There are two fundamental problem with the "just install XYZ add-on and it becomes tolerable" perspective.
1) Every time you have to use the computer of someone not savvy enough to want/install such a thing, you're stuck with the horrible stock configuration. 2) Every time you have to use a locked-down/policy-controlled computer, you're stuck with the horrible stock configuration.
#1 kinda reminds me of having to use the Gentoo or Ubuntu machine of someone who has different command-line needs from install-to-that-point. #2 is a tad less of a short-term concern, since many of those are just moving from XP to 7, but a serious long-term concern if things aren't fixed in 9.
Yet this myth is so pervasive, that it feels like anyone who isn't the school's top math wiz is outright discouraged from even considering computer programming.
Except BlackBerry actually has pretty good Facebook and Twitter support. (and there's a decent 3rd party Google+ app) The only main one missing is Linkedin, and they used to have that. (But like many mobile projects, it got abandoned shortly after it was released and promoted.)
Where it fails, is the "Whoopdie do! We just invented a startup last week to leech off FB and do something stupid! We even have an iPhone app!" market.
Except somehow, scores of people have become convinced that there is a difference between "mobile app development" and "computer programming." Thus, every Tom, Dick, Harry, Web Designer, and Marketing Douchbag is now convinced that they want to and can become a "mobile app developer" even if they never learned (and have no aptitude for, or even interest in) actual programming.
You mean methods that require smart and highly trained screening personnel? Is an organization like the TSA even allowed to hire those kinds of people?
Macros I actually used extensively when I was in college, and wanted to use common data structures in C code. Of course I only knew about those macros because I knew people who were very involved in FreeBSD that told me about them. (Though writing common functions for linked-list implementations is something you kinda learn in FRESHMAN level CompSci classes.)
2)Not enough work on backwards compatibility. If I use the 4.0 features, there's no good fallback. Java doesn't help them here- in C++ I could #define in 2.x and 4.x blocks, Java requires lots of reflection aware code because there is no conditional compilation. Or you need to set up special stuff with antenna and the like, which is hard to get working nicely with all the tools.
This is something I have far too much experience with from the world of BlackBerry. I've done both preprocessor hacks (which is supported by the build tools, but Eclipse hates), and fancy crap with libraries/pseudo-reflection/design-patterns (which lesser developers might cringe at figuring out). Either way, its not fun. It basically means that you have to use any new features "by exception", versus "by design", which makes it very hard to fully leverage them if the intent is to make your life as a developer better.
3)The ratio is still out of whack with more 2.x phones sold than 4.0. This is due to so few phones being upgradeable
Or due to carriers not bothering to push updates, when the vendors have. Or due to users not knowing/caring that they should upgrade. Or due to people clinging to their ancient phones and developers having a hard time justifying cutting them off if they want to maximize adoption. Regardless, having so many players between "OS upstream source" and "end user's device", you're pretty much doomed to this problem.
4)For whatever reason, I don't see a lot of open source stepping in to help this. On the PC, there's be open source libraries galore to step into the gap. On mobiles, not so much. I think the idea of easy monetization via ads (regardless of how much you actually make) has helped to kill the open source movement on mobile phones. Plenty of free help out there, but not much in the way of quality libraries. But these are the people who generally would be jumping on new features. Without them, its mostly commercial devs and they just want to target the mass market.
On the PC, you also have continual upgrades to common libraries separate from the whole OS, and sometimes even multiple versions of libraries installed. Additionally, the upgrade cycles of the hardware are almost completely separated from the upgrade cycles of these libraries. (at least in relation to the time scales we're talking about)
I also agree that the mobile business models have greatly discouraged open source. Its quite frustrating, too, since it places far more burden on the shoulders of the platform vendor to provide everything. There's also this idea that you're supposed to try and make money off any and every mobile project. Regardless of how likely you are to actually succeed, you're looked down upon if you don't at least try. And often trying, means your effort isn't going to be open source at all. (Personally, I'd rather make something open-source and gain the community benefits than try to make an insignificant pittance off it as closed-source. If I'm closing something down, its because the monetary benefit is real and not imagined.)
