How is that different than Free/libre software or commercial projects?
The motivation for developing a non-free commercial software is to make money; not necessarily by making a superior product.
Open source code is developed to engineer superior products, period. Which is why open source alternatives are more largely adopted by users than proprietary ones. Hence the ad industry needs to bribe open source developers; to make them foresake their ideals, and compromise their users.
Established proprietary s/w vendors have big pockets; and much more self-interest and motivation to keep Open Source Software inferior. Honesty is the not only the best policy for open source projects; it is the only policy that works in the long term.
since they are no longer bound to share-holders; and can innovate for the sake of innovation? No need to bow down to MS Overlords and do as they or the so-called markets please. They can afford to lose a billion bucks in chasing their own dreams.
Putting a rocket on the moon is a purely technical problem; nothing social or political about it. Automating the healthcare industry involves several players:
1. The care givers 2. The care receivers 3. The insurance agents 4. Lawyers 5. Politicians 6. Software, platform and hardware architects
4 and 5 interfere with 1, 2, 6 and 3. Unlike in the case of NASA, there are more than hundreds of players providing (6); and they are answerable to their shareholders unlike NASA.
It is a complex social problem. To suppose that it is a mere technical and managerial challenge is a flawed assumption.
Exactly what kind of integration are you suggesting Microsoft and other companies like Intel and AMD pursue?
The exact same integration that Microsoft and Intel have already successfully provided with the Surface Pro for instance. On the Surface Pro, the SIM card, the camera, the applications which make use of these devices (making calls, receiving calls, sending an SMS, taking a picture, a video, sending that video etc. etc.) are all integrated and provided by Microsoft themselves. On the desktop, since each SIM vendor or camera vendor writes his own drivers; there's no standard or uniform way to build apps to address or make use of these devices. Unlike on the Windows Phone or the Android Phone. And yet the desktop has more powerful hardware and a more versatile OS than phones and tablets. A pity.
Why can't SIM cards and cameras be directly integrated to the PC hardware instead of going the USB route?
What the fuck?
How do you attach a SIM card or camera to your Windows 8 Phone or tablet / Surface? They both come pre-installed, pre-configured and with the right drivers written by Microsoft. Why is it hard for Intel or any motherboard mfr to integrate these peripherals directly instead of through the USB? Why should the (unscrupulous) vendors have to write the drivers for these devices? Why can't Microsoft themselves define proper standards and drivers in the OS itself? If they can bring the phone interface to the desktop, why not the hardware options and software freebies on the phone ecosystem as well?
Because hardware requires software support, and unrestricted driver access is a security risk. That, and they don't users getting boned by unscrupulous hardware vendors..
If it is acceptable to include the interface normally used in phones on desktops; why not include the drivers for hardware commonly available on phones; on desktop the OS as well? Why can't SIM cards and cameras be directly integrated to the PC hardware instead of going the USB route? Why can't MS themselves write the drivers to get around unscrupulous hardware vendors? (Not that MS has any scruples, but you were saying.....)
I find it much easier to simply type enough of what I want (after hitting the 'start' button) to bring it up, then arrow down to it. I am told, though cannot confirm from experience, that Win 8 works the same way
So you have this thing called the mouse attached to the PC; but think using the keyboard to launch programs is better? And you find it acceptable that 99% 'normal' users of desktop PCs should work the same way too?
It's like not using your dick to have sex with your girlfriend; and expecting everyone else to indulge in oral sex like you do. I can guarantee you it doesn't give the same 'user interface experience' at all.
What are you talking about? Linux isn't immune to viruses and worms.
But much much more immune compared to Windows. And it costs nothing to upgrade the kernel or the packages that are vulnerable to exploits.
And your vigorous handwaving didn't actually address the main point: nobody gives 13 year consumer support cycles except Microsoft.
This is a bullshit argument at several levels. Along with the XP operating system, MS released IE6 with ActiveX controls and many features that it stopped with IE7, and broke with IE8 and unsupported in IE9 and over. So a paying customer who invested in the XP operating system cannot upgrade his browser to IE10 or IE11. Nobody knows why a user needs to upgrade his entire Operating System just to run a newer version of browser! Same holds good for Office, Mail and other bundled apps which came with XP.
Many applications developed with current versions of Visual Studio do not work with the browser, database or.Net runtime which shipped with 13 year old XP (minus the Service Packs; which screwed up even device drivers; let alone applications). So to say MS gives 13 years of support to XP is wrong.
Linux distributions cost very little to upgrade or maintain; and they do not break earlier versions because none of the components of the distro are engineered with any company's shareholders in mind.
MS isn't stopping you from supporting SIM cards or GPRS, MS isn't providing the necessary drivers in the kernel either. The drivers are to be provided by the SIM or GPRS vendors, often buggy, incompatible with each other; and cannot be used like on other OSes such as Android.
it's only imposing hardware restrictions if you want to re-sell discounted licences,
Why? Why does MS restrict what minimum screen resolution is offered on a Windows 8 tablet; what minimum clock speed processor is used; what storage options are provided, etc.?
Not Utopia at all. In the Linux world where most servers, desktops, phones and appliances live; this is taken for granted. The Windows8.1 brings nothing in addition to Windows 98 despite being 1000 times larger. Still not immune from viruses and worms. Shame.
Yeah, fuck Microsoft with its 12 year support cycle. Versions of OS X and Linux from 2001 are still in mainstream support.
OS X has a microscopic minority marketshare in computing devices. As for Linux (distributions, not just the kernel) there are many differences. Upgrading the kernel does not break applications - the distribution provider takes care of the hassles. The Linux distro is much more than the so called Windows OS - it has things like Office, Compilers, Productivity tools etc. packaged neatly. Besides it costs nothing or little to upgrade Linux distro versions; and new versions of the kernel do not stop supporting old peripherals and architectures just to increase a company's profits at the expense of customers. Try running Foxpro on Windows 8.
Eh, my webcam works fine in Windows 8 without extra support. I assume Android has SIM card drivers because of u no it's used for 'phones a lot.
When MS decided to force the touch interface commonly used in phones onto desktop users; why not support SIM cards, GPS, GPRS etc. in the kernel / OS? If Microsoft is a software company; why are they dictating what hardware is supported and what hardware is optional on the PC? Why do they continue to impose restrictions on the configuration of the hardware built by the OEMs; despite being just a software company?
1. No improvement in user interface. Touch sucks on the desktop and Microsoft knows it. A Start button without a Start Menu is useless.
2. Metro style apps are very painful to deploy in the Enterprise; even for those with Subscription (Dis)Advantage.
3. Still not immune from viruses and worms - needs continuous stream of patches; customer remains at the mercy of Microsoft; like the forced ditching of XP which works perfectly fine.
4. Many existing licensed software such as SQLE are not supported in 8 series; so all that money is wasted expenditure.
5. Still no native support in the OS for cameras; SIM cards, etc. even Android is better in that respect despite being minuscule in size compared to 8.1.
The list of drawbacks continue; nothing to write home about; despite these paid shill reviews.
So does the USB mobile broadband dongle from any carrier that isn't Verizon or Sprint or a Sprint MVNO.
See? When you try to connect a SIM card to a regular PC; your vendor thinks he can impose arbitrary restrictions on how it's used. The Android OS provides all the useful things that a Windows OS does - a useful, quick browser; full fledged Office, low power consuming ARM support, support for mobile-related peripherals right in the OS etc. In addition you can just plug in any SIM card like on a mobile phone; and start using it instantly.
Funny how MS putting a touchscreen OS on a PC/Laptop was the dumbest thing ever
Yes it was. The PC/laptop never traditionally supported things like SIM card, telephony software or even camera software out-of-the-box. The reason MS forced touch on PCs is to try and spur development of touch based and Windows-Store style apps for the enterprise. Without these peripherals above; the touch interface is a huge waste.
With an open source Android OS that supports every thing that the traditional PC does and much more it is more useful for OEMs to build useful products rather than shoving unwanted licenses to unwilling customers.
bringing Android's touch-first interface to a mouse+keyboard interface
The interface is a minor issue; easily solved by adding a No-Touch app to the default Android OS. The fact that SIM cards, camera etc are built-in and supported by the OS makes so many exciting applications and use-cases possible.
Say, you have a list of clients in a CRM software whom you need to talk to; and record the conversations back into the CRM itself.With an Android laptop; you can just click on the number; and get options to call it; and write simple apps to store the call as well. On a Windows machine or even a regular Linux laptop; you don't have these options and peripherals installed and supported by default in the kernel and OS level. That is a huge game changer.
I have seen cameras that work only with XP Service Pack 2; and fail with later versions of the Service Pack or OS.
Actually, this is more valuable than a full fledged PC Windows laptop. Because it supports a SIM card; and camera, HDMI out of the box at budget price; it's a wonderful appliance. You can connect a headphone/mic and make and receive calls; you can write software that takes advantage of the availability of these added peripherals as options.
when, not if; Elop rejoins Microsoft; Google and the Android phone developers could reward him another $1 bn for achieving the same spectacular success he did at Finland.
is that it's relatively lot easier to install proper Linux on the things. It's impossible with Surface devices however.
However, I feel a company the size and stature of Google should've pushed ARM based devices into the market - now Microsoft, Apple and now Google are all pushing Intel gear.
until two gigantic companies adopted them, made them over, and added lots of proprietary bits.
That description fits Microsoft as well - they can make proprietary shims and make them mandatory with Windows; but the core OS could be open-sourced to promote innovation by the community.
How can Microsoft "exponentially increase the use of their software" when it's already got a majority share?
Microsoft has a microscopic minority share in tablets, smartphones - form factors where new money is made; and new mindshare and marketshare is needed. The desktop has well and truly stabilised - and ARM based computers running Ubuntu will mean both "Intel Outside" and "Windows Closed".
Slashdot Mirror
How is that different than Free/libre software or commercial projects?
The motivation for developing a non-free commercial software is to make money; not necessarily by making a superior product.
Open source code is developed to engineer superior products, period. Which is why open source alternatives are more largely adopted by users than proprietary ones. Hence the ad industry needs to bribe open source developers; to make them foresake their ideals, and compromise their users.
All open source projects are heavily vulnerable to bribery; honesty alone triumphs.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4411077&cid=45334083
Ad industry goons have gazillions more cash to throw than ideologists in the open source world can say no to.
Maybe the cranes from Siberia or swallows from Russia?
Established proprietary s/w vendors have big pockets; and much more self-interest and motivation to keep Open Source Software inferior. Honesty is the not only the best policy for open source projects; it is the only policy that works in the long term.
Replying to myself.... found this recent link talking about the possible launch of the product in December. Bad news for MS I guess:
http://www.eweek.com/pc-hardware/slideshows/dell-moves-forward-with-project-ophelia-cloud-device.html/
since they are no longer bound to share-holders; and can innovate for the sake of innovation? No need to bow down to MS Overlords and do as they or the so-called markets please. They can afford to lose a billion bucks in chasing their own dreams.
Putting a rocket on the moon is a purely technical problem; nothing social or political about it. Automating the healthcare industry involves several players:
1. The care givers
2. The care receivers
3. The insurance agents
4. Lawyers
5. Politicians
6. Software, platform and hardware architects
4 and 5 interfere with 1, 2, 6 and 3. Unlike in the case of NASA, there are more than hundreds of players providing (6); and they are answerable to their shareholders unlike NASA.
It is a complex social problem. To suppose that it is a mere technical and managerial challenge is a flawed assumption.
Exactly what kind of integration are you suggesting Microsoft and other companies like Intel and AMD pursue?
The exact same integration that Microsoft and Intel have already successfully provided with the Surface Pro for instance. On the Surface Pro, the SIM card, the camera, the applications which make use of these devices (making calls, receiving calls, sending an SMS, taking a picture, a video, sending that video etc. etc.) are all integrated and provided by Microsoft themselves. On the desktop, since each SIM vendor or camera vendor writes his own drivers; there's no standard or uniform way to build apps to address or make use of these devices. Unlike on the Windows Phone or the Android Phone. And yet the desktop has more powerful hardware and a more versatile OS than phones and tablets. A pity.
Why can't SIM cards and cameras be directly integrated to the PC hardware instead of going the USB route?
What the fuck?
