Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Apple (Score 2) 192

The other thing not mentioned is that Apple would have easily allowed Flash on iOS had Adobe managed to come up with a mobile version that addressed Apple's performance concerns. In his memo, Jobs even mentions this. They waited and waited for Adobe and finally gave up. Many rabid Android fans at the time were more than gloating when they got Flash to run on their Androids . . . until they actually used it and found it a buggy, battery draining mess just as Jobs had said it was.

Comment The premise is wrong (Score 2) 192

There wasn't one single cause of Flash being killed. So everyone arguing for or against Steve Jobs being the cause is irrelevant. Jobs did bring focus to the ever growing problem that was Flash.

Flash originally was a solution to a problem that Web users/content creators had: With multiple platforms and browsers like OS X, Windows, Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari, etc, how do web designers create consistent look and functionality for animations and video. While some browser specific optimizations were required for pages, animations and video had to work pretty much the same.

How Adobe did it was to code at very low levels the APIs needed to run everything. When CPUs and operating systems all had to do the work this wasn't much of a problem. Where it became more of a problem was when the work was being offloaded to GPUs and the OS became better at using the GPU. Flash unfortunately ignored these optimizations till very late. By that time, the reputation of it being a resource hog was well earned. For example, on OS X, there was a demo that showed how inefficient Flash was by taking the same video and putting it in two containers: MKV and Flash. The MKV container ran at low CPU usage while the Flash container ran at 100%. From what I remember this only happened on Flash for OS X so the problem was entirely Adobe's.

The second problem was security. Over time OS became more aware of the need for enhanced security. Flash unfortunately again was very late to fixing these in a serious way. Because of how Flash was written at a low level, it also was more of security hole as Flash requires escalated privileges to run/install.

The last problem was mobile UI. Flash was designed to be used with a mouse and pointer. When smart phones still relied on this UI, Flash would be fine. When they started moving towards touch-centric UIs, the promise of Flash was diminished. As consumers started to use more smart phones than computers, the original idea of using one platform to reach all users was negated.

Comment Re:All this Glitz but it's still posessed... (Score 1) 194

The average Windows user can't be trusted to ever run updates, so their computer ends up getting compromised.

And the average Windows update has a chance of making your computer unusable. That also doesn't factor in updates which add no functional value to the customer but does things like reduce privacy for the customer.

Comment Re:Innovation (Score 3, Interesting) 310

And what would you have done instead? When Netflix launched their streaming service on browser in 2007, do you know how many TV appliances like AppleTV existed? Just AppleTV. That was it; there was no Roku, there was not Amazon Stick. There was no Chromecast. Sure they got themselves onto Blu-ray players and that took time as well. These days, the browser doesn't make as much sense as it did when Netflix first launched.

Comment Re:You don't want this to succed (Score 1) 342

Even if you are a rampant MS hater, this would set a really bad precedent: That software companies could be liable for data loss caused by things only incidentally related to their software. Talk about a ripe field for bullshit lawsuits.

Well part of the problem that MS inflicted this upon themselves was the forced nature of Windows 10. Had the users accepted an upgrade willingly (which they claim they didn't), MS might have a defense. They didn't have a choice and an upgrade wrecked their system. In the law, damages are applicable if the plaintiffs can prove the cause and damages.

Don't think OSS would be immune either. The argument of "but I didn't charge for it" doesn't eliminate liability. In fact, it would be something companies could use to try and bully OSS out of existence through bullshit lawsuits.

Again, OSS doesn't force their software on you. Not even updates are forced. So your comparison is bad.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 4, Insightful) 342

I haven't seen a Windows upgrade (note: UPGRADE) destroy data in a meaningful way in.....I don't even know how long.

Because YOU haven't seen one does not mean it did not happen ever.

That's a neat trick, unless they mean their IDEA of their computer rather than the physical hardware. Windows is shitty, not malicious.

Well the summary already told you that the HD was destroyed. It's possible an update does that. Some Windows 10 update horror stories have had the machine on a continuous reboot loop. That would trash a weak HD pretty quick. So yes physical hardware can be damaged.

Wait. So, are they claiming it was the forced upgrade that caused it, or.....?

Er what?

Sorry, unrelated. Though, if she could show otherwise, I would actually be shocked beyond belief.

Hello, continuous reboot?

Yes, in the same way that I would have to buy a new car if my starter gave out.

This relies on the premise that replacing your starter is not more than the cost of the car. Your analogy is not great as there are cars on the road today that replacing the starter is more than the car. Now in computers it is more likely because how valueless older computers are compared to new ones. It may not be worth it to the user to repair an old computer as opposed to replacing it.

I'm torn between hoping she succeeds (as I consider Microsoft a bad actor in the whole upgrade situation) and hoping she gets laughed out of court so hard she ends up with skid-marks that spell out "LOL".

I would say you learn about the exact details of the situation otherwise people will be laughing at you for not knowing them.

Comment Well blame Hollywood for creating their own enemy (Score 5, Interesting) 310

The only reason Netflix makes their own content is they were being squeezed by Hollywood for higher and higher licensing fees. Back in 2011, when Netflix had to raise fees for streaming and mail-in service to cope with raising licensing fees, their customers revolted. So Netflix did two things: 1) split their business into two with DVD mailing separate from streaming and 2) offer fewer and more outdated movies. However content stagnated. I suppose that Netflix could have shown TV shows in syndication but that would not distinguish themselves enough from other players or even cable. Creating their own content was the only to keep themselves relevant in the streaming business. Netflix started with TV shows like abandoned properties (Arrested Development) and original new TV shows (Orange is the New Black) which has brought in many new and returning customers. Now they are branching into films.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live ones." -- Nathaniel Howe