Even if the specific example may have been blown way out of proportion, I actually see a lot of the plainly-worded outrage as a complete misunderstanding of how the whole DoD acquisition process actually works.
I wish they would. The problem with many folks on their side of the political isle, is that all gov't spending is bad except for the spending they actually like. DoD spending is spending they like, and somehow exempt from all their arguments about wasteful gov't spending "Because its in the constitution!"
Seriously, anyone who thinks DoD spending isn't wasteful gov't spending either: 1) Is blissfully ignorant of how the whole industry operates 2) Works in the industry, and is thus self-serving
(And for some reason, many on the left are as blissfully ignorant as those on the right, they just have a different bias so they make opposing arguments.)
Frankly, I wish jailbreaking an iOS device was impossible. Why? Because it might actually stop people from considering iOS devices as worth buying, because of what they can do when jailbroken. As long as its easy to climb over the walls the gardener builds around his garden, far fewer people care that the walls are there in the first place.
As users, we should have the ability to run whatever damn software we please on the hardware we've bought. And no, we shouldn't have to hack our devices for that privilege. Yes, even software that the platform vendor doesn't approve of.
(Every time Microsoft even ponders things for PCs that vaguely resemble what Apple does on iOS, the community screams for blood. I only wish the same level of anger, from the same individuals, would get pointed at Apple once in a while.)
Shh... You're not supposed to contradict the popular consensus that RIM is $80B in debt, went bankrupt 6 months ago, and plans to sell half the company next week, and liquidate the rest by the end of the month.
I think you're also supposed to throw in some collection of jabs against whatever phone they sold 4-5 years ago that you didn't like, and how they're still selling it as part of their current portfolio and not working on anything newer.
And I wonder what would have happened if Nokia actually stood behind the N9, and didn't declare it dead before putting it on sale?
As it is, while there may be plenty of hobbyists doing N9 development, Nokia's situation makes it nearly impossible for any actual mobile-software business to justify investing so much as a dime in the platform.
It was rootable due to a desktop backup/restore issue, but I believe that has long since been fixed. However, the bootloader is locked, and that has never been cracked.
It currently runs the BlackBerry "Tablet OS", which is basically QNX 6.6 with a different UI layer on top. Its has very good multitasking, and yes, you can SSH into it.
And if you don't have WiFi available, it can tether over Bluetooth to any device that supports Bluetooth tethering.
The only thing you need a BlackBerry phone for is "bridge", which is a feature that makes certain apps and data on a BlackBerry phone available via the PlayBook's UI.
They are using the "larger market" to sell more smartphones. The problem is that most of that market is outside of the US, and thus completely ignored by the US-centric press during their weekly rounds of RIM-bashing.
They actually are abandoning their legacy OS. While it may have been a great smartphone OS when originally introduced, its been pushed far beyond its design limits and is very much running out of steam.
The new OS in development, which is currently called "BlackBerry 10" (formerly called "BBX") is using the same basic modern architecture as everyone else. Under the covers, its using QNX (a POSIX-compliant realtime multitasking OS). On the surface, RIM is building a whole software stack and set of applications. They've got a new UI framework based on C++/Qt called Cascades. They're also supporting a variety of additional development options, including raw native code (for game developers), HTML5-based apps, Adobe Air, and even the "Android runtime".
They've also been holding a whole series of developer events to promote the new platform, and are seeding developer devices to help everyone get started with it. If you actually dig up and see what they've been working on, its obvious that they're dead serious about moving forward to the future.
Of course this all takes time, but they are fully committed to building out the new platform. They've even engaged the whole developer community directly, in more ways than many realize. They've been posting a ton of open source content, and have made many of their developers and program managers directly accessible to the developers out there in the community.
