I'll stay with Opera, which already runs very nicely.
Which version of Opera runs on all of those platforms? As far as I can tell Opera Mobile is only available for Nokia & Windows Mobile platforms (same targets as Mozilla is aiming for).
Java systems are stuck with Opera Mini which is basically a dumb client with a server backend that does a decent job rendering but comes with a whole pile of limitations.
And both versions of Opera are in the same boat as Mozilla is for the iPhone. Apple's ridiculous restrictions prevent either browser being offered.
In C perhaps but C++ has some extremely reliable collection classes and other helper code. The biggest issue for C++ is that the breadth is the standard lib is very weak by comparison to Java and.NET The latter benefits from slightly better thought out functionality but they're both much of a muchness.
I'm not a programmer myself so can someone tell me if C# really easier to use than C or Objective C as stated in TFA? Or is it just a matter of there being more people who are familiar with it?
Yes its massively easier to program. Not having to worry about so much about memory allocation / freeing or buffer overruns means faster developent and a more stable application. Same applies for Java and other high level languages of course..NET & Java both also have excellent system libraries that have a lot more functionality than you'd find in C languages without dragging in 3rd party libs. The IDEs for developing apps are also considerably more friendly than those for C with reliable intellisense / refactoring functionality.
The penalties of course are a slower / heavier runtime but for most apps that really doesn't matter.
It's a compromise in some ways and a huge improvement in others. I'd happily take the hit on power consumption if it meant doing away with wretchedly slow and disconcerting e-ink screen refreshes and having a device that could be flipped between bookreader and a usable colour tablet / netbook. I expect that any tablet / netbook that featured a specialized book reading mode (mono pixel qi mode + powerstepping) would be quite capable of squeezing 15-20 hours of battery life between charges.
Even if these screens (or the iPad) means little to you, they will still have a benefit for e-ink consumers. The prices of e-ink devices is going to have to fall considerably to maintain their niche which is good for everyone.
I think I'll become more interested in tablet devices when they offer the readability of an ebook device and the responsiveness / colour of a regular netbook / laptop. Pixel Qi is supposedly producing displays which hit the sweet spot, allowing relatively low power, high res monochrome output but still allowing colour and other functionality. A decent screen wouldn't fix the godawful usability issues of touch screens but it might strike the right balance between the needs of ebooks & casual computing.
Board games come with cards, dice, plastic & metal things and usually need more space than a small rectangle. Perhaps it does allow decent simulations of board games, but at $499 (+ whatever the app store slaps on top for a game) it bloody well ought to.
Yes, their absolute refusal to support any kind of runtime environment. Flash, Java, Silverlight - anything. Even a C64 emulator which provided access to CBM Basic was banned. They don't want anything that competes with their app store. Security is *way* down the list of reasons for this.
I'm not assuming anything. Apple explicitly doesn't want any alternative stack through which people can avoid paying Apple money. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with security.
No, they won't see the inside of the box because Apple doesn't want them there. They provide users a huge amount of functionality, games, apps etc. without paying Apple for the privilege.
Well F-Spot is more usable as an application than the Gimp is even if the functionality is more centred towards photo touch-up than a full blown graphics editor.
I assume that Ubuntu decided this was more suitable as a default application, and people who needed the full blown Gimp could just install it anyway.
Gimp was bloated, extremely user unfriendly and is many years overdue for a major usability redesign. If it annoys you THAT MUCH, that it's gone, just install it via aptitude.
The problem is that Steam isn't insanely cheap most of the time, and even when it is, it is for older titles that are so advanced in their commercial life that publishers reason even a few bucks is better than nothing. The rest of the time, Steam is ludicrously expensive, especially in Europe where new titles sell for the recommended retail price.
Which other retailers use the RRP? NOBODY. Other retailers typically discount by 20-40%. Thus a game selling on Steam costs 50 when it can be had, including P&P for possibly 30 from Play.com. Even bricks and mortar stores are typically cheaper than Steam.
Around about now somebody is usually thinking "the publishers set the prices not Steam". Except of course even Valve's own games are cheaper to purchase in a physical format than they are from Steam. Left 4 Dead 2 costs 35 on Play.com and 49.99 on Steam. A physical game that had to be manufactured, packaged with a printed manual, shipped, sent to a wholesaler, then a retailer, all of whom took their cut still worked out 30% cheaper than the download.
If the likes of Steam is the solution to piracy, one has to wonder why prices are not lower than physical rather than grossly higher. Even during a "sale" you still have to look closely at the prices since they're often no better and sometimes still worse than physical.
While this will be little pain in the ass for some customers too, something definitely needs to be done for PC piracy.
Piracy is a fact of life on the PC. If crackers can (and do) strip out copy protection mechanism they can (and will) strip out continuous online verification. The best way for a manufacturer to maximize number of legal copies is to make games affordable, to offer great support (patches, new features etc.), to build up an online community, provide a compelling multiplayer (where possible) or online features like leaderboards, trophies etc. Notice that many of these things are online anyway which means they can run verification checks when the user utilizes them rather than pissing off the user by requiring constant network connectivity.
This means that any software I install on it gets at least a screening from a company that has a lot to lose by allowing malware on the phone.
They also have a lot to lose by allowing apps like voip, instant messaging, map readers, voice search, flash player, browsers, podcasters, movie players, music players, file downloaders etc. etc.. Basically anything that competes with their tech, or offends the network, or they simply don't like on grounds of taste or any other arbitrary reason. They even ban apps with scripting / runtime capability even extending to the absurd banning of a C64 emulator lest somebody figure a way of using it to jailbreak the phone. It's not even the small fry that have been hurt - Google have had apps rejected.
The restrictions are draconian, and it isn't surprising given the above, and the way the device is locked to certain networks (even outside of contract) that people want to jailbreak it.
I think it is quite obvious that I was referring to the iPhone here. It is also quite obvious that the restrictions on the phone are draconian, as witnessed by the large demand for jail broken devices.
People who jail broken phones don't care about ssh. They just want phones which work on other networks and with unsigned apps. It is a direct consequence of Apple locking their phone down in draconian ways that people want to jailbreak. Thus they turn to software cracks.
If the reasons that motivate most people to escape were addressed, then so would the unintended side effects. There would be a fraction of the hacks if a) Apple sold a proper unlocked network free model and b) Provided a simple and painless way for people to legally unlock phones when their contract expired and c) didn't have such absurd restrictions on the kinds of app you can run on a phone.
As for your analogy, a better one would be a prisoner escaping confinement and promptly being run over by a bus. Perhaps they should have looked both ways when crossing the road, but it doesn't invalidate any reason they may have wished to escape in the first place.
If Apple didn't put such draconian limits on what a person could do with their own property, perhaps there wouldn't be the need to "jailbreak" it.
Re:SONY and Apple - holding our hardware hostage
on
PS3 Hacked?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In hardware the PS3 supports SATA hard disks (making it easy & cheap to upgrade), bluetooth headsets & keyboards, USB keyboards, mice, storage, cameras & printers (although driver support for the latter is understandably limited), wifi 802.11b/g, 10/100/1000 ethernet, and some models also support SD/CF/MS flash cards. In software it features a web browser with Flash player, DLNA support, a CD ripper, DVD & BD player. Codec support includes jpeg, png, MP3, ATRAC3, AAC, DIVX (MPEG4 ASP), H264, MPEG2 over AVI, TS, M2TS, MP4 containers.
Losing Linux support (or rather it not continuing in new models) is a severe blow but it's still the most open system. I do wish that they would reinstate support and open it up more. It's in Sony's interests to split the homebrewers and pirates into two distinct camps. I don't even know why they're so strict about access to the GPU since no matter how much they open it up it will still remain a niche.
The company policy is that the best way to make sure that devs pay attention to defects is to make them the recipient of all the pain they cause.
Unless Amazon has broken development process I would expect that more often than not any faults in production are nothing to do with the dev code, and more likely to be deployment issues. I've been on enough firedrill calls to know most of the time the dev is usually not responsible and moreover doesn't much useful input to fixing the issues either.
Re:SONY and Apple - holding our hardware hostage
on
PS3 Hacked?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The PS3 is by far and away the most open of any mainstream console. Sony likes to ram its proprietary standards down people's throats but the PS3 is a pretty open device as far as these sort of things go.
