That is not true. It has been proven that passphrases can be weaker than passwords, simply because words usually follow each other in an ordered pattern.
You'll be safe from brute force attacks, but not any attack that adds intelligence to the mix. And if the person cracking your password knows it uses music lyrics you love, you'll be even more at risk since it only has to test for the songs you like.
I think what is meant was that the tablet business model is different from the phone's. A phone is sold as is, with exorbitant prices if not subsidized by a carrier. This table is sold probably at the price it costs to make or even less, since it is supposed to make money by the use of google's store.
And for google to make money on it, they have to guarantee (somewhat) that you'll be using their services. And that's why these are different than phones, most brands provide easy to root Android phones, since they don't expect to make money off them - and it also saves them some warranty money, since rooting voids that. I highly doubt this table will be anything like that.
So, no, OSS on Android phones is not the same as the tablet. It wasn't the same with kindle fire, it won't be the same with this.
I see this getting thrown out a lot, and I've actually been responsible for using it a few times.
The big problem with that argument is not what you (the geek) can do with it's phone, it's what common people do. The success is measured with the sales of the 99% of the people that cannot do that (and it's harder than installing windows - you first have to root the phone, get into recovery, etc etc).
This is where apple shines. If an OS is available, it'll be available for every phone that supports it. Google does the same with the nexus line but big companies don't.
But you got one thing straight. The path for Android's success has to be platform independence for (most of) the OS. Windows works fine on any machine (even macs), Any version of android should run on any Android that follows a certain specification.
For that to happen, standards have to be made. Android should be able to see what hardware was there and download the optimized drivers by itself, for example. But this is all kind of utopic, so... No, I stopped doing anything about it (on my Desire) on 2.3. It's not worth the hassle to get Gingerbread running here.
I see your point, but I disagree. I consider it better to have the webserver running slowly than having it crash because it ran out of memory. To do that might be a choice, but you could just go here ( http://unixfoo.blogspot.pt/2007/11/linux-performance-tuning.html ).
I meant 2 disk access, some or another. From what I read they would never be simultaneous anyways.
Either way, this would be useful (actually IS, some solutions do this) in the Business Intelligence field. But the whole point of keeping everything in memory is moot when you have petabytes of information that you need to process during your ETL. What matters in this database is, how well does it behave in a cluster and how would it handle concurrency (ACID? Eventually synchronized?).
I doubt this is all that useful for common DB applications like websites and the like. Relational DB's have been proving to be enough for everything (ex: Youtube uses mysql shards - or used to) purely web related for a while now, I doubt this is a gamechanger at all.
I'd love to see their tests when this DB needs to go into swap / pagefile. It's double the slowdown, needs to write into the swap (disk I/O) and then sync the DB (disk I/O again).
I can't, for the life of me, understand where this will be better than the already available options.
RHSA-2012:0720-1 & RHSA-2012:0721-1: It was found that the Xen hypervisor implementation as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 did not properly restrict the syscall return addresses in the sysret return path to canonical addresses. An unprivileged user in a 64-bit para-virtualized guest, that is running on a 64-bit host that has an Intel CPU, could use this flaw to crash the host or, potentially, escalate their privileges, allowing them to execute arbitrary code at the hypervisor level. (CVE-2012-0217, Important)
No, I'm saying that for the past 2 years (almost) you cannot do that.
It's like me saying iOS can't handle 3G, send MMS's, GPS or screen resolutions higher than 240x320.
And the whole scenario you explained is, almost certainly, false because a market application cannot be installed to devices that are below the target API level when compiled. That's a fact that I just confirmed after your whole speech, so, please, just shut up already. You ARE wrong.
The target is not in the market, is in the application. Open an Eclipse project and you set your target from the start. If you want, for example, to record sound from the bluetooth set you need to set 2.3 in order to get the libraries and you won't be able to "set" anything on the market for previous versions. If what you said is true (and I doubt it is exactly as you said, at least for the past year where I've been using the market), the developers did not set anything at all. When I try to install 4.0 apps on my 2.3 the app won't even install, so no, I do not believe you.
