btw, MWs' definition of exchange says; "2 a*:* the act or process of substituting one thing for another "
And it's definition of replace has; "3 *:* to put something new in the place of" Not sure I can see the difference here. Al. Al Sutton wrote: > But you can't do that for the dialler unless you'll never want emergency > services. > > Disconnect wrote: > >> **From m-w.com/dictionary/swap <http://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] >> <mailto:[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]> >> > <mailto:[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]> >> > <mailto:[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]> >> <mailto:[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> >> <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]> >> <mailto:[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]> >> <mailto:[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]> >> <mailto:[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]>> >> > > >>>> > <mailto:[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]>> >> > > >>>> > <mailto:[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]>>> >> > > >>>> > > > > <mailto:[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. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- ====== 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
