So first it's the it's not us, it's you holding it wrong, now it's the oh whoops, actually it is us...but it's not what you think.
What is with this company? They blame their consumers for a problem that is obviously their fault, then when they realise they can't get away with that they decide 'well our users are idiots so we can tell them it's just an issue of displaying bars', even though there is significantly more attenuation than other phones. They really don't think much of their customers do they?
For what it's worth, the Nexus One had similar problems... where's the lawsuit?
It's not worth very much in this context since that issue is signal degradation which - as Jobs rightly pointed out - is an issue with most mobiles, the difference here is that with the iphone 4 it's degradation to the point that the signal is completely lost.
But, no, you're right, the massive number of debates and corrections on this topic would pretty much have to be a failure on my part. I apologize for breaking Slashdot.
No-one's debating their share of the market, it's just some people get confused - as you seem to be - with which market they are referring to when the topic of anti-trust or monopoly comes up.
Uhhhh - as I recall, that cube didn't come from Ubuntu. I believe that it came from a couple different teams. I'd have to check into the history to give everyone credit, but it's known as Compiz now. Ubuntu merely implemented Compiz, just as Suse and others have done.
I think it's quite obvious that by that he meant his 'favorite eyecandy in Ubuntu'. If you want to be fastidious 'Ubuntu' didn't implement anything.
The point is that on Slashdot Apple's marketshare fluctuates depending on what the context is..
I think it's you not understanding the market to which the figure for marketshare relates. They have a small % of the phone market, a significant % of the smartphone market and a vast majority % of the smartphone application market. It doesn't seem like anyone is refuting that, more that you aren't understanding it.
Think of what our infrastructure and society would look like today if we didn't have cell phones and basic cable sucking $200 or more out of us a month, banks finding new and better ways to fuck us over, debt collection firms getting people thrown in jail, and all this other stuff that basically say "We're fat, stupid, and need more money -- and you're gonna give it to us or else."
What the hell happened to the idea that technology was supposed to make society better?
It's clear that the 'Windows Store' will be a software service Microsoft provides and hosts fully in the cloud.
By which they of course simply mean 'online' wtf is with the use of this term 'the cloud'. All of a sudden the internet is a cloud and anything hosted on a server is in the cloud and any server-side processing is now 'cloud computing', wtf do we need a retarded metaphor for?
look at the X6 BE chip, 6 cores, better performance than anything intel has at the same price. It doesn't compete with Intels 12 "core" in 12 thead applications, but apart from video encodes(even thats iffy) you'll be hard pressed to find a 12 thread app that doesn't end up IO bound, as a home user.
Apart from video encodes you'll be hard pressed to find a 12 thread app, as a home user. (as in actually thrashing 12 threads at once)
where you're wrong is about saving state – that's been the way it's been done since 1.0
So how am I wrong? That's exactly what i said, i said in the ios environment they can save the state before being scheduled off, which is correct, and the second part of statement backs that up.
Mobile - Non smartphone is still dominated by non-microsoft OS's
Smartphone is dominated by Apple and Android
So? That doesn't mean MS is dying, in fact they actually have a sizeable chunk of the smartphone market. Just because a company isn't dominating one market they are in - though they are dominating in others - does not mean they are dying.
It appears that some people don't understand what cooperative OR preemptive multitasking is.
+1!
This has NOTHING to do with co-op or pre-emptive multitasking at all, anyone debating that has no idea what either of them are, nor what the multitasking in ios4 is.
Preemptive multitasking is a feature of the kernel which iOS fully supports, it however restricts access to it for regular applications except through a small set of APIs.
It doesn't restrict anything. This has nothing to do with pre-emptive vs co-operative multitasking whatsoever.
The change is that application developers can now have the option - when application-level task switching occurs - to save the application state, which will be restored when the user switches back.
Quite frankly anyone steering this discussion towards pre-emptive vs co-operative multitasking doesn't know what they are talking about since there is NO change in that area whatsoever and it has always had been a pre-emptive scheduler.
No... it's not cooperative multitasking, it's preemptive - the "the developer must do some work" part is that unless you specifically ask not to be, you will *always* be preempted.
That suggests that the application can avoid being scheduled off if the developer has "done some work", this is incorrect, you will always be pre-empted regardless of what you do. Applications cannot avoid having their resources pre-empted but in the ios environment they are notified that this is about to happen and may save their state beforehand.
Personally, I think that Apple's compromise is a good one. If your app doesn't have a compelling reason to keep executing (like streaming audio, getting GPS updates for navigation, etc.), then the most your app really needs is just to have its state saved for quick re-launch.
I don't 100% agree with that, but I really feel the taskbar is quite pointless. It's not even consistent with the way things work on the desktop. I mean think about it, you have a single access point to launch applications - the home screen - and you can't launch the same application twice, so wtf is the point of the taskbar? Why not just have an indicator on the icon of the app in the homescreen that it is running - like in the osx dock - and switch to it or kill it off from there?
