ISPs are the problem here. But with government-granted monopolies without regulation, they have no incentive to support IPv6.
Yep. I'm on Comcast. You know, the US ISP that made a big deal about supporting IPv6, including making dumb posters about it? I've got an IPv6 capable device serving as a router/IPv4 NAT. I upgraded my cable modem so that it's be able to do IPv6. Let's see what IPv6 addresses were assigned to me by Comcast...
That'd be none. Still. Because IPv6 hasn't rolled out in my area yet. Or maybe it hasn't rolled out for the particular cable modem I have, I'm not sure. Who knows, because Comcast sure isn't making it clear what areas and what devices do and don't get IPv6 support from them.
Only applets run in sandbox so there's nothing to leave.
Wrong. Anything can be placed, optionally, in a sandbox.
- shared hosting (Tomcat): everyone uses the same VM just like with PHP so we are sparing memory, but increasing the security risk
Look up the Tomcat -security option, which enables a SecurityManager and places each individual web application in its own sandbox. It's an option, it "works," and this vulnerability would circumvent it.
Now, granted, no one bothers actually using the option, but it is there.
Conceptually the hole is in all Java apps, though, it just only really matters in the browser setting.
If you have a Java app (say, a Java-based web server) that in fact runs untrusted code (say, third-party web applications) and places them in a Java sandbox, then they can use this exploit to leave the sandbox.
So it's effectively only an issue for browsers, since that's the real-life example where many people have Java installed in such a way that they might unexpectedly receive hostile code. But it can also, theoretically, apply to any other Java app.
In any case, I'd highly recommend going the "nuclear" route and just uninstalling Java if it's installed. It's the route the company I work for is going, and it's not like anyone uses Java for anything useful anyway.
Are you aware that Steam locks you out if you play in "offline mode" for too long?
Or my personal favorite, to enable "offline mode" at all, you must be connected to the Internet.
Of course, the reason I wanted to use "offline mode" in the first place was that I didn't have an Internet connection at the moment! But, no, as far as Gabe is concerned, you're supposed to plan ahead for an unexpected major Internet outage in your area.
I think it's important to note that Schilling has always come out (publicly at least) against public money. He's a classic anti-big-government, pro-free market guy.
"Schilling spent no small amount of time in his career preaching the Republican mantra of smaller government and personal responsibility. He did this fresh off the historic Red Sox World Series win when he backed George W. Bush in the 2004 campaign. He did it on the stump on behalf of John McCain in 2008.
He did it for Scott Brown in January 2010, when he wrote in his blog, "He's for smaller government," and lauding Brown's opposition to "creating a new government insurance program."
It's too bad the parent is AC and hasn't been modded up. I was going to post basically the same thing. Schilling has come out publicly against "big government" and against public money being spent on private companies.
Yet when Rhode Island comes along and offers him some money to move there, what does he do? Try and start a bidding war with Massachusetts to see who will give his company more money to move/stay.
The hypocrisy in Schilling's "small government" rhetoric while, at the same time, taking a $73 million loan from Rhode Island is just mind boggling.
They already did the hardware version of the Google Maps fiasco. People are literally returning the MacBook Pros that use the new, non-Samsung screens, in hopes of being able to buy one that uses the older Samsung screens, because the newer screens apparently ghost like crazy.
While I'll grant that the lawyer was pretty scummy since half his case was "Apple should have warned me people might steal my iShiny!" there's also this:
Apple also serviced Deverett's stolen computer for someone else even after Deverett called to tell them it was stolen.
Hey, now is not the time to talk about our country's failing mental health system. Just like it's not the time to talk about guns and not the time to talk about health care in general.
The only thing you're allowed to talk about is the looming fiscal cliff and how increasing the top-level tax hike will destroy jobs.
After all, closed mental health institutions don't kill people, mentally ill people with treatable conditions kill people. Or something. Not enough people care for there to be a soundbite on this issue.
Click on that link anyway. It includes a search for "airport." When I did it originally, it came up with Los Angeles International as the only result. Clicking on it again to make sure the zoom level is the same shows me Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia as the top hit, followed by San Fransisco International Airport. At least Google's got both coasts covered?
