So do you think that an iPhone has all of the code to do a PCIe bus walk? And what about all of the other device drivers that you need to run an x86 based desktop/laptop? And would the desktop OS incorporate all of the ARM architecture code into it?
Sure, Apple probably started with the core of the OS and there is some shared code between the two. But I can fairly confidently speculate that much of the kernel has been engineered towards the platform for which it is intended and much of the kernel source is independent between the two.
And let's not forget that everything built on top of the kernel, which is substantial, is vastly different. The entire UI layer that sits on top of the kernel may have bits of shared code here and there but it's largely independent between the two.
Exactly. Apple took a useful feature like gestures and translated it in such a way that it became a useful feature in an intuitive way on the other platform. It's the same basic concept and works in a way that makes sense on one side and the other. And they did it without forcing one UI into an environment for which it is entirely inappropriate.
When I'm doing real work on a desktop, whether it's at work or when I'm doing my hobby programming, I want a real desktop with real tools to get real work done. On the other hand, when I'm doing simple tasks on a portable device, I find the desktop to be far too cumbersome. They are two entirely separate tasks with different needs. Forcing someone to use a tablet UI when doing real work is just as bad as forcing someone to use a desktop UI (or worse, a shell) on their phone.
The fundamental concept of the desktop windowing interface has not changed since the early X11/Mac/Windows days. It's a model that works and gets the job done. Sure, they were primitive back then and very many enhancements have been added to tweak the model to make it better over the decades. But the fundamental concept hasn't changed at all. And there's a good reason for that. When it comes to using a computer to do real work, the windowing model that has been in place for over 30 years is a very good model that works very well when it comes to doing "real work" on a computer.
There's a good reason why Apple and Android mobile devices don't use that model. It's a very cumbersome interface to use on a handheld device. It just doesn't work well for performing the tasks that you perform on a device like that. That's why they both were given an entirely different UI that has little or nothing to do with the classic windowing model. It's a completely different device with a mostly different set of tasks to perform. And even though some of the tasks like web surfing are similar, the way they are performed are different enough that the UI is justifiably different.
As tablets become more capable, will there some convergence between desktops and mobile devices? Sure. Will touch screens on desktops become useful? Almost certainly given time. But that's no reason to force the tablet UI onto the desktop. No. Instead, the two platforms should be kept separate. Where there is convergence, take from one side and interpret the feature in such a way that it makes sense and enhances the other side. But for the love of all that's holy, please stop trying to have a one size-fits-all UI for both mobile and desktop platforms. Because it just won't work. It can't. They are two separate kinds of devices with two entirely different modes of operation and the way they are operated cannot be merged into one single UI. There must be separate UIs for each. And as Apple has convincingly demonstrated, you can have synergy between the two without destroying the usability of either.
Apple got it right.
They made one operating system for their desktop. It's a "pure" desktop operating system. Their mobile device operating system is an entirely different operating system. The two can work together but they are entirely different operating systems for entirely different platforms that serve entirely different roles.
This farcical attempt to make one operating system for every type of device leaves you with all of the compromises you don't need to make.
It's fine if you want to make your tablet more flexible and expandable with a detatchable keyboard but it's still a tablet. It needs a "pure" tablet operating system. The last thing you want to do is take a desktop operating system and slap a tablet UI on it.
"Oh yeah, you want a seriously righteous hack, you score one of those Gibsons man. You know, supercomputers they use to like, do physics, and look for oil and stuff?"
Will driverless cars magically create more capacity on the roads so that there is enough space for all the cars that want to drive on the same road at the same time? Because that would be a neat trick.
Yes, there are new forces controlling selection. Those who reproduce are the ones who are too stupid to use birth control correctly... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
Rarely has a business gone bankrupt because they underestimated the stupidity of the average consumer. There will be a large number of people who don't know enough or care about their privacy who will line up to get "free" storage.
I've already migrated and found something that is exactly what I want. Linux Mint with MATE is perfect for me. There's no reason to go back and fight with a UI that I may or may not like.
Because it's still a valid complaint. I haven't met a single person IRL that likes Unity. There are a few vocal people on here that really push it but everyone I know in person doesn't like it.
all due respect, i am running 10.10 netbook remix (first test of unity), and i currently have 3 browsers open, 3 terminals, a photo-editing app (darktable is pretty damn good these days) which i compile myself, plus skype, and occasionally dosbox'd doom2 and carmageddon.
the interface will get out of your way if you hit f11.
just sayin'. unity is certainly not perfect, but i use the sidebar more often than not. some stuff i'll launch from a terminal.
If you like Unity, great. Use it. But for a lot of us, we don't want to have a side bar. We don't want all of these tablet like "features". We don't want to have to hit F11 for the UI to get out of the way. We want the UI to be out of the way as a matter of design. So for us, Ubuntu is irrelevant. But that doesn't mean you have to do what we do.
