Received mine in December 2009, port has suffered more heart-stopping yanks and twists than I care to count and it's held strong. Still plan on reworking the solder joints when I get a chance though. And yeah, dropped it a couple times but all that happens is dust gets knocked loose.
I suppose this should be interesting, but mostly it strikes me as dumb. Mostly as a result of Google having reinvented the wheel by creating an entirely new and no more efficient or effective rendering and windowing subsystem for Android, then having the rest of the open source community chase along behind them. I suppose that's not terribly surprising, seeing as how Android was proprietary out of the gate until Google bought them.
In other news, I'll hope that my N900 holds out and that another device, probably one from Samsung running Tizen, comes along before it fails.
The GPL poisons commercial code -- intentionally -- and that keeps GPL'd software from ever bringing mainstream software developers into the fold.
Good way to completely incorrectly representing how the GPL works.
This is why the "year of the linux desktop" never comes. Those big packages everyone wants, from Photoshop to Office etc., the companies that create them simply can't afford to mix in with that kind of licensing.
Bullshit, plain and simple. There are LOTS of non-GPL packages, proprietary packages even, that run on Linux.
Ok, I know, here comes the mod-bombing, lol.:)
And for so blatantly lying and deliberately misrepresenting the GPL you deserve it.
No, and they won't because they don't understand how they're being screwed. The vast majority believe their handset is actually free because they paid nothing for it while signing up for an expensive 2 year contract.
Is another vendor reaching into the market with 'fair' prices?
Nope. New carriers can't crop up due to spectrum constraints and all existing carriers match pricing and features extremely closely.
I would add that the US' cell phone providers are some of the least expensive in the world.
Bull. They're among the highest, coupled with ridiculous data rates and stupidly inflexible plans.
A pile of platform specific applications cause far more wasted effort then implementing a DRM scheme on top of existing video code ever could.
I'd rather the companies interested in DRM spend their own time and effort implementing it than forcing it into a standard that causes problems for groups like Mozilla, who either can't support it (and thus are pushed out of the market) or incur tons of extra expense and have to maintain one with a pile of closed code to protect the DRM subsystem from prying eyes and one that's still open.
You won't have plugins, but you'll have a slew of applications on your desktop. I find that far more preferable than having browser writers waste time, money, and effort implementing a failed scheme for the sake of the entertainment industry, especially when this will be impossible for open source browsers anyway.
So they'll be forced to write their own client applications to do the streaming, rather than banking on browser developers to do all that work AND support their (inevitably) failed DRM schemes for them.
Sure, you can push off patent issues on your users. You can close the source and control your users too.
The GPL is not a free license, it is a very restrictive license.
The lie appears again!
The GPL is a free license. It ensures the freedom of the software, and the freedom of its recipients to access the software to suit their purposes. It prevents the middleman from taking away the access to the source, which has always been the goal of the GPL.
It places no restrictions at all on the user, only on those who redistribute the software which the law prohibits anyway. It restricts the ability to close the source and screw over people who receive modified copies, but hey, that's the "price" we pay.
GPL is a copyright license, not a patent license. Copyright law and patent law are two entirely different things, so I'm not sure there is any conflict here at all.
Permission to redistribute GPL programs depends on fulfilling certain conditions regarding patents. There are conflicts.
They died for a reason- get over it, move on, do something productive for TODAY.
So rather than being curious as to what the purpose of this was (since your question was rhetorical, as you obviously don't care about the responses) you insisted that they stop doing this and do something else. What that might be I can't fathom.
Your post indicates little to no actual curiosity and rather indignation that they are doing something you perceive to not be valuable. So yeah, you're gonna get flamed.
The funny part is they could have just retitled it "FOR ANIME WAREZERS" as there are no legitimate distributions of any anime series in an MKV container or using ASS subs.
"Well, if it runs content purchased off iTunes, its good enough!".
And yet as much as we at Slashdot desire to pay the people who create the works we enjoy, no high quality MKV rip has ever done so. iTunes downloads do, however.
The long term goal would be to minimize the latency and increase the speed of the writes. Doing so lets you return to a low power state as fast as possible, on top of improving performance.
SSDs and the eMMC NAND storage inside smartphones are wildly different, even if they are fundamentally the same concept.
SSDs get all of their speed from massive parallelization, writing to and reading from multiple die at once. Often these die tend to consume a bit more power, allowing for faster overall access. In smartphones, you usually have eMMC as the primary NAND device. These are basically high capacity, soldered down SD cards packed with several high density MLC NAND. You have drastically fewer IO channels, no DMA capability (it's all PIO via the CPU,) and slower NAND due to reduced power requirements.
This is why watching your memory consumption is essential on mobile devices, and why optimization for each device has to be done. The moment the CPU has to access the NAND, you're going to take a performance hit no matter how many cores you have.
It's 666.66 euros, and that's just the an in-stock board. A complete device is likely beyond 750 once paid, assuming they have them. It gets down to 450, but you're still stuck with only a board.
Sadly, the project is rather late and I get 99% of what I've wanted out of my N900 for less than it would have cost to buy the Freerunner then this on top.
But when you want to do something more complex, that GUI won't help you. Instead it gets in the way. Of course, only in the Windows world are a functional GUI and functional CLI somehow mutually exclusive.
Slashdot Mirror
And get hit by the GPL violation.
