Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Technology

Windows 7 Phone Gets Jailbreak Tool 159

Posted by CmdrTaco from the happens-to-all-of-us-eventually dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Developers have released a 'jailbreak' tool for Microsoft's Windows Phone 7, allowing the handsets to run any application, not just those approved for distribution through Microsoft's Marketplace. Although reminiscent of jailbreak tools for the iPhone, this tool, called ChevronWP7, addresses a feature missing in Microsoft's Windows Phone 7. It allows corporations to develop proprietary applications and install them on users' handsets without the need to first place the application on Marketplace, as is currently required by Microsoft."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 7 Phone Gets Jailbreak Tool More

Windows 7 Phone Gets Jailbreak Tool

Comments Filter:

  • It allows corporations to develop proprietary applications and install them on users' handsets

    Any chance the jailbreak comes with the option to disable this functionality?

    • It allows corporations to develop proprietary applications and install them on users' handsets

      Any chance the jailbreak comes with the option to disable this functionality?

      Corporations are not going to be able to use this tool to install applications on general users' handsets without permission.

      That line should read 'employees' handsets' not 'user's handsets'. That's a feature.

    • "It allows corporations to develop proprietary applications and install them on users' handsets"

      Any chance the jailbreak comes with the option to disable this functionality?

      If it's their phone, why are you trying to stop it? If it's your phone, why are you hooking it up to your company's servers?

      I read this as more of an in-house corporate thing, as opposed to carriers. Though, I guess it's stupid of me to assume the carriers won't ultimately muck up your phone with crap they want to install (which I'm su

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ephemeriis ( 315124 )

      It allows corporations to develop proprietary applications and install them on users' handsets without the need to first place the application on Marketplace, as is currently required by Microsoft.

      Any chance the jailbreak comes with the option to disable this functionality?

      Why?

      Isn't the whole point of jailbreaking a phone like this so that you can run your own code on it? So that you're not tied to the marketplace?

      Why would you go to the trouble of jailbreaking a phone if you didn't want to run code on it that was not marketplace-approved?

      If you don't want that feature, don't jailbreak your phone.

      • I think he means the option to disable the ability for corporations to push applications to users handsets. I also think he is mistaken in the purpose and functionality of the feature.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by spazdor ( 902907 )

          To be fair, the summary (and the article it quotes) does a completely miserable job of describing the feature in question.

  • Not a jailbreak (Score:3, Informative)

    by The MAZZTer ( 911996 ) <megazzt.gmail@com> on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @11:45AM (#34390062) Homepage
    According to this guy [withinwindows.com] it uses the same APIs as the Windows phone developer tools do.

    • It's an API! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @11:53AM (#34390178) Journal

      According to this guy [withinwindows.com] it uses the same APIs as the Windows phone developer tools do.

      Yep this is just a trick. Microsoft has released a veiled "Jailbreak" and by the time you're done coding your application for your Jailbroke Windows 7 Phone, you'll realize that you just coded a WinCE application for a mobile phone! Even worse, you purchased one thinking you could jailbreak it!

      Sincerely,

      Admiral Ackbar

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mlts ( 1038732 ) *

        Windows CE isn't a bad OS. I wished MS could have taken a different tack, but I sort of understand how they are going with WP7:

        1: Release as closed as possible.
        2: Add functionality.

        The reason for this is that if they continued with the "open" platform of WM6.5, eventually there would be malware on the platform and the whole ecosystem would be known for being "insecure" just as users bash Windows on their PC for being "insecure" (when it is their own fault for installing pr0nviewerxxx.exe, or they get nai

        • Re:It's an API! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Microlith ( 54737 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @12:27PM (#34390754)

          if they continued with the "open" platform of WM6.5, eventually there would be malware on the platform and the whole ecosystem would be known for being "insecure" just as users bash Windows on their PC for being "insecure"

          Really? All they'd have to do is make it a user optional switch with respect to non-store software and flip it to off by default, and make the store prominent. They'd probably never have an issue. Forcibly locking the system down with no opt-out doesn't help security at all.

          Like Apple, this is all about total control over the end user and using that control to route them through profit centers (and I don't believe for a moment that these stores will not be profitable, otherwise what's the point.)

          • Most instances of malware on the Windows desktop operating system are due to users actively installing malicious programs, security warnings and toggle switches be damned. Malware is much more dangerous for MS than it is for Google or Android, because of the association consumers have between viruses and windows. Suddenly Apple is making "I'm an iPhone, I'm a Windows Phone" ads touting WP7 as the same old MS junk.

      • I'm waiting for the story about how Microsoft meant their phone to be open and how they support the movement.

        • Microsoft's response (some time last week, this isn't 'new') was basically, "you get the best experience if you stay with the way the handset designers give it to you". As in, they're not saying yes or no, just the ambiguous we'd just rather you didn't.

      • Yep this is just a trick.

        And then you signed it -

        Admiral Ackbar

        Didn't you mean "It's a trap!"

    • According to this guy [withinwindows.com] it uses the same APIs as the Windows phone developer tools do.

      It doesn't matter what you call it if you can circumvent the "app store" jail and load applications directly.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tdyer ( 1399659 )
      And Since Raphael (co)wrote the tool in question its a good idea to listen to him. Also not a jailbreak. Merely allows sideloading of apps. Doesn't do SIM unlocks or anything else. And microsoft does allow Corporations to side load app's. if you know who to ask...

      • And microsoft does allow Corporations to side load app's. if you know who to ask...

        You mean Jeff @ ext 54342? Yeah, he's great!

      • Who do you ask? I haven't heard of any company getting special permissions except Adobe (because Microsoft really wants Flash) and the carriers/phone manufacturers (for obvious reasons). Do you know of any company that has gotten permission from MS to sideload apps, or is this just a rumor you heard?

    • If this is not a jailbreak than neither are the iPhone jailbreaks, with those you use the same developer tools also...

  • I had no idea MS were doing the same thing as Apple, exercising completely control over what applications you have permission to install on a device you purchased. Why would they copy Apple in this area?

    • IMO they are just trying to copy iPhone 1's success(forgetting that was a few years back) for more explaination: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1864010&cid=34195594 [slashdot.org]

      • Re:Huh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Missing.Matter ( 1845576 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @12:27PM (#34390742)

        Original iPhone lacked 3G, MMS, video recording, third party apps of any kind, and of course an app store. To top it off, it cost $500-$600, came on one carrier, and a single form factor for all. This, on top of multitasking and copy/paste. If the only two things you can pick out are cp/multitasking, you're just grasping at straws to find shortcomings of the platform.

        The fact is, these shortcomings of the iPhone were vehemently defended by Apple aficionados. Before June 21, 2010, the official line from Apple users was "Who needs multitasking on a phone?" Now it's some sort of benchmark for the success/failure of a platform, despite the fact that the iPhone earned most of its respect before iOS 4.0.

        I understand that today, iPhone does have multitasking/c&p, and I agree it's a shortcoming of the WP7 platform, but I don't think it's a deal killer as there are other reasons to want one of the phones (xbox integration, wireless sync, zunepass, and office integration are my major interests in the platform), and they're sure to be introduced in future updates.

        • I still say, "Who needs multitasking on a phone?" There are a few set things that I'd like to be able to run in the background, but I don't need real multitasking. I don't need to be able to edit word documents while watching a Netflix movie. I don't need the phone to be displaying an ebook in the background while I'm using the display to display web pages. All that stuff just wastes RAM and CPU cycles. Everyone recognizes this.

          In truth, Microsoft is copying Apple here in a very particular way: they'r

          • I don't need to be able to edit word documents while watching a Netflix movie.

            The funny thing is, iPhone (or at least iPad, because that's my only experience with iOS 4) still can't do this. When you switch out of the netflix app, the movie stops playing, and sometimes even quits playing when you return to the app.

            • Why is that a funny thing? You don't need to have a movie running the the background when you aren't watching it. Decoding video that isn't being displayed is a waste of power.

