How would you say the stability of this release compares to the last version?
I understand it's very new software, but the last version I played with (1-2 weeks ago) was incredibly buggy. Not just in terms of core functionality (hanging packages etc - some of which I see you have addressed https://github.com/kitematic/kitematic/milestones/v0.4.0) but just in terms of the general UI, buttons randomly disappearing/appearing.
I was/am really looking forward to using this but the bugginess did not give me a lot of confidence that the behind the scenes logic was behaving as expected.
Hi kaylarose. Really sorry about the app being buggy and thank you for understanding that we're still very new. Previous versions of Kitematic relied on too many dependencies: VirtualBox, boot2docker, a DNS server inside the boot2docker VM and Unison for file syncing. The current version removed the need for the DNS server inside the VM and Unison, slimmed down the app and fixed a lot of the critical installer issues.
We're working hard to make the app reliable. In terms of UI, there are plans on making things more consistent and easier to understand as well.
Thank you again for trying out Kitematic! Definitely let us know if there are suggestions on things we can improve on :)
I don't know if Redfin uses the same feeds, but their update times seem vastly superior to Trulia, Zillow & Estately. After spending 1 1/2 years trying to find a house in a turnkey-scarce market, and using RedFin (after it launched in our market a few months ago), Estately, Zillow, and Trulia in parallel - this was the killer feature of Redfin for me.
For instance, I knew an offer we had made on a house was going to fall through when I got an alert from Redfin half hour after sending the offer, that the house was pending. Similarly - I found, toured, offered, and signed on a house (and was alerted to the "new listing", "pending", and "sold" status by redfin) before Zillow even had is registered as "For Sale".
So I am genuinely curious how their feeds differ from the rest. I originally assumed they all just scraped the MLS, but maybe this isn't the case...?
Redfin is an actual real estate brokerage, and are therefore real members of the MLS, with access to the data that provides. The others are simply scraping via publicly available data. This is a major difference.
Is it a major difference, or just a matter of timeliness? The actual data that Zillow etc. has seems identical to any other service, and the same as the printouts that realtors give out that they are printing from MLS.
This is Glenn Kelman, Redfin's CEO. Thanks for using Redfin and glad to hear that we gave you a jump on getting a place.
To answer your question about Zillow, Trulia and Redfin: Zillow and Trulia are media portals; Redfin is a brokerage, started by software entrepreneurs but with our own real estate agents to represent people buying or selling a home.
As a brokerage, Redfin has complete access to the local Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) used by brokerages and their agents to list homes and record sales. In addition to MLS listings, Redfin shows for-sale-by-owner listings, foreclosures, and new-construction listings, but most of the listings on our site come from MLSs.
There are hundreds of local MLSs, each with different data publication rules, but nearly all MLSs only accept as members brokerages willing to contribute their own listings to the MLS database. As a result, Redfin has the most complete and most timely listing data of any major real estate app or website, but only covers about half the U.S.
Zillow and Trulia get some listing data through services that syndicate a selection of listings from the MLS and some by asking real estate agents to upload their listings. A variety of studies, sponsored by Realtor.com, ZipRealty and Redfin, have shown that Redfin and other MLS-powered sites have significantly more agent-listed homes than the portals; Redfin also gets data much sooner, both to show new listings and to recognize when old listings have been sold.
Getting more women into tech* isn't just about the money...
1.) Not encouraged in early years: If you are a tech-savvy female, "soft" tech careers (Graphic Design etc.) are generally recommended as career paths.
2.) It's a Boy's Club: If you make it past the college classes (with a 20:1 M-to-F ratio), you enter the workforce with (mostly) the same ratio. This means that unless you have thick skin & a good sense of humor, you'll never make it.
3.) You're Wrong: Even if you are right. And no one will hesitate to tell you why.
* Speaking for a professional career in Tech.
In my experience, a lot of these actually provoke you to strive to over-achieve & prove yourself. But I can see how it can seem off-putting for a new-comer.
I'm surprised this is still an issue. The guys here can't seem to trip over each other quickly enough to white knight imaginary women from any possible sexism. Is there a tech crowd that isn't obsessed over this topic and is making us all endure having to hear that Leisure Suit Larry is sexist and why? Speaking as a guy who managed guys and gals alike (in tech) and never treated them like children.
#2 would apply just as readily to female-dominated positions like nursing. A man who cannot handle a competitive, female-dominated field like nursing will get his ass handed to him as badly or worse. Men tend to be able to tolerate women who cannot get along in a male-dominated environment. That is not even remotely true in reverse.
