Yes, the F150 is popular. Yes, the iPad is popular. But the analogy ends there.
Kind of, but he's right: They are the most common, defacto choice because they are a good workhorse tool for the job. The Android world is full of choice - which can be a good thing - but if you aren't really fussed with that then you just get whatever everybody else has, which is an iPhone - it might be boring to do that but in that circumstance it's the logical thing to do...that's certainly what I did.
But at the same time.. Fuck stupid fucking idiots who think flying their remote controlled aircraft into the flight paths of airliners, helicopters, whatever for the goddamned lulz.
This is why these laws happen, morons who can't grasp the concept that just because you have a drone that can fly anywhere doesn't mean you have the right to fly that drone anywhere, they actually need to be told that.
This was a line used when they wanted to eliminate Java, the proprietary product competitor of their competitor Sun back around 1995 and it didn't work so what exactly have they "Embraced, Extended and Extinguished"?
the one that pissed me off and affected me more directly was what they did with MechWarrior
Which wasn't "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" in any way, it was the well-known practice of platform exclusive games, nothing new there.
Thinking it applies to platform exclusive games means you don't know the meaning of the term:
"Embrace, extend, and extinguish", also known as "Embrace, extend, and exterminate", is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice found and was used internally by Microsoft to describe its strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors. Wikipedia
I'm not sure why you think it's a "booby-trap", it's not as though this is patent litigation, at worst it would be an issue of promissory estoppel so what exactly is the "booby-trap"?
in writing, sign away their IP portfolio pertaining to mono
They have already released it under the community promise, it's a legally binding document written in no uncertain terms. Beyond that how exactly do you expect it to be written? Is it that you don't understand the legally binding nature of the way it has already been written?
Consumers don't care about the 4 freedoms and there...
I pretty much agree with what you're saying but I think with regard to RMS' vision this is the part that won't be achieved, he thinks they should care about the 4 freedoms and that they should not use SaaS or other "cloud services" and that they should insist on running only free programs on their computers.
I agree his work has been hugely successful, just not in the way he originally intended it to be. I also think that's a good thing.
It's just modern jewelry. And when you're buying a status symbol, as long as it's distinctive it's worth what you paid for it.
It's not though, it's just a good tool for getting a job done and it has about the same "status symbol" status as buying a Ford F150, the iPhone is the most common smartphone in the world, it really couldn't be less exclusive. They sold something like 10 million of the things in the first weekend and people buying a Galaxy or a HTC One or G4 aren't buy those because they can't afford an iPhone it's because they don't want an iPhone.
an iPhone says "marvel at my disposable income and middle-class buying habits".
Yep that's certainly what I think when I see all those kids, part-time McDonald's workers with iPhones. It's just a phone, if you think having it says something about you then you're an idiot - though I don't doubt the existence of a significant number of idiots - I have one because it does what I want, if it ceases to do that or if Android (or hell, even Windows Phone) comes along and does what I need significantly better then there's no reason I wouldn't switch to that.
By this time (w/ MS deliberately contributing to Mono no less) estoppel should quash any patent claims.
it's a good thing proving that in court is inexpensive and that they have a moral integrity to not use their vast army of lawyers to just bleed you until you cannot afford to defend yourself.
oh wait.
This is exactly the sort of thing that the EFF would be all over, moreover it wouldn't even be an issue of the validity of patents - which often results in drawn-out litigation - but of the legal principle of promissory estoppel.
If you're worried about being sued by a company over patent claims of merit-less basis just because they have more money than you then why are you using any technology at all? If you were genuinely worried about this issue you wouldn't be in the industry at all because anybody with more money than you can just say they have a patent on what you've created and bleed you dry in court.
Yep I would agree with that. I saw mobile as an opportunity to really create that free software ideal that RMS has been pontificating about for the past 30 years where it is the end user that gets those 4 freedoms. Ultimately FOSS has succeeded more in Torvalds' interpretation where the freedom is more on the developer side where so long as they contribute code back they can lock down the user product - ala Tivoization - as much as they want. The latter has been immensely successful where the former has failed pretty much everywhere.
Windows driver updates are provided by HP, Dell, Asus, or whoever built the machine.
You can get driver updates through Windows update where the manufacturer provides them to Microsoft who runs them through their WHQL certification process and can then deliver them to the user. Or directly from the manufacturer themselves.
On Android most drivers are proprietary and the lack of a stable ABI and driver model in Android means that you need a specific driver for your hardware for the particular version of Android that you are running - this is somewhat true of Windows too but the ABI and driver model are stable and standard for a lot longer, even many (not all) Windows 7 drivers will work on Windows 10.
Now why can't these Android hardware manufacturers provide a compile-able kernel module for their binary drivers like for example the way nVidia does it on Linux? I'm not sure, perhaps there's some other technical hurdles or underlying changes that this can't address?
How about recognizing that if a product isn't perfect, that criticism is valid?
It is, but his/her criticism is not that the product isn't good at being what it is designed to be, it's that what it is designed to be isn't suitable for him/her. If you're a casual gamer with 2-3 hours a week to play games and a 30 button controller isn't suitable for you then clearly this product is not for you, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it.
It cannot be the ultimate PC game controller, because it does not have bluetooth support. Modern bluetooth has a low-latency mode which is totally suitable for game controllers, but Microsoft not only didn't use it, this is the second proprietary protocol they've used.
Who cares? It's the protocol that encodes your button presses between the controller and the receiver and it's not exactly that difficult to figure out, there's even Linux support for it. What's the actual problem you've got here that you can't solve?
The whole system is just a big "fuck you" to the players
Yes a $10 receiver is such a big "fuck you", look at everybody up in arms about it!
I'm with you in your griping about people thinking that every product is a failure if it isn't intended for them, but at the same time, you have to wonder just who this product is intended for. Those paddles on the back? They weren't there when the system launched. What's their purpose? What games support them or ever will support them?
This is targeted more at Windows gaming than XBox gaming, hence the programmable buttons. XBox is a brand rather than just a console.
All the major platforms have native 3D APIs, but - like iOS's - these are just drawing APIs. There's a lot more to game engines (Unity, UE and the like) than just drawing. OpenGL, Metal, Direct3D are not comparable to Unity, UE, etc...
And you have it, you're free to use Android if you wish.
I'm sure if I was locked up in a walled compound all day that my chances of being hit by a bus would be greatly diminished. It does not mean that I should be denied to leave my compound if I so wish, even if it's generally a nice place.
You're not locked up, it's a smartphone operating system not fucking North Korea. But to entertain your analogy if you want to go on a holiday to your secure compound, free to return home whenever you wish then by all means do that. And if you prefer to make that secure compound your home and instead holiday in the less secure environment you can do that too.
Should we take away everyone else's freedom for that?
That's an overly dramatic and incorrect assertion, nobody is taking away anything.
No, you have that backwards: Fandroids don't understand that writing software is an occupation that sometimes merits compensation.
I wouldn't say that is all (or even the majority) of Android users but somewhat along your line of thinking if Free Software is so innovative and is also free of charge (by virtue of having no restrictions on distribution) and free of advertising (since it is free software one can just remove the advertising) then why is it not more popular and better?
Given the FOSS mantra I would have thought Android would be the perfect opportunity for Free Software to really shine and out-innovate the proprietary competition. The FOSS ideology has certainly been given every opportunity and advantage yet even with the encumbrances of payment and/or advertising we still see proprietary applications winning out.
why also add and X86 vm for the 1st xbox games as well? X86 VM + redirecting video calls should work.
Well one reason is you would have to include the original XBox OS with drivers for the newer hardware - or a virtualized device for the hardware - but also the original XBox had a fixed function graphics pipeline which the 360 and One have done away with so that would need to be emulated too. It could be done but it's probably not really worth the effort.
Hrm...looks like it is a form of emulation after all and the executable you have to download is a patch to the original game to make it work in the emulation layer, presumably it isn't a full emulation of the 360 console otherwise downloading the game wouldn't be necessary as it should just run.
Given that the Xbox One is AMD based and Xbox 360 was PowerPC, it has to be a 'software-based solution' - either a PowerPC emulation layer, or a PowerPC VM. Either of which would slow things down, given the resources that the emulation would require.
No, based on the article it seems it isn't emulation or a VM otherwise all games would just work without MS having to do anything except install the emulation/VM.
"Moving forward, it apparently is a matter of developers simply saying "yes" to backwards compatibility - Microsoft will do the heavy lifting and make sure the game's properly playable on the new hardware."
Given that the developer just has to say "yes" (presumably that means providing MS with the source code if they don't have it already) and what you download is a new executable for the game with the game content on the disc it seems pretty clear this isn't emulation or a VM and is just recompiling the game binaries for the new architecture.
surface pro 3 is not a tablet. it's a pc. And it's worthless without it's keyboard, everyone that owns one knows this.
Well that depends on what you're trying to do, if I'm web browsing or using the stylus I generally won't have the keyboard attached, but then I can always attach the keyboard and use AutoCAD or play Team Fortress. I don't have to switch devices just because I switched use cases.
And I'll put this here because, based on some of the comments this is clearly an emotional topic for some people so: No I'm not suggesting this is a common case or a use case that everybody should have or that ipads are bad or that the surface is great. It is a well-built laptop/tablet hybrid with a stylus and touchscreen, if you dont need those things (yes the cost includes those regardless of whether you use them or not) or you want to run iOS apps then you should probably look elsewhere.
I don't know if I'd call it "grossly" overcharging if the SP3 is >40% more for a 25% performance boost
That's a gross oversimplification though, the SP3 can run Windows, Linux and OSX and all the applications that exist for those platforms. The iPad can only run iOS and therefore only run iOS applications. Now maybe the latter is all you need, in which case you probably go for the iPad.
Some people here seem to be extrapolating beyond what has actually been presented and are then getting offended by the conclusion they have drawn, it is purely a performance comparison, there are many other factors that come in to deciding what tablet is best for a particular person or use case, this is just one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the F150 is popular. Yes, the iPad is popular. But the analogy ends there.
Kind of, but he's right: They are the most common, defacto choice because they are a good workhorse tool for the job. The Android world is full of choice - which can be a good thing - but if you aren't really fussed with that then you just get whatever everybody else has, which is an iPhone - it might be boring to do that but in that circumstance it's the logical thing to do...that's certainly what I did.
But at the same time.. Fuck stupid fucking idiots who think flying their remote controlled aircraft into the flight paths of airliners, helicopters, whatever for the goddamned lulz.
This is why these laws happen, morons who can't grasp the concept that just because you have a drone that can fly anywhere doesn't mean you have the right to fly that drone anywhere, they actually need to be told that.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, anyone?
This was a line used when they wanted to eliminate Java, the proprietary product competitor of their competitor Sun back around 1995 and it didn't work so what exactly have they "Embraced, Extended and Extinguished"?
the one that pissed me off and affected me more directly was what they did with MechWarrior
Which wasn't "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" in any way, it was the well-known practice of platform exclusive games, nothing new there.
Thinking it applies to platform exclusive games means you don't know the meaning of the term:
"Embrace, extend, and extinguish", also known as "Embrace, extend, and exterminate", is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice found and was used internally by Microsoft to describe its strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors.
Wikipedia
in writing, sign away their IP portfolio pertaining to mono
They have already released it under the community promise, it's a legally binding document written in no uncertain terms. Beyond that how exactly do you expect it to be written? Is it that you don't understand the legally binding nature of the way it has already been written?
Consumers don't care about the 4 freedoms and there ...
I pretty much agree with what you're saying but I think with regard to RMS' vision this is the part that won't be achieved, he thinks they should care about the 4 freedoms and that they should not use SaaS or other "cloud services" and that they should insist on running only free programs on their computers.
I agree his work has been hugely successful, just not in the way he originally intended it to be. I also think that's a good thing.
It's just modern jewelry. And when you're buying a status symbol, as long as it's distinctive it's worth what you paid for it.
It's not though, it's just a good tool for getting a job done and it has about the same "status symbol" status as buying a Ford F150, the iPhone is the most common smartphone in the world, it really couldn't be less exclusive. They sold something like 10 million of the things in the first weekend and people buying a Galaxy or a HTC One or G4 aren't buy those because they can't afford an iPhone it's because they don't want an iPhone.
an iPhone says "marvel at my disposable income and middle-class buying habits".
Yep that's certainly what I think when I see all those kids, part-time McDonald's workers with iPhones. It's just a phone, if you think having it says something about you then you're an idiot - though I don't doubt the existence of a significant number of idiots - I have one because it does what I want, if it ceases to do that or if Android (or hell, even Windows Phone) comes along and does what I need significantly better then there's no reason I wouldn't switch to that.
Yeah ok then.
By this time (w/ MS deliberately contributing to Mono no less) estoppel should quash any patent claims.
it's a good thing proving that in court is inexpensive and that they have a moral integrity to not use their vast army of lawyers to just bleed you until you cannot afford to defend yourself.
oh wait.
This is exactly the sort of thing that the EFF would be all over, moreover it wouldn't even be an issue of the validity of patents - which often results in drawn-out litigation - but of the legal principle of promissory estoppel.
If you're worried about being sued by a company over patent claims of merit-less basis just because they have more money than you then why are you using any technology at all? If you were genuinely worried about this issue you wouldn't be in the industry at all because anybody with more money than you can just say they have a patent on what you've created and bleed you dry in court.
Yep I would agree with that. I saw mobile as an opportunity to really create that free software ideal that RMS has been pontificating about for the past 30 years where it is the end user that gets those 4 freedoms. Ultimately FOSS has succeeded more in Torvalds' interpretation where the freedom is more on the developer side where so long as they contribute code back they can lock down the user product - ala Tivoization - as much as they want. The latter has been immensely successful where the former has failed pretty much everywhere.
Windows driver updates are provided by HP, Dell, Asus, or whoever built the machine.
You can get driver updates through Windows update where the manufacturer provides them to Microsoft who runs them through their WHQL certification process and can then deliver them to the user. Or directly from the manufacturer themselves.
On Android most drivers are proprietary and the lack of a stable ABI and driver model in Android means that you need a specific driver for your hardware for the particular version of Android that you are running - this is somewhat true of Windows too but the ABI and driver model are stable and standard for a lot longer, even many (not all) Windows 7 drivers will work on Windows 10.
Now why can't these Android hardware manufacturers provide a compile-able kernel module for their binary drivers like for example the way nVidia does it on Linux? I'm not sure, perhaps there's some other technical hurdles or underlying changes that this can't address?
How about recognizing that if a product isn't perfect, that criticism is valid?
It is, but his/her criticism is not that the product isn't good at being what it is designed to be, it's that what it is designed to be isn't suitable for him/her. If you're a casual gamer with 2-3 hours a week to play games and a 30 button controller isn't suitable for you then clearly this product is not for you, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it.
It cannot be the ultimate PC game controller, because it does not have bluetooth support. Modern bluetooth has a low-latency mode which is totally suitable for game controllers, but Microsoft not only didn't use it, this is the second proprietary protocol they've used.
Who cares? It's the protocol that encodes your button presses between the controller and the receiver and it's not exactly that difficult to figure out, there's even Linux support for it. What's the actual problem you've got here that you can't solve?
The whole system is just a big "fuck you" to the players
Yes a $10 receiver is such a big "fuck you", look at everybody up in arms about it!
I'm with you in your griping about people thinking that every product is a failure if it isn't intended for them, but at the same time, you have to wonder just who this product is intended for. Those paddles on the back? They weren't there when the system launched. What's their purpose? What games support them or ever will support them?
This is targeted more at Windows gaming than XBox gaming, hence the programmable buttons. XBox is a brand rather than just a console.
I meant more the ideology - as in the 4 freedoms - FOSS bits are certainly being used to create a lot of non-free systems and services.
Not really, because iOS has native 3D APIs.
All the major platforms have native 3D APIs, but - like iOS's - these are just drawing APIs. There's a lot more to game engines (Unity, UE and the like) than just drawing. OpenGL, Metal, Direct3D are not comparable to Unity, UE, etc...
Yes because freedom is a good thing.
And you have it, you're free to use Android if you wish.
