1) iOS permission request handling is crude, not granular, and accepts as default and not presented certain basics such as net access.
Permissions which are either not understood by the user, or so numerous that the user stops thinking before accepting are worse than useless. This is Android's problem.
Net access is a fundamental part of most apps these days, any app that wanted to access the net for malicious purposes can easily come up with a legitimate reason for doing so. So such a permission is worse than useless.
As usual, you are stuck with what Apple deigns to expose to the user.
Zero malware on iOS in 2013. 95% of mobile malware was on Android. Apple have got it right.
2) As for the latter, what do you call advertising frameworks and analytics?
There's only one advertising framework, and that's Apple's own iAd. Unless you have any specific examples of spying, I call them advertising and analytics.
You mean the one that required you to have physical contact with the iPhone via the use of a custom charger that didn't look anything like an Apple charger. That required that the attacker purchase one paid developer account at $99 for every 100 device attacks?
That was a concept, not in the wild malware. And the very unpractical nature of it demonstrates how impossible the conventional avenues of attack are on iOS.
So now "loaded" or "confusing" is == to "politically incorrect". Isn't that a bit of a stretch?
Not at all. "Loaded" is exactly the reason why you're not supposed to say "nigger" for example. And "confusing" is only according to the distinctions that matter to RMSs politics. None of those words and phrases are genuinely confusing.
English is ambiguous - when writing it's important to remove that ambiguity, definitely when you are trying to put a complex subject like Software Freedom into the proper context you are trying to convey.
It's not that. It's the same activity as when right wingers say: Don's say "public option" say "government option". Don't say "anti-abotion" say "pro-choice". Don't say "denier" say "skeptic". Don't say "teach intelligent design" say "teach the controversy". etc.
Political correctness is about aboiding potentially inoffensive things because that tends to be bad politically.
That's a rather poorly phrased explanation of why the left use political correctness. But at the end of the day political correctness is listing things that can't be said for political purposes, and offering acceptable alternatives for some of them.
RMSs list is about avoiding terms which are loaded, ambiguous or misleading. His list is merely a suggestion to avoid such terms in discussions.
All also true of the left's political correctness.
You've already brought this up several times in the thread.
This is the first time I mentioned it. Then I saw someone else mentioned political correctness, so it was worth a mention in that context. Two is not "several". Are you also trying to redefine the meaning of words?
It looks to me like you're starting a smear campaign.
It's my theory that any OS that is secure enough not to get malware is secure enough to not allow AV software.
A user shouldn't be able to install software that scans every other file arriving on the computer, and alters or deletes executable files. If they are allowed to, then they will install every item of malware presented to them.
As illustration I give you iOS. An AV scanner is not technically possible (from anyone other than Apple). 2013 malware threats: zero. http://www.forbes.com/sites/go...
Free software is nice and a lot of it is useful and as polished as non-free apps but a lot isn't. In the end, it is neither a better nor worse solution, just a different one.
Any software with a UI tends to be worse when it's FLOSS.
And then there's the other problem that FLOSS software tends to be copied from commercial software. Without commercial software, computing would stagnate. RMS even seems to accept that FLOSS is far slower moving in one of his answers.
Funnily enough RMS has political correctness as one of his beliefs. He mentions his list of politically incorrect words here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...
A competing mobile operating system formalizes this flow in the concept of a ContentProvider.
Android has some features iOS doesn't have. iOS has some features that Android doesn't have many of them being security features. Which is why 97% of mobile malware is on Android and 0% is on iOS (2013 figures).
For one thing, one needs a device that can browse the App Store first.
Only in as much as you'd need a device to download the rules. You certainly don't need a specific device to browse the Apple App store. As to "the potential to do a specific app", sorry but that's not what real users are interested in. If there's no actual app, then it does them no good.
And of course in general they are more likely to find an app that they want on iOS as developers develop first for iOS. And often only for iOS.
So how would the Hulu app or the Netflix app work?
Same way they do now. The server looks at the IP address to decide on region. But the answer to the bigger question you intended to pose I already answered. "Apps are expected to work and do all the functionality that is possible without the resource." They are not expected to do the impossible. If the user has declined a permission, and it's reasonable that the app can;t do anything without that permission, it's OK for it to say so and do no more. Again, that's the value of having a human reviewer - only a human can decide if what an app is doing is reasonable.
I am a human being. Why can't I review apps without paying a recurring fee?
There is no recurring fee to users. As to why Apple don't just abandon the app review system and let any developer upload anything - Android already tried that with the poor result that their platform has 97% of mobile malware. And the app quality is distinctly poorer.
As for the oil subsidies, you provided nothing that disputes my argument. The government does not give money from tax receipts to the oil industry. The government does give tax deductions for various business expenses and practices, just like with every other industry.
Very amusing that you should go so widely off topic. Remember the topic was malware. For which Android has a 97% of the market.
(Also amusing is that in your haste to post, you didn't get the right link for the quote. And that quote was for US only, the following paragraph showing the global data to be virtually flat.)
Seems like you are emotionally invested in Android.
The programmer is of course the first one with access to mining, and could therefore mine coins without competition. It's a known fact that he has a significant percentage of the bitcoins from those early days. If it's a Ponzi scheme, then he is indeed the person at the top that will reap most of the rewards.
Sure, with many Ponzi schemes, those enrolled very early may also make some profit. But far fewer than imagine they will.
Inefficient? Given that EVs are more efficient than ICE vehicles at all speeds why would it need a transmission?
You've taken a nugget of information, that whilst an electric motor's power curve is far flatter than an ICE, it's not completely flat, and then jumped to the conclusion that that means it would benefit from a transmission.
What you've missed is that transmissions have an efficiency cost in themselves, and also weight.
And by trying to be a smart Alec, you've just made yourself look a fool.
Is this why users can't upload text documents created in a word processing app to a web form?
There is no user facing file system to browse.
I would like to know what this app reviewer currently considers to be "bad things", so that I know what applications I won't have any chance of finding in the App Store before I spend $299 plus tax on a device. Unlike Microsoft, which publishes its review guidelines for Windows Store and Windows Phone Store, Apple has chosen to keep this information behind the iOS Developer Program paywall. The widely leaked version of iOS Guidelines is three and a half years old.
Real users who were concerned about this would check out the App Store for whether the apps they were interested in exist.
To what extent does Apple require that applications for iOS remain functional when the user has chosen to deny permission? For example, to what extent does Apple Maps or any other navigation application remain functional when the user has chosen to deny GPS location?
Apps are expected to work and do all the functionality that is possible without the resource. For example Maps will still show you maps. It just doesn't highlight your current location.
You may have expected worse behaviour, but that's because you are an Android user and are accustomed to low quality apps.
This is one of the good reasons for having a human being review apps.
And it's a different category of device. Gaming tends to be a fringe benefit, if they are played at all, rather than the purpose for the PC.
Whilst PCs on totality might have always outsold game comsoles, that's because they are sold for many other purposes other than games. Like business. For sure consoles have massively outsold the dedicated PC gaming rigs.
What's with the attempt at a distraction? Can't you just accept the truth of what's being said? No open games console has ever been successful.
Read back through the thread. I already pointed out that the problem was not with those generic popularity of links algorithms, but the specific storage of search terms and links clicked on for identifiable persons.
I don't know how this is different in IOS-land... Maybe the apps just get that access without anyone knowing? Or maybe someone at the App store decides whether a flashlight app needs access to instant message logs...
First of all ever app operates in it's own sandbox, so no app can access the data of another app. So the scenario you suggest isn't possible on iOS.
Secondly, yes, there's an app reviewer, assisted by automated tools, that's looking for whether your app does bad things.
Thirdly, things such as requesting your location, as in this Swype example, then the OS pops up a dialog asking permission when the app first tries to do it. You can allow it or deny it. And you can change the permission whenever you like via the settings app.
None of these things are true of Android. And that's why last year 97% of mobile malware was on Android, and 0% was on iOS. (The remaining 3% was on Symbian.)
You need to understand that this application is trying to anticipate what you're trying to type before you type it. If you're at a stop&go and you start to type "I'm getting..." your next word might be Gas, Beer or robbed but it's probably not going to be "ready for work" that would be more likely if you were at home.
That's quite a fairy tale you've constructed there to excuse a spyware app on your favoured phone platform.
Slashdot Mirror
1) iOS permission request handling is crude, not granular, and accepts as default and not presented certain basics such as net access.
Permissions which are either not understood by the user, or so numerous that the user stops thinking before accepting are worse than useless. This is Android's problem.
Net access is a fundamental part of most apps these days, any app that wanted to access the net for malicious purposes can easily come up with a legitimate reason for doing so. So such a permission is worse than useless.
As usual, you are stuck with what Apple deigns to expose to the user.
Zero malware on iOS in 2013. 95% of mobile malware was on Android. Apple have got it right.
2) As for the latter, what do you call advertising frameworks and analytics?
There's only one advertising framework, and that's Apple's own iAd. Unless you have any specific examples of spying, I call them advertising and analytics.
You mean the one that required you to have physical contact with the iPhone via the use of a custom charger that didn't look anything like an Apple charger. That required that the attacker purchase one paid developer account at $99 for every 100 device attacks?
That was a concept, not in the wild malware. And the very unpractical nature of it demonstrates how impossible the conventional avenues of attack are on iOS.
So now "loaded" or "confusing" is == to "politically incorrect". Isn't that a bit of a stretch?
Not at all. "Loaded" is exactly the reason why you're not supposed to say "nigger" for example. And "confusing" is only according to the distinctions that matter to RMSs politics. None of those words and phrases are genuinely confusing.
English is ambiguous - when writing it's important to remove that ambiguity, definitely when you are trying to put a complex subject like Software Freedom into the proper context you are trying to convey.
It's not that. It's the same activity as when right wingers say:
Don's say "public option" say "government option".
Don't say "anti-abotion" say "pro-choice".
Don't say "denier" say "skeptic".
Don't say "teach intelligent design" say "teach the controversy". etc.
The opposing political beliefs always look like "bullshit bingo".
Political correctness is about aboiding potentially inoffensive things because that tends to be bad politically.
That's a rather poorly phrased explanation of why the left use political correctness. But at the end of the day political correctness is listing things that can't be said for political purposes, and offering acceptable alternatives for some of them.
RMSs list is about avoiding terms which are loaded, ambiguous or misleading. His list is merely a suggestion to avoid such terms in discussions.
All also true of the left's political correctness.
You've already brought this up several times in the thread.
This is the first time I mentioned it. Then I saw someone else mentioned political correctness, so it was worth a mention in that context. Two is not "several". Are you also trying to redefine the meaning of words?
It looks to me like you're starting a smear campaign.
You're about as intelligent as Clippy.
It's my theory that any OS that is secure enough not to get malware is secure enough to not allow AV software.
A user shouldn't be able to install software that scans every other file arriving on the computer, and alters or deletes executable files. If they are allowed to, then they will install every item of malware presented to them.
As illustration I give you iOS. An AV scanner is not technically possible (from anyone other than Apple). 2013 malware threats: zero.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/go...
Free software is nice and a lot of it is useful and as polished as non-free apps but a lot isn't. In the end, it is neither a better nor worse solution, just a different one.
Any software with a UI tends to be worse when it's FLOSS.
And then there's the other problem that FLOSS software tends to be copied from commercial software. Without commercial software, computing would stagnate. RMS even seems to accept that FLOSS is far slower moving in one of his answers.
More specifically, the monopoly exclusion part of copyright and patent law should be repealed. No more exclusive rights.
So what's the incentive to create works? How is an author paid? No technical support needed for a book, you that red-herring can't be used.
Funnily enough RMS has political correctness as one of his beliefs. He mentions his list of politically incorrect words here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...
RMS mentions his list of words to avoid, with political reasons to avoid them, and sometimes alternative words.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/....
Libertarian political correctness?
A competing mobile operating system formalizes this flow in the concept of a ContentProvider.
Android has some features iOS doesn't have. iOS has some features that Android doesn't have many of them being security features. Which is why 97% of mobile malware is on Android and 0% is on iOS (2013 figures).
For one thing, one needs a device that can browse the App Store first.
Only in as much as you'd need a device to download the rules. You certainly don't need a specific device to browse the Apple App store. As to "the potential to do a specific app", sorry but that's not what real users are interested in. If there's no actual app, then it does them no good.
And of course in general they are more likely to find an app that they want on iOS as developers develop first for iOS. And often only for iOS.
So how would the Hulu app or the Netflix app work?
Same way they do now. The server looks at the IP address to decide on region. But the answer to the bigger question you intended to pose I already answered. "Apps are expected to work and do all the functionality that is possible without the resource." They are not expected to do the impossible. If the user has declined a permission, and it's reasonable that the app can;t do anything without that permission, it's OK for it to say so and do no more. Again, that's the value of having a human reviewer - only a human can decide if what an app is doing is reasonable.
I am a human being. Why can't I review apps without paying a recurring fee?
There is no recurring fee to users. As to why Apple don't just abandon the app review system and let any developer upload anything - Android already tried that with the poor result that their platform has 97% of mobile malware. And the app quality is distinctly poorer.
As for the oil subsidies, you provided nothing that disputes my argument. The government does not give money from tax receipts to the oil industry. The government does give tax deductions for various business expenses and practices, just like with every other industry.
There is no difference between the two.
Very amusing that you should go so widely off topic. Remember the topic was malware. For which Android has a 97% of the market.
(Also amusing is that in your haste to post, you didn't get the right link for the quote. And that quote was for US only, the following paragraph showing the global data to be virtually flat.)
Seems like you are emotionally invested in Android.
The programmer is of course the first one with access to mining, and could therefore mine coins without competition. It's a known fact that he has a significant percentage of the bitcoins from those early days. If it's a Ponzi scheme, then he is indeed the person at the top that will reap most of the rewards.
Sure, with many Ponzi schemes, those enrolled very early may also make some profit. But far fewer than imagine they will.
Inefficient? Given that EVs are more efficient than ICE vehicles at all speeds why would it need a transmission?
You've taken a nugget of information, that whilst an electric motor's power curve is far flatter than an ICE, it's not completely flat, and then jumped to the conclusion that that means it would benefit from a transmission.
What you've missed is that transmissions have an efficiency cost in themselves, and also weight.
And by trying to be a smart Alec, you've just made yourself look a fool.
So bring the vehicle to a stop, or stop the motor? Which?
That is if you actually want an answer rather than just doing a blah blah blah EV blah blah blah unsafe blah blah stop, generic rant.
Because if you theory is that the manufacturers haven't thought about it, and the safety bodies haven't either, then obviously that's not realistic.
Huh? It's surely been falling of late, but it started at an exchange rate of ZERO.
That's the dynamic of a Ponzi scheme, as is the OPs description of who benefits.
For what purpose? (I'm asking because the answer varies depending on what your concern is, not that I can't imagine a reason.)
The cars that I want to drive are EVs. They don't need clutches any more than they need buggy whips.
Is this why users can't upload text documents created in a word processing app to a web form?
There is no user facing file system to browse.
I would like to know what this app reviewer currently considers to be "bad things", so that I know what applications I won't have any chance of finding in the App Store before I spend $299 plus tax on a device. Unlike Microsoft, which publishes its review guidelines for Windows Store and Windows Phone Store, Apple has chosen to keep this information behind the iOS Developer Program paywall. The widely leaked version of iOS Guidelines is three and a half years old.
Real users who were concerned about this would check out the App Store for whether the apps they were interested in exist.
To what extent does Apple require that applications for iOS remain functional when the user has chosen to deny permission? For example, to what extent does Apple Maps or any other navigation application remain functional when the user has chosen to deny GPS location?
Apps are expected to work and do all the functionality that is possible without the resource. For example Maps will still show you maps. It just doesn't highlight your current location.
You may have expected worse behaviour, but that's because you are an Android user and are accustomed to low quality apps.
This is one of the good reasons for having a human being review apps.
Altering permissions after install is standard on iOS. And of course there is no bundled spyware.
Its called PC gaming
And it's a different category of device. Gaming tends to be a fringe benefit, if they are played at all, rather than the purpose for the PC.
Whilst PCs on totality might have always outsold game comsoles, that's because they are sold for many other purposes other than games. Like business. For sure consoles have massively outsold the dedicated PC gaming rigs.
What's with the attempt at a distraction? Can't you just accept the truth of what's being said? No open games console has ever been successful.
Read back through the thread. I already pointed out that the problem was not with those generic popularity of links algorithms, but the specific storage of search terms and links clicked on for identifiable persons.
I don't know how this is different in IOS-land... Maybe the apps just get that access without anyone knowing? Or maybe someone at the App store decides whether a flashlight app needs access to instant message logs ...
First of all ever app operates in it's own sandbox, so no app can access the data of another app. So the scenario you suggest isn't possible on iOS.
Secondly, yes, there's an app reviewer, assisted by automated tools, that's looking for whether your app does bad things.
Thirdly, things such as requesting your location, as in this Swype example, then the OS pops up a dialog asking permission when the app first tries to do it. You can allow it or deny it. And you can change the permission whenever you like via the settings app.
None of these things are true of Android. And that's why last year 97% of mobile malware was on Android, and 0% was on iOS. (The remaining 3% was on Symbian.)
You need to understand that this application is trying to anticipate what you're trying to type before you type it. If you're at a stop&go and you start to type "I'm getting..." your next word might be Gas, Beer or robbed but it's probably not going to be "ready for work" that would be more likely if you were at home.
That's quite a fairy tale you've constructed there to excuse a spyware app on your favoured phone platform.