No, it's not evolving faster than ever. Everything works with IE7. All innovations beyond IE7 are just sugarcoating, most of them invisible on the deployed web.
So what you're saying is that Microsoft's fat-ass is still holding the internet back?
Yup. Why should an open source project be constrained to the demands of corporations that aren't involved or contributing to their effort? After all, the Linux kernel doesn't wait for anyone, but that doesn't seem to be a huge problem for corporations (well, except those wanting to deliver closed source drivers.)
Now if they want to take those concerns into consideration (like it seems they're doing) then more power to them.
It is now on someone's Web server, and they can (in theory) claim full ownership and copyright of the image at any time.
You'd have to look at the EULA (do they even present an EULA?) to see what rights they grab for themselves. Even then, you still own the copyright on the image. I doubt an EULA that stated "by using our service you transfer copyright of all images uploaded to us" would be considered conscionable.
When Google first started developing an OS for cell phones it would have seemed like a crazy stretch for a search engine company, but Android is successful today.
Android, from day one, was a product like any other. It was not born in the Labs, it was purchased.
So he has a stupid spat with the guys at AdBlock Plus. So what?
People make stupid mistakes every once in a while. He apologized, and hasn't done anything dumb since. In the meantime, NoScript has continued to be a valuable tool that I add to every Firefox installation I use (well, all once he adds support for Firefox Mobile.)
But you do not have the rights to fiddle with the internals of this device (either software or hardware). What would you do with the ownership?
Sure you can fiddle with the internals of the device. Apple can't stop you. The only thing you can do (and the only thing you're gonna really get in trouble for) is if you start modifying files Apple holds the copyright on and distribute them wholesale.
After all, people don't distribute jailbroken ROM images, they distribute the jailbreak.
Because that's what it is. Only difference is form factor, use case, and power envelope.
I think most see it as a phone with some extra features, or at least an appliance of some sort.
Most people seem to see it that way, but then they see their PC as a black box as well. But because most see it that way, it does not follow that all people see it that way. And more importantly, it is not merely the iPhone but all mobile devices that I see in this manner (tablets, smartphones, etc.)
People don't "own" their car software, dishwasher software, oven software, fridge software, TV software, etc
I didn't say anything about owning the software. I meant having the ability to do as one wishes without having to fight the vendor. People can replace the software on their car (many companies specialize in it), and the others (assuming they have software) could probably be done but there is little interest in it at the moment. I suspect we will see TV companies fight their users though.
It's not necessarily "evil" for an appliance-style device to be locked down - it all depends on the end user.
Well, look at what you just said. "it all depends on the end user." For Apple, at least in their perspective it doesn't. All users are locked down and it is non-negotiable.
See, the pro-Apple crowd always rolls in after I go to bed, and downmod me for being critical of Apple. Then someone like you comes along and suggests that by criticizing Apple, I've somehow gone "full retard" and that my point is simplistic.
Your point is, rather, that Apple is above all criticism and that no one should ever do so.
The consumer is Apple's customer, and the consumer is Google's product
The buyer of these devices is a product for BOTH of them. But hey, you assumed immediately that I am an Android/Google fan which means that you're as blind as you claim others to be.
the problem isn't that Apple is the "biggest pusher of every concept that's ever been criticized on Slashdot" (like, open source software? Open standards?)
They push DRM on everything but music. They push their own implementation of "trusted computing" in its worst form (with the user marked as a hostile entity) with no ability to opt out. They actively work with and support the RIAA and MPAA, who work very, very hard with their member companies to sue their own customers.
Note that up until 2008, I was a diehard supporter of Apple. OS X was and still is a better *nix than Linux from a user experience perspective.
If you do *one thing* they don't like, you're evil, no appeal go directly to the 'we hate you' category. So as I said, you believe that Apple is above criticism and attack me instead of addressing my points.
Up until you want to run software that isn't Apple approved. Say any sort of Free Software (go ahead, call me names.) But if you don't wander outside Apple's walled garden I can see how you'd miss it.
You're only reason seems to be 'because'
That's why people put NetBSD on toasters, right? Why should I need any greater reason?
every reason you can come up with is either a silly temper tantrum sort of thing or just an excuse to steal in one way or another.
Ah yes, the old "You're a damned dirty HACKER CRIMINAL if you jailbreak!" response from Apple fans is quite amusing, but old.
People wouldn't be loud about Apple patching security holes if those same holes weren't necessary for jailbreaks. I suspect people wouldn't say a thing if there were other, legitimate means of getting the same level of access.
You (as someone that jailbreaks) are as much Apple's enemy as any potential malware vendor, however.
I suspect it was because no one really cared, and were seen as business devices bought by companies for their employees for the most part. I also don't believe they restricted you from sideloading software unless an IT policy was put in place.
Apple's helped the smartphone market explode, unfortunately they've brought along and prop up so many things criticized on Slashdot that they're an easy target.
Ever own a Blackberry or Android phone with locked down bootloader?
Nope, can't say I have. Never wanted a Blackberry, and I won't touch Motorola or any device with a locked down bootloader with a 10m pole.
