Your inability to understand that hardware (especially a computing device) is useless without software is mind-numbing.
I'm quite aware hardware is useless without software, but things like openiboot enabled that on the iphone and there is no reason that couldn't happen on xbox hardware.
You cannot use a computer without software because the software is what runs the hardware (do you actually know how a computer works?)
The fact that you are saying this means you are clearly not able to comprehend what has been written, nobody is disputing this, you just have this idiotic idea that hardware only works with the software provided with it, why do you think that?
It is not that it is hard; it is in matter of fact impossible. Locked boot-loaders, hypervisors, protected paths. How do you devise getting these to work without the software they have been locked to? Really, please.
Yeah, nobody ever managed to get around locked bootloaders *rollseyes* And these 'hypervisors' and 'protected paths' are software, but you don't want to use their software.
So you can please explain to me how you propose to use a computing device how ever you want without using software in an "unlicensed" manner.
Just don't use software that you don't own, yes you have to write your own, no it's not easy, but your assertion that it is 'impossible' just shows how uninformed and unimaginative you really are, how do you think things like openiboot or nvidia noveau drivers were developed?
People who want a box whose industrial design doesn't stick out like a sore thumb next to a television.
So like I said, niche. You actually believe that Sony and Microsoft are the only ones capable of an aesthetically pleasing industrial design? Please.
People who play games other than FPS and RTS, games whose multiplayer mode uses one screen and up to four gamepads, such as platformers, fighting games, and rhythm games. Multiplayer PC games, on the other hand, have tended to require a separate computer, monitor, OS license, and game license per player.
You've missed the point, if you want open hardware then - even if they were open - why would you choose the Playstation or XBox? For innovation that requires open hardware you can already do everything on the PC (or perhaps the Ouya). All the things you listed aren't console-exclusive, you can easily do that on the PC.
Because there weren't credible Linux tablets between the release of the original iPad and the release of the Xoom
Read the question you responded to, what you wrote is not an answer to that question.
Besides, it appears you would prefer having to buy three tablets and carry all three everywhere you go: an iPad for running iOS-exclusive applications, a Surface RT for running Windows Store-exclusive applications, and something else for running Linux-exclusive applications.
How is that apparent to you? I don't, and certainly have no reason to do that.
So what are the open alternatives to AAA games?
I'm talking hardware, not games, no reason games have to be open.
I just laid out some very specific and real reasons why you cannot use hardware that you bought and own.
But you're wrong, I outlined exactly why you are wrong and you're just complaining that it's difficult. I can't run OSX on my Android tablet but that doesn't mean I cannot use the hardware I bought and own, the problem is software and software licensing, not hardware.
You cannot say that you "own" the hardware and can use it however when you are legally disallowed from actually using however.
You aren't legally disallowed from using it however you want, just try and actually think about it, take the software out of the equation (because you don't own that) and then you are free to do whatever you want with the hardware, what you want to do might not be easy but that's hardly the point. You're just complaining that it's hard.
Stop maintaining that you own the hardware and are free to do what you want with it.
It's a fact, just because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue.
That is simply false for any effective use of the hardware.
Because your "effective use of the hardware" means you also want to use their software, but that isn't hardware. Why can't you comprehend that?
I guess I'm confused because you decided to chime in with a retort that had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and was provably false.
It's not provably false at all, your inability to comprehend the difference between hardware ownership and software licensing is your failing, nobody elses.
There is a class of people - often very vocal - that will dismiss anything that comes from Microsoft or Apple or Sony on the basis that it's not free and open but I really have to wonder what would we actually get if they were?
If the XBox or Playstation were open they would just be pretty average, overpriced PCs. But we already have PCs so why would we want that?
People used openiboot to install Linux on the iPhone but aside from the ability to do it what good was it? Why not just get an Android phone?
Even for all the talk about the Surface there are vocal complaints about how it's locked down so you can't install Linux on it, but even if it wasn't why would you bother? Why not get an already available Linux tablet? You can even turn off SecureBoot on the Surface Pro so if there really was a great reason to open the RT version up then it could be demonstrated on the Pro because it's already open.
I'm sure there are tiny niche answers to these questions but realistically we have open alternatives to pretty much everything already. What's the point in complaining about how some devices aren't open when we could be supporting the wealth of available ones that are?
So how exactly do you propose to use hardware without using software?
Not quite sure why you're asking me that, I don't propose anything, though I guess you would have to write your own software since you own hardware but don't own any software.
How do you run your own software on something with an encrypted bootloader without reverse engineering the software to learn how it works?
Again I'm not quite sure why you're asking me that, I don't know, but certainly a lot of open source developers build drivers for hardware without reverse-engineering existing software, not exactly something I would bother with frankly, probably just go with a PC or an Ouya or something like that.
How would you use your xbox one, which is exactly what this thread is about and is locked down exactly the same as the ps3, without using a similar process George Hotz did to the PS3?
If I wanted to do that I wouldn't buy an xbox one.
Are you purposefully being disingenuous or are you actually just that dense? Sometimes it's hard to tell on Slashdot.
Actually it appears you are just confused. Perhaps you need to explain to me what you think I'm trying to say or advocate because you've asked all these questions yet I haven't suggested you can, could or should be able to do any of it, frankly if you want to do that and you bought and xbox one then you're an idiot. Maybe you're replying to the wrong post because I'm pointing out is that you own the hardware, you don't own the software, which is the difference so you are indeed free to do whatever you like with what you own and Microsoft can't do shit about it.
Yes it would be nice if you owned the software, it would also be nice if the DCMA and copyright violation and wire fraud shit that the US imposes went away too.
He hacked the software, the key difference there is that while the hardware is sold the software is not which is where all the things you listed come into play.
I can't see why anyone would bother with any of the new consoles. All of them are locked down, and all of them have at least some DRM.
Thing is if what you're interested in is playing games - which is what most people who buy games consoles are after - then it's not that much different on the PC, the games publishers are the ones that force the DRM and the platform is irrelevant, just look at EA and Ubisoft games on PC. If you're interested in tinkering (which let's face it, relatively not many people are) then you'd use a PC or an Ouya. So I can see why people would bother with consoles, 'locked down' and DRM isn't going to be a problem for most people - check out the popularity of iOS devices as an example.
I certainly wouldn't call them the "ass end" - it depends what you want.
Ok, generally "lowest performance" and worst graphics feature support.
If you want a top of the line gaming machine that you have to fart around with tweaking drivers to make them work, etc. all the time then Intel isn't for you.
If you believe that highend graphics machines requires tweaking drivers just to make them work then you're clearly doing something wrong.
I'm after the latter - I have absolutely no interest in gaming.
The idea that the only people interested in anything but lowend integrated graphics is gamers is just ignorant.
This certainly isn't my experience - frequently the vendor written Windows drivers are bloatware, unstable with proprietary APIs whilest the reverse engineered Linux drivers are much higher quality.
Which vendor-written ones are "bloatware" with "unstable proprietary APIs" compared to the "much higher quality" Linux drivers?
Except on my machine it does work well, including all of the hardware.
Just like on an openmoko handset or an aava.
Which was pretty much my point - there's a lot of PC hardware out there that does just work perfectly with only open drivers.
And in the end even if that is true it doesn't matter because just as the general populace doesn't care for open source drivers and running linux they also don't care about the available open source phones, both are confined to a niche. Moreover there's nothing to stop the development of open drivers for much of the available smartphone hardware but doing so and having it stable is another story.
Not really. The drivers are frequently written by the hardware vendor in an official capacity. For example, my graphics and wifi drivers were written by Intel - the same people who made the graphics and wifi hardware.
Outside of Intel, most of the hardware vendors don't do open source drivers and realistically intel graphics is the ass-end of desktop graphics hardware.
Also, I'm going to go with [citation needed] WRT the idea that reverse engineered drivers are unstable - in my experience, a lot of the reverse engineered Linux drivers have been of higher quality than the official Windows drivers from the vendors.
nVidia is prime example, they are unstable and lag behind in OpenGL support.
