Here we go with the hyperbolics without even RTFA'ing. You can choose to install the key in the store when UEFI is in setup mode so that you don't see the prompt again.
Even if ignoring DNT for all IE10 users is done, it should be done at the application level by individual site owners, not at the web server or TCP/IP level. Apache is doing a power grab here.
I like how you sidestepped that, by the same logic, Microsoft is a big time winner in Server OSes, Web Servers and IDEs. Care to admit that or does that logic only apply to your favorite company?
"You mean read his stupid crap snarky sneering comparisons on Amazon's earnings vs. Apple's ?"
Is it not the truth?
No, it's very misleading because Amazon is investing the profits into expansion which is way different from a company struggling to make money which Gruber wants to portray it as, comparing profit like the way he did is ridiculous. And it looks like it worked, with people like you thinking profits mean everything. Check the stock market reaction to earnings and you'll know why it is misleading.
As a profit seeking entity, isn't profit the most important measure of success? How can a money losing company - i.e. every Android manufacturer except for Samsung and HTC (barely) be considered "successfully"?
Because marketshare also matters, and Android is clearly winning there. Picking the metric that best suits Apple because Apple's losing on other metrics is a pretty lame tactic. By that metric Microsoft is winning over Linux and Apache in the server and web server market.
Ah, the classic technique of showing Android is just as bad? But sorry, your own link says this:
By comparison, Apple also prohibits the use of third-party payment systems in applications sold through its iOS App Store. A key difference, however, is that Google offers exceptions for retailers of physical and virtual goods (including ebooks). It's also worth noting that Android's support for application sideloading and alternate distribution channels will mean Android application developers have the option of not complying with Google's new rules, assuming they are willing to sacrifice the advantages of having a presence in the platform's standard marketplace.
Which means you can buy ebooks from the Kindle app on Android, but you cannot on iDevices. Read it later was kicked out because of Apple's policy (which was ironic given that Apple used their OSS code in Safari for a similar feature).
Also, your link fails to address the fact that Microsoft allows third party payments in the Windows App Store. Perhaps you should try reading some other sources of news instead of living in the Daring Fireball bubble.
Well... everyone's talking about resolution independent interface, and that's really what it should be about. Of course, it makes no sense.
So when you claimed MS doesn't understand DPI because they insist on a minimum resolution instead of a minimum size you had no fricking clue about what you were talking about(perhaps you don't understand DPI) and you now say it makes no sense to have a minimum size instead of minimum resolution? That's quite a flipflop between your two posts.
So there is the Apple approach that take shortcuts that work well, and the MS approach which tries to accommodate for every fucking screen on the planet. Guess who's more efficient? Guess who will end up with an average interface that will work so-so on most configs but will look clunky on not so common screens. Interestingly that's the very same approach that did lead them to the pre-ipad tablets. Talk about learning about one's mistake.
Perhaps you should learn about the late 80s and early 90s, when MS with the help of Dell, Compaq, HP etc. etc. and the variety of hardware and screens you're now decrying absolutely crushed Apple and it's limited hardware support to near death. Talk about learning from about one's mistake!
I was not comparing to TFA. I was just mentioning that apart from asserting that their author is utterly clueless, they pretty much serve no purpose.
Your first link is a very interesting link, which kind of proves that MS doesn't understand dpi since they insist on a "minimum resolution" instead of a "minimum size" for screens for the Metro UI. Way off the point.
What do you mean by "minimum size"? Like 7 inches wide? So you want MS to proclaim that all Metro apps are supposed to support a minimum of 7" width regardless of the resolution? So does that mean the apps must support a device with 320x240 resolution?
Both links on the Apple side of the story, however, are so stupid I have to assume you haven't even had a look at them. Basically, both complain that the UI elements have the same size on the MacBook Retina than on a normal MacBook !!!
They're no more stupid than TFA, which I suggest you read, and which complains about the same problem with scaling up graphics on the web.
