Get ready for some scientific testing.
"The Republicans DEFINITELY believe it."
I'm Republican and I'm hard-core atheist. Hypothesis falsified.
More correctly, Republicans (well, what passes for Republicans nowadays) "believe" that it will get them re-elected. And they're right, it probably will.
Hey now!! Don't be slagging on the Apple ][ !! If you gotta pick an old school computer to slag on... try the TRS (Trash) 80.
Hey, I spent several years coding real-time applications for the Apple ][, so I'm not slagging on it. But it's a good example of an older system without anything resembling memory management.
I'll reply here because you chose not to be a coward, but this response applies to the ACs below as well. Apps tend to crash when they are out of resources. Other apps will refuse to start when there are not enough resources to go around. Android has a nasty habit of letting apps hold their state in RAM so they start up quicker next time. To remedy that you visit the RAM tab of the task manager and tap "clear memory" I did this just now and it ended 12 ongoing processes to free up nearly 125MB of RAM.
I think you're having a conceptual problem here. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with having no "free" RAM. You're running a Linux box after all, and that's why you have a memory management subsystem. If there is not sufficient free RAM (or not enough in a contiguous block) for an app to start, the operating system will make space for it by unloading something that isn't currently running. Now, that make take a noticeable amount of time, depending upon the application and machine performance. In any event, every Android app is required to save its state when it is not in the foreground, so it can be restarted either from memory, or from the filesystem, exactly where it left off. It doesn't really matter whether the app is in memory or not, or whether you think you have no free memory... or not. It's the operating system's job to handle that for you. This is not an Apple ][, after all, this is a modern OS that's fully capable of managing its own resources.
Now, if what you're saying is that you're having stability or performance issues, odds are you have a misbehaving application (or a broken background service.) But that's not an operating system issue. Find out what's causing the problem and bug the dev to fix it. I don't know what kind of device you have, but I suppose it's possible that it doesn't have enough RAM to do what you want of it.
On more recent Android versions, simply long pressing the home button will bring up a list of in ram apps. From there they can be closed easily. Note that Android will tell apps to clear out once the ram gets tight (starting with the least used ones), but the process of doing so will be less than instant.
I run Cyanogenmod, and a long-press on the back button can be configured to kill the current task. Mostly I use that not for memory management per se, but as a convenient way to kill an unresponsive app (sometimes the OS doesn't notice and offer to force close.)
Android has a nasty habit of letting apps hold their state in RAM so they start up quicker next time.
1) It's not "nasty".
2) It's not "so they start up quicker", it's so they don't need to start again in the first place.
3) The system will automatically kill background apps in this state if there's not enough memory to go round.
When I owned a Motorola Droid, there were several times when I had to remove the battery to recover from the phone completely locking up.
I don't have that option with my iPhone, but fortunately I haven't had the phone crash.
That's Motorola. If you want a stable phone, try an HTC next time. I still have a G2 I bought a couple of years ago and it's never locked up (except once when I flashed the wrong firmware, but that was my fault.) And I overclock the thing from the stock 800 Mhz. to 1.2 Ghz with no problems.
I would be very interest to see the impact of jailbreaking in this analysis. Do apps crash more often on jailbroken devices? How does it compare between Android and iOS?
One of the main argument for closed down system, putting aside the money factor which no one gives as an official reason, is stability. I do not believe stability is considerably affected by jailbreaking or by the subsequent modification one could do to the OS, but it would be nice to have statistics and some analysis on this.
Depends. In the Apple world, "jailbreaking" is simply to allow users access to system services and data that they would otherwise be prevented from using. In the Android world, "rooting" is primarily to permit the installation of third-party firmware, something which Apple would never permit since iOS is closed-source anyway.
It's been my experience that some of the better alternate ROMs out there are substantially more stable, and have fewer runtime issues, than the stock firmware provided by Google or the carriers. I didn't see any reference to that in the Crittercism data. My personal favorite, for some years now, had been Cyanogenmod. Their current release is still Gingerbread, but they're working on a ICS release. I'm hoping it will be soon. The thing is, the "many eyes" principle works very well in open source projects like this, especially when the eyes are as talented and capable as Steve Kondik and his crew: Android is a much better, faster, more stable product because of them.
but I know many people who found, when they get a smartphone, that its main purpose is NOT to make calls.
That is so true. And let's not forget that, at least in Android's case, there's a built-in SIP stack so you can make cheap data calls. Of course, you could also run Skype on Android and iOS. There are a couple of VoIP providers (I understand that VOIPO is one) that let you use your SIP credential on your phone. In any event, even if your main thing is making voice calls, a smartphone can help save you money there.
Yep, as far as they're concerned, the job's not done until the internet is dead, dead, dead, DEAD! Or at least, all this "streaming" and "buying online" nonsense is stopped, and we are again forced to purchase silver discs at inflated prices, and only watch TV shows on the schedule the networks set. And oh, by the way, any recording device is like the Boston Strangler to the media it can record....
Yes. They never were in the entertainment business anyway. It was the shiny plastic disc business. And you're right, they want that back at all costs. They're... comfortable with that.
Of course, the fact that nobody else wants what they have to offer should be of some concern to them. But it won't have to be, if they can just nail down the Internet.
How do you define when a fucking asshole like you takes the life of an innocent animal just for fun? Wouldn't it be awesome if all your kids died due to an "accidental killing" because one of the assholes you go hunting with made a mistake and blew up their heads with a shotgun? I hope you die of the most painful cancer possible, you fucking piece of shit.
*** KERNEL_PANIC: content evaluation subsystem failure. WARNING: previous output may contain errors. This error cannot be recovered. ***
Or are we really heading for a legal system in which a big company with lots of legal funds can shut down the little guys by simply making fraudulent infringement claims (and maybe say "Oopsie!" if they're proved wrong l-)?
They played their hand right here. It isnt about actual harm its about control
'.' RIAA also says it's 'virtually impossible' to prove that a site infringed willfully, as OPEN requires."
what this tells me (we already know this here) is that it was never about protecting artists, it was never about doing the right thing, it was always about control
Yep. It's pellucidly clear at this point that they're less concerned about absolute profit and the "rights of artists", and more concerned about absolute control of content distribution. It doesn't even matter if they hold the rights to a particular work or not: they feel entitled to control where and how it is viewed, played or read, and to be in charge of (*cough*) revenue distribution (I use the term loosely.) A few years ago, one record company executive complained that Steve Jobs and Apple Computer were being selfish by keeping the profits from iPod sales. He said he was "still waiting for Apple to share out some of the profits from iPod sales." This on top of the fact that they were already receiving the lion's share of iTunes music sales, and making more money than ever before: why the man's head didn't explode on the spot still amazes me. Translating music-industry speak into a real language, it comes out more like this: "You stole our control of content distribution, you bastard, and we don't like that, so you should compensate us handsomely for it." Yeah, sure. Whatever you want to say about Jobs, he knew how to play hardball with the music industry.
Fact is, they've never forgiven the scientists and engineers of this world for many things... the player piano, audio tape recording, the VCR, writeable optical media, DAT, flash memory, general-purpose computing and, of course, the Internet. Anything, a n y t h i n g, that they perceive as a threat they attempt to destroy, even though they've ultimately made billions on those technologies that they failed to suppress (such as the VCR.) You'd think their stockholders would have picked upon on that by now, and risen up to slay them. Regardless, given the opportunity the sociopathic Luddo-freaks running the entertainment companies of the world would eliminate most of the technological advances in consumer electronics for the past hundred years. They would do so in a heartbeat, with a grand sense of entitlement that would make lifetime welfare recipients look positively progressive.
The other problem with the content cartels and front organizations like the RIAA (well, one of many) is that they a. lie at every opportunity and b. have cried wolf so many times, for so little reason, that anyone with even half a functioning cerebral cortex will dismiss anything they say as the ravings of the psychotic weasels that they truly are. And I mean that sincerely: any individual or group that is willing to cause so much damage to legal systems around the world, to risk disrupting the greatest asset to modern civilization, the Internet itself, should be given a very public psych evaluation. Then they should be locked up until they realize how unimportant they truly are in the overall scheme of things. And then... well, at that point they should probably be taken out back and shot.
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." -- Jack Valenti, 1982 For decades Jack was the voice other Motion Picture Association of America. He led the charge to get the VCR made illegal.
When that man died and was undoubtedly cast straight down into the Pit I, for one, didn't shed many tears. Unfortunately, not much has changed since then either, other than that they've infiltrated more governments around the world... different people, same mindset.
Actually, they're called "tariffs". We used to have them, China has them, Japan has them, Brazil has them. All intelligently-managed industrial nations have them, as a defensive measure against predatory foreign competition. Japan and China successfully lobbied to have our tariff structure destroyed, and they pretty much walked over us after that.
And maybe the more experienced people indeed do have to consider lowering their sights.
Or maybe (just maybe) employers and government officials should stop stabbing them in the back... because that is precisely what they've been doing. And as America's decline from the pre-eminent industrial power to another third-world outfit looking for a handout continues, you'll eventually begin to understand what I mean. Sometimes you do have to take care of your own.
Yes, but is the experience worth an extra $90,000 a year? The value of experience usually hits a plateau, but workers still want wages to continue increasing.
Yes, and it's worth a hell of a lot more than that in most cases.
See, what you (and many, many shortsighted corporate HR types) are overlooking is this: it's not just the individual's expertise in his particular field that should be counted. Contrary to popular belief, engineers cannot just be dropped into any situation based upon their resume, plugged in, and rationally be expected to be highly productive. There's a reason for that: an engineer's specific knowledge of his organization, its products, and its operations is often far more important than the nominal technical skills he picked up in school. Such intimate knowledge can take many, many years to acquire, and simply cannot be replaced at the drop of a hat. You also have to account for the relationships that engineers build with both suppliers and customers: that rapport is an often vital aspect of engineering and can make the difference between a profitable project or an abysmal failure. Engineering staff that customers come to trust are an important part of retaining said customers. And again, that takes time, and if you want your engineers to stick around long enough to do all that, you have to treat them with some respect as well.
Smart managers will, as their senior people begin to age and head towards retirement, bring in a younger engineer or two and have them work hand-in-hand with the older staff until they're capable of picking up the load. That takes time, it takes an investment in people, and salary/benefits are actually the least important part of the equation.
Frankly, all this focus on transient workers (which is all your average H-1B is, when you get right down to it... most aren't here for the long haul) and salary leaves out of the discussion an engineer or technical person's actual value. That's a lot harder for your typical cost-cutting "efficiency" type to pin down, so they use simple-minded metrics such as salary. And you know what? That kind of thinking has cost American business a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
When I get in my car and turn on the key, the car has no choice in the matter.
I've owned cars that would disagree with you on that score.
We are now a Harptatorship.
Or is it a Dickharpership?
Why the focus solely on young people? I see plenty of so-called "adults" that are texting and jabbering incessantly behind the wheel.
Get ready for some scientific testing. "The Republicans DEFINITELY believe it." I'm Republican and I'm hard-core atheist. Hypothesis falsified.
More correctly, Republicans (well, what passes for Republicans nowadays) "believe" that it will get them re-elected. And they're right, it probably will.
Hey now!! Don't be slagging on the Apple ][ !! If you gotta pick an old school computer to slag on ... try the TRS (Trash) 80.
Hey, I spent several years coding real-time applications for the Apple ][, so I'm not slagging on it. But it's a good example of an older system without anything resembling memory management.
I'll reply here because you chose not to be a coward, but this response applies to the ACs below as well. Apps tend to crash when they are out of resources. Other apps will refuse to start when there are not enough resources to go around. Android has a nasty habit of letting apps hold their state in RAM so they start up quicker next time. To remedy that you visit the RAM tab of the task manager and tap "clear memory" I did this just now and it ended 12 ongoing processes to free up nearly 125MB of RAM.
I think you're having a conceptual problem here. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with having no "free" RAM. You're running a Linux box after all, and that's why you have a memory management subsystem. If there is not sufficient free RAM (or not enough in a contiguous block) for an app to start, the operating system will make space for it by unloading something that isn't currently running. Now, that make take a noticeable amount of time, depending upon the application and machine performance. In any event, every Android app is required to save its state when it is not in the foreground, so it can be restarted either from memory, or from the filesystem, exactly where it left off. It doesn't really matter whether the app is in memory or not, or whether you think you have no free memory ... or not. It's the operating system's job to handle that for you. This is not an Apple ][, after all, this is a modern OS that's fully capable of managing its own resources.
Now, if what you're saying is that you're having stability or performance issues, odds are you have a misbehaving application (or a broken background service.) But that's not an operating system issue. Find out what's causing the problem and bug the dev to fix it. I don't know what kind of device you have, but I suppose it's possible that it doesn't have enough RAM to do what you want of it.
On more recent Android versions, simply long pressing the home button will bring up a list of in ram apps. From there they can be closed easily. Note that Android will tell apps to clear out once the ram gets tight (starting with the least used ones), but the process of doing so will be less than instant.
I run Cyanogenmod, and a long-press on the back button can be configured to kill the current task. Mostly I use that not for memory management per se, but as a convenient way to kill an unresponsive app (sometimes the OS doesn't notice and offer to force close.)
Android has a nasty habit of letting apps hold their state in RAM so they start up quicker next time.
1) It's not "nasty". 2) It's not "so they start up quicker", it's so they don't need to start again in the first place. 3) The system will automatically kill background apps in this state if there's not enough memory to go round.
If I had mod points ... but I don't.
Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie said it best. Every OS Sucks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPRvc2UMeMI
A friend of mine who used to be a car mechanic said something similar once: "All cars are garbage."
When I owned a Motorola Droid, there were several times when I had to remove the battery to recover from the phone completely locking up.
I don't have that option with my iPhone, but fortunately I haven't had the phone crash.
That's Motorola. If you want a stable phone, try an HTC next time. I still have a G2 I bought a couple of years ago and it's never locked up (except once when I flashed the wrong firmware, but that was my fault.) And I overclock the thing from the stock 800 Mhz. to 1.2 Ghz with no problems.
I would be very interest to see the impact of jailbreaking in this analysis. Do apps crash more often on jailbroken devices? How does it compare between Android and iOS?
One of the main argument for closed down system, putting aside the money factor which no one gives as an official reason, is stability. I do not believe stability is considerably affected by jailbreaking or by the subsequent modification one could do to the OS, but it would be nice to have statistics and some analysis on this.
Depends. In the Apple world, "jailbreaking" is simply to allow users access to system services and data that they would otherwise be prevented from using. In the Android world, "rooting" is primarily to permit the installation of third-party firmware, something which Apple would never permit since iOS is closed-source anyway.
It's been my experience that some of the better alternate ROMs out there are substantially more stable, and have fewer runtime issues, than the stock firmware provided by Google or the carriers. I didn't see any reference to that in the Crittercism data. My personal favorite, for some years now, had been Cyanogenmod. Their current release is still Gingerbread, but they're working on a ICS release. I'm hoping it will be soon. The thing is, the "many eyes" principle works very well in open source projects like this, especially when the eyes are as talented and capable as Steve Kondik and his crew: Android is a much better, faster, more stable product because of them.
I dunno how iOS works, but on the Android platform the user has to clear RAM manually.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you probably don't know how Android works either.
In the role of User, I don't give a flying fuck why Windows crashes more than Linux. All I know is that it does.
A User? A User! Hey guys, we got a User here! Which one of you let him in?
but I know many people who found, when they get a smartphone, that its main purpose is NOT to make calls.
That is so true. And let's not forget that, at least in Android's case, there's a built-in SIP stack so you can make cheap data calls. Of course, you could also run Skype on Android and iOS. There are a couple of VoIP providers (I understand that VOIPO is one) that let you use your SIP credential on your phone. In any event, even if your main thing is making voice calls, a smartphone can help save you money there.
and this is what I object to. (I apologize for ending this sentence with a preposition.)
"and it is to this that I object." Is that better?
Yep, as far as they're concerned, the job's not done until the internet is dead, dead, dead, DEAD! Or at least, all this "streaming" and "buying online" nonsense is stopped, and we are again forced to purchase silver discs at inflated prices, and only watch TV shows on the schedule the networks set. And oh, by the way, any recording device is like the Boston Strangler to the media it can record....
Yes. They never were in the entertainment business anyway. It was the shiny plastic disc business. And you're right, they want that back at all costs. They're ... comfortable with that.
Of course, the fact that nobody else wants what they have to offer should be of some concern to them. But it won't have to be, if they can just nail down the Internet.
How do you define when a fucking asshole like you takes the life of an innocent animal just for fun? Wouldn't it be awesome if all your kids died due to an "accidental killing" because one of the assholes you go hunting with made a mistake and blew up their heads with a shotgun? I hope you die of the most painful cancer possible, you fucking piece of shit.
*** KERNEL_PANIC: content evaluation subsystem failure. WARNING: previous output may contain errors. This error cannot be recovered. ***
*** SYSTEM_HALTED @ 14:05:03 ***
Or are we really heading for a legal system in which a big company with lots of legal funds can shut down the little guys by simply making fraudulent infringement claims (and maybe say "Oopsie!" if they're proved wrong l-)?
You mean like Vivendi and Youtube?
Not just apes but "Damn Dirty Apes!!"
Yes indeed, with sticky paws even.
They played their hand right here. It isnt about actual harm its about control '.' RIAA also says it's 'virtually impossible' to prove that a site infringed willfully, as OPEN requires." what this tells me (we already know this here) is that it was never about protecting artists, it was never about doing the right thing, it was always about control
Yep. It's pellucidly clear at this point that they're less concerned about absolute profit and the "rights of artists", and more concerned about absolute control of content distribution. It doesn't even matter if they hold the rights to a particular work or not: they feel entitled to control where and how it is viewed, played or read, and to be in charge of (*cough*) revenue distribution (I use the term loosely.) A few years ago, one record company executive complained that Steve Jobs and Apple Computer were being selfish by keeping the profits from iPod sales. He said he was "still waiting for Apple to share out some of the profits from iPod sales." This on top of the fact that they were already receiving the lion's share of iTunes music sales, and making more money than ever before: why the man's head didn't explode on the spot still amazes me. Translating music-industry speak into a real language, it comes out more like this: "You stole our control of content distribution, you bastard, and we don't like that, so you should compensate us handsomely for it." Yeah, sure. Whatever you want to say about Jobs, he knew how to play hardball with the music industry.
