Since when is open-ness defined by whether the kernel is open sourced?
The MS Reference Source license is not an Open Source license (used for.net), and while the MS-CLI license and Common Public Licenses are (CLI and WiX respectively)
Open source != Open, particularly in the context of TFA where open is really related to accessibility to the platform.
Open relates to the entire platform, including hardware restrictions. In terms of OSX and Windows neither is really open and arguing about which is more open is religious anyway since it depends on how much value you place on the open-ness of specific components of the platform and whether that degree of open-ness fulfills your needs. They are both as locked-down and closed as eachother.
neither one is nearly as important a component.
That's just your opinion. I'd suggest most people developing for the.Net platform will get more value from viewing that source-code than digging into the kernel code. Of course YMMV.
So when this ships, iPad will be running iPhone OS v4.1
So when this ships, the iPad will be running iPhone OS v4.1.
- will there be a single feature that iPad doesn't have? (iPad already has cheap USB and SD card accessories and will likely have a video cam accessory by October)
- will there be a single feature that the iPad doesn't have? (the iPad already has cheap USB and SD card accessories and will likely have a video cam accessory by October)
- will all the PC enthusiasts who are still at this time ranting about how "useless" iPad is
- will all the PC enthusiasts who are still at this time ranting about how "useless" the iPad is
Apple worked on iPad for 7 years before releasing it
Apple worked on the iPad for 7 years before releasing it
I know people who bought iPad just for WebEx
I know people who bought an iPad just for WebEx
Even though I have an iPad and am really happy with it
ooh... you got it right there.
But they have a long way to go from generic DOS boxes to competing with iPad.
But they have a long way to go from generic DOS boxes to competing with the iPad.
Now, there isn't anything (at least to my knowledge) that prevents His Jobness to release an iPad pro (aka 'the MaxiPad') that lets you get out on a real USB ports, runs CUPS, runs Terminal, comes with a Pony, etc.
I'd say - and this is just a guess - that they would avoid this as it would likely step on the toes of the lowend macbooks.
XNA doesn't matter to developers like Valve, so the parent's point still stands.
It matters to Valve's customers, those that want to use Steam as a distribution mechanism, those indie and hobbyist developers.
The Xbox 360 is as closed as the PS3. The only reason they support it is that porting their games to it is very easy since it uses the same technologies as Windows.
And developers (big, small, indie or hobbyist - all of which are customers of Valve with regard to Steam) don't need to purchase expensive dev kits to develop for it. There is no initial investment cost.
Well Valve tend to support a lot of indie developers with the ability to distribute through Steam, but since you actually have to purchase a PS3 developer kit to create anything - even just to have a tinker at home - it means there is a significant barrier to entry for hobbyist and indie devs. The Xbox is not like that.
It's more open than Windows (some source is open (darwin, webkit, clang, etc).
So because all you know is that some Apple sources are open and don't know anything about the Microsoft side that means OSX is more open? You haven't heard of.Net framework, CLI, WiX, etc...?
There is a difference between your opininion of privacy and the laws surrounding it.
If so then cite some of those laws.
It's regulated in law, not (your claim of what) common sense (ought to be).
Is it? I mean specifically the wifi aspect of it pertaining to broadcasting unencrypted information?
I don't *know* if Google violated the law, I'm just saying many arguments brought forward here as to why they didn't are simply not valid.
Of course, and I most certainly agree there. There will be a long judicial process to determine whether they have violated the law, but also I thought recently it was - in Germany too funnily enough - written into law that it is the obligation of the network owner to secure his/her wifi network. Naturally 2 wrongs don't make a right but claiming for privacy breach on those grounds would be admitting your own breach of the law.
"Private users are obligated to check whether their wireless connection is adequately secured to the danger of unauthorized third parties abusing it to commit copyright violation," the court said, according to the AP.
The courts, however, will not be holding users responsible for what happens over their wireless network. So, it seems that making a password mandatory is the sensible measure of legal responsibility to put on internet subscribers.
That is your personal advice and has NO bearing on the legality of it though.
It's common sense and it applies both in the virtual and real worlds, when communicating private data you use discretion and I don't see you providing any legal evidence. Bearing in mind im not saying it was right of google to record this data, but it's certainly wrong of people to claim a breach of privacy for data they publicy broadcast unencrypted.
That analogy just gets more retarded the more often it's repeated, since it completely misses the point.
Then what is your point? Someone was broadcasting data into the public space and another person recorded it. If it's private data then don't broadcast it publicly unencrypted, that's what encryption is for!
In this context they need to re-evaluate the idea of 'transmitting data over a network', in reality it is 'broadcasting the information publicly', and if you don't secure it then it's absolutely no different from going down the street and shouting out your credit card number and banking details, which of course is most certainly not an invasion of privacy if someone listens.
Wrong, that's your incorrect definition, not supported by anyone who knows what they are talking about or at all by the industry.
i mean assertion not definition, the assertion based on that definition is most certainly incorrect and not supported by anyone who knows what they are talking about at all because it is not running on different platforms, it's the same platform (hardware/OS), just implemented in software, still the same platform.
Yes, there are many people in the industry that do not understand the underling technology, as well as many that have a vested interest in 'enterprise speak', but anybody that knows what an emulator is, knows that Java is one. I have never changed my definition.
And you are one of them, you clearly are not getting it, so lets take another approach. Lets look at it from the level at which you are positioning your definition of a platform. This should hopefully make you understand, it would assume that the JVM is a platform in the sense of cross-platform. Of course that means that the standard JVM, Dalvik JVM,.Net CLR and Perl & Python runtimes are all platforms, all different. And of course you are aware that Java code can be compiled to standard JVM bytecode, Dalvik bytecode or native code for a specific platform (hardware/OS), of course it is, by your own definition, cross-platform code. Perl and Python can be compiled to JVM bytecode, MSIL or executed on their respective runtimes, again, cross-platform code.
Cross platform is always, and one hundred percent of the time software that will run on multiple platforms unchanged. How it accomplishes it is irrelevant.
Wrong, that's your incorrect definition, not supported by anyone who knows what they are talking about or at all by the industry.
A C64 binary can ONLY be run on the C64 platform, regardless of whether that is the physical hardware/OS or a software implementation of the platform (hardware/OS). The same as windows-specific software can only be run on the windows platform, even if it is a software implementation of that specific platform (hardware/OS) like in the case of a VM, it's still the windows platform.
Obviously not, since no-one in the industry agrees with you. Your definition of what is cross-platform changes depending on whether the native platform for the code can be emulated.
You are just trying to change the definition to something that boils down to "cross platform is whatever I decide is cross platform".
Wrong, im using the industry standard definition based on native machine code vs interpreted code.
You define one emulator (JVM) as cross platfrom
Wrong again, i never said the JVM was cross-platform. Obviously for example you cannot run the windows JVM on linux, or did you not know that? Again, your lack of knowledge regarding native vs interpreted code.
Native code will execute natively on the hardware/os for which it was compiled. Interpreted code will execute on any hardware/os for which there is a native interpreter.
You define some interpreted instruction sets (Python) as cross platform, while other interpreted instruction sets (6502) are not cross platform even when code written in it can be run across multiple platforms.
6502 is a machine language, not an interpreted language. Python is an interpreted language, not a machine language. Those are not my definitions, they are the correct industry definitions.
If you're so confident that you know the difference between native and interpreted code then give me your definition. It would seem that you don't consider anything to be native code.
As for Java isn't an emulator...Really? What do you think "byte code" is? it is machine language. Calling it "byte code" is just smoke and mirrors.
You seem to be under the misguided and misinformed impression that there is no difference between native machine code and interpreted code.
If that is the case, then Java as it was originally written and frequently implemented is not cross platform. Neither is any web development beyond ActiveX. You would also have to exclude Flash, Silverlight, Python, Perl, and a ton of other commonly accepted cross platform solutions.
