The problem with this is that Microsoft's using some proprietary DRM platform built into Windows 10. If that's available to other browsers, fine-ish. But, assuming it's not available on other platforms (Mac, Linux, iOS, Android), and it becomes Netflix's standard for HD video in the future, that's a big problem, no? but Microsoft 'loves Linux' (tm), right...?;-)
I wouldn't think Netflix would want to play into that - but maybe their content producers would. So, fine-ish, but be on the lookout for lock-in.
The actual writing on the wall is that the home (and school) computing markets have become Chromebook markets. For Microsoft to compete there, they need to move their entire application stack into the cloud (which they've already done a great deal of). Then strip down Windows into a form that can be auto-upgraded behind the scenes like Chromebooks can.
There may remain a market for traditional Windows desktops, but it's a shrinking one. Microsoft already has enough of a strangle hold there to keep it, but it's losing the Chromebook market - and they don't like to lose. They'll make Windows available for traditional desktop PC's - and maybe they'll sell some kind of subscription service for upgrades, but ultimately PC OS upgrades are going to go away - in the sense that they'll be 'hidden and automatic' like on Chromebooks, or 'free and automatic' with a subscription on PC's - or just free as in "we can't sell upgrades any more, and it's more trouble than it's worth to continue to support old versions, so...".
The only problem I see with making Sulu gay is that I assume they picked Sulu because George Takei is gay - which itself reinforces the stereotype that gay actors aren't believable playing straight characters (though that stereotype is less potent these days). But seriously, if Simon Pegg wants to make one of the original characters gay, why not pick Scotty himself? A nice, gay, alcoholic (no, Star Trek wasn't immune to stereotyping) tech nerd;-)
I wonder whether Amazon considers Azure a threat in the sense that Microsoft is probably the only company that can host Windows apps in the cloud competitively, since they don't have to pay for Windows. Of course, the primary Windows app customers are likely to want to host in the cloud is Exchange - and maybe Office 365. But companies probably have a few legacy desktop apps that they could host via Citrix.
Not that Amazon wants to get into Windows desktop hosting, but if a company wants to put legacy desktop into the cloud, they're likely to use the same provider for other stuff as well. What defense would Amazon have against that. Could they offer some kind of WINE-based hosting for apps. Or would that not work well enough to be worth their while?
That's kind of an interesting angle. The Justice Department didn't choose to prosecute a lot of banks for stuff they did in the run-up to the 2008 crash. And in the few cases they prosecuted, they didn't get convictions. It sure seemed like there was some clear-cut fraud in mortgage lending - not to mention in the rating of mortgage-backed securities, so I guess I can see the point of view of somebody who thought there should've been an indictment.
Not sure what exactly the parallels are in this email situation. The 'intentionally' part would've been pretty hard to prove (if only because it probably wasn't intentional - sorry to disappoint you haters out there). And 'grossly negligent' is a pretty vague standard. Is it 'grossly' negligent that a few (okay ~100) retroactively classified things slipped through. Or is that actually a pretty good success rate for filtering 10's or 100's of thousands of email messages - none of which were actually marked classified at the time? Kind of depends on the actual damage done - say, to actual national security?
There seems to be a desire for this to have been worse than it was - for various political and personal reasons. But it wasn't worse, so the FBI resisted being drawn into a political prosecution. There was some negligence - often on the part of the senders, as opposed to HRC herself. The 'secret' stuff wasn't all that damaging - and didn't get anywhere it could do damage (that anyone knows about beyond 'I just know the worst-case scenario has to have happened, just because it could have'). Presumably the FBI looked into whether there was any evidence the server was successfully hacked - and even if it was, that evidence wasn't there. At some point, there's not a case to prosecute.
Voting for someone because they might be able to win is a sensible act - if what you're ultimately concerned with is the makeup of the Supreme Court. I assume, as a Johnson supporter, you're fine with a 'business-friendly' court - even if it's also seriously corruption-friendly too, and throws stuff like Net Neutrality out the window.