It's weird because there's a "Denver Airport" place marker on Google Maps, but I guess it doesn't count for some reason.
The demands Apple did not want to "give in to" were customer data and privacy demands specified in the Apple TOS.
Wrong. The demands Apple refused were calling the app "Google Maps" and making the Google logo actually visible on the maps view. Technically it was there in iOS 5, it was just transparent to the point of being as impossible to see as they could get away with.
Apple already tracks their iOS users everywhere they go ("to serve appropriate local ads," you see); it's not like they care about privacy in the slightest.
Latitude is a service that tracks your location and stores it on Google servers (so that you can share it with your friends), but it's an opt-in service - it does not track you and send data anywhere unless you explicitly enable it. If Apple privacy policy restricts that kind of thing, then I have to say that it is a very strange policy, indeed (and one wonders how the various apps that record your hiking tracks and publish them online are then consistent with it).
It doesn't. Apple has a competing iOS-only version, so they won't allow Google to compete with them on their own device. Despite the fact that Apple's app is entirely useless for anyone who has friends that haven't drunken the Apple-flavored kool-aid.
To advertise Nintendo products? Same as the original?
I dunno, it seems strange not to make any attempt at keeping it going online. I'm assuming it had some readers to keep it going as a pure-print magazine for the past decade, during which it would have made sense to bring it online.
Nintendo has, well, nothing. Sure, there's nintendo.com, but that compares more to us.playstation.com (playstation.com redirects me to jp.playstation.com for some reason) and xbox.com. They have no real "community" site, which something like Nintendo Power could fill. It seems strange to not even attempt an online version.
I'm kind of surprised that Nintendo is flat-out killing the Nintendo Power brand instead of just moving it online. I mean, it's not like video game journalism is dead. It's just moved entirely online. (Are there any print video game magazines left? That are still printing physical copies, that is. I'm not aware of any.)
I would have thought there'd still be demand for a Nintendo Power, just not in print form. I guess not? Or was there a website, that's since been replaced with the current information about going out of print?
It's kind of sad to see it go, but I haven't subscribed since the mid 90s, I guess. Still, it's a nice cover and a nice tribute to their first issue.
I'm just waiting for someone else to come in and do better. Right now if you're looking to build a whitebox machine and load it up with the latest and greatest, you're going to be full of disappointment.
I dunno, I installed Windows 8 on my desktop computer, and I was pleasantly surprised.
Mind you, this is because my expectations for Windows 8 were so low that the fact that it isn't a complete disaster is pleasantly surprising. I mean, it only took two installs before trying to open "all apps" on the Start screen didn't crash everything. (Well, the second install was a "refresh," which is basically a complete reinstall under a different name.) And I only rarely have to log out and back in again to get things working.
I mean, all and all, Windows 8 isn't that bad. The upgrade process from Windows 7 doesn't work (hence the "refresh"), and the new Metro UI is buggy as hell, but if you entirely ignore Metro's existence and just focus on things like the reworked task manager...
I'm now testing an iPad Mini, to see whether that offers a better experience â" the lower quality screen is bugging me at the moment, but I do like the lighter weight.
I'm curious about that, actually. I find the iPad is just slightly too large to make reading really comfortable, at least for long periods of time. However, I've never really read something that I needed to annotate, instead I just end up reading, well, books. For just plain reading I prefer my nook to the iPad for a couple of reasons: it's smaller and lighter, it's easier to hold on to (rubberized cover versus metal), and it has page forward/back buttons on the side.
But I've never needed to annotate or edit things, so my experience probably isn't very helpful. Note that the nook does support PDFs and you can (in theory) add notes to them, but the way the nook Simple Touch does annotations is very slow and clunky, and PDF support is kind of wonky at best (at least for the ones I've tried). The most annoying thing about the nook software is that you can't zoom in on figures, which probably makes it entirely useless for most users here.
Actually, that's probably a useful bit of advice: if you're looking for a tablet that you intend to use for scientific use, skip the nook: it can't zoom in on figures in PDFs. At least, I've yet to find a way to do it. Which made reading some of the charts in one of the ebooks I did buy for it, well, flat-out impossible.
I really, really wish people would stop pretending the "retina" displays are high resolution. They're not. They're software-locked to be effectively half on each side, so that "2560x1600" display is exactly the same as a 1280x800 display. Unless you run Linux on it, I guess, then you can actually use the higher resolution to display more applications.
I have tried one of those "retina" MacBooks in a store, you know. You can't change the resolution, the slider has been flat-out removed from the settings app.
When they do so they would find the MacBook Pro Retina to be $1699, not your absurdly inflated figure.
Oh, right, Apple released a 13" model. I forgot about that. Too bad to spec that 13" model up so that it's comparable to a $1000 Windows Ultrabook, you'll be paying $2500.
The $3000 figure is accurate for the 15" model with acceptable specs.
They also, being technical users, would be asking themselves "could not a developer wanting to test resolution independence simply buy a high DPI desktop monitor and test that way also?"
And again, we're back to "buy shit to support the shit I bought." I have a better idea, if you're willing to blow money on overpriced hardware, you fix it. It's open source, after all.
What glaring problem? The problem they're addressing is screen DPI, which is basically a non-problem, and not screen size, which is something I'd love to see get larger and is what you really mean when you say "resolution has stagnated."
Right now I'm stuck with a 1920x1200 monitor, and I'm glad to have that because no one makes them any more. If I were to "upgrade," I'd have to replace it with a 1920x1080 monitor. What I'd like to have is an even larger monitor, like the really nice but still way too expensive 2560x1600 monitors. (Still over $1000.)
What Apple did instead was up the pixel density, which is nice, I guess, but not really useful. Those high-DPI displays are great for a cell phone or other devices you hold in your hand, but not really great for a laptop.
Really, I'd rather see a higher push for the larger sized monitors so I get more useable room out of the display rather than see the DPI pushed up. All "retinal" gives you is the same UI, just with four times the pixels. It may look "shiny" but it sure isn't any more useful.
I think a much fairer statement would be "no one who develops Linux software gives a rats ass about Apple proprietary shit."
Don't forget, when you whine about free software not running well on your $3000 Retina MacBook, what you're really saying is "why don't those free software developers, who work on the software I use for free, who provide me the software for free, who demand nothing from me, immediately run out and spend $3000 to validate my $3000 purchase."
Until high-DPI displays are no longer only available on a vastly overpriced piece of Apple shiny, you're not going to see any serious open source support for it: there's simply no reason to run out and spend $3000 for the tiny crowd of whiners who demand that the software they don't pay for support their stupid purchasing decisions.
Or, to put it another way, if you want good "Retinal" support under Gnome, you're more than welcome to donate, say, $12,000 to get some Gnome developers some shiny but otherwise useless high-DPI displays. Otherwise, stop complaining that not everyone wasted money on their computer.
Oddly people now seem to think Apple under Steve Jobs was some kind of perfect mecca of products without issues and never an employee fired. That was never the case, but Apple Fanboys sure like to claim it was.
Fixed that for you.
Geeks, or "Apple haters" as you like to call them, have always known that Apple products are buggy, overpriced, underperforming pieces of shiny, even under Jobs. It's only the Apple Fanboys that deify Jobs in an attempt to convince themselves that the Apple they so loved was really better now that they don't have the RDF and are starting to see Apple for what it always was.
iOS has ALWAYS has the Google logo on maps. Google wanted to increase the size.
Do you actually know that? My understanding is that they wanted the app to be called "Google Maps" and not "Maps," and possibly wanted the Google logo to be more opaque instead of the previous transparent gray-on-gray that the old Maps app used. Of course, no one knows if that's really true, it's just rumors.
It already works really well for many people, especially the U.S. - it mostly needs work in Europe. But the actual navigation is very good.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. I've actually used the turn by turn navigation in the US. While it was kind enough to take us past our destination, so we knew to stop and turn into it, it had decided that the restaurant was actually five blocks away from where it really was and started yelling at us to take a U-turn as soon as we turned in to park.
Plus I work near a Starbucks where iOS Maps places the address for it so far away that no one can use that "Passbook" feature, as it won't bring up their card when they're in the actual restaurant. (And, being Apple hipsters and Starbucks hipsters, they whine about it. A lot.)
I've also looked over the maps near where I live using the iOS Simulator, and the placemarks are frequently nowhere near the actual place. I even tried to submit a correction, once, after someone pointed out the gray-on-gray link where you can do it. That was, what, nearly two months ago when they released it? Still hasn't been fixed, still has the placemarker for the store on the wrong street.
And this is in the US, where the maps are "good," meaning that the streets on it actually correspond to real roads.
Ah, finally, the first answer from someone that actually makes sense! "I paid a ton of money on a useless feature, everyone drop what they're doing and support it!!!"
Kind of reminds me of Windows 8 and touch screens.
How would text rendering be a problem for the browser? I'm assuming that Mac OS X isn't written by complete idiots, and that non-"retinal" apps get upscaled with proper high-DPI text rendering, meaning that the only thing Firefox has to deal with is scaling images.
This is true, right? Apple wouldn't do something completely stupid like require all apps that want to do "retinal" be completely rewritten to deal with that, would they?
I suppose they would, wouldn't they.
In any case, text rendering is a thing that the OS should be dealing with, not the app, so it shouldn't be a Firefox problem. All Firefox should need to do is provide higher-res images. Which basically don't exist on the vast majority of sites, so they might as well not bother on something that maybe a percent of a percent of users would be able to use.
Funny, that picture looks just fine to me on my non-"retina" display. It's almost as if you don't need a retina display to see images!
But wait, there's more. When that image is embedded into a webpage, it's embedded at the standard, non-"retinal" resolution. So when displayed on a "retina" display, it will look "blurry."
Except apparently Wikipedia uses Safari's made up extension for "retina" images, so it would work there. (Hopefully Firefox will stick with standards and not make up extensions for non-existent problems.)
But on the vast majority of webpages, all you're going to get is a standard-res image. Making "retina" basically useless.
Slashdot Mirror
ISPs are the problem here. But with government-granted monopolies without regulation, they have no incentive to support IPv6.
Yep. I'm on Comcast. You know, the US ISP that made a big deal about supporting IPv6, including making dumb posters about it? I've got an IPv6 capable device serving as a router/IPv4 NAT. I upgraded my cable modem so that it's be able to do IPv6. Let's see what IPv6 addresses were assigned to me by Comcast...
That'd be none. Still. Because IPv6 hasn't rolled out in my area yet. Or maybe it hasn't rolled out for the particular cable modem I have, I'm not sure. Who knows, because Comcast sure isn't making it clear what areas and what devices do and don't get IPv6 support from them.
Only applets run in sandbox so there's nothing to leave.
Wrong. Anything can be placed, optionally, in a sandbox.
- shared hosting (Tomcat): everyone uses the same VM just like with PHP so we are sparing memory, but increasing the security risk
Look up the Tomcat -security option, which enables a SecurityManager and places each individual web application in its own sandbox. It's an option, it "works," and this vulnerability would circumvent it.
Now, granted, no one bothers actually using the option, but it is there.
Conceptually the hole is in all Java apps, though, it just only really matters in the browser setting.
If you have a Java app (say, a Java-based web server) that in fact runs untrusted code (say, third-party web applications) and places them in a Java sandbox, then they can use this exploit to leave the sandbox.
So it's effectively only an issue for browsers, since that's the real-life example where many people have Java installed in such a way that they might unexpectedly receive hostile code. But it can also, theoretically, apply to any other Java app.
In any case, I'd highly recommend going the "nuclear" route and just uninstalling Java if it's installed. It's the route the company I work for is going, and it's not like anyone uses Java for anything useful anyway.
Are you aware that Steam locks you out if you play in "offline mode" for too long?
Or my personal favorite, to enable "offline mode" at all, you must be connected to the Internet.
Of course, the reason I wanted to use "offline mode" in the first place was that I didn't have an Internet connection at the moment! But, no, as far as Gabe is concerned, you're supposed to plan ahead for an unexpected major Internet outage in your area.
I think it's important to note that Schilling has always come out (publicly at least) against public money. He's a classic anti-big-government, pro-free market guy.
"Schilling spent no small amount of time in his career preaching the Republican mantra of smaller government and personal responsibility. He did this fresh off the historic Red Sox World Series win when he backed George W. Bush in the 2004 campaign. He did it on the stump on behalf of John McCain in 2008.
