I guess we will have to wait for some Kickstarter project for the next "Tie Fighter" or "X-Wing" game. I don't know if it was because I was a kid but those are games bring back very fond memories.
I am surprised that they are moving towards git and not Mercurial. Isn't Microsoft a sponsor of Mercurial? Perhaps this is because hg already has very good tools for Windows. I suppose I am just a little confused as to why git gets more attention than hg.
"When we made the decision that we were going to take the DVCS plunge, we looked at many options. Should we build something? Buy something? Adopt OSS? We looked at Git, Mercurial and others. It didn’t take long to realize that Git was quickly taking over the DVCS space and, in fact, is virtually synonymous with DVCS."
For me, this is primarily a reflection of the quality of service and community on Github rather than any quality intrinsic to git. I prefer mercurial to git, but find myself using git significantly more as virtually every dependancy in the apps I build lives on github.
I do think however that there are lots of teams, particularly in enterprise, that are quietly and happily using mercurial.
I think you first have to ask why Microsoft is supporting git when Team Foundation is, itself, Microsoft's primary source control system.
The answer is most likely because people use git. Lots of people use git - particularly the crowd Microsoft is actively struggling to appeal to which is the entrepreneurial/startup crowd.
I've never used hg so I can't attest as to which is "better" but I really don't think that matters to most people. The only question is if it is "good enough" and git is.
I'd bet this is simply a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. I had no idea Microsoft were sponsoring Mercurial--even that seems odd, spending money on an open source competitor to a product they also make.
This only makes the $20K to Mercurial seem weirder, don't you think? It underscores my point that it's hard for large organizations to keep their official positions on things straight.
From a bigger-picture strategic sense, the Developer Division at Microsoft is concerned about making Microsoft a good platform for developers. Fundamentally, if developers want to use Mercurial on Windows or Git on Windows or TFS on Windows, we're happy. And - increasingly - we'll donate money or even developer time to help make this a good experience.
I've been an hg fan for a while and like it better (hg jives with my brain better and git occasionally throws weird problems at me) but quality wise I can't say there is much of a difference in my experience.
That said, I have never met a single other person who uses hg. Not at work or hackathons. Most have never even seen an hg repository and some haven't even heard of it. Git definitely has "won" this "war".
The problem is that large swathes of the Git community have been treating the whole DVCS scene almost in Hunger Games terms -- there can be only one winner, and all the others must die.
For what it's worth, I've heard quite a lot of anecdotal evidence that Git is pretty contentious among many teams that adopt it. Git adoption is often driven by an aggressive few, against the wishes of their colleagues who can be quite unhappy about it. Case in point: Git has more "hates" on amplicate.com than Subversion and TFS put together -- and "hates" outnumber "loves" by something in the region of four to one. (http://amplicate.com/hate/git)
(For reference, Git and TFS have roughly similar market share in the enterprise at the moment, and Subversion is about twice as widely used as either of them. Source: itjobswatch.co.uk)
I use hg for personal projects, but I agree that git has become almost a standard, and, as others mentioned, almost synonymous with the distributed version control systems. My feeling is the differences between git and hg are smaller than the advantages of switching from one to the other and reconditioning yourself to a slightly different work mode. (I guess I should have said "reconditioning myself".)
Microsoft initially made Codeplex work with Mercurial. I don't know why Mercurial was chosen over Git at that time, but perhaps it was because of Git's reputation for working poorly under Windows. I suspect that the sponsorship dates to those days.
I hope that some of this increase in price is used to support Package Control from wbond. Certainly Package Control has contributed to the usefulness of Sublime.
Myself having registered less than a year ago, thinks this update is a little premature. Users in the official forums have been worried for months that development had stalled and all of the sudden an announcement of a paid update for seemingly incremental features? Are we to expect a beta period similar to ST2 or will be be expected to pay for what seems should be a minor release? I for one expected at least 2 years of support for my ST2 purchase. Coupled with the increase in price (which now compares to JetBrains IDEs) I see much fewer reasons to upgrade and/or recommend this to others.
IMHO sublime dev/s should be charging double (like $149) for product and require a paid upgrade every year to pay for continued development and features. I would happily subscribe for this software like I do for the adobe suite.
It appears that the software is well received but my question is where are the handsets? I am looking forward to seeing Nokia's offerings as the LG and HTC phones have not been very appealing.
Why would they start another production run for a discontinued product sold at a loss? Am I missing something or will HP come out next week and say "Surprise! Here is a great new update for the Touchpad" and start selling them for $200?
Actually this is not as far fetched as it may seem. Here's a potential scenario, building on the above, HP may have entered into contracts with manufacturers for 'n' units. When they shut it down, they had only received 'm' units, where m < n. So, they would have had to cancel contracts and pay a penalty.
Here, they see a rather unusual demand and must have made some calculation that making the original 'n' units and earning good will by doing that, per the original contracts is better (even at a loss) than breaking contract and paying the penalty at a loss of goodwill.
Did anyone actually think this was far fetched? I thought this guy was being totally serious, and it is the most likely event, actually discussed in the article.
This also assumes that their calculation of what's worthwhile includes less tangible stuff, like being seen as a company that is receiving and meeting a high demand for devices and growing in device market share.
If that's the case, just make them and restock the HP web store. Don't come out and say you're doing another run out of charity to not leave their dear customers disappointed.
It's possible that HP could sell the parts alone for over $100. But if they view the parts as a sunk cost (worth $0), it's possible that assembling TouchPads and selling them for $100 is rational.
Having location services enabled and recording location history are two completely different things. A am very surprised more people are not concerned about this. Wonder if Microsoft or Google is doing the same thing on their phones.
Well considering AT&T can just as easily log the same thing and you wouldn't need to go to all the effort of going to someone's house and confiscating their computer and/or phone, I'm not sure why anyone should be any more concerned than they already are.
