I suppose that'd be a stupid analogy that doesn't match what we are discussing.
But yes, you'd still be violating society's rules (and laws). You do not have a right to what that store is offering, so if you don't like its rules too fucking bad, don't go there.
Although if that actually happened all you'd do is get the owner arrested for attempted homicide. Like, seriously, because your analogy is bad.
I don't watch your content AT ALL, yet you call me a pirate and criminal, while YOU claim I am stealing by not watching your ads in exchange for something I do not want nor have ever sought out to get.
You do NOT have the right to force your content on us, nor the right to claim not watching your content and ads is theft, all at the same time causing billions of dollars in damage world wide by infecting computers everywhere with your malware and trojans.
What the fuck are you babbling about? If you don't watch youtube videos, why do you care if youtube shows ads? And why are you wanting to block something you don't see anyway? And how in the fucking hell is a 30 second pre-roll video "malware and trojans"?
You remind me of the clerk in this "stolen" The Onion comic. If you don't want something "stolen" off the public web, don't publish it there.
That's ridiculously stupid. Stores don't lock their doors, does that mean that people are free to steal from them? Of course not. Simply being on the web doesn't magically make everything free, nor should it. The mental gymnastics you're doing to justify the crime is absurd.
Microsoft Tax? EAS is royalty-free, license fee-free and has a patent covenant-not-to-sue so long as it's implemented correctly. Continuing to support it would have cost Google nothing other than the man hours to keep it working. There was no "Microsoft Tax".
"Earlier today Google announced Google Sync, which is made possible by a patent license they obtained from Microsoft covering Google’s implementation of the Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync protocol on Google servers." http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2009/feb09/02-09statement.aspx
Did you even bother to search before you posted that? Or did you just feel like making up crap for giggles?
This is *my* computer, you have absolutely no control over it.
This argument is fucking idiotic. If you take your own bag to the store and pack it full of stuff, do you bitch when security stops you from walking out? "But it's MY BAG!". Or how about if a cop gives you a ticket for speeding? "but it's MY CAR". If your boss decides not to pay you, I'm fairly sure he will be unable to convince you not to sue his ass by claiming "but it's my office!"
Yes, it is your computer. But it's not your content. Content you are using said computer to pirate. Ignoring the legal aspects, that makes you an asshole, plain and simple. Maybe you're fine being an asshole, I don't know. But grow up and own the fact that you're an asshole instead of this whiny bullshit about "my computer!"
Youtube can say whatever they want. Whether it is enforceable is another matter.
Of course it's enforceable. You are assuming you have a legal right to view YouTube videos, but you very much do not. If Google *chooses* to send you the video *THEN* you have the right to "time shift" it all you want. But the former is very much not a legal right. If Google decides to cut off your YouTube access there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Well, you can play the whole "arms race" game, but this is also a clear violation of YouTube's API rules and if MS gets serious about trying to bypass that Google will just sue them (and win in a pretty clear cut case). But that won't happen. Google will smack them down, MSFT will bitch and moan and use it to push some FUD around, but they'll still play by the rules.
Engineering time, designer time, bandwidth costs, server costs, etc...
YouTube.com didn't just magically appear and run itself completely free of charge.
Google makes money off the properties of others.
No shit sherlock. That's not justification for you to steal from Google nor the owners of said content. You seem oblivious to the fact that the content owners *GET PAID* when those ads are shown, not just Google.
Gonk is Android in a literal sense. When you build FxOS the first step is actually downloading and building AOSP, as that's the "gonk" layer. It uses repo and lunch and the rest of the Android build chain as well.
You can see plain as day it's pulling in a huge amount of Android code, including the framework.
Not that this is a bad thing, this is the point of open source. Just that the claims that FxOS is somehow lighter than Android is horseshit, because it sits on top of Android.
Why are you correcting him when he was right? Did you bother to look it up? FxOS is running on a Linux kernel the same as Android. It is not running on top of Android. You said that it does not remove layers and then immediately cited a layer that was removed. Here is an overview of the Android architecture, can you tell me which layers *didn't* get removed? (I'll give you a hint, there's only one) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Android-System-Architecture.svg
I'm correcting him because he is wrong, just like you are. FxOS runs on top of Android's userspace. It literally boots Android, then launches Firefox. This is not a "both run on the Linux kernel" thing, especially since FxOS doesn't run directly on the kernel to begin with. No, FxOS is instead just a native Android application, compiled against Android's userspace.
Android's entire Java stack --- Dalvik, SurfaceFlinger, stuff like that.
SurfaceFlinger is still there, it's why you can see shit on the screen at all. You can't remove that layer. You can *replace* it, but you can't remove it. And good luck finding a replacement for SurfaceFlinger that is lighter and faster than SurfaceFlinger.
And no browser runs on top of dalvik anyway (browser UIs might run on top of dalvik, but the engine itself does not), so removing that doesn't get you anything.
That is the whole point of FirefoxOS, get rid of all the extra layers and pretty much only run a rendering engine on top of a Linux kernel (exceptions are things like: wpasupplicant).
FirefoxOS runs *on top of* Android, it *adds* layers, not removes them. And the very few "layers" that are actually removed (dalvik) are replaced with *slower* layers (JavaScript)
It has been shown that FirefoxOS can use less resources than Android that way.
No it hasn't. And if FirefoxOS with the insanely inefficient and not in the same universe as lightweight HTML5/CSS/JavaScript can use fewer resources than a lightened Java runtime with a specialized rendering pipeline I will be shocked. If that happens either Google is incompetent or Mozilla employs actual wizards.
Seriously people, stop with the "lightweight HTML5" bullshit. HTML is the heaviest, slowest layout & rendering pipeline that exists in widespread usage bar none. Slowest devices (smartphones) + slowest layout & rendering technology ("web technology") != fast, lightweight device.
Either that or you are from the future with some really awesome shelves that we don't have here in the present.
Or, more likely, you pulled bullshit out of your ass and have not once looked up what sort of eye displays are out there (and how much they cost). Hint, they are really, really fucking expensive (and if you look at the "off-the-shelf" ones you'll see they are much worse and much larger than what Google has)
Google has only ever put ads on their free products (and even then only a fairly small number of them). All of their paid products have no ads. This is very much a paid product, there is no reason whatsoever to believe it will have ads.
That's when they dumped the world's most popular phone OS and their internal modern OS development projects for Windows Phone
When they dumped Symbian it was the *FORMER* world's most popular phone OS - Android had already dethroned Symbian when Nokia switched to Windows Phone.
As for MeeGo - would it have taken off? Maybe, but probably not. And the hardware it launched with was decidedly not modern at the time, which was perhaps a reason Nokia killed it. If they couldn't keep up with SoC developments, they would never manage to catch up to the competition.
I was always confused why chrome wasn't the default preinstalled browser on android. Google developed the same thing twice?
You seem to have forgotten your history here. Chrome and Android launched around the same time. Hell, Chrome on Linux didn't show up until 2010 - that's *AFTER* the Motorola Droid had launched. It's obvious *NOW* that Chrome should run on Android. But 3-4 years ago both Chrome *and* Android were far from proven, and both were focused on establishing themselves first.
Also, how you build a browser on a desktop is very different from how you build one on mobile. And the vast majority of the work is bringing webkit up on a new platform. WebKit by itself doesn't do much - it's basically "just" HTML parsing + DOM management + JavaScript. Graphics, audio, video, etc... is all platform-specific, and when Android was starting out webkit didn't support touch either.
Which is *exactly* why it's crazy/stupid to merge them. The entire point of ChromeOS is that it's just a browser. If you merge anything with it, all you've done is killed ChromeOS. And there's nothing to merge from ChromeOS into other OSes - it's just the Chrome browser, which Android already has.
The guy you're responding to has identified a major problem with Google Glass. You're responding with a mere technical niggle.
All Android phones don't work like the Google Nexus, so why would you think all Glass implementations would work like the current demo model?
You really want to stake everything on an LED lighting up or not?
Talk about failing to rebut.
