Apple's entire business model is based on hardware/software integration. It won't survive without the hardware.
Apple is like Sun in the consumer market. Sun sells both hardware and software, and it went down to the toilet (although an expensive one: 7 billion dollars!) when their hardware could no longer compete with the cheap PCs.
The key point here is that cell phones are never considered an open platform. But with the market of smart phones grows, Apple is setting a bad precedent by its AppStore that the phone vendor can have total control over the device.
Think about PC or Mac. If any hardware vendor (Dell, Apple) or OS vendor (MS, Apple) or network service provider (Comcast) wanted to do that (controlling what applications can run), it'd be considered absurdly insane. But why are phones different? It should not, esepcially when cell phones are gaining power and becoming a generic computing platform.
I am not a heavy phone user. I never bothered with a data plan. I pay $40 per month for a minimal voice plan. Most of the time I'm with my laptop, so I don't pay extra for those features. It's also the most important reason I never bothered with an iphone.
But it could change. I'd be interested in getting all those if the fee is reasonable. But it is not. So I don't use those features. I think I am not alone. On the other hand the mobile market needs more people to use these features, which would boom related technology (software/hardware) innovations. In the end, the country loses.
[quote]has it been factually established that emacs code was not doing something broken and just "getting lucky" until now?[/quote]
And it's irrelevant. The entire point is not to blame emacs. Yes, yes, technically speaking, it *might* be better to fix emacs, but the fact remains that the kernel broke a widely deployed application. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. And even if the emacs should be fixed, it can't be done over night. Sometimes the kernel has to bent over and keep buggy behavior if someone important actually depends on it. It's just the job of a kernel: to keep applications happy.
So Linus was frustrated because he wanted Alan to acknowledge the sentiment. But Alan kept arguing something totally irrelevant.
The argument started when someone found the tty layer had a regression. Linus cares about regression deeply. His basic philosophy is old bug is better than new bug. If a fix introduces a new bug that breaks a real world application, then the fix should be reverted and a better fix should be worked out.
This ensures predictable behavior of an OS that you can actually rely on, and better release management.
Alan didn't think so. He thought his fix was too important to be backed out, although it introduced a regression. Linus was frustrated that he had to explain to Alan, a long time Linux hacker, about the rules. And that's where Alan got impatient too.
You don't have to trust Microsoft. That doesn't mean you can't trust their code. That's the whole point of GPL and open source: you don't need to trust who wrote it. Once it's contributed, it's not owned by Microsoft anymore.
Imagine Bush were going to read the novel from his Kindle at an elementary school..I wonder what his facial reaction would be when he couldn't find the book. Must be very confused.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Would Palm give up on that name?
Now all three heads are tilting in the same direction, finally.
Apple's entire business model is based on hardware/software integration. It won't survive without the hardware.
Apple is like Sun in the consumer market. Sun sells both hardware and software, and it went down to the toilet (although an expensive one: 7 billion dollars!) when their hardware could no longer compete with the cheap PCs.
The key point here is that cell phones are never considered an open platform. But with the market of smart phones grows, Apple is setting a bad precedent by its AppStore that the phone vendor can have total control over the device.
Think about PC or Mac. If any hardware vendor (Dell, Apple) or OS vendor (MS, Apple) or network service provider (Comcast) wanted to do that (controlling what applications can run), it'd be considered absurdly insane. But why are phones different? It should not, esepcially when cell phones are gaining power and becoming a generic computing platform.
It was called DOS.
Well I guess the compilers/CPU architecture have advanced enough that some of your old experience doesn't apply anymore.
I am not a heavy phone user. I never bothered with a data plan. I pay $40 per month for a minimal voice plan. Most of the time I'm with my laptop, so I don't pay extra for those features. It's also the most important reason I never bothered with an iphone.
But it could change. I'd be interested in getting all those if the fee is reasonable. But it is not. So I don't use those features. I think I am not alone. On the other hand the mobile market needs more people to use these features, which would boom related technology (software/hardware) innovations. In the end, the country loses.
Yeah, like that would solve all the problems.
Your father was simply downloading porn through p2p.
nothing more to say
Agreed. I could not stand the stupidity of the update.
Now it keeps popping up to my face crying for an update. I said OK go ahead, and it vanished. Then half an hour later it popped up again.
I cannot believe how stupid Adobe Update is. Same thing happened before, now it's happening again.
Or you just need a better keyboard.
[quote]has it been factually established that emacs code was not doing something broken and just "getting lucky" until now?[/quote]
And it's irrelevant. The entire point is not to blame emacs. Yes, yes, technically speaking, it *might* be better to fix emacs, but the fact remains that the kernel broke a widely deployed application. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. And even if the emacs should be fixed, it can't be done over night. Sometimes the kernel has to bent over and keep buggy behavior if someone important actually depends on it. It's just the job of a kernel: to keep applications happy.
So Linus was frustrated because he wanted Alan to acknowledge the sentiment. But Alan kept arguing something totally irrelevant.
As always.
The argument started when someone found the tty layer had a regression. Linus cares about regression deeply. His basic philosophy is old bug is better than new bug. If a fix introduces a new bug that breaks a real world application, then the fix should be reverted and a better fix should be worked out.
This ensures predictable behavior of an OS that you can actually rely on, and better release management.
Alan didn't think so. He thought his fix was too important to be backed out, although it introduced a regression. Linus was frustrated that he had to explain to Alan, a long time Linux hacker, about the rules. And that's where Alan got impatient too.
until it was slashdotted. Now Alan couldn't come back could he?
Get over it. Linus was right. Let's not discriminate code based on who contributed it.
Now it smells like "We don't need no fucking Microsoft code" now. So we accept it, and then discredit Microsoft.
I think it shows more confidence if we just treat it based on technical merits without spreading FUD.
You don't have to trust Microsoft. That doesn't mean you can't trust their code. That's the whole point of GPL and open source: you don't need to trust who wrote it. Once it's contributed, it's not owned by Microsoft anymore.
..by Kindle.
Your data is not safe with us -- Kindle.
Imagine Bush were going to read the novel from his Kindle at an elementary school..I wonder what his facial reaction would be when he couldn't find the book. Must be very confused. :-)
Agreed. Wait until November. Modern Warfare 2, BioShock 2, on yeah.
Since this will be released as open source, it should make distributing updates a lot easier for the open-source community.
We open source community don't have no F**KING business in binary distribution!
He said "I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it."
So no matter how many of them there were, he was only going to pay one million.
You see, lawyers are really smart.
EU gets the money but looks stupid in the end, and its citizens lose.
Same thing has happened with the federal government.
Seriously, this is no joke. It's called Conflict of Interest.
You can not come up with a website complicated enough to justify an $18 million price tag!
Whoa, slow down. Could you get Google to sell its website to me for that price, please?