Breaking backwards compatibility. Sometimes, it is the right thing to do.
But in the case of their userbase it isn't the right thing to do, which is where your car analogy fails. I agree it was a bad system but for a long time there have been well-known (and somewhat obvious) workarounds, not to mention the issue is fixed going forward with their.Net application platform.
...Microsoft is dying... it's a slow painful and lingering death
blah blah blah...sure they have lost a little percentage ground in markets they previously held very stongly, but their profit continues to soar and they have made inroads into many other markets, for example mobile and console gaming. Neither Apple nor Microsoft are dying...both are going very strong and in different directions, sure they compete in markets like desktop and mobile but where one has focus and significant marketshare the other does not and vice-versa, nor is there any indication that it will change.
I thought Apple would release an "iPhone Runtime Environment" application with 10.6 (obviously I was wrong) but I won't rule it out for the future. It would allow Apple to take their 30% cut of people buying additional copies of their iDevice apps so they can run it on their desktops and save/exchange/sync data. Apple's rumored 'Wacom-type' touch pad would work hand and hand with it.
But what iFashionable apps would you want to run on your desktop? For the vast majority it's gimmick apps, casual games, touchscreen-specific apps or cutdown versions of desktop apps made to run on mobile devices. I doubt apple would see benefit in doing this since such a huge percentage of the available apps would make no sense to run on a desktop.
I'm not convinced anything negative would go against the IT guy as much as trying to find out who the culprit.
If the network is compromised and data that was supposed to be secure is compromised then the person responsible for securing that network - the IT guy - is certainly going to face some questioning. Particularly if the user isn't informed that secure communications are no longer secure.
The article you linked here doesn't have any relation to here decryption of encrypted traffic.
Legality wise, it was determined that companies are free to enforce policies on their networks, including installing SSL transparent proxies which many corporations use for enhanced filtering.
Slashdot Mirror
And to look through millions of lines of code is unrealistic.
So it's not enough that the source is available to you, you need it explained to you as well?
What is inside of a compiler?
Take a look, it's open source.
Do Windows box users still have to wait for IE to catch up with Web standards?
I don't know what idiotic platform you use, but on Windows - and many others - you don't have to use IE. So in answer to your question, No.
That applies to the enterprise customers. How many terrorist groups have set up a BES server?
Well if you've got something to hide then there's your answer.
...will introduce 'reception' as a feature.
So first it's the it's not us, it's you holding it wrong, now it's the oh whoops, actually it is us...but it's not what you think.
What is with this company? They blame their consumers for a problem that is obviously their fault, then when they realise they can't get away with that they decide 'well our users are idiots so we can tell them it's just an issue of displaying bars', even though there is significantly more attenuation than other phones. They really don't think much of their customers do they?
For what it's worth, the Nexus One had similar problems... where's the lawsuit?
It's not worth very much in this context since that issue is signal degradation which - as Jobs rightly pointed out - is an issue with most mobiles, the difference here is that with the iphone 4 it's degradation to the point that the signal is completely lost.
Apple is swimming in cash, literally
You mean metaphorically.
But, no, you're right, the massive number of debates and corrections on this topic would pretty much have to be a failure on my part. I apologize for breaking Slashdot.
No-one's debating their share of the market, it's just some people get confused - as you seem to be - with which market they are referring to when the topic of anti-trust or monopoly comes up.
Uhhhh - as I recall, that cube didn't come from Ubuntu. I believe that it came from a couple different teams. I'd have to check into the history to give everyone credit, but it's known as Compiz now. Ubuntu merely implemented Compiz, just as Suse and others have done.
I think it's quite obvious that by that he meant his 'favorite eyecandy in Ubuntu'. If you want to be fastidious 'Ubuntu' didn't implement anything.
The point is that on Slashdot Apple's marketshare fluctuates depending on what the context is..
I think it's you not understanding the market to which the figure for marketshare relates. They have a small % of the phone market, a significant % of the smartphone market and a vast majority % of the smartphone application market. It doesn't seem like anyone is refuting that, more that you aren't understanding it.
Think of what our infrastructure and society would look like today if we didn't have cell phones and basic cable sucking $200 or more out of us a month, banks finding new and better ways to fuck us over, debt collection firms getting people thrown in jail, and all this other stuff that basically say "We're fat, stupid, and need more money -- and you're gonna give it to us or else."
What the hell happened to the idea that technology was supposed to make society better?
Sounds like you need a little communism.
It's clear that the 'Windows Store' will be a software service Microsoft provides and hosts fully in the cloud.
By which they of course simply mean 'online' wtf is with the use of this term 'the cloud'. All of a sudden the internet is a cloud and anything hosted on a server is in the cloud and any server-side processing is now 'cloud computing', wtf do we need a retarded metaphor for?