But honesty in some absolute sense is, in fact, not the most important factor in a President. What they will actually do and the policies they will support is way more important. You just happen to like Johnson's policies - so why not just admit that and call it a day?
I doubt he was the head of his department. C'mon folks. Of course there are different rules for the Secretary of State vs. some functionary somewhere. No, she shouldn't have used a private server for a variety of reasons - but no, she didn't break the law and shouldn't be prosecuted. The standard in question was intention to disseminate classified material, and that wasn't proven. In fact that wasn't even hinted at - except by conspiracy theorists and outright Clinton haters. And, sadly, by a portion of the Bernie Sanders contingent who simply wanted the worst to be true so their guy could win - without actually getting enough votes to win. And no, the primary voting wasn't rigged either...
I don't know about the navy reservist (or whether he was supposed to have access to the data), but in Petraeus' case, he did distribute classified material. Why on earth can't you Clinton haters grasp that difference?
,,,or, Windows users could opt to stick with Windows 7 indefinitely. A successful Windows 10 subscription model assumes that people want to stay current with new Windows features. But if all the Windows-specific apps they use are legacy Win32 apps, there will never be a meaningful Windows upgrade for those users. Since most new apps are browser, Android or iOS based, Win32 + Chrome is the desktop platform with the apps.
Microsoft has not succeeded in getting the lions share of developers to rewrite their apps to the new Metro API's, so Windows 7 will continue to run any Win32 app as well (or better, depending on the continued commitment to backward compatibility) as Windows 10 or its successors. We're coming to a time where there is no market for operating systems that you have to pay for. Yes, new computers come with an OS that was paid for, and in most cases, that's still Windows. Assuming that the subscription model for upgrades is optional, nobody will buy it - because the OS that came with their computers is fine, as long as it gets security patches. And if Microsoft starts requiring a paid subscription for security patches, they may find a lot of resistance.
..shitty job they've done and the horrible direction this country is headed.
Exactly what 'horrible direction' are you talking about that is not a continuation of trends started in the 80's under you know who? That's not saying much for Clinton or Obama - except that maybe they figured out how to get elected in the post-80's political climate and to make little changes around the edges to mitigate some of its worst effects. But to hate Obama or Hillary for the way things are now is to hate them because "Black" or "Vagina", because the direction of the country can be laid squarely at the feet of "The American Enterprise Institute" and other right-leaning think tanks that taught people to believe that if only we release the inherent goodness of rich folks, you'll get rich too.
Then again, Clinton did raise the top marginal tax rate - which helped the boom produce that surplus. Bush took the surplus as a talking point to justivy the tax rate being lowered - and the capital gains and dividend rates lowered even more drastically. From Gore's rhetoric in 2000, it was pretty clear that he at least understood that the surplus was caused by an unsustainable boom (the infamous 'lockbox', etc). Bush (and Greenspan as his enabler) used the bogus surplus to rationalize their agendas - and pretty much guaranteed deficits from then on, boom or bust. Obama undid some, but not enough, of that damage, but Trump wants to double down on the tax cutting agenda.
...then again, I've had the N4 for 3 1/2 years, and don't really need a new battery yet. Or at least, I'm closer to wanting a new phone than a new battery at this point - though the N4 runs Marshmallow pretty damn well.
Built-in batteries are swappable in most phones. Sure, it's a pain to get the back off, but if you only want to swap in a new battery 2 years down the road, that's not much of an issue. I replaced the back on my Nexus 4 - it wasn't too hard to do, and I could've swapped out the battery at the same time.
Well, the Moto Z has adopted a novel-ish way to provide this kind of stuff in the future. It's add-ons can contain a hot-swappable battery, which bests the kind that you have to shut down the phone to swap. And I suppose somebody could make a battery+SD card module too. All in what simply looks like a scratch-proof back. It's pretty cool, if it doesn't end up being too pricey. Of course the low-end model has a skimpy enough battery that this may become a necessity. But the higher-end model doesn't skimp.
And then there's Tizen. Samsung keeps making noises about abandoning Android for Tizen. Of course, if they ever do that, they will have slapped on an Android compatibility layer. It's not as though they don't need apps...
