My Ryzen build with dual 4k displays, dual GPUs, 64GB of RAM, 1TB of m.2 PCIe storage clocking in at ~4GB/sec read/write and 1TB of SATA RAID SSD storage clocking in at ~1GB/sec read/write runs circles around the iMac Pro for $1k less. I was a launch-day adopter of the platform and bought parts on preorder; most of the parts I bought are cheaper now, none have increased in price, so you could probably build this same system today for closer to $3500.
If we stopped protecting their monopoly status, they'd correct course so that their current customers no longer wanted alternatives. If might take a year or two, but that's how long sane regulation would take to implement in the first place; how long were the rules that are being repealed actually written into law, yet they weren't even in effect yet?
We don't necessarily need there to be competition, we simply need competition to be possible; we already see the incumbents providing higher speeds and lower prices in areas where they don't have exclusivity agreements, even if they have natural exclusivity due to lack of competitors having moved into the area. This is by design; if a competitor can move in and undercut them, they know a competitor will move in and undercut them, so the drop prices where competition is possible, regardless of whether it actually exists. Once the competitor is there, they begin losing customers and have to drop prices and improve service to keep those who don't immediately jump ship; they opt to skip the "lose customers" step, and wisely so.
The water resistance comes, in large part, from the glue around the screen. If you damage that, well, there goes your water resistance.
Let's talk about a more recent model, though; one that's actually considered (and advertised by Apple) as water resistant. The iPhone 7, a year old now, but a whole two years newer than your iPhone 6, is advertised to survive being submerged in up to 3ft of water for up to 30 minutes. The repair process is more or less identical; the type of screws and the battery part numbers have changed, but the rest is the same. Perform the same repair you did on your iPhone 6 on an iPhone 7 and let me know how it fares sitting in a bowl of water for 5 minutes, let alone a depth of 3ft for 30.
It's only not an issue for you for the same reason the iPhone 6 not being rated as water resistant in the first place has not been an issue for you.
I can guarantee they've rejected more than one single patch. Where do they publish the list of rejected patches, then? I never claimed development was done in secret, only that no list of rejected patches is kept; and if such a list does exist, surely it lists the rejected patch I've provided, right? So where is it?
As I said, such a list does not exist; but that is not evidence that no patches are rejected; if it were, I would not have been able to provide a single rejected patch.
Yes, I can also just in this place they are propaganda... I suppose you might learn to form a cogent argument some time after you learn to forma coherent sentence.
I dunno, I'm a web developer, I run a business, I run servers locally, and I'd sure love to live in a more rural location. I can't, because I can't find the bandwidth I need in those locations.
Maybe if the bandwidth were there, more of us would be there, too?
Where we live and in most municipalities, I believe, broadband is regulated by the city. In the city where we live, when Comcast wanted to move in, city council wouldn't let them until another provider could also move in.
This happened in the 1980s.
Uhm... I'm pretty sure the technology for cable internet didn't exist until the 90's. I'm also pretty sure you meant Comcast wanted to move in as a TV provider and the city held them off, but you need to make that more clear in your posts or people will think you're just making shit up when your apparent claims don't align with reality.
Oh, and iFixit also rates the iPhone on par with many Android phones in terms of repairability
So that makes it all better? You're saying that the Android phone manufacturers are right, then, because that means your beloved Apple is also right? They could all be wrong, too, you know...
How many of these phones will retain their water resistance after such an operation, though? It might be $25+parts down the drain the first time it gets a little moist.
I've personally seen more iPhones ruined by the $50+parts shops, and you're advocating that he cheaper labor won't fuck it up? There are a very slim number of people who should be trusted to service these devices: the manufacturer, the actual owner, and a handful of skilled repair facilities typically not found in such a dusty environment as a mall kiosk. A proper repair facility will cost a bit more; the manufacturer more still, and the owner of the device even more for a one-off repair (due to the cost of parts and tools, assuming proper parts and tools are used to do the job correctly).
