This is highly subjective. I realize in the *nix world, it is a badge of honor to use command line development tools. Of course, there are people who don't feel the need to lay claim to arbitrary feats, and just want the best tool for the job. The GNU toolchain is old, has seen little innovation, and has not kept up pace with Microsoft and Apple facilities. It is stagnant, except in the eyes of those who take pride in using such archaic and user-unfriendly tools. What's more, it's common to be berated for wanting something more modern, usually taking flak for being a novice or some other unsubstantiated claims regarding ability.
Haha, Linux folk. Release the specs! Ok. No, release the source! Ok. No, port it for us!
When you have a marginal market share and an archaic tool chain, don't expect people to accommodate you. But from what I hear, this Linux "community" claims they will do the work if thrown a bone. Let's see it.
I can say without any hesitation that Ubuntu runs far slower than XP on a computer with 256mb ram. The linux community are a loud bunch of folks, and based on their ramblings I assumed that Ubuntu would run great on a comp with 256 meg ram, so I converted my brother over to Ubuntu. It was painfully and ridiculously slow. I would venture to argue that it was even slower than XP with a bunch of crapware installed. It is beyond me as to why. I thought at first video drivers, but either way in Linux or Windows, the video memory is shared. He stuck with it for about a month, but in the end asked me to put Windows back on it.
Well, so much for the "it runs great on old hardware" argument. A million lonely blogger's "Top 10 reasons to switch to Ubuntu" just became top 9 lists.
No, carriers want strict control over *your* and *my* devices.
Well, in particular, the devices you buy through them. Which, as you mentioned, are typically subsidized through contract. Of course, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from purchasing an unlocked phone from a third party and paying them for service only. It is a conscious (albeit ignorant and uninformed in the sense that many people see this as a requirement) decision to purchase the hardware from the carrier.
Of course they do. So what? Why should they get it?
They are going to get it regardless. If the stipulations of Android didn't allow this, they would use something completely closed. Do you consider this a better alternative? Google realizes that to attain market share, they have to give carriers some control. This doesn't stop anyone from putting Android on an open platform, such as OpenMoko, so I'm still trying to figure out what all the fuss is about.
OS X is at least as capable, seeing as how it can run Windows as an application.
You mean it can run Windows in a VM with limited functionality, specifically in the graphics department. OS X is slow and bloated, but thanks to common perceptions most people believe this not to be the case. I for one, had a MacBook Pro that I dual booted Windows on, and I can testify to this fact 100%.
Here's my take on the situation. Google realizes that carriers want strict control over their devices. This doesn't bother me one bit, nor does it bother 99% of consumers. The 1% is does bother are people who want a profit-seeking corporation to bow to the wants and needs of a small minority.
It bothers me when people complain about this, because the software is open. Branded versions will always be based on the open version, much the way you see MyEclipse staying in tune with the vanilla eclipse releases. Combine this with the fact that there is existing open hardware available (and opportunities to create more) and this supposed "community" that can put it all together, it leaves me wondering, what is there to complain about?
Oh jeez, I know this is just asking to be modded down, but I really don't care. Yes, Windows is the most capable desktop operating system. Prove me otherwise.
Exactly. I couldn't even imagine where Linux would be right now if it weren't driven by a bunch of egotistical nerds clamoring for their own implementation of something rather than incorporating someone else' extremely capable and far more mature existing implementation.
What happens when the parent company gets tired of supporting it? What happens when they no longer answer the phone when you call them to transfer your account to a new console? What happens when they shutdown their old DRM servers.
Ohh, hypothetical arguments! I want to play!
What happens when Nintendo reveals their plot to take over the US by remote detonating every Wii sold within our borders? What happens when Sony subconsciously converts us all to Islam by including Quran references in hit titles? What happens when you catch the red ring of death from your 360, a terrible sexually transmitted disease?
You die. You die and go to hell. THAT'S what happens.
Unless ZFS has patent issues, why not just work on having ZFS as Linux's standard FS, after ext3?
It's ironic, isn't it? The Linux community's strength is supposed to lie in the fact that they can share (and easily port) other people's work. Instead, in true Linux (and OSS) fashion, they create yet another implementation of essentially the same thing. After almost 10 years of following and using Linux, it's become apparent to me that it's totally an ego thing, too.
If IO latency is so important to you, why are you using a notebook? You can get a workstation with much higher IO throughput for the same price, with faster SATA disk drives.
Because designer hardware isn't worth much if you can't show it off.
Wait a second now, why should Mac fans be able to monopolize the mindless criticism of others? Isn't mindless criticism the basis of Apple's entire ad campaign?
The same may well be said about operating systems and software.
This is true. There is a move in this direction. People are using virtualization to achieve similar results. If someone were to develop a brand new operating system without any backward compatibility cruft, this would be the approach.
People go on and on about how Android is Linux based and Open Source, but it's not.
Well actually, it is. You can browse, download and make changes to the source. It is also clearly Linux based.
The Linux backend is all but invisible and likely just as locked down as the Linux installs on other embedded devices. You are not going to be able to easily replace it, assuming you can even get close enough to the system to have a hope of doing so
Ohhh, Ok. I see what you're getting at. The device itself isn't open. The Android license clearly permits this, and it allows the providers to have a branded OS for their phone. But who says you couldn't replace it with a vanilla version? I can do that on my blackberry.
Google is doing everything in the Java environment precisely to put you in a sandbox they (and the cell networks) can control. Sure the developer agreement is not quite as onerous as the one Apple uses, but it's certainly just as controlling when necessary.
Yes, it's a big conspiracy. It has nothing to do with the fact that creating apps using managed code is more reliable, secure and consistent. It has nothing to do with the fact that giving any old app direct kernel access would have huge security implications. They're just out to get you.
And, sadly, so long as the cell carriers are seen as the customers of these phones, we'll only get more user-hostile phones that implement every security measure they can to keep you from doing what you want with your hardware.
Android itself is open, it's the hardware in this particular case that is closed. It's not as if an open handset doesn't exist, either. There is nothing stopping the community from adapting Android to existing open hardware, or creating a new open hardware platform specifically for android.
What boggles my mind is when the tinfoil brigade rolls through and gets upset that a consumer phone doesn't have direct kernel access or some crap like that, as if 99.999% of the target demo even gives a shit.
Because video card drivers have far fewer dependencies, most of which are standard across distros (the kernel itself and x.org), therefore a lot fewer variants to worry about.
Slashdot Mirror
If you really want to, there's nothing stopping you from using the exact same toolchain on Linux as you have on OS X.
Not true, Apple has adapted DTrace.
You've got something better?
Apple and Microsoft do. Let the flames begin.
First of all, there is no archaic tool chain.
This is highly subjective. I realize in the *nix world, it is a badge of honor to use command line development tools. Of course, there are people who don't feel the need to lay claim to arbitrary feats, and just want the best tool for the job. The GNU toolchain is old, has seen little innovation, and has not kept up pace with Microsoft and Apple facilities. It is stagnant, except in the eyes of those who take pride in using such archaic and user-unfriendly tools. What's more, it's common to be berated for wanting something more modern, usually taking flak for being a novice or some other unsubstantiated claims regarding ability.
Haha, Linux folk. Release the specs! Ok. No, release the source! Ok. No, port it for us! When you have a marginal market share and an archaic tool chain, don't expect people to accommodate you. But from what I hear, this Linux "community" claims they will do the work if thrown a bone. Let's see it.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Nope, never forced to ignore serious security vulnerabilities
I can say without any hesitation that Ubuntu runs far slower than XP on a computer with 256mb ram. The linux community are a loud bunch of folks, and based on their ramblings I assumed that Ubuntu would run great on a comp with 256 meg ram, so I converted my brother over to Ubuntu. It was painfully and ridiculously slow. I would venture to argue that it was even slower than XP with a bunch of crapware installed. It is beyond me as to why. I thought at first video drivers, but either way in Linux or Windows, the video memory is shared. He stuck with it for about a month, but in the end asked me to put Windows back on it.
What it is, is free market competition, which is the driving force behind capitalism.
Well, so much for the "it runs great on old hardware" argument. A million lonely blogger's "Top 10 reasons to switch to Ubuntu" just became top 9 lists.
I thought the same thing.
Headline: Linux Kernel Surpasses 10 Million Lines of Code
Summary: Actually, it's just over 6 Million
Thanks for the clarification. But yeah, what I was trying to refer to was the open hardware.
No, carriers want strict control over *your* and *my* devices.
Well, in particular, the devices you buy through them. Which, as you mentioned, are typically subsidized through contract. Of course, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from purchasing an unlocked phone from a third party and paying them for service only. It is a conscious (albeit ignorant and uninformed in the sense that many people see this as a requirement) decision to purchase the hardware from the carrier.
Of course they do. So what? Why should they get it?
They are going to get it regardless. If the stipulations of Android didn't allow this, they would use something completely closed. Do you consider this a better alternative? Google realizes that to attain market share, they have to give carriers some control. This doesn't stop anyone from putting Android on an open platform, such as OpenMoko, so I'm still trying to figure out what all the fuss is about.
OS X is at least as capable, seeing as how it can run Windows as an application.
You mean it can run Windows in a VM with limited functionality, specifically in the graphics department. OS X is slow and bloated, but thanks to common perceptions most people believe this not to be the case. I for one, had a MacBook Pro that I dual booted Windows on, and I can testify to this fact 100%.
The real question -- How hard to port to OpenMoko? Or, another open hardware initiative to take advantage of everything Android has to offer.
Here's my take on the situation. Google realizes that carriers want strict control over their devices. This doesn't bother me one bit, nor does it bother 99% of consumers. The 1% is does bother are people who want a profit-seeking corporation to bow to the wants and needs of a small minority.
It bothers me when people complain about this, because the software is open. Branded versions will always be based on the open version, much the way you see MyEclipse staying in tune with the vanilla eclipse releases. Combine this with the fact that there is existing open hardware available (and opportunities to create more) and this supposed "community" that can put it all together, it leaves me wondering, what is there to complain about?
Oh jeez, I know this is just asking to be modded down, but I really don't care. Yes, Windows is the most capable desktop operating system. Prove me otherwise.
Exactly. I couldn't even imagine where Linux would be right now if it weren't driven by a bunch of egotistical nerds clamoring for their own implementation of something rather than incorporating someone else' extremely capable and far more mature existing implementation.
What happens when the parent company gets tired of supporting it? What happens when they no longer answer the phone when you call them to transfer your account to a new console? What happens when they shutdown their old DRM servers.
Ohh, hypothetical arguments! I want to play!
What happens when Nintendo reveals their plot to take over the US by remote detonating every Wii sold within our borders? What happens when Sony subconsciously converts us all to Islam by including Quran references in hit titles? What happens when you catch the red ring of death from your 360, a terrible sexually transmitted disease?
You die. You die and go to hell. THAT'S what happens.
Unless ZFS has patent issues, why not just work on having ZFS as Linux's standard FS, after ext3?
It's ironic, isn't it? The Linux community's strength is supposed to lie in the fact that they can share (and easily port) other people's work. Instead, in true Linux (and OSS) fashion, they create yet another implementation of essentially the same thing. After almost 10 years of following and using Linux, it's become apparent to me that it's totally an ego thing, too.
If IO latency is so important to you, why are you using a notebook? You can get a workstation with much higher IO throughput for the same price, with faster SATA disk drives.
Because designer hardware isn't worth much if you can't show it off.
Wait a second now, why should Mac fans be able to monopolize the mindless criticism of others? Isn't mindless criticism the basis of Apple's entire ad campaign?
The same may well be said about operating systems and software.
This is true. There is a move in this direction. People are using virtualization to achieve similar results. If someone were to develop a brand new operating system without any backward compatibility cruft, this would be the approach.
People go on and on about how Android is Linux based and Open Source, but it's not.
Well actually, it is. You can browse, download and make changes to the source. It is also clearly Linux based.
The Linux backend is all but invisible and likely just as locked down as the Linux installs on other embedded devices. You are not going to be able to easily replace it, assuming you can even get close enough to the system to have a hope of doing so
Ohhh, Ok. I see what you're getting at. The device itself isn't open. The Android license clearly permits this, and it allows the providers to have a branded OS for their phone. But who says you couldn't replace it with a vanilla version? I can do that on my blackberry.
Google is doing everything in the Java environment precisely to put you in a sandbox they (and the cell networks) can control. Sure the developer agreement is not quite as onerous as the one Apple uses, but it's certainly just as controlling when necessary.
Yes, it's a big conspiracy. It has nothing to do with the fact that creating apps using managed code is more reliable, secure and consistent. It has nothing to do with the fact that giving any old app direct kernel access would have huge security implications. They're just out to get you.
And, sadly, so long as the cell carriers are seen as the customers of these phones, we'll only get more user-hostile phones that implement every security measure they can to keep you from doing what you want with your hardware.
Android itself is open, it's the hardware in this particular case that is closed. It's not as if an open handset doesn't exist, either. There is nothing stopping the community from adapting Android to existing open hardware, or creating a new open hardware platform specifically for android.
What boggles my mind is when the tinfoil brigade rolls through and gets upset that a consumer phone doesn't have direct kernel access or some crap like that, as if 99.999% of the target demo even gives a shit.
Because video card drivers have far fewer dependencies, most of which are standard across distros (the kernel itself and x.org), therefore a lot fewer variants to worry about.