View Single Post
javispedro's Avatar
Posts: 2,355 | Thanked: 5,249 times | Joined on Jan 2009 @ Barcelona
#164
Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
Yes, seriously, seriously. (Was there a reason to say that twice?) If that 5% is a key component, then it doesn't matter how open the rest of it is.

Take the Motorola series with the locked boot loader. If the entire source tree minus the loader were opened tomorrow, you still couldn't make a viable image to boot on those devices because you can't do that without that last little 0.1% of code.
If the entire Motorola series source tree were to be opened tomorrow it would be a miracle, and if only the bootloader was left closed it would be RE'd in a weekend. And the codebase would quickly be used in other phones as well.

But still, you'd be there to say that it does not matter. It's no better good as 100% closed platform because there's still a single component that is closed, a bootloader.

Well, sorry. I still think it's stupid to see it your way.

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
Sure, maybe you could find an exploit and hack in to start replacing bits. But then we wouldn't call that "open", would we? If we do, why would we not call the iPhone open, since we can do the same thing there?
No. I at least would call it "more open".

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
I think you need to re-think why you, personally, are insulted by that.
Oh, I thought I used the world "insulting". Sorry you confused it with "offensive". You know, there's a reason lawyers tend to use the quote "hateful, offensive, and insulting" -- and it's exactly because of nitpickers like the above webcomic author.

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
For the rest, please don't put words in my mouth.
You have literally said:
Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
it's pointless to argue about which is "more open", since either way you still have binary blobs that will probably not transition from one version to the next. That's been my main point in several posts in this thread!
and I have said:
Originally Posted by javispedro View Post
Sorry, but that's plain stupid.
And that quote of yours is the only reason I came to this thread.

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying when comparing two systems that are almost identical in which parts are closed vs open (in this case Maemo and MeeGo CE for N900, which is the only part of MeeGo we've been talking about in this thread)
, it makes little difference if one is marginally more open.
Oh no, oh no, that's an even worse thing to say. _Marginally?_ Sigh

Do I really need to start? Do you even know what the closed components are in Meego for the N900? And in Maemo?

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
In fact, I referenced several times that I personally would call them both "open", while groups like Fedora would not. (Fedora takes a hard line of 100% open, no exceptions.)
I have always called Maemo closed. I would never call Meego closed. I could argue whether Meego for the N900 is closed or not. You can make a bootable Meego for the N900 that charges and even makes phone calls. Note however that it might be illegal in many countries because AIUI without the closed PA blobs it lacks several features that are required in every GSM handset.

Fedora also does not take a hard line of 100% open, no exceptions. It allows closed source firmware. On Meego, this is considered a "closed" package and marked as such -- and the N900 requires a few such firmware packages. By gNewSense logic Fedora is a closed source distro. By my logic, as seen above, I could argue whether it is.

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
My beef was with another member claiming that MeeGo was "more open" than Maemo, which I said was a moot point in this particular case. But then you didn't actually read the thread, or you'd have seen that.
The particular case doesn't exist. The point is thus not moot. That's my main point.

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
MeeGo's also not a very functional system, last I saw, without closed components. When this discussion was happening, MeeGo didn't even have it's own GUI. It was "left to the implementer" that was picking up MeeGo as a "base".
Since you're now talking about Meego as a "base", I guess you're not talking about the N900 CE any more. For your information, Meego has always had several UIs to choose from release 1 and virtually since day 1. Meego CE for the N900, on the other side, hasn't.
I hope you will understand that has nothing to do with openness and closeness and is just because of concepts like software testing.

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
Does it at least have a desktop now? It can't be that speedy with a frame buffer driver.
A "frame buffer driver" makes no sense. Virtually all devices use a "frame buffer driver", not to mention all mobile ones. I will guess you meant "without 3D acceleration".

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
Can the "open" version make a call, or connect to wifi, or do anything useful? I know the binary blob version can, I'm talking about the fully open version you speak of here.
It can boot. To a UI. Not the handset UX as that would be quite slow with a software 3D rasterizer, but you can if you want. I would personally call that "something useful". It can also connect to Wi-Fi. It can also browse the Web.

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
Sure you can; It's called Debian. MeeGo CE is based on MeeGo, just like Maemo is based on Debian. If you boot "just the open parts", you'll get just about the same functionality... not much.
I failed to understand your point here. You're now trying to tell me that different GNU/Linux distributions all tend to share all of the opened enhancements and functionality and thus they all end alike? I'd say that's a good thing!

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
But then nobody is going to boot just the open parts for more than development, or to say they did it.
You've not really looked at the Meego mailing lists a lot lately, have you?

Either way, I'm here to publicly rebate your point that Meego being more open than Maemo is moot, not talking about Meego being useless. I wholeheartedly agree that Meego is less useful than Maemo on the N900 -- even with the closed blobs. But I fail to see how that means that it being more open is a "moot point" for its future-proof-ness.

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
And nobody is going to be able to implement the completely closed GSM driver modules in either as open source any time soon without breaking an NDA.
*Sigh*. As said, you do not even know what components are closed.

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
If you want a device that has no wifi, no gsm, no sensors, no bluetooth, no battery control, no gps, and a basic frame buffer for graphics, please do boot "OpenMeeGo". All of those (and more) rely on blobs, and can be easily outmoded and rendered crippled, broken, or worse if/when MeeGo 2.0 changes those interfaces.
Oh, FUD! Let's surprise you:
- Wi-Fi and BT only require closed firmware.
- The GSM stack is fully open.
- What is sensors? If you mean the accelerometer, no, it doesn't require anything closed.
- Battery control is mostly RE'd and alternatives to bme exist. No one has been truly interested in merging them in Meego yet.
- GPS is also mostly RE'd. Except for AGPS.
- 3D acceleration is not open and will never be opened. However, there's one provider that is keen on providing updated versions of these drivers PLUS the fact that we could potentially reuse Android drivers if the need ever came.

See how having LESS closed components is better? People CAN find alternatives or reimplement if you're talking about less than a dozen. They CANNOT if you're talking about hundreds.

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
Most people didn't pay for all that hardware just to have it sit idle. Most won't want to lose all of that for this wonderful "platform" that will see 0 future ARM based processors after the N9. (Where's the MeeGo ARM app store again?)
Some unrelated yaddayadda I don't even disagree with. Btw the Meego on the N9 is not even Meego. But I do not see what this has to do with the point that MORE OPEN is not a moot point.

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
So, again in my view, it's a moot point to say one is "more open", when it relies on almost the exact same set of binary blobs to do anything at all functional.
Yes, the exact same set. Go figure. As said, insulting.

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
Yeah.. because there's not a list of them in the paragraph above, or in several other posts I've made in this thread (that you clearly didn't read) or people working on those closed bits making lists. Nope, not a clue as to what's closed in MeeGo.
Your list in the paragraph above was wrong. There's not a list in that URL you linked.
Please do a bit of googling and search for the actual list of packages. You can even download those and look inside. I am not even going to do it for you. When you do, will you please correct your posts?

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
That's one difference between you and I; I don't look to control others. I say what I mean and that's that. If others like what I say, or don't, that's their prerogative. I never claimed to be the end-all source of information, nor would I want to be. I just say what I understand, and usually wind up explaining why I take the view that I do. If others find utility in that, good for them. If you disagree with that view, good for you.
You are here arguing, and you have for the past 15 threads too. So we are not that different.

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
But to claim I don't know what I'm talking about, when I've referenced where my information is coming from, and not referencing any sources yourself? (Where did that "40%" estimate come from for Maemo openness?) Or saying that I'm somehow insulting you by having a different point of view? Or to claim that someones view is unintelligent just because it doesn't agree with your particular view? All I can say to that is:
You do not know what you're talking about. The 40% estimate is completely bogus. If you want a more realistic one, grab Stskeeps', which says that 57% of Fremantle is closed. But I guess you didn't know that.

Last edited by javispedro; 2011-08-30 at 22:49. Reason: typos