Apple took a general purpose processor and re-designed it specifically for use in its mobile devices.
By all appearances, the A8 ARM core was not redesigned by Apple in any respect. This looks more like a cookbook integration of various IP cores, including a standard ARM core.
In reality I think the heat generated from the Power Block is small compared to what the CPU does.
Incorrect. The power supply is (optimistically) 85% efficient, the remaining 15% is heat, thus increasing the overall waste heat by at least 17% (15/.85). The processor and GPU in this unit are by no means cool-running parts. No way will this thing be quiet and as far as I am concerned, no way does it belong in my living room.
I second the motion to 'Fire that marketroid!' If Google keeps the kind of idiots that think forcing visual garbage on all their users - whether personal or professional - is a good idea
I can assure you that no marketdroid was responsible for this fiasco. Modus operandi smacks more of Larry's former girlfriend.
KDE 4 did suck when it was unstable and missing important features. Now that it's nearly to the same stability as 3.5, has nearly all the same functionality plus a bunch more it's perfectly fine, according to me. It is way more attractive visually, without being cluttered.
There was only one real issue with KDE 4: distros shipped it six months too early (Ubuntu, Fedora, we're looking at you).
Oh and the one thing I really really hated about KDE 4? They forced me to fall back to Gnome for a couple months.
It's nice to have it as an Opt-In, but it was forced upon users.
So was the sidebar, which I also hate but not to quite the same extent. Adds up to one thing: arrogance, and by that I mean the arrogance of presuming to know what users want without... say, asking some or maybe... a limited rollout... or maybe an "I love/hate this new idea" button? Or maybe just remember the promises that were repeatedly made not to clutter the homepage (which the sidebar already does).
The leap from "forget one promise" to "forget them all" is an easy one indeed.
'Linux is open source and we feel good about it,' said one employee. 'Microsoft we don't feel so good about.'
However, they feel pretty good about a closed-source implementation of an open source operating system on locked-in hardware? This sounds rather flamebaity and very light on facts.
At least Apple uses Unix, providing some semblance of a security model. As for the closed/lockedin/applepolice aspect, yes this is a complete stopper for me personally but it's not an issue for many folks. Cool trumps morality I suppose. One thing to keep in mind: Apple has always been this way since I first ever dealt with them, in 1984 I believe. An auspicious year, superbowl commercial and all, and no end of ironic that Apple ultimately became the big brother that Microsoft always wanted to be but just couldn't figure out how.
As for those who think of Google is a paragon of virtue... well, don't think that. Google is in no way banning Microsoft for moral reasons. It is pure pragmatism: 1) security; 2) eat your own dogfood. Frankly, it's just amazing that the second reason by itself was not enough to get Google off the Redmond teat. That is just bad management.
Chris Dibona, Google's open source front man has consistently pushed Apache license hard and campaigned unabashedly against GPL. Alienating good contributers and damaging Google's rep in the process. His imperious attitude does not help a bit.
You call Linux, which does a great many things "Unix" never did, like ksplice for instance, a "monkey copy of Unix", and KDE "just another window manager", which it's most definitely is not, and get modded "insightful" to boot. Scary. Ignorance at a new level, cheered on by the fanboys. If you're going to go on a generalization trip, at least make sure you know what you're talking about first, so you don't look like an ass.
Well said. I can't mod you up because I already posted to the thread but I can do the next best thing.
Linux kernel's innovations are of course not limited to ksplice. Besides a plethora of Linux-only features, the kernel design, good or bad, is entirely original. Compare for example the design of Linux's inode with BSD's vnode, taking particular note of the role of the dentry cache, which does not exist at all in BSD.
You could similarly say that self organizing molecules have no motive, and you would be just as wrong.
You could similarly say that self organizing molecules have a motive, and you would be just as wrong.
The telos which you are attributing to evolution is external to evolution. The telos of self organizing molecules is internal to their development. Your carelessness leads to nonsensical concepts like progress or at worst intelligent design.
You appear to be conflating "motivation" with "volition". The latter requires consciousness, while the former does not.
Sun licensing ZFS under the GPL wouldn't help them sell more Sun products so I really fail to see your point.
Wrong premise perhaps? Selling open source storage based on Solaris is an uphill battle, on Linux much less so. On the marketplace battlefield, how fast you move matters just as much as your value proposition. Insisting on hanging Solaris around its neck slowed Sun down just enough to kill it.
Sun needed to avoid anything having to do with the desktop or end user like the plague. These things were light years outside its core competency. Notwithstanding that I am extremely grateful for the liberation of Star Office, this made no absolutely business sense for them. Most probably conceived as a way to undermine Microsoft's cash siphon, it failed to do that to an extent that would materially benefit Sun. Worse, the effort was directed in the wrong direction. Sun failed to recognize that the threat of Microsoft dominating the server market had already been countered by the rise of Linux and especially IBM's endorsement of Linux. They chose to pour huge resources into fighting a battle they had no hope of winning while blithely failing to exploit other opportunities staring them in the face, such as the chance to ride the Linux server wave.
Sun had some really great stuff in their research divisions, and only ever commercialised a small fraction of it.
OK, so going to the alternate history book, how should Sun have played the game better? IMHO, in the face of relentless upward commoditization of the server market Sun's best bet was to reinvent itself as a storage vendor where margins remain fat. And Sun knew that, they just bungled it. Intentionally licensing ZFS to be incompatible with Linux is the arguably the single mistake that finally killed them. This limited Sun's penetration of the storage market to a fraction of what would have been possible had they not mandated that enterprises must divide their resources between Linux and Solaris. Perhaps worse, it slowed down the rate of bug fixes. Sun just could not get ZFS stable fast enough, the way it had to be to break through the barriers to entry erected by entrenched competitors. In the alternate universe, Sun licensed ZFS under GPL and shoveled millions of storage boxes out the door, taking a respectable chunk of market from EMC and Netapp and lived happily ever after with an army of Linux developers and admins backing them up. In the real universe we have the remnant of Suns once glorious army huddled in despair, mainly obsessed with the possible demise of their own careers, thanks to Oracle having no better clue how to gain traction in a new market than Sun ever did.
Interesting comment. That guy was Richard Stallman, the same man who inadvertently brought down the Sun empire by creating the toolchain to create LInux.
Tagging onto my own reply... sixty five million years ago I am T Rex and I feel that I am pretty much the best nature has to offer or ever will have to offer, so I unilaterally declare an end to evolution. Sadly, nature fails to agree with me. Or, evolution recognizes me as an obstacle and routes around me.
The current state of the game is, evolution has found a faster way to evolve by leveraging human ingenuity. Evolution has never been random since the most primitive self organizing molecules, rather evolution proceeds in a methodical way by mechanisms which themselves evolve. Evolution always accelerates. So, having evolved the human brain, evolution will just naturally use it to achieve its next phase of acceleration.
Of course I would never dream of suggesting a connection between vi and dinosaurs.
Advocates relinquishing development of nano-tech, genetics, robotics, and AI. He feels that an arms race in any of those fields would be detrimental to human survival.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyways I think the only way for Oracle to have a case holding water is if google used code that had SUN IP for Dalvik.
You are confusing copyright with patent law.
It has already started.
Furthermore, Apple does not admit the antenna is defective and does not intend to fix it.
Some carriers are addingSome carriers are adding cell phone towers to be able to cover signal even if you're traveling by train at 80mph
Of course you meant "traveling by train at 180 mph".
I honestly think that there's a case here of someone without knowledge in middle management overriding engineer's recommendations.
What makes you think the edict didn't come from top management?
Apple took a general purpose processor and re-designed it specifically for use in its mobile devices.
By all appearances, the A8 ARM core was not redesigned by Apple in any respect. This looks more like a cookbook integration of various IP cores, including a standard ARM core.
