what? i'm pretty sure if you buy a phone from google then fragmentation wont affect you. of all phones, these are the ones the developers will target first.
just because you CAN buy from other manufacturers, doesn't mean you should. just because others are affected by fragmentation, doesn't mean you have to be.
there are very good reasons to buy a google phone. those who buy from other manufacturers know what they are getting, and most dont really care.
Given that I'm not from the US, that last point seems out of place in this discussion...
not to worry, I agree that MS are a company that is for profit, but surely recent history has shown that companies that offer "good-will" to the community, and in particular the open-source community, actually reap rewards as a result...
I disagree. I might share my birthday and other info with friends because I trust them. But they _could_, if they wanted, abuse that trust and use the info for identity theft or other such malicious uses.
That's exactly the point I made. We TRUST that the other party will do as they say. If they betray our trust, that would have the same or similar consequences as it would in the real world.
The online world is just an extension of how things work offline...yet people get so confused about online issues and pretend its all new stuff that we've never had to deal with before.
You're talking about companies who entice people in to using their services only to abuse the trust later. Think about it - companies like that make news headlines and suffer for it. Facebook has had a lot of trouble in that area..and have even been forced to change their policies by law in some countries. Google also has had the law step in on occasion. At the end of the day, the trust relationship still holds true. If you feel you cannot trust your bank, you'd withdraw all your money immediately. We need to be able to do the same with our data.
why not? plenty of linux devs support windows too. If they really wanted to get into the spirit of contributing to open source, they should have at least done a little more than just help themselves out...a little bit of goodwill for the community wouldn't hurt (its the open-source way).
but they dont have to....and they chose not to.
So rather than this being a "Microsoft contributes to open-source" story, it is merely just a "MS does business-as-usual". Nothing wrong with that, but also not praiseworthy either.
Linux (or win xp) on the 1st generation of netbooks is not fast. chrome os may be able to run on even lower-spec hardware and still acheive decent speeds, thereby providing a net-focused laptop to a lot more people.
he is also right to call it "careless" computing because the fact is most people dont care about the issue he is raising. facebook is solid proof of this.
I think the one thing cloud computing is missing is the ability to "take back" our data or move it to another provider. maybe legislation around our right to our data? but I think this will happen once these technologies become common. Governments do tend to support the rights of citizens when the voice gets strong enough - but the voice probably wont be strong enough until more people know what its all about.
if you buy the phone from google you can modify it at will anyway. most phones are "rootable" these days and have custom roms available.
I agree android is "somewhat" like the scenario you mentioned but not entirely. its definitely more "free" than any other mobile ecosystem to date, as far as this issue is concerned. When was the last time you loaded a custom rom on your iphone or blackberry, you know, a rom that has been created by the community, with patches donated by several different developers? and the same goes for any symbian-based device too. android is fairly customizable, but the problem you are really talking about is that it could be a lot better.
we already sacrifice freedom for convenience in many ways. its not all bad. it _can_ be bad...but its not automatically bad by definition.
the cloud wont take away ALL of our freedom - that's just absurd. we just trade a bit of control over (some of) our data for convenience - based on trust. you know, the same way we deal with real people. if someone betrays our trust, they can sometimes do really nasty things with what we've told them. but if we are sensible in the first place, and maybe a bit cautious with what we share, this sort of thing should be rare. and we dont stop trusting everyone because of it, we just learn to be more careful. using this analogy - there may well be hiccups along the way as cloud computing enters mainstream, but everything will sort itself out eventually...and for the majority of people, there will be a perceived (and real?) benefit.
except that they dont. that is FUD. you dont lose everything - google give you access to their APIs so you can download your google data offline.
or maybe we shouldn't entrust anyone with any of our personal information because of what they _could_ do with it. see how you get on.
this is all about a trust relationship - if you dont feel you can trust and individual or a company, then dont share your info with them. this isn't a new concept at all. just a new way of doing what we've always done in our dealings with people.
Here are the benefits: * no need to backup * same interface no matter where you login from (globally roaming profile?) * all your data, wherever you are, wherever you are logged in from * blend of mobile computing with traditional computing. we've already taken the web mobile but this will take full web-apps mobile too
It will not replace your desktop pc, nor is it intended to (as I see it). I think it is intended to re-invent the netbook - and this is a very welcome change if it can make our slow netbooks fast again (big "IF" there). whether the future of desktop computing changes as a result of chrome os remains to be seen, but one thing's for certain - it will change - we just dont know how yet.
Remember that these benefits will be more attractive to some people than others. Just because it doesn't fit your typical usage doesn't mean it wont fit other people's. Take look at the ipad. I'm still scratching my head wondering (a) how to just hold and use the damn thing, and (b) what the hell I'd use if for? yet millions of people have jumped in and bought one and they do seem to get used a fair bit.
