Put the knife down and take a green herb, dude.
One feller's views on the state of everyday computer science & its application (and now, OTHER STUFF) who isn't rich enough to shell out for www.myfreakinfirst-andlast-name.com
|FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY!!! Back-up your data and always wear white.|
|Thursday, August 27, 2015|
Note to self:
posted by ruffin at 8/27/2015 02:29:00 PM
|Tuesday, August 25, 2015|
A quote from a blog I'm reading a lot more regularly now, Baldur Bjarnason's:
And then a follow-up here:
I'm not sure what the angle Bjarnason's ascribing to RMS, but I bet I'll repeat it here accidentally.
Look, here's the problem with OSS... Well, here's the problem with indie-garage software coders (the toymakers) in general: As RMS says, software [sic] wants to be free. That's in large part why the App Store prices raced to the smallest possible (imagine if Apple had let you set any price! How many 12Â¢ apps would there be?). The marginal cost of distributing software, once written, quickly approaches nil.
What's neat is what you can do with software. If you make software that enables people in real time to do something interesting, you can sell that service. Software naturally enables. If your hours of github wrangling is worth 98Â¢ in actual cashola, but enables you (and others) to perform thousands of dollars of services, well, yes, github is your resume.
That is, if you chose to write server-side code, you've already boxed yourself into a use that'll never be customer facing. The flip side is -- your faceless, nearly designless software is barely worth anything on its own. There are so many replacements for what you've done. If you charge so much as 99Â¢, folks will go elsewhere. It stinks, but it's the hard truth. Sellable software requires design, serious design. Otherwise you'll never hit that group of end-users willing to give you real cash (the "market").
So it's better to give your services-focused software (your jQuery plugins and SQL profilers) away for free. At least then the barrier to entry of licensing and price is gone, and you have what's at worst an even playing field with your like-minded competitors. You probably still won't build the next Bootstrap, but now you at least have a shot. Hard truth time? Even those folks that try to eek a living out of customer-facing apps, and who are good at it, have a really hard time making ends meet.
And there's nothing wrong with writing code for a job. Server-side programming pays well. You will love your salary for doing brainteasers.
But you're not overtly using open source to be political in this case. You're following the market's natural direction. That is, these "resume" projects you're making are likely the easiest worthless projects (insert a smilie and remember that my assertion is that all software wants to be free and is, eventually, essentially worthless) you could make. And, again, good for you. Most people never share excellent worthless work. ;^)
Free Software's alternative
If Bjarnason's point is that non-GPL licenses are too lenient, I've agreed for years. You have to use a protective license if you want to create a privileged space that competes with capitalism. You must use capitalism to create this Free haven. The most brilliant, Deluezo-Guattarian move GNU ever made was to copyleft software. Use copyright to fight copyright. Use capitalism to fight capitalism. Inhabit, reassemble, and redirect. Don't fight head-on.
And it's the lack of inhabitation that's killing the dream of OSS (and GNU) idealists. Where are OSS' best wins on the client? LibreOffice, which is still a big win. Firefox, less important now that there's mobile, as Bjarnason points out. Even The Gimp or Audacity were good apps.
But none of these are best in class designs. Where is the better mail client, the better word processor, the better personal finance software? Where is the better desktop OS? Where is my hoverboard?
Cutting closer to the bone, how much Free software do you use "at home"? How about that phone in your pocket? Is it Free software? Look man, it's not. You're happy to use OSS at work, but you're not using it at home. How do you expect work software to make your home life better? How is Free software going to improve your life if you don't use it?
Better yet, WHY AREN'T MORE OF YOU CONTRIBUTING TO REPLICANT, the truly Free Android fork? In other words...
Why aren't we putting our time into game-changing software?
If you want to create that idealistic society that Free software enables, you have to work on projects that society cares about. As long as Free software remains derivative, it's going to be playing catch-up. And if Free clients are only as good as paid clients from ten years ago, platform-jumping (like the one from PC to mobile) will keep catching it by surprise.
Until we concentrate on the client -- that is, servicing the needs of people, dammit -- Free software will continue to gain a foothold only in those spaces where the software experience is completely fungible, like we see on servers today. It's not OSS' fault (I realize I'm conflating OSS and Free software too much) that we haven't created the ideal. It's ours.
(This is where, if I allowed myself more time, I'd start into suggestions about how to make this happen. Use Free software "at home" (and in your pocket). Learn the apps' foibles. Learn the languages used to create them, or figure out how best to recreate them. Find the pain points its users would have, and make the apps truly citizen-usable. And help folks figure out how to make Replicant work. There's like one dude plying away at the most important Free software project going, and that's simply not enough.)
posted by ruffin at 8/25/2015 10:06:00 AM
|Saturday, August 22, 2015|
So M.G. Siegler goes against all sorts of conventional wisdom and says you don't want lots of users at launch. Whaaaaat?
That's directly contrary to Dan Counsell's recent advice (see here for one), and also against common sense. I understand his point: If what you release is crap, and lots of users' first impression of you is crap, you could end up with a stinky reputation that follows you forever.
I'd like to see three companies that have suffered such a horrible fate as to be undone by Apple featuring them on the App Store.
Look, if Siegler is seeing App Store featuring as something's that's killing businesses, I've got three pieces of advice.
I think it's that easy. If free exposure is bad, your software's horrible. Learn to QA, and stop rushing to market, you wacky, initials-only venture capitalist. ;^)
* Honestly, the only way he could be getting so many users time after time that hit support so hard that it's killing businesses [to the point he doesn't want to be featured] is if they're free to download apps. Honestly, it's the *only* way.
posted by ruffin at 8/22/2015 11:02:00 AM
|Wednesday, August 19, 2015|
Whoa. Any time you blame Apple, take a step back.
Aren't there ways to provide paid upgrades? I mean, really, is it that complicated to dream up a way to include paid upgrades using In-App Purchases (IAPs)?
I understand that the MAS doesn't have a simple mechanism for making app upgrades, and is pretty clearly trying to, at least implicitly, encourage you to make software that your user buys only once and receives free upgrades forever. I understand that this isn't sustainable for indie devs, but I also know we're smart enough to work around it.
The problem's solution
So let's say I was, I don't know, writing an email client that I release just before or during 2016, and it costs you $55. It turns email from timesink to a thoughtless extension of your mind, and you can't stop yourself from clicking Buy.
During 2016, I code like mad and add a host of new features. Heck, let's get crazy and say I rewrite the entire app (btw, never do that). Now I want to release EmailClient 2017 for $55 for new folks, but only $10 for you, my loyal customer.
Seems easy on its face, doesn't it? I keep EmailClient on the MAS. It now has an IAP called, "Super Groovy 2017 features" that runs you $10. But, get this, if you never had the app installed, you get these features for free! Wait, what? Wacky, huh?
The "only" problem is implementation, and yep, it's a problem. But isn't that what we do? We solve coding problems.
How could we do it? Well, if you have an email client, you have all sorts of methods, the most straightforward probably being to save a hash to a sandboxed folder with some user-identifying info, some salt, and the date of first use. And any app could do this reasonably safely, even without a simple web service, making the unlock of new features difficult, though obviously not impossible, to crack..
Poof. We have upgrade pricing. Right? I mean, it's a little code smelly, but we have it.
EDIT: I guess there's one issue -- we'll have an IAP those users don't need to buy. That's a tough call; I haven't played around with IAP on the MAS yet. Any context there? Can you hide an IAP inside of the app? Or direct folks directly to the IAP? I think the only IAP I've done is a tip for Pedometer++, and it seems like he had links to each option, which is very much like the prereq IAP stacking I mention, below.
The absolute worst case here is that we have to ship two apps painfully grafted into one. I've heard horror stories (particularly from the Core Intuition folk, if my memory serves) of moving from long untouched libraries to the recent ones, keeping old versions of XCode and OS X laying around to do emergency patches, and other related issues. I'm not sure you could ship some of this obsolete stuff easily in an app that's targeting 10.11.
Which brings me to the other upshot of this plan...
Eventually you're going to give it away for free
Maybe not in 2017, but at some point, maybe three releases later, I'm going to give everyone what's in EmailClient 2017, and give it to them for free. That is, you don't want an IAP list that says, "EmailClient 2017 Features, $10 -- EmailClient 2018 Features $10 -- EmailClient 2019 Features $10". If they didn't upgrade in 2017 or 2018, sort of like the license crackers, are they really in your market? They paid once. Why not give them a two year-old set of features?