Re:Blame Sony, not the hacker
on
PS3 Hacked?
·
· Score: 1
I'm sure some people would like to run homebrew on a PS3 just like they want to run homebrew on a DS or PSP. But these people are a tiny fraction compared to what the modded firmware would mostly be used for - piracy.
I think if Sony were smart (and it doesn't happen often), they'll bring back Linux on the PS3 and open up the GPU a bit more. Linux is perfectly adequate for homebrew applications while still preventing users from running pirated games. If they can tell homebrewers apart from pirates they have a far better chance of going after the latter.
They can't do that as they explain in the blog entry a) that most windows users don't have an H264 codec and b) It's pissing on their principles (my words, not theirs). And I see their point. The Mozilla people want to be able to browse the internet with a completely free stack. That is their point: a completely free stack.
A browser that supports a completely free stack has no need for plugins. Or add-ons that handle content that the browser doesn't. So let Mozilla put their principals where their mouth is and start by banning those things.
What your suggestion is offering is a technical solution to the problem which unfortunately conflicts with their principle and thus they can't go down the road. I see Mozilla people's point and I agree with them. It's reasonable, logical and consistent. But I also understand there are a lot of people who read slashdot who just don't seem to understand what the point of freedom is.
Their principle is already conflicted by things their browser supports. Many sites contain an embedded swf and Mozilla dutifully instantiates a proprietary component to play it. Hell, their browser will even HELP the user get Adobe Flash Player if it encounters sites that contain SWFs. It's hard to imagine how their principles could be compromised any more if they're taking some kind of stance on this particular point.
Of course I realise why their principles take a backseat here. IMO it's simply pragmatic to support the proprietary stuff while pushing HTML standards which do away with them. But a video tag that only supports ogg really isn't much use at all. Sites aren't going to code against that tag when it doesn't support the INDUSTRY STANDARD codec. Some sites might use it but the majority will carry on using proprietary plugins by Adobe and Microsoft to play their content or advise users to use Google who do supply a browser which plays videos. Either way open standards and Mozilla lose.
It simply makes no sense for Mozilla to take this stance. By all means ship with the ogg player. After all, the power of the default can be never be underestimated. But not allowing other codecs is flat out stupid and ultimately self defeating. Most modern operating systems either contain an h264 player, or can obtain them. In many parts of the world, it's even free and legal to use h264. Denying a popular industry standard video format and denying providing an API so that others can support it is cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Besides, even on operating systems with no default H264 encoders, there are still options. There are plenty commercial and non-commercial plugins for Windows, Mac and Linux. For example I'm sure DIVX would be delighted to supply a free video plugin for users on pre Windows 7 systems. And of course much of the world doesn't recognize software patents so VideoLan would be perfectly legal to use too.
All of which is moot because of the nonsensical stance Mozilla is taking. By insisting on ogg and ogg only, they're just forcing web sites to ignore an important feature of HTML 5 and use proprietary plugins instead.
I don't understand how that solves the problem of being forced to rely on patented code (and therefore being forced to pay license fees) to be able to perform a basic, mundane task. That is nothing more than playing hot potato with the problem and quickly passing it on to the users, expecting that somehow they solve the problem that they failed to tackle to begin with. In fact, that is a pretty big incentive for video sites such as youtube to simply stick with flash video. How is that a step forward?
Mozilla isn't forced to rely on any patented code. They expose a bunch of APIs and let someone else worry about it. Forcing people to choose between Silverlight / Flash and an video tag that only supports Ogg is completely counterproductive. Sites will simply use the former while advising people to use another browser.
Besides, Mozilla already allows itself to host patented code in other ways such as plugins, and extensions so what exactly is the problem here?
Slashdot Mirror
Which version of Opera runs on all of those platforms? As far as I can tell Opera Mobile is only available for Nokia & Windows Mobile platforms (same targets as Mozilla is aiming for).
Java systems are stuck with Opera Mini which is basically a dumb client with a server backend that does a decent job rendering but comes with a whole pile of limitations.
And both versions of Opera are in the same boat as Mozilla is for the iPhone. Apple's ridiculous restrictions prevent either browser being offered.
