Talk:Binary Runtime Environment for Wireless

message: Does anyone think the word hobbyist should be replaced with something else. When I think of a hobbyist I think of someone wanting to make a program just for fun or to show friends, not someone who want's to make a product to be sold on carrier decks. Technically it is still possible for hobbyists to make applications for BREW handsets and load it on the handsets (if they can get access to qualcoms app loader or a similar program), they just won't be able to sell it through carrier decks (correct??). I'm thinking of changing it from hobbyists to something like small devlopers. What does anyone think about this?  *Nov 2006*
: One of two conditions must be met in order to load a BREW applet onto a handset with the BREW AppLoader.  a) The handset must be specially configured as a "test" handset; these are not available to the general public.  b) The application must be True BREW certified and digitally signed, which is what the $400+ certification mentioned in the article is about.  This means that hobbyists are pretty much excluded from developing even for their *own* handset, let alone distribution through carriers. --Nephtes 18:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very sad to see folks dismissing hobbyists in such a cavalier, off-hand manner. Typical of the ignorance generally prevalent amongst the kids today. Wouldn't they PTP if they were to learn that if it weren't for a few dedicated hobbyists like MITS and Gary Kildall and many others that these twerps would still be hitchin' up their jeans and walking down to the local soda bar to chat with their few friends from the local neighborhood instead of FBing globally. What the current BREW program really means is that only larger corporations, trust fund kids and the porn industry will be developing apps for great phones like the LG Dare. How sad. JimScott (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about criticism section 

message: A few people said that BREW should be included in the Mobile development page, I'd be interested in any and all additions to the comparison chart.  Benjaminhill 01:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interested in BREW info for the [[Mobile Development]] page 

message: Seems unencylopedic to me. Mathiastck 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more wiki 

message: Profilers for C/C++ are expensive, whereas the J2ME environment comes with a profiler.'
When you take a look at Performance analysis#List of Profilers, you'll see there are GNU (i.e. free) profilers for C/C++, so generally speaking you cannot say C/C++ profilers are expensive. --Abdull 09:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profiler 

message: Does Sprint count as a carrier running a JVM ontop of BREW?  Mathiastck 02:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprint? 

message: There are enough incompatibilities among BREW handsets. Addressbooks are implemented so differently in phones of different manufacturers that custom approach is needed to distinguish Motorola from Samsung from Kyocera (field-based vs record-based phonebooks).
: There are three carrier names but only two types of phonebooks. Can we make the numbers match (Motorola and Samsung from Kyocera)? Or add another type of phonebook? I don't know anything about them and simple google searching didn't help. Thanks! --Daev 14:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  phonebooks 

message: On one hand, at first the article says:
The BREW Emulator... does not emulate handset's hardware. Instead... compiled to native code... obscure platform bugs related to memory alignment and various firmware related glitches make debugging applications without a BREW handset difficult. Developers must test their applications on real BREW-enabled handsets.
Later is says:
The development environment is standardized... and contains a well integrated emulator that properly reflects the behaviour of the actual device
Which one is it?
82.81.35.212 (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting info on emulators 

message: Much of the critisms of BREW are WP:OR.  While I agree with the issues expressed regarding frustration of hobbyists with signature costs, petitioning operators, and required test certifications, they can't just be voiced.  Criticisms must be attributed to a source.  I rewrote the critism section and the section about application development (I still need to add sources for the latter, but it's all straight summary of the content on the official BREW site).
Claims about platform specific bugs come off as contradictory, as the entire idea of a runtime environment is for it to work the same across all platforms.  It wouldn't surprise me if such bugs were indeed an issue, but any contradictory sounding claims really need sourcing.
The whole issue about benefiting large development houses as an advantage of BREW is pure conjecture. (I believe this is also discussed above).
Going into detail about specific file names is overkill for this type of article.  Readers interested in that level of detail should be reading the SDK documentation directly.
I can't find information concerning enabling and disabling apps based on handset free space.  It sound like something specific to certain versions or even certain operators.  I'm considering removing it. -Verdatum (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and OR issues 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Binary Runtime Environment for Wireless. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205050241/http://www.verisign.com:80/products-services/security-services/code-signing/brew-document-ids/index.html to http://www.verisign.com/products-services/security-services/code-signing/brew-document-ids/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified