* The QuickTake 100 was in no way limited to just 8 photos (that was the limit at maximum resolution).
So it WAS, in some way, limited to 8 photos. That way is if you used max resolution, and who wouldn't want to be doing that.
But yes i agree when it moved to expandable memory that point isn't valid.
it's 'way better than a laptop, way better than a smartphone' and so that's that! You know there are people who cry tears of joy when steve jobs walks on stage and will believe whatever he says, there are so many of these people now that the ipad will be profitable no matter what it can and cannot do. These are the same people that refer will say 'im going to use ipad' as opposed to 'the ipad', 'my ipad' or 'an ipad'.
and it turns out all along it's actually just about satisfying your own needs and screw everyone else?
Well its about everyone satisfying your own needs and contributing these back to the community. So if no-one with the ability to develop a solution that satisfies your needs has done so you are in a tight spot.
It gives the 'freedom' to do whatever you want, but you still need someone to actually 'do' it.
I wouldn't say either is overall 'superior'.
Proprietary software developers are more likely to have a vested interest in developing accessible software and someone is accountable. The free software way is that if you need it you either pay someone to do it or have to learn how and find time to do it yourself, if you can't do either then bad luck you don't get access and there is also not always someone accountable for non-compliance with ADA/DDA.
Perhaps a better comparison would be "Yeah, let's stop paying for public education. If you can't afford to pay for school, you deserve what you get." Which I agree with.
Hence the 'posted by Anonymous Coward'. Don't feed the troll.
Oracle, who have deliberately lessened the abilities of their own products (from a reasonably solid database system 10 years ago to a steaming turd now) in order to sell more licenses to do the same amount of work will continue to cut anything that is not immediately profitable.
Sounds like a necessity if you plan on turning around a company that has been severely hemmorhaging cash.
Why let a company like apple dictate what you can and cannot do? Flash is getting beaten down for it's hunger for resources and it's many other flaws but while it remains popular and widely used - particularly in sites that aren't likely to be converted - i would like to be able to access content served through it.
No, exceptions are used for exceptional circumstances only, why? because they are quite heavyweight, if you can avoid stack unwinding (and in most predictable error cases you can) then you should, this even more important in the case of a mobile OS running on limited hardware and should be blindingly obvious to anyone who has worked with such hardware. This is precisely the reason why you couldn't use c++ exceptions in symbian. Efficiency was the main goal for symbian when it was conceived and it was achieved by trimming the more heavyweight constructs in favour of more performant - but more complex - methods.
Of course the more newbie programmers are going to say it's horrible to work with, and by today's standards that is probably true, but back when it was conceived you did whatever possible to squeeze the last drop of performance out of your platform whichever that might have been, this was almost always at the cost of ease of use for the developer.
In Symbian when a error is signaled with a leave (‘throw an exception’) no objects are deallocated. They just leak, if you don't manually record each object allocated to be cleaned up. This process is extremely tedious, error prone and boring. The result is that it's very hard and time consuming to make correct programs in Symbian, on the verge to be impossible in many cases.
I have to take issue with the credibility of the writer here. He is apparently an experienced c++ programmer however he believes that without the standard c++ exception implementation it can be almost impossible to write 'correct' programs, well exceptions are - and the clue is in the name - meant for 'exceptional circumstances' only, not for standard error handling, so anyone who can't write a 'correct' program without relying on the use of exceptions is not doing it right, in the general course of a program running, exceptions should NOT occur. That said, nokia's implementation is not ideal, but further to that point they probably had little choice given the early adoption of such a young language.
That's very true, but really it's only going to really make a difference on screens smaller than ~800px width anyway since few website designers of old would have considered their site being displayed on smaller screens in the future. And ideally we go to a higher resolution (DPI) with phones anyway (as it is with the N900 and Nexus One) so that problem effectively goes away.
Well, we know what Steve Jobs said about Google's "Don't Be Evil" mantra--"It's bullshit." Or, "a load of crap," depending on your source.
Is that actually based on anything though?
You have to remember that 'evil' is a point of view and when a company gets that large and that diversified obviously they are eventually going to step on the toes of someone who has a different interpretation of what is 'evil'.
Make a case for kernel support of the "new lock" and "security model" independent of Android's reliance on it, and remove as many of the Android drivers using these facilities OUT of the main tree.
That's exactly right, we can't just be having code merged into the kernel mainline because a 'big business' depends on it. The answer to the question on it's presence there should be determined on the merit of the code itself, not the weight of the company proposing it.
Um sorry but how do you figure this? If Verisign is issuing certs that can be trusted without verification then they are the problem. Don't use Verisign any more.
It's not without verification, there are different levels of verisign certificates and Apple sees no problem with accepting the lowest and least-trustworthy certificate.
The "attack" in TFA doesn't mention anything necessarily specific to the iPhone.
Yes it does:
The iPhone by default will trust configuration files that it receives over the air or while connected to a PC, as long as the file is signed by a trusted implementation of the iPhone Configuration Utility, a desktop application used to create config files for iPhones. However, the iPhone also will accept a file that is signed by a signature-only certificate
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, Apple's had some really bad products over time - but what do you expect from a company that big which survived that long?
What's your point? That there can't be an article on their bad products because obviously they are going to have some bad products?
I love Imac.
What is with the obsession of Apple and it's fanboys saying things like that.
'You can turn iPad any way you want'
'You can turn iPads any way you want'
'You can turn the iPad any way you want'
'Look at what you can do with iPhone'
'Look at what you can do with iPhones'
'Look at what you can do with the iPhone'
'I love iMac'
'I love iMacs'
'I love the iMac'
I'm not an apple-hater but gees wtf is with that?
* The QuickTake 100 was in no way limited to just 8 photos (that was the limit at maximum resolution).
So it WAS, in some way, limited to 8 photos. That way is if you used max resolution, and who wouldn't want to be doing that. But yes i agree when it moved to expandable memory that point isn't valid.
If software doesn't do what the government needs, they hire local programmers.
No, they put it out to tender and most often take the cheapest bid, which comes from a consulting company that outsources to india.
it's 'way better than a laptop, way better than a smartphone' and so that's that! You know there are people who cry tears of joy when steve jobs walks on stage and will believe whatever he says, there are so many of these people now that the ipad will be profitable no matter what it can and cannot do. These are the same people that refer will say 'im going to use ipad' as opposed to 'the ipad', 'my ipad' or 'an ipad'.
and it turns out all along it's actually just about satisfying your own needs and screw everyone else?
Well its about everyone satisfying your own needs and contributing these back to the community. So if no-one with the ability to develop a solution that satisfies your needs has done so you are in a tight spot. It gives the 'freedom' to do whatever you want, but you still need someone to actually 'do' it.
I wouldn't say either is overall 'superior'. Proprietary software developers are more likely to have a vested interest in developing accessible software and someone is accountable. The free software way is that if you need it you either pay someone to do it or have to learn how and find time to do it yourself, if you can't do either then bad luck you don't get access and there is also not always someone accountable for non-compliance with ADA/DDA.
It should say: Oracle breaks their commitment to accessibility, that they inherited when they acquired sun.
The commitment was made by Sun, Oracle is dropping the commitment made by Sun - or 'Sun's Commitment'.
>
Perhaps a better comparison would be "Yeah, let's stop paying for public education. If you can't afford to pay for school, you deserve what you get." Which I agree with.
Hence the 'posted by Anonymous Coward'. Don't feed the troll.
Oracle, who have deliberately lessened the abilities of their own products (from a reasonably solid database system 10 years ago to a steaming turd now) in order to sell more licenses to do the same amount of work will continue to cut anything that is not immediately profitable.
Sounds like a necessity if you plan on turning around a company that has been severely hemmorhaging cash.
In general, you're right. You want a feature in OSS, and no one is doing it? Do it yourself.
And if you can't do it yourself and can't afford to pay someone to do it for you then bad luck, that's the free software way! Yay freedom!
Why support bad standards?
Why let a company like apple dictate what you can and cannot do? Flash is getting beaten down for it's hunger for resources and it's many other flaws but while it remains popular and widely used - particularly in sites that aren't likely to be converted - i would like to be able to access content served through it.
No, exceptions are used for exceptional circumstances only, why? because they are quite heavyweight, if you can avoid stack unwinding (and in most predictable error cases you can) then you should, this even more important in the case of a mobile OS running on limited hardware and should be blindingly obvious to anyone who has worked with such hardware. This is precisely the reason why you couldn't use c++ exceptions in symbian. Efficiency was the main goal for symbian when it was conceived and it was achieved by trimming the more heavyweight constructs in favour of more performant - but more complex - methods.
Of course the more newbie programmers are going to say it's horrible to work with, and by today's standards that is probably true, but back when it was conceived you did whatever possible to squeeze the last drop of performance out of your platform whichever that might have been, this was almost always at the cost of ease of use for the developer.
The iPhone form factor is clearly where all phones are going because the screen supports the Web.
Or the LG PRADA form-factor, since they were before the iPhone.
Symbian must be one of the worst designed OSs in existance
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/6856C375-FE4E-4BC8-B753-B48AF3BD8B30.html
In Symbian when a error is signaled with a leave (‘throw an exception’) no objects are deallocated. They just leak, if you don't manually record each object allocated to be cleaned up. This process is extremely tedious, error prone and boring. The result is that it's very hard and time consuming to make correct programs in Symbian, on the verge to be impossible in many cases.
I have to take issue with the credibility of the writer here. He is apparently an experienced c++ programmer however he believes that without the standard c++ exception implementation it can be almost impossible to write 'correct' programs, well exceptions are - and the clue is in the name - meant for 'exceptional circumstances' only, not for standard error handling, so anyone who can't write a 'correct' program without relying on the use of exceptions is not doing it right, in the general course of a program running, exceptions should NOT occur. That said, nokia's implementation is not ideal, but further to that point they probably had little choice given the early adoption of such a young language.
That's very true, but really it's only going to really make a difference on screens smaller than ~800px width anyway since few website designers of old would have considered their site being displayed on smaller screens in the future. And ideally we go to a higher resolution (DPI) with phones anyway (as it is with the N900 and Nexus One) so that problem effectively goes away.
What are the design attributes of these websites that are 'designed by idiots' that cause the issues?
VHS vs Beta, MS vs Mac, Guitar Hero vs Rock Band, iPhone vs Andriod
But pick the ones out of your list that can both co-exist in healthy competition. Obviously MS and Apple can, as can the iPhone and Android handsets.
Well, we know what Steve Jobs said about Google's "Don't Be Evil" mantra--"It's bullshit." Or, "a load of crap," depending on your source.
Is that actually based on anything though? You have to remember that 'evil' is a point of view and when a company gets that large and that diversified obviously they are eventually going to step on the toes of someone who has a different interpretation of what is 'evil'.
Make a case for kernel support of the "new lock" and "security model" independent of Android's reliance on it, and remove as many of the Android drivers using these facilities OUT of the main tree.
That's exactly right, we can't just be having code merged into the kernel mainline because a 'big business' depends on it. The answer to the question on it's presence there should be determined on the merit of the code itself, not the weight of the company proposing it.
Um sorry but how do you figure this? If Verisign is issuing certs that can be trusted without verification then they are the problem. Don't use Verisign any more.
It's not without verification, there are different levels of verisign certificates and Apple sees no problem with accepting the lowest and least-trustworthy certificate.
It's an OTA configuration file
Of course this does all rely on the user being stupid enough to trust the certificate and install the new config file just to get that far.
So do a hell of a lot of viruses, trojans and malware, and they all perpetuate even without the added assurance of a trusted certificate.
The "attack" in TFA doesn't mention anything necessarily specific to the iPhone.
Yes it does:
The iPhone by default will trust configuration files that it receives over the air or while connected to a PC, as long as the file is signed by a trusted implementation of the iPhone Configuration Utility, a desktop application used to create config files for iPhones. However, the iPhone also will accept a file that is signed by a signature-only certificate
i should have worded that differently...rather goes to a website and opens a link.