What can happen is your phone being a crap 100$ phone or the app requiring more memory than you can give or even the programmer sucking and making it run badly everywhere (or even not run).
The problem with Android has nothing to do with versions of an application, but when you start messing with a phone's specific details. Some graphic cards suck (or the drivers do), some have the camera on sideways, some have a gyroscope, half the phones I've touched have a non-functioning compass. Most sensors and cameras do follow a standard, but then there's that phone no one knows about that does not - and the customers expect it to work anyways, even though we have no way to test it.
Either way, you are using android 1.6. That's over 3 years old. So, back then, it might have happened what you said. Now, it doesn't, so don't talk as if you know anything about it.
Google does not make money licensing Android. But they make a shitload of cash serving adds, gathering info on android users, locking you into their ecosystem, etc.
Instead of mocking, lets just assume this happens (in my country it is more or less the same).
What solution do you propose? There are lots of reasons to why people do this:
One to three weeks delay is a lot when you're part of on-line communities. If you are part of any MMORPG your guild chat / world chat will be ripe with spoilers after the episode. For the same reason people will spend a whole night reading a good book, people will try to watch the next chapter of a good story as soon as possible (that's human nature) The current distribution model makes it extremely hard to get your hands on an episode even if you're willing to pay. And when I say hard, I mean darn near impossible if you did not see it live.
If HBO does not want people to pirate their shows, distribute them legally. I know people that would gladly pay for the episode on iTunes but aren't able to. I'm sure they have their reasons, but with the ease of distribution pirating channels have, there is no way to fight this torrent without joining the battle. Ignoring the problem will make it worse.
Package managers still require you to manually click them and update.
Windows update is the worst kind of nagware and I've seen people not updating windows for months in a row (and the more time went by, the less likely it would be for them to update). Unless it is silent, automatic and in the background, it won't happen.
You can also not use windows and opt for linux. But is it worth it? For some, yes, I'd say that for most people it isn't.
Java runs some cool software that most have no idea it actually is Java (it can copy the look and feel of your OS). The only way to mostly fix java is to have chrome like updates. Silent, forced on you but safe.
This is not true. If you fly from portugal, brasil or the UK to the US (at least those three) you pass through absurd scrutiny too. Some countries are banned to fly to the US precisely because they can't implement it.
It's a US thing, but if you plan to land on the US you're gonna have a bad time with it.
You fail to consider that this service might have something different. Most google services did not innovate, search was already there, e-mail was already there, even calendars were already there. And then google gave you more value for free (or for data). Some might dislike that, I know I don't...
5gb is already a step in the right direction. But I'm thinking that integration with other google services (for example, douments -> docs, files to e-mail in an instant, etc).
If you have sensitive files, this service is not directed at you (:
How, I have no idea. Just really needed my system and a couple of virtual machines (separated in a lot of tiny files) and they were not there. The problem was, Time Machine only updates or re-writes what was changed, so if he thinks he still has the right version of a file that got corrupted (have no idea how that happens), there will be no further backing up and from there you can have the whole virtual machine not booting.
I wanted it to ask me WHAT I wanted to delete. In the case of the virtual machines, I didn't need 10 copies of it, just the most recent working copy. If I had downloaded a CentOS image with a few gb's, I don't want to have that taking space, nor do I want it to save the 30gb of uncompressed HD movie clips I was editing. Or the (very legitimate) torrent file I'm on the process of downloading)
On the other hand, if my original backup had this snapshot of my Documents folder 10 months ago, I tend to only keep what I'm really working at the moment. I'd love it... If only it would, at the very least, let me move those files somewhere in the computer before deciding they are to be deleted, that'd be great.
You were asking "what other way do you proposed besides deleting the older one", well, Most companies after a few years will only keep the full backups done every other week or so, deleting the incremental and differential backups that would let you recover any day of a specific month. They assume that it won't be necessary to know the exact state of a system on any given day after that time (nor will the law force them in a common business). The Time Machine system won't allow you to do this, but it'd be a start. Delete old versions of a document it knows there are new ones (same name, same place, start by deleting the original versions of those). Prioritize large sized old media (I don't really think the 4.7gb mkv will do much good on a backup). But well, that'd be an intelligent way to do it - I guess the gurus at apple prefer to keep things "simple and dumb"
Also, all these answers proposing I do backups to account for my backups failing. Redundancy it's all nice and dandy, but if a backup system is not reliable, it is no backup system at all. I know disks fail and shit happens, but I've heard more than one horror story about time machine (and I didn't care for them - until it happened to me).