I'd like a chrome-based netbook...just purely to replace my current netbook.
I have to agree. Computers are moving away from being general purpose devices and into specialized appliances that are more streamlined. I think the general purpose computing will stay with us for a long time, but that more 'appliance' style devices will take the place of things once done on the desktop pc.
It'll make several computing tasks much easier for the average consumer, but having grown up with PC's (and from before the days of windows), I can definitely say I'll miss the early days of IT (I'm including the present in that too).
well, true if you're apple. but google (and now microsoft with win7 rc) have been releasing beta stuff to the public for quite some years now and I for one am fine with it. the other downside is that it gives your competitors more opportunity to see what you're doing and better it...but that doesn't seem to be hurting google much these days either.
With a bluetooth keyboard and stand, should be perfectly able to replace a netbook or laptop for road trips. Subject to replacing lame Android interface with a real desktop like KDE of course.
sorry, I really have to question that point...why would you imagine that 3 products could be a suitable replacement for 1 product, particularly when we're talking about going mobile. Wouldn't carrying 1 netbook (a thin one) be much better? obviously the current line of netbooks wont cut it because they lack touchscreens and a touchscreen-friendly OS...so I guess it makes sense if you look at what is currently available.
Ideally, I would prefer a hybrid device which has a touchscreen, and a physical keyboard, and can assume either a clamshell (netbook) or a tablet (screen face-up while covering keyboard) form factor. There are laptops that have exactly this form factor now, but lack the touch screen and appropriate touchscreen-friendly OS.
Surely if it did some cool undocumented thing in the pirated copy you would be impressed enough to pay for the full version - kind of like a "tip" for a job well done.
I dont think they should put annoying stuff in the pirated copies, but if it subtely made winning impossible, yet by the end of the game it becomes obvious, then I think credit where credit is due - the developers are really trying to win you over. and a job well done should be rewarded.
Much better than the stupid "check the internet every time you load the game" piracy prevention techniques. Either its a pirate copy or it isn't. There's no point going after all illegal downloads etc. - just the ones where people were too lazy to go to the shop and pay. Getting the target market right in the first place is half the battle.
I"m not sure I agree with you. Why does it have to be a huge corporation who registers hundreds with no intention of ever creating anything.
I think anyone who applies for a patent should demonstrate that they have the means to create the "product" and then be given a time frame to create it in, after which the patent would expire.
I dont see why people should be prevented from afterwards creating something that performs the same function. Just being the first should give ownership to the whole idea.
I agree that people shouldn't be allowed to copy your product - but that is a copyright issue. I agree with copyright - I mostly disagree with patents. Patents are for people/companies scared of other people making a better product than theirs (to do the same function). The different-but-better product is free from copyright-infringement, but can still be affected by patents.
Maybe it would work if patents weren't so broad and vague, but the system is too far gone for that sort of talk...
The 'awful battery life' is not common and is a result of allowing the developers more freedom. Android doesn't cause poor battery life, only apps do. And only poorly written apps at that. So if you find your device has poor battery life, its time to see what apps you have and eliminate the offending one(s).
However, given that you can also run "services" on iOS (albeit for a limit number of things), I'd suggest that the same could also happen there too, but possibly doesn't due to the relatively small number of apps using services.
My galaxy s doesn't have poor battery life, though I haven't tested how many days it will last on a full charge (it is more than 3). Even my old HTC magic would outlast the iphone 3GS...so any battery life issues would relate to either a specific phone or (as mentioned) rogue apps.
"Dude, I have this really awesome idea" "Well, lets hear it" "If I tell you, you might copy it and even make money from it before I do" "Of course, because you cant copyright ideas" "Damn, you mean I actually have to make a product before I own the rights to it?" "Sure do" "Hmmm. I know, I'll create a patent system where you can 'copyright' an idea. That will get past that copyright 'loophole' and then you'll have to pay me to use my ideas and I'll get rich for doing nothing. I dont even have to invent anything - just sit here thinking all day." "oh, but that would be corrup-" "are you lodging a complaint? I have a patent on that. That'll be $100K please."
so you've never gone on youtube to listen to something? just because SJ thinks there isn't a reason for something, doesn't mean someone shouldn't be able to do it on their OWN device that they PAID for. Why artificially limit things when you really dont need to?
Slashdot Mirror
if it only affects opensuse, I'd suggest this is an opensuse bug, not a kde or nvidia bug... (or possibly a combination).
And there are a few of us who get paid for coding open source software.
But you are right, we do not exist, we should never be brought up in any conversation...
I believe the parent was not saying that open source is idealogically wrong at all, just that it doesn't work in all cases.
what? i'm pretty sure if you buy a phone from google then fragmentation wont affect you. of all phones, these are the ones the developers will target first.
just because you CAN buy from other manufacturers, doesn't mean you should. just because others are affected by fragmentation, doesn't mean you have to be.
there are very good reasons to buy a google phone. those who buy from other manufacturers know what they are getting, and most dont really care.
in the android world, we call it "choice".
