Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:User != Customer (Score 1) 209 209

Your customers are the people who give you money. It's the advertisers, not app developers, who are Google's customers.

That's why Google can say that app stores aren't the future (some way to treat your "customers!") and why paid apps struggle to get any traction on the Google app marketplace.

Comment: That's why no Android phones default to Bing (Score 1) 209 209

Except the ones that do, by default, on the largest carrier in the USA.

Carriers don't default to Google's search on Android because it's Android. They do it because they think it's what their customers want, and/or Google pays them the most money. That can change overnight, and Android and Chrome (being open source) could not even lean against that wind, let alone stop it entirely.

Comment: Re:Does this company even produce software? (Score 3, Insightful) 250 250

It would be a big mistake for a company like this to produce any products. These companies exist only to license out IP they buy or otherwise "invent," and to sue non-licensees for patent infringement. If they were to produce a product, they would make themselves vulnerable to a countersuit.

Comment: Re:who cares (Score 1) 366 366

Android is going to make Google billions in licensing

I'm not sure what there is to be licensed. The software is open source, so there's no licensing fees to be had there. I suppose they could license out the mark "Android," but that's a weak brand if I ever saw one.

I think Android is a big money sink for Google and they'll try to pawn off its development to the "community" within a few years. It may still help them in the long run by jump-starting the mobile web as an advertising space, but Google does not need to pay someone to make that happen.

Comment: Re:Will it work for BIG files? (Score 1) 38 38

Snapshots can take a lot of space!

Imagine you have a 5 GB movie file that you snapshot. If you then try to delete the file, you will not recover the space, because the snapshot holds onto the file. Effectively, the snapshot is consuming 5 GB.

"Unsung" asks whether ZFS is smart about how it removes snapshots as space is needed. This is a reasonable question with a trivial answer: no, because ZFS never removes snapshots, even if space is needed. It is the user's responsibility to remove snapshots.

There is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero, "Ad familiares"

Working...