[AccessD] SMB - HTML5 mobile-friendly web sites vs. native mobile apps - Was:Re: Bootcamp or Paralells - was RE: OT: iPhone/iPaddevelopment on an MS Windows PC - noway?

Salakhetdinov Shamil mcp2004 at mail.ru
Thu Sep 20 05:36:11 CDT 2012


Hi Jim --

Thank you for your detailed reply.

<<<
Open Standards and the associated Open Source products offer
greater diversity and opportunities in the long term.
>>>
OK. I must note I didn't argue with that point in this thread.

<<<
Proprietary software may offer fast larger profits but they 
are short-term...ten years maximum generally less. 
>>>
That's exactly what I'm looking for. :)
I have no luxury to plan even for five years ahead.
And I'm 30 years in this industry - starting my programming carrier using proprietary assembler, Algol, Fortran, then IBM360/370 macro-assembler, PL/I, ... - actually everything as I have read and used all the IBM370 system and programming docs - that were not a lot, then PDP11/RSX11M - on system core level as well as on application level - again all docs read from cover to cover, then IBM PCs - skipped assembler/system level this time and have been programming mainly on utility and application level but used different programming languages and technologies etc.

I will write a bit more on that my "short-term" plan in this thread next week - please note I prefixed this thread subject with 'SMB' - Small-Middle-Size business - this is my target customers base, I do not work for corporate companies. 

<<<
As long as you balance those facts, what ever development
environment you decide on and what level of risk you are most comfortable
with will work. 
>>>
Sure.

Thank you.

-- Shamil


Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:35:43 -0700 от "Jim Lawrence" <accessd at shaw.ca>:
>Hi Shamil:
>
>
Just some clarification here first: Apple is not a software company, it is a
>
hardware company. Even the core to Apple PCs are borrowed from OpenBSD (OSS
>
Unix/Linux) software...it is more like any other Linux distro.
>
>
You are right that fixed dictated standards are restricting but the phrase
>
is OPEN standards. These are not hard and fast but they are agreements
>
within the entire industry. 
>
>
Just like electricity coming to your house. If every supplier put their own
>
standard on the delivery, cycles, power-levels etc, no one would be able to
>
trust the functionality of their equipment. Right now there are four major
>
electric standards in the world, each has different set of plugs but there
>
are universal transformers so I know my laptop will work whether I am in
>
Canada/US, in Europe/Russia, Britain (they are weird ;-)) or in Japan/China.
>
>
The computer industry, by necessity is the same thing.
>
>
I think in this industry a developer, starting out, has to first have and
>
keep a solid background in the Open Standards products...that for the most
>
cases will be their "bread and butter"...the long-term meal ticket. Then and
>
only then a developer should specialize...realizing of course that all
>
proprietary languages on custom platforms have a relative short lifespan and
>
the technology could get dumped at a moments notice.
>
>
Case in point: I know more dead-languages than live ones. I used to be a SCO
>
senior product re-seller and a CNE (Certified Novell Engineer) but we all
>
know what happened to SCO and Novell when the OSS product, Linux hit the
>
market. Access is not dead but can you imagine where it would be at if it
>
was a OSS product and not being restricted by the whims of the owner.
>
>
In summary; Open Standards and the associated Open Source products offer
>
greater diversity and opportunities in the long term. Proprietary software
>
may offer fast larger profits but they are short-term...ten years maximum
>
generally less. As long as you balance those facts, what ever development
>
environment you decide on and what level of risk you are most comfortable
>
with will work. 
>
>
Jim
><<< skipped >>>

>


More information about the AccessD mailing list