Sure, sometimes reverse engineered drivers aren't as good, but I think the door swings both ways on this and you can't just equate "reverse engineered" with "rubbish" and "official" with "excellent".
I didn't equate "official" with "excellent", but obviously reverse engineered drivers by their very nature are going to be behind the official ones in features, performance and stability.
Well, my crappy Acer Travelmate laptop is entirely supported by open drivers (ok, there is closed firmware running on some of the hardware, but I'm talking about stuff running on the CPU that has to be integrated into the OS in such a way as to prevent arbitrary OS upgrades without the vendor's help). I can install Fedora on that machine and it Just Works.
You can do that on just about any machine, it just doesn't work well and hardware support is mostly pretty crappy.
Sure, a lot of older devices aren't powerful enough. But the only reason a relatively top-end phone bought a year ago can't run the latest Android is because of closed drivers and the vendor's unwillingness to release new drivers compatible with the latest OS (and AFAIK even the Nexus devices require closed drivers for some of the hardware, so to some extent you're still at the mercy of Google).
Yeah I'll absolutely agree with that, any driver model change requires the OEM to update the older drivers and unfortunately with the speed of changes in technology and the turnover they just have no incentive to do so, which is pretty crap.
Ah, I didn't say anything about the "vast majority" at all
Well there are a minority of phones that are open source too that you could use if you wanted (Neos, Aava, the Tizen device), most people just don't want them.
Conversely, I think you'd struggle to find *any* mobile phones on the market that require no closed drivers so however carefully you shop around you're always going to be at the mercy of the vendor.
There are, it's just nobody wants them, which i suppose is understandable given the alternative operating systems are hardly attractive alternatives.
Typically, with magazines or any other media, when you are finished with it, you are well within your rights to give it away, resell it (if you can find a buyer), or do whatever you want with it, as long as you don't keep any copies for yourself.
And now that's changed such that copies are tied to a user account, by all means give those user account credentials away when you're done with the digital media.
Well, it depends - my machines aren't running any closed source drivers.
But the fact is performance and stability are rubbish because the drivers are generally just reverse engineered from the hardware, which you could just as easily do on mobile as well but the performance and stability problems are much more obvious on low performance device like them.
In fact, its pretty easy to buy PC hardware that is entirely supported by open software, whereas the same is not true for mobile phones.
Which ones outside of perhaps the Lemote Yeelong?
So no, the problem isn't "the device isn't powerful enough"; the problem is "there are no compatible binary drivers available".
Well no actually, many devices aren't powerful enough, but yes the fact that there are a lack of compatible binary drivers is a problem, and equally a problem on desktops, like i said, they're no different. I'm sure you'll find the vast majority of desktops - just like mobile phones - are not "entirely supported by open software".
Everything technologically disruptive is decried by a vocal minority here as something pointless or that "nobody wants". Remember the introduction of the iPad? Or of how nobody would want to touch the screen of their phone to control it? Or the pointlessness of the comparatively featureless iPod? Or gaming laptops?
For example, the Samsung Captivate Glide was stuck with Gingerbread until Samsung released an ICS upgrade because the binary blobs in Gingerbread aren't compatible with ICS and Jellybean.
Which is exactly the same as with desktop Windows and Linux, if you change the driver model and the manufacturer doesn't provide drivers then you're stuck whether it's desktop or mobile. If you don't change the driver model (like ICS->JB) then you're probably fine, again like on the desktop. Mobile is no different.
I have no experience of Ubuntu Touch and Firefox OS - I assume they either use the existing Android binary blobs, or only run on an extremely small number of devices.
Most devices require closed source binary blobs to drive much of the hardware. So yes, you can install AOSP on any phone so long as you don't mind not having a working cellular radio, wifi, gps, screen, bluetooth,...
So explain how you believe all the custom android versions, ubuntu touch, firefox os run on various devices, or are you suggesting they only run on hardware that has fully open source drivers and no binary blobs?
With desktop Windows and Linux, the latest version works on all (powerful enough) computers. Why can't it be this way on Android?
It is that way on Android, you can install vanilla Android from AOSP on just about any device that's powerful enough if the bootloader is not locked by the OEM. Problem - as I understand it - is most devices aren't powerful enough to run the latest version. Of course this is compounded by fragmentation within versions, for every version of Android most OEMs create their own version of that. That is why the Galaxy S didn't get an official ICS update, the official Android versions for it were forked versions of the AOSP versions and these Samsung forks required more RAM and ROM than the Galaxy S had even though the AOSP version of that Android version worked find on it, that is why fragmentation is a problem.
The industry continues to have faith in their method of exterminating hornets by hitting them with a sledgehammer.
It's been an effort to resist change, the problem for them has always been convenience! When the legal method is less convenient than the illegal method (particularly when the illegal method is widely available) people will most often choose the latter. The music industry and - later when higher bandwidth connections became mainstream - the film industry spent so much time fighting the internet rather than embracing it that the piracy culture went mainstream, their lack of vision created a mammoth task of now having to try reverse the effects of their ignorance...hardly trivial when that's also coupled with their dickish behavior toward piracy.
The fact that things are changing is good for everybody but all the piracy FUD needs to be dropped, the RIAA/MPAA caused their own misfortune so it's time to drop that and move on with serving the customer again.
It's not about political-correctness though, it's an attitude of "i want everybody to bend to my subjective point of view". Linus' response about being able to work with people who behave differently was spot on, she's not complaining about the message, she's complaining about how it was delivered and quite frankly that position is entirely subjective...perhaps she could build an LKML translator that converts things like "shut the fuck up" to "please do not continue speaking" and "get rid of that pile of shit" to "please make that more like a basket of puppies". If you read LKML you notice that almost everybody on the receiving end of a Linus rant appears to just parse out that crap anyway and only take away the message.
It's like back with the nuclear disaster in Japan. Continuing vs. stopping to use nuclear power was a big issue in Germany back then, and her party was originally strongly for continued use. With the pressure, she suddenly decided that she really wants to get out of nuclear power, better sooner than later.
That's good! Reacting to voter pressure is what a politician should do.
Guess what? You don't hear jack about that anymore. It's just not an issue anymore.
Just because it's not in the mainstream media doesn't mean it's not an issue and just because you aren't hearing about it doesn't nothing is being done, in fact they are being dismantled.
That doesn't change anything. It is a paired configuration so the kernel just sets the power state using cpufreq and based on this the cpu itself will determine which 4 cores are presented to it.
No it doesnt.
False, that is the way big.LITTLE architecture works in a paired configuration.
So I'm not sure what you're basing your assumptions on but if you were right there would be some pretty obvious patches in the Galaxy S4 kernel to support this, that kernel source is available but I've seen no such code in there.
no there wouldnt be, unless you want to attach bigger battery and big cpu cooler.
Wrong again, if the kernel is presented with 8 cores and 'partitions' the load using only 4 cores then there would be specific code in the galaxy s4 kernel to do this as the linux kernel does not support such functionality. So you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
For some reason people read this as a rebuttal of Drew Crawford article, it is not. It is merely a response, I accept almost everything he said but have a slightly different interpretation on some of the points. http://www.codenameone.com/3/post/2013/07/why-mobile-web-is-slow.html
So by definition it takes her a while to find out where everyone is running, she really doesn't want to start early and follow... erh, lead an agenda that doesn't have enough voters behind it.
Championing the agenda of voters is exactly what politicians should be doing! Why would you want them leading an agenda that voters don't want?
erm, when I write OS I mean kernel, not applications.
That doesn't change anything. It is a paired configuration so the kernel just sets the power state using cpufreq and based on this the cpu itself will determine which 4 cores are presented to it. So I'm not sure what you're basing your assumptions on but if you were right there would be some pretty obvious patches in the Galaxy S4 kernel to support this, that kernel source is available but I've seen no such code in there.
Slashdot Mirror
Your inability to understand that hardware (especially a computing device) is useless without software is mind-numbing.
I'm quite aware hardware is useless without software, but things like openiboot enabled that on the iphone and there is no reason that couldn't happen on xbox hardware.
You cannot use a computer without software because the software is what runs the hardware (do you actually know how a computer works?)
The fact that you are saying this means you are clearly not able to comprehend what has been written, nobody is disputing this, you just have this idiotic idea that hardware only works with the software provided with it, why do you think that?
It is not that it is hard; it is in matter of fact impossible. Locked boot-loaders, hypervisors, protected paths. How do you devise getting these to work without the software they have been locked to? Really, please.
Yeah, nobody ever managed to get around locked bootloaders *rollseyes* And these 'hypervisors' and 'protected paths' are software, but you don't want to use their software.
So you can please explain to me how you propose to use a computing device how ever you want without using software in an "unlicensed" manner.
Just don't use software that you don't own, yes you have to write your own, no it's not easy, but your assertion that it is 'impossible' just shows how uninformed and unimaginative you really are, how do you think things like openiboot or nvidia noveau drivers were developed?
People who want a box whose industrial design doesn't stick out like a sore thumb next to a television.
So like I said, niche. You actually believe that Sony and Microsoft are the only ones capable of an aesthetically pleasing industrial design? Please.
People who play games other than FPS and RTS, games whose multiplayer mode uses one screen and up to four gamepads, such as platformers, fighting games, and rhythm games. Multiplayer PC games, on the other hand, have tended to require a separate computer, monitor, OS license, and game license per player.
You've missed the point, if you want open hardware then - even if they were open - why would you choose the Playstation or XBox? For innovation that requires open hardware you can already do everything on the PC (or perhaps the Ouya). All the things you listed aren't console-exclusive, you can easily do that on the PC.
Because there weren't credible Linux tablets between the release of the original iPad and the release of the Xoom
Read the question you responded to, what you wrote is not an answer to that question.
Besides, it appears you would prefer having to buy three tablets and carry all three everywhere you go: an iPad for running iOS-exclusive applications, a Surface RT for running Windows Store-exclusive applications, and something else for running Linux-exclusive applications.
How is that apparent to you? I don't, and certainly have no reason to do that.
So what are the open alternatives to AAA games?
I'm talking hardware, not games, no reason games have to be open.
I just laid out some very specific and real reasons why you cannot use hardware that you bought and own.
But you're wrong, I outlined exactly why you are wrong and you're just complaining that it's difficult. I can't run OSX on my Android tablet but that doesn't mean I cannot use the hardware I bought and own, the problem is software and software licensing, not hardware.
You cannot say that you "own" the hardware and can use it however when you are legally disallowed from actually using however.
You aren't legally disallowed from using it however you want, just try and actually think about it, take the software out of the equation (because you don't own that) and then you are free to do whatever you want with the hardware, what you want to do might not be easy but that's hardly the point. You're just complaining that it's hard.
Stop maintaining that you own the hardware and are free to do what you want with it.
It's a fact, just because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue.
That is simply false for any effective use of the hardware.
Because your "effective use of the hardware" means you also want to use their software, but that isn't hardware. Why can't you comprehend that?
I guess I'm confused because you decided to chime in with a retort that had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and was provably false.
It's not provably false at all, your inability to comprehend the difference between hardware ownership and software licensing is your failing, nobody elses.
There is a class of people - often very vocal - that will dismiss anything that comes from Microsoft or Apple or Sony on the basis that it's not free and open but I really have to wonder what would we actually get if they were?
If the XBox or Playstation were open they would just be pretty average, overpriced PCs. But we already have PCs so why would we want that?
People used openiboot to install Linux on the iPhone but aside from the ability to do it what good was it? Why not just get an Android phone?
Even for all the talk about the Surface there are vocal complaints about how it's locked down so you can't install Linux on it, but even if it wasn't why would you bother? Why not get an already available Linux tablet? You can even turn off SecureBoot on the Surface Pro so if there really was a great reason to open the RT version up then it could be demonstrated on the Pro because it's already open.
I'm sure there are tiny niche answers to these questions but realistically we have open alternatives to pretty much everything already. What's the point in complaining about how some devices aren't open when we could be supporting the wealth of available ones that are?
So how exactly do you propose to use hardware without using software?
Not quite sure why you're asking me that, I don't propose anything, though I guess you would have to write your own software since you own hardware but don't own any software.
How do you run your own software on something with an encrypted bootloader without reverse engineering the software to learn how it works?
Again I'm not quite sure why you're asking me that, I don't know, but certainly a lot of open source developers build drivers for hardware without reverse-engineering existing software, not exactly something I would bother with frankly, probably just go with a PC or an Ouya or something like that.
How would you use your xbox one, which is exactly what this thread is about and is locked down exactly the same as the ps3, without using a similar process George Hotz did to the PS3?
If I wanted to do that I wouldn't buy an xbox one.
Are you purposefully being disingenuous or are you actually just that dense? Sometimes it's hard to tell on Slashdot.
Actually it appears you are just confused. Perhaps you need to explain to me what you think I'm trying to say or advocate because you've asked all these questions yet I haven't suggested you can, could or should be able to do any of it, frankly if you want to do that and you bought and xbox one then you're an idiot. Maybe you're replying to the wrong post because I'm pointing out is that you own the hardware, you don't own the software, which is the difference so you are indeed free to do whatever you like with what you own and Microsoft can't do shit about it.
Yes it would be nice if you owned the software, it would also be nice if the DCMA and copyright violation and wire fraud shit that the US imposes went away too.
He hacked the software, the key difference there is that while the hardware is sold the software is not which is where all the things you listed come into play.
Just don't tell anyone else about it. And definitely don't tell them how you did it- that's copyright violation, dmca, wire-fraud, etc, etc.
I'm fairly sure doing what you want with the hardware you own isn't any of those things.
I can't see why anyone would bother with any of the new consoles. All of them are locked down, and all of them have at least some DRM.
Thing is if what you're interested in is playing games - which is what most people who buy games consoles are after - then it's not that much different on the PC, the games publishers are the ones that force the DRM and the platform is irrelevant, just look at EA and Ubisoft games on PC. If you're interested in tinkering (which let's face it, relatively not many people are) then you'd use a PC or an Ouya.
So I can see why people would bother with consoles, 'locked down' and DRM isn't going to be a problem for most people - check out the popularity of iOS devices as an example.
I certainly wouldn't call them the "ass end" - it depends what you want.
Ok, generally "lowest performance" and worst graphics feature support.
If you want a top of the line gaming machine that you have to fart around with tweaking drivers to make them work, etc. all the time then Intel isn't for you.
If you believe that highend graphics machines requires tweaking drivers just to make them work then you're clearly doing something wrong.
I'm after the latter - I have absolutely no interest in gaming.
The idea that the only people interested in anything but lowend integrated graphics is gamers is just ignorant.
This certainly isn't my experience - frequently the vendor written Windows drivers are bloatware, unstable with proprietary APIs whilest the reverse engineered Linux drivers are much higher quality.
Which vendor-written ones are "bloatware" with "unstable proprietary APIs" compared to the "much higher quality" Linux drivers?
Except on my machine it does work well, including all of the hardware.
Just like on an openmoko handset or an aava.
Which was pretty much my point - there's a lot of PC hardware out there that does just work perfectly with only open drivers.
And in the end even if that is true it doesn't matter because just as the general populace doesn't care for open source drivers and running linux they also don't care about the available open source phones, both are confined to a niche. Moreover there's nothing to stop the development of open drivers for much of the available smartphone hardware but doing so and having it stable is another story.
Not really. The drivers are frequently written by the hardware vendor in an official capacity. For example, my graphics and wifi drivers were written by Intel - the same people who made the graphics and wifi hardware.
Outside of Intel, most of the hardware vendors don't do open source drivers and realistically intel graphics is the ass-end of desktop graphics hardware.
Also, I'm going to go with [citation needed] WRT the idea that reverse engineered drivers are unstable - in my experience, a lot of the reverse engineered Linux drivers have been of higher quality than the official Windows drivers from the vendors.
nVidia is prime example, they are unstable and lag behind in OpenGL support.