Ultimately the various 'roll your own' Android systems are the same old 'Android with a skin' setups - still incorporating Google Play and services. When they start replacing that, they're closer to having built their own systems. Amazon did that, and Microsoft is rumored to be working on it. Cyanogen Co. - who knows? None have been successful so far. But once you replace Play services, you're a new target for a lot of apps - which is why so few have tried.
I guess a lot of the Chinese vendors are AOSP plus some 3rd party app store. There's no market for that in the US - and if Google ever gets the Play store into China, the market for those 'custom' Chinese OS's would dry up too.
Even if you know where to go, Dell still charges significantly more for Linux laptops with the same specs as a Windows one. Why would anybody buy that? I suppose if Canonical got a significant cut, maybe... but do they?
I don't doubt that Clinton participated in discussions of whether to conduct drone strikes and against whom. But I was rejecting the hysterical nature of "Clinton authorized drone strikes from her cellphone". No, I don't think she did 'authorize' them from her cellphone or otherwise. You may object to her use of a cellphone to send email via a personal server. You may object to drone strikes in general and/or Clinton's role in authorizing them. But to assume based on little but those objections that she personally authorized drone strikes - and did it in a way that jeopardized national security - is quite a leap. Saying as how she couldn't personally authorize strikes in the first place.
For the most part the Clinton email 'scandal' is a case of people wanting her to be guilty (why?) and then attaching the most damning interpretation on anything they read on the subject. I personally don't want her to be guilty - mostly because I don't hate her, and don't want to believe the worst about our government without good evidence. There's enough outright corruption in public office to actually want there to be more. Therefore, I tend to interpret the whole email story as "she's paranoid about people being out to trip her up (with some pretty good justification), and she wanted to be in control of her communications so that potentially embarrassing stuff couldn't be spun against her". Spun like the whole meme of "she told her staff to remove classification notices from stuff so they could intentionally send it insecurely". That story - like much else said against her - crumples under scrutiny - and the application of any common sense as to what nefarious reason she could have to want to do that. In that case the 'nefarious reason' was a broken fax machine. Maybe there's a truly damning needle in the haystack of 4 years of everything Clinton did as Secretary of State that could be uncovered - if you're so damn intent on finding one. But crying wolf over every potential needle pretty much guarantees they'll all be dismissed with the rest of the minnows.
Clinton had no authority to authorize drone strikes, so I don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps she discussed potential drone strikes via email - then again, perhaps she didn't, saying as how your source seems pretty questionable.
Did you actually read the article you linked to. It talked about sending 'talking points' that were not classified over an insecure fax system, because they couldn't get the secure one to work. Does it matter at all to you that the information involved wasn't classified and so it doesn't matter what system it was sent over? Or do you just care about scoring points with an ominous sounding headline?
What part of 'some people need to use their devices in places without access to a docking station' did you miss? If you want a phone that you can use as a desktop at home or at work where you have a docking station - more power to you. If you need to use that thing on a train or airplane - or Starbucks for that matter - the Continuum thing won't work for you. That's all I'm saying. For those people, who need a real laptop, there's no point in having a phone that can be a desktop too. If they can manage that capability for free, then sure. Otherwise, the laptop-needing population won't pay extra for it.
My point was that people who need to carry around a machine capable of doing desktop-style work should carry light laptops - rather than paying for a high-spec'd phone that can do those things - but only do them reasonably if docked to an external keyboard and monitor. Yeah, there may be some people who need to be able to dock a device and use it in multiple locations - without also needing to use it when away from a docking station. But that's a small population. There's a bigger population that needs a mobile desktop-ish device that they can use anywhere without needing a docking station. And that population already has notebooks. So, I'm just saying a phone that can dock and become a desktop, while undoubtedly cool, has limited appeal. And if it's going to have to be expensive to be powerful enough to run Windows, it's going to have even less appeal.
