If the layoffs are as he describes, then I'll join him in predicting doom for AMD. AMD has no future without its engineers.
Problem is, for quality employees, announcement of layoffs is a sign to move on. If you have brains, you would work at a company that respects you. Public announcement of layoffs is NOT respecting your employees. So even cancelling the layoffs is not a complete remedy.
Why are we talking about only wireless networks here? The devices in question have wifi. And some software might me 100MB or more, but everyone needs some small software which they are used to downloading, at least when on wifi. Which will not work on RT. Which is what the topic of the article.
Got sources for that? Software these days are multi-gigabyte
More than 1% of Software is multi-gigabyte? Are you insane? Search for "best windows software" - gives makeuseof as the first result. 50-60 software listed on first page for windows, none of them multi-gigabyte.
Second result : download.com. Top-20 software by number of downloads listed on home page. None of them multi-gigabyte.
If less than 1% of software is multi-gigabyte, it is highly misrepresentational to say "Software these days are multi-gigabyte". It is the other 99% of Software that can easily be downloaded being discussed.
Since Windows 8 and Windows RT running on a tablet bears no resemblance physically or visually to what people are used to in terms of a traditional Windows 7/XP desktop/laptop form factor
No, their laptop is likely to come with Windows 8. Tiles and the works.
Microsoft imposed that (really stupid) 800x480 resolution lock and other restrictions
So what differentiation is possible when phone makers cannot choose the screen resolution / processor / number of processor cores?
With Android, they could differentiate on the basis of all these, and also modify the OS kernel / userspace itself. And you say they have more differentiation with MS than with Android? WTF?
There's a reason most successful tech companies are the ones who follow standards, whereas the companies that implement proprietary solutions have died off or been marginalized
Not a falsifiable statement. Apple is "non-standard" in ways in which Apple is successful. Micro-USB? Installability on IBM compatible PC? Apple has other standard compliant behaviours. Similarly with Google, IBM, Facebook. Microsoft is an exception because it is a monopoly? Software world , especially non-enterprise one, is highly prone to monopolies. Everyone wants monopolies, and it is certainly possible in software world. And since potential reward is huge, companies try hard to get that monopoly. Not following standards is part of that "trying".
Examples of monopoly / overwhelming market success because of the network effect : Microsoft (OS, office), tally , Adobe (photoshop / flash), facebook, Google (search, advertising).
In enterprise market, it is difficult to get a monopoly. Oracle database is highly successful, but network effects are not as strong as in consumer software . Server OSes are still in healthy competition - AIX , HP-UX, Linux, Solaris, Windows, and more; all are significant players.
And they know that standards are not determined by ideology or by license agreements. Standards are determined by usage. ISO certification doesn't make a standard a standard. Critical mass does
The advantages that a standard could have, are negated by non-formal standards.Do-it-like-MS-word-97 as a "standard" has none of the advantages of a standard. Critical mass notwithstanding.
That, and if this is just an API or headers, then it's not copyrightable, with precedent being set by Oracle vs. Google
Copyright on the headers is not enabling Linux developers to deny Nvidia the right to link in this manner. Copyright on the whole of kernel is. Court cases have established that linking via header files makes a product a "derivative" product as far as GPL goes. Derivative products must be GPL or compatible - Nvidia's closed source license is not GPL or compatible.
the Linux community have consistently demanded more from Nvidia than Nvidia have frOm the Linux community
So all the nvidia hardware running on linux machines was provided by nvidia for free? Nvidia didn't "demand" money for the graphics cards, for instance?
that thinking about it ("to each one according to his need, from each one according to his abilities") it's possibly closer to communism
No, with GPL, even those who do not "need" are given. And even if you are a struggling startup, you still get no exemption from your GPL obligations. Not close to communism in any sense.
Capitalism (and communism too) is based on the obsolete scarcity model - goods are scarce so rules have been defined for a "fair" exchange of goods. GPL takes into account that the scarcity model is not true any more for "software" goods, or "source code" goods. This is a major way in which GPL differs from capitalism and communism both.