How about we have this discussion when it actually becomes technically possible to have a continuously recording device. Because Google Glass is not that device. And the OP has not identified any problem, he *made up* a problem that doesn't actually exist. Google Glass hasn't changed anything. If you want to record everything you see, Google Glass is a worse way to do it than existing methods. Hell, a smartphone in a shirt pocket would work.
You notice the people that want cameras and guns the most, don't seem to like the cameras and guns pointed BACK. They live in gated communities and send ther kids to private schools with paper-only records.
Lets see Google's boss wear these into a board meeting and keep it ACTIVE while Google's board is discussing stuff. Most board members would not tolerate that kind of interference in board meetings.. Cause they got nothing to hide! Right?
Google Glass doesn't actively record unless you tell it to. And like any smartphone, if you start recording your battery life drops to the 1-2 hour range, if that. Unlike smartphones, it is insanely obvious when Glass is recording because there's a bright red LED.
So yeah, I'm pretty sure Larry Page already wears Glass to board meetings and has no problem with that. Just like I'm pretty sure all the board members keep their smartphones on them and nobody has any problem with it.
Actually, the larger issue is there are simply far too many people who don't give a shit about privacy anymore.
How do you think we got to this point.
"anymore"? The simple fact is society as a whole has never worn a tinfoil hat like you do. This never changed.
And the article as a whole is nothing but baseless speculation. Storing data costs money. Just because your computer pinged Google, or Facebook, or whoever doesn't mean that that company is tracking you or even storing that for more than 7-30 days (or however long their access logs last). People *drastically* overvalue themselves - your activities on the internet are just not worth much money at all. Google, the masters of advertising, only uses the vaguest of ideas about your interests to show you ads. It's not hyper targeted like people pretend. So why would a company lose lots of real money storing data about you?
The answer, of course, is they don't. They aggregate trends from it, and then discard the specifics. That saves them money and it reduces their legal liabilities.
Right, you can't disable caching for specific mounts or anything.
Congrats, you just went from "plug-n-play" to "just edit/etc/fstab, duh"
Side note, you can only disable caching if the file system supports it, and not all do.
It is doable, it has been done by others,
Who has done this? I've only ever encountered a single device that had concurrent block level access and it was a microSD card combined with an NFC chip. And it was very painful to get that to work on Linux, and had to be done in the app with O_DIRECT to get it to somewhat work. The kernel was not happy with it. Nor was Windows, which matters a whole hell of a lot more here.
Err, no. The Wayland protocol went 1.0 months back and the reference implementation, Weston, isn't ready for production use yet. Mir is the result of Canonical being full of shit.
You say no, but then proceed to not actually dispute what I said.
Yes, sometimes it takes a while to create a well designed protocol, rather than rolling your own and having to revise it again and again like Google did with SurfaceFlinger.
Shipping something is *waaaaay* more important, a point that is ironically lost on the GNU/Linux community. Ironic because Linux itself was the imperfect thing that shipped first and has steadily improved, whereas Hurd was focused on doing things "proper"
Or hell, they could have used X11. It may have useless bits that will never see use on a mobile device but it's no slowpoke. Nope. NIH.
Nope, X11 doesn't support a hwcomposer - something that is critical to mobile performance.
The Android team can write a interface layer so that the contents of the device appear as a mass storage device. It wouldn't be the same thing as direct hardware access to the file storage, but it's certainly possible without introducing a new filesystem format.
No you can't, because the host OS does this thing called "caching". That is simply not technically doable. And just to be clear, USB mass storage exposes a block level device - not a file system or anything like that. USB mass storage simply does not allow concurrent access to the underlying storage, it just doesn't. Flat out impossible.
Task Managers don't actually kill apps, by the way. Android neutered the APIs that they were using in like Gingerbread. And that doesn't stop notifications anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose that'd be a stupid analogy that doesn't match what we are discussing.
But yes, you'd still be violating society's rules (and laws). You do not have a right to what that store is offering, so if you don't like its rules too fucking bad, don't go there.
Although if that actually happened all you'd do is get the owner arrested for attempted homicide. Like, seriously, because your analogy is bad.
I don't watch your content AT ALL, yet you call me a pirate and criminal, while YOU claim I am stealing by not watching your ads in exchange for something I do not want nor have ever sought out to get.
You do NOT have the right to force your content on us, nor the right to claim not watching your content and ads is theft, all at the same time causing billions of dollars in damage world wide by infecting computers everywhere with your malware and trojans.
What the fuck are you babbling about? If you don't watch youtube videos, why do you care if youtube shows ads? And why are you wanting to block something you don't see anyway? And how in the fucking hell is a 30 second pre-roll video "malware and trojans"?
You remind me of the clerk in this "stolen" The Onion comic. If you don't want something "stolen" off the public web, don't publish it there.
That's ridiculously stupid. Stores don't lock their doors, does that mean that people are free to steal from them? Of course not. Simply being on the web doesn't magically make everything free, nor should it. The mental gymnastics you're doing to justify the crime is absurd.
Microsoft Tax? EAS is royalty-free, license fee-free and has a patent covenant-not-to-sue so long as it's implemented correctly. Continuing to support it would have cost Google nothing other than the man hours to keep it working. There was no "Microsoft Tax".
lol wut? No it isn't.
"Microsoft licenses the patents for Exchange ActiveSync please contact us for more information."
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/IPLicensing/Programs/exchangeactivesyncprotocol.aspx
"Earlier today Google announced Google Sync, which is made possible by a patent license they obtained from Microsoft covering Google’s implementation of the Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync protocol on Google servers."
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2009/feb09/02-09statement.aspx
Did you even bother to search before you posted that? Or did you just feel like making up crap for giggles?
This is *my* computer, you have absolutely no control over it.
This argument is fucking idiotic. If you take your own bag to the store and pack it full of stuff, do you bitch when security stops you from walking out? "But it's MY BAG!". Or how about if a cop gives you a ticket for speeding? "but it's MY CAR". If your boss decides not to pay you, I'm fairly sure he will be unable to convince you not to sue his ass by claiming "but it's my office!"
Yes, it is your computer. But it's not your content. Content you are using said computer to pirate. Ignoring the legal aspects, that makes you an asshole, plain and simple. Maybe you're fine being an asshole, I don't know. But grow up and own the fact that you're an asshole instead of this whiny bullshit about "my computer!"
Youtube can say whatever they want. Whether it is enforceable is another matter.
Of course it's enforceable. You are assuming you have a legal right to view YouTube videos, but you very much do not. If Google *chooses* to send you the video *THEN* you have the right to "time shift" it all you want. But the former is very much not a legal right. If Google decides to cut off your YouTube access there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Well, you can play the whole "arms race" game, but this is also a clear violation of YouTube's API rules and if MS gets serious about trying to bypass that Google will just sue them (and win in a pretty clear cut case). But that won't happen. Google will smack them down, MSFT will bitch and moan and use it to push some FUD around, but they'll still play by the rules.
You don't think that there was a bit of collaboration in creating it, maybe?
Not a chance in hell.
What exactly is being stolen from Google?
Engineering time, designer time, bandwidth costs, server costs, etc...
YouTube.com didn't just magically appear and run itself completely free of charge.
Google makes money off the properties of others.
No shit sherlock. That's not justification for you to steal from Google nor the owners of said content. You seem oblivious to the fact that the content owners *GET PAID* when those ads are shown, not just Google.
Gonk is Android in a literal sense. When you build FxOS the first step is actually downloading and building AOSP, as that's the "gonk" layer. It uses repo and lunch and the rest of the Android build chain as well.
Here's the manifest file for the FxOS emulator build: https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/b2g-manifest/blob/master/emulator.xml
You can see plain as day it's pulling in a huge amount of Android code, including the framework.
Not that this is a bad thing, this is the point of open source. Just that the claims that FxOS is somehow lighter than Android is horseshit, because it sits on top of Android.
The entire "Gonk" layer is actually just Android. Complete with all the typical Android services - SurfaceFlinger, InputFlinger, AudioFlinger, etc...
Why are you correcting him when he was right? Did you bother to look it up? FxOS is running on a Linux kernel the same as Android. It is not running on top of Android. You said that it does not remove layers and then immediately cited a layer that was removed.