Now if that device cost the same as a traditional phone - and had all the apps of a traditional phone, then sure - go for it. That might even happen with a future version of Android. I suppose if Windows had ever gotten to the point where the RT flavor had the apps people really needed, so they could strip it down to a moderately priced ARM-based form factor, that might have worked nicely. And that's probably what the designers of RT had in mind. Strip out all the legacy WIN32 stuff they could in order to compete in the arena of small and cheap - not just small. But it didn't work out. So a pricey, full-blown Intel Windows 10 machine that fits in your pocket is likely to make for some cute demos - and have a genuine cool factor - but not many people are actually going to buy them.
On the other hand, when's the last time Yahoo did something remotely novel enough to get a patent on? Perhaps most of these will expire before they can be used to inflict much damage. Then again, the same might be said for most of the Windows/GUI type patents Microsoft holds. Most of what's 'novel' about the Windows GUI (and FAT32's dual naming convention) was in Windows 95. Time's up - or it should be. I'm sure they've managed to get bogus 'reformulation' patents on all of it with each new release...
The non-linux folks that use Ubuntu have presumably had it set up by their kids and never concern themselves with whether the code name for the system is Xenial Xerus - or anything else. Y'know, Windows versions have code names too - nobody pays attention to them, and they're only used during the development process. Hell, MacOS uses silly can and mountain names for their official releases.
Linux can make a fine newby system - for users who aren't going to set it up for themselves and who have a friend or relative to show them how to use it. But most of those users are probably better served by ChromeOS - especially once Android apps become available there. In any case, the least of the issues is the (yes, silly) code name associated with a release - and the fact that Slashdot users see an article noting what kernel version will be used...
Yeah, but why do you need all that stuff on your phone. All that desktop goodness is more or less useless on a pocketable device. And if desktop mobility is what you want, a Surface Pro probably accomplishes that better than any phone can - and without the need for the docking station (though you could use one if you wanted). And, of course, once all the desktop stuff you need is web based, a future touch-enabled, Android-capable Chromebook will do it all for 200 bucks. Sure, you'd still need to carry a separate phone, but at least you won't be dropping that 'desktop with all your apps' in the toilet any time soon...
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this is that Microsoft's using some proprietary DRM platform built into Windows 10. If that's available to other browsers, fine-ish. But, assuming it's not available on other platforms (Mac, Linux, iOS, Android), and it becomes Netflix's standard for HD video in the future, that's a big problem, no? but Microsoft 'loves Linux' (tm), right...? ;-)
I wouldn't think Netflix would want to play into that - but maybe their content producers would. So, fine-ish, but be on the lookout for lock-in.
I would imagine schools and libraries, etc. will still have an option to disable loading android apps.
The actual writing on the wall is that the home (and school) computing markets have become Chromebook markets. For Microsoft to compete there, they need to move their entire application stack into the cloud (which they've already done a great deal of). Then strip down Windows into a form that can be auto-upgraded behind the scenes like Chromebooks can.
There may remain a market for traditional Windows desktops, but it's a shrinking one. Microsoft already has enough of a strangle hold there to keep it, but it's losing the Chromebook market - and they don't like to lose. They'll make Windows available for traditional desktop PC's - and maybe they'll sell some kind of subscription service for upgrades, but ultimately PC OS upgrades are going to go away - in the sense that they'll be 'hidden and automatic' like on Chromebooks, or 'free and automatic' with a subscription on PC's - or just free as in "we can't sell upgrades any more, and it's more trouble than it's worth to continue to support old versions, so...".
The only problem I see with making Sulu gay is that I assume they picked Sulu because George Takei is gay - which itself reinforces the stereotype that gay actors aren't believable playing straight characters (though that stereotype is less potent these days). But seriously, if Simon Pegg wants to make one of the original characters gay, why not pick Scotty himself? A nice, gay, alcoholic (no, Star Trek wasn't immune to stereotyping) tech nerd ;-)
I wonder whether Amazon considers Azure a threat in the sense that Microsoft is probably the only company that can host Windows apps in the cloud competitively, since they don't have to pay for Windows. Of course, the primary Windows app customers are likely to want to host in the cloud is Exchange - and maybe Office 365. But companies probably have a few legacy desktop apps that they could host via Citrix.
