Talk:Bada

We don't know how open it is

According to Samsung's press release, bada is "open". However, that's pretty meaningless. Microsoft also calls everything it does "open". Before adding the word "open" to the article, I think we should wait to see what kind of license is attached to bada.--Lester 09:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly absolutely not "open", whatever your interpretation of open can be (unless you define open as closed). From the terms: "You may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof". Jon207 (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Bada is not an OS but a software platform

Bada is not actually an OS but just a software platform which can sit upon any OS and provide a single API to the applications. So the article should be rewritten with that in mind.Hypertonik (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? If we can confirm that it would be an interesting addition to the article. Do we know what the base OS of 1st gen bada devices is? I'm assuming that a linux-kernel is involved somewhere, but remember kernel != operating system.

I've been trying to google for exactly what the heck Bada is. Samsung's website is overloaded with marketese and none of the gadget / mobile blogs seem to be particularly clear on what the Bada proposition really is. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bada is just an extension to the OS in the mobile phone. S8500 Wave has OS based on linux created to work best on the current HW. That's what Samsung says. They want each mobile device to have its own OS that works best and use Bada for additional 3rd party apps. So, Bada is NOT an OS, its a software platform for mobile devices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.132.229 (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

So it's more like a virtual machine which runs on various OSes, but bada takes full control? Bizzybody (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Expected 2010 sales

The article quotes some bold statements of up to 50 million users this year. I don't think that relates to Samsung's official estimate well. The latest they've said is that

- they want to sell 24 million smartphones this year

- about half of their new smartphone models will come with Android, another third with Bada

Very roughly, one can deduce an estimate of 8 million Bada phones shipping this year, depending on which model is selling what amount. 50 million seems too unreasonable as to be mentioned here. Thoughts? --Repetition (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't do your own calculation. You need to cite a reliable source. That is, find a published prediction from a reliable publication. I think Samsung gave that original figure last year when they launched the project.--Lester 02:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved article under a new name

I moved the article under a new name since the current name was false. Bada uses different operating systems to create a platform for smartphone application development, but it is not an operating system itself. --Drieakko (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Usually these things are discussed first, before making the move. Every single vendor of every new operating system wants to call it a "platform". Android did the same, and Google called it a platform. In the end, it's still an operating system for running apps. We haven't seen any RTOS version of Bada, which was intended for feature phones. There may one day be 2 versions of Bada, or there may only be one, as feature phones get supplanted by smartphones. I'm going to move it back until there has been more discussion.--Lester 11:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion with one of the Samsungs' programmer who clearly stated that Android or Symbian are Operating Systems, which act as software platforms. It means that they take both roles as OS and as software platform. BADA, on the other hand is NOT OS but it's software platform only. I'll try to find the article, but BADA should be moved to software platforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.132.229 (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We know vendors want to call their OSes a platform, including Samsung, which describes Bada as a platform. However, whether Wikipedia should is a different matter. First you must define platform. Wikipedia has an article about Computer platforms.--Lester 11:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia's definition it's more like an API Framework. This comes from DR. Hankil Yoon (vice president of Samsung Product Strategy Team, Mobile Communications Division): "Bada is not an operating system built from the ground up. Instead, it's based on the existing Samsung feature phone platform. What Bada does is to add an API (application programming interface) layer which gives it a new look and allows developers access to hardware functions." So it seems to me that it's just a framework to access hardware capabilities of a current OS by 3rd party applications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.132.229 (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we already know that Samsung wants to call it a platform, not an OS, just like Google wants to call Android a platform, not an OS. Both are still operating systems. Just because there's a telephone stack doesn't mean its no longer an OS. In the case of Bada, there is currently one version, but there may possibly be two versions of Bada in the future if Samsung goes down the feature-phone route. But just because there may be more versions of it in future, still doesn't stop it from being an operating system. A 'platform' is taking one step back again, looking at the combination of hardware and software in its entirety. However, I believe that when people talk about Bada, they are talking about the software (OS) side.--Lester 01:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Then why not move it to bada (API framework)? Andries (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

"Bada application framework only allows one Bada application at a time. Multitasking is possible between the base applications stored in ROM and one Bada application.". Multitasking works ok on my phone. I tested it on several downloaded samsung apps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.181.195 (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization

guidelines at WP:MOSTM suggest that this article needs to be titled Bada rather than bada (see the part on Adidas, and the corresponding article). 118.90.97.210 (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes and guidelines at Wikipedia:Wikilawyering as well as Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy suggest that it's not really relevant. If it's styled as "bada" instead of "Bada", it's perfectly acceptable to title it that way. Those standard for articles reflect the norm, not the rule. 128.208.59.149 (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. Disambiguation page also moved, per comment below. - GTBacchus^(talk) 16:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Bada (operating system) → Bada – Primary topic. Page views: 54,530, 3,216, 110, 74. Marcus Qwertyus 00:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Clear primary topic, as shown by page views. Jenks24 (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • By the way, if the consensus is that the operating system is the primary topic, then Bada will need to be moved to Bada (disambiguation). Jenks24 (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Full HTML5 Support

HTML5 is not going to be finished for years, there is no way to have "Full" HTML5 Support 75.94.224.91 (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

kernel (and FreeBSD kernel)

Please do not add unverified information about FreeBSD kernel without reliable sources confirming this exactly. For example this changes: [1], [2].

Mentioned source - Open Source License Agreement - says only that some unspecified code under BSD license from FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD was used. It does not specify that a kernel was taken from FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD. This license agreement says that some code was used. It could be a whole kernel, part of kernel, part of one driver, an user space program or user space library. Or even something written in shell! The source does not confirm that FreeBSD kernel is used.

Another issue with this source - why FreeBSD kernel but not OpenBSD or NetBSD? Source mentions 3 of these projects so why FreeBSD was chosen? Maybe it was OpenBSD? Summarizing - mentioned source does not mention any kernel (nor FreeBSD kernel) used, so it does not confirm that fact. Please do not add this fact unless new reliable source is found. --KoziK (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. However, it's worth mentioning that it actually does use code from BSD systems, and not a single line from Linux, as evidenced by copyrights. Trasz (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is it under Linux?

I thought that it used its own RTOS/BSDs, why does the infobox say it is Linux? Ref 2 which supposedly says it is Linux doesn't even mention Linux, just saying "Kernel" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.194.248.68 (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)