What is your point? There is a world of difference between allowing people to post anonymously with an agenda, and having an agenda and the power to anonymously silence the free speech of others.
That it doesn't matter whether or not it's anonymous, if it's infringing then it should be taken down anyway so the identity of the person who points out the infringement is irrelevant, it doesn't have any effect on whether the content is infringing or not.
Actually there is, it just isn't a very good one: This quote, “email underpinnings were further cemented in 1977's RFC 733, a foundational document of what became the Internet itself.” [5] is a misuse of the term “email” because the RFCs (Request for Comments) and RFC 733 were written documentation not a computer program or code or a system. http://www.inventorofemail.com/claims_about_email.asp
So apparently coming up with the idea, describing it in detail and documenting isn't inventing it, but if you copy that idea that's real invention.
This sounds like the typical fake complaint made my Microsoft astroturfer.
And that sounds like a dismissal of a problem because you have an agenda. The problem described is probably the result of a driver issue of some sort but characterising it as 'microsoft astroturfing' shows you just have clear bias.
They google for "ubuntu" and "bug", end up at some ubuntuforums post, and pretend they have the problem mentioned there.
And how exactly do you know they don't have that problem? Clearly even if they did what you are suggesting then someone had that problem. Why are you so desperate to dismiss it?
your display size is not any larger, so your just shrinking the information on your screen to get more on it.
Actually it's not even doing that, it is doing pixel-doubling in all applications that don't support the 'retina display' so there is no advantage in those cases at all, the actual elements displayed on screen are the same size, they are just sharper if they support the new display.
They also depreciate less than - and are a bit more expensive than their similarly-configured - korean-made rivals. It's more of a Hyundai/Kia Vs Toyota, then you've got Alienware which is the kind of the HSV GTS, a bit ridiculous, probably not the best workmanship but certainly high performance.
What I am saying is that if you install (or update) "on demand"
And you deal with proprietary software how? Or with platforms that don't support that software? And why bother installing it when you don't have to, even LibreOffice is 202MB, only a complete idiot would download and install that for a one-time use when they could just use something like google docs, which would clearly be faster.
Given the small size of the applications compared with current transfer speeds, there is no clear advantage in time spent, or even availability, in using cloud services, and all the disadvantages I mentioned before still exist.
Yet you've ignored the clear advantages - in fact you've clearly shown an inability to refute them - i'm not saying there are not disadvantages, just that there are advantages, i guess you're too set in your ways to be able to acknowledge those.
Just to make it clear. It takes a few seconds to install or update any application I wish in my mobile phone, which is about the same time it takes to start to open, connect and start to use any cloud based application.
And just to make it clear, if i want an office suite on a PC, an android tablet and an iphone that's 3 completely different applications...or i could just go to 'docs.google.com' on any of them, in fact they don't even have to be my devices and they don't even have to have any office suite at all on them, i don't even have to store my files locally on them!
I'm not saying 'cloud' is the solution to all problems - I don't think anyone would argue that - or that everything should go 'cloud', but it clearly has advantages, you just seem unwilling or unable to see that.
It isn't a trivial matter, if i need to access say maps or office or whatever on someone elses system your solution means that if they don't have said application then i have to download and install it, and if it is proprietary non-free software i have to deal with licensing too. With the cloud solution i can just log in to my account and it's all there...much much easier.
For you there won't be any advantages at all compared to just installing such applications in your device.
Did you even read the post? like for example not having to roll out updates millions of client devices and having the ability to pick up any device and have access to your data and applications. by exomondo (1725132) on Thursday June 07, @07:15PM (#40251109)
You don't have to bother with rolling out updates to all clients and the user doesn't have to install the apps locally on the device. I never said it doesn't have disadvantages but that it certainly can be advantageous in some circumstances. There is no definitive answer for which is better, both have good and bad points.
A local application will always be faster more reliable and won't make you overuse your data plan limits
A local application also means that you need to download and install that application on every device you want to use it on. The point is you don't have to take all of that with you all the time, you can have offline google docs on your main system but you don't have to take that system everywhere since you can use any system to get access to your applications and data, clearly an advantage.
No, that is exactly the requirement that MS does have [according to the original poster].
That's rubbish, the OEM is free to purchase any OS from anyone to use on any of their systems, they just can't run an OS besides Windows on an ARM system that carries the 'designed for Windows 8' branding, which there is no problem with.
in fact they could sell the exact same hardware running Android,
No, they could not.
Why not? There's nothing stopping them, your claim is false.
So, perhaps you know differently. If so, do you have a copy of the contract in question?
What contract?! There is nothing stopping them! If you believe there is something stopping them from doing that then show me proof.
Or, is your argument based solely on the seeming incredulity that MS would never put anything that nefarious into one of their contracts?
My argument is simply that your claim is based on something that doesn't exist, if you believe MS are restricting the sale of this hardware or restricting the ability of a hardware vendor to purchase an OS from someone else then prove it. But you can't, because your claim is rubbish.
The only thing they cannot do (as stipulated in the Windows 8 certification agreement for ARM systems) is sell a device with a 'designed for Windows 8' sticker that runs other OSes and there is no anti-trust issue with that.
Remote storage and synchronization do justify centralized structures (at least for small amounts of non critical data), but the subject in hand, which we are discussing in this thread, is the shift in active tasks to the Cloud in a similar way we had with mainframes in the past.
And that's exactly the point i noted: and having the ability to pick up any device and have access to your data and applications. Things like Google Maps, Google Docs, Office 365, etc...
There is simply no point in relaying the task to a centralized cloud. It just wastes resources, makes things slower and dependent on online connections that are not always there and gives absolute control over your data to third parties. Cloud structure is just plain stupid and as the use escalates it will collapse on its own, because it is not sustainable.
I think the 'cloud' is mostly pointless but there are advantages too, like for example not having to roll out updates millions of client devices and having the ability to pick up any device and have access to your data and applications. Dropped your client device? Spilled your coffee on it? Lost it? Whatever, just grab another one, log in and you're back to where you were. Now of course you do rely on the cloud provider - and we've seen many times that even the biggest ones go down - and of course there are privacy issues (like if you have a look at some of the privacy policies and what rights you give them to the data you upload) so there are good and bad elements to it.
If MS put it into their contract, that would be grounds for antitrust. IIRC, they were sued [by the Feds in the 90's] because [amongst other things] they wouldn't allow you access to their developer documentation [which wasn't posted on their website as it is now] unless you agreed to not develop software for any other platform (e.g. Linux, Solaris, etc). As part of the settlement of that case MS agreed to not repeat certain such behavior in the future.
So? That has no relevance to this situation, there is absolutely no requirement that the OEM purchase ONLY Windows for ARM and not purchase from anyone else, in fact they could sell the exact same hardware running Android, it just wouldn't - as you would expect - have a 'designed for Windows 8' sticker on it. There is no anti-trust issue here.
I think the real issue is that you may not have authorization to turn off secureboot....which, on machines supplied running a Microsoft OS, would be on by default (per Microsoft).
That's not an issue, it's clearly defined in the certification requirements that the feature MUST be available.
A small correction, but you can't add a key. You can at most replace it. UEFI will only support one key, as obviously, if one could add keys to it, manufacturers would add every reasonable key out there, and MS wouldn't have a monopoly on it.
Any reason you believe that? Pretty sure there's nothing stopping you adding more keys.
Slashdot Mirror
What is your point? There is a world of difference between allowing people to post anonymously with an agenda, and having an agenda and the power to anonymously silence the free speech of others.
That it doesn't matter whether or not it's anonymous, if it's infringing then it should be taken down anyway so the identity of the person who points out the infringement is irrelevant, it doesn't have any effect on whether the content is infringing or not.
Damn! You make an infallible point :( ...or....
Of course, allowing the crowd to anonymously take down content opens you up for trolls or those with an agenda.
Oh right because allowing the crowd to anonymously upload content doesn't open you up to that at all.
There mentioned it 6 times obviously the statements protect your privacy. I said it lots
Well i'm satisfied.