The fact is the bulk of devices we "own", we don't get the goods for. I didn't get the code for my microwave oven or TV set or HD set top box, et al. ad nauseum.
Actual ownership of your device. Sorta like how your PC doesn't try and fight you.
I understand that accepting total vendor control over things is the cool thing on Slashdot these days (especially among iProduct fans,) so I'll just leave you to your walled and barred garden.
It's people like you that give real FOSS advocates a bad name and give rise to pejoratives like "freetard".
Actually, in my experience it tends to be people who wish, desperately, that they could just take from GPL'd projects without having to contribute back. People who oppose lock-down and DRM tend to get lumped under that title as well.
Yes, because, if it did, it would fail. Linux has been tried and tried and tried and has never worked for consumers.
That's nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense and you know it. If Google did everything they've tried with Android, only instead of buying a totally proprietary software stack they used (and influenced) open projects, it would have taken off equally as well. Going Android (and with the introduction of the NDK, diminishing the value of Dalvik) was purely an NIH move.
The big thing here, and the success, is because Google is behind it. The technology isn't inherently superior in any way.
So, why would Goog want to repeat that mistake?
USING EXISTING APIs AND TOOLKITS != MAKING DESKTOP APPS
This has to be reiterated over and over, so people understand the point. Android's toolkit does not inherently give your software a good mobile interface, and using existing APIs doesn't inherently make your UI bad. You have the toolkit, you design for the interface use case. Bad design can happen anywhere.
Indeed, but you cannot run anything but Android at full speed, or with full functionality.
The use of a proprietary libc means that any userspace blobs (used frequently on these devices) will be incompatible with more common Linux-based systems. So while on my PC or other x86 based platforms I can move between Fedora, Ubuntu, Slackware, etc, I have only Android and derivatives thereof. And that's assuming your drivers are easily ported forward, and the bootloader doesn't refuse to boot unsigned kernels.
It's a great success story for Google, I suppose. But Linux has already had massive, if quiet, successes. And it's not a huge success story for end users, who are left with devices whose drivers rot outside the kernel mainline, dependent on closed source binary blobs for hardware support that never get rebuilt as systems move on.
It's also not a huge success for GNU/Linux (or Free Software) in general, due to the almost total break from it that Google has spearheaded. Instead of a platform that exists regardless of one corporation, you have one whose existence is defined by that corporation. Difficult to fork, hard to steer in ways other than what they want and, until further notice, closed source.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is that Microsoft's fat-ass is still holding the internet back?
Yup. Why should an open source project be constrained to the demands of corporations that aren't involved or contributing to their effort? After all, the Linux kernel doesn't wait for anyone, but that doesn't seem to be a huge problem for corporations (well, except those wanting to deliver closed source drivers.)
Now if they want to take those concerns into consideration (like it seems they're doing) then more power to them.
You'd have to look at the EULA (do they even present an EULA?) to see what rights they grab for themselves. Even then, you still own the copyright on the image. I doubt an EULA that stated "by using our service you transfer copyright of all images uploaded to us" would be considered conscionable.
Android, from day one, was a product like any other. It was not born in the Labs, it was purchased.
No mod points, but +1 for Gunnm LO reference.
So he has a stupid spat with the guys at AdBlock Plus. So what?
People make stupid mistakes every once in a while. He apologized, and hasn't done anything dumb since. In the meantime, NoScript has continued to be a valuable tool that I add to every Firefox installation I use (well, all once he adds support for Firefox Mobile.)
Sure you can fiddle with the internals of the device. Apple can't stop you. The only thing you can do (and the only thing you're gonna really get in trouble for) is if you start modifying files Apple holds the copyright on and distribute them wholesale.
After all, people don't distribute jailbroken ROM images, they distribute the jailbreak.
Because that's what it is. Only difference is form factor, use case, and power envelope.
Most people seem to see it that way, but then they see their PC as a black box as well. But because most see it that way, it does not follow that all people see it that way. And more importantly, it is not merely the iPhone but all mobile devices that I see in this manner (tablets, smartphones, etc.)
I didn't say anything about owning the software. I meant having the ability to do as one wishes without having to fight the vendor. People can replace the software on their car (many companies specialize in it), and the others (assuming they have software) could probably be done but there is little interest in it at the moment. I suspect we will see TV companies fight their users though.
Well, look at what you just said. "it all depends on the end user." For Apple, at least in their perspective it doesn't. All users are locked down and it is non-negotiable.
See, the pro-Apple crowd always rolls in after I go to bed, and downmod me for being critical of Apple. Then someone like you comes along and suggests that by criticizing Apple, I've somehow gone "full retard" and that my point is simplistic.
Your point is, rather, that Apple is above all criticism and that no one should ever do so.
The consumer is Apple's customer, and the consumer is Google's product
The buyer of these devices is a product for BOTH of them. But hey, you assumed immediately that I am an Android/Google fan which means that you're as blind as you claim others to be.
the problem isn't that Apple is the "biggest pusher of every concept that's ever been criticized on Slashdot" (like, open source software? Open standards?)
They push DRM on everything but music. They push their own implementation of "trusted computing" in its worst form (with the user marked as a hostile entity) with no ability to opt out. They actively work with and support the RIAA and MPAA, who work very, very hard with their member companies to sue their own customers.
Note that up until 2008, I was a diehard supporter of Apple. OS X was and still is a better *nix than Linux from a user experience perspective.
If you do *one thing* they don't like, you're evil, no appeal go directly to the 'we hate you' category.
So as I said, you believe that Apple is above criticism and attack me instead of addressing my points.
You jailbroke it so you could steal something you did not pay for.
It is a retarded distinction, and you're as bad as the phone companies for trying to defend it.
you're just a simple thief
And you're a ridiculous authoritarian. Please stop accusing people of being something they aren't.
I do pretty much anything I want with it.
Up until you want to run software that isn't Apple approved. Say any sort of Free Software (go ahead, call me names.) But if you don't wander outside Apple's walled garden I can see how you'd miss it.
You're only reason seems to be 'because'
That's why people put NetBSD on toasters, right? Why should I need any greater reason?
every reason you can come up with is either a silly temper tantrum sort of thing or just an excuse to steal in one way or another.
Ah yes, the old "You're a damned dirty HACKER CRIMINAL if you jailbreak!" response from Apple fans is quite amusing, but old.
Name one legitimate reason to want to jailbreak your phone now days.
Ownership. No other reason is necessary.
People wouldn't be loud about Apple patching security holes if those same holes weren't necessary for jailbreaks. I suspect people wouldn't say a thing if there were other, legitimate means of getting the same level of access.
You (as someone that jailbreaks) are as much Apple's enemy as any potential malware vendor, however.
I suspect it was because no one really cared, and were seen as business devices bought by companies for their employees for the most part. I also don't believe they restricted you from sideloading software unless an IT policy was put in place.
Apple's helped the smartphone market explode, unfortunately they've brought along and prop up so many things criticized on Slashdot that they're an easy target.
Ever own a Blackberry or Android phone with locked down bootloader?
Nope, can't say I have. Never wanted a Blackberry, and I won't touch Motorola or any device with a locked down bootloader with a 10m pole.
The fact is the bulk of devices we "own", we don't get the goods for. I didn't get the code for my microwave oven or TV set or HD set top box, et al. ad nauseum.
Did I say source code? No, I don't think I did.
like all those Blackberry and some Android devices?
Sure, not like I own one of those either.
I love it when people conveniently forget the other guilty parties when engaging in AppleHate(tm)
Apple is the biggest pusher of every concept that's ever been criticized on Slashdot. They're simply the easiest example, so stop whining.
Actual ownership of your device. Sorta like how your PC doesn't try and fight you.
I understand that accepting total vendor control over things is the cool thing on Slashdot these days (especially among iProduct fans,) so I'll just leave you to your walled and barred garden.
Maybe yours, but apparently you place no value on what you gain from a jailbreak.
Yup! So keep making those hostile devices, Apple, we'll keep buying them (like fools!)
Neither Linux nor "open source" are singular entities that can be defeated.
Actually, in my experience it tends to be people who wish, desperately, that they could just take from GPL'd projects without having to contribute back. People who oppose lock-down and DRM tend to get lumped under that title as well.
Just my observation, YMMV.
That's nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense and you know it. If Google did everything they've tried with Android, only instead of buying a totally proprietary software stack they used (and influenced) open projects, it would have taken off equally as well. Going Android (and with the introduction of the NDK, diminishing the value of Dalvik) was purely an NIH move.
The big thing here, and the success, is because Google is behind it. The technology isn't inherently superior in any way.
USING EXISTING APIs AND TOOLKITS != MAKING DESKTOP APPS
This has to be reiterated over and over, so people understand the point. Android's toolkit does not inherently give your software a good mobile interface, and using existing APIs doesn't inherently make your UI bad. You have the toolkit, you design for the interface use case. Bad design can happen anywhere.
I'm no Android fan, but the Android port of Firefox uses the NDK.
Indeed, but you cannot run anything but Android at full speed, or with full functionality.
The use of a proprietary libc means that any userspace blobs (used frequently on these devices) will be incompatible with more common Linux-based systems. So while on my PC or other x86 based platforms I can move between Fedora, Ubuntu, Slackware, etc, I have only Android and derivatives thereof. And that's assuming your drivers are easily ported forward, and the bootloader doesn't refuse to boot unsigned kernels.
It's a great success story for Google, I suppose. But Linux has already had massive, if quiet, successes. And it's not a huge success story for end users, who are left with devices whose drivers rot outside the kernel mainline, dependent on closed source binary blobs for hardware support that never get rebuilt as systems move on.
It's also not a huge success for GNU/Linux (or Free Software) in general, due to the almost total break from it that Google has spearheaded. Instead of a platform that exists regardless of one corporation, you have one whose existence is defined by that corporation. Difficult to fork, hard to steer in ways other than what they want and, until further notice, closed source.
Better can be done.