Isn't it like saying 'I will never be a serial killer'? It's not like lying is worse than doing the act, so what would make a malicious actor even hesitate to make the same claim?
This is nothing about Canonical, just an observation on the pointlessness of such statements in general.
Keep in mind there's also a matter of degree. A tow truck with a small supply of gasoline to let a car drive itself to a gas station in an emergency scenario, versus having this be a 'matter of course' sort of thing. Instead of maybe once in a few years a stranded motorist finds himself in need of such a service, we are talking about that same motorist making this happen as a weekly occurrence or so.
Depends on the state. Some states require rather bulky mechanisms to prevent gas evaporation.
Also, the gas stations tanks and plumbing are highly regulated and have strict things in place.
Yes, you are right about there existing standards for tanker trucks. However, they aren't going to be taking a tanker truck into a random parking lot, they are going to take a light truck. Yes you could devise some regulations around such a fuel carrier, but I don't think that's what these startups are currently doing.
Made even more insidious in that you also get a whole lot of activists for free by being hip and trendy from playing the 'old fogies don't understand' card.
Right, but the general Linux ecosystem isn't as tightly controlled by a single entity.
Sure IBM, RedHat, Canonical, attachmate, Google, Microsoft, amazon, and everyone else in the world is paying for development, but none of them has the ability to unilaterally make a move in the general ecosystem.
In Firefox, it's monolithic, and they don't have any volunteers. In fact, in web technology the major players who care about the browser all did 'NIH' and rolled their own rendering engine and javascript runtime, rather than collaborating.
As a major runtime environment, the webbrowser is very tightly controlled. Chromium won't do anything Google doesn't want it to, Firefox markets itself as a free ecosystem, but has monolithic development and management. Those are the only two prominent open source endeavors that have any remotely significant footprint.
Of course, the relative cost compared to the device being plugged into is low. If one can't afford 2GB USB key, then affording the device to install onto is a challenge.
I'm not saying his claim is accurate, just that someone trying to call him out as a fraud might want to highlight a belief that the dude is just not smart enough to do it or that it makes no sense to come out rather than saying the guy's a crazy and a schemer, neither of which would preclude making something like Bitcoin. *Particularly* since a lot of us consider it a gigantic nerd ponzi scheme, it'd probably be best not to give us just more fuel for our argument.
Much hinges on whether MS can deliver a good and *perceived* to be good mobile experience. As it stands, today people prefer to have two distinct devices, in order not to run MS on their phone. Or it could be because MS is being obstinate phones being ARM, limiting the 'desktop' versatility.
That used not to be the case, then it was the case, now it much isn't the case again, particularly for Intel.
Intel's desktop only goes to 4 cores, a small number of PCIe lanes, no ECC memory support, 2 memory channels, single socket, and won't go to very high TDP.
Servers go to much higher core counts, pcie lanes, ecc memory, 4 memory channels, and more sockets, and will drive TDP through the roof to get more powerful if needed.
As bad as Gnome 3 is, Gnome 1 was worse. Gnome 1 was little better than nothing. KDE 4 was pretty terrible in the beginning, but they found their way back. Ruby: Here it isn't even a stated evolutionary direction, nor it is even considered a 'spiritual successor' or 'superior', apart from a brief period of time when 'ruby on rails' made it hot stuff. It's an alternative. While perl technically predates python which predates ruby, that's all pre-1995 history, not something of this millenium. Interet of things: Currently a gleam in the eyes of tech companies hoping to get traction. If it takes off, it could be dystopian, but as it stands it's too early to pronounce it a 'thing'.
smart phones really aren't all that different from the PalmPilots we used in the late 1990s
Well, aside from the full color displays, orders of magnitude more storage, memory, speed, resolution, full fledged multi-tasking operating systems with web browsers that can render sites like desktops, weighing less, lasting a lot longer on a charge, actually having internet connectivity, and some other stuff. But other than that, yeah, not that different...
we've actually seen a lot of regression
Whatever the opinion of those things may be, I don't think 'regression' is the right word. Regression would suggest things collapsed and went back the way they were (e.g. people gave up on the concept of 'DE', Gnome devolved into a barely related set of applications, that sort of thing.
desktop environments
I'll agree that Gnome has gone off the reservation without any sign of being out there, and I'm not a fan of Unity or Win8, but Win10 is actually a decent step up in functionality (there are problems around their release management and privacy), KDE has gotten their act back together, and all the other DEs have been true to their mission throughout.
