Proposal for an iPad newsgroup
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Adam H. Kerman on 12 Mar 2010 12:21 Alexander Bartolich <alexander.bartolich(a)gmx.at> wrote: >Warren Oates wrote: >>Fred Moore <fmoore(a)gcfn.org> wrote: >>>Thanks again, Michelle, for getting this thread started. >>I think y'all should think about an alt group -- keep the cabal (tinc) >>off your asses. >>alt.flonk.alien.steve.jobs.vampire.nose.flonk.ipad >Group creation in the BIG8 hierarchies is decided on by the BIG8 >management board. At the moment it has 10 members. >http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:b8mb_members >To win a so called issue vote a simple majority is enough, i.e. >proponents have to convince at least 6 board members. That's it. >As far as I see all the negative comments in this thread were >made by people whose opinions don't matter. Ya gotta love the open mindedness of the Bambies. It's never about the value of criticism, but who they think their friends are. btw, in case anyone wonders why A.B. didn't crosspost his followup, even though the precursor article was crossposted, even though he himself is the administrator of his own News site: He censors crossposted discussion if it includes alt.config or news.groups. So that leaves out pre-RFD discussion like this in which there is not yet a consensus on how the topics of discussion should be organized. Personally, I'd prefer not to cross post, but I don't think there is a choice under these circumstances. But users of A.B.'s server cannot make that choice. I am obliged to point out this act of bad faith each time he enters proposal discussion to make petty comments. There still isn't consensus on several important matters: Should the proposed group be for just the iPad or related handheld devices that use the same operating system? Until I read this thread, I had no idea that there was going to be an OS X operating system as distinguished from Mac OS X. Is this a PRACTICAL distinction, so that an application written for one will not run on the other without significant code change? If discussion is going to be organized along the lines of grouping handhelds by operating systems, then it seems silly to believe OS X isn't Mac OS X. If iPhone users DON'T WANT discussion related to cell phones moved to a new group, that's a reasonable position. There's no reason why discussion of the use of a handheld as a cell phone should be held in the proposed group. Cannot there be a consensus on this point? I'd urge our pre-proponent NOT to proceed to RFD till she has consensus, but of course, several Bambies have urged her just to go ahead before resolving these issues.
From: Adam H. Kerman on 12 Mar 2010 12:25 bj <bjones44(a)bellatlantic.net> wrote: >"Black Dragon" <bd(a)nomail.invalid> wrote: >>Once a group is created it needs to be propagated. Many news swervers >>these days do not automatically process control messages. In many cases >>people who wish to use a new newsgroup will have to ask the >>administrator of their server to add it. >So how hard is that to do? >I've done it & others in groups I'm in have done it for those groups. >I've done it if I wasn't sure someone else did just to get the request in >for sure. >No big deal, just an email request. Uh, no. The request to create the group should be made by a user of the system who wants to read the group or discuss the topic, not by a foreign user. It's not hard being a proponent, but it does require consistent work for up to six months. The proponent is a foreign user and has to persuade a local user to participate in the proposed group and request its creation, if not yet created locally. If you're not a user, then it's unreasonable to expect the foreign News site to act on your creation request.
From: nospam on 12 Mar 2010 13:21 In article <fmoore-909F5E.11200212032010(a)mail.eternal-september.org>, Fred Moore <fmoore(a)gcfn.org> wrote: > > > - mac: Officially, Apple has said (repeatedly) that the iPhone, the > > > Touch, and the iPad run a version, even if substantially altered, of > > > **Mac** OS 10, > > > > they've *never* said that. > > Steve himself said it at the original introduction. no he didn't. he specifically said 'os x'. > Can't get much more > official than that: > 'He promoted the fact that the new iPhone is powered by the same core OS > X operating system that the Macintosh computer is based on...' > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/technology/10apple.html> that doesn't say it has 'mac os x', only the same core. there is a difference. you're confirming what i said. > > what they said was that it runs 'os x', not 'mac os x'. > > OS X without _Mac_ OS X is just an ellipsis. What the hell does the 'X' > (10) refer to if not the tenth major revision of the **Macintosh** > operating system (see quote above). Or are you reading the 'X' literally > as in 'EX marks the spot'? Does the M$ X-Box run OS Ex? what's on the iphone is a cut down version of mac os x with an entirely different user interface (touch based uikit) replacing the mouse based mac user interface. there is a lot in common, but they're not the same. > > > The iPad is a Mac. > > > > it is not a mac at all. not even remotely close to one. > > It runs a variant of the same OS. See above. so you agree that it's not 'mac os x' but a variant. the biggest difference is the touch based interface. macs don't do that. > > > That said, > > > the iPad as well as the iPhone and Touch are designed to work with Doze > > > computers. > > > > they're designed to work standalone, however, they will sync with mac > > or windows computers. > > Thank you for agreeing with me. i'm not agreeing with you. they are designed to work when *not* attached to anything else. in fact, there is no requirement that it be used with another computer ever, other than initial setup which could be done in a store (as with an iphone). > > that leaves out the iphone and ipod touch. > > Yes it does, and that's a legitimate point of discussion. I have to say > that JF's response has mostly persuaded me to comp.sys.apple.handhelds, > though I have some concerns about lumping strictly phone issues in with > devices which are not explicitly phones. most people think of smaller devices when they hear the term handheld, and the ipad is too big to fit into that group.
From: Doc O'Leary on 12 Mar 2010 13:28 In article <yobvdd2olmo.fsf(a)panix3.panix.com>, BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net wrote: > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> writes: > > > Perhaps one should get the "official" name for the operating system > > build used on ipod touch, iphone and ipad. And then base the newsgroup > > Until the formal introduction of the iPhone SDK, it was simply > referred to, at least publicly by Apple, as "OS X". > > Since then, it's been referred to as "iPhone OS". Of course, the related issue with these touch devices is that *developers* see them substantially as Mac-based. The technology overlap is going to be great enough that only people who have some strange phobia of the word "Mac" will be the ones pushing for a hard division right now. It seems more prudent to wait, you know, for the actual *release* of the device before everyone assumes we need to break off new newsgroups for it. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too.
From: JF Mezei on 12 Mar 2010 13:32
nospam wrote: > no he didn't. he specifically said 'os x'. In reality though, is the shared portion between Macs and iphone just Darwin ? Consider that you need a totally separate SDK to create applications for the mobile devices. I haven't looked into it yet, but how much is common in terms of frameworks/subroutines between a Mac and a handheld ? If the programming is quite different between the two, then I would say that tghe kernel may be in common (Darwin), but not the rest of the OS. Which brings another issue: Considering that current "iphone" devices share the same SDK, and considering that writing applications for those devices is rather big issue, perhaps the nomenclature for the new group would allow a ".programming" and ".applications" in the future. aka: comp.mobile.apple.iphone comp.mobile.apple.applications comp.mobile.apple.handhelds comp.mobile.apple.programming etc. I realise that for now, the discussion is just about one group, but if the naming is right, it could open the door for a rational expansion should there be demand later on. |