Nothing in your link supports this. Their update basically admits that they ran a flawed test, and blames Apple for optimizing its browser.
No it doesn't, read it again. Apple claims their test is flawed, they claim people are misinterpreting the results, which, given they weren't comparing safari, seems pretty accurate..
The test *IS* flawed. I notice a strong correlation on Slashdot of when someone makes a statement that reflects reality, they get called a "fanboi" by an AC.
It's not flawed at all, it's that morons are coming to stupid conclusions like 'browsing is faster on X than Y'. Read the first paragraph of the article: The iPhone 4 was slower than Google’s Nexus S smartphone 84 percent of the time when accessing the Web through the browser that operates applications like Twitter and Facebook, according to Ottawa-based Blaze Software Inc. Blaze was unable to compare the Apple Safari and Google Chrome browsers that users access directly from the phone’s home screen.
So as you can see the test is NOT flawed, and they are quite clear on what was and was not being tested. It's just that you thought they were saying web browsing on the iphone is slower than the nexus s, which they are not.
The PS3 has some pretty neat hardware. Tell me, what other machine can I buy if I want to dig into Cell programming?
Just buy a Cell Accelerator Board. Sure it's more expensive, but you're not tied to a non-upgradeable machine chocked full of DRM that prevents access to certain components.
That only works until they have all their holes plugged. See Xbox, homebrew on Xbox1 was extremely popular, homebrew on Xbox360 has a far harder time, as it doesn't work at all with modern Xbox360 and even with older models requires hardware modifications and that is with a console that has been on the market for five years.
If you mean non-Microsoft supported homebrew then yes, but why would you need that when MS actively supports homebrew on their platform?
Thus, Sony stands to lose lose somewhere on the order of half a billion dollars per year if developers find that they can practically develop games for PS3 without paying the royalty fee.
And if that happens there's pretty much no point in Sony even making a console at all.
Google should know very well by this point that you can't just copy GPL code and change the license on it.
That's not what they are doing. They have provided clean header files (interfaces) to link with the associated libraries. Same as you writing your own function declarations for a library that doesn't provide headers.
Not necessarily. You cannot just remove the copyright notice from someone else's code and make believe that by removing the notice you have removed their legitimate copyright. BSD source has copyrights on it too.
Copyright isn't the issue, Copyleft is. With BSD you don't have to disclose the source because the BSD license is not a restrictive OSS license like the GPL is. With the GPL you have to distribute the source which is why this whole thing is an issue in the first place.
Well, yeah. I'd say that in most cases if someone is providing you with software and the rights to adapt it to your own needs, the burden is and should be on you to adapt it to your own needs rather than them.
I'm not arguing that, just that it's not as easy as he makes out with the 'you can just do it yourself' attitude, because the vast majority of people can't.
It is simply not the case that any individual or company currently considering what tablet to buy would think that the iPad is the only viable choice
Why not? Look at marketshare, look at app ecosystem, look at price. Exactly the same as with Windows. You seem to think a monopoly is based on public perception of choice, you are wrong.
True but a professional version of Visual Studio is not 0. I don't know what it is but I think it is considerably more than $5.
*A* 'professional version' or *THE* 'professional version'? The express and WP7 versions are professional versions.
If you want to develop for Windows (using EE versions) or WP7 (using the Phone version) then you can do it for free using those versions provided by Microsoft, if you want other features then you do have to pay for them.
He's referring to how weird it is that, in an age when half the objects you own contain a microcomputer that you can't easily program, people are upset about a media-consumption tablet.
It's only 'weird' if you're ignorant enough to have missed the blindingly obvious answer which is because a media-consumption tablet is designed to have custom written apps run on it, whereas devices with embedded microcomputers are not. If you're putting a general purpose computing device in the same category as an appliance with an embedded microcomputer then you really are pretty daft.
First of all, I'd hardly call $5 for a complete development suite "greedy." For comparison, Visual Studio Ultimate costs $11,899.
Comparing VS Ultimate to XCode is apples and oranges, XCode doesn't have the scope that VS Ultimate does (have a look at the differences in features, just check out the product pages if you don't know).
If you want to develop for WP7 you get the *free* Windows Phone edition of VS with the WP7 SDK.
If you want to develop in.Net you get one of the *free* VS Express Edition packages.
Just comparing XCode to the highest version of VS is either ignorant or intentionally misleading.
The beauty of it being open source is that if someone feels strongly about this feature (like you), they can make the change themselves and offer the project a patch, or fork it.
Unless of course you aren't a developer and/or just want to use software, in that case you're boned.
That the pressure to buy Microsoft was overwhelming is evidenced by the fact that so many businesses made that choice because they perceived that they had no choice. No-one ever got fired for choosing Microsoft. I have friends that still use Internet Explorer because they are concerned that other browsers will not work properly with Windows because Microsoft will make it so.
And the reason behind that is because they had dominant marketshare, just like the ipad does. There wasn't a lack of alternatives at all.
If you're a fucking moron and don't have a keylock on your phone
The whole point of the contactless payment systems is you wave your phone over something and it's paid for.
Otherwise it would be too much bother and you'd just use a credit card.
Wrong? wtf are you on about? Having a keylock on your phone doesn't change that in the slightest, it's still a contactless payment system that you wave your phone over and it's paid for. How is having to unlock your phone before you use it 'too much bother'?
If you lose your phone the thief can run up thousands of dollars in PHONE charges. If you lose your contactless payment device: the thief can spend till your daily limit, or until the police track him down by the built in gps, or until you remotely disable the device.
If you're a fucking moron and don't have a keylock on your phone - which is most likely an access point to much of your personal information, contacts, email, social networking, etc... - then yes that could happen.
Slashdot Mirror
The Nexus One's CPU is 25% faster than the iPhone4's (1GHz vs. 800MHz).
Math fail.
reading comprehension fail.
The Nexus One's CPU is 25% faster than the iPhone4's (1GHz vs. 800MHz).
Math fail.
Nothing in your link supports this. Their update basically admits that they ran a flawed test, and blames Apple for optimizing its browser.
No it doesn't, read it again. Apple claims their test is flawed, they claim people are misinterpreting the results, which, given they weren't comparing safari, seems pretty accurate..
The test *IS* flawed. I notice a strong correlation on Slashdot of when someone makes a statement that reflects reality, they get called a "fanboi" by an AC.
It's not flawed at all, it's that morons are coming to stupid conclusions like 'browsing is faster on X than Y'. Read the first paragraph of the article:
The iPhone 4 was slower than Google’s Nexus S smartphone 84 percent of the time when accessing the Web through the browser that operates applications like Twitter and Facebook, according to Ottawa-based Blaze Software Inc. Blaze was unable to compare the Apple Safari and Google Chrome browsers that users access directly from the phone’s home screen.
So as you can see the test is NOT flawed, and they are quite clear on what was and was not being tested. It's just that you thought they were saying web browsing on the iphone is slower than the nexus s, which they are not.
The PS3 has some pretty neat hardware. Tell me, what other machine can I buy if I want to dig into Cell programming?
Just buy a Cell Accelerator Board. Sure it's more expensive, but you're not tied to a non-upgradeable machine chocked full of DRM that prevents access to certain components.
That only works until they have all their holes plugged. See Xbox, homebrew on Xbox1 was extremely popular, homebrew on Xbox360 has a far harder time, as it doesn't work at all with modern Xbox360 and even with older models requires hardware modifications and that is with a console that has been on the market for five years.
If you mean non-Microsoft supported homebrew then yes, but why would you need that when MS actively supports homebrew on their platform?
Thus, Sony stands to lose lose somewhere on the order of half a billion dollars per year if developers find that they can practically develop games for PS3 without paying the royalty fee.
And if that happens there's pretty much no point in Sony even making a console at all.
Google should know very well by this point that you can't just copy GPL code and change the license on it.
That's not what they are doing. They have provided clean header files (interfaces) to link with the associated libraries. Same as you writing your own function declarations for a library that doesn't provide headers.
Only because those are considered 'system' libraries.
Of course, but that's the context of this issue, System Libraries as defined in section 3 of the GPLv2.
Not necessarily. You cannot just remove the copyright notice from someone else's code and make believe that by removing the notice you have removed their legitimate copyright. BSD source has copyrights on it too.
Copyright isn't the issue, Copyleft is. With BSD you don't have to disclose the source because the BSD license is not a restrictive OSS license like the GPL is. With the GPL you have to distribute the source which is why this whole thing is an issue in the first place.
wow...fail hard.
Well, yeah. I'd say that in most cases if someone is providing you with software and the rights to adapt it to your own needs, the burden is and should be on you to adapt it to your own needs rather than them.
I'm not arguing that, just that it's not as easy as he makes out with the 'you can just do it yourself' attitude, because the vast majority of people can't.
I fail to see why someone who is already providing FREE software should be catering to your needs.
They shouldn't, that's not the issue.
Using proprietary software is just paying to have it done anyway. No free lunch or software customization.
But proprietary software companies are targeting a market, and that market very often includes people with disabilities.
It is simply not the case that any individual or company currently considering what tablet to buy would think that the iPad is the only viable choice
Why not? Look at marketshare, look at app ecosystem, look at price. Exactly the same as with Windows. You seem to think a monopoly is based on public perception of choice, you are wrong.
Nope, you can pay someone to work on it in that case.
Nope? It said 'someone could make the change themselves', read it.
So now you're suggesting someone who wants a change funds the development process? That works in corporate environments, not end-user ones.
I would imagine if this advocacy group bought licenses for all its members that would cover it.
What are you on about? This 'advocacy group' isn't buying licenses of anything for anyone.
So, how do projects like OS X get developed, if not in XCode?
So you've solved the 'chicken and the egg' problem then have you?
True but a professional version of Visual Studio is not 0. I don't know what it is but I think it is considerably more than $5.
*A* 'professional version' or *THE* 'professional version'? The express and WP7 versions are professional versions.
If you want to develop for Windows (using EE versions) or WP7 (using the Phone version) then you can do it for free using those versions provided by Microsoft, if you want other features then you do have to pay for them.
He's referring to how weird it is that, in an age when half the objects you own contain a microcomputer that you can't easily program, people are upset about a media-consumption tablet.
It's only 'weird' if you're ignorant enough to have missed the blindingly obvious answer which is because a media-consumption tablet is designed to have custom written apps run on it, whereas devices with embedded microcomputers are not. If you're putting a general purpose computing device in the same category as an appliance with an embedded microcomputer then you really are pretty daft.
First of all, I'd hardly call $5 for a complete development suite "greedy." For comparison, Visual Studio Ultimate costs $11,899.
Comparing VS Ultimate to XCode is apples and oranges, XCode doesn't have the scope that VS Ultimate does (have a look at the differences in features, just check out the product pages if you don't know).
If you want to develop for WP7 you get the *free* Windows Phone edition of VS with the WP7 SDK. .Net you get one of the *free* VS Express Edition packages.
If you want to develop in
Just comparing XCode to the highest version of VS is either ignorant or intentionally misleading.
I've tried to get them to support them
The beauty of it being open source is that if someone feels strongly about this feature (like you), they can make the change themselves and offer the project a patch, or fork it.
Unless of course you aren't a developer and/or just want to use software, in that case you're boned.
This proprietary software is free, or do you pay for it?
Have you considered offering the same amount of money to the open source people to add these features?
I don't know about you but I don't think the cost of a license is going to cover a developer's time to implement such features.
That the pressure to buy Microsoft was overwhelming is evidenced by the fact that so many businesses made that choice because they perceived that they had no choice. No-one ever got fired for choosing Microsoft. I have friends that still use Internet Explorer because they are concerned that other browsers will not work properly with Windows because Microsoft will make it so.
And the reason behind that is because they had dominant marketshare, just like the ipad does. There wasn't a lack of alternatives at all.
If you're a fucking moron and don't have a keylock on your phone
The whole point of the contactless payment systems is you wave your phone over something and it's paid for.
Otherwise it would be too much bother and you'd just use a credit card.
Wrong? wtf are you on about? Having a keylock on your phone doesn't change that in the slightest, it's still a contactless payment system that you wave your phone over and it's paid for. How is having to unlock your phone before you use it 'too much bother'?
If you lose your phone the thief can run up thousands of dollars in PHONE charges. If you lose your contactless payment device: the thief can spend till your daily limit, or until the police track him down by the built in gps, or until you remotely disable the device.
If you're a fucking moron and don't have a keylock on your phone - which is most likely an access point to much of your personal information, contacts, email, social networking, etc... - then yes that could happen.