I find it telling that so many here are resorting to very ham-fisted comparisons to McCarthyism and blacklisting, as if those things were equivalent to a genuine public reaction and subsequent boycott. They are clearly not the same, they do not draw from the same kinds of authority, and the comparison is -- at best -- weak-minded drivel.
In a capitalist economy, we vote wi our wallets. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying we will not buy anything from OSC again because we find his politics repugnant. To draw comparisons to McCarthyism is to insult the many people who were genuinely persecuted by a maniac in power.
The majority cannot strip a right from the minority, even in a democracy. Same sex marriage was legal in California before Prop 8 stripped that right from them. This was, on its face, unconstitutional.
He's entitled to his opinion. This looks like a McCarthy-style witch hunt, back in the day that gays had to hide. If I were gay, I'd be as outraged that this guy would be treated like gays used to be.
Analogy fail. Card is entitled to his opinion, and by the exact same token, everyone is entitled to their opinion about his opinion.
If this were actually McCarthyism, someone would have to actually be hauling people in front of Congress. Since that's clearly not the case, you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
The interesting thing here is that the story Didn't push his agenda yet his story was still rejected. Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"?
Can you sue a company for having a consumer base with lower-than-average intelligence and disrupting business as an unfair act of subterfuge?
Can you sue slashdot for having a user base with lower-than-average intelligence and a propensity to troll every fucking topic with their idiotic anti-Apple vitriol?
Code signing doesn't, fundamentally, protect you unless there's some enforcement
This is (mostly) false. Code signing is the mechanism that allows enforcement, and it is arguably the single best mechanism to determine that a piece of code being installed on the device (a) came from a trusted source, and (b) hasn't been tampered with in transit.
Saying that it doesn't fundamentally protect you is misleading at best and ignorant at worst.
The problem is that the kernel drivers never get pushed upstream so they rot as the kernel moves on.
I think this misses the point, by a wide margin. You're thinking in terms of linux drivers, and how they are managed. I would submit to you that if the drivers have to get pushed upstream in order to move forward, they've already failed to provide a usable updateable OS model.
We're talking about the Linux kernel here. It's one of the most widely ported kernels I can think of.
The portability of the kernel is irrelevant. We're talking about the ability to selectively update layers of the OS without breaking things above and below.
The problem isn't the drivers, it's the fact the upper layers depend on behavior of the lower layers in the android sdk. That is the fail.
This is also a matter of abstraction, and also something that Google has failed to architect correctly.
When you buy a particular device, the hardware inside that device (e.g. SOC, Camera, Baseband) doesn't change. As long as Google doesn't change how the drivers interface with newer versions of the OS, the drivers for your particular device will continue to work.
This.
Abstracting the hardware from the upper parts of the OS is a solvable problem. It's a matter of considerable mental effort and architecture, but it's definitely solvable, and has been repeatedly solved in the long history of operating systems. The fact that Google somehow hasn't managed to solve this problem for Android speaks loudly about their abilities in the realm of OS design.
Here's a hint for Google engineers: monolithic is BAD!
Quick question... is good product design about packing in as many features as possible, whether they are something people will actually use, or actually good ideas, or actually implemented in a good way, or something someone will actually use?
No.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Good product design is about much more than checking off features on the Marketing Checklist.
I'll go further: shopping by spec sheet is how idiots do it. And by "idiots", I mean people who aren't able to identify the je ne sais quoi of any given product (whether it be a phone, a computer, a car, or anything else with "specs") and must rely solely on boolean and numerical comparisons, unable to fathom the intangibles.
Products (all products) have so much more to offer than just spec sheets. Reducing those products down to merely numbers on a piece of paper does the product (and the consumer) a grave disservice.
This persistent "walled garden" accusation was annoying at first, but after being repeated ad nauseum, it's actually kind of funny. Having lived in that so-called "walled garden" for a number of years, I can't really say that my life is any worse for having done so. On the other hand, the people who are constantly sniping about a "walled garden" (from outside the wall) have spent the last four or five years complaining non-stop about how awful it is inside.
Wrong, but thanks for playing "I have a shitty fallacy". The question "Is there a creator?" is the relevant question.
Just because you say it is so does not make it so. Science isn't attempting to answer the question "Is there a creator?" because such a question is essentially unanswerable. It is, instead, a matter of faith, and therefore the province of religion, not science.
Indeed. Android users have cast off the shackles of the "walled garden" liberating themselves from oppression. In exchange, they now have the barbed-wire DMZ provided by incompetent carriers who are effectively preventing them from getting timely updates.
The circumstances of these phones effectively being general purpose computers.
You missed his point. It's not the fact that these phones are general purpose computers (though clearly they are) but that they are largely unprotected, vulnerable to attack, and (this is the important bit) lacking in a clearly defined upgrade path.
As a professional software developer, I can state one thing here with authority: real software (OS, applications, even firmware) has a clearly defined upgrade mechanism when it ships. Anything that lacks a clearly defined upgrade mechanism is substandard crapware engineered by crazed chimps.
Of late, you can activate an iPhone with no computer connection. You can also update the OS over the air, with no computer connection. And, of course, you can buy (and update) apps with no computer connection. The iPhone is now, for all intents and purposes, a standalone device.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it telling that so many here are resorting to very ham-fisted comparisons to McCarthyism and blacklisting, as if those things were equivalent to a genuine public reaction and subsequent boycott. They are clearly not the same, they do not draw from the same kinds of authority, and the comparison is -- at best -- weak-minded drivel.
In a capitalist economy, we vote wi our wallets. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying we will not buy anything from OSC again because we find his politics repugnant. To draw comparisons to McCarthyism is to insult the many people who were genuinely persecuted by a maniac in power.
The majority cannot strip a right from the minority, even in a democracy. Same sex marriage was legal in California before Prop 8 stripped that right from them. This was, on its face, unconstitutional.
He's entitled to his opinion. This looks like a McCarthy-style witch hunt, back in the day that gays had to hide. If I were gay, I'd be as outraged that this guy would be treated like gays used to be.
Analogy fail. Card is entitled to his opinion, and by the exact same token, everyone is entitled to their opinion about his opinion.
If this were actually McCarthyism, someone would have to actually be hauling people in front of Congress. Since that's clearly not the case, you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Because it's not a religious institution to begin with. It is a societal construct, and as such it is appropriately classified as a civil institution.
The interesting thing here is that the story Didn't push his agenda yet his story was still rejected. Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"?
You're conflating democracy with capitalism.
Mod parent up!
That's it. I'm done with Java. For good.
Can you sue a company for having a consumer base with lower-than-average intelligence and disrupting business as an unfair act of subterfuge?
Can you sue slashdot for having a user base with lower-than-average intelligence and a propensity to troll every fucking topic with their idiotic anti-Apple vitriol?
remember when /. was edited by people with a brain?
Nope.
Okay, fair enough. Let's subtract those from the Android market share numbers, then.
Seems fair to me.
Code signing doesn't, fundamentally, protect you unless there's some enforcement
This is (mostly) false. Code signing is the mechanism that allows enforcement, and it is arguably the single best mechanism to determine that a piece of code being installed on the device (a) came from a trusted source, and (b) hasn't been tampered with in transit.
Saying that it doesn't fundamentally protect you is misleading at best and ignorant at worst.
The problem is that the kernel drivers never get pushed upstream so they rot as the kernel moves on.
I think this misses the point, by a wide margin. You're thinking in terms of linux drivers, and how they are managed. I would submit to you that if the drivers have to get pushed upstream in order to move forward, they've already failed to provide a usable updateable OS model.
We're talking about the Linux kernel here. It's one of the most widely ported kernels I can think of.
The portability of the kernel is irrelevant. We're talking about the ability to selectively update layers of the OS without breaking things above and below.
The problem isn't the drivers, it's the fact the upper layers depend on behavior of the lower layers in the android sdk. That is the fail.
This is also a matter of abstraction, and also something that Google has failed to architect correctly.
When you buy a particular device, the hardware inside that device (e.g. SOC, Camera, Baseband) doesn't change. As long as Google doesn't change how the drivers interface with newer versions of the OS, the drivers for your particular device will continue to work.
This.
Abstracting the hardware from the upper parts of the OS is a solvable problem. It's a matter of considerable mental effort and architecture, but it's definitely solvable, and has been repeatedly solved in the long history of operating systems. The fact that Google somehow hasn't managed to solve this problem for Android speaks loudly about their abilities in the realm of OS design.
Here's a hint for Google engineers: monolithic is BAD!
Quick question... is good product design about packing in as many features as possible, whether they are something people will actually use, or actually good ideas, or actually implemented in a good way, or something someone will actually use?
No.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Good product design is about much more than checking off features on the Marketing Checklist.
I'll go further: shopping by spec sheet is how idiots do it. And by "idiots", I mean people who aren't able to identify the je ne sais quoi of any given product (whether it be a phone, a computer, a car, or anything else with "specs") and must rely solely on boolean and numerical comparisons, unable to fathom the intangibles.
Products (all products) have so much more to offer than just spec sheets. Reducing those products down to merely numbers on a piece of paper does the product (and the consumer) a grave disservice.
This persistent "walled garden" accusation was annoying at first, but after being repeated ad nauseum, it's actually kind of funny. Having lived in that so-called "walled garden" for a number of years, I can't really say that my life is any worse for having done so. On the other hand, the people who are constantly sniping about a "walled garden" (from outside the wall) have spent the last four or five years complaining non-stop about how awful it is inside.
Guess whose life has been better spent.
Why does this not surprise me?
Wrong, but thanks for playing "I have a shitty fallacy". The question "Is there a creator?" is the relevant question.
Just because you say it is so does not make it so. Science isn't attempting to answer the question "Is there a creator?" because such a question is essentially unanswerable. It is, instead, a matter of faith, and therefore the province of religion, not science.
You think Texas is bad, try California or Illinois. At least Texas can more or less balance a budget and follow the Constitution.
I've lived in both Texas and California (but was born in neither).
Guess where I choose to live? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't start with T.
Indeed. Android users have cast off the shackles of the "walled garden" liberating themselves from oppression. In exchange, they now have the barbed-wire DMZ provided by incompetent carriers who are effectively preventing them from getting timely updates.
Brilliant.
Sorry, Unlike Apples *police state* products, almost every part of Android is replaceable, you clearly have never used it.
Rhetoric much?
The circumstances of these phones effectively being general purpose computers.
You missed his point. It's not the fact that these phones are general purpose computers (though clearly they are) but that they are largely unprotected, vulnerable to attack, and (this is the important bit) lacking in a clearly defined upgrade path.
As a professional software developer, I can state one thing here with authority: real software (OS, applications, even firmware) has a clearly defined upgrade mechanism when it ships. Anything that lacks a clearly defined upgrade mechanism is substandard crapware engineered by crazed chimps.
Of late, you can activate an iPhone with no computer connection. You can also update the OS over the air, with no computer connection. And, of course, you can buy (and update) apps with no computer connection. The iPhone is now, for all intents and purposes, a standalone device.
It's a function of the account. The failed attempt count is updated on each attempt, so each session gets the same behavior.
I'd take that bet in a heartbeat.