Why is an out-of-the-box XP machine performing better than an out-of-the-box Linux machine?
It isn't.
The Linux community shouldn't be saying "try this" or "tweak that" or "install this device driver" or "switch your hardware"...
Actually, "switch your hardware" is a reasonable suggestion. If you try to run software on hardware that's not compatible with it, it won't work. That's also true for Windows and OS X.
The fact that MS marketing is touting this result is not evidence of bias,
We don't have to show bias, NSS Labs has to convincingly show absence of bias. Their experiments are not peer reviewed and they are not reproducible, which means that they aren't worth the paper they are written on.
If the test were completed and showed Google's list performed better, MS would have simply not published the result at all and we never would have heard about it.
That alone means there is bias: selection bias. They can simply commission enough studies under enough different conditions and then select the (possibly tiny) subset of studies that show what they want.
Neither the G1 nor the iPhone have "mass faults". Both of them have had some rough edges: mediocre battery life, lack of video recording, some missing functionality in the software, some bugs.
And in terms of sales, the iPhone and the G1 have been following very similar curves in terms of absolute sales numbers. Given that the G1 started from scratch while Apple started with an existing platform and channel, that's quite an achievement for the G1.
The meaning of "major" and "minor" version number doesn't depend on Apple marketing campaigns. "10" is the major version number of "10.5.8". If Apple stops at that major number for marketing reasons, that's their business, but it doesn't change the meaning.
iPhone and Android have had similar growth, measured from their release dates. And that's based on basically a single, unattractive phone--the G1, without any kind of iTunes tie-in, and without the hype that surrounded the iPhone.
So, Android has been growing just fine, and it will do better and better relative to the iPhone as new devices and new applications come out.
Yeah, they "failed" by becoming the biggest manufacturer of netbooks and causing lots of other companies to follow suit in shipping Linux.
If Nokia had entered what is gearing up to be a very aggressive market with a linux based netbook, I would have expect the BOD to fire the CEO right away!
That must be why Linux is kicking Microsoft's ass in the mobile space.
If it's not too expensive, I will be buying one myself and no..I wont be installing Linux.
I wouldn't expect anything different from a Microsoft corporate drone like you.
It's ridiculous, I agree, but it's quite possibly the telephone operators who are to blame.
Telephone operators have always wanted to do this; that's why we have laws that prevent them from doing it. Apple is to blame because they have created a new platform and a new means for telephone operators to circumvent the intent of the laws.
Telephone operators are like hungry lions--they eat their customers. Europeans know that, which is why they built cages for them. Apple stole the keys to those cages and is now busy locking their customers into those cages, to be eaten by the lions.
At least this is the problem here in Australia. On the plus side, the introduction of the iPhone means that mobile internet packages have become much better. Even Telstra, the government created monopoly, give you more than 2MB (not a typo) per month now.
Sounds like Australia is one of the places in the world that is as bad as the US. Yes, in the US and Australia, the iPhone may look OK. My point is that for many other places, it's a return to the bad old days and it's evil.
The US and Australia should fix their mobile markets and make them competitive, not export their monopolistic and inefficient markets to the rest of the world.
It's funny you use MS as the example of a failed monopoly; I don't think we're quite there yet. MS is still using its near monopoly to push other services, including their Internet portals.
But, in any case, Apple is becoming the MS of the phone era, by trying to use one big success (phone hardware) into another big success (online services). It's not at the level of a monopoly yet, but that was exactly Microsoft's strategy: bundling and tying.
This is very important for the industry. It proves, once more, that software is more important than hardware. [...] [Apple] has some nice software in its hands, and it could become an alternative to Microsoft/Google if they wanted to.
If Apple's software were so much better than Google's, Apple would have no problem in competing with Google on a level playing field. Instead, Apple is using their control over the iPhone hardware (and the iPhone hardware is pretty nice) to try to avoid face competition against Google software altogether.
So, what this really shows us is that Apple itself lacks confidence in the competitiveness of their software, because if they thought that Apple's services and software were so much better than Google's, they wouldn't worry about approving Google's applications.
By "evil" do you mean: "doesn't conform to what I want".
No, by "evil" I mean: economically inefficient, anti-competitive, anti-free-market, anti-consumer, and anti-innovation. In terms of attitudes, that translates into "hated by almost everybody".
Apple's position is clearly that by letting google extend their platform to the iphone they would clearly gain converts to it, but without letting apple control that environment they lose the ability to provide distinction, and maintain their competitive advantage.
Nobody is forcing users to install Google Voice. So, what you are saying is that if users have the choice, they will install Google Voice and not use Apple's services anymore.
So, you are basically saying that Apple's "competitive advantage" is in propping up an uncompetitive product (their services) with a good product (their phone hardware).
Just thought I'd put that into perspective for you.
i think what im really missing is, why does anyone have the right to install whatever they want on the device?
Because the FCC, FTC, and DOJ regulate what Apple can do. And they do so for good reason.
get the government out of this. the government is inherently reactive and slow, technology is proactive. you've got other options
The facts are obviously different: European and Asian cellular phone markets are much more efficient, precisely because the government prevents companies like Microsoft and Apple from monopolizing the market.
Just like the RIAA, the MPAA, and other such entities, the cellular and phone companies are dinosaurs of an early technological age, and they are holding us back.
In Europe, you can use any phone on any carrier. You can effectively stream audio, video, and whatever else you like and the carriers don't really care. You do get unlimited 3G flat rates for under $30/month.
The only major phone that doesn't work that way? You guessed it: Apple's iPhone.
Far from freeing the US market from SIM locking and carrier lock-in, Apple is trying to export the evil of the US cellular market to Europe.
I don't quite understand what the big fuss is about with syncing. You can already sync iPhone contacts and calendars with Google accounts easily; see here for how to set that up.
Google Voice doesn't need to sync Google contacts; in fact, it shouldn't, because that would conflict with the synchronization that already exists.
What's there to "reverse engineer"? Apple already has a competing product, MobileMe / me.com.
The difference between Google and Apple's products is that Google's product is free and isn't tied to any particular hardware platform and works well on many devices in addition to the iPhone. Apple doesn't want to offer that kind of product because they want to tie all their products together and lock their users in.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is an out-of-the-box XP machine performing better than an out-of-the-box Linux machine?
It isn't.
The Linux community shouldn't be saying "try this" or "tweak that" or "install this device driver" or "switch your hardware"...
Actually, "switch your hardware" is a reasonable suggestion. If you try to run software on hardware that's not compatible with it, it won't work. That's also true for Windows and OS X.
I have an EEE and on an HP DV5, and I get about the same batter life under Windows and Ubuntu, both with the default installations.
The fact that MS marketing is touting this result is not evidence of bias,
We don't have to show bias, NSS Labs has to convincingly show absence of bias. Their experiments are not peer reviewed and they are not reproducible, which means that they aren't worth the paper they are written on.
If the test were completed and showed Google's list performed better, MS would have simply not published the result at all and we never would have heard about it.
That alone means there is bias: selection bias. They can simply commission enough studies under enough different conditions and then select the (possibly tiny) subset of studies that show what they want.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"
That attitude is why they are incompetent :-)
I have never heard of them having mass faults,
Neither the G1 nor the iPhone have "mass faults". Both of them have had some rough edges: mediocre battery life, lack of video recording, some missing functionality in the software, some bugs.
And in terms of sales, the iPhone and the G1 have been following very similar curves in terms of absolute sales numbers. Given that the G1 started from scratch while Apple started with an existing platform and channel, that's quite an achievement for the G1.
Do you seriously think you're getting something for free?
You're better off paying for the phone out of pocket and getting a prepaid plan.
But the number does change. Java had 0.x versions, and Linux had 0.x and 1.x versions. And Mac OS had version 1.x through 9.x as well.
The meaning of "major" and "minor" version number doesn't depend on Apple marketing campaigns. "10" is the major version number of "10.5.8". If Apple stops at that major number for marketing reasons, that's their business, but it doesn't change the meaning.
Apple's iPhone had similar (actually, worse) problems in its first release.
As with iPhone, newer Android models are fixing the initial problems.
iPhone and Android have had similar growth, measured from their release dates. And that's based on basically a single, unattractive phone--the G1, without any kind of iTunes tie-in, and without the hype that surrounded the iPhone.
So, Android has been growing just fine, and it will do better and better relative to the iPhone as new devices and new applications come out.
In "10.5", "10" is the major version and "5" is the minor version. Therefore, "jumping to a minor version" costs money.
Asus tried it already and it failed.
Yeah, they "failed" by becoming the biggest manufacturer of netbooks and causing lots of other companies to follow suit in shipping Linux.
If Nokia had entered what is gearing up to be a very aggressive market with a linux based netbook, I would have expect the BOD to fire the CEO right away!
That must be why Linux is kicking Microsoft's ass in the mobile space.
If it's not too expensive, I will be buying one myself and no..I wont be installing Linux.
I wouldn't expect anything different from a Microsoft corporate drone like you.
If I put Ubuntu on it, can I still make phone calls with the built-in GSM/HSDPA?
Probably. Ubuntu's 3G modem support is quite good.
If the hardware is supported under Linux, I don't mind blowing away the pre-installed Windows. It's not like they put the O/S in ROM.
