Really? Because Apple claims that HTC did start the war. HTC stole Apple's property, Apple responded by using legal injunctions to stop the theft, and you're claiming Apple is the bad guy?
Bias showing much?
That's the biggest load of crap I ever read.
The Slashbots are claiming Skype and 2001-era Nokia phones as "prior art". If that's the level of understanding you consider to be "intelligent", then god help us all.
Of course, you've already compared me to a Nazi sympathiser, claimed FUD, and used potty language like "crap", so I honestly doubt you know what you're talking about either.
That you can't see the obvious - HTC is a rip off merchant who just steals from other companies - is your blind spot here. I'm not an Apple fanboy. I think software patents suck. I prefer Linux and GNU. But I'm not so blind as to defend HTC when clearly HTC is in the wrong. HTC stole technology from Apple, Apple took them to court, and Apple won. Good for Apple.
Unfortunately you are so blinded by your hatred of Apple that you would blame them no matter what the facts.
So your argument is that for reasons of "self-defence" it's OK for HTC to use frivolous patent lawsuits and injunction requests to try and destroy another company.
So if Apple were to assert that HTC attacked first by blatantly ripping off Apple's inventions, and that Apple was merely "retaliating" against HTC by asserting their legal property rights, you would defend Apple?
Or does "self-defence" only extend to lawsuits, not to property rights? Or, as I said earlier, are you just giving HTC a free ride because you're an Apple-hating Slashbot.
Apple get roasted on patent issues on slashdot because anyone with even basic programming knowledge (i.e. almost everyone on slashdot) knows how ridiculous Apple's lawsuits are
It's not for you to decide whether a patent is trivial or ridiculous. From reading other comments, most Slashbots don't even know the details of the patent, let alone the subtleties of patent law.
Right, so in your world it's acceptable for HTC to launch frivolous patent lawsuits because it's retaliation against Apple.
That's exactly what I surmised. That's also why I said you and your ilk are hypocrites. If you were consistent you'd be heaping as much scorn on HTC as you heap on Apple.
I think the overall comments reflect a dislike for software patents, be they Apple, HTC or,* .
The ".* sucks" comments will probably be thrown at any company bold enough to sucker
punch someone that actually is doing a good job.
Nonsense. Even when it was pointed out that HTC is doing the exact same thing, the only response was somebody defending HTC.
You don't need to look hard at Slashdot to figure out the bias.
So Apple sued HTC and two years later HTC sued Apple, and HTC are the bad guy?
So you really are defending these frivolous patent lawsuits from HTC and your justification is "they are countersuing Apple, that makes HTC the good guys"? Astounding.
The Slashdot anti-patent brigade must have a special exemption for when patents are enforced against Apple. Hypocrites.
The outrage is right here - or are you missing the large number of comments calling out Apple for the crooked, non-innovating, patent-abusing company they have turned out to be?
Outrage against Apple on Slashdot? Colour me shocked. News at 11.
Slashdot goes full-on retard whenever Apple is mentioned. That's why nobody cares what Slashdot thinks.
The Lisa & Mac were total ripoffs of the stuff Jobs saw at Parc.
So would you agree with these statements?
PARC was a ripoff of Engelbart's demo at SRI.
Linux is a ripoff of UNIX.
GNOME is a ripoff of Windows.
Because not a single one of those statements is true, but they're equivalent to your bullshit.
You need to get a grip on reality. Nearly everything in computing is an incremental improvement from something else. That doesn't make it an automatic "ripoff". Apple massively improved the desktop metaphor with the Lisa and Mac. They contributed greatly to the advancement of user interfaces. Have you used a Star? Have you used a Lisa? If you had, you would not for a minute claim that the Lisa was a "knockoff". There are graphical elements in the Lisa and Mac that were not created nor used at PARC. Yes, there are some similarities... WHICH APPLE PAID XEROX TO USE. There are also elements in the Lisa and Mac that were copied from UI research that existed before the groundbreaking work at PARC. And there are far more elements that were invented by Apple and their employees (Apple employed some of the brightest UI designers on the planet at the time).
This historical rewriting that occurs amongst Apple-haters - that somehow the Lisa/Mac were just "knockoffs" of PARC - not only shows a profound ignorance of PARC, and of Apple, but of computing in general. It paints you as a blinded zealot. Is that what you want to be? Rewriting history doesn't make you cool; it just means you're a nimrod.
The Linux kernel is a small part of the OS. Some would say it's a trivial part compared to some of the other components (e.g. the desktop environment). Yet it gets naming rights?
Might as well name your car after its brake calipers, or the engine oil. Do you drive a Bosch? Do you drive a Mobil? How about a Porsche Bosch? Or a Ford Mobil? Still feel the need to mention "Linux" in the name?
