No it doesn't, not according to Apple's website - see the bit where they compare thickness - the smaller 6 clearly has the protruding lens. Also you can quite clearly see it in engadget's hands on video.
The field of view angle would have to be pretty ridiculous and introduce other distortions to hide a protrusion 15% of the thickness. The more likely explanation is that Apple's products have a high dependency on aesthetics so hiding the ugly camera bulge is in their interest. Is that going to deter me from buying one though? No.
You can see a more realistic shot here and compare that to Apple's product shots, even if they took the photo with an odd angle and lens or from a long way away and cropped the image or whatever, you'd have to be pretty naive to think it wasn't done on purpose. Does it make any difference? Probably not.
So what purpose is it for? Governments come and go, executives come and go, ultimately one day the people making the decisions on these things will no longer control them and they know that so if it's some big massive conspiracy they are going to be victims of it too.
To having a CPU and GPU on the same die, that doesn't mean all the graphics is now processed by the CPU using general purpose CPU instructions rather than GPU ones.
Even if Linux had a compelling and disruptive element, it wouldn't convince business to leave MS's demented ecosystem.
Well it really depends on what it is, it's not really a Linux thing but something for the distro makers to come up with. The iPhone was very disruptive to the smartphone market and convinced big business to ditch their Windows Mobile and Blackberry devices in favor of it.
Perhaps, but these days it isn't large. At the time of Windows 7's release Minwin - which is not just a kernel - was less than 40mb (it may even be less than 30mb now).
- Not all organisations trust Google with their documents, which may contain proprietary information
Yeah I'm not saying 100% of everything can go on there, many things would stay completely offline and perhaps you would need to run Libre/Open Office in a chroot for those things.
- Using Google Docs introduces a dependency on Google (they're uptime track-record is pretty damn good though, granted)
- Using Google Docs introduces a dependency on an Internet connection
That changed years ago, you can use them offline.
These are the real problems with cloud-based office software.
Well given the offline access the only real issue is the privacy one, but it's not to say everything has to go on google docs. Would be nice if there were some self-hostable web-based version of Libre/Open Office, with Google and Microsoft paving the way on that front with their mainstream offerings I expect FOSS will catch up in a couple of years.
Um, yes. Tell me what is your assessment of Chrome?. I've used it for about a year, and it is vastly superior to any windows OS I've seen yet.
The OS is nice, I agree but outside of very basic tasks it doesn't really have the capability (mostly lack of 3rd party support) to do much else. Personally I don't need MS Office, I use Google Docs because even if there is some little formatting bug when importing a document it's no big deal so as far as that is concerned ChromeOS works but if you're gaming it's no good, same goes for professional photo, audio, video editing/production or architectural and product design, simulation, etc...
I can absolutely see this replacing Windows for office workers (presuming they don't mind the few-and-far-between formatting bugs with GDocs importing DOCX) and those people just concerned with web browsing and email but leveraging dinky smartphone apps doesn't really make it any more useful, that stuff is perfectly at home already on a smartphone which most people have. Kinda like this whole Metro apps stuff in Windows 8, pretty pointless on a desktop even if there was a huge catalog of applications.
So? The point is Apple "has done pretty well" not because the vast majority of people use iPhones - because they don't - but because the iPhone is the most common phone.
So what do I get when I plug a phone into an external HDMI monitor? I have 5" and 24".
Well the practicality mostly depends on the control input, not the output device. A desktop is pretty much never practical on a 5" screen regardless of the input mechanism but on a 10" screen with a keyboard connected it would be. A 5" device outputting to an external screen with a mouse and keyboard attached could obviously support desktop usage.
The reality is that Windows Phone has the same problem as desktop Linux. It is actually quite a good operating system and works really well with a broad set of features but it was late to the game and you cannot disrupt an established market without a disruptive product.
Sure people could switch to it but why would they? It - like desktop Linux - lacks some killer feature, some really compelling and disruptive element that would convince people to switch. For this reason I see it - again like desktop Linux - remaining a niche product used by a relatively small band of loyal followers and/or becoming popular in the developing market. But does that really matter? So long as that share is enough to sustain it then it will continue and the more competition we have the better.
You keep trying to run away from the simple fact that we had multiple systems and the single biggest failure was the result of a BSD induced license.
No, the intention was for it to be used by proprietary, open source and free software communities, the BSD license allowed this. The fact is you don't like their intention because it doesn't benefit only you.
The MIT wrote a bad license and as a result in 2014 Linux still is behind in graphics.
Wrong again, MIT wrote a license that fit their goal and licensed their code upon it. It is only a "bad" license if you are beholden to the free software ideology, Linux is behind in graphics because the free software community didn't get their act together and do something about it. If the Unix vendors had written their own implementations without the MIT code Linux would still be behind in graphics again purely the fault of the free software group and nobody else. Stop excusing the incompetence of the free software group by blaming others.
