Have we a choice when going to WorstBuy (TM) and purchasing a desktop computer?
For quite a while they were selling Linux desktops, nobody wanted them. Dell sells their Precision, Latitude, XPS and Inspiron laptops with the option for Linux preinstalled as well. HP offers it on a number of their systems and there are companies like System76 that offer it as well. Not only that it is trivial to install Linux on any machine, even Microsoft's own Surface computers. If people want Linux on their desktop or laptop then it is readily available.
Which is just being pedantic. Saying "I'm running Linux" is analogous to "I'm running a Linux-based operating system" and this is completely acceptable given you never just run the kernel.
I asked a question. a rhetorical one. Seriously if you don't understand that asking a question isn't accusing someone of something, then I hope you are merely a troll, because I hate to call people stupid, but that's your two choices
Well no, obviously you don't even know what a rhetorical question is, you aren't expecting an answer but rather insinuating the belief of the OP. For somebody who claims to have "quite a vocabulary" it must be rather embarrassing for you to have to have this pointed out to you. Of course perhaps you're just trying to weasel out of your rage posting by pretending you don't know what a rhetorical question is.
Do they provide Steam as well? Or have a SteamOS option? That would really be welcome
Just install it yourself. Installers have been incredibly simple for a very long time. I doubt there are many people who know what SteamOS is and want it but are perplexed by the installer.
However, I have to admit that patience is not one of my virtues when presented with complete fabrications and dissembling.
And it is evident that the moment you lose your patience you just start making up complete and utter fabrications of your own and run with them, like the suggestion that the OP "hates you" and "wants to kill 'Muricans".
A pompous dickhead "I can wax rather poetic, and have quite a vocabulary" who is too dimwitted to even see his bullshit through his red-faced rage at the suggestion that people not visit America.
Costs too much(this is probably the biggest problem), followed by requiring too much GPU power to output(usually requiring a high-end card, or the highest mid-range card). Between both of those you could make a multi-monitor setup pick up a 2-3 27" and be quite happy.
You're still going to need a mid-high end card to run a setup like that. In fact if it's more than 2 displays then you'll need even more, the latest Pascal architecture allows for single pass rendering of the multiple VR viewpoints so the GPU requirements only decrease with that.
These are the same things that happened with 3D-TV remember that?
Nope, 3D TVs certainly didn't cost much and didn't require any additional power to run.
And you're absolutely sure that the totality of Apple's contribution was Apple-specific extensions?
Certainly seems so from the release notes.
See because Apple did contribute their own extensions doesn't mean they didn't contribute to other extensions. You don't know do you?
You're the one who made the claim about their contributions, you back it up.
Again you are imposing a false dichotomy and illogical position. Because Apple as company does not want to use the latest version of OpenGL that does not mean they don't contribute to the latest spec.
So what specifically did they contribute? You are lauding them for their contributions yet you have no idea what they are.
Do you know what ARM contributes? How about NVIDIA? You don't know yet your burden is only on Apple.
Irrelevant, we're discussing Apple, not ARM or nVidia. If you want to discuss their contributions we can do so in a separate discussion.
Your proposal is for Apple to use someone else's standard when proposing their own. Even though the final implementation may not resemble anything like Vulkan. That's just idiocy.
No I'm suggesting they base the web specification on an open native specification rather than a closed proprietary one.
Well if you didn't read the release notes, (and I suspect you didn't) Apple still works within the Khronos Group on OpenGL extensions.
I did and what I saw was nothing but Apple-specific extensions so that old versions still work on their platform.
Also as I stated before, Apple itself does not use anything newer than 4.1 in their OS; however, that doesn't mean they can't contribute to the spec, the group, etc. These two things are not mutually exclusive.
Right so don't expect them to support the cross-platform industry standard. And expect that their contributions may be nothing more than platform-specific extension for legacy support of old versions.
What part of the latest versions have they contributed?
As I stated above they've contributed to EVERY version of OpenGL even the latest one 4.5.
