swap <http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/S11/S1176800> / swɒp/ Show Spelled Pronunciation <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html> [swop] Show IPA Pronunciation <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html> , verb, swapped, swap⋅ping, noun –verb (used with object) 1. to exchange, barter, or trade, as one thing for another: He swapped his wrist watch for the radio. –verb (used without object) 2. to make an exchange. –noun 3. an exchange: He got the radio in a swap. link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swap
take care, Muthu Ramadoss. http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz +91-9840348914 http://mobeegal.in - mobile search. redefined. On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote: > **From m-w.com/dictionary/swap*:* to make an exchange > > I can -exchange- my home app (or browser) for an alternate application. I > can make that exchange permanent (or at least, automatic) by checking > "always use this application". > > Sorry, but that one isn't gonna fly.. > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Every english dictionary I've seen defines "Swap" as "replacing", not >> "put alongside the original and bug people with a 'which one'? dialogue". >> >> Al. >> >> Disconnect wrote: >> > "Swap out" doesn't mean "uninstall carrier-provided services". >> > >> > Lets look at their examples, under rc30 g1: >> > - homescreen. Yep. thats a standard app, with a standard interface. >> > Feel free to write a different one and install it, when the user hits >> > 'home' they will see the "which app to use?" prompt. >> > - dialer. OK so this one is a little magic (emergency calls) but can >> > still be done. Same as above. >> > - "any applications" .. ok, lets see. How about sms. I installed >> > k9sms and when I went to send a text message, it asks whether to use >> > "Messaging" or "K9SMS". Looks swapped out to me. >> > browser? I installed steel, and when I type a search into the google >> > widget I get asked about 'browser', 'steel' and a couple of search >> > apps. Neat. Looks -very- swapped out. >> > >> > I haven't replaced any others (at least that come to mind off the top >> > of my head), but I can't imagine they are any different. It does sound >> > like you are using a phone outside it's supported network and then >> > bitching that its not behaving as expected. Funny, that. >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:34 AM, gjs <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > >> > ...With devices built on the Android Platform, >> > users are able to fully tailor the phone to their interests. They >> can >> > swap out the phone's homescreen, the style of the dialer, or any of >> > the >> > applications.. >> > >> > Not with the G1 ( and rc30 ) there's no official root access, eg: we >> > cannot uninstall t-mobile's MyFaves application ( and it zillions of >> > 453 sms messages ) etc etc. >> > >> > I guess t-mobile is the G1 'user' not us G1 consumers... >> > >> > I find it interesting to keep seeing google saying 'speak to the >> > carrier/vendor' about software for the devices and the carrier (t- >> > mobile) says 'google writes the software'... >> > >> > I now see, with hindsight, that I should have waited for the Dev >> Phone >> > 1 and not jumped in and bought a G1. >> > >> > regards >> > >> > On Jan 8, 2:21 am, "Muthu Ramadoss" <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > > Thanks. >> > > >> > > I haven't clean fetched "Master".. may be that's the issue. >> > > >> > > take care, >> > > Muthu Ramadoss. >> > > >> > > >> > http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz+91-9840348914http://mobeegal.in- >> > mobile search. redefined. >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Disconnect >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > > > FYI Master builds right now, even for actual hardware. (It >> > doesn't run so >> > > > well due to a bunch of closed-source libraries they can't >> > release.. but >> > > > thats just more of the "we'll worry about licensing later" >> mess.) >> > > >> > > > At a minimum, whats out there now is: >> > > > Master - cutting edge, community tree (although so far only >> > googs can >> > > > commit) - currently (as of a couple days ago) builds fine for >> > g1/adp1 using >> > > > the directions on android.com <http://android.com> >> > > > Master w/ tag "release-1.0" - the tree as it was kinda sorta >> > when rc29/rc30 >> > > > were peeled off, but not really. Doesn't build. >> > > > Cupcake - laggy internal cutting edge, synced from perforce. >> > still broken >> > > > build, and behind master. >> > > > Perforce - cutting edge private tree, occasionally synced to >> > cupcake >> > > > Product - adp1/g1 tree, stable, tested, running, never to see >> > the light of >> > > > day other than as blob updates ('open source' or not..) >> > > >> > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Muthu Ramadoss >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>wrote: >> > > >> > > >> Google has their own internal repo which they haven't synced >> > it up with >> > > >> the public repo. Its all a bit confusing now since both >> > master and the >> > > >> cupcake branch seems to be broken now. >> > > >> > > >> take care, >> > > >> Muthu Ramadoss. >> > > >> > > >>http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz+91-9840348914 >> > > >>http://androidrocks.googlecode.com >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Disconnect >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>wrote: >> > > >> > > >>> Its apache-licensed. Just pretend that the upstream is >> > 'equal' and they >> > > >>> created a closed-source fork of it. (Since, realistically, >> > thats what >> > > >>> happened with the dream product tree. Compounded when they >> > merged it to >> > > >>> their p4/cupcake instead of the old master, basically making >> > it forever >> > > >>> unreachable.) >> > > >> > > >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Al Sutton >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > > >> > > >>>> But a group of OHA members made the first deployment where >> > a number of >> > > >>>> apps aren't equal (e.g. Market using locked down APIs, 3rd >> > party >> > > >>>> diallers being unable to call emergency services, etc.). >> > > >> > > >>>> So if the OHAs own members aren't sticking to that idea, >> > why are the OHA >> > > >>>> claiming it's one of features of an Android system? >> > > >> > > >>>> Al. >> > > >> > > >>>> Muthu Ramadoss wrote: >> > > >>>> > "All Applications are created Equal" >> > > >> > > >>>> > holds true for all applications created on top of >> Application >> > > >>>> Framework. >> > > >> > > >>>> > It does not mean that the applications created will be >> > open or free! >> > > >> > > >>>> > take care, >> > > >>>> > Muthu Ramadoss. >> > > >> > > >>>> >http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz+91-9840348914 >> > > >>>> >http://mobeegal.in- mobile search. redefined. >> > > >> > > >>>> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM, aayush >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> > > >>>> > <mailto:[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >> > > >> > > >>>> > The adage that all applications are created equal >> > cannot hold true >> > > >>>> in >> > > >>>> > a real commercial rollout by a carrier. >> > > >> > > >>>> > Carriers would want to achieve service >> > differentiation and a >> > > >>>> > competitive edge over their peers. So they would >> > always want to >> > > >>>> lock >> > > >>>> > down some apps to provide them to only their customers. >> > > >>>> > If all applications would be equal, what value >> > proposition will >> > > >>>> they >> > > >>>> > show to their customers ? >> > > >> > > >>>> > So i think, that this statement of application >> > equality does not >> > > >>>> hold >> > > >>>> > good....no matter how good the intentions may be..the >> > carriers >> > > >>>> wont >> > > >>>> > tolerate it ! >> > > >> > > >>>> > Aayush >> > > >> > > >>>> > Muthu Ramadoss wrote: >> > > >>>> > > I guess "All applications are created equal" will >> > hold true when >> > > >>>> > you roll >> > > >>>> > > out your own custom Android implementation. If we >> > consider the >> > > >>>> G1 >> > > >>>> > > implementation of Android, of course the Carrier is >> > going to >> > > >>>> > lock down a lot >> > > >>>> > > of Apps which the Carrier believes is important >> > enough to be >> > > >>>> > locked down for >> > > >>>> > > various reasons. >> > > >> > > >>>> > > take care, >> > > >>>> > > Muthu Ramadoss. >> > > >> > > >>>> > >http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz+91-9840348914 >> > > >>>> > >http://androidrocks.googlecode.com- Android Tutorial. >> > > >> > > >>>> > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Al Sutton >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> > > >>>> > <mailto:[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >> > > >> > > >>>> > > > Debate on the policy is another (probably >> > lengthy) discussion, >> > > >>>> > the fact >> > > >>>> > > > is that the policy exists and because of that all >> > apps are not >> > > >>>> > equal as >> > > >>>> > > > the OHA site claim that "All applications are >> > created equal" >> > > >>>> > doesn't >> > > >>>> > > > hold up. >> > > >> > > >>>> > > > Al. >> > > >> > > >>>> > > > Shane Isbell wrote: >> > > >> > > >>>> > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Al Sutton >> > > >>>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > > >>>> > > > > <mailto:[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>>>> >> > > >>>> > wrote: >> > > >> > > >>>> > > > > They would need stretch that somewhat and >> > define the >> > > >>>> dialler >> > > >>>> > > > > application >> > > >>>> > > > > as non-core for that to work in relation to >> > the block on >> > > >>>> > third party >> > > >>>> > > > > diallers calling emergency services. >> > > >> > > >>>> > > > > This is one area I agree with Google on. If >> > there is a >> > > >>>> > hostile app, >> > > >>>> > > > > dialing out false emergency requests, clogging >> > the system, >> > > >>>> > people >> > > >>>> > > > > could die. Of course, Google deserves all the >> > other crap you >> > > >>>> > give >> > > >>>> > > > > them, so keep swinging. Maybe some candy will >> > fall out. >> > > >> > > >>>> > > > > Shane >> > > >> > > >>>> > > > -- >> > > >>>> > > > ====== >> > > >>>> > > > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & >> > Wales with >> > > >>>> the >> > > >>>> > > > company number 6741909. The registered head >> > office is Kemp >> > > >>>> House, >> > > >>>> > > > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. >> > > >> > > >>>> > > > The views expressed in this email are those of >> > the author and >> > > >>>> not >> > > >>>> > > > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's >> > associates, >> > > >>>> > or it's >> > > >>>> > > > subsidiaries. >> > > >> > > >>>> -- >> > > >>>> ====== >> > > >>>> Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with >> the >> > > >>>> company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp >> > House, >> > > >>>> 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. >> > > >> > > >>>> The views expressed in this email are those of the author >> > and not >> > > >>>> necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's >> > associates, or it's >> > > >>>> subsidiaries. >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> >> -- >> ====== >> Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the >> company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, >> 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. >> >> The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not >> necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's >> subsidiaries. >> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