He did it for Scott Brown in January 2010, when he wrote in his blog, "He's for smaller government," and lauding Brown's opposition to "creating a new government insurance program."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/05/18/late-inning-curve-ball/ANKpzy1g9rtaDboIciP56K/story.html
It's too bad the parent is AC and hasn't been modded up. I was going to post basically the same thing. Schilling has come out publicly against "big government" and against public money being spent on private companies.
Yet when Rhode Island comes along and offers him some money to move there, what does he do? Try and start a bidding war with Massachusetts to see who will give his company more money to move/stay.
The hypocrisy in Schilling's "small government" rhetoric while, at the same time, taking a $73 million loan from Rhode Island is just mind boggling.
Somewhat hilariously if you Google IPS image retention, you will find a ton of articles about the MacBook Pro Retina display problems.
Including this one, that explains the problem is basically limited to MacBook Pros with LG displays, instead of the Samsung displays some use. The Samsung display also has better contrast and proper color calibration that the LG panels lack.
I can't help but find the whole thing hilarious.
They already did the hardware version of the Google Maps fiasco. People are literally returning the MacBook Pros that use the new, non-Samsung screens, in hopes of being able to buy one that uses the older Samsung screens, because the newer screens apparently ghost like crazy.
While I'll grant that the lawyer was pretty scummy since half his case was "Apple should have warned me people might steal my iShiny!" there's also this:
Apple also serviced Deverett's stolen computer for someone else even after Deverett called to tell them it was stolen.
That's pretty scummy on Apple's behalf, too.
They can both be jerks.
Hey, now is not the time to talk about our country's failing mental health system. Just like it's not the time to talk about guns and not the time to talk about health care in general.
The only thing you're allowed to talk about is the looming fiscal cliff and how increasing the top-level tax hike will destroy jobs.
After all, closed mental health institutions don't kill people, mentally ill people with treatable conditions kill people. Or something. Not enough people care for there to be a soundbite on this issue.
or accidentally flying over a major airport Google does not show.
Google Maps does show the airport.
Click on that link anyway. It includes a search for "airport." When I did it originally, it came up with Los Angeles International as the only result. Clicking on it again to make sure the zoom level is the same shows me Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia as the top hit, followed by San Fransisco International Airport. At least Google's got both coasts covered?
It's weird because there's a "Denver Airport" place marker on Google Maps, but I guess it doesn't count for some reason.
The demands Apple did not want to "give in to" were customer data and privacy demands specified in the Apple TOS.
Wrong. The demands Apple refused were calling the app "Google Maps" and making the Google logo actually visible on the maps view. Technically it was there in iOS 5, it was just transparent to the point of being as impossible to see as they could get away with.
Apple already tracks their iOS users everywhere they go ("to serve appropriate local ads," you see); it's not like they care about privacy in the slightest.
Latitude is a service that tracks your location and stores it on Google servers (so that you can share it with your friends), but it's an opt-in service - it does not track you and send data anywhere unless you explicitly enable it. If Apple privacy policy restricts that kind of thing, then I have to say that it is a very strange policy, indeed (and one wonders how the various apps that record your hiking tracks and publish them online are then consistent with it).
It doesn't. Apple has a competing iOS-only version, so they won't allow Google to compete with them on their own device. Despite the fact that Apple's app is entirely useless for anyone who has friends that haven't drunken the Apple-flavored kool-aid.
To advertise Nintendo products? Same as the original?
I dunno, it seems strange not to make any attempt at keeping it going online. I'm assuming it had some readers to keep it going as a pure-print magazine for the past decade, during which it would have made sense to bring it online.
After all, Sony has the PlayStation blog and Microsoft has... uh... whatever this is, I guess. (Does Major Nelson's blog count?)
Nintendo has, well, nothing. Sure, there's nintendo.com, but that compares more to us.playstation.com (playstation.com redirects me to jp.playstation.com for some reason) and xbox.com. They have no real "community" site, which something like Nintendo Power could fill. It seems strange to not even attempt an online version.
I'm kind of surprised that Nintendo is flat-out killing the Nintendo Power brand instead of just moving it online. I mean, it's not like video game journalism is dead. It's just moved entirely online. (Are there any print video game magazines left? That are still printing physical copies, that is. I'm not aware of any.)