But other than that, communism is a economic as well political philosophy. GPL doesn't need any of the political support needed by communism. The legal support it does need (copyright) is more readily provided by capitalism oriented polity than communism oriented polity. So, while differing from both capitalism and communism in the major way of scarcity management, it is ever so slightly closer to capitalism.
Why do you need to complicate things so much? If you need (something like) the top of a desk to use your machine, it is a "desktop machine". Simple.
For mouse, you need around 1 foot x 1foot flat surface. The top of a desk provides (more than) that, most other surfaces don't. So yeah, adding a mouse makes it a 1 square foot desk top device.
Keyboard, you can manage on your lap, but the top of a desk is much more convenient. Again, a semi-desktop device.
External monitor / TV : typically too large to keep anywhere but the top of a desk, so yes, connecting via HDMI to an external monitor / TV makes the device a desktop device.
Better? I'll give you much better. On a 1920x1080 screen, have 2 million 73 thousand 600 "buttons" to launch various activities. Then you can have a specific button for every activity a windows user can possibly think of.
Except that "more buttons" is not always better. It takes fewer clicks but more searching among the lots of different buttons for the one you are looking for.
so you can get crap-ware free apps, that uninstall FAST and CLEAN, that don't bog down your computer
???
Windows itself doesn't uninstall FAST and CLEAN. It always screws up other OSes installed on the same hard drive.
And Microsoft has been the king of bogging down your computer. My 2007 home computer with Linux is more responsive than my i7 work laptop running Windows 7.
"you" being the "generic you"; as in the vast majority of new pcs sold ship with current version of windows. Get over yourself.
If I have the choice, the generic you is not so unfortunate to not have one.
Ah yes, lets glorify XP, the OS we mocked for a decade for needing 'root' for most software to run; and ridiculed for how easily it got infected.
If the OS you are trying to glorify is not noticeably better than XP, e.g. in snappiness department, it is not exactly glorifying XP. It is actually stating the uselessness of having achieved "snappiness" now, by an OS, when hardware progress has provided it for everyone, including 11 year old OS from the same company.
If you buy a new PC it will have win8 on it; its not really a choice so much as a default.
What idiocy is this? Maybe if YOU buy a new PC, it will have win8, but me? I decide what I buy, not you.
So the question at hand is whether there is any reason to raise a screaming fuss that its going to have windows 8 on it. The answer is no. There is not.
So you start imagining that it is more "snappy" than windows 7. Or start asserting that "snappiness" is any more a reason to choose an OS over a 11 year old OS, with unnoticeable snappiness difference when using an SSD. Using an SSD has become almost like using a dedicated Good defence mechanism, though not every one is so completely suffering from Stockholm syndrome as you.
There really isn't any compelling reason cling to 7 over 8.
In reality, not affected by your Stockholm Syndrome induced defence mechanisms, there is. E.g. windows 7 works reasonably well on an older PC? If you commit the cardinal sin of reading TFA, you will hear Paul Allen's arguments too, though much tempered , being a (ex- or maybe not) Microsoftie himself.
But for you, definitely. Full agreement there, considering your condition.
Intel is also a motherboard manufacturer, so I don't see any logic in your comparing Intel with MSI. That is alone enough to disprove your original statement about all motherboards having reasonable Linux/BSD drivers.
Turning pearls red is equally irrelevant.
Even with its predecessor, the atom with powervr graphics, linux drivers were horrible. No accelerated X, POST failed after suspend, general crashiness reigns. So technically there being no reason linux can be installed doesn't mean linux works like one would want it to work.
Existence of such horrible linux drivers on sold computers is enough to debunk your stupid statement.
There is a website called "www.google.com". You can search details about a vast resource of information on it by just typing in the related keywords to that information. Awesome, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
If the layoffs are as he describes, then I'll join him in predicting doom for AMD. AMD has no future without its engineers.
Problem is, for quality employees, announcement of layoffs is a sign to move on. If you have brains, you would work at a company that respects you. Public announcement of layoffs is NOT respecting your employees. So even cancelling the layoffs is not a complete remedy.
Why are we talking about only wireless networks here? The devices in question have wifi. And some software might me 100MB or more, but everyone needs some small software which they are used to downloading, at least when on wifi. Which will not work on RT. Which is what the topic of the article.
