Active Topics
-
Firefox with Leste (5)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 2 days, 19 hrs ago -
Handbook (2)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 3 days, 18 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2014-12-17
, 12:00
|
|
Posts: 3,404 |
Thanked: 4,474 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
@ Germany
|
#192
|
Originally Posted by pichlo
Given that Mer, the OS Sailfish is based on, is 100% open source, where are the contributions from the whining community?
On the other hand, opening the source completely and inviting the community to contribute would render Jolla the company obsolete. They need some kind of "job security"
__________________
Tidings - RSS and Podcast aggregator for Jolla - https://github.com/pycage/tidings
Cargo Dock - file/cloud manager for Jolla - https://github.com/pycage/cargodock
Tidings - RSS and Podcast aggregator for Jolla - https://github.com/pycage/tidings
Cargo Dock - file/cloud manager for Jolla - https://github.com/pycage/cargodock
 |
|
2014-12-17
, 12:17
|
|
Posts: 1,055 |
Thanked: 4,107 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Norway
|
#193
|
Originally Posted by pycage
I don't think that's an entirely fair comment to make.
Given that Mer, the OS Sailfish is based on, is 100% open source, where are the contributions from the whining community?
For one, there have been plenty of contributions along the way (look at the work the guys at Ispirata did to update a lot of packages, get gcc4.8 in shape, etc).
For another, the developer story for contributing changes to any of this stuff is way too convoluted (source spread over several locations, good luck finding which one to use, and how to build it, etc), and documentation is basically nonexistent outside of the heads of the people who have been working on it for a long time. Plus a few pieces (like SFOS platform SDK images) are internal only, which are kind of annoying.
I'd really like to see some focus on making 'getting started' on platform hacking a lot easier and more accessible.
__________________
i'm a Qt expert and former Jolla sailor (forever sailing, in spirit).
if you like, read more about me.
if you find me entertaining, or useful, thank me. if you don't, then tell me why.
i'm a Qt expert and former Jolla sailor (forever sailing, in spirit).
if you like, read more about me.
if you find me entertaining, or useful, thank me. if you don't, then tell me why.
| The Following 20 Users Say Thank You to w00t For This Useful Post: | ||
243kof, aegis, bluefoot, Dave999, Jordi, juiceme, mariusmssj, MartinK, mattaustin, mrsellout, OVK, pycage, r0kk3rz, rcolistete, seiichiro0185, szopin, thedead1440, Watchmaker, zamorph, ZogG | ||
 |
|
2014-12-17
, 13:21
|
|
Posts: 7,074 |
Thanked: 9,069 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Moon! It's not the East or the West side... it's the Dark Side
|
#194
|
Hey woot welcome back. Do you care to explain how these memory issues are related to upgrade of Qt version?
__________________
Do something for the climate today! Anything!
I don't trust poeple without a Nokia n900...
Do something for the climate today! Anything!
I don't trust poeple without a Nokia n900...
|
|
2014-12-17
, 13:47
|
|
Posts: 1,548 |
Thanked: 7,510 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
@ Czech Republic
|
#195
|
Originally Posted by pichlo
Well, not really - there are already quite many open source companies and they are doing just fine. The modus operandi is very different from a normal proprietary one but it is doable.
On the other hand, opening the source completely and inviting the community to contribute would render Jolla the company obsolete. They need some kind of "job security"
Having the full source code open does not make the primary author/contributor obsolete - they still have the trademarks, the needed infrastructure and the most know-how about the code. So they can much more easily do any modifications, add features and fix issues. Also the can set or very strongly influence the overall direction of the project.
So if wanted to fork the whole thing yourself, you would mostly need to invest a substantial amount of money to replicate the same capabilities the main contributor, invest more resources to keep your fork in sync with the main project and to keep any of your local modifications working. And on top of that you won't even be able to market the thing under the original known name.
So it is usually much easier (and cheaper) to cooperate in the frame of the original project - either to contribute the changes you need or pay for them to the original author, as they have the know-how to implement them for you in a reasonable time-frame. Or to pay for using the trademark, hardware adaptation, guaranteed support timeline and generally to assure that the project you are using will be there in the future.
__________________
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)
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)
 |
|
2014-12-17
, 15:19
|
|
Posts: 3,790 |
Thanked: 5,718 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#196
|
Originally Posted by w00t
Getting started on platform hacking - but also on all kinds of contributions to the whole system... As a wise man once described here:
For another, the developer story for contributing changes to any of this stuff is way too convoluted (source spread over several locations, good luck finding which one to use, and how to build it, etc), and documentation is basically nonexistent outside of the heads of the people who have been working on it for a long time. Plus a few pieces (like SFOS platform SDK images) are internal only, which are kind of annoying.
