Active Topics
-
Camera phone competition March 2023 "Endless" (35)
to General by Maemish - 1 day, 3 hrs ago -
TLS 1.2 for N9 is ready (28)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by smartblu9 - 1 day, 4 hrs ago -
Maemo repository (3)
to Community by torsen - 1 day, 20 hrs ago -
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (11)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 2 days, 17 hrs ago -
Introducing ubiboot N9 (multiboot OS loader) (1,393)
to Alternatives by smatkovi - 4 days ago - more...
|
2010-06-07
, 17:56
|
|
Posts: 1,667 |
Thanked: 561 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#42
|
Originally Posted by uTMY
Jesus Christ! Is it 100% open source as the OP suggested? No it isn't. There are closed parts and there are reasons for that.
Nokia just signed up to a partnership with Intel and Novell to do er let me think ... opensource MEEGO.
If you use an N900 then a large portion is already Open Source, the world hasn't stopped turning, the sky didn't fall in, continental drift kept drifting and you sir are already a guinea pig and Nokia is still making money.
rgds
|
|
2010-06-07
, 17:57
|
|
Posts: 29 |
Thanked: 151 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
|
#44
|
well, maybe they don't want to open some components just because their code is so bad - at least that's what i'm thinking after my recent discovery - which is BME reading register 0x3b from battery charger ( http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/bq24150.pdf ), and according to manual that register doesn't exist and only reason why it doesn't fail is because charger ignores higher 5 bits of address so 0x3b (0b00111011) becames 0x03 (0b00000011)
/usr/sbin/bme_RX-51
.text:000191B4 MOV R0, #0x3B ; ';'
.text:000191B8 BL I2C_ChargerReadWrapper
...
.text:00019188 I2C_ChargerReadWrapper
...
.text:00019190 BL I2C_ChargerRead
...
.text:000160A8 I2C_ChargerRead
.text:000160A8 STMFD SP!, {R4,R5,R11,LR}
.text:000160AC LDR R3, =file_descriptors
.text:000160B0 ADD R11, SP, #0xC
.text:000160B4 SUB SP, SP, #0x30
.text:000160B8 MOV R5, R1
.text:000160BC STRB R0, [R11,#i2c_smbus_data] ; bq24150 register
.text:000160C0 MOV R1, #0x720 ; request
.text:000160C4 LDR R0, [R3,#8] ; fd
.text:000160C8 SUB R2, R11, #-data_addr ; address to data
.text:000160CC MOV R3, #2
.text:000160D0 MOV R4, #1 ; read
.text:000160D4 STR R3, [R11,#var_14] ; ???
.text:000160D8 SUB R12, R11, #-var_3A
.text:000160DC STRB R4, [R11,#data_addr]
.text:000160E0 STR R12, [R11,#oldR4]
.text:000160E4 BL ioctl
/usr/sbin/bme_RX-51
.text:000191B4 MOV R0, #0x3B ; ';'
.text:000191B8 BL I2C_ChargerReadWrapper
...
.text:00019188 I2C_ChargerReadWrapper
...
.text:00019190 BL I2C_ChargerRead
...
.text:000160A8 I2C_ChargerRead
.text:000160A8 STMFD SP!, {R4,R5,R11,LR}
.text:000160AC LDR R3, =file_descriptors
.text:000160B0 ADD R11, SP, #0xC
.text:000160B4 SUB SP, SP, #0x30
.text:000160B8 MOV R5, R1
.text:000160BC STRB R0, [R11,#i2c_smbus_data] ; bq24150 register
.text:000160C0 MOV R1, #0x720 ; request
.text:000160C4 LDR R0, [R3,#8] ; fd
.text:000160C8 SUB R2, R11, #-data_addr ; address to data
.text:000160CC MOV R3, #2
.text:000160D0 MOV R4, #1 ; read
.text:000160D4 STR R3, [R11,#var_14] ; ???
.text:000160D8 SUB R12, R11, #-var_3A
.text:000160DC STRB R4, [R11,#data_addr]
.text:000160E0 STR R12, [R11,#oldR4]
.text:000160E4 BL ioctl
|
|
2010-06-07
, 18:03
|
|
Posts: 131 |
Thanked: 62 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#45
|
Originally Posted by nosa101
There are reasons but I bet none of them are due to potential risk in using opensource code.
Jesus Christ! Is it 100% open source as the OP suggested? No it isn't. There are closed parts and there are reasons for that.
They will most likely be due to closed license drivers for specific bits of hardware and Nokia has stated aim that Meego will move towards fully opensource effectively making your position untenable.
I suspect the closed elements will dwindle quite rapidly.
rgds
|
|
2010-06-07
, 18:03
|
|
Posts: 1,667 |
Thanked: 561 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#46
|
Originally Posted by ffffffuuuuuu
Seriously?
nosa101 STFU
Originally Posted by uTMY
I am not against Nokia opening their code but if they refuse to, I can understand why. There hasn't been any precedent set by a mobile device company to show that Open Source is the way. Even Android is not 100% open source. If there is no precedent, I can see why a Nokia manager would have reservations towards this move
Specious comments about no profit and huge risks using opensource are just wrong on their face as has been demonstrated many times by people that have not thought it through to the end game.
|
|
2010-06-07
, 18:23
|
|
Posts: 96 |
Thanked: 55 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
@ İstanbul - Turkey
|
#48
|
I don't really understand this closed source thing in old, non-active software. I mean what would any company will lose, if they release a couple lines of code. Is it really that important. I think only thing that will change is the open source community's respect to that company.
Originally Posted by nosa101
There's ID Software, a pure software company which gain their revenue mostly from the engine sales. And they released every single one of their engine's source in GPL license except the one they're actively developing that time. And because of that, we can play ID's games in many platforms(including N900). They'll release IDTech4's(Doom3 engine) license this year too. I guess we will see a Doom 3 port in N900 too after that.
But this hasn't been proven. I might be ignorant but I do not recall any company that has gone the open source route and remained competitive.
| The Following User Says Thank You to Optln For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2010-06-07
, 18:27
|
|
Posts: 1,055 |
Thanked: 4,107 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Norway
|
#49
|
Originally Posted by nosa101
This goes a bit off-topic, but it's still probably important to note.
Jesus Christ! Is it 100% open source as the OP suggested? No it isn't. There are closed parts and there are reasons for that.
The MeeGo project itself actually is (or should be, as far as I'm aware -- if it's not, you should probably raise it on meego-dev) fully open source.
People can take the core MeeGo distribution and put closed elements into it, as has been done for the partially closed N900 adaptation (to provide BME, accelerated graphics, etc) - but that is not the core distribution, that's an individual hardware adaptation.
(Also worth noting that there is a fully open adaptation for the n900 which doesn't include these closed components, but has reduced functionality as a result).
Stskeeps: if I'm wrong, please correct me on the above.
__________________
i'm a Qt expert and former Jolla sailor (forever sailing, in spirit).
if you like, read more about me.
if you find me entertaining, or useful, thank me. if you don't, then tell me why.
i'm a Qt expert and former Jolla sailor (forever sailing, in spirit).
if you like, read more about me.
if you find me entertaining, or useful, thank me. if you don't, then tell me why.
 |
|
2010-06-07
, 18:51
|
|
Posts: 4,274 |
Thanked: 5,358 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ Looking at y'all and sighing
|
#50
|
Originally Posted by Stskeeps
Just because Nokia has made a (shitty) decision doesn't make it a right one.
We already had this discussion. Main points: Nokia applications are closed source[...]
Originally Posted by Stskeeps
Couldn't give two shits about MeeGo. Even if the N900 gets MeeGo (in whatever form), it'll still be an OS laden with closed source components, thanks to Nokia.
[...]so we can bring a proper MeeGo on to the devices.
Originally Posted by Stskeeps
Please... that's a joke. All the discussions re. requests are stagnant.
I'd like to remind everyone of the licensing change requests queue: http://wiki.maemo.org/Open_developme...hange_requests
Hell, the one request I made to change the licensing of a component with its source already available in an open source program (I know; I was surprised too) has produced nothing.
Do I even need to mention the amount of WONTFIXES here?
Originally Posted by Stskeeps
Have some personalised replies, then.
As a personal question to people here: Did you know that the e-mail client of Maemo5 is called Modest and is open source? Have you submitted any patches or contributed to it? That the RSS reader is open source? That Marbles, Chess and Mahjong games are open source? That the PDF reader is? That the X-terminal is? That the Hildon Desktop is?
- Modest: Don't use it for its main ability. Tho I must admit that it does make a brilliant email notifier.
- RSS Reader: Don't use it. I think mant prefer FeedingIt over the stock reader.
- Games: Don't play 'em.
- PDF Reader: Its XPDF engine is outdated as ****, and I don't ever recall seeing the patches that were uploaded for Diablo's version ever making it in Fremantle. One incentive lost. (jott's rotation support is a brilliant example of this. Silence for God knows how many months and then a FIXEDINFREMANTLE message)
- X-Terminal: Yes, I have hacked on it in the past. The X Terminal team did listen to some requests, however, so I can't criticise there.
- Hildon Desktop: Ah yes, a package which depends on closed source components. But to answer the question: No, not me. But Matan has and I don't believe I've seen his patches in PR 1.2, despite asking on -developers how he could do so.
Originally Posted by Stskeeps
Right, how do we know it takes that long? I mean, Nokia aren't exactly masters of communication (yes, the irony is not beyond me) - the licensing queue shows that.
There's nothing more sad than spending several manhours on open sourcing an application and hearing the sound of crickets when it does arrive. Noone contributing to improve it.
And Nokia always seem to go the closed source route first. Take fmtx-middleware. A new component, introduced in Fremantle. You'd have hoped that Mer - which Nokia was obviously aware of - would've enlighted them somewhat. Why was it produced being closed source in the first place? It's bloody ironic due to Nokia contributing an open source driver for the transmitter to the kernel.
The community have modified some open source components; I named a couple above. There's more, however, like mafw-gst-subtitles-renderer, based on mafw-gst-renderer.
Oh, mafw-gst-subtitles-renderer was born out of a Brainstorm. Half of those requests can't be fulfilled as they have to be done in one of Nokia's closed components. I'm sure someone would be happy to do it if Nokia didn't close source many of their stuff. I mean, Nokia don't give a **** about what's in Brainstorm - how many requests from Brainstorm have been fixed by a Nokia employee?
Originally Posted by Stskeeps
The Queue shows why that doesn't work.
How about we make targetted requests and show who's ready to contribute if something was open sourced instead?
Originally Posted by Stskeeps
Nope. I'm after Diablo's components. Things like BME I'll never have a ****'s chance of understanding - that's a given - but other things that Nokia keep closed (to add insult, the headers aren't even available in nokia-binaries), like libconnui, sure.
And also, most of you are going to stop caring about Maemo5 when real MeeGo comes around, even on another device. History clearly shows that.
Originally Posted by Stskeeps
Easier said than done. Easier said than done.
Make reference / open source applications that are -better- than what Nokia can come up with. I bet you can.
Anyway, amongst all this arguing, Nokia aren't gonna be changing their ways. I doubt I'll be going down anytime soon.
Last edited by qwerty12; 2010-06-07 at 19:05.
If you use an N900 then a large portion is already Open Source, the world hasn't stopped turning, the sky didn't fall in, continental drift kept drifting and you sir are already a guinea pig and Nokia is still making money.
So I'm curious, where is this big risk you perceive?
IBM has signed tier1 strategic partnerships with Novell (SuSE) and Redhat to deliver appliance based services based on Opensource platforms.
Even Google is now as near as makes no difference 100% opensource across the board, system delivery and internal users and they also make money.
Specious comments about no profit and huge risks using opensource are just wrong on their face as has been demonstrated many times already.
rgds
Last edited by uTMY; 2010-06-07 at 17:59.