I think it is mainly supposed to compete with Macbook Air, which is only configurable to 8GB. If you need more you should consider something more like a mobile workstation like a MBP or the Dell M3800.
How so? Percentage of code? # of features? If you want to make claims like that then actually make them, don't just wave your hands.
You're arguing over the degree of something which is just silly. Either both count or neither counts. Who cares if 10% of Chrome's code is proprietary and 15% of Safari's code is proprietary, or vice versa? If one counts as an open source browser then so does the other.
The important pieces that actually deal with content are all open so I would count them both, but that's just me. If you want to draw lines and make it sound scientific then you better show us some numbers. You don't get to draw imaginary lines because you just think that's where a line should be, if Chrome is more open tell us how.
I guess you could quantify it with % of code. I've never actually snooped around inside of there, and I'm basing what I was saying off of things I've read here on HN. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've gotten the impression that a larger percentage of the Safari code base is not open source than Chrome.
Saying that any percent >0 causes the software to not be considered open source is also drawing a line. Either way in my opinion it's subjective where you choose to draw it.
I agree that Safari should be included. I was simply disagreeing with the parent, because I got the impression that he or she was saying they are equal. Also, if someone decided they wanted to draw the line somewhere where it would exclude Safari, I would understand where they're coming from, and agree, as Chrome is more open sourcy.
Edit:
> "If you want to draw lines and make it sound scientific then you better show us some numbers. "
I'm not sure where you're getting this. I wasn't trying to draw lines or making anything sound scientific. All I said was that more of Chrome is open source, that's it. Like I said, I feel it's subjective as to where you draw the line, which is why I was disagreeing with parent. I felt that he or she was making an objective claim with how it should be. In my opinion if you insisted on being objective about it, you would probably have to measure the % code or whatever. I don't believe that the objective view on it is treating any software with greater than 0% proprietary software the same.
More … how? What matters is the engine, who cares about the chassis? It would be truly idiotic to include Chrome but to exclude Safari. That just does not make sense.
Sure, more of Chrome’s chassis is open source (though not really), but who the hell cares about that? All things considered, Safari and Chrome are both pretty open source. What matters, anyway.
If all that mattered was the rendering engine, then Chrome would never have gotten more than 1% browser marketshare, and Firefox would reign supreme. It's pretty obvious to anyone that's paid attention over the last few years that the surrounding UI, Javascript engine, and experience encapsulating the rendering engine is just as important, if not more so.
With Chrome basically the entire UI, including preferences, extensions engine, syncing, and automatic and partial updates are completely open source as part of the Chromium project. Chrome merely puts the Google logo on the cover and packages some pieces of software that can't otherwise be distributed due to licensing constraints. Developers don't consider Ubuntu closed-source just because it has the ability to package closed-source software and drivers with it.
In short: there's no way you can consider Safari an open-source project. There are several ways to classify Chrome as open-source, to which many developers agree.
I do? I think the parts of the browser that aren't the rendering engine are important too. That being said, I honestly don't really care about the original argument. I agree that Safari should be included as open source.
My point was just that I think Chrome is measurably more open source. I know that's vague and you can quantify by number of lines, whatever. Since Chrome is "more" open source, wouldn't someone be able to fairly draw a line that includes Chrome but not Safari?
In my mind where one draws that line is completely subjective. I think where you draw the line is equally subjective.
The part where you were treating Chrome and Safari as equal in terms of open-souce-ness is what I disagree with.
From the article:
"In addition, numerous BART police officers and other BART personnel were present during the planned protest, and train intercoms and white courtesy telephones remained available for customers seeking assistance or reporting suspicious activity."
So, to answer your question, BART police would have detained him, or someone would have used one of those phones to call for help.
Regarding your first question, what are you implying was their motive for doing this, if not for safety?
This is not your typical peaceful protest - BART was probably more concerned about preventing trains from being blocked, vandalism, and safety. And about safety - in this case, it's not some euphemism for control. These are train stations where people stand on a platform inches away from trains going at high speed. A rowdy crowd in a space like that is definitely a threat to safety.
I think of it BART taking away one of its amenities in order to maintain its core services and responsibility to safety than a draconian abuse of force. It's like a coffee shop that turns off its wifi because of abuse. Cell 'towers' placed in BART tunnels and stations are provided for the convenience of customers (as previously pointed out, not for safety).
