Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 

Sorry, but that's plain stupid.

It is one thing to have bme, the GL driver and some pulseaudio GSM components closed (a rather interested hacker could probably get #1 and #3 reimplemented in a week, and NOONE is getting #2 opened in the near future).

It is an entire different thing to have 40% of the system closed.

If you really believe this important difference in openness level is moot then I'm sorry but I think you'll have a hard time forward porting _anything_, because it clearly shows your lack of experience.

Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 

That's a much more interesting point about Meego's openness that anything else made on this thread.

Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 

The feeling is mutual... Especially when one comes late to the topic (replying months after the discussion is over), and clearly hasn't read the abundance of examples given.

So tell me... If say, 5% of MeeGo is closed, and "40%" of Maemo is closed... If just one thing in that blob for MeeGo sees a major update in Meego 2.0, but a new blob isn't released for N900 CE, doesn't that mean you can't update? At the very least it means you'd have to backport the old interface into the new system, which even if you could, would break lots of things and probably make that port/platform an outcast. How is that "so much better"? Claiming one thing is vastly "better" because it's "more open" is a farce.

If you're comparing something 5% open vs something 5% closed, there may be a tangible difference. But MeeGo, for all it's community governance (see how long that lasted?) is still quite closed, in almost identical ways to Maemo. I'd wager if you tally the numbers, the difference between the two is under 10% when it comes to how much is closed, which makes arguing that point effectively moot.

I have a solid resume in micro systems design, close to 20 years of experience in the field, and am first signer on several patents through Xerox. I've worked in open and closed source systems in the past, and have extensive reverse engineering skills. So yeah, I totally lack experience. And I've clearly never ported anything.

But hey, think what you want to. If it helps you sleep better at night to have that "extra 5% openness" in MeeGo, you go for it. To me, the point is moot. Just as moot as caring about your thoughts about me, or your baseless aspersions to my character and credentials. :rolleyes:

Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 

[offtopic]
@woody14619 - I think you and estel are a must for the next council. Pure engineering, like it.
[/offtopic]

Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 

Supported development.


It is obvious that Maemo is today in a better shape than MeegoCE.
It at least seems obvious to me that development on the Meego platform is more active than on the Maemo one.
If I understood you correctly, you assume that Meego shouldn't be considered because "it is right now less functional than Maemo" or at least because "Nokia will stop support, or community support will be blocked due to closed bits, before MeegoCE reaches / brings a viable alternative to Maemo functionality"

This last one is definitely possible, but far from certain, which make the position "I would still like to see, just in case" highly defendable (yet not absolute).

As for the closed source bits, isn't there a strict inclusion of what is closed in MeegoCE in what is closed in Maemo?

Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 

While I'd love to... I really lack the time for it right now. I'd have to drop at least two other projects, one of which is a local non-profit that I really care about and want to see stay afloat. Until that's stable enough to not wobble every time I take a vacation, that's taking priority. I love having my gadget, but in the measure of things, it's not as important as a service that makes life changes for dozens of kids a year.

Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 

So, if you're going to do the backporting thing, don't you think it's more easy if it's 5% closed than 40%? Don't? Seriously? Seriously?

Look. I've run WebOS on the N900. A operating system that is more closed than Maemo. I studied the components that were open to understand what those that were closed did. And I've thanked god for every single component where they decided to reuse existing opensource code instead of reinventing the wheel.

You saying that "the more open components the better" isn't true as long as there's one single component that is closed just feels plain insulting to me. And probably insulting to all the people that have fight harder than you have for what has been opened. Or those who have reimplemented the parts that itched them most.

You mean Meego on the N900 I guess. Last time I saw Meego was still 100% open (and Intel even gets to release somewhat working graphics driver for free, something we have not yet seen from Nokia).

No, sorry. I can at least boot Meego on the N900 with only open components. I cannot do that with Maemo. I can probably consider replacing all what is closed in Meego within a lifetime. I cannot do that with Maemo.
Both are in a different league. You are calling the point moot way too early.

Sorry, but I keep my "baseless" accusation even more after reading your last post. You don't even know what the closed components in Meego for the N900 are.

*Sigh*. Well, go on with your opinion then. I do not want you to change it. I just want to avoid people quoting your post like it was the last truth ever spoken.

And please note that yes, an extra 5% of openess makes me and a lot of people sleep better. Means shorter night hacking sessions, thus longer sleep times. So you are right in this regard.

Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 

Yes and no. Activity on both is about the same last I looked. But then we've had a few major losses lately due to totally unrelated things. (Like university starting up again, and a couple of key players being students and/or teachers.) Lots of projects see summer activity, in part because folks in education, on either side of the desk, have summers off. :p

Which is really the position I took through most of this. I wish the project well. I just would hope that it's survival doesn't mandate Maemo going away (which some would seem to be advocating for).

Not entirely, but there's a very high correlation, yes.

Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 

Yes.

However, Meego is using more recent versions of the binary blobs. Therefore it is not a a literal "strict inclusion"; you cannot get the ones from Maemo. But they're just new versions of those you can get from Maemo.

Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 

I voted "No".