| What is this article even about? > "everyone that’s there talking, [...] - none of them has ever run infrastructure. [...] And there’s a few vocal people that do and have done stuff" What does this even mean? So do they have experience or not? (in reality majority doesn't, but then again majority doesn't set the course for the project during the summits) > "Until someone contributes the pieces of the stack that OpenStack needs to become a real platform, Hoffman doesn’t see it amounting to more than the Unix-based Common Desktop Environment did as a Windows alternative in the 1990s." What pieces exactly? "accessibility" and "platform features"? They're not pieces, they don't exist in isolation. You can't add an accessibility piece, just like you cannot take a product and add security. Also, how can a desktop environment be an alternative to an operating system? > "a lot of the internet-facing and webscale companies" Did he really say that in a serious context? > "all of a sudden be driving by AT&T Park and everyone’s tweeting and Instagramming during the game and your car stops working" If you design your car in a way that the basic functions (engine, breaks, steering, etc.) compete for the same resources your IM app uses, that's a problem with basic design, not with connectivity. This article really makes me angry. It's a load of bullshit and who-should-do-what that's either completely incorrect or left without any explanation about the reasons. </rant>, sorry |
Yes, I agree. Problem is that cars are turning into pseudo entertainment centers on wheels. You can only put so much tech into a car until the costs of doing so becomes a burden. Then its just more cost cutting measures. Which might include having one on-board computer powering all of the systems.