Got sources for that? Software these days are multi-gigabyte
More than 1% of Software is multi-gigabyte? Are you insane? Search for "best windows software" - gives makeuseof as the first result. 50-60 software listed on first page for windows, none of them multi-gigabyte.
Second result : download.com. Top-20 software by number of downloads listed on home page. None of them multi-gigabyte.
If less than 1% of software is multi-gigabyte, it is highly misrepresentational to say "Software these days are multi-gigabyte". It is the other 99% of Software that can easily be downloaded being discussed.
Since Windows 8 and Windows RT running on a tablet bears no resemblance physically or visually to what people are used to in terms of a traditional Windows 7/XP desktop/laptop form factor
No, their laptop is likely to come with Windows 8. Tiles and the works.
At least it has a bit more differentiation.
Microsoft imposed that (really stupid) 800x480 resolution lock and other restrictions
So what differentiation is possible when phone makers cannot choose the screen resolution / processor / number of processor cores?
With Android, they could differentiate on the basis of all these, and also modify the OS kernel / userspace itself. And you say they have more differentiation with MS than with Android? WTF?
There's a reason most successful tech companies are the ones who follow standards, whereas the companies that implement proprietary solutions have died off or been marginalized
Not a falsifiable statement. Apple is "non-standard" in ways in which Apple is successful. Micro-USB? Installability on IBM compatible PC? Apple has other standard compliant behaviours. Similarly with Google, IBM, Facebook. Microsoft is an exception because it is a monopoly? Software world , especially non-enterprise one, is highly prone to monopolies. Everyone wants monopolies, and it is certainly possible in software world. And since potential reward is huge, companies try hard to get that monopoly. Not following standards is part of that "trying".
Examples of monopoly / overwhelming market success because of the network effect : Microsoft (OS, office), tally , Adobe (photoshop / flash), facebook, Google (search, advertising).
In enterprise market, it is difficult to get a monopoly. Oracle database is highly successful, but network effects are not as strong as in consumer software . Server OSes are still in healthy competition - AIX , HP-UX, Linux, Solaris, Windows, and more; all are significant players.
And they know that standards are not determined by ideology or by license agreements. Standards are determined by usage. ISO certification doesn't make a standard a standard. Critical mass does
The advantages that a standard could have, are negated by non-formal standards.Do-it-like-MS-word-97 as a "standard" has none of the advantages of a standard. Critical mass notwithstanding.
That, and if this is just an API or headers, then it's not copyrightable, with precedent being set by Oracle vs. Google
Copyright on the headers is not enabling Linux developers to deny Nvidia the right to link in this manner. Copyright on the whole of kernel is. Court cases have established that linking via header files makes a product a "derivative" product as far as GPL goes. Derivative products must be GPL or compatible - Nvidia's closed source license is not GPL or compatible.
the Linux community have consistently demanded more from Nvidia than Nvidia have frOm the Linux community
So all the nvidia hardware running on linux machines was provided by nvidia for free? Nvidia didn't "demand" money for the graphics cards, for instance?
that thinking about it ("to each one according to his need, from each one according to his abilities") it's possibly closer to communism
No, with GPL, even those who do not "need" are given. And even if you are a struggling startup, you still get no exemption from your GPL obligations. Not close to communism in any sense.
Capitalism (and communism too) is based on the obsolete scarcity model - goods are scarce so rules have been defined for a "fair" exchange of goods. GPL takes into account that the scarcity model is not true any more for "software" goods, or "source code" goods. This is a major way in which GPL differs from capitalism and communism both.
But other than that, communism is a economic as well political philosophy. GPL doesn't need any of the political support needed by communism. The legal support it does need (copyright) is more readily provided by capitalism oriented polity than communism oriented polity. So, while differing from both capitalism and communism in the major way of scarcity management, it is ever so slightly closer to capitalism.
Why do you need to complicate things so much? If you need (something like) the top of a desk to use your machine, it is a "desktop machine". Simple.
For mouse, you need around 1 foot x 1foot flat surface. The top of a desk provides (more than) that, most other surfaces don't. So yeah, adding a mouse makes it a 1 square foot desk top device.
