View Single Post
Posts: 1,513 | Thanked: 2,248 times | Joined on Mar 2006 @ US
#6
Thanks for your good, intelligent and constructive comments. I have a couple of things to add.

Originally Posted by Benson View Post
No, it won't. It's a lot easier to write something meant to be open than to open something meant to be closed.

And I'm cautiously optimistic that that's exactly the path they're following -- Maemo 5 is certainly more open than the previous versions, and Meego is definitely shaping up to be more open yet. Given the relative difficulty of running old OSes on new hardware (if only because nobody cares to make it happen), I'd rather have a modern computer with a fully-open platform layer 2 years from now, than have a fully-open (even including applications) Maemo 5 at the same time, and be stuck running it on my N900.
First, is that you are of course looking at this from the current perspective. Let's time warp ourselves back to the introduction of Maemo. Maemo was pushed by Nokia as the open source alternative to other mobile platforms and encouraged it in that way (and others did as well). At various points along the way, people realized that Maemo wasn't going to live up to the open source promise. In that sense, we are not in the position, IMHO, of asking Nokia to open something meant to be closed. The community should be allowed to maintain software that was posited as being open and able to be maintained by the community.

Second, Symbian. Closed for many years and never described as open, and yet they did the heavy lifting necessary to open source it when there was no preexisting expectation that they would. It can be done.

Originally Posted by Benson View Post
And what does Nokia get, in return for this huge effort and expense, to open old closed-source components?

A measure of community goodwill, from the community surrounding the old device. So opening Diablo would greatly boost Nokia's trust with all the people who won't buy the N900 because they don't want a phone/are married to an incompatible carrier/are presbyopic and need a larger screen, as well as with the old guard who did upgrade. Much less (although still some) effect for people who got in at step 4.

I suppose they may feel some moral relief about no longer providing bugfixes, but corporations don't run on morals.

All in all, making Meego more open seems to have much better ROI.
The arguments being advanced for opening Maemo components is not ROI or morals. There is a history here and decision shouldn't be made based on a shapshot of today's circumstances. If so, then see my comments below.

Originally Posted by Benson View Post

And I'm cautiously optimistic that that's exactly the path they're following -- Maemo 5 is certainly more open than the previous versions, and Meego is definitely shaping up to be more open yet. Given the relative difficulty of running old OSes on new hardware (if only because nobody cares to make it happen), I'd rather have a modern computer with a fully-open platform layer 2 years from now, than have a fully-open (even including applications) Maemo 5 at the same time, and be stuck running it on my N900.
Much the same thing could have been said two years ago -

"Maemo 4 is certainly more open than other platforms, and Fremantle is definitely shaping up to be more open yet. Given the relative incompatibility of the new OMAP chips, I'd rather have a modern computer with Fremantle 2 years from now, than have a fully-open (even including applications) Maemo 4 at the same time, and be stuck running it on my N8x0."

See how I did that? It seems like we are in danger of accepting a recurring pattern of using technology upgrades as the reason for abandoning the open source approach. If so, when does the pattern end? What comes after MeeGo? This is the forced software upgrade roller coaster to which open source Maemo was supposed to be the alternative.
__________________
3-time Maemo Community Council Member
Co-Founder, Hildon Foundation
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SD69 For This Useful Post: