Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
MySQL is almost certainly overkill.
It's probably also worth considering if any db is overkill - can you achieve your use cases with a spreadsheet (Calc)? If so - that's a much lower learning curve and less maintenance for you.
If they're willing to modify it, then ok - lets throw out the screen, the battery, and the speakers. And since we're doing that, why don't we modify/remove the chassis - as it's primary design consideration is the parts we're stripping out.
And yes, we can replace the O/S with a modified, stripped down, or completely alternate one....
Every step they take in adapting a phone to better suit the operating environment is a step towards other existing off the shelf solutions.
If the article is to be believed, and the phone is completely unmodified, I straight away see a number of issues :
- * The battery will be way outside it's operating norms - likely to alternately produce very little power, and explode due to overheating.
- * The electronics is specifically designed to be small, and consequently more vulnerable to radiation.
- * Half of the mass of the device is unnecessary. For example, there is no point having a touchscreen display if nobody is there to look at it or touch it.
- * The unmodified operating system is completely geared towards having a user interacting with it. There are far more suitable (free) alternatives available off the shelf.
I fully accept that he doesn't like the security implications, but that's kind of what I'm getting at - if a device (which for the sake of clarity vsvs another conversation I'm having above, I regard as more of a specialized tool than a 'real' multi-purpose computer) doesn't do what you need/want it to do, then you get rid of it (which I simplified as "do not want". From my point of view, I didn't get why this was a story, however as per the discussion above, if you treat them (iPads) as real viable omni-purpose devices, then I can see why this would be newsworthy.
You're right, the walled garden isn't the thrust of what the politician was saying; I was just replying directly to the comment.
However, I think my point still stands - the politician doesn't like something about a device, but the specific issue he raises is a general concern about data security - not something specific to an iPad. As far as I understand it (not being a regular user of Apple products), if you were to install an IMAP client (Or use a native one?IDK) on an iPad and use that to access your email, then your data is no more or less secure than using a laptop (Linux or not). The abstract (at least - the article itself is badly translated), implies that the politician reject the iPad specifically because he felt it not as secure as an alternative.
As I say, my knowledge of Apple products is limited, and if you were to tell me that an iPad takes unconditional snapshots of it's entire storage (including third party app storage), and backs that up online then I would concede that it is less secure.
I guess it depends on which side of the device convergence field you're coming from. I've always regarded tablets as being more in the vein of specialized utility devices (hence the hammer analogy) than computers. I do own a tablet (Nexus7 FWIW), but I regard it (and tablets as a whole in their current incarnation) as more of a toy than a tool.
For pretty much anything more than web browsing (or anything I can't do with my phone), I turn to a 'real' computer. I did own a hybrid laptop (convertible flip screen), but never really found much use for that either (apart from sketching drawings in meetings).
I suspect (hope) that in the long run, the specific foibles of devices will be a moot point anyway, although there's a fair chance that will be derailed if people start throwing their toys out of the pram and breaking HTML5(+) compatibility.
What I did get from the article is what I assumed to be the principle objection - a quote stating "Admin has access to everything." - which holds true for any organisation which uses email.
It is acknowledged that there are many things you can't do with an iPad, but the same is true of a hammer - I can't inflate a baloon with a hammer, but that doesn't stop it from being perfectly good at driving nails.
To me this story is a comparable story to "Polititian retuns government car because he can't change the paint colour."
Can anyone enlighten me?
If the developers used pure assembler (which people don't any more *laments*), and scrubbed your code properly you could make it much harder to trace (but doing so in itself gives you clues about the creator.
Also - the LogBox linked to in the article appears to be for a ColdFusion logging library - I suspect this is either lazy journalism or politician luditism.