And, at the end of the day, this whole thread started because I answered "yes" to a simple "yes or no" question. Not advocating that it was a good idea, or that it would be reliable, or that anyone should do it, just that yes, it can be done.
Jesus, you'd think I just drew a cartoon of Mohammed or something. I was just answering a simple question, not trying to start a holy way.
Notice how all of the versions of AutoCAD listed there are ancient versions?
I'm not an AutoCAD user and have no clue what the current version is so, no, I did not notice that.
Sorry, try again
No need, the question didn't state a version, it just asked whether or not AutoCAD could run on Linux. The answer I gave was accurate.
Then afterwards, let me know if Wine can run the latest versions of Illustrator, ACDSee, Premiere, Vegas Pro, Avid Media Composer, Pro Tools, FL Studio, 3ds Max, LightWave 3D, Visual Studio, Crysis 3 and Elite: Dangerous.
Wow, it's like you think I'm advocating for Linux here. I'm really not, I was just answering a simple "yes or no" question. I answered it with a simple (and accurate) "yes". Read the rest of the thread and you'll see that I mention Adobe's tools (two of which are in your list) specifically as a reason that I'm not, personally, a desktop Linux user. As for FL Studio, I've got it running right now; the downloader doesn't work and the Vorbis codec needed to be installed manually just like with previous versions, but it works well enough. I do have a dedicated Windows machine that I use for any real use of FL Studio but it runs well enough in WINE on OSX to dick around with it when I'm sitting on the couch, if I don't need the rest of my gear.
You basically just made the same point I was making. It is the person I was replying to who wasn't being imaginative enough. As for the innovation offered by Linux, well, it's a kernel; it's up to the individual distros to offer some form of innovative user experience. I won't say I find anything Ubuntu offers all that innovative, personally, but my mother sure took to it. She does keep a Windows machine around for gaming, but for general use she prefers Ubuntu because it does a much better job of staying out of her way than Windows does. Perhaps I don't find that innovative because I was an avid Windows user long before XP started popping up system bar notifications about every little thing the system did; not that was innovative. It wasn't good, but it sure was innovative.
Following the format of your reply, so as not to confuse you:
I was answering the question that was asked (and not advocating for anything at all). Yes you can infer that I was advocating for some (maybe even most!) people to use WINE but what is the point in reading so much into a simple, one word answer when you could just use logic and know that I was only answering what was asked?
Why would Autodesk or Adobe or Dassault or whoever go to the effort of porting to a platform that has no users?
I wouldn't say that desktop Linux has no users. Linux workstations are not uncommon in a multimedia (audio/video) production workflow. In Adobe's case, thousands of users have participated in threads on Adobe's own forums, asking for a Linux version, to which they replied several years ago that they were working on it, soon followed by, more or less "ha ha we lied, now fuck off". It seems that a large and vocal group of your users begging you for it is a damn good reason.
And what would they get out of expending all that effort of getting their users switching from Windows to Linux?
Who says they have to make their users switch? Autodesk, Adobe, and Dassault all develop for Windows and OSX, they didn't pick up one platform and drop the other. If they've got a large number of users asking them to support a platform, they won't have to expend any effort making any one switch; making it possible is a different story as they'd have to actually build and release for that platform, which of course is not trivial. But to insinuate that they'd have to make anyone switch is just silly.
I do, more or less,agree with the rest of your post, though.
It's not their fault that I can't play GTA V either, but it's a pretty good reason to stay on Windows.
I never said it wasn't, I was merely pointing out that I accurately answered the question that was asked and setting straight what I thought was the root cause of epyT-R not understanding that right out of the gate.
Playing around with it on my desktop where it's my time on the line is fine, I wouldn't rely on it in a business setting.
Me either, and I was not advocating that anyone could. The question posed was "Can I run autocad on [Linux]?" and the answer was "Yes." Nowhere was it specified that it had to run flawlessly (though that's generally what a "gold" rating means) or be suitable for business use, nor was it suggested that either of those were the case.
Same goes with lack of drivers, proprietary protocols, proprietary file formats and whatnot it's not anybody's fault.
Well, huh, it would seem that lack of drivers is the manufacturer's fault; if they don't want to release a driver they can release a spec and someone else will write the driver. If they release the spec and no driver gets written, then there's a lack of interest in the hardware, which is the fault of poor product design which, again, falls the the manufacturer. Proprietary protocols and file formats are the fault of the people implementing them; release the spec and the problem goes away.
I wonder when Google will get serious about an Android desktop.
Never. They have Chrome OS for that.
Or at least something more widely targeted than Chromebook.
Never. They have Android for that.
It would be a shame for Chome OS to become more Android-like or vise-versa. Please, please, please don't ask for that. I know it sounds great at first, and I've considered wanting that, myself, but then I thought about it for a while and remembered what happened the last time someone tried to combine their Mobile and Desktop OSes. Plenty of people use Windows 8; nobody actually likes it.
You do realize that "enough AutoCAD users" just doesn't exist? Most users, especially those who are using the software for their work, don't really give a rats ass if they're using a "FOSS" system. Most of them probably don't even know what that acronym stands for never mind what it means.
You do realize that I'm a Mac user and not an FOSS advocate? Using your "anti-advocacy" tone with me is unnecessary and counterproductive. Additionally, I think you meant "enough AutoCAD users who can afford the temporary loss of productivity"; if a sizable percentage started using Linux, Autodesk would have to respond with a Linux version before a competitor did (or, and I know this is unlikely, but it's certainly not impossible, before a FOSS CAD application ate their lunch).
Most users only care if the software works, and works with as little effort as possible.
Which is why I'm a Mac user. For me, a well configured Debian install would be less work, but lacks some of the software I need in my daily work; the reason OSX is more work for me is that a lot of the command line utilities have subtle differences from their Debian counterparts and I do manage a considerable number of Debian servers, so "just get used to the Mac way" simply isn't an answer. It's still less work than Windows though, and similar enough that I can be comfortable managing the system without having to wonder where Apple moved this or that configuration option in the GUI, if they even implemented a GUI for it at all.
In short, not only do I get your point, I highlighted it in my own post. Likewise, as in my example, if the Adobe Creative Cloud users who have been asking for a Linux version slowly started switching to Linux (which, for us, would mean switching to alternative image and media editing tools and breaking compatibility with the tools used by our peers), Adobe would have to respond by releasing a Linux version or simply lose that business. There would also be the risk of one or more of those tools supplanting Adobe's application(s) as the industry standard.
I'm not saying it could, or even should happen, just that it's what would need to happen in order for Adobe (despite their promises a few years ago) or Autodesk to actually develop for Linux.
You mean why bother answering explicitly asked questions with explicit and accurate answers when the trolls will come crawling out of the woodwork the moment you do? I asked myself that very same question recently and the answer I came up with is that you guys are really fucking entertaining. Why wouldn't I want you replying? I just find it amusing how many of your kind can't discern food from bait.
So they went back to basic, low-color icons. I'm not disagreeing with their decision; in fact, I applaud them for it. I would, however, like to point out that those of us who complained when they moved away from that style in the first place were essentially told to shut up because the new high-color icons were better in every way. Now that we've spent the past decade telling everyone that high-color icons are better, it does feel like it's time to revert and tell them all they're wrong for having listened to us for the past decade, doesn't it?
How do they do that? Have more users. How do they do that? Have more applications. How do they do that? Have more users. How do they do that? ***ERROR: Infinite loop detected.
By that logic, nothing new should ever be successful.
You are correct, lack of commercial software is definitely hindering the adoption of desktop Linux. That said, perhaps if enough AutoCAD users took that 20-50% performance hit on a temporary basis and just switched, Autodesk would finally release a native version.
What's keeping me on OSX is Adobe Creative Cloud; taking a performance hit isn't an option for me as CC simply does not run under WINE. If Photoshop, Fireworks, and Illustrator weren't industry standard applications used by my clients, I'd use alternatives; however, I need files my clients send me to look exactly as they intended when I get them open and I need files I send my clients to actually open correctly for them, so I'm stuck using what they use. There are a number of threads, thousands of users, clamoring for Adobe to release Linux versions of their apps and, despite promises to do so for the past several years, it appears it is all for naught.
You AutoCAD users should count yourself lucky that you actually have the option.
Uh, yeah, you went to Google after failing to scroll down a bit and being arm twisted into it. Great work there.
Failing to scroll? I loaded the page an hour before the link was posted and replied an hour after (without reloading the page) when I got around to it. I've already explained that; the link wasn't on the page to scroll down to, but nice try. As for arm-twisting, I replied to my own comment directly, before anyone else had replied to it in order to be able to twist my arm. Another good try, but you're not quite on the mark.
As for the plot hole, it really is obvious. I'll give you a hint: In my first post I criticized your objectivity.
Yes, you're arguing against me as a person, rather than my point. That tell me you have no fact-based argument.
I described the very affliction that your long-winded, I suppose you'd call it a rebuttal, demonstrated quite hilariously.
You mean that I googled around for some actual facts to post, then explained how those facts apply to reality? What affliction is that, then? Being a realist?
If you disagree with the point I am trying to make, which I have backed up with actual facts, then please, make your own counter point and back it up with your own actual, real, facts. Attacking me because you can't do that only makes your position look as weak as it you and I both know it actually is. Lucky for you, I respond because I find your attempts at trolling me every bit as amusing as you do.
Since technically that isn't really a hint because I've already told you this before, here's another. The number isn't one. You've overcome your problem once, let's see if you can do it again.
This makes no sense. If you used more bold text I'd think you were APK.
Funny, the post you replied to was the result of my having used Google to track down the story myself, since I did not see your link. Interesting, you know, me being too lazy to Google it and all. Where's this plot hole?
Yes, if you leave out the number '500,000' it sounds silly, doesn't it.
And the only reason the number of exploits from untrusted sources is 0 on non-jailbroken iOS is because you simply can't install from untrusted sources.
Since you seem to want to compare Apples to Androids, though, here is one that infected 100k+ iOS devices, no jailbreak or untrusted sources required. And another affecting 75k+ jailbroken iOS devices. I stopped searching after finding those two (which took a whole 30 seconds); that it was so easy to find those two tells me there's a lot more to be found if I wanted to invest another half-minute in it.
Let's see, 500k of 900 million Android devices, that's an infection rate of about 5.6%. I'll admit, that's not great, but let's see how iOS fares before we got all uppity, okay? I can't find "in use" numbers, only that Apple has sold over 800k; I know they're not all in use, so I'll do a quick calculation based on market share. Worldwide market share, that is, since the 500k number you're touting is worldwide. So, Android's 81.5% market share means that 1% of the market is a hair over 11 million devices; iOS holds 14.8% of the market, or 163.5 million devices. 175k infected, out of 163.5 million devices, that's a 10.7% infection rate.
So yes, sure, let's assume that other malware exists for iOS, sure there are almost 3x as many infected Android devices, but an iOS device appears to be almost 2x as likely to be infected. Factor in that other malware certainly does exist (every jailbreak is an exploit and many jailbreak utilities have been bundled with malware; little reported but anyone involved in the scene knows, always get your jailbreak tools direct from the author, but even that is no guarantee). In short, the 175k number I used is smaller than it should be, making the 10.7% infection rate I came up with a fair bit smaller than the real infection rate, as well.
As a user of a single phone and a single tablet, running the less-likely-infected platform means I'm less likely to be infected. Period. That said, I greatly prefer iOS over Android on a tablet and absolutely love my iPad. I don't do anything mission critical on either device, so my exposure is limited in any case, but I'm a little more lax with my more secure Android phone than I am with my less secure iPad.
It doesn't at all sound like the result of bad philosophies colliding, thus breeding bad behavior from a massive number of customers.
Correct. It really doesn't. unless you consider freedom a bad philosophy. Of course, with freedom comes responsibility, as in you are responsible for what happens when you misuse the freedom to install crap on your phone. Seriously, rather than volunteering to have our own freedoms stripped from us because we refuse to connect our actions with the consequences they bring, why don't we all just behave like the adults that we are and own out own liabilities? Android lets you do that, while iOS does not.
Oh, just wanted to mention since I'm somehow a douche for your laziness, you replied a full hour after the link you asked for was presented.
You're not a douche because I loaded the page long before that link was posted (not laziness, BTW), you're a douche for a whole slew of other reasons, many of which also apply to myself. So I didn't refresh the page before posting. We all do that, your point? Welcome to Slashdot.
Fandroids are especially vulnerable to SEP.
They also wouldn't own an iPad and two MacBook Pros. I guess you aimed your anti-Fandroid ray at the wrong guy.
Oh! It was this? Huh, interesting. FTFA: "Users would then see notifications about the finished downloads and would click on them, prompting the malicious application to install if their devices had the "unknown sources" setting enabled"
Yes, iOS is protected from this sort of attack by simply not allowing the user to install from unknown sources, a setting which is disabled by default on Android, incidentally. In other words, one specifically has to make themselves vulnerable to this attack in order to be vulnerable, it doesn't work in Android's default configuration.
It's always amusing when Apple fanbois point to vulnerabilities that require the ability to install from untrusted sources and scream about how insecure Android is. Really? Don't check the box to allow it (which, again, is unchecked by default) and it's a non-issue; the only people who should be checking that box are Android developers and, then, only on their development and testing devices.
The other class of "exploits" I find laughable are those that require root. Sure, many of them can be found in the Play store, but they have no effect whatsoever on a stock Android install. If you're going to consider those "exploits" you need to compare against the iOS equivalent: jailbroken devices. Suddenly, Android doesn't look so bad.
I'm not denying it, I'm asking for a link to an article about it, as I legitimately don't recall having heard or read about it at the time. How about being helpful, instead of being a douche, for once?
If you need to truncate after X characters, you don't just truncate after X*8 bits. Sure, that works if you're using an 8-bit encoding, but we're talking about multi-language script, variable-length encodings like UTF-8 here. You truncate after X code points when dealing with those, it's not a fixed number of bytes, and sanitizing your input (which I'm sure they're already doing) does not protect you against cutting a multi-byte character in half if you're counting bytes for truncation.
As soon as I posted that, I realized I should clarify why I didn't compare only city mileage, given that you mentioned mostly city driving. It's simple though, really; the Prius got better mileage 5 years ago and the Corolla got worse, so it would have been unfair to the Prius to use 2015's city mileage numbers and KBB only provides the combined value. To be as fair as possible to the Prius, that is what I used.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy war. Silly typo.
And, at the end of the day, this whole thread started because I answered "yes" to a simple "yes or no" question. Not advocating that it was a good idea, or that it would be reliable, or that anyone should do it, just that yes, it can be done.
Jesus, you'd think I just drew a cartoon of Mohammed or something. I was just answering a simple question, not trying to start a holy way.
Huh, I wonder if that's why I wasn't advocating for WINE as a solution but, rather, just answering the question another /. user had asked?
Notice how all of the versions of AutoCAD listed there are ancient versions?
I'm not an AutoCAD user and have no clue what the current version is so, no, I did not notice that.
Sorry, try again
No need, the question didn't state a version, it just asked whether or not AutoCAD could run on Linux. The answer I gave was accurate.
Then afterwards, let me know if Wine can run the latest versions of Illustrator, ACDSee, Premiere, Vegas Pro, Avid Media Composer, Pro Tools, FL Studio, 3ds Max, LightWave 3D, Visual Studio, Crysis 3 and Elite: Dangerous.
Wow, it's like you think I'm advocating for Linux here. I'm really not, I was just answering a simple "yes or no" question. I answered it with a simple (and accurate) "yes". Read the rest of the thread and you'll see that I mention Adobe's tools (two of which are in your list) specifically as a reason that I'm not, personally, a desktop Linux user. As for FL Studio, I've got it running right now; the downloader doesn't work and the Vorbis codec needed to be installed manually just like with previous versions, but it works well enough. I do have a dedicated Windows machine that I use for any real use of FL Studio but it runs well enough in WINE on OSX to dick around with it when I'm sitting on the couch, if I don't need the rest of my gear.
You basically just made the same point I was making. It is the person I was replying to who wasn't being imaginative enough. As for the innovation offered by Linux, well, it's a kernel; it's up to the individual distros to offer some form of innovative user experience. I won't say I find anything Ubuntu offers all that innovative, personally, but my mother sure took to it. She does keep a Windows machine around for gaming, but for general use she prefers Ubuntu because it does a much better job of staying out of her way than Windows does. Perhaps I don't find that innovative because I was an avid Windows user long before XP started popping up system bar notifications about every little thing the system did; not that was innovative. It wasn't good, but it sure was innovative.
Following the format of your reply, so as not to confuse you:
I was answering the question that was asked (and not advocating for anything at all). Yes you can infer that I was advocating for some (maybe even most!) people to use WINE but what is the point in reading so much into a simple, one word answer when you could just use logic and know that I was only answering what was asked?
Well it's a chicken-and-egg problem
Indeed, it is.
Why would Autodesk or Adobe or Dassault or whoever go to the effort of porting to a platform that has no users?
I wouldn't say that desktop Linux has no users. Linux workstations are not uncommon in a multimedia (audio/video) production workflow. In Adobe's case, thousands of users have participated in threads on Adobe's own forums, asking for a Linux version, to which they replied several years ago that they were working on it, soon followed by, more or less "ha ha we lied, now fuck off". It seems that a large and vocal group of your users begging you for it is a damn good reason.
And what would they get out of expending all that effort of getting their users switching from Windows to Linux?
Who says they have to make their users switch? Autodesk, Adobe, and Dassault all develop for Windows and OSX, they didn't pick up one platform and drop the other. If they've got a large number of users asking them to support a platform, they won't have to expend any effort making any one switch; making it possible is a different story as they'd have to actually build and release for that platform, which of course is not trivial. But to insinuate that they'd have to make anyone switch is just silly.
,agree with the rest of your post, though.
I do, more or less
It's not their fault that I can't play GTA V either, but it's a pretty good reason to stay on Windows.
I never said it wasn't, I was merely pointing out that I accurately answered the question that was asked and setting straight what I thought was the root cause of epyT-R not understanding that right out of the gate.
Playing around with it on my desktop where it's my time on the line is fine, I wouldn't rely on it in a business setting.
Me either, and I was not advocating that anyone could. The question posed was "Can I run autocad on [Linux]?" and the answer was "Yes." Nowhere was it specified that it had to run flawlessly (though that's generally what a "gold" rating means) or be suitable for business use, nor was it suggested that either of those were the case.
Same goes with lack of drivers, proprietary protocols, proprietary file formats and whatnot it's not anybody's fault.
Well, huh, it would seem that lack of drivers is the manufacturer's fault; if they don't want to release a driver they can release a spec and someone else will write the driver. If they release the spec and no driver gets written, then there's a lack of interest in the hardware, which is the fault of poor product design which, again, falls the the manufacturer. Proprietary protocols and file formats are the fault of the people implementing them; release the spec and the problem goes away.
I wonder when Google will get serious about an Android desktop.
Never. They have Chrome OS for that.
Or at least something more widely targeted than Chromebook.
Never. They have Android for that.
It would be a shame for Chome OS to become more Android-like or vise-versa. Please, please, please don't ask for that. I know it sounds great at first, and I've considered wanting that, myself, but then I thought about it for a while and remembered what happened the last time someone tried to combine their Mobile and Desktop OSes. Plenty of people use Windows 8; nobody actually likes it.
You do realize that "enough AutoCAD users" just doesn't exist? Most users, especially those who are using the software for their work, don't really give a rats ass if they're using a "FOSS" system. Most of them probably don't even know what that acronym stands for never mind what it means.
You do realize that I'm a Mac user and not an FOSS advocate? Using your "anti-advocacy" tone with me is unnecessary and counterproductive. Additionally, I think you meant "enough AutoCAD users who can afford the temporary loss of productivity"; if a sizable percentage started using Linux, Autodesk would have to respond with a Linux version before a competitor did (or, and I know this is unlikely, but it's certainly not impossible, before a FOSS CAD application ate their lunch).
Most users only care if the software works, and works with as little effort as possible.
Which is why I'm a Mac user. For me, a well configured Debian install would be less work, but lacks some of the software I need in my daily work; the reason OSX is more work for me is that a lot of the command line utilities have subtle differences from their Debian counterparts and I do manage a considerable number of Debian servers, so "just get used to the Mac way" simply isn't an answer. It's still less work than Windows though, and similar enough that I can be comfortable managing the system without having to wonder where Apple moved this or that configuration option in the GUI, if they even implemented a GUI for it at all.
In short, not only do I get your point, I highlighted it in my own post. Likewise, as in my example, if the Adobe Creative Cloud users who have been asking for a Linux version slowly started switching to Linux (which, for us, would mean switching to alternative image and media editing tools and breaking compatibility with the tools used by our peers), Adobe would have to respond by releasing a Linux version or simply lose that business. There would also be the risk of one or more of those tools supplanting Adobe's application(s) as the industry standard.
I'm not saying it could, or even should happen, just that it's what would need to happen in order for Adobe (despite their promises a few years ago) or Autodesk to actually develop for Linux.
You mean why bother answering explicitly asked questions with explicit and accurate answers when the trolls will come crawling out of the woodwork the moment you do? I asked myself that very same question recently and the answer I came up with is that you guys are really fucking entertaining. Why wouldn't I want you replying? I just find it amusing how many of your kind can't discern food from bait.
So they went back to basic, low-color icons. I'm not disagreeing with their decision; in fact, I applaud them for it. I would, however, like to point out that those of us who complained when they moved away from that style in the first place were essentially told to shut up because the new high-color icons were better in every way. Now that we've spent the past decade telling everyone that high-color icons are better, it does feel like it's time to revert and tell them all they're wrong for having listened to us for the past decade, doesn't it?
Derp.
What does your post have to do with the question I was answering?
How do they do that? Have more users. How do they do that? Have more applications. How do they do that? Have more users. How do they do that? ***ERROR: Infinite loop detected.
By that logic, nothing new should ever be successful.
Then we live with the status-quo, knowing full well that it is not going to change.
You are correct, lack of commercial software is definitely hindering the adoption of desktop Linux. That said, perhaps if enough AutoCAD users took that 20-50% performance hit on a temporary basis and just switched, Autodesk would finally release a native version.
What's keeping me on OSX is Adobe Creative Cloud; taking a performance hit isn't an option for me as CC simply does not run under WINE. If Photoshop, Fireworks, and Illustrator weren't industry standard applications used by my clients, I'd use alternatives; however, I need files my clients send me to look exactly as they intended when I get them open and I need files I send my clients to actually open correctly for them, so I'm stuck using what they use. There are a number of threads, thousands of users, clamoring for Adobe to release Linux versions of their apps and, despite promises to do so for the past several years, it appears it is all for naught.
You AutoCAD users should count yourself lucky that you actually have the option.
I answered the questions as asked. It's not the fault of the Linux community that Autodesk does not offer a native version.
Yes.
Uh, yeah, you went to Google after failing to scroll down a bit and being arm twisted into it. Great work there.
Failing to scroll? I loaded the page an hour before the link was posted and replied an hour after (without reloading the page) when I got around to it. I've already explained that; the link wasn't on the page to scroll down to, but nice try. As for arm-twisting, I replied to my own comment directly, before anyone else had replied to it in order to be able to twist my arm. Another good try, but you're not quite on the mark.
As for the plot hole, it really is obvious. I'll give you a hint: In my first post I criticized your objectivity.
Yes, you're arguing against me as a person, rather than my point. That tell me you have no fact-based argument.
I described the very affliction that your long-winded, I suppose you'd call it a rebuttal, demonstrated quite hilariously.
You mean that I googled around for some actual facts to post, then explained how those facts apply to reality? What affliction is that, then? Being a realist?
If you disagree with the point I am trying to make, which I have backed up with actual facts, then please, make your own counter point and back it up with your own actual, real, facts. Attacking me because you can't do that only makes your position look as weak as it you and I both know it actually is. Lucky for you, I respond because I find your attempts at trolling me every bit as amusing as you do.
Since technically that isn't really a hint because I've already told you this before, here's another. The number isn't one. You've overcome your problem once, let's see if you can do it again.
This makes no sense. If you used more bold text I'd think you were APK.
Funny, the post you replied to was the result of my having used Google to track down the story myself, since I did not see your link. Interesting, you know, me being too lazy to Google it and all. Where's this plot hole?
Yes, if you leave out the number '500,000' it sounds silly, doesn't it.
And the only reason the number of exploits from untrusted sources is 0 on non-jailbroken iOS is because you simply can't install from untrusted sources.
Since you seem to want to compare Apples to Androids, though, here is one that infected 100k+ iOS devices, no jailbreak or untrusted sources required. And another affecting 75k+ jailbroken iOS devices. I stopped searching after finding those two (which took a whole 30 seconds); that it was so easy to find those two tells me there's a lot more to be found if I wanted to invest another half-minute in it.