I'd really like to see some focus on making 'getting started' on platform hacking a lot easier and more accessible.
https://together.jolla.com/question/...#post-id-68154
Still my personal impression is (and I'd love to be corrected) that constructive input other that "feature request" here and "doesn't work sometimes" there is rare. Yes, it's difficult to get started, and it would be absurd to expect all of those who demand changes to actually contribute on a code level. But are there any users who contribute at all? Is there any benefit from having even parts of the code open?
| The Following User Says Thank You to benny1967 For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2014-12-17
, 18:22
|
|
Posts: 1,389 |
Thanked: 1,857 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Israel
|
#197
|
Originally Posted by aegis
All i can say that there are more apps at openrepos than in original store, so it's not lack of willing to develop devs, but not best opportunity/rules?
And you know 100% that they've not been contacting major app developers to get them to port their apps?
As well as contacting is one thing, helping and getting indie devs is other.
Originally Posted by aegis
Truely i was not talking about whatsapp specifically, i was talking about optimization, and with all my thoughts on Jolla, actually they did a great job on optimization, as android apps work better than on blackberry (at least for me), but the point is if something is not good, people point fingers on anything but not at Jolla.
In this case it is. Whatsapp don't like 3rd party apps so it's absolutely in their domain, not Jolla or anyone else.
From my point of view I'm totally happy there's no Whatsapp as I really don't think proprietary IM clients are a good thing. I can't see how you can be clamouring for open source on one hand and a closed protocol owned by Facebook on the other. Calling Jolla hypocritical sounds very hollow.
it's good to be fan, but not to follow blindly and think sometimes.
Originally Posted by aegis
They do use opensource and surely they push back to what they use(need). Same way as even Nvidia/MS or other company using Open source does.
Blatantly untrue. They use huge amounts of open source and push it upstream. If you mean 100% open source then you have a point, but a totally unreasonable one. Nobody does 100% open source and Jolla aren't claiming 100%.
They opened few things and i don't mind if even they do not open anything else, what bother me is they keep telling that they opensource and opensource friendly. All they need to opensource what was promised, to not talk about opensource if they do not open it. And if they ant to be open source friendly, they can start even with simple road map and public bug tracker (yeah we heard of soon for a year now)
Originally Posted by aegis
A lot of people did, i barely use Jolla (only for candy crash) so all i had is few reboots and sim cards disconnects when i tried phone (that's why i barely use it first place :P ).
Never had a problem so I've no idea what you mean.
But you can read posts on TJC to understand it's not me just imaginanig things.
Originally Posted by aegis
The problem that it takes a lot of noise and whinning and fights till something done.
Agreed there though I did get a spare battery. ;-)
I'll repeat myself:
The problem is that if there is something not good happening around Jolla, while TMO will bash apple/android/NAME_IT_ company if same will happen to them, but with Jolla people point fingers on anything but not at Jolla itself.
It's good to be fan, but not to follow blindly and people should look around and think sometimes.
|
|
2014-12-17
, 18:49
|
|
Posts: 285 |
Thanked: 1,900 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#198
|
Originally Posted by MartinK
Yes, however they are not doing it in consumer market but in enterprise. Their way of selling support (in way which is sometimes hard to extinguish from standard licensing fees) suits that world but it's pretty hard to do it in consumer space and mobile.
Well, not really - there are already quite many open source companies and they are doing just fine. The modus operandi is very different from a normal proprietary one but it is doable.
Having the full source code open does not make the primary author/contributor obsolete - they still have the trademarks, the needed infrastructure and the most know-how about the code. So they can much more easily do any modifications, add features and fix issues. Also the can set or very strongly influence the overall direction of the project.
|
|
2014-12-17
, 18:57
|
|
Posts: 1,389 |
Thanked: 1,857 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Israel
|
#199
|
Originally Posted by JulmaHerra
Tizen is OSS
Yes, however they are not doing it in consumer market but in enterprise. Their way of selling support (in way which is sometimes hard to extinguish from standard licensing fees) suits that world but it's pretty hard to do it in consumer space and mobile.
One Plus One uses opensource cynamogen
Originally Posted by JulmaHerra
So again, if you go android way, what's your difference between android and why we'll need one more andoird?
Company with very limited resources can easily be rendered obsolete by stronger parties who can basically take the project and ship products with enhanced closed source software bundled in. That's exactly what Google is doing with Android, now that it has become the "gold standard", more and more of their contribution is directed towards closed source parts which have significantly more features than their open source counterparts. It's very hard to see how company like Jolla could go fully Open Source and remain financially solvent.
Btw android has more open source AFAIk and there are fully opensource android flavours
- not allowing the notifications on lockscreen
- not integrating the notifications to the system-wide "alarm"-system
- making it work so that app has to be open in a window all-the-time, not in the background fully -> thus you are online, but this is not the way intended.
Just to name few. If those wouldnt be accurate, my apologies, anyway thats how i remember.
N900->Galaxy S->N9->Jolla/Lumia625
Last edited by andreas1; 2014-12-17 at 12:04.