So while I agree AI will find it's way into most things - and - will be a critical feature of some things (i.e. it will enable self driving cars) ... I still think it's over hyped.

It's a new and interesting field that is just too vague and 'non- parameterizeable' to provide value in so many ways.

Remember 'Big Data' \- it was mostly an optimization. Most businesses simply don't depend on data in such quantities, and when they can make use of it, it's often just a tweak to their business, not a deep strategic insight.

If we see an explosion in GPU type computing, wherein AI experiments are able to grow maximally, perhaps we can dream a little bigger ...

But in the meantime 'there be a lot of hype' around this subject.

Kudos for the article, though.

<comment><USER10> I think it is soft to the extent that you need an expert to define precisely the bounds of your problem and the AI solution. However, consider the following situation today: you have millions of images that are fairly related (perhaps on a real estate listing site) and tags. You can now straightforwardly build a product for predicting hashtags and describing the photos without knowing hardly anything about AI. There are plenty of products to help engineers do this already, one of which is Google cloud's ML products.

Now imagine that at some point a lot of the AI problems get to a point where they can figure out the correct training procedures automatically. People are working on this with varying amounts of progress but I think the future looks like we'll be able to do enough of this to sell/open source something as well- defined as a SQL database.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder if they made this because they're struggling to get enough high quality AI startups coming their way. A decade ago you wouldn't really see VCs do this kind of stuff.

</comment><comment><USER12> Interesting that I always used Andreessen's: Why software is eating the world? [1] as a temper to AI hype. You can replace "blockchain" with "distributed database" or "AI" with "software" and look at the result for if the use of AI or blockchain was just buzzword lingo or actually semantically relevant.

But now they have a chapter: "Giving Your Software AI Superpowers", which breaks this technique hard.

AI's history, to me, starts with Operational Research:

> Employing techniques from other mathematical sciences, such as mathematical > modeling, statistical analysis, and mathematical optimization, operations > research arrives at optimal or near-optimal solutions to complex decision- > making problems. Because of its emphasis on human-technology interaction and > because of its focus on practical applications, operations research has > overlap with other disciplines, notably industrial engineering and > operations management, and draws on psychology and organization science. > Operations research is often concerned with determining the maximum (of > profit, performance, or yield) or minimum (of loss, risk, or cost) of some > real-world objective. Originating in military efforts before World War II, > its techniques have grown to concern problems in a variety of industries.

Later authorities were just (in part) rebranding OR for Darpa/Iarpa grant money.

I like this executive summary though: It is good reading for managers and CEO's who may not be familiar with AI and its possibilities. For practitioners it is mostly fluff though and any intro course will give a better overview. A real playbook has yet to be written.

[1] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576512...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460)

</comment><comment><USER13> This seems to be, to quote, "a pre-tutorial -- a Chapter 0". I was expecting an actual playbook, as in strategies and approaches to different challenges, a list of things ML and AI can do well at this time. For me, that would be a very interesting resource.

<comment><USER14> Take a look at "Algorithms for the Intelligent Web" - particularly the second edition.</comment></comment>


Be lazy, write simple tests in comments – TypeScript - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Idered/typescript-expect-plugin <comment><USER2> I love this, but can't imagine it at scale.</comment>


Fresh graduates joining big corporation handybook - <AUTHOR> http://nishant.posthaven.com/how-to-excel-in-big-corporations-part-i

<comment><USER2> Good points but I wonder if this applies for all the big corporations.</comment>


Apple: The Microsoft of Mobile? - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/apple-the-microsoft-of-mobile/ <comment><USER2> Microsoft has had 90% desktop market share for over a decade, with no end in sight. Apple doesn't have that kind of market share, and it's doubtful they can get even close. There's way too much competition with Google, RIM, Palm(hp) and even Microsoft. Google is very strong, microsft will never quit and Palm has another life.

</comment><comment><USER3> No.</comment>


Ask HN: How Do You Sell an Open Source Project? - <AUTHOR> I've been running Gitignore.io for 7 years now, but I'm looking to roll off of it and focus on other projects. Right now the time commitment for this site is about 5 hours a month as most of the site is automated. The site generates about $60 a month in revenue from the an ad partnership and the site sees about 85,000 MAU's.  In terms of cost, the site costs $0 to run on a free Heroku Dyno and the only cost is the annual .io TLD registration which is covered in one month. I've been trying to sell the project but I'm not really sure how to go about doing that — I would love some feedback if anyone has any experience selling their project. <comment><USER2> I suspect the open-source nature is largely irrelevant. You'll want to list it on sideprojectors, flippa.com, etc.

But $60/profit per month I expect you'd not receive much more than $500 as an offer. You might prefer to shutter the service than see the main site go closed for that amount of money.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the advice — I'll try that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Have you tried submitting to sites like sideprojectors?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not yet but I'll try that.</comment></comment>


Why Linux Containers Matter for the Internet of Things - <AUTHOR> https://resin.io/blog/why-linux-containers-matter-for-the-internet-of-things/ <comment><USER2> It starts with "we believe Linux containers are the first practical virtualization technology for the embedded world" but then the case for containers vs normal virtualization struggles:

"(VMs) [...] have two major drawbacks. The first, and most obvious, is the overhead required to run them. Embedded devices have limited storage space, computing power, and bandwidth, and increasing these resources to handle unnecessary overhead increases the per-device cost without adding any real benefit.".

