Pages?
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: AES on 2 Jul 2010 19:00 In article <yobaaq9efc1.fsf(a)panix2.panix.com>, BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net wrote: > > Again, you don't have a filesystem (well, you do, but you don't have > access to it) on your iOS machine. The OS doesn't allow users or > their apps to have general access to a common filesystem. Each > app has its own private area of the filesystem. > And that seems to be the crux of this whole iPad situation. If anyone wants to expound on why this is either a _good_ thing or a _necessary_ thing, well, I'll read those expositions. But it will be a very, very, very difficult sell.
From: BreadWithSpam on 2 Jul 2010 19:49 AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> writes: > In article <yobaaq9efc1.fsf(a)panix2.panix.com>, > BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net wrote: > > Again, you don't have a filesystem (well, you do, but you don't have > > access to it) on your iOS machine. The OS doesn't allow users or > > their apps to have general access to a common filesystem. Each > > app has its own private area of the filesystem. > If anyone wants to expound on why this is either a _good_ thing or a > _necessary_ thing, well, I'll read those expositions. But it will > be a very, very, very difficult sell. As far as I can tell, as I said elsewhere, it's to keep folks from making a mess of their phones and to minimize the possibility that malware can access user's data. It helps make sure that when a user deletes an app, the app and everything relating to it is gone. Whether that's necessary for everyone isn't clear, but it's easy to see how this can be a good thing for folks who really do want the iOS device to be (a) mainly for data consumption and use of distributed services rather than as a desktop workhorse and (b) who want the thing to be simple and appliance-like reliable. If those aren't your needs, then perhaps an iOS device isn't for you. Perhaps someone else will come out with a similar sized tablet device without those restrictions - Android and WebOS are great candidates, since desktop OSs stink so far on tablets. We'll see. I haven't gotten an iPad (yet) myself. But while those issues are real, they are very minor for me. Regardless of the OS's restrictions on filespace and such, the form factor and input structure would make it mainly a data consumption device (or for very minor edits) and at this point, I'm willing to haul around my MacBookPro all the time instead. But that's getting very tiresome and I can easily see using an iPad for going to client meetings and other on-the-road activities and leaving the MBP behind a whole lot more than I do now. We'll see. But I can easily see how the iPad's restrictions help make it an easier, simpler, more reliable consumer device. Just because those restrictions would make it less useful to me doesn't mean that I can't see the sense in it. -- Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
From: nospam on 2 Jul 2010 20:36 In article <siegman-A8D1DC.16005402072010(a)sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>, AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > > Again, you don't have a filesystem (well, you do, but you don't have > > access to it) on your iOS machine. The OS doesn't allow users or > > their apps to have general access to a common filesystem. Each > > app has its own private area of the filesystem. > > And that seems to be the crux of this whole iPad situation. > > If anyone wants to expound on why this is either a _good_ thing or a > _necessary_ thing, well, I'll read those expositions. But it will be a > very, very, very difficult sell. let's turn that around. sell us the concept of why you need full access to the entire file system. why should it be made available? what tasks will that solve that can't be solved in any other way? how many people actually need to go poking in the system folder?
From: Richard Maine on 3 Jul 2010 00:38 <BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net> wrote: > But I can easily see how the iPad's restrictions help make it > an easier, simpler, more reliable consumer device. Just because > those restrictions would make it less useful to me doesn't mean > that I can't see the sense in it. That's pretty much my viewpoint. I suppose the iPad is probably fine for some people. It just doesn't happen to be what I want. I happen to want a general-purpose computer. The iPad is more of a device for running apps. It has been described as a larger iPhone, and that seems to me not far off. There might or might not be "an app for that". If there is, fine, but if there isn't, you are out of luck. I can see how an awful lot of people would be happy with such a thing (and obviously a lot of people are). To me, that business about being a device for running apps explains the app-centric nature of the file system interface pretty well. As I want a general-purpose computer, I think I'll be getting a Macbook when I finally give up on my existing MacBook Pro (which is somewhat ill, but not yet quite ill enough that I've decided I can't stand it any more). But if my 80-year-old mother ends up wanting something portable (actually not too likely, but it could happen), I'm likely to recommend an iPad for her as being cheaper, smaller, and doing what she'd want to do. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: Steven Fisher on 3 Jul 2010 01:59
In article <siegman-A8D1DC.16005402072010(a)sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>, AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > If anyone wants to expound on why this is either a _good_ thing or a > _necessary_ thing, well, I'll read those expositions. But it will be a > very, very, very difficult sell. Why should we attempt to sell you on anything? It's how the iPad was designed: Applications can't interact with each other, except through very specific channels. The file system is not one of them. (And there certainly is a file system. It just might as well not be there, as far as file transfers are concerned, because it's not designed for file transfers.) Steve |