Not that Amazon wants to get into Windows desktop hosting, but if a company wants to put legacy desktop into the cloud, they're likely to use the same provider for other stuff as well. What defense would Amazon have against that. Could they offer some kind of WINE-based hosting for apps. Or would that not work well enough to be worth their while?
That's kind of an interesting angle. The Justice Department didn't choose to prosecute a lot of banks for stuff they did in the run-up to the 2008 crash. And in the few cases they prosecuted, they didn't get convictions. It sure seemed like there was some clear-cut fraud in mortgage lending - not to mention in the rating of mortgage-backed securities, so I guess I can see the point of view of somebody who thought there should've been an indictment.
Not sure what exactly the parallels are in this email situation. The 'intentionally' part would've been pretty hard to prove (if only because it probably wasn't intentional - sorry to disappoint you haters out there). And 'grossly negligent' is a pretty vague standard. Is it 'grossly' negligent that a few (okay ~100) retroactively classified things slipped through. Or is that actually a pretty good success rate for filtering 10's or 100's of thousands of email messages - none of which were actually marked classified at the time? Kind of depends on the actual damage done - say, to actual national security?
There seems to be a desire for this to have been worse than it was - for various political and personal reasons. But it wasn't worse, so the FBI resisted being drawn into a political prosecution. There was some negligence - often on the part of the senders, as opposed to HRC herself. The 'secret' stuff wasn't all that damaging - and didn't get anywhere it could do damage (that anyone knows about beyond 'I just know the worst-case scenario has to have happened, just because it could have'). Presumably the FBI looked into whether there was any evidence the server was successfully hacked - and even if it was, that evidence wasn't there. At some point, there's not a case to prosecute.
Voting for someone because they might be able to win is a sensible act - if what you're ultimately concerned with is the makeup of the Supreme Court. I assume, as a Johnson supporter, you're fine with a 'business-friendly' court - even if it's also seriously corruption-friendly too, and throws stuff like Net Neutrality out the window.
But honesty in some absolute sense is, in fact, not the most important factor in a President. What they will actually do and the policies they will support is way more important. You just happen to like Johnson's policies - so why not just admit that and call it a day?
I doubt he was the head of his department. C'mon folks. Of course there are different rules for the Secretary of State vs. some functionary somewhere. No, she shouldn't have used a private server for a variety of reasons - but no, she didn't break the law and shouldn't be prosecuted. The standard in question was intention to disseminate classified material, and that wasn't proven. In fact that wasn't even hinted at - except by conspiracy theorists and outright Clinton haters. And, sadly, by a portion of the Bernie Sanders contingent who simply wanted the worst to be true so their guy could win - without actually getting enough votes to win. And no, the primary voting wasn't rigged either...
I don't know about the navy reservist (or whether he was supposed to have access to the data), but in Petraeus' case, he did distribute classified material. Why on earth can't you Clinton haters grasp that difference?
,,,or, Windows users could opt to stick with Windows 7 indefinitely. A successful Windows 10 subscription model assumes that people want to stay current with new Windows features. But if all the Windows-specific apps they use are legacy Win32 apps, there will never be a meaningful Windows upgrade for those users. Since most new apps are browser, Android or iOS based, Win32 + Chrome is the desktop platform with the apps.
Microsoft has not succeeded in getting the lions share of developers to rewrite their apps to the new Metro API's, so Windows 7 will continue to run any Win32 app as well (or better, depending on the continued commitment to backward compatibility) as Windows 10 or its successors. We're coming to a time where there is no market for operating systems that you have to pay for. Yes, new computers come with an OS that was paid for, and in most cases, that's still Windows. Assuming that the subscription model for upgrades is optional, nobody will buy it - because the OS that came with their computers is fine, as long as it gets security patches. And if Microsoft starts requiring a paid subscription for security patches, they may find a lot of resistance.
..shitty job they've done and the horrible direction this country is headed.
