|
Well Android can (I can print from my phone, if I ever felt the need), and it's it's based on Android it may be able to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, the kernel is only part of the operating system. The shell is also part of the operating system.
Ever hear of anyone running a computer on "just Linux"? (i.e. not Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.). Of course not, because Linux is a kernel, and the kernel on it's own is useless. Linux is not an operating system, it is only one part of an operating system.
|
|
|
|
|
But Android IS an OS already! How are they going to compete with Google when Google could pull the rug out from under their feet?
edit: frankly, it reminds me of all the rentacoder postings for "I want someone to develop a new OS that will compete with Windows XP. It must be written in Visual Basic." 
|
|
|
|
|
ekolis wrote: But Android IS an OS already! How are they going to compete with Google when Google could pull the rug out from under their feet?
Yes, Android is an OS already, but it doesn't mean you can't build on top of it. That is what Linux Mint does with Ubuntu, builds on top of it. Over time it has been diverting more and more from Ubuntu, which is probably what will happen with the new Mozilla project. It's a starting point so they don't have to 're-invent the wheel'.
But, of course, that being said, there has been much debate as to how 'open' Android really is, so we'll have to wait and see how Google responds, especially since they have their own OS project.
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out how to use my telephone - Bjarne Stroustrup
The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke!
My code has no bugs, it runs exactly as it was written.
|
|
|
|
|
That article is from about a year ago, which is about the same time they announced Boot2Gecko.
I wonder how the two relate, because AFAIK Boot2Gecko was meant to be its own derivative from Linux (called Gonk).
Edit: uhmm, code examples in this page import stuff from an "android" namespace, so I guess this is the same project.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been a pretty active participant with the proceedings of B2G (Now FirefoxOS) since around January; You're right about it having it's own kernel called Gonk!
This thread seems a little misinformed about FirefoxOS' relationship with Android:
Android devices are, for the foreseeable future, far more common than a any device that runs FirefoxOS (there being only one device currently that is built for it), so they've essentially built a compatibility layer to allow select devices to have FirefoxOS installed on them instead of Android (See:Samsung Galaxy S2 & Nexus S).
The kernel they use is not Androids, nor are it's primary systems based on Android; the project in its intended form (i.e. installed on a device that was manufactured to use FirefoxOS as its OS) runs just a kernel and the web browser; all apps are HTML+Javascript+CSS and run within that space.
|
|
|
|
|
Other shark in the tank... 
|
|
|
|
|
I am that girl in your class that just wouldn't stop talking. Also known as Iris Classon, a hyperactive and very passionate developer, distance runner and mountain biker with a love for weightlifting and fitness. Welcome to our continuing series of Code Project interviews.
|
|
|
|
|
Andrei Alexandrescu, author of The D Programming Language and Modern C++ Design, explains that learning how to learn is more important than learning anything else. They're not experts in something as much as experts in becoming experts in something.
|
|
|
|
|
Hang on, my knee just jerked something awful after I saw, "Andrei Alexandrescu, author of The D Programming Language". I think the blog (or at least your quote of it (I haven't read the article yet, but I will)) needs some punctuation.
Walter Bright is the author of The D Programming Language; Andrei Alexandrescu merely wrote a book about it.
Andrei Alexandrescu, author of "The D Programming Language and Modern C++ Design" ...
OK, I feel better now, please return to your normal broadcasting.
|
|
|
|
|
Backwards compatibility, and compatibility across Linux distributions is not a sexy problem. It is not even remotely an interesting problem to solve. Nobody wants to do that work, everyone wants to innovate, and be responsible for the next big feature in Linux. So Linux was left with idealists that wanted to design the best possible system without having to worry about boring details like support and backwards compatibility. Meanwhile, you can still run the 2001 Photoshop that came when XP was launched on Windows 8. And you can still run your old OSX apps on Mountain Lion. Supporting Linux on the desktop became a burden for independent developers.
|
|
|
|
|
"What went wrong?"
Nothing.
It's still the best free operating system. Is Linux dead on the desktop? I think not, if World of Warcraft is supported, if DropBox is supported, if the G15-gamers keyboard is supported. Playing Monkey Island, using a DOSBox.
No, it ain't as versatile as Windows, but that's the added value that Microsoft delivers. Yes, for some people, that's worth the investment. Since money is cheap, everybody does that investment without a second thought. Still, that ain't an argument to proclaim that Linux took a "wrong" turn.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Nothing
Right. And 2013 will be the year of Linux on desktop.
|
|
|
|
|
Which part did you fail to understand? Apologies for the rudeness.
I never claimed they'll be replacing Windows, nor did I say that their market-share would grow.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
modified 31-Aug-12 6:06am.
|
|
|
|
|
There is a joke icon on his post, I don't think you needed to justify yourself.
Compensating your downvote as I agree that you had a point.
BTW, change "they're" to "their" before you get the grammar police on your butt. (Hey DD, where are you?)
|
|
|
|
|
Two good points - will do.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a vitual bridge I will sell you.
|
|
|
|
|
Easy:
some other article here has this quoute:
"I want to focus on the job…I don’t want to think of myself as using a computer, I want to think of myself as doing my job"
This is something that the Linux folks don't get. People don't "use" Windows, they do their jobs, and Windows mostly gets out of their way while they're doing it.
Miguel gets this, and that's why he loves is Mac and OS X. Because he doesn't have to "use" OS X, he simply can get his job done.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
|
|
|
|
|
One of the very first ideas we had for this blog was to convert some of the wonderful gems of the early era of our site, the undisciplined period, to blog posts. Questions that were once enthusiastically received by the community, but no longer fit Programmer’s scope. You surely have opinions on these opinions... share them!
|
|
|
|
|
Opinions? Nah, none of those... 
I agree with pretty much all of that, with the most hesitation on:
8: Yes, but you're allowed to forget the older languages as you learn newer ones. I can't write Fortran, Cobol, or Pascal anymore for instance.
16: Use the right tool for the right job.
18: Asking experienced developers simple development questions can be insulting. The second of those two examples is very bad. The first is OK, but how am I to check my result? And do I increase my iteration until I get more than five-digit precision and then back off?
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with #12, if you make properties/getters & setters/etc. it's easier to modify later when needed. For example, if you're trying to debug something and you want to log every value assigned to something, it's a lot easier to just modify the setter than it is to find every bit of code that assigns to the variable.
|
|
|
|
|
If you were using a field, you can almost always just turn into a property with no further changes. In C# anyway. Which is why C# is cool.
|
|
|
|
|
True, but in C# it is also very easy to just make a property in the first place (especially in VS, just type prop and hit tab twice, enter the type, hit tab, enter the name, done).
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and there's no performance cost either as far as I know (I've always seen trivial setters and getters seen get inlined).
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
