Android is certainly not GNU, just based on Linux.
It would be more accurate to say that Android is hosted on Linux not based on Linux. Android is in no way a Linux derivative. Android is essentially its own operating system (Java based API) and the majority of Android app developers never even see anything Linux. Android is not a Java wrapper for Linux, its something entirely different. As for users, they certainly never see anything Linux and few are probably even aware its there.
These are decades old computer vision projects. Look through the computer vision literature going as far back as the 1980s. There are two categories that represent a large percentage of the published papers. (1) Detecting man made objects (roads, buildings, ships, vehicles, etc) from aerial and satellite imagery. (2) Detecting anomalous objects (things that don't belong there) in medical imagery.
Computers watching the earth is very old news. What is changing is that the objects being detected and described in near real-time are getting more and more complex.
As I said in my original post the 5X has a slightly faster CPU/GPU than the 5. However the 5's CPU/GPU is still overpowered compared to what nearly all Android users do. More important for overall performance is installed RAM, which is the same. And the screen is the same.
The differences between the 5 and 5X are minor and in no way justify why the 5 can not run the new version of Android. It was a business decision not a technical decision.
I don't know how much number crunching was actually involved here. I suspect the problem comes from using a spreadsheet as a database. Because databases are, you know, hard.
It was user error, not a spreadsheet problem. Prefacing the names with a ' would have identified them as a string not to be interpreted as numeric or date. If the researchers couldn't manage this do you really think they could have used a database?
That said, yes spreadsheet are overused and abused.
I rarely do dual monitor with my laptop at home or work.I typically plug in a keyboard, mouse and monitor and the closed laptop is pretty much a "desktop". My normal desktop just appears on my external.
Pardon the overloading of "desktop". My laptop is pretty much a "desktop PC" when I'm at my desk and my normal "UI graphical desktop" just appears on my external monitor.
I rarely do dual monitor with my laptop at home or work.I typically plug in a keyboard, mouse and monitor and the closed laptop is pretty much a "desktop". My normal desktop just appears on my external.
My "serious" work is coding and I no use for a external monitor. I never game, though. Not interested.
A software developer without an external monitor, that is unique. I've known few developers that didn't want a larger screen. Using the laptop display a compromise for mobility, but when at home or office an external monitor is quite common.
Are you still in school or something? That would make going completely mobile a little more understandable.
The 5 and 5X are very different, especially when it comes to things that matter. I don't even know how you can claim they're similar when they're literally two generations apart. It's practically enough time for Qualcomm to develop, launch, and stop supporting a whole product from end to end!
They are two *marketing* generations apart but in *technical* generations the 5X is a direct descendent of the 5, a sibling to the 6.
Other than being a first class engineer and proven visionary?
You are a massive retard if you think he has any vision. Jobs had the vision.
Vision exists in design, in the user experience, AND in the design and implementation of hardware and software. Woz's vision is in the later areas, Jobs' in the former.
This moron was still pushing the Apple II well after it was obsolete.
The Mac under Jobs was not successful, its eventual success only came under the stewardship of others. At the time of Jobs' ouster from Apple in 1985 the Apple// was generating over 80% of Apple's income. The Apple// generated most of Apple revenue for many years after Jobs' departure. It wasn't until the early 1990s that Mac became the primary source of revenue.
And in the early 1980s it was Jobs that prematurely downplayed the Apple II in order to focus in the Apple III, which was a major failure and helped create an opening for IBM. So Woz and the Apple// saved Jobs with the Apple III and save Jobs again with the early Mac.
Every venture this guy has been in after he left Apple has been a massive failure.
Jobs had many failures with the Apple III, the Apple Lisa, the Apple Macintosh under his original tenure (others turned it around after his ouster), the NeXT computer, etc. The eventual partial success of NeXTSTEP as Mac OS X was a fluke of history, of Apple's two internal classic Mac OS replacement projects failing. When NeXTSTEP was standing on its own two feet it was never very popular outside of computer science labs. It was Apple's adoption, something independent of Jobs' vision, and the grafting of a Mac OS user interfaces for NeXTSTEP that made it partially successful (its core, not its original UI). Jobs' vision also failed with respect to larger screen iPhones. His vision failed with the 6th generation iPod Nano that was developed under his tenure.
Plus Jobs v2.0, the person who revitalized the Mac and pivoted from computers to phones, was a very very different person than the Jobs v1.0 that founded Apple and developed the original Mac. He spent many years learning from old and new mistakes to get from v1.0 to v2.0. Woz in contrast took off a lot of time to teach, literally, in public schools. Its silly to compare Woz and Jobs, in v1.0 days they were trying similar things, but in v2.0 days they were not and hence the comparison fails. The fact remains that in those v1.0 days is was Woz and the Apple// saving Jobs over and over as Job's post Apple// vision failed repeatedly.
They may not be dead, but for the home user, they are on life support. I know few people with a desktop anymore, and no one shops for them.
You know what the exception is? Gamers. Guess who might be interested in PS3 games on a PC?
I kept my monitor set up in case I ever wanted to hook it my laptop, but never have.
For a "gamer" who only has CPU and video designed for power consumption rather than performance that would seem necessary. You probably can't drive all those pixels on the external at a reasonable frame rate. Unlike a desktop.
For non gamers who go beyond basic email and web browsing and video streaming, external monitors are somewhat popular. For more "serious" work the larger screen is a great benefit.
Most people won't ever want to move the SD card from their phone to the computer...but...Easy, just grab any open source windows EXT3 disk mounting utility for windows, reskin it, package it up in your own installer, include a GPL license with it and put it up on the "downloads" section of the support site. Then include an insert with the phone directing them to the web address on your website on where to download it.
Or license FAT and the user just plugs it in and it works.
According to Wall Street but engineers tend to feel very differently. The simple truth is that it was a partnership. Without the revolutionary hardware design of Woz, Jobs wouldn't have had such a low cost and capable machine to sell. There are engineers as talented as Woz, and pitchmen as talented as Jobs, that have not had "great" success because they never met their peer from the other side.
Similarly Jobs' success with the Mac and iPhone also relied on extremely talented engineers, required them.
Jobs was the face of Apple, not the heart of Apple. That heart lies in the engineering talent.
Other than being a first class engineer and proven visionary?
Also note that this topic isn't quite random and does cover technical areas that are within his field of expertise. On top of that driving paper/plastic cones with magnets isn't exactly modern technology and predates the 1970s.
Lack of another huge success like the Apple I and II does not reflect upon engineering skills and opinions. It reflects that success often demands much more than engineering skill, many non-engineering skills often.
Sounds good... if there isn't a corresponding increase in battery consumption. (i.e. you can't get something for nothing, especially when they constantly try to make phones thinner at the same time for some stupid reason)
Low power bluetooth signal vs powering magnets that are physically driving a plastic cone? The phone's battery is powering the current ear buds. In a wireless scenario the the wireless device has its own battery.
Or the phone can just say "This SD card needs to be formatted for use with this phone. This will erase everything on this card. Are you sure?" for any non ext3 formatted cards.
And when the owners of those phones want to move the SD card to their Windows PC or Mac in order to copy the photos off of it, copy music on to it, etc?
There is absolutely no reason there couldn't be a file system that is universally readable by all OSs. Microsoft is doing this for the patent tax, and if you think otherwise, you're naive.
Of course there could be, but where is it? How much would it cost to develop and successfully promote as an industry standard? Until then there is FAT. I never said MS wasn't interested in patent royalties, just that they are not patent trolls since they actually developed the technology that others are choosing.
Well firstly you would need to show that its only monopolistic weight that goes into the decision and not that market forces (i.e. compatibility between Windows, Mac, Linux and some embedded users) that is behind the decision to use FAT. For example you don't think camera manufacturers and others don't want to use a format that all desktop platforms can read? Things are far more complicated than you suggest.
Microsoft forces SD card manufacturers to sell their cards pre-formatted only with Microsoft-patented file systems.
So you think SD card manufacturers would like to sell platform specific formatted cards instead of a common format that Windows, Mac, and Linux (and many embedded) users can all read/write?
You think Linux users would be happy with pre-formatted ext3 cards that cost a little more due to lower volumes, are a little harder to find in brick and mortar when you are in a hurry?
I imagine SD card manufacturers have a genuine interest in FAT, a common format.
The problem is that Microsoft is adding ~$10 to the cost of every Android device with their patent trolling.
Its not patent trolling when you actually created the thing, others think that the thing would be beneficial to them, and these others are fully aware up front that this thing is covered by a patent.
You are confusing contributing with leading the project.
Determining what code is written, what new features are developed, is leading the project. Not merging the contributions after ensuring the code is well written.
Linus leads from behind. After a feature is developed, he decides whether it will be allowed into the kernel. It's the same sort of decisionmaking process as in most development workflows, it just front-ends most of the work. In most development processes, someone will decide "the product should do X", and they'll make some slides and pitch the ideas and the leaders will decide whether or not to pursue it. If they decide to pursue it then the developers will build it, debug it, test it, etc. The process is optimized around conserving a scarce resource, developer time.
I recall reading a somewhat recent interview where he explicitly said he does no such thing. That he really tries to avoid rejecting functionality and features, its compatibility and reliability that he actually focuses on.
In the Linux process, someone decides "Linux should do X", and so they build it, write all the code, debug it, test it... and then they'll send it to Linus, who decides whether or not to merge it. Same process, the difference is that the leader decides on the basis of fully-implemented code, rather than slideware. In the Linux model, developer time is not scarce and the process does not optimize for conserving it.
And in such a model it is the outsiders, i.e. corporations mostly in this case, that are guiding the development of Linux as they are deciding what to implement. The person accepting the code based on compatibility and quality is not acting in a leadership role, from front or behind, its more of a quality assurance role. A maintainer not a leader.
There are technical dictionaries online now you know.
Apparently you should inform the editorial staff of the IEEE and Linus Torvalds as well, they too seem to refer to both the operating system and the kernel as Linux. http://spectrum.ieee.org/compu...
This slang usage again - the operating system includes the solitaire game and the glowing thing on the desk is the "computer" while the beige box underneath is the "hard drive".
Consider the context - here the textbook definition applies and not the slang that was ripped to shreds by the Judge in MS vs Netscape.
There are quite a few bits of serious software sitting between your solitaire game and the kernel.
Some reasons why Google won't update:
1) Is the phone fast enough so that it isn't just full of jank when you upgrade? Because I'm sure people will complain a LOT more about that than be forced to upgrade a pretty antiquated phone.
The 5 and 5X are not very different.
2) Do the hardware component manufacturers still support those devices? Put it this way: why would Qualcomm staff up a driver team to upgrade the drivers of components in old devices if those components are "good enough" and doesn't even sell much anymore?
There are a lot more reasons beyond "specs".
Google already has a working driver for "old" chips and they likely do not need to upgrade them, unless the changes are related to operating system interfaces and in that case Google would be better qualified to make the changes.
Slashdot Mirror
Android is certainly not GNU, just based on Linux.
It would be more accurate to say that Android is hosted on Linux not based on Linux. Android is in no way a Linux derivative. Android is essentially its own operating system (Java based API) and the majority of Android app developers never even see anything Linux. Android is not a Java wrapper for Linux, its something entirely different. As for users, they certainly never see anything Linux and few are probably even aware its there.
These are decades old computer vision projects. Look through the computer vision literature going as far back as the 1980s. There are two categories that represent a large percentage of the published papers. (1) Detecting man made objects (roads, buildings, ships, vehicles, etc) from aerial and satellite imagery. (2) Detecting anomalous objects (things that don't belong there) in medical imagery.
Computers watching the earth is very old news. What is changing is that the objects being detected and described in near real-time are getting more and more complex.
But will they ever be profitable?
When they switch to driverless cars.
As I said in my original post the 5X has a slightly faster CPU/GPU than the 5. However the 5's CPU/GPU is still overpowered compared to what nearly all Android users do. More important for overall performance is installed RAM, which is the same. And the screen is the same.
The differences between the 5 and 5X are minor and in no way justify why the 5 can not run the new version of Android. It was a business decision not a technical decision.
I don't know how much number crunching was actually involved here. I suspect the problem comes from using a spreadsheet as a database. Because databases are, you know, hard.
It was user error, not a spreadsheet problem. Prefacing the names with a ' would have identified them as a string not to be interpreted as numeric or date. If the researchers couldn't manage this do you really think they could have used a database?
That said, yes spreadsheet are overused and abused.
I rarely do dual monitor with my laptop at home or work.I typically plug in a keyboard, mouse and monitor and the closed laptop is pretty much a "desktop". My normal desktop just appears on my external.
Pardon the overloading of "desktop". My laptop is pretty much a "desktop PC" when I'm at my desk and my normal "UI graphical desktop" just appears on my external monitor.
I rarely do dual monitor with my laptop at home or work.I typically plug in a keyboard, mouse and monitor and the closed laptop is pretty much a "desktop". My normal desktop just appears on my external.
My "serious" work is coding and I no use for a external monitor. I never game, though. Not interested.
A software developer without an external monitor, that is unique. I've known few developers that didn't want a larger screen. Using the laptop display a compromise for mobility, but when at home or office an external monitor is quite common.
Are you still in school or something? That would make going completely mobile a little more understandable.
