"The biggest issue I have with recommending Surface is that you know the next iteration of the device is likely going to be appreciably better, with faster/more efficient hardware and perhaps even a better chassis. "
Why call this out when it is true for every single piece of consumer hardware these days?
He's basically stating that the Surface has "version 1.0" issues (in hardware and software) that he hopes will go away with the "1.1"/"2.0" release of Surface..
Yes, but your iPad 3 is still a perfectly good device with few thorny, glaring, obvious omissions.
I think that's the point the statement is trying to make: that even just looking at the device there are enough things that are glaring omissions and misses that you will feel shortchanged when they're inevitably fixed in v2.
I feel the same way about the iPad mini. The lack of a retina display in this day and age feels like a very obvious miss, and you know they will fix this next year, which makes buying it now seem like a poor proposition.
In my opinion, the lack of hardware to match at Retina resolution the rendering capabilities of the iPad 2 was a pretty HUGE miss on the iPad 3. I can't see anything so obviously missing from the Surface.
Read the article, it covers that point. If MS would have wanted to compete on that front it would have either needed to sacrifice graphics performance, or go Apple's route and design a custom SoC. One isn't acceptable and the other probably not feasible given the resources they wanted to invest.
You can run pyramid through gevent wsgi and use gevent-websockets to get the same functionality. Highly performant, no callback soup, and all one stack.
We let our users create accounts on our system or use facebook. 80% choose to create an account on our system instead of using facebook (This is an iOS app).
Fabric sends a bunch of commands over ssh. It's very simple, and your task is to write the right commands.
> Puppet in contrast to other systems emphasised on "define what I want" versus "define what todo", which is a great approach and we've [cdist] shameless cloned this approach.
With cdist and puppet you describe resources by instanciating resource types like Package, CronJob, Service, File, etc. It's very concise and high-level. Types are composable and easy to reuse, so if you see a common pattern in your configuration, you can factor it into a type.
I think the issue around this is in big companies you rarely see the reasons for the shift in priorities. At least this has been true in my experience. When priorities shifted in my last job all we got in explanation was some buzzwords and a 'trust me'. At my current startup job, when priorities change I get all the information that lead to the decision, and can also participate in making the decision.
