but have you ever tried to actually install one of them on your own machine and get a hello world program working?
Yes, I did it on my Raspberry Pi using the implementation of Weston that they discussed.
this crap is, at best, alpha quality software. its just utter vapor ware.
Making your ignorance plain is quite helpful to others in knowing to avoid you.
i sound like a grumpy old man, but thats because i have been hearing about the "demise of X" since, oh, around 1997. [...] And here we are, still with X.
Yes, here we are, still with X. That doesn't make X good and it doesn't mean Wayland has made no progress. In fact the biggest driver of the Wayland transition is the wide availability of graphics accelerators that we didn't have back in 1997.
I won't really shed a tear when X is reduced to a library that sits on top of Wayland. I will enjoy improved performance and compositing that Wayland brings.
i dont even know what its' called.
SurfaceFlinger. Of course, no one has actually adopted it. It's just prevalent because of Android.
The problem with not pursuing fleeing felons is that more will flee if they know they can get away by driving fast enough. If driving fast is a get out of jail free card, more people will do it.
Yeah, it's not like we could have a helicopter pursue them from a distance or anything. The only thing can do is chase them at dangerously high speeds through crowded areas and risk a violent ending or let them go completely. No middle ground. So we'll just accept that innocent people will die needless, violent deaths for the sake of catching criminals.
Because people aren't buying the devices because they're closed, they're buying it because the user experience is good. It does not follow that being locked down is also good.
People vote with their wallet, but they also vote against their own best interests. Repeatedly.
Relevant because the claim "it protects the end-user" is bunk.
Nonsense.
The exclusive job of a copyright license is to permit distribution.
Yes...
Well, distribution isn't something that end-users do, it's something that developers do.
A developer can be an end user. An end user may wish to have a developer make changes for them. They may even wish to redistribute it. Your definition of "end user" is excessively narrow.
Therefore if you're license doesn't permit distribution in some cases, you're only restricting the freedoms of developers.
Read what I wrote above, and realize that what you say is completely wrong.
This is, by definition, non-free.
No. NO. The GPL guarantees that no middleman can take the sources, add something to it, and give only binaries to the end user. It ensures the freedom of the recipient to do as they wish with the software. It prevents you from intervening and stopping them.
I see this same, terrible argument so often. I'm sure there's a nice rebuke of it somewhere on the FSF/GNU project's website.
I'm talking about an EULA, not a copyright license. An EULA is supposed to restrict what the end-user is legally allowed to do with their own program on their own computer (but they're not making any agreement in return, it's only a promise, and should be legally unenforceable).
And this is relevant how?
A copyright license is legally incapable of restricting what an end-user is doing, it can only permit (re)distribution, nothing more.
Correct, but relevant how?
You don't just "close off the sources", once you've published source code, it's like, always out there.
Except if a middleman comes through, changes it, and gives the binaries to other people. That code is not out there. And it's that sort of action that the GPL pushes back against.
The updated kernel gives the BeagleBone Black access to a new Direct Rendering Manager (DRM) display driver architecture
Shame about that PowerVR GPU, I don't see it ever actually being able to take advantage of the newer display architecture. I do like the move towards Device Tree. If it gains traction it might actually be possible to treat ARM boards more like x86 boards, rather than needing the board-specific kernels we have to deal with now.
If we just look at Linux, there is the push to hide more things from users not the other way around as more people use it.
Perhaps in the case of design mad developers like the GNOME team. But even on distros like Ubuntu, it's miles from Apple where any such capabilities are removed entirely.
That's why people dislike Ubuntu and power developers use Arch Linux.
And in the Apple world, there are no alternatives. No real options. All or nothing. Their way or the highway. Thankfully we have competition against them, but we just had a nice FUD article yesterday that said "OMG NEW ANDROID VIRUS" that no one can actually claim is in the wild and requires back flips to install.
And how many support cases would they get saying: "Well you let me install from another site other than the Apple store, what do you mean you don't support your product?" Try explaining to an end user the difference.
There is no evidence this would be the case yet you assume it would be a given!
However, in the following days I have begun to doubt my position and wonder if we don't have some responsibility to artificially 'cripple' the solution and in doing so protect the user from themselves (build a car that stays on the ground).
I suppose this is the rationalization that Apple uses internally to justify their walled garden. Gotta protect users from themselves whether they want it or not.
Rather than being assholes like Apple, perhaps you could make this configurable in some fashion? Whatever the hell "this" is?
That's an irrelevant angle to argue because Apple has negated it completely. I suspect that having to check a box to load non-Play Store apps is just as effective in curtailing the sources of infection.
I see we're going to get all secret agent style here. Except that people spreading malware are low-impact criminals, so I don't see this happening either.
But standing at a bus stop and spotting someone sharply-dressed, I could ask to use their phone to make a quick call for [insert excuse here], and in a few seconds, install similar malware.
You could? Don't you think they'd notice when you're opening the browser and typing URLs rather than making a phone call?
Since the one of the main talking point about android is the ability to side install apps.
It's a talking point because on Apple devices it isn't even an option at all. I'm highly doubtful that malware could spread effectively via sideloading.
The fees aren't what's important. It's the licensing terms and rules they seek to impose as a condition of access. The goal isn't money, it's using the rights granted by patent protection as a club to control others.
Did anyone really expect the MPEG-LA to offer license terms that were amenable to FOSS goals? That would eliminate their ability to exert and enforce control over the market.
Patents have no value in conveying knowledge these days, they are simply artillery for court battles and chains you can yank to control the actions of others.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I did it on my Raspberry Pi using the implementation of Weston that they discussed.
Making your ignorance plain is quite helpful to others in knowing to avoid you.
Yes, here we are, still with X. That doesn't make X good and it doesn't mean Wayland has made no progress. In fact the biggest driver of the Wayland transition is the wide availability of graphics accelerators that we didn't have back in 1997.
I won't really shed a tear when X is reduced to a library that sits on top of Wayland. I will enjoy improved performance and compositing that Wayland brings.
SurfaceFlinger. Of course, no one has actually adopted it. It's just prevalent because of Android.
Shades of Foundation here. Asimov was goddamn prophetic. We mismanage nuclear power and the response is not to learn and improve but to regress.
Protesting abuses of human rights = stirring up trouble. Your masters are pleased.
Or in other words, "stop caring."
Yeah, it's not like we could have a helicopter pursue them from a distance or anything. The only thing can do is chase them at dangerously high speeds through crowded areas and risk a violent ending or let them go completely. No middle ground. So we'll just accept that innocent people will die needless, violent deaths for the sake of catching criminals.
Because people aren't buying the devices because they're closed, they're buying it because the user experience is good. It does not follow that being locked down is also good.
People vote with their wallet, but they also vote against their own best interests. Repeatedly.
Which is why such drivers should go upstream. That's why the kernel developers want you to push your driver into the kernel - it gets maintained.
Yup, "poorly." Not simply at speeds to be expected of an ARM11 CPU, poorly. Not "well", like a $500 system. And "hacky," whatever the hell that means.
Nonsense.
Yes...
A developer can be an end user. An end user may wish to have a developer make changes for them. They may even wish to redistribute it. Your definition of "end user" is excessively narrow.
Read what I wrote above, and realize that what you say is completely wrong.
No. NO. The GPL guarantees that no middleman can take the sources, add something to it, and give only binaries to the end user. It ensures the freedom of the recipient to do as they wish with the software. It prevents you from intervening and stopping them.
I see this same, terrible argument so often. I'm sure there's a nice rebuke of it somewhere on the FSF/GNU project's website.
And this is relevant how?
Correct, but relevant how?
Except if a middleman comes through, changes it, and gives the binaries to other people. That code is not out there. And it's that sort of action that the GPL pushes back against.
What point are you trying to make?
What? If you don't include a license then no one can do anything with it.
The GPL is the only one (off the top of my head) that prevents a middleman from stepping in and closing the sources on its way to the end user.
What exactly are you getting at?
LOL
Whereby "restrictive" means "forced to respect the rights of end users" and where "lawsuits" means "usually settle once the license is complied with."
Of course, people releasing Free Software should just expect to have their license violated while proprietary software vendors shouldn't, right?
So if I understand you right:
The real question is if this applies to S4s not sold by Verizon and AT&T.
Shame about that PowerVR GPU, I don't see it ever actually being able to take advantage of the newer display architecture. I do like the move towards Device Tree. If it gains traction it might actually be possible to treat ARM boards more like x86 boards, rather than needing the board-specific kernels we have to deal with now.
Perhaps in the case of design mad developers like the GNOME team. But even on distros like Ubuntu, it's miles from Apple where any such capabilities are removed entirely.
And in the Apple world, there are no alternatives. No real options. All or nothing. Their way or the highway. Thankfully we have competition against them, but we just had a nice FUD article yesterday that said "OMG NEW ANDROID VIRUS" that no one can actually claim is in the wild and requires back flips to install.
There is no evidence this would be the case yet you assume it would be a given!
Only!
I suppose this is the rationalization that Apple uses internally to justify their walled garden. Gotta protect users from themselves whether they want it or not.
Rather than being assholes like Apple, perhaps you could make this configurable in some fashion? Whatever the hell "this" is?
That's an irrelevant angle to argue because Apple has negated it completely. I suspect that having to check a box to load non-Play Store apps is just as effective in curtailing the sources of infection.
I love the fear mongering. Do you own Apple stock?
I see we're going to get all secret agent style here. Except that people spreading malware are low-impact criminals, so I don't see this happening either.
You could? Don't you think they'd notice when you're opening the browser and typing URLs rather than making a phone call?
It's a talking point because on Apple devices it isn't even an option at all. I'm highly doubtful that malware could spread effectively via sideloading.
The fees aren't what's important. It's the licensing terms and rules they seek to impose as a condition of access. The goal isn't money, it's using the rights granted by patent protection as a club to control others.
Did anyone really expect the MPEG-LA to offer license terms that were amenable to FOSS goals? That would eliminate their ability to exert and enforce control over the market.
Patents have no value in conveying knowledge these days, they are simply artillery for court battles and chains you can yank to control the actions of others.
I think he's referring to the fixation some "conservatives" have on Obama's association with Bill Ayers.