The argument from GP was that reducing probability of service does not matter as long as the probability is greater than zero.There was no mention of paying or non-paying.
Gmail is relaying your message to a few people
No. With IMAP and SMTP access you can run a simple script to send to millions. And irrelevant, because original argument was that reducing probability does not matter.
When you start paying for Facebook or Gmail starts handing out listserv access to everyone then you have a more accurate comparison.
If Facebook removed your ability to post, that might be bait and switch. People can still post to their fans. It just will not reach ALL of them with 100% certainty.
That is completely unreasonable. 100% is implicit in any statement. What if shopping at Amazon starts shipping with a probability of 15-20% ? Emails sent from gmail? It will all be unreasonable, as is the Facebook switch to stochastic posts.
Something like Linux won't develop... nor most of the Android phones sold by major retailers - they're all closed and while it's possible to hack around them, you have to (ahem) hack around them and the boot lockers get better each and every year.
Something like Linux IS developing on most Android phones - cyanogenmod and its ilk. Yes bootloaders are getting better - earlier one needed to hack. Now Samsung and HTC have an official policy of open bootloaders. Sony doesn't, as far as I know, but hackers have always broken their bootloaders pretty quickly. Motorola was the only one with "un-hackable" bootloaders for some phones, but it has been bought by Google - and since then not many phones have been released but one "developer-oriented" phone has been released with explicit open-bootloader policy.
As far as Android goes, your point is completely false.
gain you bring cost into a discussion that has nothing to do with cost. Linux being free isn't why features don't get backported. They don't get backported because it's not worth the effort involved.
No. Linux being free, as in beer, is why it doesn't matter that features are not backported by the initial provider. And it being Free, as in freedom, is why the backporting can be done by oneself.
What competes with 802.11 ? Still we have seen a, b, g, n over past few decades. Lots of devices support them, sometimes even before the standard is finalized.
It is a "standard". People using Microsoft software don't know what that means, but it does mean something.
One more difference between Ubuntu and Mint philosophies is that Mint has better out of box support. It comes with "less free " stuff like flash, mp3 codecs, etc whereas on Ubuntu one needs the extra step to install them.
It is the tendency of ignorant fools to remain ignorant. They want to appear as if they were interested in being informed but there is so much information available already that if they were truly thirsty for it they wouldn't be for long. And people who cannot find that wealth of information are too dumb to understand the concept of Linux Mint anyway.
Nowhere do these people explain what they would do if someone describes a Linux distribution to them. FWIW, I have no idea why you exist and what makes you different (or, in fact, preferable) to other ignorant people.
Holy Noodly Appendage. You didn't bother to explain why you exist. Why should anyone bother explaining anything to you. What are your goals. Your special features except ignorance and pride in it. Why should one take time to put up a "Mint for extra-dumb dummies" explanation for you?
Business users would typically look for something with a longer support cycle, like centos. So no use complaining about lack of business features in a distribution targeted to non-business users.
It bothers me greatly that such a large number of people are so beholden to Apple, that they would attempt to justify any action it takes, regardless of how horrendous it is, rather than make the personal admission that perhaps their devotion wasnt justified.
I guess it is the way we have evolved. At times our tribes would be "wrong", but it won't do to admit it. Such discussions would cause lynching, or at least an ouster from one's own tribes. So we have developed ways to justify our "tribe"'s behaviour.
I have been following US and UK broadband plans over last 6 years. For every "win" in terms of relaxed data caps, there is at least one "lose" in terms of tighter data caps. Not counted among these are many service providers in many geographical areas which have stopped providing higher (70 / 120 / 150 GB) caps per month to plans directed towards consumer segment. Speeds have tripled, sure. But you cannot use that speed because of the data caps. I don't see the "gigabit land line speeds" approaching, in the real sense i.e. with matching data caps too.
The things IMHO that are most likely to move online are the 'fattest' files too, audio and video collections
Sure, which consumes the data caps fastest. Way to alienate the customer in the first week of trying this. We have (wireless, though) plans that consume data caps in 10 minutes of using the advertized download speed.
Even without incredibly faster network speeds smarter caching helps
Who is doing the "smarter caching" ?
but surely we're moving towards gigabit land line speeds.
Evidence? Not the theoretical "we should be moving towards land line speeds". The real evidence.
Network speeds and data caps aren't growing at a pace where cloud storage can be useful without a local copy in the foreseeable future. So the cloud storage is IN ADDITION to local storage. At best it eliminates the local BACKUP copy.
I've seen both behaviours over last many years. Fedora has preferred the latter, Ubuntu has preferred the former. There is a configuration file somewhere, something like bash-completion, to define your preference.
Anyway, even this \$W evaluates to the same, doesn't it. If not, it is a problem sure, but still a fault of configuration rather than bash itself.