Exactly what 'horrible direction' are you talking about that is not a continuation of trends started in the 80's under you know who? That's not saying much for Clinton or Obama - except that maybe they figured out how to get elected in the post-80's political climate and to make little changes around the edges to mitigate some of its worst effects. But to hate Obama or Hillary for the way things are now is to hate them because "Black" or "Vagina", because the direction of the country can be laid squarely at the feet of "The American Enterprise Institute" and other right-leaning think tanks that taught people to believe that if only we release the inherent goodness of rich folks, you'll get rich too.
Then again, Clinton did raise the top marginal tax rate - which helped the boom produce that surplus. Bush took the surplus as a talking point to justivy the tax rate being lowered - and the capital gains and dividend rates lowered even more drastically. From Gore's rhetoric in 2000, it was pretty clear that he at least understood that the surplus was caused by an unsustainable boom (the infamous 'lockbox', etc). Bush (and Greenspan as his enabler) used the bogus surplus to rationalize their agendas - and pretty much guaranteed deficits from then on, boom or bust. Obama undid some, but not enough, of that damage, but Trump wants to double down on the tax cutting agenda.
...then again, I've had the N4 for 3 1/2 years, and don't really need a new battery yet. Or at least, I'm closer to wanting a new phone than a new battery at this point - though the N4 runs Marshmallow pretty damn well.
Built-in batteries are swappable in most phones. Sure, it's a pain to get the back off, but if you only want to swap in a new battery 2 years down the road, that's not much of an issue. I replaced the back on my Nexus 4 - it wasn't too hard to do, and I could've swapped out the battery at the same time.
Well, the Moto Z has adopted a novel-ish way to provide this kind of stuff in the future. It's add-ons can contain a hot-swappable battery, which bests the kind that you have to shut down the phone to swap. And I suppose somebody could make a battery+SD card module too. All in what simply looks like a scratch-proof back. It's pretty cool, if it doesn't end up being too pricey. Of course the low-end model has a skimpy enough battery that this may become a necessity. But the higher-end model doesn't skimp.
And then there's Tizen. Samsung keeps making noises about abandoning Android for Tizen. Of course, if they ever do that, they will have slapped on an Android compatibility layer. It's not as though they don't need apps...
Ultimately the various 'roll your own' Android systems are the same old 'Android with a skin' setups - still incorporating Google Play and services. When they start replacing that, they're closer to having built their own systems. Amazon did that, and Microsoft is rumored to be working on it. Cyanogen Co. - who knows? None have been successful so far. But once you replace Play services, you're a new target for a lot of apps - which is why so few have tried.
I guess a lot of the Chinese vendors are AOSP plus some 3rd party app store. There's no market for that in the US - and if Google ever gets the Play store into China, the market for those 'custom' Chinese OS's would dry up too.
Even if you know where to go, Dell still charges significantly more for Linux laptops with the same specs as a Windows one. Why would anybody buy that? I suppose if Canonical got a significant cut, maybe... but do they?
I don't doubt that Clinton participated in discussions of whether to conduct drone strikes and against whom. But I was rejecting the hysterical nature of "Clinton authorized drone strikes from her cellphone". No, I don't think she did 'authorize' them from her cellphone or otherwise. You may object to her use of a cellphone to send email via a personal server. You may object to drone strikes in general and/or Clinton's role in authorizing them. But to assume based on little but those objections that she personally authorized drone strikes - and did it in a way that jeopardized national security - is quite a leap. Saying as how she couldn't personally authorize strikes in the first place.
For the most part the Clinton email 'scandal' is a case of people wanting her to be guilty (why?) and then attaching the most damning interpretation on anything they read on the subject. I personally don't want her to be guilty - mostly because I don't hate her, and don't want to believe the worst about our government without good evidence. There's enough outright corruption in public office to actually want there to be more. Therefore, I tend to interpret the whole email story as "she's paranoid about people being out to trip her up (with some pretty good justification), and she wanted to be in control of her communications so that potentially embarrassing stuff couldn't be spun against her". Spun like the whole meme of "she told her staff to remove classification notices from stuff so they could intentionally send it insecurely". That story - like much else said against her - crumples under scrutiny - and the application of any common sense as to what nefarious reason she could have to want to do that. In that case the 'nefarious reason' was a broken fax machine. Maybe there's a truly damning needle in the haystack of 4 years of everything Clinton did as Secretary of State that could be uncovered - if you're so damn intent on finding one. But crying wolf over every potential needle pretty much guarantees they'll all be dismissed with the rest of the minnows.