              • The scenario I run in to is while I'm watching a movie, I might recognize one of the actors and want to know what I've seen him in. So I launch the IMDB app. Netflix will stop playback entirely; when I go to resume, it's not a matter of hitting unpause, but restarting the viewing session. Sometimes playback resumes from where I left off, sometimes not. It seems to be random.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Cyberax ( 705495 )

          The problem is, back then iPhone was the first mass-market phone with usable browser and multitouch. These were the killer features then.

          But by now, every phone has them. And lots more.

          • Right, but judging the entire platform based on the lack or inclusion of c&p/multitasking is myopic. Despite theese features, WP7 does what other platforms do very well, and better in some situations (for example, I like the camera app better on WP7 compared to iPhone, and every WP7 device is required to have a dedicated hardware camera button, whereas iPhone is a software button you have to tap on the screen).

            Further I feel that WP7 offers value that the iPhone or Android can't match like Xbox integrat

        • It's my understanding the WP7 does indeed do multi-tasking, in the same way that the current iPhone does it.

          • WP7 offers the same multitasking capabilities as the pre iOS 4.0 iPhone, and in some ways goes beyond it. That is, on WP7 you can suspend an application so that when you launch it again, you're where you left off. This accounts for probably 75% of a users need to multitask, and must be implemented on a per application basis. WP7 calls it "tombstoning" (when the application is terminated, a record of its state, the tombstone, is created, and read when the application is launched again.)

            WP7 also supports push

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Because the community would rather have stable tested apps over the freedom to write and deploy their own apps... which the vast vast majority of them don't have the skills to do in the first place? That's my guess.

      Once again it is over the heads of the community here to see that people really don't want all this freedom in their computing platforms. They just want it to work. They pay for having a working gadget. Why does this escape the average Slashdotter?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Microlith ( 54737 )

        Because the community would rather have stable tested apps over the freedom to write and deploy their own apps... which the vast vast majority of them don't have the skills to do in the first place? That's my guess.

        You give Microsoft (and Apple) too much credit. It's all about routing users through their respective App Stores, which allow them to have complete control over the platform and turn every bit of functionality into a revenue source for themselves.

        Allowing users to sideload software defeats that e

        • Apple doesn't have this same restriction. I can easily build my own app and load it on my own phone (or companies phones) without going through the app store for iPhone.

          • Apple doesn't have this same restriction.

            Err, yes they do. On-device testing requires paying the $99 fee and you're limited in the number of handsets you can load it on. Additionally, you must load it on each handset manually as it cannot be distributed to end users directly without going through the App Store.

            No, Apple and Microsoft are in the same exact lock down boat here. Only differences are the APIs and the fees.

            • Yes you have to pay the $99 developer fee, but the rest is nonsense. Have you even looked at the iPhone business options, or are you simply spreading FUD?

              • Yes you have to pay the $99 developer fee

                Why should I have to pay one cent more to use my own property? I've been corrected on the developer having to load the software, but it's still a painfully manual process for users of ad-hoc packages.

                Have you even looked at the iPhone business options

                Why should I look at business options, I'm not a business.

                Why should I have to be a business to write and freely distribute software? Come on, defend DRM and lock down more please.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by grub ( 11606 )

                  Why should I have to pay one cent more to use my own property? I've been corrected on the developer having to load the software, but it's still a painfully manual process for users of ad-hoc packages.

                  Development packages such as Xcode aren't cheap to develop. Apple charges individuals a flat rate for access to the developer program.

                  $99 is a steal for all the tools they include.

                  • Development packages such as Xcode aren't cheap to develop.

                    But they give it out freely, with each OS.

                    Apple charges individuals a flat rate for access to the developer program.

                    No, they charge them the flat rate for the ability to test on hardware and post apps on the store.

                    $99 is a steal for all the tools they include.

                    I get all the tools freely from their website. And why should I have to pay $99 if I want to release an app for free, or work on my own device?

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by grub ( 11606 )
                      Ah shit, you're right. I forgot that I installed Xcode off my DVDs before I paid my $99. Mea culpa!

                • Yes i will defend DRM and lockdown, when it brings a product that is, IMHO, far superior to anything else on the market. Apple has brought some of the most innovative, useable products to the computing stage that have ever existed. I firmly believe that the iOS products would not be as good if you simply let users click a button or whatever to turn off the control apple has over the platform.

