My static IP is served from a DHCP server (which seems like a sensible way to go to me), and as somebody pointed out later in this thread, there are ways to customize your resolv.conf file with NetworkManager hooks. The lazy approach (aka, just use the tools) mostly just works for me these days.
I'm too lazy to change, so when Debian Wheezy shipped with GNOME 3 as default, I just used it. Now I am very comfortable with GNOME 3, and my productivity hasn't suffered. Hooray for laziness! (Oh, and I'm old too.)
I have been using Gnome 3 on Fedora for about a couple years now, and I honestly can't understand why people don't like it.
I completely agree. It took a while to get used to it, but once over that stage, I found that it didn't get in the way of what I was doing at all. The interface is simple and clean.
In terms of batteries causing electronic waste, buying a new battery for an old phone is pretty much the same as receiving a battery with a new phone.
That was my point
Then I missed it. I though that you were arguing for building new phones and batteries, instead of just making batteries for old phones. I still content that buying new batteries to keep old phones going, instead of buying new phones, reduces the total electronic waste.
My point is that good hardware is being thrown away unnecessarily because manufacturers aren't supporting it for its full useful lifetime.
No one is stopping you from putting whatever software you want on a galaxy nexus, unlike phones from other manufacturers.
No argument from me here. Doesn't change the fact that it is bad form of Google not to provide an update the Google Galaxy Nexus.
Battery technology might also improve more rapidly in this scenario.
I don't think having stagnant markets is a great way to boost improve technology.
I disagree. If phones were required to last 5 years, it might encourage an arms race to produce the longest lasting battery, rather than the current scenario, in which manufacturers try to create the phone that can drain the battery the fastest. Consider: Manufacturer 1: my battery gives you 24 hours of high-usage battery life and will last 5 years, versus, Manufacturer 2: my battery gives you 8 hours of high-usage battery life and you will need a new battery after two years. I suspect that a fair number of people would buy a Google Galaxy Nexus today if Google still supported it, or a Google Nexus 4 is Google still sold it.
You do need laws to charge for the true cost of electronic waste through taxes. If you don't pass such a law, some idiot won't charge the tax, giving them a competive edge, eventually resulting in all manufacturers not charging the tax.
In terms of batteries causing electronic waste, buying a new battery for an old phone is pretty much the same as receiving a battery with a new phone. My point is that good hardware is being thrown away unnecessarily because manufacturers aren't supporting it for its full useful lifetime. I still contend that net electronic waste would decreae if people bought a new phone once every five years, rather than once every two years. Battery technology might also improve more rapidly in this scenario.
One could argue quite well for creating laws that require hardware to last a minimum of five years. My primary desktop is an eight year old PC that has had some minor upgrades (memory and hard drive). My laptop is five years old (again, memory and hard drive upgraded). Both run fine. My phone is three years old. Again, it runs fine. If manufacturers supported hardware for longer, people would probably continue using it.
I won't disagree that there is a point at which using old hardware becomes less energy efficient. Cars are an excellent example. However, I think that it would be reasonable to say that a 3 year old phone hasn't hit that point yet. Actually, most newer phones use more energy than older phones, so I don't think that your point is well made with phones. In this case, I suspect that total waste would be reduced by not buying a newer phone.
One can buy replacement batteries that are very reasonably priced (less than $30). From an electronic waste perspective, supporting hardware that is perfectly capable of running newer versions of Android is a socially reasonible thing to do.
I don't get why the sme device drives used with 4.3 can't be used with 4.4. It seems that the device drivers simply need to be compiled for the 4.4 kernel. Is the reason that the souce code for the device drivers is not available to Google?
Depends on your definition of a patch. I tend to think of them as reasonable sized diffs to a code base, but some elements of the industry seem to be moving away from that model. I would say that it is fair to claim that Google has not fixed the problem for the Google Galaxy Nexus (and we can have a seperate discussion about the nature of patches).
BTW, the CyanogenMod port of 4.4 to the Google Galaxy Nexus still has an unresolved problem (http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Known_Issues_page_for_maguro), so yeah, the Google Galaxy Nexus can sort of run 4.4.
You cannot support your claim, because you cannot point me to the commit to the WebView component in the 4.3 code base, i.e., Google has not fixed their product (the Google Galaxy Nexus). According to them, their official position is that they never will.
How is the fucking carrier involved? Google is the manufacturer of this phone (the phone was bough directly from Google though the Google Play Store). The phone has stock Android installed. OS updates come *directly* from Google. The carrier isn't involved in this process at all.
You are wrong. To wit, Google is entirely responsible for patching the Google Galaxy Nexus. The latest release for this device (manufacturered by Google) is 4.3.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt that the new Pixel phones will be used by billions of people daily. Who knows, though.
OMG! Don't forget about the ponies!
And the Galaxy Nexus.
At least on T-Mobile, only carrier ROMs have Wi-Fi calling.
I have T-Mobile and my Nexus 5X has wifi calling.
https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
My static IP is served from a DHCP server (which seems like a sensible way to go to me), and as somebody pointed out later in this thread, there are ways to customize your resolv.conf file with NetworkManager hooks. The lazy approach (aka, just use the tools) mostly just works for me these days.
