The point here is that the user is in control of what the app gets, not the app in control of the users computer without the user having any chance to intervene as today.
But that doesn't work, people get annoyed having to grant access privileges as it is, if the app has to get permission from the user for every file it wants to access that is going to be even more annoying, it simply will not work.
It doesn't matter if the app is a single file or a directory or whatever. The OS is free to import a read-only copy of whatever the application needs into the sandboxs namespace.
So the application just gets to request whatever it wants but it can only get read-only versions? What about if you want to modify files? Do you have to make copies of every file?
I'm sorry, I don't think there's anything baseless about the idea that Granny does not download and install open-source software on her computer.
Of course not but Granny isn't most computer users, i don't know where you're getting the idea that most computer users are grannies, clearly you don't have interactions with many computer users.
Again, from what I've seen of "regular" PC users, they do NOT use any open-source software, with few exceptions
How silly of me to question your anecdotal evidence that you admit has exceptions.
If you haven't seen this, maybe you haven't been hanging out with any non-technical people.
Really? You suggested most computer users are grannies so i think it is more (or at least equally) as likely that you've been hanging out with people who have little use for a computer beyond the most pedestrian of cases. In fact I usually see people with at least one of ripping software, home movie editing software, samplers, photo editors, format conversion software, ringtone makers, phone management applications, streaming software, DJ software, graphing programs, PDF creators, sound editors, media players, file archivers, etc, etc... and these are non-technical users, people who are just using a computer for doing things a computer can do. If you think that is the domain of technical users then quite clearly you don't know the meaning of the term, you really think only technical users use Audacity or Open Office or VLC or Handbrake or Pidgin or 7Zip or Blender? Because you do not have to be a technical user for such things.
Most people do nothing with their computer except surf the web, read their email (usually again with their web browser), and maybe run a handful of other popular apps, such as MS Office, Photoshop, TurboTax, etc.
No, that's what most people have in common in their computer use.
Sure, they wouldn't be able to download and install some random open-source program, but how many regular PC users do that anyway?
I don't know, but you're making an assumption that it's almost none, which seems to be baseless.
Bullshit. It's about ensuring that you grant to others what was granted to you.
If i release source under BSD and someone uses it to create a proprietary derivative work that doesn't deprive anyone of the exact same thing that person was granted. Anyone else can still take that same source and do what they wish with it.
I assume what you actually meant was that you have to grant the same rights to your work as what was granted to you with someone elses work. So if you benefit from something free then anything you create with that also has to be free, that's a personal choice and there is no right or wrong, that's why we have multiple types of licenses.
My personal choice is BSD because you are free to use it so long as you aren't stopping anyone else from having the same rights to that software as you did, what you do with your software is up to you.
You can't use it to develop non-free projects. Good.
non-free isn't always good, for example engineering software. a firm would warrant that their software designs buildings to specific engineering calculations and most often the customers prefer the warranted proprietary software over free software because the onus is on the provider to make sure that the calculations are correct.
BSD licensed code can be used in non-free software which should be avoided. Don't release software under a license which permits use within a non-free program.
Why would i care? If I release it as free it's because you can do whatever you want with it, if you want to add proprietary extensions to it then go for it, that's why i gave it out for free. You have the freedom to do whatever you want with it, you also can't take that freedom from someone else, everyone has the freedom to use that software just the same as you.
No, it's the 'ol "Your disregard for the rights of others is so ingrained, you believe it is an onerous restriction on your freedom when you aren't allowed to disparage the rights of others, therefore you are a sociopath."
The idea of these 'rights' exists only in the context of a specific license. You don't have the 'right' to see source code unless that right is specifically granted by the license of that code. So i'm not sure what these 'rights of others' that you're referring to are.
So basically the GPL was created specifically to tell people what they cannot do.
Yes. It is there to tell you that you cannot withhold from others the very freedoms you were granted.
But it seems that's not enough now, you now have to contribute your changes upstream, not just release your code changes, otherwise apparently you're an idiot.
Just look at how quickly Apple's iPhone took off, with its walled-garden app store.
That's great but look at what happened with IE6, and in that case there was no lock in, nothing to stop people using something else. IE6 was bad enough for the web without users being locked into it, what happens if the iOS platform does something similar? Well it's too bad, you're locked in, if apple sees an alternative piece of software as a threat they can just remove it from their app store and you're stuck. Not as much of an issue on a phone as it is on a laptop or desktop though.
And then Android came along, with the exact same concept, and it's been doing great too.
Actually Android isn't a walled garden, you aren't restricted to one app store.
Obviously, most people don't mind walled gardens.
In some cases that's true, for example on my smartphone i think the walled garden approach is fine, not so much on my laptop.
It works fine for their smartphones, so why wouldn't they like it for their PCs too?
Because you do different things on your smartphone than you do on your PC.
Do you really think think that PC users care much about freedom?
Or you can use a free as in both price and speech GPL protected environment that won't lock you in like Visual Studio.
How would using it in this case 'lock you in'?
Using Visual Studio is dangerous since it promotes the use of non-free software.
How does it 'promote the use of non-free software'? Pretty sure it doesn't. And even if it did how is that 'dangerous'? Sounds like you're just scaremongering.
That's pretty much the most idiotic response yet, they've seen that the menu bar isn't widely used and decided to improve it, the context menus and hotkeys are used a lot so leave them as-is.
And you can't do a lot of non-standard things with an Android phone unless you root it.
Right. Your point?
If you're looking for his point then read his post in the context of what he is replying to, it should make sense, but just in case it was that both iOS and Android prevent you from removing those default applications.
I thought "fuck itself up because someone sneezed" was integral to the Windows experience.
Nope, just iTunes on Windows. Much more large and complex applications like Maya, Photoshop, AutoCAD, etc... are all fine cross-platform, just seems Apple's developers aren't that good at writing Windows software or have tried to do a lazy port, but of course that is to be expected given they are obviously much more focused on OSX.
If you need software support flash back to the Sprint ROM.
This is what happened with the WP7 mango beta, while the device was running the beta no software support was available, if you wanted software support you had to flash back, hardware issues were covered though.
Assuming it's not cryptographically tied to any hardware
It's open source, so no, that's not an issue.
or requires any proprietary parts you can't buy.
Thanks captain obvious, yes if you don't have the hardware required by the software then the software is useless, but a software license has no business dictating the hardware otherwise it would be a product license.
I know what a "car" is, and it isn't a passenger vehicle. A "car" is something pulled by a locomotive.
Of course meanings can evolve but things that have always been considered cars do not all of a sudden cease to be cars, that's what you clearly don't understand, try again.
Hence, today's definition of a "smartphone" is not the same as the one 2 decades ago. Meanings change. Those earlier phones are no longer considered smartphones by people - they're at best "feature phones".
Yet, after being asked about 20 times to define it you are actually such an imbecile that you clearly use the word smartphone without knowing its meaning.
Think of it - if someone said they were gay 100 years ago, it meant something completely different. Meanings change.
The meaning didn't change you fool, it still means that, it now also has another meaning. 'gay' doesn't cease to mean happy, try again.
A more recent example - the definition of marriage no longer means a union between a man and a woman, but between two people or either sex or gender (and some places recognize 3 or more people as well).
Again, your ignorance of the fact that it still means what it always has, marriage is still the union between a man and a woman you idiot, that union doesn't cease to be a marriage. So your example is obviously rubbish, try again.
just like what was once acceptable behaviour is now not considered acceptable behaviour
Wrong, the reason 'acceptable' is used is because it is subjective.
or what was once considered a passenger car is now considered a museum piece and not legal for the road
Wrong again it is still a car, or don't you know what a car is?
or what was once considered the center of the universe (the Earth) is now considered just a planet.
Wrong again, that was *factually false*.
Call me back when they have a phone that is controlled by an AI and we'll talk about "smart" phones.
We are talking about 'smartphones', not 'smart phones', so now you're just trying to go off topic because you don't want to admit you're wrong. Don't be an idiot, you've used the term smartphone on many occasions, you're getting pretty pathetic now.
What you or I think the definition of a smartphone to be is irrelevant.
No it isn't, you're saying what was a smartphone is now not a smartphone, so by what definition is a device a smartphone? The simple fact that has been proven throughout these posts is that you have absolutely no idea what a smartphone is and hence you failed numerous times to answer that simple question.
Neither of us is writing a dictionary, and no matter what either of us say, it doesn't change the reality that the definition of a smartphone is in flux
No it isn't, just the same as the definition of a car is not in flux, you clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and look even stupider with every post.
it is the consumer's perception of "what is a smartphone" that defines it.
No it is not, the consumer doesn't define what a smartphone is.
Technically, there is no such thing as a smart phone. Never has been.
Why are you using the term then you fool? How much more of an idiot do you intend to look?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Apple literally did invent the rounded rectangle UI element: http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.txt
I think you'll find that is just showing an algorithm for fast drawing of rounded rectangles, not an invention of any shape or UI element at all.
The point here is that the user is in control of what the app gets, not the app in control of the users computer without the user having any chance to intervene as today.
But that doesn't work, people get annoyed having to grant access privileges as it is, if the app has to get permission from the user for every file it wants to access that is going to be even more annoying, it simply will not work.
