Slashdotted

[Steve Mosher]

arne anka wrote:
>>> phone development means gta03 -- and that indeed stopped.
>> it wrong, surely a lot of other people will get it wrong too. No, phone
>> development doesn't mean GTA03. Openmoko can release a device which is  
>> not a successor to the GTA02.
> 
> i never said, it has to be a successor to gta02.
> the only other phone in the pipeline had the name gta03 and its  
> development has stopped. period.
    There other phones "in the   pipeline"
    Three variants of GTA02, 2 entirely new concepts aimed at
    different target markets.  Not smart phones, but phones nontheless.

    I can detail these, each of which is in a different stage of the 
product development pipeline, each has various pre conditions that need 
to be met before they can proceed to the next stage of development, but 
see my comments below about the argument clinic.



> 
> 
>>> gta02 does not see any development, just support and fixes.
>>    I'm sure not everybody agrees with you that bug fixes or improvements  
>> to existing features is not development. Perhaps you could clarify what  
>> you
>> think counts as development to an already released product (GTA02).
> 
> 
> this is merely hairsplitting (and, no offense, just because you think i am  
> wrong does not mean you are right), but here goes:
> one or more of the following
> 
> - newer/better hardware
  See above.
> - improved functionality (f ex wrt standby time, power consumption)
I believe that OM2009 slated for release in the June time frame has a 
good chance of showing improved functionality. One Issue with OM2009
( the paroli work) was that it catered for differences between the GTA02 
and GTA03. The design was targeted at GTA03 and utilized certain features
( like a hardware volume button) that were not present on GTA02. With 
the demise of GTA03 the design becomes more focused and I would assume
more easy to execute and test.
> - different device
See above

> 
> i am sure, we can spend days on end with attempts to find a definition of  
> development that everybody agrees to, but what purpose would it serve?
> i said it how i see it and so far no information has convinced me that i  
> am wrong here.

why define terms before an Argument?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

  So to answer your question. Defining "development" up front ("i am 
sure, we can spend days on end with attempts to find a definition of
 > development that everybody agrees to, but what purpose would it 
serve?")  Serves a very important purpose. It sets the conditions under 
which parties would admit they were wrong or that their beliefs were 
falsified. It forms the basis of having a rational debate. everything 
else is just naysaying.

> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openmoko community mailing list
> community at lists.openmoko.org
> http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community