Why do the RFC not count? No explanation.
Actually there is, it just isn't a very good one:
This quote, “email underpinnings were further cemented in 1977's RFC 733, a foundational document of what became the Internet itself.” [5] is a misuse of the term “email” because the RFCs (Request for Comments) and RFC 733 were written documentation not a computer program or code or a system.
http://www.inventorofemail.com/claims_about_email.asp
So apparently coming up with the idea, describing it in detail and documenting isn't inventing it, but if you copy that idea that's real invention.
This sounds like the typical fake complaint made my Microsoft astroturfer.
And that sounds like a dismissal of a problem because you have an agenda. The problem described is probably the result of a driver issue of some sort but characterising it as 'microsoft astroturfing' shows you just have clear bias.
They google for "ubuntu" and "bug", end up at some ubuntuforums post, and pretend they have the problem mentioned there.
And how exactly do you know they don't have that problem? Clearly even if they did what you are suggesting then someone had that problem. Why are you so desperate to dismiss it?
your display size is not any larger, so your just shrinking the information on your screen to get more on it.
Actually it's not even doing that, it is doing pixel-doubling in all applications that don't support the 'retina display' so there is no advantage in those cases at all, the actual elements displayed on screen are the same size, they are just sharper if they support the new display.
They also depreciate less than - and are a bit more expensive than their similarly-configured - korean-made rivals. It's more of a Hyundai/Kia Vs Toyota, then you've got Alienware which is the kind of the HSV GTS, a bit ridiculous, probably not the best workmanship but certainly high performance.
Don't know why, but Dell decided to make the next model that replaced it slightly thicker and heavier.
Didn't Apple do that with their latest ipad?
Non-Apple users' opinions do not matter to Apple. Why should they?
Because at some stage everyone was a non-Apple user...duh!
I have a Macbook Air and I bought the USB-to-Ethernet dongle. I never used it.
Just out of interest why would you buy something you don't have a use for?
What I am saying is that if you install (or update) "on demand"
And you deal with proprietary software how? Or with platforms that don't support that software? And why bother installing it when you don't have to, even LibreOffice is 202MB, only a complete idiot would download and install that for a one-time use when they could just use something like google docs, which would clearly be faster.
Given the small size of the applications compared with current transfer speeds, there is no clear advantage in time spent, or even availability, in using cloud services, and all the disadvantages I mentioned before still exist.
Yet you've ignored the clear advantages - in fact you've clearly shown an inability to refute them - i'm not saying there are not disadvantages, just that there are advantages, i guess you're too set in your ways to be able to acknowledge those.
Just to make it clear. It takes a few seconds to install or update any application I wish in my mobile phone, which is about the same time it takes to start to open, connect and start to use any cloud based application.
And just to make it clear, if i want an office suite on a PC, an android tablet and an iphone that's 3 completely different applications...or i could just go to 'docs.google.com' on any of them, in fact they don't even have to be my devices and they don't even have to have any office suite at all on them, i don't even have to store my files locally on them!
I'm not saying 'cloud' is the solution to all problems - I don't think anyone would argue that - or that everything should go 'cloud', but it clearly has advantages, you just seem unwilling or unable to see that.
It isn't a trivial matter, if i need to access say maps or office or whatever on someone elses system your solution means that if they don't have said application then i have to download and install it, and if it is proprietary non-free software i have to deal with licensing too.
With the cloud solution i can just log in to my account and it's all there...much much easier.
For you there won't be any advantages at all compared to just installing such applications in your device.
Did you even read the post?
like for example not having to roll out updates millions of client devices and having the ability to pick up any device and have access to your data and applications.
by exomondo (1725132) on Thursday June 07, @07:15PM (#40251109)
You don't have to bother with rolling out updates to all clients and the user doesn't have to install the apps locally on the device. I never said it doesn't have disadvantages but that it certainly can be advantageous in some circumstances. There is no definitive answer for which is better, both have good and bad points.
A local application will always be faster more reliable and won't make you overuse your data plan limits
A local application also means that you need to download and install that application on every device you want to use it on. The point is you don't have to take all of that with you all the time, you can have offline google docs on your main system but you don't have to take that system everywhere since you can use any system to get access to your applications and data, clearly an advantage.
No, that is exactly the requirement that MS does have [according to the original poster].
That's rubbish, the OEM is free to purchase any OS from anyone to use on any of their systems, they just can't run an OS besides Windows on an ARM system that carries the 'designed for Windows 8' branding, which there is no problem with.
in fact they could sell the exact same hardware running Android,
No, they could not.
Why not? There's nothing stopping them, your claim is false.
So, perhaps you know differently. If so, do you have a copy of the contract in question?
What contract?! There is nothing stopping them! If you believe there is something stopping them from doing that then show me proof.
Or, is your argument based solely on the seeming incredulity that MS would never put anything that nefarious into one of their contracts?
My argument is simply that your claim is based on something that doesn't exist, if you believe MS are restricting the sale of this hardware or restricting the ability of a hardware vendor to purchase an OS from someone else then prove it. But you can't, because your claim is rubbish.
The only thing they cannot do (as stipulated in the Windows 8 certification agreement for ARM systems) is sell a device with a 'designed for Windows 8' sticker that runs other OSes and there is no anti-trust issue with that.
Then write it.
I do, and i couldn't give a shit if someone else uses it and doesn't give me something in return.
With your keyboard.
Remote storage and synchronization do justify centralized structures (at least for small amounts of non critical data), but the subject in hand, which we are discussing in this thread, is the shift in active tasks to the Cloud in a similar way we had with mainframes in the past.
And that's exactly the point i noted: and having the ability to pick up any device and have access to your data and applications . Things like Google Maps, Google Docs, Office 365, etc...
And besides, I've since realized that it's better to target HTML5 (with Canvas -- pixels finally come to HTML) than Metro anyway.
You mean target browsers? It's not a choice between HTML5 and Metro.
There is simply no point in relaying the task to a centralized cloud. It just wastes resources, makes things slower and dependent on online connections that are not always there and gives absolute control over your data to third parties. Cloud structure is just plain stupid and as the use escalates it will collapse on its own, because it is not sustainable.
I think the 'cloud' is mostly pointless but there are advantages too, like for example not having to roll out updates millions of client devices and having the ability to pick up any device and have access to your data and applications. Dropped your client device? Spilled your coffee on it? Lost it? Whatever, just grab another one, log in and you're back to where you were.
Now of course you do rely on the cloud provider - and we've seen many times that even the biggest ones go down - and of course there are privacy issues (like if you have a look at some of the privacy policies and what rights you give them to the data you upload) so there are good and bad elements to it.
If MS put it into their contract, that would be grounds for antitrust. IIRC, they were sued [by the Feds in the 90's] because [amongst other things] they wouldn't allow you access to their developer documentation [which wasn't posted on their website as it is now] unless you agreed to not develop software for any other platform (e.g. Linux, Solaris, etc). As part of the settlement of that case MS agreed to not repeat certain such behavior in the future.
So? That has no relevance to this situation, there is absolutely no requirement that the OEM purchase ONLY Windows for ARM and not purchase from anyone else, in fact they could sell the exact same hardware running Android, it just wouldn't - as you would expect - have a 'designed for Windows 8' sticker on it. There is no anti-trust issue here.
Can you give an example of such a situation? I can't think of one.
The ability to talk to Exchange. Or import/export from Word properly.
That's nothing to do with tying Windows RT to Windows x86.
I think the real issue is that you may not have authorization to turn off secureboot. ...which, on machines supplied running a Microsoft OS, would be on by default (per Microsoft) .
That's not an issue, it's clearly defined in the certification requirements that the feature MUST be available.
A small correction, but you can't add a key. You can at most replace it. UEFI will only support one key, as obviously, if one could add keys to it, manufacturers would add every reasonable key out there, and MS wouldn't have a monopoly on it.
Any reason you believe that? Pretty sure there's nothing stopping you adding more keys.