View Single Post
Posts: 1,548 | Thanked: 7,510 times | Joined on Apr 2010 @ Czech Republic
#9
Originally Posted by jenix View Post
Now for SFOS, which from my understanding went further away from the open source idea with moving to the Sony Open Device Program. On the Sony devices, SFOS uses the bootloader and Android kernel provided with the device (which prevents Jolla from fixining certain bugs on the Xperia X, as they would have to migrate to the new kernel v4, provided by Sony). While the kernel can still be counted as open source (because it's a Linux kernel), it's making the whole handling much more difficult because it is no longer in the hands of Jolla to modify it.
I think (but anyone is free to correct me) that nothing really changed from before in this regard other than having more kernel-driver-blob bundles to choose from.

Before on Jolla sold devices they got one such bundle from the manufacturer and that was it, effectively locking the kernel version in place as the blobs would stop working if the kernel was rebased to newer version, but adding individual patches that don't change the internal API/ABI (such as CVE fixes) is fine.

Now the open device program provides more kernel-driver-blob bundles you can change from, but there might still be issues such as having to port all your patches to the new version, possible regressions in the kernel and drivers and apparently some issues with updating the drivers without reflashing the device.

Still, I personally prefer SFOS over Android any time. Open Source simply means that you can review the source code, not that this code is "good" in any way. With Android, my issue is less the closed source part of the Google Apps, but the whole ecosystem of Google with the goal of collecting as many data as possible. And this is present as well in the AOSP systems (regular "internet connection checks" to Google servers, default synchonization of all data, ...). Using an Android system always makes me paranoid that all and everything wants to grab my data. And while you can manage that for Apps quite well by now, you can't really restrict the core system (at least not without a big effort).
So the point "better having closed-source apps which you can replace easily than closed-source UI which you can't" isn't valid when you can't trust the company behind the whole system.
I agree that Sailfish OS is better fit in this regard that Android, but still not ideal due to some of the closed parts and other factors.

Some might still remember the discusions during the big Jolla investor crisis which killed the Tablet and overall looked pretty bleak at some times. The posibilities of community having to take over, alla Meamo/CSSU if Jolla goes under were discussed and it was far from easy. There will be no primary repos available, no flashable images (back then for Jolla devices, this improved with Sailfish X), many component would have to be fully replaced due to being closed source and thus could not be fixed without Jolla. Also withou the Jolla account system and services such as the am-I-online API the devices might be even just hard to use at all.

For Android you can do a community build of AOSP (well, of course without all.the Google services, but still functioning as a standalone OS) and many people use such builds, while this is not really possible for Sailfish OS at the moment. So if Sailfish OS should be a real alternative to Android as an independent OS it really should be also possible for the community to build and maintain a community version, which is the ultimate failsafe, for example if someone bans Jolla from providing their services in some country.
__________________
modRana: a flexible GPS navigation system
Mieru: a flexible manga and comic book reader
Universal Components - a solution for native looking yet component set independent QML appliactions (QtQuick Controls 2 & Silica supported as backends)
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to MartinK For This Useful Post: