Maemo actually used GTK. It wasn't until Harmattan that they switched to Qt, though Maemo had both. And there's no reason you can't use any arbitrary GUI toolkit on Mer, as it doesn't specify any one toolkit to be used (Qt simply has to be included.)
Re:more HTML5 apps mantra; versus B2G
on
Tizen Reaches 1.0
·
· Score: 1
the EFL libraries that Samsung likes
That they like so much they hired the lead developer.
See a pattern here? (Yet Linux desktops continue to promote native development with GTK/Qt.)
Web development is good until you need performance. All of those platforms support native development.
Mozilla's Boot 2 Gecko is also "write HTML5 apps", but the phone's own software is also written in HTML5.
Only the UI layers. Of course, while I find B2G to be interesting, it will be crippled WRT software that needs performance without native development.
B2G's current stack is different from Tizen, it's being developed on Android kernel and runtime.
Yes, giving it a dependency on Google (since they are the only developers of bionic, and the forked kernel.
Re:Not a real succesor or maemo/meego?
on
Tizen Reaches 1.0
·
· Score: 1
While I will not argue your points (cause I agree with you and continue to use my N900 because there's nothing like it,) only the N9 got wide reach before Elop managed to cut it off at the knees. If Samsung pushes Tizen out and it gets a foothold, it's moot what APIs we prefer or what was used previously, as the users will be on EFL.
That said, if the devices aren't utterly crippled, I could see GTK/Qt available for these devices not long after.
Mer is structurally superior, IMO, but Tizen has actual vendor support at this point. Tizen does run on ARM (unless you know of some mobile Samsung device running an x86 processor...?)
I was confused as to why they trashed the debian roots of Maemo
Because Intel and the LF basically required as much to get support. And in the long run it's pretty much a wash.
I'd really like to see a cost analysis on how much money, manpower, and time were invested in the project.
All moot, and probably a footnote in Intel's quarterly reports.
What was the point? It sounded so together and with-it, but in the end it just got tossed in the bin.
The point was that both Nokia and Intel acknowledged that there was no sense in spending resources doing all the work of maintaining a Linux-derived mobile OS core in house when everything they were using to build them was already in the open. Samsung has been doing the same thing, and now they're pushing it into the open. Intel will throw resources to make sure it works on x86, and overall reduce costs for everyone that adopts it without the controlling entity having a vested interest in where it goes or assuming all development tasks on the code base.
Re:Not a real succesor or maemo/meego?
on
Tizen Reaches 1.0
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yet. Samsung will be bringing devices to the conference next week. The rumored hardware is the I9500, but the details are sparse as to the specs. Of course, for some reason these platforms need to have devices on the market... before there are devices on the market.
At least Samsung seems more serious about this than Intel (who like to throw around money) and less likely to suffer a coup d'etat like Nokia...
Well, if by "Tizen" you are referring to the GUI, then that's quite likely. If by "Tizen" you mean the underlying platform as a whole, that's up for debate. After all, it's a much more common stack than what Android utilizes, so even if you tossed Samsung's reference UI aside, it'd still be a useful platform.
If anything, Samsung wants it because they don't want to be bound to Google for all eternity.
Nokia, and the remaining non-WP, non-Symbian groups inside are stuck between a rock and a hard place due to the drastic shifts in the executive levels.
Re:Not a real succesor or maemo/meego?
on
Tizen Reaches 1.0
·
· Score: 1
it can't run meego apps. Or Maemo apps.
Not a huge problem, since there weren't all that many to begin with (the N9 does not count.) That said, it is a totally different platform. Not incompatible, but if you did native development you'll need to use EFL instead of GTK/Qt. Fortunately, as I noted before there's no huge base of software to convert.
it isn't a real linux, but just uses linux at a very low level (somewhat like android).
From what I've seen, all of the software in use except for a small handful of Samsung originated projects are existing open source technology, including Xorg and eglibc.
From what I read, the smartest thing to do would be to layer UEFI on top of Coreboot. This would give you compatibility with platforms already out in the wild while still having an open BIOS.
And Joe Average can take it down to $BigBoxComputerStore and get it fixed without having to worry about if they support his OS
Well, that's the advantage you have when you're a monopoly. You can guarantee support at the local $enormostore. For varying degrees of the phrase "support."
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that's exactly what the target was (initially at least).
I don't believe that was ever the goal of "Linux." If anything, it's more like it was when Linus started it up to serve his purposes, only now it serves the purposes of a lot of people.