I'm sure if I was locked up in a walled compound all day that my chances of being hit by a bus would be greatly diminished. It does not mean that I should be denied to leave my compound if I so wish, even if it's generally a nice place.
You're not locked up, it's a smartphone operating system not fucking North Korea. But to entertain your analogy if you want to go on a holiday to your secure compound, free to return home whenever you wish then by all means do that. And if you prefer to make that secure compound your home and instead holiday in the less secure environment you can do that too.
Should we take away everyone else's freedom for that?
That's an overly dramatic and incorrect assertion, nobody is taking away anything.
No, you have that backwards: Fandroids don't understand that writing software is an occupation that sometimes merits compensation.
I wouldn't say that is all (or even the majority) of Android users but somewhat along your line of thinking if Free Software is so innovative and is also free of charge (by virtue of having no restrictions on distribution) and free of advertising (since it is free software one can just remove the advertising) then why is it not more popular and better?
Given the FOSS mantra I would have thought Android would be the perfect opportunity for Free Software to really shine and out-innovate the proprietary competition. The FOSS ideology has certainly been given every opportunity and advantage yet even with the encumbrances of payment and/or advertising we still see proprietary applications winning out.
why also add and X86 vm for the 1st xbox games as well? X86 VM + redirecting video calls should work.
Well one reason is you would have to include the original XBox OS with drivers for the newer hardware - or a virtualized device for the hardware - but also the original XBox had a fixed function graphics pipeline which the 360 and One have done away with so that would need to be emulated too. It could be done but it's probably not really worth the effort.
Hrm...looks like it is a form of emulation after all and the executable you have to download is a patch to the original game to make it work in the emulation layer, presumably it isn't a full emulation of the 360 console otherwise downloading the game wouldn't be necessary as it should just run.
Given that the Xbox One is AMD based and Xbox 360 was PowerPC, it has to be a 'software-based solution' - either a PowerPC emulation layer, or a PowerPC VM. Either of which would slow things down, given the resources that the emulation would require.
No, based on the article it seems it isn't emulation or a VM otherwise all games would just work without MS having to do anything except install the emulation/VM.
"Moving forward, it apparently is a matter of developers simply saying "yes" to backwards compatibility - Microsoft will do the heavy lifting and make sure the game's properly playable on the new hardware."
Given that the developer just has to say "yes" (presumably that means providing MS with the source code if they don't have it already) and what you download is a new executable for the game with the game content on the disc it seems pretty clear this isn't emulation or a VM and is just recompiling the game binaries for the new architecture.
Great - now you don't want them to use any graphics acceleration.
Wrong. Where did you get that idea from?
surface pro 3 is not a tablet. it's a pc. And it's worthless without it's keyboard, everyone that owns one knows this.
Well that depends on what you're trying to do, if I'm web browsing or using the stylus I generally won't have the keyboard attached, but then I can always attach the keyboard and use AutoCAD or play Team Fortress. I don't have to switch devices just because I switched use cases.
And I'll put this here because, based on some of the comments this is clearly an emotional topic for some people so: No I'm not suggesting this is a common case or a use case that everybody should have or that ipads are bad or that the surface is great. It is a well-built laptop/tablet hybrid with a stylus and touchscreen, if you dont need those things (yes the cost includes those regardless of whether you use them or not) or you want to run iOS apps then you should probably look elsewhere.
I don't know if I'd call it "grossly" overcharging if the SP3 is >40% more for a 25% performance boost
That's a gross oversimplification though, the SP3 can run Windows, Linux and OSX and all the applications that exist for those platforms. The iPad can only run iOS and therefore only run iOS applications. Now maybe the latter is all you need, in which case you probably go for the iPad.
Some people here seem to be extrapolating beyond what has actually been presented and are then getting offended by the conclusion they have drawn, it is purely a performance comparison, there are many other factors that come in to deciding what tablet is best for a particular person or use case, this is just one of them.
Also no true scotsman requires the use of a fan.
not so sure i agree with that. i think the correct comparison is the price comparo. which one can do more for the same price.
Do you really just buy whatever is cheapest rather than whatever is best for the job?