For what it's worth, I ride the BART twice a day, every week day. I would choose train service over underground cell service any day.
This makes perfect sense to me, and I agree. The crowd that was protesting is just a bunch of 20-something hipsters who see rioting and revolution in the rest of the world and want in on the fun.
If you threaten the life of a police officer, expect to be shot. That's all there is to it. These people are just looking for something to cry over.
To people saying BART did this to prevent bad PR: I'm not convinced of this. Everyone knows that doing this would cause an uproar, simply based on the fact that they get their panties in a bunch over acceptable police action.
If you want to protest, go to the streets. You don't have to clog up commuters' travel and make their day shitty. Kmart doesn't have to let you congregate inside their stores. BART doesn't have to let you congregate in the paid area.
Also, I think it's a bit ridiculous that people can write off any claim if it has to do with safety. You guys really think that it would be safe to have protesting in a train station?
I don't have a position on this, but I don't agree with comparing it to a coffee shop. BART is a governmental entity paid for by taxpayer dollars, shutting off a service that was provided by said mandatory tax dollars is different than turning off an additional service at a private business.
They address the safety of people on the platform, but what about people that didn't have a few dozen cops nearby?
I have ill family members, and need to be able to be on a plane in a few hours notice. Avoiding some bad PR photos justifies missing that important inbound phone call?
Simply put, the primary purpose of bart is to run a train service and maximize availability of that service. Cell service is a non essential (and until a few years ago, nonexistant) enhancement of that service.
The theory here is that if they allowed cell service to continue then protesters would have disrupted train service. So then the more pressing issue becomes getting people to the airport, not cellphone availability.
So yes, you missed your important call, but that's better than others missing their important flight.
Cell service usually drops between 16th and civic center (I frequently see people get cut off). And 3G service on Verizon seems to drop off for at least 50% of the way between 24th and montgomery (personal experience, iPhone4).
This has nothing to do with cell-jammers. BART normally offers cell phone service underground as signal usually can't travel there. They just flipped the switch.
It's a two paragraph response to a well-reasoned critique, which outlined several important, thoughtful points. By contrast, the response looks as though it was co-authored by an accountant and an HR rep.
> ...it is particularly difficult to believe that a “high level employee” in good standing with the company would choose to anonymously publish a letter on the web rather than engage their fellow executives in a constructive manner, but regardless of whether the letter is real, fake, exaggerated or written with ulterior motivations...
That seems like a petty way to respond publicly. Especially in juxtaposition with the first letter, which was frank but polite.
I'm obviously in the minority here, but I don't feel their response was so bad. There are plenty of "well-reasoned critiques that outline several important, thoughtful points" of many companies on the internet. I think the fact that they responded at all is good. Remember Apple's response to the iPhone 4 issues? We (finally) got Jobs pointing the finger at other companies and trying to shift the attention.
Here RIM is admitting they're in some shit, and yes, they are only offering the typical response, but what else do you expect? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious how they could have responded that would make critics happy.
My thought is that the only thing they can do right now is promise action, which they did. Whether they follow through or not, I have no idea.
In response to your quoted text:
I have no idea if the person really was an employee. I think people should take a neutral look at this instead of assuming one way or the other. On one hand, it could be an employee who has already talked to his colleagues about these issues and has been ignored. On the other hand, it's possible that it is just a bad media stunt by someone trying to bring negative attention to RIM or even trying to make some money with shorting them. If it's the former, I agree with you and would find this backpedalling immature. In the latter case I would agree with RIM and feel their response is appropriate.
I agree, it was good for them to respond with something. It shows that they are aware of the many criticisms flying around the press right now, and that they are actually paying attention. Saying nothing would make it seem like they are totally disconnected. Maybe it wasn't the best response in the world, but it wasn't bad either.
In the quick news cycles of today driven by twitter, as a company you have to respond quickly to stuff like this. Otherwise it just snowballs. I'm impressed they drafted a response in the same day as well.
I don't think it was so bad either, but I think SeoxyS's (above) is better; it's less defensive, without saying anything that will cause another whack to be taken out of the stock price.
Did the original letter even get that much traction? I got the impression it would have blown over tomorrow. Instead now they may get a Streisand effect.
It's not going to die anytime soon. I just saw Gellar on CNBC and he said that he has two more letters from people inside RIM. I got the impression that he will publish those as well.
