All Nikon/Canon competitors only comprise 20% of the market
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 24 Jul 2010 11:10 David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > Hardware fails, software (usually) continues working as well as it did on > day one, with the OS for which it originally worked. Bitrot. It explains why there are more security patches every month for supposedly stable software, for example. -Wolfgang
From: David J Taylor on 25 Jul 2010 04:08 "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:obcrh7-236.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... > David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >> Hardware fails, software (usually) continues working as well as it did >> on >> day one, with the OS for which it originally worked. > > Bitrot. No. > It explains why there are more security patches every > month for supposedly stable software, for example. > > -Wolfgang Irrelevant to my point, though. David
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 25 Jul 2010 19:53 David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message > news:obcrh7-236.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... >> David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>> Hardware fails, software (usually) continues working as well as it did >>> on >>> day one, with the OS for which it originally worked. >> Bitrot. > No. http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/b/bitrot.html >> It explains why there are more security patches every >> month for supposedly stable software, for example. > Irrelevant to my point, though. In theory you are right, in practice however, software ages not always gracefully. -Wolfgang
From: David J Taylor on 26 Jul 2010 03:20 "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:ldvuh7-b7b.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... [] > In theory you are right, in practice however, software ages > not always gracefully. > > -Wolfgang Perhaps it's the systems around the software, or the applications to which it is put, or the environment in which it is run, which "ages"? [Date dependant code - tax calculators - excepted, of course]. Cheers, David
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 26 Jul 2010 19:12
David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >> In theory you are right, in practice however, software ages >> not always gracefully. > Perhaps it's the systems around the software, or the applications to which > it is put, or the environment in which it is run, which "ages"? They too age. Some of these systems around the software are also software ... e.g. the OS. Obvious examples for aging software is software written for hardware that is no longer common, say graphic cards of certain types or software assuming CRTs (or 5 1/4 inch floppy disks) ... or just systems (which may still work perfectly) that no longer fulfill the needs that have become expected or needed in the meantime.[1] -Wolfgang [1] DSLRs that are not instant on, focussing systems that work but take ages by comparison, 0.3 MPix digital cameras, chemical sensors now expected to do ISO 3200 without much noise, black and white TV sets, ... or in software, editors like edlin[2], notepad as a programmers' editor, etc. All of them (well, maybe except edlin) were good in their days, but are no longer good today. [2] The poor cousin of ed, which is the line-centric editor part of vi (for *visual* editor --- where you see the whole text and where you can just move the cursor to where you want to change things. Unlike ed.[3] [3] Don't get me wrong, there are some advantages to ed. You can program it instead of moving to each single place to edit manually. |