It is correct, it's just not the "multitasking" that apple is pushing now – it's always been there.
Yes, that's why i said the 'ios environment' as opposed to the 'ios4 environment'.
look at the X6 BE chip, 6 cores, better performance than anything intel has at the same price. It doesn't compete with Intels 12 "core" in 12 thead applications, but apart from video encodes(even thats iffy) you'll be hard pressed to find a 12 thread app that doesn't end up IO bound, as a home user.
Apart from video encodes you'll be hard pressed to find a 12 thread app, as a home user. (as in actually thrashing 12 threads at once)
What other company could get away with producing a product like this and succeed?
Way to ignore the enormous elephant in the room.
Standard fanboi response: 'Something said, not good...quick, look at Microsoft!'
where you're wrong is about saving state – that's been the way it's been done since 1.0
So how am I wrong? That's exactly what i said, i said in the ios environment they can save the state before being scheduled off, which is correct, and the second part of statement backs that up.
Mobile - Non smartphone is still dominated by non-microsoft OS's Smartphone is dominated by Apple and Android
So? That doesn't mean MS is dying, in fact they actually have a sizeable chunk of the smartphone market. Just because a company isn't dominating one market they are in - though they are dominating in others - does not mean they are dying.
It appears that some people don't understand what cooperative OR preemptive multitasking is.
+1! This has NOTHING to do with co-op or pre-emptive multitasking at all, anyone debating that has no idea what either of them are, nor what the multitasking in ios4 is.
Preemptive multitasking is a feature of the kernel which iOS fully supports, it however restricts access to it for regular applications except through a small set of APIs.
It doesn't restrict anything. This has nothing to do with pre-emptive vs co-operative multitasking whatsoever.
The change is that application developers can now have the option - when application-level task switching occurs - to save the application state, which will be restored when the user switches back.
Quite frankly anyone steering this discussion towards pre-emptive vs co-operative multitasking doesn't know what they are talking about since there is NO change in that area whatsoever and it has always had been a pre-emptive scheduler.
No... it's not cooperative multitasking, it's preemptive - the "the developer must do some work" part is that unless you specifically ask not to be, you will *always* be preempted.
That suggests that the application can avoid being scheduled off if the developer has "done some work", this is incorrect, you will always be pre-empted regardless of what you do. Applications cannot avoid having their resources pre-empted but in the ios environment they are notified that this is about to happen and may save their state beforehand.
Personally, I think that Apple's compromise is a good one. If your app doesn't have a compelling reason to keep executing (like streaming audio, getting GPS updates for navigation, etc.), then the most your app really needs is just to have its state saved for quick re-launch.
I don't 100% agree with that, but I really feel the taskbar is quite pointless. It's not even consistent with the way things work on the desktop. I mean think about it, you have a single access point to launch applications - the home screen - and you can't launch the same application twice, so wtf is the point of the taskbar? Why not just have an indicator on the icon of the app in the homescreen that it is running - like in the osx dock - and switch to it or kill it off from there?
Breaking backwards compatibility. Sometimes, it is the right thing to do.
But in the case of their userbase it isn't the right thing to do, which is where your car analogy fails. I agree it was a bad system but for a long time there have been well-known (and somewhat obvious) workarounds, not to mention the issue is fixed going forward with their .Net application platform.
...Microsoft is dying ... it's a slow painful and lingering death
blah blah blah...sure they have lost a little percentage ground in markets they previously held very stongly, but their profit continues to soar and they have made inroads into many other markets, for example mobile and console gaming. Neither Apple nor Microsoft are dying...both are going very strong and in different directions, sure they compete in markets like desktop and mobile but where one has focus and significant marketshare the other does not and vice-versa, nor is there any indication that it will change.
I thought Apple would release an "iPhone Runtime Environment" application with 10.6 (obviously I was wrong) but I won't rule it out for the future. It would allow Apple to take their 30% cut of people buying additional copies of their iDevice apps so they can run it on their desktops and save/exchange/sync data. Apple's rumored 'Wacom-type' touch pad would work hand and hand with it.
But what iFashionable apps would you want to run on your desktop? For the vast majority it's gimmick apps, casual games, touchscreen-specific apps or cutdown versions of desktop apps made to run on mobile devices. I doubt apple would see benefit in doing this since such a huge percentage of the available apps would make no sense to run on a desktop.
I'm not convinced anything negative would go against the IT guy as much as trying to find out who the culprit.
If the network is compromised and data that was supposed to be secure is compromised then the person responsible for securing that network - the IT guy - is certainly going to face some questioning. Particularly if the user isn't informed that secure communications are no longer secure.
The article you linked here doesn't have any relation to here decryption of encrypted traffic.
Legality wise, it was determined that companies are free to enforce policies on their networks, including installing SSL transparent proxies which many corporations use for enhanced filtering.
That's where citation is needed.