The iPhone started the migration from web applications to client apps - their rejection of Flash actually played a large part in that - it would be ironic, except that was actually their intent.
You might remember the original iPhone was webapp only and there was a big kerfuffle about it: "No iPhone SDK Means No iPhone Killer Apps". It was marketed as "The internet in your pocket". They did eventually release an SDK of course but even now they do not do what the OP accuses them of, namely mixing the two. They've always cleanly separated web and native, keeping the web part as based on common, universal standards as they keep the native part closed. If there has been a migration from web to native don't blame Apple for giving people what they want.
"The real answer is about security. Perhaps the biggest reason for Nitro’s performance improvements over WebKit’s previous JavaScript engine is the use of a JIT — “Just-In-Time” compilation. A JIT requires the ability to mark memory pages in RAM as executable, but, iOS, as a security measure, does not allow pages in memory to be marked as executable. This is a significant and serious security policy. Most modern operating systems do allow pages in memory to be marked as executable — including Mac OS X, Windows, and (I believe) Android1. iOS 4.3 makes an exception to this policy, but the exception is specifically limited to Mobile Safari.
It’s a trade-off. Most OSes allow marking memory pages as executable for performance reasons. iOS disallows it for security reasons. If you allow for pages of memory to be escalated from writable to executable (even if you require the page be made permanently read-only first), then you are enabling the execution of unsigned native code. It breaks the chain of trust. Allowing remote code to execute locally turns every locally exploitable security flaw into a remotely exploitable one.
[...]
Web apps that are saved to the home screen do not run within Mobile Safari. They’re effectively saved as discrete apps — thin wrappers around the UIWebView control. (That’s why they show up individually in the task bar, just like apps from the App Store.) Home screen apps may well eventually get access to the Nitro JavaScript engine — Apple simply hasn’t yet done (or perhaps finished?) the security work to allow it."
All security arguments aside, it seems that we may be going from an architecture-independent web to an architecture-dependent one. Sad. Maybe the mid-2000s will seem like a golden age of openness in the future. Platform-independent web applications were the hot new thing, the iPhone hadn't come out so open mobile devices still existed, anybody who suggested running native code from websites, or producing a locked-down device would have been laughed out of the room...ah the good ol' days...
What does the iPhone have to do with it. If anything it promoted web applications for mobile devices by providing a full featured browser on a mobile device. In fact Apple has been quite clear they prefer web apps to be based on independent standards, excluding plugins such as Flash which run only on some systems. If you want native on iPhone you have to go through the SDK, hell will freeze over before Apple will allow native code to run from websites.
To play the devil's advocate, though, TWD does overuse death a bit. In the latest issue, a certain someone whose name will not be mentioned for spoiler reasons got shot in the face and appears to be on the verge of death. I found it hard to care because people die so often in this comic that it was only a matter of time.
You could argue that too is intentional because it mirrors how the characters might feel: don't get too attached, death is everywhere. It's a delicate balance, overall they strike the right notes I think.
Marvel, where everything is a re-imagining of a relaunch of a reboot with events spanning 20 other titles. Last time I looked they were doing a "son of Hulk" comic which seems kind of emblematic of the lack of ideas there. They lost me back in the nineties somewhere.
I was in the market for a small portable video camera when we had a baby on the way and was looking at the Flip. Then the iPhone 4 came out with HD recording and I got that instead and I'm glad I did, the video and photo's I shot with it are great for my purposes and it's always there in my pocket. They released a single purpose device just when multi-purpose ones were catching up on their area of expertise. Though break.
In comics you do have some series that go against this like The Walking Dead or Powers, where death is final. Because it is somewhat unexpected it tends to actually make it more powerful and moving when it does happen I think.
In fact my argument is that the language and attitude employed often puts open source into a pseudo religious context : making your software open source is Good and The Right Thing To Do, it makes you one of the Good Guys which is one us Us not Them, the enemy are a bunch of Zealots and we regularly engage in Holy Wars over what is the one true license and the most Free. While in fact it's a pragmatic and slightly dull decision that carries with it some benefits in some cases.
When people start talking about being pro-Freedom (a redundant phrase if ever I heard one) good guys helping others you can practically hear the battle hymns in the background and see the waving flags.
This is like the argument I had with a colleague who extracted the SID-chips from used c64's to use in some kind of synthesizer. He claimed he was giving them a second life but all I could see was him murdering a perfectly good computer and leaving a desecrated mangled corpse. I guess it depends on your POV:-)
Everything is sent through an encrypted channel making it difficult to filter out ads before they hit the client (like with privoxy for example.) No cashing ("Since we're proposing to do almost everything over an encrypted channel, we're making caching either difficult or impossible." -Protocol Draft) means you'll be served "fresh" ads every time.
So it looks like this would be good news for Google's core business.
Are you honestly suggesting that he killed his wife over open vs. closed source?
What ? No ! I was refuting the assertion that liking open source makes you a good guy. You can be an open source guy and still be a murderous asshole. So :
Q > Does being pro-freedom make you a good guy? Does believing that everyone should have free access make you a good guy? Does helping your others make you a good guy?
Does being pro-freedom make you a good guy? Does believing that everyone should have free access make you a good guy? Does helping your others make you a good guy?
Free software ideology isn't about the end product, it isn't chocolate versus vanilla, it is about process and access: how do we choose what gets made, how do we make it, who gets to make it and who gets access to what has been made?
Two words : Hans Reiser. If you want to claim some sort of moral high ground because of your position on how software should be made then it *has* turned into a religion.
You mean people with the disposable income to be able to trash perfectly good hardware instead of flogging it on eBay ? Nevertheless, interesting hack.
Even sane people misremember (a lot), and eyewitness stories, especially over time, can change. What people forget or can't remember but have some importance in remembering, they often confabulate - but still believe they are actually memories. People with Alzheimers do this a lot, and can create the appearance to outsiders that they don't have Alzheimers at all.
When I was studying I had an acquaintance who when you told him a story would later retell the story as if it had happened to him. Once he did this using an anecdote I had told him not 30 minutes before and as far as I could tell he was 100% serious and unaware of what he was doing. I hope in his case it was the weed but even sober he was a bit "off".
When I was young I thought there might be something to stories like these, then I grew up and realized that many people are doped up, drunk, compulsive liars or completely bat-shit insane. And some are all of those, all the time.
There's not a lot of things they actually did create : Android, Youtube, Picasa, Google Groups (Deja News), Blogger where all acquired and that's not even counting the ones directly built on foundations they bought from others like Google Maps, Lattitude or Google Docs. Google is hugely overrated, they can hardly keep themselves from lousing up their few original creations like Gmail by bolting on Google Buzz or the search engine by only recently allowing people to block sites from their search results.
Maybe sex is like other sorts of exercise. If you stop, it can be difficult to start again. Or your partner loses interest and its difficult to get her started again.
Can't get her started ? I'll bring by my jumper cable and do it for you ! (*ba dum tsch*)
I like my iDevices but I really wish Apple would provide an easy and legal way to jailbreak, maybe charge $50 to have people walk into an Apple store and do the jailbreak. After all I can buy an unlocked iPhone for more money, I should be able to buy one that's completely unrestricted too. Maybe we should ALL buy iPhones, then complain to the EU about Apple's monopolistic iPhone policy;-)
That said, do we need another story like this on Slashdot ? You know it's just some marketeer counting on the Streisand effect.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet she won't let him install his firmware either.
Hiring women is generally cheaper, so they might actually be women. This could be a nice part-time work from home gig for some hausfrau.
LOLWUT?
YA RLY
The iPhone started the migration from web applications to client apps - their rejection of Flash actually played a large part in that - it would be ironic, except that was actually their intent.
You might remember the original iPhone was webapp only and there was a big kerfuffle about it: "No iPhone SDK Means No iPhone Killer Apps". It was marketed as "The internet in your pocket". They did eventually release an SDK of course but even now they do not do what the OP accuses them of, namely mixing the two. They've always cleanly separated web and native, keeping the web part as based on common, universal standards as they keep the native part closed. If there has been a migration from web to native don't blame Apple for giving people what they want.
The short answer is because Apple couldn't know they would get a JIT javascript engine when they implemented web apps the way they did in iOS 1.
The long answer from Daring Fireball :
"The real answer is about security. Perhaps the biggest reason for Nitro’s performance improvements over WebKit’s previous JavaScript engine is the use of a JIT — “Just-In-Time” compilation. A JIT requires the ability to mark memory pages in RAM as executable, but, iOS, as a security measure, does not allow pages in memory to be marked as executable. This is a significant and serious security policy. Most modern operating systems do allow pages in memory to be marked as executable — including Mac OS X, Windows, and (I believe) Android1. iOS 4.3 makes an exception to this policy, but the exception is specifically limited to Mobile Safari.
It’s a trade-off. Most OSes allow marking memory pages as executable for performance reasons. iOS disallows it for security reasons. If you allow for pages of memory to be escalated from writable to executable (even if you require the page be made permanently read-only first), then you are enabling the execution of unsigned native code. It breaks the chain of trust. Allowing remote code to execute locally turns every locally exploitable security flaw into a remotely exploitable one.
[...]
Web apps that are saved to the home screen do not run within Mobile Safari. They’re effectively saved as discrete apps — thin wrappers around the UIWebView control. (That’s why they show up individually in the task bar, just like apps from the App Store.) Home screen apps may well eventually get access to the Nitro JavaScript engine — Apple simply hasn’t yet done (or perhaps finished?) the security work to allow it."
All security arguments aside, it seems that we may be going from an architecture-independent web to an architecture-dependent one. Sad. Maybe the mid-2000s will seem like a golden age of openness in the future. Platform-independent web applications were the hot new thing, the iPhone hadn't come out so open mobile devices still existed, anybody who suggested running native code from websites, or producing a locked-down device would have been laughed out of the room...ah the good ol' days...
What does the iPhone have to do with it. If anything it promoted web applications for mobile devices by providing a full featured browser on a mobile device. In fact Apple has been quite clear they prefer web apps to be based on independent standards, excluding plugins such as Flash which run only on some systems. If you want native on iPhone you have to go through the SDK, hell will freeze over before Apple will allow native code to run from websites.
To play the devil's advocate, though, TWD does overuse death a bit. In the latest issue, a certain someone whose name will not be mentioned for spoiler reasons got shot in the face and appears to be on the verge of death. I found it hard to care because people die so often in this comic that it was only a matter of time.
You could argue that too is intentional because it mirrors how the characters might feel: don't get too attached, death is everywhere. It's a delicate balance, overall they strike the right notes I think.
Marvel, where everything is a re-imagining of a relaunch of a reboot with events spanning 20 other titles. Last time I looked they were doing a "son of Hulk" comic which seems kind of emblematic of the lack of ideas there. They lost me back in the nineties somewhere.
I was in the market for a small portable video camera when we had a baby on the way and was looking at the Flip. Then the iPhone 4 came out with HD recording and I got that instead and I'm glad I did, the video and photo's I shot with it are great for my purposes and it's always there in my pocket. They released a single purpose device just when multi-purpose ones were catching up on their area of expertise. Though break.
In comics you do have some series that go against this like The Walking Dead or Powers, where death is final. Because it is somewhat unexpected it tends to actually make it more powerful and moving when it does happen I think.
Yes thanks.
In fact my argument is that the language and attitude employed often puts open source into a pseudo religious context : making your software open source is Good and The Right Thing To Do, it makes you one of the Good Guys which is one us Us not Them, the enemy are a bunch of Zealots and we regularly engage in Holy Wars over what is the one true license and the most Free. While in fact it's a pragmatic and slightly dull decision that carries with it some benefits in some cases.
