Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Inside the iPhone — 3G, ARM, OS X, 3rd Partyware

Posted by kdawson on from the informed-speculation dept.

DECS writes "After heading off the top ten myths of the iPhone, Daniel Eran of RoughlyDrafted has written a series of articles looking 'Inside the iPhone,' exploring (1) why Apple didn't target faster 3G networks, (2) a substantiated look at how the iPhone is indeed running OS X (contrary to reports that it isn't), and (3) what it means to users and developers, and how ARM is involved, in Mac OS X, ARM, and iPod OS X, and why the supposedly 'closed' system Apple describes for the iPhone won't preclude third party development."

2 of 318 comments (clear)

  1. The most objectionable part of the iPhone by zappepcs · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    is the press it is getting. At best, its just a new phone with a couple of nice features. On a more realistic note, its iJust a iFreaking iPhone that is shackled with Apples iDRM and the Cingular network.

    This is ignorant to give a phone this much press/talk time.

    Yeah, sure, mod me down for this, but its true.

    --
    Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
  2. Re:FUD much? by MoxFulder · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    If you're wanting Linux to get popular on the desktop, you need a universal API with a universal installation/uninstallation system so that developers can contribute to a seamless experience. Right now, poor users still have to install two entire desktop environments just to run apps from both. On your average desktop Linux system, you have:

            * OpenOffice
            * Firefox
            * KDE
            * Gnome


    I've heard this argument many times before, and I think it's junk.

    People are always complaining about how Linux has *two* competing desktop environments, but what they fail to realize is that both GNOME and KDE are really excellent. You wonder why Linux hasn't standardized on one DE? It's because KDE and GNOME have been fighting tooth-and-nail for the top spot for a decade, and guess what? They have *both* improved leaps and bounds and they *both* offer complete suites of applications and they are *both* credible alternatives to Windows on the desktop, in my opinion.

    So maybe we don't have standardization, but we do have two slick and polished desktop environments (okay, I prefer GNOME personally :-). What's not to like about having two good choices?
    --
    My bicyles