Honestly the correct names should be Red Hat, Ubuntu, Debian, without any "Linux" or "GNU" prefixes, suffixes, or appendages.
WebKit was started by KDE under the GPL license. I highly doubt apple would have given anything back if they didn't have to (with, say, an Apache or Mozilla style license).
The Apple hatred on/. knows no bounds. Apple can literally contribute to an existing GPL code base, adding so much valued code that the project soars from ineffectual to industry leader, give all this away for free to their competitors, and still/. finds something to complain about. "Meh, no praise from us, because Apple once killed a puppy".
Take the sour wedge out of your mouth; it's affecting your ability to recognise valuable OSS corporate citizens. Google deserves less praise than Apple here. Google is literally shitting on the very spirit of GPL, while Apple is doing everything by the book and to the spirit.
That said, we did get contributions back to linux didn't we? No, we didn't get much of that either.
Meanwhile, Apple has contributed significantly to Open Source, including the HTML engine used in Android (Webkit), and an entire operating system (Darwin).
Makes me cringe whenever somebody complains about Apple and in the next sentence they praise Google (not saying you did this). Apple's contributions probably exceed Google's.
You must pay $99 to be able to load apps onto an iDevice with XCode. If you want to do it for free, you have to jailbreak. If you download XCode and write an app, you are limited to the simulator unless you pay.
You can afford a $1000 phone but can't afford $99 to write software for it? My point is proven; you're all a bunch of cheapskates complaining about the price of popcorn at the movies.
If you want to develop Free Software for IOS - remember, that's what the OP complained about, and the only point I was addressing - then the only thing stopping you is your moth-infested wallet.
Can you fathom why FLOSS users balk at paying $100/year + $1000 one time fee for access to free software that is always $0 free as long as they STAY AWAY from Apple?
I cannot fathom why you keep avoiding the crux of the argument, which is that freedom and frugality are different goals. If you want to create Free Software on IOS devices, then you can. You just need to spend money. You don't want to spend money? Perhaps you're not the model champion of Free Software you pretend to be on/.
I predate Linux. I remember when UNIX was "Live Free or Die". Then Linux came along and it was "Spend $0 or Die". The message of freedom got diluted. The concept of open collaboration between multi-nationals was disbanded. The new generation think it's all about getting something for nothing, rather than getting freedom at any price. You miss the point.
Most people don't have the $1,000 or so to buy the hardware required to make use of the "free developer account". And, don't even start down the road of claiming that everyone who has an iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch also has a Mac.
This is another thing that irks me about the bitchers and moaners. Open Source Software is supposed to be about the liberty of the software; the ability to modify the software, to share the software, etc.
But when it all comes down to brass tacks, you're complaining about the $1000 required for the development hardware. Another person above you complains about the $99/year fee required to get the signing certificate. It's no different to getting an SSL cert from Verisign; the $99 just establishes a level of trust between you and Apple.
The model I proposed above - where you simply distribute your apps in source code bundles, rather than as binaries through the Apple App Store - would work. It truly promotes the actual values of Open Source Software. You could freely distribute Libre apps outside the Apple App Store. But you guys are complaining about the dollars.
This is why the FLOSS community has been tarred and feathered as cheapskates. You''re more interested in getting software "for free" (no cost) rather than "with freedom". What is the true price of freedom? Apparently around here it's $0.
That is exactly how I feel the ipad is. Polished on the outside, secret on the inside
It's not secret on the inside. The hardware and software APIs are extremely well documented. You are confusing your ignorance of the product with an imagined secrecy.
I am not allowed to peek inside nor add any update not approved by the manufacturer
You are allowed to peek inside - Apple even has a free developer program and downloadable tools to let you do exactly that. Download the free OS developer tools, develop any app you like, and install your app on your IOS device.
The only caveat is that Apple won't help you install "whatever update you like". And you most certainly can't sell products on the Apple App Store that don't conform to their rules. But there's nothing stopping *you* from installing *your* apps on *your* devices.
This is what irks me about the supposedly Free Software and Open Source advocates when it comes to Apple's IOS. Free Software could really go to town on IOS. For example, Apple won't distribute MAME through their App Store; and fair enough too. But anybody with a free developer account could compile the source code for MAME for IOS (assuming it exists) into an app, sign that build with their developer certificate, then upload the binary onto their own phone.
Instead people bitch-and-moan that they can't use Apple's App Store to distribute binaries. Why is that a problem? This is a community built on open source and free software. So why not distribute the apps as source. If open-source is such a big deal, why the fascination with bundling everything up as binaries and asking Apple to distribute it?
