(of a door or other opening) slightly open : [as adv. ] she had left the window ajar that morning | [as predic. adj. ] the door to the sitting room was ajar.
ORIGIN late 17th cent.: from a- 2 [on] + obsolete char ( Old English cerr) [a turn, return.]
ajar 2
adverb archaic
out of harmony.
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from a- 2 [in, at] + jar 2 .
You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?
Your little tirade regarding Android 3.x being merely Android 2.x, "lightly modified for tablets" only shows your complete inexperience/ignorance with the platforms themselves. Nothing More.
Actually it didn't prove or substantiate anything you said.
It's hypocritical of them. But it makes some kind of sense.
If manufacturers made crap phones with Honeycomb, which Google is saying is not optimized for phones, it's going to mar Android's image, isn't it? That's the last thing Google (or any company) wants. The flipside is that the open source people are bothered. So Android's image will be tainted either way. So Google has the choice whether to disappoint the hardcore open source people or disappoint the average non-techie consumer who will probably only see their phone being awkward to use.
It's their choice. Whichever choice they make, they'll be living the consequences, whatever they may be.
Only if you statically link or otherwise embed other GPL code does it constitute a violation. You're allowed to dynamically link (some people contest this, but it's never been proven in court that dynamic linking is covered). You can most certainly build full-on, 100% proprietary software that simply uses the Linux kernel. You just need to submit any modifications you've made to the kernel itself back to Linux.
Nonsense. The LGPL's sole reason for existence is that the GPL does not allow dynamic linking, while the LGPL does.
It's hypocritical of them. But it makes some kind of sense.
If manufacturers made crap phones with Honeycomb, which Google is saying is not optimized for phones, it's going to mar Android's image, isn't it? That's the last thing Google (or any company) wants. The flipside is that the open source people are bothered. So Android's image will be tainted either way. So Google has the choice whether to disappoint the hardcore open source people or disappoint the average non-techie consumer who will probably only see their phone being awkward to use.
It's their choice. Whichever choice they make, they'll be living the consequences, whatever they may be.
Of course it's their choice, and of course it makes sense.
The problem here is that they (or their supporters) constantly talk about how Android is open and Apple's iOS ecosystem is a "walled garden." Then, they turn around and have not only a tiered system to begin with, but decide not to make their source open for whatever developers want to work on it (and improve it).
From what I've read, on other boards, a lot of people seem to think that Honeycomb is pretty raw and rough around the edges, and it has more to do with that than it does with the tablet vs. phone problem. Again, I'm no expert at all, and all I can go by is what others say. So, if this is wrong, I'm obviously open to correction.
Of course it's their choice, and of course it makes sense.
The problem here is that they (or their supporters) constantly talk about how Android is open and Apple's iOS ecosystem is a "walled garden." Then, they turn around and have not only a tiered system to begin with, but decide not to make their source open for whatever developers want to work on it (and improve it).
From what I've read, on other boards, a lot of people seem to think that Honeycomb is pretty raw and rough around the edges, and it has more to do with that than it does with the tablet vs. phone problem. Again, I'm no expert at all, and all I can go by is what others say. So, if this is wrong, I'm obviously open to correction.
But it seems a bit ... skanky, overall, to me.
Google doesn't want other developers contributing to honeyomb. Google knows best.
Aaww my gawd, whenever there's an Android news, there's always trolling and arguments on how 'open' the platform is.. AI should've included the definition of Android's "openness" everytime there's an article about Android.
Better yet, they should stop posting on Android when it doesn't directly relate to their namesake. This article (and most by it's author) are nothing more than trolling linkbait posts. If there WASN'T flaiming here, it means this site wouldn't be getting traffic.
AI was doing so much better too. Useful articles, actual apple news. But now that DED's back, he's just gotta start slinging mud again.
Google is trying to "close" Honeycomb because they want to slow down their competitors, period. All the talk by these executives is just excuses. If they delay release of the source code, it's much harder for e.g. Amazon to use Honeycomb for it's next tablet. Other companies also can't quickly duplicate Honeycomb's functionality into their mobile OS without seeing the source code.