How do you attach a SIM card or camera to your Windows 8 Phone or tablet / Surface? They both come pre-installed, pre-configured and with the right drivers written by Microsoft. Why is it hard for Intel or any motherboard mfr to integrate these peripherals directly instead of through the USB? Why should the (unscrupulous) vendors have to write the drivers for these devices? Why can't Microsoft themselves define proper standards and drivers in the OS itself? If they can bring the phone interface to the desktop, why not the hardware options and software freebies on the phone ecosystem as well?
Because hardware requires software support, and unrestricted driver access is a security risk. That, and they don't users getting boned by unscrupulous hardware vendors..
If it is acceptable to include the interface normally used in phones on desktops; why not include the drivers for hardware commonly available on phones; on desktop the OS as well? Why can't SIM cards and cameras be directly integrated to the PC hardware instead of going the USB route? Why can't MS themselves write the drivers to get around unscrupulous hardware vendors? (Not that MS has any scruples, but you were saying.....)
I find it much easier to simply type enough of what I want (after hitting the 'start' button) to bring it up, then arrow down to it. I am told, though cannot confirm from experience, that Win 8 works the same way
So you have this thing called the mouse attached to the PC; but think using the keyboard to launch programs is better? And you find it acceptable that 99% 'normal' users of desktop PCs should work the same way too?
It's like not using your dick to have sex with your girlfriend; and expecting everyone else to indulge in oral sex like you do. I can guarantee you it doesn't give the same 'user interface experience' at all.
What are you talking about? Linux isn't immune to viruses and worms.
But much much more immune compared to Windows. And it costs nothing to upgrade the kernel or the packages that are vulnerable to exploits.
And your vigorous handwaving didn't actually address the main point: nobody gives 13 year consumer support cycles except Microsoft.
This is a bullshit argument at several levels. Along with the XP operating system, MS released IE6 with ActiveX controls and many features that it stopped with IE7, and broke with IE8 and unsupported in IE9 and over. So a paying customer who invested in the XP operating system cannot upgrade his browser to IE10 or IE11. Nobody knows why a user needs to upgrade his entire Operating System just to run a newer version of browser! Same holds good for Office, Mail and other bundled apps which came with XP.
Many applications developed with current versions of Visual Studio do not work with the browser, database or .Net runtime which shipped with 13 year old XP (minus the Service Packs; which screwed up even device drivers; let alone applications). So to say MS gives 13 years of support to XP is wrong.
Linux distributions cost very little to upgrade or maintain; and they do not break earlier versions because none of the components of the distro are engineered with any company's shareholders in mind.
MS isn't stopping you from supporting SIM cards or GPRS,
MS isn't providing the necessary drivers in the kernel either. The drivers are to be provided by the SIM or GPRS vendors, often buggy, incompatible with each other; and cannot be used like on other OSes such as Android.
it's only imposing hardware restrictions if you want to re-sell discounted licences,
Why? Why does MS restrict what minimum screen resolution is offered on a Windows 8 tablet; what minimum clock speed processor is used; what storage options are provided, etc.?
Yeah, that utopia really is proving hard to reach
Not Utopia at all. In the Linux world where most servers, desktops, phones and appliances live; this is taken for granted.
The Windows8.1 brings nothing in addition to Windows 98 despite being 1000 times larger. Still not immune from viruses and worms. Shame.
Yeah, fuck Microsoft with its 12 year support cycle. Versions of OS X and Linux from 2001 are still in mainstream support.
OS X has a microscopic minority marketshare in computing devices. As for Linux (distributions, not just the kernel) there are many differences. Upgrading the kernel does not break applications - the distribution provider takes care of the hassles. The Linux distro is much more than the so called Windows OS - it has things like Office, Compilers, Productivity tools etc. packaged neatly. Besides it costs nothing or little to upgrade Linux distro versions; and new versions of the kernel do not stop supporting old peripherals and architectures just to increase a company's profits at the expense of customers. Try running Foxpro on Windows 8.
Eh, my webcam works fine in Windows 8 without extra support. I assume Android has SIM card drivers because of u no it's used for 'phones a lot.
When MS decided to force the touch interface commonly used in phones onto desktop users; why not support SIM cards, GPS, GPRS etc. in the kernel / OS? If Microsoft is a software company; why are they dictating what hardware is supported and what hardware is optional on the PC? Why do they continue to impose restrictions on the configuration of the hardware built by the OEMs; despite being just a software company?
