BurningbirdI love lists of good stuff:
Danny Ayers, Week of Semantic Web. I hope, I hope, I hope, Danny continues this.
Agile Ajax links several GWT tutorials, all in one post — handy if you’re into the Google Web Toolkit, or want to give it a try.
I had been keeping my version of Photoshop current on my Mac, but not my Windows. When I saw an upgrade package at Amazon that would upgrade my Windows 5.0 version to CS2, I decided to get it. A day wasted later, and oddly enough, talking to what sounds like the same people Chuqui talked to, I found that there are certain installers on Windows that just won’t accept the serial number, and the support person at Adobe would have to manually generate one for me. I asked if the same number would work if I needed to re-install the CS2 upgrade, and she said no, I’d have to call in again if I needed to re-install CS2 on my Windows. I would also have to provide my complete purchase history for Photoshop on Windows, including keys for software bought 6 years ago.
For Chugui, the experience began with the mistaken belief that if all you want to use in CS2 is Photoshop, one should be able to just upgrade Photoshop, especially when Adobe sells upgrades for Photoshop. You’d think…
The first one’s job was to tell me that no, in fact I could NOT upgrade a CS2 package to just Photoshop (but, I asked, what about your web site that says I can? I never got a straight answer about that, actually, just told that it wasn’t possible). I finally decided the hell with it and decided I’d wasted enough time — and maybe I might use Dreamweaver here or there — so I went ahead and decided to go to CS3.
…
That third guy’s job was to let me know that they couldn’t actually just amend my upgrade, I’d have to buy the CS3 upgrade, and then they’d refund me my original upgrade.
Of course, you can imagine what happened when Chuq tried to get a refund.
Adobe believes it has a lock on the graphics and photo editing world with Photoshop, and is using it to force people into buying what they don’t need. I’ve thought about upgrading my CS2 installation on the Mac (never again on Windows), but after listening to some of the problems people have had, have been reluctant to plunk down yet more money. Especially since there’s been so many issues related to upgrading Photoshop, as compared to upgrading the CS ‘suite’.
Now, I do like Lightroom more than Aperture, and I really like Adobe Bridge. I can live without Lightroom, though, and my Adobe Bridge still works. I’m finding that what I have with my current software is more than good enough, so I’m reluctant to do anything at all; just use what I have until forcibly kicked off in some way (probably some incompatible Mac OS upgrade). Frankly, I just can’t keep up with the expense of all these upgrades — especially when I’m maintaining three computers (two Macs and a Windows).
I’m also turning to open source for my needs more frequently. I’ve made the transition to NeoOffice for my Office replacement on the Mac and have never looked back. The software is stable, easy to use, and improves with each release. I also like OpenOffice for Windows, and have had no problems using it with my Windows XP box (I also am holding on upgrading to Vista).
For the new book, instead of putting any time into Photoshop, I decided to cover GIMP and other tools, instead. There is an installer for GIMP for the Mac that works nicely, but instead I installed Darwin/Mac Ports, and then installed both GIMP and UFRaw, the wonderful tool for handling RAW images, using the Ports installation program. Both installations went through without a hitch.
I also installed GIMP and UFRaw on Windows, using the ‘dummies’ installation for the latter and, again, no problems with the installation (though I don’t know if either will work with Vista).
What do I think of the tools? I really like UFRaw, and from what I can see, it handles my Nikon NEF files to a treat. I think I actually prefer it over Adobe’s plug-in, as it seems to manage white space better.
GIMP isn’t as fully featured as Photoshop. It’s not as simple to work with as Photoshop, but much of that could be my unfamiliarity with the tool. It doesn’t have the color support, or the Smart Sharpen filter, nor does it seem to support free transformations. However, the unsharp filter seems to work decently, and I can find most of the transforms I need by looking through the other tools. In addition, GIMP is very much a ‘living’ application, which means new filters, plugins, and versions are continuously being developed.
As for graphics, I was able to immediately create a ‘shiny’ Web 2.0 button, as well as re-implement the reflection technique I had picked up for Photoshop. In other words, it provides all I need for the effects I create.
You also don’t need a desktop tool. I recently discovered an online graphics tool, FixPicture that can take my Nikon RAW images in NEF format, and allow me to add any number of edits, saving the result to any number of formats.
I can’t speak for professional photographers and graphic artists, but I can’t help thinking the amateur photographer and web developer/designer who does some graphics, would get all they need from the open source community, rather than having to pay the Adobe tax. Not just GIMP and UFRaw–there are dozens of interesting single and multipurpose tools and utilities that allow us to create all sorts of interesting work; all open, all free except for what you can spare by way of donation.
I’m not adverse to proprietary applications or companies who profit from such, but when a company’s proprietary acts cross over the edge to the predatory, like Adobe’s has with Photoshop, I think it’s time to look elsewhere.
Recovered from Wayback Machine.
The PHP group has announced end of support for PHP4 and encouraging everyone to move on up to PHP5.
WordPress Matt isn’t happy with PHP5 and believes such a move should happen when PHP6 goes beta. I think the point really is that the PHP group can’t move forward on PHP6, while still trapped in support for PHP4.
I’m actually not unhappy at PHP5, though I do still tend to develop in PHP4 mindset. In Matt’s comments, Michael Moncur wrote:
I think every language reaches a point in its development where it’s “good enough” – and it becomes popular. Advancing the language after that is often a matter strictly for the hardcore programmers and academics, and the versions they create after that point are rarely widely adopted.
I’m not sure what the solution is, but app developers shooting themselves in the foot is unlikely to be it.
Personally I’ve avoided upgrading to PHP5 mostly because PHP4 is “good enough” and runs the apps I need (and the ones I wrote myself). I guess I’ll eventually be dragged into the upgrade kicking and screaming like I was with Apache 2.0. And MySQL 5. And Perl 5 and 6. And…
If you want to talk about the king of slow upgrades, Apache 2.0 is the winner, by far. I never thought much about Perl because I rarely work with it nowadays. However, the MySQL upgrades have been drastically different. Each new version of MySQL brings with it desperately needed and wanted functionality. I think the only hold back on upgrades with this database is how ubiquitous it is, and how hesitant people are with using ‘new’ database releases.
My hosted environment is running PHP5 and MySQL 5, and my main development machine, the last of the Powerbook G4s, runs Apache 2, PHP5, and MySQL 5 (installed via Darwin/Mac Ports). For the most part, I’ve not had any software that required earlier versions of any of these applications. Whatever I work on for my own amusement and interest works for PHP5 and MySQL 5; I don’t test with earlier versions. Good or bad, that’s a choice I made with host and with my own setup (I could run multiple versions for testing, but I don’t choose to). For my contract work, I’ll work in whatever environment I’m given.
The Go PHP5 effort should help make the point that apps need to move forward. Matt may think the site is corny, and that PHP4 being dropped is a no story, and that PHP5 is awful/nasty, but the news release and the site get the point across–like it or not, PHP4 is going away.
Now, if we can only make earlier versions of IE–such as IE 6.x–vanish, I would be happy.
Amidst all the hype surrounding iPhone, one thing is very clear: the iPhone will have some impact on web site development. At least, for those sites wanting to attract a well-to-do, gadget focused community. Or I should say, among those who are well-to-do, gadget focused, and who don’t have long fingernails.
The iPhoney emulator provides a means to test your site or web application in an iPhone environment, without having to shell out the money or sign up for two years of service at AT & T.
Apple has also, sort of, kind of, provided development guidelines. The company stresses making content ‘double tap’ friendly: blocks of text, sized just right. You’ll have to decide how much of your site you want to make ‘double tap’ friendly, and whether attracting iPhone users is worth the extra effort.
West Civ has done a more detailed look at the design specs for the device, and points to a Google Group related to the product (via Virginia DeBolt).
Ajaxian has created a whole new category devoted to iPhone development. GigaOm asks Where are the games?. Why, right here: Pick-a-Pair small game, Medium Game, and Triple card game. These are image match games based on technology close to 8 years old (JavaScript/HTML) that I updated to use with the Flickr recently loaded image queue (accessible via the API). I thought the games might work with iPhone, and according to iPhoney, they do.
I feel so über hip, now.
Before rushing off to hack the black, one thing I take away when reading Apple’s developer material is that the company doesn’t necessarily want people building overly complicated, special purpose iPhone applications; or, at a minimum, applications that make torturous use of any possible hacked entry into the device. The stress is on small image and script files, clean scripts, fast application execution time, and fast loads. If you build an application on an undocumented hack, don’t be surprised to find that door slammed in your face next software update.
Apple wants control with this device. Keep that in mind when you spend your time on finding those clever ‘workarounds’.
I must admit to being confused about Molly Holzschlag’s recent posts, including the latest. Today she writes, in clarification of her post where she calls for a moratorium on new standards work:
Perhaps there is a better solution than pausing standards development. If so, I’d like to know what you think it might be. One thing is absolutely key and that is there is no way we are going to empower each other and create the Web in the great vision it was intended to be if we do not address the critical issue of education. And stability. And these things take time. It requires far better orchestration than I personally have been able to figure out, and while the W3C, WHAT WG, WaSP and other groups have made numerous attempts to address some of these concerns, we have failed. We haven’t done a good job so far to create learning tools and truly assist the working web designer and developer become informed and better at what he or she can do. We haven’t done a good job sitting down at the table together and coming up with baseline strategies for user agents and tools.
I don’t keep up with the daily effort of the WHAT WG group, because I’m not really a designer by trade. I do keep up with specifications once they’re released, and am acutely aware of the necessity of valid markup, and not using worst practices (I promise to stop using STRIKE, for instance). I’m also aware of accessibility issues, though I find it frustrating how little we can do since many screen readers just aren’t capable of dealing with dynamic web pages.
I do try to keep up with the JavaScript effort. Mozilla is usually very good about providing readable documentation of new advances, and though it is typically ahead of the game, at least I’m aware of what’s coming down with the road. The same with what’s happening with CSS, PHP, RDF, and other technologies and/or specifications I use in my development.
If there are perceived barriers in acquiring the necessary knowledge to work with the newer specification, it can be because people heavily involved with some of these efforts can come across as arrogant, impatient, and even intolerant–the ‘elitist’ that Molly refers to. Over time, though, such ‘elitism’ usually gets worn away. I used to think the people associated with RDF were elitist, but I’ve watched in the last few years as folks interested in RDF/OWL/semantic web fall over their own feet rushing to increase understanding of, and access to, the concepts, specifications, and implementations. Express even a mild interest in RDF and *whoosh*, like the debris left by a flood, you’ll be inundated with helpful suggestions and encouragement.
Issues of arrogance and elitism aside, the concept of halting effort on specifications while waiting for the rest of the world to catch up just doesn’t make sense. Yes, it can be overwhelming at times–CSS, HTML, XHTML, XML, RDF, DOM, ECMASCript, PHP, Ruby, etc, etc etc. So much to absorb, so little time. But that’s not going to change by halting work on improving and extending specifications.
We do need to have more consistency among the user agents, such as the browsers. But we have browsers now that don’t implement, properly, specifications that have been around for years. In fact, it is because of this that we have this alphabet soup, as we try to remember which browser handles which piece of which HTML specification, correctly. Don’t even get me started on how user agents handle JavaScript. Or CSS.
I don’t know much about the intimate details of the HTML5 process, other than the whole point of the effort was to bring about a common point on which we could all intersect–authors and developers in what we use, user agents in how the implement the the specifications. Once this place of mutual agreement is then reached, we can continue to move forward, each at our own pace. It doesn’t make sense, though, for all to stop moving forward because some developer in Evansville, Illinois, or Budapest, Hungary, is still holding on to their tables.
Consider a marathon. In marathons, all the participants have to agree on the rules, and have to make sure they’re following the same course. But once the rules are defined and the course is laid out, then it’s up to the individual participants to do what’s necessary to complete the course. Some people put in more time and training and they complete the marathon sooner than others who can’t put as much time in, or who perhaps don’t have the same level of physical conditioning. Most of the people that participate, though, don’t care that they aren’t first or second or even in the first hundred. Most people have their own personal goals, and many are happy just to finish.
Think, then, how all participants would react if those putting on, say, the Boston Marathon, were to tell the participants that those in the front needed to slow down, or stop, so that those in the back could catch up?
The web is like a marathon. The specifications define the rules, and the implementations define the course. It is up to the individuals to determine how fast they want to run the course.
Molly says, because a developer in Evansville, Illinois or Budapest, Hungary is still using HTML tables for layout that the web is ‘broken’. I think what she’s really saying, though, is that the web works too well. There is a bewildering wealth of technology we can pick and choose from, and it can be both intimidating and exhausting trying to stay aware of all of it, much less stay proficient in any of it. It also seems like we’re surrounded by people who know it all.
They don’t, though. No one knows it all. The same as no one runner wins every marathon. None of us can know it all, and none of us can afford to be intimidated by those who seem to know it best.
No matter what we do with web specifications and new technologies, there will always be those who push to be first; the expert, the most knowledgeable–the ‘leader’ if you will. Then there is the rest of us, doing our best. This state of affairs is not broken, it’s just the way it is. It’s OK, too, because we don’t need to finish the race at the same time. What we web developers and designers need is what the marathon runners need–a set of rules by which we all participate, and a consistent course on which to run.
And here I got all this way without once mentioning Microsoft and IE.