... the player piano, audio tape recording, the VCR, writeable optical media, DAT, flash memory, general-purpose computing and, of course, the Internet. Anything, a n y t h i n g, that they perceive as a threat they attempt to destroy, even though they've ultimately made billions on those technologies that they failed to suppress (such as the VCR.) You'd think their stockholders would have picked upon on that by now, and risen up to slay them. Regardless, given the opportunity the sociopathic Luddo-freaks running the entertainment companies of the world would eliminate most of the technological advances in consumer electronics for the past hundred years. They would do so in a heartbeat, with a grand sense of entitlement that would make lifetime welfare recipients look positively progressive.
... well, at that point they should probably be taken out back and shot.
... different people, same mindset.
Fact is, they've never forgiven the scientists and engineers of this world for many things
The other problem with the content cartels and front organizations like the RIAA (well, one of many) is that they a. lie at every opportunity and b. have cried wolf so many times, for so little reason, that anyone with even half a functioning cerebral cortex will dismiss anything they say as the ravings of the psychotic weasels that they truly are. And I mean that sincerely: any individual or group that is willing to cause so much damage to legal systems around the world, to risk disrupting the greatest asset to modern civilization, the Internet itself, should be given a very public psych evaluation. Then they should be locked up until they realize how unimportant they truly are in the overall scheme of things. And then
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." -- Jack Valenti, 1982 For decades Jack was the voice other Motion Picture Association of America. He led the charge to get the VCR made illegal.
When that man died and was undoubtedly cast straight down into the Pit I, for one, didn't shed many tears. Unfortunately, not much has changed since then either, other than that they've infiltrated more governments around the world
and missing the point entirely while "looking good for his sycophants".
Looking good for his employers who, by the way, are not the American people.
Actually, they're called "tariffs". We used to have them, China has them, Japan has them, Brazil has them. All intelligently-managed industrial nations have them, as a defensive measure against predatory foreign competition. Japan and China successfully lobbied to have our tariff structure destroyed, and they pretty much walked over us after that.
And maybe the more experienced people indeed do have to consider lowering their sights.
Or maybe (just maybe) employers and government officials should stop stabbing them in the back ... because that is precisely what they've been doing. And as America's decline from the pre-eminent industrial power to another third-world outfit looking for a handout continues, you'll eventually begin to understand what I mean. Sometimes you do have to take care of your own.
Figuratively speaking.
I'm not to0 sure about that: I think it might take a few literal attempts to get the point across.
Yes, but is the experience worth an extra $90,000 a year? The value of experience usually hits a plateau, but workers still want wages to continue increasing.
Yes, and it's worth a hell of a lot more than that in most cases.
... most aren't here for the long haul) and salary leaves out of the discussion an engineer or technical person's actual value. That's a lot harder for your typical cost-cutting "efficiency" type to pin down, so they use simple-minded metrics such as salary. And you know what? That kind of thinking has cost American business a lot.
See, what you (and many, many shortsighted corporate HR types) are overlooking is this: it's not just the individual's expertise in his particular field that should be counted. Contrary to popular belief, engineers cannot just be dropped into any situation based upon their resume, plugged in, and rationally be expected to be highly productive. There's a reason for that: an engineer's specific knowledge of his organization, its products, and its operations is often far more important than the nominal technical skills he picked up in school. Such intimate knowledge can take many, many years to acquire, and simply cannot be replaced at the drop of a hat. You also have to account for the relationships that engineers build with both suppliers and customers: that rapport is an often vital aspect of engineering and can make the difference between a profitable project or an abysmal failure. Engineering staff that customers come to trust are an important part of retaining said customers. And again, that takes time, and if you want your engineers to stick around long enough to do all that, you have to treat them with some respect as well.
Smart managers will, as their senior people begin to age and head towards retirement, bring in a younger engineer or two and have them work hand-in-hand with the older staff until they're capable of picking up the load. That takes time, it takes an investment in people, and salary/benefits are actually the least important part of the equation.
Frankly, all this focus on transient workers (which is all your average H-1B is, when you get right down to it