So people, please stop thinking they're some stodgy company still trying to push 5-year-old phones. They've changed a lot since then. It just takes time for everything to come to market, and even more time for the popular-press (who seems to have negative retorts "in the can" prior to RIM press releases being published) to notice.
Pretty sure this rant isn't about *real* free software, of the open-source variety. Rather, its about free-as-in-beer (or priced close enough to it) closed-source software, with an end-game that has it likely headed straight for abandonware.
Yes, established companies get hurt too. All these "hot startups" need things, which dramatically increases demand on the companies that make those things. So those established companies have to grow to meet the new demand. Then the bubble bursts, and the demand collapses.
Not to mention flooding of the tech labor markets, with people who probably had no business being there in the first place...
And e-book readers are basically the new version of a book or magazine. This will continue to be more and more common in the future. Yet as technology moves forward, the "modern" versions of non-forbidden items gain features (such as being "electronic") that make them suddenly forbidden in scenarios where the "old" versions of those devices were always allowed.
Everyone here loves to say "put the damn iPad away for 15 minutes", but no one ever talks about banning paperbacks and magazines. Well guess what? Its only a matter of time before the "books and magazines" will *be* the damn iPad for almost everyone.
And there in lies the problem with the whole online dating experience. They make it *far* too complicated to get from "identify person of interest" to "meet that person." Of course the probability of actually hitting it off once you do meet in person doesn't seen to be any better than any other method. Seriously, why should you need to be able to keep up an active online conversation for (possibly) weeks, when there will be a rejection/acceptance moment from one of you within the first 5 minutes of actually meeting in person?
Slashdot Mirror
There are two fundamental problem with the "just install XYZ add-on and it becomes tolerable" perspective.
1) Every time you have to use the computer of someone not savvy enough to want/install such a thing, you're stuck with the horrible stock configuration.
2) Every time you have to use a locked-down/policy-controlled computer, you're stuck with the horrible stock configuration.
#1 kinda reminds me of having to use the Gentoo or Ubuntu machine of someone who has different command-line needs from install-to-that-point.
#2 is a tad less of a short-term concern, since many of those are just moving from XP to 7, but a serious long-term concern if things aren't fixed in 9.
Yet this myth is so pervasive, that it feels like anyone who isn't the school's top math wiz is outright discouraged from even considering computer programming.
Except BlackBerry actually has pretty good Facebook and Twitter support. (and there's a decent 3rd party Google+ app) The only main one missing is Linkedin, and they used to have that. (But like many mobile projects, it got abandoned shortly after it was released and promoted.)
Where it fails, is the "Whoopdie do! We just invented a startup last week to leech off FB and do something stupid! We even have an iPhone app!" market.
Except somehow, scores of people have become convinced that there is a difference between "mobile app development" and "computer programming." Thus, every Tom, Dick, Harry, Web Designer, and Marketing Douchbag is now convinced that they want to and can become a "mobile app developer" even if they never learned (and have no aptitude for, or even interest in) actual programming.
You mean methods that require smart and highly trained screening personnel? Is an organization like the TSA even allowed to hire those kinds of people?
And if a desktop software developer complained about something as trivial as screen resolution variations, they'd be laughed out of the room.
Macros I actually used extensively when I was in college, and wanted to use common data structures in C code. Of course I only knew about those macros because I knew people who were very involved in FreeBSD that told me about them. (Though writing common functions for linked-list implementations is something you kinda learn in FRESHMAN level CompSci classes.)
1)Too many versions too quickly.
Thus is life in the mobile world...
2)Not enough work on backwards compatibility. If I use the 4.0 features, there's no good fallback. Java doesn't help them here- in C++ I could #define in 2.x and 4.x blocks, Java requires lots of reflection aware code because there is no conditional compilation. Or you need to set up special stuff with antenna and the like, which is hard to get working nicely with all the tools.