"Barbara, not Barbie" is not here to argue in good faith. Her goal here, primarily, seems to be riling up people who like and enjoy using Linux, and otherwise think the GPL is a good idea.
For instance, in the last flamebait article I went back and forth with her as she (even now) continues to describe a flawed "workaround" that would allow proprietary vendors to violate the GPL in a way that couldn't be defended against. The logic is utterly broken, and seems more focused on hatred of and attempting to undermine the GPL rather than posing a rational argument or real technical flaw.
The irony of it is that as much as she hates the "cult" she describes, her own attitude and behavior don't paint her in any better light.
Since you're back (and still wrong) let's go over this.
copyright law says you do NOT create a derivative work until the "work" is fixed in some permanent media
The binary patch that you read to apply in memory is itself a derivative work. It is, in effect, linked against the binary and applied dynamically at runtime. Not the in memory copy, the patch itself. The Game Genie ruling doesn't even apply here.
Unless you're suggesting that, somehow, the patch in question is never itself fixed to a medium, but then how the hell do you get it to users.
Your hatred is incredible, and your attitude towards people who counter your arguments prove you are no better than those you claim to hate.
No, this why you have companies like Canonical. They give structure to a platform that has no uberdictator to decide where it goes.
Trying to force an entire, wide community of people with diverse needs, opinions, and goals to act as if they were part of a single organization is nigh upon impossible, and trying to suggest that they should do as such is to completely ignore the reality of the situation. A real solution will only happen when that's taken into account.
And then there's the problem of distros breaking on upgrades
I've had Windows break during upgrades. Windows is so terrible. *cough*
the prevalent WORKS_FOR_ME && WONT_FIX responses towards bugs, the really lousy bug-reporting scheme (I tried it with KDE, my cpu went to 100% and never even loaded the desktop, requiring a reinstall from scratch).
Ah, generalities and anecodes...
Then there's the lack of social skills among the "self-anointed."
Because the actions of a few give you license to bash an entire community.
Pointing out the problems invariably gets you labeled as a shill, an astroturfer, or worse.
Perhaps if done with less arrogance, aggressiveness, and spite it might go over better. Or you could just ignore them, instead of "waging war" and becoming their polar opposite.
The problem is that the discussion has been had many times, and the demand that is always made is that everyone give up what they're doing and go to work on some $unified_platform, with the decisions made by $unknown_dictator as if they were a single corporation. The problem is that unless you find a way to incentivize or inhibit people who disagree with how things are done, you will get differentiation. No one ever offers a solution to the people problem.
The issues with Linux have not changed in the past 10 years. It's disappointing that no progress has been made.
Perhaps this is because what you believe to be "issues" are not believed to be by the people doing the work?
for most people it's not as simple as putting the disk in and running the installer. You'll end up with devices that don't work and that Joe Average can't troubleshoot.
And when Joe Average has problems with Windows he's equally stuck.
it's still not easy enough for the general public.
And the people working on the various Linux distributions generally aren't targeting the general public. Faced with the marketing machine that is Apple and the monopoly that is Microsoft, what value is there?
The resources poured into Linux for desktop PCs would be better spent building a competent, truly private, truly free, easy to install and again, truly free - distro of Android.
So long as Android is developed behind closed doors it can never be "truly free." It will always go where Google will take it, and they've got the money and the vendor access to ensure their version is always what is used.
Why do we keep getting these posts that are deliberately chosen to incite flamewars between pro- and anti-Linux people?
Do we need to have more unhelpful arguments like the one yesterday when Samzenpus posted a dupe of a response to a dupe from back at the start of the year?
Your entire argument is irrelevant because I just realized that your "solution" is to patch the image with proprietary code. Effectively, your work is derivative. The Game Genie isn't derivative because it's basically a blind hex editor with a book full of individual offsets and values.
Now then, let's reset our point of argument here. No one's bitching about about proprietary kernel modules not being possible because people are already aware that you can load such binary blobs without issue, except that you'll get no support if a bug occurs while that module is loaded.
I'm pretty sure if you violated the FSF's copyrights by applying such a halfass "workaround" to say, GCC, I'm pretty sure they'd be knocking on your door in short order once they discovered it, and they'd probably win.
The GPL is holed below the water-line and won't last out the decade.
Except you're completely off base again. For your example to hold water, you would have to pay LabView an extra fee on top of the $1000 for a license, and if you then had to beg them permission for others to be able to use the things you wrote for it AND anything you wrote only worked for 120 days.
This has been shown to be wrong on so many levels.
Very well then. It's only explicitly prohibited in the Microsoft store, and in the stores you "can" use it the "open" or "free" parts are revoked by the store operator for the sake of their DRM.
There's a distinct difference between buying a device (and data plan, but not all Android devices are handsets) and having to pay EXTRA on top to run software on it. You have to buy an iPhone/iPad and an Android device. You have to pay extra to run your own software on the handset, and hope Apple blesses you if you want to do so for more than 120 days.
"Open Source" has nothing to do with cost.
Correct, but you're off base with your suggestion. And we're off topic. This is an anti-GPL bitch session, not lockdown bitch session.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a global market until I can move to the areas where the cost of living is cheaper and look for work on a whim. I can't, however.
It's a global market, but only for corporations.
Legally maybe, but reasonably?
Were you cheering for them as they trolled companies using Linux and demanded they pay for "Linux licenses?"
And if you were even remotely successful Microsoft would still threaten you. Patents are just one of Microsoft's weapons to wield against competitors.
MeeGo is RPM based.
MeeGo-Harmattan is DEB based, and (as I noted elsewhere) has more in common with Maemo than MeeGo.
Maemo actually used GTK. It wasn't until Harmattan that they switched to Qt, though Maemo had both. And there's no reason you can't use any arbitrary GUI toolkit on Mer, as it doesn't specify any one toolkit to be used (Qt simply has to be included.)
MeeGo != N9
The N9 has more in common with Maemo than MeeGo.
That they like so much they hired the lead developer.
Web development is good until you need performance. All of those platforms support native development.
Only the UI layers. Of course, while I find B2G to be interesting, it will be crippled WRT software that needs performance without native development.
Yes, giving it a dependency on Google (since they are the only developers of bionic, and the forked kernel.
While I will not argue your points (cause I agree with you and continue to use my N900 because there's nothing like it,) only the N9 got wide reach before Elop managed to cut it off at the knees. If Samsung pushes Tizen out and it gets a foothold, it's moot what APIs we prefer or what was used previously, as the users will be on EFL.
That said, if the devices aren't utterly crippled, I could see GTK/Qt available for these devices not long after.
Mer is structurally superior, IMO, but Tizen has actual vendor support at this point. Tizen does run on ARM (unless you know of some mobile Samsung device running an x86 processor...?)
Because Intel and the LF basically required as much to get support. And in the long run it's pretty much a wash.
All moot, and probably a footnote in Intel's quarterly reports.
The point was that both Nokia and Intel acknowledged that there was no sense in spending resources doing all the work of maintaining a Linux-derived mobile OS core in house when everything they were using to build them was already in the open. Samsung has been doing the same thing, and now they're pushing it into the open. Intel will throw resources to make sure it works on x86, and overall reduce costs for everyone that adopts it without the controlling entity having a vested interest in where it goes or assuming all development tasks on the code base.
Yet. Samsung will be bringing devices to the conference next week. The rumored hardware is the I9500, but the details are sparse as to the specs. Of course, for some reason these platforms need to have devices on the market... before there are devices on the market.
At least Samsung seems more serious about this than Intel (who like to throw around money) and less likely to suffer a coup d'etat like Nokia...
Well, if by "Tizen" you are referring to the GUI, then that's quite likely. If by "Tizen" you mean the underlying platform as a whole, that's up for debate. After all, it's a much more common stack than what Android utilizes, so even if you tossed Samsung's reference UI aside, it'd still be a useful platform.
If anything, Samsung wants it because they don't want to be bound to Google for all eternity.
Nokia, and the remaining non-WP, non-Symbian groups inside are stuck between a rock and a hard place due to the drastic shifts in the executive levels.
Not a huge problem, since there weren't all that many to begin with (the N9 does not count.) That said, it is a totally different platform. Not incompatible, but if you did native development you'll need to use EFL instead of GTK/Qt. Fortunately, as I noted before there's no huge base of software to convert.
From what I've seen, all of the software in use except for a small handful of Samsung originated projects are existing open source technology, including Xorg and eglibc.
From what I read, the smartest thing to do would be to layer UEFI on top of Coreboot. This would give you compatibility with platforms already out in the wild while still having an open BIOS.
Well, that's the advantage you have when you're a monopoly. You can guarantee support at the local $enormostore. For varying degrees of the phrase "support."
I don't believe that was ever the goal of "Linux." If anything, it's more like it was when Linus started it up to serve his purposes, only now it serves the purposes of a lot of people.
"Barbara, not Barbie" is not here to argue in good faith. Her goal here, primarily, seems to be riling up people who like and enjoy using Linux, and otherwise think the GPL is a good idea.
For instance, in the last flamebait article I went back and forth with her as she (even now) continues to describe a flawed "workaround" that would allow proprietary vendors to violate the GPL in a way that couldn't be defended against. The logic is utterly broken, and seems more focused on hatred of and attempting to undermine the GPL rather than posing a rational argument or real technical flaw.
The irony of it is that as much as she hates the "cult" she describes, her own attitude and behavior don't paint her in any better light.
Since you're back (and still wrong) let's go over this.
The binary patch that you read to apply in memory is itself a derivative work. It is, in effect, linked against the binary and applied dynamically at runtime. Not the in memory copy, the patch itself. The Game Genie ruling doesn't even apply here.
Unless you're suggesting that, somehow, the patch in question is never itself fixed to a medium, but then how the hell do you get it to users.
Your hatred is incredible, and your attitude towards people who counter your arguments prove you are no better than those you claim to hate.
No, this why you have companies like Canonical. They give structure to a platform that has no uberdictator to decide where it goes.
Trying to force an entire, wide community of people with diverse needs, opinions, and goals to act as if they were part of a single organization is nigh upon impossible, and trying to suggest that they should do as such is to completely ignore the reality of the situation. A real solution will only happen when that's taken into account.
Ah yes, here you are again.
I've had Windows break during upgrades. Windows is so terrible. *cough*
Ah, generalities and anecodes...
Because the actions of a few give you license to bash an entire community.
Perhaps if done with less arrogance, aggressiveness, and spite it might go over better. Or you could just ignore them, instead of "waging war" and becoming their polar opposite.
The problem is that the discussion has been had many times, and the demand that is always made is that everyone give up what they're doing and go to work on some $unified_platform, with the decisions made by $unknown_dictator as if they were a single corporation. The problem is that unless you find a way to incentivize or inhibit people who disagree with how things are done, you will get differentiation. No one ever offers a solution to the people problem.
Perhaps this is because what you believe to be "issues" are not believed to be by the people doing the work?
And when Joe Average has problems with Windows he's equally stuck.
And the people working on the various Linux distributions generally aren't targeting the general public. Faced with the marketing machine that is Apple and the monopoly that is Microsoft, what value is there?
So long as Android is developed behind closed doors it can never be "truly free." It will always go where Google will take it, and they've got the money and the vendor access to ensure their version is always what is used.
Why do we keep getting these posts that are deliberately chosen to incite flamewars between pro- and anti-Linux people?
Do we need to have more unhelpful arguments like the one yesterday when Samzenpus posted a dupe of a response to a dupe from back at the start of the year?
I won't argue this, but Hairyfeet and the rest of the people responding to this aren't after anything resembling a "smoother ride."
Your entire argument is irrelevant because I just realized that your "solution" is to patch the image with proprietary code. Effectively, your work is derivative. The Game Genie isn't derivative because it's basically a blind hex editor with a book full of individual offsets and values.
Now then, let's reset our point of argument here. No one's bitching about about proprietary kernel modules not being possible because people are already aware that you can load such binary blobs without issue, except that you'll get no support if a bug occurs while that module is loaded.
I'm pretty sure if you violated the FSF's copyrights by applying such a halfass "workaround" to say, GCC, I'm pretty sure they'd be knocking on your door in short order once they discovered it, and they'd probably win.
Thick on hate, thin on reason.
Except you're completely off base again. For your example to hold water, you would have to pay LabView an extra fee on top of the $1000 for a license, and if you then had to beg them permission for others to be able to use the things you wrote for it AND anything you wrote only worked for 120 days.
Very well then. It's only explicitly prohibited in the Microsoft store, and in the stores you "can" use it the "open" or "free" parts are revoked by the store operator for the sake of their DRM.
There's a distinct difference between buying a device (and data plan, but not all Android devices are handsets) and having to pay EXTRA on top to run software on it. You have to buy an iPhone/iPad and an Android device. You have to pay extra to run your own software on the handset, and hope Apple blesses you if you want to do so for more than 120 days.
Correct, but you're off base with your suggestion. And we're off topic. This is an anti-GPL bitch session, not lockdown bitch session.