Re: A fool without money will soon be ignored
> foaming-at-the-mouth zealotism and fanatism
Chair throwing, monkey dancing, "Developer, developers, developers, ..."
1343 posts • joined 27 Apr 2009
> foaming-at-the-mouth zealotism and fanatism
Chair throwing, monkey dancing, "Developer, developers, developers, ..."
> Microsoft sell more Windows Phones in a quarter than Google do all Chrome devices in a year....
And Google (and others) sell twice as many Androids in a week than WP in a quarter.
Also Microsoft phones went from 40% market share (US) in 2007 to less than 3% worldwide currently while Chrome devices are still growing at 80% or so per year.
> If I want to run Ubuntu, I download a generic installation CD image, which will work with virtually any hardware.
No, it won't work with *any* hardware, it will only work with an x86-64 (a different version will work with x86) CPU, an IBM-PC clone BIOS (or UEFI) with PCI interfacing, a range of graphics cards and some other things. You seem to think that is what _every_ computer is. It happens that many are like that because they have become a commodity.
Some years ago it seemed that there would be greater variety with PPC, Alpha, MIPS, Itanium and others vying for top spot. There was also ACE as a spec. But AMD brought out x86-64 as a cheaper high performance chip and the others were forgotten.
ARM does not have a unified (ie like IBM-PC) BIOS to hide the implementation details yet so each ROM has to cater for the SoC differences.
> How does this prevent a clueless user from running something named hotchickcaledar.pdf that has an executable icon
The problem in Windows is that file may be an actual executable named hotchickcaledar.pdf.exe and only appears to be a PDF. Clicking on hotchickcaledar.pdf, in say email, can actually run it as a program.
On Unix like systems a file is not executable merely because it has a particular ending on the name, it must have an 'executable' pemission and emailed o downloaded files do not have that.
> Even a minimal Raspian is about 500MB.
And even that has far more than Windows 10 IoT - a full multitasking and multiuser OS, while Windows IoT can only run one app (at a time).
> Anyway a Raspian doesn't come with many servers and applications pre-installed.
It only installs what the user wants to install and doesn't throw everything at the SD. Additional software is just a mouse click away.
"""Raspbian comes with over 35,000 packages,"""
The point is that IoT development (or any other) can be done with just a Pi, an HDMI monitor or TV and a keyboard mouse. It has full GUI (Gnome or LXDE), languages and IDEs and can access the GPIO while writing the code.
With Windows 10 an additional full Windows 10 PC is also required. With Win10 IoT a Pi2 is required while production using Linux can utillise the cheaper Pi1 A or B or compute module.
> How much is really usable such "distro" but to show off among penguins,
The distro that I was thinking of: FreeSCO, is entirely usable for its designed purposes: gateway, router, firewall, plus various servers. It will certainly boot from USB or SD card but was intended for older hardware (even when first released) that often didn't support those.
> Do you remember that WfWG 3.11 was a single threaded (preemptive "multitasking"...
Certainly _not_ preemptive. It was co-operative, and often non-cooperative.
> GUI atop DOS, with no security at all, no concept of services/daemons, barely supporting simple networks, etc etc.? Software changed and improved a lot form those days, otherwise, think about what DOS was capable of doing in 640K RAM and 360K disks...
[MS-]DOS wasn't capable of very much at all. It needed applications to get anything useful done.
> Even the Raspbian image is a 990MB download (zipped).
Raspian is a full Linux distro and comes complete with a desktop GUI, servers, browser, applications and software development tools and everything else needed to work as a 'PC'.
> it's the price you have to pay to avoid to maintain n completely different versions of an OS.
As a comparison I can get a Linux distro that will boot off a 1.44 diskette and run as a firewall, SQL server, web server and other stuff.
> The really bubble shaped ones were Heinkels (looks like they were later branded BMW / Isetta...)
Rivolta in Milan started making the Isetta (meaning 'little iso (automobile)' ) in 1953. They sold the rights to that car to BMW in 1955.
The Heinkel Kabinen, started in 1955, was a completely different vehicle though similar in layout. Heinkel-Is were made in Northern Ireland, Trojan in England also manufactured them under its own band.
> For more complex systems "Clients and servers" is not the correct terminology: what you call a "server" in one instance can also be a "client" for another type of request.
The 'garage door' IoT program _is_ a server - is serves the purpose of driving the door open or closed. The mobile phone app _is_ a client to that. Whether there are other apps in the controller of the garage door that make other requests is irrelevant.
> The code to implement that protocol will be common to both.
Which is part of the 'base OS and network stack' and not a 'module of the app'. In any case your mobile phone app that has open and close buttons will not be using IoT protocols. It will send an encoded SMS message, or a coded phone call or an http message to your home network gateway which will extract orinterpret that to IoT protocol messages.
> It's possible to use different code to do the same thing on client or server, ..
In most cases they use different code because they are doing _different_ things. They may have the same 'base OS and network stack' but the _apps_ (in my example) are not 'doing the same thing' at all. One is displaying a GUI, sending requests and displaying status, the other is actioning the requests (driving the motors) while monitoring and sending status. The device may also have other programs that do other things such as sending video or acting as a alarm system.
> Your garage door example is too simplistic to illustrate the point.
It illustrates _my_ points fine. The base OS (Win10, Linux, Android, ..) may well have the same or similar code in each device and this will include networking using various protocols and libraries for various utility functions.
> What you're describing is the interfacing layer. If there is any intelligence at all on the "Thing" device, then that code will not be the totality of the application
Of course I am describing 'the interfacing layer', that is what the intelligence of the 'thing' is.
A dumb 'garage door opener' has a control board that drives the motor and responds to sensors. It may also respond to a remote control with an IR sensor or similar. An IoT garage door opener will have the dumb control board replaced by a RaspberryPi 'compute' module or an Arduino or similar that has Wifi or ethernet connection to the home network, and through this to the internet. The code on this will not only drive the opening and closing of the door and use sensors to stop, but may also detect any forcing of the door or other unusual conditions in order to send messages. It will respond to commands arriving on the network to show status, activate a sequence or other.
Your phone app will do _none_ of that. The phone app may connect and ask status, view history, (including notifications sent), and request open or close. The app running in your car may also, given that it gets to a certain GPS location, request an open or close. None of this is in the door opener.
> It is about distributing the intelligence to manage remote functions at the edge of the networks.
Exactly. The door opener (or light bulb, or fridge) _is_ the edge of the network, the intelligence is the Arduino or RaspberryPi compute module or similar.
You seem to want to distribute the 'intelligence' of _how_ the door should be opened and the sensors interpreted to your phone whereas the phone app should only need to send a 'please open' command and get back a status regardless of how that should be achieved.
The door and its RPi is the 'Thing'. It acts a server. The phone app (or car app, or other) is a client. There is almost no commonality of code - except the base OS and network stack. It is the same relationship as a web server and a web client - would you claim they are the same thing ?
> That application will need the same protocol support as those controllers, and because the software that implements those controllers runs on Windows10, the monitoring app can use it too.
No they won't. The IoT app will be using the GPIO to drive the motors and sense the positions and probably other safety sensors. The phone app will just have an Up and a Down button and will send a signal to the IoT device. The IoT app may have an up and down button too - probably real buttons - and LEDs to signal faults or safety issues, also on the GPIO, but that will simply set the local signal to operate.
You seem to have a strange idea of what embedded systems and IoT are about. The whole point of running on Raspberry Pi, or other boards, is that it has these interfaces to control and sense the hardware directly.
> No, they're not "very hardware specific",
The "hardware specific" refers to the type of devices the IoT app is intended to control or monitor - the "Things" in IoT. An app intended to monitor and control the air conditioning may have modules to work with different brands but it is unlikely to be useful for dealing with your garage door.
Neither of these examples would run on your phone or tablet because they wouldn't have the Arduino API nor the hardware: the analogue and/or digital ports needed.
It seems that the Robot in the picture has a USB cable to the HP Laptop and an HDMI cable to the monitor to display instructions. These indicate that it is manoeuvred using keystrokes (QWEASDZXC), presumably the laptop's keyboard.
It seems less than useful for a Robot to have several cables tying it down.
> Except that Powershell has been widley ported to just about every other OS including Linux...
You show that you fail to understand the word 'ported'.
Powershell has not been ported anywhere, the source code for it is not available for that to happen. There is a _partial_ separate implementation that appears to be able to run on some other OSes.
The implication of Universal Apps is that they will run anywhere. IoT apps tend to be _very_ hardware specific. In fact W10 IoT is said to support the Arduino Wing API which would seem to be the whole point of it. These IoT apps won't run on any other version of W10 and it would seem pointless to run non-IoT apps on this hardware.
> Five years ago, I would never have imagined Microsoft doing this...
Microsoft jumping on another bandwagon is a surprise to you?
Just about everything Microsoft has ever done has been where others have led the way and started to succeed, either to take control or to kill off using their billions and their contracts.
> The other bull filled elephant in the room is the smart meter.
In this country smart meters are the norm, done years ago. No more meter men, no more estimated bills. The latest smart meter variation is 'pay as you go' (useful for landlords). Instead of a locked steel box that takes coins and must be emptied by a 'meter man' it can be done with some small electronics and a connection (actually with cell phone).
> likewise if I am cold I run the heating,
Some, when cold, go out into the woods and chop down a few branches or split a few logs and stoke up the fire. Others have a thermostat that keeps the temperature at various settings depending on the time. For them having to 'run' the heating sounds like too much effort.
> For the outside living world it is only niche users, many of which will have their own unique user profile, who will really be interested.
That was said about mobile phones.
Many already have internet connected TVs and PVRs. From a manufacturers point of view the use of commodity standardised electronics will be no more expensive than semi-mechanical or propriety controls so it will be cost effective to include additional features even if you don't use them.
> Wouldn't it be nice to pull out a smartphone, unlock the screen, find the right app, and navigate multiple controls on a small screen instead?"
You've not heard of NFC then ?
> No manufacturer (except maybe a complete world monopoly) can afford to make a product inoperable on its own.
I am not sure that anyone suggested that. Strawman perhaps?
> The whole "Smart Home" thing seems like a solution in search of a problem to me. My house works fine as it is,
You are likely to have plenty of automated mechanisms in your home already. Your fridge maintains a steady temperature, you heating keeps a set room temperature, your video recorder records at set times. You may have a garage door that opens when you push a button on a remote in your car.
All those devices have some sort of programmable logic (even if it is semi-mechanical) and various different ways of setting the required parameters. IoT is based on the idea of having some sort of common controlling hardware (such as a RaspberryPi compute module or Arduino), a common way of setting parameters and communication so that the parameters can be reset and mechanisms activated.
If you wanted a garage door opener then you could choose a current model that requires a specific dedicated remote control, or you would be able to choose an IoT model that has the electronics handled by a small commodity CPU or Microcontroller (RPi or Arduino or such) that communicates to your home network. With the IoT version you would be able to use an app on your phone (suitably configured) to operate your door. Or if your car was connected and had GPS then entering a particular location (your driveway perhaps) could signal the door to operate.
Or just open the door yourself with no assistance, no one cares if you want to do that.
> If these corporations can't agree on a single open standard they will be having this very argument in 10 years time,
There is still no 'open standard' for remote controls, yet people still buy devices with remotes. It doesn't need a single standard. It may be useful to have a limited number of ways to get access from outside to the home network (with authentication) but I won't be using the 'oven' app on my phone to operate the video recorder; I don't need my garage door app to work with my neighbours doors - in fact it is better if they don't.
> Windows 1.0 was text based. And it, too had overlapping windows.
Wrong on both counts. Windows 1.0 was graphical. Though there was more text than graphics the text was not in the 80x25 grid of the text interfaces.
"""Windows 1.0 does not allow overlapping windows. Instead all windows are tiled. Only dialog boxes can appear over other windows."""
> If I'm not mistaken Linux is not available on tablets/phones
You are mistaken. I have a Nokia N800 tablet with Maemo Linux. Others have been and are available. Android is a Linux distro, as is Tizen.
> and Android is not available on desktop/laptop PCs.
You are mistaken. Android can run on Netbook/Laptop, such as HP Slatebook, or desktops, or TV.
> Should I understand you're expecting Ubuntu to run on phones, tablets and PCs like Windows ?
Yes, why not ?
> Working, as I do, for MS,
I assume this 'working' is actually as a paid troll, or is it unpaid ?
> Free means free. For as long as you own the device it runs on.
Actually, Microsoft has qualified the 'free' as being for "the _supported_ life of the _device_". While they haven't explained this, and said that they will explain it later, it is _not_ 'for the supported life of the operating system'. Nor has Microsoft made any statement about ownership of the device.
A _device_ is supported during its warranty period. For a new device the 'Windows-as-a-Service' cost may be covered for the warranty period by a part of the device's price. What happens with existing devices outside their warranty, after the first year, has not been explained but Microsoft have stated that they will explain that.
> The tricky bit is making sure every single 7 user gets to see there is a free update. As soon as they do the vast majority will click that button.
The other part of the announcement that there would be a 'free' update is that W10 will be SAAS (as a service). This will be similar to Office-as-a-service - an annual or monthly fee to keep it updated and keep it running.
W10 - the gift that keeps on taking !!
> Not a single person here has identified what exactly sucks about it which makes this story and you sorry asses the real SUCK story behind the ignorant HATE for AMS (anything Microsoft).
You really are clueless.- the article has nothing to do with whether Edge sucks. It is entirely about who has bought some domain names. Microsoft has, to prevent them being used by commentators - an attempt at limiting free speech perhaps.
> WINRT ... it was safe to say that it would include x86 emulation and run at least some x86 Windows apps. But it didn't.
I don't think that it was ever safe to say that. An x86 emulator on ARM was never a starter. That didn't stop winfans claiming it would be so, though.
> I'd *hope* it would run (at least well-behaved) APKs unmodified, but perhaps apps will have to be ported.
According to careful reading of the announcement W10 will _not_ run APKs at all. The idea is that Android apps could be modified and recompiled into being W10 Universal apps. It is likely that the UI would have to be reengineered into XAML or HTML5.
> A new law forcing the break up of compulsory publishing restrictions on devices and forcing of open install rules in order to block monopolistic practices.
I am not sure who you are aiming this at. Microsoft restricts what apps can be published on their own app store (for example they will not publish anything that competes) but they are no where near being a monopoly on phones. Android, on the other hand, can download from different sites so anyone can get their apps published somewhrere (see F-Droid) and Google does less to restrict apps being published (eg Microsoft Office is in Google's Play Store).
> At least MS is trying something.
Putting stereoscopic projections onto goggles (not googles) into real world space has been done since a quarter of a century ago. It happened that it required hugely expensive computers to drive it back then, plus cables to the viewer.
I recall reading about heart valve research watching computer generated flow while walking around the 3d image.
Hololens is just a further development of stuff that has been around for ages.
The only claim to holograms is that these are used in creating the lens, what is seen have nothing to do with holograms.
> The only advantages it has over WindowsPhone is a) it was first to market
Microsoft has had phones since 2000 or so. If 'first to market' is an advantage the MS have screwed up big time.
> I can see why MS think they can build a better phone os....
Maybe they can but they haven't so far.
>> Windows Phone 7 - Ok, you'll need to rewrite all your apps for Windows Phone 8
> Nice theory except that neither of those actually happened.
See: "Breaking changes in Windows Phone 8" at
> an Android emulator on Desktop Windows
> Are you SURE it went to a temp file and not RAM? I know at least once I overloaded a pipe which you wouldn't expect to happen with a temp file given enough free space.
Yes. If it went to RAM during the first program then when it tried to load the 2nd program it may not fit - or more likely would overwrite the data.
> On the original IBM PC,
On the _original_ IBM PC (5150 Model A) it would only support 256Kb max, no mattter how many cards you could afford. Base memory was 16Kb for ROM BASIC and Cassette port. Model B (I have one here) supported max 640Kb.
> MS/PCDOS could use 760K(ish) of so-called "low-mem", before it ran into IBM's built-in hardware stoppage.
IBM reserved the areas above 640Kb for hardware adaptor memory. The CGI card occupied addresses at 640Kb. If only a MDI or hercules card was used then another 64Kb could be used to give 704Kb. Anything beyond that required memory management hardware such as an EMS or EEMS card that could switch address spaces around.
However, later MS-DOS (5 or later), DR-DOS, QEMM or others on a 286 or later could emulate EMS and could shift the OS into high memory or beyond 1Mb.
> Eventually, we figured out how to use nearly 950K of low-mem.
Not on a 8088 based PC or PC XT you didn't. There were machines that could support almost the full addressable 1Mb of a 8086/8088. SCP Zebra series for example, or other S100 bus based systems. The Sharp MZ-5600 that I have here also could utilise 512Kb for OS and programs the other 512Kb address space was reserved.
I do have other 8088/8086 machines that can use the full 1Mb but they run Concurrent-CP/M-86 on several serial terminals.
> Which was an IBM hardware issue, not a Microsoft coding issue. Eventually, we figured out how to use nearly 950K of low-mem.
> Unix specifications at the time did not require that pipes be implemented in any particular way, and the Microsoft way would have been suitable, although less than ideal.
Named pipes are a feature of the Unix (and Unix like) operating systems. They provide arbitrary data connections between programs. It happens that various shells can use pipes to connect stdout of one program to stdin of another. MS-DOS doesn't have pipes but the shell can provide an emulation in some cases.
> Just like (while I'm here), DOS 3.x did support "partitions larger than 32 MB", through resident driver chaining, and from DOS 2.x supported large disks through installable block devices drivers.
Not from Microsoft it didn't. There were 3rd party add-ons. Some OEMs modified the system, in different ways, to support larger partitions, for example I used 'Wyse-DOS' 3.31 with this. IBM was annoyed that other OEMs had features that were not in PC-DOS (or standard MS-DOS) so they wrote code to create PC-DOS 4.0 and gave it back to MS for MS-DOS 4.0x
"""Perhaps the most significant change in DOS 4.0 was the introduction of 32-bit logical sector numbers and the consequent breaking of the 32MB partition size barrier. That change wasn’t strictly speaking new, having been first introduced in Compaq’s DOS 3.31 in late 1987. However, beginning with DOS 4.0, every OEM version (starting with IBM’s) supported large partitions."""
> I didn't have problems with windows under DR DOS 6, but then the last versions of DR DOS were overshadowed by DOS (er) 5 (?) that actually had some advanced features.
DR-DOS 3.4x supported large disk partitions when MS-DOS was stuck with 32Mbyte per partition (some OEMS (Wyse, Compaq,..) also had large partition support).
DR-DOS 5 offered EMS and HiMem and many utilities and was contemporaneous with MS-DOS 4.01. 20 months later MS caught up with MS-DOS 5. Then DR-DOS 6 added task switching and better memory management which took the best part of a year to almost catch up with MS-DOS 6. In the meantime MS contracted its OEMs with illegal 'per box pricing' so that users had to pay for MS-DOS even if they bought DR-DOS.
DR-DOS 7 (later Novell-DOS 7) added real multi-tasking as well as task switching.
The other feature that DR-DOS had is that it would _run_ from ROM and not just load. This made embedded systems much faster and more secure.
I don't know what you thought that MS-DOS had that was 'advanced', it was always behind.
> changing everything, telling us it is for our own good,
If MS didn't change stuff then there would be no reason to buy the next version.
> condemned the non_Windows OS as "stone age" and unsophisticated,
Microsoft worked hard to make their CLI very poor so that they could point out how useless it was in order to convince users to switch to GUI. Even when MS wrote a semi-decent CLI enhancer for Windows 95/98 they didn't install it automatically, didn't mention it in the manual and hid it away.
They even seem to have removed command line options from programs (such as net) so that users were forced to use the GUI rather than have a batch file do stuff automatically.
> you've ignored security patching and maintenance for 5 years?
Having an uptime of 5 years does not mean that "security patching and maintenance" has not been done.
Windows has a file system with a flaw (or feature!) that a file cannot be deleted and replaced while the file is open. This is because the directory entry has both the filename and the start of the allocated file space. When a file that is open, such as a DLL, is to be updated it cannot be done while the system is running. It needs to be closed down and rebooted. The final part of the updating is done by a script when the system restarts.
In Unix like file systems the directory entry has the filename and an inode number. The inode is used for the actual file access after the file has been opened. When a file is deleted the directory entry is removed but the inode remains until all file opens on that inode are closed. This ensure that the allocated space for the file is not overwritten. A new file of the same name can be created with a new inode and file blocks. Any new opens of that filename will get the new file.
So, except for the core kernel, all system files, and all other files, can be updated 'in flight' without any problem. This is something that Windows can never do (until it adopts a Unix like file system).
Windows admins and users think that rebooting is something that needs to be done on a regular basis, not just for updates. Unix/Linus/BSD, Novell Netware, and others think that reboots only happen when the power fails or hardware is to be upgraded.
> Now, are those results biased by design
Yes. The results page is divided up into several sections, separated by rule offs. The first section is related advertising: paying the bills. The next section(s) may be 'in the news' or 'image results' or similar and then there are the general results.
Of course Google advertises its own services alongside other paid adverts.
Your complaint (and the EU one) is like complaining that a commercial TV station shows promotions for its own programs and doesn't show (free) promotions for programs on other stations.
> and it would be very difficult to download Firefox without one.
The usual TheVogon/Richto/AC lies.
> Estimated by HP at about €30 million.
The HP report was funded by Microsoft and made no reference at all to what Munich actually spent, they just made it up. For example they included costs for replacing computers frequently while, in fact, Munich reused their computers that were running NT. It also ignored the costs of retraining from NT to XP to Vista to Windows 7, and from Office 1997 to 2003, 2007, 2010, ... The report is a complete work of fiction.
> And that's without the cost of the millions IBM spent on the project to develop and maintain Limux
IBM may well have spent many millions developing Linux OS (for example for their mainframes) and their applications for Linux (eg Websphere) but that was supporting their sales of billions and was nothing to do with Munich.
> The Munich quoted cost 'savings' only refer to licensing costs which of course is a only a tiny part of the picture.
Exactly, there were many more savings.
> The fact that they are investigating the options of how to reverse course and are costing it up says it all
There is ONE new deputy mayor that wants to reverse course.
> if Linux really was cheaper it would be being adopted en mass, whereas in reality it hasn't moved over 2% desktop market share ever.
There are now more Linux based personal computing devices then all others combined.
> The Altair BASIC is a VERY skilled piece of code,
It is interesting that you claim this. The source code has never been released in spite of Bill saying that he would. So how are you able to make this claim? Bill's word ?
Bill worked on DEC machines at Harvard, including writing BASIC programs. It has been alleged that Bill had access to the source code of a public domain BASIC interpreter. The Intel 8080 development tools ran on DEC and it may be that Bill used the PD interpreter as the basis for Altair BASIC (and derivatives). Bill also never paid for the development time he used on DEC machines.
MIT also thought that they had purchased the interpreter but MS continued to resell it, or derivatives, to others.
> early Windows versions like 1.0 and 2.0 were pretty impressive on the crap PC hardware of the time.
But not as good as GEM which preceded those.
> it's Apache that's been trending downwards for a number of years.
The slow decline in Apache's share is mirrored by Nginx's rise. In many cases this is because there is a performance incentive in using Nginx as a front-end proxy server to an Apache server farm where Nginx can satisfy simple page requests and load-balance requests back to the heavy lifting Apache servers. As Nginx is the front-end for the domain that is what is counted in the stats. There is no actual decline in Apache usage.
> rather than placeholder pages held by domain speculators).
It has been claimed that Microsoft are 'buying' these placeholder sites by, at least, giving hosting sites free hardware and software to host those inactive domain names to boost the statistics. They may also be paying the host for this. The implication is that IIS is perfect for sites that have no content and no traffic.
> it becomes very appealing.
You misspelled 'appalling'.
> You went to the wrong shops. I went to shops, bought hardware and built my own. No Windows tax there.
So did I, but that is not what 99% of people who wanted computers were capable of, or wanted to do.
> Nobody was forced with a gun to buy a Windows PC
If you went into a shop the only products available were Windows PCs (maybe a few Apples at high prices). While you weren't forced to buy one, it was almost impossible to buy anything else.
This was because of several things:
Contracts: OEMs could buy Windows at a discount as long as they were 'loyal' and all computers of a particular model were built with Windows only. 'Per Box Pricing' was a variety of this, MS was paid even if a machine was made with another OS and no MS software at all. These made other systems more expensive.
Profit: Shops put on the shelf what made the most profit. Apple has a big markup. Windows machines gave opportunities for much profitable add-ons, plus upgrades and replacements.
Anti-competitive: Per box pricing was one. DR-DOS was killed because MS announced 'Advanced Server' and said that Novell Netware might not be supported in the next MS-DOS/Windows. Novell bought DRI so that it could offer DR-DOS clients for Netware if MS-DOS failed to work with Netware. MS 'conceded' by continuing to support it if Novell killed DR-DOS (and also DRI's Multiuser-DOS).
The reason that Linux, and derivitives ChromeOS and Android, have survived is that MS could not just buy them and kill them.
> Maybe Google should have worried a bit about patents before convincing all the equipment manufacturers to pile in to Android. If they had, Microsoft would not have this leverage.
It was the manufacturers, and their customers, that decided to 'pile in to Android', Google just made it available. For example Amazon, Barnes and Noble, many smaller companies and even Nokia made Android phones that avoid Google and use their own services.
Barnes & Noble challenged Microsoft over the 'patents' and got a $300,000 'investment' from MS, apparently because they did not want them tested in court. The main 'patent' is on FAT32 long filenames which runs out soon. If an SD card is included it seems that it is easier for the manufacturer to pay a couple of dollars.
> But making claims about "dominant" programming languages is nearly as bad.
Statistics about language 'popularity' are rather shonky. For example one set measures web accesses to language tutorials. They are measuring the 'popularity' based on the number of people who _don't_know_ the language. Another counts the number of adverts for programmers of particular languages. This bases 'popularity' on the number of empty desks.