Only if you didn't understand that it is irrelevant how little Linux does for the UI. It is running , and without it Android wouldn't run. Once Linux is replaced with some other kernel in Android devices, then and only then can it be said to be not Linux.
To be more pedantic, you can say Android devices' kernel is less Linux than some GNU/Linux distributions, but Linux nevertheless. Since the one used in Android is modified more from the one maintained at kernel.org. In which case, "going with Linux" is completely true. Could be a shortcut for "going with modifying Linux instead of writing a complete kernel themselves".
None of it amounts to evidence that "running just fine" is any evidence of Unix having solved most of the problems even if we assume it had solved most of the problems in an earlier era.
No , idiot, I never said that. Not is it my position.
My position is that "running just fine" is no evidence of Unix having solved most of the problems, even if we assume it had solved most of the problems in an earlier era.
No, you have presented nothing that can be called evidence by a literate person. Simplest way to make your case will be :
1. Enumerate all "problems" 2. Prove they are "solved" by Unix of the mainframe era, without any new development / innovation since then. Or at least 51% of the problems.
Otherwise, a mathematical formula of which all solutions are the existing problems could also work. I don't think such a formula has been discovered, but you can try.
More confused thinking and unsubstantiated assumptions. With price points changed, poorer people use computers directly. Who might have different problems.
With times changed, different use cases are popular at different periods in time. Laws change, cultures change, habits change, generations change.
Not so, when it remains to be proven that "most of the problems" are identical in different hardware, price points, associated use cases, latency requirements etc.
It fails to solve all the problems if and only of it fails to solve all the problems. A horse runs just fine on my commute path, but it does not solve all the problems of commuting. Cars don't either, BTW.
If not running is the only way you can imagine problems not being solved, you have extremely poor imagination.
Yeah, running "just fine" is identical to "solving all problems". You are exemplifying the confused mindset that causes an inability to create quality stuff.
If i tell you something that is bad for the environment and good for my profit : I am the jerk. If you believe it, you are the idiot. If you don't believe it but do the thing bad for the environment, you are the jerk too.
So both companies and their customers are to blame : either idiocy or jerkness.
Again, people don't like paying for things they don't have too
You are thinking from a scarcity mindset. If "paying" just means devoting some of the robots work for the benefit of others, many people would do it gladly. Just follow any open-source software development mailing list, and you might find people ready to "pay" a lot that they "don't have too". Many of them are not prepping their resumes for searching a job.
Software development is one of the recent development in the history of mankind where one can give without losing anything. Time would flow anyway at the rate of one second per second - so one doesn't really "give" time. Just do one thing in preference to another. And this development has shown the huge willingness of people to give when there is no real scarcity.
So it is all about who owns the near infinite resources. If it is a few psychopaths - then yes they may not want to "pay". But if the distribution is wider such that "normal" people are also able to "pay" - one might again discover the goodness of mankind.
For once I agree with you - the Slashdot story should have more about executives leaving. Which is not a catastrophe - but could have interesting hidden/non-hidden reasons - even from nerd point of view. The whole weed business has been blown out of proportion.
Though without the weed hype, the story does not have enough weight to reach Slashdot main page. We could combine it with fresh developments in the pedo case - that never gets old.
If Consumer AI doesn't have a future, how can that non-existent future be seen ?
In an alternative interpretation, the author has seen the future of Consumer AI and so of course it exists. But the future of the future of Consumer AI doesn't exist. I.e. Future of Consumer AI doesn't have one - where "one" stands for future.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if you didn't understand that it is irrelevant how little Linux does for the UI. It is running , and without it Android wouldn't run. Once Linux is replaced with some other kernel in Android devices, then and only then can it be said to be not Linux.
To be more pedantic, you can say Android devices' kernel is less Linux than some GNU/Linux distributions, but Linux nevertheless. Since the one used in Android is modified more from the one maintained at kernel.org. In which case, "going with Linux" is completely true. Could be a shortcut for "going with modifying Linux instead of writing a complete kernel themselves".
Yes, they can go deeper into debt slavery that way - constant income is a loan magnet
No, idiocy is a loan magnet leading to debt slavery.