So you could have any app you like on your iPad or iPhone. The only barrier to entry is you need to know how to compile and install software. Is that really a problem in the Free Software world which has distros like Gentoo? It would keep out all the annoying non-developers too. It would be like the good old days of Linux when everybody actually knew UNIX; before the hoi-polloi found out about it and fucked it up.
Netbooks suck. Had one, hated it, sold it. It's just an underpowered laptop. That you think it's comparable to a tablet shows how out-of-touch you are with what people want.
They have a history of making inferior products, the iPods were never as good as the competition failing to support the same DRM that everybody else supported and not including a user replaceable battery for instance.
Total rubbish. I was an anti-iPod cheerleader for years. Must have Ogg Vorbis support, never will support DRM, etc. Chanted the same "freedom or die" nonsense that/. championed. Even bought the nomad, irivers, etc. I hated them all so I eventually caved and bought an iPod.
I then kicked myself for being an idiot all those years. The iPod was the superior product all along. My bias prevented me from seeing that. I didn't even realise you could play non-DRM music on the iPod. I was that ignorant of the product; in part because I listened to ignorant blogger comments instead of doing my own research.
The "Apple is inferior" and "Apple over charges for making it pretty" chants are getting old. Nobody believes it anymore. The MacBook, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad... they're competitive on price and superior in quality. People are buying Apple again and again because they like what they get.
The anti-Apple crowd is now full of religious nuts because they won't admit the blindingly obvious; Apple is making great products. And the constant barrage of "bah, it's just fanbois, idiots, hipsters, brainwashed sheeple" sounds more and more like sour grapes every day.
So you are in fact saying the definition is whatever you want it to be so that it says you're right and any attempt to argue otherwise you'll simply say you meant a different definition of the term?
Yes, you've got me, your dazzling intellect has uncovered my shoddy logic. I am actually a moon child who believes that my soul is formed in the hearts of the atom-god, and "ultimate cause" is actually the name of an anti-evolution cabal, of which I am the grand zombie. Our mission is to destroy philosophy with cheap bar-room rhetoric. And I would have got away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling kids.
Bravo, good sir. You are a worthy adversary. I tip my hat to you. Now run along and find other foes to slay with your wit and charm. I am vanquished.
No, that's the argument made by every biologist out there. It's called evolution
If you haven't read Dawkin's Selfish Gene you really should. It's an excellent book.
Dawkins was merely pointing out specific quirks of evolution and what drives it
Because it's quite clear you haven't read it.
So are you in fact denying evolution?... so basically you're arguing that humans have a soul... please don't tell me you're one of those who believes in atom level human identical philosophical zombies.
Now you are just being foolish. Be serious or be quiet.
Slashdot Mirror
Aka people with lots of experience. 24 years Linux experience here, for example.
Happy with change. Unhappy with systemd. It's a terrible idea and a badly run project as well.
Really? Because Apple claims that HTC did start the war. HTC stole Apple's property, Apple responded by using legal injunctions to stop the theft, and you're claiming Apple is the bad guy?
Bias showing much?
The Slashbots are claiming Skype and 2001-era Nokia phones as "prior art". If that's the level of understanding you consider to be "intelligent", then god help us all.
Of course, you've already compared me to a Nazi sympathiser, claimed FUD, and used potty language like "crap", so I honestly doubt you know what you're talking about either.
That you can't see the obvious - HTC is a rip off merchant who just steals from other companies - is your blind spot here. I'm not an Apple fanboy. I think software patents suck. I prefer Linux and GNU. But I'm not so blind as to defend HTC when clearly HTC is in the wrong. HTC stole technology from Apple, Apple took them to court, and Apple won. Good for Apple.
Unfortunately you are so blinded by your hatred of Apple that you would blame them no matter what the facts.
So your argument is that for reasons of "self-defence" it's OK for HTC to use frivolous patent lawsuits and injunction requests to try and destroy another company.
So if Apple were to assert that HTC attacked first by blatantly ripping off Apple's inventions, and that Apple was merely "retaliating" against HTC by asserting their legal property rights, you would defend Apple?
Or does "self-defence" only extend to lawsuits, not to property rights? Or, as I said earlier, are you just giving HTC a free ride because you're an Apple-hating Slashbot.
It's not for you to decide whether a patent is trivial or ridiculous. From reading other comments, most Slashbots don't even know the details of the patent, let alone the subtleties of patent law.
Right, so in your world it's acceptable for HTC to launch frivolous patent lawsuits because it's retaliation against Apple.
That's exactly what I surmised. That's also why I said you and your ilk are hypocrites. If you were consistent you'd be heaping as much scorn on HTC as you heap on Apple.
Nonsense. Even when it was pointed out that HTC is doing the exact same thing, the only response was somebody defending HTC.
You don't need to look hard at Slashdot to figure out the bias.
So you really are defending these frivolous patent lawsuits from HTC and your justification is "they are countersuing Apple, that makes HTC the good guys"? Astounding.
The Slashdot anti-patent brigade must have a special exemption for when patents are enforced against Apple. Hypocrites.
No mention that HTC sued Apple and attempted an injunction against most Apple products. http://www.itnews.com.au/News/267160,htc-sues-apple-over-patents.aspx Because only Apple sucks, right? I think the only real story is Slashdot is so predictable.
Outrage against Apple on Slashdot? Colour me shocked. News at 11.
Slashdot goes full-on retard whenever Apple is mentioned. That's why nobody cares what Slashdot thinks.
So would you agree with these statements?
PARC was a ripoff of Engelbart's demo at SRI.
Linux is a ripoff of UNIX.
GNOME is a ripoff of Windows.
Because not a single one of those statements is true, but they're equivalent to your bullshit.
You need to get a grip on reality. Nearly everything in computing is an incremental improvement from something else. That doesn't make it an automatic "ripoff". Apple massively improved the desktop metaphor with the Lisa and Mac. They contributed greatly to the advancement of user interfaces. Have you used a Star? Have you used a Lisa? If you had, you would not for a minute claim that the Lisa was a "knockoff". There are graphical elements in the Lisa and Mac that were not created nor used at PARC. Yes, there are some similarities... WHICH APPLE PAID XEROX TO USE. There are also elements in the Lisa and Mac that were copied from UI research that existed before the groundbreaking work at PARC. And there are far more elements that were invented by Apple and their employees (Apple employed some of the brightest UI designers on the planet at the time).
This historical rewriting that occurs amongst Apple-haters - that somehow the Lisa/Mac were just "knockoffs" of PARC - not only shows a profound ignorance of PARC, and of Apple, but of computing in general. It paints you as a blinded zealot. Is that what you want to be? Rewriting history doesn't make you cool; it just means you're a nimrod.
The Linux kernel is a small part of the OS. Some would say it's a trivial part compared to some of the other components (e.g. the desktop environment). Yet it gets naming rights?
Might as well name your car after its brake calipers, or the engine oil. Do you drive a Bosch? Do you drive a Mobil? How about a Porsche Bosch? Or a Ford Mobil? Still feel the need to mention "Linux" in the name?
Honestly the correct names should be Red Hat, Ubuntu, Debian, without any "Linux" or "GNU" prefixes, suffixes, or appendages.
The Apple hatred on /. knows no bounds. Apple can literally contribute to an existing GPL code base, adding so much valued code that the project soars from ineffectual to industry leader, give all this away for free to their competitors, and still /. finds something to complain about. "Meh, no praise from us, because Apple once killed a puppy".
Take the sour wedge out of your mouth; it's affecting your ability to recognise valuable OSS corporate citizens. Google deserves less praise than Apple here. Google is literally shitting on the very spirit of GPL, while Apple is doing everything by the book and to the spirit.
Give praise where praise is due.
Meanwhile, Apple has contributed significantly to Open Source, including the HTML engine used in Android (Webkit), and an entire operating system (Darwin).
http://www.apple.com/opensource/
Makes me cringe whenever somebody complains about Apple and in the next sentence they praise Google (not saying you did this). Apple's contributions probably exceed Google's.
It did not look like a stall. It looked like a powered inverted loop.
From the videos I've seen it looked like a control surface failure, most likely the elevator.
Won't know for sure until the FAA releases their reports.
You can afford a $1000 phone but can't afford $99 to write software for it? My point is proven; you're all a bunch of cheapskates complaining about the price of popcorn at the movies.
If you want to develop Free Software for IOS - remember, that's what the OP complained about, and the only point I was addressing - then the only thing stopping you is your moth-infested wallet.
Why would you splash out 1000 euros on a new Mac when clearly you're comfortable with an "old thinkpad which you got for 50 bucks"?
Buy an old Mac. You can get a mini on ebay for about $200 that will run Xcode. Or buy a broken one for $50 and fix it.
Do you want to write Free Software for IOS? Nothing is stopping you, other than your aversion to spending money.
I cannot fathom why you keep avoiding the crux of the argument, which is that freedom and frugality are different goals. If you want to create Free Software on IOS devices, then you can. You just need to spend money. You don't want to spend money? Perhaps you're not the model champion of Free Software you pretend to be on /.
