If it was a Gecko based UI, it wasn't this device. This was running Symbian OS, using an Eikon derived UI, and using Opera for its browser.

You've moderated it now. Before it was "people killing in the name of religion". Which certainly is different to throwing a punch at someone who's getting in your face. To the point that if you think they are the same, you are being hysterical.

Might have been confusing on WinCE. But the Psion and Palm Pilot mobile app scene wasn't at all confusing.

And whilst nothing like Apple's App Store existed until Apple created it, there was a pretty vibrant app scene back on those older mobile devices. To the extent of professional packages for doctors, pilots, estate agents etc. Lots of productivity apps. Plenty of games. Basically all the categories you get on iOS and Android now. Just fewer in number.

Let's discount the Data Cards and Programmable calculators. Anything with a calculator like display and chicklet keys definitely isn't a tablet.

Before the Newton (in 1993) there was the Psion Series 3 in 1991. But the Palm Pilot wasn't until 1996.

The Psion Series 3 was great. I had one. But it was a mini-laptop in design. Keyboard only, no touch-screen. It was a very nice PDA, but it wasn't a tablet.

And the Pilot was clearly influenced by the Newton. Basically the concept is a cut-down Newton.

Pre-orders didn't start until 2 months after the iPad had been demonstrated by Jobs. 2 months in which all the tech press reviewed it. And it was hardly an unknown to everyone who's already experienced iOS on an iPhone.

Compared with the lack of knowledge which most people have when they buy products, they were pretty well informed.

That's not a fact. That's your ill-informed opinion. Big difference.

I call them early adopters. I call you an imbecile.

"It's really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them."
â" Steve Jobs

This one *is* genuine.

The biggest of the internet era. Only outdone by the Y2K category of bugs.

And the origins of both are optimisations which are no longer necessary. For Y2K, back in the day saving 2 bytes repeatedly mattered. And for C, back in the day, saving a bounds check mattered. (And on top of that the Open SSL term believed creating their own malloc mattered.) Nowadays none of these optimisations are worth it. They should all be long gone.

It's everybody's failure that C hasn't been replaced as a systems programming language. It's ought to be a footnote in history by now.

But it's not safer. It's less safe.

And so the excuse making comes.

Then you have religion. The number of contrary examples are myriad. Your blind belief can't change the fact that, for example, the recent much publicised iOS SSL bug was discovered by Apple, reported by them to the public CVE, and fixed all within 1 year and 4 months of it first appearing in code.

And for comparison the very similar bug in GnuTLS laid undiscovered for 8 years, and was only discovered in the bow-wave of the discovery of the Apple SSL bug, which finally prompted someone to code review the equivalent GnuTLS code.

Let's not forget that Heartbleed wouldn't have been a problem on OpenBSD, had they used the built in malloc. Whilst system programming in C is still unaccountably common, not all kernels are as insecure as others. And libraries can still be insecure no matter what the kernel does.

That's the point. It's not rational to write security applications with languages or libraries that rely on a programmer checking bounds and overlap before doing a copy operation. A copy function in a rational security language / library would do these checks itself. That way they are always done and they are always done correctly.

To be fair, the flip side is that you have to unplug/unattach/pack away third party GPS units when you park if you don't want to come back to a smashed window and no GPS.

Model specific built in panels that have GPS as one of their functions don't work in other models of car, and thus have no resale value to crack-heads.

That need to keep packing the GPS away every time you park, or have the feeling of insecurity if you risk leaving it, is a non-negligible cost.

Good. Anyone who was around in the 1980s and 1990s will remember that the most common reason a radio got removed from a car was that it had been visited by a car stereo thief. Abandoning standardisation of car radios, more or less killed that category of crime.

The last thing I want is a removable stereo that will work in other cars.

Car stereo crime has more or less stopped because car manufacturers shifted from having standard stereo enclosures to fitting decent model specific stereos that wouldn't fit in other makes or models of car.

Standard interfaces are not always a good thing!

There's a line? Maybe they should computerise enrolments.

Apple has already got these signed up. No queuing necessary.

BMW[4]
Ferrari[1]
Ford[5][1]
General Motors
Chevrolet[1]
Opel[1]
Vauxhall[1]
Honda[1]
Acura
Hyundai[1]
Kia[1]
Jaguar Land Rover[4]
Jaguar[1]
Land Rover[4]
Daimler AG
Mercedes-Benz[1]
Mitsubishi[4]
Nissan[1]
Infiniti[1]
Peugeot CitroÃn[4]
Peugeot[4]
CitroÃn[4]
Subaru[4]
Suzuki[4]
Toyota[1][6]
Volvo[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...