iOS devices are just not suitable for browsing the internet as we know it I'm afraid.
I will get another device for internet browsing on the go just because this is so annoying. Not even on iPad where you kind of have the real desktop browser experience you can use add-ons.
I didn't downvote you however saying "iOS devices are just not suitable for browsing the internet" definitely sounds hyperbolic and I imagine that's what made some people snap. Then this last comment is against the guidelines and doesn't show any kind of self-criticism while it's kind of clear why the original one may have been downvoted. Hope this helps to reframe your view.
2. I said "iOS devices are just not suitable for browsing the internet as we know it I'm afraid."
I know it is hyperbolic. This is called rhetorical style and I used it to communicate my irritation with the status quo of the internet itself (no joy browsing without ad-blocker etc.) and browsing the internet with iOS specifically (no desktop-like browser experience, no uBlock, no web developer toolbar).
It seems clear that this is my opinion so if you thing otherwise please argue against it or stay quiet (and do not down-vote without explanation like a coward who cannot argue like a grown up).
3. "... people snap..."
So this is reason enough to act like this? In my opinion this does not contribute to a good communication culture.
I do respect your opinion and even think similarly although I disagree with some details (the adblock works ok for example) but that doesn't matter because I was referring to:
>Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
People may downvote your comments further because of this - and again, I'm not the one doing it but it's important to try to understand how other people might act if you care about these internet points.
I do believe that if you express your opinion without hyperbole you'd fine as your points are reasonable. It's not so much about people being cowards or that they can't argue (you can see many threads that contradict that notion).
Please do not feel offended by my words but I would never ever use a service like this.
The question in most cases in my opinion is not "will there be a data breach?" but when it will occur. Leaving this kind of data on some servers of some company just opens the door for patients to be extorted etc. in the future.
I like the idea of apps and computers helping us with problems like that but in our world services and devices are just not trustworthy enough for my taste.
Maybe a desktop app on a device that has no internet connection would be a reasonable alternative.
I wish you good luck with your business though and keep my fingers crossed that somehow your data remains secure.
Because there is no such countries until someone can prove otherwise (which will not happen because they don't exist).
Big capital put this idea inside the heads of many people living in the West and until today they really believe there is countries who are socialist/communist. Neither the GDR nor the UDSSR or China are examples for countries like that and people who know about politics, economy and society know this as a fact.
It is easy for you to criticize all alternatives at once because you have never seen any and chose to believe what the ruling party (=capitalism) makes you believe.
The classic no true communist country fallacy. Have you considered that no such country exists because it is impossible, vecause it so quickly devolves into socialist hell like in USSR, north korea?
> Because there is no such countries until someone can prove otherwise (which will not happen because they don't exist).
It won't happen because you'll shift the goal posts.
A common dodge is that they're state socialism. The problem with this dodge: it's definitely true that state socialism is impure. But, it's 90% of what you want, and it fails catastrophically. Then the answer is, "well, it can only work if it's 99%!"
The regulated markets we have in Western nations, however, are 90% of an ideal "truly free market" and they work quite well. And we find that incremental reforms that deliver to people a little bit more of their economic liberties also improve people's lives bit by bit. Markets have the property that the freer they are, the more benefits they provide.
The other dodge is that "it wasn't socialism's fault," especially with Venezuela. Yes, they had an economy centered around oil and that was a problem. The issue was that socialist-inspired reforms made it worse, especially nationalizing the oil companies and price controls. Markets thus have an additional property that they are robust, they allow people to route around problems and mitigate them. Planning is brittle because it necessarily centralizes power, and it tends to fail because planners can't respond to crises in a decentralized manner the way a market naturally does.
The third dodge, common now thanks to Sen Sanders, is the Scandanvian nations show that socialism works. But their economies work because they took the opposite approach of 10% socialism. That's not great for apologia since it follows that socialism only works when you hardly do it.
> Big capital put this idea inside the heads of many people living in the West and until today they really believe there is countries who are socialist/communist.
No one who read the dictionary[2] is claiming that there were any communist nations, since a defining aspect of communism is the absence of the state. You can have lots of communists (persons whose end goal is communism) in a socialist nation, of course, since, as Lenin noted, the purpose of socialism is communism.
And Lenin introduced state socialism, not some mad capitalist, and he believed it was, if not proper socialism, a clear stepping stone to socialism. The nations definitely called themselves socialist, and socialists all over the world agreed and while things appeared to be going well, they were bragging about how this proved socialism worked.
But it wasn't working because the planners were lying. Socialists here lied and covered up tremendous deaths[1]. And it's only when the problems couldn't be hidden that they became not socialist anymore.
Exactly this is why the motivation to do at least some things should not be bound to earning profit.
There is common goods that we need to share, global issues that need to be addressed together and we need to find ways to achieve this if we want to develop further as a civilization.
Money must not be the sole reason why we do things or we will fail with this "strategy" and we need to come up with good ideas for an alternative and try it.
I know this will probably not make me very popular especially with people living in the US as their minds are constantly being flooded with the idea that everything straying from capitalism is socialism and therefor evil. I will post it nevertheless, down-votes don't hurt and I will write my opinion until it is censored completely.
Not sure 1:0 is accurate scoring. Most of the drugs and medical advances we have came out of capitalist systems. Not saying that capitalism is perfect or there shouldn't be government funded labs also.
> These kinds of posts always focus on the complexity of running k8s...
Yes but that is also the worst already that you could criticize about k8s.
Complexity is dangerous because if things are growing beyond a certain threshold X you will have side effects that nobody can predict, a very steep learning curve and therefor many people screwing up something in their (first) setups as well as maintainability nightmares.
Probably some day someone will prove me wrong but right now one of my biggest goals to improve security, reliability and people being able to contribute is reducing complexity.
After all this is what many of us do when they refactor systems.
I am sticking with the UNIX philosophy at this point and in the foreseeable future I will not have a big dev-team at my disposal as companies like Alphabet have to maintain and safe-guard all of this complexity.
From a developer perspective, k8s seems ripe for disruption.
It does a bunch of junk that is trivial to accomplish on one machine - open network ports, keep services running, log stuff, run in a jail with dropped privileges, and set proper file permissions on secret files.
The mechanisms for all of this, and for resource management, are transparent to unix developers, but in kubernetes they are not. Instead, you have to understand a architectural spaghetti torrent to write and execute “hello world”.
It used to be similar with RDBMS systems. It took months and a highly paid consultant to get a working SQL install. Then, you’d hire a team to manage the database, not because the hardware was expensive, but because you’d dropped $100k’s (in 90’s dollars) on the installation process.
Then mysql came along, and it didn’t have durability or transactions, but it let you be up and running in a few hours, and have a dynamic web page a few hours after that. If it died, you only lost a few hours or minutes of transactions, assuming somone in your organization spent an afternoon learning cron and mysqldump.
I imagine someone will get sufficiently fed up with k8s to do the same. There is clearly demand. I wish them luck.
It seems to be. When you start implementing something, you'll soon find that most of that complexity is inherent, not accidental. Been there, done that, didn't even get the T-Shirt.
Today it's much easier to package nicer API on top of the rather generic k8s one. There are ways to deploy it easier (in fact, I'd wager that a lot of complexity in deploying k8s is accidental due to deploy tools themselves, not k8s itself. Just look at OpenShift deploy scripts...)
> people like their locked ecosystems and are not willing to invest in interop
I don't think this is true or fair.
Competition in capitalism is the reason companies create ecosystems like this in the first place (and also different adapters ;P).
If we (the society) would reward interoperability and punish lock-downs e.g. because they are bad for customers and harm the environment the market would have no choice but react to this.
But because it is not like that we will suffer adapter-hell and missing interop until we dedicate enough effort, tears and blood to hack together systems that kind-of-work for some time (I've been there and done that, learned a lot and lost a lot of time and nerves in the process).
I only invest in ecosystems because it saves time and I can do what I intended to do instead of hacking and slaying my way to it. I hate the lock-down and if we would have more open alternatives I would jump on it in a minute but so far the open source world just can't offer some of the services/protocols/features that I just want to use.
When possible I still hack and I admire many very skilled people in this area so please don't get me wrong. E.g. I just jailbroke my iPad to get UTM (QEMU for iOS) running to break out of the "shiny apple ecosystem" but it is again more hacking and playing than doing some serious work or "just using stuff as it was intended to be used".
It is not the fault of the consumer alone while I am sure a rational consumer would put more knowledge and effort into politics and consumption to get companies more aligned with what is good for the planet and the people.
As long as most people only buy and never complain or do something about it this will probably not change.
Thank you very much for sharing this with us. I am about to test it. I have already installed it successfully and it opens without crashing (iPad Air 2, iOS 13.3, unc0ver jailbreak) - so far so good ;-)
I will report back when I tried to install Win XP/7 (I desperately want to play Age of Empires 1 while on vacation since I saw this awesome app :D).
- harder than I thought now because of Apple enforcing very strict app signing rules etc. (why can't they just let us run our own code without paying or hacking? Ò.ó)
- jailbreak with checkra1n -> install AppCake -> trust certificates with help of "Apple Configurator" (device management was not in the iOS general settings until I accessed profile settings with the configurator) -> sign UTM with AppCake (Filza -> Open IPA with AppCake)
2. Setup VM with Windows XP
- copied ISO (WinXP SP3) to iPad with VLC "Sharing via WiFi" (awesome tool!)
- created a VM with a 5GB hdd and a CD/DVD with path set to the ISO
- could boot from the ISO and start installation but it crashed after the reboot. I tried again and again by opening UTM again, opening the VM settings (not doing so would instantly crash UTM when I tried to start the VM again)
- finally I realized assigning 1GB of RAM to the VM (iPad Air 2 has only 2GB total) was too much and I changed it to 512MB (default setting) which let me finish the installation of Win XP! :-D
No I will try to install Age of Empires 1 and when I get hands on adapter + keyboard + mouse I will try those with UTM as well.
iOS devices are just not suitable for browsing the internet as we know it I'm afraid.
I will get another device for internet browsing on the go just because this is so annoying. Not even on iPad where you kind of have the real desktop browser experience you can use add-ons.