On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 07:25:27AM -0300, Werner Almesberger wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > Hi, I want to remove everything off the nanonote but the subsystem and > > have the highest performing ability to run html5 , meaning > > html5+css+js. > > Hmm, I wonder if this would really lead in a good direction. > [snip]
As an add on to Werner's great analysis I'd like to add that I think this would be exactly the wrong direction to go. With only 32MB or ram and (generally) no swap the last thing we want to do is encourage people to try to develop apps that require a large browser to be running just to launch the app. I already need to enable swap to keep the text based browser from segfaulting when I try to search an HTML e-book. I think a better way to encourage development would be to have a good IDE and good Documentation. A prepackaged Nanonote emulator wouldn't hurt either as then any prospective developer could play around and get their feet wet without having buy a Nanonote (of course we really want them to buy one at some point). There are already several good options for developing on the Nanonote. Several of which are cross-platform and thus ease development. Now just for clarity I will point out that I have a bias against the browser-as-platform model. I'm an assembly language programer from back in the 80s. I see C as producing bloated and messy code so you can imagine what I must think about loading in an entire browser to run an app that would run faster if written in a "real" language. I understand rapid development, and the potential (but false) appeal of browser based apps working everywhere. But with my bias it seem a miserably bad fit for the constrained environment that is that NanoNote. The last thing we want to do to the Nanonote is have what the G1G1 program did to the XO. I got one through this program and love it dearly. It's a fantastic bit of kit. However many, many people getting one failed to understand that the XO was a purpose built computer and that purpose was not to handle modern web apps. The support forums were quickly filled with people bemoaning the fact that the XO couldn't do FLASH, wouldn't work on site X, couldn't run program Y, and thus in their minds "wasn't a real computer" and was "worthless". Their assesment is far from the truth but the disappointed expectations harmed the public image of the XO and resulted in a huge drop in interest and support in the general public. I'd hate to see this happen to the NanoNote wich is not only a great bit of kit but is entirely copyleft. I think any attempt to attract developers or public interest should focus clearly on what the NanoNote is. Small, inexpensive, Copyleft, open, etc. and avoid the urge to try and make the Nanonote go places it'll perform badly. The NanoNote is poorly suited for life as a web based platform. It is however VERY good at being what it is. A computer that fits in the palm of your hand and is totally copyleft. Part of the problem is that people nowadays equate "computer" with "internet appliance" and are dissapointed by anything that isn't what they expect. The NanoNote need to be promoted to people that will see it's potential. And from where I'm sitting it has tonnes of potential (but remember my first "real computer" ran a 1mhz and had 4k of ram). Who these people would be is an open question. Computer scientists, engineers, people working on/with embedded devices. etc. Basically the people that will look at the NanoNote and go "Wow, a Coputer that fits in my palm and is fully open and hackable.. man I need one of those.." (well ok.. "I need 250 of those for my company" would be better). This is truning into a much larger post then I intended so I'll stop now. Have to get to work anyways. Regards, Freemor
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Qi Hardware Discussion List Mail to list (members only): [email protected] Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/mailman/listinfo/discussion