Yeah, many idiots expect to be charmed : one way their idiocy is not called out. You are no exception.
I repeat, in deference to your idiocy : running fine does not mean a continued solved nature of "most problems".
Bye, study some logic before spouting your ignorance.
Examples of a logical implication relation ? Are you so motivated to prove your mental retardation ?
And I then pointed out that the ...
None of it amounts to evidence that "running just fine" is any evidence of Unix having solved most of the problems even if we assume it had solved most of the problems in an earlier era.
No , idiot, I never said that. Not is it my position.
My position is that "running just fine" is no evidence of Unix having solved most of the problems, even if we assume it had solved most of the problems in an earlier era.
Wow, you don't even know my position yet. What do you imagine my position to be?
No, you have presented nothing that can be called evidence by a literate person. Simplest way to make your case will be :
1. Enumerate all "problems"
2. Prove they are "solved" by Unix of the mainframe era, without any new development / innovation since then. Or at least 51% of the problems.
Otherwise, a mathematical formula of which all solutions are the existing problems could also work. I don't think such a formula has been discovered, but you can try.
More confused thinking and unsubstantiated assumptions. With price points changed, poorer people use computers directly. Who might have different problems.
With times changed, different use cases are popular at different periods in time. Laws change, cultures change, habits change, generations change.
Not so, when it remains to be proven that "most of the problems" are identical in different hardware, price points, associated use cases, latency requirements etc.
Funny how much less idiotic you can appear when you know the difference between solving most problems and running just fine.
Interesting retrospective redefinition of "just fine" to defend your idiocy.
It fails to solve all the problems if and only of it fails to solve all the problems. A horse runs just fine on my commute path, but it does not solve all the problems of commuting. Cars don't either, BTW.
If not running is the only way you can imagine problems not being solved, you have extremely poor imagination.
Yeah, running "just fine" is identical to "solving all problems". You are exemplifying the confused mindset that causes an inability to create quality stuff.
If i tell you something that is bad for the environment and good for my profit : I am the jerk. If you believe it, you are the idiot. If you don't believe it but do the thing bad for the environment, you are the jerk too.
So both companies and their customers are to blame : either idiocy or jerkness.
Again, people don't like paying for things they don't have too
You are thinking from a scarcity mindset. If "paying" just means devoting some of the robots work for the benefit of others, many people would do it gladly. Just follow any open-source software development mailing list, and you might find people ready to "pay" a lot that they "don't have too". Many of them are not prepping their resumes for searching a job.
Software development is one of the recent development in the history of mankind where one can give without losing anything. Time would flow anyway at the rate of one second per second - so one doesn't really "give" time. Just do one thing in preference to another. And this development has shown the huge willingness of people to give when there is no real scarcity.
So it is all about who owns the near infinite resources. If it is a few psychopaths - then yes they may not want to "pay". But if the distribution is wider such that "normal" people are also able to "pay" - one might again discover the goodness of mankind.
Linus disagrees with everyone about the relative success of Linux vs GNU too : https://groups.google.com/foru... . He is modest, to put it mildly.
If Amazon promised to keep delivering, sure. Like Apple did.
So it is Apple's largesse to keep its own promise of redownloadability ? "Holding it wrong" is strong with this one.
Trusting Apple was surely the customer's mistake - I agree with that. Now, excuse me, Amazon's largesse that I paid for has arrived at my doorstep.
So they did not refund. Thanks for confirming.
I got the impression that Apple did not refund the money they took to sell other people's stuff. Is that not correct ?
For once I agree with you - the Slashdot story should have more about executives leaving. Which is not a catastrophe - but could have interesting hidden/non-hidden reasons - even from nerd point of view. The whole weed business has been blown out of proportion.
Though without the weed hype, the story does not have enough weight to reach Slashdot main page. We could combine it with fresh developments in the pedo case - that never gets old.
It is "quelle horreur"
If Consumer AI doesn't have a future, how can that non-existent future be seen ?
In an alternative interpretation, the author has seen the future of Consumer AI and so of course it exists. But the future of the future of Consumer AI doesn't exist. I.e. Future of Consumer AI doesn't have one - where "one" stands for future.
Any other interpretations ?