PDA

View Full Version : Steve Jobs: "Google Android isnít really that open"



alexan
October 19th, 2010, 10:56 AM
Google Android isn’t really that open, says Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs launched in to an astonishing five-minute critique of rival companies, operating systems and platforms during the earnings call, in which Apple announced record profits of $20 billion for the quarter.

He said that the Google Android platform was “fragmented”, and not as open as some people made out, while also saying that iPad-style tablet computers with smaller 7in screens would be “dead on arrival”.

“Google loves to characterise Android as ‘open’ and iOS and the iPhone as ‘closed’,” said Jobs. “We find this a bit disingenuous, and clouding the real difference between our two approaches.

“Android is very fragmented. HTC and Motorola install proprietary user interfaces to differentiate themselves from the commodity Android experience. The user’s left to figure it all out. Compare this with the iPhone, where every handset works the same.”

He said the fragmentation of the Android platform left developers facing a “daunting challenge”.

“Many Android apps only work on selected Android handsets, running selected Android versions. Compare this with iPhone, where there are two versions of the software, the current and the most recent predecessor, to test against.”http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8072542/Google-Android-isnt-really-that-open-says-Steve-Jobs.html

this also is relevant to the article :P

Apple iPad sales fail to hit forecasts (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/6f638e54-db10-11df-a870-00144feabdc0.html)
:guitar::guitar:

ronnielsen1
October 19th, 2010, 11:08 AM
Apple really really isn't that open

kio_http
October 19th, 2010, 11:18 AM
Neither parties are fully open, however under the hood ios and even Mac OS X are open. Its what is in front (i.e what the user sees) that is closed.

mainerror
October 19th, 2010, 11:23 AM
Neither parties are fully open, however under the hood ios and even Mac OS X are open. Its what is in front (i.e what the user sees) that is closed.

I'd like to know more. Where exactly isn't Android open? I'm talking about Android not a vendor build package like what Jobs is referring to.

He clearly just uses something totally out of context. He is referring to HTC Sense for example which is not open thats true but thats not a matter of Android being open or not.

On one point he is right. Android is kind of fragmented but thats not because it is not open but because it is too open in some points.

The OHA is trying to address this issue with Android 3.0 (Gingerbread) in the future. They are trying to polish up the UI of Android so HTC and others vendors don't have to build their own UIs. At least thats from the Gingerbread rumors now I can't really tell only the future will tell.

fatality_uk
October 19th, 2010, 11:37 AM
Apple :- http://www.opensource.apple.com/
Google :- http://source.android.com/

Both have "Open Source" credentials, but have limitations in the code dispercement

kio_http
October 19th, 2010, 11:41 AM
I'd like to know more. Where exactly isn't Android open? I'm talking about Android not a vendor build package like what Jobs is referring to.

He clearly just uses something totally out of context. He is referring to HTC Sense for example which is not open thats true but thats not a matter of Android being open or not.

On one point he is right. Android is kind of fragmented but thats not because it is not open but because it is too open in some points.

The OHA is trying to address this issue with Android 3.0 (Gingerbread) in the future. They are trying to polish up the UI of Android so HTC and others vendors don't have to build their own UIs. At least thats from the Gingerbread rumors now I can't really tell only the future will tell.
Android is subdivided in many parts. Its like google chrome and chromium. The android that ends up on the phones (HTC sense) and the package google makes.

Also I don't appreciate any critique between companies. My policy for commercial interest packages is to let the buyer take what he likes and not influence them.

alexan
October 19th, 2010, 11:52 AM
My policy for commercial interest packages is to let the buyer take what he likes and not influence them.

Then if you know a friend is buy a used car from someone you know sell broken cars... you just sit back and enjoy the show?


It's not about influence but give fairer information.


If you buy an Apple product, you're mostly likely to not be able to spend your money otherwise than giving them to... Apple. No matter where you did buy, no matter who did sell it to you.
Android propose is to give out options.

htc, motorola etc... these companies adapt the OS to their product because Android is open
By choosing htc, motorola etc... you (as client) apply additive selection to Android product.

iPhone OS is all about imposing choices.

mainerror
October 19th, 2010, 12:02 PM
I still fail to see the answer to my question in where exactly Android is not open.

HTC Sense != Android. HTC Sense is a package for Android (and other platforms) which is pre-installed and selected as your default launcher thats it. Under the hood there is the normal and open Android.

Half-Left
October 19th, 2010, 12:14 PM
Apple are really worried about Android, it's that simple.

kaldor
October 19th, 2010, 12:30 PM
Then if you know a friend is buy a used car from someone you know sell broken cars... you just sit back and enjoy the show?


As if you can't do that with a Mac and iPhone/Pod/Pad.

Apple's a company. Let's also not forget WebKit and CUPS.

Sammi
October 19th, 2010, 12:54 PM
All Android development is done in a very closed manor inside Google. Sure Google releases the source code once they're finished with a version, but the development itself is completely closed off from the outside. In this sense, Android is not an open source _project_ at all.

The reason for the Libre Office fork of OpenOffice.org, was exactly because Oracle was being too closed about the development process. Sure OpenOffice.org is open source, but it was not really an open source _project_.

mainerror
October 19th, 2010, 01:03 PM
All Android development is done in a very closed manor inside Google. Sure Google releases the source code once they're finished with a version, but the development itself is completely closed off from the outside. In this sense, Android is not an open source _project_ at all.

The reason for the Libre Office fork of OpenOffice.org, was exactly because Oracle was being too closed about the development process. Sure OpenOffice.org is open source, but it was not really an open source _project_.

There you have a point. It is not a open source project. I see what you guys mean now.

alexan
October 19th, 2010, 01:08 PM
All Android development is done in a very closed manor inside Google. Sure Google releases the source code once they're finished with a version, but the development itself is completely closed off from the outside. In this sense, Android is not an open source _project_ at all.

The reason for the Libre Office fork of OpenOffice.org, was exactly because Oracle was being too closed about the development process. Sure OpenOffice.org is open source, but it was not really an open source _project_.

And Steve Jobs complain about Android openness is alike Steve Ballamer was complain about the openness of OpenOffice.

Given this point of view on Android, not even the Linux kernel isn't so much free by itself. What about the "linux's master" Linus Trovalds?
Or the "Benevolent Dictartor for Life" Mark Shuttleworth?

You're not talking about open source ("You see the code, now serve your work done.. if you wish"). OpenSource isn't about force companies or representative to make the job you kindly like and only the way you enjoy; but give you the opportunity to see what's inside; then you're by your (or community) own with your brain. Period.


Closed source mean:

you don't need to push your brain into (on several degree).. it just work: only be sure to keep your wallet open.

fatality_uk
October 19th, 2010, 01:09 PM
All Android development is done in a very closed manor inside Google. Sure Google releases the source code once they're finished with a version, but the development itself is completely closed off from the outside. In this sense, Android is not an open source _project_ at all.

The reason for the Libre Office fork of OpenOffice.org, was exactly because Oracle was being too closed about the development process. Sure OpenOffice.org is open source, but it was not really an open source _project_.

Not to sound too nit-picky, but I am going to anyway :), it is open-source. The GPL doesn't insist or mention that all development has to be available at all times. Google is legitimately allowed to develop Android offline as it were and when a stable version is ready, then release that, as pretty much any other software company would and should do.

So is anyone else. If you were to clone the entire platform, http://android.git.kernel.org/ and add functions to it and return to source for approval, it's no different than doing the same for a debian project. The project maintainers would verify and approve the code prior to inclusion into a release.

mainerror
October 19th, 2010, 01:13 PM
fatality also makes a point there.

alexan Steve Jobs is not complaining about Androids openness but about the fact that everyone says iOS and MAC isn't open.

zekopeko
October 19th, 2010, 01:18 PM
iPhone OS is all about imposing choices.

And that brought a far better user experience to consumers. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and saying "buy Apple products".

3rdalbum
October 19th, 2010, 01:25 PM
Wait a second - iPhone developers only Target the latest two handsets? My father's iPhone 3G is not supported, 18 months after purchase?

forrestcupp
October 19th, 2010, 03:04 PM
I don't give a rat's behind whether Android is open or not. What I care about is that I can get a 10.1 inch Archos tablet for $300 that has a multitouch capacitive screen, accelerometer, HDMI, a full size USB slot that you can actually use, and an SD slot so you can actually expand your storage space.

In my book, that makes it better and much cheaper. I don't care if it's open or not.

whiskeylover
October 19th, 2010, 03:07 PM
Who cares? Stevie is shitting bricks that Android is selling more phones than the iPhone now. Its like he's grasping at straws.

Grenage
October 19th, 2010, 03:15 PM
In order for something to be open source, it does not require that a company adopt a socialist structure, chat with 'the people' and addresses their concerns, or provide the product freely.

Something is open source if the source code is freely available.



As for Apple, they're just talking as many companies do. They might not pimp open-source world peace solutions, but they make solid products that sell well.

Sammi
October 19th, 2010, 03:19 PM
Not to sound too nit-picky, but I am going to anyway :), it is open-source.
I'm glad we agree, because that's exactly what I'm saying :)

Android is open source. But it's not an open source project.

Often when people complain about a piece of software being too "closed", they mean the development process, not the code itself.

If a developer is to be able to add features or fix bugs in a piece of open source software effectively, then the official development process needs to be open to adding these changes during development. It's not enough for the finished release of the software to contain the source code, which the outside developer can add his patches to, the project it self needs to be open during development. The true benefits of open source, arise when people cooperate in an open manor towards the common goal. This is not happening with Android.

conundrumx
October 19th, 2010, 03:45 PM
Large company's executive takes a pot shot at a competitor, more at 11.

The only thing worse than Apple fanboys are their equally ravenous and even more closed minded counterparts.

Paul820
October 19th, 2010, 04:43 PM
And here's the response

the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"

Found here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20019997-264.html

mainerror
October 19th, 2010, 04:53 PM
A quite amusing answer. :D

KiwiNZ
October 19th, 2010, 06:32 PM
Apple are really worried about Android, it's that simple.

They are ?

"iPhone sales of 14.1 million were up 91 percent" for Q4 2010 , "The Company posted record revenue of $20.34 billion and net quarterly profit of $4.31 billion" for Q4

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/10/18results.html

fatality_uk
October 19th, 2010, 06:57 PM
They are ?

"iPhone sales of 14.1 million were up 91 percent" for Q4 2010 , "The Company posted record revenue of $20.34 billion and net quarterly profit of $4.31 billion" for Q4

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/10/18results.html

Pfff. A mere 91% is nothing. 700% for Android. THAT is why Apple are looking closely over their shoulder at Android.

http://www.droiddog.com/android-blog/2010/05/q1-2010-android-sales-grow-700-over-2009-surpasses-windows-mobile-in-market-share/

KiwiNZ
October 19th, 2010, 07:07 PM
I am very ,(as stated on a few occasions on his Forum), impressed with the Samsung Galaxy Android Tablet. I do have one question. Why are all the good Android tablets only 7"? Samsung make a decent size screen us old folks with bad eyes and give us more real estate.

alexan
October 19th, 2010, 07:08 PM
Pfff. A mere 91% is nothing. 700% for Android. THAT is why Apple are looking closely over their shoulder at Android.

http://www.droiddog.com/android-blog/2010/05/q1-2010-android-sales-grow-700-over-2009-surpasses-windows-mobile-in-market-share/

To this, consider all the free advertisement is made upon iPhone/iPad.
The common media did totally substituted the technical word "tablet pc" with iPad... the same way did they do with mp3 player and iPod.

Android was well pushed on advertisement.. but it never get the "free one" as Apple has.
Talking about who's winning.. Android would had win even if the sells were the same with the iPhone.

Of course, recently Apple did get even some bad advertisement (Foxconn, antenna signals).. but the effectiveness of such bad advertisement was mainly Apple own fault.
If you're the "absolute dictator" of a product, and that product bring flow of money solely in your pocket... when this product had problem you don't say "it's everyone fault": hands on wallet and fix it.

fatality_uk
October 19th, 2010, 07:17 PM
I am very ,(as stated on a few occasions on his Forum), impressed with the Samsung Galaxy Android Tablet. I do have one question. Why are all the good Android tablets only 7"? Samsung make a decent size screen us old folks with bad eyes and give us more real estate.

LOL I think I will be joining the club soon. Recently noticed I am squinting a lot more.

amitabhishek
October 19th, 2010, 07:19 PM
"Mr. Jobs you are getting it wrong. Just avoid spreading FUD in that way."

KiwiNZ
October 19th, 2010, 07:23 PM
The pricing of the Samsung Galaxy seems high for a 7" unit 730 euro $1000us for the 16GB model.

KiwiNZ
October 19th, 2010, 07:24 PM
"Mr. Jobs you are getting it wrong. Just avoid spreading FUD in that way."

Its not an "open development" so he is not wrong. And besides its just media hype .

fatality_uk
October 19th, 2010, 07:25 PM
Of course, recently Apple did get even some bad advertisement (Foxconn, antenna signals)

Oh don't forget the iPhone 4 screens propensity to crack at the first sight of pressure or small drop ;) And not in a way to easily fix, i.e. NOT the front screen, but the back one of course.

BŲlvaūur
October 19th, 2010, 07:28 PM
I'd like to know more. Where exactly isn't Android open? I'm talking about Android not a vendor build package like what Jobs is referring to.

I skimmed over the thread but didnt see an answer, so sorry if there was a better one already.

The android market isnt open, google maps, ...etc.

It's not part of the OS unless if your definition of the OS is pretty naive (I was going to go into it in my detailed but it just didnt make much sense... android isnt even an OS but a platform on top of a custom linux kernel but w/e)

alexan
October 19th, 2010, 07:29 PM
Its not an "open development" so he is not wrong. And besides its just media hype .

"Yeah, and Linux is no more secure since there are no comparable proof with the user base of Windows. Indeed, Windows is more secure (tested) than Linux"


Spread FUD is all about play with words: in the end where is used linux when security is not an spoken opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_(computer)) ;)

KiwiNZ
October 19th, 2010, 07:34 PM
Oh don't forget the iPhone 4 screens propensity to crack at the first sight of pressure or small drop ;) And not in a way to easily fix, i.e. NOT the front screen, but the back one of course.

I have an iPhone 4 and have never been able to replicate the Antenna issue. neither has other people I know who own them. I suspect it has more to do with the service provider.

With regards to breakablity , for sure that risk is there , and that is why I have a bumper thingy and don't throw it around as I would with ant precision instrument. OK I did run over my previous Iphone with my Wheelchair and left my Blackberry on the roof of my SUV and drove off but they are all a different story.

whiskeylover
October 19th, 2010, 07:41 PM
I have an iPhone 4 and have never been able to replicate the Antenna issue. neither has other people I know who own them. I suspect it has more to do with the service provider.

I've seen the issue first hand on a couple of iP4s. It was quite funny actually. A bunch of us coworkers were sitting around a table, and the iP4 owner demonstrated the antenna flaw, and everybody burst into laughter. Oh, and I think it cannot be a service provider issue. You mean to tell me that AT&Ts signal is so special that it attenuates the moment you put your hand on the antenna?

KiwiNZ
October 19th, 2010, 07:47 PM
I've seen the issue first hand on a couple of iP4s. It was quite funny actually. A bunch of us coworkers were sitting around a table, and the iP4 owner demonstrated the antenna flaw, and everybody burst into laughter. Oh, and I think it cannot be a service provider issue. You mean to tell me that AT&Ts signal is so special that it attenuates the moment you put your hand on the antenna?

When I read about it the article seem to only mention AT&T clients. Here in NZ we have 3 service providers and it has not been a problem.

Is it because AT&T are the biggest ? I don't know it may be an anomaly of numbers.

amitabhishek
October 19th, 2010, 07:59 PM
Its not an "open development" so he is not wrong. And besides its just media hype .

I am not a lawyer. I don't know a purist's defn of "Open". But I can download and compile the Android source in under 6 steps. This implementation of 'open' is good enough for me.

Sammi
October 19th, 2010, 08:22 PM
I am not a lawyer. I don't know a purist's defn of "Open". But I can download and compile the Android source in under 6 steps. This implementation of 'open' is good enough for me.
See my last post. Your definition of open may be good enough for you, but it is not good enough for most open source developers. Think of the reasons for the Libre Office fork.

mainerror
October 19th, 2010, 08:33 PM
I skimmed over the thread but didnt see an answer, so sorry if there was a better one already.

The android market isnt open, google maps, ...etc.

It's not part of the OS unless if your definition of the OS is pretty naive (I was going to go into it in my detailed but it just didnt make much sense... android isnt even an OS but a platform on top of a custom linux kernel but w/e)

Hold on. It's actually a bit different. If I got you right then you're saying that the Market application and the Google Maps application pre-installed on a default Android device aren't open.

Those applications are not part of the OS. And Android is an OS. It runs on top of a modified Linux Kernel true but there is quite a bit more than that. There are the DalvikVM and much more which all together form the Android OS.

I'm not looking for answers to what Android is as I know that pretty well since I earn my daily bread with it. ;)

Merk42
October 19th, 2010, 11:57 PM
The OHA is trying to address this issue with Android 3.0 (Gingerbread) in the future. They are trying to polish up the UI of Android so HTC and others vendors don't have to build their own UIs.
Other vendors won't have to build their own UIs, but they still will.
It's called Branding. How else could HTC (as an example) differentiate their similarly speced phone from a competitor?

forrestcupp
October 20th, 2010, 03:14 AM
I am very ,(as stated on a few occasions on his Forum), impressed with the Samsung Galaxy Android Tablet. I do have one question. Why are all the good Android tablets only 7"? Samsung make a decent size screen us old folks with bad eyes and give us more real estate.


The pricing of the Samsung Galaxy seems high for a 7" unit 730 euro $1000us for the 16GB model.

Well, let me once again put in a plug for the Archos 101. It has a 10.1 inch screen. It runs Android 2.2 Froyo, and it's one of the few Android tablets that actually has a capacitive multitouch screen. It comes with 16GB, expandable with SD. It has an accelerometer, and it even has a separate GPU. It looks like a quality tablet, and it's only $300. It's supposed to come out this month. I heard that Archos got approval for the Android Market, too.

KiwiNZ
October 20th, 2010, 03:29 AM
Well, let me once again put in a plug for the Archos 101. It has a 10.1 inch screen. It runs Android 2.2 Froyo, and it's one of the few Android tablets that actually has a capacitive multitouch screen. It comes with 16GB, expandable with SD. It has an accelerometer, and it even has a separate GPU. It looks like a quality tablet, and it's only $300. It's supposed to come out this month. I heard that Archos got approval for the Android Market, too.

It just does not seem to have the finish that the Samsung product has but the price is very attractive and if the GPS etc works well on it and I can get Marine maps I may get it for the Boat because at that price you don't mind risking it and my Lowrance unit is on the fritz and I was only going to replace that with a Fishfinder/depth sounder.

renkinjutsu
October 20th, 2010, 03:37 AM
Oh don't forget the iPhone 4 screens propensity to crack at the first sight of pressure or small drop ;) And not in a way to easily fix, i.e. NOT the front screen, but the back one of course.

Ha! My G1 was run over by a car in the middle of the street! It doesn't work anymore, but the exterior still looks intact!

I think part of the G1's indestructibility comes from being made almost entirely from cheap flexible plastic. ::: Anyone want a brick'd G1 for sale? It makes a great paper weight. I want a new phone.

mainerror
October 20th, 2010, 08:41 AM
Other vendors won't have to build their own UIs, but they still will.
It's called Branding. How else could HTC (as an example) differentiate their similarly speced phone from a competitor?

Well I understand your point and I'm also thinking the same thing. All I know is that this is an attempt to make em not build their own UI. I wasn't saying that they won't do it. :)

amitabhishek
October 20th, 2010, 09:13 AM
See my last post. Your definition of open may be good enough for you, but it is not good enough for most open source developers. Think of the reasons for the Libre Office fork.

You can't depend on a Open Source community to write a mobile OS. There are deadlines to be met, proprietary hardware to be dealt with, UI to be worked upon etc. OpenMoko tried it and now its bankrupt! Making the code public works for everyone.

Colonel Kilkenny
October 20th, 2010, 09:40 AM
You can't depend on a Open Source community to write a mobile OS. There are deadlines to be met, proprietary hardware to be dealt with, UI to be worked upon etc. OpenMoko tried it and now its bankrupt! Making the code public works for everyone.

Oh, I guess this is a fantasy then: http://meego.gitorious.org/ (atm. gitorious.org is down, so the link might not work)

And look! All development happening in real time. Not anything like Android repositories where you see "last change 3 weeks ago" or "last change 4 months ago".

Google wants to develop Android on its own because it's Google's most important project futurewise and they want to control it totally so that Google's own plans and web services are taken into account with Android. This also makes it unprofitable for anyone to fork / develop something which isn't tied to Google's services. It would take way too much time to merge Google's 3.0 code drop to their own codebase (and nobody except Google doesn't even really know what Google does atm. so it's basically stupid to even think about forking or developing something on their own)...

amitabhishek
October 20th, 2010, 10:08 AM
Thats not entirely correct.

http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/8355/gity.jpg

Colonel Kilkenny
October 20th, 2010, 10:55 AM
Thats not entirely correct.


Yes, they have few trees which may have some activity sometimes even on a daily basis. Incredible. Doesn't change anything.

MeeGo is still being developed by open source community in the open. Android is not.

Half-Left
October 20th, 2010, 02:34 PM
They are ?

"iPhone sales of 14.1 million were up 91 percent" for Q4 2010 , "The Company posted record revenue of $20.34 billion and net quarterly profit of $4.31 billion" for Q4

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/10/18results.html

RIM and Android sales are also up, big deal. If Apple weren't worried, they wouldn't be suing such companies and throwing mud at them.

Android sales surpassed iPhone sales http://venturebeat.com/2010/05/10/google-android-outsells-apple-iphone-ranked-second-in-u-s-smartphone-market/

RIM response to Jobs http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/19/rims-jim-balsillie-hits-back-at-the-steve-jobs-rant-apples-d/

whiskeylover
October 20th, 2010, 02:39 PM
Even though the development is not entirely open, no one is stopping you from downloading the source code and forking your own distro. If you come up with something worthwhile, people might actually use it. I don't understand the big deal.

forrestcupp
October 20th, 2010, 03:27 PM
It just does not seem to have the finish that the Samsung product has but the price is very attractive and if the GPS etc works well on it and I can get Marine maps I may get it for the Boat because at that price you don't mind risking it and my Lowrance unit is on the fritz and I was only going to replace that with a Fishfinder/depth sounder.

You might be out of luck. I'm not sure that it has GPS. It might be possible to get a USB GPS device, though. I don't know.

eimhin85
October 21st, 2010, 12:15 AM
so, i was going to make a iphone app the other day, but then i realised, I cant since i dont have a mac.

wide. open.

forrestcupp
October 21st, 2010, 02:32 AM
He never said that Apple stuff is open. He was saying that Android people claim they're superior because they are open, and they're not really any more open than Apple.

Dr. C
October 21st, 2010, 02:58 AM
Whether Android is open or closed depends on how it is implemented. There are implementations of Android that are really closed. The root block on the G2 is a very good example of closed propriety Android. In the case Jobs does make a valid point.

On the other hand a rooted phone with a stock Android ROM is a very open and free system.

mrebanza
October 21st, 2010, 04:44 AM
EDIT I MENT TO QUOTE THIS!!!!

Apple :- http://www.opensource.apple.com/
Google :- http://source.android.com/
NOT THIS

I still fail to see the answer to my question in where exactly Android is not open.

HTC Sense != Android. HTC Sense is a package for Android (and other platforms) which is pre-installed and selected as your default launcher thats it. Under the hood there is the normal and open Android.

Both have "Open Source" credentials, but have limitations in the code dispercement

The Android devices you purchase from any mainstream (and even most if not all not so mainstream) android manufacturer are locked down by default and have to be hacked or exploited to gain root access . . . That is not an open device . . . Sure PARTS of the source are open . . . . But the drivers for your hardware are not open . . . so installing say Meego or even ubuntu netbook remix on your device is a challenge . . . . Mean while Android 2.2 has been ported to the Nokia N900 almost flawlessly.

mainerror
October 21st, 2010, 09:08 AM
The Android devices you purchase from any mainstream (and even most if not all not so mainstream) android manufacturer are locked down by default and have to be hacked or exploited to gain root access . . . That is not an open device . . . Sure PARTS of the source are open . . . . But the drivers for your hardware are not open . . . so installing say Meego or even ubuntu netbook remix on your device is a challenge . . . . Mean while Android 2.2 has been ported to the Nokia N900 almost flawlessly.

Easy. You guys are totally mixing up things now. We were discussing whether it is an open source project and open source software not open devices. Thats a totally different thing.

It is absolutely valid that the devices are root locked. I'm quite amused to read complaints about a device being root locked on a Linux forum. What is the first lesson you learn when playing around with Linux for a while? "Use the root user only when absolutely necessary.".

Think of this scenario. You buy a rooted device. Bob, a developer who knows that there exist pre-rooted devices is all excited to exploit that and collects sensible data and is happy about that. The average user won't know the difference nor what exactly this SU Permission thing is and might simply hit allow as he might think "hey thats sure normal behavior as I didn't mess with the phone".

We should not mix up the discussion.

3rdalbum
October 21st, 2010, 09:57 AM
Apple is happy to claim that Darwin is open, despite ALMOST NEVER accepting any patches from the community. I don't think Steve really has the right to judge openness.

Johnsie
October 21st, 2010, 09:59 AM
To summarise the whole thing... Steve Jobs doesn't like users having a choice. Microsoft 2.0

eimhin85
October 21st, 2010, 12:00 PM
He never said that Apple stuff is open. He was saying that Android people claim they're superior because they are open, and they're not really any more open than Apple.

Yes, but that's the point, Apple does hold a tighter stranglehold on all elements of ios and all development surrounding it. much tighter than can ever be said for android devices.

Yes of course, in both cases the mobile carriers want control over the devices, and that absolutely is reflected by both both, but that is a contractual obligation rather than a business model. (incidentally google at least tried to circumvent that originally by their network neutrality standpoint at release)

But the problem is is that apple's business model has always been to provide a lifestyle product to push users to buy further into apples products. an iphone's best with a mac, appletv, airport, timecapsule, ipad. and though there are alternative options to those products, compatibility with anything other than apple is suppressed with extreme prejudice.
iphone is a good piece of technology in and of itself, hell, so is ios in its own way, but using it means that you must use itunes, and thus either osx or win. to develop for one? you, legally, must have an apple mac. even to program in a virtual box with osx is against terms afaik
whats more, if the FTC hadnt stepped in they would have even dictated the very languages, tools and frameworks that could have been used. and even if they do let you make something, its still got to pass the app store approval process. Im very interested to see how the skyfire app fairs there since it technically is allowed by the developer kits own guidelines, but jobs does o so hate flash.


I don't think Steve really has the right to judge openness.

To summarise the whole thing... Steve Jobs doesn't like users having a choice.

Those two statements really summarise my point. He has the gall to say a statement like that when apple willfully, nay, forcefully restricts users choice; choice which to me is one of the major the points/benefits of 'open' development to start with.
</rant>

mainerror
October 21st, 2010, 12:34 PM
Sorry to say but your rant is invalid. You are missing the opening rant tag. :P

alexan
October 21st, 2010, 01:10 PM
He never said that Apple stuff is open. He was saying that Android people claim they're superior because they are open, and they're not really any more open than Apple.
Indeed, that's exactly what Steve Jobs say: a stupid, patented, lie. (don't rewrite it too much, or Apply will sue you for patent violation )

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

mrebanza
October 21st, 2010, 01:26 PM
Apple :-http://opensource.apple.com/
Google :- http://source.android.com/

Both have "Open Source" credentials, but have limitations in the code dispercement

Sorry I meant to quote this above . . .

Point being what good is open source if the devices you end up buying are locked down and the code's distribution comes with a ton of restrictions over the core features of the phone . . .

I am far from an apple fan but steve has a good point . . . Android really isn't THAT open . . . Sure Google gives us http://source.android.com/ but where is Ginger Bread 3.0 beta?

No where to be found . . . Google develops it behind the scenes, works out deals with specific device manufacturers on who will be getting it first, then they release the code to the public.

As compared to Canonical who tries they best to develop Ubuntu out in the "OPEN" as much as possible . . .

Additionally all the "Core Google App" that basically make Android, Android are NOT open . . . Gmail, Youtube, Google Maps . . . all the core Google product are not allowed to be distributed with out google "permission" (In other words unless big G is getting paid) . . . They best part about that is that Google even grouped the "Android Market" into this Google Specific, needs to be licensed by us or else category . . .

Imagine Canonical telling you, "sure Ubuntu is open source, except for the email client, video player and theUbuntu Software Center" . . . it is ludicrous.


The same is true with the new "Google TV" which is based on android and reported to be open sourced later next year (2011) . . . Sony and Logi-Tech both have products ON SALE NOW (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fs%3Fie%3DUT F8%26x%3D0%26ref_%3Dnb_sb_ss_c_1_9%26y%3D0%26field-keywords%3Dgoogle%2520tv%26url%3Dsearch-alias%253Delectronics%26sprefix%3Dgoogle%2520tv&tag=ebanzacom-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=390957) because they are paying big G but the public . . . and other smaller manufactures won't be able to have access to it until next year.


Easy. You guys are totally mixing up things now. We were discussing whether it is an open source project and open source software not open devices. Thats a totally different thing.

It is absolutely valid that the devices are root locked. I'm quite amused to read complaints about a device being root locked on a Linux forum. What is the first lesson you learn when playing around with Linux for a while? "Use the root user only when absolutely necessary.".

Think of this scenario. You buy a rooted device. Bob, a developer who knows that there exist pre-rooted devices is all excited to exploit that and collects sensible data and is happy about that. The average user won't know the difference nor what exactly this SU Permission thing is and might simply hit allow as he might think "hey thats sure normal behavior as I didn't mess with the phone".

We should not mix up the discussion.

Please don't feed me the kool-aide about "protecting me from myself" that is bull . . . First of all the ability to "exploit that and collects sensible data" is available to apps with out root access as seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnLujX1Dw4Y) Secoundly the mobile space is used as an accuse to lock devices and users down more than ever before.

Desktop PC's and laptops are far more open in nature . . . the mobile device market is used as an expuse to lock the user down . . . I have acess to root on my Desktop PC and my laptop . . . They didn't blow up (yet :) ) . . . I have the ability to change the OS or dual boot my Desktop PC and my laptop computers . . . 99% of mobile computer have to be hacked or exploited to do so. I am sorry but that is not openness . . . that is not freedom . . . Their hasn't been a successful android device manufactured by a non-major manufacturer due to Google refusing to license the "Android Market" to third party manufacturers. That is not an open os.

mainerror
October 21st, 2010, 01:52 PM
mrebanza you are really amazing. Entertaining me big time.

Do you realize that the Google software package (Google Maps, Gmail, etc.) are actually third party applications?

You can run Android without any of these applications even without the Market. No one said you have to use the Market to get your applications.

And your scenario is totally inappropriate. If you manage to f*** up your computer because you don't really know what you are doing then it is absolutely no problem to solve such an issue but if you manage to f*** up your mobile device then have fun trying to fix it.


...Google develops it behind the scenes, works out deals with specific device manufacturers on who will be getting it first, then they release the code to the public...

Care to share your sources on this?

eimhin85
October 21st, 2010, 02:30 PM
sorry to say but your rant is invalid. You are missing the opening rant tag. :p

:p:p

fatality_uk
October 21st, 2010, 02:48 PM
Sorry I meant to quote this above . . .

Point being what good is open source if the devices you end up buying are locked down and the code's distribution comes with a ton of restrictions over the core features of the phone . . .

I am far from an apple fan but steve has a good point . . . Android really isn't THAT open . . . Sure Google gives us http://source.android.com/ but where is Ginger Bread 3.0 beta?

No where to be found . . . Google develops it behind the scenes, works out deals with specific device manufacturers on who will be getting it first, then they release the code to the public.

As compared to Canonical who tries they best to develop Ubuntu out in the "OPEN" as much as possible . . .

Additionally all the "Core Google App" that basically make Android, Android are NOT open . . . Gmail, Youtube, Google Maps . . . all the core Google product are not allowed to be distributed with out google "permission" (In other words unless big G is getting paid) . . . They best part about that is that Google even grouped the "Android Market" into this Google Specific, needs to be licensed by us or else category . . .

Imagine Canonical telling you, "sure Ubuntu is open source, except for the email client, video player and theUbuntu Software Center" . . . it is ludicrous.


The same is true with the new "Google TV" which is based on android and reported to be open sourced later next year (2011) . . . Sony and Logi-Tech both have products ON SALE NOW (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fs%3Fie%3DUT F8%26x%3D0%26ref_%3Dnb_sb_ss_c_1_9%26y%3D0%26field-keywords%3Dgoogle%2520tv%26url%3Dsearch-alias%253Delectronics%26sprefix%3Dgoogle%2520tv&tag=ebanzacom-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=390957) because they are paying big G but the public . . . and other smaller manufactures won't be able to have access to it until next year.



Please don't feed me the kool-aide about "protecting me from myself" that is bull . . . First of all the ability to "exploit that and collects sensible data" is available to apps with out root access as seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnLujX1Dw4Y) Secoundly the mobile space is used as an accuse to lock devices and users down more than ever before.

Desktop PC's and laptops are far more open in nature . . . the mobile device market is used as an expuse to lock the user down . . . I have acess to root on my Desktop PC and my laptop . . . They didn't blow up (yet :) ) . . . I have the ability to change the OS or dual boot my Desktop PC and my laptop computers . . . 99% of mobile computer have to be hacked or exploited to do so. I am sorry but that is not openness . . . that is not freedom . . . Their hasn't been a successful android device manufactured by a non-major manufacturer due to Google refusing to license the "Android Market" to third party manufacturers. That is not an open os.

The world isn't flat, we are not the centre of the universe and Android IS OpenSource. Maybe not your flavour of OpenSource but it is.

eimhin85
October 21st, 2010, 02:56 PM
Point being what good is open source if the devices you end up buying are locked down and the code's distribution comes with a ton of restrictions over the core features of the phone . . .


i dont necessarily disagree with any one point of yours, but what i think you are intentionally ignoring is the fact that the mobile market is a fundamentally different arena from say the desktop market. I think it would be massively unfair to expect any mobile OS to be entirely open source (in the current tech climate at least) since its simply not the case that one company has an ultimate say or a stake in its development, The carrier, the handset maker and the os developer may well have different angles and i cant think of a single pro-open source carrier at all.

the point is is that when Steve Jobs says: "Google Android isn’t really that open", its just ridiculous since apple ios is absurdly closed , and intentionally so. something that just is not true of android. It might not be open in comparison to linux, but coming out of the mouth of king apple? bleh

Sammi
October 21st, 2010, 04:30 PM
The point is is that when Steve Jobs says: "Google Android isnít really that open", its just ridiculous since apple ios is absurdly closed , and intentionally so. something that just is not true of android. It might not be open in comparison to linux, but coming out of the mouth of king apple? bleh

Apple never claimed that iOS was an open platform. Google however claims that Android is.

We have pretty firmly established that Android is indeed open source, but this is far from enough to call it "open". Android is not an open platform at all, and Google shouldn't be implying that it is.

That is the point.

And Jobs quote is fully valid, though it may not be in very good faith, as he didn't make his statement to get Google to be more open, but just to make us stop thinking that it is (and rightfully so).

whiskeylover
October 21st, 2010, 04:53 PM
Apple never claimed that iOS was an open platform. Google however claims that Android is.

We have pretty firmly established that Android is indeed open source, but this is far from enough to call it "open". Android is not an open platform at all, and Google shouldn't be implying that it is.

That is the point.

And Jobs quote is fully valid, though it may not be in very good faith, as he didn't make his statement to get Google to be more open, but just to make us stop thinking that it is (and rightfully so).

You could, in theory, take Ubuntu, port it to a toaster, lock it down, and distribute it. It wont make Ubuntu any less open. But you're right, this "toaster with Ubuntu" isn't open.

mainerror
October 21st, 2010, 04:58 PM
Apple never claimed that iOS was an open platform. Google however claims that Android is.

We have pretty firmly established that Android is indeed open source, but this is far from enough to call it "open". Android is not an open platform at all, and Google shouldn't be implying that it is.

That is the point.

And Jobs quote is fully valid, though it may not be in very good faith, as he didn't make his statement to get Google to be more open, but just to make us stop thinking that it is (and rightfully so).

You know you gotta take into account that to be able to survive on the market you can't really entirely open up some processes. It is not really possible to compete with another firm whose product and process isn't open and still gain that much market share that fast.

In my opinion Android is as open as one product/process can be to still survive.

P4man
October 21st, 2010, 05:07 PM
Wait a second - iPhone developers only Target the latest two handsets? My father's iPhone 3G is not supported, 18 months after purchase?

He said latest two versions of the software (meaning OS). I take that as iOS 3.x and 4.x Your father can even upgrade to iOS 4.x if he wants to, its definitely still supported.

Grenage
October 21st, 2010, 05:09 PM
He said latest two versions of the software (meaning OS). I take that as iOS 3.x and 4.x Your father can even upgrade to iOS 4.x if he wants to, its definitely still supported.


...and as long as it's 4.1 and not 4.0 on the 3G - it's quite good, too!

mrebanza
October 21st, 2010, 06:30 PM
You could, in theory, take Ubuntu, port it to a toaster, lock it down, and distribute it. It wont make Ubuntu any less open. But you're right, this "toaster with Ubuntu" isn't open.

Sure if YOU "whiskeylover" did it . . . or stay Acer or Dell did it than you would be correct . . . in theory . . . but if Canonical did it and then told you that you couldn't have access to the Ubuntu Software Center any more unless you bought their "toasters" OR paid them a licencing fee than YES that would make Ubuntu much more closed in nature.

That is what Google has done with android

P4man
October 21st, 2010, 06:38 PM
You could, in theory, take Ubuntu, port it to a toaster, lock it down, and distribute it.

Sure, but you would have to provide the source code of ubuntoaster ;).

fatality_uk
October 21st, 2010, 06:38 PM
Sure, but you would have to provide the source code of ubuntoaster ;).

:) I like the idea of an Ubuntu Toaster

mainerror
October 21st, 2010, 06:48 PM
:) I like the idea of an Ubuntu Toaster

Second that. It could integrate nicely with notify-osd to get a notification when your toast is ready. :D

mrebanza
October 21st, 2010, 06:58 PM
<rant>


mrebanza you are really amazing. Entertaining me big time.

Thats what I am here for . . . . to entertain you :guitar:




Do you realize that the Google software package (Google Maps, Gmail, etc.) are actually third party applications?

You can run Android without any of these applications even without the Market. No one said you have to use the Market to get your applications.


Sure, I can run my laptop with no GUI too . . . but why would I want to . . . but on a serious note. . . It is called the Android Market . . . not the Google Market.

If the Android Market isn't open than how can you say android is open . . . sure you can install 3rd party apps via APK file (which is great and all) but you can only get updates from apps on the "Android Market" . . .

We are talking about Open in the sense of the word . . . not just open source . . . and their is a big differences.


Google's attitude with Android is Monopolistic and closed . . . They built the Android Market shouting about openness and now that developers have build tens of thousands of apps for it has become successful they are showing their true colors.



And your scenario is totally inappropriate. If you manage to f*** up your computer because you don't really know what you are doing then it is absolutely no problem to solve such an issue but if you manage to f*** up your mobile device then have fun trying to fix it.




Care to share your sources on this?

Sure buddy it is called daily builds . . .


http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/daily/current/

That is how I was testing Ubuntu 10.10 months early . . . because Canonical's Ubuntu team develops their code in the "open" and will even push it up stream to you "before it is ready" if you wanna test it . . . We knew exactly (more or less) what was in-store for the next version of Ubuntu way before it's commercial release date.

Correct my if I am wrong but can the same thing be said for Android?

Where is the Android Daily Build ????

Let me save you some time . . .

forrestcupp
October 21st, 2010, 06:59 PM
Sure, but you would have to provide the source code of ubuntoaster ;).The toaster has a proprietary license.


:) I like the idea of an Ubuntu Toaster
http://artoftheprank.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/boxusbtoaster-425.jpg

I've had a few Ubuntu Coasters. :)

whiskeylover
October 21st, 2010, 07:00 PM
Second that. It could integrate nicely with notify-osd to get a notification when your toast is ready. :D

Except that instead of an osd, the notification will be on the toast itself. Talk about Toast Notifications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toast_%28computing%29).

mrebanza
October 21st, 2010, 07:01 PM
Sure, but you would have to provide the source code of ubuntoaster ;).

http://thumbla.com/images/images/2475983829.jpg

hate to brake it to you guys but it has already been done. :)

P4man
October 21st, 2010, 07:37 PM
Meh. Now you make me want to build a NAS box from a toaster and use these toast "sleeves" for hotplug sata drives.

Spice Weasel
October 21st, 2010, 08:14 PM
Meh. Now you make me want to build a NAS box from a toaster and use these toast "sleeves" for hotplug sata drives.

Do it. Then pics.

mainerror
October 21st, 2010, 08:22 PM
Sure, I can run my laptop with no GUI too . . . but why would I want to . . . but on a serious note. . . It is called the Android Market . . . not the Google Market.

That again is not a valid comparison. You can run Android without Googles applications with other applications instead.

It's like running Ubuntu and Kubuntu. The underlaying structure is the same just the applications differ.


... but you can only get updates from apps on the "Android Market" ...

That is not entirely the case. Applications can have their own update mechanisms.



That is how I was testing Ubuntu 10.10 months early . . . because Canonical's Ubuntu team develops their code in the "open" and will even push it up stream to you "before it is ready" if you wanna test it . . . We knew exactly (more or less) what was in-store for the next version of Ubuntu way before it's commercial release date.

Correct my if I am wrong but can the same thing be said for Android?

Where is the Android Daily Build ????

Let me save you some time ...

You are not wrong on this. Sure you can't test Android betas as this is not required. Hardware vendors do that for you as Android has to run on the hardware without problems hence the ones who are going actually use Android (in terms of put the OS on the phone) are the ones who have to give feedback on how the beta works for them not you as you can't provide feedback for a broad range of devices.

And lets assume that Android would be as open as Ubuntu. Would you please tell me how you are going to test the daily builds? Are you going to flash your device day to day and hope not to brick it? What if you brick it? Who are you going to contact? Your provider will look at you say "Well **** happens, why did you flash your device ... no warranty sorry.".

The problem is that the vendors like HTC, Motorola and the like plus the providers can't just replace your phone in such cases as the device is not meant to be operated that way.

And another point. The majority of the Android users don't even know that Android is (or if you like is supposed to be open source) and not only they don't know but the don't care. They want a properly functioning device to make calls, send messages, twitter with friends and check their Facebook page.

P4man
October 21st, 2010, 08:25 PM
http://regmedia.co.uk/2007/06/15/toaster_nas.jpg

nicked pic from here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/18/silly_toaster/

mainerror
October 21st, 2010, 08:38 PM
Now thats a great HDD dock. :D

KiwiNZ
October 21st, 2010, 08:41 PM
http://regmedia.co.uk/2007/06/15/toaster_nas.jpg

ejecting the Disc will be hard on the platters , the life cycle of the disc will be short I hope you back up a lot :P

Sammi
October 22nd, 2010, 10:11 AM
I think some people are still missing the point of this tread and Jobs comment.

Google is saying that Android is open, only it's not (even though they do open source code dumps from time to time), and they should stop bending the truth. Google is loosing credibility by trying to claim that Android is open.

Most importantly: if you are a strong believer in openness, as many Ubuntu users naturally are, then you should stay away from Android. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not delivering to your expectations of openness, like you're used to with Ubuntu and other Linux distributions.

The point of this tread, or Jobs comment, was never to say which is better. Though Jobs would say that being closed is better in this case. I am personally on the fence on this issue, as we have yet to see how MeeGo will fare. Although I am an iPhone owner, I wish MeeGo all the best, and hope it will prove that openness does work in the mobile space.

mainerror
October 22nd, 2010, 10:44 AM
Most importantly: if you are a strong believer in openness, as many Ubuntu users naturally are, then you should stay away from Android. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not delivering to your expectations of openness, like you're used to with Ubuntu and other Linux distributions.

Excuse me but what? Why should anyone do that? Android is working great and thats the most important thing. I buy a phone so I can call someone and so forth. It is absolutely unimportant if it is truly open. Or are you buying a phone because you know that the OS is open and don'T care if you can call someone and so forth?

P4man
October 22nd, 2010, 10:48 AM
Google is saying that Android is open, only it's not (even though they do open source code dumps from time to time), and they should stop bending the truth. Google is loosing credibility by trying to claim that Android is open.

Its opensource. Nothing prevents you from grabbing the source and making a fork and change anything you like. You wouldnt be the first:
http://www.cyanogenmod.com/about

Thats open to me.

That OEMs add proprietary code on top of that under the apache license, doesnt change that. Or would you say Apache isnt open? Or ubuntu is no longer open if you install skype?

You could nitpick and say the OS stack that ships on your Droid is called android but isnt truly open, but android as google releases it, certainly is.

alexan
October 22nd, 2010, 02:02 PM
Google is saying that Android is open, only it's not (even though they do open source code dumps from time to time), and they should stop bending the truth. Google is loosing credibility by trying to claim that Android is open.

Truth statement check:
Wikipedia too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system))
or

Fail.

Enough with "bash your competitor" philosophy. Steve Jobs need something to bash on his competitor.. if Windows Phone 7 was in the same position and S.J. would had find useful to say: he would say the same thing about WP7.
or meego, or fedora.. or anything else: desperate, fail, economy. That's it


Maybe Google isn't that open, but Android is it. Android is open and available for every philosophy: former capitalist market or gnu.
Like gNewSense.. if Richard Stallman want to fork Android, he can. If he try to do the same with iOSX...



...



lawyers and jail.

fatality_uk
October 22nd, 2010, 03:22 PM
Google is saying that Android is open, only it's not (even though they do open source code dumps from time to time), and they should stop bending the truth. Google is loosing credibility by trying to claim that Android is open.

Evidence please?

whiskeylover
October 22nd, 2010, 04:07 PM
Android IS open.
/thread - hopefully

mainerror
October 22nd, 2010, 04:50 PM
Android IS open.
/thread - hopefully

Word!

Sammi
October 23rd, 2010, 03:45 PM
Excuse me but what? Why should anyone do that? Android is working great and thats the most important thing. I buy a phone so I can call someone and so forth. It is absolutely unimportant if it is truly open. Or are you buying a phone because you know that the OS is open and don'T care if you can call someone and so forth?If you value functionality over openness in your tech products, then you're like me. I own a iPhone too :P (hur hur)


Evidence please?Is it so hard to read Google's own FAQ?
http://source.android.com/faqs.html

some parts of the next version of Android including the core platform APIs are developed in a private branch. These APIs constitute the next version of Android. Our aim is to focus attention on the current stable version of the Android source code, while we create the next version of the platform as driven by flagship Android devices. This allows developers and OEMs to focus on a single version without having to track unfinished future work just to keep up. Other parts of the Android system that aren't related to application compatibility are developed in the open, however. It's our intention to move more of these parts to open development over time.

If you want to see how up to date the openly available source code to Android is, then look directly in their open code repository: http://android.git.kernel.org/?o=age
Not very up-to-date is it? :popcorn:

Also, any properly open development project has a release schedule for contributers to follow: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NattyReleaseSchedule
Where do I find the one for Android 3.0?

The openness in Android is FAIL.

EDIT: I'd like to add that I still do drool over many Android phones. I have an aging iPhone 3, and I'm undecided on which phone to get next when it quits on me. Deciding this won't be any easier if MeeGo is any good, which I think it might.

fatality_uk
October 23rd, 2010, 04:00 PM
platform/external/qemu.git

Android Open Source...
10 hours ago
summary | shortlog | log | tree

Seems pretty recent to me. 10 hours ago last update.

mainerror
October 23rd, 2010, 05:51 PM
If you value functionality over openness in your tech products, then you're like me. I own a iPhone too :P (hur hur)

Is it so hard to read Google's own FAQ?
http://source.android.com/faqs.html


If you want to see how up to date the openly available source code to Android is, then look directly in their open code repository: http://android.git.kernel.org/?o=age
Not very up-to-date is it? :popcorn:

Also, any properly open development project has a release schedule for contributers to follow: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NattyReleaseSchedule
Where do I find the one for Android 3.0?

The openness in Android is FAIL.

EDIT: I'd like to add that I still do drool over many Android phones. I have an aging iPhone 3, and I'm undecided on which phone to get next when it quits on me. Deciding this won't be any easier if MeeGo is any good, which I think it might.

If you actually try to read the entire FAQ and not only parts of it then you will certainly understand why Google decided to go the way they go.

You've even quoted a very interesting part of the FAQ explaining why they do what they do. You ain't a core-developer nor are you a phone vendor so would you please tell me how you think you could contribute to the next version of Android? Do you have 20 different devices to test the new version on and so on? Another point is that Android has to deliver certain functionality within a certain release schedule unlike most other open source open projects. If something is not ready for the release date of Ubuntu then it is most-likely left out for that release. You won't be able to survive on the mobile market that way.

And to come back to the definition of open source. I can't find any text stating that in order to be open source you have to open the development but just to distribute the product along with it's sources code plus documentation.

I think lots of you don't ever really understand or know what open source really is to be honest.

P4man
October 23rd, 2010, 06:48 PM
Yeah its kind of a weird argument. Google isnt releasing all code for the next unreleased (duh) version of android, and that somehow makes the current released one less open? Next you will demand ssh access to Linus PC to see what he is coding on even before he submits it to git :confused:

Android is perhaps not a community project like some others, but thats probably a good thing for its target market and doesnt in the least detract from the fact its definitely opensource, period.

toupeiro
October 23rd, 2010, 07:08 PM
It's funny..

When I read about this for the first time yesterday on Slashdot, I wasn't even hung up on the whole open/closed thing. It was the integrated versus fragmented stance that Steve took that finally affirmed, without doubt, that the man is a great salesman, but a technological dolt with a really bad short term memory.

He will tell the world that the fragments of choice and alternatives the android platform offers is what makes it so confusing, not realizing that MAC exists today because, IT WAS A FRAGMENT/ALTERNATIVE choice! Where Apple started as a company, Microsoft took over and dominated for years, and MAC was the alternative way of doing things if a "Single. Integrated. Solution" in the viewpoint of one company, being Microsoft, was not what you wanted.

However, here he is, pouring Microsoft kool-aid in the cups of readers all over the world passing it off as his own. He is not realizing that it was that same kool-aid, which he poured down the sink and said no thank you to, that MADE him and his company. He's now squashing the market he catered to for all these years, now that he feels he's big enough to act like Microsoft in the space of Mobile devices and now his laptops. (http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/10/22/1931211/Beware-the-Garden-of-Steven)

Sorry, this guy is now, officially, full of himself.

KiwiNZ
October 23rd, 2010, 07:18 PM
Sorry, this guy is now, officially, full of himself.

Of course he is , if he was backward in coming forward he would be getting nowhere. To survive at highest level of business you must strong. To advance and succeed you must be absolute in your resolve and total in your belief. He is and that is Apple is gathering the rewards.

The Corporate game must be played to win and it is a good game.

toupeiro
October 23rd, 2010, 07:23 PM
Sure. However, it is possible to succeed and stay on top, and not be a hypocrite at the same time. :)

KiwiNZ
October 23rd, 2010, 07:29 PM
Sure. However, it is possible to succeed and stay on top, and not be a hypocrite at the same time. :)

I don't think he is being a hypocrite , he see's a challenger so he is taking aim. To me that is healthy that is what keeps things going forward you can be sure the guys at Goggle will feel the same.

Dustin2128
October 23rd, 2010, 07:34 PM
I don't think he is being a hypocrite , he see's a challenger so he is taking aim. To me that is healthy that is what keeps things going forward you can be sure the guys at Goggle will feel the same.
Bashing the competition is not healthy; instead of mudslinging, why doesn't he just make a better product like google is doing?

P4man
October 23rd, 2010, 07:35 PM
He will tell the world that the fragments of choice and alternatives the android platform offers is what makes it so confusing, not realizing that MAC exists today because, IT WAS A FRAGMENT/ALTERNATIVE choice! Where Apple started as a company

You seem to be confusing vertical integration with monopolies?

Jobs isnt ranting against monopolies or monopoly power, he is not praising or arguing against free market competition, he is making the case for vertical integration. Apple has always been a vertically integrated company, and now more than ever, controlling their products from the colour of the plastic mouse to the music and movies you consume with their devices. That is what makes it very different from microsoft *and* google (for now, but both seem heading in that same direction).

Apple's approach also has merit. Love them or hate them, if you work with an iphone or a macbook, it becomes apparent very quickly that the approach has advantages an open ecosystem (even one with a closed source OS like windows) simply cant reach (yet?).

To name two examples, my brothers macbook cold boots to a responsive desktop in about the same time it takes my desktop to finish bios post and load grub. Even if ubuntu 11.04 boots in one second flat, ill still not beat his macbook, even though the hardware is very very similar, and if anything, my desktop more powerful.

In tests Anandtech did, OS-X uses almost HALF the battery as windows doing similar tasks on the exact same, or very similar hardware and I doubt anyone here really believes ubuntu generally does better than windows in this regard. Its because apple controls everything that they can do things like move to EFI and carefully optimise and tune for a limited set of hardware.

So Jobs is right in much of what he says. What he doesnt say is the price you pay for apple's integration: choice and freedom. For most ubuntu users that is worth more than a flawless user experience (be honest, you wouldnt be using ubuntu if that wasnt the case), but to many others its not. If nothing else, Apple's share price proves that.

toupeiro
October 23rd, 2010, 07:42 PM
I don't think he is being a hypocrite , he see's a challenger so he is taking aim. To me that is healthy that is what keeps things going forward you can be sure the guys at Goggle will feel the same.

The hypocracy is in what he is saying. It was good enough for apple, apparently to be an alternative offering, but now that they've carved out a corner of the industry which they dominate, it's no longer good for users to have alternatives? Sorry, this is a clear example of hypocracy.

Google is doing the same thing in mobile devices that Apple did in the personal computing space, in practically the exact same scenario. One, dominant company defining the solution, look, and feel for all. It didn't work for Apple in the personal computing market, and so they had an offering. It doesn't work for Google, or a LOT of customers in the mobile device market, and so, Google has an offering. If it wasn't for fragments and alternatives, Apple would have been bankrupt years ago. In a business world with Fragments and alternatives, healthy competition exists, and the customers win. In a business world with one view, one offering and no alternatives, competition is forced out, and customers lose. It seems now that since Steve is on the other side of the fence in a given market, his business ethics and his companies business model became a light switch to flip.

toupeiro
October 23rd, 2010, 07:56 PM
You seem to be confusing vertical integration with monopolies?

Jobs isnt ranting against monopolies or monopoly power, he is not praising or arguing against free market competition, he is making the case for vertical integration. Apple has always been a vertically integrated company, and now more than ever, controlling their products from the colour of the plastic mouse to the music and movies you consume with their devices. That is what makes it very different from microsoft *and* google (for now, but both seem heading in that same direction).

Apple's approach also has merit. Love them or hate them, if you work with an iphone or a macbook, it becomes apparent very quickly that the approach has advantages an open ecosystem (even one with a closed source OS like windows) simply cant reach (yet?).

To name two examples, my brothers macbook cold boots to a responsive desktop in about the same time it takes my desktop to finish bios post and load grub. Even if ubuntu 11.04 boots in one second flat, ill still not beat his macbook, even though the hardware is very very similar, and if anything, my desktop more powerful.

In tests Anandtech did, OS-X uses almost HALF the battery as windows doing similar tasks on the exact same, or very similar hardware and I doubt anyone here really believes ubuntu generally does better than windows in this regard. Its because apple controls everything that they can do things like move to EFI and carefully optimise and tune for a limited set of hardware.

So Jobs is right in much of what he says. What he doesnt say is the price you pay for apple's integration: choice and freedom. For most ubuntu users that is worth more than a flawless user experience (be honest, you wouldnt be using ubuntu if that wasnt the case), but to many others its not. If nothing else, Apple's share price proves that.

No, he is making the case for selective integration and total control of the end-user experience. He's using the "good according to apple" benchmark, and theres nothing wrong with that, but there's also nothing wrong, or confusing about Google saying, to hell with your benchmark, who are you to tell us what is best for customers? It's exactly what Apple stood for, for years, in competing with Microsoft. However, suddenly, its bad for customers to have alternatives and choice. I am not talking about monopolies, or getting confused about monopolies, I am talking about business ethics, business practices, and the hypocracy to lash out at someone elses product when they are doing the same thing in this market, that apple did (and still does) in other markets.

Apples share price proves nothing more than brand advertising works. I could rip sod out of my lawn, call it iSod, put an apple logo on it, and sell it for 15% more than all other sod on the market, and people will buy it. That doesn't mean I've done anything to make that sod better, and it doesn't mean you automatically get a better product. People, for years, are willing to pay close to 1K more for a dual-core intel notebook simply because its called a MACbook pro. If people had any idea how badly they were getting ripped off, it wouldn't really have the following it does. But polish, and advertising work. I'm not saying its a bad business, I'm just saying they aren't offering anything "better" because of it. Macbook pro's have been around for a long time, but if you look at the sales of Macbook pro before and after the iPod boom, it's easy to see that it's a brand/marketing strength. The Macbook pro remains a mid-class laptop at a top class price. People have just been logo lured that it's actually better. Congrats to Steve and Apple for their successes, but call a spade a spade, They're an intel pusher, like Dell, HP, Lenovo, Toshiba, and all the rest. OSX is a dominant niche market OS for specific industries, and it's very, very pretty. But it is in no way, shape, or form as broad as Windows or Ubuntu, who can maintain excellent, and in some cases, better Boot, and more cases, I/O and hardware support than OSX does across vast ranges of architectures. Being able to fine tune an OS on dual-core machine doesn't mean anything if I need more than a dual-core machine can offer and you can't provide it, or allow me to install it on my own intel machine and support me..

All I am saying is, Steve is essentially lashing out at Google for giving the same options in a mobile device market that he himself gave in the PC market, and its pretty hypocritical.

phrostbyte
October 23rd, 2010, 08:01 PM
And here's the response

the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"

Found here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20019997-264.html

You win the thread. :)

phrostbyte
October 23rd, 2010, 08:06 PM
He was saying that Android people claim they're superior because they are open, and they're not really any more open than Apple.

Cool! Can you please point me to where I can download the source code to iOS? :)

P4man
October 23rd, 2010, 08:07 PM
No, he is making the case for selective integration and total control of the end-user experience. He's using the "good according to apple" benchmark, and theres nothing wrong with that, but there's also nothing wrong, or confusing about Google saying, to hell with your benchmark, who are you to tell us what is best for customers? It's exactly what Apple stood for, for years, in competing with Microsoft. However, suddenly, its bad for customers to have alternatives and choice.

Thats not what he's saying. He is not saying it would be bad for consumers if Google or microsoft came out with a phone or PC that runs its own optimized OS and browser and application stack and accesses its controlled software and media stores. He is saying any OS that is designed to work on almost any phone with any kind of display or input or any PC or even tablet is never going to work as well as a software and hardware stack developped in tandem by a single company with a single philosophy.

And he's probably right.


If people had any idea how badly they were getting ripped off, it wouldn't really have the following it does. But polish, and advertising work.


I can tell you havent really used an Apple product. I thought like you until I actually tried it. Apple is not what works for me, but the difference between a macbook and an HP/Dell/acer whatever laptop with seemingly identical specs running windows or even ubuntu is far more than just the logo or advertising.

KiwiNZ
October 23rd, 2010, 08:15 PM
Bashing the competition is not healthy; instead of mudslinging, why doesn't he just make a better product like google is doing?

Some will say he already does , some will he does not. Better is in the hands of beholder. The latest Fiscal reports AAPL would indicate a greater number beholders in the affirmative exist in increasing numbers... 91% for iPhone and 30%+ for Mac in Q4 2010 over Q4 2009.

toupeiro
October 23rd, 2010, 08:22 PM
Thats not what he's saying. He is not saying it would be bad for consumers if Google or microsoft came out with a phone or PC that runs its own optimized OS and browser and application stack and accesses its controlled software and media stores. He is saying any OS that is designed to work on almost any phone with any kind of display or input or any PC or even tablet is never going to work as well as a software and hardware stack developped in tandem by a single company with a single philosophy.

And he's probably right.


And all I am saying is, if single philosophy/company were the answer, Apple wouldn't even be here...





I can tell you havent really used an Apple product. I thought like you until I actually tried it. Apple is not what works for me, but the difference between a macbook and an HP/Dell/acer whatever laptop with seemingly identical specs running windows or even ubuntu is far more than just the logo or advertising.

I've actually owned iPod classics, and iPod touches. I've worked on iMacs years ago, and a PPC based G3. I've also worked on MAC classics. I've used their products for years. I've never personally owned one of their PC products, but worked on them through employers.

And I've actually compared, on this very forum, my HP 8710W from a few years ago and another forum members top end macbook pro of that year on several different benchmarks with me running WINDOWS VISTA, and I edged out the macbook in just about every single test we did, and I spent way less than he did overall on his purchase. Comparing the same products today, there is such a HUGE price gap between a class-equal HP device and the current Macbook pro that its hard not to feel ripped off in my opinion, if you have the knowledge about what actually comes in the box, and more importantly, if you need to really leverage it.

I can tell, you've not done much real numerical benchmarking of Apple on intel hardware versus other oses on same-class intel hardware. :)

I did LOVE my ipod touch ... once I jailbroke it and could use it at its full potential.

MisterGaribaldi
October 23rd, 2010, 08:23 PM
Apart from hardware and OS, let's also take a look at applications here, too. There are many great application "tools" for the terminal which, in their own way, are as hardened and polished and well executed as anything Apple has ever produced. That being said, however, what about applications which regular people use? I love Linux and I love open source software; that being said, however, is there *anything* in OSS like Dreamweaver? Or iMovie? Or PeachTree? Or Garage Band?

I could say "Is there anything like the iLife suite?" but my point is not so much that "Linux sucks because it's not like Apple" but that it's amazing what you get when you are willing to put money and dedicated development focus behind any given program or any give kind of program.

Granted, what I'm saying here is somewhat off-topic, but I think it makes a valid argument, and that is commercial or proprietary software (or even operating systems) aren't without validity and usefulness.

I do, however, think that what Steve Jobs said was at least a little bit "pot calling the kettle black".

toupeiro
October 23rd, 2010, 08:31 PM
I do, however, think that what Steve Jobs said was at least a little bit "pot calling the kettle black".

This, essentially, is all I was trying to point out, just using a little stronger words. :) I completely agree with everything else you said re: the software applications you mentioned. Linux doesn't have much to compete with them. It's when people start trying to stand in the grey matter between the Operating System and the hardware telling people that Apple hardware and OSX have a performance edge that I have to start calling foul. I work with very high end laptops and desktops running linux and I know how well it can scale. To be perfectly fair, I can't say the same thing to scale for OS/X because apple doesn't scale their hardware that high, but when I've tested within class with people who own Apple hardware or have gotten my hands on myself, apple/OSX does not win.

alexan
October 23rd, 2010, 08:37 PM
Apart from hardware and OS, let's also take a look at applications here, too. There are many great application "tools" for the terminal which, in their own way, are as hardened and polished and well executed as anything Apple has ever produced. That being said, however, what about applications which regular people use? I love Linux and I love open source software; that being said, however, is there *anything* in OSS like Dreamweaver? Or iMovie? Or PeachTree? Or Garage Band?
If you're willing to pay.. there's anything on Linux.
From Wine, Cedega(pay.. but spare Windows license)and Crossover (pay...but spare Windows license).
If you don't like compatibility layer due to buggy features.. use VirutalBox.
You need the open and free feature of KVM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel-based_Virtual_Machine).. but need to pay for a CPU which support virtualization:
Example:
all Intel Core i3 processors
all Intel Core i5 processors
all Intel Core i7 processors (ref (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_VT-x#Intel_Virtualization_Technology_for_x86_.28Intel _VT-x.29)

If you're not willing to pay.. there's nothing for Windows/OSX/iPhone too. But you've the option to steal other people work (serial and cracks aren't needed in OSS: no demand.)

If HTC, Motorola and any other company gain interest in such thing (compatibility layer or virtualization).. all they need is some engineer to work on Android source code.
All engineer in the factory of nokia, htc, samsung, lg, sony ericcosn etc etc... can do absolutely nothing on Windows Phone 7 or iOSX
This work, can be done only on Android and Meego



I do, however, think that what Steve Jobs said was at least a little bit "pot calling the kettle black".

This was already mentioned :popcorn:

P4man
October 23rd, 2010, 08:41 PM
And all I am saying is, if single philosophy/company were the answer, Apple wouldn't even be here...

Not a single, no one ever said that, but several consistent ones.

And if you think Jobs is the only one who thinks so, then ask yourself, why did MS recently buy an ARM architecture license and began assembling a CPU design team some time back? Havent you noticed how they are controlling the hardware for phone 7, how they are moving to app stores for desktop, console and phones. Its not just MS. Why did HP buy PalmOS? Why is Google getting more and more in to hardware? Ill tell you why: in the last 10 years HP grew by 30%, Google by an impressive 400% but apple by 4000%. Oh and microsoft shrunk by 10%. Thats why.



And I've actually compared, on this very forum, my HP 8710W from a few years ago and another forum members top end macbook pro of that year on several different benchmarks with me running WINDOWS VISTA, and I edged out the macbook in just about every single test we did, and I spend about 800-1K less than he did overall on his purchase.

I never said an Apple would give you the best performance/$, especially not if you test stuff that depends on one of the few things Apple doesnt control (yet): the gpu and gpu drivers. Compared to windows, they suck, both nvidia and ATI. Thats probably why the HP won.

There is more to user experience than such benchmarks though. Software stability, easy of use, security, eye candy, boot times, battery life.. speaking of which:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2785

toupeiro
October 23rd, 2010, 08:43 PM
Not a single, no one ever said that, but several consistent ones.

And if you think Jobs is the only one who thinks so, then ask yourself, why did MS recently buy an ARM architecture license and began assembling a CPU design team some time back? Havent you noticed how they are controlling the hardware for phone 7, how they are moving to app stores for desktop, console and phones. Its not just MS. Why did HP buy PalmOS? Why is Google getting more and more in to hardware? Ill tell you why: in the last 10 years HP grew by 30%, Google by an impressive 400% but apple by 4000%. Oh and microsoft shrunk by 10%. Thats why.



I never said an Apple would give you the best performance/$, especially not if you test stuff that depends on one of the few things Apple doesnt control (yet): the gpu and gpu drivers. Compared to windows, they suck, both nvidia and ATI. Thats probably why the HP won.

There is more to user experience than such benchmarks though. Software stability, easy of use, security, eye candy, boot times, battery life.. speaking of which:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2785

You just got done saying single, I quoted you on it. :P Maybe when you've figured out what you are trying to say, we can carry this debate further.

P4man
October 23rd, 2010, 08:50 PM
You just got done saying single, I quoted you on it. :P Maybe when you've figured out what you are trying to say, we can carry this debate further.

A single philosophy for a single product. Its not hard to understand.
Not MS and google having their idea's that dont rhyme with what some board manufacturers, OEMS or carriers and ISVs think. Like how everyone has their own idea's of a GUI and the result shows. In a single product.

MisterGaribaldi
October 23rd, 2010, 08:53 PM
If you're willing to pay.. there's anything on Linux.
From Wine, Cedega(pay.. but spare Windows license)and Crossover (pay...but spare Windows license).
If you don't like compatibility layer due to buggy features.. use VirutalBox.
You need the open and free feature of KVM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel-based_Virtual_Machine).. but need to pay for a CPU which support virtualization:

What you've just said proves my point quite clearly. Thanks! :)

forrestcupp
October 23rd, 2010, 09:16 PM
And I've actually compared, on this very forum, my HP 8710W from a few years ago and another forum members top end macbook pro of that year on several different benchmarks with me running WINDOWS VISTA, and I edged out the macbook in just about every single test we did, and I spent way less than he did overall on his purchase. Comparing the same products today, there is such a HUGE price gap between a class-equal HP device and the current Macbook pro that its hard not to feel ripped off in my opinionThank you!


If you're willing to pay.. there's anything on Linux.
From Wine, Cedega(pay.. but spare Windows license)and Crossover (pay...but spare Windows license).
If you don't like compatibility layer due to buggy features.. use VirutalBox.Have you ever tried to play Crysis on any of the things you listed? It's not true that there's "anything on Linux" if you're willing to pay. Unless you're willing to pay the salaries of everyone involved in the game studio to port the game to a native Linux binary.

toupeiro
October 23rd, 2010, 09:22 PM
A single philosophy for a single product. Its not hard to understand.
Not MS and google having their idea's that dont rhyme with what some board manufacturers, OEMS or carriers and ISVs think. Like how everyone has their own idea's of a GUI and the result shows. In a single product.


Thats not what he's saying. He is not saying it would be bad for consumers if Google or microsoft came out with a phone or PC that runs its own optimized OS and browser and application stack and accesses its controlled software and media stores. He is saying any OS that is designed to work on almost any phone with any kind of display or input or any PC or even tablet is never going to work as well as a software and hardware stack developped in tandem by a single company with a single philosophy.

And he's probably right.



You're all over the place. First you say you believe Steve is probably right that single philosphy and single company is better. Then, when quoted, you said nobody was talking about single philosophy or company, but several consistent ones. Now you're saying that Google and Microsoft don't rhyme with what ISV's are doing?! Really?! ISV's will ignore 2 of the biggest software companies in the worlds software methodologies because "one is better"??

Thats just not realistic, or practical...

mainerror
October 23rd, 2010, 09:22 PM
Have you ever tried to play Crysis on any of the things you listed? It's not true that there's "anything on Linux" if you're willing to pay. Unless you're willing to pay the salaries of everyone involved in the game studio to port the game to a native Linux binary.

This is true. If you depend on a specialized set of software you will have hard times using Linux. Take SolidWorks (CAD application) for example.

KiwiNZ
October 23rd, 2010, 09:26 PM
And I've actually compared, on this very forum, my HP 8710W from a few years ago and another forum members top end macbook pro of that year on several different benchmarks with me running WINDOWS VISTA, and I edged out the macbook in just about every single test we did, and I spent way less than he did overall on his purchase. Comparing the same products today, there is such a HUGE price gap between a class-equal HP device and the current Macbook pro that its hard not to feel ripped off in my opinion, if you have the knowledge about what actually comes in the box, and more importantly, if you need to really leverage it.

.

If the purchaser is happy with their purchase and the price they knowingly paid for it then there is no ripp off.

toupeiro
October 23rd, 2010, 09:31 PM
If the purchaser is happy with their purchase and the price they knowingly paid for it then there is no ripp off.

It depends on what you tell the customer. For example, if you tell the customer that your hardware outperforms same class hardware from the competition, and when actually compared, it doesn't, then thats where there is a problem. Just because they are happy, doesn't negate the fact that they've been lied to.

Apple isn't dumb enough to go on an advertising campaign saying this is the case (with regard to their hardware being better), but apple zealots will tell you this all day long, and it's simply not true. They think their competitive edge with the PPC platform carried through when Apple decided it wanted to use commodity architecture to save their costs, but they did not pass those savings on to the customer, their hardware costs within class are exactly the same.

phrostbyte
October 23rd, 2010, 09:44 PM
I just hope there is plenty of room in the Computer History museum for an expanded Apple exhibit. :)

KiwiNZ
October 23rd, 2010, 09:49 PM
Unlike the Anti-Apple zealots propensity to insult the intelligence of the purchaser for their choice I am not in that habit.

If someone select Apple, Dell, HP or Acer they have done so because have made that decision from the information they have processed like all of us.

That is why we have this clause in the Code of Conduct " Attacks and derogatory terms of any kind are not welcome. This includes references to other operating systems and the companies that produce them. " and why I am OS agnostic.

P4man
October 23rd, 2010, 11:04 PM
You're all over the place. First you say you believe Steve is probably right that single philosphy and single company is better. Then, when quoted, you said nobody was talking about single philosophy or company, but several consistent ones. Now you're saying that Google and Microsoft don't rhyme with what ISV's are doing?! Really?! ISV's will ignore 2 of the biggest software companies in the worlds software methodologies because "one is better"??

Are you just being pedantic or am I really that hard to understand ? Im not saying we only need one product from one vendor and one philosophy in the market, I am agreeing with Jobs that a product designed by a single company with a single vision from top to bottom, hardware, software, ecosystem has obvious and real world advantages over partial, conflicting and one size fits all approaches like MS and google who create only part of the software stack that ends up on a variety of machines built from components by various vendors with their own agenda from a variety of OEMS/vendors/carries who all have 58 different visions.

Yes, thats choice, but as a result we are still stuck with the BIOS, you get stuff like windows 7 on atom tablets or netbooks with 1GB RAM, a Toshiba AC100 running an OS that doesnt even properly support its own keyboard and touchpad and soon a gazillion android tablets that cant fully leverage their GPU and on which you cant access the android marketplace. You wouldnt see such disasters from a single vertically integrated company that designed those hardware and software. Hence you see intel and HP working on their own OSs, you see MS working on their own consoles, phones and CPUs and you see google working on phones, tablets and apparently, even netbooks. Dont be shocked if after Sun, soon Oracle also buys AMD and Apple buys nVidia. They are ALL integrating vertically.

Am I clear now?

Chame_Wizard
October 23rd, 2010, 11:33 PM
Seems like Cr@pple users are getting jealous.

Dustin2128
October 23rd, 2010, 11:58 PM
Some will say he already does , some will he does not. Better is in the hands of beholder. The latest Fiscal reports AAPL would indicate a greater number beholders in the affirmative exist in increasing numbers... 91% for iPhone and 30%+ for Mac in Q4 2010 over Q4 2009.
I personally think android far superior, but different people have different opinions. What I'm saying is that bashing other products like that doesn't exactly make it sound like he's brimming with confidence on his own, and its diverting energy away from that which could otherwise be used towards promoting the 'superiority of iOS'. Simply put; don't focus on bashing the competition, that makes it seem to many like you're compensating for failings in your own products. Both products have advantages and disadvantages, but positive marketing is always going to be better than negative marketing.


Seems like Cr@pple users are getting jealous.
whoops, there goes the thread.

Merk42
October 24th, 2010, 02:11 AM
Seems like Cr@pple users are getting jealous.
Seems like Linux users are getting elitist.
Oh wait that's every thread.

toupeiro
October 24th, 2010, 04:07 AM
Unlike the Anti-Apple zealots propensity to insult the intelligence of the purchaser for their choice I am not in that habit.

If someone select Apple, Dell, HP or Acer they have done so because have made that decision from the information they have processed like all of us.

That is why we have this clause in the Code of Conduct " Attacks and derogatory terms of any kind are not welcome. This includes references to other operating systems and the companies that produce them. " and why I am OS agnostic.

To be clear, my stance is the exact same as yours on this. I too have collected lots and lots of information, and make my decisions on that information. I don't really care what anyone elses chooses, or why, until the unfounded proclamations start. People feel the need to push favoritism as fact, but when it comes down to fact in computers, all I care about are the numbers, and I've seen them with my own eyes in the case of Macbook Pro versus HP. You can buy a Macbook pro for any personal reason you wish and I'm not going to ridicule anyone about their choice, but I think it's hilarious that people still try to impress upon others that its actually a better piece of hardware. There are people who actually know better, but if they dare say anything about it, they are considered radical zealots and fanboys rather than .. just being informed on the topic, and not buying into the marketing that is sold successfully to millions because they took the time to do real research before spending a few thousand dollars. I don't accept the premium for the hardware and the OS just to get the software, if I have to pay a premium for the software too, but I am obviously aware that there are plenty of people that will. Thats fine, people should get what they want when they spend money like this .. It still doesn't make Macbook pro "better" hardware for the dollar.

But, my original point was not to digress on Intel Macs, it was to point out that Steve was being a hypocrite in his recent statement.

toupeiro
October 24th, 2010, 05:04 AM
Are you just being pedantic or am I really that hard to understand ? Im not saying we only need one product from one vendor and one philosophy in the market, I am agreeing with Jobs that a product designed by a single company with a single vision from top to bottom, hardware, software, ecosystem has obvious and real world advantages over partial, conflicting and one size fits all approaches like MS and google who create only part of the software stack that ends up on a variety of machines built from components by various vendors with their own agenda from a variety of OEMS/vendors/carries who all have 58 different visions.

Yes, thats choice, but as a result we are still stuck with the BIOS, you get stuff like windows 7 on atom tablets or netbooks with 1GB RAM, a Toshiba AC100 running an OS that doesn't even properly support its own keyboard and touchpad and soon a gazillion android tablets that cant fully leverage their GPU and on which you cant access the android marketplace. You wouldn't see such disasters from a single vertically integrated company that designed those hardware and software. Hence you see intel and HP working on their own OSs, you see MS working on their own consoles, phones and CPUs and you see google working on phones, tablets and apparently, even netbooks. Dont be shocked if after Sun, soon Oracle also buys AMD and Apple buys nVidia. They are ALL integrating vertically.

Am I clear now?

The problem is, sometimes you think bigger of your plans and your work than your stack builder does. Sometimes, you're more ambitious than your stack builder and philosophy driver thinks you are. Sometimes, a 512MB GT330 video card isn't going to cut it in your mobile workstation, you need that FX 3600M or Quadro 5K. Maybe I can only buy that netbook with 1GB of RAM, but I can add more to it. Thats the power of modularity and choice. I can get what I want and need, not what you say I get. You say you get stuff like windows 7 on atom tablets but you also get BSD based OSX, and iOS on ARM devices, which are all available to use because of the predecessors supporting choice in software platforms and hardware architecture.

Your "vertical integration" concept in this case is flawed, because their components are the exact same components everyone else is building, testing, and developing on. Mac had true vertical integration with PPC, but now they are in a different game with Intel. EVERYONE integrates with Intel. Mac is not special anymore, and the competition has been integrating with Intel for MUCH longer periods of time.

Your proposed model gives me no choice but to conform to what Steve Jobs thinks I need, not just from my software, but from my hardware as well. Thanks, but no thanks, Not in the x86 world.

One. Model. Never. Works. It's been proven over and over. Ubuntu is a child product of a model that didn't work, and so is OSX. Its outright absurd for a multi-decade spanning niche market entrepreneur like Steve Jobs to think that one model would ever be good enough. As I've said many times, if it were, his company wouldn't exist anymore.

REALLY LATE EDIT: By the way, At the peak of apples vertical integration in the PPC architecture with iMAC, they created a SEVERE design flaw by placing the flyback of the CRT directly over the CPU with no fans for venting the hot air causing thousands of the units to fail. This was during a time I was actually working on iMacs and saw it over and over again. Mac compromised system design for tangerine orange. The iPhone 4 and its quite controversial antenna placement is another example of their execution of "vertical integration". With apple, Vertical integration == throwing best practices out the window and doing whatever you want because you think you know better than everyone else. There were single-unit PC's from gateway at the same time the iMac was coming out and guess what, no overheating problems. They have yet to demonstrate that they are experts at integration, why would I, or anybody, ever want to limit their choices to just them?

aysiu
October 24th, 2010, 05:26 AM
Several issues have come up in this thread. Here are my thoughts, leaving aside arguments about the semantics of the word open: I think there's a lot of value in designing hardware with specific software in mind and software with specific hardware in mind, as opposed to trying to have one operating system intended to work well with all hardware combinations. That said, I don't see why there can't be a middle ground. Why does it have to be either only on our devices or on just about every device imaginable? I would like to see a company take a general Apple approach of integrating hardware and software but just without any artificial limitations. If people want to try to install your software on something else, let them. They won't have the optimal experience, but they know that going in. One of the nice things about Android in general (though I've heard certain cell phone companies have locked this down for particular smartphone models, which is unfortunate) is that without rooting/jailbreaking the phone, you can install randomly downloaded .apk files from outside the Android Market. You're given a stern warning, of course, before enabling "unknown sources" (Your phone and personal data are more vulnerable to attack by applications from unknown sources. You agree that you are solely responsible for any damage to your phone or loss of data that may result from using these applications). If you want to install unapproved iPhone apps, you do have to jailbreak your iPhone, and every update to iOS will undo the jailbreaking process. That's annoying. Again, Apple has taken a generally good idea (trusted repositories) to an unnecessarily restrictive extreme. Yeah, I understand it's good to have a vetting process, but if I'm willing to take the risk, let me... let alone that many of the apps Apple has rejected from its app store have not been for security risks, anyway. Maybe Android hasn't been as "open" as some FOSS zealots would like to make it, but it's open enough that developers like Cyanogen can make cool open-source-only custom rooted roms for people to enjoy. Does iOS allow you to do that? The "fragmentation" issue is overstated, and it's disappointing to see Steve Jobs resort to this kind of FUD. Yes, Android phones have different screen sizes and different proprietary interface layers on top, based on the carrier. There are different versions of Android out there (1.6, 2.1, 2.2). But what does that matter to the end user or the developer? I haven't heard of any specific popular applications that do not work on 1.6, 2.1, and 2.2. Is Mac OS X fragmented because some people are using Snow Leopard, others Leopard, and some still Tiger? That some are using PowerPC and others Intel? I love the polish of the iPhone, but I like being able to install whatever applications I want, especially Google Voice (which is official and free from Google for Android, and which is developed with limited functionality by third-party developers for the iPhone and at a charge).

toupeiro
October 24th, 2010, 05:29 AM
Several issues have come up in this thread. Here are my thoughts, leaving aside arguments about the semantics of the word open: I think there's a lot of value in designing hardware with specific software in mind and software with specific hardware in mind, as opposed to trying to have one operating system intended to work well with all hardware combinations. That said, I don't see why there can't be a middle ground. Why does it have to be either only on our devices or on just about every device imaginable? I would like to see a company take a general Apple approach of integrating hardware and software but just without any artificial limitations. If people want to try to install your software on something else, let them. They won't have the optimal experience, but they know that going in. One of the nice things about Android in general (though I've heard certain cell phone companies have locked this down for particular smartphone models, which is unfortunate) is that without rooting/jailbreaking the phone, you can install randomly downloaded .apk files from outside the Android Market. You're given a stern warning, of course, before enabling "unknown sources" (Your phone and personal data are more vulnerable to attack by applications from unknown sources. You agree that you are solely responsible for any damage to your phone or loss of data that may result from using these applications). If you want to install unapproved iPhone apps, you do have to jailbreak your iPhone, and every update to iOS will undo the jailbreaking process. That's annoying. Again, Apple has taken a generally good idea (trusted repositories) to an unnecessarily restrictive extreme. Yeah, I understand it's good to have a vetting process, but if I'm willing to take the risk, let me... let alone that many of the apps Apple has rejected from its app store have not been for security risks, anyway. Maybe Android hasn't been as "open" as some FOSS zealots would like to make it, but it's open enough that developers like Cyanogen can make cool open-source-only custom rooted roms for people to enjoy. Does iOS allow you to do that? The "fragmentation" issue is overstated, and it's disappointing to see Steve Jobs resort to this kind of FUD. Yes, Android phones have different screen sizes and different proprietary interface layers on top, based on the carrier. There are different versions of Android out there (1.6, 2.1, 2.2). But what does that matter to the end user or the developer? I haven't heard of any specific popular applications that do not work on 1.6, 2.1, and 2.2. Is Mac OS X fragmented because some people are using Snow Leopard, others Leopard, and some still Tiger? That some are using PowerPC and others Intel? I love the polish of the iPhone, but I like being able to install whatever applications I want, especially Google Voice (which is official and free from Google for Android, and which is developed with limited functionality by third-party developers for the iPhone and at a charge).

Very well said! :KS

mainerror
October 24th, 2010, 08:08 AM
Several issues have come up in this thread. Here are my thoughts, leaving aside arguments about the semantics of the word open: I think there's a lot of value in designing hardware with specific software in mind and software with specific hardware in mind, as opposed to trying to have one operating system intended to work well with all hardware combinations. That said, I don't see why there can't be a middle ground. Why does it have to be either only on our devices or on just about every device imaginable? I would like to see a company take a general Apple approach of integrating hardware and software but just without any artificial limitations. If people want to try to install your software on something else, let them. They won't have the optimal experience, but they know that going in. One of the nice things about Android in general (though I've heard certain cell phone companies have locked this down for particular smartphone models, which is unfortunate) is that without rooting/jailbreaking the phone, you can install randomly downloaded .apk files from outside the Android Market. You're given a stern warning, of course, before enabling "unknown sources" (Your phone and personal data are more vulnerable to attack by applications from unknown sources. You agree that you are solely responsible for any damage to your phone or loss of data that may result from using these applications). If you want to install unapproved iPhone apps, you do have to jailbreak your iPhone, and every update to iOS will undo the jailbreaking process. That's annoying. Again, Apple has taken a generally good idea (trusted repositories) to an unnecessarily restrictive extreme. Yeah, I understand it's good to have a vetting process, but if I'm willing to take the risk, let me... let alone that many of the apps Apple has rejected from its app store have not been for security risks, anyway. Maybe Android hasn't been as "open" as some FOSS zealots would like to make it, but it's open enough that developers like Cyanogen can make cool open-source-only custom rooted roms for people to enjoy. Does iOS allow you to do that? The "fragmentation" issue is overstated, and it's disappointing to see Steve Jobs resort to this kind of FUD. Yes, Android phones have different screen sizes and different proprietary interface layers on top, based on the carrier. There are different versions of Android out there (1.6, 2.1, 2.2). But what does that matter to the end user or the developer? I haven't heard of any specific popular applications that do not work on 1.6, 2.1, and 2.2. Is Mac OS X fragmented because some people are using Snow Leopard, others Leopard, and some still Tiger? That some are using PowerPC and others Intel? I love the polish of the iPhone, but I like being able to install whatever applications I want, especially Google Voice (which is official and free from Google for Android, and which is developed with limited functionality by third-party developers for the iPhone and at a charge).

Awesome! This really sums it up. :)

alexan
October 24th, 2010, 08:15 AM
What you've just said proves my point quite clearly. Thanks! :)

you said:
*anything* in OSS like Dreamweaver? Or iMovie? Or PeachTree? Or Garage Band?
Linux is OSS, and linux can make run all these or alternative commercial products. Or do you somewhat imply that must be the same exact product.:popcorn:


Thank you!

Have you ever tried to play Crysis on any of the things you listed? It's not true that there's "anything on Linux" if you're willing to pay. Unless you're willing to pay the salaries of everyone involved in the game studio to port the game to a native Linux binary.
option1 (pay): Buy a windows XP/Vista/Seven license, plug it in VMWare/VirtualBox. KVM will do the rest
option2(free): wine&patch
option3 (pay): cedega and/or crossover
Have up to three option on the same machine: Ubuntu with security update and no need of antivirus (which sucks perfomances away). The latest update licese of ubuntu is always free.. for every machine. So you could afford to pay some software (cedega,crossover) or hardware (cpu with VT support) upgrade.
Then.. it depends: photoshop license cost about ~999$, other "popular" product have the same price. do you need all of them on the same desktop?

"Anything on linux", because those who can search (and plug real money in it)... will find.

If you don't search and want everything for free... you wouldn't find anything for linux/OSS.

P4man
October 24th, 2010, 09:42 AM
Several issues have come up in this thread. Here are my thoughts, leaving aside arguments about the semantics of the word open: [list] I think there's a lot of value in designing hardware with specific software in mind and software with specific hardware in mind, as opposed to trying to have one operating system intended to work well with all hardware combinations. That said, I don't see why there can't be a middle ground. Why does it have to be either only on our devices or on just about every device imaginable? I would like to see a company take a general Apple approach of integrating hardware and software but just without any artificial limitations. If people want to try to install your software on something else, let them. They won't have the optimal experience, but they know that going in.

Agreed. Vertically integrated inst the antonym of open or free. Take the nokia n800, its a nice example of an open platform combining the advantages of vertical integration without the downsides of a locked down approach. Meego is looking promising for the near future.



The "fragmentation" issue is overstated, and it's disappointing to see Steve Jobs resort to this kind of FUD. Yes, Android phones have different screen sizes and different proprietary interface layers on top, based on the carrier. There are different versions of Android out there (1.6, 2.1, 2.2). But what does that matter to the end user or the developer?

IT has caused some end user pains. How many phones still cant be upgraded to android 2.1 let alone 2.2? There is some confusion, for instance, if I wanted a phone that can access Exchange and synch calendars with it, I need Android 2.2. Which phone should I get? Which ones will and wont be upgradeable or when?

Unlimited choice in screen ratios and resolutions also cant make life for developers very easy. I think MS specified a single fixed screen resolution (and will add one smaller one) for phone 7 for a reason. And then there is the tablet mess.

I dont want to overstate the impact of this, but Jobs claim is not entirely without merit. For mobile phones, it doesnt seem a big issue and more an artifact if its youngness; android is still a terrific phone platform. For anything else (tablets, netbooks) I have serious doubts about it.

Dr. C
October 24th, 2010, 06:17 PM
Agreed. Vertically integrated inst the antonym of open or free. Take the nokia n800, its a nice example of an open platform combining the advantages of vertical integration without the downsides of a locked down approach. Meego is looking promising for the near future.

The n900 and the n9 when it comes out (Meego) look very promising.


IT has caused some end user pains. How many phones still cant be upgraded to android 2.1 let alone 2.2? There is some confusion, for instance, if I wanted a phone that can access Exchange and synch calendars with it, I need Android 2.2. Which phone should I get? Which ones will and wont be upgradeable or when?

An Android phone is upgradeable if one roots it. But really why should end users have to wait until the telco give them the blessing to upgrade the phone. It is fundamentally no different from saying you need your ISP or VOIP provider to give you permission permission to upgrade from Ubuntu 10.04 to 10.10 or from Windows Vista to Windows 7. I would say if one needs a feature in Android 2.2 not present in Android 2.1, then root the phone, upgrade it and be done with it. To be blunt here the telcos need to grow up.


Unlimited choice in screen ratios and resolutions also cant make life for developers very easy. I think MS specified a single fixed screen resolution (and will add one smaller one) for phone 7 for a reason. And then there is the tablet mess.

I dont want to overstate the impact of this, but Jobs claim is not entirely without merit. For mobile phones, it doesnt seem a big issue and more an artifact if its youngness; android is still a terrific phone platform. For anything else (tablets, netbooks) I have serious doubts about it.

The industry does need to standardize on a handful of screen resolutions just as has happened with desktops and laptops.

Stan_1936
October 24th, 2010, 06:47 PM
I have and will continue to consider Apple to be nothing more than a waste of money and time. They offer bells and whistles. They offer me nothing I can't get elsewhere. At this moment in time, I see no point in their existence.

Everytime I hear/see their name/logo, I laugh a little.

fatality_uk
October 24th, 2010, 06:58 PM
I think I found an answer to make everyone happy
http://hacknmod.com/hack/iphone-hacked-to-run-googles-android/

KiwiNZ
October 24th, 2010, 07:06 PM
I think I found an answer to make everyone happy
http://hacknmod.com/hack/iphone-hacked-to-run-googles-android/

Thats a good effort :) clever cookies

toupeiro
October 24th, 2010, 07:40 PM
I think I found an answer to make everyone happy
http://hacknmod.com/hack/iphone-hacked-to-run-googles-android/

:popcorn:

Dr. C
October 24th, 2010, 08:18 PM
I think I found an answer to make everyone happy
http://hacknmod.com/hack/iphone-hacked-to-run-googles-android/

Great effort. We need more people to do this kind of thing. :cool:

forrestcupp
October 24th, 2010, 11:20 PM
If someone select Apple, Dell, HP or Acer they have done so because have made that decision from the information they have processed like all of us.That's just not true for almost every Mac user I know. Almost every Mac user I know chose to buy a Mac because of its popularity with their friends rather than paying attention to any of its qualifications. I'll agree that MacOS X is a slick looking OS, but I agree with toupiero that the hardware doesn't justify the price gap.


you said:
*anything* in OSS like Dreamweaver? Or iMovie? Or PeachTree? Or Garage Band?
Linux is OSS, and linux can make run all these or alternative commercial products. Or do you somewhat imply that must be the same exact product.:popcorn:Yes, I imply that it must be the same exact product. You said if we're willing to pay any price, we can do whatever we want in Linux, then you give examples like a virtual machine and Crossover. It's just not true that those options can handle everything.



option1 (pay): Buy a windows XP/Vista/Seven license, plug it in VMWare/VirtualBox. KVM will do the rest
option2(free): wine&patch
option3 (pay): cedega and/or crossover
Have up to three option on the same machine:My one example was Crysis, which is a pretty CPU/GPU intensive 3D game.

Option 1: No virtual machine will even come close to playing Crysis. Virtual machines are not made for 3D or processor intensive things at all. They're good for things like MS Office.

Option 2: Wine is awesome, and it's been out of beta for a while now, but it's not anywhere close to being able to handle everything. I do see that a lot of progress has been made and Crysis will actually run now, but you have to set shadows to low to be able to get 25fps. Also, Crysis is now an old game, and it takes forever to get good support for new games.

Option 3: Pretty much the same as 2. My experience with Cedega is that it's easy to use, but Wine can now do as much or more than Cedega.

Things are getting better, but it's not there yet. The only real option for "anything you want" is to dual boot.

alexan
October 25th, 2010, 11:47 AM
Yes, I imply that it must be the same exact product. You said if we're willing to pay any price, we can do whatever we want in Linux, then you give examples like a virtual machine and Crossover. It's just not true that those options can handle everything.
Nor Windows 7 can handle some Windows XP's stuff (while Wine does).
But we don't say that Seven isn't Windows compliant, isn't? Windows 7 don't come for free: people pay for while it does less thing it advert.



My one example was Crysis, which is a pretty CPU/GPU intensive 3D game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bdv1Um243Z8&feature=related

There are CPU/GPU intensive 3d games that can be managed by Linux.. with the difference that on linux:

nearly "all" 3d intensive games that acquire compatibility through wine are virtually available for every possible spectrum of Linux.
All Windows XP's games are doomed to DX9 for Microsoft.. while are unlimitedly extended with OpenGL (increase resolution, on fastest nvidiagpu etc...etc..) on Linux.
Thanks to Wine, the gaming database provide to Linux is old (anyway, the time lapse is getting more tiny every day); but is incomparability HUGE than any other gaming platform actually existing (you can even including emulation; but Linux is king even in this: Seven lost many emulator by cut out XP, this apply to every other closed platform/console/os)

It require time for Crysis come flawlessy on Linux; meanwhile some *new* and *intensive* 3d games are already platinum for free (wine) and many other are quickly getting in the hands of who pay (cedega,crossover).

It's just matter of time.. even in real market (without the "compatibility layer mode": but developers who work on single titles) games need time to be ported to different platforms.
A Windows user which buy a game for Seven, know he will be able always able to play it in future when "Windows Nine" or "Windows Ten" were pushed as standard.



Option 1: No virtual machine will even come close to playing Crysis. Virtual machines are not made for 3D or processor intensive things at all. They're good for things like MS Office.
It's a dedicated option to "everything else but 3d intensive" (thus, things are improving on this side too).
But you're forgetting what this does include:
Office, Photoshop, everygamebut3d(rts/adventure/puzzle/tomanytolist...), music etc..etc...
Not all Basket/Hokey/Race games are filled with smoke, explosion, worlds which collide and supernova.


Option 2: Wine is awesome, and it's been out of beta for a while now, but it's not anywhere close to being able to handle everything. I do see that a lot of progress has been made and Crysis will actually run now, but you have to set shadows to low to be able to get 25fps. Also, Crysis is now an old game, and it takes forever to get good support for new games.
It take forever for "crysis" as well it would take forever for Halo and other product which are "just happy with microsoft".
But what about IDSoftware, EpicGames and other companies which are getting close to Linux?
Steam is today supporting three different platforms to make their clients happy: WindowsXP(dx9)/Vista-Seven(dx10+)/Mac
If there were Linux on place.. it would be just one platform: OpenGL. Don't dare to sing the fable of "linux distro fragmentation". A source code (libraries) for linux is avaiable to everyone.. LokiGames 10 years ago did show that commercial Linux gaming don't need QT/KDElibs and stuff like that. Meanwhile Ubuntu did show how much was a lie the fable of "linux is fragmentated".


Option 3: Pretty much the same as 2. My experience with Cedega is that it's easy to use, but Wine can now do as much or more than Cedega.
Cedega does more on side, Wine does more on the other side: this is addition, not subtraction. There are not game "in between": wine is opensource, remember? what it does is additionally commercially available.


Things are getting better, but it's not there yet. The only real option for "anything you want" is to dual boot.

Consider some stuff that did work on XP don't do on Seven... you should say tripleboot. :popcorn:

Nah, if you check first what's available to you like the Windows Gamers do too (are all ps3/xbox360/wii games available for PC?).. you need just one (Ubuntu).
The dualboot is forced only for WindowsXP/Seven.




...



MACs, have just no hope.

forrestcupp
October 25th, 2010, 05:40 PM
Nor Windows 7 can handle some Windows XP's stuff (while Wine does).
But we don't say that Seven isn't Windows compliant, isn't?But that's not even what either one of us was talking about. We were discussing running things in Linux. Anyway, I've had a lot less things work in Linux than Win7. Quickbooks is a great example of a very important software that Linux isn't good for.


It's a dedicated option to "everything else but 3d intensive" (thus, things are improving on this side too).
But you're forgetting what this does include:
Office, Photoshop,right, but it's still very limited. Also, virtual machines require Windows to be installed. Technically, it's not Linux running the software. It just makes it a little quicker since you don't have to reboot. My experience with Windows in virtual machines is pretty painful. It just wasn't worth it.


It take forever for "crysis" as well it would take forever for Halo and other product which are "just happy with microsoft".
But what about IDSoftware, EpicGames and other companies which are getting close to Linux?
Steam is today supporting three different platforms to make their clients happy: WindowsXP(dx9)/Vista-Seven(dx10+)/Mac
If there were Linux on place.. it would be just one platform: OpenGL.Again, that's still not everything. Yes, you are increasingly able to do much more in Linux, but it's just not true that you can have anything you want running if you're willing to pay a price. Halo was a great example. It will never run in Linux. What about other things that we're not thinking of, like Lexmark all-in-one printer drivers? You can't even get that to work running Windows in a VM, if Linux is your host.

How about Half-Life 2? That's one game that is well supported in Wine and people have used it as an example of the ability for good gaming in Linux. Well, I played it in Linux using wine, and it was so buggy and slow that I got frustrated and just played it in Windows. After spending that kind of money on a game, I'd rather get the best experience possible out of it than being stubborn and having to wrestle with bad gaming in Linux.

I don't disagree that things are definitely better than they used to be, but I would never lead someone to believe that it's possible to run any available Windows software out there.

alexan
October 25th, 2010, 05:59 PM
But that's not even what either one of us was talking about. We were discussing running things in Linux. Anyway, I've had a lot less things work in Linux than Win7. Quickbooks is a great example of a very important software that Linux isn't good for.
VirtualBox.


right, but it's still very limited. Also, virtual machines require Windows to be installed. Technically, it's not Linux running the software. It just makes it a little quicker since you don't have to reboot. My experience with Windows in virtual machines is pretty painful. It just wasn't worth it.
You mean, don't worth to reboot for a single software which don't abuse system resource.. and can be fairly used through VirtualBox
Again: perfomance are not a problem when you need software like "Quickbook", to this add that you can run your "Windows XP license" without antivirus in VirtualBox (gain wasted system resources)


Again, that's still not everything. Yes, you are increasingly able to do much more in Linux, but it's just not true that you can have anything you want running if you're willing to pay a price. Halo was a great example. It will never run in Linux. What about other things that we're not thinking of, like Lexmark all-in-one printer drivers? You can't even get that to work running Windows in a VM, if Linux is your host.
basically, you can't do anything with... everything: this is philosophy.
Not real facts. Show me something that allow you to make everything.


Can I go to mars with it?
Then, liars.
Again, philosophy.
"With Linux you can do everything... you are supposed to do with a very good OS; more than Windows/OSX since every new version of these product cut out possibilities in order to keep sell"



How about Half-Life 2? That's one game that is well supported in Wine and people have used it as an example of the ability for good gaming in Linux. Well, I played it in Linux using wine, and it was so buggy and slow that I got frustrated and just played it in Windows. After spending that kind of money on a game, I'd rather get the best experience possible out of it than being stubborn and having to wrestle with bad gaming in Linux.
There are things called "demo".. and they are supposed to be used before you buy the final product. This happen on windows too, you know. It would be very kindly if you did check the Wine DB about it (http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=5085). Is there for a reason.


I don't disagree that things are definitely better than they used to be, but I would never lead someone to believe that it's possible to run any available Windows software out there.
There are no even single Windows version that do it as well. In fact, Linux through Wine/VirtualBox is able to run far more Windows product than Windows by itself.
No reboot, no different partitions.

Turn ON your PC: run whatever; now and in future increasing:


Open, like Android

forrestcupp
October 25th, 2010, 08:59 PM
basically, you can't do anything with... everything: this is philosophy.
Not real facts. Show me something that allow you to make everything.

Then we agree! ;)

alexan
October 26th, 2010, 12:21 PM
Then we agree! ;)
Well, if you're kind of.. someone who say "with this cellphone you can do everything" need to specify "but don't try wash your teeth with it".
Sorry for hadn't specify earlier that I was talking about OS and only every specific things OS are supposed to do (which is not: "auto-reprogram to morph in other OS in order to run competitor software" which seem the nonexistent things you need from an OS)

scottuss
October 29th, 2010, 07:56 PM
I totally agree that Android isn't really that open. In fact I would argue it's very closed. The core is open, but the stacks on top (most of the "apps") are closed source.

And the whole building Android from source Twitter comment was funny because has anyone actually tried doing that? You get an Android system but no apps. Add anything further than that and you've just "de-purified" that lovely open base.

Disclaimer: I dislike Steve Jobs and Apple greatly and usually disagree with everything he says. However, once in a while, he gets the nail on the head. This is one of those times.

All the Apple hate in me can't counter the fact that Apple is also very closed, but at least they don't pretend otherwise.(I'm aware of the BSD base etc but I've never seen them market that as a feature or bonus of the iPhone)

forrestcupp
October 29th, 2010, 10:01 PM
(I'm aware of the BSD base etc but I've never seen them market that as a feature or bonus of the iPhone)

Does iOS have a BSD base, too?

scottuss
November 1st, 2010, 01:23 PM
Does iOS have a BSD base, too?

Yep. It's a very stripped down version of OS X.