He means second class at MS, doofus. Microsoft is kind of treating WP8 as the red headed stepchild.
Also, it's fundamentally impossible to be behind about 5th in smartphone platforms. There's iPhone OS, Android, Maemo, Symbian, and Windows Phone. In no particular order.
I checked, and your link doesn't appear to contain any truth, just some blowhard whining about his apparently 100% legal site being shut down by no less than three registrars (which, incidentally, is a sign his site is not 100% legal). Perhaps you should check your sources next time.
I can indeed. That's the fixed costs - just the transaction. However I don't believe the admin effort I put in is worth a 28% per transaction increase in costs. To me that's highway robbery.
Indeed. But the assets the government is talking about are not in jurisdiction - read between the lines and you'll note they say they'll ignore any judgement to return the assets, which means they can't be talking about the servers which they already returned.
Slight correction for you - it's sandboxd which is the golden ticket target - that's the core of the security model. All that attacking the powerbox daemon will do is give you write access to sections of the disk you wouldn't otherwise have. Attacking the sandbox itself gives you free reign.
Fucking finally! I've longed to be called a shill for so long, and yet noone's ever accused me!
However, this is disturbing news if true, for it means that someone has been forgetting to pay me. And they forgot to give me a contract. And I forgot to even apply for the job. Oh dear.
(Still, LibreOffice really does suck. And despite your revisionist history, I have actually tried to use it).
To be honest, I get the impression that Samsung is the only OEM even trying - shipping decent hardware, equipped with the OS in a usable configuration, with updates (and extra features like NFC).
I said that Google was getting sick of lazy OEMs sticking Android on low end and/or boring devices. I notice I did say "not one of them" which should actually read "very few of them".
I don't see Microsoft offering anything in the Surface that any of them couldn't have (but didn't) offer.
This line is exactly the point - and Google does the same thing too. They both provide a platform which has the potential to do awesome stuff, and then OEMs take it and just release the same old shit. Not one of them thinks "hmm, I think I can do some cool stuff with this". Surface and the Nexus 7 are both examples of the First Parties getting sick to death of their platforms being flogged in boring devices without a single second of thought being put in.
One has to wonder though, was Microsoft ever in competition with Apple? In those days, Microsoft's OS and Apple's OS wouldn't even run on each others platforms anyway. And with Apple selling hardware, it seems IBM and the like were more of a competitor for them.
I just checked my statements. Apparently, I (a small developer) am only being charged 2% fixed costs on each transaction, and have a fraud rate of zero. Yes, a 28% increase in fixed costs is definitely a "big win" for me. Where do I sign up?!?
I think you'll find most people don't give a flying fuck about the 4 Freedoms. You'll also find that the aforementioned "most people" is actually a subset of people who give a shit about how "important" it is to call Linux "GNU/Linux" to ensure that Stallman gets the ego-stroking he believes he so richly deserves.
And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. Users shouldn't have to read a doctorate thesis on how "libre" a piece of software is to decide whether it's "ethical" to run it.
I discovered my router ran Linux when I discovered it had an SSH server running - on the WAN interface - with no way to disable it. Strangely no SSH service on the LAN interface though.
What exactly are you talking about? There is no non App-Store version of Growl (barring the "build it yourself" version - and boy is that a bitch to do). And the App Store version is shipped with an XPC which allows other apps to talk to it fine.
"Please note: This is the Apple AppStore version of XYZ called XYZ/A. This version of XYZ is restricted in functionality for improved security.
Click here to learn more about restrictions in XYZ/A. You are also licensed to use the full version of XYZ called XYZ/F. You can download XYZ/F
here. Some future enhancements of XYZ may not become available in XYZ/A at all and some XYZ enhancements may be made available for XYZ/A
at a later point in time after they were released for XYZ/F."
Then in the App whenever they want to do something they can't do in XYZ/A they get this as a popup.
Nope. Because the App Store doesn't give the developer the details they'd need to validate the identity of a customer as someone who actually is a customer. So we end up in the case where the developer is selling an app-store version, and a non app-store version, and you have to buy each one seperately.
Now, there are companies like TechSmith who apply the trust principle (if you buy an upgrade license off them, they trust that you purchased an original license from somewhere, App Store included) but no developer is going to just give you a link to a full version of their app that has no way of validating whether you purchased it in the first place.
The app store is useful to buy apple apps, but I can't even get Microsoft Office on there. They need to encourage companies to sell products on there not the other way around.
You never will. The Behemoths (Microsoft and Adobe) will not sacrifice 30% of their sale price to Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
He means second class at MS, doofus. Microsoft is kind of treating WP8 as the red headed stepchild.
Also, it's fundamentally impossible to be behind about 5th in smartphone platforms. There's iPhone OS, Android, Maemo, Symbian, and Windows Phone. In no particular order.
I checked, and your link doesn't appear to contain any truth, just some blowhard whining about his apparently 100% legal site being shut down by no less than three registrars (which, incidentally, is a sign his site is not 100% legal). Perhaps you should check your sources next time.
One doesn't need to be ICANN to think your idea is stupid. One just needs to be sane.
No, because you have to get the approval of the other party as well.
Your amendments are not legally binding.
Scientology. You might recall they even ran a /. story about how they deleted a comment.
I can indeed. That's the fixed costs - just the transaction. However I don't believe the admin effort I put in is worth a 28% per transaction increase in costs. To me that's highway robbery.
Indeed. But the assets the government is talking about are not in jurisdiction - read between the lines and you'll note they say they'll ignore any judgement to return the assets, which means they can't be talking about the servers which they already returned.
The servers which belong to Carpathia Hosting which the US Government has already returned to their owner? Yeah.
The person claiming none. However, I strongly suspect that one or more of them actually are sandboxed.
Slight correction for you - it's sandboxd which is the golden ticket target - that's the core of the security model. All that attacking the powerbox daemon will do is give you write access to sections of the disk you wouldn't otherwise have. Attacking the sandbox itself gives you free reign.
Fucking finally! I've longed to be called a shill for so long, and yet noone's ever accused me!
However, this is disturbing news if true, for it means that someone has been forgetting to pay me. And they forgot to give me a contract. And I forgot to even apply for the job. Oh dear.
(Still, LibreOffice really does suck. And despite your revisionist history, I have actually tried to use it).
To be honest, I get the impression that Samsung is the only OEM even trying - shipping decent hardware, equipped with the OS in a usable configuration, with updates (and extra features like NFC).
I said that Google was getting sick of lazy OEMs sticking Android on low end and/or boring devices. I notice I did say "not one of them" which should actually read "very few of them".
They've been doing it on the iTunes App Store since it launched. Look at, for example, that tethering app by NullRiver.
I don't see Microsoft offering anything in the Surface that any of them couldn't have (but didn't) offer.
This line is exactly the point - and Google does the same thing too. They both provide a platform which has the potential to do awesome stuff, and then OEMs take it and just release the same old shit. Not one of them thinks "hmm, I think I can do some cool stuff with this". Surface and the Nexus 7 are both examples of the First Parties getting sick to death of their platforms being flogged in boring devices without a single second of thought being put in.
One has to wonder though, was Microsoft ever in competition with Apple? In those days, Microsoft's OS and Apple's OS wouldn't even run on each others platforms anyway. And with Apple selling hardware, it seems IBM and the like were more of a competitor for them.
I just checked my statements. Apparently, I (a small developer) am only being charged 2% fixed costs on each transaction, and have a fraud rate of zero. Yes, a 28% increase in fixed costs is definitely a "big win" for me. Where do I sign up?!?
I think you'll find most people don't give a flying fuck about the 4 Freedoms. You'll also find that the aforementioned "most people" is actually a subset of people who give a shit about how "important" it is to call Linux "GNU/Linux" to ensure that Stallman gets the ego-stroking he believes he so richly deserves.
And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. Users shouldn't have to read a doctorate thesis on how "libre" a piece of software is to decide whether it's "ethical" to run it.
I discovered my router ran Linux when I discovered it had an SSH server running - on the WAN interface - with no way to disable it. Strangely no SSH service on the LAN interface though.
Because LibreOffice is terrible. Seriously, I've tried using it.
What exactly are you talking about? There is no non App-Store version of Growl (barring the "build it yourself" version - and boy is that a bitch to do). And the App Store version is shipped with an XPC which allows other apps to talk to it fine.
You could always explain why that is so:
"Please note: This is the Apple AppStore version of XYZ called XYZ/A. This version of XYZ is restricted in functionality for improved security.
Click here to learn more about restrictions in XYZ/A. You are also licensed to use the full version of XYZ called XYZ/F. You can download XYZ/F
here. Some future enhancements of XYZ may not become available in XYZ/A at all and some XYZ enhancements may be made available for XYZ/A
at a later point in time after they were released for XYZ/F."
Then in the App whenever they want to do something they can't do in XYZ/A they get this as a popup.
Nope. Because the App Store doesn't give the developer the details they'd need to validate the identity of a customer as someone who actually is a customer. So we end up in the case where the developer is selling an app-store version, and a non app-store version, and you have to buy each one seperately.
Now, there are companies like TechSmith who apply the trust principle (if you buy an upgrade license off them, they trust that you purchased an original license from somewhere, App Store included) but no developer is going to just give you a link to a full version of their app that has no way of validating whether you purchased it in the first place.
The app store is useful to buy apple apps, but I can't even get Microsoft Office on there. They need to encourage companies to sell products on there not the other way around.
You never will. The Behemoths (Microsoft and Adobe) will not sacrifice 30% of their sale price to Apple.
Correct. But these days malicious software doesn't actually need root access any more. Unsandboxed access is probably "good enough".
I suspect he's referring to Apple's App Store apps - things like Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Configurator, Final Cut, Logic, iPhoto, iMovie.