Yes but the new architecture is only an evolutionary one. There is nothing to suggest it will suddenly make ARM "comparable" to x86 in any sense. If new architecture ARM is comparable to x86, old one is as well because the new in in turn comparable with the old.
So your comment was specific to Samsung processors? Do you think Samsung will do something no ARM processor manufacturer has been able to do? By a significant margin? Why?
you can fit more ARM cores at the same space and same price. If the performance is comparable (what we don't know yet, but isn't an unreasonable assumption)
Isn't it unreasonable? Let's see.
Let us assume that an ARM core occupying less space, consuming less power, and cheaper has comparable performance to an x86 core. This would mean that large server farms (facebook, Google, Amazon and others) have an advantage by switching over to ARM. None have switched even though they are very concerned with space, power and cost.
Hence our original assumption was wrong. Which means that an ARM core does not have comparable performance to an x86 core.
You forgot that you were saying Android is not Linux. Anyway, what IS mainstream Linux? My TV runs a very small kernel, from Linux 2.4 . Is it mainstream?
First out take exception to people calling Linux Linux, which android is. Then you use even more inexcusable terminology? Mainstream? It doesn't mean anything unless explicitly defined.
The only really fair way to approach fees for patents used in standards is a clear and unchanging fee charged per device
What if it is a mammoth device serving a city or a state, say a million people? Backbone switch? Real value is the number of people served multiplied by value add to those people's lives. To calculate this one would spend more than the patent is worth.
There is no "really fair", just what is easy to account for. Your Apple fanboyhood is your current determinant of "really fair".
I meant all userland software written to work on Linux
Then Google Maps for Android is definitely a userland software written to work on Android/Linux. If here you say Android/Linux is not Linux, this would be circular argument : by assuming Android is not Linux you will be arguing Android is not Linux.
All distribution kernels work the same way to userland as the mainline kernel of the same version
No, read the debian policy. Running "rpm -qpl kernelxxxx.src.rpm" on a Centos kernel usually returns quite a number of patches.
Moreover, they work the same way with third-party modules
Not possible to be exactly the same if code patches have been applied.
Slashdot Mirror
You are paying for Amazon
The argument from GP was that reducing probability of service does not matter as long as the probability is greater than zero.There was no mention of paying or non-paying.
Gmail is relaying your message to a few people
No. With IMAP and SMTP access you can run a simple script to send to millions. And irrelevant, because original argument was that reducing probability does not matter.
When you start paying for Facebook or Gmail starts handing out listserv access to everyone then you have a more accurate comparison.
No, just read the part of GP I responded to.
This is idiotic. Google has built an empire around free.
If Facebook removed your ability to post, that might be bait and switch. People can still post to their fans. It just will not reach ALL of them with 100% certainty.
That is completely unreasonable. 100% is implicit in any statement. What if shopping at Amazon starts shipping with a probability of 15-20% ? Emails sent from gmail? It will all be unreasonable, as is the Facebook switch to stochastic posts.
Something like Linux won't develop ... nor most of the Android phones sold by major retailers - they're all closed and while it's possible to hack around them, you have to (ahem) hack around them and the boot lockers get better each and every year.
Something like Linux IS developing on most Android phones - cyanogenmod and its ilk. Yes bootloaders are getting better - earlier one needed to hack. Now Samsung and HTC have an official policy of open bootloaders. Sony doesn't, as far as I know, but hackers have always broken their bootloaders pretty quickly. Motorola was the only one with "un-hackable" bootloaders for some phones, but it has been bought by Google - and since then not many phones have been released but one "developer-oriented" phone has been released with explicit open-bootloader policy.
As far as Android goes, your point is completely false.
gain you bring cost into a discussion that has nothing to do with cost. Linux being free isn't why features don't get backported. They don't get backported because it's not worth the effort involved.
No. Linux being free, as in beer, is why it doesn't matter that features are not backported by the initial provider. And it being Free, as in freedom, is why the backporting can be done by oneself.
What competes with 802.11 ? Still we have seen a, b, g, n over past few decades. Lots of devices support them, sometimes even before the standard is finalized.
It is a "standard". People using Microsoft software don't know what that means, but it does mean something.
How did you manage to get Intel graphics with AMD CPU?
One more difference between Ubuntu and Mint philosophies is that Mint has better out of box support. It comes with "less free " stuff like flash, mp3 codecs, etc whereas on Ubuntu one needs the extra step to install them.
It is the tendency of ignorant fools to remain ignorant. They want to appear as if they were interested in being informed but there is so much information available already that if they were truly thirsty for it they wouldn't be for long. And people who cannot find that wealth of information are too dumb to understand the concept of Linux Mint anyway.
Nowhere do these people explain what they would do if someone describes a Linux distribution to them. FWIW, I have no idea why you exist and what makes you different (or, in fact, preferable) to other ignorant people.