Wrong again, you clearly don't understand the definition. Those languages are not tied to any platform by the definition of platform in the context of cross-platform, which is a specific Hardware/OS. Dumping a software version of that platform (hardware/OS) on top of another platform (hardware/OS) and running it's software does not make that software cross-platform. Again, the ignorant view that there is no difference between native machine code and interpreted code.
You still have not demonstrated how a locked door obviates the need for a search. That locked door is not going to keep a terrorist from blowing up a plane full of passengers and fuel right as it flies over a densely populated area.
And what's to stop a terrorist from blowing up a train full of passengers as it goes through a busy interchange under a densely populated city? He isn't saying it averts terrorism, he's saying why this focus on planes when trains or buses would be a MUCH easier and probably much more effective target.
The discussion is on the subject of getting code to run on multiple platforms. Splitting hairs between "Emulator", "Framework", "Markup Language with code engines" is just arguing symantics.
It's not semantics at all. Cross-platform software executes natively on the target platform as it is compiled from a generic source to platform-specific code - that of the target platform - at runtime. Software running in an emulator does not, it executes platform-specific code on a virtual implementation of the original Hardware/OS platform implemented in software.
There is one simple question that can let you know if something is cross platform: Can it run on multiple platforms?
If the answer is yes, then it is cross platform.
No, that is a simple, misinformed assumption. As i stated above there is a clear difference.
When Java was first introduced, Sun even claimed that they would be producing actual Java processors. When they discovered that the x86 could emulate a Java processor faster than any real Java chip Sun could produce, they changed their marketing tactic
Wrong again. Java was always designed, from the very beginning, to be a set of technologies for cross-platform development, abstraction layers created so that from a programming perspective the underlying Hardware/OS is irrelevant as it is compiled at runtime, hence the term 'write once, run anywhere' that they coined for the idea at the time. Later they announced the possibility of developing CPUs optimised to run java, but obviously bytecode cannot be executed in hardware, it has to be JIT-compiled at some point, even if that is in some sort of hardware-based compiler. The Java runtime is not emulating any kind of Hardware/OS.
There are literally dozens of truly cross platform development environments. C64, Atari 2600, NES, SNES, Genesis, Amiga, Atari ST. They may not have good network features built in, but as cross platform compatibility goes, they are WAY more compatibly than HTML will every be, and noticeably more compatible than Java.
You sure you're not just thinking of platforms that have emulators that run on other platforms? You certainly cannot just run a C64, NES, Genesis, etc... binary on any platform therefore making it definitely not cross-platform.
so because there is the ability to have buffer overflows and dereference null pointers that makes it inherently insecure? No, it means you can create an insecure implementation out of it. Just because threading concepts have the potential to create a deadlock doesn't mean the concepts are inherently buggy, just a bad implementation. Just because you can crash your car and die doesn't make the act of driving 'deadly', just a bad situation.
It's not to do with the language, concepts, etc...it's the implementation created by the user of those languages, concepts, etc...
Of course not, since you've physically damaged the hardware, which is obviously - unless of course you don't know what jailbreaking is - not the case with jailbreaking the iphone.
So I change the CPU or its programming. How about now?
In no way is jailbreaking damaging the hardware, so no, that analogy does not work. If you start physically modifying the phone then of course, but that's not what jailbreaking is yet that is what apple claims will void the warranty.
Slashdot Mirror
None of those are the kernel of the OS.
Since when is open-ness defined by whether the kernel is open sourced?
The MS Reference Source license is not an Open Source license (used for .net), and while the MS-CLI license and Common Public Licenses are (CLI and WiX respectively)
Open source != Open, particularly in the context of TFA where open is really related to accessibility to the platform.
Open relates to the entire platform, including hardware restrictions. In terms of OSX and Windows neither is really open and arguing about which is more open is religious anyway since it depends on how much value you place on the open-ness of specific components of the platform and whether that degree of open-ness fulfills your needs. They are both as locked-down and closed as eachother.
neither one is nearly as important a component.