And there are going to be times when it doesn't make sense to keep bundling together Frankenstein with the original parts. Occasionally, you might need to update EmailClient Y-1 to keep the tech stack in line with this year's EmailClient Y, but now that releasing grafted upgrades is your actual strategy, you can code defensively so that you minimize code that goes obsolete next year. Sometimes it's not going to be worth the trouble to make Y-1 play nicely with Y, and you'll be stuck. Let's just hope that, for the most part, your code from last year doesn't go obsolete within 24 months in impossible to fix ways too often.
I'm not sure if you can "stack" IAPs -- that is, require that users have EmailClient IAP 2017 before they can see EmailClient IAP 2018. I'm guessing you can't create "prerequisite IAPs", or I would've heard of a game doing it somewhere. "Want 400 gems for $5? You can, but first you've gotta buy 100 for $10!" Or worse: "$20 to unlock 1000 gem packs for $1!"
But not having IAP prerequisites isn't that bad, is it? And if things ever get so gnarly that you don't want to give something away for free, well, you have other options.
There are nearly limitless ways to approach this problem. And, again, that's what brings us to the keyboards each morning, right? Fun, clever solutions to real-world problems. I mean, heck, Overcast already figured out how to perform an end-run around trial apps. Why can't we do the same for paid upgrades?
Which is not to say the MAS doesn't still stink for new releases. This ycombinator comment in particular pains me:
I can see that. I wonder what percentage of folks review what kinds of apps. I have no idea.
I guess this just gives more weight to the lesson I hear everywhere: You have to advertise outside of the MAS to sell MAS apps. The MAS is one and only one of your storefronts (was it Liscio who built up this metaphor? He's been everywhere (#70) recently). You send trucks full of software there, but you're still responsible for convincing people they want to buy. If you count on Wal-Mart's shelf placement to sell your goods, you're not doing enough to grow your business.
Which is not to say we shouldn't keep challenging Apple to make the stores better. Which was Counsell's point all along, I think.
(Btw, if this is the first time you've read my blog, there's a decent, just under 110%, chance you won't want to read everything, which is pretty heavy on "notes to self" style posts. You might prefer to watch just the indie tag instead.
Unless you're Sam Soffes, in which case, if you're not as laid back (in that good way) as you sound, you might take this post badly. But then you could destroy this site's beautiful design, basically unchanged since 2001, and make up for it pretty quickly.)
Yes, the parenthetical in the title is supposed to remind you of Loser.
 I think it was Charles Perry's AltConf talk that had some number like 0.01% of surveyed iOS App Store authors considered their apps financial successes. If you ask me, that's a pretty good explanation for all the abandonware. That and the fact that as the store progresses, by definition there are going to be more abandoned apps. I'm guessing there are very few resurrections. So don't get too down on the app store yet! (Perry's slide is below. Go watch his talk, and then a few more from AltConf too!)
 Now is as good as any to admit I'm a C# guy just starting to write for OS X. Yes, I'm using Xamarin in the hopes that makes going crossplatform much easier. That said, I've used Macs for years, and have even contributed to a few Mac sites and a [trivial] piece in the Mac Bible's 6th edition, but in many places here, I'm talking without platform-specific knowledge of what the implementation would require.
 I've been told that a lock is designed to keep an honest [hu]man honest. I think that's fair. We're doing the same thing here, because, honestly, what percentage of crack-artists were going to pay for your app? It's not zero, but it's also not close to 100%.
 If you find that your code is going obsolete every 18 months, you might need to reconsider your dev workflow. ;^)
posted by ruffin at 8/19/2015 02:03:00 PM
|Tuesday, August 18, 2015|
Customize how Find in Files results are displayed in the Find Results Window - The Ultimate Visual Studio Tips and Tricks Blog - Site Home - MSDN Blogs:
You can customize your Find in Files results to show what you want to see and how you want to see it.
Surely he jests. Right? No, fellow mere mortals, he does not.
Gamechanger. ;^) It's the little things, man, the little things.
posted by ruffin at 8/18/2015 04:32:00 PM
|Monday, August 17, 2015|
Update: I think it's partially a PEBKAC, partially a horrible UI issue. Win 10 is under optional updates, and you can simply turn it off. Let's see if this works...
So I noticed that security updates were piling up in Windows Update, and tried to see what was going on. Looks like Windows Update is forcing me to install Windows 10, and won't let me get my security updates until those two gigs are downloaded. And I'm not sure that it's going to let me do it then, either, as my latest update history says that it tried to install Win10 and failed.