The bugs in unity are not the biggest problem people have with Ubuntu and Unity. Linux users of all types are used to buggy code.
No, the problem is Unity itself. It's a UI that just doesn't appeal to many Linux users. Some people love it. Sure. But a lot of us can't stand all of the crap and bloat that has infected user interfaces over the years. A lot of us want a simple and clean interface that stays out of the way. I want to be able to fire up a browser or three, my IDE, my email, a file manager, and once in a while a terminal or two. I want simple buttons and menus and a UI that lets me move windows around without all sorts of flashy special effects that get in the way. I want a couple of "desktops" so that I can leave my development area as it is while I type up a document on a word processor.
I'm not running a tablet. I don't need my UI to act like one. I have a full keyboard and mouse and I'm doing real work with real programs. I want a simple interface that lets me do that. For me, Linux Mint gives me all of what was great about Ubuntu but with a UI that I can tailor to my liking. I fire up my desktop with MATE, which is still a little buggy, and I get things done.
If you like Unity, go ahead and use it. But for people who like KDE and the old GNOME 2.x UI, Ubuntu has driven itself into irrelevance.
Actually, Microsoft gets more on patent revenue for every Android phone sold than they make on Windows phones: link. I'm not sure how they approach this conflict of interest. They'd be better off, financially anyway, by losing sales to their competitor.
However, you do have a point about their inability to force vendors to sell their software for every piece of hardware. It's a business model they don't have any experience with and they appear incapable of getting any market penetration as a result.
In other news, The Pope found to be Catholic. "I've always known I was Catholic since I was a child" declared the Pontiff in Rome. Also, bears found to defecate in the woods. "After a 5 year study, we came to the conclusion that bears did not leave the forest to 'take care of business'" declared Professor Gzint of the Wildlife Study Society.
Slashdot Mirror
So do you think that an iPhone has all of the code to do a PCIe bus walk? And what about all of the other device drivers that you need to run an x86 based desktop/laptop? And would the desktop OS incorporate all of the ARM architecture code into it?
Sure, Apple probably started with the core of the OS and there is some shared code between the two. But I can fairly confidently speculate that much of the kernel has been engineered towards the platform for which it is intended and much of the kernel source is independent between the two.
And let's not forget that everything built on top of the kernel, which is substantial, is vastly different. The entire UI layer that sits on top of the kernel may have bits of shared code here and there but it's largely independent between the two.
No, I think it's you that has no clue my friend.
Exactly. Apple took a useful feature like gestures and translated it in such a way that it became a useful feature in an intuitive way on the other platform. It's the same basic concept and works in a way that makes sense on one side and the other. And they did it without forcing one UI into an environment for which it is entirely inappropriate.
When I'm doing real work on a desktop, whether it's at work or when I'm doing my hobby programming, I want a real desktop with real tools to get real work done. On the other hand, when I'm doing simple tasks on a portable device, I find the desktop to be far too cumbersome. They are two entirely separate tasks with different needs. Forcing someone to use a tablet UI when doing real work is just as bad as forcing someone to use a desktop UI (or worse, a shell) on their phone.
The fundamental concept of the desktop windowing interface has not changed since the early X11/Mac/Windows days. It's a model that works and gets the job done. Sure, they were primitive back then and very many enhancements have been added to tweak the model to make it better over the decades. But the fundamental concept hasn't changed at all. And there's a good reason for that. When it comes to using a computer to do real work, the windowing model that has been in place for over 30 years is a very good model that works very well when it comes to doing "real work" on a computer.
There's a good reason why Apple and Android mobile devices don't use that model. It's a very cumbersome interface to use on a handheld device. It just doesn't work well for performing the tasks that you perform on a device like that. That's why they both were given an entirely different UI that has little or nothing to do with the classic windowing model. It's a completely different device with a mostly different set of tasks to perform. And even though some of the tasks like web surfing are similar, the way they are performed are different enough that the UI is justifiably different.
As tablets become more capable, will there some convergence between desktops and mobile devices? Sure. Will touch screens on desktops become useful? Almost certainly given time. But that's no reason to force the tablet UI onto the desktop. No. Instead, the two platforms should be kept separate. Where there is convergence, take from one side and interpret the feature in such a way that it makes sense and enhances the other side. But for the love of all that's holy, please stop trying to have a one size-fits-all UI for both mobile and desktop platforms. Because it just won't work. It can't. They are two separate kinds of devices with two entirely different modes of operation and the way they are operated cannot be merged into one single UI. There must be separate UIs for each. And as Apple has convincingly demonstrated, you can have synergy between the two without destroying the usability of either.
Apple got it right. They made one operating system for their desktop. It's a "pure" desktop operating system. Their mobile device operating system is an entirely different operating system. The two can work together but they are entirely different operating systems for entirely different platforms that serve entirely different roles. This farcical attempt to make one operating system for every type of device leaves you with all of the compromises you don't need to make. It's fine if you want to make your tablet more flexible and expandable with a detatchable keyboard but it's still a tablet. It needs a "pure" tablet operating system. The last thing you want to do is take a desktop operating system and slap a tablet UI on it.
"Oh yeah, you want a seriously righteous hack, you score one of those Gibsons man. You know, supercomputers they use to like, do physics, and look for oil and stuff?"
What could possibly go wrong?
I'm guessing that they chose Texas because they want to see how many people turn the test into a skeet shooting contest.
Oh no, they will be very memorable. If they're anything like the latest Sim City, expect them to blow up like the Death Star.
What does BMW stand for?
Big Money Waster.
I heard it was "Bought My Wife".
What I want to know is how these drones are more of a threat to privacy than a manned helicopter flying around doing the same thing.
Ending Congestion? Seriously?
Will driverless cars magically create more capacity on the roads so that there is enough space for all the cars that want to drive on the same road at the same time? Because that would be a neat trick.
Yes, there are new forces controlling selection. Those who reproduce are the ones who are too stupid to use birth control correctly... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
Way more than 69% vote for the Republicrats. (or is that Democans?) They may hate the bastards but they don't want the wrong bastard in office...
But those don't generate as much traffic for the advertisements...
I for one welcome our new corporate overlords
Does this happen to you often? Never happens to me. *shrug*
...never complains about wanting a bigger... "dork"
Rarely has a business gone bankrupt because they underestimated the stupidity of the average consumer. There will be a large number of people who don't know enough or care about their privacy who will line up to get "free" storage.
I've already migrated and found something that is exactly what I want. Linux Mint with MATE is perfect for me. There's no reason to go back and fight with a UI that I may or may not like.
Because it's still a valid complaint. I haven't met a single person IRL that likes Unity. There are a few vocal people on here that really push it but everyone I know in person doesn't like it.
all due respect, i am running 10.10 netbook remix (first test of unity), and i currently have 3 browsers open, 3 terminals, a photo-editing app (darktable is pretty damn good these days) which i compile myself, plus skype, and occasionally dosbox'd doom2 and carmageddon.
the interface will get out of your way if you hit f11.
just sayin'. unity is certainly not perfect, but i use the sidebar more often than not. some stuff i'll launch from a terminal.
If you like Unity, great. Use it. But for a lot of us, we don't want to have a side bar. We don't want all of these tablet like "features". We don't want to have to hit F11 for the UI to get out of the way. We want the UI to be out of the way as a matter of design. So for us, Ubuntu is irrelevant. But that doesn't mean you have to do what we do.
The bugs in unity are not the biggest problem people have with Ubuntu and Unity. Linux users of all types are used to buggy code.
No, the problem is Unity itself. It's a UI that just doesn't appeal to many Linux users. Some people love it. Sure. But a lot of us can't stand all of the crap and bloat that has infected user interfaces over the years. A lot of us want a simple and clean interface that stays out of the way. I want to be able to fire up a browser or three, my IDE, my email, a file manager, and once in a while a terminal or two. I want simple buttons and menus and a UI that lets me move windows around without all sorts of flashy special effects that get in the way. I want a couple of "desktops" so that I can leave my development area as it is while I type up a document on a word processor.
I'm not running a tablet. I don't need my UI to act like one. I have a full keyboard and mouse and I'm doing real work with real programs. I want a simple interface that lets me do that. For me, Linux Mint gives me all of what was great about Ubuntu but with a UI that I can tailor to my liking. I fire up my desktop with MATE, which is still a little buggy, and I get things done.
If you like Unity, go ahead and use it. But for people who like KDE and the old GNOME 2.x UI, Ubuntu has driven itself into irrelevance.
I tried Mint 12 and went back to 11 because I did not like GNOME 3. Why are they saying "will" like it hasn't come out yet?
I'm using the MATE UI (GNOME 2 fork) on Mint 12 and it's great.
I have made the switch as well. It's so nice to have a desktop I can actually use.
We already can. We have been able to do that since the 50's. Ever hear of the ICBM? There's no reason it has to have only a nuclear warhead on it.
Actually, Microsoft gets more on patent revenue for every Android phone sold than they make on Windows phones: link. I'm not sure how they approach this conflict of interest. They'd be better off, financially anyway, by losing sales to their competitor.
However, you do have a point about their inability to force vendors to sell their software for every piece of hardware. It's a business model they don't have any experience with and they appear incapable of getting any market penetration as a result.
In other news, The Pope found to be Catholic. "I've always known I was Catholic since I was a child" declared the Pontiff in Rome. Also, bears found to defecate in the woods. "After a 5 year study, we came to the conclusion that bears did not leave the forest to 'take care of business'" declared Professor Gzint of the Wildlife Study Society.