Open webOS – Promise and Delivery

It was pretty exciting stuff when HP introduced WebOS a while back. Quickly they abandoned WebOS for unknown reasons but promised to open the source code. Now they have delivered:

“It has taken a lot of hard work, long hours and weekend sacrifices by our engineering team to deliver on our promise and we have accomplished this goal.”

“The Beta release is comprised of 54 webOS components available as opensource. This brings over 450,000 lines of code released under the Apache 2.0 license, which is one of the most liberal and accepted in the open source community.”

see The Open webOS Project Blog, Open webOS August Edition.

A quick review of the site reveals some principles:

  • Open webOS will accept contributions via a signoff process inspired by Linux Certificate of Origin.
  • Open webOS will made available under the Apache license, Version 2.0.
  • Open webOS will use the contributor committal model in use on most open source projects.
  • Open webOS will be segmented into multiple projects to give developers ample opportunity to join and remain active in the development effort.
  • The Open webOS project website will host a wiki, a source code repository, a mailing list, and a bug tracking system.
  • We will use Github or an equivalent tool to as the code repository.
  • We will use JIRA or an equivalent tool to track issues.
  • Our plan is to allow multiple committers to branch and merge code in the open to allow multiple development branches to occur at once.
  • That’s good stuff for a FLOSS project but there’s something that bugs me. While they open the source, they allow it to be closed again at whim by using the ASL which does not require source code to be distributed along with the binary code. That’s an arbitrary and unnecessary term which may turn off some contributors who don’t want code they write locked up.

    Then, there’s this strangeness:
    “At any given moment we would expect relatively few committers.

    (As an example, Linux has thousands of users, of whom only 2.5% are developers or contributors and fewer than 100 are committers. So, the project may have many, many users, but it’s the PMC and the committers who determine the project’s baseline.)

    All committers report to the PMC of the component they represent. The PMC uses a consensus-based decision making process to determine whether or not to take a contribution from the community and commit it to the code tree.”

    A founding principle that code development will be open is incompatible with the idea that committers will be few. Software that is intended to explode and make a huge difference in IT should not be limited by the imaginations of the initiators. Who, in the 21st Century, counts users of Linux in “thousands”? What’s with that? Perhaps its not end-users they write of but developers, distributors or OEMs or such, but it’s strange to think FLOSS of any kind has 2.5% of users being committers. There’s something wrong with this picture yet it’s right their as a principle of the organization.

    I hope these are just vestiges of the corporate ethos of HP and that the organization will evolve to a more caring/sharing culture. There’s no reason WebOS should not be as popular as GNU/Linux or Android/Linux and that means many millions of users and possibly thousands of contributors.

    In any event, the world is a bit better having yet another good OS to choose for end users.

    A brief survey of the repository shows that WebOS is heavily JavaScripted with a nice modular style making it easily portable to any OS using NYX. Chuckle, I guess there was a bit of chaos near the creation of WebOS… A good overview is on this page.

    About Robert Pogson

    I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
    This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

    43 Responses to Open webOS – Promise and Delivery

    1. ch wrote, “you earned income with someone else’s work. And what income did that/those “someone elses” get?”

      I did plenty of work: 16h hot days of August getting stuff done on time and under budget. I was satisfactorily paid.

      The thousands of creators of the software I installed lost nothing monetarily since they don’t sell copies/licences. It was Ubuntu GNU/Linux that I installed so Canonical got a phone number and a potential client after I left to add to its list of customers. That subscription list is Canonical’s bread and butter. I am no longer associated with that school so I have no knowledge whether Canonical ever sold a subscription for the terminal servers but they could have. There were essentially 4 servers for which Canonical one day may receive income. Shipping the software for $0 was essentially an investment for them. Even if they don’t receive subscriptions from that school, thousands of humans have been exposed to the product and will be aware that it exists. That’s pretty cheap advertising for the cost of downloads.

      The folks who contributed code to Debian and Ubuntu GNU/Linux contributed the code for their own diverse reasons. We know something about LibreOffice and FireFox. I don’t know details about most of the projects involved but people are happy to contribute code. There may be exceptions but we can live without their contributions.

    2. ch says:

      “So, I used FLOSS to earn income without selling a single licence. It can be done.”

      Right – you earned income with someone else’s work. And what income did that/those “someone elses” get?

      To be more specific: If I wrote a really great desktop application and released it as FLOSS, how would I get money for my work?

    3. kozmcrae says:

      @ TM Repository

      Let me be honest with TM. I hate your guts. You’ve given us some insight into your miserable life. By your own account you are a failed open source developer. What ever it is you are doing, it isn’t working. So let me give you some advice. Keep doing it.

    4. TM, admitting the power of networking, wrote, “it’s nearly impossible to make money independently on FOSS.”

      If what you are doing is not working for you, change. Don’t work independently. Depend on people to work with you some of whom have capital, salesmanship, marketing strategies or business-management skills. The problem is not FLOSS but a faulty business plan. The world does not owe you a living because you can code but being able to code can help you make money. Just do it.

      Look at M$, for pity’s sake. Do they make money independently? Nope. They get the whole world to work for them as slaves. You don’t have to enslave people but just cooperating on a larger project.

      e.g. An example from my life. As a teacher, I was hired by a new school: new building, new staff, new everything except IT. It was not part of my job to buy them an IT system and they had a tiny budget allocation to add that to the school as an afterthought. I developed a plan to maximize the IT that could be obtained with a given budget and made a proposal which was accepted including paying me a bit to do the work. It was pretty low pay because developing the proposal as a one-off thing was a lot of work but in the end, I got paid for summer work during my vacation time and the school got better IT than taking the money to Walmart to see what they could buy. It was a win-win and I traded off lower licensing fees for FLOSS for income for me and a mess of extra/better hardware. Those folks got RAID on servers instead of hard drives rattling all over the building, no malware and huge up-time. I got the satisfaction of putting my knowledge to good use. The school had printers within easy reach within a building 150m long on two floors, and scanners and cameras. It was the best IT I ever saw in a school and they system continues to deliver six years later.

      So, I used FLOSS to earn income without selling a single licence. It can be done.

    5. TM greatly begs the question of Apple’s share by writing, “OSX has taken a healthy share of the market back, climbing from 2% to 10% over the last few years.”

      See Apple’s latest annual report: “Total Mac Unit sales 16735” thousand, 16.7 million machines is nowhere near 10% of the x86 PC market which is around 360 million per annum. That comes to 4.6%, if you’d care to check the maths. That was for 2011. Think there has been a dramatic shift? Check Q2 2012: 4.02 million, about 1/4 of 2011’s product so not much change. Web stats that you see pointing to 10% are from a biased source as you well know and is not a sample of China where they have just a handful of stores or are busy selling iThingies and not Macs.

    6. oiaohm says:

      TM Repository
      “I haven’t seen a cent from any of my open source projects, so mind telling me how much you’ve made from your’s? Oh wait, you have none; Neither do any of the FOSS advocates here.”

      I make money from open-source projects being paid to fix issues. So if you do have a real open source project there is a possibility I made money from it. I don’t have FOSS project I do support on FOSS projects so I do make money. Main reason I don’t have a FOSS project is my customer base has a lot of different wishes.

      “I’m an actual open source developer in your midst and I can tell you that it’s nearly impossible to make money independently on FOSS.”

      Do you have a direct customer base. I guess not. This is why you are not making money. Also I use the FOSS software elsewhere to make money by using it. There is no such thing as a free lunch you have to work for it.

      iLia
      “So what? x86 is not the only architecture. Why not to join with SUN and start producing desktop computers based on spark chips with Linux OS preinstalled?”

      When it comes to the fact you cannot interface with Windows due to Patents being in way and MS wanting the same or more in patent charges than they want for a windows license. You are kinda screwed. This is why its important that removable media and other transfer formats are royalty free standards.

      Lot of battles over the last 20 years was to get MS hands out other companies cookie jars iLia.

      The current battles are to get a few companies hands out the cookie jar.

      iLia
      “Their CPUs became inferior to the Intels and AMDs, so they started to sell servers with Intel CPU, and thus cut off the source of their revenues and started working for their main competitor — Intel and AMD.”
      Wrong on benchmarks sparc chips are still faster than Intel and AMD chips. Software support is the only area where sparc are inferior. That is out of SUN hands. Also its been out of Linux main hands as well.

      StarOffice and other things Sun acquired was an attempt to get core software.

      TM Repository
      “In order for you to claim a Windows monopoly you’d have to claim that Linux has virtually no impact.”
      In fact no. OS X got somewhere after its patent grants from Microsoft and the fact MS started being a lot of regular releasing MS Office on it. Did help at that time MS had a 20 percent stake in Apple.

      Monopoly abuse does not mean that Linux has had no impact. The list of OS’s destroyed is long. Linux is just the toughest. OS X is only hear because they restarted on BSD code base.

      That OS X market share as grown and it directly linked to OS X getting MS Office. You would call a functional Office suite a keystone to getting market share. MS has held that with undocumented formats for years. Only in recent years has they started using documented formats. Even thing with OOXML they did not follow the documentation.

