Well, you forgot to tell that any bluetooth keyboard (Apple preferred for fun) can be "plugged" to Nokia smart phones to use as input, adding more to shock.
Oh (for iPhone users), no hack needed. Nokia advertises the driver/app themselves and gives free.
Thanks to iPhone, Windows Mobile now has fans too. You know, iPhone policies, app store made both Symbian and Windows Mobile some kind of "freedom OS".
I haven't heard anything bad about Windows Mobile for a long time and it is a first in Windows operating systems. No security scandal happened too.
Don't tell me that "analyst" at Garner doesn't have a clue about Silverlight coming to Nokia phones. It was announced year or more ago. Not Moonlight, the Silverlight.
With Office announcement and the fact that Silverlight beginning to tie to.NET platform, it seems.NET itself is coming to Symbian. Of course, it doesn't have to be visible to end user or even other developers. I wonder if MS finally understood what "framework" , "runtime" means and where World is heading to?
IMHO it is lovely when patent trolls hit country sized companies who themselves lobby against any change in patent system.
Imagine if MS, IBM, Sun, Apple, SAP sized companies and FSF, Redhat kind of open companies&orgs gathered in a conference, use decades of their expertise to fix the patent system and provide suggestions to US Congress. Wouldn't they be taken serious?
I was really impressed with it since I am mainly an album listener guy. It had all those features CMX claims to have, tried, failed... Oh it had DRM too (later acquired by MS).
Oh I am (still) a PowerPC guy with G4s, Quad G5. I have never asked for a "pure 64bit OS and apps" as it is meaningless on this architecture. The problems you state are the main reasons but for years, I keep hearing "evil adobe, no 64bit flash for linux". I thought there was 64bit flash for Windows and evil Adobe was rejecting to ship one for Linux. As I finally installed a modern Windows (7) on a Mac Mini with 64bit CPU, I was really surprised when I figured there is no such thing as 64bit flash for Windows.
So, somehow they convinced Adobe giant to ship 64bit plugin for their 64bit browser running on 64bit OS. What about showing a little support? Or, if they decide to hate Adobe, fine... What about supporting gnash (GNU Flash) with donations, bug reports, RFEs etc?
Can you tell me what the hell is wrong with these people? I recently installed Windows 7 64bit and figured there is no 64bit flash for Windows. It makes IE 64bit pretty useless. Adobe gave up all things in hand to code a 64bit plugin on that anarchic compatibility hell (compare to OS X and Windows) and it somehow works and yet they manage to put Adobe to some unrelated discussion with falsified information.
Wonder if it has some deeper reason like some dirty PR campaign.
If Google passes the line between privacy and convenience, we will read some horror stories about it and it can actually lead to some very interesting developments like FSF getting into the future drama as it will be based on Linux.
We may end up reading things like "World's first spyware OS" right here, on Slashdot. We may see FSF or Linus openly protest it.
Google thinks everyone buys their "not evil" kind of slogans and design software based on it. Someone should remind them that those times are over. Also, being open source won`t change a thing. If it gathers your location and posts it to Google servers, it won`t matter if it is open source or not. Even if they hire (!) rms to code it, it won`t matter.
Except no memory protection and no (pre emptive) multitasking, don`t forget the MacOS (pre X) too. If you boot something like MacOS 7.6, you end up wondering how come Windows 95 could beat it. Imagine, Quicktime was included in MacOS back in 1991.
I keep wondering the thing about Google, how come being a great, big search engine guarantee success in other areas? For example, if Apple started a search engine tomorrow powered by their own robots, I wouldn't use it.
You know, when Apple wrote that document, Safari 1.0 was out (or it was even not final), IE was enjoying gigantic marketshare, Mozilla/Firefox was struggling for market and only "mobile web browsing" was WAP or pricey Opera.
These days, the market is really crazy and there is no way to identify a browser with name. For example, Symbian UIQ3 is dead right? Right after its chapter 11 reported, Opera 9.5 for UIQ3 shipped with iPhone like features. Some other super advanced Webkit based browser followed it. This is for some platform even Sony itself abandoned, I can't imagine the scene on Symbian S60 and Windows.
All those sites which were formulated as "If it is IE or Firefox" must be spending huge time and money to do exactly what Apple and Opera was suggesting for years.
I am replying to you but in fact, I want to inform others about the easy solutions already done and live on 250M unique users/days sites. My original reply had same intentions too. Somehow, Yahoo's free and open solutions are unknown to developers out there.
If Microsoft changes itself to a real software and services company, I will be one of the first ones to support them.
They just tried (and actually won) patent for XML document system for God's sake. Stop apologizing for them until they really change, just like IBM had to change in 1990s.
"ARM and the iphone comes to mind if looking for platforms without Flash-support. "
ARM and iPhone? There isn't a single modern ARM phone without Flash Lite. That is the mobile version of Flash which does almost everything desktop does. Also it is tailored to be battery efficient. In couple of months, Adobe will release.sisx/cab etc. files to every end user, for free to add flash 3 support to their devices. They are beta testing it right now.
iPhone is a very different story and I would just say it is political rather than technical.
I won't do childish things like "get a better browser" of course but nobody should expect me to do extra work just because MS IE 8 claims there is error on page. I don't really care, I care what validator.w3c says.
"Firefox, Opera, Safari will show a standards compliant page in its all glory with complete functionality. If they don't, file a bug report. I can guarantee you it will be the second important issue to fix after a critical security flaw.
I like Firefox quite a bit, but that's blatantly untrue"
You know what? I don't like Firefox. Its development model, its community, its policies. That is one thing but on the other hand, I _know_ if you provide a good bug report regarding standards support, it will be cared way more than "my IE expecting site doesn't look right".
If one mentions Opera, a browser who has always lived the cost of supporting strict standards in same context as MS IE, I will go really paranoid. Excuse me for that.
Opera grew beyond whatever you could imagine in just last past 2-3 years. Opera says they support web standards and they actually do, even in cost of market share. Their development model is nobody's business. As far as I have experienced as a user since 3.62, it works.
Perhaps, one day, they may decide to follow Apple's model but I don't see a reason for it. Just 1 question: Where is Firefox for Symbian S60? If you check the reason and the fact that Opera has a S60 application since first S60 Device (NOK 7650), you can understand why they don't want anyone inside code -yet-. What if they open the source and decline 99% of impossible to scale, unprofessional code? Wouldn't they be flamed even more?
Japanese developers have a unique style of developing, especially on open source. There are some really hidden treasures who aren't too popular because author didn't set an english page etc.
You see, the web pages are really becoming complex with amazing dynamic tricks all over the place... The days of Firefox, Opera, Webkit developers give up the real work in hand and try to hack the code to fix (!!!) the rendering are over. There is simply no kind of manpower to keep up with their junk.
I always kept minimal compatibility with MS IE but the day IE 8 claimed my XHTML 1 strict front page has "errors" and I spent hours trying to fix non existent bug, I deleted Windows virtual machine forever. Enough really. I don't want people who doesn't have power/basic knowledge to install a compliant browser to be my customers anyway.
Funny that supporting Opera is nothing more than supporting W3C standards and give up 1990s lame tricks like browser sniffing. Same goes for Apple Safari (Webkit), Firefox.
It is not extra work, it is what they (webmasters) should be doing at first place.
They would propose Windows only VC-1 to Video element, they would ask for "Windows style" development support, they would give up (!) some patents to W3C and give "community promise" or some junk when asked if they really mean it...
They aren't fun to watch anymore, we learned all their tricks thanks to their puppets/trojan coders in open source community.
Firefox, Opera, Safari will show a standards compliant page in its all glory with complete functionality. If they don't, file a bug report. I can guarantee you it will be the second important issue to fix after a critical security flaw.
Opera 10 passes the very aggressive Acid 3 test, what are you talking about? Do you know how many millions of lines, manpower wasted just to make sites designed for their junk browser appear fine on those browsers?
About the MS puppets... Slashdot user for a long time here, we know who is who and all their tricks.
Ask anyone who is in web publishing business. You can't replace Flash just by putting some fancy tags and video tag which doesn't have h264 just because of political, fanatical reasons.
If MS thinks they will hit flash that way, they are dreaming. No matter what nerds think, Adobe or Flash isn't going anywhere especially if their rival wannabe is idiot enough to drop PPC support on OS X and provide no kind of design/develop support on OS X. Eclipse/Mono? Yea, right.
Did a single MS browser except the Mac IE which runs a different engine support the stable standards of the day it was released without 'extending and embracing' it?
Do you call that poster fanboy? I call you a paid MS puppet.
I really really hate referencing Apple but guess what? Apple does allow insane amounts of caching in fsck_hfs but for some reason (!) it defaults to comical low , something like no cache.
Why? Because system already has disk corruption issue, it could be also related to memory corruption. Also, thing runs on journaled volume with huge help from journal file. One should also admit how clever they hide it from `let me fix a working thing` type of user. Diskutil doesn't have that setting enabled in no kind of form (including hidden pref), plain fsck doesn't have it. It is _only_ fsck_hfs which can be only run giving a direct device name like/dev/disk0s3
On a machine which needs a very fast recovery and HD mechanism was suspicious, I have went up to 4GB. Obviously, it did everything in RAM and machine was 16Gig ECC Quad G5.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you forgot to tell that any bluetooth keyboard (Apple preferred for fun) can be "plugged" to Nokia smart phones to use as input, adding more to shock.
Oh (for iPhone users), no hack needed. Nokia advertises the driver/app themselves and gives free.
Thanks to iPhone, Windows Mobile now has fans too. You know, iPhone policies, app store made both Symbian and Windows Mobile some kind of "freedom OS".
I haven't heard anything bad about Windows Mobile for a long time and it is a first in Windows operating systems. No security scandal happened too.
Don't tell me that "analyst" at Garner doesn't have a clue about Silverlight coming to Nokia phones. It was announced year or more ago. Not Moonlight, the Silverlight.
With Office announcement and the fact that Silverlight beginning to tie to .NET platform, it seems .NET itself is coming to Symbian. Of course, it doesn't have to be visible to end user or even other developers. I wonder if MS finally understood what "framework" , "runtime" means and where World is heading to?
IMHO it is lovely when patent trolls hit country sized companies who themselves lobby against any change in patent system.
Imagine if MS, IBM, Sun, Apple, SAP sized companies and FSF, Redhat kind of open companies&orgs gathered in a conference, use decades of their expertise to fix the patent system and provide suggestions to US Congress. Wouldn't they be taken serious?
They are looking for the problem themselves.
This time, they are re-inventing a rather mysterious failure. What they named as CMX existed years ago, it is Liquid Audio.
Even (later) support from Real Networks didn't help it. It somehow failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Audio
I was really impressed with it since I am mainly an album listener guy. It had all those features CMX claims to have, tried, failed... Oh it had DRM too (later acquired by MS).
MS guys could be wondering "wtf?" too...
Oh I am (still) a PowerPC guy with G4s, Quad G5. I have never asked for a "pure 64bit OS and apps" as it is meaningless on this architecture. The problems you state are the main reasons but for years, I keep hearing "evil adobe, no 64bit flash for linux". I thought there was 64bit flash for Windows and evil Adobe was rejecting to ship one for Linux. As I finally installed a modern Windows (7) on a Mac Mini with 64bit CPU, I was really surprised when I figured there is no such thing as 64bit flash for Windows.
So, somehow they convinced Adobe giant to ship 64bit plugin for their 64bit browser running on 64bit OS. What about showing a little support? Or, if they decide to hate Adobe, fine... What about supporting gnash (GNU Flash) with donations, bug reports, RFEs etc?
Can you tell me what the hell is wrong with these people? I recently installed Windows 7 64bit and figured there is no 64bit flash for Windows. It makes IE 64bit pretty useless. Adobe gave up all things in hand to code a 64bit plugin on that anarchic compatibility hell (compare to OS X and Windows) and it somehow works and yet they manage to put Adobe to some unrelated discussion with falsified information.
Wonder if it has some deeper reason like some dirty PR campaign.
If Google passes the line between privacy and convenience, we will read some horror stories about it and it can actually lead to some very interesting developments like FSF getting into the future drama as it will be based on Linux.
We may end up reading things like "World's first spyware OS" right here, on Slashdot. We may see FSF or Linus openly protest it.
Google thinks everyone buys their "not evil" kind of slogans and design software based on it. Someone should remind them that those times are over. Also, being open source won`t change a thing. If it gathers your location and posts it to Google servers, it won`t matter if it is open source or not. Even if they hire (!) rms to code it, it won`t matter.
Except no memory protection and no (pre emptive) multitasking, don`t forget the MacOS (pre X) too. If you boot something like MacOS 7.6, you end up wondering how come Windows 95 could beat it. Imagine, Quicktime was included in MacOS back in 1991.
I keep wondering the thing about Google, how come being a great, big search engine guarantee success in other areas? For example, if Apple started a search engine tomorrow powered by their own robots, I wouldn't use it.
You know, when Apple wrote that document, Safari 1.0 was out (or it was even not final), IE was enjoying gigantic marketshare, Mozilla/Firefox was struggling for market and only "mobile web browsing" was WAP or pricey Opera.
These days, the market is really crazy and there is no way to identify a browser with name. For example, Symbian UIQ3 is dead right? Right after its chapter 11 reported, Opera 9.5 for UIQ3 shipped with iPhone like features. Some other super advanced Webkit based browser followed it. This is for some platform even Sony itself abandoned, I can't imagine the scene on Symbian S60 and Windows.
All those sites which were formulated as "If it is IE or Firefox" must be spending huge time and money to do exactly what Apple and Opera was suggesting for years.
Another ready made solution is Yahoo's browser support scheme which is graded browser support:
http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/articles/gbs/
I am replying to you but in fact, I want to inform others about the easy solutions already done and live on 250M unique users/days sites. My original reply had same intentions too. Somehow, Yahoo's free and open solutions are unknown to developers out there.
If Microsoft changes itself to a real software and services company, I will be one of the first ones to support them.
They just tried (and actually won) patent for XML document system for God's sake. Stop apologizing for them until they really change, just like IBM had to change in 1990s.
That mass murderer of trees? No .eco for you!
"ARM and the iphone comes to mind if looking for platforms without Flash-support. "
ARM and iPhone? There isn't a single modern ARM phone without Flash Lite. That is the mobile version of Flash which does almost everything desktop does. Also it is tailored to be battery efficient. In couple of months, Adobe will release .sisx/cab etc. files to every end user, for free to add flash 3 support to their devices. They are beta testing it right now.
iPhone is a very different story and I would just say it is political rather than technical.
You should just ask what the browser can do rather than the browser name. That is the number 1 issue.
Apple has put some great information regarding capabilities detection, it can be applied to any browser not just Safari/Webkit.
http://developer.apple.com/Internet/webcontent/objectdetection.html
(no account etc. needed)
I won't do childish things like "get a better browser" of course but nobody should expect me to do extra work just because MS IE 8 claims there is error on page. I don't really care, I care what validator.w3c says.
"Firefox, Opera, Safari will show a standards compliant page in its all glory with complete functionality. If they don't, file a bug report. I can guarantee you it will be the second important issue to fix after a critical security flaw.
I like Firefox quite a bit, but that's blatantly untrue"
You know what? I don't like Firefox. Its development model, its community, its policies. That is one thing but on the other hand, I _know_ if you provide a good bug report regarding standards support, it will be cared way more than "my IE expecting site doesn't look right".
If one mentions Opera, a browser who has always lived the cost of supporting strict standards in same context as MS IE, I will go really paranoid. Excuse me for that.
Opera grew beyond whatever you could imagine in just last past 2-3 years. Opera says they support web standards and they actually do, even in cost of market share. Their development model is nobody's business. As far as I have experienced as a user since 3.62, it works.
Perhaps, one day, they may decide to follow Apple's model but I don't see a reason for it. Just 1 question: Where is Firefox for Symbian S60? If you check the reason and the fact that Opera has a S60 application since first S60 Device (NOK 7650), you can understand why they don't want anyone inside code -yet-. What if they open the source and decline 99% of impossible to scale, unprofessional code? Wouldn't they be flamed even more?
Japanese developers have a unique style of developing, especially on open source. There are some really hidden treasures who aren't too popular because author didn't set an english page etc.
You see, the web pages are really becoming complex with amazing dynamic tricks all over the place... The days of Firefox, Opera, Webkit developers give up the real work in hand and try to hack the code to fix (!!!) the rendering are over. There is simply no kind of manpower to keep up with their junk.
I always kept minimal compatibility with MS IE but the day IE 8 claimed my XHTML 1 strict front page has "errors" and I spent hours trying to fix non existent bug, I deleted Windows virtual machine forever. Enough really. I don't want people who doesn't have power/basic knowledge to install a compliant browser to be my customers anyway.
Funny that supporting Opera is nothing more than supporting W3C standards and give up 1990s lame tricks like browser sniffing. Same goes for Apple Safari (Webkit), Firefox.
It is not extra work, it is what they (webmasters) should be doing at first place.
They would propose Windows only VC-1 to Video element, they would ask for "Windows style" development support, they would give up (!) some patents to W3C and give "community promise" or some junk when asked if they really mean it...
They aren't fun to watch anymore, we learned all their tricks thanks to their puppets/trojan coders in open source community.
Firefox, Opera, Safari will show a standards compliant page in its all glory with complete functionality. If they don't, file a bug report. I can guarantee you it will be the second important issue to fix after a critical security flaw.
Opera 10 passes the very aggressive Acid 3 test, what are you talking about? Do you know how many millions of lines, manpower wasted just to make sites designed for their junk browser appear fine on those browsers?
About the MS puppets... Slashdot user for a long time here, we know who is who and all their tricks.
Ask anyone who is in web publishing business. You can't replace Flash just by putting some fancy tags and video tag which doesn't have h264 just because of political, fanatical reasons.
If MS thinks they will hit flash that way, they are dreaming. No matter what nerds think, Adobe or Flash isn't going anywhere especially if their rival wannabe is idiot enough to drop PPC support on OS X and provide no kind of design/develop support on OS X. Eclipse/Mono? Yea, right.
They already call XHTML 1.0 strict sites broken under IE 8. They cite "errors on the page" with yellow "!".
Did a single MS browser except the Mac IE which runs a different engine support the stable standards of the day it was released without 'extending and embracing' it?
Do you call that poster fanboy? I call you a paid MS puppet.
I really really hate referencing Apple but guess what? Apple does allow insane amounts of caching in fsck_hfs but for some reason (!) it defaults to comical low , something like no cache.
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man8/fsck_hfs.8.html (-c argument)
Why? Because system already has disk corruption issue, it could be also related to memory corruption. Also, thing runs on journaled volume with huge help from journal file. One should also admit how clever they hide it from `let me fix a working thing` type of user. Diskutil doesn't have that setting enabled in no kind of form (including hidden pref), plain fsck doesn't have it. It is _only_ fsck_hfs which can be only run giving a direct device name like /dev/disk0s3
On a machine which needs a very fast recovery and HD mechanism was suspicious, I have went up to 4GB. Obviously, it did everything in RAM and machine was 16Gig ECC Quad G5.