> The menu bar was in the same place in every application. Short-cuts were consistent between apps.
Thank the "web-devs"... instead of having native looking apps that use OS controls/widgets they want to push dumb html/css/js to "unlease their creativity"... I'm sorry but huge middle finger to you.
I want all my apps to use the same widgets and paradigme and look the same...
Exactly! Let's go back to the times when things were consistent! Remember when you couldn't tell AIM from ICQ from MSN Messenger from Skype because they looked and behaved consistently?
Just find an old Windows VM and put Winamp next to Sonique next to RealPlayer next to Windows Media Player next to QuickTime -- those sure were the days, until the damn "creatives" came with their stupid "web tech."
"Layered Windows" is how an application can have a window which is not the typical rectangular shape, such as the "Head" skin for Windows Media Player. That would be the "crazy things" that apps were allowed to do.
Exactly! We spent years training reflexes and keyboard shortcuts, only to have window borders change appearance (and get thinner!), menus rearrange, controls vanish unless moused-over, etc. It's an insult.
I try not to think about the collective time and frustration lost to companies wanting their native apps to be "on brand" and cross-platform consistent rather than native. A bunch of extra work to make it that way. A bunch of extra work to maintain it, any place dumb "look and feel" shit like specially-animated buttons or whatever made it fragile. Then on the other side, 99% of the time it's worse to use than if they'd at least mostly stuck with native widgets, so wastes time and causes frustration among users, and then there's the special case of that for accessibility, which is often a true shit-show.
All because the marketing suite can't stand not getting their fingers in something. I want to see the fucking study that says having the buttons on iOS the same shape as the ones on the website adds any number of dollars to the bottom line. C'mon, this is important enough to spend a bunch of money on, slow development, and also make UX worse, must have a good reason for it, right? Surely it's not just an exec who's never done the actual job pushing things for vanity purposes, or a variety of roles padding their portfolios, or needing to market this to toddler-like C-suiters inside the company on some damn powerpoint, right? LOL.
I connect this in my head to a shift in presentation of things like big box stores, which look a lot more consistent and marketing-designed these days than they did in, say, the '90s. Hell, fast food chains, too. It's like some time in the '00s marketing departments across the board received a much greater mandate and I've got this funny feeling that only some of that, and maybe not most of it, is really justified by added value in dollar terms.
But then, for as much as we pretend to be data-driven in business and pay lip service to various science-adjacent notions and think we've really got it all figured out, mooooost of it falls apart if you poke at it a little and it all starts to look very fad and social-proof driven. So I guess just add this to the list of weird stuff companies do for maybe-bad reasons.
I feel the same way, I feel despair when I think about all of the time wasted for such trivial bullshit. But then I'm told I'm being dramatic and to get back to my Jira stories. Line must go up, huh?
While I do think native controls are the better choice, I disagree that companies even though it's harder. They do it mostly because it's easier: write once in JS, push to web, mobile and electron on desktop and be done with it.
I've tried zed again and it's kinda "meh" when it comes to Java development. It's kinda nice editor (but BBedit feels even faster) but nothing more and using it feels like an added friction...
Mill's early goal was to be a saner sbt, incidentally also fixing the parts of sbt that are/were unreasonably slow due to questionable design decisions.
Maven has never been relevant to the Scala ecosystem given most of the community has pretty much moved straight from ant to sbt. Only a few Spark related projects stubbornly use Maven, which is a major pain given the lack of cross-building abilities. Slow dependency resolution and inefficient use of Zinc merely add insult to injury.
Yeah... that's my experience with Scala all around - it's abysmally slow, especially if you use any sort of "metaprograming"... (one of the reasons I stay clear of the language)
Because the execution is usually borked... I was eyeig ZenFone 9 (or something around that) and what? It was reported that it had problem with overheating and build quality.
What's more, I would love something akin to my current Galaxy a52s 5G with a display around 5.2-5.5" (I first had LG G2, then OnePlus3 which was already a bit bulky and now a52 as compromise; https://www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?idPhone1=5543&idPhone2...)...
I do have iPhone SE (2022) and it's the size of LG G2 and I find quite handy. Something of that size but with slightly bigger screen (better screen-to-body ratio). Specs doesn't have super-hiper-premium… and the price should be sane (usually compact phones are like 20-40% higher, sic)
In my case, they took so long to announce the iPhone 12 Mini that I gave up waiting and bought an SE even though it was slower than I wanted and had a poor camera. Four months later they announced the Mini, but I wasn't willing to replace a four-month-old phone. Then they discontinued the Mini line after 13.
When I was ready to buy a new phone, there were no iPhone Mini models for sale. It took more than a year, but I finally found an iPhone 13 Mini in stock on the Apple Refurbished store. Now I'm hoping to keep this phone alive until they finally release another small iPhone.
I agree, I think the iPhone mini sales were deeply affected by the iPhone SE. I came back a few months ago looking for an iPhone mini and didn't see any either.
In my friends circle, iPhone Minis are the most popular smartphone model, it’s even peculiar how pronounced it is.
But they all bought iPhone Minis 2 or 3 years after they came out.
I’d like to see iPhone sales numbers per generation, over multiple years. Like „how did iPhone 12 models (minis, normal, pro…) sell in 2020, 2021, 2022, etc.
Are you sure they bought different flavours because of the screen size or because of naming marketing "pro is better than regular" and "mini obviously has to be worse"?
I just opened iTerm and started bashing keys on my keyboard randomly and there wasn't any lag. For me, for all intents and purposed it just fast.
