Although I find Dziuba's apparent disdain for advertising puzzling, it's good to hear some good 'ol profanity-strewn dissent for a change--a much needed alternative to the likes of "Internet Blowhards", Arrington and Scoble (not that I actually spend time reading them). He's like an articulate, foul-mouthed John C Dvorak (who I happen to like, BTW).

So check it out (my official stamp of approval).

In addition to the PS3, I figured I should buy a game while I was there--something both my fiance and I would enjoy. So I scanned the game selection (which is rather limited for the PS3, mind you) looking for a somewhat family-friendly, gender-neutral title and Sonic The Hedgehog was the first to catch my eye. I'd played the original Sega version of the game as a youngster. While it was no Super Mario Brothers, it was entertaining at least--and arguably groundbreaking for it's time. So I picked it up.

...hours pass.

DON'T buy Sonic the Hedgehog for the PS3! In a word, it sucked. It was clearly rushed to production in a desperate attempt to fill the gaping void that exists at the moment for, like I said, "Gender-Neutral", "Family Friendly" PS3 titles. The graphics are not much better than something you'd see on the PS2. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this game was made for the PS2 and ported to the PS3 for the specific purpose of exploiting this gap.

Luckily, the PS3 I bought came with another game, Motor Storm, which is very fun. In fact my fiance, the motive behind the Sonic debacle, loves it too. How ironic.

Basically, read reviews before you fork over that 50. Don't be a schmuck like me!

I would go on about how traditional office environments suppress creativity, stifle innovation and subject otherwise productive engineers to hours of pointless meetings, but you've heard it all before--it's a tiresome cliche.

My reasons for parting from the traditional rout are both staunchly practical and deeply personal and although this is a blog after all, the home of self-indulgent yammering, I'd be assuming too much about my audience if I went into more detail. So I will leave it at that. I harbor no resentment and I'm moving on...

To ensure posterity of a comment I made on reddit regarding this very subject, I give it to you here, unedited.

I want to preserve this, so I can point to it years later and say something like, "SEE!?, I was 75% correct!". Not bad.

" The Microsoft saga is far from over. They're still pushing .net as THE development platform to rule them all.

It seems like no one noticed that MS is forcing .Net on developers who want to write software for Vista. I haven't heard a peep about this.

Although startups may not have to worry about Microsoft stealing their business through direct competition, many of them (especially those in the business of cross-platform desktop apps), are certainly effected by their actions.

It may seem as if web-based startups are fairly safe for now but a close look at the new .net technology from MS, like the Windows Presentation Foundation and XAML reveals a development model quite similar to what Adobe has been so feverishly pushing with FLEX, and now Apollo.

I suspect that MS and Adobe are evolving in parallel--in a race to win widespread adoption of THE one development model for all software--web-based or not.

Web developers are reaching the limits with what they can accomplish with browser-based software. A new growth platform needs to be provided by someone somehow and from what i can tell it will likely come from either MS, Adobe or SUN. Therefore, by virtue of being on this list of contenders, MS is far from dead."

But thanks to an article from ars technica (that I discovered through my trusty news aggrigator, Newsmash), I'm finally seeing the significance of this new release. And it's a big fucking deal, and not necessarily in a good way for web developers like myself. The following quote pretty much sums it up...

"...To get a first-class experience in Windows Vista, to fully exploit the new display subsystem, to utilize all the new features that Vista will provide, applications will have to be .NET applications."

Although I'm not necessarily against the move toward ubiquitous managed code (In fact, i think it's a good idea if the VM is not owned by a private entity), Microsft's continued clear and intentional borg-like efforts toward vendor lock-in make Vista, technical superiority aside, a little difficult for me to greet with open arms.

Only time will tell the full implications of this ".NET or suck" decision by Microsoft. Perhaps there are technical reasons for this approach but it smacks of an anti-Java move. Only time will tell.