      All MS market shares are linked to vendor locking caused by non documented de-facto standards. Most of these are now being replaced by real standards. So there will be a correction.

      That OS X goes from 2 percent to 10 percent because MS gives it a office suite says something very important the de-facto standard lock in is strong.

      If all the competing OS’s had MS Office we could be looking at a major-ally different market. OS/2 run into the same problem.

    7. satan worshippers at M$

      Wow! A cursory view of MSFT’s stockholders reveals that a mere 10% of the company is owned these days by principals such as Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer. 75% of the stock in play is held by institutional investors such as your local school board’s teacher retirement fund or your old grandfather’s pension fund.

      The highway robberies and muggings by the EU merely move the money from our needy aged, widows, and orphans who rely on these funds to the socialistic societies of Europe where it goes to fuel the kind of irresponsible conduct endemic to these welfare societies. People who have worked hard all their lives are ripped off by these unwarranted fines.

      Satan is more likely to find a welcome home with the EU commission than with Microsoft managers!

    8. Adam King says:

      “The EU actions were just a shameless effort to tax the success of Microsoft and, after paying a billion or so euros to the EU, all was well. Microsoft
      could well afford it, since they got close to 100% extra in license fees for EU area license sales.”

      Europe was helping bleed the beast in the fight for freedom. I see no shame in that. Better that money goes to the european government with its emphasis on freedom than to satan worshippers at M$.

    9. Clarence Moon says:

      Browser choice requirement was because there was a ruled offence in the EU

      The EU actions were just a shameless effort to tax the success of Microsoft and, after paying a billion or so euros to the EU, all was well. Microsoft could well afford it, since they got close to 100% extra in license fees for EU area license sales.

      IE was simply a tactic to keep people using Windows, if you look into history, and it has worked very well. Everyone choosing which browser to run on their computer as part of the Windows initializing process is, if you notice, using Windows to begin with, so Microsoft has triumphed in terms of what they set out to do.

      Mohammed Ali called the tactic “Rope-a-dope

    10. “You seem a bit hung up on the term monopoly.

      In the strict sense of the word you are a one hundred percent right but in the real world things are not so cut and dried.”

      Then by the standards outlined in the articles, Google has a monopoly on search (hell, the term “google” is synonymous with search these days) and iTunes has a monopoly in online media sales. Each has similar percentages of their respective markets to what Microsoft had back during the anti-trust case.

      I also like the article’s notion that a theoretical monopoly has several smaller players that have little impact on the main player. Hear that Pog? In order for you to claim a Windows monopoly you’d have to claim that Linux has virtually no impact.

      In reality, OSX has taken a healthy share of the market back, climbing from 2% to 10% over the last few years. Apple also brought about the tablet market, something Microsoft tried to do 10 years ago without much success. Most of the new changes in Windows 7 and 8 are in direct response to this. So Apple has a massive impact on Windows, I’d say.

      Desktop Linux on the other hand hovers around 1%, within the statistical margin for error.

    11. “This line, that FLOSS programmers starve and their families die, is just one more tack of the FUD slung at FLOSS for the last decade or so.”

      I haven’t seen a cent from any of my open source projects, so mind telling me how much you’ve made from your’s? Oh wait, you have none; Neither do any of the FOSS advocates here.

      Mind telling me how I can monetize them so that I don’t have to continue contracting and teaching? I have donationware but so far nobody’s donated to any of them. I don’t write crappy overly complicated software that requires support contracts. Nor would I want support contracts since that would be trading contract work for virtually the same thing.

      Sure, there are a few funded projects out there, but all of them funded by proprietary companies or governments. I’m an actual open source developer in your midst and I can tell you that it’s nearly impossible to make money independently on FOSS.

    12. iLia says:

      Lets count Linux, OSX, eComStaiton, Amiga, and a lot of ___BSD are much more then one.

      oiaohm:
      Seriously would you call any that you listed proper desktop usable OS’s.

      No Comments

      “VIA, Intel, AMD and IBM” is not more than 1 when it comes to x86.

      So what? x86 is not the only architecture. Why not to join with SUN and start producing desktop computers based on spark chips with Linux OS preinstalled?

      So sun was fighting up hill so tried to get into other markets.

      Market is a place where different stuff is sold and bought. But when you start giving away your products is a very different thing. When you sell something you receive money to compensate you expenses and to invest in your future products, but when you give away your products it simply hurts you competitors, by reducing their incomes and profit margins, but you do not get anything in return, on the contrary you have to take money from your other products. That is exactly what happened to SUN.

