Active Topics
-
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (3)
to SailfishOS by edp17 - 3 hrs, 11 mins ago -
The N900 is now 15 years old! (6)
to Nokia N900 by Macros - 1 day, 7 hrs ago -
F(x)tec Pro1x (QWERTY) for sale (0)
to Buy & Sell by aln00000 - 1 day, 19 hrs ago -
n770 youtube video (0)
to General by nmdv - 5 days, 19 hrs ago - more...
 |
Kriek |
2014-12-01
, 18:03
|
|
Posts: 105 |
Thanked: 92 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
|
#741
|
Originally Posted by MartinK
It seems to be a topic in the tablet spec thread on together.jolla.com so maybe the info is forthcoming.
|
|
2014-12-01
, 18:19
|
|
Community Council |
Posts: 4,920 |
Thanked: 12,867 times |
Joined on May 2012
@ Southerrn Finland
|
#742
|
@shmerl has a valid point here and I fully agree with it.
Some people might find it useful to have extfat even as I do not find it useful. I would not mind if had been there in the beginning, as a "baked-in" cost of the original design.
However, when given as an extra perk, as an option to be included or not then I want to voice my opinion on whether it is useful, or whether some another goal could be reached instead of it;
I can think lots of HW related goals that would be more useful; Qi charging, better environment sealing, USB-C connector, etc etc.
As for SW related goals; well, without knowing what SFOS2 includes it is difficult to formulate an opinion on it.
However, I'd rather see HW additions than SW or Licensing additions for the simple reason that the latter can always be updated later but the former is there to stay when the device has been made.
Some people might find it useful to have extfat even as I do not find it useful. I would not mind if had been there in the beginning, as a "baked-in" cost of the original design.
However, when given as an extra perk, as an option to be included or not then I want to voice my opinion on whether it is useful, or whether some another goal could be reached instead of it;
I can think lots of HW related goals that would be more useful; Qi charging, better environment sealing, USB-C connector, etc etc.
As for SW related goals; well, without knowing what SFOS2 includes it is difficult to formulate an opinion on it.
However, I'd rather see HW additions than SW or Licensing additions for the simple reason that the latter can always be updated later but the former is there to stay when the device has been made.
| The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to juiceme For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2014-12-01
, 18:21
|
|
Posts: 45 |
Thanked: 78 times |
Joined on Dec 2013
@ Bruxelles
|
#743
|
Originally Posted by Kriek
The prototype has 2 speakers
I was really excited about the Jolla tablet until this came to light. No mention what-so-ever regarding tablet speakers. It appears that the Jolla tablet is a headphones only device, which is unfortunately a deal-breaker for me. I posed the question to Jolla support and received the following response:
"At this time we have no additional information regarding the speakers/audio."
More pictures http://www.gadgetero.net/2014/11/gad...lush-2014.html
 |
|
2014-12-01
, 18:44
|
|
Posts: 1,092 |
Thanked: 4,995 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ beautiful cave
|
#744
|
just judging from pictures isn't always the best: Jolla Phone only has one speaker. When I saw the first pictures I thought there would be two.
| The Following User Says Thank You to Fellfrosch For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2014-12-01
, 19:23
|
|
Posts: 702 |
Thanked: 2,059 times |
Joined on Feb 2011
@ UK
|
#745
|
Originally Posted by shmerl
What an utterly specious argument.
Then think again. It gets attention because it was added post factum as a stretch goal when most already made their decision to support the campaign. That's why.
The people who paid for their tablet before the stretch goals were added are getting nothing less than they had before. In fact they're getting SDxc support for free. They don't *have* to use it and they've not paid for it.
How on earth can you turn that into a minus?
Originally Posted by shmerl
That's your opinion. I would rather have SDxc support and exFAT since I'd like to transfer files bigger than 4GB to my tablet/phone.
Why should money be wasted on exFAT if for example they can be used to improve the browser or any other part of Sailfish which does not involve patent encumbered or closed stuff and still needs a lot of improvement?
It's not like there aren't loads of other patent encumbered or licenced stuff you've ALSO paid for already in the original tablet price but they didn't tell you about that they could have not spent money on them and instead improved the browser.
I'd also guess the amount of actual programmer time on adding ExFAT is a lot less than improving the browser. Money probably isn't the problem with improving the browser - resources are. ExFAT is a quick win for the money.
Personally I've got very few complaints about the browser, especially after the last update which fixed the link offset issue and improved rendering speed immensely. Cut&Paste outside of text areas is about the only complaint and that's coming.
So given the choice of a browser that already works well or SDxc cards that aren't supported well, I'll take the latter rather than having to reformat to FAT32 with it's limitations.
Originally Posted by shmerl
Really? why? It's not costing them anything extra and they were happy to pay H.264 licencing, JPEG, MPEG and who knows what licencing already. I can't imagine even the most ardent of open source advocate NOT buying something because it supports ExFAT.
If paying for exFAT patent lock-in would have been explicitly included in the funding sum from the start, some wouldn't have contributed to begin with for instance.
Originally Posted by shmerl
Am I repeating myself? The standard says ExFAT, therefore it's 100% absolutely necessary if you want to claim SDxc card support.
And all those claims that exFAT is absolutely needed and so on are false. It might be needed for some, and completely not needed for others.
If you want to run your own non-standard filesystem on your cards then that is up to you but for the rest of us that want it to just work everywhere, ExFAT it is.
| The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to aegis For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2014-12-01
, 19:40
|
|
Posts: 2,076 |
Thanked: 3,268 times |
Joined on Feb 2011
|
#746
|
Now when will people start complaining that alien dalvik is included from the get go and not purchasable as an extra, because you know MS is getting money from android
|
|
2014-12-01
, 19:56
|
|
Posts: 1,298 |
Thanked: 2,277 times |
Joined on May 2011
|
#747
|
Originally Posted by aegis
They are adding something which is a waste of resources (for a significant number of backers). Even more than that, while you might consider it useful, others consider in not just wasteful, but harmful.
The people who paid for their tablet before the stretch goals were added are getting nothing less than they had before
Imagine there would be a crowdfunding project for an ecological car, and after it's already funded they'd add a stretch goal that adds a booster which speeds it up while adding poisonous pollution. Yeah, it's "useful" for some but completely wrong for others who supported that project because of its nature.
Originally Posted by szopin
I'm OK with Alien Dalvik being a paid add-on. I'm not going to use it anyway.
Now when will people start complaining that alien dalvik is included from the get go and not purchasable as an extra, because you know MS is getting money from android
| The Following User Says Thank You to shmerl For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2014-12-01
, 20:02
|
|
Community Council |
Posts: 4,920 |
Thanked: 12,867 times |
Joined on May 2012
@ Southerrn Finland
|
#748
|
Originally Posted by aegis
I like the browser too, it is pretty fast on SBJ.
Personally I've got very few complaints about the browser, especially after the last update which fixed the link offset issue and improved rendering speed immensely. Cut&Paste outside of text areas is about the only complaint and that's coming.
[nitpick]
However, the "link offset issue" sure has not been fixed yet in 1.1.0.39 Uitukka, it still needs the small-pan-after-zoom or you're sure to hit a random link instead of the one you're aiming for.
OTOH, copy&paste outside textboxex works perfectly with the @coderus patch, no problem there.
[/nitpick]
Originally Posted by aegis
Agreed there, no need to invest in the browser development more than is done currently. Besides, it is open source so you're welcome to twiddle with it yourself...
So given the choice of a browser that already works well or SDxc cards that aren't supported well, I'll take the latter rather than having to reformat to FAT32 with it's limitations.
However again, why are you mixing in FAT32 again?? I have no desire whatsoever to use either FAT32 or exFAT on my devices since ext2/ext4 work so well. Also btrfs if you are willing to hand out the FS overhead, otherwice it is the optimal choice of course.
Those give you maximum filesize of 2TB or 16TB which ought to be enough for most of your needs??
And hey, remember, I'm the guy who added exFAT support to N9 kernel so when I am talking about this I know what I'm about here.
Originally Posted by aegis
I would not be as strict as not buying it because of a FS support I don't need but I am not going to say there aren't people around who would. It takes all kinds, you see.
Really? why? It's not costing them anything extra and they were happy to pay H.264 licencing, JPEG, MPEG and who knows what licencing already. I can't imagine even the most ardent of open source advocate NOT buying something because it supports ExFAT.
Originally Posted by aegis
Important for markedroids, sure.
Am I repeating myself? The standard says ExFAT, therefore it's 100% absolutely necessary if you want to claim SDxc card support.
|
|
2014-12-01
, 20:05
|
|
Community Council |
Posts: 4,920 |
Thanked: 12,867 times |
Joined on May 2012
@ Southerrn Finland
|
#749
|
Originally Posted by shmerl
Exactly!
I'm OK with Alien Dalvik being a paid add-on. I'm not going to use it anyway.
However I'm okay with it since you are able to select whether install it or not.
(and I do recommend not installing it. Just on principle.)
|
|
2014-12-01
, 20:10
|
|
Posts: 2,076 |
Thanked: 3,268 times |
Joined on Feb 2011
|
#750
|
Originally Posted by juiceme
You will most likely be able to uninstall exFAT support. The problem is this is a kickstarter/IGG campaign, not pick-and-choose what you want. Noone is asking you if you would like to throw away the camera and a bit lower RAM and pay 150 for it, because you plan to not use the whole lot and rarely take pictures. It's a package, if you don't want to use some parts, great, others will. I would understand this whole debacle if they suddenly raised the price by 3$ or something, without asking, but they did not. In the price you agreed to pay you will have an extra, throw it away if you like
Exactly!
However I'm okay with it since you are able to select whether install it or not.
(and I do recommend not installing it. Just on principle.)
