Well, if you use the internet to a great degree and don't live under a rock, surely you've heard about Burning Man. Especially if you regularly browse Slashdot.
Because my experience with Ruby on mobile devices is no indication of what the mobile space will look like in the very near future. I expect in the near term, being able to put a scripting language like Ruby on a mobile device will be hard if not impossible. And I am not optimistic.
Of course, mobile computing is the way to go, so that's one of the reasons I focus on the Ruby dialect working on the smaller devices.
While I do have Ruby on my N900, I wish him the best of luck in his goals. Between the attacks from the Apple and MS camp on Android and little to no attention being paid to real solutions like MeeGo, all we'll be left with in short order is anti-geek platforms like Windows Phone and iOS, where running things like Ruby (or Python) are expressly verboten.
Yes, this is one major reason for performance improvements on desktop systems. Fragmentation is not an issue (well, sorta) with SSDs.
(I say sorta, because due to the way NAND erases are handled a highly fragmented filesystem can cause write amplification and slowdowns as blocks are reclaimed. TRIM helps with this.)
Of course. OS awareness of hardware capabilities lets you avoid workarounds like TRIM. Instead we have TRIM because the nature of the hardware (NAND flash) is hidden behind an interface designed for rotating media that behaves differently.
require drivers
Well, if you integrate it into the block layer, then it can be utilized by the filesystem with one layer of abstraction. Abstract it completely and you have to hope that the drive logic is capable of making good decisions, otherwise you'll end up with your swap occupying the SSD and not get any sort of speed increase.
Hybridization generally takes the form of servers with it used in a tiered form. Actual hybridized devices (like the OCZ or Seagate devices) are of limited value in enterprise.
I can even imagine someone developing software that would analyze system performance and make recommendations as to which fragment of the drive (solid/disk) an application ought be run from.
This is currently a fairly hot area of research, though most of it is occurring behind closed doors at the moment.
ARM9. That's even older than ARM11, which is what most pre-Cortex-A8 devices were based on. I'm impressed that they swapped out the compiler to make use of this extremely low end (think Nintendo DS) processor.
800 x 600
Ouch.
Touch Panel: Resistive touch pad
While my N900 has a resistive touch screen, I trust Nokia's quality controls (and have never needed to calibrate.) This has nothing to vouch for it.
Correction, you did not need to jailbreak/root the device at all.
still failed in the big market.
Nokia never had any intention of making it a big thing, and they had no hope of pushing it in the US unsubsidized. And everyone was already held in rapture by Google's promise of an "open" platform that ran Linux.
Its proper successor (not the N9, the N950), was just for developers, and very few were made, even where it would have been a dream for the ones wanting an even more crackable phone.
It became a developer-only phone because US carriers rejected it because of the hinge design.
These devices never even got a chance at the market. The N9 and N950 were undermined further by Microsoft shenanigans.
I like dickish comments like these. They ignore the obvious fact that users don't know or care if a platform is "open" or "closed." The problem is that vendors go out of their way to cripple these devices. They expend extra effort and time to deliberately deny people the ability to do as they wish.
Yes they are. They simply have a distinctly different form factor. This change in form factor doesn't justify deliberate crippling by the vendor for the sole purpose of forcing you through whatever store happens to be most convenient for them, or ensuring that the device becomes permanently obsolete so you buy a new one.
Irrelevant. What we want isn't what most people want. The catch is that we can have what we want without impacting what most people want, but they actively fight to deny it.
What do you think they're already running? Hint: it isn't Linux. Most CS programs are Microsoft indoctrination programs.
Amusing. I went to a small university in Arkansas and it was Linux from start to finish. Go figure that a tiny Arkansas university's CS program would be more resistant to the Microsoft machine than larger ones.
You could jailbreak an iPad2 at least since July...
And yet Apple persistently battles users who dare to jailbreak. They fight you every step of the way instead of giving a legitimate out.
Please stop acting as if Apple is somehow being nice or acting respectably in this matter. But you're SuperKendall, the resident Apple Cultist, he who will not be swayed from the True Path of Jobs.
the GPL forbids you from running the code on hardware that requires mandatory code signing
False. The GPLv3 requires that if a platform enforces mandatory code signing, the user must be given a (the?) key used for signing such that they can rebuild, sign, and install altered versions of the libraries in question.
The end result is that the code signing cannot be used against the user in concert with GPLv3 software. The code signing must serve the user or you cannot use GPLv3 on the platform at all.
The problem comes when you are a developer who wants to build a version of a GPLed application for such a device.
Then provide the end-user with a means of signing the code so that they can replace the GPL'd application, and there shouldn't be an issue.
