Seriously? After years of 20+" monitors at high resolution, who the hell is going to want to REALLY use Office on a little postage-stamp phone screen?
This is for use on phablets and tablets many of which have higher resolutions than the vast majority of desktop monitors, sad as that state of affairs is these days. I'm am wondering whether you have a really small phone or enormous postage stamps?
With an on-screen keyboard no less?
You can attach a keyboard if you really want to.
Maybe I'm missing something. But do people HONESTLY think anyone is going to be anything remotely resembling productive building documents that way?
No, but reviewing, commenting and simple editing most definitely.
And we just end up with hacks like Samsung's to get around that limitation because stretching phone apps to tablet size is a horrible experience, better to have them run at their native resolution than stretch them out or - as you say - run them windowed. Though swipe-from-edge gestures could be problematic unless you have some more explicit way than just a tap to change focus between windows.
Wrong, that's just the kernel of OS X. Where's the code for the other essential parts of OSX like Quartz Extreme, Aqua, Cocoa framework, System Preferences (and all its sub utilities)?
The title of the linked page even says "Apple releases OS X 10.10 Yosemite Open Source Darwin code", explicitly stating in no uncertain terms that they are talking about Darwin, which is one component of OS X.
Yes I see those links. You can build the kernel and you can build some of the components used in the operating system but - as I have already said - you cannot download the source code for OS X, only some bits of it. If you think it's possible then certainly give me the link, but those links you provided most certainly are not it.
And how is Google going to update it when the version on users' devices is a branched version of AOSP by the OEMs that contains their own code and the binary blobs provided by the component manufacturers? When the Linux ABI changes and the compiled OEM binaries or chipset manufacturer binaries aren't compatible then what?
It's encouraging that Google has (finally!!) fixed one major problem with Android; they could easily allow direct OS updates as well, if they wanted to.
The device drivers for all the hardware is built into the kernel by the OEM as well as the device-specific customizations but even though the core components aren't directly updated by Google the services application(s) are, and those contain most of the newer APIs that applications use such that in most cases you don't need a core OS update to get newer applications with new features just an application services layer update.
This is one of the things I hated most when I had my previous phone: software updates can only be had via your carrier.
Or you could install them manually from community ROMs thanks to unlocked bootloaders like HTC offers or aftermarket unlocks. There's plenty of options, sure Apple's system is easier but it's not like it's difficult on Android - depending on whether you did the research on your handset.
Most Android phones can be rooted and updated with default AOSP or other custom ROMs like CyanogenMod or Paranoid Android, like anything you need to do your research first but after that there's really no issue.
Okay, now you're talking about web apps, right? Where did it fail? WebOS? No, that was HP's fault.
WebOS was released as open source, anybody could and still can pick it up and use it if it were worth using. Same with Meego and Tizen but it isn't about having an open source mobile OS at all as there are already plenty of those.
iOS? Not only did they not support packaged apps, or offer developers anything to leverage their fledgling platform before offering native apps, they *still* don't have a half-decent browser. When did they enable WebGL? Oh, last month...
WebGL isn't required for web apps and the vendor doesn't have to offer anything to developers, that is the whole point of "breaking the walled gardens".
Web apps on Android, BlackBerry, and FireFox OS have been fantastic, and offer a fantastic user experience.
Like what? What ones offer a comparatively good experience to native ones?
See, that's just delusional. Tons of people are developing web apps for desktop and mobile. It's the hot-new-trend, after all.
Oh well if everybody is doing it that must mean it's good.
Further, where did you come up with this ridiculous idea that web apps necessarily provide a poor experience?
On desktop some categories of them are fine, but on mobile in particular manipulating the DOM is one of the biggest things that makes web apps inherently junk as does the speed of javascript interpretation which is why web apps feel sluggish and unresponsive when compared to natively compiled ones (though this isn't necessarily exclusive to mobile devices).
Not that it matters, I can't change your mind. You don't seem to care about all of that. Apparently, you just don't like the idea of web apps. That's fine, you're entitled to that opinion, just don't go around spreading nonsense.
No, I don't like the idea of web apps because of the limitations they impose due to the abstraction layer intended to provide cross-platform capability but which is actually a mess of platform-specific hacks and non-standard extensions to a spec that has taken 15 years to finalize.
No, you have it backwards. Obviously you're unaware that this has been tried a number of times before and failed because it is an inferior experience, not to mention you can already do open web apps for existing mobile devices and again nobody does it because the experience is poor.
Reason is it doesn't exist, if you think it does then explain why.
Not really. Just look at your examples
Yes they are all open source mobile operating systems, that's what you said we need but clearly that isn't the case at all.
webOS has been all but dead since HP killed it, LG doesn't seem interested in using it on mobiles.
It's open source, but nobody wanted or needed yet another mobile operating system.
Meego is REALLY dead, as in it was terminated in favor of other projects.
Again, open source but nobody wanted or needed yet another mobile OS.
Tizen, might be someday, maybe. How many years has it taken to appear on a device?
Well now you're moving the goalposts, first you said we need an open source mobile OS but we have already had plenty of those.
You're also ignoring one of the biggest benefits of FFOS -- Open Web Apps.
We can already to that on every single platform, but the experience is poor and the "standard" is so mixed with different implementations and browser-specific extensions which is why even though we can do it nobody does it. If you knew your history you would know this abortion of an idea was also touted as an advantage for the early iPhone and also for webOS. This is not new, it has been tried and failed because it is a poor idea.
Mozilla used the phrase "Breaking the walled gardens" offering that "The norm for mobile platforms tends to be be walled gardens written with proprietary technologies, so apps are locked inside their platforms."
HTML5 took 15 years to be finalized during which time we have had a myriad of different browser-specific extensions and named implementations to support new features introduced by different vendors. Even supporting the major web browsers for developing simple websites is a mess of browser-specific extensions. If one vendor introduces a new feature the process of getting that standardized and supported in the same way by multiple vendors takes years.
Of course it does, if you're a late me-too entrant to an established market you can't be successful without being disruptive.
But that's not really the point, is it? We need FireFoxOS for the same ideological reasons we needed FireFox in the days of IE6.
No, back then we needed competition, these days there is more competition in the mobile space than you can poke a stick at. FFOS is no more "open" than AOSP and you can already get many non-Google Android phones anyway. I fail to see why we need FFOS for ideological reasons when we already have AOSP and all the other niche open systems like Tizen, webOS and Meego. All these players have NIH syndrome so instead of building on an existing open source, free software foundation they create their own.
Well, Android isn't very good as-is, and it only gets worse on low-end hardware. Android development is a also complete nightmare. (Really, let's be honest here.) Then there's the issue of trust, which I'm sure a lot of users hear can agree is a pretty serious problem. In short, Android kinda sucks.
Does FF solve those problems though? Having a look at the low end FFOS devices the performance is awful with just the OS, adding HTML5 applications makes it even worse. The real problem is FFOS isn't any better than the incumbents to end users, that's the same reaso Linux isn't broadly adopted on the desktop and why Windows Phone isn't broadly adopted on mobile, it's not that either is bad, it's just not disruptive... and neither is Firefox OS. But again, what is the point of Firefox OS on Raspberry PI?
Also, as far as I've been able to tell, (please correct me if I'm wrong), using Cyanogen or Paranoid still won't address many of the app permissions problems, as many apps won't work when certain permissions are denied, even when those permissions are absolutely not needed for the app to do its job.
Does FFOS address those problems? Maybe it does but I haven't seen it.
As for enabling mass storage and stripping out stuff myself, I've not done very much programming, and learning how to program just so I can have a secure and useful phone seems a bit much.
Fair enough, but Android had mass storage at the start too, just because FFOS has it now doesn't mean they won't switch to an MTB type of model. What I'm saying is that the "openness" of FFOS isn't an advantage over Android and if you're not utilising that then you're just as beholden to Mozilla with FF as you are to Google with Android.
You have all that power already, Android is open source and you can enable mass storage if you want to use that rather than MTP and you can strip out anything you don't want to use. Take a look at CyanogenMod or Paranoid Android, with Android you're not beholden to Google anymore than you would be beholden to Mozilla if you used FirefoxOS.
What was the point of Firefox? IE was free and was a proven and already well-established browser.
IE was a crap browser, Firefox solved the problem of being stuck with a proprietary, closed-source, crappy browser by being a better browser.
The world needs a truly open mobile OS as much as it needed a truly open browser a decade ago.
For what? That's what I'm asking, what can you do with it that you can't accomplish with open AOSP? And assuming there is something then that should be the focus, not spreading resources thin doing things like getting it on to raspberry pi.
Asking what the point of it is can now be considered FUD? Are you sure you understand the question and the term "FUD"? Because from your post it seems pretty clear that you don't. And yes advocating for Android - made by Google - is clearly a pro-Microsoft ploy...::rollseyes::
What is the point of FirefoxOS? It seems like an exercise in just trying to cram it in everywhere rather than creating a proper solution to an existing problem in one place. The goal here is to eventually "achieve parity with Raspbian"... well shouldn't the goal be to solve some actual problem? It's the same as with FFOS on smartphones, it doesn't really solve any problem, even at the low end of the market Android has dirt cheap phones pretty well covered with a proven and already well-established OS.
