When a FOSS hole is found... it is a hole... but not yet being exploited.
Where do you get the idea that when a FOSS hole is found nobody is exploiting it? How do you even know when one is found? You wait for somebody to tell you about it and assume that nothing is ever found by anybody until then?
Most OSes will allocate the vast majority of RAM to a disk cache, because unused RAM is wasted RAM.
Yes, but that is completely different. That is the operating system and it is dealing with system RAM - which the operating system controls access to anyway. What we are talking about here is video memory and processes that do not exclusively control that video memory.
First sale doctrine (in the US). You think you bought something, but you didn't. Not your game, not your house, not your car. Nothing is yours.
Ok so clearly you have no idea what First Sale Doctrine actually is. It has to do with the ability of rightsholders to control content after it has been sold for the first time, so no, it is nothing to do with your house or your car.
Either you're wrong because you don't understand how a JVM works (a.k.a. Dalvik) or you're right and Google doesn't know how a JVM works.
I'm betting on the former.
The third option of course is that you don't realize that the Android operating system does not run on a JVM and therefore does need to be compiled for each architecture. Now you can be all you want but the fact is it is the third option.
It doesn't matter anyway as WebView in 4.3 and earlier is part of the system that is non-upgradable with out a new system image. Fixing the problem would require OEMs to update, they may as well just take 4.4.
It's just a software patch, OEMs can then patch their existing binaries since 4.4 won't work on most of the 4.3 devices.
There might be cases where an application queries how much memory is available, then allocates all of it to use as caching.
As you say, that is really just theoretical. Doing that would be a very poor memory management system. Assuming that just because there is free memory you can allocate all of it to use for caching would be a silly thing to do. Even in the case where you can assume that your process has exclusive control and ownership of the memory pool no middleware is even going to do that as code outside that middleware but within that process could allocate GPU memory for some other use. So I doubt this would happen except in very contrived scenarios.
And it's pretty darn obvious from what Google's been doing in the last few years that this is not a situation that Google is happy with, nor is it a situation they could reasonably do much more about.
Of course they could! They have the OHA through which they can have the licensed OEMs update their devices and then they only need to make sure those updates get to the devices through the carriers and Apple manages to do that just fine.
right, and apple simply blames the user, "you're holding it wrong"
That was an asshole thing to do but then there was a backlash and they did something about it. What is Google doing about this? Nothing, their solution is for users to buy new hardware that supports the new version.
The real question is: WHEN will Google have enough leverage to force carriers and device manufacturers to allow them direct access to upgrade the devices and without crapware or disabling features?
They already do! Android owns the smartphone market and where Apple makes their own hardware Google have their Open Handset Alliance agreements with OEMs to enforce their requirements. Even Apple makes sure that iOS updates get pushed through so Google should be doing the same.
These are 2 different situations. If Dell pushed all your Windows 7 pushes, and decides not to any longer, how could Microsoft fix it?
Leverage their agreements with their OEM partners for the benefit of the end user, Google could do this with their Open Handset Alliance if they wanted to.
The best analogy would be MS refusing to backport a patch to Win7 RTM after SP2 has already been released, which does happen.
No that isn't analogous at all because any Windows 7 system can be upgraded to SP2, almost none of the Android 4.3 devices can be upgraded to 4.4. If all (or even most) of the 4.3 users could upgrade to 4.4 then yes, this would be analogous and most likely it would be a non-issue.
How about giving us the option to either always be able to run at maximum speed (disable that last 0.5GiB) or always let the software use the full 4GiB (at the cost of speed if more than 3.5GiB is required).
Because if it doesn't use more than 3.5GB then the performance is no different and if it does use more than 3.5GB then it will use that slower 0.5GB of additional video memory rather than using the even slower system memory. Disabling that extra 0.5GB will do nothing for performance except make it worse in cases where more than 3.5GB is used.
Wrong, it absolutely is shoving a camera in people's faces, not always but certainly when you're in close proximity to other people. That's what this whole "glasshole" thing is about.
And by gosh, by gum, and by gollee, you're certain it's a picture being taken! A picture of you!
When did I ever say anything about it taking a picture? All I said is it is the equivalent of shoving a camera in people's faces, disagree all you want but you're still wrong which is precisely what all the "glasshole" backlash is all about. Why do you think google issued guidelines about it?
I'm not saying I care about it - you're just projecting that onto me - I'm saying that, correctly, incorrectly or subjectively, that is the way it is perceived.
Yes I have heard of street photography but clearly if you think that in any way rebuts what I wrote then you clearly lack the capacity to understand what was written.
I'll try to bring it to a level you understand: Google Glass is not bad or intrusive or whatever in all circumstances, only in the cases where it's right up in people's faces. Like Glass, street photography is fine so long as it's not right in people's faces, otherwise you're going to piss people off.
Understand now? I don't think it gets simpler than that.
Who said anything about technophobia? I'm all for using new web features when they make sites work better. But designers also have to remember that some users, especially mobile users, will be using browsers with limited performance and bandwidth.
Right, it is absolutely nothing to do with new features being added to the HTML standard or to browsers. The concern is with the way those features are used, but it's technophobic to criticize the features simply because some people may use them in a way you dont like.
No, you have completely missed the point. Nobody is saying you can't be surreptitiously recording people but Google Glass is the equivalent of holding your camera up and pointing it at people, which is intrusive and annoying. Why do you think they call there is all this outrage about it? It isn't about legality or privacy, it's about not getting in peoples' faces with your camera, it's about not being an asshole.
you can turn off the fake shutter sound now and that man in the corner staring down at his cellphone probably isn't trying to take a perv shot of you (probably).
The difference is when people are using their phones to do things other than taking photos or videos they aren't pointing the camera up at you. Sure you can surreptitiously snap a few shots as you swing the camera around and hope you get one framed ok and not blurry but the difference between that and Google Glass is that Google Glass is like you're always pointing the camera up at people.
I don't think it's so much an issue of privacy as it is just intrusive and disrespectful to be holding your camera up and pointing it at everybody all the time and that is how Google Glass is perceived. That's where the real "Glasshole" term comes from, it's the guy or girl who walks around pointing their camera at everybody and then says "I can do this because you have no expectation of privacy", sure it's technically legal but it's still an asshole thing to do and an asshole way to respond to criticism.
So, you have no issues with people recording you when you don't know about it?
If somebody is recording you with a smartphone it's generally pretty obvious, most people using a smartphone aren't pointing the camera up at people when they are just sending texts or browsing the web so when somebody is holding their phone up like that it's a fair bet they are taking pictures or video. Google Glass is the equivalent of always holding your phone up in peoples' faces and then constantly saying "oh but I'm not recording".
That's the perception problem. Google Glass isn't the equivalent of surreptitiously filming from an awkward position where it's not framed properly, it is the equivalent of holding your phone up in peoples' faces.
Slashdot Mirror
Then how does the Right of First Sale have nothing to do with my car, when it applies to my car?
We're talking about the First Sale Doctrine, it doesn't apply to your car.
Seems the only one here that doesn't know what it is is you.
No, it is definitely you. So please explain to me what you think the First Sale Doctrine is.
So the First Sale Doctrine has nothing to do with my car?
Correct.
That would mean that I'm not allowed to re-sell my car without Ford's permission.
No it would not.
Is that what you are saying?
No.
When a FOSS hole is found... it is a hole... but not yet being exploited.
Where do you get the idea that when a FOSS hole is found nobody is exploiting it? How do you even know when one is found? You wait for somebody to tell you about it and assume that nothing is ever found by anybody until then?
Yes if you have a job manager in a dedicated compute environment that is reasonable, but as you say you aren't using a 970 in that case.
Most OSes will allocate the vast majority of RAM to a disk cache, because unused RAM is wasted RAM.
Yes, but that is completely different. That is the operating system and it is dealing with system RAM - which the operating system controls access to anyway. What we are talking about here is video memory and processes that do not exclusively control that video memory.
First sale doctrine (in the US). You think you bought something, but you didn't. Not your game, not your house, not your car. Nothing is yours.
Ok so clearly you have no idea what First Sale Doctrine actually is. It has to do with the ability of rightsholders to control content after it has been sold for the first time, so no, it is nothing to do with your house or your car.
Either you're wrong because you don't understand how a JVM works (a.k.a. Dalvik) or you're right and Google doesn't know how a JVM works.
I'm betting on the former.
The third option of course is that you don't realize that the Android operating system does not run on a JVM and therefore does need to be compiled for each architecture. Now you can be all you want but the fact is it is the third option.
yes you can. reinsurers will take your current policy as collateral toward their new policy.
that isn't the same thing as selling your insurance policy to someone else nor does it have anything to do with first sale doctrine.
It doesn't matter anyway as WebView in 4.3 and earlier is part of the system that is non-upgradable with out a new system image. Fixing the problem would require OEMs to update, they may as well just take 4.4.
It's just a software patch, OEMs can then patch their existing binaries since 4.4 won't work on most of the 4.3 devices.
The timeframes for Android are not of the same scale as those for Windows.
Ok so how long should we expect versions of Android to be supported for?
There might be cases where an application queries how much memory is available, then allocates all of it to use as caching.
As you say, that is really just theoretical. Doing that would be a very poor memory management system. Assuming that just because there is free memory you can allocate all of it to use for caching would be a silly thing to do. Even in the case where you can assume that your process has exclusive control and ownership of the memory pool no middleware is even going to do that as code outside that middleware but within that process could allocate GPU memory for some other use. So I doubt this would happen except in very contrived scenarios.
And how does that impact either of those scenarios?
And it's pretty darn obvious from what Google's been doing in the last few years that this is not a situation that Google is happy with, nor is it a situation they could reasonably do much more about.
Of course they could! They have the OHA through which they can have the licensed OEMs update their devices and then they only need to make sure those updates get to the devices through the carriers and Apple manages to do that just fine.
right, and apple simply blames the user, "you're holding it wrong"
That was an asshole thing to do but then there was a backlash and they did something about it. What is Google doing about this? Nothing, their solution is for users to buy new hardware that supports the new version.
The real question is: WHEN will Google have enough leverage to force carriers and device manufacturers to allow them direct access to upgrade the devices and without crapware or disabling features?
They already do! Android owns the smartphone market and where Apple makes their own hardware Google have their Open Handset Alliance agreements with OEMs to enforce their requirements. Even Apple makes sure that iOS updates get pushed through so Google should be doing the same.
These are 2 different situations. If Dell pushed all your Windows 7 pushes, and decides not to any longer, how could Microsoft fix it?
Leverage their agreements with their OEM partners for the benefit of the end user, Google could do this with their Open Handset Alliance if they wanted to.
The best analogy would be MS refusing to backport a patch to Win7 RTM after SP2 has already been released, which does happen.
No that isn't analogous at all because any Windows 7 system can be upgraded to SP2, almost none of the Android 4.3 devices can be upgraded to 4.4. If all (or even most) of the 4.3 users could upgrade to 4.4 then yes, this would be analogous and most likely it would be a non-issue.
How about giving us the option to either always be able to run at maximum speed (disable that last 0.5GiB) or always let the software use the full 4GiB (at the cost of speed if more than 3.5GiB is required).
Because if it doesn't use more than 3.5GB then the performance is no different and if it does use more than 3.5GB then it will use that slower 0.5GB of additional video memory rather than using the even slower system memory. Disabling that extra 0.5GB will do nothing for performance except make it worse in cases where more than 3.5GB is used.
It isn't. You just "fear" it is.
Wrong, it absolutely is shoving a camera in people's faces, not always but certainly when you're in close proximity to other people. That's what this whole "glasshole" thing is about.
And by gosh, by gum, and by gollee, you're certain it's a picture being taken! A picture of you!
When did I ever say anything about it taking a picture? All I said is it is the equivalent of shoving a camera in people's faces, disagree all you want but you're still wrong which is precisely what all the "glasshole" backlash is all about. Why do you think google issued guidelines about it?
I'm not saying I care about it - you're just projecting that onto me - I'm saying that, correctly, incorrectly or subjectively, that is the way it is perceived.
Yes I have heard of street photography but clearly if you think that in any way rebuts what I wrote then you clearly lack the capacity to understand what was written.
I'll try to bring it to a level you understand: Google Glass is not bad or intrusive or whatever in all circumstances, only in the cases where it's right up in people's faces. Like Glass, street photography is fine so long as it's not right in people's faces, otherwise you're going to piss people off.
Understand now? I don't think it gets simpler than that.
Who said anything about technophobia? I'm all for using new web features when they make sites work better. But designers also have to remember that some users, especially mobile users, will be using browsers with limited performance and bandwidth.
Right, it is absolutely nothing to do with new features being added to the HTML standard or to browsers. The concern is with the way those features are used, but it's technophobic to criticize the features simply because some people may use them in a way you dont like.
No, you have completely missed the point. Nobody is saying you can't be surreptitiously recording people but Google Glass is the equivalent of holding your camera up and pointing it at people, which is intrusive and annoying. Why do you think they call there is all this outrage about it? It isn't about legality or privacy, it's about not getting in peoples' faces with your camera, it's about not being an asshole.
you can turn off the fake shutter sound now and that man in the corner staring down at his cellphone probably isn't trying to take a perv shot of you (probably).
The difference is when people are using their phones to do things other than taking photos or videos they aren't pointing the camera up at you. Sure you can surreptitiously snap a few shots as you swing the camera around and hope you get one framed ok and not blurry but the difference between that and Google Glass is that Google Glass is like you're always pointing the camera up at people.
I don't think it's so much an issue of privacy as it is just intrusive and disrespectful to be holding your camera up and pointing it at everybody all the time and that is how Google Glass is perceived. That's where the real "Glasshole" term comes from, it's the guy or girl who walks around pointing their camera at everybody and then says "I can do this because you have no expectation of privacy", sure it's technically legal but it's still an asshole thing to do and an asshole way to respond to criticism.
So, you have no issues with people recording you when you don't know about it?
If somebody is recording you with a smartphone it's generally pretty obvious, most people using a smartphone aren't pointing the camera up at people when they are just sending texts or browsing the web so when somebody is holding their phone up like that it's a fair bet they are taking pictures or video. Google Glass is the equivalent of always holding your phone up in peoples' faces and then constantly saying "oh but I'm not recording".
That's the perception problem. Google Glass isn't the equivalent of surreptitiously filming from an awkward position where it's not framed properly, it is the equivalent of holding your phone up in peoples' faces.
Coreboot is fine, but FSP is still required so it isn't "free".