That's just your opinion. I'd suggest most people developing for the .Net platform will get more value from viewing that source-code than digging into the kernel code. Of course YMMV.
So when this ships, iPad will be running iPhone OS v4.1
So when this ships, the iPad will be running iPhone OS v4.1.
- will there be a single feature that iPad doesn't have? (iPad already has cheap USB and SD card accessories and will likely have a video cam accessory by October)
- will there be a single feature that the iPad doesn't have? (the iPad already has cheap USB and SD card accessories and will likely have a video cam accessory by October)
- will all the PC enthusiasts who are still at this time ranting about how "useless" iPad is
- will all the PC enthusiasts who are still at this time ranting about how "useless" the iPad is
Apple worked on iPad for 7 years before releasing it
Apple worked on the iPad for 7 years before releasing it
I know people who bought iPad just for WebEx
I know people who bought an iPad just for WebEx
Even though I have an iPad and am really happy with it
ooh... you got it right there.
But they have a long way to go from generic DOS boxes to competing with iPad.
But they have a long way to go from generic DOS boxes to competing with the iPad.
Now, there isn't anything (at least to my knowledge) that prevents His Jobness to release an iPad pro (aka 'the MaxiPad') that lets you get out on a real USB ports, runs CUPS, runs Terminal, comes with a Pony, etc.
I'd say - and this is just a guess - that they would avoid this as it would likely step on the toes of the lowend macbooks.
XNA doesn't matter to developers like Valve, so the parent's point still stands.
It matters to Valve's customers, those that want to use Steam as a distribution mechanism, those indie and hobbyist developers.
The Xbox 360 is as closed as the PS3. The only reason they support it is that porting their games to it is very easy since it uses the same technologies as Windows.
And developers (big, small, indie or hobbyist - all of which are customers of Valve with regard to Steam) don't need to purchase expensive dev kits to develop for it. There is no initial investment cost.
Well Valve tend to support a lot of indie developers with the ability to distribute through Steam, but since you actually have to purchase a PS3 developer kit to create anything - even just to have a tinker at home - it means there is a significant barrier to entry for hobbyist and indie devs. The Xbox is not like that.
It's more open than Windows (some source is open (darwin, webkit, clang, etc).
So because all you know is that some Apple sources are open and don't know anything about the Microsoft side that means OSX is more open? You haven't heard of .Net framework, CLI, WiX, etc...?
There is a difference between your opininion of privacy and the laws surrounding it.
If so then cite some of those laws.
It's regulated in law, not (your claim of what) common sense (ought to be).
Is it? I mean specifically the wifi aspect of it pertaining to broadcasting unencrypted information?
I don't *know* if Google violated the law, I'm just saying many arguments brought forward here as to why they didn't are simply not valid.
Of course, and I most certainly agree there. There will be a long judicial process to determine whether they have violated the law, but also I thought recently it was - in Germany too funnily enough - written into law that it is the obligation of the network owner to secure his/her wifi network. Naturally 2 wrongs don't make a right but claiming for privacy breach on those grounds would be admitting your own breach of the law.
German Court Says Secure Your Wi-Fi or Get Fined
"Private users are obligated to check whether their wireless connection is adequately secured to the danger of unauthorized third parties abusing it to commit copyright violation," the court said, according to the AP.
The courts, however, will not be holding users responsible for what happens over their wireless network. So, it seems that making a password mandatory is the sensible measure of legal responsibility to put on internet subscribers.
There is no possible way that parent post deserves a troll mod, except in Windows-fanboi land.
Or when TFA has nothing whatsoever to do with Windows and is in fact a comparison of the Mac and the PS3.
Apple wants you to buy a Mac. Microsoft wants you to buy Windows.
Exactly! And both are quite happy for you to run Windows on a Mac.
That is your personal advice and has NO bearing on the legality of it though.
