Re: Nexus One vs Nokia n900, what would you recommend?
 

Fatalsaint, my friend, that's why I wrote "very limited access" and used the word 'limit' in the first place in place of something more absolute like 'prevent'. ;)

No security is perfect, and I'm with you that browsers are no exception.

To re-state my original point a bit more directly: I do think there are degrees of secureness, and that modern browsers (the more secure ones at least) are a good example of providing good security for untrusted content. I can see other schemes offering the same advantages (ex. sandboxed apps which can then be used in a care free way).

}:^)~

Re: Nexus One vs Nokia n900, what would you recommend?
 

In an ideal world, with unlimited hard drive space, every application would run in it's own completely jailed environment :D.

Re: Nexus One vs Nokia n900, what would you recommend?
 

There is a split between what the books say Linux is and the people that use and are involved in Linux. I think for most people if you say that Android is Linux than TiVo is Linux. But this is in name only (the kernel) and not in the spirit that is associated with the idea of Linux.

Re: Nexus One vs Nokia n900, what would you recommend?
 

:D I wonder if this is the direction things are heading?

}:^)~

Re: Nexus One vs Nokia n900, what would you recommend?
 

No, not completely. With Microsoft you're restricted in choice of both OS and hardware. With Google you're restricted in choice of OS but less restricted in choice of hardware (but still restricted since Android does not exists on each and every hardware). They share same issue: both disregard existence of other platforms. Hence I do not consider this as "portable" anyhow. Portable code is code that runs anywhere. Not just on Android platform. Pidgin is more portable in this sense than any Android app. Qutim (quite decent and powerful IM client based on Qt) even ported to Symbian. So Qt-based apps are able to run on almost all decent OSes (Qt exists on many platforms). Even quite exotic ones. Yeah with recompiling. But they do not dictate which OS to use, etc and that's a major advantage.

Same applies to Android: it's apps are not running on other platforms and pretty useless for them. Is this anyhow better? :confused:

And that clarification is a key. Google is not cooperative with other platform vendors. So there is no real portability. There is just cool myth about it and good theory.

Yes! And the "only" problem is that Android is not everywhere. And if it would be everywhere, anyone would hate it like Windows or even more. Due to lack of choice. Simple, yeah?

I still do not see a major problems with this. And look, you can build say mentioned Qutim to run on Debian on say, PowerPC CPUs. Good luck in launching Android apps in same configuration (i.e. given OS and hardware). When you manage to do so, feel free to return and tell us Android appa are portable, etc.

No, it not missing me, I'm just surprised it's represented as if it is some major problem or so. Surely, saving same minutes of programmer's time by trashing apps performance to a hell is a so great idea. However, good luck to Google in beating say iPhone with such platform. I would rather believe Nokia can kick Apple's *** since they got things right, I can understand why they design platform like this and they actually already managed to have enough performance to run say a decent games with neat-looking 3D graphic (like it happens on iPhone). Good luck to do something like this in Android with it's "very fast and portable" Java (which turns to be slow and not-so-portable actually).

Probably maintainers should thank you for offloading their tasks and get dismissed. But wait, for example almost nobody uses Java apps on desktops. While according to you they should conquer the world since they're "portable". So it looks like this logic somewhat flawed and fails most of times.

Wrong. How about Qt-based Qutim IM which is already ported to run on Symbian with Qt? Sure that's a tech preview now but day would come and Qt apps would run on many things in the world. Nokia seems to head in right directions. So I would be able to have same great programs in a pocket device, on laptop, desktop, whatever. Regardless of CPU and even on various OSes. Freedom of choice is good. And favorite app running on various OSes and CPUs just great,

My point? Well, adapting UI isn't that hard compared to rewriting app from scratch or getting super-duper-android up and running on a new hardware platform.

But wait, I already have OS on my laptop and desktop. I love that OS and happy with it. What the heck I should be forced to abandon it and use some cool stuff from Google instead? And is this anyhow better than being forced to use OS from MS due to Windows-only apps? IMHO, Google should go to hell with their java-centric stuff and completely theoretical advantages.

And so what? If someone undertook some task, he maybe haves fun doing it, etc.

I'm simply do not see this as a major problem. It works and additionally it's possible (and a good idea) to adapt program, it's UI, defaults, code, etc to best fit some specific platform features as part of this process. Sure, you can have universal crap. But this crap would not know Nokia haves special neat looking tray. Or message led. Or whatever else. Since other platforms lack them.

Me loves that word. The only question is what exactly fails? Imho, these cool theories about portability are fail.

[quote]Yes if you assume everything ran x86. This is not an assumption Android makes.. [quote]
Yes, it makes (false) assumption anything runs Android. I do not see how this assumption better. It's just equally evil and false from my standpoint. Simple? :rolleyes:

Everything is funny. Except that if I want to run Android app, I'm forced to love only one OS vendor, can't choose favorite OS, have to love a ***** platform design, etc.

But that's not a problem. I still can use Pidgin on all of them. And I do not remember that I ever seen a bunch of maintainers demanding someone to come and dismiss them from their roles.

Oh yeah, at what price? Not just you have to live with slow and resource hog apps dumbed down to minimal supported level of devices (or else they would look horrible on such devices). You also have to forget about freedom of choice. Let's Google to decide what's your favorite OS - instead of you? Blah. That's sucks just as much as MS and Win-only stuff does. That's not a portability, that's same tirany as MS does. Different flavor, same idea - "everything except Windows is wrong and hence unsupported". Or "everything except android is wrong and hence unsupported". That's what called a non-cooperative vendor.

Well, just to let you know, there is solution exists which allows to transparently launch ARM binaries on x86 Linux via qemu. So, again, while you're somewhat true, you seems to disregard existence of other platforms and their capabilities. Well, almost nobody uses this method so it's not a popular and not perfect. Since native apps are obviously faster, people seems to disregard this idea. And I guess Java failed on desktops for pretty same reason.

1) There are more hardcore solutons like direct launching ARM ELF files on x86 via qemu. That is, when program asks to launch process, and loader figures out that's ARM binary which can't be launched directly, qemu used to transparently run this binary. Unpopular solution, right. Because people does not wants to lose performance for nothing.
2) Android is an "addon software" on top of Linux kernel as well and not native to Linux too. Wth is a difference?
3) Java slow even on desktops. Phone haves weaker CPU. Slowing it down by several times for theoretical advantages is an idiocy. Even Google acknowledged this by allowing to run native code at some point.

Me compares them all. You can't tell "Android is good" or "Android is bad" unless you compare it with others. And Apple is not a someone who have to be disregarded.

So what? Others will follow. Lack of choice grants vendor unwanted power.

Very open, blah. "You must run Android". How this differs from "You must run Wundows" or "you must have iPhone"? I see no major difference.

But again, nothing prevents it. And even single app removal is a proof that this power can be abused in unwanted manner. Why nobody dictates me what I can install on my PC? That's where difference between toys and computers comes again.

And so, most of Android users can't use them. Very cool.

Hehe, ok, it's better than iPhone. But on Maemo I can officially install openssh, enter new root password and then ssh root@localhost with this password. So, n900 is a winner I guess :p.

Sounds good (if you can really use alternate stores). But again, if I'm own a computer device I should be able to be a full OS administrator, Wth someone should have more rights on my device than I can have? That's just wrong.

Yeah, you're right here: Apple sucks with their ***** restrictions. I hope they will pay a good price for such poor treating of their customers.

Hehe, noone promised portability on Wintel, ever. Read system requirements, etc. So you're going to prove yourself that fully portable code is a myth, right? :) You see, even proper blob on proper arch and OS not guaranteed to run properly. And still mumbling something about super-duper portability. What a double standards.

I see 2 options: either anyone would have qiute sucking similarity in hardware or we have to say good-bye to portability. So perfect portability means least common denominator. No 3D, no custom led, etc - no any platform specific at all. Kinda boring...

[quote]Obviously, a 3D app will only run on 3D hardware. But a 3D app in a 3D compatible ARM maemo won't run without fixing it on a 3D compatible x86 hardware. [quote]
Correct. But still either portability is lost or you do not have to use accelerator.

In theory, once more... the only problem is if we will be able to see this in real world ever and if this will require to use sucking and silly Google platform without chances to use less crappy OS on my hardware (unlike say Qt based apps do).

Re: Nexus One vs Nokia n900, what would you recommend?
 

We seem to be having a disconnect.

I'm not saying you *can't* run Pidgin on different architectures.. I'm saying that you depend on a third party, sometimes unofficial, port or maintainer to keep your version of pidgin up to the date with the latest release of pidgin.

And yes.. this *is* a problem in linux. Look through the debian and Ubuntu repo's.. almost *all* software in there is at least a version or two, or an update or two, *behind* the official release of the software... because we are dependent on the maintainers and distro guys to get their hands on it, test it themselves, compiled it for their system, then release it again.

This process is significantly simplified in android.. where as soon as the guy who wrote/writes a "pidgin" android app updates his "pidgin" android app - Now everybody using that android app gets the new version. It's what made microsoft so popular... Next, Next, Finish, boom. You're done...

No waiting, no depending on anybody else.. everyone on every architecture that uses Android gets the update.

In debian and Ubuntu I believe there are different maintainers for different architecture packages. Which means if one or 10 or however many there are decide to go out drinking one night, get hit by a bus, and die... then anybody using whatever architecture they were responsible now has to wait for someone else to care enough about that system to maintain the package.

Is it doable? Yes, of course, but in this ecosystem there is too much of "if this, if that", "wait on this or that" type of thing.

'Bleeding' edge distro's like Arch which are more community driven, have more up to date software faster - but only for their specific architecture. I love Arch linux, but it is only available for x86 and x64.. because thats all the distro cares about.

This kind of fracturing *is* a bit of a problem.. whether you want to admit to it or not is not my problem.

Android's solution is not 100% .. of course not. But in this one specific example android has it's benefit.. and this is the reason google did it. Google doesn't care about being compatible *operating system* to *operating system*.. they care about being compatible, with a single binary, from architecture to architecture.. this way the mobile phone developers can pick whatever hardware they want and sync up to Google's market.

Yes, QT apps are "cross-platform" because the guys at QT have compiled QT for windows, linux and mac. But they all require completely different packages or exe's to run it.. and not only that, but different packages even for an individual OS that is specific to the hardware it runs on. This is a form of portability.

Android is not cross-platform compatible in that android software isn't cross-compiled for windows.. however all you need is a single binary for "android" no matter the hardware. This is what Google cared about with Android.. this is the benefit to using it.. when multiple hardwares are likely to occur. This is also a form of portability.

If you read as I said.. QT apps are not portable like android apps are.. the portability that android cares about is not the portability that, obviously you, and QT care about. Android wants to move from system to system without hinderance, as long as it's on Android. QT allows you to put it on system, to system, regardless of OS - but you require special binaries for each one. Both are portable, both are completely different takes on portability.

Also, Eclipse and Azureus are very popular java applications. Eclipse is a very huge IDE environment that has plugins for damn near anything anyone would want. Azureus often being combatted to uTorrent in feature-sets and usability. So yes, people do use Java on the desktop. They don't use Dalvik, though, and we already agreed Google's use of Dalvik, and not standard java, was really stupid.

Now, I - personally - do not use either Azureus or Eclipse.. because like you - I absolutely hate the bulk of Java. But again - I give credit where it's do.. and don't let personal bias for something completely shut off saying anything possibly somewhat nice about someone's project or operating system. I understand why Google chose the method they did.. and I understand why Maemo did not.

Re: Nexus One vs Nokia n900, what would you recommend?
 

Yeah, especially Android 1.5 which only allowed one screen resolution and one specific CPU model (for phones, not tablets).

Re: Nexus One vs Nokia n900, what would you recommend?
 

I dont recall the CPU model being the problem... but I do recall the resolution issue.

And it was fixed in 1.6 IIRC.. hence, the droid.

The CPU model would just be a port of the Linux kernel and the delvik VM itself... that was kinda the whole point to Android.

Re: Nexus One vs Nokia n900, what would you recommend?
 

Also of note.. they have been discussing Android-based netbooks that were being looked at. And had they done this.. it would have brought Android to the laptop market. And still no recompile of software need :p.

Unfortunately.. before this really took off google shot itself in the foot and released "Chrome OS!" for netbooks... because - god knows having one completely unique and rarely used OS wasn't enough for google... they had to have two!

ETA: oh HEY... Check it out.

Re: Nexus One vs Nokia n900, what would you recommend?
 

Off topic...

I think Google releasing Chrome OS as a separate OS was a smart move to ensure that the focus of these two different ecosystems remained separate and not confusing. Certainly android is capable of handling the tasks allotted to chrome OS, but I feel the separation was smart logistical choice.

Off topic x 2...

Chrome OS is likely going to be useful for very simple devices, but with the way things are going with more services being pushed online, it's a compelling proposition for consumers so long as they have access to the web. Zero configuration, zero installations, zero upgrades, smaller/thinner/lighter/cheaper hardware, are all serious reasons why the average consumer will inevitably tend down this road.

A chrome OS like setup is not perfect for all use cases, but certainly adequate for a great number, and for the majority of people will likely be attractive enough to consider over the competition.

}:^)~