Maemo could easily have been adapted to run android apps as well and the capability was even commercially available before Elop took over.
The problem with that is the OHA, they were working on a non-Android operating system with Android compatibility and we saw from the fiasco with Aliyun OS that even supporting such an OS can get you booted from the OHA so most certainly Nokia wouldn't be involved in the Android development process which means they would have to wait until the source code was actually released in order to even start updating their Android compatibility system. They would always be behind with that methodology.
That page talks about the driver model, not the ABI.
Wrong, it talks about both.
Linux has a stable ABI, but not a stable driver model. Two completely different things.
Wrong again, the two most certainly are related. Since you either didn't read the link or couldn't comprehend it i'll quote a relevant passage from it:
The Linux driver model is different. For users, the goal is to provide the “Just Works” experience. The Linux model is that IHVs get the source code for their driver accepted into the mainline kernel. This entails a public peer review process to ensure that the driver code is of sufficient quality and does not have obvious bugs or security risks.3 Linux has neither a stable binary driver ABI nor a stable source-code driver Application Programming Interface (API). That is, there is no guarantee that an interface provided in one version of the kernel will be available in the next version, and portions of the ABI and API change in every kernel release.
GPL is what it is, nobody has to:
a/ License code they own the copyright to under the GPL
b/ Use any GPL code which others have freely licensed that way.
That's *freedom of choice*.
So your definition of 'freedom of choice' is simply the ability to use any software within the confines of its license? The point is that this limits what the user can do simply because the GPL software author doesn't like the ideology of the proprietary software author and refuses to co-operate in an attempt to force their ideology on the proprietary software author, the 'my way or the highway' approach. When shit doesn't work because free software artificially disallows it that is user-hostile.
Few homes need a PC any more, they can play Angry Birds and surf Facebook on their tablets and phones.
Yeah because that's all people did on their PCs, this idea that the majority of people just use devices to play Angry Birds and Facebook is so stupid, such tasks may be common to the majority of people but they most certainly aren't the only the things the majority of people do.
The latter is pro freedom and user friendly, while being third party developer hostile. The user's freedom simply matters more.
No, when it prevents me from having a working driver because the ideology of the driver author and the kernel author don't match that most certainly is user-hostile and anti-freedom! If i want to mix and match proprietary and free software that should be my choice to make, not anybody elses.
Point was that the discrete graphics card market is dead
Why is it that some people see a decline in a market and translate that to it being 'dead'? I suppose desktops and laptops are dead too? We might as well just ditch them and shift to....what?
it is a shrinking small sector and there is not even room for one player!
Really? In this multi-billion dollar a year industry there is not even room for one player? Why are they even bothering to make them then? If there's not even room for one player then the fact that there are 2 must be catastrophic to their bottom lines, they must be losing money hand over fist just supporting that market!
I don't doubt they could potentially see millions of users, but I do doubt that many - if any - of those users actually care about open source at all, in fact most of the software they will actually use will be closed-source anyway.
To elaborate further there are provisions to allow for non-free code to link to the kernel using its external interfaces. Though there is also a mechanism to override that such that certain interfaces can be marked such that they can only be linked to by GPL-compatible licensed code. I find the latter to be very anti-freedom and user-hostile though.
NVidia needs to partner with someone soon and a partnership between NVIdia and Amd is not a bad step to avoid a melt down to an all arm and intel duopoly.
By creating a monopoly in the discrete graphics card market, great idea.
Desktop Linux isn't really optimised for the touchscreen, which means you then need to take a keyboard a mouse with you, and at that point you may be better off with a ultrabook.
Since when do geeks care that the out-of-the-box experience isn't optimal? The whole point of hacking and openness is to make things work the way you want them to not being a negative nancy about how it isn't optimized for you yet.
"ABI" - Application Binary Interface. Linux has a stable ABI
No, not for kernel modules it doesn't and that's obviously what we are talking about here. The lack of a stable ABI for kernel modules is also the reason why version information is stored in modinfo and a kernel module only loaded if it matches the running kernel.
"Application" being the operative word here... noticeably inapplicable to drivers and only tangentially related to HAL.
You're taking that too literally, this document may help you gain a better understanding of this subject.
Yes, even the original one could run Linux, it's a Windows 8 PC with SecureBoot enabled but you can turn that off and install Linux if you want. I really thought more geeks would have done that.
I really thought the Surface Pro would have been the geeks' dream. Fullsize USB port, HDMI out, stylus, keyboard attachment, etc... and you can run Linux on it instead of Windows! It's like the N900 of tablets.
Apple is choosing what version of iOS I can and can't use on a device that *I OWN*.
To a degree, yes they do, but if you don't want to update then don't update. They push a compromise between performance, features and security and if you don't want that yet were still stupid enough to buy into that system then you're just a fool, you should have chosen an Android or perhaps an OpenMoko handset. This is how they operate, nobody forces you to use them so if you don't like it then use something else.
But it's free software and it's open source! That's the whole point, you can see what it's doing, verify that it's working as expected and if you don't like it, change it!
Stallman himself probably wouldn't have a problem with such a thing, as I don't believe he treats the 'mission pack' as software.
Wouldn't that depend on what the 'mission pack' actually is? I would think it would contain a great deal of scripting at the very least but in the real world probably quite a lot of code extending the basic engine, which would then likely be incompatible with the GPL.
The fact that many developers don't see it is irrelevant, if an app relies on some native library and that library does not exist then the app won't run, which is again why you cannot prove your assertion, that's why your assertion is false, these libraries do not exist on operating systems other than Linux.
Android apps rely on some native libraries, those native libraries are implemented on Linux (and some of it is linux-specific, like Bionic and SurfaceFlinger for example) so it is tied to Linux, you could - in theory - re-write and re-compile the native dependencies for another platform like you could for any application but until that is done it is tied to Linux. So show me it running on another operating system, swap the Linux kernel for the BSD one, actually show some proof instead of your continuing weasel words and idiocy.
But you know you are wrong, that's why you can't prove it but you just keep posting these pathetic weasel word posts, if it as simple as you say and there is no Linux-specifc code then you can just re-compile with a different kernel and it will work, but it will not work and you know it, frankly your aversion to providing proof is getting pretty pathetic.
So no more bullshit, no more weasel words, show me proof!
But seriously, the fact that the patent office is so messed up that this is the advice when it comes to reducing patent garbage... this launches a huge war in my head, between the pragmatic programmer and the idealistic open-source hacker.
This is fucking disgusting.
Well obviously it means acting within the current parameters of the system or making an effort to change the system and while I'm sure there is a percentage of people here willing to devote a small amount of time to finding prior art I doubt many will actually do anything to attempt change the patent system beyond complaining about it here.
Slashdot Mirror
Maemo could easily have been adapted to run android apps as well and the capability was even commercially available before Elop took over.
The problem with that is the OHA, they were working on a non-Android operating system with Android compatibility and we saw from the fiasco with Aliyun OS that even supporting such an OS can get you booted from the OHA so most certainly Nokia wouldn't be involved in the Android development process which means they would have to wait until the source code was actually released in order to even start updating their Android compatibility system. They would always be behind with that methodology.
That page talks about the driver model, not the ABI.
Wrong, it talks about both.
Linux has a stable ABI, but not a stable driver model. Two completely different things.
Wrong again, the two most certainly are related. Since you either didn't read the link or couldn't comprehend it i'll quote a relevant passage from it:
The Linux driver model is different. For users, the goal is to provide the “Just Works” experience. The Linux model is that IHVs get the source code for their driver accepted into the mainline kernel. This entails a public peer review process to ensure that the driver code is of sufficient quality and does not have obvious bugs or security risks.3 Linux has neither a stable binary driver ABI nor a stable source-code driver Application Programming Interface (API). That is, there is no guarantee that an interface provided in one version of the kernel will be available in the next version, and portions of the ABI and API change in every kernel release.
GPL is what it is, nobody has to:
a/ License code they own the copyright to under the GPL
b/ Use any GPL code which others have freely licensed that way.
That's *freedom of choice*.
So your definition of 'freedom of choice' is simply the ability to use any software within the confines of its license? The point is that this limits what the user can do simply because the GPL software author doesn't like the ideology of the proprietary software author and refuses to co-operate in an attempt to force their ideology on the proprietary software author, the 'my way or the highway' approach. When shit doesn't work because free software artificially disallows it that is user-hostile.
Few homes need a PC any more, they can play Angry Birds and surf Facebook on their tablets and phones.
Yeah because that's all people did on their PCs, this idea that the majority of people just use devices to play Angry Birds and Facebook is so stupid, such tasks may be common to the majority of people but they most certainly aren't the only the things the majority of people do.
The latter is pro freedom and user friendly, while being third party developer hostile. The user's freedom simply matters more.
No, when it prevents me from having a working driver because the ideology of the driver author and the kernel author don't match that most certainly is user-hostile and anti-freedom! If i want to mix and match proprietary and free software that should be my choice to make, not anybody elses.
Point was that the discrete graphics card market is dead
Why is it that some people see a decline in a market and translate that to it being 'dead'? I suppose desktops and laptops are dead too? We might as well just ditch them and shift to....what?
it is a shrinking small sector and there is not even room for one player!
Really? In this multi-billion dollar a year industry there is not even room for one player? Why are they even bothering to make them then? If there's not even room for one player then the fact that there are 2 must be catastrophic to their bottom lines, they must be losing money hand over fist just supporting that market!
I don't doubt they could potentially see millions of users, but I do doubt that many - if any - of those users actually care about open source at all, in fact most of the software they will actually use will be closed-source anyway.
To elaborate further there are provisions to allow for non-free code to link to the kernel using its external interfaces. Though there is also a mechanism to override that such that certain interfaces can be marked such that they can only be linked to by GPL-compatible licensed code. I find the latter to be very anti-freedom and user-hostile though.
I'm not advocating for it, just pointing out that the idea that Linux has a stable ABI (in the context of kernel modules) is completely bogus.
GPL?
Many companies ship the linux kernel with proprietary drivers, have a look at Android smartphones for many examples.
NVidia needs to partner with someone soon and a partnership between NVIdia and Amd is not a bad step to avoid a melt down to an all arm and intel duopoly.
By creating a monopoly in the discrete graphics card market, great idea.
Desktop Linux isn't really optimised for the touchscreen, which means you then need to take a keyboard a mouse with you, and at that point you may be better off with a ultrabook.
Since when do geeks care that the out-of-the-box experience isn't optimal? The whole point of hacking and openness is to make things work the way you want them to not being a negative nancy about how it isn't optimized for you yet.
I raise you an Acer Aspire S3-391-9499 Ultrabook with an i7 processor with 4gb ram and 128 Gb flash for about $600.
Lower resolution screen, no touchscreen, no stylus, not even close to an equivalent.
"ABI" - Application Binary Interface. Linux has a stable ABI
No, not for kernel modules it doesn't and that's obviously what we are talking about here. The lack of a stable ABI for kernel modules is also the reason why version information is stored in modinfo and a kernel module only loaded if it matches the running kernel.
"Application" being the operative word here... noticeably inapplicable to drivers and only tangentially related to HAL.
You're taking that too literally, this document may help you gain a better understanding of this subject.
SteamOS means millions of new users that care about open source software
I highly doubt that, in fact the users will primarily be using it for closed-source non-free DRM software, they don't care about open source.
will keep FOSS purists happy
I doubt that's a concern at all given that Steam is a distribution mechanism primarily for non-free DRM software.
S2Pro run Linux, really?
Yes, even the original one could run Linux, it's a Windows 8 PC with SecureBoot enabled but you can turn that off and install Linux if you want. I really thought more geeks would have done that.
I really thought the Surface Pro would have been the geeks' dream. Fullsize USB port, HDMI out, stylus, keyboard attachment, etc... and you can run Linux on it instead of Windows! It's like the N900 of tablets.
If nobody complains and remains quiet, nothing will ever change.
Why would you complain about it?
Apple is choosing what version of iOS I can and can't use on a device that *I OWN*.
To a degree, yes they do, but if you don't want to update then don't update. They push a compromise between performance, features and security and if you don't want that yet were still stupid enough to buy into that system then you're just a fool, you should have chosen an Android or perhaps an OpenMoko handset. This is how they operate, nobody forces you to use them so if you don't like it then use something else.
You must have an iPad 1.
No, an iPad 1 cannot even run iOS 6.1.3. In fact I'm pretty sure the last version of iOS the iPad 1 could run was 5.1.
But it's free software and it's open source! That's the whole point, you can see what it's doing, verify that it's working as expected and if you don't like it, change it!
Stallman himself probably wouldn't have a problem with such a thing, as I don't believe he treats the 'mission pack' as software.
Wouldn't that depend on what the 'mission pack' actually is? I would think it would contain a great deal of scripting at the very least but in the real world probably quite a lot of code extending the basic engine, which would then likely be incompatible with the GPL.
The fact that many developers don't see it is irrelevant, if an app relies on some native library and that library does not exist then the app won't run, which is again why you cannot prove your assertion, that's why your assertion is false, these libraries do not exist on operating systems other than Linux.
Android apps rely on some native libraries, those native libraries are implemented on Linux (and some of it is linux-specific, like Bionic and SurfaceFlinger for example) so it is tied to Linux, you could - in theory - re-write and re-compile the native dependencies for another platform like you could for any application but until that is done it is tied to Linux. So show me it running on another operating system, swap the Linux kernel for the BSD one, actually show some proof instead of your continuing weasel words and idiocy.
But you know you are wrong, that's why you can't prove it but you just keep posting these pathetic weasel word posts, if it as simple as you say and there is no Linux-specifc code then you can just re-compile with a different kernel and it will work, but it will not work and you know it, frankly your aversion to providing proof is getting pretty pathetic.
So no more bullshit, no more weasel words, show me proof!
But seriously, the fact that the patent office is so messed up that this is the advice when it comes to reducing patent garbage... this launches a huge war in my head, between the pragmatic programmer and the idealistic open-source hacker.
This is fucking disgusting.
Well obviously it means acting within the current parameters of the system or making an effort to change the system and while I'm sure there is a percentage of people here willing to devote a small amount of time to finding prior art I doubt many will actually do anything to attempt change the patent system beyond complaining about it here.