This is something I have far too much experience with from the world of BlackBerry. I've done both preprocessor hacks (which is supported by the build tools, but Eclipse hates), and fancy crap with libraries/pseudo-reflection/design-patterns (which lesser developers might cringe at figuring out). Either way, its not fun. It basically means that you have to use any new features "by exception", versus "by design", which makes it very hard to fully leverage them if the intent is to make your life as a developer better.
3)The ratio is still out of whack with more 2.x phones sold than 4.0. This is due to so few phones being upgradeable
Or due to carriers not bothering to push updates, when the vendors have. Or due to users not knowing/caring that they should upgrade. Or due to people clinging to their ancient phones and developers having a hard time justifying cutting them off if they want to maximize adoption. Regardless, having so many players between "OS upstream source" and "end user's device", you're pretty much doomed to this problem.
4)For whatever reason, I don't see a lot of open source stepping in to help this. On the PC, there's be open source libraries galore to step into the gap. On mobiles, not so much. I think the idea of easy monetization via ads (regardless of how much you actually make) has helped to kill the open source movement on mobile phones. Plenty of free help out there, but not much in the way of quality libraries. But these are the people who generally would be jumping on new features. Without them, its mostly commercial devs and they just want to target the mass market.
On the PC, you also have continual upgrades to common libraries separate from the whole OS, and sometimes even multiple versions of libraries installed. Additionally, the upgrade cycles of the hardware are almost completely separated from the upgrade cycles of these libraries. (at least in relation to the time scales we're talking about)
I also agree that the mobile business models have greatly discouraged open source. Its quite frustrating, too, since it places far more burden on the shoulders of the platform vendor to provide everything. There's also this idea that you're supposed to try and make money off any and every mobile project. Regardless of how likely you are to actually succeed, you're looked down upon if you don't at least try. And often trying, means your effort isn't going to be open source at all. (Personally, I'd rather make something open-source and gain the community benefits than try to make an insignificant pittance off it as closed-source. If I'm closing something down, its because the monetary benefit is real and not imagined.)
Even if the specific example may have been blown way out of proportion, I actually see a lot of the plainly-worded outrage as a complete misunderstanding of how the whole DoD acquisition process actually works.
To this end, I once wrote up a notional piece on The Mythical $800 Hammer. :-)
I wish they would. The problem with many folks on their side of the political isle, is that all gov't spending is bad except for the spending they actually like. DoD spending is spending they like, and somehow exempt from all their arguments about wasteful gov't spending "Because its in the constitution!"
Seriously, anyone who thinks DoD spending isn't wasteful gov't spending either:
1) Is blissfully ignorant of how the whole industry operates
2) Works in the industry, and is thus self-serving
(And for some reason, many on the left are as blissfully ignorant as those on the right, they just have a different bias so they make opposing arguments.)
Frankly, I wish jailbreaking an iOS device was impossible. Why? Because it might actually stop people from considering iOS devices as worth buying, because of what they can do when jailbroken. As long as its easy to climb over the walls the gardener builds around his garden, far fewer people care that the walls are there in the first place.
As users, we should have the ability to run whatever damn software we please on the hardware we've bought. And no, we shouldn't have to hack our devices for that privilege. Yes, even software that the platform vendor doesn't approve of.
(Every time Microsoft even ponders things for PCs that vaguely resemble what Apple does on iOS, the community screams for blood. I only wish the same level of anger, from the same individuals, would get pointed at Apple once in a while.)
Remember folks, thanks to everyone being taught MS-DOS in the 80's and early 90's, all web addresses are pronounced:
Aitch Tee Tee Pee, Colon, Backslash, Backslash...
Obligatory xkcd
Shh... You're not supposed to contradict the popular consensus that RIM is $80B in debt, went bankrupt 6 months ago, and plans to sell half the company next week, and liquidate the rest by the end of the month.
I think you're also supposed to throw in some collection of jabs against whatever phone they sold 4-5 years ago that you didn't like, and how they're still selling it as part of their current portfolio and not working on anything newer.