In reality I think the heat generated from the Power Block is small compared to what the CPU does.
Incorrect. The power supply is (optimistically) 85% efficient, the remaining 15% is heat, thus increasing the overall waste heat by at least 17% (15/.85). The processor and GPU in this unit are by no means cool-running parts. No way will this thing be quiet and as far as I am concerned, no way does it belong in my living room.
...Einstein gave us special and general relativity. Bill Gates gave us Bob.
Well it's useful, simple to use, generally well received and relatively unobtrusive.
I hate it, find it intrusive, wish it were gone. Maybe you should take a poll?
I second the motion to 'Fire that marketroid!' If Google keeps the kind of idiots that think forcing visual garbage on all their users - whether personal or professional - is a good idea
I can assure you that no marketdroid was responsible for this fiasco. Modus operandi smacks more of Larry's former girlfriend.
KDE 4 and Python 3 suck.
KDE 4 did suck when it was unstable and missing important features. Now that it's nearly to the same stability as 3.5, has nearly all the same functionality plus a bunch more it's perfectly fine, according to me. It is way more attractive visually, without being cluttered.
There was only one real issue with KDE 4: distros shipped it six months too early (Ubuntu, Fedora, we're looking at you).
Oh and the one thing I really really hated about KDE 4? They forced me to fall back to Gnome for a couple months.
It's nice to have it as an Opt-In, but it was forced upon users.
So was the sidebar, which I also hate but not to quite the same extent. Adds up to one thing: arrogance, and by that I mean the arrogance of presuming to know what users want without... say, asking some or maybe... a limited rollout... or maybe an "I love/hate this new idea" button? Or maybe just remember the promises that were repeatedly made not to clutter the homepage (which the sidebar already does).
The leap from "forget one promise" to "forget them all" is an easy one indeed.
at hacking competitions, which OS is usually the one to fall first?
Pwn2Own 2010: Google Chrome is the last man standing
'Linux is open source and we feel good about it,' said one employee. 'Microsoft we don't feel so good about.'
However, they feel pretty good about a closed-source implementation of an open source operating system on locked-in hardware? This sounds rather flamebaity and very light on facts.
At least Apple uses Unix, providing some semblance of a security model. As for the closed/lockedin/applepolice aspect, yes this is a complete stopper for me personally but it's not an issue for many folks. Cool trumps morality I suppose. One thing to keep in mind: Apple has always been this way since I first ever dealt with them, in 1984 I believe. An auspicious year, superbowl commercial and all, and no end of ironic that Apple ultimately became the big brother that Microsoft always wanted to be but just couldn't figure out how.
As for those who think of Google is a paragon of virtue... well, don't think that. Google is in no way banning Microsoft for moral reasons. It is pure pragmatism: 1) security; 2) eat your own dogfood. Frankly, it's just amazing that the second reason by itself was not enough to get Google off the Redmond teat. That is just bad management.
Chris Dibona, Google's open source front man has consistently pushed Apache license hard and campaigned unabashedly against GPL. Alienating good contributers and damaging Google's rep in the process. His imperious attitude does not help a bit.
You call Linux, which does a great many things "Unix" never did, like ksplice for instance, a "monkey copy of Unix", and KDE "just another window manager", which it's most definitely is not, and get modded "insightful" to boot. Scary. Ignorance at a new level, cheered on by the fanboys. If you're going to go on a generalization trip, at least make sure you know what you're talking about first, so you don't look like an ass.
Well said. I can't mod you up because I already posted to the thread but I can do the next best thing.
Linux kernel's innovations are of course not limited to ksplice. Besides a plethora of Linux-only features, the kernel design, good or bad, is entirely original. Compare for example the design of Linux's inode with BSD's vnode, taking particular note of the role of the dentry cache, which does not exist at all in BSD.