They probably know that VMs don't really take any more storage space, computing power or bandwidth than containers. Maybe a little bit on the computing power side, but the overhead is insignificant.

Also the big selling point is "Isolated application failures" but there is no mention of security failures. Docker style containers aren't very strong on the security front.</comment>


The Yawn Explained: It Cools Your Brain - <AUTHOR> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/12/15/yawn-brain-head.html <comment><USER2> I'm not buying this. And why didn't they study humans?

The explanation I heard many many years ago still seems right: yawning gets you more oxygen.

And if you need to test that, next time you feel the urge (meeting?), just breath deeply and it will go away.

<comment><USER3> "And why didn't they study humans?"

"He and colleagues Michael Miller and Anne Clark analyzed yawning in parakeets as representative vertebrates because the birds have relatively large brains, live wild in Australia, which is subject to frequent temperature swings, and, most importantly, do not engage in contagious yawning, as humans and some other animals do."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting hypothesis, not sure I buy it. Doesn't explain to me still why it's 'contagious.'

<comment><USER5> "Because, statistically speaking, if conditions have induced a yawn in one person (according to these reasons), anybody else in the immediate area is likely to have the same conditions too."

Quoted because I'm just proposing it, not claiming it is true.

<comment><USER6> Then why the yawning when reading the article?

<comment><USER7> My speculation: because there are no drawbacks to yawning too much, we've evolved to yawn with even the slightest triggers.

<comment><USER8>
           My speculation: because there are no drawbacks to yawning
           too much, we've evolved to yawn with even the slightest triggers.

Unless, of course, you're talking to your wife/husband/whatever and a case of the yawns kicks in.

<comment><USER9> "Sorry honey, I was thinking very intently about the deep thought you just shared, and my brain just needed some additional cooling."

Get out of jail free...

<comment><USER8> The funny thing is I often yawn when I'm really paying attention. It still doesn't go over well. :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting theory, but I want them to comment on exercise. I don't yawn much when I work out - sometimes, but rarely. This could be explained by the fact that usually when I get the hottest, I'm in a hot environment. But that's not awlays the case.

</comment><comment><USER11> So, does this mean that we can use yawning as a tool to focus (as long as the ambient temperature isn't too high?)

</comment><comment><USER12> Ok, now please explain _hiccups_.

<comment><USER13> Diaphragm spasms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> So why then aren't fevers associated with yawning?

</comment><comment><USER15> how come you yawn just when you wake up?

<comment><USER16> From page 2: "Prior studies reveal yawning leads to a heightened state of arousal, so a morning yawn may function somewhat like a cup of coffee in providing a jolt of energy."</comment></comment>


Jaiku or Laconi.ca? - <AUTHOR>

Looking to use microblogging tool for a large scale instance. After spending a couple of days evaluating them I havent been able to figure out which one to use..
Laconi.ca - Its PHP based. - Partial XMPP support

   Pros
     - Supported by a good number of clients include mobile
     - Supports OpenMicroBlogging (OMB)
     - API is similar to twitter's
     - federation support
   Cons
     - GNU Affero license ( would have release all UI changes as well)
     - Creative Commons Attribution for all msgs. AGG
     - UI sucks & looks amateurish

 Jaiku - Python based - Not sure about the XMPP support
    Pros
      - Licensing is Apache based
      - Pretty good UI
    Cons
      - Not a open standard
      - wont work with all or most twitter clients
      - No federation support
Anyone have thoughts about this? Any pointers to feature comparison.
Both seem to be in active development, but neither is perfect!
Thoughts or Pointers pls? <comment><USER2> Hi, I'm one of the Googlers working on JaikuEngine in my 20% time (BTW JaikuEngine is to Jaiku as Chromium is to Chrome) and I just wanted to add a few things.

Firstly either Laconica or JaikuEngine would make an excellent choice. They're both open source and they're both built by teams who believe in the idea of lots of small microblogs that can talk to each other rather than everybody using one massive microblogging platform.

Laconica is further ahead in terms of federation at the moment and has an active development community.

JaikuEngine also has an active development community but has only recently been open-sourced.

