markdennehy

You mean "App Store did a really good job copying a standard practice in the software world to a specific domain that Steam was doing a really good job in already, and though brand and lock-in, managed to survive where on pure merit, it wouldn't have".

So... stop using a debugged and stable tool whose limitations and problems are well-known and understood and replace it with six bits of software duct-taped together, two of which aren't working yet (if they even exist), without any idea of how they interact when they hit edge cases.

I mean, "don't use X, use ShinyX instead" is one thing (and most of the time it's a bad thing but it does occasionally turn up good ideas), but this is just So Much Worse...

That's not what I'm advocating. What I'm advocating is not wasting time and effort rewriting working tools just because the rewrite would be newer.

Which is not what you're saying I'm advocating.

(a) To some of us, that's not that long ago :D (b) Vim is an IDE. No, seriously, if you can run the debugger, the compiler and a plethora of other tools from within it, it is an IDE. You might not like it, but... (c) IDE, DDE, doesn't matter. Some of us work faster in IDEs, some in DDEs. Now, if you don't grok what's happening from your source down to the metal, that matters.

(d) When did I specifically pick out IDEs as the sole example of new and shiny? Or did you just read my comment without parsing it?

Or you could just use LaTeX, which has been used for writing books for decades (the word you're looking for is "debugged" and the phrase is either "well understood" or "well documented").

And yes, there are efforts underway to improve it (LaTeX3) but 2e works so well, there's not been much drive there.

And if you find LaTeX is so hard, there's always LyX...

Newton would have some things to say about that, but you wouldn't hear him because of your doppler shift.

Why expend manpower and energy improving a working solution just to do so when you have so many other broken things that need fixing first? That's a fairly self-answering question. There's a reason the expression is "If it's not broken, don't fix it".

> It baffles me why in 2014, some developers still prefer to work as if UNIX System V had just been released.

Because (a) some of us aren't convinced that things like IDEs give a better view of what's going on in the system; (b) some of us think that fundamental tools like terminal emulators, editors and so on should be debugged and stable because we have to earn our mortgage payments using them and chasing the shiny isn't on our job description; (c) any actually useful new idea winds up in Vim anyway.

You want to use a new shiny unproven editor, grand, have a ball. But don't ask me to purely on the basis that it's not new and shiny.

1) You run latex twice only on really large and complex documents like books, and if you're writing books (not editing, see antipope.org for details) in Word, then you need professional help.

2) Markdown and LaTeX are designed for different tasks. Next you'll be telling me that if you have a leafblower, you have no need for a chainsaw.

3) Find me the structured and annotated data streams first - and show me that the structure and annotations are correct - then lament the lack of a shell that can route them to the programs that don't interpret stdin and stdout and stderr that way anyway.

4) I use vim to write latex when I write latex, but "in a bash shell" doesn't make any sense. You fire up vim from bash, yes, but unless you're trying to do an ex-style editing session, you're not editing in the shell any more than you're editing in the kernel or the tty driver...

Because if you want to argue over the meaning of the word billionaire, you start with why we shouldn't have changed the meaning of the word billion :)

When you're talking about personal wealth, there's a real danger of money going from a tool to do stuff; to being a way to keep score. And that latter road leads to the worst kind of arsehole-ry (damn, that needs a better word).

You might give more credit to the hundred or so people (all the equivalent of our PhD graduates today) who were doing the actual work for him.

Edison's contribution was to pay them enough so they could eat and live, and point them at a project.

And Edison's an even more interesting example to bring up in a Jobs discussion because of the whole history between himself and Tesla (and if nothing else tells you about the man's character, the elephant-electrocuting nonsense during the current wars would tell you all you needed to know).

> It's well agreed upon that paper trading is nothing like trading with money on the line. It's ALL about psychology.

It's also pretty well agreed on (mainly from scientific studies into the actual results of investors) that this is not only bullcrap, but believing it's true was a major contributing factor in the enormous economic disaster we're all still living through right now. I'd like to say how galling it is to see someone hasn't learnt the basic hubris-based lesson we paid so much for -- except that I really can't express that in words adequately.

Wow.

You do get, don't you, that there's no real difference between personal wealths of $100 million and $1000 million? And that there shouldn't be? Why do so few people get that there's a ceiling here? You earn enough money so that you can live off the interest of what's in your bank account, and congratulations, your financial worth is now $MAX.

Seriously. $MAX is a real thing in the real world. It's where you can stop working for money and start spending all your life with your kids, or doing the things you want to do regardless of the mortgage and the food bills and the school bills and so on.

Folks who think $MAX is a naive concept... need to grow up a little bit and remember that life ends and if you don't enjoy it during it, you don't get to enjoy it afterwards.

> It turns out people like Woz need people like Steve Jobs, and people like Steve Jobs need people like Woz.

The former is truly unlikely and the latter is desperately true but omits the context completely and paints things in an almost pleasant light which frankly seems wrong to me.

It turns out that people like Woz have a completely different metric for things like happiness and success than people like Jobs. If Jobs had been hit by a bus before Woz met him, Woz would have gone on to have as long and happy a life as he's had because he'd still have made cool stuff and that makes him happy (something most of us, I would guess, can grok). He wouldn't, in all likelihood, ever have had a problem getting work doing fun stuff because talented people are rare and so tend not to have that problem. And he'd probably have made enough money to be comfortably well-off, he might even have struck it rich, but it wouldn't have been a necessary condition for him to be happy and fulfilled.

On the other hand, had Woz been hit by a bus, Jobs probably wouldn't even be a footnote in history at this point and would have died miserable because his metric appears to have used the accumulation of wealth as the definition of success and happiness; and he wasn't capable of building things without guys like Woz. Guys like Jobs, without guys like Woz, are generally just unproductive drains on society. Wooo, you had a long-term vision for a new product. Yes, you're special. Because nobody else ever watched star trek and then thought a tablet computer would be neat. Nobody ever read or watched science fiction and thought to try to make the gadgets described in there.

Yeah, right. I know who I'd point my son at as a role model, and it's not Jobs.