It wouldn't have been murdered if it wasn't a runt.
Why do you think it was a bad idea?
Because HTML is a display description language, and it's interactive bits are driven by Javascript, a slow and kludgy scripting language. It will never compete with native apps.
Even their "green" credentials are on very thin ice, what with all those batteries full of Lithium and rare earths that travel all around the world after having been mined and extracted with horrifically polutting methods.
Lithium is a finite mined resource, just as fossil fuels are. The difference is that the Lithium in batteries is recycled into new batteries. Fossil fuels on the other hand are used once, then contribute to global warming.
I've never heard of it, and the things you mention don't even make it into the wiki entry, nor the review I found on Google. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Not convinced it has any geek cred so far.
It may be that people that are both gear heads and geeks can't separate the two interests.
My definition of a consumer item is one that most people can afford, even if it is a tiny bit of a stretch.
Then your definition is wrong. A consumer simply means one who consumes, as opposed to produces. In use it applies to individuals as opposed to businesses. But there's no exclusion as to personal wealth.
You have to admit that a $100,000 car is well outside of the price range of most consumers.
An $89,000 car is above the range of most consumers, yes. All consumers, no.
Well probably not based on signatures, no. There's no need when each app has a unique App ID.
Now as anyone interested in security knows, security is not a single defensive wall. It's a series of walls, such that whilst an attacker might break through one, they are then met with another wall. As a final wall in the iOS security, Apple does have the ability to kill malware remotely. There's not been the need to use it as yet.
Best vehicle does not imply it can do everything every other vehicle can. If that was a necessary qualification, then no vehicle could ever be awarded a "best" award.
Prius batteries are still going 15 years later. Too early to get anything more than an estimate for Model S batteries, but don't assume they need replacing/reconditioning any more often than an ICE car needs it's engine replaced/reconditioned.
As to repairs, there's far less to go wrong on EVs.
The Hennessey Venom GT's 270.49 mph run on the space shuttle landing strip was a far more interesting technological accomplishment than this, and completely ignored by the Slashdot editors.
It might be interesting for gear-heads. It's not interesting for geeks. Perhaps you're on the wrong site.
Why should a car somehow count as "interesting technology" because electricity makes it go? So what, golf carts can do that.
And if golf carts were new, they'd be interesting too.
Where are the other cars with interesting technology? Having stories for run of the mill ICE cars would be a mistake. But geeks do tend to be interested in EVs and AVs.
Agreed. But that's a bigger problem with web-sites thinking pop-ups are OK. They also use them for surveys and advertising. There wouldn't be an issue if they used a "Download our mobile-app" badge in the corner of the page, rather than a pop-up.
Somehow you miss the point that the smartphone is used when people are away from their desk. PCs are used when they are at their desk or at least somewhere where getting a laptop out is worthwhile and practical.
It's not an either/or. Apart from for those people that don't need a computer but a communicator.
You won't. But a proper native app (not just a wrapper round a webview) will often be far better than a web app. For one thing it can access resources on the phone that a web-app can't. For another thing, the UI will tend to be far better, and will be far more likely to follow platform expectations.
The problem was not asking for permissions, but asking for them too often due to ill thought out granularity of permissions. iOS permissions are not hated as UAX in Vista was.
and the fact that users try to dismiss any dialogs as quick as possible, by answering what will presumably make it work, without reading.
Yes. But with iOS going back and removing permissions given earlier is simple. If users don't care about permissions, fine, the apps get the permissions. If the user does care, and simply rushed through too quickly, they can easily withdraw the permission at any time.
Thus the reason Ask toolbar gets installed on computers, scareware fake antiviruses get installed, etc.
For Vista, yes. But that danger doesn't exist in iOS. All software has to be installed by the user from the App Store.
Do you really think you're going to be able to do a reasonable job of it, if you don't know which functions of your app users have enabled permissions for.
You're obviously not a coder. Checking for resources before accessing them, dealing with exceptions when expected resources aren't there, and handling error codes appropriately are normal programmer activities on any platform. On iOS it's simpler than most because there's only a limited number of resources that may or may not be available.
Ooops, your app crashes for the 3% of users who turn of contact searching. It's your fault, because you didn't tell them it was essential(except you did, and they disagreed)
That's not how it works. Using contacts is never essential. Even if the app does nothing but display contacts, then the expected behaviour is to run, but display a message to the effect that contacts are not available and why.
The pair of you seem confused between app permissions and a now fixed vulnerability in the built in browser.
And what do you mean hide? Despite the fact that it was in open source software, the vulnerability was discovered internally at Apple, and they issued a patch. If they had actually wanted it there they wouldn't have patched it, they'd have said nothing.
I find sitting in an upright position to be far more comfortable.
But if you want an electric with drop bars, Google is your friend. Here's the first that came up. There are doubtless more. http://www.nycewheels.com/bion...
Slashdot Mirror
WebOS didn't die, it was murdered.
It wouldn't have been murdered if it wasn't a runt.
Why do you think it was a bad idea?
Because HTML is a display description language, and it's interactive bits are driven by Javascript, a slow and kludgy scripting language. It will never compete with native apps.
You've convinced me. That is interesting for geeks. So what it needs is someone like you to submit stuff like this as a story.
HP only bought Palm because it was available in a fire sale. It had already failed.
Even their "green" credentials are on very thin ice, what with all those batteries full of Lithium and rare earths that travel all around the world after having been mined and extracted with horrifically polutting methods.
Lithium is a finite mined resource, just as fossil fuels are. The difference is that the Lithium in batteries is recycled into new batteries. Fossil fuels on the other hand are used once, then contribute to global warming.
I've never heard of it, and the things you mention don't even make it into the wiki entry, nor the review I found on Google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Not convinced it has any geek cred so far.
It may be that people that are both gear heads and geeks can't separate the two interests.
My definition of a consumer item is one that most people can afford, even if it is a tiny bit of a stretch.
Then your definition is wrong. A consumer simply means one who consumes, as opposed to produces. In use it applies to individuals as opposed to businesses. But there's no exclusion as to personal wealth.
You have to admit that a $100,000 car is well outside of the price range of most consumers.
An $89,000 car is above the range of most consumers, yes. All consumers, no.
It wasn't discovered by Apple, lol. It was disclosed to Apple and they denied it.
Which is not true, and you are unable to say who disclosed it to Apple because you made it up. Idiot.
Well probably not based on signatures, no. There's no need when each app has a unique App ID.
Now as anyone interested in security knows, security is not a single defensive wall. It's a series of walls, such that whilst an attacker might break through one, they are then met with another wall. As a final wall in the iOS security, Apple does have the ability to kill malware remotely. There's not been the need to use it as yet.
Best vehicle does not imply it can do everything every other vehicle can. If that was a necessary qualification, then no vehicle could ever be awarded a "best" award.
Prius batteries are still going 15 years later. Too early to get anything more than an estimate for Model S batteries, but don't assume they need replacing/reconditioning any more often than an ICE car needs it's engine replaced/reconditioned.
As to repairs, there's far less to go wrong on EVs.
What makes you think expensive products for individuals aren't consumer products?
CR is not called "Thrifty Reports".
A poster who's made almost no posts except anti-Tesla posts. Someone has an axe to grind. Probably an employee of another car company.
The Hennessey Venom GT's 270.49 mph run on the space shuttle landing strip was a far more interesting technological accomplishment than this, and completely ignored by the Slashdot editors.
It might be interesting for gear-heads. It's not interesting for geeks. Perhaps you're on the wrong site.
Why should a car somehow count as "interesting technology" because electricity makes it go? So what, golf carts can do that.
And if golf carts were new, they'd be interesting too.
Change the station on your radio by having to press a tiny soft button that may allow you a more exciting life of car accidents and hospital stays!
Like many cars, Tesla Model S has buttons on the steering wheel to change the radio station.
Where are the other cars with interesting technology? Having stories for run of the mill ICE cars would be a mistake. But geeks do tend to be interested in EVs and AVs.
Agreed. But that's a bigger problem with web-sites thinking pop-ups are OK. They also use them for surveys and advertising. There wouldn't be an issue if they used a "Download our mobile-app" badge in the corner of the page, rather than a pop-up.
Somehow you miss the point that the smartphone is used when people are away from their desk. PCs are used when they are at their desk or at least somewhere where getting a laptop out is worthwhile and practical.
It's not an either/or. Apart from for those people that don't need a computer but a communicator.
Palm already tried that and failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
There's no reason you'll be any more successful. A bad idea, too late.
I've got 173 iOS downloads. Not a single one is a app wrapper on a webview.
Just because such apps exist in the app stores doesn't mean people are downloading them.
You won't. But a proper native app (not just a wrapper round a webview) will often be far better than a web app. For one thing it can access resources on the phone that a web-app can't. For another thing, the UI will tend to be far better, and will be far more likely to follow platform expectations.
related:
http://www.geekwire.com/2014/m...
See also: the popularity of UAC in Vista
The problem was not asking for permissions, but asking for them too often due to ill thought out granularity of permissions. iOS permissions are not hated as UAX in Vista was.
and the fact that users try to dismiss any dialogs as quick as possible, by answering what will presumably make it work, without reading.
Yes. But with iOS going back and removing permissions given earlier is simple. If users don't care about permissions, fine, the apps get the permissions. If the user does care, and simply rushed through too quickly, they can easily withdraw the permission at any time.
Thus the reason Ask toolbar gets installed on computers, scareware fake antiviruses get installed, etc.
For Vista, yes. But that danger doesn't exist in iOS. All software has to be installed by the user from the App Store.
Do you really think you're going to be able to do a reasonable job of it, if you don't know which functions of your app users have enabled permissions for.
You're obviously not a coder. Checking for resources before accessing them, dealing with exceptions when expected resources aren't there, and handling error codes appropriately are normal programmer activities on any platform. On iOS it's simpler than most because there's only a limited number of resources that may or may not be available.
Ooops, your app crashes for the 3% of users who turn of contact searching. It's your fault, because you didn't tell them it was essential(except you did, and they disagreed)
That's not how it works. Using contacts is never essential. Even if the app does nothing but display contacts, then the expected behaviour is to run, but display a message to the effect that contacts are not available and why.
It ain't rocket science.
iOS apps cope with being denied permissions. Why can't Android apps?
The pair of you seem confused between app permissions and a now fixed vulnerability in the built in browser.
And what do you mean hide? Despite the fact that it was in open source software, the vulnerability was discovered internally at Apple, and they issued a patch. If they had actually wanted it there they wouldn't have patched it, they'd have said nothing.
I find sitting in an upright position to be far more comfortable.
But if you want an electric with drop bars, Google is your friend. Here's the first that came up. There are doubtless more.
http://www.nycewheels.com/bion...