auxio said: It's based on Linux, which had been in development since the early 1990s.
I never understood how Linus got away with Linux. At the time I was on Sun OS 4.3. When Linux came out it was virtually identical to Sun OS right down to the exact same file layout including the same name of every .conf file.
I don't really know the history of the filesystem structure of UNIX systems, but I do know that early versions of SunOS were based on BSD UNIX and later versions were based System V R4 UNIX. So I don't believe any of that was unique to SunOS/Solaris.
Solaris which was basically just a GUI skin on top of Sun OS but could but run on x86 architecture, not just UltraSparc as before. The only appreciable difference between Solaris and Linux was that Solaris wasn't free.
I guess I don't really see SunOS/Solaris as being the "origin" of UNIX systems, though Sun definitely did contribute a fair bit to the design of UNIX. Infringement issues in the UNIX world have always been difficult to enforce because AT&T (System V) didn't really care until much later on, and BSD has always been very open (academia style).
The UI was SunView at first (it's own technology), but later switched to OpenWindows, which was based on X11 (an open standard, and is what Linux used).
And yeah, the free thing is why Linux eroded Sun's server market once it gained enough features and compatibility.
Not a good day. If you're Samsung or Google, that is.
Another exploit discovered is the one Apple literally just patched in 10.3.1 whereby the Broadcom WiFi chip could be hacked without any intervention by the user.
Of course Google will patch it quickly. Just don't expect it to arrive on your device any time soon.
You neglected to thank Google for discovering it and letting Apple know.
Completely irrelevant who discovers it. Apple, Google, MS and countless other security researchers discover exploits all the time and pass them on.
The REAL issue is that Android is pure garbage in how security updates are handled. Gooel will patch it right away, but OEMs will drag their feet and only users of high-end flagships, Nexus/Pixel or other devices will ever see the update. The vast majority of Android users in the world WILL NEVER RECEIVE this update.
Not a good day. If you're Samsung or Google, that is.
Another exploit discovered is the one Apple literally just patched in 10.3.1 whereby the Broadcom WiFi chip could be hacked without any intervention by the user.
Of course Google will patch it quickly. Just don't expect it to arrive on your device any time soon.
You neglected to thank Google for discovering it and letting Apple know.
Completely irrelevant who discovers it. Apple, Google, MS and countless other security researchers discover exploits all the time and pass them on.
The REAL issue is that Android is pure garbage in how security updates are handled. Gooel will patch it right away, but OEMs will drag their feet and only users of high-end flagships, Nexus/Pixel or other devices will ever see the update. The vast majority of Android users in the world WILL NEVER RECEIVE this update.
That's utterly pathetic, and 100% Google's fault.
How is it there fault? They never forced anyone to use Android. They patch the exploits and it's up to the manufacturers to get it the same place they got Android, off Google's servers.
Not a good day. If you're Samsung or Google, that is.
Another exploit discovered is the one Apple literally just patched in 10.3.1 whereby the Broadcom WiFi chip could be hacked without any intervention by the user.
Of course Google will patch it quickly. Just don't expect it to arrive on your device any time soon.
That's always the rub with Android. Many things are patched, but getting the patch in a timely manner (or at all) is a constant issue. Apple did right by starting off by detaching the iPhone and its OS from the carrier, but even if Google had done that there would still be vendor issues for Android users to contend with.
I wonder how how long that issue has been exploitable in the wild and if we'll find out years from now it was used extensively by various gov't agencies.
If you're going to go with a Android phone, there's really only one choice, a over priced Google Pixel phone. That gets updated. How long? Will Google go with it's recommended 18 months support or longer? It's to early to tell.
Close. OS updates are guaranteed for minimum two years from first sale. Security updates are handled separately and are delivered monthly far after the OS updates stop, for at least three years. The two things are not interconnected, allowing Google to continue supporting security features even if the OS version lags behind. In addition many of the original phone's features are now updated separately via Google Play, not reliant on a user getting the latest OS to get that new product feature he/she wants.
Still not long enough. You pay a premium price (same price as the iPhone 7/7 Plus) for the Pixel and only get 2 years OS and 3 years security updates?
iPhones are now getting 4 years of iOS updates and 5 years (minimum) for security.
Even worse is spending a premium for a Samsung phone and having to wait 6 months after a new Android release comes out before you get it. And being basically abandoned after around 2 years.
Not a good day. If you're Samsung or Google, that is.
Another exploit discovered is the one Apple literally just patched in 10.3.1 whereby the Broadcom WiFi chip could be hacked without any intervention by the user.
Of course Google will patch it quickly. Just don't expect it to arrive on your device any time soon.
You neglected to thank Google for discovering it and letting Apple know.
Completely irrelevant who discovers it. Apple, Google, MS and countless other security researchers discover exploits all the time and pass them on.
The REAL issue is that Android is pure garbage in how security updates are handled. Gooel will patch it right away, but OEMs will drag their feet and only users of high-end flagships, Nexus/Pixel or other devices will ever see the update. The vast majority of Android users in the world WILL NEVER RECEIVE this update.
That's utterly pathetic, and 100% Google's fault.
How is it there fault? They never forced anyone to use Android. They patch the exploits and it's up to the manufacturers to get it the same place they got Android, off Google's servers.
100% their fault because they lack the balls to step up and put some stricter conditions on the usage of Android and Google Play.
Google is more interested in getting the most possible users on Android so they can collect data than they are with customer security.
Not a good day. If you're Samsung or Google, that is.
Another exploit discovered is the one Apple literally just patched in 10.3.1 whereby the Broadcom WiFi chip could be hacked without any intervention by the user.
Of course Google will patch it quickly. Just don't expect it to arrive on your device any time soon.
You neglected to thank Google for discovering it and letting Apple know.
Completely irrelevant who discovers it. Apple, Google, MS and countless other security researchers discover exploits all the time and pass them on.
The REAL issue is that Android is pure garbage in how security updates are handled. Gooel will patch it right away, but OEMs will drag their feet and only users of high-end flagships, Nexus/Pixel or other devices will ever see the update. The vast majority of Android users in the world WILL NEVER RECEIVE this update.
That's utterly pathetic, and 100% Google's fault.
How is it there fault? They never forced anyone to use Android. They patch the exploits and it's up to the manufacturers to get it the same place they got Android, off Google's servers.
100% their fault because they lack the balls to step up and put some stricter conditions on the usage of Android and Google Play.
Google is more interested in getting the most possible users on Android so they can collect data than they are with customer security.
Google had intentions of doing just that with Android Silver in 2014/2015, and the manufacturers said "no thanks". Hard to get the cat back in the bag.
Even if Tizen is crap, I still applaud Samsung for working on their own OS. I've been saying since at least the 1990s that WinPC vendors should've been working on developing their own OSes so that they would have a chance to get out from under Microsoft's thumb or be ready for any paradigm shifts in the market that may come about.
Given the sophistication and complexity of iOS, MacOS and Windows, is it possible for anyone to create a competitive OS from scratch... or will quantum computing and AI obviate all current and future offerings?
Of course. Google is competing with both Android and Chrome OS. Then you have Linux running on countless servers. Regardless of how you feel about those OSes they are taking business away from Apple and MS.
WebOS, Tizen, and many others even have marketshare on other devices. I assume my Samsung TV uses Tizen, and from a UI standpoint it's the best TV OS I've used. If it's insecure because of Tizen I guess I'll have to deal with the US gov't see what I watch on Netflix and Amazon Prime (the former is how I can get 4K+HDR on TV and the latter is the same, without even an option on my AppleTV).
Well, I considered Linux too. It has its place, including almost exclusive use in the heavy lifting in my field but wasn't built from scratch, which is where my comment was directed. Were Android and Chrome OS built from scratch? (I don't know their histories too well but understand that Android is anything but original.) I am asking, could anybody (commercially) build a competitive, i.e. feature for feature capable, OS today without borrowing or stealing large amounts of code? The second part of my post suggested that perhaps before too long, the question will be irrelevant.
Not a good day. If you're Samsung or Google, that is.
Another exploit discovered is the one Apple literally just patched in 10.3.1 whereby the Broadcom WiFi chip could be hacked without any intervention by the user.
Of course Google will patch it quickly. Just don't expect it to arrive on your device any time soon.
That's always the rub with Android. Many things are patched, but getting the patch in a timely manner (or at all) is a constant issue. Apple did right by starting off by detaching the iPhone and its OS from the carrier, but even if Google had done that there would still be vendor issues for Android users to contend with.
I wonder how how long that issue has been exploitable in the wild and if we'll find out years from now it was used extensively by various gov't agencies.
If you're going to go with a Android phone, there's really only one choice, a over priced Google Pixel phone. That gets updated. How long? Will Google go with it's recommended 18 months support or longer? It's to early to tell.
Close. OS updates are guaranteed for minimum two years from first sale. Security updates are handled separately and are delivered monthly far after the OS updates stop, for at least three years. The two things are not interconnected, allowing Google to continue supporting security features even if the OS version lags behind. In addition many of the original phone's features are now updated separately via Google Play, not reliant on a user getting the latest OS to get that new product feature he/she wants.
Still not long enough. You pay a premium price (same price as the iPhone 7/7 Plus) for the Pixel and only get 2 years OS and 3 years security updates?
iPhones are now getting 4 years of iOS updates and 5 years (minimum) for security.
Even worse is spending a premium for a Samsung phone and having to wait 6 months after a new Android release comes out before you get it. And being basically abandoned after around 2 years.
Google isn't saying you WON'T get a any more monthly update. It's not guaranteed that you will Outside of that you still get new services. security enhancements and added features even longer. I'm certain you're aware that Google unlike Apple has decoupled most of the pre-loaded Android applications so that users don't miss out on the "new stuff" just because their choice of handset manufacturer drags their feet on an OS update. Google and Apple just have different ways of delivering updates. In some ways Google's method is better for the user. In other ways Apple has it right. On balance tho it's probably Apple with the advantage on the update front. In any event it's not all doom and gloom for Android. The two OS'es are quite comparable in most metrics, both more adaptable and secure that their desktop equivalents.
Comments
The only infringement issues I know of for Linux were being heavily based on MINIX (which had an education-only license) and SCO claiming ownership of some of the code IBM contributed to it.
I guess I don't really see SunOS/Solaris as being the "origin" of UNIX systems, though Sun definitely did contribute a fair bit to the design of UNIX. Infringement issues in the UNIX world have always been difficult to enforce because AT&T (System V) didn't really care until much later on, and BSD has always been very open (academia style).
The UI was SunView at first (it's own technology), but later switched to OpenWindows, which was based on X11 (an open standard, and is what Linux used).
And yeah, the free thing is why Linux eroded Sun's server market once it gained enough features and compatibility.
Completely irrelevant who discovers it. Apple, Google, MS and countless other security researchers discover exploits all the time and pass them on.
The REAL issue is that Android is pure garbage in how security updates are handled. Gooel will patch it right away, but OEMs will drag their feet and only users of high-end flagships, Nexus/Pixel or other devices will ever see the update. The vast majority of Android users in the world WILL NEVER RECEIVE this update.
That's utterly pathetic, and 100% Google's fault.
Still not long enough. You pay a premium price (same price as the iPhone 7/7 Plus) for the Pixel and only get 2 years OS and 3 years security updates?
iPhones are now getting 4 years of iOS updates and 5 years (minimum) for security.
Even worse is spending a premium for a Samsung phone and having to wait 6 months after a new Android release comes out before you get it. And being basically abandoned after around 2 years.
100% their fault because they lack the balls to step up and put some stricter conditions on the usage of Android and Google Play.
Google is more interested in getting the most possible users on Android so they can collect data than they are with customer security.
Outside of that you still get new services. security enhancements and added features even longer. I'm certain you're aware that Google unlike Apple has decoupled most of the pre-loaded Android applications so that users don't miss out on the "new stuff" just because their choice of handset manufacturer drags their feet on an OS update. Google and Apple just have different ways of delivering updates. In some ways Google's method is better for the user. In other ways Apple has it right. On balance tho it's probably Apple with the advantage on the update front. In any event it's not all doom and gloom for Android. The two OS'es are quite comparable in most metrics, both more adaptable and secure that their desktop equivalents.