Cat a long-ish (10k lines, I know it's not that log but don't have anything longer at hand) and search with highlight and there wasn't any lag (and I'm quite alergic to it).
BUT. I don't have any fancy shell prompt nor ligatures (don't see any point) and there is a warning that enabling said ligatures will impact performance...
On a slower machine, 100ms latency is achievable, which becomes perceptible (not yet annoying). Output speed can be visibility sluggish if you add too much highlighting and stuff.
I haven't touched iTerm for several years; maybe the modern versions are intrinsically faster, and modern hardware is definitely much.faster, so this could have become imperceptible.
Hmm... there was a time lime 3-4 years ago where there was some slowdown (but I was on beta) but it was fixed.
Nowadays I'm on MBP M1 (so already "older-ish" machine) and it works fine. I definitely notice latency when I'm connecting to a machine with ping over ~70ms so I assume that if I don't notice any delay then latency is low (?)
I feel like I'm missing something, too. I use iTerm and XFCE Terminal... Speed is something I never think about in my usage. I tried going back to Xterm just to see how blazingly fast it was and I couldn't really tell much difference. Maybe I'm just not attuned. :)
so for anyone that "just browses the web" (which is overwhelming majority) there is virtually no difference/benefit?
I don't play online games, don't use VPN, have a couple of services on my local RPi that has port forwarded on router and that's it...
ipv6 could be handy when testing some service on my laptop and trying with external services but this happens so rarely that it's not an issue... on the flipside, whenever I enable ipv6 I usually run into problems :|
One, the most obvious, is actually having distributed net and serving content from your own machine and in the ancient times like 15 years ago Opera tried that by bundling sort of local http-server (?!, can't even remember the name of the project…) but it floped... I'm not sure that ipv4 was the issue or rather the fact that people don't usually have or want their machine work 24/7...
for calls we have to rely on STUN/TURN but than again some consider this a feature as it hides external IP... which with ipv6 would be even more privacy invading?
I’m hesitant to suggest specific use cases because general purpose technologies are hard to predict in their applications. I doubt whether anyone accurately forecasted the impact of JS in the browser, for example.
However, I’d love to be able to interact with my car, CCTV cameras and other IoT devices at long distance with fewer middlemen involved.
I don't see significant difference for most private people. I guess the median has three phones, a tablet and a tv box, there's not much scope to improve the network for that use case.
But IPv6 makes a difference for some other situations. If you operate a network with routers and such, it makes sense to have all connections to internal services use IPv6. Backup, file storage, databases, management interfaces, blah: Give everything its own IPv6 address, don't accept connections on IPv4, and allow IPv4 packets from 192.168/16 only to the outside world.
It's likely the web itself has been shaped by the technology underpinning it. The article would seem to suggest something similar. Look at email. Now we all connect to the central email servers at Google and they handle most of everything else. Perhaps on the IPv6 internet, you would be able to buy a USB stick that handles all your emails for you. No more centralised mail, you just have a small server in your house that does it for you. The same of social media, etc. It would be feasible to offer an entire plug-and-play P2P internet in the form-factor and cost of a small HDD.
Would people want to own such a server? I don't know, but as it stands currently, only the centralised players in the internet sphere can afford to serve content. Perhaps our relationship to these companies would be different if there was no barrier to entry for competition. Perhaps our entire conception of the internet would be different without that fundamental limitation. Or perhaps nothing would change. The central model has its advantages, but I'd also like to be able to own my own website.
> Perhaps on the IPv6 internet, you would be able to buy a USB stick that handles all your emails for you.
You are too optimistic. Poeple can't be bothered to migrate off the google to some alternative provider (also free) and you expect them to buy a "usb stick" for local (mail) server? And then have to keep their machines up all the time and also connected constantly? (not everyone lives in the USA and have FTTH)...
I already mentioned that Opera tried something like "personal pod" 15-20 years ago and it flopped...
> No more centralised mail, you just have a small server in your house that does it for you. The same of social media, etc.
"social media" case seems interesting but again - we had mastodon for distributed social media and it's adoption is lukewarm... and now we have bluesky, which is also distributed and anyone host it and whatnot and it's userbase skyrocketed... and everyone use single instance.
All in all - people don't care about it, they want convenience and nothing else...
> And then have to keep their machines up all the time and also connected constantly?
The idea would be that you plug the stick into a USB port, then it just draws power from the wall and serves files over WiFi. Similar to the Amazon Fire TV stick, it would be a full computer in a small form-factor.
> and everyone use single instance
I wonder if this has anything to do with how difficult it would be to set up your own instance? We already have distributed social media, it's called websites. I think having your own website is pretty appealing to a lot of people. BlueSky is really just a worse version of HTTP with page indexers, which only needs to be that way because of NAT.
> All in all - people don't care about it, they want convenience and nothing else...
I know that people will not bother to migrate off their current software, but the product has its own pros and cons. Perhaps if they were presented with both options when they first obtained an email address, they would have made different choices.
And actually, I think people do care quite a lot. Even something as simple as sending a file to someone is massively complicated by NAT. People don't like the fact that they need to trust their digital lives to a handful of massive American companies. That people lack knowledge of the alternatives is not a sign that there are no better alternatives. See Ford on cars, Jobs on phones, etc.
what? the world doesn't end with fortnite or whatever brain-rot is currently popular (on utterly locked up platform with excessive anti-cheat)... there is a gazzilion of super entertaining games that you can play locally... :shrug:
