I've never had a single hard drive fail me. Am I just lucky or is the occurrence of hard drive failure rare?
No, you're not lucky... you simply don't use your computer much, or you upgrade equipment way too frequently.
Nevertheless, the sounds aren't as frightening when you install your system onto a fault tolerant RAID array (which, if your data has any value at all, I strongly recommend).
it is nothing more than the Vista kernel warmed over with the same core libraries
Great... so MSFT is making me pay ~$200 (or more) for a new skin/theme. If the KDE/Gnome/etc folks did this I'd probably owe them my first born by now.
Nokia... who are they?!?! OOOOH... you mean the 800lb gorilla in the room? Don't worry about him... he's waiting to see which of these niche players gets fat enough to eat for tomorrow's breakfast.
...you just discovered that "quality" is subjective, congrats!
It's really not that complicated; I'll paraphrase your two fundamental options in a way that most/.ers can understand:
This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your cubicle and believe that your organization is on track. You take the red pill - dust of your resume or maybe start your own company.
If you find yourself losing sleep over the matter just ask yourself what's better, vi or emacs?
Choosing to use an open-source application that the developer ultimately abandons seems like a much better option than using a closed-source application of the same fate.;-)
I guess it boils down to the age old question... "which is the truly free license, BSD or GPL?"
My only conclusion is that freedom is in the eye of the beholder.
That being said, I think we would be remiss to overlook the fact that Android is offering something which (to the best of my knowledge) has yet to be made available... a phone OS that isn't proprietary and not copylefted. It's my belief that more choice is better and I think consumers will be rewarded by the additional competition.
After all, sometimes we run *BSD, sometimes Linux, and on occasion we even run Windows;-)
I have to agree with Mr.Radar. After my service contract was up with Sprint I bought an unlocked GSM phone and switched to T-Mobile. I've been much happier ever since. In addition, the vicious rumors of 'coverage problems' some would have you believe seem to be greatly exaggerated (then again I'm in the NYC market which is probably serviced well due to its size). There was only one location in the last two years where I got no signal, Lake Placid NY, but free ring-tones, wallpapers, fully-functioning bluetooth and the ability to install 3rd party Java apps makes that easily tolerable.
Basically, I fear that people will go "oooh open source" [but] will likely not be able to install whatever they want, install popup blocker software, replace the kernal with homebrew apps, etc.
This is probably true for the majority (i.e. the unenlightened). However, you make an interesting point in your previous post:
The only difference being that there won't be a licensing fee to use it from Google. It may be Free As In Beer, but not to the consumer.
Therefore this should bring down the cost of better phones for that same unenlightened majority. And... if it gives the enlightened minority a few more open solutions as well, could we not agree that it is pushing the industry in the 'right' direction?
You do, by examining the product you purchase before forking over your money;-) No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to buy a phone (expect in some very perverse criminal situations, lol).
I don't think this deserves the "open source" moniker that we throw around here on/. At least, I haven't seen evidence of that yet.
Of course it deserves the "open source" moniker... Android (aka gPhone) is *not* a phone per se; it is a software platform that will run on many different phones. It will be distributed under the Apache v2 open source license, which is an OSI approved license (see my previous post).
These sentiments you post stem from the misinformation being reported by bloggers and the media as well a lack of through research on the readers' part. The handset manufacturers, cellphone carriers, and (subsequently) end-users can do anything they want with the Android operating system on their phones so long as they all abide by Apache v2.
The expectation is that many different phones will use Android. Depending on the target market the actual phone a consumer buys will be restricted to varying degrees. Presumably most *cheaper* phones will be locked down rather tightly (they might even contain varying levels of DRM).
Other phones (which I'd expect to be more expensive) will be more open. I'd guess that these phones will be targeted at developer/geek types who are more comfortable tweaking their software and are also willing to accept the accompanying risks.
Android is to cell-phones as the Linux kernel is to PC hardware. The Linux kernel itself is distributed under GPL but devices that use it are not necessarily "free". Just because that fancy new router you bought is running Linux doesn't mean that you can easily replace its kernel with a different one. However, many hardware manufacturers (e.g. HP, Dell, IBM) realize that there is a market for more customizable hardware and they manufacture certain devices so that they can be easily modified to a large extent by the consumer.
All this should allow for more choice and more competition in the market place, which should lead to greater efficiencies. But, it certainly doesn't mean that companies are going to start giving out "gPhone's" for free! Nor does it mean that consumers will have the ability to change the operating system that these phones use (although some gPhones may allow this too, yipee!).
I see no problem with this if one is very-very happy about storing their data on a google server and accessing it via the google phone OS. But I wouldn't call it free in any of the senses of that word we're accustomed to on/.
The gPhone platform (i.e. Android) will be "free" as in Apache v2 open source license, which is an OSI approved license. I would imagine many slashdotters are accustomed to this kind of freedom as well as other kinds of freedom like BSD, Mozilla, SPL, CPL, Artistic license and even Ms-PL (to name a few).
Why did you pick the Apache v2 open source license?
Apache is a commercial-friendly open-source license. The Apache license allows manufacturers and mobile operators to innovate using the platform without the requirement to contribute those innovations back to the open-source community. Because these innovations and differentiated features can be kept proprietary, manufacturers and mobile operators are protected from the "viral infection" problem often associated with other licenses.
We all know how it's going to turn out, and the rest of us are tired of your bitching. Yes, we all do know how it's going to turn out... the Windows people will be asking the open-source Unix people how to really upgrade;-)
--
Questions, comments, criticisms... are always welcome when you're among white hat hackers
kiddie porn and conspiring/threatening to kill the President Whoa there, somewhere an FBI monitoring program is going ape shit...
Yeah, the message poster should have checked the "Post Anonymously" box;-)
Blender is an open-source application... the others are not. This is a *major* consideration and will create a distinct dichotomy in these kinds of comparisons.
The fact is that Blender is the premier open-source application for this type of work. Whether it is the premier application for this type of work is largely subjective.
AFAIK, your information is outdated. The wikipedia article regarding NPTL can help shed some light.
Quoting the wikipedia article mentioned:
Before the 2.6 version of the Linux kernel, processes were schedulable entities, and there was no real support for threads. However...
FYI,the downloaded pdf report mentions this specifically and says:
To be clear, this paper deliberately concerns
itself with the commodity computer market,
where products are aimed at the mass market.
We consider the Mac to be a premium, niche
product, like a Bang and Olufsen television,
which is difficult to justify in the business world
outside of the publishing sector. We therefore
do not think that the Mac, despite claims of its
superiority, provides a meaningful competitive
threat to Microsoft.
...that used car salesmen and drug dealers use the bait and switch tactic!
How sad that this completely amoral idea is being recommended to MSFT as a good way of avoiding real competition. OTOH, it does seem to be another win for the FLOSS movement. The author of TFA must believe that MSFT's products offer such little intrinsic value that underhanded business techniques are the only thing that will allow them to keep market-share.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't consider a non-duplexed RAID to be fault tolerant... but that's just me ;-)
No, you're not lucky... you simply don't use your computer much, or you upgrade equipment way too frequently.
Nevertheless, the sounds aren't as frightening when you install your system onto a fault tolerant RAID array (which, if your data has any value at all, I strongly recommend).
You can't hold someone liable for any kind of wrong doing after explicitly waiving your right to do so by agreeing to their EULA.
You want to hold a developer responsible... no problem, just don't expect to buy their software for $199 off the rack.
Great... so MSFT is making me pay ~$200 (or more) for a new skin/theme. If the KDE/Gnome/etc folks did this I'd probably owe them my first born by now.
Either have I... but that may be because I haven't used it.
Nokia... who are they?!?! OOOOH... you mean the 800lb gorilla in the room? Don't worry about him... he's waiting to see which of these niche players gets fat enough to eat for tomorrow's breakfast.
Sure, I'll throw my 2 cents in.
From a nuts and bolts perspective, they could be about the same. But, from an aesthetic perspective... they'll be like night and day.
Now if I could just figure out what I prefer; the morning or the evening?
Same here; watched it during the football game too. Given Seinfeld's previous work as a spokesperson... I thought it was an ad for American Express.
...you just discovered that "quality" is subjective, congrats!
/.ers can understand:
It's really not that complicated; I'll paraphrase your two fundamental options in a way that most
This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your cubicle and believe that your organization is on track. You take the red pill - dust of your resume or maybe start your own company.
If you find yourself losing sleep over the matter just ask yourself what's better, vi or emacs?
Choosing to use an open-source application that the developer ultimately abandons seems like a much better option than using a closed-source application of the same fate. ;-)
No.... needs more cowbell!
I guess it boils down to the age old question... "which is the truly free license, BSD or GPL?"
;-)
My only conclusion is that freedom is in the eye of the beholder.
That being said, I think we would be remiss to overlook the fact that Android is offering something which (to the best of my knowledge) has yet to be made available... a phone OS that isn't proprietary and not copylefted. It's my belief that more choice is better and I think consumers will be rewarded by the additional competition.
After all, sometimes we run *BSD, sometimes Linux, and on occasion we even run Windows
I have to agree with Mr.Radar. After my service contract was up with Sprint I bought an unlocked GSM phone and switched to T-Mobile. I've been much happier ever since. In addition, the vicious rumors of 'coverage problems' some would have you believe seem to be greatly exaggerated (then again I'm in the NYC market which is probably serviced well due to its size). There was only one location in the last two years where I got no signal, Lake Placid NY, but free ring-tones, wallpapers, fully-functioning bluetooth and the ability to install 3rd party Java apps makes that easily tolerable.
All of them.
Of course it deserves the "open source" moniker... Android (aka gPhone) is *not* a phone per se; it is a software platform that will run on many different phones. It will be distributed under the Apache v2 open source license, which is an OSI approved license (see my previous post).
These sentiments you post stem from the misinformation being reported by bloggers and the media as well a lack of through research on the readers' part. The handset manufacturers, cellphone carriers, and (subsequently) end-users can do anything they want with the Android operating system on their phones so long as they all abide by Apache v2.
The expectation is that many different phones will use Android. Depending on the target market the actual phone a consumer buys will be restricted to varying degrees. Presumably most *cheaper* phones will be locked down rather tightly (they might even contain varying levels of DRM).
Other phones (which I'd expect to be more expensive) will be more open. I'd guess that these phones will be targeted at developer/geek types who are more comfortable tweaking their software and are also willing to accept the accompanying risks.
Android is to cell-phones as the Linux kernel is to PC hardware. The Linux kernel itself is distributed under GPL but devices that use it are not necessarily "free". Just because that fancy new router you bought is running Linux doesn't mean that you can easily replace its kernel with a different one. However, many hardware manufacturers (e.g. HP, Dell, IBM) realize that there is a market for more customizable hardware and they manufacture certain devices so that they can be easily modified to a large extent by the consumer.
All this should allow for more choice and more competition in the market place, which should lead to greater efficiencies. But, it certainly doesn't mean that companies are going to start giving out "gPhone's" for free! Nor does it mean that consumers will have the ability to change the operating system that these phones use (although some gPhones may allow this too, yipee!).
The gPhone platform (i.e. Android) will be "free" as in Apache v2 open source license, which is an OSI approved license. I would imagine many slashdotters are accustomed to this kind of freedom as well as other kinds of freedom like BSD, Mozilla, SPL, CPL, Artistic license and even Ms-PL (to name a few).
Quoting the FAQ:
Why did you pick the Apache v2 open source license?
Apache is a commercial-friendly open-source license. The Apache license allows manufacturers and mobile operators to innovate using the platform without the requirement to contribute those innovations back to the open-source community. Because these innovations and differentiated features can be kept proprietary, manufacturers and mobile operators are protected from the "viral infection" problem often associated with other licenses.
--
Questions, comments, criticisms... are always welcome when you're among white hat hackers
Whoa there, somewhere an FBI monitoring program is going ape shit...
Yeah, the message poster should have checked the "Post Anonymously" box
Blender is an open-source application... the others are not. This is a *major* consideration and will create a distinct dichotomy in these kinds of comparisons.
The fact is that Blender is the premier open-source application for this type of work. Whether it is the premier application for this type of work is largely subjective.
...that used car salesmen and drug dealers use the bait and switch tactic! How sad that this completely amoral idea is being recommended to MSFT as a good way of avoiding real competition. OTOH, it does seem to be another win for the FLOSS movement. The author of TFA must believe that MSFT's products offer such little intrinsic value that underhanded business techniques are the only thing that will allow them to keep market-share.
hmm, I wonder how many times this has happened at Microsoft?