Apple the Second
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| r_a_trip Aug 05, 2011 7:11 AM EDT |
It's slowly getting more and more visible how "Jobsian" the Self-Appointed-Dictator-For-Life is. I reckon Mark S. doesn't give a rat's hind quarters for ownership of patches to community code that already has a diverse owners landscape. This seems solely geared towards Canonical's own concoctions, most likely Unity up front. I don't know what Canonical's plan for Unity really looks like, but I can't get this out of my head: 1.) Get Unity written for free. 2.) Make Unity proprietary. 3.) ??? 4.) Profit! The above is, of course, dependent on the rose colored Canonical premise that normal people are clamoring for Unity. My take on that is, that on its present course, Canonical is well on its way to join Caldera, Novell, Lindows/Linspire, Corel... |
| tracyanne Aug 05, 2011 7:25 AM EDT |
Actually Apple pay good money to their developers for their work, so I think it's a little unfair, to Apple, to compare what Mark Shuttleworth appears to want to do with with what Apple do. It appears that Shuttleworth wants to have his cake and eat it too. By getting his code base for free, and then owning the code, so he can sell it later. |
| JaseP Aug 05, 2011 8:47 AM EDT |
I think reactions are extreme on all sides here. If Shuttleworth doesn't like accepting user patches, where the author doesn't assign rights, then don't accept the patches, and patch it yourself. If users don't like his stance on non-GPL'd code, don't distribute patches... Plain and simple. For GPL code, Shuttleworth can sit and spin... the authors are within their rights to distribute patches, so long as they comply with the GPL. I personally think that Ubuntu's problems are running deeper than this issue right now. User revolt is running wild in Gnome and Unity circles right now, all the way up to Linus. |
| hkwint Aug 05, 2011 9:14 AM EDT |
RA Trip: Why not dual license, like MySQL / OpenOffice (with StarOffice)? |
| tuxchick Aug 05, 2011 11:20 AM EDT |
The Canonical contributor agreements are here. Might be good to read them before getting excited:
http://www.canonical.com/contributors Read Mark's blog too, that is linked in Larry's article. |
| lcafiero Aug 05, 2011 11:40 AM EDT |
Tuxchick is right: Read them both, as opposed to just taking my word for it, even though I stand by the blog item (of course). |
| khess Aug 05, 2011 3:43 PM EDT |
Is that the correct title? "are belong to us"??? |
| lcafiero Aug 05, 2011 4:01 PM EDT |
Yes, Ken. It's a reference to the old Internet meme "All your base are belong to us." |
| Koriel Aug 05, 2011 4:10 PM EDT |
In Soviet Russia Internet is old meme |
| gus3 Aug 05, 2011 4:39 PM EDT |
So are Natalie Portman and.... Nah, I ain't going there. |
| Koriel Aug 05, 2011 6:05 PM EDT |
I thought the article pretty much got it right. Someone posted already on a different thread that he gave Maniacal about 2-5 years before they ceased to exist given that they dont actually seem to have a valid business model and as soon as Shuttleworths money runs out that will be it. This pretty much sums it all up for me only part I would disagree with is the timescale as I dont think they have another 5 years in them. |
| dinotrac Aug 05, 2011 9:14 PM EDT |
Icafiero -- I think you're Zero Wing in on something there. |
| lcafiero Aug 06, 2011 2:01 PM EDT |
dinotrac -- Zero Wing: Heh. I thought everyone would get the reference, but then maybe I overestimated. Koriel -- I don't know if I agree that Canonical (Maniacal . . . very funny) has about 2-5 years before they cease to exist. In fact, I think they probably have more in the proverbial tank than you think, even if they are running on Shuttleworth's money (which they are to an extent, though not entirely). Also, and I realize this probably sounds funny coming from me, I want Ubuntu to succeed, and I think they have done a remarkable job in getting Linux -- even if they won't call it by its name -- in front of people. I've said that publicly, and that's been documented here and elsewhere. However -- and you knew that was coming -- I don't think Ubuntu/Canonical, for all they do on the promotional side, is above criticism. When they do things like not contribute back to FOSS, in a technical sense, anywhere near in direct proportion to what they take from it, and when they waffle on their contributor agreement by going to a Harmony agreement on the same day Shuttleworth was waxing philosophical in his blog I mention, they deserve to be called out on it. I would do the same if it were Red Hat, OpenSUSE/Novell, Debian, PCLinuxOS, or anyone else. More simply put: You talk the talk, you walk the walk. When you don't walk the walk, you get called out on it. That's as it should be. That plain, that simple. Another point that I didn't make, but probably should sometime soon (blog alert), is the FOSS ecosystem that Mark Shuttleworth claims to be ailing -- he may have mentioned that in repsonse to a comment moreso than in the blog item itself; I'll have to check that -- probably has never been stronger. |
