Originally Posted by danramos

Seeing as how I'm an American, I can understand your assumption that I'm probably fat

Originally Posted by danramos

It clearly didn't pain you enough to humor my request to please correct me if I was wrong. Go ahead and explain your understanding of cooperative versus preemptive in the context of operating systems controls.

Originally Posted by ajalkane

I did correct that you were wrong. I just didn't explain the correct definitions mainly because I don't like to write long messages on mobile.

But to prove how much I am in pain, I googled it for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute...2Ftime-sharing

My main issue was that you mixed the terms. Minor point is that, luckily, cooperative multitasking is not probably used in any current operating system.

Originally Posted by danramos

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purpose of 'cooperative multitasking' that the OPERATING SYSTEM decides when to halt and execute running software in a fast "app switching or another funny description" method? The other alternative would be "preemptive multitasking", which is where the APPLICATION decides when to allow another application to be able to have a slice of time and the operating system isn't deciding when to halt and execute running software. My impression is that each of these systems employs some mixture of BOTH of these multitasking principles. In the case of Android, at least, I know you can use BOTH methods and the author can employ either method on a per-thread level.

"If there is too little RAM, processes hosting services will be immediately killed like background processes are. However, if appropriate, Android will remember that these services wish to remain running, and restart their process at a later time when more RAM is available. For example, if the user goes to a web page that requires large amounts of RAM, Android may kill background service processes like sync until the browser's memory needs go down."

Originally Posted by olighak

Accenture is bringing the hatchet onto the poor Nokian's thrown over to them last year.

Originally Posted by rcolistete

The advantage of Android over iOS and WP7 is that a software can remain in background (without being suspended in normal situations, i.e., if there is enough RAM) if it is separated in a service (so the software is divided in client+server solution). But AFAIK, software services in Android cannot update GUI in background.

Here we can see that Android doesn't have swap memory, so only real RAM is used. So everytime RAM is low, softwares running in background (including services) are suspended/closed

On Android, you can create your own background service. That service can be in its own process, i.e. it gets its own block of memory allocated to it. That way if your application gets terminated, the service lives on. However, a service can be terminated just like an app. So you cannot rely on the service always running, instead the service should be there to enhance your application. Further, Android gives you ways to get your service restarted/pinged on a regular basis to do work.

Originally Posted by danramos

So, Ubuntu server isn't a Linux distribution until you decide to install X11? Or does it just need to be available? Does that mean Android is now a Linux distribution thanks to that X11 project being AVAILABLE for Android? You seem to be playing some odd game of semantics that doesn't really seem to fit a solid explanation or definition.

Originally Posted by danramos

I was also aware of Maemo/MeeGo's limited features as well--it still seems to need the further installation of Debian and libraries to still satisfy much of your definition of a Linux operating system.

Originally Posted by danramos

Maemo/MeeGo is very interesting compared to say, Windows Phone, due to its Linux origins. But it lacks many, many MORE Linux features from Android. (What version of the Linux kernel are you up to on Maemo/MeeGo, now?