On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Dirk Hohndel <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 17:06:57 -0600, Nicola Mfb <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
>> * parts of sdk not running on ati/nvidia boards is community driven?
>
> The SDK uses interfaces that not all open source drivers expose. No one
> is stopping people from fixing that (i.e., fix the ATI and NVIDIA
> drivers). But please don't tell us that we need to use the least common
> denominator in order to be "open".
I'm not expert on the specific issue, may you elaborate more? are
those interfaces intel stuff or something widely discussed and not
implemented by lazy opensource developers? are there implemented in
closed source drivers?
>> * not official support of meego on some hardware is community driven?
>
> Again, the default builds that we provide are optimized for Atom - I
> don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's fairly straight
> forward to build for other platforms if you need that, but I think it is
> not a reasonable request that we shouldn't optimize for our platform.
Here I'm speaking about *official* support, If I buy the next Intel
atom netbook with meego, and a my code snippet will segfault due to a
gcc bug, I'm quite sure that I can open a bug on your official issue
tracker and you'll support the resolution even if it requires a gcc
patch and upstream contribution (funding).
I'm not sure that will happen if I will use a community supported
meego build on unsupported hardware, but that will happen for sure on
debian, gentoo, openembedded etc.
That's the reason I'm asking what do you mean for multi platform
revolution open new gnu/linux os, and what is your place in the
distribution scene.
>> * "basic" software components on handhelds devices (gui telephony,
>> connectivity, audio routing, 3d etc.) will be part of meego and
>> opened?
>
> Not exactly sure what you mean here - to the best of my knowledge we'll
> have a complete stack, though not all pieces are in place, yet.
Are you saying that any mobile vendor that provides the right kernel
may ship meego full featured cellular/tablets without writing a single
line of userland software and capable of running all the meego
compliants applications (for example extreme 3d games, or the
legendary closed ovi map free gps navigation rpm too?) in the same
exact way as the next nokia meego device?
[...]
> I really think that we are providing an open revolution. I don't think
> anyone is being held back to build this on other platforms or to add
> missing features to drivers that don't have them. Isn't that the idea of
> an open source project?
True, just demonstrate that open here is a wide term (and respect the
community "pressing") with facts! on the atom side you are right (and
may perform better with support for other cpu), on the arm side just
support definitively meego for the n900.
You want users, testers, community developers, apps buyers, so where
is it the hidden problem to migrate the ready maemo community?
Why the difference between atom line that supports existing hardware
and the arm one that seems to target (officially) upcoming secret
devices?
[...]
>> Many time you have "please respect peoples working under NDA" or in
>> the worst case the silence.
>
> Really? I follow this mailing list quite actively and can't remember
> having seen this phrase very often.
Sorry, I'm not speaking about this list, just collecting info from
maemo forums, mailing lists, irc, and so on, and AFAIK maemo+moblin =
meego, so I think I'm speaking to the same guys.
[...]
>> As a random ml reader, I'm very curious to know how much openness may
>> be compatible with profit companies and business models.
>
> We are doing this in the open BECAUSE of we want to be successful and
> make money. I've spent the last 9 years at Intel getting people to
> understand that this is in our best business interest, and I think I
> have succeeded so far.
Yes! I agree totally! and understand (hope) the meego strategy and its
winning possibilities, just want to note that it's quite natural by
Intel, and *seems* less by Nokia (that has to fight in a more
aggressive market, and has to "boom" with next high end devices).
Anyway I'm not able to see meego totally devoted to pure opensource os
development, in some way you have to sell your hardware and not give a
nice gift to your competitors, right?
That's the reason I think a true open development and governance is
not fully possible, and a lot of internal resources will be opened
only *after* the release of the first meego device (I'd like to read a
big "you are wrong here" ;) )
Just for example and fun, there is an alpha totally free linux
distribution (coded in the spare time by very few guys where I
contribute) that runs on the OpenMoko freerunner since september 2009
and uses Qt (over X11) and above all ofono (and now qt-mobility versit
too, to import contacts) while we cannot do it just on the n900 (last
time I checked) due to closed csd, pulse audio routing, etc.! is so
frustrating and incredible on a device from a vendor that develops
ofono itself in this new open meego age!!!
(yes I know it will be opened soon, but here we should begin to avoid
the use of "will" term, and git push *now*).
Regards and thanks for clarifications!
p.s. I really appreciate the meego way, hoping you'll go further and
close the gap soon to stop the actual "wait and see" condition.
Niko
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
