What programming environment for iOS is comparable to AIDE for Android?
I think you mean programming on Android. The question was about content creation for not on. No question Apple considers iDevices secondary devices. They do have some programming languages where they think it appropriate like gambit scheme, ND1 (3 interpreters), a variety of Lua interpreters...
Good for music. But when have DRM-free feature films been in fashion at any time since Macrovision was introduced?
Internet short video has gotten much less DRM oriented. Full length movies on the internet is relatively new. We'll see in 10 years when it is more mature.
What about the downfall of Lik Sang?
What about them? They were hit for violating import and export restrictions. Those have existed since before there was an electronics industry.
Sony v. Hotz
Now that's a better example. I should mention though that Sony lost the case. But I'll grant you credit for Sony genuinely truing to prevent Linux mods.
Counterexample 2: The iPhone. Name one OS different from iOS that you can install on it.
iPhone Linux, iDroid, iMoblin. Good has several they were working on targeted to verticals.
Counterexample 1: The PS3 - Support for installing Linux explicitly removed
I don't know nothing about PS3 but just googling for 2 seconds brings up PS3MFW which allows you to run Sony's own Other OS. PS3Magic appears to allow the installation of arbitrary OSes.
True. They didn't have to work around signed bootloaders, though.
Certainly. They had to work around different problems like only having 16k or RAM to hold OS, programs and data.
Also, what support do you have for claiming no long term trend exists ?
The fact that things that used to be DRMed have become more open. For example Open Source software has replaced lots of closed source. Javascript replacing flash and applets. Flash video being more open. Music no longer being sold DRM.
Which will stop working the exact second the vendor of your tablet / phone kills them.
You are missing the point. These run on your servers not their's. They can't kill them.
Music was freed of DRM but instead the most popular platforms have DRM integrated from the bottom up. And virtually every other media (books, video, etc.) are all slathered in a layer of DRM with no forward progress on removing it.
Online video is getting less DRM oriented as shockwave / flash have gotten more open. Books are new and downloadable video is new. We'll see in 10 years how this pans out.
Nonsense. Apple, Microsoft, Sony, etc. all spend lots of time and money designing and implementing security schemes that make doing this more and more difficult.
Microsoft sells cheaply keys to allow you to put your own OS on. That's a fully supported feature of their system. Apple has been mainly indifferent to the Linux on iPad / iPhone. However they are working aggressively with Good to allow you put your own OS on. I'm not sure what Sony is doing lately.
They are all significantly harder than a current PC, and end up only partially functional when you do.
Maybe. But current PCs are pretty darn easy. They weren't that easy when Linux was thriving as an alternative to Windows. I'd say it is likely easier to install iPhone Linux today than RedHat in '97. As for partial functionality that's not the fault of the device manufacturers. The Linux kernel was tuned mainly for Microsoft / Intel / Western Digital (i.e. x86 PCs). It has expanded to other platforms and overtime gets better and likely it will get better on ARM as ARM gets more important.
No Gopher protocol was open. UMinn's Gopher server did require a paid license. On the other hand in 1993 most people who ran HTTP used Netscape's server. The real change IMHO was the move to advertising. Though I'll admit by late '94 you had the LAMP stack and then HTTP was open in a way Gopher never was.
1) Not one of these locked down devices is hard for a "free thinker" to put a new OS on. No one is making nor planning on making devices that are actually secure against a knowledgeable owner that wants them to do something different. They are looking to add some security that is impossible without hardware support. No one is actually advocating the position your essay is opposing.
2) When PCs started they used to come with the OS (and arguably sometimes more than one OS) on ROM. People still booted different OSes on them.
3) There is wealth of content creation tools for all these platforms that already exist, so concerns about consumption / creation are overblown.
4) DRM is obviously popular with content creators to avoid sharing, and larger entities to allow for distribution and control. It comes in and out of fashion and has for long time. There is no long term trend in either direction. For example in the last 5 years virtually all music is sold DRM free while previously music companies had required DRM.
5) On the consumer tablet / phone devices there already exist a wealth of services to setup alternative "clouds" including both Android and iOS. They are cheap and easy to configure. Instead of whining about them not existing for consumer just set one up.
My worst prediction. I figured built in indexing (Gopher) was too valuable to give up and HTTP would thus remain a niche protocol mainly for graphics heavy content.
They aren't just skins they are different browsers with the same rendering engine. Which BTW is the webkit service and not the one the built in Safari uses. Those browsers also have different features and interfaces. For example Dolphin has its own voice search independent and quite different than Siri.
That being said, what you should say is something like "Apple has restricted policies on 3rd party browsers" or something like that not "Apple bans other browsers" since that ain't ture.
Thank you, I stand corrected. I would have figured the article would just say Gnome 3 moves from OpenGL 2 being highly recommend to mandatory if that was the only change.
Apple doesn't ban other browsers on iOS, there are dozens. They don't even ban other engines: Opera is on iOS and they have been working with Microsoft to get a trident based product.
Thank you for a good answer. I should mention that Apple for example used to bundle in lots of 3rd party applications: Omni Graffle and Omni Outliner which they couldn't directly support though they offered support contracts. Though I agree Microsoft hasn't done this as much with the default OS.
I'd assume Apple is willing to support Safari and Opera Software is willing to support Opera. Google isn't willing to support their own products so I assume no on Chrome. Mozilla Foundation just can't support Firefox they lack the staff. Throw in WeMedia who would be happy to support their browser. And say Lynx, which doesn't change and is easy to support.
NVIDIA 6800 is graphics acceleration but only up to OpenGL 1.5, this is about OpenGL 2. That is you have hardware acceleration but more aimed at KDE 3 or Gnome 2. The chip you mentioned is a 2005-7 desktop chip. Why wouldn't this system be horribly out of date?
What he is saying is KDE and Gnome and their associated stacks are starting to be designed in ways that are unusable if you can't support OpenGL 2. OpenGL 2 requires semi beefy CPU or hardware graphics acceleration. So the lowest end systems won't be able to run KDE or Gnome.
Why anyone would want to run a heavy GUI on very low end hardware wasn't explained.
Linux has an expert user model. That is the end user is expected to be interested in resolving issues and aware. That hugely decreases development costs. The same way that WinNT to Windows2000 which also had an expert user model was much cheaper than Win95 -> Win98.
Also even if someone had all the data its hard to figure out what would count as Linux development. For example in the late 1990s a lot of the improvements to XFree86 were written by the Hummingbird guys to get X11 on Windows to work better. Those improvement filter through though to Linux and got XFree86 close enough to Sun's X11 so that XFree86 could become a standard, even though it was nowhere near SGI's X11. Does that count as Linux development?
That being said the LAMP stack Linux kernel, Apache, MySQL and PHP is way over $8b in terms of development just by itself.
As for Linux as a high security OS. UNIXes aren't really good high security OSes since the permissions model is so rich. Certainly you can build a rather secure Linux on top of ACL's and Plash. Coyotos is a high security OS that runs Linux software. Cisco-IOS, IBM/38 or IBM/400, KeyKOS, EROS / CapROS, Amoeba (now defunct) but great when XP when around, etc... Those sorts of OSes don't need frequent patches.
I could understand Microsoft being a pain in the browser department when they were building an entire stack on top of I.E. with:
a) Active Desktop / Channels b) Active-x (i.e.windows binaries as a web format) c) A specialized Java that ran much faster than standard Java d) Deep ties with IIS
And then for the later IE6 years, I can understand the advantages of only offering a crippled web browser once they won the browser wars to keep people locked into the Microsoft desktop.
But today's newer web apps are being built browser and OS independent, a lot of them are built on Macs and a lot migrate their functionality over from Linux. IIS specific software isn't popular, and even where it is deep ties with IE isn't. Today's IE is rather full featured and aims at standards compliance.
You have to wonder why they can't just throw in Opera, Firefox, Chrome, Safari in a "other browsers" folder and be done with this whole mess. What is the logic from their perspective? Why even bother with this fight anymore. What do they get out of it?
Sure you can. That's exactly what wayland is supposed to do.
I meant you can't modernize away the problem in the context of x11. Obviously Aero, GDI and Aqua don't have this problem either it is x11 specific but unfixable.
So, I'm having real difficuly following your line of reasoning. The busses inside graphics cards are crazy fast and very wide, and more than capable of this.
I agree the problems is not inside OpenGL. The problem is server side rendering. The input for the kernel display system comes from the x11 client not the server so when used locally it requires a write to an application and then a write to the graphics buffer rather than a direct write to the graphics buffer. That's not the speed of the buffer inside the graphics chip but rather the bus between RAM and the GPU which is many times slower and in contention.
They stopped considering XP their current OS in January 2007.
As for insanely expensive. The cost of unifying the NT kernel with the features of ME and working through all the bugs on all known applications was $8b. The ongoing support provided for years to increase security and usability I imagine was several billion on top of that. The ongoing hardware support till late 2007 was many tens of millions a year. The developer support in terms of new libraries was billions. $125 was a steal only made possible by the tremendous scale of success of Microsoft's sales.
If there's a security vulnerability in the OS MS wrote, they fucked up. Why should I pay for Microsoft's mistakes?
Because you didn't buy a high security operating system. They were for sale and you choose XP instead.
It is not uncommon for the victim of a crime to be allowed to help recover their stolen items.
For example if you were mugged and the mugger was caught a block down you would be involved in the "that's my watch", "that's my wallet", "no that pen is his".
Apple is a corporation. Corporations do not have beliefs
I disagree. Human societies depend on a tremendous amount of shared culture to function. Corporations are highly organized human societies.
As for the rest regarding the lawyers. I don't know what council thinks. That being said, behavior changes belief so I'd tend to think that more likely than not having argued this case and thought about it deeply their beliefs have come into alignment with Job's beliefs.
As for lawyer ethics, I'd like to see greater penalties for lawyers bringing forth frivolous claims. The same way Sarbanes-Oxley made accountants partially responsible for the truth of what they were reporting.
Not really. Bit maps aren't supposed to scale, they are supposed to be resolution fixed. The operating system is correctly handling a bit mapped graphics paradigm. One can question whether they should use a non resolution independent paradigm as heavily as they did, and I'd agree that was an unwise choice. But that's not a problem of Metro rather that's a problem of choices made in the early days of Windows and carrying them forward.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you mean programming on Android. The question was about content creation for not on. No question Apple considers iDevices secondary devices. They do have some programming languages where they think it appropriate like gambit scheme, ND1 (3 interpreters), a variety of Lua interpreters...
Internet short video has gotten much less DRM oriented. Full length movies on the internet is relatively new. We'll see in 10 years when it is more mature.
What about them? They were hit for violating import and export restrictions. Those have existed since before there was an electronics industry.
Now that's a better example. I should mention though that Sony lost the case. But I'll grant you credit for Sony genuinely truing to prevent Linux mods.
iPhone Linux, iDroid, iMoblin. Good has several they were working on targeted to verticals.
I don't know nothing about PS3 but just googling for 2 seconds brings up PS3MFW which allows you to run Sony's own Other OS. PS3Magic appears to allow the installation of arbitrary OSes.
Certainly. They had to work around different problems like only having 16k or RAM to hold OS, programs and data.
The fact that things that used to be DRMed have become more open. For example Open Source software has replaced lots of closed source. Javascript replacing flash and applets. Flash video being more open. Music no longer being sold DRM.
Which will stop working the exact second the vendor of your tablet / phone kills them.
You are missing the point. These run on your servers not their's. They can't kill them.
Sorry hit submit too soon on last post:
Online video is getting less DRM oriented as shockwave / flash have gotten more open. Books are new and downloadable video is new. We'll see in 10 years how this pans out.
Nonsense. Apple, Microsoft, Sony, etc. all spend lots of time and money designing and implementing security schemes that make doing this more and more difficult.
Microsoft sells cheaply keys to allow you to put your own OS on. That's a fully supported feature of their system.
Apple has been mainly indifferent to the Linux on iPad / iPhone. However they are working aggressively with Good to allow you put your own OS on.
I'm not sure what Sony is doing lately.
They are all significantly harder than a current PC, and end up only partially functional when you do.
Maybe. But current PCs are pretty darn easy. They weren't that easy when Linux was thriving as an alternative to Windows. I'd say it is likely easier to install iPhone Linux today than RedHat in '97. As for partial functionality that's not the fault of the device manufacturers. The Linux kernel was tuned mainly for Microsoft / Intel / Western Digital (i.e. x86 PCs). It has expanded to other platforms and overtime gets better and likely it will get better on ARM as ARM gets more important.
Not over a modem it wasn't.
No Gopher protocol was open. UMinn's Gopher server did require a paid license. On the other hand in 1993 most people who ran HTTP used Netscape's server. The real change IMHO was the move to advertising. Though I'll admit by late '94 you had the LAMP stack and then HTTP was open in a way Gopher never was.
I don't know when I looked online the comments were OpenGL support was non existent to buggy and bad.
Beyond Googling I don't have any any information.
1) Not one of these locked down devices is hard for a "free thinker" to put a new OS on. No one is making nor planning on making devices that are actually secure against a knowledgeable owner that wants them to do something different. They are looking to add some security that is impossible without hardware support. No one is actually advocating the position your essay is opposing.
2) When PCs started they used to come with the OS (and arguably sometimes more than one OS) on ROM. People still booted different OSes on them.
3) There is wealth of content creation tools for all these platforms that already exist, so concerns about consumption / creation are overblown.
4) DRM is obviously popular with content creators to avoid sharing, and larger entities to allow for distribution and control. It comes in and out of fashion and has for long time. There is no long term trend in either direction. For example in the last 5 years virtually all music is sold DRM free while previously music companies had required DRM.
5) On the consumer tablet / phone devices there already exist a wealth of services to setup alternative "clouds" including both Android and iOS. They are cheap and easy to configure. Instead of whining about them not existing for consumer just set one up.
My worst prediction. I figured built in indexing (Gopher) was too valuable to give up and HTTP would thus remain a niche protocol mainly for graphics heavy content.
They aren't just skins they are different browsers with the same rendering engine. Which BTW is the webkit service and not the one the built in Safari uses. Those browsers also have different features and interfaces. For example Dolphin has its own voice search independent and quite different than Siri.
That being said, what you should say is something like "Apple has restricted policies on 3rd party browsers" or something like that not "Apple bans other browsers" since that ain't ture.
Thank you, I stand corrected. I would have figured the article would just say Gnome 3 moves from OpenGL 2 being highly recommend to mandatory if that was the only change.
Apple doesn't ban other browsers on iOS, there are dozens. They don't even ban other engines: Opera is on iOS and they have been working with Microsoft to get a trident based product.
Thank you for a good answer. I should mention that Apple for example used to bundle in lots of 3rd party applications: Omni Graffle and Omni Outliner which they couldn't directly support though they offered support contracts. Though I agree Microsoft hasn't done this as much with the default OS.
I'd assume Apple is willing to support Safari and Opera Software is willing to support Opera. Google isn't willing to support their own products so I assume no on Chrome. Mozilla Foundation just can't support Firefox they lack the staff. Throw in WeMedia who would be happy to support their browser. And say Lynx, which doesn't change and is easy to support.
Now what goes wrong?
When wasn't Ubuntu as heavyweight as Mandrake / Mandriva? Ubuntu has always been a GUI prominent distribution.
NVIDIA 6800 is graphics acceleration but only up to OpenGL 1.5, this is about OpenGL 2. That is you have hardware acceleration but more aimed at KDE 3 or Gnome 2. The chip you mentioned is a 2005-7 desktop chip. Why wouldn't this system be horribly out of date?
What he is saying is KDE and Gnome and their associated stacks are starting to be designed in ways that are unusable if you can't support OpenGL 2. OpenGL 2 requires semi beefy CPU or hardware graphics acceleration. So the lowest end systems won't be able to run KDE or Gnome.
Why anyone would want to run a heavy GUI on very low end hardware wasn't explained.
Where am I saying that? I'm saying I'm not even sure why Microsoft is bothering to break the rules.
How much has been spent on Linux development?
Linux has an expert user model. That is the end user is expected to be interested in resolving issues and aware. That hugely decreases development costs. The same way that WinNT to Windows2000 which also had an expert user model was much cheaper than Win95 -> Win98.
Also even if someone had all the data its hard to figure out what would count as Linux development. For example in the late 1990s a lot of the improvements to XFree86 were written by the Hummingbird guys to get X11 on Windows to work better. Those improvement filter through though to Linux and got XFree86 close enough to Sun's X11 so that XFree86 could become a standard, even though it was nowhere near SGI's X11. Does that count as Linux development?
That being said the LAMP stack Linux kernel, Apache, MySQL and PHP is way over $8b in terms of development just by itself.
As for Linux as a high security OS. UNIXes aren't really good high security OSes since the permissions model is so rich. Certainly you can build a rather secure Linux on top of ACL's and Plash. Coyotos is a high security OS that runs Linux software. Cisco-IOS, IBM/38 or IBM/400, KeyKOS, EROS / CapROS, Amoeba (now defunct) but great when XP when around, etc... Those sorts of OSes don't need frequent patches.
I could understand Microsoft being a pain in the browser department when they were building an entire stack on top of I.E. with:
a) Active Desktop / Channels
b) Active-x (i.e.windows binaries as a web format)
c) A specialized Java that ran much faster than standard Java
d) Deep ties with IIS
And then for the later IE6 years, I can understand the advantages of only offering a crippled web browser once they won the browser wars to keep people locked into the Microsoft desktop.
But today's newer web apps are being built browser and OS independent, a lot of them are built on Macs and a lot migrate their functionality over from Linux. IIS specific software isn't popular, and even where it is deep ties with IE isn't. Today's IE is rather full featured and aims at standards compliance.
You have to wonder why they can't just throw in Opera, Firefox, Chrome, Safari in a "other browsers" folder and be done with this whole mess. What is the logic from their perspective? Why even bother with this fight anymore. What do they get out of it?
Sure you can. That's exactly what wayland is supposed to do.
I meant you can't modernize away the problem in the context of x11. Obviously Aero, GDI and Aqua don't have this problem either it is x11 specific but unfixable.
So, I'm having real difficuly following your line of reasoning. The busses inside graphics cards are crazy fast and very wide, and more than capable of this.
I agree the problems is not inside OpenGL. The problem is server side rendering. The input for the kernel display system comes from the x11 client not the server so when used locally it requires a write to an application and then a write to the graphics buffer rather than a direct write to the graphics buffer. That's not the speed of the buffer inside the graphics chip but rather the bus between RAM and the GPU which is many times slower and in contention.
They stopped considering XP their current OS in January 2007.
As for insanely expensive. The cost of unifying the NT kernel with the features of ME and working through all the bugs on all known applications was $8b. The ongoing support provided for years to increase security and usability I imagine was several billion on top of that. The ongoing hardware support till late 2007 was many tens of millions a year. The developer support in terms of new libraries was billions. $125 was a steal only made possible by the tremendous scale of success of Microsoft's sales.
If there's a security vulnerability in the OS MS wrote, they fucked up. Why should I pay for Microsoft's mistakes?
Because you didn't buy a high security operating system. They were for sale and you choose XP instead.
It is not uncommon for the victim of a crime to be allowed to help recover their stolen items.
For example if you were mugged and the mugger was caught a block down you would be involved in the "that's my watch", "that's my wallet", "no that pen is his".
Apple is a corporation. Corporations do not have beliefs
I disagree. Human societies depend on a tremendous amount of shared culture to function. Corporations are highly organized human societies.
As for the rest regarding the lawyers. I don't know what council thinks. That being said, behavior changes belief so I'd tend to think that more likely than not having argued this case and thought about it deeply their beliefs have come into alignment with Job's beliefs.
As for lawyer ethics, I'd like to see greater penalties for lawyers bringing forth frivolous claims. The same way Sarbanes-Oxley made accountants partially responsible for the truth of what they were reporting.
Good point.
Not really. Bit maps aren't supposed to scale, they are supposed to be resolution fixed. The operating system is correctly handling a bit mapped graphics paradigm. One can question whether they should use a non resolution independent paradigm as heavily as they did, and I'd agree that was an unwise choice. But that's not a problem of Metro rather that's a problem of choices made in the early days of Windows and carrying them forward.