I assume you are talking about Time Machine. I've lost more than one "whole install" to corrupt time machine backups. Worse, one of the computers wouldn't even boot after it It was a new computer, changed it for a another, same thing - just ended up restoring my documents only and loosing a shitload of things in the process.
And FYI, windows also does the time machine thing, they just don't call it "time machine" and don't make it a default option. It's a tool that you need to decide to use and it'll freeze your current computer state into an external hard drive or dvd's.
The idea of the Time Machine is good, but it's not well executed. From deleting old backups automatically for space (I might want to save some of those old things) to using a nth degree differential backups that depend on the root and the entire backup tree to work... Each time it runs you risk corrupting something so bad the backups will be worthless. I'd rather apple would let me chose folders and just do full zipped/encrypted copies of those I choose. Time Machine just lulls most into a false sense of security
Well, the general idea is that they were very secure. Not too long ago I was modded into oblivion because I said windows is, by design, more secure that Mac OS. So obviously, I dropped the subject and never posted about it again.
If no one is allowed to talk about it, the general impression will be that they are, indeed, more secure (at least here).
Slashdot Mirror
Just the fact that lyrics are used immensely reduces the search space. The length is only perceived security, not real security...
That is not true. It has been proven that passphrases can be weaker than passwords, simply because words usually follow each other in an ordered pattern.
You'll be safe from brute force attacks, but not any attack that adds intelligence to the mix. And if the person cracking your password knows it uses music lyrics you love, you'll be even more at risk since it only has to test for the songs you like.
What you just described is NOT safety.
I think what is meant was that the tablet business model is different from the phone's. A phone is sold as is, with exorbitant prices if not subsidized by a carrier. This table is sold probably at the price it costs to make or even less, since it is supposed to make money by the use of google's store.
And for google to make money on it, they have to guarantee (somewhat) that you'll be using their services. And that's why these are different than phones, most brands provide easy to root Android phones, since they don't expect to make money off them - and it also saves them some warranty money, since rooting voids that. I highly doubt this table will be anything like that.
So, no, OSS on Android phones is not the same as the tablet. It wasn't the same with kindle fire, it won't be the same with this.
I see this getting thrown out a lot, and I've actually been responsible for using it a few times.
The big problem with that argument is not what you (the geek) can do with it's phone, it's what common people do. The success is measured with the sales of the 99% of the people that cannot do that (and it's harder than installing windows - you first have to root the phone, get into recovery, etc etc).
This is where apple shines. If an OS is available, it'll be available for every phone that supports it. Google does the same with the nexus line but big companies don't.
But you got one thing straight. The path for Android's success has to be platform independence for (most of) the OS. Windows works fine on any machine (even macs), Any version of android should run on any Android that follows a certain specification.
For that to happen, standards have to be made. Android should be able to see what hardware was there and download the optimized drivers by itself, for example. But this is all kind of utopic, so... No, I stopped doing anything about it (on my Desire) on 2.3. It's not worth the hassle to get Gingerbread running here.
I see your point, but I disagree. I consider it better to have the webserver running slowly than having it crash because it ran out of memory. To do that might be a choice, but you could just go here ( http://unixfoo.blogspot.pt/2007/11/linux-performance-tuning.html ).
I meant 2 disk access, some or another. From what I read they would never be simultaneous anyways.
Either way, this would be useful (actually IS, some solutions do this) in the Business Intelligence field. But the whole point of keeping everything in memory is moot when you have petabytes of information that you need to process during your ETL. What matters in this database is, how well does it behave in a cluster and how would it handle concurrency (ACID? Eventually synchronized?).
I doubt this is all that useful for common DB applications like websites and the like. Relational DB's have been proving to be enough for everything (ex: Youtube uses mysql shards - or used to) purely web related for a while now, I doubt this is a gamechanger at all.
I'd love to see their tests when this DB needs to go into swap / pagefile. It's double the slowdown, needs to write into the swap (disk I/O) and then sync the DB (disk I/O again).
I can't, for the life of me, understand where this will be better than the already available options.
That and memcached (I think that's the name).
This comparison is far from fair... Is it ACID? Or eventually synchs up? How does it compare with other memory based DB's?
Comparing it with a slow relational DB will not give you any kind of credibility.
The phone will lock for 30s after 3 failed attempts or so, so you'd still have a hard time with a pin.
But any android phone has offered the option for a password for the last year, so the whole thing is moot. Want security, pick a strong passsword.
it's not stupid at all, you don't have to slide your finger on the screen!
With a 4.8 screen, imagine how much work you'd have to put into that every single day... It's a godsend, I tell you, a godsend!
Details from Red Hat
RHSA-2012:0720-1 & RHSA-2012:0721-1: It was found that the Xen hypervisor implementation as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 did not properly restrict the syscall return addresses in the sysret return path to canonical addresses. An unprivileged user in a 64-bit para-virtualized guest, that is running on a 64-bit host that has an Intel CPU, could use this flaw to crash the host or, potentially, escalate their privileges, allowing them to execute arbitrary code at the hypervisor level. (CVE-2012-0217, Important)
from the original article
No, I'm saying that for the past 2 years (almost) you cannot do that.
It's like me saying iOS can't handle 3G, send MMS's, GPS or screen resolutions higher than 240x320.
And the whole scenario you explained is, almost certainly, false because a market application cannot be installed to devices that are below the target API level when compiled. That's a fact that I just confirmed after your whole speech, so, please, just shut up already. You ARE wrong.
As I said, NO.
The target is not in the market, is in the application. Open an Eclipse project and you set your target from the start. If you want, for example, to record sound from the bluetooth set you need to set 2.3 in order to get the libraries and you won't be able to "set" anything on the market for previous versions. If what you said is true (and I doubt it is exactly as you said, at least for the past year where I've been using the market), the developers did not set anything at all. When I try to install 4.0 apps on my 2.3 the app won't even install, so no, I do not believe you.
What can happen is your phone being a crap 100$ phone or the app requiring more memory than you can give or even the programmer sucking and making it run badly everywhere (or even not run).
The problem with Android has nothing to do with versions of an application, but when you start messing with a phone's specific details. Some graphic cards suck (or the drivers do), some have the camera on sideways, some have a gyroscope, half the phones I've touched have a non-functioning compass. Most sensors and cameras do follow a standard, but then there's that phone no one knows about that does not - and the customers expect it to work anyways, even though we have no way to test it.
Either way, you are using android 1.6. That's over 3 years old. So, back then, it might have happened what you said. Now, it doesn't, so don't talk as if you know anything about it.
Backwards compatibility claim is FALSE.
Every dev needs to set a version target and if you specify 2.2 no one with 2.1 will be able to get it, but it's guaranteed to work for 2.2.
Android won't LET you sell in the market for a target that came before the one you specified. Stop trying to sound reasonable while saying bullshit.
Google does not make money licensing Android. But they make a shitload of cash serving adds, gathering info on android users, locking you into their ecosystem, etc.
The key is user-based and not browser based. It is used to identify you as the source of the material.
It won't hurt anyone else other than yahoo.
Instead of mocking, lets just assume this happens (in my country it is more or less the same).
What solution do you propose? There are lots of reasons to why people do this:
One to three weeks delay is a lot when you're part of on-line communities. If you are part of any MMORPG your guild chat / world chat will be ripe with spoilers after the episode.
For the same reason people will spend a whole night reading a good book, people will try to watch the next chapter of a good story as soon as possible (that's human nature)
The current distribution model makes it extremely hard to get your hands on an episode even if you're willing to pay. And when I say hard, I mean darn near impossible if you did not see it live.
If HBO does not want people to pirate their shows, distribute them legally. I know people that would gladly pay for the episode on iTunes but aren't able to. I'm sure they have their reasons, but with the ease of distribution pirating channels have, there is no way to fight this torrent without joining the battle. Ignoring the problem will make it worse.