I predate Linux. I remember when UNIX was "Live Free or Die". Then Linux came along and it was "Spend $0 or Die". The message of freedom got diluted. The concept of open collaboration between multi-nationals was disbanded. The new generation think it's all about getting something for nothing, rather than getting freedom at any price. You miss the point.
I cannot fathom why FLOSS developers claim it's all about liberty and freedom, then balk at the price.
It's obviously all about the price.
Most people don't have the $1,000 or so to buy the hardware required to make use of the "free developer account". And, don't even start down the road of claiming that everyone who has an iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch also has a Mac.
This is another thing that irks me about the bitchers and moaners. Open Source Software is supposed to be about the liberty of the software; the ability to modify the software, to share the software, etc.
But when it all comes down to brass tacks, you're complaining about the $1000 required for the development hardware. Another person above you complains about the $99/year fee required to get the signing certificate. It's no different to getting an SSL cert from Verisign; the $99 just establishes a level of trust between you and Apple.
The model I proposed above - where you simply distribute your apps in source code bundles, rather than as binaries through the Apple App Store - would work. It truly promotes the actual values of Open Source Software. You could freely distribute Libre apps outside the Apple App Store. But you guys are complaining about the dollars.
This is why the FLOSS community has been tarred and feathered as cheapskates. You''re more interested in getting software "for free" (no cost) rather than "with freedom". What is the true price of freedom? Apparently around here it's $0.
It's not secret on the inside. The hardware and software APIs are extremely well documented. You are confusing your ignorance of the product with an imagined secrecy.
You are allowed to peek inside - Apple even has a free developer program and downloadable tools to let you do exactly that. Download the free OS developer tools, develop any app you like, and install your app on your IOS device.
The only caveat is that Apple won't help you install "whatever update you like". And you most certainly can't sell products on the Apple App Store that don't conform to their rules. But there's nothing stopping *you* from installing *your* apps on *your* devices.
This is what irks me about the supposedly Free Software and Open Source advocates when it comes to Apple's IOS. Free Software could really go to town on IOS. For example, Apple won't distribute MAME through their App Store; and fair enough too. But anybody with a free developer account could compile the source code for MAME for IOS (assuming it exists) into an app, sign that build with their developer certificate, then upload the binary onto their own phone.
Instead people bitch-and-moan that they can't use Apple's App Store to distribute binaries. Why is that a problem? This is a community built on open source and free software. So why not distribute the apps as source. If open-source is such a big deal, why the fascination with bundling everything up as binaries and asking Apple to distribute it?
So you could have any app you like on your iPad or iPhone. The only barrier to entry is you need to know how to compile and install software. Is that really a problem in the Free Software world which has distros like Gentoo? It would keep out all the annoying non-developers too. It would be like the good old days of Linux when everybody actually knew UNIX; before the hoi-polloi found out about it and fucked it up.
Netbooks suck. Had one, hated it, sold it. It's just an underpowered laptop. That you think it's comparable to a tablet shows how out-of-touch you are with what people want.
Total rubbish. I was an anti-iPod cheerleader for years. Must have Ogg Vorbis support, never will support DRM, etc. Chanted the same "freedom or die" nonsense that /. championed. Even bought the nomad, irivers, etc. I hated them all so I eventually caved and bought an iPod.
I then kicked myself for being an idiot all those years. The iPod was the superior product all along. My bias prevented me from seeing that. I didn't even realise you could play non-DRM music on the iPod. I was that ignorant of the product; in part because I listened to ignorant blogger comments instead of doing my own research.
The "Apple is inferior" and "Apple over charges for making it pretty" chants are getting old. Nobody believes it anymore. The MacBook, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad... they're competitive on price and superior in quality. People are buying Apple again and again because they like what they get.
The anti-Apple crowd is now full of religious nuts because they won't admit the blindingly obvious; Apple is making great products. And the constant barrage of "bah, it's just fanbois, idiots, hipsters, brainwashed sheeple" sounds more and more like sour grapes every day.
Yes, you've got me, your dazzling intellect has uncovered my shoddy logic. I am actually a moon child who believes that my soul is formed in the hearts of the atom-god, and "ultimate cause" is actually the name of an anti-evolution cabal, of which I am the grand zombie. Our mission is to destroy philosophy with cheap bar-room rhetoric. And I would have got away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling kids.
Bravo, good sir. You are a worthy adversary. I tip my hat to you. Now run along and find other foes to slay with your wit and charm. I am vanquished.
If you haven't read Dawkin's Selfish Gene you really should. It's an excellent book.
Because it's quite clear you haven't read it.
Now you are just being foolish. Be serious or be quiet.
Ambiguity is a defining characteristic of philosophy.