Linked by tessmonsta on Tue 16th Mar 2010 08:55 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Today's mobile space is owned by the likes of Nokia, RIM, Apple, and Google. While some of these corporations have embraced some open source components, a full FLOSS solution has yet to gain traction. Why? Blogger Bradley M. Kuhn posts thoughtful analysis of the current state of Open Source in the mobile space.
Permalink for comment 414000
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

About DirectX... Did you actually encountered applications which code their interface directly using DX, apart from games ? Games have traditionally non-standard interfaces, on every platform, and customers are used to it, so it's not such a big issue.


Sorry, I should have stated that my comments about directX was about audio.

While I appreciate Win7 has a more unified sound architecture, XP had several different sound toolkits available.

Though this is usually irrelevant to the average user, it becomes very obvious when using audio sequencers and trackers (eg FL Studio, Ableton, etc).

Of course, but not [much duplication] at a core level. To say it in a different way, they don't depend on each other in an intricated way. You don't need VLC to mix audio with REAPER, and you don't need GIMP in order to use firefox. Duplication very rarely occurs in the API area on Windows, which is a blessing compared to the multimedia madness on linux.


As I said above, multimedia is (or was) Window's worst area for internal duplication.

The difference is Windows is better at packaging the duplication (either with including the shared APIs with the application installer or -in the case of Microsoft's own APIs- Windows having all of the expected dependencies in the default install).

To use your examples:
VLC doesn't use Windows' codecs, it uses it's own (same goes for Winamp too)
Firefox doesn't Windows' rendering engine (Trident), it uses Gecko (and you have added duplication if you install other web browsers).

Variety is a double-edged blade. On user apps it serves you. On core APIs, it makes life of OS builders, users, and maintainers close to hell.

Very true.

Right. But do you know a way to reach that coherent compatibility without a shared underlying proprietary design ? I don't know that myself, that's why I'm all for proprietary design of all core and/or often used components.

Easily if wrappers are built.
For example, using a GTK+ wrapper for QT4 so KDE4 applications look like native GTK+ apps in GNOME.

Granted building wrappers is easier said than done. But if developers can't agree on a single toolkit, then the toolkits should become inter-compatible so the underlying technologies become completely transparent to the user experience.

Thank you for reading ! Looking forward for any further discussion on the subject, it is fascinating.

Likewise. It's refreshing to have a discussion about the merits or open source vs propitiatory that doesn't descend into a flamewar hehehe
While I'm not agreeing with all of your points, there is a lot of sense being said

Edited 2010-03-18 01:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2