Package managers still require you to manually click them and update.
Windows update is the worst kind of nagware and I've seen people not updating windows for months in a row (and the more time went by, the less likely it would be for them to update). Unless it is silent, automatic and in the background, it won't happen.
You can also not use windows and opt for linux. But is it worth it? For some, yes, I'd say that for most people it isn't.
Java runs some cool software that most have no idea it actually is Java (it can copy the look and feel of your OS). The only way to mostly fix java is to have chrome like updates. Silent, forced on you but safe.
In this case, because it is a false allegation. He should read the article he posted (and so should you)
This is not true. If you fly from portugal, brasil or the UK to the US (at least those three) you pass through absurd scrutiny too. Some countries are banned to fly to the US precisely because they can't implement it.
It's a US thing, but if you plan to land on the US you're gonna have a bad time with it.
You fail to consider that this service might have something different. Most google services did not innovate, search was already there, e-mail was already there, even calendars were already there. And then google gave you more value for free (or for data). Some might dislike that, I know I don't...
5gb is already a step in the right direction. But I'm thinking that integration with other google services (for example, douments -> docs, files to e-mail in an instant, etc).
If you have sensitive files, this service is not directed at you (:
How, I have no idea. Just really needed my system and a couple of virtual machines (separated in a lot of tiny files) and they were not there. The problem was, Time Machine only updates or re-writes what was changed, so if he thinks he still has the right version of a file that got corrupted (have no idea how that happens), there will be no further backing up and from there you can have the whole virtual machine not booting.
I wanted it to ask me WHAT I wanted to delete. In the case of the virtual machines, I didn't need 10 copies of it, just the most recent working copy. If I had downloaded a CentOS image with a few gb's, I don't want to have that taking space, nor do I want it to save the 30gb of uncompressed HD movie clips I was editing. Or the (very legitimate) torrent file I'm on the process of downloading)
On the other hand, if my original backup had this snapshot of my Documents folder 10 months ago, I tend to only keep what I'm really working at the moment. I'd love it... If only it would, at the very least, let me move those files somewhere in the computer before deciding they are to be deleted, that'd be great.
You were asking "what other way do you proposed besides deleting the older one", well, Most companies after a few years will only keep the full backups done every other week or so, deleting the incremental and differential backups that would let you recover any day of a specific month. They assume that it won't be necessary to know the exact state of a system on any given day after that time (nor will the law force them in a common business). The Time Machine system won't allow you to do this, but it'd be a start. Delete old versions of a document it knows there are new ones (same name, same place, start by deleting the original versions of those). Prioritize large sized old media (I don't really think the 4.7gb mkv will do much good on a backup). But well, that'd be an intelligent way to do it - I guess the gurus at apple prefer to keep things "simple and dumb"
Also, all these answers proposing I do backups to account for my backups failing. Redundancy it's all nice and dandy, but if a backup system is not reliable, it is no backup system at all. I know disks fail and shit happens, but I've heard more than one horror story about time machine (and I didn't care for them - until it happened to me).
I assume you are talking about Time Machine. I've lost more than one "whole install" to corrupt time machine backups. Worse, one of the computers wouldn't even boot after it It was a new computer, changed it for a another, same thing - just ended up restoring my documents only and loosing a shitload of things in the process.
And FYI, windows also does the time machine thing, they just don't call it "time machine" and don't make it a default option. It's a tool that you need to decide to use and it'll freeze your current computer state into an external hard drive or dvd's.
The idea of the Time Machine is good, but it's not well executed. From deleting old backups automatically for space (I might want to save some of those old things) to using a nth degree differential backups that depend on the root and the entire backup tree to work... Each time it runs you risk corrupting something so bad the backups will be worthless. I'd rather apple would let me chose folders and just do full zipped/encrypted copies of those I choose. Time Machine just lulls most into a false sense of security
Well, the general idea is that they were very secure. Not too long ago I was modded into oblivion because I said windows is, by design, more secure that Mac OS. So obviously, I dropped the subject and never posted about it again.
If no one is allowed to talk about it, the general impression will be that they are, indeed, more secure (at least here).