FF3b5 has a strange JavaScript issue where if you go to a page that runs some kind of combination of JavaScript the entire browser, all running windows of it, will close, no warning and no recovery when you start it again. I saw it happen on a few pages but mostly with gmail. Trying to reply in gmail was almost a certain way to trigger it.
That's very fair. Calling an Android phone a Linux phone is misleading. However Androids goal was to make the cell phone the device it should be, not to make a 'Linux phone'. Linux was a tool not the goal. Java was used because of the things it does right. It's very cross platform and as of late as open as Google would need it to be. Plus the issue of protecting the phone from dumb code can now be done with one interface, the JVM. If the Java byte code being run does something bad it can be stopped before it crashes (or worse, bricks) your phone. It's gonna have problems but letting raw C code run it would have been worse.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?OtherLanguagesForTheJavaVm That page gos in to it a bit more. C is nearly ASM so it's very hard to turn it into a language like Java that is so automatic. I'm sure it can be done but the people who like C see no reason to use something as wasteful as Java and the people who like a Java see no need for this kind of difficult project. "Why translate the C to Java Byte Code when we can just rewrite it in nice portable Java?".
In the end I don't think it is a bigger job then Android just one that has lacked demand until now. As it is I get the feeling that once Android is here a lot of people who were angry that they can't run their favorite C programs on their phone will find reasonable Java equivalents that they did not know existed. I would expect that any that do not exist will be written just for Android. The world has a ton of Java programmers right now.
That's the nice part about running Java on the phone most people don't seem to get. By having the Java wrapper they only have to secure Java from doing anything wrong not try to secure random code that will be running as compiled. Why Java and not C++ or [insert favorite language here]? Because Java came with a wrapper (the JVM) and it's the biggest language right now(This might just sound like me showing a preference but TIOBE backs me up on this. http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html).
yes and no. Remember running Java means you run Java byte code. If you are willing to write a compiler you can turn any language you want in to Java byte code(It might not be nice but it can be done). So the phone should be able to run Python, Ruby, Smalltalk and several others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JVM_Languages
Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
That's all well and good but it has nothing to do what what I just said. I'm not going to, and was not trying to, pretend to know about what kind of security measures Windows has that Linux does not have and vica verca. The point I was making was 1)Linux has had and does have less KNOWN issues. This makes it statistically secure, as opposed to time tested secure as we would like. Even if this is not true it does not matter because...2)No matter who had less issues they only OS they could fix was Linux because it was open. Windows could be near perfect but if they were unable to fix issues that could come up they would have their hands tied. The govt HATES stuff like that. They want to be in control, so they went with Linux. Plus it's clear from what was done they were ready to spend the time and money to make what ever they were using rock solid.
Well at least I know who to call when i'm having problems installing an OS.
In all seriousness I've been there. my best advice is dual boot but set some ground rules on what you permit your self to have in windows(or what ever OS you work best in but want to get off of). Personally I have the "no casual web browsing in windows" rule. Not doing anything that is windows only and want to browse the web? time to reboot. It keeps me in Linux 90% of the time so i (finally!) learned a lot about keeping a Linux system running. It hurt at first but I've gotten to the point where me in Linux is more productive then me in Windows.
Very true. Because of this Java's current market is web sites. I'm not referring to applets but rather JSPs. It runs as a server so the start up time is a non-issue. Since it is being used to generate HTML and not really render anything in the native environment it does not touch the GUI libraries. Because of this is makes an excellent platform for web apps. Off the top of my head I know it's used by ebay and a few banks. It's also the back bone of the Google web toolkit so it's what runs gmail and several other google things. By design it can be written such that you can design a web site so that you can't tell it's running JSPs so it's hard to really tell who is using it.
You make that sound like such a bad thing. A bottle of soda costs like $1.50 it's not like they force it up to $10 and blame it on funding your favorite tv show. It's a symbiotic relationship. The show helps the product sell and the product keeps the show running.
it was only until recently that Teh Lunix became a secure OS
There is no such thing as a secure OS. Security is relative. People have been saying that Linux has less known security holes then Windows. Thus it is more secure. Does this have something to do with Linux not being the top OS? Of course, but that does not change the numbers. Linux is harder to hack.
Your tax dollars at work, fixing a horribly insecure OS.
This was basically work on the internal govt systems, you know the ones that hold all your personal information. They realized that with some work the could make an OS that is more secure then any of the ones they can currently get. Since they could not get their hands on the Windows code Linux was the obvious choice.
I was thinking that having one axis for openness and another for cost might help. Openness could be
1. Public domain (or legal equivalent)
2. Free source
3. Open source
4. Visible source
5. Closed source
and Cost could be
1. Give it away
2. Free version for unlimited time but limited usability
3. Free version for limited time
4. Pay software
So a few examples. Windows is is a O5C4. Rad Hat is a O3C4 or O3C2 if you count Fedora. Ubuntu is a O3C1. Apache is O2C1.
But I think you are more looking for a mobility measurement for the next guy. In that case I guess Windows could be O5C4->X because you can't do anything with it. Firefox would be O3C1->O3C2 because of logo licensing issues. Apache would be O2C1->O2-5C1-4 because your modified version could have stricter rules.
I admit this all looks complex but if you know the system it can get the idea across very quickly. But I might just be over thinking it all...
Kudos on keeping up with the registry (I mean that too. I know how hard it is) But your not a regular Joe. Knowing what the registry is alone elevates you to power user. I never said Windows can't be learned just that it's harder then learning the same amount in *NUX. It's not easy to read but *NUX has guide maps and documentation galore. I've only seen one set of books on the Windows registry and don't think they made it up to XP.
I know allot about Windows but one day I got stuck. I ran out of things to read so I just could not learn any more. I still had problems but there were no places I could go to learn about what caused them. THAT is why I switched to Linux. I was not done learning but Windows was done teaching. I did not want to spend my days poking Windows to learn it's secretes while I could just switch to Linux and keep reading.
Your new limiting point becomes how well known your software is. If it's not well known you need to solve it on your own because no one is gonna do it for you. If it is well known you can sit back and hope that A)It's not a critical issue for you and B)Other people who are bigger masochists then you will handle it.
However if you notice at this point you get no bonus from using closed source. You do get a potential bonus from using payed software(just remember Open source != free as in beer). In the end Open source is a bonus for you even if you never look at the code. I am not calling it a magic bullet and anyone who gos on line posting "It's open source. You figure it out!" is a basically a jerk, but open source only helps when solving problems.
Nothing wrong with you. The learning curve for Linux is HUGE. At first I would do a reinstall at first sign my xorg.conf file was messed up. But now I can handle issues with it. It just takes time to learn the same tricks you know in Windows.
You can pay for support. It's how RedHat and the other big *NIX people make all there money. I don't expect the average Joe to sit and learn how a computer works, or how a car works, or how the economy works, or how there house works...etc but making it easy to learn lowers the cost of your local (DEVICE NAME HERE) fix it guy. So next time mom's computer breaks the PC fix it guy might have learned about that kind of problem on his own and be able to fix it with out hitting mom for a Windows reinstall fee.
Ah but you're missing the trick. In the Open source world if a hand full of people are having a problem it only takes the one masochist to solve it and post the fix on line. Why would he post the fix on line? Any number of reasons, but the 'why' does not matter it only matters that the fix is posted. Windows has the same masochists. They sit there and poke Windows until it bleeds and go 'look what I did!' But with out being able to see the code these very important masochists are crippled and can't gain the same level of information the Linux masochists can.
BlackViper(http://www.blackviper.com/) is one such Windows masochist. He has poked and prodded every windows service so he can figure out what to turn off for a faster PC.
As you (and several others) have hit on; I don't expect the average Joe to do anything but do a fresh reinstall, For any OS. On a personal and professional level (I'm a programmer)however when I am faced with any system that discourages the ability for someone to learn more about it I am quite annoyed. Linux, with all it's bugs and driver support problems, is more usable then Windows for me just because I stand a chance of being able to fix it when something gos wrong.
As a side note due to WGA all it's copy protection the analogy for Windows is more "Your car broke down? Time to buy a new car." Look at some average Joe users and you'll see this is just what they do. The computer in there house is just used to surf the web and look at the occasional word doc but they still need to buy a new PC every few years.
The reason it's so difficult to fix a windows system is because you are encouraged to not understand it. With a more open system you can learn where the system files are that get edited and replace any that begin to cause problems. With Windows however you even try to learn about more complex parts of the system like the registry you are greeted with one page messages telling you "It's important. Don't touch it." I know I sound like a open source zealot but it's stuff like this that has made people like me go from not caring either way to pro open source.
I find your analysis on the 'why' of this idea dead on and very interesting. However I still have hope that people will see 'stupid is bad'. Technicality complex things require intelligence to use and fix. The link that 'smart people use complex tech' is clear in people. As humanity as a whole moves more to a life style that uses technology on a daily basis then I think that the group think you refer too might also move towards 'inelegance = tech = good'. Even in your example the major draw of some reality TV is not to emulate but to mock. Like Jerry Springer, you watch who you don't want to be because seeing such an extreme case of humanity is comical. If the people seen on reality TV are stupid and openly mocked by the majority then using your logic Reality TV can help make 'stupid = bad'.
I see a lot of that too. In my self and another geek friend. However several of the people I know started out as clear non-geeks. Football playing, loud mouth, 'wohoo!! party!' guys who became people I can have a deep conversation with on politics and philosophy. I think that both parts are happening but the change in the masses is most interesting.
My hope is that being an idiot will finally be looked down on. I think it's starting to happen. Think back to 10 years ago and how fashionable it was to say stuff like "Bah! Computers! I don't get why I need them". Now if you know about something that is new and tech heavy you are looked up to more then looked down on.
Better yet if you don't need to be the copy right holder to sue you can sue radio and Mtv, Video and audio can be copied from the air waves as well. One step better, if the wording is vague enough we can sue the RIAA for selling the music they own. Even if we are paying for it it's still being 'made available'.
It's not just law. People are learning more about everything. I just consider this generation the first hyper-educated generation. Educated beyond reasonable need with no imitate social draw backs. In other words you know more then you need to in one or more random areas but are not a 'geek'. Anyone anywhere could become an expert on anything and still be normal looking and acting. All the information you need is at your finger tips. The only thing holding people back from learning now is the desire to learn. I am the only self described geek among my friends but all of us are full of random facts we learned from the net.
Slashdot Mirror
FF3b5 has a strange JavaScript issue where if you go to a page that runs some kind of combination of JavaScript the entire browser, all running windows of it, will close, no warning and no recovery when you start it again. I saw it happen on a few pages but mostly with gmail. Trying to reply in gmail was almost a certain way to trigger it.
That's very fair. Calling an Android phone a Linux phone is misleading. However Androids goal was to make the cell phone the device it should be, not to make a 'Linux phone'. Linux was a tool not the goal. Java was used because of the things it does right. It's very cross platform and as of late as open as Google would need it to be. Plus the issue of protecting the phone from dumb code can now be done with one interface, the JVM. If the Java byte code being run does something bad it can be stopped before it crashes (or worse, bricks) your phone. It's gonna have problems but letting raw C code run it would have been worse.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?OtherLanguagesForTheJavaVm That page gos in to it a bit more. C is nearly ASM so it's very hard to turn it into a language like Java that is so automatic. I'm sure it can be done but the people who like C see no reason to use something as wasteful as Java and the people who like a Java see no need for this kind of difficult project. "Why translate the C to Java Byte Code when we can just rewrite it in nice portable Java?".
In the end I don't think it is a bigger job then Android just one that has lacked demand until now. As it is I get the feeling that once Android is here a lot of people who were angry that they can't run their favorite C programs on their phone will find reasonable Java equivalents that they did not know existed. I would expect that any that do not exist will be written just for Android. The world has a ton of Java programmers right now.
That's the nice part about running Java on the phone most people don't seem to get. By having the Java wrapper they only have to secure Java from doing anything wrong not try to secure random code that will be running as compiled. Why Java and not C++ or [insert favorite language here]? Because Java came with a wrapper (the JVM) and it's the biggest language right now(This might just sound like me showing a preference but TIOBE backs me up on this. http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html).
yes and no. Remember running Java means you run Java byte code. If you are willing to write a compiler you can turn any language you want in to Java byte code(It might not be nice but it can be done). So the phone should be able to run Python, Ruby, Smalltalk and several others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JVM_Languages
That's all well and good but it has nothing to do what what I just said. I'm not going to, and was not trying to, pretend to know about what kind of security measures Windows has that Linux does not have and vica verca. The point I was making was 1)Linux has had and does have less KNOWN issues. This makes it statistically secure, as opposed to time tested secure as we would like. Even if this is not true it does not matter because...2)No matter who had less issues they only OS they could fix was Linux because it was open. Windows could be near perfect but if they were unable to fix issues that could come up they would have their hands tied. The govt HATES stuff like that. They want to be in control, so they went with Linux. Plus it's clear from what was done they were ready to spend the time and money to make what ever they were using rock solid.
Well at least I know who to call when i'm having problems installing an OS.
In all seriousness I've been there. my best advice is dual boot but set some ground rules on what you permit your self to have in windows(or what ever OS you work best in but want to get off of). Personally I have the "no casual web browsing in windows" rule. Not doing anything that is windows only and want to browse the web? time to reboot. It keeps me in Linux 90% of the time so i (finally!) learned a lot about keeping a Linux system running. It hurt at first but I've gotten to the point where me in Linux is more productive then me in Windows.
Very true. Because of this Java's current market is web sites. I'm not referring to applets but rather JSPs. It runs as a server so the start up time is a non-issue. Since it is being used to generate HTML and not really render anything in the native environment it does not touch the GUI libraries. Because of this is makes an excellent platform for web apps. Off the top of my head I know it's used by ebay and a few banks. It's also the back bone of the Google web toolkit so it's what runs gmail and several other google things. By design it can be written such that you can design a web site so that you can't tell it's running JSPs so it's hard to really tell who is using it.
You make that sound like such a bad thing. A bottle of soda costs like $1.50 it's not like they force it up to $10 and blame it on funding your favorite tv show. It's a symbiotic relationship. The show helps the product sell and the product keeps the show running.
I was thinking that having one axis for openness and another for cost might help. Openness could be
1. Public domain (or legal equivalent)
2. Free source
3. Open source
4. Visible source
5. Closed source
and Cost could be
1. Give it away
2. Free version for unlimited time but limited usability
3. Free version for limited time
4. Pay software
So a few examples. Windows is is a O5C4. Rad Hat is a O3C4 or O3C2 if you count Fedora. Ubuntu is a O3C1. Apache is O2C1.
But I think you are more looking for a mobility measurement for the next guy. In that case I guess Windows could be O5C4->X because you can't do anything with it. Firefox would be O3C1->O3C2 because of logo licensing issues. Apache would be O2C1->O2-5C1-4 because your modified version could have stricter rules.
I admit this all looks complex but if you know the system it can get the idea across very quickly. But I might just be over thinking it all...
I agree with the scale idea. But what is the difference between Open and Free on your scale?
Kudos on keeping up with the registry (I mean that too. I know how hard it is) But your not a regular Joe. Knowing what the registry is alone elevates you to power user. I never said Windows can't be learned just that it's harder then learning the same amount in *NUX. It's not easy to read but *NUX has guide maps and documentation galore. I've only seen one set of books on the Windows registry and don't think they made it up to XP.
I know allot about Windows but one day I got stuck. I ran out of things to read so I just could not learn any more. I still had problems but there were no places I could go to learn about what caused them. THAT is why I switched to Linux. I was not done learning but Windows was done teaching. I did not want to spend my days poking Windows to learn it's secretes while I could just switch to Linux and keep reading.
Your new limiting point becomes how well known your software is. If it's not well known you need to solve it on your own because no one is gonna do it for you. If it is well known you can sit back and hope that A)It's not a critical issue for you and B)Other people who are bigger masochists then you will handle it.
However if you notice at this point you get no bonus from using closed source. You do get a potential bonus from using payed software(just remember Open source != free as in beer). In the end Open source is a bonus for you even if you never look at the code. I am not calling it a magic bullet and anyone who gos on line posting "It's open source. You figure it out!" is a basically a jerk, but open source only helps when solving problems.