The kernel guys wrote a good license and as a result in 2014 Linux has arguably the best kernel around.
And it's a result of good software development, not the license.
You are just denying the obvious.
The obvious is that you have an entitlement complex and a religious devotion to the free software ideology such that you cannot accept MIT's freedom to have their own agenda and do what they wish with their own code, you are a bigot. Let others do what they wish, stop trying to deny them the freedom to make their own choices.
So if your criteria of success is usage your assertions about the failures of free software aren't supported by the facts.
No I never said that.
The goal of the GNU project was to create a free Unix comparable to the commercial Unixes. It went beyond that and created a free Unix so good it killed off most of the commercial Unixes.
Apparently it will be about as water resistant as an an iPhone. A bit of rain or sweat won't harm it but don't go swimming with it, so wearing it a sauna is likely to set off the moisture sensors inside if not ruin the device.
People have been "trained" to toss their phone annually. Same with their tablet. However, watches are something that tend to be keepsakes and just not thrown away.
I wouldn't say annually, but once every 2 years when the phone contract is up most people re-contract with a new phone. For tablets you can do the same thing or salary sacrifice annually through work. But yes I agree, people turn over phones and tablets where most watches are form over function, yes a few geeks still wear calculator casios but even then those are still running from the 90s and don't need to be charged every 12 hours.
But I'm not sure I'd bother wearing it after the first few days even if it was given to me. That is a bigger problem than "too expensive".
Right. Fitness tracking is a fad, we've seen it before with pedometers and heart rate monitors in watches, we also saw it with Nike+ telemetry in shoes. It's just another thing you have to remember to put on charge every night and another charger you have to take with you. Yes I'm sure people can come up with contrived uses for it's limited functionality based on how difficult it is to take their phone out of their pocket but that is just a niche.
The thing I still haven't seen (or perhaps I missed) is what happens when you get in the car and your phone connects via bluetooth to your car audio system? Does it lose watch connection?
If you're like a lot of people, you carry a backpack/computer case with you on a regular basis.
Most of those people I see are also using their phones for things like web browsing, particularly those on public transport. Having to take your phone out of your bag every time would be a pain. Even things like maps are clumsy and limited, unless you want to see where you are you have to cover pretty much all the content to pan around on the tiny screen and then change your interaction mechanism to the physical winder to zoom in and out, that's the sort of clumsiness Steve Jobs always hated.
You could still receive/triage incoming communications while the phone was tucked away.
But it is extremely limited, the flexible part is the voice dictation but nobody uses that in public.
As GP said, the use cases are contrived and niche.
The GPL doesn't force people to change their ideology
Wrong, if you want to work with the GPL your software has to be free software, so yes it does.
SGI when they were working on Linux support for XFS was no different than the SGI that was not helping on X11. The difference was the GPL required that if they offer XFS under Linux to anyone that in a practical sense they had to open source it for everyone. The GPL forced them into all or nothing.
Right, it forces people. It's either work with us on our terms or don't work with us at all, it's intolerance and that is something we need less of in society, not more.
Again I don't like your phrasing but the GPL has a track record of doing exactly that.
You can dislike it all you want but it's a fact. But this is why the most innovative companies steer clear of the GPL for most of their stuff. The community has benefited greatly from the contributions Google and Apple have made to Open Source that was purely optional and wasn't forced, but you think they should be forced and eliminating that freedom is wrong. If you don't like their products then fine, you're free to not use them but you're not free to force them to do things on your terms.
I think I've explained pretty clearly why it wasn't their failing. 10 years later we had a similarly popular piece of software in the Linux kernel. But this time it was under GPL.
No you complained that they were 10 years behind because they didn't do anything back then and you wanted MIT and the proprietary vendors to do all the work for them.
And this time the commercial vendors had no choice but to cooperate with the free software community.
Wrong, the most popular closed source unix vendor these days is Apple and they have their own windowing system. All the other proprietary vendors pretty much died out.
So I'm not really sure what you're point is, just that you're a GPL advocate? Well I'm an advocate for freedom of choice, not forcing ideologies and bitching when people don't do things my way. If you want it done on your terms then do it yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe if it were true, but it isn't. I don't see it making any difference to anybody though.
The six has a flat back, Mr. Always Corrected.
No it doesn't, not according to Apple's website - see the bit where they compare thickness - the smaller 6 clearly has the protruding lens. Also you can quite clearly see it in engadget's hands on video.
It's simply a perspective image.
The field of view angle would have to be pretty ridiculous and introduce other distortions to hide a protrusion 15% of the thickness. The more likely explanation is that Apple's products have a high dependency on aesthetics so hiding the ugly camera bulge is in their interest. Is that going to deter me from buying one though? No.
You can see a more realistic shot here and compare that to Apple's product shots, even if they took the photo with an odd angle and lens or from a long way away and cropped the image or whatever, you'd have to be pretty naive to think it wasn't done on purpose. Does it make any difference? Probably not.
The guise of national security.
So what purpose is it for? Governments come and go, executives come and go, ultimately one day the people making the decisions on these things will no longer control them and they know that so if it's some big massive conspiracy they are going to be victims of it too.
Take a guess where the APU is taking us.
To having a CPU and GPU on the same die, that doesn't mean all the graphics is now processed by the CPU using general purpose CPU instructions rather than GPU ones.
Even if Linux had a compelling and disruptive element, it wouldn't convince business to leave MS's demented ecosystem.
Well it really depends on what it is, it's not really a Linux thing but something for the distro makers to come up with. The iPhone was very disruptive to the smartphone market and convinced big business to ditch their Windows Mobile and Blackberry devices in favor of it.
Perhaps, but these days it isn't large. At the time of Windows 7's release Minwin - which is not just a kernel - was less than 40mb (it may even be less than 30mb now).
- Not all organisations trust Google with their documents, which may contain proprietary information
Yeah I'm not saying 100% of everything can go on there, many things would stay completely offline and perhaps you would need to run Libre/Open Office in a chroot for those things.
- Using Google Docs introduces a dependency on Google (they're uptime track-record is pretty damn good though, granted)
- Using Google Docs introduces a dependency on an Internet connection
That changed years ago, you can use them offline.
These are the real problems with cloud-based office software.
Well given the offline access the only real issue is the privacy one, but it's not to say everything has to go on google docs. Would be nice if there were some self-hostable web-based version of Libre/Open Office, with Google and Microsoft paving the way on that front with their mainstream offerings I expect FOSS will catch up in a couple of years.
The most common smartphone in the world is the iPhone!
If that is untrue then I'm happy to be corrected, but "Flamebait"? Really?
Android apps are interpreted byte-code, not native binaries
Unless they use the NDK.
The only binary you need is the dalvek apk interpreter
What about if they use the NDK? What happens if the application uses OpenGL ES?
Um, yes. Tell me what is your assessment of Chrome?. I've used it for about a year, and it is vastly superior to any windows OS I've seen yet.
The OS is nice, I agree but outside of very basic tasks it doesn't really have the capability (mostly lack of 3rd party support) to do much else. Personally I don't need MS Office, I use Google Docs because even if there is some little formatting bug when importing a document it's no big deal so as far as that is concerned ChromeOS works but if you're gaming it's no good, same goes for professional photo, audio, video editing/production or architectural and product design, simulation, etc...
I can absolutely see this replacing Windows for office workers (presuming they don't mind the few-and-far-between formatting bugs with GDocs importing DOCX) and those people just concerned with web browsing and email but leveraging dinky smartphone apps doesn't really make it any more useful, that stuff is perfectly at home already on a smartphone which most people have. Kinda like this whole Metro apps stuff in Windows 8, pretty pointless on a desktop even if there was a huge catalog of applications.
It's not supposed to be contradictory.
So? The point is Apple "has done pretty well" not because the vast majority of people use iPhones - because they don't - but because the iPhone is the most common phone.
The issue with NT's kernel isn't that it's huge, it's that it's bloated.
If you're not talking about size the what do you mean by "bloated"?
You wouldn't even need an external mouse. With just a keyboard and monitor, a phone could act like a trackpad.
Well yes from a practical perspective a trackpad is a mouse and the phone could be configured to provide that functionality.
So what do I get when I plug a phone into an external HDMI monitor? I have 5" and 24".
Well the practicality mostly depends on the control input, not the output device. A desktop is pretty much never practical on a 5" screen regardless of the input mechanism but on a 10" screen with a keyboard connected it would be. A 5" device outputting to an external screen with a mouse and keyboard attached could obviously support desktop usage.
The reality is that Windows Phone has the same problem as desktop Linux. It is actually quite a good operating system and works really well with a broad set of features but it was late to the game and you cannot disrupt an established market without a disruptive product.
Sure people could switch to it but why would they? It - like desktop Linux - lacks some killer feature, some really compelling and disruptive element that would convince people to switch. For this reason I see it - again like desktop Linux - remaining a niche product used by a relatively small band of loyal followers and/or becoming popular in the developing market. But does that really matter? So long as that share is enough to sustain it then it will continue and the more competition we have the better.
The vast majority of smart phone users don't use iPhones, but Apple's done pretty well.
The most common smartphone in the world is the iPhone!
You keep trying to run away from the simple fact that we had multiple systems and the single biggest failure was the result of a BSD induced license.
No, the intention was for it to be used by proprietary, open source and free software communities, the BSD license allowed this. The fact is you don't like their intention because it doesn't benefit only you.
The MIT wrote a bad license and as a result in 2014 Linux still is behind in graphics.
Wrong again, MIT wrote a license that fit their goal and licensed their code upon it. It is only a "bad" license if you are beholden to the free software ideology, Linux is behind in graphics because the free software community didn't get their act together and do something about it. If the Unix vendors had written their own implementations without the MIT code Linux would still be behind in graphics again purely the fault of the free software group and nobody else. Stop excusing the incompetence of the free software group by blaming others.
The kernel guys wrote a good license and as a result in 2014 Linux has arguably the best kernel around.
And it's a result of good software development, not the license.
You are just denying the obvious.
The obvious is that you have an entitlement complex and a religious devotion to the free software ideology such that you cannot accept MIT's freedom to have their own agenda and do what they wish with their own code, you are a bigot. Let others do what they wish, stop trying to deny them the freedom to make their own choices.
So if your criteria of success is usage your assertions about the failures of free software aren't supported by the facts.
No I never said that.
The goal of the GNU project was to create a free Unix comparable to the commercial Unixes. It went beyond that and created a free Unix so good it killed off most of the commercial Unixes.
So what are you complaining about?
Apparently it will be about as water resistant as an an iPhone. A bit of rain or sweat won't harm it but don't go swimming with it, so wearing it a sauna is likely to set off the moisture sensors inside if not ruin the device.
People have been "trained" to toss their phone annually. Same with their tablet. However, watches are something that tend to be keepsakes and just not thrown away.
I wouldn't say annually, but once every 2 years when the phone contract is up most people re-contract with a new phone. For tablets you can do the same thing or salary sacrifice annually through work. But yes I agree, people turn over phones and tablets where most watches are form over function, yes a few geeks still wear calculator casios but even then those are still running from the 90s and don't need to be charged every 12 hours.
But I'm not sure I'd bother wearing it after the first few days even if it was given to me. That is a bigger problem than "too expensive".
Right. Fitness tracking is a fad, we've seen it before with pedometers and heart rate monitors in watches, we also saw it with Nike+ telemetry in shoes. It's just another thing you have to remember to put on charge every night and another charger you have to take with you. Yes I'm sure people can come up with contrived uses for it's limited functionality based on how difficult it is to take their phone out of their pocket but that is just a niche.
The thing I still haven't seen (or perhaps I missed) is what happens when you get in the car and your phone connects via bluetooth to your car audio system? Does it lose watch connection?
If you're like a lot of people, you carry a backpack/computer case with you on a regular basis.
Most of those people I see are also using their phones for things like web browsing, particularly those on public transport. Having to take your phone out of your bag every time would be a pain. Even things like maps are clumsy and limited, unless you want to see where you are you have to cover pretty much all the content to pan around on the tiny screen and then change your interaction mechanism to the physical winder to zoom in and out, that's the sort of clumsiness Steve Jobs always hated.
You could still receive/triage incoming communications while the phone was tucked away.
But it is extremely limited, the flexible part is the voice dictation but nobody uses that in public.
As GP said, the use cases are contrived and niche.
The GPL doesn't force people to change their ideology
Wrong, if you want to work with the GPL your software has to be free software, so yes it does.
SGI when they were working on Linux support for XFS was no different than the SGI that was not helping on X11. The difference was the GPL required that if they offer XFS under Linux to anyone that in a practical sense they had to open source it for everyone. The GPL forced them into all or nothing.
Right, it forces people. It's either work with us on our terms or don't work with us at all, it's intolerance and that is something we need less of in society, not more.
Again I don't like your phrasing but the GPL has a track record of doing exactly that.
You can dislike it all you want but it's a fact. But this is why the most innovative companies steer clear of the GPL for most of their stuff. The community has benefited greatly from the contributions Google and Apple have made to Open Source that was purely optional and wasn't forced, but you think they should be forced and eliminating that freedom is wrong. If you don't like their products then fine, you're free to not use them but you're not free to force them to do things on your terms.
I think I've explained pretty clearly why it wasn't their failing. 10 years later we had a similarly popular piece of software in the Linux kernel. But this time it was under GPL.
No you complained that they were 10 years behind because they didn't do anything back then and you wanted MIT and the proprietary vendors to do all the work for them.
And this time the commercial vendors had no choice but to cooperate with the free software community.
Wrong, the most popular closed source unix vendor these days is Apple and they have their own windowing system. All the other proprietary vendors pretty much died out.
So I'm not really sure what you're point is, just that you're a GPL advocate? Well I'm an advocate for freedom of choice, not forcing ideologies and bitching when people don't do things my way. If you want it done on your terms then do it yourself.