It's common sense and it applies both in the virtual and real worlds, when communicating private data you use discretion and I don't see you providing any legal evidence. Bearing in mind im not saying it was right of google to record this data, but it's certainly wrong of people to claim a breach of privacy for data they publicy broadcast unencrypted.
They weren't "listening", they recorded it.
So?
That analogy just gets more retarded the more often it's repeated, since it completely misses the point.
Then what is your point? Someone was broadcasting data into the public space and another person recorded it. If it's private data then don't broadcast it publicly unencrypted, that's what encryption is for!
It would be illegal to record and publish that shout.
Citation on the legality of the recording?
AFAIK they haven't published anything, am i wrong?
In this context they need to re-evaluate the idea of 'transmitting data over a network', in reality it is 'broadcasting the information publicly', and if you don't secure it then it's absolutely no different from going down the street and shouting out your credit card number and banking details, which of course is most certainly not an invasion of privacy if someone listens.
Wrong, that's your incorrect definition, not supported by anyone who knows what they are talking about or at all by the industry.
i mean assertion not definition, the assertion based on that definition is most certainly incorrect and not supported by anyone who knows what they are talking about at all because it is not running on different platforms, it's the same platform (hardware/OS), just implemented in software, still the same platform.
Yes, there are many people in the industry that do not understand the underling technology, as well as many that have a vested interest in 'enterprise speak', but anybody that knows what an emulator is, knows that Java is one. I have never changed my definition.
And you are one of them, you clearly are not getting it, so lets take another approach. Lets look at it from the level at which you are positioning your definition of a platform. This should hopefully make you understand, it would assume that the JVM is a platform in the sense of cross-platform. Of course that means that the standard JVM, Dalvik JVM, .Net CLR and Perl & Python runtimes are all platforms, all different. And of course you are aware that Java code can be compiled to standard JVM bytecode, Dalvik bytecode or native code for a specific platform (hardware/OS), of course it is, by your own definition, cross-platform code. Perl and Python can be compiled to JVM bytecode, MSIL or executed on their respective runtimes, again, cross-platform code.
Cross platform is always, and one hundred percent of the time software that will run on multiple platforms unchanged. How it accomplishes it is irrelevant.
Wrong, that's your incorrect definition, not supported by anyone who knows what they are talking about or at all by the industry.
A C64 binary can ONLY be run on the C64 platform, regardless of whether that is the physical hardware/OS or a software implementation of the platform (hardware/OS). The same as windows-specific software can only be run on the windows platform, even if it is a software implementation of that specific platform (hardware/OS) like in the case of a VM, it's still the windows platform.
I understand the definition just fine.
Obviously not, since no-one in the industry agrees with you. Your definition of what is cross-platform changes depending on whether the native platform for the code can be emulated.
You are just trying to change the definition to something that boils down to "cross platform is whatever I decide is cross platform".
Wrong, im using the industry standard definition based on native machine code vs interpreted code.
You define one emulator (JVM) as cross platfrom
Wrong again, i never said the JVM was cross-platform. Obviously for example you cannot run the windows JVM on linux, or did you not know that? Again, your lack of knowledge regarding native vs interpreted code.
Native code will execute natively on the hardware/os for which it was compiled. Interpreted code will execute on any hardware/os for which there is a native interpreter.
You define some interpreted instruction sets (Python) as cross platform, while other interpreted instruction sets (6502) are not cross platform even when code written in it can be run across multiple platforms.
6502 is a machine language, not an interpreted language. Python is an interpreted language, not a machine language. Those are not my definitions, they are the correct industry definitions.
If you're so confident that you know the difference between native and interpreted code then give me your definition. It would seem that you don't consider anything to be native code.
As for Java isn't an emulator...Really? What do you think "byte code" is? it is machine language. Calling it "byte code" is just smoke and mirrors.
You seem to be under the misguided and misinformed impression that there is no difference between native machine code and interpreted code.
