Pure hardware performance has never been the deciding factor in any console generation. Most of the things that give the xbox one an edge are not apparent by merely looking at the console in its inert state, they are built into how the system works as a whole.
Yeah even when your run windows AMD's still not worth the pain. OpenGL games like Rage are bugged on release for AMD owners and the catalyst drivers often introduce terrible bugs. I don't upgrade my drivers unless I the older ones have a known bug with a newer game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsD3y3vnsM8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pSHOJKcFU8 (the youtube comment is wrong, it didn't happen only with skyrim, I had the antialiasing bug with lots of games after I upgraded to that version of the catalyst at the time)
This is what happens (and happened to me) when you trust AMD with their drivers. That one of their mid or high end card can work like shit with one of the best sellers on the PC platform says it all about how much AMD cares for their customers : they're giving us the finger.
How could AMD stay in business with such subpar products is beyond me. I know they'll never regain my trust. That's just not possible. Too many problems on too many platforms.
I'm not seeing where Android has caused fragmentation - which you keep mentioning.
Java is by definition fragmented. Java on phones has been fragmented for ages (pre-Android). Look at all the competing OS/APIs available for jme phones (BREW, Symbian, BlackBerry etc).
Java on phones has always been fragmented at the API level - wilfully ignoring this fact is basically saying that Java EE and Java SE and JavaCard are exactly the same and programs written for a giant cluster of enterprise machines that need to screen scrape terminals and connect to esoteric datasources, should run without modification on a Java capable phone circa 2007 - this is simply not the case and has never been the case. Face it Oracle are saying WORA is good and Android is killing WORA via 'fragmentation' - the reality is that WORA is basically a myth and marketing hype.
Oracle are a troll in so much as they fully supported an ASL licensed version of Java (APIs and vm) when they didn't own Java and then decided that having a truly open source implementation was a bad idea after they owned the IP.
Google cleanroom'd (and used libraries which had an appropriate license) - this was expensive and not necessarily the best thing to do - who knows apart from Andy Rubin I guess, but I cannot see how this was illegal, or even morally wrong as you are suggesting.
Google could reasonably point to the fact that Apache had been working for 6 years on a fully open source version of Java without any legal problems - why should they suddenly find themselves in trouble for using that software and adding their own vm?
Personally I think you're mistaken about the history of this case, who is acting in good faith and who isn't and the realities of developing Java programs for phones and in general. I'm honestly exasperated by people who seem to ignore the evidence that is in the open about what transpired when and then go on about how 'evil' Google has been over this whole thing. Google acted in their best interests as a company and what they did hasn't negatively impacted any Java developers that I know about. The only people that claim that Google has stolen Java or have destroyed Java or any other hyperbolic negative affect they claim seem to have a personal axe to grind and/or work for Oracle.
Please do some research on the background of the whole sordid affair - Google did not steal 'Java' - they took ASL licensed libraries and used them as an API and they built their own VM.
Guess who did the same thing? Sun and Oracle. Did Sun steal Java too? Look inside the current java source code and you'll find code originally written by open source developers under the ASL (xml libraries [crimson etc] spring to mind immediately, but I'm sure there is other stuff in there too))
As far as I know at no point did they claim that Android was Java (which is what the Microsoft case was about).
Guess who did the same thing? Sun and Oracle. Did Sun steal Java too?
A general point: Sun (Oracle is another matter, but we can safely assume they won't prosecute themselves) could "steal" Java as much as they wanted, because you cannot infringe your own copyright. Copyright doesn't forbid actions per se (i.e. "any copying") but it does forbid specific individuals from performing those actions (i.e. unauthorized third-parties). So, assuming the JVM was subject to copyright or patents (which is more or less what they're debating in court at the moment), Sun employees could have reimplemented it a million times, either privately or publicly, but this would not have granted anyone else the right to do the same.
Besides, your statement that "at no point did [Google] claim that Android was Java" is debatable -- most developers approach Android with the belief that "it's basically Java with some peculiarities", and this was a large factor in its successful efforts to recruit independent developers. Whether this "implying" was lawful or not, it's for the tribunal to decide.
Just because I believe something is so (Andriod == Java) doesn't make it so.
Google do not claim (as far as I've seen anywhere) that Android is Java. They must name the APIs java.x to ensure source compatibility, but they chuck the class file format and the dalvik vm is certainly not a jvm.
The key points are here:
"So where does this whole thing about the field-of-use restrictions (that prevent an independent implementation from being used on mobile devices) come into play. Why, it's in that separate TCK license referred to in Oracle's third slide above. But notice that in that slide Oracle maintains that "[t]hese restrictions prevent Apache Harmony from implementing Java SE." They do no such thing! Apache never signed the TCK license. That didn't prevent Apache from creating and distributing Harmony; it only meant that they couldn't call it Java or imply that it was Java-compliant, a point which Sun admitted (see Jonathan Schwartz's comment in the second Google slide).