We even saw regression when it comes to programming languages
Again, not so much a regression as it is, if anything, a weird direction. I'd say while Ruby got a whole lot of attention and loudness, I think in practice it really didn't get as pervasive as the talk about ruby got, and even that has pretty well died down. NodeJS does mean JS has surprisingly seen some use beyond the browser, but in practice I don't think that has staying power. Inside the browser, Javascript is better now than it was in the 90s by a long shot, and those still so inclined may use 90s sensibilities in their site design (incidentally, a lot of Chinese websites I've seen stylistically do remind me of the old geocities/angelfire days).
Internet of Things
I think that's all in the name, or rather the lack of direction indicated in the name. It's a lot of companies wishing to manufacture a market from nothing, but without a good specific vision of what might work, so they shotgun crazy ideas that no one asked for nor really want.
In some sense it would be a return to their Xenix days.
Oh, ok, your post was joking.
In case people take it seriously, MS if anything would be a fan of pulseaudio, network manager, and systemd (also dbus, dconf), those are more similar to the Windows way of doing things. If anything it would be even messier, as MS' versions of those technologies can be even more convoluted, except maybe their software audio device abstraction is more robust than pulseaudio (though it can still get weird).
It's not bash 'instead of powershell', it's bash and enough stuff to optionally let a windows person develop for a linux VM on azure without needing to run linux locally.
Powershell remains what they really want people to use for Windows stuff, and bash is only really intended to facilitate supporting VMs on Azure.
Sony has not put their VR up for pre-order. Oculus is backordered for months within 5 minutes, but it's hard to say whether that's because it's wildly successful, or that Facebook/Oculus are not really so good with manufacturing/supply chain/logistics (which are really really hard, and people mistakenly assume that just because Facebook is big, they can wave a wand and magically know how to do these things).
xbox1 is way behind xbox360, particularly around launch time because Sony did such a better job at launch (MS was pricier with bundled Kinect, and lower spec).
PS4 is way ahead of PS3, because PS3 was a disaster. PS4 is in fact outpacing, month for month, their proclaimed champion of the home consoles, the PS2.
PS1 sold 100 million over the lifetime (I think without data it's risky to assume anything). PS4 has only been out for just over 2 years, so even if you assume it didn't sell any after 2000, it's keeping pace with PS1 sales. Note that *after* PS2 released, there was still enough demand for PS1 for Sony to do a redesign of PS1, so clearly there were significant volumes still.
PS2 got lengthened because PS3 did not carry through the backwards compatible situation. For a long time into PS3 lifetime, PS2s were right next to it on the shelf.
So if you compare PS4 to PS1 and PS2, things still look pretty rosy for the console business. The PS3 and XB1 did terrible, but that's not an indictment of the industry at large.
xbox 360 represents a huge success for MS, way ahead of PS3. Effectively the high end winner of its generation. Xbox one is... well not. So again, they cherry picked the performance of a winner of a generation versus a loser of another. XB1 particularly did poorly at the beginning, when it was more expensive than the Sony offering and they had not decoupled Kinect yet.
In general, an article full of cherry-picking questionable values to make a point that doesn't stand up to scrutiny about the market success of the platforms.
Commodore 64 was still relatively pricey such that it was out of reach of many households. The advent of PCs being in every home *anyway* was a mid-90s sort of thing, despite still being pricey compared to a console of the same era.
Actually, that hasn't been the case for a long time. The allure has been 'it just works and won't get cluttered with random crap being piled on and on and on' and 'games don't have no tunables whatsoever'.. PS3 made the fatal mistake of assuming it still had to deliver exotic.
I personally find the lack of versatility disturbing, but most folks don't care about that.
PS4 has only been out for 3 years, and you are comparing units moved to systems that had a decade or more sales lifetime and drawing conclusions based on those being equivalent things to compare?
Well I meant that all sorts of things could hypothetically go wrong with it, and there exists manufacturers still making pretty much any part you can imagine in a 2006 F-150.
Of course, the bigger more relevant point is a 2016 F-150 can traverse the same roads a 2006 can. That's not how game consoles work.
Ouya was a low end cell phone in a cube. This had something more to do with things than the Linux half of it. For games that support both, SteamOS represents a fine experience. Sony seems to do just fine without Windows.
Windows is neither the only thing capable of delivering a solid experience nor is it incapable of delivering a solid experience itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, ones as thoroughly vetted as RSA and DH.
Shared secret cryptography is still pretty much safe given current best practices if your shared secret is managed well.
While key sizes are effectively halved, most of those algorithms are already more than twice as long as would practically be risky.
Isn't it like saying 'I will never be a serial killer'? It's not like lying is worse than doing the act, so what would make a malicious actor even hesitate to make the same claim?
This is nothing about Canonical, just an observation on the pointlessness of such statements in general.
Keep in mind there's also a matter of degree. A tow truck with a small supply of gasoline to let a car drive itself to a gas station in an emergency scenario, versus having this be a 'matter of course' sort of thing. Instead of maybe once in a few years a stranded motorist finds himself in need of such a service, we are talking about that same motorist making this happen as a weekly occurrence or so.
Depends on the state. Some states require rather bulky mechanisms to prevent gas evaporation.
Also, the gas stations tanks and plumbing are highly regulated and have strict things in place.
Yes, you are right about there existing standards for tanker trucks. However, they aren't going to be taking a tanker truck into a random parking lot, they are going to take a light truck. Yes you could devise some regulations around such a fuel carrier, but I don't think that's what these startups are currently doing.
Made even more insidious in that you also get a whole lot of activists for free by being hip and trendy from playing the 'old fogies don't understand' card.
Right, but the general Linux ecosystem isn't as tightly controlled by a single entity.
Sure IBM, RedHat, Canonical, attachmate, Google, Microsoft, amazon, and everyone else in the world is paying for development, but none of them has the ability to unilaterally make a move in the general ecosystem.
In Firefox, it's monolithic, and they don't have any volunteers. In fact, in web technology the major players who care about the browser all did 'NIH' and rolled their own rendering engine and javascript runtime, rather than collaborating.
As a major runtime environment, the webbrowser is very tightly controlled. Chromium won't do anything Google doesn't want it to, Firefox markets itself as a free ecosystem, but has monolithic development and management. Those are the only two prominent open source endeavors that have any remotely significant footprint.
Of course, the relative cost compared to the device being plugged into is low. If one can't afford 2GB USB key, then affording the device to install onto is a challenge.
I'm not saying his claim is accurate, just that someone trying to call him out as a fraud might want to highlight a belief that the dude is just not smart enough to do it or that it makes no sense to come out rather than saying the guy's a crazy and a schemer, neither of which would preclude making something like Bitcoin. *Particularly* since a lot of us consider it a gigantic nerd ponzi scheme, it'd probably be best not to give us just more fuel for our argument.
I know two people who worked with Wright, characterized him as crazy and schemer/charlatan
How does this make him *not* a candidate for being the creator of BitCoin? To me that just seems to reinforce his claim.
Much hinges on whether MS can deliver a good and *perceived* to be good mobile experience. As it stands, today people prefer to have two distinct devices, in order not to run MS on their phone. Or it could be because MS is being obstinate phones being ARM, limiting the 'desktop' versatility.
That used not to be the case, then it was the case, now it much isn't the case again, particularly for Intel.
Intel's desktop only goes to 4 cores, a small number of PCIe lanes, no ECC memory support, 2 memory channels, single socket, and won't go to very high TDP.
Servers go to much higher core counts, pcie lanes, ecc memory, 4 memory channels, and more sockets, and will drive TDP through the roof to get more powerful if needed.
As bad as Gnome 3 is, Gnome 1 was worse. Gnome 1 was little better than nothing.
KDE 4 was pretty terrible in the beginning, but they found their way back.
Ruby: Here it isn't even a stated evolutionary direction, nor it is even considered a 'spiritual successor' or 'superior', apart from a brief period of time when 'ruby on rails' made it hot stuff. It's an alternative. While perl technically predates python which predates ruby, that's all pre-1995 history, not something of this millenium.
Interet of things: Currently a gleam in the eyes of tech companies hoping to get traction. If it takes off, it could be dystopian, but as it stands it's too early to pronounce it a 'thing'.
smart phones really aren't all that different from the PalmPilots we used in the late 1990s
Well, aside from the full color displays, orders of magnitude more storage, memory, speed, resolution, full fledged multi-tasking operating systems with web browsers that can render sites like desktops, weighing less, lasting a lot longer on a charge, actually having internet connectivity, and some other stuff. But other than that, yeah, not that different...
we've actually seen a lot of regression
Whatever the opinion of those things may be, I don't think 'regression' is the right word. Regression would suggest things collapsed and went back the way they were (e.g. people gave up on the concept of 'DE', Gnome devolved into a barely related set of applications, that sort of thing.
desktop environments
I'll agree that Gnome has gone off the reservation without any sign of being out there, and I'm not a fan of Unity or Win8, but Win10 is actually a decent step up in functionality (there are problems around their release management and privacy), KDE has gotten their act back together, and all the other DEs have been true to their mission throughout.
We even saw regression when it comes to programming languages
Again, not so much a regression as it is, if anything, a weird direction. I'd say while Ruby got a whole lot of attention and loudness, I think in practice it really didn't get as pervasive as the talk about ruby got, and even that has pretty well died down. NodeJS does mean JS has surprisingly seen some use beyond the browser, but in practice I don't think that has staying power. Inside the browser, Javascript is better now than it was in the 90s by a long shot, and those still so inclined may use 90s sensibilities in their site design (incidentally, a lot of Chinese websites I've seen stylistically do remind me of the old geocities/angelfire days).
Internet of Things
I think that's all in the name, or rather the lack of direction indicated in the name. It's a lot of companies wishing to manufacture a market from nothing, but without a good specific vision of what might work, so they shotgun crazy ideas that no one asked for nor really want.
Well, scarcity in most scenarios is far from imaginary, and hypothetical immortality wouldn't exactly help matters on that front.
In some sense it would be a return to their Xenix days.
Oh, ok, your post was joking.
In case people take it seriously, MS if anything would be a fan of pulseaudio, network manager, and systemd (also dbus, dconf), those are more similar to the Windows way of doing things. If anything it would be even messier, as MS' versions of those technologies can be even more convoluted, except maybe their software audio device abstraction is more robust than pulseaudio (though it can still get weird).
It's not bash 'instead of powershell', it's bash and enough stuff to optionally let a windows person develop for a linux VM on azure without needing to run linux locally.
Powershell remains what they really want people to use for Windows stuff, and bash is only really intended to facilitate supporting VMs on Azure.
Sony has not put their VR up for pre-order. Oculus is backordered for months within 5 minutes, but it's hard to say whether that's because it's wildly successful, or that Facebook/Oculus are not really so good with manufacturing/supply chain/logistics (which are really really hard, and people mistakenly assume that just because Facebook is big, they can wave a wand and magically know how to do these things).
xbox1 is way behind xbox360, particularly around launch time because Sony did such a better job at launch (MS was pricier with bundled Kinect, and lower spec).
PS4 is way ahead of PS3, because PS3 was a disaster. PS4 is in fact outpacing, month for month, their proclaimed champion of the home consoles, the PS2.
PS1 sold 100 million over the lifetime (I think without data it's risky to assume anything). PS4 has only been out for just over 2 years, so even if you assume it didn't sell any after 2000, it's keeping pace with PS1 sales. Note that *after* PS2 released, there was still enough demand for PS1 for Sony to do a redesign of PS1, so clearly there were significant volumes still.
PS2 got lengthened because PS3 did not carry through the backwards compatible situation. For a long time into PS3 lifetime, PS2s were right next to it on the shelf.
So if you compare PS4 to PS1 and PS2, things still look pretty rosy for the console business. The PS3 and XB1 did terrible, but that's not an indictment of the industry at large.
xbox 360 represents a huge success for MS, way ahead of PS3. Effectively the high end winner of its generation. Xbox one is... well not. So again, they cherry picked the performance of a winner of a generation versus a loser of another. XB1 particularly did poorly at the beginning, when it was more expensive than the Sony offering and they had not decoupled Kinect yet.
In general, an article full of cherry-picking questionable values to make a point that doesn't stand up to scrutiny about the market success of the platforms.
Commodore 64 was still relatively pricey such that it was out of reach of many households. The advent of PCs being in every home *anyway* was a mid-90s sort of thing, despite still being pricey compared to a console of the same era.
Actually, that hasn't been the case for a long time. The allure has been 'it just works and won't get cluttered with random crap being piled on and on and on' and 'games don't have no tunables whatsoever'.. PS3 made the fatal mistake of assuming it still had to deliver exotic.
I personally find the lack of versatility disturbing, but most folks don't care about that.
PS4 has only been out for 3 years, and you are comparing units moved to systems that had a decade or more sales lifetime and drawing conclusions based on those being equivalent things to compare?
Well I meant that all sorts of things could hypothetically go wrong with it, and there exists manufacturers still making pretty much any part you can imagine in a 2006 F-150.
Of course, the bigger more relevant point is a 2016 F-150 can traverse the same roads a 2006 can. That's not how game consoles work.
Ouya was a low end cell phone in a cube. This had something more to do with things than the Linux half of it. For games that support both, SteamOS represents a fine experience. Sony seems to do just fine without Windows.
Windows is neither the only thing capable of delivering a solid experience nor is it incapable of delivering a solid experience itself.