I don't think that's the real motive..
Think about it, Google want to put Android into every smartphone out there it can get, because Google's main revenues are from it's cloud services including the mobile ads. It's more possible that Android 3.0 for tablets is not fully baked yet, Google still need more time to iron out some kinks here and there. If everyone started to adopt it now, Google will have a serious headache trying to fix everything in short time. Remember Android 2.2?
In short, Google was caught off guard when Apple launched the iPad, and even though Android 3.0 has already unleashed to the world, Google is basically still scrambling to catch up with iOS.
In short, Google was caught off guard when Apple launched the iPad, and even though Android 3.0 has already unleashed to the world, Google is basically still scrambling to catch up with iOS.
... Especially that awesome iOS notifications system and icon-based 'App Jukebox' UI
Google doesn't want other developers contributing to honeyomb. Google knows best.
Then what the hell is the point of talking about how "Open" it is all the time?
I haven't used Windows since the mid-90s, but I didn't get a Mac until 2003. So, what filled that time? Linux. So, believe me when I say that I'm fairly familiar with the concept of FOSS, and what it means to those to whom it's important.
If you are not interested in making your system open, then don't talk about how "open" your system is.
(of a door or other opening) slightly open : [as adv. ] she had left the window ajar that morning | [as predic. adj. ] the door to the sitting room was ajar.
ORIGIN late 17th cent.: from a- 2 [on] + obsolete char ( Old English cerr) [a turn, return.]
ajar 2
adverb archaic
out of harmony.
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from a- 2 [in, at] + jar 2 .
Niceee..
It's actually got rhyme; 'ajar' -->'a jar of Honeycomb'
Better yet, they should stop posting on Android when it doesn't directly relate to their namesake. This article (and most by it's author) are nothing more than trolling linkbait posts. If there WASN'T flaiming here, it means this site wouldn't be getting traffic.
AI was doing so much better too. Useful articles, actual apple news. But now that DED's back, he's just gotta start slinging mud again.
True.
PS: we all still have that inner-child within ourselves, wanting to play the game of sling that mud to the other person's face..
I've committed code to KHTML (which became WebKit once Apple co-opted it, curious how you credit Apple for it when it was created by someone else). I've also committed code to Gecko back when it was powering what was then known as Phoenix. This was posted from the nightly build for Firefox 4.2. (And I also am quite aware that Firefox's new JIT JS engine uses parts from Apple's Nitro). You're not making any coherent point here.
Please don't pretend to lecture me on fundamentals.
You do love you.
(PS re-read your own message, it is funny you called someone else incoherent..)
You are, of course, completely right. There's no room for different opinions here based on sound facts.
Yeah facts, they matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian
This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way.
Noted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian
People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.
Would it be more sane for people not to believe what they believe? And believe what you believe, simply because you believed it is to be the one to be believed? And you tell them they must believe you? Otherwise, you will leave for not being belived? *grins*
Oh, maybe you can make DaHarder believe that since you believe you have wasted your time, and realize it is futile effort, maybe you can make him believe it is also the best thing for him to do.
If Apple's mobile OS was, "originally conceived for tablets and secondarily deployed on a phones", then why was it initially called the iPhoneOS and not simply iOS?
Answer: It obviously wasn't, and this 'story' was probably created to mask that fact that the OS' use for the iPad was somehow more than just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.
So, with all your belief in your power to persuade, how many people have you enticed to buy your Xoom, and ditched their iPad?
I read from some Xoom evangelizers, the Xoom would be selling like hotcakes, they can't wait for 11 March 2012. You must have been a busy boy persuading all those people lining up for the Xoom, perhaps even the Verizon saleman who professed he is ditching his iPad, as his Xoom is so much better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post
Lightly adapting a smartphone UI to a tablet doesn't make for the best user experience at all, and should be avoided.
So, how does this argument jive with those who claim the iPad is just a big iPod touch?
˅
˅
˅
˅
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post
the iPad... [is] just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.