Sure, sometimes reverse engineered drivers aren't as good, but I think the door swings both ways on this and you can't just equate "reverse engineered" with "rubbish" and "official" with "excellent".
I didn't equate "official" with "excellent", but obviously reverse engineered drivers by their very nature are going to be behind the official ones in features, performance and stability.
Well, my crappy Acer Travelmate laptop is entirely supported by open drivers (ok, there is closed firmware running on some of the hardware, but I'm talking about stuff running on the CPU that has to be integrated into the OS in such a way as to prevent arbitrary OS upgrades without the vendor's help). I can install Fedora on that machine and it Just Works.
You can do that on just about any machine, it just doesn't work well and hardware support is mostly pretty crappy.
Sure, a lot of older devices aren't powerful enough. But the only reason a relatively top-end phone bought a year ago can't run the latest Android is because of closed drivers and the vendor's unwillingness to release new drivers compatible with the latest OS (and AFAIK even the Nexus devices require closed drivers for some of the hardware, so to some extent you're still at the mercy of Google).
Yeah I'll absolutely agree with that, any driver model change requires the OEM to update the older drivers and unfortunately with the speed of changes in technology and the turnover they just have no incentive to do so, which is pretty crap.
Ah, I didn't say anything about the "vast majority" at all
Well there are a minority of phones that are open source too that you could use if you wanted (Neos, Aava, the Tizen device), most people just don't want them.
Conversely, I think you'd struggle to find *any* mobile phones on the market that require no closed drivers so however carefully you shop around you're always going to be at the mercy of the vendor.
There are, it's just nobody wants them, which i suppose is understandable given the alternative operating systems are hardly attractive alternatives.
Typically, with magazines or any other media, when you are finished with it, you are well within your rights to give it away, resell it (if you can find a buyer), or do whatever you want with it, as long as you don't keep any copies for yourself.
And now that's changed such that copies are tied to a user account, by all means give those user account credentials away when you're done with the digital media.
Well, it depends - my machines aren't running any closed source drivers.
But the fact is performance and stability are rubbish because the drivers are generally just reverse engineered from the hardware, which you could just as easily do on mobile as well but the performance and stability problems are much more obvious on low performance device like them.
In fact, its pretty easy to buy PC hardware that is entirely supported by open software, whereas the same is not true for mobile phones.
Which ones outside of perhaps the Lemote Yeelong?
So no, the problem isn't "the device isn't powerful enough"; the problem is "there are no compatible binary drivers available".
Well no actually, many devices aren't powerful enough, but yes the fact that there are a lack of compatible binary drivers is a problem, and equally a problem on desktops, like i said, they're no different. I'm sure you'll find the vast majority of desktops - just like mobile phones - are not "entirely supported by open software".
Everything technologically disruptive is decried by a vocal minority here as something pointless or that "nobody wants". Remember the introduction of the iPad? Or of how nobody would want to touch the screen of their phone to control it? Or the pointlessness of the comparatively featureless iPod? Or gaming laptops?
What's your point?
I think it's pretty clear his point is that the idea that 'nobody wants to wear computers' is false. What did you think his point was?
For example, the Samsung Captivate Glide was stuck with Gingerbread until Samsung released an ICS upgrade because the binary blobs in Gingerbread aren't compatible with ICS and Jellybean.
Which is exactly the same as with desktop Windows and Linux, if you change the driver model and the manufacturer doesn't provide drivers then you're stuck whether it's desktop or mobile. If you don't change the driver model (like ICS->JB) then you're probably fine, again like on the desktop. Mobile is no different.
I have no experience of Ubuntu Touch and Firefox OS - I assume they either use the existing Android binary blobs, or only run on an extremely small number of devices.
Yes they use the existing ones.
Most devices require closed source binary blobs to drive much of the hardware. So yes, you can install AOSP on any phone so long as you don't mind not having a working cellular radio, wifi, gps, screen, bluetooth, ...
So explain how you believe all the custom android versions, ubuntu touch, firefox os run on various devices, or are you suggesting they only run on hardware that has fully open source drivers and no binary blobs?