Many of Oracle's claims and presentation in this case will be based on misdirection and creating a false understanding of Oracle's rights and Oracle's right to restrict the activities of others. The Oracle position is in direct conflict with the previous statements and actions of Sun upon which Google relied. If Google can keep the jury straight on these points, Oracle will be shown to have significantly overreached in bringing the copyright claims in this suit."
Apache started the Harmony project in 'co-operation' with Sun on the understanding that they would be given access to the TCK tests when they needed them. This was based on Sun telling Apache that they would 'waive' the FOU restrictions for Apache so that Harmony could claim to be Java (ie. it passes the tests).
IBM and others contributed significant amounts of code to Harmony - why, because having a truly independent version of Java has real value to them as they base a lot of their business on Java infrastructure.
Google got involved and licensed the Harmony libraries (which is fine, ASL allows that).
Oracle buys Sun and then does 180 degree turn on its stance for supporting Harmony (Oracle where one of the bug supporters of Harmony when Sun owned Java).
People just reading a tiny bit of the press on this and thinking they understand the nuances are almost certainly wrong. There is a lot of history around the licensing of the TCK and Oracle is trying to deceive people about the TCK license vs the license to use Java.
Oracle's behaviour ensured that Apache dropped out of the JCP (along with many other high profile open source people).
I don't think Oracle has a copyright case, but they may have a patent case (with what few claims are remaining). If you are derived from OpenJDK you have a patent license from Oracle. If you pass the TCK, you also get a patent license. But if you do neither, you've got nothing.
BTW, I don't think Oracle did a 180 on anything. All Harmony's FOU problems happened years before Oracle bought Sun. I suspect there were influential people in JavaSoft who never believed in independent third-party implementations and just led Harmony along because they thought it would never amount to anything. When Harmony started looking like a threat to J2ME revenue, they invented the FOU to stop it.
As far as I know the FOU was in place way before 2005 when Apache started on Harmony. Oracle did a 180 on supporting Apache then stabbing them in the back.
When Sun owned Java, Oracle are documented as supporting Apache's requests to get the FOU restrictions lifted and helped Apache slow the development of Java at the JCP level. When Oracle bought out Sun, they immediately stopped supporting Apache for both FOU and rammed through Java 7 without really getting many of JCP on board. IBM basically folded (after spending so much effort on Harmony - I suspect that IBM are kicking themselves for not buying Sun when they had the chance, I and many other people involved in Java at the time thought it was certain IBM were going to buy Sun out) and most of the other JCP members abstained or quit. Even members who voted for Java 7 added comments to the effect that they were not happy.
SEEKING WORK - remote/freelance
Developer with 10+ years java experience, lots of ruby and more recently some python (GAE + django). I also have some experience with Erlang - but I haven't built anything with it for a while.
Worked on government projects, marketing sites and ecommerce sites.
Indeed, get someone like MIT to do an OpenJournal to complement the rest of their OpenX initiatives and you might start getting buy-in.
The problem is that the system is broken - publish n papers => you're better than before (ignoring the content of the papers of course). Academics are encouraged to publish (and re-publish older stuff with a slight tweak) to meet publishing 'targets' handed down by government.
This model feeds into the Elsiver etc closed publishing as academics are forced to compete to earn their stripes - so now we have a model that encourages re-publishing crap and then locking it behind a paywall, but when I ask PhDs if they think this is fine, they don't see the problem :(
My understanding of the comment is that the commenter makes the point that VS is almost too comfortable (sorry if I'm mis-reading this), and that comfort is actually a hindrance to learning things.
I see it where I teach, the students that come in are most comfortable with windows + VS and they are productive in this environment. However, after just one course in C programming using vim, the students have a much greater appreciation of the process of producing software. They gain an understanding of compiling and linking, Makefiles and automated builds. (I'm not sure all of them like vim + make, but they see where VS is automating stuff for them and I think this is a valuable thing to learn).
Do you need this understanding to be a productive programmer? Of course not and indeed learning it is a bit of a timesink compared to getting your features finished.
Eventually like most things it is horses for courses (it doesn't make sense to me to develop C# code using vim as you have the worlds best(tm) IDE to help you), but personally I feel that IDEs have become too much of a crutch, they help so much that you can be productive without knowing what you are doing and, this maybe elitist, I feel this harms the industry a little.
Good programmers will always be good programmers, bad programmers can hide with an IDE, they have to learn what they are doing when dropped into vim + make (or other lo-fi tools of choice).