      Their CPUs became inferior to the Intels and AMDs, so they started to sell servers with Intel CPU, and thus cut off the source of their revenues and started working for their main competitor — Intel and AMD.

      It is very stupid to sell products of your main competitors. By doing this you receive less money and your competitors receive more money to invest in development and marketing.

      And as long as Java was not profitable SUN went out of business.

    13. oiaohm says:

      iLia sun was hammered in part by the fact they could not do x86. Also by the fact Microsoft refused to release any software for sparc chips. This include the front page defective Apache mod. So sun was fighting up hill so tried to get into other markets. Note sun had its own silcon production centres to stay alive it started buying x86 chips from AMD and Intel. Because sun could not get a x86 license is part of the reason it failed.

      Loongson will be rare to find outside china in volume.

      “VIA, Intel, AMD and IBM” is not more than 1 when it comes to x86.

      When Nvidia tried to buy a license. AMD said yes. Intel and VIA spoke up very quickly and said no. Legally AMD cannot even license its x86 patents to you that it invented by the rules of the patent pool. In fact only 1 of them had to say no and Nvidia could not get a license.

      To get a x86 license all 4 say yes or don’t care. So for the case of x86 they are one entity under the law. Since the patent pool is a entity is its own right and it holds a monopoly over who can and cannot make x86 processors. The x86 patent pool is also paid. x86 has a serous monopoly issue due to how patents are handled around x86.

      I really do think there needs to be a law forbidding patent pools being solid walls.

      iLia
      “And I am sure that people who would had share information about Apollo with USSR would spend a lot of time in prison.”
      In fact depends on what. How the Apollo systems docked with each other was shared from the get go. Even today the space docking and connection information is always shared.

      Why in space if something goes wrong even if you worst enemy is near by you do want to be able to ask for help.

      iLia that other OS’s exist don’t prove Microsoft does not have a monopoly in a particular segment. Also does not prove that MS is not abusing there monopoly in that segment. Seriously would you call any that you listed proper desktop usable OS’s.

      Has Microsoft done things like mess up network protocols and non standard file formats to reduce competition yes it has.

      iLia monopoly is a lot harder to determian. Really should not have to point this out.

      Lets say you are the only one person in town that sells fuel for cars there is another only one person in town that sells fuel for desil. By you logic neither of those have a monopoly since both are petroleum based fuels. This is why market segments are critical to determining if someone has a monopoly or not.

    14. iLia says:

      Hey, Pogson! Why http://www.ecomstation.com link doen’t work? You dont want people to know about good proprietary software?

    15. iLia says:

      Software that is intended to explode and make a huge difference in IT should not be limited by the imaginations of the initiators.

      You know, you don’t need to open your software to get new people working on it or to get some ideas from users, you need to hire new developers. And user feedback works just well in proprietary world, and even better than in open source. Do you remember Windows XP? Compare it with Windows 7. Actually the most open source projects are clumsy incomplete clones of proprietary products. Even Linux.

      The most stunning human en-devours, The pyramids, Great Wall, Project Apollo, etc. required a lot of collective effort – central to this was sharing.

      No, such things require a lot of planning, coordination, resources and centralization. And I am sure that people who would had share information about Apollo with USSR would spend a lot of time in prison.

      (I certainly need to read some books on English grammar 🙂

      The GPL is probably the root of why Linux dominates among FOSS and probably will come to dominate all IT within a decade or so

      I am already afraid. Yesterday, I installed Globulation 2 game on my Ubuntu, and you know what?

      It broke the sound, my Sound Blaster sound card is not working any more and I have to use on-board sound card to get the sound on Linux.

      See, mono means one, and if Linux and OSX exist, then that’s three.

      Lets count Linux, OSX, eComStaiton, Amiga, and a lot of ___BSD are much more then one.

      Infinity if you are not VIA, Intel, AMD or IBM. Since they will not sell you a license.

      And VIA, Intel, AMD and IBM are more then one, and I didn’t asked SUN to throw too much resources on the promotion of Java and other open-source-crap-ware instead of concentrating on their CPUs and servers that made them a lot of money.

      And even China doesn’t care:

      China uses Linux with its Loongson processor family to achieve technology independence.

    16. kozmcrae wrote, “Do you really believe there is some kind of mass exploitation going on and nobody has noticed it over that last 20 years or so?”

      This line, that FLOSS programmers starve and their families die, is just one more tack of the FUD slung at FLOSS for the last decade or so. It keeps getting more extreme as the monopolists get closer to the precipice. First they ignored FLOSS. Then when it had a foothold they just laughed that “amateurs” could not write software. Then they attacked any business model that used FLOSS as unsound. Now they try to tell the world that programmers all should work for M$ and partners or they will starve. It’s pathetic. The monopoly has hours to live and they are still in denial. They have not prepared their own families for the inevitable crash nor have they shifted their careers towards FLOSS to smooth the transition. All they can do is scream at the night enveloping them.