Given that I'm not from the US, that last point seems out of place in this discussion...
not to worry, I agree that MS are a company that is for profit, but surely recent history has shown that companies that offer "good-will" to the community, and in particular the open-source community, actually reap rewards as a result...
I disagree. I might share my birthday and other info with friends because I trust them. But they _could_, if they wanted, abuse that trust and use the info for identity theft or other such malicious uses.
That's exactly the point I made. We TRUST that the other party will do as they say. If they betray our trust, that would have the same or similar consequences as it would in the real world.
The online world is just an extension of how things work offline...yet people get so confused about online issues and pretend its all new stuff that we've never had to deal with before.
You're talking about companies who entice people in to using their services only to abuse the trust later. Think about it - companies like that make news headlines and suffer for it. Facebook has had a lot of trouble in that area..and have even been forced to change their policies by law in some countries. Google also has had the law step in on occasion. At the end of the day, the trust relationship still holds true. If you feel you cannot trust your bank, you'd withdraw all your money immediately. We need to be able to do the same with our data.
>> So if you're using GMail, or Google Docs, you're using "the cloud". Or at least "a cloud".
So, by that definition, we've been using "the cloud" for a while now! We had Hotmail, Geocities, and all those "cloud services" way back then.
-dZ.
exactly.
I think its more about "fun with statistics".
why not? plenty of linux devs support windows too. If they really wanted to get into the spirit of contributing to open source, they should have at least done a little more than just help themselves out...a little bit of goodwill for the community wouldn't hurt (its the open-source way).
but they dont have to....and they chose not to.
So rather than this being a "Microsoft contributes to open-source" story, it is merely just a "MS does business-as-usual". Nothing wrong with that, but also not praiseworthy either.
Linux (or win xp) on the 1st generation of netbooks is not fast. chrome os may be able to run on even lower-spec hardware and still acheive decent speeds, thereby providing a net-focused laptop to a lot more people.
Lets wait and see shall we?
yes he may be eventually right.
he is also right to call it "careless" computing because the fact is most people dont care about the issue he is raising. facebook is solid proof of this.
I think the one thing cloud computing is missing is the ability to "take back" our data or move it to another provider. maybe legislation around our right to our data? but I think this will happen once these technologies become common. Governments do tend to support the rights of citizens when the voice gets strong enough - but the voice probably wont be strong enough until more people know what its all about.
if you buy the phone from google you can modify it at will anyway. most phones are "rootable" these days and have custom roms available.
I agree android is "somewhat" like the scenario you mentioned but not entirely. its definitely more "free" than any other mobile ecosystem to date, as far as this issue is concerned. When was the last time you loaded a custom rom on your iphone or blackberry, you know, a rom that has been created by the community, with patches donated by several different developers? and the same goes for any symbian-based device too. android is fairly customizable, but the problem you are really talking about is that it could be a lot better.
we already sacrifice freedom for convenience in many ways. its not all bad. it _can_ be bad...but its not automatically bad by definition.
the cloud wont take away ALL of our freedom - that's just absurd. we just trade a bit of control over (some of) our data for convenience - based on trust. you know, the same way we deal with real people. if someone betrays our trust, they can sometimes do really nasty things with what we've told them. but if we are sensible in the first place, and maybe a bit cautious with what we share, this sort of thing should be rare. and we dont stop trusting everyone because of it, we just learn to be more careful. using this analogy - there may well be hiccups along the way as cloud computing enters mainstream, but everything will sort itself out eventually...and for the majority of people, there will be a perceived (and real?) benefit.
except that they dont. that is FUD. you dont lose everything - google give you access to their APIs so you can download your google data offline.
or maybe we shouldn't entrust anyone with any of our personal information because of what they _could_ do with it. see how you get on.
this is all about a trust relationship - if you dont feel you can trust and individual or a company, then dont share your info with them. this isn't a new concept at all. just a new way of doing what we've always done in our dealings with people.
Here are the benefits:
* no need to backup
* same interface no matter where you login from (globally roaming profile?)
* all your data, wherever you are, wherever you are logged in from
* blend of mobile computing with traditional computing. we've already taken the web mobile but this will take full web-apps mobile too
It will not replace your desktop pc, nor is it intended to (as I see it). I think it is intended to re-invent the netbook - and this is a very welcome change if it can make our slow netbooks fast again (big "IF" there). whether the future of desktop computing changes as a result of chrome os remains to be seen, but one thing's for certain - it will change - we just dont know how yet.
