Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 22:24 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Remember back when Nokia jumped to Windows Phone 7, abandoning all other platforms and future directions? Remember Elop's infamous 'burning platform' memo was coveniently 'leaked' to the web? Remember how Elop claimed Windows Phone 7 was the only way forward, since nothing else inside the company would be ready for prime time soon enough? Remember how I thought this was a very good and sane decision? Well, the first reviews of what will be the only MeeGo handset from Nokia (the N9) are in, and well... To whoever decided to go WP7 and ditch MeeGo: I don't like you. To myself: I'm an idiot for arguing this was a good idea.
E-mail Print r 11   · Read More · 118 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 493912
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Sun 23rd Oct 2011 21:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Member since:

Well, if you go to the beginning, design and intentions matter. Wayland was designed as X11 replacement, but as generic composting graphical stack, taking in account sharing effort of Linux drivers developers, Linux distros and etc. Android's graphical stack was designed for Android only, without any consideration of sharing any efforts, benefiting anyone except Android and so on. And it shows. When Wayland emerged not so much later, Android could switch efforts to it, if they'd really wanted to. But, they already had their own thing, and were content with it. Android can be blamed for selfishness, not for not being too inefficient.

Edited 2011-10-23 21:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by orsg on Sun 23rd Oct 2011 21:53 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
orsg Member since:

That's a valid point, which probably originates from its closed initial development.

But there's another point, that is worth considering imho: Android uses Linux, but it's not a GNU/Linux system. In fact, Android created a completely non-unixish environment on top of the Linux-Kernel (which is quite a cool fact for Linux' versatility).

In my understanding, Android is not a Linux-System in the way we usually see Linux-Systems, but a completely independent development (they just saved the work for lowlevel stuff like multitasking, file systems, ...). So you could also make these claims for other systems, that were developed completely on their own like Symbian (which has some POSIX-compatibility, so limited portability is not completely out of scope) and iOS (which also uses quite a lot of open source software).
This in case might be extended to "everyone not developing open source on a standard linux system is selfish".

My actual point here is, that you should differentiate whether a system aims to be a classical Linux system (like Meego, in contrast to Android), then it should participate in the GNU-based ecosystem. In case nearly all of the userland is written from scratch, I don't see a problem in designing the architecture in a different way.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Sun 23rd Oct 2011 22:35 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:

Well, I'm interested in conventional Linux, but of course system can be designed in any way authors want, that's their right. But the point is, mobile and desktop in general, have already enough competition and struggle of closed vs open, and something that benefit Linux and open source at large has an advantage. I.e. even if something could be shared to the practical point of allowing ports of open systems to those devices - it's already good. But with Android it's not the case. I.e. Android's success doesn't help porting Linux to those platforms, primarily because of the problems described above. While it really could be more helpful, considering that it draws on Linux a lot (at least on the kernel).

Reply Parent Score: 2