If that is the case, then Java as it was originally written and frequently implemented is not cross platform. Neither is any web development beyond ActiveX. You would also have to exclude Flash, Silverlight, Python, Perl, and a ton of other commonly accepted cross platform solutions.
Wrong again, you clearly don't understand the definition. Those languages are not tied to any platform by the definition of platform in the context of cross-platform, which is a specific Hardware/OS. Dumping a software version of that platform (hardware/OS) on top of another platform (hardware/OS) and running it's software does not make that software cross-platform. Again, the ignorant view that there is no difference between native machine code and interpreted code.
You still have not demonstrated how a locked door obviates the need for a search. That locked door is not going to keep a terrorist from blowing up a plane full of passengers and fuel right as it flies over a densely populated area.
And what's to stop a terrorist from blowing up a train full of passengers as it goes through a busy interchange under a densely populated city? He isn't saying it averts terrorism, he's saying why this focus on planes when trains or buses would be a MUCH easier and probably much more effective target.
Your argument seems based on the idea that mindless zombies exist only because of religion. This is patently false.
Because there's no such thing as zombies?
The discussion is on the subject of getting code to run on multiple platforms. Splitting hairs between "Emulator", "Framework", "Markup Language with code engines" is just arguing symantics.
It's not semantics at all. Cross-platform software executes natively on the target platform as it is compiled from a generic source to platform-specific code - that of the target platform - at runtime. Software running in an emulator does not, it executes platform-specific code on a virtual implementation of the original Hardware/OS platform implemented in software.
There is one simple question that can let you know if something is cross platform: Can it run on multiple platforms? If the answer is yes, then it is cross platform.
No, that is a simple, misinformed assumption. As i stated above there is a clear difference.
When Java was first introduced, Sun even claimed that they would be producing actual Java processors. When they discovered that the x86 could emulate a Java processor faster than any real Java chip Sun could produce, they changed their marketing tactic
Wrong again. Java was always designed, from the very beginning, to be a set of technologies for cross-platform development, abstraction layers created so that from a programming perspective the underlying Hardware/OS is irrelevant as it is compiled at runtime, hence the term 'write once, run anywhere' that they coined for the idea at the time. Later they announced the possibility of developing CPUs optimised to run java, but obviously bytecode cannot be executed in hardware, it has to be JIT-compiled at some point, even if that is in some sort of hardware-based compiler. The Java runtime is not emulating any kind of Hardware/OS.
There are literally dozens of truly cross platform development environments. C64, Atari 2600, NES, SNES, Genesis, Amiga, Atari ST. They may not have good network features built in, but as cross platform compatibility goes, they are WAY more compatibly than HTML will every be, and noticeably more compatible than Java.
You sure you're not just thinking of platforms that have emulators that run on other platforms? You certainly cannot just run a C64, NES, Genesis, etc... binary on any platform therefore making it definitely not cross-platform.
For all the idiots saying 'HTTP != HTML' ... HTTP is useless without HTML. If you don't even know that...
But the converse is not true.
How come no one flips out over the next Windows Mobile phone not having flash? *shrugs*
I guess the obvious to most people isn't obvious to you, Microsoft isn't actively banning flash or any binaries created with flash.
so because there is the ability to have buffer overflows and dereference null pointers that makes it inherently insecure? No, it means you can create an insecure implementation out of it. Just because threading concepts have the potential to create a deadlock doesn't mean the concepts are inherently buggy, just a bad implementation. Just because you can crash your car and die doesn't make the act of driving 'deadly', just a bad situation.
It's not to do with the language, concepts, etc...it's the implementation created by the user of those languages, concepts, etc...
Of course not, since you've physically damaged the hardware, which is obviously - unless of course you don't know what jailbreaking is - not the case with jailbreaking the iphone.
So I change the CPU or its programming. How about now?
In no way is jailbreaking damaging the hardware, so no, that analogy does not work. If you start physically modifying the phone then of course, but that's not what jailbreaking is yet that is what apple claims will void the warranty.