Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Feb 2013 08:44 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "This release includes many new features and improvements over Tizen 1.0 released in April, and Tizen 2.0 alpha in September, 2012. As a Tizen 2.0 developer, you will find strong HTML5/W3C APIs and a new native framework." Are any of you doing any Tizen-related work? How is it?
Order by: Score:
Firefox OS Compatible
by microFawad on Wed 20th Feb 2013 10:32 UTC
microFawad
Member since:
2005-12-09

I am Firefox OS fan and I was really happy when I read on Wikipedia that Tizen will be Firefox OS compatible ;)

"Tizen's goal is to create an open ecosystem, compatible with Firefox OS and all web browsers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizen#Ecosystem

Reply Score: 5

Symbian C++ patterns :(
by moondevil on Wed 20th Feb 2013 10:46 UTC
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

Why did they modeled their C++ API into the braindead way of Symbian C++!?!

That alone made me lose the interest. Too many bad memories from Symbian C++.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Symbian C++ patterns :(
by jumpr on Wed 20th Feb 2013 14:33 UTC in reply to "Symbian C++ patterns :("
jumpr Member since:
2013-02-20

Guess what... That's the closed bada SDK from abandoned Bada 2 featurephone series. They kicked the nice EFL libraries. Dropped all the meego, moblin. Linux Foundation got $500k in cash from Samsung for this to succeed silently. Hopefully some of that funding will go to Linux developers.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Symbian C++ patterns :(
by moondevil on Thu 21st Feb 2013 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Symbian C++ patterns :("
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

You are right!

I remember having a look at Bada and giving up because of Symbian's similarity.

As for the rest, it is pretty common inside big companies where the business units tend to play a lot of politics. I went through that process a few times already.

Reply Score: 3

Tizen isn't as Open Source as you think
by jumpr on Wed 20th Feb 2013 14:27 UTC
jumpr
Member since:
2013-02-20

Tizen isn't as Open Source as you think, it also drops EFL to merge with Bada.

More facts at http://slashdot.org/submission/2505829/tizen-not-as-open-source-dro...

Reply Score: 2

chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

I hope that this slashdot submission gets voted down. It is full of inaccuracies and cheap shots against Tizen.

Reply Score: 2

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Is it? If Tizen is locked down and does not come with an open bootloader and native support a la Android and is closed for anybody but OEM's then it has a hard time among certain developer-groups like those at Linux. For a Linux Foundation project thats big news isn't it?

What are the inaccuraties and cheap shots in your opinion?

Edited 2013-02-21 08:21 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Wed 20th Feb 2013 15:10 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Samsung has again proven with this laughable SDK that they don't have the engineering chops for something like this.

While the mobile Linux movement is largely coalescing around QML and Qt, Samsung goes off and does their own weird thing and ends up with this Frankenstein OS made up of Bada and Tizen.

This is dangerous for anyone who supports Tizen because it means they spent over a year sunk into a ridiculous amount of duplication of effort and technical missteps.

This abortion of an OS needs to go. How is it that a startup like Jolla can do more with Sailfish than a huge multinational conglomerate can do with Tizen?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Nelson
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 20th Feb 2013 20:54 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Additionally what does this say about Intel? This is only their third linux distro that sucks.

I just don't think Intel cares about getting linux based products to market. Maybe they have always been trying to stall until their chips can compete with arm? I don't know, but I think I'll avoid any of their current or future smart phone offerings.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Wed 20th Feb 2013 21:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Intel needs to stick to providing hardware direction and making reference devices for other platforms.

I'm not entirely sure the value Intel even sees here, I'm sure they love Linux, it shows by the work they put back into it but they frankly shouldn't be wasting time with these science projects.

Picking Samsung as a partner for this shows they have very little in the way of common sense. They're pretty much the worst partner. There's a GSIII bug that if you copy and paste too much, you will screw your device until you factory reset it.

WHAT kind of engineering is that?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by chithanh on Wed 20th Feb 2013 22:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

I just don't think Intel cares about getting linux based products to market.
Intel's last attempt to enter the handset market failed miserably when Nokia dumped MeeGo for Microsoft. Now they are in bed with Samsung, and their engineers have to endure a lot of abuse for it:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTIwMDU

But Intel are desperate to get into the mobile business and so they keep on coming back. How desperate is illustrated by the fact that Qualcomm passed Intel in market cap last year.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 20th Feb 2013 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Holy crap! Has there been any explanation for that? What possible explanation is there?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by moondevil on Thu 21st Feb 2013 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

I have seen this happen in many Fortune 500 companies that look at open source as a way to get free stuff, nothing else.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 21st Feb 2013 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, but from that article it looks like one fortune 500 company completely screwed over another ( in addition other developers). I think this is even more evidence that the higher ups at intel just look at their linux mobile effort as a distraction, rather than an actual shipping product that they care about. If I were an intel dev working on the project, I'd quit the company and find a job where my work is appreciated. Or at the very least lobby to contribute to a different internal effort.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by moondevil on Fri 22nd Feb 2013 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

I have been in a similar situation a few times already.

I am yet to do a project for a Fortune 500 company that fully respects how FOSS is supposed to work.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by chithanh on Thu 21st Feb 2013 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

Has there been any explanation for that?
Explanation for what? Samsung's behavior? That is pretty typical for a company which does not have a developed open source culture. You see this sometimes when companies try to get their hardware supported in Linux: they dump a huge load of driver code onto the kernel maintainers which more often than not is so messy that it is rewritten entirely before being accepted.

Or explanation for Intel's desperation? Mobile is the future, and their execs have recognized this. The PC business is contracting and will never again reach today's levels. Intel's position in mobile is laughable, and they badly need to become relevant there - or else become irrelevant altogether.

Reply Score: 3