Unix, wether it be Linux or BSD variation, is getting more and more popular.
I'm not sure what the point of lumping all Unix derivatives together is in this context, it was about exploits and platforms targeted by malware, what exploits and malware run across all Unix derivatives?
Attackers will *always* try to attack the biggest target. They are not for equal opportunity, they do not meet to work out quotas so that OSes gets attacked accordingly to their market share.
Ok then so if iOS has 13.2% marketshare then why does it only get 0.7% of the smartphone malware and the remaining 20.3% of smartphone malware is targeted at the remaining various players that make up just 6.8% of the marketshare?
"Android was targeted by an astonishing 79 percent of all smartphone malware that year... iOS was targeted by 0.7 percent of malware attacks."
Oh wow! That must mean iOS is much more secure!
Well if Android was targeted by 79% of smartphone malware and has 80% marketshare where iOS has (according to your statistics) 13.2% of the marketshare with only 0.7% of the smartphone malware then that would suggest that yes it is. Of course the next thing to look at is whether it is just hackers going after the biggest target marketshare, well the remaining smartphone malware (20.3%) is targeted at the remaining players that have just 6.8% of the smartphone market, so if you were to suggest it was just them going after the larger market then iOS would be expected to have significantly more than it has and the tiny players to have significantly less than they have.
Developers and enthusiasts get "early" access to Android by running a Nexus device or custom ROMs.
No, that's no different to any other user. We can't get Nexus devices or code to even start building custom ROMs until that is all released to the public.
I don't think the apps call any APIs to trigger the new functionality, I believe the OS just does its thing assuming the apps will behave correctly.
Well do they or don't they? I was assuming you were concerned based on actual experience. Those apps were limited to those screen sizes so having arbitrary resizing naturally wouldn't work correctly without all the apps being changed or having a different API, so which of those it is is important.
Running in the preview *should* be sufficient to test for this, but there's no guarantee the preview behaves exactly like RTM.
No, there is no guarantee, but they did say code to the preview which would indicate the behavior isn't changing between that and RTM.
Those features I mentioned will affect existing apps, not just apps to be newly released. Developers would like to test to make sure the new features don't interact poorly with existing apps.
Are the existing apps using the new APIs? Do they operate poorly in the Preview?
It doesn't really matter how it's done in the Android world, the point is that developers currently pay for MSDN subscriptions precisely to get access to Microsoft software for development purposes and now those perks are largely useless. It's a regression on a paid subscription, we have every right to be unhappy about it.
So it's less a matter of process - since in the Android world we do this all the time - and more a matter of regression of value in the paid subscription...well maybe it's time to cancel that subscription then.
Yes, they are in the Preview, but as a developer I'd still want to test on RTM before customers get their hands on it.
In that case wait til you've got your hands on it and then release after that, how do you think we do it in the Android world? It's not like any of those features are in the current release anyway so releasing it any earlier doesn't get you anything and if you're not confident that there are no changes between the Preview and RTM (even though they have said target the Preview) then you can always wait for release.
What features, you ask? Well, the new DPI scaling mechanism and arbitrary Metro split screen resizing will have significant implications for UI layout, for example.
Those sound like things that would be in the Preview don't you think? I would imagine if the APIs for those features somehow changed there would have been a release for it.
Well I guess in the "real world" there's no open source software, since developers and users get access to the same code at the same time.
That really depends on the development model rather than whether it is open source or not, sometimes the source isn't released until the final product is released.
So when it gets released and pushed out over Windows Update, the average user's install won't break because some little driver has an issue with how Windows 8.1 does things. Having the RTM out early also allows OEMs to make sure they are picking hardware that will work best with Windows 8.1 and have 8.1 machines ready for to be sold when 8.1 drops.
Which is why they have an RTM which has been...Released To Manufacturers.
By not having an RTM, Microsoft is telling everyone to go screw themselves and that they'll have to figure out if stuff works on Release Day.
Well yeah that might be correct, but they do have an RTM so what you're saying isn't particularly relevant.
Sounds more to me like Microsoft is making consumers be beta testers for all of the 3rd party software out there, and putting a much higher support burden on the independent software developers since they can't test their software on the released OS until the public does.
Which is pretty much how it's done with Android and that seems to work well enough. On the other hand their old strategy was to do it more similar to iOS and OSX which seem to throw out a new beta every 2 weeks, which works well for them too.
Anyone else wonder if this has something to do with App Markets and the ease of which one can make money?
