I'm always torn on these sorts of things. I agree with the idea of adding a grain of salt to these sorts of things. But at the same time, it gives us all a chance to weigh in and/or be exposed to stories that might make the rounds through other channels (I know, I know, "Other-news-aggregation-site had it first"). And while I sometimes tire of the noise, I also tend to find it more useful to be forearmed when said noise makes it in to some meeting or discussion and I don't feel broadsided by it.
On the plus side, you can talk on the phone while your malware is busy updating to it's CC server. Unfortunately, you have to choose between the malware and playing Monopoly, though.
You mean the one where hundreds of terrorist groups around the world affiliated themselves with each other and declared war on the US? The one where they vowed not to stop until, "The flag of Islam flies over the White House"? Yeah, I've heard of it. Just because some people would prefer not to think about it doesn't mean we don't have enemies hellbent on killing us.
Would that affiliation be Al Qaeda? And if so, why isn't it the "War Against Al Qaeda"? I agree with you that there is a real threat. But I have a problem with the general air around this so-called "War on Terrorism." A large part of that is how widely the term is applied. Identify a threat, label that threat (if you must), and handle the threat. Don't generate this general umbrella term that one can use to cover all manner of issues - related or otherwise.
So many people treat computers like a black box that I wouldn't be surprised if this does give netbooks a run for their money. It's doubtful that it will take hold in the more technically oriented community (closed as it is,) but in the "I don't care I just want it to work" arena it may do quite well.
As for what the hell the magic is, above and beyond being a giant iPod/iPhone, I do not know.
I doubt I represent the market for the iPad. I'm technical-minded and like to tinker with things. I like using my devices in ways that weren't part of the original design (or taking advantage of other people's ideas to do the same). For me, versatility and freedom are very important and I don't see that in the iPad. But that doesn't mean the iPad doesn't have a place.
People are missing the point when they compare the iPad to a general computing device like a netbook. The iPad isn't a "computer"; it's content delivery. I'm wary of using the following comparison because of the geek overtones but bear with me. In the Star Trek universe, the iPad is the small devices you see the Captain using to sign off duty logs or engineers referencing drive schematics while crawling around the innards of the ship. They also have the ship's computer and terminals for different tasks. But when it comes to handy, portable access to information - it's a tablet form. And that's the iPad.
Now - there's all kinds of things involved on whether the iPad will pull this off. Despite the hokeiness of the claim - the "magic" is really about how well the interface works to make presentation of information intuitive on this platform. I have no clue whether Apple has it together on this. But in the right context, the iPad offers a lot more possibilities than it is being given credit for.
The only thing to get from this "exercise" is that there are people like this in Government right now who think the way they do. And they will be ineffective. It didn't show how a scenario would play out. It didn't show any strengths or weaknesses. It didn't even show how our Government agencies would react.
There once was a time when we had the best, cutting edge people in the security biz.
The security folks didn't play a role in this scenario. It was all pre-determined technical failure being witnessed by hand-wringing former Fed policy wonks.
Sorry but I still don't buy it. With Windows, backward compatibility is heavily stressed and developers are encouraged to write for their audience. Microsoft still says, "If you're targetting legacy, we're still keeping Winforms, MFC, and native code APIs etc, up to date. But if you want to target anything XP or newer, we're really quite big fans of WPF or Silverlight on.NET."
Which all sounds really great - but it still doesn't always pan out. There have always been little gotchas and incompatibilities. Software that doesn't quite work on the next Big Thing from Redmond. Different variations in hardware that may or may not be supported by appropriate drivers. I've run in to enough of these to know that while, generally speaking, you're not far off - but it's not the entire story. In the end, it is not simply "Windows is Windows."
The problem is that instead of a linear chain of products with a huge emphasis on backwards compatibility, Linux is a a complex, interwoven tree where support for different architectures, features, and a million checkboxes on whether a certain package may or may not be supported. There's no comparison to Windows. That's the problem, there's already a fracturing market for Android because it appears they didn't put their foot down and demand minimum feature support to use the Android name. As a result, the developers are suffering, and thus the platform suffers.
You're really focused on this Linux vs. Windows thing, aren't you? This isn't a comparison between them. I know that might sound counter-intuitive. But just mentioning the two in the same thread is not a battle cry for the fanboys of each camp to come out and rally to their cause.
None the less... if I see that software works on "RedHat Enterprise Linux X" and I'm running that... I can expect it to work. Just like if the software lists Windows XP and I'm running Windows XP, it'll work.
Having said that - I've bought games for Linux that worked in Debian even though the "supported" list was something like SuSE and RedHat. Same goes with various enterprise interface clients, VPN clients, etc. The disparity isn't as great as some would paint it - and it certainly isn't "a million checkboxes". Oddly enough, the enterprise guys could probably learn a thing or two from the game folks.
The situation for Android isn't near as a mess as that article makes it sound. I've got a Droid. Day 1, I was installing applications that were developed entirely for the G1. There were a couple that behaved oddly on Droid's 2.1 and they were quickly updated. I'm running all the cool apps my office-mate with the G1 showed me. And he's now running a couple new things that I picked up. That caused another office-mate to go pick up a Nexus.
All of these platforms exist in a pretty random, chaotic environment. It's a lot less organized than anything Apple does. But that chaos has never been the driving issue.
Nooo... we're talking about consistency (you quoted me, remember?). Tossing your whole OS in the crapper after 15 years is (back to food) like McDonald's going vegan and changing to "The Magenta Arches".
Mac stats are often "qualified" or "adjusted" but this graph shows the 1999 transition as well as anything I've seen. There are about ten more pages preceding it... but the light doesn't get better. Even if Macs 2005 share doubled it comes no where near the percentage (i.e "share") of "the faithful" back in 1995.
1999 was not a turning point for Apple or the MacOS. There was already a steady downward slope before 1999 which wasn't the desktop release - that was 2001. And 2001 on that chart is a miniscule change.
So let's go back before 1999 in your chart. There's an entire 12 years timeline of classic MacOS there. And no market dominance. This during a time that the Mac was touted for being a stable product versus the WinTel chaos of screwdriver shop machines. It didn't give them the market though.
Coming back today - the same sales pitch is given with Apple products using the Machead-dreaded OSX; consistency of an insanely great user experience. Magenta Arches or not - people aren't buying it in droves (BTW - McDonald's did some pretty aggressive re-working of their menu in recent years and that includes some occasional restyling of their classic "M" logo).
Consistency is not the end-all and be-all of the market.
(And let's be honest, even the tech-saavy gadget-addicted folks get unhappy when they don't have the latest and greatest update for their system. You need only check the irate threads at Phandroid or on the Verizon forums about 'when is the Droid getting 2.1?' 'Screw the Droid, when is the Eris getting 2.x at all?' and so on. It makes them annoyed to see that the Droid was promptly supplanted by the Nexus One two months later, and then people who bought the Nexus One now have/that/ being supplanted by the Desire shortly thereafter, etc.)
I guess it sucks to be them. I bought a Droid on day 1 that it was available. No regrets. Sure - I'd like to get the latest 2.1. I've got an office mate who has a Nexus; 2.1 looks slick. But I can wait.
Meanwhile, I had a bunch of apps available on day 1 that were developed for the G1 that worked fine. And my office-mate with the Nexus got his partly because of my Droid and my other office-mates G1.
There are a large number of unsupported Windows versions?
The analogy here to Windows is fail all around and should probably be avoided.
You're missing the point. Windows is not Windows. And that's demonstrated immediately, in the same paragraph as the statement, by noting a specific subset of Windows that's supported by the hypothetical software.
There is no analogy here. The fact is that Windows operates in a very chaotic environment - commodity hardware. Critics have always taken a shot at this environment because of that chaos. And it's never mattered as much as the critics would have us believe.
This isn't a Linux vs. Windows debate. Linux operates in that same chaotic environment. What's more, Linux throws in another layer of chaos - a commodity OS. And it doesn't matter.
The grand parent claimed that this chaos is a problem for Linux. I'm pointing out that the same "problem" has been attributed to Windows as well. It doesn't matter what versions of Windows exists vs. distros of Linux or what versions are supported or unsupported.
Actually, you said "Windows is Windows" and then proceeded to list 3 versions of Windows specifically, pointing out that if someone says your binary is compatible with those 3, they would work on those 3. I'm pointing out the disparity in your statement.
There are some analogies to the Windows - PC market but it's not a terribly strong one. How many stock PC configurations do you see? Lots of them (outside of business systems and hobbyists). The vast majority of PC users (and cellphone users) won't upgrade their OS. Ever. It isn't something that even occurs to them. For those of the twiddling persuasion, it's pretty easy to re install bare Windows and customize it to your heart's content. What the cell phone industry has that the PC industry doesn't is the carrier-lockdown mindset. If the carrier prevents those customers who WANT to fiddle with their cell phone from doing so, then those types of people are going to get mad and do something rash like buy an iPhone. The majority of the world won't give a damn, so I'm not sure how important this issue is going to be for the VAST MAJORITY of 'normal' people.
So then... why is any of this an issue? We've heard about this chaos of the platform from the Apple folks for decades now - yet we know how the desktop terrain looks. Now we're hearing about chaos in the handheld market. I'm finding it hard to be overly concerned.
If folks want to "upgrade" their platform by running the latest OS that comes with their hardware, who cares if it's a Windows desktop or an Android smartphone? Meanwhile, I've yet to hear of a T-Mobile customer booted because they're running a Cygenmod release of Android. It's all a part of these chaotic environments that work despite all the hand-wringing of folks who cry about fragmentation as if it is the sole driver of a platform's usefulness.
Get a netbook then... the primary function for my phone is to make and receive phone calls.
Well, yes. When I use the phone app, I really do care about making and receiving a phone call. But I don't find myself firing up the phone app near as much as I'm checking my email, calendar, web, navigation / maps, etc. Heck - I spend more hours reading books on my Droid than I do talking to people. I could do all the same things with a netbook. But I couldn't put that in my pocket.
Wait a sec - did you just list 3 versions of Windows?
Yes, I did. Please list all distros of Linux and we'll compare the size of the lists shall we?
It doesn't matter how many versions exist. All it matters is that I'm using the version supported. In that regard, Linux is Linux just as much as Windows is Windows.
And I can compile a Linux binary that will work on "pretty much" every Linux system. In fact, just last week I did a statically linked compile of tcpdump to drop on various Linux-based appliances. I compiled (and did a test run) on a Ubuntu desktop. I ran the binary on a RedHat-based appliance and a completely custom rolled appliance. No problems. Although that's not usually how one gets tcpdump in a standard distro - my Ubuntu-provided version uses dynamic libraries.
Except that it isn't. Not at all. The hardware may be different, but Windows is Windows (warts and all). If I buy an application that says it'll run on Windows XP/Vista/7 I can be pretty confident that it'll work.
Wait a sec - did you just list 3 versions of Windows?
If I want an app for my generic Linux box, I'm jumping head-long down a rabbit hole of trying to figure out which version will work with my particular distro and what other dependencies I might need and often a good few hours of arsing around trying to configure the thing to work properly with some horribly cryptic config files to edit.
I've bought games that have had no problem running on random distros. I've installed Linux clients for enterprise software with little more than a "what package provides this library". And in every case, it worked out of the box if I used the listed supported distro. Just like you're rattling off a list of supported Windows versions.
There's been a lot of controversy over whether Heisenberg deliberately sabotaged the Nazi bomb-making or whether he tried to help but was incompetent
I guess we'll never really know. Maybe it was both.
Ohh! I've got a Hollywood retro-movie pitch! The Mouse that Roared meets The Pink Panther with a bit of Dr. Strangelove.... and some Schindler's List to "modern" it up a bit. Now if we can just find someone who can play Sellers playing Heisenberg...
Yes... that is the proper response to Idle. If you find yourself in an uncontrollable state due to this or related responses, the next action is to hide Idle.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm always torn on these sorts of things. I agree with the idea of adding a grain of salt to these sorts of things. But at the same time, it gives us all a chance to weigh in and/or be exposed to stories that might make the rounds through other channels (I know, I know, "Other-news-aggregation-site had it first"). And while I sometimes tire of the noise, I also tend to find it more useful to be forearmed when said noise makes it in to some meeting or discussion and I don't feel broadsided by it.
On the plus side, you can talk on the phone while your malware is busy updating to it's CC server. Unfortunately, you have to choose between the malware and playing Monopoly, though.
Maybe the article isn't all about 3D and Johnny Depp?
You mean the one where hundreds of terrorist groups around the world affiliated themselves with each other and declared war on the US? The one where they vowed not to stop until, "The flag of Islam flies over the White House"? Yeah, I've heard of it. Just because some people would prefer not to think about it doesn't mean we don't have enemies hellbent on killing us.
Would that affiliation be Al Qaeda? And if so, why isn't it the "War Against Al Qaeda"? I agree with you that there is a real threat. But I have a problem with the general air around this so-called "War on Terrorism." A large part of that is how widely the term is applied. Identify a threat, label that threat (if you must), and handle the threat. Don't generate this general umbrella term that one can use to cover all manner of issues - related or otherwise.
Well after the "CYBER SHOCKWAVE" exercise proved to be a failure, Schmidt must feel its time to go French on the cyber war front.
The "Cyber Shockwave" exercise was a farce.
I have a feeling that this thread is just getting started.
So many people treat computers like a black box that I wouldn't be surprised if this does give netbooks a run for their money. It's doubtful that it will take hold in the more technically oriented community (closed as it is,) but in the "I don't care I just want it to work" arena it may do quite well.
As for what the hell the magic is, above and beyond being a giant iPod/iPhone, I do not know.
I doubt I represent the market for the iPad. I'm technical-minded and like to tinker with things. I like using my devices in ways that weren't part of the original design (or taking advantage of other people's ideas to do the same). For me, versatility and freedom are very important and I don't see that in the iPad. But that doesn't mean the iPad doesn't have a place.
People are missing the point when they compare the iPad to a general computing device like a netbook. The iPad isn't a "computer"; it's content delivery. I'm wary of using the following comparison because of the geek overtones but bear with me. In the Star Trek universe, the iPad is the small devices you see the Captain using to sign off duty logs or engineers referencing drive schematics while crawling around the innards of the ship. They also have the ship's computer and terminals for different tasks. But when it comes to handy, portable access to information - it's a tablet form. And that's the iPad.
Now - there's all kinds of things involved on whether the iPad will pull this off. Despite the hokeiness of the claim - the "magic" is really about how well the interface works to make presentation of information intuitive on this platform. I have no clue whether Apple has it together on this. But in the right context, the iPad offers a lot more possibilities than it is being given credit for.
But I'm still not going to rush out to buy one.
The only thing to get from this "exercise" is that there are people like this in Government right now who think the way they do. And they will be ineffective. It didn't show how a scenario would play out. It didn't show any strengths or weaknesses. It didn't even show how our Government agencies would react.
There once was a time when we had the best, cutting edge people in the security biz.
The security folks didn't play a role in this scenario. It was all pre-determined technical failure being witnessed by hand-wringing former Fed policy wonks.
Sorry but I still don't buy it. With Windows, backward compatibility is heavily stressed and developers are encouraged to write for their audience. Microsoft still says, "If you're targetting legacy, we're still keeping Winforms, MFC, and native code APIs etc, up to date. But if you want to target anything XP or newer, we're really quite big fans of WPF or Silverlight on .NET."
Which all sounds really great - but it still doesn't always pan out. There have always been little gotchas and incompatibilities. Software that doesn't quite work on the next Big Thing from Redmond. Different variations in hardware that may or may not be supported by appropriate drivers. I've run in to enough of these to know that while, generally speaking, you're not far off - but it's not the entire story. In the end, it is not simply "Windows is Windows."
The problem is that instead of a linear chain of products with a huge emphasis on backwards compatibility, Linux is a a complex, interwoven tree where support for different architectures, features, and a million checkboxes on whether a certain package may or may not be supported. There's no comparison to Windows. That's the problem, there's already a fracturing market for Android because it appears they didn't put their foot down and demand minimum feature support to use the Android name. As a result, the developers are suffering, and thus the platform suffers.
You're really focused on this Linux vs. Windows thing, aren't you? This isn't a comparison between them. I know that might sound counter-intuitive. But just mentioning the two in the same thread is not a battle cry for the fanboys of each camp to come out and rally to their cause.
None the less... if I see that software works on "RedHat Enterprise Linux X" and I'm running that... I can expect it to work. Just like if the software lists Windows XP and I'm running Windows XP, it'll work.
Having said that - I've bought games for Linux that worked in Debian even though the "supported" list was something like SuSE and RedHat. Same goes with various enterprise interface clients, VPN clients, etc. The disparity isn't as great as some would paint it - and it certainly isn't "a million checkboxes". Oddly enough, the enterprise guys could probably learn a thing or two from the game folks.
The situation for Android isn't near as a mess as that article makes it sound. I've got a Droid. Day 1, I was installing applications that were developed entirely for the G1. There were a couple that behaved oddly on Droid's 2.1 and they were quickly updated. I'm running all the cool apps my office-mate with the G1 showed me. And he's now running a couple new things that I picked up. That caused another office-mate to go pick up a Nexus.
All of these platforms exist in a pretty random, chaotic environment. It's a lot less organized than anything Apple does. But that chaos has never been the driving issue.
Nooo... we're talking about consistency (you quoted me, remember?). Tossing your whole OS in the crapper after 15 years is (back to food) like McDonald's going vegan and changing to "The Magenta Arches".
Mac stats are often "qualified" or "adjusted" but this graph shows the 1999 transition as well as anything I've seen. There are about ten more pages preceding it... but the light doesn't get better. Even if Macs 2005 share doubled it comes no where near the percentage (i.e "share") of "the faithful" back in 1995.
1999 was not a turning point for Apple or the MacOS. There was already a steady downward slope before 1999 which wasn't the desktop release - that was 2001. And 2001 on that chart is a miniscule change.
So let's go back before 1999 in your chart. There's an entire 12 years timeline of classic MacOS there. And no market dominance. This during a time that the Mac was touted for being a stable product versus the WinTel chaos of screwdriver shop machines. It didn't give them the market though.
Coming back today - the same sales pitch is given with Apple products using the Machead-dreaded OSX; consistency of an insanely great user experience. Magenta Arches or not - people aren't buying it in droves (BTW - McDonald's did some pretty aggressive re-working of their menu in recent years and that includes some occasional restyling of their classic "M" logo).
Consistency is not the end-all and be-all of the market.
Moot point. We're not talking about the Mac faithful. We're talking market share.
Consistency sells, and it garners referral sales.
And if that was the end-all and be-all of market success, Apple and MacOS would be on top.
(And let's be honest, even the tech-saavy gadget-addicted folks get unhappy when they don't have the latest and greatest update for their system. You need only check the irate threads at Phandroid or on the Verizon forums about 'when is the Droid getting 2.1?' 'Screw the Droid, when is the Eris getting 2.x at all?' and so on. It makes them annoyed to see that the Droid was promptly supplanted by the Nexus One two months later, and then people who bought the Nexus One now have /that/ being supplanted by the Desire shortly thereafter, etc.)
I guess it sucks to be them. I bought a Droid on day 1 that it was available. No regrets. Sure - I'd like to get the latest 2.1. I've got an office mate who has a Nexus; 2.1 looks slick. But I can wait.
Meanwhile, I had a bunch of apps available on day 1 that were developed for the G1 that worked fine. And my office-mate with the Nexus got his partly because of my Droid and my other office-mates G1.
There are a large number of unsupported Windows versions?
The analogy here to Windows is fail all around and should probably be avoided.
You're missing the point. Windows is not Windows. And that's demonstrated immediately, in the same paragraph as the statement, by noting a specific subset of Windows that's supported by the hypothetical software.
There is no analogy here. The fact is that Windows operates in a very chaotic environment - commodity hardware. Critics have always taken a shot at this environment because of that chaos. And it's never mattered as much as the critics would have us believe.
This isn't a Linux vs. Windows debate. Linux operates in that same chaotic environment. What's more, Linux throws in another layer of chaos - a commodity OS. And it doesn't matter.
The grand parent claimed that this chaos is a problem for Linux. I'm pointing out that the same "problem" has been attributed to Windows as well. It doesn't matter what versions of Windows exists vs. distros of Linux or what versions are supported or unsupported.
