Sometimes I make games. Sometimes I make websites. This is my blog.
There’s a common misconception that mobile is the future of software development. Mobile, in this context, means a touchscreen device like your phone or tablet.
I’m not picking on this particular author — he is simply regurgitating a common assumption — but this is the type of sentiment I’m writing about:
The era of the laptop and personal computer will eventually come to an end, but not until they allow developers and power users to do everything they can on high-end devices as easily on mobile devices. Before this can happen professionals of all sorts, the power users of the various platforms will need as much memory and processing power as they are currently using. (Source: grack.com)
I disagree with this mindset, almost entirely.
I do agree that most software development will happen for mobile devices, but I do not believe that software development will be on mobile devices, at least for quite a while, if ever.
There are two types of users: creators and consumers. The creators among us are the ones who tinker, who take things apart, who build things “just because.” Their needs are entirely different from the consumers, who enjoy having things “just work,” and do not need to know (or want to know) how it does that. Simply, consider the difference between a person who watches a movie and a person who makes a movie.
The problems with being a creator on mobile platforms are not related to the amount of performance we can get from them. Indeed, some of the higher-end tablets are very fast and quite capable of handling software development (my field), at least from a hardware point-of-view. It’s not the performance of mobile hardware, it’s their draconian software licenses and their sick culture of walled gardens which prevent us creators from doing our work.
The number one issue holding software development back on mobile devices is the operating systems which they run. Android, iOS, BlackBerry, and Windows Phone, all require “rooting” before most of the software is even available to a developer. As a developer, I don’t want to work on a device that does not obey my commands, nor do I want to work on one that requires a hack in order to obey my commands. This sort of device might be great for your mom and dad to watch things on, but it’s certainly not designed for creators to build things on.
Right now, the ideal development machine is the one in which I use: a PC laptop, running Linux and Windows. It lets me build anything I want quickly and without hassle. I don’t have to deal with any sort of bogus license agreements or ask for permission to build software for it.
In Canada, cell phones are sold locked to a certain carrier. This means that before you can switch providers, you have to call and pay to have your phone unlocked. Who really owns the phone, then? Can you imagine having to do that for your car if you wanted to buy gasoline at Shell instead of Esso/Exxon? It’s outrageous and a huge overstepping of authority by cell phone providers.
The most exciting parts of building hardware or software come from the freedom to explore, to scratch your own itch, then share that solution with your friends, who will go on to use it and change it to scratch their own itches. Mobile is heading in the opposite direction: locking everything down to keep the technical bits hidden away, and the fun of creation along with it.
There is a place for consumers. After all, the market cap of consumers is many times that of creators. But the place for consumers cannot come at the expense of the place for creators. Maybe the two never meet? Would that be a problem? Is there a solution which solves both needs? Does there have to be?
Until things change course and mobile device manufacturers start selling devices with open and libre software set, including operating system, and offering sane license agreements, this creator will stick with his laptop and Linux + Windows, thank you very much.
I just want to back up my Minecraft world files. All told, it’s about 70 GiB in size. It shouldn’t be this hard.
First, let’s talk about the Windows client. I had the files on my removable hard drive and the Windows Google Drive client on my first laptop. I wanted to install the client on my second laptop and sync the same set of files no matter which laptop the hard drive was plugged into.
This means that, even though I had the whole thing, up-to-date, and sitting on my drive, I was not allowed to continue syncing from there. Instead, I had to create a brand new folder and re-download all of my files.
As soon as the Google Drive client was done installing into the new folder, I moved all the files back into my proper Google Drive folder and began the syncing process. After letting it go over night, I woke up to it duplicating all of my files. It went ahead on its own and instead of comparing the files that were already there, it downloaded all the files again and appended (1) to the file name.
I want to download all my files from my Google Drive. This seems like it would be a straight-forward process. Unfortunately, it is not allowed. A Google Drive customer cannot download more than 2GB at one time without installing the Google Drive Windows client. And, even if they were able to, the files would convert automatically to some crazy old-school MS Office formats. It’s either that, or skip the download.
This is basic stuff, guys… We figured this out before I was born in 1983. Unfortunately, the most basic use-cases are beyond Google Drive. One folder, copied into another, should over-write whichever file-names are already there. Unfortunately, Google Drive does not do this and simply duplicates the files in the new folder. A user cannot ever merge two folders together.
With the Windows Google Drive client, there is no way to set a speed limit on uploads or downloads. That means that whenever a file uploads, it’ll saturate your connection with no ability to override (save pausing syncing entirely), bringing your Internet to a complete halt.
Any reasonable cloud drive provider has this figured out pretty early. Google Drive is years old.
The Google Drive web interface looks nice but it’s really slow and doesn’t provide the basic use-case coverage that Windows Explorer does (or Dolphin, or Konqueror, or Midnight Commander, etc.) such as cut/paste, etc. If I’ve got 70 GiB of files that I need to upload online, SFTP is a proven and stable means. No need to reinvent the wheel.
This method would also work great in place of having to install the Google Drive Windows client to download folders over 2GB in size.
There is much more to tell. This is just the start.
Instead, I’m going to take a look at some other backup-and-share solutions. Any suggestions?
When showing someone your start-up/product/service, it’s easy to let them guide your thinking unconsciously. It feels like there’s an inverse proportion of weight given to feedback to sample size, especially if it’s the first time taking the cover off.
Here’s a really great example of why one should always take every bit of advice as advice and not gospel: