It's all about trade offs. No one is required to use all the latest tooling and frameworks, and writing things the 'good old way' still works, it'll just come with trade offs. Pick your poison.
Big fan of the Level 1 Tech KVMs, both the hardware and support are quite good. You're way more likely to run into issues with docks/monitors/usb devices etc than something actually wrong with the KVM itself.
And now Microsoft is going to solve all those problems? This'll be interesting to see how it plays out, but all of these issues are not confidence inspiring.
I think some skepticism is a healthy thing to have, especially with multi billion dollar acquisitions. It's a little surprising to me that there's been so much kool aid drinking in the open source community over this and a lot of "disappointment" with those who are not also drinking the kool aid.
At the end of the day, Microsoft, a huge billion dollar corporation, bought GitHub because it thinks it'll help its bottom dollar. And sure, of course I can see the business sense in the deal for both parties, but it's yet to be seen if it'll actually improve things for end users.
An interesting question might be, what other ways could you allow people in the queue to jump up in position, without requiring them to share with others?
Maybe a quick survey with questions like,
- what email client do you use now?
- what is your favorite/least favorite feature of said client?
- how often do you check your email?
etc
Yeah, but by engaging in this behavior, the dev has convinced me this whole thing is click spam, so I’m done evaluating it before I even downloaded it.
I highly doubt this, devices with batteries are near ubiquitous in many places and have been for decades now. "Electronics" knowledge or not, people have used batteries and will have noticed that over time its life goes down.
Really hope purism finds success with this. An open phone platform has been a long time coming, I hope they can learning from the missteps of ubuntu and firefox.
I like the idea of managing my phone like I manage my computer; install whatever OS and software I want on it. Of course, that comes with the additional effort of keeping it well updated and working, and if this is a primary communication device that effort becomes more urgent. But hey, I think that's just what it takes to not be dependent on a corporation that takes my data/info in exchange for device support.
Crowd funded, then crowd sourced security updates? Really?
I think it is a noble effort with zero chance of success, its like Linux on the desktop, but with the further complication of expecting people to pay $$$ for out of date hardware, with what will no doubt be terrible software, with no apps users actually want to use....
Used by a significant portion of computer users, ie Windows Phone is not a successful platform, Android is, and if Microsoft can't make a successful phone platform, what chance does this go fund me campaign have.
'Many large tech companies' is pretty insignificant when you look at the number of people who use desktop computers, and then even more insignificant when you look at the number of people who use phones, and is a very poor metric as it doesn't really consider people actually choosing to purchase the system when others are on offer.
There is just no value in their proposition to consumers... Have an expensive old phone, made by a company that can in no way support your purchase should the hardware fail...
And I don't believe for a second that it will be more secure than iOS or even Android. Small team, custom operating system, the user can install their own OS, sounds like a recipe for disaster.
I don't think your definition of success matches theirs. People have different values, some value openness above market share.
---
Speaking of openness, and since you mentioned ios: apple recently unpublished a company's entire catalog of apps without any explanations. The word on the street is malware (well technically fraudulent adware) but do you think you will ever get apple to admit that?
I think it will match their version of success when they run out of money and are no longer able to support their users.
I don't know about the case you mention. I do not think that Apple manage their developer community well, but most issues like the one you highlight are generally edge cases - users doing something that isn't clearly defined by Apple rules. What was the company and what did its apps specifically do? If it was fraudulent adware do you not agree that they should be removed?
The idea of giving the average user, or even the average power-user, a device which a) doesn't automatically and aggressively update, and b) is full of every single kind of mainstream radio is terrifying. Smartphones live in one of the most dangerous environments around for security - constantly connecting to third party networks on various protocols and technologies and intrinsically in close proximity to attackers - and not auto-updating puts the average user at risk.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the tone here, but you do realize that you just described the standard situation of smartphones, right?
It is clearly a minority of people that have smartphones that still receive security updates. All fancy force-upgrade mechanisms are useless if there are no updates to be installed.
