Except for the fact that the "graphical trickery" makes things like graphic design, non-linear video editing, and numerous other tasks far easier than a CLI would be? Just because your tasks are limited to things that a keyboard might be best at doesn't mean everyone does.
I agree with you on many points. The problem is that the person above was spreading blatantly false and made up "facts". This is why most people shrug off what privacy advocates say, because the most vocal and shrill exaggerate and make things up to back up their statements. So again, the person I responded to was not make misstatements he was LYING.
It was not a misstatement. It was making shit up. 911 calls have always required the relaying of location otherwise the system would be wireless. That E911 also requires location to be relayed was not some government post-911 plot, it's simply applying the same rules to wireless 911 calls. How would calling 911 on your cellphone be useful if you can't be located?
Not to mention he doesn't even tell us the name of this supposed law that was passed. Apparently the people making feature phones with no GPS didn't get the news about GPS being mandatory by law.
You can disable GPS completely, moron. Hell my Galaxy S has GPS that doesn't even work most of the time anyway. Not to mention there are plenty of phones with no GPS at all. Don't let these facts get in the way of patting your own back though.
Right, because the Google flagship phones (Nexus One, Nexus S, Galaxy Nexus) have been some of the most closed phones... Oh wait, they are some of the most open devices out there, far more open than the Droid you bought on Verizon or the Atrix you bought on AT&T...
Because companies can never change their minds or change direction, right? No, companies never do things like that. This isn't saying Google will do it, but it's extremely naive to think that they will forever continue to do what they do now.
Why would it be suicide? They would share the source with their partners in the OHA and them alone. You don't actually think Android is open source for the benefit of the purchasers of the phone do you? If so, you're incredibly naive.
Google is a massive company and if they wanted to make their own phones with their own closed OS, they'd have done it by now.
Except for that pesky little fact that they have no infrastructure or experience in producing phones? So, no, before acquiring Motorola they would most NOT have been able to do that if they wanted to. That's the whole reason why they are buying Motorola so they CAN do so.
You can maintain your own version for as long as you need to move to the new API, thereby being less disrupted.
Unless you are writing toy programs, almost no one has the ability these days to take on the role of maintaining every piece library or API that they rely on. So, no, you are just as disrupted because then you now have to get up to speed on the source code of each of these pieces you have to maintain which depending on what the library/API/etc is can be a monumental task. Far more painful than just adapting to the API change.
No one said large projects don't fork. His point was that large projects are usually impossible to fork by a single or small group of developers. OpenOffice.org and XFree86 were only possible to be forked because there were tons of people and commercial companies willingly to fund the work. If Joe Developer didn't agree with the path of XFree86 it would have been nigh impossible for them to sustain fork on their own without needing probably countless weeks or months in order to even gain a tiny ability to reasonably maintain it. In which case they are just as much put out as if some proprietary API had been changed and had to rewrite their work. And honestly, the second scenario is probably vastly easier to adapt to.
So you are trying to equate some single developer having to fork what could be complex software and spend their own time and money to do so to a fork of a project that has a number of large commercial companies behind it that can fund the developers to work on it? Are you an idiot?
Yes, of which neither could have been forked by a single developer or even a small group of developers. They are on the other hand given lots of development through paid developers.
Maximizing profit != price fixing. Also increasing the price of a product when the artist dies is also not illegal. So you know, price fixing means you collude with some other party to only buy or sell a product at a fixed price through controlling supply and demand. There was no price fixing in this case.
You haven't between following Kodak.much recently, eh? Most of their revenue HAS been from patent lawsuits. The reason Kodak went into bankruptcy was because they failed to get their payday after suing HTC, RIM and Apple.
How can they be violating angry-trust laws when they don't even hold a majority of the market? Aren't we reminded daily by the fandroids about how Android has more market share? Secondly, Kodak sued them first and Apple is just doing the typical countersuit that happens in pretty much all patent cases. Kodak is nothing but a patent troll these days.
Because the patent suit Kodak made against Apple first was okay but Apple is now evil for countersuing? Maybe Kodak shouldn't have picked the fight in the first place?
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the fact that the "graphical trickery" makes things like graphic design, non-linear video editing, and numerous other tasks far easier than a CLI would be? Just because your tasks are limited to things that a keyboard might be best at doesn't mean everyone does.
No this would be the second release since 2006. 0.95.1 was released 2.5 weeks ago.
I agree with you on many points. The problem is that the person above was spreading blatantly false and made up "facts". This is why most people shrug off what privacy advocates say, because the most vocal and shrill exaggerate and make things up to back up their statements. So again, the person I responded to was not make misstatements he was LYING.
It's not made anyone a criminal for "reading a book" this is a crackdown on a site flagrantly facilitating copyright infringement. Boohoo.
It was not a misstatement. It was making shit up. 911 calls have always required the relaying of location otherwise the system would be wireless. That E911 also requires location to be relayed was not some government post-911 plot, it's simply applying the same rules to wireless 911 calls. How would calling 911 on your cellphone be useful if you can't be located?
Not to mention he doesn't even tell us the name of this supposed law that was passed. Apparently the people making feature phones with no GPS didn't get the news about GPS being mandatory by law.
You can disable GPS completely, moron. Hell my Galaxy S has GPS that doesn't even work most of the time anyway. Not to mention there are plenty of phones with no GPS at all. Don't let these facts get in the way of patting your own back though.
Because unscrewing 2 screws, sliding off the backing and removing the battery is so hard?
Right, because the Google flagship phones (Nexus One, Nexus S, Galaxy Nexus) have been some of the most closed phones... Oh wait, they are some of the most open devices out there, far more open than the Droid you bought on Verizon or the Atrix you bought on AT&T...
Because companies can never change their minds or change direction, right? No, companies never do things like that. This isn't saying Google will do it, but it's extremely naive to think that they will forever continue to do what they do now.
Why would it be suicide? They would share the source with their partners in the OHA and them alone. You don't actually think Android is open source for the benefit of the purchasers of the phone do you? If so, you're incredibly naive.
Google is a massive company and if they wanted to make their own phones with their own closed OS, they'd have done it by now.
Except for that pesky little fact that they have no infrastructure or experience in producing phones? So, no, before acquiring Motorola they would most NOT have been able to do that if they wanted to. That's the whole reason why they are buying Motorola so they CAN do so.
You can maintain your own version for as long as you need to move to the new API, thereby being less disrupted.
Unless you are writing toy programs, almost no one has the ability these days to take on the role of maintaining every piece library or API that they rely on. So, no, you are just as disrupted because then you now have to get up to speed on the source code of each of these pieces you have to maintain which depending on what the library/API/etc is can be a monumental task. Far more painful than just adapting to the API change.
No one said large projects don't fork. His point was that large projects are usually impossible to fork by a single or small group of developers. OpenOffice.org and XFree86 were only possible to be forked because there were tons of people and commercial companies willingly to fund the work. If Joe Developer didn't agree with the path of XFree86 it would have been nigh impossible for them to sustain fork on their own without needing probably countless weeks or months in order to even gain a tiny ability to reasonably maintain it. In which case they are just as much put out as if some proprietary API had been changed and had to rewrite their work. And honestly, the second scenario is probably vastly easier to adapt to.
So you are trying to equate some single developer having to fork what could be complex software and spend their own time and money to do so to a fork of a project that has a number of large commercial companies behind it that can fund the developers to work on it? Are you an idiot?
Yes, of which neither could have been forked by a single developer or even a small group of developers. They are on the other hand given lots of development through paid developers.
Maximizing profit != price fixing. Also increasing the price of a product when the artist dies is also not illegal. So you know, price fixing means you collude with some other party to only buy or sell a product at a fixed price through controlling supply and demand. There was no price fixing in this case.
Because you represent all computer users in the world, right?
They assign you someone else?
Yea it is. Companies do it all the time in patent cases. How is it not grounds to countersue?
You haven't between following Kodak.much recently, eh? Most of their revenue HAS been from patent lawsuits. The reason Kodak went into bankruptcy was because they failed to get their payday after suing HTC, RIM and Apple.
Thanks for proving my point. Waaaah Apple is suing a patent troll!
How can they be violating angry-trust laws when they don't even hold a majority of the market? Aren't we reminded daily by the fandroids about how Android has more market share? Secondly, Kodak sued them first and Apple is just doing the typical countersuit that happens in pretty much all patent cases. Kodak is nothing but a patent troll these days.
Waaaah. Kodak shouldn't have been patent trolling. Which is basically all they've been for the last couple of years.
Because the patent suit Kodak made against Apple first was okay but Apple is now evil for countersuing? Maybe Kodak shouldn't have picked the fight in the first place?
Then maybe the dead house shouldn't have died in Apple first? Waaaaaah! How dare Apple fight back after being sued!
Because Kodak sued them first? Along with HTC and RIM. Waaaaah how dare that big bad Apple fight back!