Nothing wrong with you. The learning curve for Linux is HUGE. At first I would do a reinstall at first sign my xorg.conf file was messed up. But now I can handle issues with it. It just takes time to learn the same tricks you know in Windows.
You can pay for support. It's how RedHat and the other big *NIX people make all there money. I don't expect the average Joe to sit and learn how a computer works, or how a car works, or how the economy works, or how there house works...etc but making it easy to learn lowers the cost of your local (DEVICE NAME HERE) fix it guy. So next time mom's computer breaks the PC fix it guy might have learned about that kind of problem on his own and be able to fix it with out hitting mom for a Windows reinstall fee.
Ah but you're missing the trick. In the Open source world if a hand full of people are having a problem it only takes the one masochist to solve it and post the fix on line. Why would he post the fix on line? Any number of reasons, but the 'why' does not matter it only matters that the fix is posted. Windows has the same masochists. They sit there and poke Windows until it bleeds and go 'look what I did!' But with out being able to see the code these very important masochists are crippled and can't gain the same level of information the Linux masochists can.
BlackViper(http://www.blackviper.com/) is one such Windows masochist. He has poked and prodded every windows service so he can figure out what to turn off for a faster PC.
As you (and several others) have hit on; I don't expect the average Joe to do anything but do a fresh reinstall, For any OS. On a personal and professional level (I'm a programmer)however when I am faced with any system that discourages the ability for someone to learn more about it I am quite annoyed. Linux, with all it's bugs and driver support problems, is more usable then Windows for me just because I stand a chance of being able to fix it when something gos wrong.
As a side note due to WGA all it's copy protection the analogy for Windows is more "Your car broke down? Time to buy a new car." Look at some average Joe users and you'll see this is just what they do. The computer in there house is just used to surf the web and look at the occasional word doc but they still need to buy a new PC every few years.
The reason it's so difficult to fix a windows system is because you are encouraged to not understand it. With a more open system you can learn where the system files are that get edited and replace any that begin to cause problems. With Windows however you even try to learn about more complex parts of the system like the registry you are greeted with one page messages telling you "It's important. Don't touch it." I know I sound like a open source zealot but it's stuff like this that has made people like me go from not caring either way to pro open source.
Because they are now a major player in the PC market and Vista is a flop. Things are no longer what they were.
I find your analysis on the 'why' of this idea dead on and very interesting. However I still have hope that people will see 'stupid is bad'. Technicality complex things require intelligence to use and fix. The link that 'smart people use complex tech' is clear in people. As humanity as a whole moves more to a life style that uses technology on a daily basis then I think that the group think you refer too might also move towards 'inelegance = tech = good'. Even in your example the major draw of some reality TV is not to emulate but to mock. Like Jerry Springer, you watch who you don't want to be because seeing such an extreme case of humanity is comical. If the people seen on reality TV are stupid and openly mocked by the majority then using your logic Reality TV can help make 'stupid = bad'.
I see a lot of that too. In my self and another geek friend. However several of the people I know started out as clear non-geeks. Football playing, loud mouth, 'wohoo!! party!' guys who became people I can have a deep conversation with on politics and philosophy. I think that both parts are happening but the change in the masses is most interesting.
My hope is that being an idiot will finally be looked down on. I think it's starting to happen. Think back to 10 years ago and how fashionable it was to say stuff like "Bah! Computers! I don't get why I need them". Now if you know about something that is new and tech heavy you are looked up to more then looked down on.
Better yet if you don't need to be the copy right holder to sue you can sue radio and Mtv, Video and audio can be copied from the air waves as well. One step better, if the wording is vague enough we can sue the RIAA for selling the music they own. Even if we are paying for it it's still being 'made available'.
It's not just law. People are learning more about everything. I just consider this generation the first hyper-educated generation. Educated beyond reasonable need with no imitate social draw backs. In other words you know more then you need to in one or more random areas but are not a 'geek'. Anyone anywhere could become an expert on anything and still be normal looking and acting. All the information you need is at your finger tips. The only thing holding people back from learning now is the desire to learn. I am the only self described geek among my friends but all of us are full of random facts we learned from the net.