| Koriel Aug 06, 2011 4:51 PM EDT |
@Icafiero When I say cease to exist, i mean that they may cease to exist in their current form. Im kind of predicting a break up a la Mandriva style when the money runs out so yeh they may continue after the schism but will never be what they once were. Mind you im rarely right but still I love making predictions eventually if you make enough of them one of them is going to hit the mark :) |
| ComputerBob Aug 06, 2011 5:37 PM EDT |
I predict that Canonical will become a very profitable company. I predict that Canonical will not become a very profitable company. There -- now I'll just wait for the future to prove that I'm right. |
| Koriel Aug 06, 2011 5:51 PM EDT |
Does that prediction include the name change "Cononical" :) I thought my "Maniacal" was better. |
| albinard Aug 06, 2011 5:52 PM EDT |
Here's what puzzles me: how come everybody -- that is everybody like Apple, Ubuntu, Gnome, and now even announced for Microsoft 8 -- decided at the very same time to remove the functionality of the desktop computer GUI and substitute a collection of international restroom symbols leading to predigested routines? |
| lcafiero Aug 06, 2011 6:01 PM EDT |
Koriel -- True that one day, if you make enough predictions, you'll get it right. As you say, "in their current form" you are probably right (as is, of course, ComputerBob). albinard -- That's a very good question and conspiracy theories pointing to wanting people to use smaller hardware may not be so far-fetched. Or not. But still, it's interesting to think about. |
| techiem2 Aug 06, 2011 6:17 PM EDT |
albinard: Maybe (and I could of course be totally wrong here), everyone is jumping on the whole mobile/tablet/etc. thing and is too lazy to focus on keeping a proper desktop setup for..uh...desktops...and/or they just assume that people want the exact same (i.e. dumbed down, extremely simplified) gui everywhere (which I would assume most of us, and maybe typical users as well, would immediately decry as false). |
| BernardSwiss Aug 06, 2011 6:32 PM EDT |
Or perhaps like so much in the business world, a lot of supposed "rational decisions" are really more accurately a matter of fashion trends and group think, than of reason (unless fear of being left behind/missing the bandwagon counts as reason). |
| ComputerBob Aug 06, 2011 10:23 PM EDT |
Quoting:Does that prediction include the name change "Cononical" :)Nope, that was a typo -- now corrected. ;) |
| Fettoosh Aug 07, 2011 9:35 AM EDT |
Quoting:(unless fear of being left behind/missing the bandwagon counts as reason) I tend to believe that this is their primary reason. MS sees how fast FOSS is progressing, they know they can't beat it, and better join it before it is too late. It is getting to be a situation of better late than dead. |
| gus3 Aug 07, 2011 3:54 PM EDT |
I don't know about that. Check the "Explanation of Microsoft's Anti-Google FUD" article that's on the front page right now. Microsoft put together CPTN with Apple, Oracle, and EMC, with the primary objective being to prevent Google from getting Novell's patents. Read it, and bear in mind, "if you can't innovate, litigate." |
| KernelShepard Aug 08, 2011 8:58 AM EDT |
gus3: You say that as if buying up those Novell and Nortel patents is evil. It's not. Let me ask you this: if you are fighting for your life, do you let your enemy pick up the weapon laying between you two? Or do you scramble for it like mad, not willing to concede any advantage to your opponent? If you allow your opponent to get the weapon, and with it the advantage, then you are probably going to come out of this fight dead. We are witnessing a game of survival. Everyone sees the mobile phone/tablet space as The Future of the computer industry and they all want a piece of the action, afraid that if they don't get a piece, they'll die out. Apple realized this before anyone else, which is why they came out with the iPhone first. Microsoft had given up on their mobile offering because they didn't think anyone wanted it (and at the time, no one did because, well, Microsoft's phone OS wasn't anything to write home about... and maybe a bit because consumers just weren't ready). In 2006, shortly before the iPhone came out in 2007, Eric Schmidt (of Google) joined Apple's board of directors because he was shown an iPhone concept phone and was really excited about it. A few years later, Google blatantly rips off the iPhone (they had been ripping off RIM's Blackberry until the iPhone came out) and to make matters worse (for Apple), they helped hardware makers severely undercut Apple. Obviously this pissed off Apple because they got ripped off for one, and two... how do you compete with free (or nearly free) smart phones? You clearly like to insinuate that Apple should compete with innovation, but that's exactly what they *have* been competing with until now. Is Google innovating? Hardly. Oracle, we all know, got pissed off because Google's "Java" alternative basically destroyed their JavaME business and Oracle, too, wants a piece of the mobile pie. Microsoft also wants a piece of the pie and they know they can't possibly break into a market already dominated by a free smart phone. Again, how do you compete with free? Especially when it's not your competitor which is having to take the financial loss for the free phones, Google got the hardware makers and the telecoms to take that hit for them (oh, and Google is actually making money off selling exclusive access to Android to those hardware makers). The funny thing is, Google doesn't really even care about the mobile phone market, they only care about the advertising market and simply see smart phones as a great place to sell advertisement space on (which, I'd argue, is why most common people have such bad experiences with Android phones and why Android-based tablets are not selling all that well, because unlike the free android phones, people actually have to pay the same amount of money for Android tablets as they do iPads). So where do the Novell patents come in? Well, Novell had a lot of really dangerous patents (or, at least, dangerous to Microsoft and Apple). These included patents on identity management, software updates (e.g. Windows Update and parts of the AppStore... and scarily enough, Linux's software update systems too). These are patents that have been held over Microsoft and Apple's heads for years by Novell (and which is what spurred the Microsoft-Novell agreement in late 2006). The Nortel patents are more obvious: they are patents in the mobile space. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why ANYONE in the mobile space would want these patents. The fear is that whoever owns these patents is holding all the keys and guarding all the doors. I personally don't think Microsoft, Apple, etc care so much about preventing Google from having access to them so much as making sure that *they* have access to them because they don't want anyone to use the Nortel patents *against* them. This is why Microsoft offered to let Google in on the CPTN group buying up the Novell patents. Now, don't get me wrong, I think there was some "hey, we can save some money if we let Google into our group to buy them *and* they won't be able to use them against us"-type thinking going around. And I'm sure they'd rather have Google join them in buying the patents so they didn't have to worry about bidding *against* Google (keep your friends close and your enemies closer). I also fully understand why Google didn't join CPTN and (whatever the name of the group that bought the Nortel patents was called) groups. It wasn't in Google's best interest... IFF Google hoped to outbid CPTN/etc for those patents. Strategically, Google needed those patents to defend itself and so they needed to go it alone (or at least teamed up with, say, Samsung/HTC/etc). My point is... to say that Microsoft's and Apple's "primary" reason for buying those patents is to prevent Google from getting them is, well, frankly, very narrow minded and silly. Was it a side benefit? Sure. -- A very frustrated Samsung Galaxy S user who routinely considers smashing his phone against the concrete because it sucks so hardcore. I mean, seriously, battery life is lucky if it lasts 12 hours w/o using it at all? Can't log onto an authenticated wireless network reliably? Contacts app crashes if I don't enter a birth year for a contact? Sends an SMS to the wrong person sometimes (okay, I guess this feature is *innovative*)? Good grief! |
| jdixon Aug 08, 2011 9:36 AM EDT |
> If you allow your opponent to get the weapon, and with it the advantage, then you are probably going to come out of this fight dead. A comparison between an individual fight to the death and a corporate struggle is invalid on its face. People don't usually die when companies go out of business. > ...people actually have to pay the same amount of money for Android tablets as they do iPads Not hardly: http://www.geeks.com/products.asp?cat=TAB |
| KernelShepard Aug 08, 2011 10:08 AM EDT |
