On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 06:24:38 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 at 20:44:57 UTC, Jerry wrote:
>> It's amazing how many people are so lazy to download Visual Studio, and some of the stupidest reason for not wanting to download it to boot.
>
> It has nothing to do with lazyness. If you're behind a proxy that abomination of a installer of Visual Studio doesn't work. I tried several times, offline and online setup, read the Studio forums. Studio 2017 installer doesn't work inside our environment at work (EU Commission). Might be an issue with our infrastructure but it's unlikely as I managed to install a lot of things before.

Your the first person that's responded to me to have said this. Do you use D at your work anyways? If you require Visual Studio at your work, the free community version probably isn't for you anyways. If you say it's not your infrastructure, then they might very well be blocking the download to your work, knowing that it's a business. But I'd say it's more likely not them blocking it. Contact IT, if you're even suppose to be installing Visual Studio on the computers at work.

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 21:36:58 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> I don't know why you go back to Apple, when you clearly cut out the part of the above excuses quote where I pointed out that _google had none of the advantages_ you think were necessary to win mobile, yet created the OS that now ships on the most mobile devices.

Android wasn't all that great in the beginning and most manufacturers didn't make much money off it. Samsung was more the exception than the rule, and no, not only Google is making Android happen. For a single company to go that route alone you better have a good starting point. Microsoft had it, obviously. Apple had it. Maybe the owners of BeOS could have done it, not sure, but there are few companies that actually could have produced a high quality OS + application frameworks + hardware in anything less than a decade. Apple could focus on hardware and drivers and a little bit of fickling with their existing OS-X frameworks. That's a major difference.

> belied by the fact that google had much less.  You talk about OS expertise, all while HP has long had their own OS's, HP-UX

That's only a generic Unix with X11 on top. HP had WebOS, but gave up on it!! I can only assume they realized it would be too time consuming and too expensive to be worthwhile.

Just take a look at how difficult it is to build something as simple as D or C++ standard library. Then multiply that by the challenges when create complete application frameworks. Nokia bought up QT (which isn't all that great) for a reason, and for _a lot_ of money!

I think you underestimate what it takes to get it all to work together in a reasonably manner. Anyhow, with Android out there as a possible contender it basically wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to invest in rolling your own OS. I assume that is the reason HP let WebOS stagnate.

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 22:28:32 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> in anything less than a decade. Apple could focus on hardware and drivers and a little bit of fickling with their existing OS-X frameworks. That's a major difference.

I didn't mean «fickling», that was quasi-norwegian… I meant «tinkering».

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 22:28:32 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 21:36:58 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> I don't know why you go back to Apple, when you clearly cut out the part of the above excuses quote where I pointed out that _google had none of the advantages_ you think were necessary to win mobile, yet created the OS that now ships on the most mobile devices.
>
> Android wasn't all that great in the beginning and most manufacturers didn't make much money off it. Samsung was more the exception than the rule, and no, not only Google is making Android happen. For a single company to go that route alone you better have a good starting point. Microsoft had it, obviously. Apple had it. Maybe the owners of BeOS could have done it, not sure, but there are few companies that actually could have produced a high quality OS + application frameworks + hardware in anything less than a decade. Apple could focus on hardware and drivers and a little bit of fickling with their existing OS-X frameworks. That's a major difference.

Google pretty much did it on their own in around five years, as all indications are that Android is mostly developed in-house.  Yes, the Android hardware vendors add polish, some drivers, and their own skins, but most of the source comes from google.

>> belied by the fact that google had much less.  You talk about OS expertise, all while HP has long had their own OS's, HP-UX
>
> That's only a generic Unix with X11 on top. HP had WebOS, but gave up on it!! I can only assume they realized it would be too time consuming and too expensive to be worthwhile.

The point is that HP had plenty of OS expertise.  As for WebOS, HP didn't buy it till 2010, when mobile sales were just passing PC sales and it was getting too late.  WebOS was not only a dumb idea, just like ChromeOS, it likely had major technical issues, judging from the reviews I read at the time.

> Just take a look at how difficult it is to build something as simple as D or C++ standard library. Then multiply that by the challenges when create complete application frameworks. Nokia bought up QT (which isn't all that great) for a reason, and for _a lot_ of money!

And yet google, much smaller than MS or HP and without the OS expertise you say is needed, did all that mostly by themselves.

> I think you underestimate what it takes to get it all to work together in a reasonably manner. Anyhow, with Android out there as a possible contender it basically wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to invest in rolling your own OS. I assume that is the reason HP let WebOS stagnate.

I think you greatly overestimate what was needed to compete in this mobile market at that time.  I'm not saying it was easy, but the PC and mobile giants before iOS/Android clearly didn't have the vision or ability to execute what google, a much smaller search company, did with Android, leaving aside Apple because of your silly claims that their existing software gave them a headstart, which is why those former computing giants are all either dead or fading fast.

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 06:24:38 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
> It has nothing to do with lazyness. If you're behind a proxy that abomination of a installer of Visual Studio doesn't work. I tried several times, offline and online setup, read the Studio forums. Studio 2017 installer doesn't work inside our environment at work (EU Commission). Might be an issue with our infrastructure but it's unlikely as I managed to install a lot of things before.

There are many good reasons why certain organisations might block the installation of Visual Studio (and not just due to its ridiculous size).

It's a monster of a (potential) threat vector, when you really think about it.

If I were managing that organisation, I'd be blocking it too ;-)

(admins can deploy internally of course, but should do so only after a detailed risk analysis).

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 18:06:25 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
>
> Thanks. I'll make use of that. I'll be happy if I can get blas/lapack working.

I just got DMD set up using those instructions (though not sure all were needed, I followed them anyway). I am probably going to make good use of this, so thanks for highlighting it.

On Thursday, 9 November 2017 at 02:23:33 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> I just got DMD set up using those instructions (though not sure all were needed, I followed them anyway). I am probably going to make good use of this, so thanks for highlighting it.

Thanks for testing it and letting us know.

I'll try it out today too....(I just have to wait till the Windows 10 iso finishes downloading...so maybe I should say... I'll try it out 'tomorrow'...

On Thursday, 9 November 2017 at 02:34:35 UTC, codephantom wrote:
> I'll try it out today too....(I just have to wait till the Windows 10 iso finishes downloading...so maybe I should say... I'll try it out 'tomorrow'...

ohhh..wtf...it's still downloading??.....gee...

I might go to sleep..and when I wake up it will be finished.

It'll be like those hours never even happened.

On Thursday, 9 November 2017 at 00:09:32 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> ...
> I think you greatly overestimate what was needed to compete in this mobile market at that time.  I'm not saying it was easy, but the PC and mobile giants before iOS/Android clearly didn't have the vision or ability to execute what google, a much smaller search company, did with Android, leaving aside Apple because of your silly claims that their existing software gave them a headstart, which is why those former computing giants are all either dead or fading fast.

Google bought the company responsible for Hiptop, which was already developing Android, where the majority of employees were former BeOS employees, many of which are still on the Android team.

On Thursday, 9 November 2017 at 12:27:49 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 November 2017 at 00:09:32 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> ...
>> I think you greatly overestimate what was needed to compete in this mobile market at that time.  I'm not saying it was easy, but the PC and mobile giants before iOS/Android clearly didn't have the vision or ability to execute what google, a much smaller search company, did with Android, leaving aside Apple because of your silly claims that their existing software gave them a headstart, which is why those former computing giants are all either dead or fading fast.
>
> Google bought the company responsible for Hiptop, which was already developing Android, where the majority of employees were former BeOS employees, many of which are still on the Android team.

Not quite, the company responsible for the Hiptop was Danger, which was acquired by MS in 2008:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danger_Inc.

Some key people left Danger to start Android before that, which is what you're thinking of.  I mentioned that 2005 google acquisition of Android earlier in this thread.  I'm not sure what point you're trying to make though, as HP, Sony, MS, Nokia, etc. had enough money to buy 50 such companies, ie google didn't have any resource or "OS expertise" advantage over those computing giants.  They certainly had a better vision for mobile and arguably other technical skills.

It's funny, everybody is now ridiculing the dismissive statements made by those giants when Android launched a decade ago:

https://www.engadget.com/2007/11/05/symbian-nokia-microsoft-and-apple-downplay-android-relevance/