Yes but my point is you are lauding them for contributing when you have no idea what they contributed. What good is contributing to an industry standard that you don't even support? Their contributions are Apple-specific extensions that nobody else will ever use.
I didn't say it is going to be proprietary but it most certainly is in their interest to try and drive it to map best to their underlying driver implementation of their API to minimize the overhead of an abstraction layer.
WebGPU is likely to be so abstracted from the driver that your point is moot.
Wrong, the whole point is to reduce the abstraction from the driver implementation of the native graphics API. Hence the reason you start with an API that maps well to your native one, like Vulkan...if Apple would just support Vulkan.
Of course if you actually look at how the data you reference was collected:
From the statistics below (collected from W3Schools' log-files since 2003), you can read the long term trends of operating system usage.
We can see why the data seems to contradict all other sources, and why it pegs mobile use at ~5% which is obviously not representative of broader usage whatsoever.
This seems low until you consider that People do about half of their web browsing from work, and half at home, and the business world is almost 100% PC or Mac.
Neither of those things are supported by any evidence whatsoever, but more to the point your statistics are purely computers that visit the W3Schools website. The comparatively low mobile marketshare didn't tip you off that maybe these statistics weren't representative of the real world?
Taken in that context, that 5.7% ends up being closer to 12% when you consider just home computers that visit W3Schools website.
FTFY
When taken in that context, Microsoft really only has about 75% market share on home PC's that visit W3Schools website.
FTFY again.
This trend has been slowly moving for more than a decade, and there is no reason to expect it will not continue.
No it hasn't, according to all other reputable sources that isn't true at all. macOS marketshare has risen, Linux has not.
As for OpenGL support, Apple does not use OpenGL as they favor their own framework; however, they are still involved with OpenGL as noted in the latest versions where they are still contributing to OpenGL.
Where exactly are they contributing? You realize they don't even support a version even close to the latest version of OpenGL, right? What part of the latest versions have they contributed? And why do they not even support these supposed contributions?
Again, Apple wants to work in the W3C groups to promote a new standard. They want to start with the Metal framework being the initial implementation, and Apple has said they don't expect WebGPU to be Metal. How is that going to be a proprietary API if it's a standard adopted by W3C?
I didn't say it is going to be proprietary but it most certainly is in their interest to try and drive it to map best to their underlying driver implementation of their API to minimize the overhead of an abstraction layer.
Bonjour is Apple's version of ZeroConf which they open sourced before Avahi was a project in Linux.
I know what Bonjour is, I'm wondering why you said they open sourced ZeroConf, which is a specification that has a variety of implementations. In any case I think this is going off topic, the point is when it comes to 3D graphics Apple's history is extremely poor support of OpenGL, no support for Vulkan at all and ultimately going a proprietary API despite being a promoter member of the Khronos group.
But one with a huge cost of manpower to overcome. It is true that others, with fewer points on the surface, will experience less disruption. It is disruption none the less.
So expend the effort (or pay somebody) to fork the Firefox code and implement a toggle, that's the point of Open Source, it it really is a huge cost of manpower to overcome then it will easily be worth the effort for the savings.
Without being overly specific It is quite simply easier to leave an expired certificate in place than it is to put in a current one. The expired certificate is documented, the new one would have to run that gamut.
Yes I imagined it was a case of it's just easier to not do it properly, but again the problem is on your end with your business process causing a bottleneck on doing the job correctly.
By what metric? I know they try to take the moral high ground but ultimately the cave on things like DRM and they are almost exclusively funded by ad revenue from Google anyway, they certainly aren't doing it out of charity.
> macOS 10.12 (Sierra) is and the "Anywhere" option does not exist anymore.
It does still exist, it is just hidden by default (which is dumb.) On sierra one must use the command line to disable GateKeeper and reboot for it to be active:
sudo spctl --master-disable
What I mean is the option isn't there anymore, it certainly looks like Apple is moving toward an authorised applications model.
I just checked, as I haven't moved to Sierra yet. No, it'll still let you open any app you download, you just have to double-click on it, go to security in the settings app and click on "open anyway" the first time.
What do you mean "No", that's exactly what I just said: it wouldn't let you run executables until you go in to the settings and explicitly say you want to run unsigned code. And in Sierra the "Anywhere" option does not exist anymore, they're certainly moving toward an "authorised" application model.
Not quite sure what you are trying to say. What you listed there is what I already listed, the options that used to exist. Perhaps you aren't aware but OSX 10.10 is not the latest release, macOS 10.12 (Sierra) is and the "Anywhere" option does not exist anymore.
and their desktop OS has been the Wild West for decades. Got an exe? Fire it up!
So was Apple, then they introduced GateKeeper and it wouldn't let you run executables until you go in to the settings and explicitly say you want to run unsigned code. In settings you had:
*App Store
*App Store and Identified Developers
*Anywhere (can't quite remember the wording of this one since it's now gone)
That sounds like a *very* narrow problem case on your end, and it doesn't really explain how a valid certificate would violate compliance with your procedures.
In all seriousness though, I do wonder if changing the permissions on or deleting a DLL that provides DRM would be considered "tampering or circumventing a technological protection measure" under the DMCA and it's variants.
Of course not, if the DLL isn't there it's the same as not having HDCP in your display or the wrong region DVD player. The content simply won't play because you don't have the capability to play it.
Understatement of the year there, forking a browser would require more effort than one person could likely handle.
Nobody is suggesting forking it and abandoning upstream, a fork that merges everything but also maintains the chrome://plugins functionality is hardly a huge task.
Slashdot Mirror
Have we a choice when going to WorstBuy (TM) and purchasing a desktop computer?
For quite a while they were selling Linux desktops, nobody wanted them. Dell sells their Precision, Latitude, XPS and Inspiron laptops with the option for Linux preinstalled as well. HP offers it on a number of their systems and there are companies like System76 that offer it as well. Not only that it is trivial to install Linux on any machine, even Microsoft's own Surface computers. If people want Linux on their desktop or laptop then it is readily available.
The often do, and they are often wrong.
Which is just being pedantic. Saying "I'm running Linux" is analogous to "I'm running a Linux-based operating system" and this is completely acceptable given you never just run the kernel.
I asked a question. a rhetorical one. Seriously if you don't understand that asking a question isn't accusing someone of something, then I hope you are merely a troll, because I hate to call people stupid, but that's your two choices
Well no, obviously you don't even know what a rhetorical question is, you aren't expecting an answer but rather insinuating the belief of the OP. For somebody who claims to have "quite a vocabulary" it must be rather embarrassing for you to have to have this pointed out to you. Of course perhaps you're just trying to weasel out of your rage posting by pretending you don't know what a rhetorical question is.
Do they provide Steam as well? Or have a SteamOS option? That would really be welcome
Just install it yourself. Installers have been incredibly simple for a very long time. I doubt there are many people who know what SteamOS is and want it but are perplexed by the installer.
However, I have to admit that patience is not one of my virtues when presented with complete fabrications and dissembling.
And it is evident that the moment you lose your patience you just start making up complete and utter fabrications of your own and run with them, like the suggestion that the OP "hates you" and "wants to kill 'Muricans".
A pompous dickhead "I can wax rather poetic, and have quite a vocabulary" who is too dimwitted to even see his bullshit through his red-faced rage at the suggestion that people not visit America.
Costs too much(this is probably the biggest problem), followed by requiring too much GPU power to output(usually requiring a high-end card, or the highest mid-range card). Between both of those you could make a multi-monitor setup pick up a 2-3 27" and be quite happy.
You're still going to need a mid-high end card to run a setup like that. In fact if it's more than 2 displays then you'll need even more, the latest Pascal architecture allows for single pass rendering of the multiple VR viewpoints so the GPU requirements only decrease with that.
These are the same things that happened with 3D-TV remember that?
Nope, 3D TVs certainly didn't cost much and didn't require any additional power to run.
And you're absolutely sure that the totality of Apple's contribution was Apple-specific extensions?
Certainly seems so from the release notes.
See because Apple did contribute their own extensions doesn't mean they didn't contribute to other extensions. You don't know do you?
You're the one who made the claim about their contributions, you back it up.
Again you are imposing a false dichotomy and illogical position. Because Apple as company does not want to use the latest version of OpenGL that does not mean they don't contribute to the latest spec.
So what specifically did they contribute? You are lauding them for their contributions yet you have no idea what they are.
Do you know what ARM contributes? How about NVIDIA? You don't know yet your burden is only on Apple.
Irrelevant, we're discussing Apple, not ARM or nVidia. If you want to discuss their contributions we can do so in a separate discussion.
Your proposal is for Apple to use someone else's standard when proposing their own. Even though the final implementation may not resemble anything like Vulkan. That's just idiocy.
No I'm suggesting they base the web specification on an open native specification rather than a closed proprietary one.
Well if you didn't read the release notes, (and I suspect you didn't) Apple still works within the Khronos Group on OpenGL extensions.
I did and what I saw was nothing but Apple-specific extensions so that old versions still work on their platform.
Also as I stated before, Apple itself does not use anything newer than 4.1 in their OS; however, that doesn't mean they can't contribute to the spec, the group, etc. These two things are not mutually exclusive.
Right so don't expect them to support the cross-platform industry standard. And expect that their contributions may be nothing more than platform-specific extension for legacy support of old versions.
What part of the latest versions have they contributed?
As I stated above they've contributed to EVERY version of OpenGL even the latest one 4.5.
Yes but my point is you are lauding them for contributing when you have no idea what they contributed. What good is contributing to an industry standard that you don't even support? Their contributions are Apple-specific extensions that nobody else will ever use.
I didn't say it is going to be proprietary but it most certainly is in their interest to try and drive it to map best to their underlying driver implementation of their API to minimize the overhead of an abstraction layer.
WebGPU is likely to be so abstracted from the driver that your point is moot.
Wrong, the whole point is to reduce the abstraction from the driver implementation of the native graphics API. Hence the reason you start with an API that maps well to your native one, like Vulkan...if Apple would just support Vulkan.
Ahh, but that really is not true. According to W3 Linux OS share of web browsing is around 5.7% of the market total.
And according to NetMarketShare it's just 2.27% and StatCounter pegs it at a little over 1.5%.
Of course if you actually look at how the data you reference was collected:
From the statistics below (collected from W3Schools' log-files since 2003), you can read the long term trends of operating system usage.
We can see why the data seems to contradict all other sources, and why it pegs mobile use at ~5% which is obviously not representative of broader usage whatsoever.
This seems low until you consider that People do about half of their web browsing from work, and half at home, and the business world is almost 100% PC or Mac.
Neither of those things are supported by any evidence whatsoever, but more to the point your statistics are purely computers that visit the W3Schools website. The comparatively low mobile marketshare didn't tip you off that maybe these statistics weren't representative of the real world?
Taken in that context, that 5.7% ends up being closer to 12% when you consider just home computers that visit W3Schools website.
FTFY
When taken in that context, Microsoft really only has about 75% market share on home PC's that visit W3Schools website.
FTFY again.
This trend has been slowly moving for more than a decade, and there is no reason to expect it will not continue.
No it hasn't, according to all other reputable sources that isn't true at all. macOS marketshare has risen, Linux has not.
As for OpenGL support, Apple does not use OpenGL as they favor their own framework; however, they are still involved with OpenGL as noted in the latest versions where they are still contributing to OpenGL.
Where exactly are they contributing? You realize they don't even support a version even close to the latest version of OpenGL, right? What part of the latest versions have they contributed? And why do they not even support these supposed contributions?
Again, Apple wants to work in the W3C groups to promote a new standard. They want to start with the Metal framework being the initial implementation, and Apple has said they don't expect WebGPU to be Metal. How is that going to be a proprietary API if it's a standard adopted by W3C?
I didn't say it is going to be proprietary but it most certainly is in their interest to try and drive it to map best to their underlying driver implementation of their API to minimize the overhead of an abstraction layer.
Bonjour is Apple's version of ZeroConf which they open sourced before Avahi was a project in Linux.
I know what Bonjour is, I'm wondering why you said they open sourced ZeroConf, which is a specification that has a variety of implementations. In any case I think this is going off topic, the point is when it comes to 3D graphics Apple's history is extremely poor support of OpenGL, no support for Vulkan at all and ultimately going a proprietary API despite being a promoter member of the Khronos group.
So are you talking about ZeroConf or Bonjour?
ZeroConf could do that but they open-sourced that.
Wrong. Apple did not open source ZeroConf, it is apparent you do not know what ZeroConf is.
CUPS could have done that. But that open-sourced that.
Wrong again. Apple did not open source CUPS.
But one with a huge cost of manpower to overcome. It is true that others, with fewer points on the surface, will experience less disruption. It is disruption none the less.
So expend the effort (or pay somebody) to fork the Firefox code and implement a toggle, that's the point of Open Source, it it really is a huge cost of manpower to overcome then it will easily be worth the effort for the savings.
Without being overly specific It is quite simply easier to leave an expired certificate in place than it is to put in a current one. The expired certificate is documented, the new one would have to run that gamut.
Yes I imagined it was a case of it's just easier to not do it properly, but again the problem is on your end with your business process causing a bottleneck on doing the job correctly.
Firefox is clearly the best browser.
By what metric? I know they try to take the moral high ground but ultimately the cave on things like DRM and they are almost exclusively funded by ad revenue from Google anyway, they certainly aren't doing it out of charity.
Mozilla Foundation gets its money from donations and funds that the corporation kicks up.
Right, and that corporation is Google, an ad company. By and large that's where their funding comes from, they depend on Google.
> macOS 10.12 (Sierra) is and the "Anywhere" option does not exist anymore.
It does still exist, it is just hidden by default (which is dumb.) On sierra one must use the command line to disable GateKeeper and reboot for it to be active:
What I mean is the option isn't there anymore, it certainly looks like Apple is moving toward an authorised applications model.
> Nothing of value is being lost.
The sad thing is that something of value *is* being lost: all browsers except Mozilla depend now on ad companies. This is bad.
Where does Mozilla get its income from?
I just checked, as I haven't moved to Sierra yet. No, it'll still let you open any app you download, you just have to double-click on it, go to security in the settings app and click on "open anyway" the first time.
What do you mean "No", that's exactly what I just said: it wouldn't let you run executables until you go in to the settings and explicitly say you want to run unsigned code. And in Sierra the "Anywhere" option does not exist anymore, they're certainly moving toward an "authorised" application model.
Not quite sure what you are trying to say. What you listed there is what I already listed, the options that used to exist. Perhaps you aren't aware but OSX 10.10 is not the latest release, macOS 10.12 (Sierra) is and the "Anywhere" option does not exist anymore.
and their desktop OS has been the Wild West for decades. Got an exe? Fire it up!
So was Apple, then they introduced GateKeeper and it wouldn't let you run executables until you go in to the settings and explicitly say you want to run unsigned code. In settings you had:
But in Sierra the only options are:
That sounds like a *very* narrow problem case on your end, and it doesn't really explain how a valid certificate would violate compliance with your procedures.
It's unclear what will happen to the forks.
If they didn't have code changes they would be pointless, any fork that maintains the chrome://plugins functionality is probably a fine choice.
I think the forks are all using the Chromium source code
Well yes, otherwise they wouldn't be forks of it now would they.
In all seriousness though, I do wonder if changing the permissions on or deleting a DLL that provides DRM would be considered "tampering or circumventing a technological protection measure" under the DMCA and it's variants.
Of course not, if the DLL isn't there it's the same as not having HDCP in your display or the wrong region DVD player. The content simply won't play because you don't have the capability to play it.
Understatement of the year there, forking a browser would require more effort than one person could likely handle.
Nobody is suggesting forking it and abandoning upstream, a fork that merges everything but also maintains the chrome://plugins functionality is hardly a huge task.