Here is an overview of the Android architecture, can you tell me which layers *didn't* get removed? (I'll give you a hint, there's only one)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Android-System-Architecture.svg
I'm correcting him because he is wrong, just like you are. FxOS runs on top of Android's userspace. It literally boots Android, then launches Firefox. This is not a "both run on the Linux kernel" thing, especially since FxOS doesn't run directly on the kernel to begin with. No, FxOS is instead just a native Android application, compiled against Android's userspace.
Android's entire Java stack --- Dalvik, SurfaceFlinger, stuff like that.
SurfaceFlinger is still there, it's why you can see shit on the screen at all. You can't remove that layer. You can *replace* it, but you can't remove it. And good luck finding a replacement for SurfaceFlinger that is lighter and faster than SurfaceFlinger.
And no browser runs on top of dalvik anyway (browser UIs might run on top of dalvik, but the engine itself does not), so removing that doesn't get you anything.
That is the whole point of FirefoxOS, get rid of all the extra layers and pretty much only run a rendering engine on top of a Linux kernel (exceptions are things like: wpasupplicant).
FirefoxOS runs *on top of* Android, it *adds* layers, not removes them. And the very few "layers" that are actually removed (dalvik) are replaced with *slower* layers (JavaScript)
It has been shown that FirefoxOS can use less resources than Android that way.
No it hasn't. And if FirefoxOS with the insanely inefficient and not in the same universe as lightweight HTML5/CSS/JavaScript can use fewer resources than a lightened Java runtime with a specialized rendering pipeline I will be shocked. If that happens either Google is incompetent or Mozilla employs actual wizards.
Seriously people, stop with the "lightweight HTML5" bullshit. HTML is the heaviest, slowest layout & rendering pipeline that exists in widespread usage bar none. Slowest devices (smartphones) + slowest layout & rendering technology ("web technology") != fast, lightweight device.
an off-the-shelf display module.
Wrong.
Either that or you are from the future with some really awesome shelves that we don't have here in the present.
Or, more likely, you pulled bullshit out of your ass and have not once looked up what sort of eye displays are out there (and how much they cost). Hint, they are really, really fucking expensive (and if you look at the "off-the-shelf" ones you'll see they are much worse and much larger than what Google has)
Google has only ever put ads on their free products (and even then only a fairly small number of them). All of their paid products have no ads. This is very much a paid product, there is no reason whatsoever to believe it will have ads.
That's when they dumped the world's most popular phone OS and their internal modern OS development projects for Windows Phone
When they dumped Symbian it was the *FORMER* world's most popular phone OS - Android had already dethroned Symbian when Nokia switched to Windows Phone.
As for MeeGo - would it have taken off? Maybe, but probably not. And the hardware it launched with was decidedly not modern at the time, which was perhaps a reason Nokia killed it. If they couldn't keep up with SoC developments, they would never manage to catch up to the competition.
I was always confused why chrome wasn't the default preinstalled browser on android. Google developed the same thing twice?
You seem to have forgotten your history here. Chrome and Android launched around the same time. Hell, Chrome on Linux didn't show up until 2010 - that's *AFTER* the Motorola Droid had launched. It's obvious *NOW* that Chrome should run on Android. But 3-4 years ago both Chrome *and* Android were far from proven, and both were focused on establishing themselves first.
Also, how you build a browser on a desktop is very different from how you build one on mobile. And the vast majority of the work is bringing webkit up on a new platform. WebKit by itself doesn't do much - it's basically "just" HTML parsing + DOM management + JavaScript. Graphics, audio, video, etc... is all platform-specific, and when Android was starting out webkit didn't support touch either.
Which is *exactly* why it's crazy/stupid to merge them. The entire point of ChromeOS is that it's just a browser. If you merge anything with it, all you've done is killed ChromeOS. And there's nothing to merge from ChromeOS into other OSes - it's just the Chrome browser, which Android already has.
Talk about failing to rebut.
The guy you're responding to has identified a major problem with Google Glass. You're responding with a mere technical niggle.
All Android phones don't work like the Google Nexus, so why would you think all Glass implementations would work like the current demo model?
You really want to stake everything on an LED lighting up or not?
Talk about failing to rebut.
How about we have this discussion when it actually becomes technically possible to have a continuously recording device. Because Google Glass is not that device. And the OP has not identified any problem, he *made up* a problem that doesn't actually exist. Google Glass hasn't changed anything. If you want to record everything you see, Google Glass is a worse way to do it than existing methods. Hell, a smartphone in a shirt pocket would work.
That's the "party line", Right.
You notice the people that want cameras and guns the most, don't seem to like the cameras and guns pointed BACK. They live in gated communities and send ther kids to private schools with paper-only records.
Lets see Google's boss wear these into a board meeting and keep it ACTIVE while Google's board is discussing stuff. Most board members would not tolerate that kind of interference in board meetings.. Cause they got nothing to hide! Right?
Google Glass doesn't actively record unless you tell it to. And like any smartphone, if you start recording your battery life drops to the 1-2 hour range, if that. Unlike smartphones, it is insanely obvious when Glass is recording because there's a bright red LED.
So yeah, I'm pretty sure Larry Page already wears Glass to board meetings and has no problem with that. Just like I'm pretty sure all the board members keep their smartphones on them and nobody has any problem with it.
Actually, the larger issue is there are simply far too many people who don't give a shit about privacy anymore.
How do you think we got to this point.
"anymore"? The simple fact is society as a whole has never worn a tinfoil hat like you do. This never changed.
And the article as a whole is nothing but baseless speculation. Storing data costs money. Just because your computer pinged Google, or Facebook, or whoever doesn't mean that that company is tracking you or even storing that for more than 7-30 days (or however long their access logs last). People *drastically* overvalue themselves - your activities on the internet are just not worth much money at all. Google, the masters of advertising, only uses the vaguest of ideas about your interests to show you ads. It's not hyper targeted like people pretend. So why would a company lose lots of real money storing data about you?
The answer, of course, is they don't. They aggregate trends from it, and then discard the specifics. That saves them money and it reduces their legal liabilities.
Right, you can't disable caching for specific mounts or anything.
Congrats, you just went from "plug-n-play" to "just edit /etc/fstab, duh"
Side note, you can only disable caching if the file system supports it, and not all do.
It is doable, it has been done by others,
Who has done this? I've only ever encountered a single device that had concurrent block level access and it was a microSD card combined with an NFC chip. And it was very painful to get that to work on Linux, and had to be done in the app with O_DIRECT to get it to somewhat work. The kernel was not happy with it. Nor was Windows, which matters a whole hell of a lot more here.
Err, no. The Wayland protocol went 1.0 months back and the reference implementation, Weston, isn't ready for production use yet. Mir is the result of Canonical being full of shit.
You say no, but then proceed to not actually dispute what I said.
Yes, sometimes it takes a while to create a well designed protocol, rather than rolling your own and having to revise it again and again like Google did with SurfaceFlinger.
Shipping something is *waaaaay* more important, a point that is ironically lost on the GNU/Linux community. Ironic because Linux itself was the imperfect thing that shipped first and has steadily improved, whereas Hurd was focused on doing things "proper"
Or hell, they could have used X11. It may have useless bits that will never see use on a mobile device but it's no slowpoke. Nope. NIH.
Nope, X11 doesn't support a hwcomposer - something that is critical to mobile performance.
The Android team can write a interface layer so that the contents of the device appear as a mass storage device. It wouldn't be the same thing as direct hardware access to the file storage, but it's certainly possible without introducing a new filesystem format.
No you can't, because the host OS does this thing called "caching". That is simply not technically doable. And just to be clear, USB mass storage exposes a block level device - not a file system or anything like that. USB mass storage simply does not allow concurrent access to the underlying storage, it just doesn't. Flat out impossible.
Task Managers don't actually kill apps, by the way. Android neutered the APIs that they were using in like Gingerbread. And that doesn't stop notifications anyway.
Oh, and you can disallow notifications per app: http://www.droid-life.com/2012/11/29/how-to-disable-android-application-notifications-beginners-guide/