It doesn't matter if the app is a single file or a directory or whatever. The OS is free to import a read-only copy of whatever the application needs into the sandboxs namespace.
So the application just gets to request whatever it wants but it can only get read-only versions? What about if you want to modify files? Do you have to make copies of every file?
I'm sorry, I don't think there's anything baseless about the idea that Granny does not download and install open-source software on her computer.
Of course not but Granny isn't most computer users, i don't know where you're getting the idea that most computer users are grannies, clearly you don't have interactions with many computer users.
Again, from what I've seen of "regular" PC users, they do NOT use any open-source software, with few exceptions
How silly of me to question your anecdotal evidence that you admit has exceptions.
If you haven't seen this, maybe you haven't been hanging out with any non-technical people.
Really? You suggested most computer users are grannies so i think it is more (or at least equally) as likely that you've been hanging out with people who have little use for a computer beyond the most pedestrian of cases. In fact I usually see people with at least one of ripping software, home movie editing software, samplers, photo editors, format conversion software, ringtone makers, phone management applications, streaming software, DJ software, graphing programs, PDF creators, sound editors, media players, file archivers, etc, etc... and these are non-technical users, people who are just using a computer for doing things a computer can do.
If you think that is the domain of technical users then quite clearly you don't know the meaning of the term, you really think only technical users use Audacity or Open Office or VLC or Handbrake or Pidgin or 7Zip or Blender? Because you do not have to be a technical user for such things.
But do you really?
Yes, of course.
Most people do nothing with their computer except surf the web, read their email (usually again with their web browser), and maybe run a handful of other popular apps, such as MS Office, Photoshop, TurboTax, etc.
No, that's what most people have in common in their computer use.
Sure, they wouldn't be able to download and install some random open-source program, but how many regular PC users do that anyway?
I don't know, but you're making an assumption that it's almost none, which seems to be baseless.
Bullshit. It's about ensuring that you grant to others what was granted to you.
If i release source under BSD and someone uses it to create a proprietary derivative work that doesn't deprive anyone of the exact same thing that person was granted. Anyone else can still take that same source and do what they wish with it.
I assume what you actually meant was that you have to grant the same rights to your work as what was granted to you with someone elses work. So if you benefit from something free then anything you create with that also has to be free, that's a personal choice and there is no right or wrong, that's why we have multiple types of licenses.
My personal choice is BSD because you are free to use it so long as you aren't stopping anyone else from having the same rights to that software as you did, what you do with your software is up to you.
You can't use it to develop non-free projects. Good.
non-free isn't always good, for example engineering software. a firm would warrant that their software designs buildings to specific engineering calculations and most often the customers prefer the warranted proprietary software over free software because the onus is on the provider to make sure that the calculations are correct.
BSD licensed code can be used in non-free software which should be avoided. Don't release software under a license which permits use within a non-free program.
Why would i care? If I release it as free it's because you can do whatever you want with it, if you want to add proprietary extensions to it then go for it, that's why i gave it out for free. You have the freedom to do whatever you want with it, you also can't take that freedom from someone else, everyone has the freedom to use that software just the same as you.
No, it's the 'ol "Your disregard for the rights of others is so ingrained, you believe it is an onerous restriction on your freedom when you aren't allowed to disparage the rights of others, therefore you are a sociopath."
The idea of these 'rights' exists only in the context of a specific license. You don't have the 'right' to see source code unless that right is specifically granted by the license of that code. So i'm not sure what these 'rights of others' that you're referring to are.
So basically the GPL was created specifically to tell people what they cannot do.
Yes. It is there to tell you that you cannot withhold from others the very freedoms you were granted.
But it seems that's not enough now, you now have to contribute your changes upstream, not just release your code changes, otherwise apparently you're an idiot.
Unless you have an iPad 2, which has been out for months and still hasn't been jailbroken.
Jailbreakme 3.0 doesn't work?
For just running random junk for example there shouldn't be a need to install it in the first place, just click on it and run it in a sandbox
That's fine if the entire application resides in a single file, which most don't, so how do you expect to just 'run it in a sandbox'?
Just look at how quickly Apple's iPhone took off, with its walled-garden app store.
That's great but look at what happened with IE6, and in that case there was no lock in, nothing to stop people using something else. IE6 was bad enough for the web without users being locked into it, what happens if the iOS platform does something similar? Well it's too bad, you're locked in, if apple sees an alternative piece of software as a threat they can just remove it from their app store and you're stuck. Not as much of an issue on a phone as it is on a laptop or desktop though.
And then Android came along, with the exact same concept, and it's been doing great too.
Actually Android isn't a walled garden, you aren't restricted to one app store.
Obviously, most people don't mind walled gardens.
In some cases that's true, for example on my smartphone i think the walled garden approach is fine, not so much on my laptop.
It works fine for their smartphones, so why wouldn't they like it for their PCs too?
Because you do different things on your smartphone than you do on your PC.
Do you really think think that PC users care much about freedom?
Not until it directly affects them, no.
Or you can use a free as in both price and speech GPL protected environment that won't lock you in like Visual Studio.
How would using it in this case 'lock you in'?
Using Visual Studio is dangerous since it promotes the use of non-free software.
How does it 'promote the use of non-free software'? Pretty sure it doesn't. And even if it did how is that 'dangerous'? Sounds like you're just scaremongering.
your post is really freakin old news, i knew that 2 minutes before you posted.
available
really?
Better information about Microsoft's researches: http://seldo.tumblr.com/post/9549775746/this-is-genuinely-microsofts-idea-of-a lol
That's pretty much the most idiotic response yet, they've seen that the menu bar isn't widely used and decided to improve it, the context menus and hotkeys are used a lot so leave them as-is.
And you can't do a lot of non-standard things with an Android phone unless you root it.
Right. Your point?
If you're looking for his point then read his post in the context of what he is replying to, it should make sense, but just in case it was that both iOS and Android prevent you from removing those default applications.
I thought "fuck itself up because someone sneezed" was integral to the Windows experience.
Nope, just iTunes on Windows. Much more large and complex applications like Maya, Photoshop, AutoCAD, etc... are all fine cross-platform, just seems Apple's developers aren't that good at writing Windows software or have tried to do a lazy port, but of course that is to be expected given they are obviously much more focused on OSX.
If you need software support flash back to the Sprint ROM.
This is what happened with the WP7 mango beta, while the device was running the beta no software support was available, if you wanted software support you had to flash back, hardware issues were covered though.
Even my regular old clamshell has pre-installed non-removable games and applications.
+1 And all the carrier branding stuff that's in there, nothing new.
Assuming it's not cryptographically tied to any hardware
It's open source, so no, that's not an issue.
or requires any proprietary parts you can't buy.
Thanks captain obvious, yes if you don't have the hardware required by the software then the software is useless, but a software license has no business dictating the hardware otherwise it would be a product license.
I know what a "car" is, and it isn't a passenger vehicle. A "car" is something pulled by a locomotive.
Of course meanings can evolve but things that have always been considered cars do not all of a sudden cease to be cars, that's what you clearly don't understand, try again.
Hence, today's definition of a "smartphone" is not the same as the one 2 decades ago. Meanings change. Those earlier phones are no longer considered smartphones by people - they're at best "feature phones".
Yet, after being asked about 20 times to define it you are actually such an imbecile that you clearly use the word smartphone without knowing its meaning.
Think of it - if someone said they were gay 100 years ago, it meant something completely different. Meanings change.
The meaning didn't change you fool, it still means that, it now also has another meaning. 'gay' doesn't cease to mean happy, try again.
A more recent example - the definition of marriage no longer means a union between a man and a woman, but between two people or either sex or gender (and some places recognize 3 or more people as well).
Again, your ignorance of the fact that it still means what it always has, marriage is still the union between a man and a woman you idiot, that union doesn't cease to be a marriage. So your example is obviously rubbish, try again.
just like what was once acceptable behaviour is now not considered acceptable behaviour
Wrong, the reason 'acceptable' is used is because it is subjective.
or what was once considered a passenger car is now considered a museum piece and not legal for the road
Wrong again it is still a car, or don't you know what a car is?
or what was once considered the center of the universe (the Earth) is now considered just a planet.
Wrong again, that was *factually false*.
Call me back when they have a phone that is controlled by an AI and we'll talk about "smart" phones.
We are talking about 'smartphones', not 'smart phones', so now you're just trying to go off topic because you don't want to admit you're wrong. Don't be an idiot, you've used the term smartphone on many occasions, you're getting pretty pathetic now.
What you or I think the definition of a smartphone to be is irrelevant.
No it isn't, you're saying what was a smartphone is now not a smartphone, so by what definition is a device a smartphone? The simple fact that has been proven throughout these posts is that you have absolutely no idea what a smartphone is and hence you failed numerous times to answer that simple question.
Neither of us is writing a dictionary, and no matter what either of us say, it doesn't change the reality that the definition of a smartphone is in flux
No it isn't, just the same as the definition of a car is not in flux, you clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and look even stupider with every post.
it is the consumer's perception of "what is a smartphone" that defines it.
No it is not, the consumer doesn't define what a smartphone is.
Technically, there is no such thing as a smart phone. Never has been.
Why are you using the term then you fool? How much more of an idiot do you intend to look?