Remember that these benefits will be more attractive to some people than others. Just because it doesn't fit your typical usage doesn't mean it wont fit other people's. Take look at the ipad. I'm still scratching my head wondering (a) how to just hold and use the damn thing, and (b) what the hell I'd use if for? yet millions of people have jumped in and bought one and they do seem to get used a fair bit.
I'd like a chrome-based netbook...just purely to replace my current netbook.
I have to agree. Computers are moving away from being general purpose devices and into specialized appliances that are more streamlined. I think the general purpose computing will stay with us for a long time, but that more 'appliance' style devices will take the place of things once done on the desktop pc.
It'll make several computing tasks much easier for the average consumer, but having grown up with PC's (and from before the days of windows), I can definitely say I'll miss the early days of IT (I'm including the present in that too).
well, true if you're apple. but google (and now microsoft with win7 rc) have been releasing beta stuff to the public for quite some years now and I for one am fine with it. the other downside is that it gives your competitors more opportunity to see what you're doing and better it...but that doesn't seem to be hurting google much these days either.
With a bluetooth keyboard and stand, should be perfectly able to replace a netbook or laptop for road trips. Subject to replacing lame Android interface with a real desktop like KDE of course.
sorry, I really have to question that point...why would you imagine that 3 products could be a suitable replacement for 1 product, particularly when we're talking about going mobile. Wouldn't carrying 1 netbook (a thin one) be much better? obviously the current line of netbooks wont cut it because they lack touchscreens and a touchscreen-friendly OS...so I guess it makes sense if you look at what is currently available.
Ideally, I would prefer a hybrid device which has a touchscreen, and a physical keyboard, and can assume either a clamshell (netbook) or a tablet (screen face-up while covering keyboard) form factor. There are laptops that have exactly this form factor now, but lack the touch screen and appropriate touchscreen-friendly OS.
Surely if it did some cool undocumented thing in the pirated copy you would be impressed enough to pay for the full version - kind of like a "tip" for a job well done.
I dont think they should put annoying stuff in the pirated copies, but if it subtely made winning impossible, yet by the end of the game it becomes obvious, then I think credit where credit is due - the developers are really trying to win you over. and a job well done should be rewarded.
Much better than the stupid "check the internet every time you load the game" piracy prevention techniques. Either its a pirate copy or it isn't. There's no point going after all illegal downloads etc. - just the ones where people were too lazy to go to the shop and pay. Getting the target market right in the first place is half the battle.
oops, that should read "Just being the first should NOT give ownership to the whole idea."
I"m not sure I agree with you. Why does it have to be a huge corporation who registers hundreds with no intention of ever creating anything.
I think anyone who applies for a patent should demonstrate that they have the means to create the "product" and then be given a time frame to create it in, after which the patent would expire.
I dont see why people should be prevented from afterwards creating something that performs the same function. Just being the first should give ownership to the whole idea.
I agree that people shouldn't be allowed to copy your product - but that is a copyright issue. I agree with copyright - I mostly disagree with patents. Patents are for people/companies scared of other people making a better product than theirs (to do the same function). The different-but-better product is free from copyright-infringement, but can still be affected by patents.
Maybe it would work if patents weren't so broad and vague, but the system is too far gone for that sort of talk...
The 'awful battery life' is not common and is a result of allowing the developers more freedom. Android doesn't cause poor battery life, only apps do. And only poorly written apps at that. So if you find your device has poor battery life, its time to see what apps you have and eliminate the offending one(s).
However, given that you can also run "services" on iOS (albeit for a limit number of things), I'd suggest that the same could also happen there too, but possibly doesn't due to the relatively small number of apps using services.
My galaxy s doesn't have poor battery life, though I haven't tested how many days it will last on a full charge (it is more than 3). Even my old HTC magic would outlast the iphone 3GS...so any battery life issues would relate to either a specific phone or (as mentioned) rogue apps.
"Dude, I have this really awesome idea"
"Well, lets hear it"
"If I tell you, you might copy it and even make money from it before I do"
"Of course, because you cant copyright ideas"
"Damn, you mean I actually have to make a product before I own the rights to it?"
"Sure do"
"Hmmm. I know, I'll create a patent system where you can 'copyright' an idea. That will get past that copyright 'loophole' and then you'll have to pay me to use my ideas and I'll get rich for doing nothing. I dont even have to invent anything - just sit here thinking all day."
"oh, but that would be corrup-"
"are you lodging a complaint? I have a patent on that. That'll be $100K please."
The true question we have to ask is:
Are Uranus jokes shifting research to other planets?!
I mean, there's methane in Uranus...
This is true, however one wonders how bad it has to be before it warrants shifting to other planets?!
so you've never gone on youtube to listen to something? just because SJ thinks there isn't a reason for something, doesn't mean someone shouldn't be able to do it on their OWN device that they PAID for. Why artificially limit things when you really dont need to?