Clinton had no authority to authorize drone strikes, so I don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps she discussed potential drone strikes via email - then again, perhaps she didn't, saying as how your source seems pretty questionable.
Did you actually read the article you linked to. It talked about sending 'talking points' that were not classified over an insecure fax system, because they couldn't get the secure one to work. Does it matter at all to you that the information involved wasn't classified and so it doesn't matter what system it was sent over? Or do you just care about scoring points with an ominous sounding headline?
What part of 'some people need to use their devices in places without access to a docking station' did you miss? If you want a phone that you can use as a desktop at home or at work where you have a docking station - more power to you. If you need to use that thing on a train or airplane - or Starbucks for that matter - the Continuum thing won't work for you. That's all I'm saying. For those people, who need a real laptop, there's no point in having a phone that can be a desktop too. If they can manage that capability for free, then sure. Otherwise, the laptop-needing population won't pay extra for it.
My point was that people who need to carry around a machine capable of doing desktop-style work should carry light laptops - rather than paying for a high-spec'd phone that can do those things - but only do them reasonably if docked to an external keyboard and monitor. Yeah, there may be some people who need to be able to dock a device and use it in multiple locations - without also needing to use it when away from a docking station. But that's a small population. There's a bigger population that needs a mobile desktop-ish device that they can use anywhere without needing a docking station. And that population already has notebooks. So, I'm just saying a phone that can dock and become a desktop, while undoubtedly cool, has limited appeal. And if it's going to have to be expensive to be powerful enough to run Windows, it's going to have even less appeal.
Now if that device cost the same as a traditional phone - and had all the apps of a traditional phone, then sure - go for it. That might even happen with a future version of Android. I suppose if Windows had ever gotten to the point where the RT flavor had the apps people really needed, so they could strip it down to a moderately priced ARM-based form factor, that might have worked nicely. And that's probably what the designers of RT had in mind. Strip out all the legacy WIN32 stuff they could in order to compete in the arena of small and cheap - not just small. But it didn't work out. So a pricey, full-blown Intel Windows 10 machine that fits in your pocket is likely to make for some cute demos - and have a genuine cool factor - but not many people are actually going to buy them.
On the other hand, when's the last time Yahoo did something remotely novel enough to get a patent on? Perhaps most of these will expire before they can be used to inflict much damage. Then again, the same might be said for most of the Windows/GUI type patents Microsoft holds. Most of what's 'novel' about the Windows GUI (and FAT32's dual naming convention) was in Windows 95. Time's up - or it should be. I'm sure they've managed to get bogus 'reformulation' patents on all of it with each new release...
The non-linux folks that use Ubuntu have presumably had it set up by their kids and never concern themselves with whether the code name for the system is Xenial Xerus - or anything else. Y'know, Windows versions have code names too - nobody pays attention to them, and they're only used during the development process. Hell, MacOS uses silly can and mountain names for their official releases.
Linux can make a fine newby system - for users who aren't going to set it up for themselves and who have a friend or relative to show them how to use it. But most of those users are probably better served by ChromeOS - especially once Android apps become available there. In any case, the least of the issues is the (yes, silly) code name associated with a release - and the fact that Slashdot users see an article noting what kernel version will be used...
Yeah, but why do you need all that stuff on your phone. All that desktop goodness is more or less useless on a pocketable device. And if desktop mobility is what you want, a Surface Pro probably accomplishes that better than any phone can - and without the need for the docking station (though you could use one if you wanted). And, of course, once all the desktop stuff you need is web based, a future touch-enabled, Android-capable Chromebook will do it all for 200 bucks. Sure, you'd still need to carry a separate phone, but at least you won't be dropping that 'desktop with all your apps' in the toilet any time soon...