Uh, no. Evolution has no motive
You could similarly say that self organizing molecules have no motive, and you would be just as wrong.
You could similarly say that self organizing molecules have a motive, and you would be just as wrong.
The telos which you are attributing to evolution is external to evolution. The telos of self organizing molecules is internal to their development. Your carelessness leads to nonsensical concepts like progress or at worst intelligent design.
You appear to be conflating "motivation" with "volition". The latter requires consciousness, while the former does not.
Lack of offsite backups.
Until we achieve that we have no good claim to superiority over an extinct dinosaur that ruled the Earth for millions of years.
Very true. Another way of putting it: T Rex failed to colonize Mars, but we better not.
Sun licensing ZFS under the GPL wouldn't help them sell more Sun products so I really fail to see your point.
Wrong premise perhaps? Selling open source storage based on Solaris is an uphill battle, on Linux much less so. On the marketplace battlefield, how fast you move matters just as much as your value proposition. Insisting on hanging Solaris around its neck slowed Sun down just enough to kill it.
Sun needed to avoid anything having to do with the desktop or end user like the plague. These things were light years outside its core competency. Notwithstanding that I am extremely grateful for the liberation of Star Office, this made no absolutely business sense for them. Most probably conceived as a way to undermine Microsoft's cash siphon, it failed to do that to an extent that would materially benefit Sun. Worse, the effort was directed in the wrong direction. Sun failed to recognize that the threat of Microsoft dominating the server market had already been countered by the rise of Linux and especially IBM's endorsement of Linux. They chose to pour huge resources into fighting a battle they had no hope of winning while blithely failing to exploit other opportunities staring them in the face, such as the chance to ride the Linux server wave.
Uh, no. Evolution has no motive
You could similarly say that self organizing molecules have no motive, and you would be just as wrong.
Sun had some really great stuff in their research divisions, and only ever commercialised a small fraction of it.
OK, so going to the alternate history book, how should Sun have played the game better? IMHO, in the face of relentless upward commoditization of the server market Sun's best bet was to reinvent itself as a storage vendor where margins remain fat. And Sun knew that, they just bungled it. Intentionally licensing ZFS to be incompatible with Linux is the arguably the single mistake that finally killed them. This limited Sun's penetration of the storage market to a fraction of what would have been possible had they not mandated that enterprises must divide their resources between Linux and Solaris. Perhaps worse, it slowed down the rate of bug fixes. Sun just could not get ZFS stable fast enough, the way it had to be to break through the barriers to entry erected by entrenched competitors. In the alternate universe, Sun licensed ZFS under GPL and shoveled millions of storage boxes out the door, taking a respectable chunk of market from EMC and Netapp and lived happily ever after with an army of Linux developers and admins backing them up. In the real universe we have the remnant of Suns once glorious army huddled in despair, mainly obsessed with the possible demise of their own careers, thanks to Oracle having no better clue how to gain traction in a new market than Sun ever did.
Did he ever get to meet the guy who wrote Emacs?
Interesting comment. That guy was Richard Stallman, the same man who inadvertently brought down the Sun empire by creating the toolchain to create LInux.
Tagging onto my own reply... sixty five million years ago I am T Rex and I feel that I am pretty much the best nature has to offer or ever will have to offer, so I unilaterally declare an end to evolution. Sadly, nature fails to agree with me. Or, evolution recognizes me as an obstacle and routes around me.
The current state of the game is, evolution has found a faster way to evolve by leveraging human ingenuity. Evolution has never been random since the most primitive self organizing molecules, rather evolution proceeds in a methodical way by mechanisms which themselves evolve. Evolution always accelerates. So, having evolved the human brain, evolution will just naturally use it to achieve its next phase of acceleration.
Of course I would never dream of suggesting a connection between vi and dinosaurs.
Advocates relinquishing development of nano-tech, genetics, robotics, and AI. He feels that an arms race in any of those fields would be detrimental to human survival.
But wouldn't that be unfair to the robots?