Here are the updates I want:
Notice NONE of those related to Windows 10. I select them all and get this screen:
If I cancel that download, I get this:
I'm unable to install the Windows 8.1 security updates because of Windows 10. That's not cool. I'm downloading the whole thing now, and if it tries to install Windows 10 when it's done, well, I'm not going to be horribly happy.
Edit: Doesn't look good. I stopped it, but I'm security updateless again.
posted by ruffin at 8/17/2015 08:28:00 AM
|Thursday, July 30, 2015|
"The problem with doing a project that's important to you in your spare time is that there isn't any... If the only time you're working on your project is at five o'clock, then how important is it to you?" (5:57)
Obviously an oversimplification, but not by much. One of the common refrains I hear from folks who do indie dev is that they grow their side apps to a certain income level before they leave their 9-to-5 (or 7-to-7 or what-have-you). That's smart, of course. But it helps if your app ideas are reasonably-sized, and your outside commitments are reasonably small, and if you're able to hit big on your reasonably-sized app. That sounds smart and safe, right?
But those same constraints from the half-empty perspective are this: You can grow your important project into a living if your idea is small, you don't have a life, and you get really lucky.
I just blogged when I hit these quotes, but Coudal's point is, apparently, if you're not committed to your project, you're really not that serious. If it's a great idea, sell out. Doing things "in six months" or after you get something sustainable in your spare time shows (all practicalities aside for the moment) that you're afraid.
posted by ruffin at 7/30/2015 11:35:00 AM
The late 2013 27" iMac's processor is an i5-4570 at the bottom end. At least that's what Geekbench tells me (fwiw, that's not my box's stats, but one of the hits when I was looking it up).
That gets a decent result at CPUBenchmark.net (7035), though the LGA 1150 socket has some interesting possible upgrades. It's a bear to get to the iMac's motherboard, but I've been considering doing it at some point so that I can have SSD, and figure I should consider upgrading the proc at the same time. (These are the trials and tribulations of buying bottom of the line refurb to get the cheapest cost of entry to 27" iMac-dom a year or two ago. Really wish I could've gotten VESA too, but no refurbs with that were available.)
Now all that said, it looks like some LGA 1150 options really aren't options for the iMac:
Additional readers -- in particular the very helpful Andy Hucko of Bratislava, Slovakia -- were able to confirm that there are not logicboard firmware restrictions, and the above upgrade was restricted only by power, or specifically, the TDP (Thermal Design Power), which refers to the heat dissipation capability of a particular CPU cooling system.
That thread reports being able to insert an Intel Core i7-4771 Haswell Quad-Core 3.5GHz (3.9GHz Turbo) successfully, which ain't a slouch (9944), but isn't quite the bruiser that the i7-4790K is (11240).
I realize one metric isn't the be-all end-all, but that's just to get a general idea of what we're talking about.
Anyhow, there you go. Some iMac upgrade options. I'd like a little more power, and keep trying to price out a portable performance build, something like the ASRock M8 Mini ITX, which is a pretty neat looking package, and still relatively attractive at $330 even though it's a few years old. It's still pretty big -- here's a picture of it next to an XBox -- and there are probably smaller options, but you get where I'm going. If you could find an exceptionally quick, tiny whitebox, throw in a portable, USB-powered monitor and a bluetooth keyboard, we're nearly talkin'. This ASRock Mini-ITX X99 with four RAM sticks looks awesome, for instance.
Performance laptops are insanely expensive. For instance, this new Razer Blade laptop is exactly what I want, but also runs approximately one million dollars and has a video card I don't need. I "just" want something's that's insanely fast, but still portable enough to take to Starbucks that doesn't necessarily have a battery.
I can't find many laptop barebones leads right now. It looks like a Clevo/Sager is the only game in town; example barebones laptop for ~$400 here. I mean, who can resist a "Lightweight & Carefully crafted with snappy keyboard & astonishing speed Laptop."? But that's mostly dual core stuff, I think. I'm nearly back to either maxing out the iMac or piecing together another AMD whitebox and hoping for the best doing most of my perf-intensive stuff at home.
I hate it when I start feeling my boxes' ages. It's fun to look at what's state of the art, but also insanely timesinky.
Note: No clients were billed during the construction of this blog post. ;^)
posted by ruffin at 7/30/2015 10:22:00 AM
All posts can be accessed here:
Just the last year o' posts: