Related
Hello,
i have happily installed Debian Lenny, the Arm distro, using cdbootstrap onto a SD card. It boots (with haret), network via the usb works. Things like lynx, sshd multiple screens etc work fine and i can run a instance of Apache, serve mail etc - basically its a pretty sweet little server at the moment with its touchscreen keyboard as its control. The wifi interface seems to be recognised but I can't use it but that can wait.
But i can't for the life of me get any decent graphics on it. I've tried a couple of different framebuffers but they to no avail. Much seems to revolve around some kind of pci bus issues or similar. Is there a PCI bus emulator package that I've missed somehow or some other little trick for running on the Arm architecture?
Is this the same issues that the fellas porting Android are having - getting the graphics to work? Does anyone know of an free Arm specific Xorg styled server? All the packages for Gnome/KDE etc are all ported already to arm and I can run things like xterm and other X apps on a remote display so i know the binaries and libraries are fine.
Cheers.
farkah said:
Hello,
i have happily installed Debian Lenny, the Arm distro, using cdbootstrap onto a SD card. It boots (with haret), network via the usb works. Things like lynx, sshd multiple screens etc work fine and i can run a instance of Apache, serve mail etc - basically its a pretty sweet little server at the moment with its touchscreen keyboard as its control. The wifi interface seems to be recognised but I can't use it but that can wait.
But i can't for the life of me get any decent graphics on it. I've tried a couple of different framebuffers but they to no avail. Much seems to revolve around some kind of pci bus issues or similar. Is there a PCI bus emulator package that I've missed somehow or some other little trick for running on the Arm architecture?
Is this the same issues that the fellas porting Android are having - getting the graphics to work? Does anyone know of an free Arm specific Xorg styled server? All the packages for Gnome/KDE etc are all ported already to arm and I can run things like xterm and other X apps on a remote display so i know the binaries and libraries are fine.
Cheers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Already a thread discussing Linux. Your most likely get a result if you post in it.
Thread closed
"Over the weekend a new 0-day exploit was discovered that affects anyone running the Java Runtime Environment 1.7x. If you’ve got a fully patched Windows 7 machine running the latest version of JRE, your computer is still vulnerable, bringing home the seriousness of this exploit.
Tests carried out by security vendor FireEye have discovered the exploit allows an attacker to install malware on a targeted machine. This could mean a keylogger is installed, or your machine gets added to a botnet, or any number of other malicious activities can be initiated.
The origin of the exploit has been tracked back to a server in China. Infected machines have also been spotted making contact with command and control servers located in Singapore. For the moment its use is quite limited, but as with any exploit that works so effectively, it is going to spread very quickly.
The exploit is currently targeting Windows (7, Vista, and XP) machines specifically with an executable, but it can easily be tweaked to also target Macs and Linux machines simply by changing the payload. No browser is safe either, with the exploit thought to work on regardless of whether you are running Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, or Safari.
With that being the case, the only way to protect your machine against the exploit is to disable the Java browser plugin. The only place a fix can come from is Oracle, and there’s no information as to when that will happen. It could be days at least, maybe longer.
Instructions on how to uninstall Java completely (for Windows) can be found on Oracle’s Java support pages. Disabling the JRE in your browser means locating your add-ons/plugins page and disabling the appropriate entry. Running some form of anti-virus and anti-spyware is also recommended, but you should already be doing that."
Source: http://www.geek.com/articles/news/j...-everyone-should-disable-java-today-20120828/
FromiOSToAndroid said:
"Over the weekend a new 0-day exploit was discovered that affects anyone running the Java Runtime Environment 1.7x. If you’ve got a fully patched Windows 7 machine running the latest version of JRE, your computer is still vulnerable, bringing home the seriousness of this exploit.
Tests carried out by security vendor FireEye have discovered the exploit allows an attacker to install malware on a targeted machine. This could mean a keylogger is installed, or your machine gets added to a botnet, or any number of other malicious activities can be initiated.
The origin of the exploit has been tracked back to a server in China. Infected machines have also been spotted making contact with command and control servers located in Singapore. For the moment its use is quite limited, but as with any exploit that works so effectively, it is going to spread very quickly.
The exploit is currently targeting Windows (7, Vista, and XP) machines specifically with an executable, but it can easily be tweaked to also target Macs and Linux machines simply by changing the payload. No browser is safe either, with the exploit thought to work on regardless of whether you are running Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, or Safari.
With that being the case, the only way to protect your machine against the exploit is to disable the Java browser plugin. The only place a fix can come from is Oracle, and there’s no information as to when that will happen. It could be days at least, maybe longer.
Instructions on how to uninstall Java completely (for Windows) can be found on Oracle’s Java support pages. Disabling the JRE in your browser means locating your add-ons/plugins page and disabling the appropriate entry. Running some form of anti-virus and anti-spyware is also recommended, but you should already be doing that."
Source: http://www.geek.com/articles/news/j...-everyone-should-disable-java-today-20120828/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oracle have been little *beep* lately. But so far its harmless. It is focusing on unix based os' first or so ive been told. So basicly the more upper class os'. Good thing i run windows
That's right, I'm a potato. Problem
Disabling Java in Chrome: Go to chrome://plugins/ and disable it.
But java is what runs half of my computer...im gonna take the risk BUT block it using admin controls to stop it from accessing unknows ips and proxys. Easy solution.
That's right, I'm a potato. Problem
gmaster1 said:
But java is what runs half of my computer...im gonna take the risk BUT block it using admin controls to stop it from accessing unknows ips and proxys. Easy solution.
That's right, I'm a potato. Problem
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you are a developer and you actually use the capabilities given in the Java 7 release then maybe, but just go to 6 and you'll be fine. No need for all this worry and/or panic.
DemisesAngel said:
Unless you are a developer and use the capabilities given in the Java 7 release, just go to 6 and you'll be fine. No need for all this worry and/or panic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah...im NOT a developer...he...hehe...hahe...im doomed if this is true. I started out with windows which is why im noob with android still
That's right, I'm a potato. Problem
I found something new. After going back in java v. I realised that java always had an exploit. Non accessable by any other computer. So looking at j v. X.7 i found out that its nothing of harm.
That's right, I'm a premium potayto. Problem
Does any one knows if these (awesome) features from iOS might show up in WP8?
I got iPad and Lumia 710 and as much as I love WP7 Apple had done one thing reasonably - it shop/s.
I use Netflix, Hulu and other services through VPN. On iOS it wan not a problem to setup 3 different accounts for 3 different markets US,UK and Poland. Also, because EU itself (inside) is almost like USA (travel and work wise) I don't understand why MS choose to divide EU market so much.
It is like if you by WP and are registered in NY once you move to California you will not get access to local apps registered in California Marketplace. Same thing here I live in Poland and in UK. I got back accounts in those 2 places I need to be able to get the apps I want without loosing those from different region I already had (paid for).
And I miss VPN for the times when I am away/abroad.
Any ideas if WP8 will be different here to WP7.5?
MS has been hit with monopoly/other laws in EU for a while now, each EU country has their own set of laws, might be why there are different EU markets... now why this doesn't apply to apple/google I have no idea :S
not based on location, but different carriers have different apps hidden by google :S this could be same as your EU markets?
eyeb said:
not based on location, but different carriers have different apps hidden by google :S this could be same as your EU markets?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Still with Android this is a child play to get them anyway. With iOS, free stuff from any itunes store is easily available only WP is a problem. Shame as I really like Lumia 920... but since GxSIII is and will be much cheaper and without any issues mentioned above I might go with it
You legally shouldn't be able to access apps from other markets unless you're physically in that market. There's a reason why the app isn't available in your market. It's due to copyright issues. Netflix, hulu, etc aren't available in Poland, or UK, or wherever, because they don't have a right to distribute their libraries to those countries. You accessing that is going against this limitation.
Tl;dr: Windows Phone does it right by only allowing one marketplace per device. However, people should be able to switch what it is when they move, limited to a certain amount of times per year to prevent abuse like what you're trying to do.
vladzaharia said:
You legally shouldn't be able to access apps from other markets unless you're physically in that market. There's a reason why the app isn't available in your market. It's due to copyright issues. Netflix, hulu, etc aren't available in Poland, or UK, or wherever, because they don't have a right to distribute their libraries to those countries. You accessing that is going against this limitation.
Tl;dr: Windows Phone does it right by only allowing one marketplace per device. However, people should be able to switch what it is when they move, limited to a certain amount of times per year to prevent abuse like what you're trying to do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In theory you are right, but... accessing app and accessing service - not exactly the same thing.
+ all this is fine, but it is just a nice theory, not really for XXI century. Unfortunately copyright law (as well as patent law, especially in USA) are still based in XX century. This means that it is all working against the market and only to uphold monopoly and make the competition as small as possible, Rules and laws that are still in power in regard of copyright would not be allowed anywhere else, but "entertainment" and media it is very rich and very powerful industry (like tobacco and oil). This is why we get ACTA, PIPA, SOPA and more to come. They will do anything to prevent the change,
Ok... enough of off topic.
You say people should be allowed to change market few time per year... OK. How many is few? What if you travel frequently between USA, UK, Poland, Germany? What is you run out of those changes? You paid for the phone, you will pay for the service... you can not get it.
You say MS did it right??? Don't agree. My Live ID was setup when I was living in the UK (for few years). Now I live in Poland (but again I do plan to move). Unfortunately I cant use Polish apps although I bough my device here and I am here for the last 3 years. Should I setup up another Live ID just for Poland? Ok... I might... I can will buy stuff and than what if I will go back to UK?
Even apps that are available on both markets I will have to buy again, just because I have moved to different region of world? Can you imagine buying Angry Birds today and again i a year time just because you changes state and need to get different apps from "local" market?
In my opinion what Apple did is the best compromise. If you hold the CC you can register to new market and you don't loose your prev purchases. And free apps - where is the harm?
There is plenty small, cool apps - offered free only in Poland or UK just because their creators never thought some one from other country would be interested. And I suppose it cost more (per developer) if they want to offer their app world wide instead of just 1 country.
Would you agree (and pay) if your Windows PC would have the same kind of limitations?
Would you be OK if your car would have them?
Would you be OK if clothes you buy would be licensed to wear only in one country? After all trousers by Levis are sold in different prices in different markets.... you buying them cheap in USA and not buying in EU = loose of money for manufacturer.
Netflix gets my money, copyright owners and artists get the share... so what - my cash is not as good as Mr. Smiths from NY or Suth Dakota?
Yes it is... because idea is that for the same movie I should pay 3 times as much here..in EU. Fair?
+ quite a lot of movies I watch at Netflix I own on DVD anyway - it is just so much more convenient to stream than to play with different dvd each evening. But I do not have choice of similar service in EU.
Last thing I would add are exclusive deals signed by each of services Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc... with such popular product as film or music it should not be allowed. If you could access the same library through many different services you would choose the best one. Now service it self can be sht. but you got no choice if you want to watch certain titles.
Laws and copyright laws were supposed to make sure you are protected, that you do not LOOSE money not that you can make even more.
How come USE, EU, Japan, etc is fighting monopoly everywhere but not where movies and music are concerned. It is bad for the artists as well (beside few selected "stars" making millions). Shouldn't market decide - how much it will pay per production?
I do believe i read somewhere wp8 will have vpn support.
ROCOAFZ said:
I do believe i read somewhere wp8 will have vpn support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is good news... question remains about apps from other markets or like in Android case form other than market sources...
Would SGS III be a good chopice instead of Lumia 920 (big screen Netflix and VPN should work)... it shpuld be quite a lot cheaper than Lumia 920...
i would have to certainly go with windows phone 8
ATHORNFAM2 said:
i would have to certainly go with windows phone 8
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Me too. If only I could resolve my two issues - access to VPN servers and availability of apps from different regions (iPlayer form UK and Netflix from US) I would not hesitate even for a higher price.
At the moment I got to go with SGS III and Android (I miss Nokia Drive and Music and Nokia itself already)
For hd2 WP7.5 every market is open with market enabler. You can install all Nokia apps, all HTC app, all Samsung apps, etc. On a "rooted" HTC HD2.
Ok, interesting.
This means that such a trick should also be available to at least some Nokia phones...
I have to say that I like the design of new Nokias. Not to mention that on every meeting 50% have their iPhones, rest has some Samsung, HTC or Sony devices and 100% of the time I am the only raisin with old school Nokia. Now ti seems that some folks are getting jealous...
Any way... HD2 is quite old device and hardware wise can not be as efficient as new 2011/2012 headsets, right?
+ there is one more issue - this trick has to work on WP8. Even if I can download and install Netflix app on WP7.5, without VPN access it is useless.
One more thought... and a question.
Beside interface... Is (or will be) Win8RT and WP8 the same system? If so... why did MS decided to split it into two? (Is there a forum for WinRT here somewhere? If I could make VPN and those apps make work on RT device I could save some money on my iPad replacemnt - at the moment I got to go with the likes of Samsung Smart PC or Asus 810 - Atom CPU + full Win8 Pro onboard.
As far as i know, WinRT is a framework for metro app development on Windows 8 and Windows phone(similar to win32, winFX etc etc), whereas WP is...an operating system. WinRT is integrated in Windows Phone due to the shared kernel.
WinRT is the Windows Runtime on which Metro Apps are built in Windows 8
WinPRT is the Windows Phone Runtime on which many Apps für WP8 are built which has similarities with WinRT but they are NOT identical
Windows RT is the ARM based Version of Windows 8 which does not allow for installation of additional Desktop Applications
WP8 and Windows RT presumably use the same Kernel and some system services but above that layer there are substantial differences. (common core, not common OS).
Microsoft and it's product naming - never fails to confuse people.
Do you know if Windows 8 Pro (x86) and RT (ARM) will have the same limitations regarding installation of apps as Windows Phone?
And does anyone knows why MS went to all the trouble of creating Windows 8 RT, instead of making Windows Phone "richer" - just as Apple did with iOS.
After all...
Windows 8 RT will not be used on desktop (x86) PC's.
If it will have a desktop mode it will be very limited - I don't suppose we will be able to download (ARM) apps of the internet as with Windows 8 Pro (as we do it now).
It will rune the same apps - just few more because tablets will have different (bigger) screens.
The only difference will be in screen size and in its resolution (but not that big - 1366 x 768 vs 1280 x 720).
Same core of the system in both...
Both RT and WP are to run on ARM devices that only differ in size (ARM tablets are phones with larger screens after all).
In my opinion it would make sense to limit ver of Windows 8 to 2 or 3: Windows 8 Pro (x86); Windows 8 Enterprise (x86 for corporations/business, etc.) and Windows 8 Home (for ARM phones/tablets/hybrids). The only difference in the system for ARM devices would be interface (small - Phone and large "PC style" [or even with option to choose between them - as WP8 looks as it could do nicely on 10" screen] on tablet).
In fact, since you can not buy and install ARM system by yourself as you can not buy a device without it it could all just be Windows 8 - for PC, tablet and Phone.
As in Android.... different devices, different manufacturers = different interface but ONE system
You can not run ARM-compiled applications on Desktop Windows (weather it is x86 or x64).
You also can not run desktop compiled (x86 or x64) on ARM.
This is because the machine code between the two is different.
ARM apps can run on Desktop without big differences after they are recompiled.
Windows Phone 8 apps and Metro apps for desktop should be equally as constraint due to shared kernel. There might be some phone-specific stuff which might not work on desktop though. I haven't tried building any metro app yet to give you a detailed answer.
I don't know why you got to the conclusion that WinRT does not run on x86 desktops though....cause it is plain wrong.
WinRT is a framework for Metro apps, not an operating system.
mcosmin222 said:
You can not run ARM-compiled applications on Desktop Windows (weather it is x86 or x64).
You also can not run desktop compiled (x86 or x64) on ARM.
This is because the machine code between the two is different.
ARM apps can run on Desktop without big differences after they are recompiled.
Windows Phone 8 apps and Metro apps for desktop should be equally as constraint due to shared kernel. There might be some phone-specific stuff which might not work on desktop though. I haven't tried building any metro app yet to give you a detailed answer.
I don't know why you got to the conclusion that WinRT does not run on x86 desktops though....cause it is plain wrong.
WinRT is a framework for Metro apps, not an operating system.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WinRT is an operating system and it is very close to Windows Phone. I suspect that in future we will see both of them grown into one.
WinRT is an ARM version of Windows 8 and as you said your self it will not run Windows 8 "Desktop" software.
What is more I suspect that it will not run (without some additional changes and work) even the apps wrote for x86 Metro - it looks the same but it ain't the same.
However I see no reason why it should not run "straight out of the box" apps from Windows Phone. After all it is exactly the same hardware (in phones) as in Windows RT devices.
Imagine you wrote an app A for "Metro" in x 86 and app B for WP.
If you have 3 devices (with free access/jailbroken) - 1 with Intel and Win8PRO, 1 with WinRT (lets say Tegra3) and 1 of the WP 8 phones what iI suspect is:
A will run (as is ) only on Win8PRO
B will run (as is) on RT device and Phone.
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/46334/windows-phone-8-windows-rt-separate-for-now - although thois article says that Win8Pro and WinRT are almost the same (unlike) WP... in my opinion it is much closer from WinRT to WP than from WinRT to Win8Pro.
Still, all those 3 are much closer to each other than iOS and MacOS - this means a lot less work for developer and much bigger opportunities.
My question from the post above was quite different. (but I am afraid we go off topic from the main subject - if you prefer to move this post to the right place - I dont mind)
In Win8Pro (I hope) I will have the same freedom I ever had with Windows. This means I can use Windows Store (if I want to) or I can download and install any thing else (with x86 code) from any other source.
Q1: Is it true for both modes - desktop and "Modern Interface" or will be installation of apps for "Modern" interface limited to MS own shop only?
Q2: If I start a program that can run in both modes (desktop/modern) like IE or Chrome (in future) will programs own interface change smothly with system or in reality "desktop mode" and "modern interface" require two separate programs. So if I start Chrome in desktop and move on to "Modern" I will have to start it again and both can run alongside (in the RAM) as two different browsers?
Q3: WindowsRT (ARM devices) it will have limited desktop mode I believe, and as I understand it will not allow for installation of ARM software from outside the Marketplace as WP does today. So even if one of you will write an ARM app I will not be able to use as easily as I could if it would be made for Win8PRO - correct?
Q1) You can install the App on your local machine if you have the Visual studio 2012 and the source code. You will need to upload the thing to marketplace in order to install somewhere else. The compilation produces a .appxrecipe file which is opened by the Windows Store app. The Store looks for the app online and if it doesn't find it...no install >.>
Haven't found a side-load mechanic so far.
Q2) It will require two separate programs.
One will be compiled using a desktop specific framework like WPF or WinForms, whereas the second requires WinRT.
WinRT is not an operating system, it is a framework similar to .NET(WinFX)-> this is the main reason why it is called Windows RunTime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Runtime
Actually, Ill try making a mock Metro app and see what happens.
The only similar aspect between the Arm and Desktop versions is the presence of the shared kernel, which is in fact, only shared through its features, cause the base code is different.
If WinRT is not an operating system than what sits in ARM ver of surface tablet or in this device: http://tablet-news.com/2012/09/28/samsung-ativ-tab-ready-for-pre-order-coming-at-the-end-of-october/ - because it is not Windows 8 PRO I can tell you
Regarding you answer for Q2: that truly SUCKS! They went through trouble of making useless version of Win 8 for ARM tablets that is not Win 8 nor WP8 and will be more expensive that iOS/Android competition... but the did not write ?modern interface" in x86 way....
For a guy like me, Mr Average Joe it makes things even more f..ed up. I will have platform segmentation within 1, single device.
Now I will need 2 browsers, 2 mail clients, etc... and even swapping between modes will be like swapping between separate devices...
This is pure crazy!!!
I would not mind having to wait a bit for programs to change their layout and look (like when you now change them on Win7 and everything goes black& white for a moment or when one switches between "traditional Windows" and AREO style - that is what I was expecting.... as it looks now I am not so sure I still want Windows 8 on any of my devices....
The thing running on tablets is Win 8 without the desktop part.
You do not need two mail clients/browsers/whatever.
On Windows Desktop 8, you can continue to use your desktop (which is an app within Metro) and continue to work in a Windows 7-like enviroment. The only thing missing is the start button, which has been replaced by the Metro screen, which is better imo for finding apps than the Start menu if you configure it properly.
You can continue to use your desktop firefox/chroome/whatever and you desktop programs you used on Windows 7 with no problems.
The Metro is only present on desktop computers so that it can help with the tablet-phone-desktop-Xbox interoperability. It is not mandatory, in fact i use it like a start menu to quickly launch desktop apps more than anything else. In fact, Metro apps have quite huge limitations, and inevitably you will need to use the desktop to get to files hidden on your computer.
I've written this replay from a firefox browser within the desktop app on Windows 8, so you can take it for granted
Windows 8 is really not as bad as people make it out to be....it gives you lots of choices and you can continue to use it like windows 7 if you so desire. It has tremendous performance optimizations though...boots in 3 seconds for me(sometimes even faster).
mcosmin222 said:
The thing running on tablets is Win 8 without the desktop part.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But those tablets are not x86 devices... + MS themselves is calling this Windows RT to make it clear it is not the same as Win 8 Pro.
What is more, ARM tablets are exactly the same as phone (same architecture, SOC's, etc.) just bigger screens...
When you say I do not need to browsers...than what do you suggest I run in the Metro style if (as you said previously) it is not the same app that runs in a desktop mode?
Or... if I start browsing the web browser in a Metro mode what I would want (and what I know now will not happen) is to see my browser with open sites displayed on the task bar once I go to desktop mode.
At least for me this would be a unifying experience... If the Metro mode will be completely separate from desktop mode I might as well stay on Win 7 and get w new device just with metro mode on it (ARM tablet)....
Please tell me I am wrong!!!!
I do not care too much about ARM ver. of Win8 (RT) as I do not plan to get it...
but if Win8Pro means it will be like two separate systems on one device it is scary.
At this point it looks like MS is saying rubbish... as its new interface is not really an interface... its a (almost) complete different system running alongside in a PC.
So... I can not start my program (I understand it would have to have a modern look prepared) in desktop (like today Classic Windows) style and move to modern (or for Win 7 Areo) style and still have the same program with just different layout/look bu the same data on the screen. Yes
If so.. I need to have two browsers to be able to see web sites in both modes, two mail clients..etc...
How many of you think in such a way. I mean the freedom we get in Windows RT is actually what an average user want with security. Heard WP Blue will share winRT APIs and other codes. So does that mean we will see freedom and app like file explorer limited to personal files, ability to have 3rd party audio and video players with full media api access ?? In short the sandbox model if Windows RT in WP...
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Vishwal said:
How many of you think in such a way. I mean the freedom we get in Windows RT is actually what an average user want with security. Heard WP Blue will share winRT APIs and other codes. So does that mean we will see freedom and app like file explorer limited to personal files, ability to have 3rd party audio and video players with full media api access ?? In short the sandbox model if Windows RT in WP...
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It might be possible.
The plan is to get it there, I am not sure if Blue will bridge the platforms completely or just some APIs.
mcosmin222 said:
It might be possible.
The plan is to get it there, I am not sure if Blue will bridge the platforms completely or just some APIs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hope it's former part of your last sentence. I want to operate my smart phone, not vise versa...
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
It would be nice. I don't wholly agree with Microsoft's approach to RT, either, mind you. I think that restricting things like Testsigning mode and kernel debugging and third-party drivers is harmful to the platform from a developer standpoint without providing any benefit to either Microsoft or the users. I think the restriction around desktop apps is silly and should be optional, even if the option is well hidden and/or contains dire warnings. I'll put up with those restrictions in return for Microsoft's current laissez-faire attitude about the "jailbreak", but even then I find the "secure boot" lockdown insulting; we bought the hardware and the software it comes with, and should be able to run whatever other software we want to on it.
With all that said, the RT world is miles ahead of the WP world. I'm not suggesting they should bring the desktop to WP - it's actually possible, and while it would be hard to click things the specs and resolution on the higher-end phones are more than sufficient - but some kind of file manager (or even the ability to write our own), some kind of scripting environment (closer to powershell than TouchDevelop), and some of the core utilities and features of Windows (ability to back up any and all files automatically, or to set per-app and per-sound device volume controls, or to create symbolic links in the filesystem) would be really nice, and full access to the registry would be fantastic.
The issue of security does become relevant here - I don't want any arbitrary app to have such registry access, for example - but I wish they would put in some way to do such things, even if only through a built-in special-privileges settings app. Besides, eventually we will find a way into the OS, and there's a decent chance that the exploit used will be something that *any* app could use. At that point, we might very well find malware exploiting those holes. Historically, the biggest breaks in device lockdown have come neither from malicious attackers nor from those who wish to pirate apps/games/whatever, but from those who simply want to use their own devices without BS restrictions getting in the way. The most famous example in recent histroy is probably the PS3, which was broken wide open after Sony seriously (and foolishly) pissed off some people by retroactively removing device features such as the ability to boot Linux. However, the same act plays out regularly on iOS (where the goal is control, but once the hacks are demonstrated they get used for both malware and piracy) and has also already been seen on RT.
If you want to make something secure, don't give the most talented people (who only rarely work for the blackhats or the pirates) an excellent reason to break its security wide open. This means the security has to stay out of those users' way, instead of constantly impeding them.
I actually would like to have the desktop available on WP as well but not necessarily if you are using it as a phone. But imagine connecting it via HDMI and having RT Applications + Desktop available. The hardware power is there, given that current WP8 devices run the same Qualcomm SoC that Dell uses in the XPS10.
API-wise I expect them to bring a lot more of WinRT over to WinPRT (especially on the managed side). I'm not sure if they will extend it to system-level concepts like a shared file-system - my feeling is that they won't do that but we'll have to wait and see how the APIs to access the SD card are progressing.
While I agree, the downside of doing that is that it greatly increases the install footprint. Windows RT has a much larger install footprint than other "mobile" OSes, and it has hurt platform adoption somewhat as well as increasing the manufacturing price of the tablets it runs on (because they need more storage; 16GB wouldn't really cut it). WP8 is even more space-sensitive; there are already WP8 devices with very little internal storage, and many phone lack any kind of expansion port. Adding the desktop and all of the desktop utilities (management console and all its snap-ins, all the little utilities like paint and wordpad and so on, plus all the libraries needed to support them) would add up to probably at least another few hundred megs; trivial on a PC, acceptable on a tablet, problematic on a phone.
Since chromecast simply get an url or data to play content already "on the cloud", it will be possibile to emulate its behaviour with a chrome extension or something like that?
I'd love to use a chromecast-like interface on my desktop pc...
p.nightmare said:
Since chromecast simply get an url or data to play content already "on the cloud", it will be possibile to emulate its behaviour with a chrome extension or something like that?
I'd love to use a chromecast-like interface on my desktop pc...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd second that. I'd love to see the ability to chrome cast TO a (widows) chrome browser.
I have a number of MCE PC's connected to HD TV's and computer with monitors throughout the house that would be great as the recipients of "casting".
At work I'd like to be able to look something up on my phone and then sent it to my nearest PC browser...
htcsens2 said:
I'd second that. I'd love to see the ability to chrome cast TO a (widows) chrome browser.
I have a number of MCE PC's connected to HD TV's and computer with monitors throughout the house that would be great as the recipients of "casting".
At work I'd like to be able to look something up on my phone and then sent it to my nearest PC browser...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You mean like this? - http://goo.gl/NOoel
You won't be able to push Netflix to the browser the same way, but you can certainly do so with web content.
Jason_V said:
You mean like this? - http://goo.gl/NOoel
You won't be able to push Netflix to the browser the same way, but you can certainly do so with web content.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah kind of like that but completely integrated into he chrome cast infrastructure and APIs so that it is compatible across all apps and is just one click on the new "cast" buttons that are cropping up at the top of all my Android apps now .... (Netflix, Youtube, Google music etc.)
There has been talk of 3rd party hardware makers being encouraged to support the standard so shouldn't be too hard to do proper chrome browser integration as a target.
I can't believe no one has thought of it yet :fingers-crossed:
here
p.nightmare said:
I can't believe no one has thought of it yet :fingers-crossed:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here you go github.com/dz0ny/leapcast
dz0ny said:
Here you go github.com/dz0ny/leapcast
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
awesome! I will definitely keep an eye on that :good: :good:
Nodecast is also an option
p.nightmare said:
awesome! I will definitely keep an eye on that :good: :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Beside Leapcast (which is implemented in python), there is a JavaScript-/Node.js-Port in Git-Hub available. The port was made by Sebastian Mauer, the guy who wrote Cheapcast.
I spend the last weekend exeperimenting with both Nodecast and Cheapcast. Now Nodecast runs here in a Windows 8.1 virtual machine - and I'm able to stream from other Windows and Android-devices.
I wrote a few tutorials, how to setup Nodecast on Windows (it also possible to use similar steps in Mac OS X or Linux). The tutorial is currently only in German - but Google translate shall do the job.
Nodecast setup for Windows-tutorial: http://goo.gl/2ZU5Mm
Maybe it helps
Leapcast 2.0?
Anyone still working on Leapcast now that the 2.0 SDK came out? Lots of changes like going from DIAL to mDNS for one. Leapcast was very handy for running on a PC that was already connected to the TV. Sadly, all the apps compiled against the newer SDK won't work with it. They won't even discover it as a Chromecast now.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/...oakcolegkcddbk?utm_source=chrome-app-launcher
This was an attempt to do this but I never got it to work on my side.
Unfortunately, SDK 2.0 requires the Chromecast to calculate key using certificate issued by Google. We will probably wait a long time to see leapcast, CheapCast and NodeCast working again. It might not be even possible at all.
Johny_G said:
Unfortunately, SDK 2.0 requires the Chromecast to calcate key using certificate issued by Google. We will probably wait a long time to see leapcast, CheapCast and NodeCast working again. It might not be even possible at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not the best news, but thanks Johny for the insight.
If all the rooted ROMs can handle SDK 2.0 and Google's new authentication, there's probably a way to get the emulators up and running with it. Just a matter of time and determination I hope. I wish Google was a bit more open on the software side for the Chromecast. Having the new SDK for sender/receiver apps is great, but allowing companie/people to recreate the piece in the middle would also benefit them I would think. It would be tough for people to beat the Chromecast's price tag, but having other options would be good.
Averix said:
Not the best news, but thanks Johny for the insight.
If all the rooted ROMs can handle SDK 2.0 and Google's new authentication, there's probably a way to get the emulators up and running with it. Just a matter of time and determination I hope. I wish Google was a bit more open on the software side for the Chromecast. Having the new SDK for sender/receiver apps is great, but allowing companie/people to recreate the piece in the middle would also benefit them I would think. It would be tough for people to beat the Chromecast's price tag, but having other options would be good.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't hold my breath. The ROMs get the upgrade essentially "for free" as it's part of the stock ROM code. Maybe the desktop players can take advantage of that, probably not, especially if it's a binary or relying on some kind of TPM or other function in the Chromecast hardware itself.
Having options is good for the consumer, but for a manufacturer, more options = more competition = more mouths to feed = lower margins = more work to keep competitive. One of the reasons Apple is so aggressive about protecting the exclusivity of its platform.
Warning! TL;DR below!
The point is, that every single Chromecast device has its unique ID, its unique MAC Address, and its (unique?) signed certificate. Also, it might have some kind of ID generated when you set the device up (similar to Push ID used in Google Cloud Messaging). Some of those (maybe all of them) have to play together to calculate the key. As soon as you pull the certificate out and put it in different environment, the result of the calculation won't match the SDK's expectations. So there is pretty good chance, that bypassing the key might be completely impossible without modifying the SDK itself (and it would require the developers to actually invest some effort to support these alternatives) and maybe the Chromecast device software as well. But who knows, the guys involved in those "emulators" are way smarter than most of us and might figure something out .
This is the biggest issue. The other one is, that everything has changed in the new SDK/API, and all of the methods used in those emulators are now deprecated and need to be implemented all over again in a different fashion to work with 2.0. This might actually be a good thing, since developers involved in testing of the way-too-rushed 1.0 seemed not to have a lot of kind words to say about it. I have attended one Chromcast block on a local conference, and it was basically 2 hours of swearing.
I've stumbled upon these issues today (and a bit of yesterday), trying to get my app working in the office (I forgot my Chromecast at home - again), and here are some sources if you are more interested in the topic:
https://plus.google.com/+SebastianMauer/posts/83hTniKEDwN
https://github.com/dz0ny/leapcast/issues/29#issuecomment-37288608
https://github.com/dz0ny/leapcast/issues/96
As a developer, I have to say, that Google is making things awfully difficult lately, and the "don't be evil" policy seems to slowly fade away. They put way too much effort into marketing decisions, and have no time to properly test APIs and SDKs before they spit them out . Mostly, when trying some new Android-related technology (to be honest, its mostly Google Play Services technology these days, so AOSP starts to be completely useless), I spend most of the time working around things that nobody thought of (i.e. the Translucency API in KitKat was obviously tailored for Google Now Launcher, and is a huge PITA tu be used elsewhere) and fixing the broken samples that come with them. It might seem weird, but sometimes (say hello to Play Games Services and in-app billing v1+v2!) the sample is inseparable part of the final implementation, so you have to fix their rushed code anyway. I shouldn't be complaining, since things like that raise the value of developers willing to go through all of this in their spare time, but the change of philosophy still bugs me a lot. Google and Android used to be strongly community-oriented, and now the marketing is pulling it all away.
Should the goal really be to emulate a Chromecast or should the effort be geared toward supporting DIAL protocol?
I would think the latter is the better option because you could support whatever the hardware supports without the limitations imposed on us from CCast Hardware.