> Not hardly: http://www.geeks.com/products.asp?cat=TAB (I wasn't going to include those cheap Android tablet's because they are so bad... but if you insist) You just made my point even stronger. If Android tablets are so cheap, why is iPad dominating the tablet market? I'll tell you why: it's vastly superior to Android tablets, ESPECIALLY the cheap ones. I have personal experience with the Pan Digital Android tablet (which I think is the second or third one in the list you provided). The experience with it is horrendous. There's no marketplace. It consistently locks up when you insert an SD card > 2GB. It's slow as hell. The list goes on. Best Buy used to sell those tablets (and other Android tablets) here, they've since all (even the Motorola Xoom, which is how I found out about this - because I went to buy a couple for work since we needed more tablets to test our software on) been removed from the shelves - the Best Buy salesman told me because so many people were returning them it wasn't worth the shelf space. That echoes the same sentiment we've been getting from our customers in the past few months - business is booming and most of our customers who wanted custom software for Android tablets are now coming back to us saying they want it for the iPad2 instead. Our whole department had to go out and buy a ton of iMacs to do development on because you can't do iPad2 development on Linux (which is what most of the engineers, including myself, were using). |
| JaseP Aug 08, 2011 10:12 AM EDT |
I'm with JDixon on this one. And I bought 2 Android tablets for 2/3 what a decent iPad would have cost me. Android tabs aren't streaming off the shelves because their import are being blocked, and I suspect, "aggressive" Apple marketing. The returns?!?! That's people buying a $175 device, expecting a $600 device's performance (despite the fact that the $600 device shouid be priced at $450). You can be an Atom powered tab for the price of an iPad. |
| jdixon Aug 08, 2011 10:38 AM EDT |
> I'll tell you why: it's vastly superior to Android tablets, ESPECIALLY the cheap ones. First, you're ignoring that the Ipad's carried at that site are also refurbished units. And they're still $500+. Of course it's superior to the cheap ones. But it's not superior to the expensive ones, most of which still undercut it's price by $100 or more. And not everyone can afford to throw $500 at a computing purchase. For many, the $100 Android tablets are their only option if they're going to get a tablet. |
| KernelShepard Aug 08, 2011 11:14 AM EDT |
You guys might find this interesting: https://twitter.com/#!/koush/status/99917812440633344 For those who don't know who Koush is, he's the author of ClockworkMod & ROM Manager and a core contributor to CyanogenMod7. Here's his blog: http://www.koushikdutta.com/ This is a guy who's sole source of income is his Android software (and one of the few who has successfully made big money on the Android platform) and he's frustrated enough with Android that he's considering getting an iPhone. Just sayin'. |
| JaseP Aug 08, 2011 3:29 PM EDT |
The iPhone is like getting a Porche, and having it be dealer serviced. Android is like having a Detroit muscle car and doing your own work in your garage. So, he wants to get out of the garage, no biggie. He'll be missed, but another will take his place... Just sayin'. |
| KernelShepard Aug 08, 2011 4:23 PM EDT |
JaseP: This is precisely my point. This is why so many people I know who have Android phones say they'd rather have an iPhone and why I believe so many Android tablet consumers are returning their tablets. They don't *want* to have to service their phones/tablets, they want them to Just Work(tm) and when something goes wrong, they want to bring it into the shop and have it fixed. Only a small minority of people (the hacker community, mostly) care about being able to hack their phones to install custom ROMs and to tweak things beyond the wallpaper and a few other settings that phones like the iPhone already allow them to tweak. What they get with Android is a mish-mash of stuff which is all rough around the edges, has critical bugs that Googles doesn't seem interested in fixing (I've been tracking a bug sitting in their bug tracker for a year now about connecting to passworded APs), sending SMS's to the wrong contact, crashes in anything pre-2.3 when a contact in the addressbook has only a partial birth date. I mean, the types of bugs I constantly run into on Android scream lack of Quality Control. While I understand and sympathize not wanting to be beholden to Apple for bug fixes (iPhone isn't bug free either), the reality is that the average consumer does depend on the phone maker to fix the bugs and push software updates... which brings me to my next gripe: the iPhone 3G got continuous bug fixes and software updates for 3 years. My Samsung Galaxy S (and, according to everyone else I know with other Android phones) barely got a single update (2.1 -> 2.2) after waiting 9 months and 2.3 STILL isn't available for my phone unless I risk bricking it by installing a community ROM which also voids my warranty. In many ways, I believe this is also why Linux hasn't yet taken over the desktop (although I think Linux offers a much better user experience than Android does). |
| BernardSwiss Aug 08, 2011 4:55 PM EDT |
The grass is always greener... I have only one friend who has owned both an iPhone and an Android phone. She's not a techie, didn't want to mess with rooting or modding her phone (but could, and might -- she's bright enough, and not helpless, so maybe next time...). She bought the iPhone to replace the HTC phone because she was tired of the Android phone's issues. But now that she has day-to-day familiarity with iPhone, she's vowing that it's replacement will be another Android. |