The 5 and 5X are very different, especially when it comes to things that matter. I don't even know how you can claim they're similar when they're literally two generations apart. It's practically enough time for Qualcomm to develop, launch, and stop supporting a whole product from end to end!
They are two *marketing* generations apart but in *technical* generations the 5X is a direct descendent of the 5, a sibling to the 6.
Other than being a first class engineer and proven visionary?
You are a massive retard if you think he has any vision. Jobs had the vision.
Vision exists in design, in the user experience, AND in the design and implementation of hardware and software. Woz's vision is in the later areas, Jobs' in the former.
This moron was still pushing the Apple II well after it was obsolete.
The Mac under Jobs was not successful, its eventual success only came under the stewardship of others. At the time of Jobs' ouster from Apple in 1985 the Apple // was generating over 80% of Apple's income. The Apple // generated most of Apple revenue for many years after Jobs' departure. It wasn't until the early 1990s that Mac became the primary source of revenue.
// saved Jobs with the Apple III and save Jobs again with the early Mac.
And in the early 1980s it was Jobs that prematurely downplayed the Apple II in order to focus in the Apple III, which was a major failure and helped create an opening for IBM. So Woz and the Apple
Every venture this guy has been in after he left Apple has been a massive failure.
Jobs had many failures with the Apple III, the Apple Lisa, the Apple Macintosh under his original tenure (others turned it around after his ouster), the NeXT computer, etc. The eventual partial success of NeXTSTEP as Mac OS X was a fluke of history, of Apple's two internal classic Mac OS replacement projects failing. When NeXTSTEP was standing on its own two feet it was never very popular outside of computer science labs. It was Apple's adoption, something independent of Jobs' vision, and the grafting of a Mac OS user interfaces for NeXTSTEP that made it partially successful (its core, not its original UI). Jobs' vision also failed with respect to larger screen iPhones. His vision failed with the 6th generation iPod Nano that was developed under his tenure.
// saving Jobs over and over as Job's post Apple // vision failed repeatedly.
Plus Jobs v2.0, the person who revitalized the Mac and pivoted from computers to phones, was a very very different person than the Jobs v1.0 that founded Apple and developed the original Mac. He spent many years learning from old and new mistakes to get from v1.0 to v2.0. Woz in contrast took off a lot of time to teach, literally, in public schools. Its silly to compare Woz and Jobs, in v1.0 days they were trying similar things, but in v2.0 days they were not and hence the comparison fails. The fact remains that in those v1.0 days is was Woz and the Apple
They may not be dead, but for the home user, they are on life support. I know few people with a desktop anymore, and no one shops for them.
You know what the exception is? Gamers. Guess who might be interested in PS3 games on a PC?
I kept my monitor set up in case I ever wanted to hook it my laptop, but never have.
For a "gamer" who only has CPU and video designed for power consumption rather than performance that would seem necessary. You probably can't drive all those pixels on the external at a reasonable frame rate. Unlike a desktop.
For non gamers who go beyond basic email and web browsing and video streaming, external monitors are somewhat popular. For more "serious" work the larger screen is a great benefit.
Most people won't ever want to move the SD card from their phone to the computer...but...Easy, just grab any open source windows EXT3 disk mounting utility for windows, reskin it, package it up in your own installer, include a GPL license with it and put it up on the "downloads" section of the support site. Then include an insert with the phone directing them to the web address on your website on where to download it.
Or license FAT and the user just plugs it in and it works.
Steve Jobs that made Apple what it was
According to Wall Street but engineers tend to feel very differently. The simple truth is that it was a partnership. Without the revolutionary hardware design of Woz, Jobs wouldn't have had such a low cost and capable machine to sell. There are engineers as talented as Woz, and pitchmen as talented as Jobs, that have not had "great" success because they never met their peer from the other side.
Similarly Jobs' success with the Mac and iPhone also relied on extremely talented engineers, required them.
Jobs was the face of Apple, not the heart of Apple. That heart lies in the engineering talent.
Other than being a first class engineer and proven visionary?
Also note that this topic isn't quite random and does cover technical areas that are within his field of expertise. On top of that driving paper/plastic cones with magnets isn't exactly modern technology and predates the 1970s.
Lack of another huge success like the Apple I and II does not reflect upon engineering skills and opinions. It reflects that success often demands much more than engineering skill, many non-engineering skills often.