In C perhaps but C++ has some extremely reliable collection classes and other helper code. The biggest issue for C++ is that the breadth is the standard lib is very weak by comparison to Java and .NET The latter benefits from slightly better thought out functionality but they're both much of a muchness.
Yes its massively easier to program. Not having to worry about so much about memory allocation / freeing or buffer overruns means faster developent and a more stable application. Same applies for Java and other high level languages of course. .NET & Java both also have excellent system libraries that have a lot more functionality than you'd find in C languages without dragging in 3rd party libs. The IDEs for developing apps are also considerably more friendly than those for C with reliable intellisense / refactoring functionality.
The penalties of course are a slower / heavier runtime but for most apps that really doesn't matter.
Even if these screens (or the iPad) means little to you, they will still have a benefit for e-ink consumers. The prices of e-ink devices is going to have to fall considerably to maintain their niche which is good for everyone.
A netbook costing half the price does a "multitude of things" too. It doesn't mean it is the "perfect board game" either.
I think I'll become more interested in tablet devices when they offer the readability of an ebook device and the responsiveness / colour of a regular netbook / laptop. Pixel Qi is supposedly producing displays which hit the sweet spot, allowing relatively low power, high res monochrome output but still allowing colour and other functionality. A decent screen wouldn't fix the godawful usability issues of touch screens but it might strike the right balance between the needs of ebooks & casual computing.
Board games come with cards, dice, plastic & metal things and usually need more space than a small rectangle. Perhaps it does allow decent simulations of board games, but at $499 (+ whatever the app store slaps on top for a game) it bloody well ought to.
Yes, their absolute refusal to support any kind of runtime environment. Flash, Java, Silverlight - anything. Even a C64 emulator which provided access to CBM Basic was banned. They don't want anything that competes with their app store. Security is *way* down the list of reasons for this.
I'm not assuming anything. Apple explicitly doesn't want any alternative stack through which people can avoid paying Apple money. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with security.
No, they won't see the inside of the box because Apple doesn't want them there. They provide users a huge amount of functionality, games, apps etc. without paying Apple for the privilege.
I assume that Ubuntu decided this was more suitable as a default application, and people who needed the full blown Gimp could just install it anyway.
Gimp was bloated, extremely user unfriendly and is many years overdue for a major usability redesign. If it annoys you THAT MUCH, that it's gone, just install it via aptitude.
Which other retailers use the RRP? NOBODY. Other retailers typically discount by 20-40%. Thus a game selling on Steam costs 50 when it can be had, including P&P for possibly 30 from Play.com. Even bricks and mortar stores are typically cheaper than Steam.
Around about now somebody is usually thinking "the publishers set the prices not Steam". Except of course even Valve's own games are cheaper to purchase in a physical format than they are from Steam. Left 4 Dead 2 costs 35 on Play.com and 49.99 on Steam. A physical game that had to be manufactured, packaged with a printed manual, shipped, sent to a wholesaler, then a retailer, all of whom took their cut still worked out 30% cheaper than the download.
If the likes of Steam is the solution to piracy, one has to wonder why prices are not lower than physical rather than grossly higher. Even during a "sale" you still have to look closely at the prices since they're often no better and sometimes still worse than physical.
Piracy is a fact of life on the PC. If crackers can (and do) strip out copy protection mechanism they can (and will) strip out continuous online verification. The best way for a manufacturer to maximize number of legal copies is to make games affordable, to offer great support (patches, new features etc.), to build up an online community, provide a compelling multiplayer (where possible) or online features like leaderboards, trophies etc. Notice that many of these things are online anyway which means they can run verification checks when the user utilizes them rather than pissing off the user by requiring constant network connectivity.
They also have a lot to lose by allowing apps like voip, instant messaging, map readers, voice search, flash player, browsers, podcasters, movie players, music players, file downloaders etc. etc.. Basically anything that competes with their tech, or offends the network, or they simply don't like on grounds of taste or any other arbitrary reason. They even ban apps with scripting / runtime capability even extending to the absurd banning of a C64 emulator lest somebody figure a way of using it to jailbreak the phone. It's not even the small fry that have been hurt - Google have had apps rejected.
The restrictions are draconian, and it isn't surprising given the above, and the way the device is locked to certain networks (even outside of contract) that people want to jailbreak it.
I think it is quite obvious that I was referring to the iPhone here. It is also quite obvious that the restrictions on the phone are draconian, as witnessed by the large demand for jail broken devices.
If the reasons that motivate most people to escape were addressed, then so would the unintended side effects. There would be a fraction of the hacks if a) Apple sold a proper unlocked network free model and b) Provided a simple and painless way for people to legally unlock phones when their contract expired and c) didn't have such absurd restrictions on the kinds of app you can run on a phone.
As for your analogy, a better one would be a prisoner escaping confinement and promptly being run over by a bus. Perhaps they should have looked both ways when crossing the road, but it doesn't invalidate any reason they may have wished to escape in the first place.
If Apple didn't put such draconian limits on what a person could do with their own property, perhaps there wouldn't be the need to "jailbreak" it.
Losing Linux support (or rather it not continuing in new models) is a severe blow but it's still the most open system. I do wish that they would reinstate support and open it up more. It's in Sony's interests to split the homebrewers and pirates into two distinct camps. I don't even know why they're so strict about access to the GPU since no matter how much they open it up it will still remain a niche.
Unless Amazon has broken development process I would expect that more often than not any faults in production are nothing to do with the dev code, and more likely to be deployment issues. I've been on enough firedrill calls to know most of the time the dev is usually not responsible and moreover doesn't much useful input to fixing the issues either.
The PS3 is by far and away the most open of any mainstream console. Sony likes to ram its proprietary standards down people's throats but the PS3 is a pretty open device as far as these sort of things go.
I think if Sony were smart (and it doesn't happen often), they'll bring back Linux on the PS3 and open up the GPU a bit more. Linux is perfectly adequate for homebrew applications while still preventing users from running pirated games. If they can tell homebrewers apart from pirates they have a far better chance of going after the latter.
A browser that supports a completely free stack has no need for plugins. Or add-ons that handle content that the browser doesn't. So let Mozilla put their principals where their mouth is and start by banning those things.
What your suggestion is offering is a technical solution to the problem which unfortunately conflicts with their principle and thus they can't go down the road. I see Mozilla people's point and I agree with them. It's reasonable, logical and consistent. But I also understand there are a lot of people who read slashdot who just don't seem to understand what the point of freedom is.
Their principle is already conflicted by things their browser supports. Many sites contain an embedded swf and Mozilla dutifully instantiates a proprietary component to play it. Hell, their browser will even HELP the user get Adobe Flash Player if it encounters sites that contain SWFs. It's hard to imagine how their principles could be compromised any more if they're taking some kind of stance on this particular point.
Of course I realise why their principles take a backseat here. IMO it's simply pragmatic to support the proprietary stuff while pushing HTML standards which do away with them. But a video tag that only supports ogg really isn't much use at all. Sites aren't going to code against that tag when it doesn't support the INDUSTRY STANDARD codec. Some sites might use it but the majority will carry on using proprietary plugins by Adobe and Microsoft to play their content or advise users to use Google who do supply a browser which plays videos. Either way open standards and Mozilla lose.
It simply makes no sense for Mozilla to take this stance. By all means ship with the ogg player. After all, the power of the default can be never be underestimated. But not allowing other codecs is flat out stupid and ultimately self defeating. Most modern operating systems either contain an h264 player, or can obtain them. In many parts of the world, it's even free and legal to use h264. Denying a popular industry standard video format and denying providing an API so that others can support it is cutting off the nose to spite the face.
All of which is moot because of the nonsensical stance Mozilla is taking. By insisting on ogg and ogg only, they're just forcing web sites to ignore an important feature of HTML 5 and use proprietary plugins instead.
Mozilla isn't forced to rely on any patented code. They expose a bunch of APIs and let someone else worry about it. Forcing people to choose between Silverlight / Flash and an video tag that only supports Ogg is completely counterproductive. Sites will simply use the former while advising people to use another browser.
Besides, Mozilla already allows itself to host patented code in other ways such as plugins, and extensions so what exactly is the problem here?