You are absolutely correct in that I have not detailed any criteria for what is open an what is closed. I have only stated that a statement claiming that Microsoft is more closed than Apple is unsubstantiated. There are more than two (of the ones I listed for the simpleton who have been hounding me to prove a negative - see articles referred at: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative" style="line-height:1.231;" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative</a>;
) possible reasons.
Microsoft is more open than Apple
Microsoft is equally open to Apple
The statement is nonsensical and determining openness is impossible or highly subjective, the original statement then is absurd
For many reasons, see for example "Unfair Burden" in the article referred above, it is the job of the person making the positive statement to supply proof. Anything else is both unreasonable and quite illogical. Russel's tea pot is a good example. I refer to the example I used above:
Mr Jones: Mr Smith is a thief
Mr Smith: No I am not
Mr Jones: Prove it
Nobody in their right mind would demand that Mr Smith provides such a proof. Here is what has happened in this thread:
Statement: Microsoft is more closed than Apple
Negation: No it is not
Tallest Skil: Prove it
Why would the burden of proof fall on the "No it is not" in the second case?
Why do I feel like I just sat threw a freshmen ethics course on acid, I need to lie down my head hurts.
Why do I feel like I just sat threw a freshmen ethics course on acid, I need to lie down my head hurts.
Oh, I am sorry, I didn't mean to make it a college-level post. It was more intended for the kindergarden level, since that was the intellect I had to assume Tallest Skil was able to understand. He apparently doesn't understand the difference between "is not taller than" and "is much shorter than". Basic English appears to be above his skill level, so that is where I had to try to communicate.
Someone past kindergarden level usually understands the difference, and most also understand where the burden of proof lies. With the person making an accusation. But hey, if that is freshmen level, I have misunderstood the quality of the US education system.
How about you get back to answering the actual questions first.
What question? Are you seriously asking me to prove something I have never stated? I have never stated that Microsoft is more open than Apple, you do realize this right? What particular question do you want me to answer? Also, why don't you provide proof for your statement that Microsoft is more closed than Apple? You never have.
What question? Are you seriously asking me to prove something I have never stated? I have never stated that Microsoft is more open than Apple, you do realize this right? What particular question do you want me to answer? Also, why don't you provide proof for your statement that Microsoft is more closed than Apple? You never have.
So insults, lies, and then refusing to prove what you explicitly said. That's nice. Later, skater.
Based on the number of open source software Apple supports directly in their OS compared to MS once can say Apple is more open than MS. Based on the fact Apple's core OS (Darwin) and kernel are open source and MS Windows has no such offering one can say that Apple is more open. Both of these specific statements imply that MS is therefore more closed.
Please, read the final part of this post carefully.
BTW, sorry about not answering the latter part of your post here. I originally didn't find it relevant but apparently Tallest Skil wants me to answer this. Now, parts of it has already been answered by Relic, OSX can not be considered OpenSource, and in actuality, Apples contribution to OpenSource is quite scarce compared to what it gets - http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9992358-16.html. Heck, you can just go out and try to develop an iOS application without owning a Mac and see how easy it is (yes, it can be done, I've done it using PhoneGap build).
I am not sure how using, but not contributing at a similar level, can be considered open.
You also pointed to the Microsoft site for open source, but did you actually read what was there? If you did, I am not quite sure how you could say that Microsoft doesn't contribute. Ajax is built on Microsoft ideas and technologies, first available in IE. Microsoft fully embraces jQuery and jQuery UI as web standards, and contributes significantly (particularly to validation lately). Almost all Microsoft efforts in the Web 2.0 space at the moment are Open Source, and more are being added by the day. ASP.NET MVC is fully FOSS. Windows Commuication Foundation. Most of ASP. Significant PHP contributions (particularly in compilation etc), F#, Python, Java, Ruby etc. Azure fully supports Linux, and of course runs the iCloud, Web 2.0 security, SOAP security, SOAP is a Microsoft Technology, PhoneGap...
Currently I am using Visual Studio 2012 to develop an app that will be deployed on Android and iOS (no Windows deployment currently planned). Please let me know when I can use any Apple tool to build anything for Windows...
Oh, and finally, this was about the walled gardens of Microsoft and Apple, in other words, iOS. What is open about iOS other than the fact that it runs on BSD in the bottom. The fact that Apple didn't (couldn't) write the OS from scratch and had to hitch-hike on FOSS, doesn't make them open. What makes a company open as it related to FOSS is what it contributes, not what it uses, and how what it delivers is FOSS. OSX and iOS? They are FOSS in the same way that Windows 8 is VAX VMS.
So insults, lies, and then refusing to prove what you explicitly said. That's nice. Later, skater.
Do you own a mirror? If not, you should buy one. You stated something that you have never backed up. The only thing you have delivered since are rather odd requests for me to prove something I have never stated, and insults. Next time you make a statement, please try to back it up with facts. Oh, and please point to a single lie. I have delievered none. The only liar so far is you.
So instead of wasting everyone's time with a pointless outline, how about doing that?
Did you even read the post that you quoted? I did explain it there. With mostly short words. Look at the part that says 1... 2... 3...
Know what, I'll repeat it here for you: "The statement is nonsensical and determining openness is impossible or highly subjective, the original statement then is absurd". Was there anything in there you did not understand?
And you honestly wonder why I refuse to entertain your delusions.
I'm certain you're someone back again at this point. There's just nothing else it could be.
The "couldn't" was an attempt at being humorous, it might have failed. But they didn't. OSX core is BSD. Still see no documentation from you on anything, so a liar you are.
I agree, Google and Samsung care about security about as much as Apple does on OSX. In other words, not at all - remember Flashback? Apple didn't release the patch for OSX for months and months after it was released by Oracle.
No, I don't remember flashback, then again I didn't go out of my way to install Java on my MacBook and left things at their default.
The difference in security approaches is manifest by simply considering one simple "feature" of each product:
Samsung Galaxy S4 (released 21 days ago) already has root methods allowing the installation of custom ROMs, in fact, some root methods were released within days of the product release
Apple iPhone 5 required nearly six months to jailbreak
Anyone who thinks Google or Samsung take security seriously is seriously delusional.
That's because because Samsung allows it as do other Android phone manufactures, they even go as far as posting a how to guide in their user forums and provide flashing utilities. Rooting a phone is meant for developers, you can't root a phone maliciously unless the user consciously makes the decision to do so. Actually because of rooting Dev's can make their phones more secure by patching any security holes quicker then a manufacture does. I absolutely love having a phone that I can root and customize to my hearts content but I'm a programmer and I know what I'm doing. I built a custom ROM for my phone that resembles more of a Linux OS as I have installed a NAS server, LAMP, every scripting language that I could think of, even Xwindows. I agree a normal user is probably better off with a Windows 8 phone or an iPhone.
That's because because Samsung allows it as do other Android phone manufactures, they even go as far as posting a how to guide in their user forums and provide flashing utilities. Rooting a phone is meant for developers, you can't root a phone maliciously unless the user consciously makes the decision to do so. Actually because of rooting Dev's can make their phones more secure by patching any security holes quicker then a manufacture does. I absolutely love having a phone that I can root and customize to my hearts content but I'm a programmer and I know what I'm doing. I built a custom ROM for my phone that resembles more of a Linux OS as I have installed a NAS server, LAMP, every scripting language that I could think of, even Xwindows. I agree a normal user is probably better off with a Windows 8 phone or an iPhone.
Can you provide a link to the software Samsung supplies to override the locked boot loaders they ship their phones with?
Comments
Originally Posted by tabinnorway
You are absolutely correct in that I have not detailed any criteria for what is open an what is closed.
So instead of wasting everyone's time with a pointless outline, how about doing that?
Why do I feel like I just sat threw a freshmen ethics course on acid, I need to lie down my head hurts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Of course not.
Could you point out one, or are you just a habitual liar?
Originally Posted by tabinnorway
Could you point out one, or are you just a habitual liar?
How about you get back to answering the actual questions first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Why do I feel like I just sat threw a freshmen ethics course on acid, I need to lie down my head hurts.
Oh, I am sorry, I didn't mean to make it a college-level post. It was more intended for the kindergarden level, since that was the intellect I had to assume Tallest Skil was able to understand. He apparently doesn't understand the difference between "is not taller than" and "is much shorter than". Basic English appears to be above his skill level, so that is where I had to try to communicate.
Someone past kindergarden level usually understands the difference, and most also understand where the burden of proof lies. With the person making an accusation. But hey, if that is freshmen level, I have misunderstood the quality of the US education system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
How about you get back to answering the actual questions first.
What question? Are you seriously asking me to prove something I have never stated? I have never stated that Microsoft is more open than Apple, you do realize this right? What particular question do you want me to answer? Also, why don't you provide proof for your statement that Microsoft is more closed than Apple? You never have.
Originally Posted by tabinnorway
What question? Are you seriously asking me to prove something I have never stated? I have never stated that Microsoft is more open than Apple, you do realize this right? What particular question do you want me to answer? Also, why don't you provide proof for your statement that Microsoft is more closed than Apple? You never have.
So insults, lies, and then refusing to prove what you explicitly said. That's nice. Later, skater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Based on the number of open source software Apple supports directly in their OS compared to MS once can say Apple is more open than MS. Based on the fact Apple's core OS (Darwin) and kernel are open source and MS Windows has no such offering one can say that Apple is more open. Both of these specific statements imply that MS is therefore more closed.
http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/directory.aspx
http://www.opensource.apple.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)
Please, read the final part of this post carefully.
BTW, sorry about not answering the latter part of your post here. I originally didn't find it relevant but apparently Tallest Skil wants me to answer this. Now, parts of it has already been answered by Relic, OSX can not be considered OpenSource, and in actuality, Apples contribution to OpenSource is quite scarce compared to what it gets - http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9992358-16.html. Heck, you can just go out and try to develop an iOS application without owning a Mac and see how easy it is (yes, it can be done, I've done it using PhoneGap build).
I am not sure how using, but not contributing at a similar level, can be considered open.
You also pointed to the Microsoft site for open source, but did you actually read what was there? If you did, I am not quite sure how you could say that Microsoft doesn't contribute. Ajax is built on Microsoft ideas and technologies, first available in IE. Microsoft fully embraces jQuery and jQuery UI as web standards, and contributes significantly (particularly to validation lately). Almost all Microsoft efforts in the Web 2.0 space at the moment are Open Source, and more are being added by the day. ASP.NET MVC is fully FOSS. Windows Commuication Foundation. Most of ASP. Significant PHP contributions (particularly in compilation etc), F#, Python, Java, Ruby etc. Azure fully supports Linux, and of course runs the iCloud, Web 2.0 security, SOAP security, SOAP is a Microsoft Technology, PhoneGap...
Currently I am using Visual Studio 2012 to develop an app that will be deployed on Android and iOS (no Windows deployment currently planned). Please let me know when I can use any Apple tool to build anything for Windows...
Oh, and finally, this was about the walled gardens of Microsoft and Apple, in other words, iOS. What is open about iOS other than the fact that it runs on BSD in the bottom. The fact that Apple didn't (couldn't) write the OS from scratch and had to hitch-hike on FOSS, doesn't make them open. What makes a company open as it related to FOSS is what it contributes, not what it uses, and how what it delivers is FOSS. OSX and iOS? They are FOSS in the same way that Windows 8 is VAX VMS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So insults, lies, and then refusing to prove what you explicitly said. That's nice. Later, skater.
Do you own a mirror? If not, you should buy one. You stated something that you have never backed up. The only thing you have delivered since are rather odd requests for me to prove something I have never stated, and insults. Next time you make a statement, please try to back it up with facts. Oh, and please point to a single lie. I have delievered none. The only liar so far is you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So instead of wasting everyone's time with a pointless outline, how about doing that?
Did you even read the post that you quoted? I did explain it there. With mostly short words. Look at the part that says 1... 2... 3...
Know what, I'll repeat it here for you: "The statement is nonsensical and determining openness is impossible or highly subjective, the original statement then is absurd". Was there anything in there you did not understand?
Originally Posted by tabinnorway
I am not sure how using, but not contributing at a similar level, can be considered open.
The fact that Apple didn't (couldn't) write the OS from scratch…
And you honestly wonder why I refuse to entertain your delusions.
I'm certain you're someone back again at this point. There's just nothing else it could be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And you honestly wonder why I refuse to entertain your delusions.
I'm certain you're someone back again at this point. There's just nothing else it could be.
The "couldn't" was an attempt at being humorous, it might have failed. But they didn't. OSX core is BSD. Still see no documentation from you on anything, so a liar you are.
No, I don't remember flashback, then again I didn't go out of my way to install Java on my MacBook and left things at their default.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
The difference in security approaches is manifest by simply considering one simple "feature" of each product:
Samsung Galaxy S4 (released 21 days ago) already has root methods allowing the installation of custom ROMs, in fact, some root methods were released within days of the product release
Apple iPhone 5 required nearly six months to jailbreak
Anyone who thinks Google or Samsung take security seriously is seriously delusional.
That's because because Samsung allows it as do other Android phone manufactures, they even go as far as posting a how to guide in their user forums and provide flashing utilities. Rooting a phone is meant for developers, you can't root a phone maliciously unless the user consciously makes the decision to do so. Actually because of rooting Dev's can make their phones more secure by patching any security holes quicker then a manufacture does. I absolutely love having a phone that I can root and customize to my hearts content but I'm a programmer and I know what I'm doing. I built a custom ROM for my phone that resembles more of a Linux OS as I have installed a NAS server, LAMP, every scripting language that I could think of, even Xwindows. I agree a normal user is probably better off with a Windows 8 phone or an iPhone.
Can you provide a link to the software Samsung supplies to override the locked boot loaders they ship their phones with?
http://www.xda-developers.com/android/official-and-confirmed-att-galaxy-s-4-is-bootloader-locked/
For those curious about it, explains why the international versions have unlocked bootloaders (as does T-Mobile's S4) while notably Verizon and now ATT lock'em down.
There's also the stock Android version of the S4 shipping soon which would also have an unlocked bootloader (of course).