Yes, standards bodies move very slowly, though I seriously hope that you're not arguing against the need for standards!
Though speaking of moving slowly, you haven't seen slow until you've seen how slowly change happens once a single vendor dominate the market through proprietary formats! Maybe you're too young to remember the dark days after the browser wars, when MS, the victor, decided that IE6 was it, and essentially stopped further development, grinding the web to a halt. I don't know about you, but I consider 'stopped' to be about as slow as you can get.
Stagnation is what happens when you don't have open standards. We're seeing it now. When a few dominant players with their own proprietary products feel no pressure to innovate or take risks, they simply don't. When they do make a change, and you don't like it, you're stuck.
how does a platform vendor go about delivering a new platform feature?
There's nothing stopping vendors from having their own native formats. They'd just also have to support the standard package as well, if they want to take advantage of that large and open marketplace.
Still, is that a problem now? It doesn't seem to be. At least on the web, we're seeing far more cooperation between vendors than ever before. The major players work with the standards bodies, and each other, to shape the future. Experimental features are clearly delineated, and developers understand the risks of putting them in to production. We've seen remarkable progress over the past 5 years, in case you haven't noticed. Far more progress than we saw in the previous decade, all thanks the the millstone that was IE6.
When we embrace standards, things more forward far more quickly. Standards bodies are slow, but not nearly as slow a giant dominating a market.
nobody cares about your definition of "open" when your product is inferior in every.single.way. when compared to the other choices.
I strongly disagree. Take a look at the video I linked earlier. I'd also recommend you take a look at the new 2.5 builds. A lot has happened since 2013. We're seeing things happen with FXOS that iOS and Android simply can't do.
I also don't think being beholden to a single vendor, like Apple or Google, is good in any way. That includes Mozilla, of course, which is why a standard app package like they're proposing is so important. Being built on open standards, and trivial to implement on new platforms is incredibly important. It allows new platforms to enter the arena with access to existing app marketplaces -- eliminating one of the biggest hurdles new players face. It allows users to move freely between platforms, no longer locked to a single vendor.
it has nothing to offer the consumer other than the Moz definition of "open".
FXOS succeeds when the competition adopts their app package standard. If they fail before that happens, everyone suffers. Users continue to suffer from the lack of choice in the market and vendor lock-in, and new platforms suffer from a market dominated by two major platforms, making it difficult to attract developers. If they succeed, everyone wins. Users can move freely between platforms and benefit from new and innovative platforms. New players can enter the market and succeed or fail on their own merits -- not because they lacked a large app market. Even developers win, as they can launch apps that target platforms that don't even exist yet across a range of competing marketplaces -- no longer beholden to the whims of Apples gatekeepers or Google's censors.
If FXOS succeeds, everybody wins. If it fails, everyone loses. "Open", in this case, isn't a meaningless buzzword. It's what will move us past stagnation and on to progress. FXOS can do for mobile what FireFox did for the web. Or would you rather we go back to the post browser-wars apocalyptic landscape of IE6?
The platforms exist to run applications, if the applications are compatible across all platforms then why do we need "various platforms"?
Because homogeneity, particularly when it comes to computers, is a very bad thing. We've seen this countless times. It's why we were stuck with IE6 for so long. It's why you still need MS Word. It's killed countless vendors and made others uncomfortably influential. Worse, it leads to stagnation as the pressure to innovate and take risks vanishes. We're seeing this now with iOS and Android.
There are already standard APIs for interfacing with a number of different devices, with broad support across platforms. There are more on the way, with surprising cooperation between browser vendors. They know how important these new APIs are, after all. Though FireFoxOS is certainly doing a lot of the heavy lifting, even drafting support for VR. That's a solved problem and not the important issue here.
What's important here is the standard app package that can be trivially implemented on various platforms. The established players might not like it, but new mobile OS's certainly benefit from access to the established, and steadily growing, set of apps.
For users, it's even better. They're no longer beholden to a single platform or app market. They're free to use whatever OS and marketplace they feel best meets their needs. They can opt for a closed system or one that's completely open. What matters, of course, is that they have real choice in a much more open marketplace. If you have Apples walled garden and don't trust Google to do no evil with the data they're continuously gathering you have real options.
The rush toward homogeneity is why we ended up with IE6. Rather than shitting on FXOS for whatever reason, you should be demanding other vendors support their app packages. No one wins if FXOS fails, but everyone wins if it succeeds.
FirefoxOS is an extremely important project, right up there with the browser at the time it was conceived.
As for the OS itself, years ago, there really wasn't much to say. It's improved dramatically since those early releases on low-end hardware. Check out some of the 2.5 demos. It's really something. What will really amaze you, of course, are the customization features you'll likely never find on other platforms.
As this is about the Matchstick, and you seem to like scathing reviews, take a look at this FXOS vs Android head-to-head in the smart TV arena. Needless to say, I was looking forward to the Matchstick.
When we look at the big picture, it is not positive at all!
I know. Google's spyware, Apples walled garden, it's a nightmare! That's why FXOS is so important. The mobile space needs an open platform and, most importantly, an open app package standard that anyone can implement. Users benefit by being able to keep their apps even when switching platforms and new platforms benefit from a wealth of apps ready to go from day one.
When you have a really good thing, you don't "cut your losses" simply because some kickstarter project didn't want to see another delay. It's not like the backers were consulted. I'd have voted to wait an extra year, if necessary, to get my hands on the thing. After all, I funded the project to support FXOS, not because I was interested in the matchstick. I know how important it is, and what it can do for mobile.
You can't understand why someone would want more than one portable heater?
I understand that one is more than sufficient for your 10x15 "apartment" in your mom's basement, but can you look past your own needs for a moment and consider that the needs of others may be different?
Why cant phone manufacturers provide a product with features people actually want? a charger that doesnt change every year, removable storage, replaceable battery, support for multiple sims?
Those are as common as pimples at a school dance. If you can't find a phone with those features, you haven't been looking.
We are talking about two groups saying mean things over the internet, which are more or less equal.
I'd disagree. There are differences there that can hide rather well. The most important, of course, is credibility.
Let's say I make the following threat, directed toward you: "I'm going to murder you! Murder you to death! I'll kill you with murder!"
You, presumably, will be unaffected. We don't know each other, or anything about one another. You have no reason to believe I have the ability to make good on my promise. I simply can't make a threatening threat that will threaten you in the slightest.
Now, image we're high school classmates. You say to me, over facebook, "After school tomorrow, I'm going to pound you until you piss blood".
That's a far more credible threat, as I know you have the knowledge and opportunity necessary to actualize it.
Now imagine that you're the target of a large movement filled with very angry people and you receive a number of credible threats...
There are a number of ways to interpret the "if you're a woman" clause.
You found the one way to interpret it that fits your preconceptions, and lets you attack someone who thinks differently than you do about various social issues.
Attacking her personally and whatever imaginary beliefs you've attributed to her isn't going to convince anyone to see your side of the issues. Why? Because you're clearly avoiding the real issues. I can only assume it's because you have nothing to say. Is it because you don't think there's a problem because you're not personally affected? Do you know there's a problem, but benefit from the status quo and want to maintain it?
Is it denial? Puerile self-interest? Delusion? Vengeance? What motivates you here? Why not just address the issues directly? Why bother with personal attacks? Why beat the stuffing out of those strawmen? Why imagine shadowing PC Media villains out to... do some unknown nefarious deed? What is it?
GG has merit? I thought that anyone with something reasonable to say abandoned that moniker a long time ago. The remainder being just a noisy bunch of bottom feeders pretending it's all about ethics in journalism while spending all their time ranting about feminism and harassing women online..
If you actually think there's a diamond at the bottom of that cesspool, please, pull it out and show us. Then get it as far away from that mess as possible. Leave it in that filth and no one will ever see it.
The internet! Where EVERYONE actually gets the 'equality' they all claimed they wanted!
Ummm... No. See, as you point out, women can't express themselves freely because, by virtue of being a women, they will be treated unequally the instant their gender is known. That is not the case for men, who are free to reveal their gender as people tend to assume that anonymous users are men. You insist that anyone who's not a straight white male must hide some aspect of themselves to avoid unequal treatment. That's not equality, it's oppression.
Consider this: Alice and Bob get in to an argument. Things get heated, and Alice calls Bob a jerk. Bob then beats her severely. Alice, after regaining consciousness, files a police report.
Both sides have done fuck up things. Trying to pretend it was a completely black and white, good vs evil conflict does not get you any respect
What I'm saying is you get nowhere when you are unwilling to admit that both sides were in the wrong and attack neutral parties purely because they are neutral.
If you're neutral in the case of Alice and Bob, you are indeed part of the problem. Sure, Alice was wrong to call Bob a jerk, but that is not in any way equivalent to the severe beating Alice received. Insisting that all wrongs are somehow equally egregious, and using that to justify taking a neutral position is absurd.
That's the sort of thing you see a lot from hard line feminism
An interesting perspective. I've never seen a feminist, hard-line or not, espouse such a thing. That argument seems to exist exclusively withing groups like GG and AVFM, who apparently have inside information in to the secret feminist cabal that's out to destroy the world.
Sorry about that last bit. I just can't take you conspiracy nuts seriously. Particularly when you spend so much time and energy arguing against your own imagination.
Slashdot Mirror
You do know that while the Matchstick ran FXOS, it was not a Mozilla project, right?
I haven't seen you go over it.
It's in the comment to which you replied, as well as another one of my comments to which you replied.
I honestly don't see how you missed it.
Why? Why would I care? Why would I want FirefoxOS over a less-fucked over version of Linux running Firefox? What makes it so important?
I've gone over this several times, it's the standard app package that's important.
Yes, standards bodies move very slowly, though I seriously hope that you're not arguing against the need for standards!
Though speaking of moving slowly, you haven't seen slow until you've seen how slowly change happens once a single vendor dominate the market through proprietary formats! Maybe you're too young to remember the dark days after the browser wars, when MS, the victor, decided that IE6 was it, and essentially stopped further development, grinding the web to a halt. I don't know about you, but I consider 'stopped' to be about as slow as you can get.
Stagnation is what happens when you don't have open standards. We're seeing it now. When a few dominant players with their own proprietary products feel no pressure to innovate or take risks, they simply don't. When they do make a change, and you don't like it, you're stuck.
how does a platform vendor go about delivering a new platform feature?
There's nothing stopping vendors from having their own native formats. They'd just also have to support the standard package as well, if they want to take advantage of that large and open marketplace.
Still, is that a problem now? It doesn't seem to be. At least on the web, we're seeing far more cooperation between vendors than ever before. The major players work with the standards bodies, and each other, to shape the future. Experimental features are clearly delineated, and developers understand the risks of putting them in to production. We've seen remarkable progress over the past 5 years, in case you haven't noticed. Far more progress than we saw in the previous decade, all thanks the the millstone that was IE6.
When we embrace standards, things more forward far more quickly. Standards bodies are slow, but not nearly as slow a giant dominating a market.
nobody cares about your definition of "open" when your product is inferior in every.single.way. when compared to the other choices.
I strongly disagree. Take a look at the video I linked earlier. I'd also recommend you take a look at the new 2.5 builds. A lot has happened since 2013. We're seeing things happen with FXOS that iOS and Android simply can't do.
I also don't think being beholden to a single vendor, like Apple or Google, is good in any way. That includes Mozilla, of course, which is why a standard app package like they're proposing is so important. Being built on open standards, and trivial to implement on new platforms is incredibly important. It allows new platforms to enter the arena with access to existing app marketplaces -- eliminating one of the biggest hurdles new players face. It allows users to move freely between platforms, no longer locked to a single vendor.
it has nothing to offer the consumer other than the Moz definition of "open".
FXOS succeeds when the competition adopts their app package standard. If they fail before that happens, everyone suffers. Users continue to suffer from the lack of choice in the market and vendor lock-in, and new platforms suffer from a market dominated by two major platforms, making it difficult to attract developers. If they succeed, everyone wins. Users can move freely between platforms and benefit from new and innovative platforms. New players can enter the market and succeed or fail on their own merits -- not because they lacked a large app market. Even developers win, as they can launch apps that target platforms that don't even exist yet across a range of competing marketplaces -- no longer beholden to the whims of Apples gatekeepers or Google's censors.
If FXOS succeeds, everybody wins. If it fails, everyone loses. "Open", in this case, isn't a meaningless buzzword. It's what will move us past stagnation and on to progress. FXOS can do for mobile what FireFox did for the web. Or would you rather we go back to the post browser-wars apocalyptic landscape of IE6?
The platforms exist to run applications, if the applications are compatible across all platforms then why do we need "various platforms"?
Because homogeneity, particularly when it comes to computers, is a very bad thing. We've seen this countless times. It's why we were stuck with IE6 for so long. It's why you still need MS Word. It's killed countless vendors and made others uncomfortably influential. Worse, it leads to stagnation as the pressure to innovate and take risks vanishes. We're seeing this now with iOS and Android.
There are already standard APIs for interfacing with a number of different devices, with broad support across platforms. There are more on the way, with surprising cooperation between browser vendors. They know how important these new APIs are, after all. Though FireFoxOS is certainly doing a lot of the heavy lifting, even drafting support for VR. That's a solved problem and not the important issue here.
What's important here is the standard app package that can be trivially implemented on various platforms. The established players might not like it, but new mobile OS's certainly benefit from access to the established, and steadily growing, set of apps.
For users, it's even better. They're no longer beholden to a single platform or app market. They're free to use whatever OS and marketplace they feel best meets their needs. They can opt for a closed system or one that's completely open. What matters, of course, is that they have real choice in a much more open marketplace. If you have Apples walled garden and don't trust Google to do no evil with the data they're continuously gathering you have real options.
The rush toward homogeneity is why we ended up with IE6. Rather than shitting on FXOS for whatever reason, you should be demanding other vendors support their app packages. No one wins if FXOS fails, but everyone wins if it succeeds.
FirefoxOS is an extremely important project, right up there with the browser at the time it was conceived.
As for the OS itself, years ago, there really wasn't much to say. It's improved dramatically since those early releases on low-end hardware. Check out some of the 2.5 demos. It's really something. What will really amaze you, of course, are the customization features you'll likely never find on other platforms.
As this is about the Matchstick, and you seem to like scathing reviews, take a look at this FXOS vs Android head-to-head in the smart TV arena. Needless to say, I was looking forward to the Matchstick.
When we look at the big picture, it is not positive at all!
I know. Google's spyware, Apples walled garden, it's a nightmare! That's why FXOS is so important. The mobile space needs an open platform and, most importantly, an open app package standard that anyone can implement. Users benefit by being able to keep their apps even when switching platforms and new platforms benefit from a wealth of apps ready to go from day one.
When you have a really good thing, you don't "cut your losses" simply because some kickstarter project didn't want to see another delay. It's not like the backers were consulted. I'd have voted to wait an extra year, if necessary, to get my hands on the thing. After all, I funded the project to support FXOS, not because I was interested in the matchstick. I know how important it is, and what it can do for mobile.
You can't understand why someone would want more than one portable heater?
I understand that one is more than sufficient for your 10x15 "apartment" in your mom's basement, but can you look past your own needs for a moment and consider that the needs of others may be different?
Why cant phone manufacturers provide a product with features people actually want? a charger that doesnt change every year, removable storage, replaceable battery, support for multiple sims?
Those are as common as pimples at a school dance. If you can't find a phone with those features, you haven't been looking.
(That's the joke...)
Maybe it was just poorly written, but it doesn't seem like she has any specific complaints.
Then there was the odd bit about how she trusts Google, so it's okay for them to collect vast amounts of information about her.
Why is this here?
It's Medium.com spam.
This needs to stop.
You might really enjoy Somolia.
The "joke":
Saw someone spill their high end juice cleanse all over the sidewalk and now I know god is on my side.
Chrome doesn't rely on a plugin for flash, it has a player built-in. I seriously doubt they'd have killed NPAPI support otherwise.
Congratulations! In your rush to repeat your favorite MRA line, you've completely missed the point!
A rather selective quote.
Did you know that you can quote someone exactly and make it look like they've said something completely different?
She answered not a single negative comment,
That's very obviously not true.
We are talking about two groups saying mean things over the internet, which are more or less equal.
I'd disagree. There are differences there that can hide rather well. The most important, of course, is credibility.
Let's say I make the following threat, directed toward you: "I'm going to murder you! Murder you to death! I'll kill you with murder!"
You, presumably, will be unaffected. We don't know each other, or anything about one another. You have no reason to believe I have the ability to make good on my promise. I simply can't make a threatening threat that will threaten you in the slightest.
Now, image we're high school classmates. You say to me, over facebook, "After school tomorrow, I'm going to pound you until you piss blood".
That's a far more credible threat, as I know you have the knowledge and opportunity necessary to actualize it.
Now imagine that you're the target of a large movement filled with very angry people and you receive a number of credible threats...
There are a number of ways to interpret the "if you're a woman" clause.
You found the one way to interpret it that fits your preconceptions, and lets you attack someone who thinks differently than you do about various social issues.
Attacking her personally and whatever imaginary beliefs you've attributed to her isn't going to convince anyone to see your side of the issues. Why? Because you're clearly avoiding the real issues. I can only assume it's because you have nothing to say. Is it because you don't think there's a problem because you're not personally affected? Do you know there's a problem, but benefit from the status quo and want to maintain it?
Is it denial? Puerile self-interest? Delusion? Vengeance? What motivates you here? Why not just address the issues directly? Why bother with personal attacks? Why beat the stuffing out of those strawmen? Why imagine shadowing PC Media villains out to ... do some unknown nefarious deed? What is it?
GG has merit? I thought that anyone with something reasonable to say abandoned that moniker a long time ago. The remainder being just a noisy bunch of bottom feeders pretending it's all about ethics in journalism while spending all their time ranting about feminism and harassing women online..
If you actually think there's a diamond at the bottom of that cesspool, please, pull it out and show us. Then get it as far away from that mess as possible. Leave it in that filth and no one will ever see it.
The internet! Where EVERYONE actually gets the 'equality' they all claimed they wanted!
Ummm... No. See, as you point out, women can't express themselves freely because, by virtue of being a women, they will be treated unequally the instant their gender is known. That is not the case for men, who are free to reveal their gender as people tend to assume that anonymous users are men. You insist that anyone who's not a straight white male must hide some aspect of themselves to avoid unequal treatment. That's not equality, it's oppression.
This isn't complicated.
There is a massive difference in degree here.
Consider this: Alice and Bob get in to an argument. Things get heated, and Alice calls Bob a jerk. Bob then beats her severely. Alice, after regaining consciousness, files a police report.
Both sides have done fuck up things. Trying to pretend it was a completely black and white, good vs evil conflict does not get you any respect
What I'm saying is you get nowhere when you are unwilling to admit that both sides were in the wrong and attack neutral parties purely because they are neutral.
If you're neutral in the case of Alice and Bob, you are indeed part of the problem. Sure, Alice was wrong to call Bob a jerk, but that is not in any way equivalent to the severe beating Alice received. Insisting that all wrongs are somehow equally egregious, and using that to justify taking a neutral position is absurd.
That's the sort of thing you see a lot from hard line feminism
An interesting perspective. I've never seen a feminist, hard-line or not, espouse such a thing. That argument seems to exist exclusively withing groups like GG and AVFM, who apparently have inside information in to the secret feminist cabal that's out to destroy the world.
Sorry about that last bit. I just can't take you conspiracy nuts seriously. Particularly when you spend so much time and energy arguing against your own imagination.