Keyboard, you can manage on your lap, but the top of a desk is much more convenient. Again, a semi-desktop device.
External monitor / TV : typically too large to keep anywhere but the top of a desk, so yes, connecting via HDMI to an external monitor / TV makes the device a desktop device.
But every advance these wearable/integrated computers get will get rolled back to my desktop PC
Not if the "advance" is patented.
which is still better than the start menu imo
Better? I'll give you much better. On a 1920x1080 screen, have 2 million 73 thousand 600 "buttons" to launch various activities. Then you can have a specific button for every activity a windows user can possibly think of.
Except that "more buttons" is not always better. It takes fewer clicks but more searching among the lots of different buttons for the one you are looking for.
so you can get crap-ware free apps, that uninstall FAST and CLEAN, that don't bog down your computer
???
Windows itself doesn't uninstall FAST and CLEAN. It always screws up other OSes installed on the same hard drive.
And Microsoft has been the king of bogging down your computer. My 2007 home computer with Linux is more responsive than my i7 work laptop running Windows 7.
No noticeable difference from Windows XP on an SSD
7 and 8 are noticeably different in that 8 is faster.
Not on an SSD, which is becoming standard.
But in snappiness department, XP and 8 are not noticeably different. So snappiness is not an argument in favour of 8.
"you" being the "generic you"; as in the vast majority of new pcs sold ship with current version of windows. Get over yourself.
If I have the choice, the generic you is not so unfortunate to not have one.
Ah yes, lets glorify XP, the OS we mocked for a decade for needing 'root' for most software to run; and ridiculed for how easily it got infected.
If the OS you are trying to glorify is not noticeably better than XP, e.g. in snappiness department, it is not exactly glorifying XP. It is actually stating the uselessness of having achieved "snappiness" now, by an OS, when hardware progress has provided it for everyone, including 11 year old OS from the same company.
Missed :
Using an SSD has become almost like using a dedicated
Graphics card. Even slightly performance oriented computers would include one, but extreme budget PCs can do without.
If you buy a new PC it will have win8 on it; its not really a choice so much as a default.
What idiocy is this? Maybe if YOU buy a new PC, it will have win8, but me? I decide what I buy, not you.
So the question at hand is whether there is any reason to raise a screaming fuss that its going to have windows 8 on it. The answer is no. There is not.
So you start imagining that it is more "snappy" than windows 7. Or start asserting that "snappiness" is any more a reason to choose an OS over a 11 year old OS, with unnoticeable snappiness difference when using an SSD. Using an SSD has become almost like using a dedicated Good defence mechanism, though not every one is so completely suffering from Stockholm syndrome as you.
There really isn't any compelling reason cling to 7 over 8.
In reality, not affected by your Stockholm Syndrome induced defence mechanisms, there is. E.g. windows 7 works reasonably well on an older PC? If you commit the cardinal sin of reading TFA, you will hear Paul Allen's arguments too, though much tempered , being a (ex- or maybe not) Microsoftie himself.
But for you, definitely. Full agreement there, considering your condition.
Ok, you can loop from here : http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3159595&cid=41548647
Last I checked, "motherboards with Intel's new atom" was not a CPU.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3159595&cid=41547181
Intel is also a motherboard manufacturer, so I don't see any logic in your comparing Intel with MSI. That is alone enough to disprove your original statement about all motherboards having reasonable Linux/BSD drivers.
Turning pearls red is equally irrelevant.
Those motherboards more often than not come with the processor. And processor not having good linux support also debunks your point equally well.
Even with its predecessor, the atom with powervr graphics, linux drivers were horrible. No accelerated X, POST failed after suspend, general crashiness reigns. So technically there being no reason linux can be installed doesn't mean linux works like one would want it to work.
Existence of such horrible linux drivers on sold computers is enough to debunk your stupid statement.
Famously motherboards with Intel's new atom?
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/136276-intel-clover-trail-atom-chips-cannot-run-linux
There is a website called "www.google.com". You can search details about a vast resource of information on it by just typing in the related keywords to that information. Awesome, isn't it?