Incidentally, "fail" is fail.
Well you brought it up, not me.
Actually, you said "Windows is Windows" and then proceeded to list 3 versions of Windows specifically, pointing out that if someone says your binary is compatible with those 3, they would work on those 3. I'm pointing out the disparity in your statement.
There are some analogies to the Windows - PC market but it's not a terribly strong one. How many stock PC configurations do you see? Lots of them (outside of business systems and hobbyists). The vast majority of PC users (and cellphone users) won't upgrade their OS. Ever. It isn't something that even occurs to them. For those of the twiddling persuasion, it's pretty easy to re install bare Windows and customize it to your heart's content. What the cell phone industry has that the PC industry doesn't is the carrier-lockdown mindset. If the carrier prevents those customers who WANT to fiddle with their cell phone from doing so, then those types of people are going to get mad and do something rash like buy an iPhone. The majority of the world won't give a damn, so I'm not sure how important this issue is going to be for the VAST MAJORITY of 'normal' people.
So then... why is any of this an issue? We've heard about this chaos of the platform from the Apple folks for decades now - yet we know how the desktop terrain looks. Now we're hearing about chaos in the handheld market. I'm finding it hard to be overly concerned.
If folks want to "upgrade" their platform by running the latest OS that comes with their hardware, who cares if it's a Windows desktop or an Android smartphone? Meanwhile, I've yet to hear of a T-Mobile customer booted because they're running a Cygenmod release of Android. It's all a part of these chaotic environments that work despite all the hand-wringing of folks who cry about fragmentation as if it is the sole driver of a platform's usefulness.
Get a netbook then... the primary function for my phone is to make and receive phone calls.
Well, yes. When I use the phone app, I really do care about making and receiving a phone call. But I don't find myself firing up the phone app near as much as I'm checking my email, calendar, web, navigation / maps, etc. Heck - I spend more hours reading books on my Droid than I do talking to people. I could do all the same things with a netbook. But I couldn't put that in my pocket.
Wait a sec - did you just list 3 versions of Windows?
Yes, I did. Please list all distros of Linux and we'll compare the size of the lists shall we?
It doesn't matter how many versions exist. All it matters is that I'm using the version supported. In that regard, Linux is Linux just as much as Windows is Windows.
And I can compile a Linux binary that will work on "pretty much" every Linux system. In fact, just last week I did a statically linked compile of tcpdump to drop on various Linux-based appliances. I compiled (and did a test run) on a Ubuntu desktop. I ran the binary on a RedHat-based appliance and a completely custom rolled appliance. No problems. Although that's not usually how one gets tcpdump in a standard distro - my Ubuntu-provided version uses dynamic libraries.
Now you're getting it.
The thing is... it doesn't matter.
Except that it isn't. Not at all. The hardware may be different, but Windows is Windows (warts and all). If I buy an application that says it'll run on Windows XP/Vista/7 I can be pretty confident that it'll work.
Wait a sec - did you just list 3 versions of Windows?
If I want an app for my generic Linux box, I'm jumping head-long down a rabbit hole of trying to figure out which version will work with my particular distro and what other dependencies I might need and often a good few hours of arsing around trying to configure the thing to work properly with some horribly cryptic config files to edit.
I've bought games that have had no problem running on random distros. I've installed Linux clients for enterprise software with little more than a "what package provides this library". And in every case, it worked out of the box if I used the listed supported distro. Just like you're rattling off a list of supported Windows versions.
This is essentially the same problem that desktop linux has.
Hey - let's not stop there. This is essentially the same problem that desktop Windows has.
There's been a lot of controversy over whether Heisenberg deliberately sabotaged the Nazi bomb-making or whether he tried to help but was incompetent
I guess we'll never really know. Maybe it was both.
Ohh! I've got a Hollywood retro-movie pitch! The Mouse that Roared meets The Pink Panther with a bit of Dr. Strangelove.... and some Schindler's List to "modern" it up a bit. Now if we can just find someone who can play Sellers playing Heisenberg...
Yes... that is the proper response to Idle. If you find yourself in an uncontrollable state due to this or related responses, the next action is to hide Idle.