Sounds good ... if there isn't a corresponding increase in battery consumption. (i.e. you can't get something for nothing, especially when they constantly try to make phones thinner at the same time for some stupid reason)
Low power bluetooth signal vs powering magnets that are physically driving a plastic cone? The phone's battery is powering the current ear buds. In a wireless scenario the the wireless device has its own battery.
Or the phone can just say "This SD card needs to be formatted for use with this phone. This will erase everything on this card. Are you sure?" for any non ext3 formatted cards.
And when the owners of those phones want to move the SD card to their Windows PC or Mac in order to copy the photos off of it, copy music on to it, etc?
There is absolutely no reason there couldn't be a file system that is universally readable by all OSs. Microsoft is doing this for the patent tax, and if you think otherwise, you're naive.
Of course there could be, but where is it? How much would it cost to develop and successfully promote as an industry standard? Until then there is FAT. I never said MS wasn't interested in patent royalties, just that they are not patent trolls since they actually developed the technology that others are choosing.
Well firstly you would need to show that its only monopolistic weight that goes into the decision and not that market forces (i.e. compatibility between Windows, Mac, Linux and some embedded users) that is behind the decision to use FAT. For example you don't think camera manufacturers and others don't want to use a format that all desktop platforms can read? Things are far more complicated than you suggest.
Microsoft forces SD card manufacturers to sell their cards pre-formatted only with Microsoft-patented file systems.
So you think SD card manufacturers would like to sell platform specific formatted cards instead of a common format that Windows, Mac, and Linux (and many embedded) users can all read/write?
You think Linux users would be happy with pre-formatted ext3 cards that cost a little more due to lower volumes, are a little harder to find in brick and mortar when you are in a hurry?
I imagine SD card manufacturers have a genuine interest in FAT, a common format.
... it's only value is compatibility with Windows desktops ...
Actually FAT is commonly used on USB sticks and SD cards by Mac and Linux users as well. FAT is the "I'd like to read/write this anywhere" option.
The problem is that Microsoft is adding ~$10 to the cost of every Android device with their patent trolling.
Its not patent trolling when you actually created the thing, others think that the thing would be beneficial to them, and these others are fully aware up front that this thing is covered by a patent.
You are confusing contributing with leading the project.
Determining what code is written, what new features are developed, is leading the project. Not merging the contributions after ensuring the code is well written.
Linus leads from behind. After a feature is developed, he decides whether it will be allowed into the kernel. It's the same sort of decisionmaking process as in most development workflows, it just front-ends most of the work. In most development processes, someone will decide "the product should do X", and they'll make some slides and pitch the ideas and the leaders will decide whether or not to pursue it. If they decide to pursue it then the developers will build it, debug it, test it, etc. The process is optimized around conserving a scarce resource, developer time.
I recall reading a somewhat recent interview where he explicitly said he does no such thing. That he really tries to avoid rejecting functionality and features, its compatibility and reliability that he actually focuses on.
In the Linux process, someone decides "Linux should do X", and so they build it, write all the code, debug it, test it... and then they'll send it to Linus, who decides whether or not to merge it. Same process, the difference is that the leader decides on the basis of fully-implemented code, rather than slideware. In the Linux model, developer time is not scarce and the process does not optimize for conserving it.
And in such a model it is the outsiders, i.e. corporations mostly in this case, that are guiding the development of Linux as they are deciding what to implement. The person accepting the code based on compatibility and quality is not acting in a leadership role, from front or behind, its more of a quality assurance role. A maintainer not a leader.
There are technical dictionaries online now you know.
Apparently you should inform the editorial staff of the IEEE and Linus Torvalds as well, they too seem to refer to both the operating system and the kernel as Linux.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/compu...
This slang usage again - the operating system includes the solitaire game and the glowing thing on the desk is the "computer" while the beige box underneath is the "hard drive". Consider the context - here the textbook definition applies and not the slang that was ripped to shreds by the Judge in MS vs Netscape.
There are quite a few bits of serious software sitting between your solitaire game and the kernel.
Some reasons why Google won't update: 1) Is the phone fast enough so that it isn't just full of jank when you upgrade? Because I'm sure people will complain a LOT more about that than be forced to upgrade a pretty antiquated phone.
The 5 and 5X are not very different.
2) Do the hardware component manufacturers still support those devices? Put it this way: why would Qualcomm staff up a driver team to upgrade the drivers of components in old devices if those components are "good enough" and doesn't even sell much anymore?
There are a lot more reasons beyond "specs".
Google already has a working driver for "old" chips and they likely do not need to upgrade them, unless the changes are related to operating system interfaces and in that case Google would be better qualified to make the changes.