Hopefully BeOS will come along with it.
HP to Contribute webOS to Open Source
111–120 of 201 posts
Re: HP to Contribute webOS to Open Source
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
RIM has already settled on QNX for its next-generation OS (their tablet runs on it), and I think they just don't have the software/UI chops to handle it either way. I can see WebOS being concurrence/counterbalance to Android and W7P (mostly Android) for other phonemakers than Samsung (who already has bada)
QNX is the underlying RTOS. Application UI is done in Adobe AIR, which is a dead platform. JS/HTML5 on top of QNX would capitalize on their strengths (more responsiveness over Android) and patch over their weaknesses.
> JS/HTML5 on top of QNX would capitalize on their strengths (more responsiveness over Android) and patch over their weaknesses.
We're talking about RIM here, how would web technologies (a game they are still late at) "capitalize on their streights"? Let alone "patch over their weaknesses"?
Re: HP to Contribute webOS to Open Source
#113Sounds like just a ploy to get discount/bribe from Microsoft to switch to Win8.
Re: HP to Contribute webOS to Open Source
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fantastic news. WebOS > Android
If they had done this before Nokia bought in to Windows Phone 7 then we might actually have seen a great user interface on Nokia's excellent hardware. Maybe RIM could adopt it instead? They could really use a better UI, plus a platform that actually scales well to tablets. Plus they have a large enough install base that once they get rid of their disastrous programming environment developers might actually start writ…
Why hate on Mango? Windows 7.5 has a fantastic UI -- I prefer it to every flavor of Android I've ever seen!
Re: HP to Contribute webOS to Open Source
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
QNX is the underlying RTOS. Application UI is done in Adobe AIR, which is a dead platform. JS/HTML5 on top of QNX would capitalize on their strengths (more responsiveness over Android) and patch over their weaknesses.
> JS/HTML5 on top of QNX would capitalize on their strengths (more responsiveness over Android) and patch over their weaknesses. We're talking about RIM here, how would web technologies (a game they are still late at) "capitalize on their streights"? Let alone "patch over their weaknesses"?
I'm guessing that nailer is referring to the fact that QNX is a realtime OS, which could provide decreased UI latency compared to Android. QNX is a "strength" of RIM, so using it to their advantage would "capitalize on their strengths."
As an aside, I always thought it was weird that QNX was owned by Harman for a while...
Re: HP to Contribute webOS to Open Source
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did not point you to the definition of copyleft or the definition of GPL, but to the definition of Free Software. If you read the definition of "Open Source" by OSI, or the DFSG by Debian, they're very similar and clear: the (royalty-free) license includes the right to make derivative work and publish/distribute the modifications. None of the definitions above include "not for profit" clause as valid. If you have n…
Ah, I see, so you can take the trademarked name of any open source project and modify and distribute the software under that name, for profit, and everyone will be okay with it. Otherwise some people will think the vendor looks foolish. I see.
You're paraphrasing the parent, and seem to be confusing Open Source (which is a class of licenses) with trademarks.
You're right, HP still control the trademarks. But for a license to meet the Open Source Definition, there can be no 'non-commercial' restrictions.
So selling 'Foo' (derived from WebOS) is fine.But using the WebOS trademark isn't.
Just like Oracle distribute and sell support for 'Oracle Enterprise Linux' - 'Red Hat Enterprise Linux' is a trademark that belongs to Red Hat.
Re: HP to Contribute webOS to Open Source
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did mention they wanted to control the development of the system to avoid fragmentation, so the license may be more restrictive than Android. Full open-source but cannot sell devices with wildly custom builds without HP's approval seems to be okay with me. As long as they leave a clause for being able to legally share your custom homebrew ROMs, they can put as many restrictions on hardware manufacturers as they…
I really hope they manage to do that, and avoid the fragmentation that Android experienced, especially with multiple app stores and no centralised over-the-air update mechanism.
especially with multiple app stores
Re: HP to Contribute webOS to Open Source
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
QNX is the underlying RTOS. Application UI is done in Adobe AIR, which is a dead platform. JS/HTML5 on top of QNX would capitalize on their strengths (more responsiveness over Android) and patch over their weaknesses.
> JS/HTML5 on top of QNX would capitalize on their strengths (more responsiveness over Android) and patch over their weaknesses. We're talking about RIM here, how would web technologies (a game they are still late at) "capitalize on their streights"? Let alone "patch over their weaknesses"?
Continuing to use QNX's RTOS would capitalize on their strengths.
Having a application development platform that has actual developers and a growing community would path over the weakness of Adobe AIR, which has neither.
Re: HP to Contribute webOS to Open Source
#119maybe hp is planning for a centralized app store. If the new platform flourishes as they envision, then it surely means a lot of money for hp.