You obviously haven't looked at the design of the plant. There are 3 layers: - The outer cosmetic steel box, to keep the weather out - The inner concrete containment chamber - The inner steel pressure vessel that houses the actual reaction
The concrete containment chamber is present in virtually every modern reactor, and every Western reactor for the precise reasons we see described today. Lack of a containment chamber is one of the reasons Chernobyl was infinitely worse than anything else, since when the steel pressure vessel exploded it was instantly exposed to the atmosphere.
The BSD type licenses take nothing away from your freedom.
It does if the person who distributed software to me decided to close the source.
You have your source, you can do whatever you want with it.
Did I get the source?
The GPL ensures the first, by answering the second.
don't attempt the farcical arguments to deny the greater freedom of the BSD path and the greater charity of the BSD devs
The BSD path has different freedom, one that can constrict and be denied wholly to people down the line. And yes, charity is an apt word. GPL'd software definitely has a price.
Or it's encouraged by the mainline folks not being interested in accepting any solutions but their own.
Stunning arrogance.
The Android kernel code is out there, in publicly accessible git repositories, with change histories.
But the Android kernel's changes seep their way into hardware drivers, thus making them a bitch to port back to the standard kernel.
It is regularly rebased and snapped up to newer mainline versions.
But the changes don't go the other way, and I doubt it has anything to do with arrogance.
Android ships on over 350,000 newly activated devices per day.
Numbers make it superior, I get it.
as of Gingerbread you can deploy applications written in C/C++ on Android, linking in whatever fancy open source libraries you like and making use of opengl ES 2 directly.
Yes, you can. The NDK is a pain in the ass to use though.
Hell, you could easily write a shim library that provides X11 up top and plugs into opengl and the android stack on the bottom and have a full porting environment for all those awesome native Linux apps Android users are missing out on!
Gee, your sarcasm is so awesome! Do you work for Google or something? Are you hurt that not everyone is cheering and rooting for Android?
Your choice, dude. Your choice.
Nah, I like to comment on how Google is sidelining real open source projects in favor of their own custom stack.
Android uses the Linux kernel much in the same way TiVO does. The reason Android picked Linux before Google bought them was because it's an active kernel with lots of ARM support already in place. But due to how Google uses it the kernel (and due to Android as a whole, the greater open source community) doesn't really benefit.
And regardless of whatever you think, it's more "open source" than any other mobile os.
Shipping, yes. I'd rather see devices running MeeGo, which is a much more standard distribution and encourages work to the core be done upstream instead of behind closed doors (with licenses that permit it to be closed.)
I can understand the left-leaning and socialists among Slashdotters will hate what I just said. But at the end of the day, whatever technological and scientific advance you or I made have to serve human interests. You can't say "I like to do [math|quantum mechanics|machine learning|art|product design|rockets|science fiction|...] because it's fun" without "I".
Easier said than done. First you need to port the kernel forward to 2.6.37 (reference base) and then you need to beg S-E to recompile the video drivers against glibc and make sure they're compatible with Xorg 1.9.
The joys of closed source blobs and utter contempt for pushing drivers and board files upstream.
Most vendors publish (some) of the necessary drivers. However in truly incompetent fashion, they do so by dropping the kernel sources they used for the device. No history, no upstream contribution, just a tarball.
This attitude is heavily encouraged by Google forking permanently from the mainline and not maintaining an upstream of its own, resulting in tons of dead-end drivers for these devices that have to be reworked between Android versions. On top of that, you have the problem that userspace drivers for most video chips are built against Bionic, rendering them unusable on non-Android platforms. This leaves you stuck with software-only for video and no 3D at all.
Sadly there's no guarantee that MeeGo will free us from that, but at least using glibc/Xorg (and eventually Wayland) means that ports of other OSes with full hardware support (including 3D) is more likely, as opposed to now where it's either second-rate via chroot+vnc or software rendering only.
I'm guessing you're talking about not releasing drivers for new versions of an OS, but that doesn't stop custom versions of the old OS.
No. I'm talking about the fact that Android requires changes to the kernel that aren't the same between every revision, and if a newer version of Android requires that kernel then you either have to hack around that dependency or you have to do without whatever required it.
You can't expect the hardware manufacturer to provide support forever.
Which is totally irrelevant to the point I made in this post, and relevant to a different one where I said they should put up the effort to get their board support file and drivers in the upstream, which means users could possibly support themselves. This is about Motorola's anti-modder efforts which forces you to be dependent upon them.
Have Motorola made a habit of not providing upgrades for their devices?
Many of their devices have received none. Some got versions of Android from a year prior. And regardless, when Motorola decides to stop supporting your device, you're shit out of luck and should buy a new one like a good consumer should.
The blog just explains how to do something that people have been doing for years - rooting/reflashing your phone with 3rd party tools. I've done this on several phones. They can't stop it happening.
Sure they can. All they have to do is what Motorola did, and while they can't stop you from rooting your phone, they can make real upgrades impossible. All it requires is for Android to be dependent on some new kernel feature, and suddenly you're forced to either do nasty workarounds or do without.
Sony-Ericsson is almost completely unrelated to SCEI. They are in many ways just as clueless (though nowhere near as malicious, apparently.)
Now if only hardware developers would start pushing their board files and drivers upstream in Linux so that porting NEW kernels to hardware wouldn't be such a bitch. Too bad Google doesn't encourage that.
It's slow on the N900 due to the dearth of RAM. 256MB total, with notably less free on boot. You're instantly in a paging situation once the browser is up and running due to its memory usage.
With 512MB of RAM it's quite nice, and does so well on the Nook Color I'm currently attempting to shove MeeGo 1.2 on.
You keep saying that word - freedom - but it does not mean what you think it means.
So freedom only means what YOU think it means?
The GPL is about asserting control over derivative works.
YES, that's what copyright is all about. And you must ACTIVELY AGREE TO IT.
It provides the illusion of freedom, but the source code is not actually free. If it was free, there wouldn't be any restrictions at all.
The source code is free. It cannot legally be reduced to a closed source binary, or serve as the essential underpinning of a closed source binary (unless it's LGPL.) The GPL is very deliberately ensuring that you can't pull the wool over the eyes of anyone you give the software to.
To say "the GPL protects the freedom of the source code" also implies that if a commercial entity made a derivative work, somehow the original source code is no longer free.
Which is bullshit, because a commercial entity can freely make derivative works. What they must agree to is that to use my software, that I have released under the GPL, they must give the people they distribute to the exact same freedoms I gave them. If they disagree, then they shouldn't use the GPL'd software.
Of course, people who are vehemently anti-GPL are usually only thinking of themselves, and never the people that come after.
If you want to use the GPL because it works for you, that's fine, go right ahead. But don't fool yourself into thinking that it has anything to do with freedom.
Because the greatest freedom is the ability to deny it to others. Got it.
Did you realize that if you develop apps for the iPhone you can install them on your iPhone without jailbreaking it? Without going through the appstore?
If and only if you pay Apple the $99 fee to access the store, and even then it's only for a limited time (never mind distributing it to anyone else.)
Admittedly it does stop some random 3rd person from easily installing code that some other random person wrote that uses undocumented APIs, thus avoiding the problem that Microsoft has experienced ever since Adobe bought so many copies of Charles Petzold's _Undocumented Windows_ back in the day...
Which is totally beside the point, and could be avoided entirely if done in the Android style of not allowing out of store software to be installed without explicitly activating an option. But they don't give you that option. One guess as to why (and I can assure you, it isn't security.)
but it doesn't stop any true tinkerers from tinkering. Script kiddies, but not tinkerers.
Sure it does. Why should anyone be forced to pay $99 for access to the ability to run time-limited software they wrote or built themselves?
Insert "then don't buy it" nonsense. This defective, anti-user, anti-freedom attitude is being pushed hard, and spreading.
My point is the idea that "the GPL protects freedom" is a load of BS. It's just another way to lock down code, it just "looks" free because they make the source available.
Except that's a completely ignorant argument. The GPL protects the freedom of the source code and users who receive the code via a 3rd party. It's only BS to people who approach it with a fundamentally flawed understanding of what it's trying to achieve (or are resentful they can't jack the code.)
Personally, I think you should be proud if any of your code is used by a commercial entity. It means your code is good. But I guess your moral grandstanding is more important than any sort of recognition.
Well, if possibly unattributed, unpaid usage of your code is all you ask, many corporations will happily give that to you. Others have found that companies will happily use GPL'd code and contribute back. And many people think that maintaining an open base of software for computing is important, even moreso these days with extremely user-hostile platforms coming to the fore.
My sentiments as well, it's a good thing if it allows non-tinkerers to safely not tinker, so to speak.
But it also bars those who wish to tinker from ever doing so, for the sole reason of padding their profit margins.
It's really not that much different from the "Women's Volvo" idea that Volvo toyed around with at one time, where you'd only fill up fuel and wind screen wiper fluid and actually couldn't open the bonnet even if you wanted to. But why would you want to, if you're just using it to get from A to B? If you're a tinkerer, get a more tinker-friendly car.
Mostly, welding the hood shut is intended to force you to visit the vendor rather than any 3rd party. Stripping you of one freedom and getting you to accept it just means they'll see it fit to take away more in the future.
I can't believe there are people on Slashdot arguing in favor of crippled, DRM'd, locked-down systems.
So sure, Apple is the gatekeeper between the software world and their desktop devices. The App Store is that gate. Apple works diligently to prevent malicious code from entering the App Store, push out software updates, etc. Their system is no longer open / free, and that sucks.
It does, mostly because they would be making the decision for their users and leaving anyone who owned hardware from them out in the cold.
Fortunately, we have Linux, FreeBSD, Windows (although I suspect MS will follow in Apple's footsteps), and a host of other operating systems to turn to if we want software freedom, console login, etc.
If you think that Microsoft and Apple could go totally closed without causing problems for other OSes then I have a bridge to sell you.
That restriction makes it impossible to distribute GPL'd software via the store, since the user must agree to terms that violate the GPL. Same reason GPL software is readily taken down from the iProduct App Store.
Apple shouldn't be forcing arbitrary restrictions on 3rd party software. They should only determine that it meets the quality requirements to be listed.
ECMA standards don't protect you from patent lawsuits. Especially not when the standard is saddled with RAND patents (which virtually guarantee that open source usage is out the window.)
messing, not messaging. Regardless, they don't want you stepping outside the carefully set bounds of the Android OS and they try to enforce it by making you root the system.
The N900, by contrast, is a much more typical Linux system that you can freely enable root access via official methods. Tuning has definitely been needed, but my point against the GP was that I had not seen the latency he talks about in response to phone calls, and why the phone application wasn't loaded 100% of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously haven't looked at the design of the plant. There are 3 layers:
- The outer cosmetic steel box, to keep the weather out
- The inner concrete containment chamber
- The inner steel pressure vessel that houses the actual reaction
The concrete containment chamber is present in virtually every modern reactor, and every Western reactor for the precise reasons we see described today. Lack of a containment chamber is one of the reasons Chernobyl was infinitely worse than anything else, since when the steel pressure vessel exploded it was instantly exposed to the atmosphere.
It does if the person who distributed software to me decided to close the source.
Did I get the source?
The GPL ensures the first, by answering the second.
The BSD path has different freedom, one that can constrict and be denied wholly to people down the line. And yes, charity is an apt word. GPL'd software definitely has a price.
Stunning arrogance.
But the Android kernel's changes seep their way into hardware drivers, thus making them a bitch to port back to the standard kernel.
But the changes don't go the other way, and I doubt it has anything to do with arrogance.
Numbers make it superior, I get it.
Yes, you can. The NDK is a pain in the ass to use though.
Gee, your sarcasm is so awesome! Do you work for Google or something? Are you hurt that not everyone is cheering and rooting for Android?
Nah, I like to comment on how Google is sidelining real open source projects in favor of their own custom stack.
Android uses the Linux kernel much in the same way TiVO does. The reason Android picked Linux before Google bought them was because it's an active kernel with lots of ARM support already in place. But due to how Google uses it the kernel (and due to Android as a whole, the greater open source community) doesn't really benefit.
Shipping, yes. I'd rather see devices running MeeGo, which is a much more standard distribution and encourages work to the core be done upstream instead of behind closed doors (with licenses that permit it to be closed.)
Ayn Rand, are you back from the dead?
Easier said than done. First you need to port the kernel forward to 2.6.37 (reference base) and then you need to beg S-E to recompile the video drivers against glibc and make sure they're compatible with Xorg 1.9.
The joys of closed source blobs and utter contempt for pushing drivers and board files upstream.
Most vendors publish (some) of the necessary drivers. However in truly incompetent fashion, they do so by dropping the kernel sources they used for the device. No history, no upstream contribution, just a tarball.
This attitude is heavily encouraged by Google forking permanently from the mainline and not maintaining an upstream of its own, resulting in tons of dead-end drivers for these devices that have to be reworked between Android versions. On top of that, you have the problem that userspace drivers for most video chips are built against Bionic, rendering them unusable on non-Android platforms. This leaves you stuck with software-only for video and no 3D at all.
Sadly there's no guarantee that MeeGo will free us from that, but at least using glibc/Xorg (and eventually Wayland) means that ports of other OSes with full hardware support (including 3D) is more likely, as opposed to now where it's either second-rate via chroot+vnc or software rendering only.
No. I'm talking about the fact that Android requires changes to the kernel that aren't the same between every revision, and if a newer version of Android requires that kernel then you either have to hack around that dependency or you have to do without whatever required it.
Which is totally irrelevant to the point I made in this post, and relevant to a different one where I said they should put up the effort to get their board support file and drivers in the upstream, which means users could possibly support themselves. This is about Motorola's anti-modder efforts which forces you to be dependent upon them.
Many of their devices have received none. Some got versions of Android from a year prior. And regardless, when Motorola decides to stop supporting your device, you're shit out of luck and should buy a new one like a good consumer should.
Sure they can. All they have to do is what Motorola did, and while they can't stop you from rooting your phone, they can make real upgrades impossible. All it requires is for Android to be dependent on some new kernel feature, and suddenly you're forced to either do nasty workarounds or do without.
Most smartphones, when sold off contract, cost that much. Even in Europe.
No, they aren't actually worth that much but that seems to be the sustainable price for unlocked devices.
Sony-Ericsson is almost completely unrelated to SCEI. They are in many ways just as clueless (though nowhere near as malicious, apparently.)
Now if only hardware developers would start pushing their board files and drivers upstream in Linux so that porting NEW kernels to hardware wouldn't be such a bitch. Too bad Google doesn't encourage that.
The N900, and most modern smartphones, are much more than just cellphones.
You can still get cellphones with less than 32MB of RAM, they just don't do much.
It's slow on the N900 due to the dearth of RAM. 256MB total, with notably less free on boot. You're instantly in a paging situation once the browser is up and running due to its memory usage.
With 512MB of RAM it's quite nice, and does so well on the Nook Color I'm currently attempting to shove MeeGo 1.2 on.
So freedom only means what YOU think it means?
YES, that's what copyright is all about. And you must ACTIVELY AGREE TO IT.
The source code is free. It cannot legally be reduced to a closed source binary, or serve as the essential underpinning of a closed source binary (unless it's LGPL.) The GPL is very deliberately ensuring that you can't pull the wool over the eyes of anyone you give the software to.
Which is bullshit, because a commercial entity can freely make derivative works. What they must agree to is that to use my software, that I have released under the GPL, they must give the people they distribute to the exact same freedoms I gave them. If they disagree, then they shouldn't use the GPL'd software.
Of course, people who are vehemently anti-GPL are usually only thinking of themselves, and never the people that come after.
Because the greatest freedom is the ability to deny it to others. Got it.
If and only if you pay Apple the $99 fee to access the store, and even then it's only for a limited time (never mind distributing it to anyone else.)
Which is totally beside the point, and could be avoided entirely if done in the Android style of not allowing out of store software to be installed without explicitly activating an option. But they don't give you that option. One guess as to why (and I can assure you, it isn't security.)
Sure it does. Why should anyone be forced to pay $99 for access to the ability to run time-limited software they wrote or built themselves?
Insert "then don't buy it" nonsense. This defective, anti-user, anti-freedom attitude is being pushed hard, and spreading.
Except that's a completely ignorant argument. The GPL protects the freedom of the source code and users who receive the code via a 3rd party. It's only BS to people who approach it with a fundamentally flawed understanding of what it's trying to achieve (or are resentful they can't jack the code.)
Well, if possibly unattributed, unpaid usage of your code is all you ask, many corporations will happily give that to you. Others have found that companies will happily use GPL'd code and contribute back. And many people think that maintaining an open base of software for computing is important, even moreso these days with extremely user-hostile platforms coming to the fore.
But it also bars those who wish to tinker from ever doing so, for the sole reason of padding their profit margins.
Mostly, welding the hood shut is intended to force you to visit the vendor rather than any 3rd party. Stripping you of one freedom and getting you to accept it just means they'll see it fit to take away more in the future.
I can't believe there are people on Slashdot arguing in favor of crippled, DRM'd, locked-down systems.
It does, mostly because they would be making the decision for their users and leaving anyone who owned hardware from them out in the cold.
If you think that Microsoft and Apple could go totally closed without causing problems for other OSes then I have a bridge to sell you.
I'm sure larger vendors like Adobe and Microsoft can get special deals unavailable to others.
That restriction makes it impossible to distribute GPL'd software via the store, since the user must agree to terms that violate the GPL. Same reason GPL software is readily taken down from the iProduct App Store.
Apple shouldn't be forcing arbitrary restrictions on 3rd party software. They should only determine that it meets the quality requirements to be listed.
Slashdot isn't neutral. It never has been.
Except he said nothing about Java whatsoever. Why do you (and the first person to reply) insist on stuffing words in other people's mouths?
ECMA standards don't protect you from patent lawsuits. Especially not when the standard is saddled with RAND patents (which virtually guarantee that open source usage is out the window.)
Indeed, it would be better to live in perpetual ignorance. We can trust the Government and Corporations to rule us fairly.
messing, not messaging. Regardless, they don't want you stepping outside the carefully set bounds of the Android OS and they try to enforce it by making you root the system.
The N900, by contrast, is a much more typical Linux system that you can freely enable root access via official methods. Tuning has definitely been needed, but my point against the GP was that I had not seen the latency he talks about in response to phone calls, and why the phone application wasn't loaded 100% of the time.