I would have thought there'd still be demand for a Nintendo Power, just not in print form. I guess not? Or was there a website, that's since been replaced with the current information about going out of print?
It's kind of sad to see it go, but I haven't subscribed since the mid 90s, I guess. Still, it's a nice cover and a nice tribute to their first issue.
I'm just waiting for someone else to come in and do better. Right now if you're looking to build a whitebox machine and load it up with the latest and greatest, you're going to be full of disappointment.
I dunno, I installed Windows 8 on my desktop computer, and I was pleasantly surprised.
Mind you, this is because my expectations for Windows 8 were so low that the fact that it isn't a complete disaster is pleasantly surprising. I mean, it only took two installs before trying to open "all apps" on the Start screen didn't crash everything. (Well, the second install was a "refresh," which is basically a complete reinstall under a different name.) And I only rarely have to log out and back in again to get things working.
I mean, all and all, Windows 8 isn't that bad. The upgrade process from Windows 7 doesn't work (hence the "refresh"), and the new Metro UI is buggy as hell, but if you entirely ignore Metro's existence and just focus on things like the reworked task manager...
I'm now testing an iPad Mini, to see whether that offers a better experience â" the lower quality screen is bugging me at the moment, but I do like the lighter weight.
I'm curious about that, actually. I find the iPad is just slightly too large to make reading really comfortable, at least for long periods of time. However, I've never really read something that I needed to annotate, instead I just end up reading, well, books. For just plain reading I prefer my nook to the iPad for a couple of reasons: it's smaller and lighter, it's easier to hold on to (rubberized cover versus metal), and it has page forward/back buttons on the side.
But I've never needed to annotate or edit things, so my experience probably isn't very helpful. Note that the nook does support PDFs and you can (in theory) add notes to them, but the way the nook Simple Touch does annotations is very slow and clunky, and PDF support is kind of wonky at best (at least for the ones I've tried). The most annoying thing about the nook software is that you can't zoom in on figures, which probably makes it entirely useless for most users here.
Actually, that's probably a useful bit of advice: if you're looking for a tablet that you intend to use for scientific use, skip the nook: it can't zoom in on figures in PDFs. At least, I've yet to find a way to do it. Which made reading some of the charts in one of the ebooks I did buy for it, well, flat-out impossible.
I really, really wish people would stop pretending the "retina" displays are high resolution. They're not. They're software-locked to be effectively half on each side, so that "2560x1600" display is exactly the same as a 1280x800 display. Unless you run Linux on it, I guess, then you can actually use the higher resolution to display more applications.
I have tried one of those "retina" MacBooks in a store, you know. You can't change the resolution, the slider has been flat-out removed from the settings app.
When they do so they would find the MacBook Pro Retina to be $1699, not your absurdly inflated figure.
Oh, right, Apple released a 13" model. I forgot about that. Too bad to spec that 13" model up so that it's comparable to a $1000 Windows Ultrabook, you'll be paying $2500.
The $3000 figure is accurate for the 15" model with acceptable specs.
They also, being technical users, would be asking themselves "could not a developer wanting to test resolution independence simply buy a high DPI desktop monitor and test that way also?"
And again, we're back to "buy shit to support the shit I bought." I have a better idea, if you're willing to blow money on overpriced hardware, you fix it. It's open source, after all.
What glaring problem? The problem they're addressing is screen DPI, which is basically a non-problem, and not screen size, which is something I'd love to see get larger and is what you really mean when you say "resolution has stagnated."
Right now I'm stuck with a 1920x1200 monitor, and I'm glad to have that because no one makes them any more. If I were to "upgrade," I'd have to replace it with a 1920x1080 monitor. What I'd like to have is an even larger monitor, like the really nice but still way too expensive 2560x1600 monitors. (Still over $1000.)
What Apple did instead was up the pixel density, which is nice, I guess, but not really useful. Those high-DPI displays are great for a cell phone or other devices you hold in your hand, but not really great for a laptop.
Really, I'd rather see a higher push for the larger sized monitors so I get more useable room out of the display rather than see the DPI pushed up. All "retinal" gives you is the same UI, just with four times the pixels. It may look "shiny" but it sure isn't any more useful.