And I wonder what would have happened if Nokia actually stood behind the N9, and didn't declare it dead before putting it on sale?
As it is, while there may be plenty of hobbyists doing N9 development, Nokia's situation makes it nearly impossible for any actual mobile-software business to justify investing so much as a dime in the platform.
It was rootable due to a desktop backup/restore issue, but I believe that has long since been fixed.
However, the bootloader is locked, and that has never been cracked.
It currently runs the BlackBerry "Tablet OS", which is basically QNX 6.6 with a different UI layer on top. Its has very good multitasking, and yes, you can SSH into it.
And if you don't have WiFi available, it can tether over Bluetooth to any device that supports Bluetooth tethering.
The only thing you need a BlackBerry phone for is "bridge", which is a feature that makes certain apps and data on a BlackBerry phone available via the PlayBook's UI.
They are using the "larger market" to sell more smartphones. The problem is that most of that market is outside of the US, and thus completely ignored by the US-centric press during their weekly rounds of RIM-bashing.
They actually are abandoning their legacy OS. While it may have been a great smartphone OS when originally introduced, its been pushed far beyond its design limits and is very much running out of steam.
The new OS in development, which is currently called "BlackBerry 10" (formerly called "BBX") is using the same basic modern architecture as everyone else. Under the covers, its using QNX (a POSIX-compliant realtime multitasking OS). On the surface, RIM is building a whole software stack and set of applications. They've got a new UI framework based on C++/Qt called Cascades. They're also supporting a variety of additional development options, including raw native code (for game developers), HTML5-based apps, Adobe Air, and even the "Android runtime".
They've also been holding a whole series of developer events to promote the new platform, and are seeding developer devices to help everyone get started with it. If you actually dig up and see what they've been working on, its obvious that they're dead serious about moving forward to the future.
Of course this all takes time, but they are fully committed to building out the new platform. They've even engaged the whole developer community directly, in more ways than many realize. They've been posting a ton of open source content, and have made many of their developers and program managers directly accessible to the developers out there in the community.
So people, please stop thinking they're some stodgy company still trying to push 5-year-old phones. They've changed a lot since then. It just takes time for everything to come to market, and even more time for the popular-press (who seems to have negative retorts "in the can" prior to RIM press releases being published) to notice.
Pretty sure this rant isn't about *real* free software, of the open-source variety. Rather, its about free-as-in-beer (or priced close enough to it) closed-source software, with an end-game that has it likely headed straight for abandonware.
Yes, established companies get hurt too. All these "hot startups" need things, which dramatically increases demand on the companies that make those things. So those established companies have to grow to meet the new demand. Then the bubble bursts, and the demand collapses.
Not to mention flooding of the tech labor markets, with people who probably had no business being there in the first place...
And e-book readers are basically the new version of a book or magazine. This will continue to be more and more common in the future. Yet as technology moves forward, the "modern" versions of non-forbidden items gain features (such as being "electronic") that make them suddenly forbidden in scenarios where the "old" versions of those devices were always allowed.
Everyone here loves to say "put the damn iPad away for 15 minutes", but no one ever talks about banning paperbacks and magazines. Well guess what? Its only a matter of time before the "books and magazines" will *be* the damn iPad for almost everyone.
Which is why I used to make a point to wear shoes that wouldn't set off a metal detector. Not like that does me any good anymore...
That's why, when I was in college, they used Pokemon names for DNS resolution of IPs given out via DHCP to laptops roaming campus :-)
And there in lies the problem with the whole online dating experience. They make it *far* too complicated to get from "identify person of interest" to "meet that person." Of course the probability of actually hitting it off once you do meet in person doesn't seen to be any better than any other method. Seriously, why should you need to be able to keep up an active online conversation for (possibly) weeks, when there will be a rejection/acceptance moment from one of you within the first 5 minutes of actually meeting in person?