1. No improvement in user interface. Touch sucks on the desktop and Microsoft knows it. A Start button without a Start Menu is useless.
2. Metro style apps are very painful to deploy in the Enterprise; even for those with Subscription (Dis)Advantage.
3. Still not immune from viruses and worms - needs continuous stream of patches; customer remains at the mercy of Microsoft; like the forced ditching of XP which works perfectly fine.
4. Many existing licensed software such as SQLE are not supported in 8 series; so all that money is wasted expenditure.
5. Still no native support in the OS for cameras; SIM cards, etc. even Android is better in that respect despite being minuscule in size compared to 8.1.
The list of drawbacks continue; nothing to write home about; despite these paid shill reviews.
So does the USB mobile broadband dongle from any carrier that isn't Verizon or Sprint or a Sprint MVNO.
See? When you try to connect a SIM card to a regular PC; your vendor thinks he can impose arbitrary restrictions on how it's used. The Android OS provides all the useful things that a Windows OS does - a useful, quick browser; full fledged Office, low power consuming ARM support, support for mobile-related peripherals right in the OS etc. In addition you can just plug in any SIM card like on a mobile phone; and start using it instantly.
Funny how MS putting a touchscreen OS on a PC/Laptop was the dumbest thing ever
Yes it was. The PC/laptop never traditionally supported things like SIM card, telephony software or even camera software out-of-the-box. The reason MS forced touch on PCs is to try and spur development of touch based and Windows-Store style apps for the enterprise. Without these peripherals above; the touch interface is a huge waste.
With an open source Android OS that supports every thing that the traditional PC does and much more it is more useful for OEMs to build useful products rather than shoving unwanted licenses to unwilling customers.
bringing Android's touch-first interface to a mouse+keyboard interface
The interface is a minor issue; easily solved by adding a No-Touch app to the default Android OS. The fact that SIM cards, camera etc are built-in and supported by the OS makes so many exciting applications and use-cases possible.
Say, you have a list of clients in a CRM software whom you need to talk to; and record the conversations back into the CRM itself.With an Android laptop; you can just click on the number; and get options to call it; and write simple apps to store the call as well. On a Windows machine or even a regular Linux laptop; you don't have these options and peripherals installed and supported by default in the kernel and OS level. That is a huge game changer.
I have seen cameras that work only with XP Service Pack 2; and fail with later versions of the Service Pack or OS.
Actually, this is more valuable than a full fledged PC Windows laptop. Because it supports a SIM card; and camera, HDMI out of the box at budget price; it's a wonderful appliance. You can connect a headphone/mic and make and receive calls; you can write software that takes advantage of the availability of these added peripherals as options.
has arrived. Android on PCs and Linux on tablets are both wonderful for innovation; and doomsday for Microsoft.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2013/01/12/the-nightmare-that-keeps-microsoft-awake-android-on-the-desktop/
In India; Alcatel makes smartphones for Idea Cellular; and they are quite good. Very rugged; good specs; fairly low cost - $120 for a 5" smartphone.
Wonder if this move is to get eventually swallowed like Nokia - except the CxOs; nobody else benefits.
that itself is more newsworthy. At first glance I thought Piracy Advisor; who suggests making things difficult to pirate.
Why would MS appoint somebody to advise them on privacy of their customer's data? How does it benefit the shareholders?
when, not if; Elop rejoins Microsoft; Google and the Android phone developers could reward him another $1 bn for achieving the same spectacular success he did at Finland.
is that it's relatively lot easier to install proper Linux on the things. It's impossible with Surface devices however.
However, I feel a company the size and stature of Google should've pushed ARM based devices into the market - now Microsoft, Apple and now Google are all pushing Intel gear.
until two gigantic companies adopted them, made them over, and added lots of proprietary bits.
That description fits Microsoft as well - they can make proprietary shims and make them mandatory with Windows; but the core OS could be open-sourced to promote innovation by the community.
How can Microsoft "exponentially increase the use of their software" when it's already got a majority share?
Microsoft has a microscopic minority share in tablets, smartphones - form factors where new money is made; and new mindshare and marketshare is needed. The desktop has well and truly stabilised - and ARM based computers running Ubuntu will mean both "Intel Outside" and "Windows Closed".