However the code runs on Google AppEngine. This means setting up your own instance takes less than 5 minutes. You don't need your own hosting. You don't have to pay any money for hosting unless you get enough traffic that you go over AppEngine's free quota: <http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/quotas.html>

As Evan's pointed out JaikuEngine doesn't currently support OMB but we are planning to do it. See this document for our plan: [http://code.google.com/p/jaikuengine/source/browse/trunk/doc...](http://code.google.com/p/jaikuengine/source/browse/trunk/doc/federation_of_planets.txt)

Jaiku.com currently does have support for XMPP but JaikuEngine doesn't. That code will be open sourced when AppEngine publicly launches it's XMPP API: <http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/roadmap.html>

JaikuEngine's project page is here: <http://code.google.com/p/jaikuengine/>

We have a mailing list: <http://groups.google.com/group/jaikuengine-discuss> but most of the activity takes place on the Jaiku channel here: <http://www.jaiku.com/channel/jaikuengine>

Our backlog of bugs and feature requests is here: <http://code.google.com/p/jaikuengine/issues/list>

If you have any questions or need any help then drop by the mailing list or the JaikuEngine channel. We're happy to help in any way we can.

P.S. If you're interested in Open Micro Blogging then you should sign up to the mailing list: <http://lists.openmicroblogging.org/mailman/listinfo/omb> and help define the next version.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for a detailed response. A couple of quick questions

Is there any plan to support the twitter API for now so there is no need for an separate client? Is there a timeframe for support for XMPP & federation? They seem a while away.

To us federation is not as important as XMPP.

Also Are there any migration tools available? Just in case things don't pan out well.

<comment><USER2> We don't have any current plans to support the Twitter API. That's just because no-one's asked for it. We'd have no objections if someone filed a feature request on our issue tracker: <http://code.google.com/p/jaikuengine/issues/list> or sent us a patch to add Twitter API support.

We also have our own API which is supported by a few apps.

Open sourcing the XMPP support is dependent on the AppEngine team's release of the XMPP API. However their roadmap: <http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/roadmap.html> says they'll be launching XMPP support sometime before the end of June 2009.

We don't currently have any migration tools although the JaikuEngine API exposes the complete history of every post a user has made and so does the website. It should be relatively simple for a user extract all of their data out of any JaikuEngine instance. We'd like to make this even easier but we're still thinking about the most user-friendly way to do this.

If you set up your own instance of JaikuEngine then you can use the Remote API: <http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/remote_api.html> to easily extract all your data out of AppEngine's datastore.

In general my advice is that you sign up to both Identi.ca and Jaiku.com (as they're the single biggest instances of both Laconica and JaikuEngine) to get a feel for how the two systems work. Not only will this give you an understanding of how they compare to each other but you'll see how they differ from Twitter and be able to interact with the respective development teams.

<comment><USER3> So, wouldn't it be _awesome_ if this were the main question people were deciding right now?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hi. I'm the lead developer for Laconica.

You're incorrect on one important point: you can license the content of your own server however you want. We use the CC Attribution license by default, since it so closely matches how most people share microblogging data (e.g., you can copy and reuse it as long as you credit the author).

Jaiku will soon support OpenMicroBlogging -- we're working with the JaikuEngine team to make that happen.

Also, why do you say that the support of XMPP in Laconica is "partial"? And what don't you like about the UI? Do you use IE6 or something? It doesn't look very good in IE6.

Good luck on your microblogging service and let me know if you have any more questions.

<comment><AUTHOR> All of my impressions are based on my analysis and hence the mistakes! I am happy to hear that the licensing can be changed. A big relief.

Well, most of our clients would like to make the site skinnable. By default the fonts dont look as pleasing as either twitter or jaiku. I have tried it on Camino, firefox & Safari. I guess its a matter of opinion.

I was referring to the XMPP Pub-sub support. I am happy to be corrected.

I would love to go with laconi.ca. Could we take this offline? Is there an email id I can reach you at?

Thanks!

<comment><USER4> Laconica is theme-able see <http://laconi.ca/trac/wiki/ListOfServers> for some examples. It can also integrate custom Plugins which allows you to do a good range of stuff. <http://army.twit.tv> <http://bleeper.de> <http://todaysmama.com/connect> are few of the larger laconica communities that have custom themes and plugins implemented.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why would Jaiku being Python-based be considered a con?

If I have a choice between working in PHP or Python, all other things being equal, I'm certain PHP would never be my choice.

<comment><USER3> Not me. When trying to get mass usage of an Open Source Web tool, I'd go with PHP every time. It's what's available on commodity Web hosting, and there's a big community of part-time Web programmers who know and use PHP. Compare: MediaWiki, Drupal, WordPress. Python is more glamourous and fun, but it's harder to build momentum for a massive FLOSS project written in Python.

<comment><USER5> I actually agree with you. But he's not asking about getting developers. He's talking about developing and maintaining an installation of it himself.

If I have to work on the code myself, Python is generally nice and PHP is generally nasty. I'm not a language dilettante, however. I choose the best tool for the job, and when we needed a new website, I ended up building (still building it, as we speak actually...just wrapping up a few last minute tweaks) it with Drupal. And, if I wanted something to get a _lot_ of users, I would probably write it in PHP (and I think the first shopping cart plugin we build to work with our products will be for Drupal+UberCart, because it is not at all horrible to work with as many PHP shopping carts are, and it has a very large user community; so I'll be doing a lot more PHP work in the future).

I just didn't understand why being written in Python was in the cons section. It seems the OP didn't intend for it to be and has corrected it.</comment></comment></comment>