Reply
Thread Tools
Posts: 345 | Thanked: 117 times | Joined on Jan 2010 @ uk
#21
If nothing else at least a great majority of people on this forum would love to be able to update their n900 hardware and be able to keep all that maemo 5 goodness on a more up to date device. I definitely would like to be able to do maemo 5 things on a newer, faster device.
 
Posts: 1,523 | Thanked: 1,997 times | Joined on Jul 2011 @ not your mom's FOSS basement
#22
Originally Posted by Hurrian View Post
WebOS is already highly optimized for phones. As an example, the way multitasking is done (cards instead of windows, as it's done in Maemo 5)

The only way I can think of improving WebOS is: overhaul it, making the UI use uxlaunch instead of the crazy, depend-on-several-services-that-are-not-dbus-and-X thing that it has now, and make it use DEB/RPM instead of the inadequate IPKG.

Oh, and a GRID of cards, not a stack of them. Like a hybrid of the N9 and Pre, swiping them away or into view.

Oh, and maybe migrate away from Mojo/Enyo to Tizen HTML5? The two are already quite similar.
Or at least OPKG for IPKG.

That Luna Manager is so awesome, if you sideload "apps", it's in a need for restart to show them in the list.

/me wants the grid view too. I don't get the stack view, if you are not really seeing what is open after the 3rd or 4th card.
 
Posts: 293 | Thanked: 81 times | Joined on Dec 2010 @ Al Quds, Isawiya
#23
i hope itll be ported to the Nokia N900!!!!!!
Even though its alreay done bu javispedro but not fully,
 
Posts: 1,523 | Thanked: 1,997 times | Joined on Jul 2011 @ not your mom's FOSS basement
#24
IIRC he didn't port the full OS, but the Mojo runtimes for 1.4x something.
 
Posts: 54 | Thanked: 19 times | Joined on Nov 2009 @ Milano
#25
Stupid Nokia, you should do the same for Maemo Closed Source Modules.
 
Posts: 432 | Thanked: 544 times | Joined on Feb 2011
#26
how about WebMo & WebGo..

Last edited by immi.shk; 2011-12-10 at 12:44.
 
Posts: 3,319 | Thanked: 5,610 times | Joined on Aug 2008 @ Finland
#27
Originally Posted by MartinK View Post
I don't mind everybody under the sun developing their own GUI framework but it should be possible to expect the availability of some of the most common GUI frameworks, even in the "there you have it, we don't guarantee anything" state.

There is just no hardware reason GTK, Qt or EFL couldn't run on the WebOS devices.

BTW, found something about Qt running on WebOS:
http://www.precentral.net/qt-app-pla...nning-palm-pre
http://blog.qt.nokia.com/2010/02/19/...-of-your-hand/
Unfortunately its rather old and I haven't found any recent developments during my brief search.
Qt was actually part of webOS (they used it for something internally) but the problem was twofold - that it wass officially off-limits for 3rd party apps, and that it was a fairly old version (4.6.x). Now, if the thing is really open source, it should be fairly trivial to upgrade that version to 4.8 and make it available to all applications (ideally, with a bit more work, through a proper QPA backend).
__________________
Blogging about mobile linux - The Penguin Moves!
Maintainer of PyQt (see introduction and docs), AppWatch, QuickBrownFox, etc
 

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to attila77 For This Useful Post:
Posts: 670 | Thanked: 747 times | Joined on Aug 2009 @ Kansas City, Missouri, USA
#28
Originally Posted by attila77 View Post
Qt was actually part of webOS (they used it for something internally) but the problem was twofold - that it wass officially off-limits for 3rd party apps, and that it was a fairly old version (4.6.x). Now, if the thing is really open source, it should be fairly trivial to upgrade that version to 4.8 and make it available to all applications (ideally, with a bit more work, through a proper QPA backend).
Yeah, you hit on 2 major points I was wondering about...

1. Is WebOS now ALL open, or is it like Maemo and Android - sorta open, that is, open except for the parts that aren't? I haven't found a straight answer yet.
2. How hard will it be to fully adapt current Qt for ease of further development?

But overall this has to be a good thing. A (relatively speaking) finished, attractive open source real mobile Linux operating system with some built-in name recognition for the general public. A few million people have seen or at least heard of WebOS. How many people on the street would know what Tizen is?
__________________
Registered Linux user #266531.
 
Posts: 1,225 | Thanked: 1,905 times | Joined on Feb 2011 @ Quezon City, Philippines
#29
Originally Posted by Crashdamage View Post
Yeah, you hit on 2 major points I was wondering about...

1. Is WebOS now ALL open, or is it like Maemo and Android - sorta open, that is, open except for the parts that aren't? I haven't found a straight answer yet.
2. How hard will it be to fully adapt current Qt for ease of further development?

But overall this has to be a good thing. A (relatively speaking) finished, attractive open source real mobile Linux operating system with some built-in name recognition for the general public. A few million people have seen or at least heard of WebOS. How many people on the street would know what Tizen is?
For obvious reasons, stuff such as the SGX driver isn't open source.

As it stands now, all the GPL components of WebOS are there, just like maemo.org. There isn't really much to open other than the UI and Enyo/Mojo.
__________________
N9 PR 1.3 Open Mode + kernel-plus for Harmattan
@kenweknot, working on Glacier for Nemo.
 
Posts: 2,802 | Thanked: 4,491 times | Joined on Nov 2007
#30
Originally Posted by attila77 View Post
Now, if the thing is really open source, it should be fairly trivial to upgrade that version to 4.8 and make it available to all applications
Ahem, if that's so trivial how come Diablo is still stuck with 4.5?

(though it seems to be porting Qt to WebOS is missing the point entirely)
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lma For This Useful Post:
Reply


 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:49.