Apple prides itself on producing fewer parts and models. They avoid multiple variations of anything.
So even fewer than the iterations before it? What's next? No choice in processor at all?
This supply chain philosophy goes all the way back to their founding and Steve Jobs, and is partly why they ARE successful.
Except that Mac Mini previously did have quad core options.
The fewer "options" you offer to the customer, the easier it is for them to make a purchase decision to buy. Adding more options just gives a customer more reason to delay their purchase decision.
So they eliminated the quad core option because up until now the Mac Mini line was too confusing?
The iPad Air 2 has 2GB of RAM. Those three years just vanished overnight.
Read what he said, you even quoted it. He didn't say it will happen in 3 years, he said the move to 2GB (which has already happened) will matter in about 3 years. Which is to say when it has finally become mainstream and so developers target it widely, currently while you can target 2GB systems they have comparatively very limited penetration.
But *actually* somebody does, since there is a plaintiff for the case.
Niche products for niche markets, however there is in fact quite a lot of choice in desktops and laptops, search here for HP, Dell and Lenovo and you'll find several from each vendor that come not just certified for Ubuntu but Pre-Installed with Ubuntu. The products are there, the demand is not.
Walk into a store and buy a fully assembled name brand (Dell, HP, etc) PC, complete with warranty and guarantees, without ANY software preinstalled. You can't. Your analogy fails.
Actually you can get a Dell laptop or HPlaptop with Ubuntu pre-installed. But the point is virtually nobody wants a PC without Windows pre-installed (unless they're buying a Mac) so even though those companies are free to sell PCs without Windows pre-installed - and some do while some tried and abandoned it due to lack of sales - it is much cheaper for the end user to sell it bundled with Windows than it is to sell it without an operating system and have those 99% of non-Mac PC users then have to buy a retail copy of Windows to install.
It's seems to be hard for you to understand. Let me repeat the question. So you mean I can legally download it from Apple and install it on a VM or PC? Download link?
No, the discussion is about it being free of charge, which it is. However that does not mean it is free of restriction.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously? After years of 20+" monitors at high resolution, who the hell is going to want to REALLY use Office on a little postage-stamp phone screen?
This is for use on phablets and tablets many of which have higher resolutions than the vast majority of desktop monitors, sad as that state of affairs is these days. I'm am wondering whether you have a really small phone or enormous postage stamps?
With an on-screen keyboard no less?
You can attach a keyboard if you really want to.
Maybe I'm missing something. But do people HONESTLY think anyone is going to be anything remotely resembling productive building documents that way?
No, but reviewing, commenting and simple editing most definitely.
And we just end up with hacks like Samsung's to get around that limitation because stretching phone apps to tablet size is a horrible experience, better to have them run at their native resolution than stretch them out or - as you say - run them windowed. Though swipe-from-edge gestures could be problematic unless you have some more explicit way than just a tap to change focus between windows.
In either case, people will still think of Microsoft Office 365 as a paid-only service.
It is a paid-only service isn't it? These new programs are free but they aren't office 365.
Wrong, that's just the kernel of OS X. Where's the code for the other essential parts of OSX like Quartz Extreme, Aqua, Cocoa framework, System Preferences (and all its sub utilities)?
The title of the linked page even says "Apple releases OS X 10.10 Yosemite Open Source Darwin code", explicitly stating in no uncertain terms that they are talking about Darwin, which is one component of OS X.
Yes I see those links. You can build the kernel and you can build some of the components used in the operating system but - as I have already said - you cannot download the source code for OS X, only some bits of it. If you think it's possible then certainly give me the link, but those links you provided most certainly are not it.
That page lists the projects used in OS X (and iOS) that are open source, you cannot download the source code for OS X.
And how is Google going to update it when the version on users' devices is a branched version of AOSP by the OEMs that contains their own code and the binary blobs provided by the component manufacturers? When the Linux ABI changes and the compiled OEM binaries or chipset manufacturer binaries aren't compatible then what?
It's encouraging that Google has (finally!!) fixed one major problem with Android; they could easily allow direct OS updates as well, if they wanted to.
The device drivers for all the hardware is built into the kernel by the OEM as well as the device-specific customizations but even though the core components aren't directly updated by Google the services application(s) are, and those contain most of the newer APIs that applications use such that in most cases you don't need a core OS update to get newer applications with new features just an application services layer update.
This is one of the things I hated most when I had my previous phone: software updates can only be had via your carrier.
Or you could install them manually from community ROMs thanks to unlocked bootloaders like HTC offers or aftermarket unlocks. There's plenty of options, sure Apple's system is easier but it's not like it's difficult on Android - depending on whether you did the research on your handset.
Most Android phones can be rooted and updated with default AOSP or other custom ROMs like CyanogenMod or Paranoid Android, like anything you need to do your research first but after that there's really no issue.
Okay, now you're talking about web apps, right? Where did it fail? WebOS? No, that was HP's fault.
WebOS was released as open source, anybody could and still can pick it up and use it if it were worth using. Same with Meego and Tizen but it isn't about having an open source mobile OS at all as there are already plenty of those.
iOS? Not only did they not support packaged apps, or offer developers anything to leverage their fledgling platform before offering native apps, they *still* don't have a half-decent browser. When did they enable WebGL? Oh, last month...
WebGL isn't required for web apps and the vendor doesn't have to offer anything to developers, that is the whole point of "breaking the walled gardens".
Web apps on Android, BlackBerry, and FireFox OS have been fantastic, and offer a fantastic user experience.
Like what? What ones offer a comparatively good experience to native ones?
See, that's just delusional. Tons of people are developing web apps for desktop and mobile. It's the hot-new-trend, after all.
Oh well if everybody is doing it that must mean it's good.
Further, where did you come up with this ridiculous idea that web apps necessarily provide a poor experience?
On desktop some categories of them are fine, but on mobile in particular manipulating the DOM is one of the biggest things that makes web apps inherently junk as does the speed of javascript interpretation which is why web apps feel sluggish and unresponsive when compared to natively compiled ones (though this isn't necessarily exclusive to mobile devices).
Not that it matters, I can't change your mind. You don't seem to care about all of that. Apparently, you just don't like the idea of web apps. That's fine, you're entitled to that opinion, just don't go around spreading nonsense.
No, I don't like the idea of web apps because of the limitations they impose due to the abstraction layer intended to provide cross-platform capability but which is actually a mess of platform-specific hacks and non-standard extensions to a spec that has taken 15 years to finalize.
Okay, reality isn't your thing. That's fine.
No, you have it backwards. Obviously you're unaware that this has been tried a number of times before and failed because it is an inferior experience, not to mention you can already do open web apps for existing mobile devices and again nobody does it because the experience is poor.
Sorry to hear that.
Reason is it doesn't exist, if you think it does then explain why.
Not really. Just look at your examples
Yes they are all open source mobile operating systems, that's what you said we need but clearly that isn't the case at all.
webOS has been all but dead since HP killed it, LG doesn't seem interested in using it on mobiles.
It's open source, but nobody wanted or needed yet another mobile operating system.
Meego is REALLY dead, as in it was terminated in favor of other projects.
Again, open source but nobody wanted or needed yet another mobile OS.
Tizen, might be someday, maybe. How many years has it taken to appear on a device?
Well now you're moving the goalposts, first you said we need an open source mobile OS but we have already had plenty of those.
You're also ignoring one of the biggest benefits of FFOS -- Open Web Apps.
We can already to that on every single platform, but the experience is poor and the "standard" is so mixed with different implementations and browser-specific extensions which is why even though we can do it nobody does it. If you knew your history you would know this abortion of an idea was also touted as an advantage for the early iPhone and also for webOS. This is not new, it has been tried and failed because it is a poor idea.
Mozilla used the phrase "Breaking the walled gardens" offering that "The norm for mobile platforms tends to be be walled gardens written with proprietary technologies, so apps are locked inside their platforms."
HTML5 took 15 years to be finalized during which time we have had a myriad of different browser-specific extensions and named implementations to support new features introduced by different vendors. Even supporting the major web browsers for developing simple websites is a mess of browser-specific extensions. If one vendor introduces a new feature the process of getting that standardized and supported in the same way by multiple vendors takes years.
It doesn't need to be in order to be successful.
Of course it does, if you're a late me-too entrant to an established market you can't be successful without being disruptive.
But that's not really the point, is it? We need FireFoxOS for the same ideological reasons we needed FireFox in the days of IE6.
No, back then we needed competition, these days there is more competition in the mobile space than you can poke a stick at. FFOS is no more "open" than AOSP and you can already get many non-Google Android phones anyway. I fail to see why we need FFOS for ideological reasons when we already have AOSP and all the other niche open systems like Tizen, webOS and Meego. All these players have NIH syndrome so instead of building on an existing open source, free software foundation they create their own.
Well, Android isn't very good as-is, and it only gets worse on low-end hardware. Android development is a also complete nightmare. (Really, let's be honest here.) Then there's the issue of trust, which I'm sure a lot of users hear can agree is a pretty serious problem. In short, Android kinda sucks.
Does FF solve those problems though? Having a look at the low end FFOS devices the performance is awful with just the OS, adding HTML5 applications makes it even worse. The real problem is FFOS isn't any better than the incumbents to end users, that's the same reaso Linux isn't broadly adopted on the desktop and why Windows Phone isn't broadly adopted on mobile, it's not that either is bad, it's just not disruptive ... and neither is Firefox OS. But again, what is the point of Firefox OS on Raspberry PI?
Also, as far as I've been able to tell, (please correct me if I'm wrong), using Cyanogen or Paranoid still won't address many of the app permissions problems, as many apps won't work when certain permissions are denied, even when those permissions are absolutely not needed for the app to do its job.
Does FFOS address those problems? Maybe it does but I haven't seen it.
As for enabling mass storage and stripping out stuff myself, I've not done very much programming, and learning how to program just so I can have a secure and useful phone seems a bit much.
Fair enough, but Android had mass storage at the start too, just because FFOS has it now doesn't mean they won't switch to an MTB type of model. What I'm saying is that the "openness" of FFOS isn't an advantage over Android and if you're not utilising that then you're just as beholden to Mozilla with FF as you are to Google with Android.
You have all that power already, Android is open source and you can enable mass storage if you want to use that rather than MTP and you can strip out anything you don't want to use. Take a look at CyanogenMod or Paranoid Android, with Android you're not beholden to Google anymore than you would be beholden to Mozilla if you used FirefoxOS.
What was the point of Firefox? IE was free and was a proven and already well-established browser.
IE was a crap browser, Firefox solved the problem of being stuck with a proprietary, closed-source, crappy browser by being a better browser.
The world needs a truly open mobile OS as much as it needed a truly open browser a decade ago.
For what? That's what I'm asking, what can you do with it that you can't accomplish with open AOSP? And assuming there is something then that should be the focus, not spreading resources thin doing things like getting it on to raspberry pi.
Asking what the point of it is can now be considered FUD? Are you sure you understand the question and the term "FUD"? Because from your post it seems pretty clear that you don't. And yes advocating for Android - made by Google - is clearly a pro-Microsoft ploy...::rollseyes::
What is the point of FirefoxOS? It seems like an exercise in just trying to cram it in everywhere rather than creating a proper solution to an existing problem in one place. The goal here is to eventually "achieve parity with Raspbian" ... well shouldn't the goal be to solve some actual problem? It's the same as with FFOS on smartphones, it doesn't really solve any problem, even at the low end of the market Android has dirt cheap phones pretty well covered with a proven and already well-established OS.
Apple prides itself on producing fewer parts and models. They avoid multiple variations of anything.
So even fewer than the iterations before it? What's next? No choice in processor at all?
This supply chain philosophy goes all the way back to their founding and Steve Jobs, and is partly why they ARE successful.
Except that Mac Mini previously did have quad core options.
The fewer "options" you offer to the customer, the easier it is for them to make a purchase decision to buy. Adding more options just gives a customer more reason to delay their purchase decision.
So they eliminated the quad core option because up until now the Mac Mini line was too confusing?
The iPad Air 2 has 2GB of RAM. Those three years just vanished overnight.
Read what he said, you even quoted it. He didn't say it will happen in 3 years, he said the move to 2GB (which has already happened) will matter in about 3 years. Which is to say when it has finally become mainstream and so developers target it widely, currently while you can target 2GB systems they have comparatively very limited penetration.
" But virtually nobody does. "
But *actually* somebody does, since there is a plaintiff for the case.
Niche products for niche markets, however there is in fact quite a lot of choice in desktops and laptops, search here for HP, Dell and Lenovo and you'll find several from each vendor that come not just certified for Ubuntu but Pre-Installed with Ubuntu. The products are there, the demand is not.
Walk into a store and buy a fully assembled name brand (Dell, HP, etc) PC, complete with warranty and guarantees, without ANY software preinstalled. You can't. Your analogy fails.
Actually you can get a Dell laptop or HP laptop with Ubuntu pre-installed. But the point is virtually nobody wants a PC without Windows pre-installed (unless they're buying a Mac) so even though those companies are free to sell PCs without Windows pre-installed - and some do while some tried and abandoned it due to lack of sales - it is much cheaper for the end user to sell it bundled with Windows than it is to sell it without an operating system and have those 99% of non-Mac PC users then have to buy a retail copy of Windows to install.
It's seems to be hard for you to understand. Let me repeat the question. So you mean I can legally download it from Apple and install it on a VM or PC? Download link?
No, the discussion is about it being free of charge, which it is. However that does not mean it is free of restriction.