I'm not sure it can all be blamed on app markets, but in part that could have an effect. In that scenario, given that the code is free the ability to make money is really based on marketing. People will pay a couple of dollars to save them the hassle of pulling down the source, building it on their PC and then uploading that to their phones but anybody can do that and in the end the best marketer will win out. Of course then there is also the person who is happy to publish the binary for free (no cost) which is another competitor. So then how does the original code creator make money from it? Nobody is paying for tech support contracts in that area and additional features are available to everyone because of the nature of free software. I'm not saying it can't be done but the traditional methods of making money from free software don't really apply in that market.
Why does every discussion about paying taxes have someone making this stupid point?
The fact that the discussion went from paying $8 a month for netflix to the absurdity of tracking down a supercar owner and giving them thousands of dollars should demonstrate to you that you thoroughly won the argument.
So like I said, for the few people who actually do have this problem and feel it is such a cognitive burden (fewer given the ubiquity of mobile devices that utilise the same model so people are naturally used to it) and want to use the start screen/start menu then one of the many start menu applications would probably help you. The solution is there, I've already told you what it is.
Is Netflix the right target though? What makes you think they want to have DRM in their product?
It's the same in the games console market, targeting the console makers is useless, sure they implement DRM but compare that to the free and open PC market and who are you going to go after? Dell or HP or Apple over the DRM in EA, Ubisoft and Steam games? No you have to go after the content publishers. Even if Sony - for example - were to release the Playstation without DRM the content publishers would still just do what they do in the PC market, it wouldn't change anything.
Does it really slow you down exactly zero to completely lose your context?
Zero what?
Zero milliseconds per operation.
It isn't losing context, my brain maintains that context, I don't blank out and forget what I was doing everytime the screen changes. I don't need the previous operation to be visible to not forget what I was doing and I can't imagine many people do and - as I already said - this would happen all the time on phones and tablets because the workflows almost always move through multiple fullscreen pages or applications.
Occasionally I do, and it happens more often when a roommate is playing radio or television in the background.
Then perhaps you are the sort of person who would see some benefit in one of the many start menu applications, but it depends on how badly this problem is affecting you.
Does it really slow you down exactly zero to completely lose your context?
Zero what? And I don't know, you're the one telling me there is a problem so this is the thing you should know.
Have you measured this?
Of course not, I don't have this problem, I asked you if you had it because what you described and what you linked to are completely different.
It's also common to use phones or tablets to perform less involved tasks that require the use of fewer applications and fewer documents at once. I have often heard clauses of the sort "when I get to a desk" when asking my boss about a particular piece of spec or coding that I've finished, as a sort of hint that the task of evaluating my work is too involved to perform efficiently on a phone or tablet.
So? A phone or tablet isn't a desktop replacement, it's that simple. That isn't to say the workflows are any less complex.
If full-screen applications are superior, then why do we even have Windows?
If they were always superior we probably wouldn't have windows, but again I think you're having trouble comprehending what you're replying to because - like in the last post - you seem to be again trying to derail the conversation by diverting to something I never claimed or implied.
I acknowledge that you didn't say "it should be full-screen". But you also said "do you actually have a problem?"
Yes, this odd and different version of the doorway amnesia problem you linked to, do you have this problem in the context of a single task and on a computer whereby you open an application and simply because you opened it fullscreen you forgot why you opened it?
If that's your attitude then you can say that about any product from any company, do you just accept everything every company does and consider it your problem if you don't like it? That these companies never do anything wrong it's always you that's wrong? I shouldn't have trusted Google not to do a bait-and-switch on this and I'm certainly not about to trust that Microsoft wouldn't do something equally shitty with their webmail service.
It's not like you need EAS to access your Gmail. I'm sure whatever device you own has a web browser.
You understand the point of EAS support? It's the lack of push email that's the problem and they are going for further lock-in by making it only available in their app and that app only accepts gmail accounts.
Tech transitions can be difficult, but once maintaining EAS licensing becomes cost ineffective you can't expect them to continue it for a free service.
Why are you saying it is cost ineffective? Google certainly never said that, you're just making up a defense of this move for them now. It's obviously a shitty thing for them to do but for some reason you're so desperate to defend them and blame the user.
Slashdot Mirror
X11. Also there's Java.
Well they aren't malware or exploits but in any case they both also run on Windows, so you could just lump all the operating systems together.
Nearly everyone is our office now has iphones, they all dumped samsung crap and android.
Sir the bet is one anecdotal evidence, minimum raise another anecdotal evidence.
Unix, wether it be Linux or BSD variation, is getting more and more popular.
I'm not sure what the point of lumping all Unix derivatives together is in this context, it was about exploits and platforms targeted by malware, what exploits and malware run across all Unix derivatives?
Attackers will *always* try to attack the biggest target. They are not for equal opportunity, they do not meet to work out quotas so that OSes gets attacked accordingly to their market share.
Ok then so if iOS has 13.2% marketshare then why does it only get 0.7% of the smartphone malware and the remaining 20.3% of smartphone malware is targeted at the remaining various players that make up just 6.8% of the marketshare?
"Android was targeted by an astonishing 79 percent of all smartphone malware that year... iOS was targeted by 0.7 percent of malware attacks."
Oh wow! That must mean iOS is much more secure!
Well if Android was targeted by 79% of smartphone malware and has 80% marketshare where iOS has (according to your statistics) 13.2% of the marketshare with only 0.7% of the smartphone malware then that would suggest that yes it is. Of course the next thing to look at is whether it is just hackers going after the biggest target marketshare, well the remaining smartphone malware (20.3%) is targeted at the remaining players that have just 6.8% of the smartphone market, so if you were to suggest it was just them going after the larger market then iOS would be expected to have significantly more than it has and the tiny players to have significantly less than they have.
Developers and enthusiasts get "early" access to Android by running a Nexus device or custom ROMs.
No, that's no different to any other user. We can't get Nexus devices or code to even start building custom ROMs until that is all released to the public.
I don't think the apps call any APIs to trigger the new functionality, I believe the OS just does its thing assuming the apps will behave correctly.
Well do they or don't they? I was assuming you were concerned based on actual experience. Those apps were limited to those screen sizes so having arbitrary resizing naturally wouldn't work correctly without all the apps being changed or having a different API, so which of those it is is important.
Running in the preview *should* be sufficient to test for this, but there's no guarantee the preview behaves exactly like RTM.
No, there is no guarantee, but they did say code to the preview which would indicate the behavior isn't changing between that and RTM.
Those features I mentioned will affect existing apps, not just apps to be newly released. Developers would like to test to make sure the new features don't interact poorly with existing apps.
Are the existing apps using the new APIs? Do they operate poorly in the Preview?
It doesn't really matter how it's done in the Android world, the point is that developers currently pay for MSDN subscriptions precisely to get access to Microsoft software for development purposes and now those perks are largely useless. It's a regression on a paid subscription, we have every right to be unhappy about it.
So it's less a matter of process - since in the Android world we do this all the time - and more a matter of regression of value in the paid subscription...well maybe it's time to cancel that subscription then.
Yes, they are in the Preview, but as a developer I'd still want to test on RTM before customers get their hands on it.
In that case wait til you've got your hands on it and then release after that, how do you think we do it in the Android world? It's not like any of those features are in the current release anyway so releasing it any earlier doesn't get you anything and if you're not confident that there are no changes between the Preview and RTM (even though they have said target the Preview) then you can always wait for release.
What features, you ask? Well, the new DPI scaling mechanism and arbitrary Metro split screen resizing will have significant implications for UI layout, for example.
Those sound like things that would be in the Preview don't you think? I would imagine if the APIs for those features somehow changed there would have been a release for it.
Well I guess in the "real world" there's no open source software, since developers and users get access to the same code at the same time.
That really depends on the development model rather than whether it is open source or not, sometimes the source isn't released until the final product is released.
So when it gets released and pushed out over Windows Update, the average user's install won't break because some little driver has an issue with how Windows 8.1 does things. Having the RTM out early also allows OEMs to make sure they are picking hardware that will work best with Windows 8.1 and have 8.1 machines ready for to be sold when 8.1 drops.
Which is why they have an RTM which has been...Released To Manufacturers.
By not having an RTM, Microsoft is telling everyone to go screw themselves and that they'll have to figure out if stuff works on Release Day.
Well yeah that might be correct, but they do have an RTM so what you're saying isn't particularly relevant.
Sounds more to me like Microsoft is making consumers be beta testers for all of the 3rd party software out there, and putting a much higher support burden on the independent software developers since they can't test their software on the released OS until the public does.
Which is pretty much how it's done with Android and that seems to work well enough. On the other hand their old strategy was to do it more similar to iOS and OSX which seem to throw out a new beta every 2 weeks, which works well for them too.
What's wrong with a small-form-factor PC or a laptop or a smartphone?
I'd like to find one single device that can stream from all of my sources natively. Is that really too much to ask?
It's called a PC. Either build an SFF box or buy a Mac Mini, Zotac ZBox, Dell SFF or something similar.
Anyone else wonder if this has something to do with App Markets and the ease of which one can make money?