˅
˅
˅
˅
*grabs popcorn*
˅
˅
˅
˅
˅
˅
˅
˅
*grabs popcorn*
Ah, DaHarder, the omniscient and the omnipotent. *grins*
Believe me, it is even better in real life, although it gets tiresome at some point, especially if the person is a relative or an in-law. At least, in the forum, one can walk away, after enjoying the show.
Well, in the case of Asheran, (s)he came to his/her senses.
This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way. People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.
"It is difficult to remove by logic an idea not placed there by logic in the first place"
Then what the hell is the point of talking about how "Open" it is all the time?
I haven't used Windows since the mid-90s, but I didn't get a Mac until 2003. So, what filled that time? Linux. So, believe me when I say that I'm fairly familiar with the concept of FOSS, and what it means to those to whom it's important.
If you are not interested in making your system open, then don't talk about how "open" your system is.
I used Linux for several years myself even went to meet Richard stallman at an event he was speaking at. The guy is kind of a douche with a Jesus like complex about himself with the bare feet and all. The bottom line is you aren't anymore qualified to speak on open source than anyone else on this message board or not on this message board.
I just love how hypocritical it shows google to be. They only licensed Android to a few business partners while everyone just gets the promise of an open android platform at some point in the future. The bottom line is google is closed when it serves their business interests. They criticized steve jobs and apple for being closed and because steve called them out on their hypocrisy. now google has shown every one that steve was right on the money. A company is only as open as it's business model will allow.
Let me know when google open sources it's search engine algorithm.
Comments
They need a new definition now
Maybe 'ajar' e.g. Honeycomb is an ajar project.
ajar 1 |əˈjär|
adverb & adjective
(of a door or other opening) slightly open : [as adv. ] she had left the window ajar that morning | [as predic. adj. ] the door to the sitting room was ajar.
ORIGIN late 17th cent.: from a- 2 [on] + obsolete char ( Old English cerr) [a turn, return.]
ajar 2
adverb archaic
out of harmony.
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from a- 2 [in, at] + jar 2 .
Really...
You do realize that all you did was substantiate my argument that the iPhoneOS begat the version of iOS that currently runs on the iPad (and not the reverse) for the simple fact that the original name of the platform was iPhoneOS not iOS or (while in development) OSX iPhone?
Your little tirade regarding Android 3.x being merely Android 2.x, "lightly modified for tablets" only shows your complete inexperience/ignorance with the platforms themselves. Nothing More.
Actually it didn't prove or substantiate anything you said.
If manufacturers made crap phones with Honeycomb, which Google is saying is not optimized for phones, it's going to mar Android's image, isn't it? That's the last thing Google (or any company) wants. The flipside is that the open source people are bothered. So Android's image will be tainted either way. So Google has the choice whether to disappoint the hardcore open source people or disappoint the average non-techie consumer who will probably only see their phone being awkward to use.
It's their choice. Whichever choice they make, they'll be living the consequences, whatever they may be.
Only if you statically link or otherwise embed other GPL code does it constitute a violation. You're allowed to dynamically link (some people contest this, but it's never been proven in court that dynamic linking is covered). You can most certainly build full-on, 100% proprietary software that simply uses the Linux kernel. You just need to submit any modifications you've made to the kernel itself back to Linux.
Nonsense. The LGPL's sole reason for existence is that the GPL does not allow dynamic linking, while the LGPL does.
It's hypocritical of them. But it makes some kind of sense.
If manufacturers made crap phones with Honeycomb, which Google is saying is not optimized for phones, it's going to mar Android's image, isn't it? That's the last thing Google (or any company) wants. The flipside is that the open source people are bothered. So Android's image will be tainted either way. So Google has the choice whether to disappoint the hardcore open source people or disappoint the average non-techie consumer who will probably only see their phone being awkward to use.
It's their choice. Whichever choice they make, they'll be living the consequences, whatever they may be.
Of course it's their choice, and of course it makes sense.
The problem here is that they (or their supporters) constantly talk about how Android is open and Apple's iOS ecosystem is a "walled garden." Then, they turn around and have not only a tiered system to begin with, but decide not to make their source open for whatever developers want to work on it (and improve it).
From what I've read, on other boards, a lot of people seem to think that Honeycomb is pretty raw and rough around the edges, and it has more to do with that than it does with the tablet vs. phone problem. Again, I'm no expert at all, and all I can go by is what others say. So, if this is wrong, I'm obviously open to correction.
But it seems a bit ... skanky, overall, to me.
Of course it's their choice, and of course it makes sense.
The problem here is that they (or their supporters) constantly talk about how Android is open and Apple's iOS ecosystem is a "walled garden." Then, they turn around and have not only a tiered system to begin with, but decide not to make their source open for whatever developers want to work on it (and improve it).
From what I've read, on other boards, a lot of people seem to think that Honeycomb is pretty raw and rough around the edges, and it has more to do with that than it does with the tablet vs. phone problem. Again, I'm no expert at all, and all I can go by is what others say. So, if this is wrong, I'm obviously open to correction.
But it seems a bit ... skanky, overall, to me.
Google doesn't want other developers contributing to honeyomb. Google knows best.
Aaww my gawd, whenever there's an Android news, there's always trolling and arguments on how 'open' the platform is.. AI should've included the definition of Android's "openness" everytime there's an article about Android.
Better yet, they should stop posting on Android when it doesn't directly relate to their namesake. This article (and most by it's author) are nothing more than trolling linkbait posts. If there WASN'T flaiming here, it means this site wouldn't be getting traffic.
AI was doing so much better too. Useful articles, actual apple news. But now that DED's back, he's just gotta start slinging mud again.
Google is trying to "close" Honeycomb because they want to slow down their competitors, period. All the talk by these executives is just excuses. If they delay release of the source code, it's much harder for e.g. Amazon to use Honeycomb for it's next tablet. Other companies also can't quickly duplicate Honeycomb's functionality into their mobile OS without seeing the source code.
I don't think that's the real motive..
Think about it, Google want to put Android into every smartphone out there it can get, because Google's main revenues are from it's cloud services including the mobile ads. It's more possible that Android 3.0 for tablets is not fully baked yet, Google still need more time to iron out some kinks here and there. If everyone started to adopt it now, Google will have a serious headache trying to fix everything in short time. Remember Android 2.2?
In short, Google was caught off guard when Apple launched the iPad, and even though Android 3.0 has already unleashed to the world, Google is basically still scrambling to catch up with iOS.
I don't think that's the real motive..
In short, Google was caught off guard when Apple launched the iPad, and even though Android 3.0 has already unleashed to the world, Google is basically still scrambling to catch up with iOS.
... Especially that awesome iOS notifications system and icon-based 'App Jukebox' UI
Google doesn't want other developers contributing to honeyomb. Google knows best.
Then what the hell is the point of talking about how "Open" it is all the time?
I haven't used Windows since the mid-90s, but I didn't get a Mac until 2003. So, what filled that time? Linux. So, believe me when I say that I'm fairly familiar with the concept of FOSS, and what it means to those to whom it's important.
If you are not interested in making your system open, then don't talk about how "open" your system is.
They need a new definition now
A definition made up by Android fans, that'll shut them for sure
Maybe 'ajar' e.g. Honeycomb is an ajar project.
ajar 1 |əˈjär|
adverb & adjective
(of a door or other opening) slightly open : [as adv. ] she had left the window ajar that morning | [as predic. adj. ] the door to the sitting room was ajar.
ORIGIN late 17th cent.: from a- 2 [on] + obsolete char ( Old English cerr) [a turn, return.]
ajar 2
adverb archaic
out of harmony.
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from a- 2 [in, at] + jar 2 .
Niceee..
It's actually got rhyme; 'ajar' -->'a jar of Honeycomb'
Better yet, they should stop posting on Android when it doesn't directly relate to their namesake. This article (and most by it's author) are nothing more than trolling linkbait posts. If there WASN'T flaiming here, it means this site wouldn't be getting traffic.
AI was doing so much better too. Useful articles, actual apple news. But now that DED's back, he's just gotta start slinging mud again.
True.
PS: we all still have that inner-child within ourselves, wanting to play the game of sling that mud to the other person's face..
... Especially that awesome iOS notifications system and icon-based 'App Jukebox' UI
Now, now.. play nice DaHarder, or I'll sling a mud at your direction
I wonder if it's Steve Jobs who insisted to keep using that 'awesome' iOS notification system all this time..
Couldn't resist.
I've committed code to KHTML (which became WebKit once Apple co-opted it, curious how you credit Apple for it when it was created by someone else). I've also committed code to Gecko back when it was powering what was then known as Phoenix. This was posted from the nightly build for Firefox 4.2. (And I also am quite aware that Firefox's new JIT JS engine uses parts from Apple's Nitro). You're not making any coherent point here.
Please don't pretend to lecture me on fundamentals.
You do love you.
(PS re-read your own message, it is funny you called someone else incoherent..)
You are, of course, completely right. There's no room for different opinions here based on sound facts.
Yeah facts, they matter.
This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way.
Noted.
People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.
Would it be more sane for people not to believe what they believe? And believe what you believe, simply because you believed it is to be the one to be believed? And you tell them they must believe you? Otherwise, you will leave for not being belived? *grins*
Oh, maybe you can make DaHarder believe that since you believe you have wasted your time, and realize it is futile effort, maybe you can make him believe it is also the best thing for him to do.
CGC
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post
If Apple's mobile OS was, "originally conceived for tablets and secondarily deployed on a phones", then why was it initially called the iPhoneOS and not simply iOS?
Answer: It obviously wasn't, and this 'story' was probably created to mask that fact that the OS' use for the iPad was somehow more than just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.
So, with all your belief in your power to persuade, how many people have you enticed to buy your Xoom, and ditched their iPad?
I read from some Xoom evangelizers, the Xoom would be selling like hotcakes, they can't wait for 11 March 2012. You must have been a busy boy persuading all those people lining up for the Xoom, perhaps even the Verizon saleman who professed he is ditching his iPad, as his Xoom is so much better.
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post
Lightly adapting a smartphone UI to a tablet doesn't make for the best user experience at all, and should be avoided.
So, how does this argument jive with those who claim the iPad is just a big iPod touch?
˅
˅
˅
˅
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post
the iPad... [is] just a light adaptation of an OS originally intended for smaller/screens/smartphones.
˅
˅
˅
˅
*grabs popcorn*
*grabs popcorn*
Ah, DaHarder, the omniscient and the omnipotent. *grins*
Believe me, it is even better in real life, although it gets tiresome at some point, especially if the person is a relative or an in-law. At least, in the forum, one can walk away, after enjoying the show.
Well, in the case of Asheran, (s)he came to his/her senses.
This will be my last post on this forum because every thread I've contributed to has ended the same way. People will continue to believe what they want, it's no skin off my back.
"It is difficult to remove by logic an idea not placed there by logic in the first place"
(Gordon Livingston, Too soon old too late smart)
Then what the hell is the point of talking about how "Open" it is all the time?
I haven't used Windows since the mid-90s, but I didn't get a Mac until 2003. So, what filled that time? Linux. So, believe me when I say that I'm fairly familiar with the concept of FOSS, and what it means to those to whom it's important.
If you are not interested in making your system open, then don't talk about how "open" your system is.
I used Linux for several years myself even went to meet Richard stallman at an event he was speaking at. The guy is kind of a douche with a Jesus like complex about himself with the bare feet and all. The bottom line is you aren't anymore qualified to speak on open source than anyone else on this message board or not on this message board.
I just love how hypocritical it shows google to be. They only licensed Android to a few business partners while everyone just gets the promise of an open android platform at some point in the future. The bottom line is google is closed when it serves their business interests. They criticized steve jobs and apple for being closed and because steve called them out on their hypocrisy. now google has shown every one that steve was right on the money. A company is only as open as it's business model will allow.
Let me know when google open sources it's search engine algorithm.