| KernelShepard Aug 08, 2011 8:09 PM EDT |
Hah, just checked my mail and found a letter from Google. Opened it and apparently they are offering me a free Android tablet for my contributions. Oh, and also a $100 gas rebate voucher. I think the gas voucher is more valuable, but maybe I can sell the Android tablet on ebay ;-) |
| KernelShepard Aug 08, 2011 8:41 PM EDT |
Bernard: I wish it was just a case of "the grass is always greener" for me, but I can honestly say I've *never* had such a horrible experience with *any* phone I've owned in the past. This is the first phone I've ever owned where I need to reformat and reset to factory defaults every 3 months simply to receive incoming calls due to it getting unusably sluggish after ~3 months of use (thanks to Samsung's craptastic journaled version of the vfat filesystem - now, I'll grant you that this isn't *Google's* fault, it's Samsung's, but keep in mind that Samsung's Android phones are the #1 selling Android phones out there - and specifically the Galaxy S which is what I have). So... Bernard: if she really does decide to get an Android phone, tell her to spend the $500-$600 (or whatever it is) to get a Google Nexus S phone and whatever she does, don't waste her money on a Samsung phone (maybe some of the HTC phones are better, but I doubt it). The Google phones are the only phones that seem worth getting due to the fact that they actually get anything resembling timely software updates. Honestly, if my phone got semi-timely software updates that fixed the nastier of the bugs I'm constantly plagued with, I'd be a hell of a lot happier than I am now. *Some* of these bugs have been fixed in 2.3.4 but the odds of me ever seeing another update to my Galaxy S are nil and my phone is only a year old, still stuck on 2.2 (which I had to wait 6+ months to get updated to *that* from an even suckier 2.1 even though Adroid 2.2 had been released before I had bought my phone and Samsung+AT&T had been promising that they'd push the 2.2 update "within a month"). I got an Android because I wanted so badly to believe that Android would be even more amazing than my experience with iPhone had been. It really frustrates me that I was so wrong. |
| helios Aug 08, 2011 9:24 PM EDT |
I got an Android because I refuse to do business with Apple. Some enjoy and even find security behind the walled garden and the Mac philosophies. I do not. I have an EVO. I use my phone for three reasons. Calendar/scheduling - email - phone calls. Every now and then I will use the GPS but through any thing I've experienced with the EVO, nothing has come close to the nightmare described here. I have not had to root my phone or alter the kernel in any way. It just works (TM). It runs smoothly with no slowdowns or freezes, it responds amazingly fast and has done so for the year I've had it and the two major updates that have come along the way. |
| KernelShepard Aug 09, 2011 8:10 AM EDT |
Just discovered the cause of another Android bug that has been driving me crazy for the past few months. First, a little background info: I have 2 gmail accounts (1 for work and 1 for personal), although you should be able to reproduce my bug w/ just 1 gmail account. To access these accounts, I use Google's GMail app. Since my work account gets a lot of emails and I don't like to get annoyed with a constant "bing!" audio every time I get a new email, I have selected the "Silent" notification for that account in the GMail app (while I *do* want notifications when I get personal emails which generally come from my wife - she's the boss!) and thus opted not to "Disable notifications" in the global phone settings. So far, so good. Taking the commuter rail to/from work for the past few months since I switched from the "My Music" player that came bundled with my phone to Google's "Music" app (from the Marketplace), randomly the Google Music player would stop playing music and I'd have to start the player again (it didn't crash, it just somehow got paused). Weird, right? Well, at first I thought maybe I was bumping the pause button on my phone before the screen blacked out so I started forcing the screen to turn off immediately before putting it down, just in case. No luck, the problem persisted. Then I started noticing that this seemed to happen most frequently when I entered areas with cell reception (from a place w/o it)... but that made no sense, why would the music player stop when I went from an area with no cell reception to an area with cell reception? Could it be...? Well, last night it happened to me again and since I'm in my home with stable cell reception, I knew that couldn't be the problem and since I happened to be looking at my phone (with the screen on) when it happened, I saw a possible (and likely) culprit: GMail's "Silent" notification setting plays a silent audio stream when new mail for my work account arrives which takes control of the audio device from the Music player to play this "Silent.wav" (or .mp3 or whatever) and Google's Music player never gets it back until I manually press "Play" again. This is the most likely explanation I can find for this otherwise random pausing of the media player on my Android phone. Now, you might be saying, "KS: You're using a Linux phone, why don't you submit a patch to fix your problem and stop bitching about it? Be thankful you are using Android instead of that closed source crap like iPhone cuz you'd never be able to fix bugs in that phone!" To that, I remind you that I can't submit a patch because I can't get access to the source code because Android isn't as Open Source as so many people like to pretend it is. Of course, even if it were, I'd argue that I shouldn't have to and that my time is worth more than the $100 I saved buying an Android over an iPhone which doesn't have this problem (or any of the other irksome problems I have with Android). Now... that said, can anyone confirm this with their Android phones? If so, I'll be submitting a bug report to Google about this. If not, perhaps the bug is somewhere else. |
| gus3 Aug 09, 2011 8:25 AM EDT |
Having someone send you an email should be easy enough that you can either confirm or rebut that deduction. Or, if you have a spare email account lying around somewhere, give it a try yourself and see what happens. I the meantime, I'll load up some tunes and see if I can duplicate your observation. |
| KernelShepard Aug 09, 2011 8:29 AM EDT |
gus3: Nod, I've already "confirmed" it that way, but seeing as how my phone is not "vanilla" Android, who knows what Samsung may have changed/broken in, say, the notification system or the sound system. Anyways, thanks for testing it out on your phone. Interested in hearing if you get the same results. |
| gus3 Aug 09, 2011 8:46 AM EDT |
My primary email service isn't GMail, but when I've gotten notifications, I've had no problems with the interruption stopping any media players. Oh, and mine is a Samsung Gem, lowest of the low-end. |
| KernelShepard Aug 09, 2011 9:36 AM EDT |
Hmmm, yea, I've been trying to reproduce it again to make sure I got all the steps/settings correct in my bug report to Google but now I can't reproduce it either. I was able to reproduce it last night just fine. Wtf? Oh well, I guess I'll have to wait for it to happen again and see what else might be triggering this. |
| gus3 Aug 09, 2011 9:38 AM EDT |
Do you know how to extract your dmesg log? It might have some info about the resource conflict. |
| KernelShepard Aug 09, 2011 9:44 AM EDT |
gus3: Hmm, didn't think of that. I'll install ConnectBot and run dmesg next time it happens. Thanks for the idea. |
| KernelShepard Aug 09, 2011 9:53 AM EDT |
Looks like this issue has already been submitted to Google: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Google%20Mobile/thread?tid=63b467e49a9e64b9&hl=en Gonna read through the comments to the bug and see if that turns anything up. |
| helios Aug 09, 2011 10:10 AM EDT |
I had to laugh.... I reproduced this exact phenomenon on a dual core quad 6600 about a week ago, Gmail email notification and Clementine. I know, it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter, I just thought it was funny. I'm really no help as I don't listen to music on my phone. Thanks for running this down and saving others from duplicating effort. |
| KernelShepard Aug 09, 2011 10:31 AM EDT |
> Thanks for running this down and saving others from duplicating effort Heh, well, I haven't found it *yet* :-( I was so sure I had finally figured it out last night and then no random pauses on my trip to work this morning even tho I knew that new email had arrived so spent another 15-20 minutes sitting here at the office emailing myself on both accounts and no pauses. Emailing my personal account did temporarily pause the player in order to play the default "bing!" wav, but then the music player immediately resumed like it should. Emailing my work account caused no interruptions at all to my podcast listening which is exactly what I was going for, so... *shrug* It's a puzzler. Some of the people on that Google support thread found that killing the Listen app running in the background fixed the problem but I checked and it's not running on mine (I never start that app even tho it *is* installed). Sadly most of the solutions I found in that thread seemed to be grasping at straws (which I felt my earlier conclusions were also, tho had hoped that the GMail app connection was it because at least that made *sense*). |
| Fettoosh Aug 09, 2011 11:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:It's a puzzler It must be one of those self-healing Google therapeutic things. :-) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!