That's the first one I could find; it's not like rejected patches are published -- after all, they were rejected. You're asking for evidence that only the person who submitted the patch and the person who rejected it would have, and you're asking in a place where you know you won't find either of those people. That I was able to find one example of something that it not typically published tells me there are likely more; if you were thinking objectively, you'd see this truth.
As to your "1-2 choices" comment, that's a last mile issue. Net neutrality doesn't have anything to do with that.
It actually has a lot to do with net neutrality. If there was real competition, neutrality wouldn't even be a question; neutral ISPs would get customers and restrictive double-dipping ISPs would not.
This poster is literally arguing that the internet is one big uncompartmentalized room.
Actually, I'm arguing that worthless trolls like you can access many communities with minimal effort. I'm not even complaining about it, as I find your kind quite entertaining.
Correction, actually; it really couldn't be much more than 26 years, since Linux didn't exist prior to that. I got caught up in the heat of the moment, but I wouldn't have been surprised if you'd tried to claim 3 decades or more experience. which, of course, would have been utter bullshit since... well... it hasn't existed for that long.
over 2 decades ago. It's like you've forgotten how to read! That could be 20 years and 1 femtosecond, or it could be 50 years, or really anything over 20 years.
News Flash, systemd is not going anywhere.
Time will tell, I suppose. At any rate, as I said previously, I really don't care so long as it doesn't cause problems for me; and it doesn't.
Linux isn't UNIX, and that is a good thing.
Indeed, it is not, but one of its key strengths has always been its (mostly) adherence to the Unix philosophy. By Linus' own admission, Linux was built around Unix.
Then I wanted to download stuff, so I had to write a disk driver, I had to write a file system so I could read the Minix file system in order to be able to write files and read files to upload them. So essentially when you have task-switching, you have a file system, you have device drivers—that's Unix.
Have a great time misunderstanding systemd!
I understand systemd quite well, thanks; well enough that I've got a number of Ubuntu Xenial instances running with no issues, thus why I don't personally have a problem with it. If you recall from a few posts back, I was merely explaining why many others do.
Try ls on a partition you haven't run mkfs on and let me know how that goes,
Huh, worked just find on the NTFS partition on the USB disk I just brought over from my Windows workstation.
and you can't run libpng at all BTW
I never said you could, I said it would work. And it does, in many, many applications that are not (and to not rely on) The GIMP.
Anyway, good luck learning about Linux!
I learned about it over two decades ago and have been using it ever since, thank you very much. You, on the other hand, don't seem to understand the concept of a dependency, let alone a circular one.
There is a way to boot into an emergency shell when this happens.
Yet you don't seem to be willing to share that information. That's probably the attitude he's talking about, if I had to guess. I remember a time when a member of the Linux community would have responded with something helpful along the lines of:
You can add break to your kernel line to get a shell on your initram, you can even decide to get it before or after mounting...
Possibly even elaborating on just how to go about doing that but, at the very least, pointing the user in the right direction.
There was a time when ignorance was met with information, rather than ridicule. If you want people to embrace your beloved systemd, perhaps that time should be now?
Can ls, cp, and their ilk do their job without mkfs?
In fact, yes. I can run any of them on a system without mkfs installed, just as I can run mkfs on a system without ls or cp installed.
OMG, it's a circular dependency!
They're not dependent on each other in the slightest.
That's just one of 100 examples BTW.
Can I see the rest? Maybe one of them will be valid.
gcc can't build anything non-trivial without a make tool.
Make sets up the build configuration, gcc builds it. You can manually set up the build configuration without make and gcc will happily work with that, make just, well, makes it easier.
OMG, it's not UNIX!
Oh, but it is!
The GIMP can't process png files without libpng.
But libpng can work without The GIMP.
OMG, another one!
Ah, another what?
It is a bullshit argument.
Yes, I'm glad you see that now.
Oh, wait, you were talking about my post and not your own. Sorry, but no.
Slashdot Mirror
So the current-gen cards can drive fewer displays than the older ones? Huh...
My Ryzen build with dual 4k displays, dual GPUs, 64GB of RAM, 1TB of m.2 PCIe storage clocking in at ~4GB/sec read/write and 1TB of SATA RAID SSD storage clocking in at ~1GB/sec read/write runs circles around the iMac Pro for $1k less. I was a launch-day adopter of the platform and bought parts on preorder; most of the parts I bought are cheaper now, none have increased in price, so you could probably build this same system today for closer to $3500.
You good, bro?
If we stopped protecting their monopoly status, they'd correct course so that their current customers no longer wanted alternatives. If might take a year or two, but that's how long sane regulation would take to implement in the first place; how long were the rules that are being repealed actually written into law, yet they weren't even in effect yet?
We don't necessarily need there to be competition, we simply need competition to be possible; we already see the incumbents providing higher speeds and lower prices in areas where they don't have exclusivity agreements, even if they have natural exclusivity due to lack of competitors having moved into the area. This is by design; if a competitor can move in and undercut them, they know a competitor will move in and undercut them, so the drop prices where competition is possible, regardless of whether it actually exists. Once the competitor is there, they begin losing customers and have to drop prices and improve service to keep those who don't immediately jump ship; they opt to skip the "lose customers" step, and wisely so.
The water resistance comes, in large part, from the glue around the screen. If you damage that, well, there goes your water resistance.
Let's talk about a more recent model, though; one that's actually considered (and advertised by Apple) as water resistant. The iPhone 7, a year old now, but a whole two years newer than your iPhone 6, is advertised to survive being submerged in up to 3ft of water for up to 30 minutes. The repair process is more or less identical; the type of screws and the battery part numbers have changed, but the rest is the same. Perform the same repair you did on your iPhone 6 on an iPhone 7 and let me know how it fares sitting in a bowl of water for 5 minutes, let alone a depth of 3ft for 30.
It's only not an issue for you for the same reason the iPhone 6 not being rated as water resistant in the first place has not been an issue for you.
I can guarantee they've rejected more than one single patch. Where do they publish the list of rejected patches, then? I never claimed development was done in secret, only that no list of rejected patches is kept; and if such a list does exist, surely it lists the rejected patch I've provided, right? So where is it?
As I said, such a list does not exist; but that is not evidence that no patches are rejected; if it were, I would not have been able to provide a single rejected patch.
Dude, get a clue.
Yes, I can also just in this place they are propaganda... I suppose you might learn to form a cogent argument some time after you learn to forma coherent sentence.
I dunno, I'm a web developer, I run a business, I run servers locally, and I'd sure love to live in a more rural location. I can't, because I can't find the bandwidth I need in those locations.
Maybe if the bandwidth were there, more of us would be there, too?
Where we live and in most municipalities, I believe, broadband is regulated by the city. In the city where we live, when Comcast wanted to move in, city council wouldn't let them until another provider could also move in.
This happened in the 1980s.
Uhm... I'm pretty sure the technology for cable internet didn't exist until the 90's. I'm also pretty sure you meant Comcast wanted to move in as a TV provider and the city held them off, but you need to make that more clear in your posts or people will think you're just making shit up when your apparent claims don't align with reality.
I see you failed to address my main point about water resistance. Why?
Not explaining thing in absolutes shows weakness.
Sounds like a load of Sith to me.
According to some people around here, when 3 or more people make the same claim, regardless of evidence.
Oh, and iFixit also rates the iPhone on par with many Android phones in terms of repairability
So that makes it all better? You're saying that the Android phone manufacturers are right, then, because that means your beloved Apple is also right? They could all be wrong, too, you know...
Nice whataboutism, though.
How many of these phones will retain their water resistance after such an operation, though? It might be $25+parts down the drain the first time it gets a little moist.
I've personally seen more iPhones ruined by the $50+parts shops, and you're advocating that he cheaper labor won't fuck it up? There are a very slim number of people who should be trusted to service these devices: the manufacturer, the actual owner, and a handful of skilled repair facilities typically not found in such a dusty environment as a mall kiosk. A proper repair facility will cost a bit more; the manufacturer more still, and the owner of the device even more for a one-off repair (due to the cost of parts and tools, assuming proper parts and tools are used to do the job correctly).
Off topic? I should say not!
The Note 7 was blazing because of a new battery, too!
That's the first one I could find; it's not like rejected patches are published -- after all, they were rejected. You're asking for evidence that only the person who submitted the patch and the person who rejected it would have, and you're asking in a place where you know you won't find either of those people. That I was able to find one example of something that it not typically published tells me there are likely more; if you were thinking objectively, you'd see this truth.
As to your "1-2 choices" comment, that's a last mile issue. Net neutrality doesn't have anything to do with that.
It actually has a lot to do with net neutrality. If there was real competition, neutrality wouldn't even be a question; neutral ISPs would get customers and restrictive double-dipping ISPs would not.
This poster is literally arguing that the internet is one big uncompartmentalized room.
Actually, I'm arguing that worthless trolls like you can access many communities with minimal effort. I'm not even complaining about it, as I find your kind quite entertaining.
Here's one example.
Correction, actually; it really couldn't be much more than 26 years, since Linux didn't exist prior to that. I got caught up in the heat of the moment, but I wouldn't have been surprised if you'd tried to claim 3 decades or more experience. which, of course, would have been utter bullshit since... well... it hasn't existed for that long.
Only 2 decades ago? You are a newbie.
over 2 decades ago. It's like you've forgotten how to read! That could be 20 years and 1 femtosecond, or it could be 50 years, or really anything over 20 years.
News Flash, systemd is not going anywhere.
Time will tell, I suppose. At any rate, as I said previously, I really don't care so long as it doesn't cause problems for me; and it doesn't.
Linux isn't UNIX, and that is a good thing.
Indeed, it is not, but one of its key strengths has always been its (mostly) adherence to the Unix philosophy. By Linus' own admission, Linux was built around Unix.
Then I wanted to download stuff, so I had to write a disk driver, I had to write a file system so I could read the Minix file system in order to be able to write files and read files to upload them. So essentially when you have task-switching, you have a file system, you have device drivers—that's Unix.
Have a great time misunderstanding systemd!
I understand systemd quite well, thanks; well enough that I've got a number of Ubuntu Xenial instances running with no issues, thus why I don't personally have a problem with it. If you recall from a few posts back, I was merely explaining why many others do.
We're both here on Slashdot, my brother. Think about that for a moment.
And why is Junta's opinion any less valid than Poettering's? Or yours, for that matter.
Try ls on a partition you haven't run mkfs on and let me know how that goes,
Huh, worked just find on the NTFS partition on the USB disk I just brought over from my Windows workstation.
and you can't run libpng at all BTW
I never said you could, I said it would work. And it does, in many, many applications that are not (and to not rely on) The GIMP.
Anyway, good luck learning about Linux!
I learned about it over two decades ago and have been using it ever since, thank you very much. You, on the other hand, don't seem to understand the concept of a dependency, let alone a circular one.
There is a way to boot into an emergency shell when this happens.
Yet you don't seem to be willing to share that information. That's probably the attitude he's talking about, if I had to guess. I remember a time when a member of the Linux community would have responded with something helpful along the lines of:
You can add break to your kernel line to get a shell on your initram, you can even decide to get it before or after mounting...
Possibly even elaborating on just how to go about doing that but, at the very least, pointing the user in the right direction.
There was a time when ignorance was met with information, rather than ridicule. If you want people to embrace your beloved systemd, perhaps that time should be now?
Really?
Yes.
Can ls, cp, and their ilk do their job without mkfs?
In fact, yes. I can run any of them on a system without mkfs installed, just as I can run mkfs on a system without ls or cp installed.
OMG, it's a circular dependency!
They're not dependent on each other in the slightest.
That's just one of 100 examples BTW.
Can I see the rest? Maybe one of them will be valid.
gcc can't build anything non-trivial without a make tool.
Make sets up the build configuration, gcc builds it. You can manually set up the build configuration without make and gcc will happily work with that, make just, well, makes it easier.
OMG, it's not UNIX!
Oh, but it is!
The GIMP can't process png files without libpng.
But libpng can work without The GIMP.
OMG, another one!
Ah, another what?
It is a bullshit argument.
Yes, I'm glad you see that now.
Oh, wait, you were talking about my post and not your own. Sorry, but no.