Maybe I'm wrong but I always looked at DIAL as an extension of UPnP and separate from the CCast itself and the Chromecast SDK as not much more than a kit to add DIAL support to Android (and iOS) not meant to build anything on the CCast side at all.
Other companies like Roku are planning some DIAL support and I doubt highly they will have a CCast ID and Certificate.
In the end I think we will get something similar to this functionality from a player app like VLC on PC and MAC, or perhaps in Chrome itself.
Cause I think (and I may be totally wrong here) that it isn't the Apps we use that checks the Whitelist and IDs it is the CCast itself that when invoked to load a player app to stream it also checks the whitelist and tests security before it plays.
SO if someone created a program for PC that made the PC announce itself as a DIAL capable device that when connected to loads the app into Chrome, I bet most of it would work.
Might not work with any of the DRM sites like Netflix and Hulu but for things like local content and unprotected streams I see no reason why it wouldn't.
In fact I bet the trouble some are having with Channels in Plex and others would go away because a PC Chrome instance would be able to play many more Transport types than a CCast can currently.
Asphyx said:
Should the goal really be to emulate a Chromecast or should the effort be geared toward supporting DIAL protocol?
I would think the latter is the better option because you could support whatever the hardware supports without the limitations imposed on us from CCast Hardware.
Maybe I'm wrong but I always looked at DIAL as an extension of UPnP and separate from the CCast itself and the Chromecast SDK as not much more than a kit to add DIAL support to Android (and iOS) not meant to build anything on the CCast side at all.
.......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you. I could actually care less about emulating the specifics of what's in the Chromecast hardware. What I do want is the ability for those unrestricted apps (ie not Netflix) to be able to use their Cast button to find, connect to, and use whatever the emulator is. The new CC SDK doesn't use DIAL to do the initial search any longer. It now uses mDNS. All of the previous apps (YouTube, Pandora, etc.) are still using the old API and DIAL discovery which appears to be backward compatible with the new Chromecast stick software. If you look at the debug logs of the stick, both the v1 and v2 APIs are accounted for. As for Roku, my guess (I haven't started digging in on what they're up to yet) is that they have an app that is using DIAL for discovering the Roku and then just acting as a remote control for all the box functions. Chromecast was a bit more unique since it could basically load up anything from the web as a receiver/playback client since the software is just basically a Chrome browser with some wrappers around it. That's what made it much more dynamic without having to load "channels" in the box within a custom framework like Roku does.
And Bhiga, as for economics on Google providing the software to other hardware makers, I think it it would actually be in their best interest. The Chromecast right now has to be either close to at cost for them or a loss leader. If they can get the Cast API to become a default standard on new consumer devices, that would help them take over that space. To me, that is such a better proposition for them than trying to get the complexities of something like GoogleTV into TVs.
Averix said:
And Bhiga, as for economics on Google providing the software to other hardware makers, I think it it would actually be in their best interest. The Chromecast right now has to be either close to at cost for them or a loss leader. If they can get the Cast API to become a default standard on new consumer devices, that would help them take over that space. To me, that is such a better proposition for them than trying to get the complexities of something like GoogleTV into TVs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mDNS actually makes discovery a lot easier - mDNS = Bonjour = what Apple and TiVo use for discovery already.
I agree with you that adoption of the API and protocols is the goal. At this stage an Android emulator probably would help adoption, but my point was that a desktop emulator doesn't necessarily add to the rate. If someone starts looking to using a desktop because they think they don't need a Google Cast device, they'll likely runs across Plex and Miracast and may decide they don't need Google Cast at all.
bhiga said:
I agree with you that adoption of the API and protocols is the goal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wish Google agreed with us.
Averix said:
I wish Google agreed with us.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I bet anything there are some at Google who do agree with us but when your as BIG a company as Google is it takes forever to get everyone on board and thinking along the same lines enough to manifest it into an end product.
In the end what all if this really tells us is how much DLNA Consortium has failed to standardize Media Distribution by not going far enough and thinking of it from the end user ergonomic experience.
If this discovery and launch capability was more fleshed out in the DLNA specs we might not be talking about DIAL and mDNS right now.
At some point all these protocols (DLNA, UPnP, DIAL) should be merged into one standardized protocol that any platform can use.
Probably years away though...
Asphyx said:
If this discovery and launch capability was more fleshed out in the DLNA specs we might not be talking about DIAL and mDNS right now.
At some point all these protocols (DLNA, UPnP, DIAL) should be merged into one standardized protocol that any platform can use.
Probably years away though...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My concern is that unless Google is willing to push this as a standard rather than just apps for one dongle, it will only be a matter of time before the giant (un)friendly fruit company swoops in and AirPlay becomes the defacto standard that all TV makers, set top makers, and anyone else are forced to build in. It's not quite the same as how DLNA and UPnP have become sort of irrelevant, but it could pan out that way for the Google Cast API without more hardware devices having the capability built in. Time and market pressure will tell I guess.