Received mine in December 2009, port has suffered more heart-stopping yanks and twists than I care to count and it's held strong. Still plan on reworking the solder joints when I get a chance though. And yeah, dropped it a couple times but all that happens is dust gets knocked loose.
I suppose this should be interesting, but mostly it strikes me as dumb. Mostly as a result of Google having reinvented the wheel by creating an entirely new and no more efficient or effective rendering and windowing subsystem for Android, then having the rest of the open source community chase along behind them. I suppose that's not terribly surprising, seeing as how Android was proprietary out of the gate until Google bought them.
In other news, I'll hope that my N900 holds out and that another device, probably one from Samsung running Tizen, comes along before it fails.
Does it matter when the dynamic range is shot to hell?
Ooh look, a liar.
Good way to completely incorrectly representing how the GPL works.
Bullshit, plain and simple. There are LOTS of non-GPL packages, proprietary packages even, that run on Linux.
And for so blatantly lying and deliberately misrepresenting the GPL you deserve it.
No, and they won't because they don't understand how they're being screwed. The vast majority believe their handset is actually free because they paid nothing for it while signing up for an expensive 2 year contract.
Nope. New carriers can't crop up due to spectrum constraints and all existing carriers match pricing and features extremely closely.
Bull. They're among the highest, coupled with ridiculous data rates and stupidly inflexible plans.
Ah yes, anti-competitive dumping. Good way to get in trouble. Because what we really need is for Apple to become a monopoly.
So what are you suggesting? That Spain has no musicians at all, or that there's no Big Business controlling music?
I'd rather the companies interested in DRM spend their own time and effort implementing it than forcing it into a standard that causes problems for groups like Mozilla, who either can't support it (and thus are pushed out of the market) or incur tons of extra expense and have to maintain one with a pile of closed code to protect the DRM subsystem from prying eyes and one that's still open.
You won't have plugins, but you'll have a slew of applications on your desktop. I find that far more preferable than having browser writers waste time, money, and effort implementing a failed scheme for the sake of the entertainment industry, especially when this will be impossible for open source browsers anyway.
And?
So they'll be forced to write their own client applications to do the streaming, rather than banking on browser developers to do all that work AND support their (inevitably) failed DRM schemes for them.
Sure, you can push off patent issues on your users. You can close the source and control your users too.
The lie appears again!
The GPL is a free license. It ensures the freedom of the software, and the freedom of its recipients to access the software to suit their purposes. It prevents the middleman from taking away the access to the source, which has always been the goal of the GPL.
It places no restrictions at all on the user, only on those who redistribute the software which the law prohibits anyway. It restricts the ability to close the source and screw over people who receive modified copies, but hey, that's the "price" we pay.
Permission to redistribute GPL programs depends on fulfilling certain conditions regarding patents. There are conflicts.
No you didn't, you stated:
So rather than being curious as to what the purpose of this was (since your question was rhetorical, as you obviously don't care about the responses) you insisted that they stop doing this and do something else. What that might be I can't fathom.
Your post indicates little to no actual curiosity and rather indignation that they are doing something you perceive to not be valuable. So yeah, you're gonna get flamed.
I am not aware of any. Most streaming anime is hosted at the licensor's website.
And yet shows that do get licensed and sold... sell terribly even if they have large fanbases. Usually with lots of rationalization.
Yes yes, more excuses please. I had my fill 7 years ago and walked away from the fansub world as they wore thin.
The funny part is they could have just retitled it "FOR ANIME WAREZERS" as there are no legitimate distributions of any anime series in an MKV container or using ASS subs.
And yet as much as we at Slashdot desire to pay the people who create the works we enjoy, no high quality MKV rip has ever done so. iTunes downloads do, however.
I don't particularly care. But you seem to be quite irritated by him, so, you do what you want I suppose.
Fascinating, our very own Cat and Mouse game here on Slashdot!
The long term goal would be to minimize the latency and increase the speed of the writes. Doing so lets you return to a low power state as fast as possible, on top of improving performance.
RAM consumes a lot of power, far more than a NAND disk that can be powered down in between accesses.
SSDs and the eMMC NAND storage inside smartphones are wildly different, even if they are fundamentally the same concept.
SSDs get all of their speed from massive parallelization, writing to and reading from multiple die at once. Often these die tend to consume a bit more power, allowing for faster overall access. In smartphones, you usually have eMMC as the primary NAND device. These are basically high capacity, soldered down SD cards packed with several high density MLC NAND. You have drastically fewer IO channels, no DMA capability (it's all PIO via the CPU,) and slower NAND due to reduced power requirements.
This is why watching your memory consumption is essential on mobile devices, and why optimization for each device has to be done. The moment the CPU has to access the NAND, you're going to take a performance hit no matter how many cores you have.
Compensating for something, are we?
On the contrary, I would argue that the single greatest cause of death is life.
With a close second being Man's delusions, whatever their origin.
It's 666.66 euros, and that's just the an in-stock board. A complete device is likely beyond 750 once paid, assuming they have them. It gets down to 450, but you're still stuck with only a board.
Sadly, the project is rather late and I get 99% of what I've wanted out of my N900 for less than it would have cost to buy the Freerunner then this on top.
Funny, I had a domain that was registered with GoDaddy for 9 years and I was swapped over to Gandi.net within an hour or less.
But when you want to do something more complex, that GUI won't help you. Instead it gets in the way. Of course, only in the Windows world are a functional GUI and functional CLI somehow mutually exclusive.