I think a much fairer statement would be "no one who develops Linux software gives a rats ass about Apple proprietary shit."
Don't forget, when you whine about free software not running well on your $3000 Retina MacBook, what you're really saying is "why don't those free software developers, who work on the software I use for free, who provide me the software for free, who demand nothing from me, immediately run out and spend $3000 to validate my $3000 purchase."
Until high-DPI displays are no longer only available on a vastly overpriced piece of Apple shiny, you're not going to see any serious open source support for it: there's simply no reason to run out and spend $3000 for the tiny crowd of whiners who demand that the software they don't pay for support their stupid purchasing decisions.
Or, to put it another way, if you want good "Retinal" support under Gnome, you're more than welcome to donate, say, $12,000 to get some Gnome developers some shiny but otherwise useless high-DPI displays. Otherwise, stop complaining that not everyone wasted money on their computer.
Oddly people now seem to think Apple under Steve Jobs was some kind of perfect mecca of products without issues and never an employee fired. That was never the case, but Apple Fanboys sure like to claim it was.
Fixed that for you.
Geeks, or "Apple haters" as you like to call them, have always known that Apple products are buggy, overpriced, underperforming pieces of shiny, even under Jobs. It's only the Apple Fanboys that deify Jobs in an attempt to convince themselves that the Apple they so loved was really better now that they don't have the RDF and are starting to see Apple for what it always was.
iOS has ALWAYS has the Google logo on maps. Google wanted to increase the size.
Do you actually know that? My understanding is that they wanted the app to be called "Google Maps" and not "Maps," and possibly wanted the Google logo to be more opaque instead of the previous transparent gray-on-gray that the old Maps app used. Of course, no one knows if that's really true, it's just rumors.
It already works really well for many people, especially the U.S. - it mostly needs work in Europe. But the actual navigation is very good.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. I've actually used the turn by turn navigation in the US. While it was kind enough to take us past our destination, so we knew to stop and turn into it, it had decided that the restaurant was actually five blocks away from where it really was and started yelling at us to take a U-turn as soon as we turned in to park.
Plus I work near a Starbucks where iOS Maps places the address for it so far away that no one can use that "Passbook" feature, as it won't bring up their card when they're in the actual restaurant. (And, being Apple hipsters and Starbucks hipsters, they whine about it. A lot.)
I've also looked over the maps near where I live using the iOS Simulator, and the placemarks are frequently nowhere near the actual place. I even tried to submit a correction, once, after someone pointed out the gray-on-gray link where you can do it. That was, what, nearly two months ago when they released it? Still hasn't been fixed, still has the placemarker for the store on the wrong street.
And this is in the US, where the maps are "good," meaning that the streets on it actually correspond to real roads.
Ah, finally, the first answer from someone that actually makes sense! "I paid a ton of money on a useless feature, everyone drop what they're doing and support it!!!"
Kind of reminds me of Windows 8 and touch screens.
How would text rendering be a problem for the browser? I'm assuming that Mac OS X isn't written by complete idiots, and that non-"retinal" apps get upscaled with proper high-DPI text rendering, meaning that the only thing Firefox has to deal with is scaling images.
This is true, right? Apple wouldn't do something completely stupid like require all apps that want to do "retinal" be completely rewritten to deal with that, would they?
I suppose they would, wouldn't they.
In any case, text rendering is a thing that the OS should be dealing with, not the app, so it shouldn't be a Firefox problem. All Firefox should need to do is provide higher-res images. Which basically don't exist on the vast majority of sites, so they might as well not bother on something that maybe a percent of a percent of users would be able to use.
Funny, that picture looks just fine to me on my non-"retina" display. It's almost as if you don't need a retina display to see images!
But wait, there's more. When that image is embedded into a webpage, it's embedded at the standard, non-"retinal" resolution. So when displayed on a "retina" display, it will look "blurry."
Except apparently Wikipedia uses Safari's made up extension for "retina" images, so it would work there. (Hopefully Firefox will stick with standards and not make up extensions for non-existent problems.)
But on the vast majority of webpages, all you're going to get is a standard-res image. Making "retina" basically useless.