Your last statement I will ignore entirely due to your entire post being built around an invalid premise.
So if I take the source of gcc and modify it to do something new, the GPL places no requirements or restrictions on what I can or cannot do with my derivative work?...riiiight.
It doesn't. You can do whatever you want with it inside the bounds of copyright law, which means no redistribution.
It's about enforcing control over derivative works.
Bullshit. It's about ensuring that you grant to others what was granted to you.
It is like a virus; if a single line of GPL code enters a product with millions of lines of non-GPL code, that one line means you are required to distribute all of your source code.
Again, bullshit. If a single line made it in, no one would notice. If enough code was lifted from a GPL'd project, then you're just a sad fool who feels they're entitled to violate the copyrights of someone else for their own personal benefit. Of course you have a few options when you violate: distribute everything, distribute nothing, or correct the violation.
The GPL is precisely about telling you what you can and cannot do with derivative works.
Sure, but then the work you are making a derivative of wasn't yours in the first place. And the person who it DOES belong to placed terms upon it that prevent you from intercepting it and denying the same freedoms to people who get it from you.
If Microsoft incorporates BSD-licensed code into a product, is that code now proprietary? Of course not.
The variant they distributed is. The people who they give it to do not have access to the sources, and now it is saddled with miles of EULA legalese that strips them of rights above and beyond what they're already denied by copyright.
The original BSD licensed source code will ALWAYS be accessible, regardless of how it is acquired, and anyone is free to modify as they see fit. And there are no restrictions on what you can or cannot do with such modifications.
And? That's beside the point. The issue here is that if you get a closed version from me that implements something you are dependent on, the original source is completely irrelevant and I have established a point of control over you.
Ironic that the "Lesser" GPL actually has More Freedom, isn't it?
Maybe if you completely and utterly fail to understand the GPL and its intention. But then, BSD trolls usually fail utterly because they're so selfish.
GPL might as well be proprietary for a little as you can make use of it.
Suggesting that software under the GPL has little use because you can't deny downstream users access to the source code is, quite frankly, a pile of crap.
I see incredible amounts of GPL software in use daily. Care has to be taken to ensure that code isn't lifted from the GPL software and used in the proprietary software, but it isn't that hard.
open source was created to free people from proprietary code and people telling them what they can't do.
The GPL was created to ensure that the user would ALWAYS have access to the source code, regardless of how they acquired it, and would be free to modify it as they saw fit. It was specifically designed so that the code could not be made proprietary, and grants users permission to do what the laws would otherwise deny you the right to on the condition you give others the same freedom you were granted.
It is not, at all, about telling other people what they can and cannot do.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you use the internet to a great degree and don't live under a rock, surely you've heard about Burning Man. Especially if you regularly browse Slashdot.
Or you could hit Google.
Because my experience with Ruby on mobile devices is no indication of what the mobile space will look like in the very near future. I expect in the near term, being able to put a scripting language like Ruby on a mobile device will be hard if not impossible. And I am not optimistic.
While I do have Ruby on my N900, I wish him the best of luck in his goals. Between the attacks from the Apple and MS camp on Android and little to no attention being paid to real solutions like MeeGo, all we'll be left with in short order is anti-geek platforms like Windows Phone and iOS, where running things like Ruby (or Python) are expressly verboten.
Yes, this is one major reason for performance improvements on desktop systems. Fragmentation is not an issue (well, sorta) with SSDs.
(I say sorta, because due to the way NAND erases are handled a highly fragmented filesystem can cause write amplification and slowdowns as blocks are reclaimed. TRIM helps with this.)
Of course. OS awareness of hardware capabilities lets you avoid workarounds like TRIM. Instead we have TRIM because the nature of the hardware (NAND flash) is hidden behind an interface designed for rotating media that behaves differently.
Well, if you integrate it into the block layer, then it can be utilized by the filesystem with one layer of abstraction. Abstract it completely and you have to hope that the drive logic is capable of making good decisions, otherwise you'll end up with your swap occupying the SSD and not get any sort of speed increase.
Hybridization generally takes the form of servers with it used in a tiered form. Actual hybridized devices (like the OCZ or Seagate devices) are of limited value in enterprise.
This is currently a fairly hot area of research, though most of it is occurring behind closed doors at the moment.
And just for reference, the very first Android device (the G1) used an ARM11 based CPU. And the ARM926EJ is the lowest end of the ARM9 cores.
ARM9. That's even older than ARM11, which is what most pre-Cortex-A8 devices were based on. I'm impressed that they swapped out the compiler to make use of this extremely low end (think Nintendo DS) processor.
Ouch.
While my N900 has a resistive touch screen, I trust Nokia's quality controls (and have never needed to calibrate.) This has nothing to vouch for it.
So what you're saying is that developers hate their customers and consider them the enemy.
The first two require ineffectual DRM, don't know about Spotify, and amusingly Rovio released Angry Birds on the N900 which has no DRM to speak of.
Correction, you did not need to jailbreak/root the device at all.
Nokia never had any intention of making it a big thing, and they had no hope of pushing it in the US unsubsidized. And everyone was already held in rapture by Google's promise of an "open" platform that ran Linux.
It became a developer-only phone because US carriers rejected it because of the hinge design.
These devices never even got a chance at the market. The N9 and N950 were undermined further by Microsoft shenanigans.
I like dickish comments like these. They ignore the obvious fact that users don't know or care if a platform is "open" or "closed." The problem is that vendors go out of their way to cripple these devices. They expend extra effort and time to deliberately deny people the ability to do as they wish.
Yes they are. They simply have a distinctly different form factor. This change in form factor doesn't justify deliberate crippling by the vendor for the sole purpose of forcing you through whatever store happens to be most convenient for them, or ensuring that the device becomes permanently obsolete so you buy a new one.
Irrelevant. What we want isn't what most people want. The catch is that we can have what we want without impacting what most people want, but they actively fight to deny it.
Amusing. I went to a small university in Arkansas and it was Linux from start to finish. Go figure that a tiny Arkansas university's CS program would be more resistant to the Microsoft machine than larger ones.
And yet Apple persistently battles users who dare to jailbreak. They fight you every step of the way instead of giving a legitimate out.
Please stop acting as if Apple is somehow being nice or acting respectably in this matter. But you're SuperKendall, the resident Apple Cultist, he who will not be swayed from the True Path of Jobs.
False. The GPLv3 requires that if a platform enforces mandatory code signing, the user must be given a (the?) key used for signing such that they can rebuild, sign, and install altered versions of the libraries in question.
The end result is that the code signing cannot be used against the user in concert with GPLv3 software. The code signing must serve the user or you cannot use GPLv3 on the platform at all.
Then provide the end-user with a means of signing the code so that they can replace the GPL'd application, and there shouldn't be an issue.
Your last statement I will ignore entirely due to your entire post being built around an invalid premise.
It doesn't. You can do whatever you want with it inside the bounds of copyright law, which means no redistribution.
Bullshit. It's about ensuring that you grant to others what was granted to you.
Again, bullshit. If a single line made it in, no one would notice. If enough code was lifted from a GPL'd project, then you're just a sad fool who feels they're entitled to violate the copyrights of someone else for their own personal benefit. Of course you have a few options when you violate: distribute everything, distribute nothing, or correct the violation.
Sure, but then the work you are making a derivative of wasn't yours in the first place. And the person who it DOES belong to placed terms upon it that prevent you from intercepting it and denying the same freedoms to people who get it from you.
The variant they distributed is. The people who they give it to do not have access to the sources, and now it is saddled with miles of EULA legalese that strips them of rights above and beyond what they're already denied by copyright.
And? That's beside the point. The issue here is that if you get a closed version from me that implements something you are dependent on, the original source is completely irrelevant and I have established a point of control over you.
Maybe if you completely and utterly fail to understand the GPL and its intention. But then, BSD trolls usually fail utterly because they're so selfish.
IIRC, the profiling in Israel is done by trained military officers.
But yes, I expect that "profiling" in the US as done by TSA 'agents' would consist mostly of "he's dark skinned, so we searched him."
I think the point here is that Duradin is an anti-GPL troll. The statement you are replying to is false on its face.
I was referring specifically to a statement made by the GP, not directly to the statements of Jim Zemlin.
You certainly know how to pose poor arguments.
Suggesting that software under the GPL has little use because you can't deny downstream users access to the source code is, quite frankly, a pile of crap.
I see incredible amounts of GPL software in use daily. Care has to be taken to ensure that code isn't lifted from the GPL software and used in the proprietary software, but it isn't that hard.
Simple enough. Don't use it if you know you can't comply with the license.
You can already NOT redistribute copyrighted works.
The GPL grants you permission upon acceptance of the terms.
The GPL was created to ensure that the user would ALWAYS have access to the source code, regardless of how they acquired it, and would be free to modify it as they saw fit. It was specifically designed so that the code could not be made proprietary, and grants users permission to do what the laws would otherwise deny you the right to on the condition you give others the same freedom you were granted.
It is not, at all, about telling other people what they can and cannot do.