When people start talking about being pro-Freedom (a redundant phrase if ever I heard one) good guys helping others you can practically hear the battle hymns in the background and see the waving flags.
This is like the argument I had with a colleague who extracted the SID-chips from used c64's to use in some kind of synthesizer. He claimed he was giving them a second life but all I could see was him murdering a perfectly good computer and leaving a desecrated mangled corpse. I guess it depends on your POV :-)
I'll take a stab at it :
Everything is sent through an encrypted channel making it difficult to filter out ads before they hit the client (like with privoxy for example.)
No cashing ("Since we're proposing to do almost everything over an encrypted channel, we're making caching either difficult or impossible." -Protocol Draft) means you'll be served "fresh" ads every time.
So it looks like this would be good news for Google's core business.
Are you honestly suggesting that he killed his wife over open vs. closed source?
What ? No ! I was refuting the assertion that liking open source makes you a good guy. You can be an open source guy and still be a murderous asshole. So :
Q > Does being pro-freedom make you a good guy? Does believing that everyone should have free access make you a good guy? Does helping your others make you a good guy?
A > No (or more accurately: not necessarily)
Does being pro-freedom make you a good guy? Does believing that everyone should have free access make you a good guy? Does helping your others make you a good guy?
Free software ideology isn't about the end product, it isn't chocolate versus vanilla, it is about process and access: how do we choose what gets made, how do we make it, who gets to make it and who gets access to what has been made?
Two words : Hans Reiser. If you want to claim some sort of moral high ground because of your position on how software should be made then it *has* turned into a religion.
You mean people with the disposable income to be able to trash perfectly good hardware instead of flogging it on eBay ?
Nevertheless, interesting hack.
Even sane people misremember (a lot), and eyewitness stories, especially over time, can change. What people forget or can't remember but have some importance in remembering, they often confabulate - but still believe they are actually memories. People with Alzheimers do this a lot, and can create the appearance to outsiders that they don't have Alzheimers at all.
When I was studying I had an acquaintance who when you told him a story would later retell the story as if it had happened to him. Once he did this using an anecdote I had told him not 30 minutes before and as far as I could tell he was 100% serious and unaware of what he was doing. I hope in his case it was the weed but even sober he was a bit "off".
When I was young I thought there might be something to stories like these, then I grew up and realized that many people are doped up, drunk, compulsive liars or completely bat-shit insane. And some are all of those, all the time.
Well you can thank Apple and the other members of the WHATWG for that.
A man can dream, can't he ? Well maybe it will be in their interest one day when a competitor catches up with them.
There's not a lot of things they actually did create : Android, Youtube, Picasa, Google Groups (Deja News), Blogger where all acquired and that's not even counting the ones directly built on foundations they bought from others like Google Maps, Lattitude or Google Docs. Google is hugely overrated, they can hardly keep themselves from lousing up their few original creations like Gmail by bolting on Google Buzz or the search engine by only recently allowing people to block sites from their search results.
As they say: "It's not a bald spot, it's a solar panel for a sex machine."
Also Beverly Crusher, in an alternative timeline, and he was married in that alternative life he had when he was hit by a beam from a probe.
Maybe sex is like other sorts of exercise. If you stop, it can be difficult to start again. Or your partner loses interest and its difficult to get her started again.
Can't get her started ? I'll bring by my jumper cable and do it for you ! (*ba dum tsch*)
I like my iDevices but I really wish Apple would provide an easy and legal way to jailbreak, maybe charge $50 to have people walk into an Apple store and do the jailbreak. After all I can buy an unlocked iPhone for more money, I should be able to buy one that's completely unrestricted too. Maybe we should ALL buy iPhones, then complain to the EU about Apple's monopolistic iPhone policy ;-)
That said, do we need another story like this on Slashdot ? You know it's just some marketeer counting on the Streisand effect.
But it's totally open*
(*) when and if Google says so, but they might give you "early access" if you're extra nice to them.