The design is so close one has to wonder if they are actually using the same machinery for some of the components between this tablet and the iPad. They really are that similar.
The chassis is completely different, just look at them here. What components would they have used the same tooling for? I can't see any, obviously there are a lot of similarities but if you actually look at them there isn't anything that is the same.
exactly the same buttons in exactly the same locations
Buttons look pretty different actually. But before the iPad Mini came along the Nexus 7 had its volume keys and data cable port in the same spot, Apple put them in the same place on the iPad Mini because it's the logical place for them, not because they were copying them. The Nexus 7 also had the headphone jack on the bottom and then when Apple introduced their next phone they put the headphone jack on the bottom too, not because they were copying, simply because it's a logical place for it.
Any 7 inch tablet of the same aspect ratio is going to look very similar because the devices are generally pretty featureless. The idea that companies should have a monopoly on things like size, aspect ratio or placement of buttons and ports is ridiculous.
Now with this piece of news, it does seem like Foxconn have ripped off the iPad mini design (given their detailed knowledge of the manufacturing process)
No, if you read the article you'll see that Nokia is responsible for the design and the Z Launcher.
and are using the "Nokia" (Microsoft) brand to sell it, given that Microsoft have a cross-licensing deal with Apple that lets Microsoft and Apple rip each other off as much as they like.
Because most web programmers are retards with goldfish level awareness of the past and don't realize they're trying to reinvent the wheel
No, SVG and canvas are fundamentally different.
SVG is vector-based where canvas is raster-based, SVG elements end up in the DOM which is slower but allows you to do things like attach event handlers, canvas is essentially a bitmap so you're manipulating it at the pixel level which makes it faster but you cannot deal with parts of it at an 'element' level.
Having a bitmap target allows for things like WebGL as well, how would you do WebGL if you only had SVG but not canvas? But it does have drawbacks with not being in the DOM such that you cannot rely on the browser for automatic re-layout, you need to handle that yourself.
They are two different technologies for different sets of problems, there is some minimal overlap but it certainly is not any "reinventing of the wheel".
Sure if you're writing embedded applications, backend server programs or scientific computing applications HTML5 is probably not the best choice but if you're talking end-user facing programs then it's going to be portable across all the major (and most of the minor) platforms.
That's an actual fork of systemd, whereas the complaints are centered around keeping a System V init system which would require the upstream distros to be forked (Debian for example), yet none of the people who oppose systemd integraton - who, if the comments are to be believed, are the vast majority - have gone to work forking those projects that have chosen to adopt it.
The use of System V init allowed Linux to be comfortablef for UNIX admins looking for a less expensive or more widely installable solution, and the end of the use of System V init means that Linux is starting to head away from the UNIX operating systems.
What's wrong with the existing System V codebases?
Who are the ones that need to grok the init system ? Yes the sysadmins
not the developers unless they develop systemd.
So - in keeping with the open source philosophy - those people can use whatever the developers produce, develop and maintain their own alternative or pay somebody to develop and maintain an alternative.
That's not what happened, however. A very small group of people, divided in itself, reluctantly came to a decision that affects others — and these others do not clearly support that decision in the majority either.
So why not leave that very small group of people to go off and do their systemd thing and everybody else continue maintaining the existing system?
You mean the strategy stated internally 20 years ago that never worked? It was specifically stated to target Java, and it didn't work, then people claimed it was being used to target web applications and again, it didn't work. How exactly do you think it would work here?
Ah. In which case, you'd just need people to backport security patches or what-have-you to continue tracking the systemd-influenced updates.
Yeah you would think it would be easy enough but the anti-systemd crowd (I don't know enough about it to care either way) doesn't seem interested in it despite how much they claim to oppose systemd.
I would hazard a guess that most people would find such a task thankless work and not want to do it since another team is "going forward" anyway.
.
Sure but if they're really as opposed to it as they claim to be then the solution is obvious, likely just a storm in a teacup after all.
Hitting "fork" in github and creating your own copy of the source isn't exactly what I was thinking of. For all the systemd rage where is the fork of those projects?
I took the same position as you, that the open source/free software philosophy tells you if a project owner/maintainer does something fundamental that you don't like you fork and maintain your own version. So why hasn't that happened with all the systemd projects? Does that philosophy not work or was all the systemd rage just a storm in a teacup?
Yes clearly you have misunderstood, what I'm referring to is the systemd outrage. Debian and RedHat implemented it in their distros, the GNOME project implemented it too and everybody got all angry. So the open source/free software philosophy tells you these projects simply should have been forked at the time just before the systemd integration (in fact you can still pull the source from just before that anyway) and then they would have been fine, no systemd no problem, that's how open source is supposed to work, but it didn't work like that at all.
If step 2 is executed, there should be enough power in the community.
The reality is there almost never is, that is often paraded as a benefit of open source and free software but it seems it is a disingenuous position to take. Just take a look at this whole systemd thing, I said pretty much the same as you "if enough people don't like it the community will fork it" but I've been convinced that even the open source community doesn't believe that. Unless you have the will, resources and backing to set up some foundation to do it that "advantage" is just theoretical, sure Open/Libre Office and MySQL/MariaDB did it with their foundations but those are outliers, exceptions.
So obviously you've heard of this Embrace, Extend, Extinguish from the 1990's memo about the proprietary Sun technology but how exactly are you thinking that applies here? Are you saying they are going to somehow embrace, extend and then extinguish open source? If so how exactly do you suppose they could do such a thing?
What lock-in? How exactly are you "locked in"? If you don't want it you can just not use it anymore or only use it when it's appropriate. Nothing stops somebody who is currently using iMessage from stopping using it and switching to email, Skype, Viber, Facebook Messenger, Google Hangouts, etc... This idea that vendor-specific somehow means "locked in" is getting pretty ridiculous, it's nothing of the sort.
It's still somewhat at-odds with the fact that they're pushing this at iPhone/etc users as well.
I don't think it's designed to be the primary content creation tool, same way that Pages, Documents-to-Go, Google Docs, etc... aren't. It's about being able to view and edit them.
Slashdot Mirror
The design is so close one has to wonder if they are actually using the same machinery for some of the components between this tablet and the iPad. They really are that similar.
The chassis is completely different, just look at them here. What components would they have used the same tooling for? I can't see any, obviously there are a lot of similarities but if you actually look at them there isn't anything that is the same.
exactly the same buttons in exactly the same locations
Buttons look pretty different actually. But before the iPad Mini came along the Nexus 7 had its volume keys and data cable port in the same spot, Apple put them in the same place on the iPad Mini because it's the logical place for them, not because they were copying them. The Nexus 7 also had the headphone jack on the bottom and then when Apple introduced their next phone they put the headphone jack on the bottom too, not because they were copying, simply because it's a logical place for it.
Any 7 inch tablet of the same aspect ratio is going to look very similar because the devices are generally pretty featureless. The idea that companies should have a monopoly on things like size, aspect ratio or placement of buttons and ports is ridiculous.
Still, the only advantage is if someone manages to run Linux on it.
Why? If anything running a Linux distro other than Android will make it less useful.
Now with this piece of news, it does seem like Foxconn have ripped off the iPad mini design (given their detailed knowledge of the manufacturing process)
No, if you read the article you'll see that Nokia is responsible for the design and the Z Launcher.
and are using the "Nokia" (Microsoft) brand to sell it, given that Microsoft have a cross-licensing deal with Apple that lets Microsoft and Apple rip each other off as much as they like.
No, Microsoft has nothing to do with this.
Nah he has his mouse connected to his PC with a Monster cable, no other mouse can compete with that!
Shooters and every other type of game ever made needs a mouse.
That must be why nobody plays shooters with controllers...oh wait.
Because most web programmers are retards with goldfish level awareness of the past and don't realize they're trying to reinvent the wheel
No, SVG and canvas are fundamentally different.
SVG is vector-based where canvas is raster-based, SVG elements end up in the DOM which is slower but allows you to do things like attach event handlers, canvas is essentially a bitmap so you're manipulating it at the pixel level which makes it faster but you cannot deal with parts of it at an 'element' level.
Having a bitmap target allows for things like WebGL as well, how would you do WebGL if you only had SVG but not canvas? But it does have drawbacks with not being in the DOM such that you cannot rely on the browser for automatic re-layout, you need to handle that yourself.
They are two different technologies for different sets of problems, there is some minimal overlap but it certainly is not any "reinventing of the wheel".
So.. if you are writing for the personal computer something that the user has to see graphically HTML beats C hands down?
Not necessarily.
Utilising a whole software stack that's mostly written in C ,-D
Yes, most higher level languages run on platforms written in C, that doesn't mean C is the perfect language for everything.
UI-aside, C is a lot more portable than HTML5 is.
Sure if you're writing embedded applications, backend server programs or scientific computing applications HTML5 is probably not the best choice but if you're talking end-user facing programs then it's going to be portable across all the major (and most of the minor) platforms.
That's an actual fork of systemd, whereas the complaints are centered around keeping a System V init system which would require the upstream distros to be forked (Debian for example), yet none of the people who oppose systemd integraton - who, if the comments are to be believed, are the vast majority - have gone to work forking those projects that have chosen to adopt it.
The use of System V init allowed Linux to be comfortablef for UNIX admins looking for a less expensive or more widely installable solution, and the end of the use of System V init means that Linux is starting to head away from the UNIX operating systems.
What's wrong with the existing System V codebases?
Who are the ones that need to grok the init system ? Yes the sysadmins
not the developers unless they develop systemd.
So - in keeping with the open source philosophy - those people can use whatever the developers produce, develop and maintain their own alternative or pay somebody to develop and maintain an alternative.
It is often hard to attract a teacher's attention, especially when the teacher is focused on the whiteboard
It's not that hard to raise your hand when appropriate or to say something.
or just not looking at the right area of the classroom.
You're going to see it in your peripheral vision.
Some students will never raise their hand.
And is there some data to suggest that such students would use a clicker instead?
This whole thing seems like an exercise in keeping introverted students introverted in an effort to sell product.
That's not what happened, however. A very small group of people, divided in itself, reluctantly came to a decision that affects others — and these others do not clearly support that decision in the majority either.
So why not leave that very small group of people to go off and do their systemd thing and everybody else continue maintaining the existing system?
Anyone notice an old strategy revived??
You mean the strategy stated internally 20 years ago that never worked? It was specifically stated to target Java, and it didn't work, then people claimed it was being used to target web applications and again, it didn't work. How exactly do you think it would work here?
Which means non-Nexus devices will have fewer GB of available internal storage than advertised.
What shipping device (including iOS and Windows devices too if you like) has as much GB of available internal storage as advertised?
Ah. In which case, you'd just need people to backport security patches or what-have-you to continue tracking the systemd-influenced updates.
Yeah you would think it would be easy enough but the anti-systemd crowd (I don't know enough about it to care either way) doesn't seem interested in it despite how much they claim to oppose systemd.
I would hazard a guess that most people would find such a task thankless work and not want to do it since another team is "going forward" anyway.
. Sure but if they're really as opposed to it as they claim to be then the solution is obvious, likely just a storm in a teacup after all.
Hitting "fork" in github and creating your own copy of the source isn't exactly what I was thinking of. For all the systemd rage where is the fork of those projects?
I took the same position as you, that the open source/free software philosophy tells you if a project owner/maintainer does something fundamental that you don't like you fork and maintain your own version. So why hasn't that happened with all the systemd projects? Does that philosophy not work or was all the systemd rage just a storm in a teacup?
Yes clearly you have misunderstood, what I'm referring to is the systemd outrage. Debian and RedHat implemented it in their distros, the GNOME project implemented it too and everybody got all angry. So the open source/free software philosophy tells you these projects simply should have been forked at the time just before the systemd integration (in fact you can still pull the source from just before that anyway) and then they would have been fine, no systemd no problem, that's how open source is supposed to work, but it didn't work like that at all.
What does that mean in this context?
If step 2 is executed, there should be enough power in the community.
The reality is there almost never is, that is often paraded as a benefit of open source and free software but it seems it is a disingenuous position to take. Just take a look at this whole systemd thing, I said pretty much the same as you "if enough people don't like it the community will fork it" but I've been convinced that even the open source community doesn't believe that. Unless you have the will, resources and backing to set up some foundation to do it that "advantage" is just theoretical, sure Open/Libre Office and MySQL/MariaDB did it with their foundations but those are outliers, exceptions.
So obviously you've heard of this Embrace, Extend, Extinguish from the 1990's memo about the proprietary Sun technology but how exactly are you thinking that applies here? Are you saying they are going to somehow embrace, extend and then extinguish open source? If so how exactly do you suppose they could do such a thing?
Going around asking other projects to remove features to make them "fit in" with their garbage .. that's just taking it too far.
I could understand if they were forcing it or something but you really find it "going to far" to ask other projects to be coherent with what they do?
What lock-in? How exactly are you "locked in"? If you don't want it you can just not use it anymore or only use it when it's appropriate. Nothing stops somebody who is currently using iMessage from stopping using it and switching to email, Skype, Viber, Facebook Messenger, Google Hangouts, etc ... This idea that vendor-specific somehow means "locked in" is getting pretty ridiculous, it's nothing of the sort.
It's still somewhat at-odds with the fact that they're pushing this at iPhone/etc users as well.
I don't think it's designed to be the primary content creation tool, same way that Pages, Documents-to-Go, Google Docs, etc ... aren't. It's about being able to view and edit them.
Technically correct, but most people only want the word processing function of MS Office.
Even back in 1996 Excel was the killer app, why would most people want Word significantly more than Excel?