Computing desk
< May 5	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 6

Android "Identity" permission

An app is asking for permission "Identity", explained as "Uses one or more of: accounts on the device, profile data". Does anyone know what this actually means? "Uses" to do what (potentially)? And what is "profile data"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.146.85 (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Profile data, I would assume, would be things like your name, email address, and potentially your location. Dismas|^(talk) 02:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Android has two distinct permissions, READ_PROFILE and WRITE_PROFILE. A profile is a single row in a table (essentially a list of users), where each row is effectively the "contacts" card for the user. Reading or writing the "profile" means reading or writing the contacts entry corresponding with the current user (for lots of devices, particularly phones, there's probably only one user). That one row is itself structured (it's a table of entries) where each entry has a MIME type associated with it, telling you what the meaning is of that row's DATAx fields are - the various types supported are listed at this page (although it's perfectly possible to find custom types, and a given profile will probably not populate most of these). So it is as Dismas said - the name, photo, email address of the current user. But it isn't the device's location. Android has two separate permissions for that, ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION and ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION, which are discussed a bit here. The big difference between the two is that "course" uses cell-tower and wifi-lookup services, giving 50m or so (Google says "about a city block", but it will vary a lot); "fine" means GPS (and/or Galileo or GLONASS), which can be accurate to a few metres. The difference is that using satellite location entails turning on another receiver (and associated logic) which can use a fair amount of power. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 20:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the replies. So, "profile data" is what appears under "Me" in the Contacts app, is it? (I never use that facility.) And what about "using accounts on the device"? Anyone know what that refers to? 109.152.146.85 (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that refers to the GET_ACCOUNTS permission, which gates the AccountManager API, which gives access to a list of all the accounts on the system. If by now you're thinking "why do we have to look through rather obscure API documentation, which even then doesn't give a very clear description of what each database actually contains in practice", then I'd have every sympathy with that position. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 06:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Inside

This is probably unanswerable, but: I wonder how much it costs Apple not to clutter their computers with garish little "Intel Inside" stickers? (I presume Intel pays, i.e. offers discounts to, other computer manufacturers for the privilege. I don't presume, but rather I know, that it would obviously be out of the question for Apple!) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Intel pays anything directly - "Intel Inside" is a cooperative marketing program. That is, qualifying products (those with an Intel CPU, with the appropriate branding on the box and in the ads) can qualify for Intel reimbursing the OEM for a share of the advertising costs they incur. There seem to be a number of levels of participation - for "track 2" they say "Track 2 participants will accrue 3% of their Net shipments of their Intel Inside Program - Track 2 Qualifying Intel Processors" (I don't know how to read that properly - I think that means 3% of the BoM cost of the Intel CPUs they're integrating, not 3% of the total BoM or 3% of the factory-gate cost). This study says "as of 1999, Intel's was investing around US$250 million a year in the Intel Inside campaign, representing 8% of total sales." -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 07:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apple is probably such a valuable customer for Intel that it is unlikely that it pays anything. Ruslik_Zero 17:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can red X be changed on Firefox and Chrome?

I have resisted using Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome for a number of reasons, but I may be down to just one or two. Actually, I will start with this one. If I click on the Red X in the upper right corner, Firefox warns me (on most computers) that I am about to close X number of tabs and asks if I want to continue. Internet Explorer does what I prefer: ask if I want to close the current tab or all the tabs. Perhaps Firefox can be changed to do that. Chrome doesn't bother to warn me, at least in my experience. Perhaps that can be changed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The settings allow to display conventional window. Using Linux, the skin and apperance can be changed. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used Linux. So can this be done with Windows?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try to find a software which modifies the window design. I am not going to do this cause i like a stable running computers. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 06:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what the OP is asking. Our simian friend wants the Firefox's Close Window button to close the current tab instead. LongHairedFop (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of Firefox for Windows (37.0.2) allows you to change this behavior in Options/Tabs. --Thomprod (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know there are usually several ways to close a tab:

Close the current tab with Ctrl+w
Close any tab by clicking the x at it
Close any tab by clicking it with the middle mouse button, if you have one
Close any tab by right-clicking it and select Close tab

PrimeHunter (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best Music making software

What is the best music making software for 1) PC and 2) Mac? -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Far too broad - look at GarageBand, then look at fruity loops - these are incredibly different tools. Think of "What is the best instrument?" Most musicians and music lovers would agree that it just doesn't make sense to say that a snare drum is better than a harpsichord. If we ask instead "What is the best trumpet?", we can get some more meaningful answers. Even though it comes down to opinion, some brands will be more highly ranked by experts.

Anyway, have a look at electronic musical instrument, see how they distinguish e.g. a synthesizer from a music sequencer, and many other types of things. Finally, Audacity is rather popular and powerful, can do many different things, and is free. You could always try it out and see what you think, but the learning curve can be steep, and I don't think it does much/any synthesis. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, it really depends on what you mean by "music making". There are software instruments, and software "recording studios", there are score writing programs and everything in between. I've been "making music" using my computer for about 20 years now, I'm not a pro but I've used a lot of different software during that time, starting with Music trackers. Some of the "heavy hitters" in music production these days are Ableton Live which is what I use now and is quite popular. Software that a dedicated studio would run are protools and cubase. Software that people would run on a Digital audio workstation at home are Native Instruments, Fruity loops and Reason_(software) are also very popular. But there are LOADS more depending precisely what you are trying to achieve. Vespine (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much knowledge of the music world guys, the last time I actually made music was in 2000, in Mac (something called Logic/logica), it's just a desire, mainly now because I can buy the softwares... Making music is very hard without a MIDI/piano; FL Studio gives the option of using the 'keyboard' instead, still isn't the best experience.

I've performed a research, Adobe Audition has the highest rank, I couldn't perform a through research due to my internet usage limitation. I do have Adobe Audition but its so, not a user friendly interface...

I would like a software that is capable of doing everything, what people in the music industry use. I must be able to 'plug n play' any sort of hardware instrument such as piano, guitar, drums and so on to it, have the capability of inserting notes manually (like every software) than toggle through the instruments while playing in order to understand what instrument will go/sound better with the so far made notes/music. Also, it must possess one good facility (like FL Studio for now/if not then no problem I'll just buy the software and keep it in my Santa Bag) i.e., the capability of using the 'keyboard' as piano/instruments key notes. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ableton Live does all those things and more and it is used by many pro musicians. It's not the cheapest software but there is a free trial version you can try before making a decision. Vespine (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement (or more than one verdict on a topic matter/software) is more than enough to satisfy my thoughts; kill all the spiders running around in my brain. Thanks. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you friends, take care! -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TLS 1.0 Certificate

I have a certificate from Symantec that I've been using for years. When I connect to my server with Chrome, it complains that the certificate is using TLS 1.0. I have no memory of specifying a TLS version when getting the certificate. I've been wasting my day reading message boards on Symantec. I have a trouble-ticket waiting a 2-3 day response to say "we got your question - now wait longer." I haven't found anything about upgrading a certificate from TLS 1.0 to a higher version. I can't find any web page that describes doing such a thing. Is it possible? I'd assume that even if it wasn't possible, there would be some Google result that said so. If it is possible, what are the general steps? 209.149.114.86 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ran into the same thing with Firefox and DDWRT configuration. Issue is that TLS 1.0/SSL 3 are obsolete and browsers are disabling it by default. See these discussions for Chrome: [1] [2] Upgrading your certificate is a Symantec issue. -- Gadget850^talk 19:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will wait to see if Symantec responds sometime soon. 209.149.114.86 (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is interested in the future, the warning is not valid. The warning is triggered by using an SHA1 CRT. I upgraded the CRT to SHA256 and the warning about TLS 1.0 vanished. 209.149.114.86 (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]