Re: About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
Enrico Zini enr...@enricozini.org writes: What I think is needed now are components that give existing distributions capabilities they didn't have before. Then to see what people develop on top of them. +1 But to be appealing to developers who are new to the system (which basically means, all of them), such componends need to be: few, simple, reliable, stable, easy to deploy, and if not documented, at least coming with some working example code. Should I mention they should also be compilable with the *stable* release of the compiler they need? In the past, and for years, I would even have needed to mention that. I want to believe that at least that has already changed :) Arguably those two paragraphs are already well satisfied by oFono. oFono probably now has the advantage in terms of maturity and deployment, is compilable by a standard C compiler, and has a recent version packaged in Debian. The following may sound pointlessly controversial, but I don't intend it that way; I think it may help the FSO developers to review and understand more precisely their objectives. Why is FSO still needed at all, given that oFono exists and appears to have the development mindshare and advantages noted above? Would your objectives be achieved more quickly or easily by switching to oFono and contributing any needed additions to that? Regards, Neil ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
Hi, Arguably those two paragraphs are already well satisfied by oFono. oFono probably now has the advantage in terms of maturity and deployment, is compilable by a standard C compiler, and has a recent version packaged in Debian. FSO is compilable with a standard C compiler as well. Every tarball release we did has been shipping C files. The following may sound pointlessly controversial, but I don't intend it that way; I think it may help the FSO developers to review and understand more precisely their objectives. Why is FSO still needed at all, given that oFono exists and appears to have the development mindshare and advantages noted above? Would your objectives be achieved more quickly or easily by switching to oFono and contributing any needed additions to that? Oh, FSO is so much more than oFono. If you want to compare, then compare oFono to fsogsmd alone. As for the comparison between those two, well, fsogsmd was first, has (IMO, of course) a better architecture, a better API, and supports other modems. And there's no agenda of a company behind – some people may view that as an advantage, rather than a disadvantage. I don't see why we should invest time in something we consider not being superior. Cheers, :M: ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: QtMoko v46
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 12:32:02AM +0200, Radek Polak wrote: Hi, QtMoko v46 for GTA04 is out! You can download here[1]. For more info please visit our homepage [2]. Wow, so many changes, thanks Radek! I'm waiting for the GTA02 release to perform some tests here. Best regards, -- .''`. Tiago Bortoletto Vaz GPG : 1024D/A504FECA : :' : http://acaia.ca/~tiago XMPP : tiago at jabber.org `. `' tiago at debian.org IRC : tiago at OFTC `-Debian GNU/Linux - The Universal OS http://www.debian.org ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Re: [Shr-Devel] About the future of the freesmartphone.org middleware
Dr. Michael Lauer mic...@vanille-media.de writes: Hi, Arguably those two paragraphs are already well satisfied by oFono. oFono probably now has the advantage in terms of maturity and deployment, is compilable by a standard C compiler, and has a recent version packaged in Debian. FSO is compilable with a standard C compiler as well. Every tarball release we did has been shipping C files. Ah sorry, my mistake. (I thought FSO was written in Vala now.) The following may sound pointlessly controversial, but I don't intend it that way; I think it may help the FSO developers to review and understand more precisely their objectives. Why is FSO still needed at all, given that oFono exists and appears to have the development mindshare and advantages noted above? Would your objectives be achieved more quickly or easily by switching to oFono and contributing any needed additions to that? Oh, FSO is so much more than oFono. If you want to compare, then compare oFono to fsogsmd alone. I agree that there is a difference in scale, but would draw the opposite conclusion. Probably one of the factors in oFono's success is that it concentrates on doing one thing well. I'm not sure any of the non-GSM FSO components have proved themselves yet. I could be seeing things wrong, but to pull out a couple of examples: - GPS: it seems clear now that it was a mistake to pull that under the FSO umbrella, and that mobile devices should just use standard gpsd instead - the Usage API, which I understand to be motivated mostly by power management, is being rendered unnecessary in many cases by the powering on/off being handled automatically in the kernel. As for the comparison between those two, well, fsogsmd was first, has (IMO, of course) a better architecture, a better API, and supports other modems. And there's no agenda of a company behind – some people may view that as an advantage, rather than a disadvantage. I don't see why we should invest time in something we consider not being superior. But might it be less work overall to address those inferiorities in oFono? Regards, Neil ___ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