Holy Noodly Appendage. You didn't bother to explain why you exist. Why should anyone bother explaining anything to you. What are your goals. Your special features except ignorance and pride in it. Why should one take time to put up a "Mint for extra-dumb dummies" explanation for you?
Business users would typically look for something with a longer support cycle, like centos. So no use complaining about lack of business features in a distribution targeted to non-business users.
It bothers me greatly that such a large number of people are so beholden to Apple, that they would attempt to justify any action it takes, regardless of how horrendous it is, rather than make the personal admission that perhaps their devotion wasnt justified.
I guess it is the way we have evolved. At times our tribes would be "wrong", but it won't do to admit it. Such discussions would cause lynching, or at least an ouster from one's own tribes. So we have developed ways to justify our "tribe"'s behaviour.
I have been following US and UK broadband plans over last 6 years. For every "win" in terms of relaxed data caps, there is at least one "lose" in terms of tighter data caps. Not counted among these are many service providers in many geographical areas which have stopped providing higher (70 / 120 / 150 GB) caps per month to plans directed towards consumer segment. Speeds have tripled, sure. But you cannot use that speed because of the data caps. I don't see the "gigabit land line speeds" approaching, in the real sense i.e. with matching data caps too.
The things IMHO that are most likely to move online are the 'fattest' files too, audio and video collections
Sure, which consumes the data caps fastest. Way to alienate the customer in the first week of trying this. We have (wireless, though) plans that consume data caps in 10 minutes of using the advertized download speed.
Even without incredibly faster network speeds smarter caching helps
Who is doing the "smarter caching" ?
but surely we're moving towards gigabit land line speeds.
Evidence? Not the theoretical "we should be moving towards land line speeds". The real evidence.
Lessons learnt from past experience don't hold good because technology keeps changing.
They don't declare spin speed for green drives, it is "optimum". There is a severe shortage of blue drives , especially higher storage capacities.
Network speeds and data caps aren't growing at a pace where cloud storage can be useful without a local copy in the foreseeable future. So the cloud storage is IN ADDITION to local storage. At best it eliminates the local BACKUP copy.
I've seen both behaviours over last many years. Fedora has preferred the latter, Ubuntu has preferred the former. There is a configuration file somewhere, something like bash-completion, to define your preference.
Anyway, even this \$W evaluates to the same, doesn't it. If not, it is a problem sure, but still a fault of configuration rather than bash itself.
Yes but the new architecture is only an evolutionary one. There is nothing to suggest it will suddenly make ARM "comparable" to x86 in any sense. If new architecture ARM is comparable to x86, old one is as well because the new in in turn comparable with the old.
So your comment was specific to Samsung processors? Do you think Samsung will do something no ARM processor manufacturer has been able to do? By a significant margin? Why?
you can fit more ARM cores at the same space and same price. If the performance is comparable (what we don't know yet, but isn't an unreasonable assumption)
Isn't it unreasonable? Let's see.
Let us assume that an ARM core occupying less space, consuming less power, and cheaper has comparable performance to an x86 core. This would mean that large server farms (facebook, Google, Amazon and others) have an advantage by switching over to ARM. None have switched even though they are very concerned with space, power and cost.
Hence our original assumption was wrong. Which means that an ARM core does not have comparable performance to an x86 core.
QED
"Android software won't work on a mainline Linux kernel" == "it's not Linux".
Quite a strict definition. Overwhelming majority of software won't run without a libc or equivalent. Too bad all are "not Linux" in your view.
Linux userland
Unfortunately for your "argument", there is no such thing.
It won't work on mainstream Linux
You forgot that you were saying Android is not Linux. Anyway, what IS mainstream Linux? My TV runs a very small kernel, from Linux 2.4 . Is it mainstream?
First out take exception to people calling Linux Linux, which android is. Then you use even more inexcusable terminology? Mainstream? It doesn't mean anything unless explicitly defined.
The only really fair way to approach fees for patents used in standards is a clear and unchanging fee charged per device
What if it is a mammoth device serving a city or a state, say a million people? Backbone switch? Real value is the number of people served multiplied by value add to those people's lives. To calculate this one would spend more than the patent is worth.
There is no "really fair", just what is easy to account for. Your Apple fanboyhood is your current determinant of "really fair".
gentleman's agreements
This is a euphemism for mutually-assured-destruction days of pre-Apple smartphone world and the cold-war days.
I meant all userland software written to work on Linux
Then Google Maps for Android is definitely a userland software written to work on Android/Linux. If here you say Android/Linux is not Linux, this would be circular argument : by assuming Android is not Linux you will be arguing Android is not Linux.
All distribution kernels work the same way to userland as the mainline kernel of the same version
No, read the debian policy. Running "rpm -qpl kernelxxxx.src.rpm" on a Centos kernel usually returns quite a number of patches.
Moreover, they work the same way with third-party modules
Not possible to be exactly the same if code patches have been applied.