You'd think that a company with billions of dollars in revenue could test the product or at least re-use some old perfectly functional scaling code in prior products that performed the same task./snark
Wait, are you talking about Apple?
After all, Apple has tens of billions more cash than Microsoft, which according to Slashdot wisdom, is dying.
For the infringement of the D’677 patent, covering the front face of the iPhone, Samsung was found to infringe on all devices aside from the Ace. On the D’087 patent, relating to the back of the iPhone, all Samsung devices aside from the S 4G and Vibrant only were found to infringe.
On the D’305 patent, all Samsung devices were found to infringe. That’s the design of Apple’s iOS icons. The jury also felt that Samsung should have known that the icons were being copied
..
Trade Dress
Samsung could not prove that the ’893 trade dress on the iPhone 3G was not protectable. The iPhone 3G trade dress was found to be diluted by many of Samsung’s products, despite not being registered. Only the Captivate, Charge, Epic 4G, Galaxy S 2, Skyrocket, Infuse and Epic 4G touch were found not to dilute the 3G’s trade dress.
The Galaxy S 4G, one of Samsung’s flagship devices, was found to dilute the trade dress of the iPhone 3G, cranking up the damages numbers quite a bit.
How does Apple being a hardware company negate it? People go to Best Buy or Amazon to buy a laptop, not to pick up a shrink wrapped OS disc, and that's where the real sales numbers are at. You're the moron here.
Though I am sure you'll find some nonsense revisionist reason to blame MS for CDE sucking, instead of blaming the actual companies and people who developed it.
MS did have market forces working for it, but you totally ignore the missteps, bumbling and stumbling by the competition while MS executed well, across DOS, Windows, Office etc.
>The reason why he has 66 billion is because he has made a history of drug dealer tactics involving tricking people into thinking they are getting something great for free and then keeping them hooked on his garbage. And make no mistake about it, what was produced under his watch was quite intentionally, garbage.
Stop with the lame revisionist crap. Windows 95 was way better than the competition at the, so was Office.
Does anyone what these people do after coming to the US? Are they instantly eligible for food stamps, social security benefits, medicare/medicaid, unemployment etc. ?
Nokia fired first and Apple paid $600 million and something $20 a hand set on going
Wait, so Nokia suing Apple is the reason that Apple was trying to sue HTC, Samsung and Motorola into the ground with importation bans and injunctions? Sounds like a lame excuse to me. Not to mention that Nokia was mostly suing over real DSP and 3G signaling patents(some of which are FRAND) which Apple actually is using in their devices and which other phone companies have already licensed, not lame software patents over scrolling and multitouch pinch to zoom, slide to unlock stuff that have been in prior use.
Apple's "Patent" was actually a design patent, all about the whole look and feel. Apple only sued one company over it. And yet the Apple suit spawned countless discussions about the evils of software patents in general and Apple's use of them to destroy the whole market.
Do you have ANY clue of what you're spouting here? Hard to believe you're that ignorant, I am starting to think you're not an Apple fan but a troll at this point.
Pray, tell us which of these are design patents? And why are they suing HTC? Also, I am ignoring all the tens of court cases they have filed with things like multitouch, slide to unlock etc. etc. Not to mention they won on multitouch and the scrolling patent in the Samsung case, how are they design patents? What are you smoking?
Patent #7,362,331: Time-Based, Non-Constant Translation Of User Interface Objects Between States
This is an interface patent granted in 2008 -- it's not specifically related to phones. According to the claims, it's a method of moving a GUI object along a path with a non-constant velocity for a period of time -- one of the claims specifically covers minimizing windows with a scaling effect like OS X, and two others describe a row of icons that rearranges itself when icons are added or removed, just like the iPhone's app dock.
Patent #7,479,949: Touch Screen Device, Method, And Graphical User Interface For Determining Commands By Applying Heuristics
We did this one at length after it was issued in January of last year -- check out our Palm discussion for more. The big one here is scroll behavior: starting a scroll in a single direction locks you in that direction, but starting it at an angle lets you pan around freely -- just like the Android browser.
Patent #7,657,849: Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image
This one's cute 'cause it's brand new -- seriously, it was just granted on February 2. It's almost exactly what it says on the tin: it covers unlocking a touchscreen device by moving an unlock image. It's broad enough for us to say that it covers virtually every unlock behavior we've seen on phones, not just the iPhone's slide-to-unlock implementation.
Patent #7,469,381: List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling, And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display
Yep, we covered this 2008 patent in our Palm piece too -- well remembered, friends. Jump back to that for the full details, but the executive summary is that it covers the iPhone's distinctive scroll-back-and-bounce behavior.
Patent #5,920,726: System And Method For Managing Power Conditions Within A Digital Camera Device
Granted in 1999, this patent is surprisingly broad -- it flatly covers managing power in a digital camera device to a power manager that sends state information to a processor controlling the camera.
Patent #7,633,076: Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices
This was issued in October of 2009, and it's really quite specific: it covers a phone with multitouch input, a proximity sensor, and an ambient light sensor, which allows input when the sensors indicate one condition and doesn't allow input in others. In simple terms? It's how the iPhone shuts off the touchscreen when you hold it to your ear, a scenario that's specifically called out in the claims.
Patent #5,848,105: GMSK Signal Processors For Improved Communications Capacity And Quality
The year was 1998, and times were lean in Cupertino. Steve Jobs had just returned to Apple, and although the company's fortunes were turning with the introduction of the iMac, it was clear that a true breakout was needed. "We have the answer!" cried William A. Garnder and Stephan V. Schell, two of the company's employees. "We'll develop an an apparatus
Apple asked to stop shipment of specific Samsung devices they felt violated trade dress. Not all of them.
Motorola is seeking to block all Apple devices with iMessage. That means every computer, every phone, every iPad, every iPod touch.
How is it exactly you feel that this is revenge in equal measure or a "great retort"? It seems like some bullshit (from Apple) was met by Super Extreme Mega Bullshit (from Google... er Motorola).
That doesn't seem like a great retort. It seems petty.
I see, so now it's Google/Motorola's fault that Apple offers less choice to their consumers?
And these phones weren't impacted by the trade dress violations but Apple still sought a ban on them. Stop trying to make Apple look like a saint here, they were and are trying to get anything they could get banned.
I am tired of this constant meme although I am not a big fan of Google.
What Google is doing is perfectly right from a moral, legal and commercial perspective. Apple started suing Android makers first(though Motorola beat them to the punch by a few weeks with a lawsuit and request for a declaration that it didn't infringe certain Apple patents after talks broke down). If Apple gets an injunction against Motorola for their silly patents over multitouch etc., Motorola will have to either stop selling handsets or pay $30 per phone which will kill their phones. Why should they not retaliate so that they have a chance of a negotiated settlement if that happens?
Also, big companies like Apple must be taught a lesson that if you start litigating, you should expect no mercy from the companies you're suing exploiting the exact same legal loopholes. If that's not done, other companies(except NPEs) will not think twice before suing competitors. Why should Google unilaterally disarm again? Just because they're your favorite company is for once on the receiving end of the same shit it is flinging all over everyone else? Motorola is not suing Samsung, HTC etc. here, but Apple is. Go figure out why
I love Slashdot posts and the moderation. When Aero was new, Slashdot was railing against Aero. And now Metro. Same with hating on XP and 7 when they were new, but then later actually talking about stocking up more copies of XP and 7 when the next versions came out just to make sure. If it wasn't so predictable every time, it would not be so boring and trite.
>Since Intel cannot or do not want to manufacture CPUs cheaper than ARM licensees plus they still have lousy performance/watt their only remaining market is something which takes advantage of the vast catalog of pre-existing software for the x86 architecture namely Windows
Thanks for posting that. The article felt nothing like a hit piece against all things Intel and AMD just because they're not officially supporting one processor on Linux at the time of release. Intel is very good at releasing Linux drivers for their GPUs etc. compared to others. I think they figure that too many Linux folks won't be falling over themselves buying Windows 8 touch tablets and running Ubuntu on them. The Slashdot consensus seems to be that Windows 8 tablets suck and will be a massive failure, so why even bother at this point about Clover Trail?
From TFA:
>AMD's "Hondo" processor is being marketed as "Windows Only" too. Microsoft must be paying both manufacturers a lot for this
I don't think Microsoft really cares about the 1% Linux PC market enough to spend any money on exclusivity. They know hobbyists will add support regardless and I don't think they care one bit. Their real target is the iPad here, whether their strategy succeeds or not is a different issue, but this sure feels like a sour grapes hit piece written for the Slashdot audience.
Slashdot Mirror
Here we go with the hyperbolics without even RTFA'ing. You can choose to install the key in the store when UEFI is in setup mode so that you don't see the prompt again.
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/blogs/browse/2012/10/linux-foundation-uefi-secure-boot-system-open-source
Or just fricking turn off secure boot.
Microsoft should get back at Apache by enabling the DNT flag for all browsers for sites hosted on IIS!
It's ridiculous that Apache is blocking DNT flags. Web servers should be just that, web servers, not vehicles for egomaniacs.
Even if ignoring DNT for all IE10 users is done, it should be done at the application level by individual site owners, not at the web server or TCP/IP level. Apache is doing a power grab here.
Yes it's not a crime, but it should be up to the individual webmaster to ignore it or not.
What business has Apache to mess around with the input to your web server? Are they at least informing Apache users at install?
What next, drop DNT flag in the kernel TCP/IP stack? How about your ISP stripping the DNT flag from your outbound packets?
Apache has just become a pawn in these wars.
What are you talking about? There is no Apache 3.0 license that I know of.
Perhaps you confused Apache with the GPL in your rush to type in a knee jerk karma whoring anti-MS comment like you usually do?
Streaming 100 different DVDs to 100 different people was already ruled illegal.
http://news.yahoo.com/zediva-permanently-shut-down-forced-pay-mpaa-nearly-042405420.html
http://www.wired.com/business/2011/08/zediva-shuts-down/
The federal version was voted down in the House by the Republicans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/facebook-password-protection-amendment-congress_n_1384045.html
I like how you sidestepped that, by the same logic, Microsoft is a big time winner in Server OSes, Web Servers and IDEs. Care to admit that or does that logic only apply to your favorite company?
"You mean read his stupid crap snarky sneering comparisons on Amazon's earnings vs. Apple's ?"
Is it not the truth?
No, it's very misleading because Amazon is investing the profits into expansion which is way different from a company struggling to make money which Gruber wants to portray it as, comparing profit like the way he did is ridiculous. And it looks like it worked, with people like you thinking profits mean everything. Check the stock market reaction to earnings and you'll know why it is misleading.
As a profit seeking entity, isn't profit the most important measure of success? How can a money losing company - i.e. every Android manufacturer except for Samsung and HTC (barely) be considered "successfully"?
Because marketshare also matters, and Android is clearly winning there. Picking the metric that best suits Apple because Apple's losing on other metrics is a pretty lame tactic. By that metric Microsoft is winning over Linux and Apache in the server and web server market.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/03/new-android-market-rule-prohibits-apps-that-use-third-party-in-app-payment-services/ [arstechnica.com]
Ah, the classic technique of showing Android is just as bad? But sorry, your own link says this:
By comparison, Apple also prohibits the use of third-party payment systems in applications sold through its iOS App Store. A key difference, however, is that Google offers exceptions for retailers of physical and virtual goods (including ebooks). It's also worth noting that Android's support for application sideloading and alternate distribution channels will mean Android application developers have the option of not complying with Google's new rules, assuming they are willing to sacrifice the advantages of having a presence in the platform's standard marketplace.
Which means you can buy ebooks from the Kindle app on Android, but you cannot on iDevices. Read it later was kicked out because of Apple's policy (which was ironic given that Apple used their OSS code in Safari for a similar feature).
http://readitlaterlist.com/blog/2010/08/version-2-2-rejected-new-rejection-reason-from-apple-may-have-major-implications/
Also, your link fails to address the fact that Microsoft allows third party payments in the Windows App Store. Perhaps you should try reading some other sources of news instead of living in the Daring Fireball bubble.
Well... everyone's talking about resolution independent interface, and that's really what it should be about. Of course, it makes no sense.
So when you claimed MS doesn't understand DPI because they insist on a minimum resolution instead of a minimum size you had no fricking clue about what you were talking about(perhaps you don't understand DPI) and you now say it makes no sense to have a minimum size instead of minimum resolution? That's quite a flipflop between your two posts.
So there is the Apple approach that take shortcuts that work well, and the MS approach which tries to accommodate for every fucking screen on the planet. Guess who's more efficient? Guess who will end up with an average interface that will work so-so on most configs but will look clunky on not so common screens. Interestingly that's the very same approach that did lead them to the pre-ipad tablets. Talk about learning about one's mistake.
Perhaps you should learn about the late 80s and early 90s, when MS with the help of Dell, Compaq, HP etc. etc. and the variety of hardware and screens you're now decrying absolutely crushed Apple and it's limited hardware support to near death. Talk about learning from about one's mistake!
I was not comparing to TFA. I was just mentioning that apart from asserting that their author is utterly clueless, they pretty much serve no purpose.
I make a similar assertion about TFA.
Your first link is a very interesting link, which kind of proves that MS doesn't understand dpi since they insist on a "minimum resolution" instead of a "minimum size" for screens for the Metro UI. Way off the point.
What do you mean by "minimum size"? Like 7 inches wide? So you want MS to proclaim that all Metro apps are supposed to support a minimum of 7" width regardless of the resolution? So does that mean the apps must support a device with 320x240 resolution?
Both links on the Apple side of the story, however, are so stupid I have to assume you haven't even had a look at them. Basically, both complain that the UI elements have the same size on the MacBook Retina than on a normal MacBook !!!
They're no more stupid than TFA, which I suggest you read, and which complains about the same problem with scaling up graphics on the web.
Meanwhile, let the anti-MS bashfest continue.
You'd think that a company with billions of dollars in revenue could test the product or at least re-use some old perfectly functional scaling code in prior products that performed the same task. /snark
Wait, are you talking about Apple?
After all, Apple has tens of billions more cash than Microsoft, which according to Slashdot wisdom, is dying.
Wonder who the coal and energy industry gives the most money to and who will profit from more use of energy?
Apple did win some of the design claims, including the front face and bezel etc.
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/08/24/a-verdict-reached-jury-apple-v-samsung-case/
For the infringement of the D’677 patent, covering the front face of the iPhone, Samsung was found to infringe on all devices aside from the Ace. On the D’087 patent, relating to the back of the iPhone, all Samsung devices aside from the S 4G and Vibrant only were found to infringe.
On the D’305 patent, all Samsung devices were found to infringe. That’s the design of Apple’s iOS icons. The jury also felt that Samsung should have known that the icons were being copied
..
Trade Dress
Samsung could not prove that the ’893 trade dress on the iPhone 3G was not protectable. The iPhone 3G trade dress was found to be diluted by many of Samsung’s products, despite not being registered. Only the Captivate, Charge, Epic 4G, Galaxy S 2, Skyrocket, Infuse and Epic 4G touch were found not to dilute the 3G’s trade dress.
The Galaxy S 4G, one of Samsung’s flagship devices, was found to dilute the trade dress of the iPhone 3G, cranking up the damages numbers quite a bit.
Looks like the UK Railway too is not happy with them.
http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/912750-apple-ios6-maps-debacle-transport-for-london-signposts-alternative
How does Apple being a hardware company negate it? People go to Best Buy or Amazon to buy a laptop, not to pick up a shrink wrapped OS disc, and that's where the real sales numbers are at. You're the moron here.
Also for just one more example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Desktop_Environment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2CprTGEIS8
Though I am sure you'll find some nonsense revisionist reason to blame MS for CDE sucking, instead of blaming the actual companies and people who developed it.
MS did have market forces working for it, but you totally ignore the missteps, bumbling and stumbling by the competition while MS executed well, across DOS, Windows, Office etc.
Take Netscape for example, it was good the first few versions and then later IE 4-5 was actually objectively better.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
For the latest example of such a thing, see Sony stumbling with the PS3, while the XBox overtook it in sales.
>The reason why he has 66 billion is because he has made a history of drug dealer tactics involving tricking people into thinking they are getting something great for free and then keeping them hooked on his garbage. And make no mistake about it, what was produced under his watch was quite intentionally, garbage.
Stop with the lame revisionist crap. Windows 95 was way better than the competition at the, so was Office.
Does anyone what these people do after coming to the US? Are they instantly eligible for food stamps, social security benefits, medicare/medicaid, unemployment etc. ?
Nokia fired first and Apple paid $600 million and something $20 a hand set on going
Wait, so Nokia suing Apple is the reason that Apple was trying to sue HTC, Samsung and Motorola into the ground with importation bans and injunctions? Sounds like a lame excuse to me. Not to mention that Nokia was mostly suing over real DSP and 3G signaling patents(some of which are FRAND) which Apple actually is using in their devices and which other phone companies have already licensed, not lame software patents over scrolling and multitouch pinch to zoom, slide to unlock stuff that have been in prior use.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dmmxVA5xhuo#t=267s
Apple's "Patent" was actually a design patent, all about the whole look and feel. Apple only sued one company over it. And yet the Apple suit spawned countless discussions about the evils of software patents in general and Apple's use of them to destroy the whole market.
Do you have ANY clue of what you're spouting here? Hard to believe you're that ignorant, I am starting to think you're not an Apple fan but a troll at this point.
Pray, tell us which of these are design patents? And why are they suing HTC? Also, I am ignoring all the tens of court cases they have filed with things like multitouch, slide to unlock etc. etc. Not to mention they won on multitouch and the scrolling patent in the Samsung case, how are they design patents? What are you smoking?
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-patent-breakdown/
Patent #7,362,331: Time-Based, Non-Constant Translation Of User Interface Objects Between States
This is an interface patent granted in 2008 -- it's not specifically related to phones. According to the claims, it's a method of moving a GUI object along a path with a non-constant velocity for a period of time -- one of the claims specifically covers minimizing windows with a scaling effect like OS X, and two others describe a row of icons that rearranges itself when icons are added or removed, just like the iPhone's app dock.
Patent #7,479,949: Touch Screen Device, Method, And Graphical User Interface For Determining Commands By Applying Heuristics
We did this one at length after it was issued in January of last year -- check out our Palm discussion for more. The big one here is scroll behavior: starting a scroll in a single direction locks you in that direction, but starting it at an angle lets you pan around freely -- just like the Android browser.
Patent #7,657,849: Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image
This one's cute 'cause it's brand new -- seriously, it was just granted on February 2. It's almost exactly what it says on the tin: it covers unlocking a touchscreen device by moving an unlock image. It's broad enough for us to say that it covers virtually every unlock behavior we've seen on phones, not just the iPhone's slide-to-unlock implementation.
Patent #7,469,381: List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling, And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display
Yep, we covered this 2008 patent in our Palm piece too -- well remembered, friends. Jump back to that for the full details, but the executive summary is that it covers the iPhone's distinctive scroll-back-and-bounce behavior.
Patent #5,920,726: System And Method For Managing Power Conditions Within A Digital Camera Device
Granted in 1999, this patent is surprisingly broad -- it flatly covers managing power in a digital camera device to a power manager that sends state information to a processor controlling the camera.
Patent #7,633,076: Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices
This was issued in October of 2009, and it's really quite specific: it covers a phone with multitouch input, a proximity sensor, and an ambient light sensor, which allows input when the sensors indicate one condition and doesn't allow input in others. In simple terms? It's how the iPhone shuts off the touchscreen when you hold it to your ear, a scenario that's specifically called out in the claims.
Patent #5,848,105: GMSK Signal Processors For Improved Communications Capacity And Quality
The year was 1998, and times were lean in Cupertino. Steve Jobs had just returned to Apple, and although the company's fortunes were turning with the introduction of the iMac, it was clear that a true breakout was needed. "We have the answer!" cried William A. Garnder and Stephan V. Schell, two of the company's employees. "We'll develop an an apparatus
Apple asked to stop shipment of specific Samsung devices they felt violated trade dress. Not all of them.
Motorola is seeking to block all Apple devices with iMessage. That means every computer, every phone, every iPad, every iPod touch.
How is it exactly you feel that this is revenge in equal measure or a "great retort"? It seems like some bullshit (from Apple) was met by Super Extreme Mega Bullshit (from Google... er Motorola).
That doesn't seem like a great retort. It seems petty.
I see, so now it's Google/Motorola's fault that Apple offers less choice to their consumers?
And these phones weren't impacted by the trade dress violations but Apple still sought a ban on them. Stop trying to make Apple look like a saint here, they were and are trying to get anything they could get banned.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9517250/Apple-seeks-US-ban-on-Samsung-Note-and-Galaxy-S3.html
I am tired of this constant meme although I am not a big fan of Google.
What Google is doing is perfectly right from a moral, legal and commercial perspective. Apple started suing Android makers first(though Motorola beat them to the punch by a few weeks with a lawsuit and request for a declaration that it didn't infringe certain Apple patents after talks broke down). If Apple gets an injunction against Motorola for their silly patents over multitouch etc., Motorola will have to either stop selling handsets or pay $30 per phone which will kill their phones. Why should they not retaliate so that they have a chance of a negotiated settlement if that happens?
Also, big companies like Apple must be taught a lesson that if you start litigating, you should expect no mercy from the companies you're suing exploiting the exact same legal loopholes. If that's not done, other companies(except NPEs) will not think twice before suing competitors. Why should Google unilaterally disarm again? Just because they're your favorite company is for once on the receiving end of the same shit it is flinging all over everyone else? Motorola is not suing Samsung, HTC etc. here, but Apple is. Go figure out why
I love Slashdot posts and the moderation. When Aero was new, Slashdot was railing against Aero. And now Metro. Same with hating on XP and 7 when they were new, but then later actually talking about stocking up more copies of XP and 7 when the next versions came out just to make sure. If it wasn't so predictable every time, it would not be so boring and trite.
>Since Intel cannot or do not want to manufacture CPUs cheaper than ARM licensees plus they still have lousy performance/watt their only remaining market is something which takes advantage of the vast catalog of pre-existing software for the x86 architecture namely Windows
Wrong.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/05/motorola-razr-m-europe-intel/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5770/lava-xolo-x900-review-the-first-intel-medfield-phone/6
Thanks for posting that. The article felt nothing like a hit piece against all things Intel and AMD just because they're not officially supporting one processor on Linux at the time of release. Intel is very good at releasing Linux drivers for their GPUs etc. compared to others. I think they figure that too many Linux folks won't be falling over themselves buying Windows 8 touch tablets and running Ubuntu on them. The Slashdot consensus seems to be that Windows 8 tablets suck and will be a massive failure, so why even bother at this point about Clover Trail?
From TFA:
>AMD's "Hondo" processor is being marketed as "Windows Only" too. Microsoft must be paying both manufacturers a lot for this
I don't think Microsoft really cares about the 1% Linux PC market enough to spend any money on exclusivity. They know hobbyists will add support regardless and I don't think they care one bit. Their real target is the iPad here, whether their strategy succeeds or not is a different issue, but this sure feels like a sour grapes hit piece written for the Slashdot audience.