I'm not sure it can all be blamed on app markets, but in part that could have an effect. In that scenario, given that the code is free the ability to make money is really based on marketing. People will pay a couple of dollars to save them the hassle of pulling down the source, building it on their PC and then uploading that to their phones but anybody can do that and in the end the best marketer will win out. Of course then there is also the person who is happy to publish the binary for free (no cost) which is another competitor. So then how does the original code creator make money from it? Nobody is paying for tech support contracts in that area and additional features are available to everyone because of the nature of free software. I'm not saying it can't be done but the traditional methods of making money from free software don't really apply in that market.
It's called Linux and BSD....
CoreOS's kernel is Linux.
I wonder if this jpublic is any relation? Unlikely sir they spell and pronounce their names differently.
Why does every discussion about paying taxes have someone making this stupid point?
The fact that the discussion went from paying $8 a month for netflix to the absurdity of tracking down a supercar owner and giving them thousands of dollars should demonstrate to you that you thoroughly won the argument.
So like I said, for the few people who actually do have this problem and feel it is such a cognitive burden (fewer given the ubiquity of mobile devices that utilise the same model so people are naturally used to it) and want to use the start screen/start menu then one of the many start menu applications would probably help you. The solution is there, I've already told you what it is.
Is Netflix the right target though? What makes you think they want to have DRM in their product?
It's the same in the games console market, targeting the console makers is useless, sure they implement DRM but compare that to the free and open PC market and who are you going to go after? Dell or HP or Apple over the DRM in EA, Ubisoft and Steam games? No you have to go after the content publishers. Even if Sony - for example - were to release the Playstation without DRM the content publishers would still just do what they do in the PC market, it wouldn't change anything.
Does it really slow you down exactly zero to completely lose your context?
Zero what?
Zero milliseconds per operation.
It isn't losing context, my brain maintains that context, I don't blank out and forget what I was doing everytime the screen changes. I don't need the previous operation to be visible to not forget what I was doing and I can't imagine many people do and - as I already said - this would happen all the time on phones and tablets because the workflows almost always move through multiple fullscreen pages or applications.
Occasionally I do, and it happens more often when a roommate is playing radio or television in the background.
Then perhaps you are the sort of person who would see some benefit in one of the many start menu applications, but it depends on how badly this problem is affecting you.
If I were testing apps like this, I'd run a good bit of my testing on a disposable VM with a faked network.
Meaning any application that required web services wouldn't work...great plan!
Does it really slow you down exactly zero to completely lose your context?
Zero what? And I don't know, you're the one telling me there is a problem so this is the thing you should know.
Have you measured this?
Of course not, I don't have this problem, I asked you if you had it because what you described and what you linked to are completely different.
It's also common to use phones or tablets to perform less involved tasks that require the use of fewer applications and fewer documents at once. I have often heard clauses of the sort "when I get to a desk" when asking my boss about a particular piece of spec or coding that I've finished, as a sort of hint that the task of evaluating my work is too involved to perform efficiently on a phone or tablet.
So? A phone or tablet isn't a desktop replacement, it's that simple. That isn't to say the workflows are any less complex.
If full-screen applications are superior, then why do we even have Windows?
If they were always superior we probably wouldn't have windows, but again I think you're having trouble comprehending what you're replying to because - like in the last post - you seem to be again trying to derail the conversation by diverting to something I never claimed or implied.
I acknowledge that you didn't say "it should be full-screen". But you also said "do you actually have a problem?"
Yes, this odd and different version of the doorway amnesia problem you linked to, do you have this problem in the context of a single task and on a computer whereby you open an application and simply because you opened it fullscreen you forgot why you opened it?
Well that's your problem, not theirs.
If that's your attitude then you can say that about any product from any company, do you just accept everything every company does and consider it your problem if you don't like it? That these companies never do anything wrong it's always you that's wrong? I shouldn't have trusted Google not to do a bait-and-switch on this and I'm certainly not about to trust that Microsoft wouldn't do something equally shitty with their webmail service.
It's not like you need EAS to access your Gmail. I'm sure whatever device you own has a web browser.
You understand the point of EAS support? It's the lack of push email that's the problem and they are going for further lock-in by making it only available in their app and that app only accepts gmail accounts.
Tech transitions can be difficult, but once maintaining EAS licensing becomes cost ineffective you can't expect them to continue it for a free service.
Why are you saying it is cost ineffective? Google certainly never said that, you're just making up a defense of this move for them now. It's obviously a shitty thing for them to do but for some reason you're so desperate to defend them and blame the user.