I was thinking the same thing; the specs and design are very nice.
It's ridiculous, I agree, but it's quite possibly the telephone operators who are to blame.
Telephone operators have always wanted to do this; that's why we have laws that prevent them from doing it. Apple is to blame because they have created a new platform and a new means for telephone operators to circumvent the intent of the laws.
Telephone operators are like hungry lions--they eat their customers. Europeans know that, which is why they built cages for them. Apple stole the keys to those cages and is now busy locking their customers into those cages, to be eaten by the lions.
At least this is the problem here in Australia. On the plus side, the introduction of the iPhone means that mobile internet packages have become much better. Even Telstra, the government created monopoly, give you more than 2MB (not a typo) per month now.
Sounds like Australia is one of the places in the world that is as bad as the US. Yes, in the US and Australia, the iPhone may look OK. My point is that for many other places, it's a return to the bad old days and it's evil.
The US and Australia should fix their mobile markets and make them competitive, not export their monopolistic and inefficient markets to the rest of the world.
It's funny you use MS as the example of a failed monopoly; I don't think we're quite there yet. MS is still using its near monopoly to push other services, including their Internet portals.
But, in any case, Apple is becoming the MS of the phone era, by trying to use one big success (phone hardware) into another big success (online services). It's not at the level of a monopoly yet, but that was exactly Microsoft's strategy: bundling and tying.
This is very important for the industry. It proves, once more, that software is more important than hardware. [...] [Apple] has some nice software in its hands, and it could become an alternative to Microsoft/Google if they wanted to.
If Apple's software were so much better than Google's, Apple would have no problem in competing with Google on a level playing field. Instead, Apple is using their control over the iPhone hardware (and the iPhone hardware is pretty nice) to try to avoid face competition against Google software altogether.
So, what this really shows us is that Apple itself lacks confidence in the competitiveness of their software, because if they thought that Apple's services and software were so much better than Google's, they wouldn't worry about approving Google's applications.
By "evil" do you mean: "doesn't conform to what I want".
No, by "evil" I mean: economically inefficient, anti-competitive, anti-free-market, anti-consumer, and anti-innovation. In terms of attitudes, that translates into "hated by almost everybody".
Apple's position is clearly that by letting google extend their platform to the iphone they would clearly gain converts to it, but without letting apple control that environment they lose the ability to provide distinction, and maintain their competitive advantage.
Nobody is forcing users to install Google Voice. So, what you are saying is that if users have the choice, they will install Google Voice and not use Apple's services anymore.
So, you are basically saying that Apple's "competitive advantage" is in propping up an uncompetitive product (their services) with a good product (their phone hardware).
Just thought I'd put that into perspective for you.
i think what im really missing is, why does anyone have the right to install whatever they want on the device?
Because the FCC, FTC, and DOJ regulate what Apple can do. And they do so for good reason.
get the government out of this. the government is inherently reactive and slow, technology is proactive. you've got other options
The facts are obviously different: European and Asian cellular phone markets are much more efficient, precisely because the government prevents companies like Microsoft and Apple from monopolizing the market.
Just like the RIAA, the MPAA, and other such entities, the cellular and phone companies are dinosaurs of an early technological age, and they are holding us back.
In Europe, you can use any phone on any carrier. You can effectively stream audio, video, and whatever else you like and the carriers don't really care. You do get unlimited 3G flat rates for under $30/month.
The only major phone that doesn't work that way? You guessed it: Apple's iPhone.
Far from freeing the US market from SIM locking and carrier lock-in, Apple is trying to export the evil of the US cellular market to Europe.
Apple isn't contractually required to ever give an accept/reject answer on an app submission (G)
No, but the FCC and FTC may require them to, regardless of contract.
They don't have to reverse engineer it, they can just keep it in limbo forever if they want, it's safer that way.
If Apple can't compete with Google apps on their own hardware and platform, they have already lost.
I don't quite understand what the big fuss is about with syncing. You can already sync iPhone contacts and calendars with Google accounts easily; see here for how to set that up.
Google Voice doesn't need to sync Google contacts; in fact, it shouldn't, because that would conflict with the synchronization that already exists.
What's there to "reverse engineer"? Apple already has a competing product, MobileMe / me.com.
The difference between Google and Apple's products is that Google's product is free and isn't tied to any particular hardware platform and works well on many devices in addition to the iPhone. Apple doesn't want to offer that kind of product because they want to tie all their products together and lock their users in.
Tracy apparently had some trouble with the concept of "privacy" (or lack thereof) on Facebook...
Facebook might as well be regular web pages out in the open.
However, I don't see what the ACLU has to do with any of this.