                  • Yes i will defend DRM and lockdown

                    Well, I suggest you give up your PC then. Oh and stop using any open source software. Pretty bad when people on Slashdot will aggressively and loudly defend DRM that serves no one but the vendor.

                    when it brings a product that is, IMHO, far superior to anything else on the market.

                    My point is that DRM and lock down are not necessary to bring a superior product.

                    I firmly believe that the iOS products would not be as good if you simply let users click a button or whatever to turn

                    • You're being an idealist. Everything is not black and white, good or bad. I know you really don't want to see it, but apple's lockdown is a part of what makes their products good. Mac OS X *is* more locked down than Linux or windows, or had you forgotten? And iOS is better than Mac OS X, at least for most everyday purposes. Sure it's not the only thing that makes the platform great, but it is an integral part. In a perfect world... Sure maybe we wouldn't need DRM or lockdown. Let me know when you find the r

                    • You're being an idealist.

                      The alternative is to be a defeatist who gives up and abdicates all control of mobile computing up to self-interested corporations.

                      I know you really don't want to see it, but apple's lockdown is a part of what makes their products good.

                      It's entirely peripheral.

                      Mac OS X *is* more locked down than Linux or windows, or had you forgotten?

                      It is? At worst it's equal with Windows, last I checked. I don't think they've started requiring kexts to be signed, or prohibit me from running arbitr

                    • Mac OS X *is* more locked down than Linux or windows

                      I realize that holes have been blown in nearly every sentence you've typed already, but I'd love to see you explain how OSX is more locked down than Windows. Please proceed.

                      (Oh, and if you'd like to back up the ridiculous statement that iOS is better than OSX, feel free to do that as well.)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hsmith ( 818216 )
          You don't need an App store to distribute your App with Apple. You can use Enterprise or Ad Hoc.

          But I guess "zomg apple sucks!" misinformation sounds better and gets you "Insightful"

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Microlith ( 54737 )

            You can use Enterprise

            Which is great if you're in an Enterprise.

            or Ad Hoc.

            Which requires you manually distribute it to a limited number of handsets.

            But go ahead, keep defending it with bad examples that still require you to pay $99.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by hsmith ( 818216 )
              No, enterprise does not require you to manually distribute it. Since iOS 4 there has been over their air distribution to unlimited handsets. The major drawback to enterprise is the 500 person threshold.

              Ad Hoc certainly has drawbacks, but certainly is doable if necessary but should be easier to distribute.

              Please, some more uneducated opinions. Lets bash Apple with what we think we know!

              • No, enterprise does not require you to manually distribute it.

                Right, but you're still required to be part of a 500 person company.

                Ad Hoc certainly has drawbacks, but certainly is doable if necessary but should be easier to distribute.

                Considering you have to bend over backwards to install it and are limited to 100 people, that's a huge drawback.

                Please, some more uneducated opinions.

                I apologize for not being fully studied on all the pitfalls and limitations on software distribution for an extremely restrictiv

              • So you agree with his assessment of both Enterprise (which he didn't say required manual distribution) and Ad Hoc, and yet you close with douchebaggery about "uneducated opinions"? What has /. become?
          • Apple's iPhone Enterprise Developer Program is only for companies with 500 or more employees, and ad-hoc is limited to 100 devices. What is for companies in the gap between 100 devices and 500 employees?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by hsmith ( 818216 )
              The 100 device limit for Ad Hoc is certainly a major drawback for non-enterprise accounts. I absolutely agree. Apples advice has been "setup 4 accounts" - which is just a PITA.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by LO0G ( 606364 )

          As I understand it, Apple doesn't make any profit from their app stores. Seriously. All the revenue they get barely pays for the cost of running the store.

          For Apple, the app store is a way of providing value to the expensive devices that they sell. I'm not sure what MSFT's motive is.

        • I've decided to make up a new word, Bistute, for an observation that the person writing probably thought was Astute, but instead is Bollocks.

          It's all about routing users through their respective App Stores, which allow them to have complete control over the platform

          Then how do you explain both Apple and Microsoft providing hooks to use device features from the open web, where anyone can charge for a web application if they like?

          If nothing else, it invalidates your assertion that they have "complete control"

      • Why do you believe the "No, never, not allowed, won't happen" approach is preferred over "Use at your own risk if you choose so" approach? Android has this little neat option "Allow applications from untrusted and 3rd party sources" which you must find in menu and enable manually. People who don't want unreliable apps leave the option unchecked and that's it. The users are completely free to remain within the stable, tested realm, but that's no reason to expressly forbid, fight and deny access to other apps

        • If the option exists, then eventually most people will be exposed to an app they really want but requires them to click that button and turn off the safety of the app store. I think it's fine to force people to jailbreak to get that kind if freedom on this kind of platform.

          • If the option exists, then eventually most people will be exposed to an app they really want but requires them to click that button and turn off the safety of the app store.

            Nonsense. Most people would likely never leave the safety of the App Store, and with a default of "off" for non-App Store software it's easy to encourage people to be a little more pro-active.

            Hell I'd be happy if doing so required you to power the unit down and hold a button as it powered on, so long as you so much as had the option of d

        • Android has this little neat option "Allow applications from untrusted and 3rd party sources" which you must find in menu

          The "Unknown sources" checkbox is nowhere to be found on a few AT&T handhelds (such as Motorola Backflip and HTC Aria), and I'm not aware of AT&T telling customers about this up-front.

      • Because the community would rather have stable tested apps over the freedom to write and deploy their own apps...

        You mean the apps that end up in the various stores are actually tested? Beyond "it installs" and checking the description given by the developer?

      • iOS apps are hardly guaranteed to be stable or safe. You don't know how many times I've downloaded an app update which completely erased all of my data, or completely crashed on startup.

    • Why would they copy Apple in this area?

      MS wants to put out a stable, good performing phone OS. Locking it down to vetted apps from people who register weeds out a lot of malware as well as a lot of apps that will make the performance of the battery and other apps terrible giving users the impression that the OS/phone sucks. Further, it gives MS more control in case they want to lock things down in future. It requires developers to learn MS's dev tools, thus adding yet another block to cement MS's domination of the desktop OS market. Additionally

      • Locking it down to vetted apps from people who register weeds out a lot of malware

        So does proper sandboxing of applications. See OLPC Bitfrost [laptop.org] for an example of how to do it right.

        as well as a lot of apps that will make the performance of the battery and other apps terrible

        Then the battery management application should list what applications have used the most energy, where energy is estimated from cumulative CPU time, camera time, GPS time, etc.

        Further, it gives MS more control in case they want to lock things down in future.

        This is the actual antifeature. Microsoft is intentionally selling what economists call damaged goods [wikipedia.org].

        • Locking it down to vetted apps from people who register weeds out a lot of malware

          So does proper sandboxing of applications. See OLPC Bitfrost [laptop.org] for an example of how to do it right.

          While I'm a big fan of Bitfrost style sandboxing, you're missing part of the picture here. Android, iOS, and Windows 7 Phone Edition, all use sandboxing already. But who configures the sandbox? Users clearly don't have the expertise, so like with the OLPC you end up with a vendor doing it for the user. That's what the App stores are.You go there and download apps and ACLs.

          as well as a lot of apps that will make the performance of the battery and other apps terrible

          Then the battery management application should list what applications have used the most energy, where energy is estimated from cumulative CPU time, camera time, GPS time, etc.

          Assuming doing that level of monitoring doesn't hurt performance itself, why do you think users will look at the "battery management" app

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by wvmarle ( 1070040 )

      I'm surprised too, but for a slightly different reason.

      Microsoft's stronghold is businesses. They always try to market as a one stop shop, providing all software from servers to desktops. Standardise on Microsoft is what many companies do. And MS seems to know that and cater to their needs with corporate installation keys, allowing companies to run their own update servers, etc.

      And bigger companies of course have their own internal applications as well - Microsoft should know that very well.

      It's only log

      • It's only logical to me that MS would market their phones to businesses first: it's also from MS so relative easy to market, and presumably relative straightforward integration in existing networks.

        MS has been trying to market phones to business for many years and getting beaten to death by RIM. They've poisoned their brand in the business smartphone market. Additionally, MS's modus operandi is to dominate a market first, then worry about making money. Business clients are not a big enough segment to pull that off overall, so they have to go after the iPhone and they need to concentrate somewhere first. If they gain any real market share, they'll go after business soon enough.

        I'm sure, like copy/past

      • Well here's the thing that most analysts won't tell you: the business market ultimately tends to go to whatever is considered a status symbol by executives. Blackberry's success in the enterprise market is only partially due to technical benefits of their devices/software. A lot of their success has been because around 10 years ago, someone decided that having a Blackberry was a symbol that you were extremely important.

        Frankly, iPhones started making inroads in the enterprise before they were technologic

    • Because Microsoft saw that Apple's users were happier with less flexibility.

      • "Happier"... or blissfully ignorant of any other option? (not meant to be offensive)

        • What's the difference? Those of us who care are aware of other options. Some of us who are aware of other options still don't care. I'd say they're happier.

    • Why would they copy Apple in this area?

      One might guess that Apple copied Microsoft. The App Store rate structure ($99/yr to develop on a device that you purchased, plus a 30% cut of sales) is almost word-for-word copied from App Hub (formerly XNA Creators Club) and Xbox Live Indie Games.

    • Why would they copy Apple in this area?

      Because the carriers want it.

      The carriers are doing the *exact same thing* with Android, too. The average Slashbot fandroid just doesn't like to admit it outright.

      • Last I checked only AT&T was doing it, and IIRC they did it to only two handsets (which were rooted anyway.) Do you know of others that don't allow non-Market software?

        • Last I checked only AT&T was doing it, and IIRC they did it to only two handsets (which were rooted anyway.) Do you know of others that don't allow non-Market software?

          Uh, most of them don't by default. Most require you to go through some set of machinations to jailbr... err... "root" the phone. AT&T just took it one step further by attempting to block the activity. And I absolutely guarantee you it'll only get worse.

          Carriers have absolutely *no* interest in allowing arbitrary software to run on

          • Uh, most of them don't by default.

            As I understand it, there's a dialog where you can explicitly allow non-Marketplace software, and this was removed only on the AT&T handsets. Rooting isn't necessary for that (while it is for other things) last I checked.

            That said, it is crap. They'd hate my N900, that's for sure.

            • That said, it is crap. They'd hate my N900, that's for sure.

              Correct. And fundamentally, that's my point. People are so shocked that Apple and Microsoft limit the software that can be installed on their phones, but fundamentally, it's the carriers that are primarily responsible for this. If Apple and Microsoft want to play in the smartphone game, they're stuck working with the requirements carriers place on them.

              IMHO, the only reason Google gets away with not enforcing this stuff more strictly is that a

              • People are so shocked that Apple and Microsoft limit the software that can be installed on their phones, but fundamentally, it's the carriers that are primarily responsible for this. If Apple and Microsoft want to play in the smartphone game, they're stuck working with the requirements carriers place on them.

                Nah, I have to call shenanigans. Android devices and handset vendors need the discounts, so they have to play ball. Apple does the exact same thing, but they also do it to devices like the iPod Touch,

                • Apple does the exact same thing, but they also do it to devices like the iPod Touch, iPad, and Apple TV and none of those have anything to do with the carriers.

                  They use the same OS, so why is that surprising? ie, it's as much collateral damage as anything else. And, frankly, they have no reason to treat those platforms differently... it creates software development, testing, deployment, and support headaches, as they would suddenly have to have different versions of the OS running on different platforms.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gmack ( 197796 )

            That is the price you pay for letting the carrier subsidize your phone My GeeksPhone One wasn't that expensive and came pre-rooted with a boot menu (selectable by holding camera+ volume up on startup) that lets me backup/restore the rom, load OS updates and export the ROM as a USB drive.

  • I'm totally shocked. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MrCrassic ( 994046 ) <deprecated@@@ema...il> on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @11:58AM (#34390270) Journal
    Nah, this could'nt have possibly been an inevitably of a locked-down operating system in the world of jailbroken iPhones and rooted Android devices...

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close