Somebody found an obscure and meaningless way to show Linux is better than Windows. The context is Slashdot where anything pro-Linux and anti-Windows is automatically "stuff that matters", even if it doesn't.
I don't share your belief that there are lots of iPhone fans who are being held back because they don't want AT&T. Besides, the other carriers might fear the possibility that Apple could end up with a monopoly on smart phones.
It's interesting to me that you mention PS/2 connectors. As part of a development project my client gave me a Mac Mini.
Now the mini has been pushed as the easiest way for a PC user to switch to a Mac. But guess what - I couldn't plug my existing keyboard into it, I couldn't plug my existing mouse into it and I couldn't plug my existing headset into it. Fortunately, Apple did provide an adapter so you could connect it to a monitor with a VGA connector.
So rather than being a device to convince users to switch to the Mac platform, it's really an introduction to Apple's limited vision.
Yes, I was expecting that response. The problem is that if you make a copy of an artist's work then you deny him the money he would earn if you bought it. You see how it really isn't that different?
What you say is a popular meme, but I bet that most programmers that "jumped on the internet bandwagon because of hype", jumped right off when the bottom fell out a few years ago.
Well, let's put this in historical perspective. Prior to Nintendo NES it was believed that you couldn't restrict third parties from developing content for your platform. It was also believed that you couldn't use patent, trademark, or copyright tricks to prevent third parties from selling software for your system.
In fact, the technical details for programming the Atari 2600 were an Atari trade secret and third-parties had to reverse-engineer the hardware (or buy from somebody else who did) to learn how to do it. Despite this fact, Atari never sued a company unless they employed someone who had worked at Atari developing video games for the 2600.
So, this idea isn't a new one and it's only been in the last decade or 2 when companies have gotten away with this approach.
"Apple does not want 3rd party API's as they are a vector for malware. If a security problem is found in their (Apple's) software it will be fixed and pushed out quickly. There is no guarantee that would happen with a 3rd party product."
You really drink the iKool-Aid don't you? There's no guarantee that Apple's software "will be fixed and pushed out quickly".
Re:Why are you shocked that they think it is a RIG
on
Flash Is Not a Right
·
· Score: 1
Which country are you referring to? In the US the only thing in see in your list is "unemployment for life" but not the paid kind.
"The vast majority of iPad purchasers have no, zero, interest in programming flash."
The vast majority of iPad purchasers have no, zero, interest in programming Objective C.
Did you have a point?
Re:The problem is that iPad is not a computer
on
Flash Is Not a Right
·
· Score: 1
"Everyone seems to forget that iPad is a dedicated device--a large iPod that happens to run certain apps developed for the iPhone. It is no more a general purpose computer than a Nintendo DS, a router or the cable box sitting on top of your TV."
A DS is much more of a general purpose computer than a router or cable box. If you don't realize that, no wonder you're confused about the iPad.
The iPad is a portable general purpose computer with a few artificial limitations. The fact that a broad range applications can be written for it is proof of that.
What Apple is doing is much worse. There was never a time that you couldn't use a non-IE browser on Windows and MS has never restricted applications or forced you to use a particular language. I've written Windows apps in Ada for God's sake (not by choice).
"I'm not downloading a song; I am downloading a copy of a recording of a song encoded as data."
And this distinction has what significance? So you're "sharing" an artist's work with other people who are "sharing" other artists' work. How about limiting your sharing to things that are actually yours to begin with? If you walk out of your house some day and your car is gone, don't call the police, somebody just might be "sharing" your car.
There is no anti-sharing ideology, but there is a anti-paying ideology. Sharing should be voluntary and bidirectional. When you download a song what are you sharing with the artist?
A patent can cover an algorithm or method that can be implemented in software, but it's misleading to say that the software itself is "patented".
Software that violates a patent can't be "free" in the FSF sense because the GPL forbids this, but a patent doesn't introduce any new copyright issues.
A lot of people around here talk about "free as in freedom" but what they really care about is the "free as in beer" that usually results. A lot more Slashdotters consume music illegally than they do create and distribute derivative works of FOSS.
In the case of FSF, "GPL software" is a better term than "software freedom" because the FSF has its own unique definition of "freedom" with respect to software.
On the other hand, the term "GPL software" merely means software licensed under the GPL and thus avoids any debate about the meaning of "freedom".
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody found an obscure and meaningless way to show Linux is better than Windows. The context is Slashdot where anything pro-Linux and anti-Windows is automatically "stuff that matters", even if it doesn't.
It's an interesting essay, but it's just speculation. Not any more insightful than the serious posts on Slashdot.
Sure, as long as you have the language spec.
The problem is that the set of all haskell applications is too small to be statistically significant. OK, I'm just kidding.
I don't share your belief that there are lots of iPhone fans who are being held back because they don't want AT&T. Besides, the other carriers might fear the possibility that Apple could end up with a monopoly on smart phones.
One of the places WordPerfect went to die.
Well, it is a straw man now, but Apple fans have in the past claimed that Apple invented a number of things that they didn't invent.
"Now factor in that it's almost exclusively among people who have contracts with carriers that don't offer iPhones."
Or to put it another way, in the US only AT&T offers iPhones. How did an iPhone limitation become a feature?
Well, some of your statements are correct but not all of them. Lots of people paid for and used Windows 3.1. How do you think Corel got started?
Sure, but those would be standard-based security holes, so there's no problem.
Why do you assume that it's all because of Apple? Next thing we'll be hearing about how Apple invented HTML5.
It's interesting to me that you mention PS/2 connectors. As part of a development project my client gave me a Mac Mini.
Now the mini has been pushed as the easiest way for a PC user to switch to a Mac. But guess what - I couldn't plug my existing keyboard into it, I couldn't plug my existing mouse into it and I couldn't plug my existing headset into it. Fortunately, Apple did provide an adapter so you could connect it to a monitor with a VGA connector.
So rather than being a device to convince users to switch to the Mac platform, it's really an introduction to Apple's limited vision.
Yes, I was expecting that response. The problem is that if you make a copy of an artist's work then you deny him the money he would earn if you bought it. You see how it really isn't that different?
What you say is a popular meme, but I bet that most programmers that "jumped on the internet bandwagon because of hype", jumped right off when the bottom fell out a few years ago.
Well, let's put this in historical perspective. Prior to Nintendo NES it was believed that you couldn't restrict third parties from developing content for your platform. It was also believed that you couldn't use patent, trademark, or copyright tricks to prevent third parties from selling software for your system.
In fact, the technical details for programming the Atari 2600 were an Atari trade secret and third-parties had to reverse-engineer the hardware (or buy from somebody else who did) to learn how to do it. Despite this fact, Atari never sued a company unless they employed someone who had worked at Atari developing video games for the 2600.
So, this idea isn't a new one and it's only been in the last decade or 2 when companies have gotten away with this approach.
"Apple does not want 3rd party API's as they are a vector for malware. If a security problem is found in their (Apple's) software it will be fixed and pushed out quickly. There is no guarantee that would happen with a 3rd party product."
You really drink the iKool-Aid don't you? There's no guarantee that Apple's software "will be fixed and pushed out quickly".
Which country are you referring to? In the US the only thing in see in your list is "unemployment for life" but not the paid kind.
"The vast majority of iPad purchasers have no, zero, interest in programming flash."
The vast majority of iPad purchasers have no, zero, interest in programming Objective C.
Did you have a point?
"Everyone seems to forget that iPad is a dedicated device--a large iPod that happens to run certain apps developed for the iPhone. It is no more a general purpose computer than a Nintendo DS, a router or the cable box sitting on top of your TV."
A DS is much more of a general purpose computer than a router or cable box. If you don't realize that, no wonder you're confused about the iPad.
The iPad is a portable general purpose computer with a few artificial limitations. The fact that a broad range applications can be written for it is proof of that.
What Apple is doing is much worse. There was never a time that you couldn't use a non-IE browser on Windows and MS has never restricted applications or forced you to use a particular language. I've written Windows apps in Ada for God's sake (not by choice).
"I'm not downloading a song; I am downloading a copy of a recording of a song encoded as data."
And this distinction has what significance? So you're "sharing" an artist's work with other people who are "sharing" other artists' work. How about limiting your sharing to things that are actually yours to begin with? If you walk out of your house some day and your car is gone, don't call the police, somebody just might be "sharing" your car.
There is no anti-sharing ideology, but there is a anti-paying ideology. Sharing should be voluntary and bidirectional. When you download a song what are you sharing with the artist?
A patent can cover an algorithm or method that can be implemented in software, but it's misleading to say that the software itself is "patented".
Software that violates a patent can't be "free" in the FSF sense because the GPL forbids this, but a patent doesn't introduce any new copyright issues.
A lot of people around here talk about "free as in freedom" but what they really care about is the "free as in beer" that usually results. A lot more Slashdotters consume music illegally than they do create and distribute derivative works of FOSS.
In the case of FSF, "GPL software" is a better term than "software freedom" because the FSF has its own unique definition of "freedom" with respect to software.
On the other hand, the term "GPL software" merely means software licensed under the GPL and thus avoids any debate about the meaning of "freedom".