I have the opposite background, but similar anecdotes. Spent all of high school and college in various art or design-focused curriculum and degrees. Inevitably ended up taking a few dev courses, but was only marginally interested. My first job after college was as a web designer in a software shop where I quickly realized that "real-world" programming mixed aesthetics and creativity with logic and really hard problems, was immediately hooked and started absorbing everything (even SICP!) in my quest to become a better developer.
Like yours, my left-brain intuitively sees patterns and (un)readabilty in code, beauty in simplicity, and has empathy for users/novices. My right-brain solves the problems, connects the top to the bottom, and is cold-and-calculating about the inner-workings.
It's also my experience, that if you are design-forward people discount your programming skills (all the more reason to prove them wrong) and if you are development-forward people discount your creative side ("oh, I _totally_ trust your opinion, but just to be on the safe side....").
IMHO Diversity of skills gives you insight into your work and the world around you. Even if you are not a natural you still gain new perspective. Hell, even knowing that you aren't any good is half the battle! I am good at _executing_ other people's ideas, and intuitively knowing what looks good - but struggle coming up with an original _truly unique_ artwork from scratch. On the other hand, Give me an empty vim buffer...
Let me precede this by saying - JS is one of my favorite programming languages. And I agree, unless you know JS you will not be a well-rounded client-side engineer.
Unless the styles are integral to the functionality of a certain component (usually layout or box model), I prefer to keep the styles where they belong. To me, it is much easier to maintain styles in a stylesheet - especially if you have jr. devs or designers working with you. Yes, CSS easily becomes a big ball of mud. But if you organize it properly - and maybe even use something like LESS or SASS - it is much more maintainable.
It is also the responsibility of a good developer to know when to apply certain techniques. For instance - a simple "grow on hover" is very easy to achieve via CSS animations - with a fallback to non-animated grow on IE etc. But a "grow on hover and then do crazy animations" is probably better accomplished with JS.
But 'regular' people are loving the Galaxy S 2, I guess because of it's large and vibrant screen, and it's thinner (to hold) compared to the iPhone 4.
I really like the Galaxy S 2 and I wish so hard that Android was actually polished to the degree that iOS is. My iPhone bores and I love the screen on the Galaxy S, yet I know I will miss out on OS updates and being able to smoothly rotate the screen. The day android is as polished as iOS is is the day I switch.
 I'm not sure if it is actually thinner than the iPhone 4, but it feels thinner, much in the same way the 2nd gen iPod touch was thinner than the previous gen)
No, I meant Android models. People who want the latest iOS, get the latest iPhone. People who want latest Android won't necessarily get a Galaxy S2 because there are are many other new Android phones. So I'm saying comparing the iPhone sales to the Galaxy S2 sales isn't fair.
The Galaxy S II is the best selling phone in several countries, in others it's a close 2nd to the iPhone 4. I'm not sure it's possible for it to sell a "hell of a lot more" unless every single person bought one, (would you make the same argument for the iPhone 4?).
Samsung have just overtaken Apple in total smartphone sales, though they have a few more models than Apple. But if you look at the trajectory (they came from nothing in the last year or so) it's only a matter of time before their flagship outsells Apple's in more countries than it already does.
The Galaxy S2 sold 10 million phones worldwide even before it went on sale in the US. It's pretty much the bestselling Android phone. So this is a pretty silly comment, although fairly typical for iPhone users who aren't up to date on Android phones.
I found one article about the sales of the S2 from an "android news" site, that indicated it was selling 2-3 million a month. I'm sure it is the best selling android phone, and I say anything that sells more than a million units in a year is a "hit", but that's not a lot of sales compared to the iPhone. It certainly hasn't broken out into the mainstream like the iPhone has.
0.6mm at its thinnest point, and 0.5mm thicker at its thickest point (the latter being a sticking point, UK's Advertising Standards Authority ruled against Samsung's claim of thinnest smartphone on the market on these grounds)
I am so fucking tired of this argument. "Users don't care" - well you know what? I AM a user. And if a phone can't do X it does matter for me, even if you or your grandma might not care. It's downright insulting saying that I am somehow different from regular people, because I have flaws with Apple products.
PhantomJS is one of the better "headless" browsers out there. Webkit-based, Minimal src codebase (Python), and easy to compile (with QT tools).
IMO The API is a little weird though: when evaluating js within a PhantomJS "WebPage" context, it is _completely_ sandboxed. i.e. you can't use closures or otherwise reference any variables outside the scope of your "WebPage" (without work-arounds). This is odd, when you consider that the page is just another var in your script. IMO it kind of breaks some JS paradigms. Not a big deal, but an annoyance none-the-less.