Active Topics
-
[Announce] genwall a simple iptables firewall (90)
to Applications by paoletto - 1 day, 8 hrs ago -
N9 as WiFi repeater/extender? (1)
to Nokia N9 / N950 by paoletto - 1 day, 9 hrs ago -
Sailfish OS flashing files (89)
to SailfishOS by monkeyisland - 2 days, 9 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2009-08-30
, 22:09
|
|
Posts: 294 |
Thanked: 174 times |
Joined on Apr 2007
|
#12
|
Originally Posted by sovok
This post talks about openness, and points out it is more than merely what license you have.
I don't want to start a flamewar here and i like the idea of maemo.
Anyways let me give you my thoughts on your comment.
The OS is completely open and under Apache license.
Whats not open are some apps like Google Maps and Google Mail but those are not important to the OS and can be replaced with one click.
Also parts of the SDK are not open but still thats not that important to the OS.
Android is not as standardized as maemo meaning its not using stuff like gtk, x11 and qt but still googles replacements for those are open source.
True. However i don't like/support any hard combination between hardware and OS no mater if it's Palm and WebOS, Apple and iPhone OS or Nokia and Maemo. As a developer i want to reach devices of as many manufaturers as possible without having to modify the application each time.
Hopefully maemo will move into this direction. I remember that Nokia created a mobile alliance similar to Androids OHA a while ago.
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=309621&postcount=1
| The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to jandmdickerson For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-08-30
, 23:18
|
|
Posts: 10 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
|
#13
|
Nice article.
Of course i meant open in the sense of open source.
Openness is a whole different topic and the various branches of Android are of course driven by different companies on their own with the hope that much of it will come back to the main version.
Of course i meant open in the sense of open source.
Openness is a whole different topic and the various branches of Android are of course driven by different companies on their own with the hope that much of it will come back to the main version.
|
|
2009-08-31
, 01:17
|
|
Posts: 1,950 |
Thanked: 1,174 times |
Joined on Jan 2008
@ Seattle, USA
|
#14
|
I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that ...
While Android is sort of Open Source, the handset manufacturers are entitled (obligated?) to lock down the operation of it so that it is open for the manufacturers to adapt it for their specific devices, but that the users can't access (and modify) its guts once it's embedded in a device.
While Android is sort of Open Source, the handset manufacturers are entitled (obligated?) to lock down the operation of it so that it is open for the manufacturers to adapt it for their specific devices, but that the users can't access (and modify) its guts once it's embedded in a device.
| The Following User Says Thank You to GeraldKo For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-08-31
, 03:11
|
|
Posts: 93 |
Thanked: 52 times |
Joined on Oct 2008
@ Victoria BC Canada
|
#15
|
Originally Posted by sovok
Okay, this is way off-topic but I can't resist. What you see as a problem, I see as an advantage. Eventually, the concept of paying for a copy of something (song, application, whatever) will be on the trash-heap where it belongs. Selling copies of something that can be copied for free is just plain crazy; and, in the information age, everything can be copied for free.
...As a developer i want to reach devices of as many manufaturers as possible without having to modify the application each time.
Once most everything has moved over to a pay-for-production model, as I expect it will, then having a bunch of different platforms that require customised code will be an advantage to the developer. It will allow the same thing to be sold over and over again to different niche markets. The actual size of the market won't be very important as it will only take a select group of people, people that care, to fund production, to pay the developer. The rest are not going to pay anyway, no matter how many of them there are.
In the future, I see a lot of both closed and open source developers making a living off long-tail support for non-standard platforms. I fact, I see so much of this happening that the drive to standardisation that you express will go into reverse. I see developers jumping at the chance to support weird, non-standard platforms, because that's where they'll be able to make money. I know, it sounds backwards, but that's what I think will happen when the current pay-for-consumption model collapses. It's teetering now.
See Keliso for more on this.
David...
 |
|
2009-08-31
, 09:58
|
|
Posts: 1,665 |
Thanked: 1,649 times |
Joined on Jun 2008
@ Praha, Czech Republic
|
#16
|
For the reasons why some packages are not open source also see http://wiki.maemo.org/Why_the_closed_packages .
__________________
maemo.org Bugmaster
maemo.org Bugmaster
| The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Andre Klapper For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-08-31
, 10:51
|
|
Posts: 10 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
|
#17
|
Originally Posted by GeraldKo
You are right that Android devices while using open source are
I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that ...
While Android is sort of Open Source, the handset manufacturers are entitled (obligated?) to lock down the operation of it so that it is open for the manufacturers to adapt it for their specific devices, but that the users can't access (and modify) its guts once it's embedded in a device.
usually (manufaturer choice) locked down and can't be modified by the end-user.
The openness of Android is solely targeted at manufacturers not at users and any manufaturer got the choice of how open his implementation is and how customizable his device is.
@fixerdave
Sorry but i disagree with you from the first to the last word.
The ability to copy banknotes using a high-end printer doesn't mean you got the moral or lawfull right to do so.
Same is true for stealing the recipe of CocaCola and replicating their drinks.
Standardization is in most cases a big gain for computer science.
| The Following User Says Thank You to sovok For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-08-31
, 14:39
|
|
Posts: 3,397 |
Thanked: 1,212 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Netherlands
|
#18
|
Originally Posted by sovok
Are Google Maps and Google Mail part of the OS yes or no? If yes, the OS is not completely open. If no, they don't deserve to be mentioned because they're an add-on.
The OS is completely open and under Apache license.
Whats not open are some apps like Google Maps and Google Mail but those are not important to the OS and can be replaced with one click.
Also parts of the SDK are not open but still thats not that important to the OS.
Android is not as standardized as maemo meaning its not using stuff like gtk, x11 and qt but still googles replacements for those are open source.
__________________
Goosfraba! All text written by allnameswereout is public domain unless stated otherwise. Thank you for sharing your output!
Goosfraba! All text written by allnameswereout is public domain unless stated otherwise. Thank you for sharing your output!
|
|
2009-08-31
, 15:39
|
|
Posts: 10 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
|
#19
|
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
It depends on the licensing model of Android.
Are Google Maps and Google Mail part of the OS yes or no? If yes, the OS is not completely open. If no, they don't deserve to be mentioned because they're an add-on.
There are 3 Models and in the least restrictive "do whatever you want"-license they are not included.
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
I got no idea.
IMO its more important to understand why (for Maemo reference see Andre Klapper's post above).
I hope its because they are moving step-by-step and it will become open source over time (Like the OS).
Originally Posted by allnameswereout
I got no idea why they didn't use a X11/GTK/QT combination.
Which is why its as problematic as iPhoneOS to me. Sometimes, using open or defacto standards is more important than open source. Sometimes, a proprietary yet compatible product is better than an open source product which does not use open or defacto standards. Case in point: X11. TCP/IP stack. No X11 or TCP/IP stack sucks for me.
Would be interesting to find a statement from Google about that. Maybe it's because the application model is much different in concept or maybe they thought X11 is just too old.
|
|
2009-08-31
, 15:57
|
|
Posts: 1,513 |
Thanked: 2,248 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ US
|
#20
|
Originally Posted by GeraldKo
Entitled but not obligated. Maybe there is something we don't know, but from what I know so far, it seems to me that people should be scrutinizing the manufacturers who are locking down their devices rather than the party who provided the FOSS in the first place.
I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that ...
While Android is sort of Open Source, the handset manufacturers are entitled (obligated?) to lock down the operation of it so that it is open for the manufacturers to adapt it for their specific devices, but that the users can't access (and modify) its guts once it's embedded in a device.
Anyways let me give you my thoughts on your comment.
Whats not open are some apps like Google Maps and Google Mail but those are not important to the OS and can be replaced with one click.
Also parts of the SDK are not open but still thats not that important to the OS.
Android is not as standardized as maemo meaning its not using stuff like gtk, x11 and qt but still googles replacements for those are open source.
Hopefully maemo will move into this direction. I remember that Nokia created a mobile alliance similar to Androids OHA a while ago.