Let's see, 500k of 900 million Android devices, that's an infection rate of about 5.6%. I'll admit, that's not great, but let's see how iOS fares before we got all uppity, okay? I can't find "in use" numbers, only that Apple has sold over 800k; I know they're not all in use, so I'll do a quick calculation based on market share. Worldwide market share, that is, since the 500k number you're touting is worldwide. So, Android's 81.5% market share means that 1% of the market is a hair over 11 million devices; iOS holds 14.8% of the market, or 163.5 million devices. 175k infected, out of 163.5 million devices, that's a 10.7% infection rate.
So yes, sure, let's assume that other malware exists for iOS, sure there are almost 3x as many infected Android devices, but an iOS device appears to be almost 2x as likely to be infected. Factor in that other malware certainly does exist (every jailbreak is an exploit and many jailbreak utilities have been bundled with malware; little reported but anyone involved in the scene knows, always get your jailbreak tools direct from the author, but even that is no guarantee). In short, the 175k number I used is smaller than it should be, making the 10.7% infection rate I came up with a fair bit smaller than the real infection rate, as well.
As a user of a single phone and a single tablet, running the less-likely-infected platform means I'm less likely to be infected. Period. That said, I greatly prefer iOS over Android on a tablet and absolutely love my iPad. I don't do anything mission critical on either device, so my exposure is limited in any case, but I'm a little more lax with my more secure Android phone than I am with my less secure iPad.
It doesn't at all sound like the result of bad philosophies colliding, thus breeding bad behavior from a massive number of customers.
Correct. It really doesn't. unless you consider freedom a bad philosophy. Of course, with freedom comes responsibility, as in you are responsible for what happens when you misuse the freedom to install crap on your phone. Seriously, rather than volunteering to have our own freedoms stripped from us because we refuse to connect our actions with the consequences they bring, why don't we all just behave like the adults that we are and own out own liabilities? Android lets you do that, while iOS does not.
Oh, just wanted to mention since I'm somehow a douche for your laziness, you replied a full hour after the link you asked for was presented.
You're not a douche because I loaded the page long before that link was posted (not laziness, BTW), you're a douche for a whole slew of other reasons, many of which also apply to myself. So I didn't refresh the page before posting. We all do that, your point? Welcome to Slashdot.
Fandroids are especially vulnerable to SEP.
They also wouldn't own an iPad and two MacBook Pros. I guess you aimed your anti-Fandroid ray at the wrong guy.
Oh! It was this? Huh, interesting. FTFA: "Users would then see notifications about the finished downloads and would click on them, prompting the malicious application to install if their devices had the "unknown sources" setting enabled"
Yes, iOS is protected from this sort of attack by simply not allowing the user to install from unknown sources, a setting which is disabled by default on Android, incidentally. In other words, one specifically has to make themselves vulnerable to this attack in order to be vulnerable, it doesn't work in Android's default configuration.
It's always amusing when Apple fanbois point to vulnerabilities that require the ability to install from untrusted sources and scream about how insecure Android is. Really? Don't check the box to allow it (which, again, is unchecked by default) and it's a non-issue; the only people who should be checking that box are Android developers and, then, only on their development and testing devices.
The other class of "exploits" I find laughable are those that require root. Sure, many of them can be found in the Play store, but they have no effect whatsoever on a stock Android install. If you're going to consider those "exploits" you need to compare against the iOS equivalent: jailbroken devices. Suddenly, Android doesn't look so bad.
Sent from my Space Gray iPad Air 2.
I'm not denying it, I'm asking for a link to an article about it, as I legitimately don't recall having heard or read about it at the time. How about being helpful, instead of being a douche, for once?
Citation, please? I don't recall this.
If you need to truncate after X characters, you don't just truncate after X*8 bits. Sure, that works if you're using an 8-bit encoding, but we're talking about multi-language script, variable-length encodings like UTF-8 here. You truncate after X code points when dealing with those, it's not a fixed number of bytes, and sanitizing your input (which I'm sure they're already doing) does not protect you against cutting a multi-byte character in half if you're counting bytes for truncation.
As soon as I posted that, I realized I should clarify why I didn't compare only city mileage, given that you mentioned mostly city driving. It's simple though, really; the Prius got better mileage 5 years ago and the Corolla got worse, so it would have been unfair to the Prius to use 2015's city mileage numbers and KBB only provides the combined value. To be as fair as possible to the Prius, that is what I used.