I haven't been able to convince my multiple monitors not to work with GNOME 3. I guess they are lazy too :-)
I applied the same lazy philosophy with NetworkManager. I simply just started using it. Actually, it improved my life on my laptop.
I'm too lazy to change, so when Debian Wheezy shipped with GNOME 3 as default, I just used it. Now I am very comfortable with GNOME 3, and my productivity hasn't suffered. Hooray for laziness! (Oh, and I'm old too.)
100+ comments, and no mention of Elite?
I have been using Gnome 3 on Fedora for about a couple years now, and I honestly can't understand why people don't like it.
I completely agree. It took a while to get used to it, but once over that stage, I found that it didn't get in the way of what I was doing at all. The interface is simple and clean.
In terms of batteries causing electronic waste, buying a new battery for an old phone is pretty much the same as receiving a battery with a new phone.
That was my point
Then I missed it. I though that you were arguing for building new phones and batteries, instead of just making batteries for old phones. I still content that buying new batteries to keep old phones going, instead of buying new phones, reduces the total electronic waste.
My point is that good hardware is being thrown away unnecessarily because manufacturers aren't supporting it for its full useful lifetime.
No one is stopping you from putting whatever software you want on a galaxy nexus, unlike phones from other manufacturers.
No argument from me here. Doesn't change the fact that it is bad form of Google not to provide an update the Google Galaxy Nexus.
Battery technology might also improve more rapidly in this scenario.
I don't think having stagnant markets is a great way to boost improve technology.
I disagree. If phones were required to last 5 years, it might encourage an arms race to produce the longest lasting battery, rather than the current scenario, in which manufacturers try to create the phone that can drain the battery the fastest. Consider: Manufacturer 1: my battery gives you 24 hours of high-usage battery life and will last 5 years, versus, Manufacturer 2: my battery gives you 8 hours of high-usage battery life and you will need a new battery after two years. I suspect that a fair number of people would buy a Google Galaxy Nexus today if Google still supported it, or a Google Nexus 4 is Google still sold it.
You do need laws to charge for the true cost of electronic waste through taxes. If you don't pass such a law, some idiot won't charge the tax, giving them a competive edge, eventually resulting in all manufacturers not charging the tax.
In terms of batteries causing electronic waste, buying a new battery for an old phone is pretty much the same as receiving a battery with a new phone. My point is that good hardware is being thrown away unnecessarily because manufacturers aren't supporting it for its full useful lifetime. I still contend that net electronic waste would decreae if people bought a new phone once every five years, rather than once every two years. Battery technology might also improve more rapidly in this scenario.
One could argue quite well for creating laws that require hardware to last a minimum of five years. My primary desktop is an eight year old PC that has had some minor upgrades (memory and hard drive). My laptop is five years old (again, memory and hard drive upgraded). Both run fine. My phone is three years old. Again, it runs fine. If manufacturers supported hardware for longer, people would probably continue using it.
I won't disagree that there is a point at which using old hardware becomes less energy efficient. Cars are an excellent example. However, I think that it would be reasonable to say that a 3 year old phone hasn't hit that point yet. Actually, most newer phones use more energy than older phones, so I don't think that your point is well made with phones. In this case, I suspect that total waste would be reduced by not buying a newer phone.
Not to mention that such a move would reduce electronic waste, which only affects relative few people (oh, wait).
One can buy replacement batteries that are very reasonably priced (less than $30). From an electronic waste perspective, supporting hardware that is perfectly capable of running newer versions of Android is a socially reasonible thing to do.
I don't get why the sme device drives used with 4.3 can't be used with 4.4. It seems that the device drivers simply need to be compiled for the 4.4 kernel. Is the reason that the souce code for the device drivers is not available to Google?
Depends on your definition of a patch. I tend to think of them as reasonable sized diffs to a code base, but some elements of the industry seem to be moving away from that model. I would say that it is fair to claim that Google has not fixed the problem for the Google Galaxy Nexus (and we can have a seperate discussion about the nature of patches). BTW, the CyanogenMod port of 4.4 to the Google Galaxy Nexus still has an unresolved problem (http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Known_Issues_page_for_maguro), so yeah, the Google Galaxy Nexus can sort of run 4.4.
And I'm considering putting CyanogenMod on my Galaxy Nexus. BTW, have they ever fixed the camera bug? It is a problem for daily use?
You cannot support your claim, because you cannot point me to the commit to the WebView component in the 4.3 code base, i.e., Google has not fixed their product (the Google Galaxy Nexus). According to them, their official position is that they never will.
How is the fucking carrier involved? Google is the manufacturer of this phone (the phone was bough directly from Google though the Google Play Store). The phone has stock Android installed. OS updates come *directly* from Google. The carrier isn't involved in this process at all.
You are wrong. To wit, Google is entirely responsible for patching the Google Galaxy Nexus. The latest release for this device (manufacturered by Google) is 4.3.
Except, 4.4 has been released by the manufacturer (Google) for the Google Galaxy Nexus, so the patch is certinaly not "there".