With desktop Windows and Linux, the latest version works on all (powerful enough) computers. Why can't it be this way on Android?
It is that way on Android, you can install vanilla Android from AOSP on just about any device that's powerful enough if the bootloader is not locked by the OEM. Problem - as I understand it - is most devices aren't powerful enough to run the latest version. Of course this is compounded by fragmentation within versions, for every version of Android most OEMs create their own version of that. That is why the Galaxy S didn't get an official ICS update, the official Android versions for it were forked versions of the AOSP versions and these Samsung forks required more RAM and ROM than the Galaxy S had even though the AOSP version of that Android version worked find on it, that is why fragmentation is a problem.
The industry continues to have faith in their method of exterminating hornets by hitting them with a sledgehammer.
It's been an effort to resist change, the problem for them has always been convenience! When the legal method is less convenient than the illegal method (particularly when the illegal method is widely available) people will most often choose the latter. The music industry and - later when higher bandwidth connections became mainstream - the film industry spent so much time fighting the internet rather than embracing it that the piracy culture went mainstream, their lack of vision created a mammoth task of now having to try reverse the effects of their ignorance...hardly trivial when that's also coupled with their dickish behavior toward piracy.
The fact that things are changing is good for everybody but all the piracy FUD needs to be dropped, the RIAA/MPAA caused their own misfortune so it's time to drop that and move on with serving the customer again.
It's not about political-correctness though, it's an attitude of "i want everybody to bend to my subjective point of view". Linus' response about being able to work with people who behave differently was spot on, she's not complaining about the message, she's complaining about how it was delivered and quite frankly that position is entirely subjective...perhaps she could build an LKML translator that converts things like "shut the fuck up" to "please do not continue speaking" and "get rid of that pile of shit" to "please make that more like a basket of puppies". If you read LKML you notice that almost everybody on the receiving end of a Linus rant appears to just parse out that crap anyway and only take away the message.
It's like back with the nuclear disaster in Japan. Continuing vs. stopping to use nuclear power was a big issue in Germany back then, and her party was originally strongly for continued use. With the pressure, she suddenly decided that she really wants to get out of nuclear power, better sooner than later.
That's good! Reacting to voter pressure is what a politician should do.
Guess what? You don't hear jack about that anymore. It's just not an issue anymore.
Just because it's not in the mainstream media doesn't mean it's not an issue and just because you aren't hearing about it doesn't nothing is being done, in fact they are being dismantled.
What's this got to do with political correctness?
That doesn't change anything. It is a paired configuration so the kernel just sets the power state using cpufreq and based on this the cpu itself will determine which 4 cores are presented to it.
No it doesnt.
False, that is the way big.LITTLE architecture works in a paired configuration.
So I'm not sure what you're basing your assumptions on but if you were right there would be some pretty obvious patches in the Galaxy S4 kernel to support this, that kernel source is available but I've seen no such code in there.
no there wouldnt be, unless you want to attach bigger battery and big cpu cooler.
Wrong again, if the kernel is presented with 8 cores and 'partitions' the load using only 4 cores then there would be specific code in the galaxy s4 kernel to do this as the linux kernel does not support such functionality. So you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
For some reason people read this as a rebuttal of Drew Crawford article, it is not. It is merely a response, I accept almost everything he said but have a slightly different interpretation on some of the points.
http://www.codenameone.com/3/post/2013/07/why-mobile-web-is-slow.html
So by definition it takes her a while to find out where everyone is running, she really doesn't want to start early and follow... erh, lead an agenda that doesn't have enough voters behind it.
Championing the agenda of voters is exactly what politicians should be doing! Why would you want them leading an agenda that voters don't want?
erm, when I write OS I mean kernel, not applications.
That doesn't change anything. It is a paired configuration so the kernel just sets the power state using cpufreq and based on this the cpu itself will determine which 4 cores are presented to it. So I'm not sure what you're basing your assumptions on but if you were right there would be some pretty obvious patches in the Galaxy S4 kernel to support this, that kernel source is available but I've seen no such code in there.