    17. oiaohm says:

      Clarence Moon EU and the USA ruled differently on the browser bundling one. So it depends what court you are reading if bundling IE was a offence or not. Browser choice requirement was because there was a ruled offence in the EU. Not everything is USA courts Clarence Moon.

    18. kozmcrae says:

      Thorsten Rahn wrote:

      “And in FLOSS you’re not even paid for labour, so, yes, it’s the ultimate culmination of an ancient scheme.”

      Go directly to hell Thorsten, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Who the hell died and appointed you director of FLOSS community relations? You don’t get to determine who gets paid and who doesn’t for developing software. That’s a mighty grand and arrogant opinion you have of yourself.

      Do the people at Broadcom write their Linux kernel drivers for “the undefined greater good” or do they do it so their drivers will work correctly on their hardware? Same goes for Nvidia. Same goes for most of the other hardware drivers in the Linux kernel. Do major users of Libre Office contribute to that project for “the undefined greater good” or do they do it because they would like to see certain features included sooner rather than later?

      Thorsten Rahn wrote some more crap:

      “Making people believe that what they’re doing is for some undefined greater good when it’s just plain old exploitation at the end of the day.”

      Do you really believe there is some kind of mass exploitation going on and nobody has noticed it over that last 20 years or so? That nonsense is just more promoting of uncertainty about FLOSS. You are a pathetic Cult of Microsoft fool Thorsten. You are new here but you write the same old crap from the Cult. And that has always been the case whenever a new nym shows up.

    19. They have done exactly one. They bundled a browser with their OS back in the 90s.

      Presumably you were just being your old compromising self and giving the dog a bone, Mr. T, but you picked the wrong example. Microsoft was specifically found to NOT have violated the antitrust laws due to bundling of IE with Windows. First, in the district court, Judge Jackson specifically found that Microsoft had not blocked Netscape from the majority of the browser market although he found that the bundling was illegal.

      The appeals court pointed out the errors in Jackson’s reasoning regarding per se bundling and vacated that finding, too, remanding the issue back to the district court where the states and DoJ dropped the charge since it could not be proven under the law as interpreted by the appeals court rulings.

      Microsoft was found to be in violation of the antitrust laws for a list of relatively minor infractions that Microsoft agreed to discontinue or had already abandoned. Microsoft agreed to pay the court costs and pay for two watchdog committees that would ensure that nothing in violation of the antitrust laws would occur in the future. The terms for the committees has since expired and no such oversight is deemed necessary today.

    20. oiaohm says:

      TM Repository
      “How much money changes hands in order for someone to implement the x86 specification?”
      Infinity if you are not VIA, Intel, AMD or IBM. Since they will not sell you a license.

      Nvidia wanted to make x86 chips but cannot buy a license. Yes Nvidia did attempt to get a license to produce x86 chips they could not get a license. This is a true Monopoly case. The 4 core of the Monopoly of x86 can produce x86 for free since they have access to the joint patent pool. No one else can make a x86 chip because they don’t have a license and cannot buy a license to the patent pool and will be sued out of existence if they produce a x86 chip. Lot about the x86 instruction set is patented.

      TM Repository
      “Anyone can build to the x86, x64, ARM, etc. specification.”
      Bogus about time you learn what you are talking about.

      This is why Nvidia started making Arm processors.

      Arm and Motorola chips you have a factory that can produce silicon you can license the chip. So anyone with production location can make them. x86 only VIA, Intel, AMD or IBM selected factories can produce x86 chips. No one else can. You cannot go out and get a license. You could have the best factory on earth for making chips and if all 4 said no that it that factory cannot make x86 chips.

      Arm could be a monopoly on design. But every factory can pay the same amount per unit. Arm does not select what factories it made in.

      “Unless they all go in cahoots and price fix their chips, THERE IS NO MONOPOLY.”

      They are in cahoots to make sure no one else other than 1 of the 4 can make a x86 chip.

      http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1050874/nvidia-trying-x86-chip About time you pull you head out the sand basically.

      I want to read write long filenames on fat in a way Windows supports. http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Microsoft_FAT_patents Microsoft wants payment.

    21. JR says:

      @ TMRepository

      You seem a bit hung up on the term monopoly.

      In the strict sense of the word you are a one hundred percent right but in the real world things are not so cut and dried.

      You may want to read these:

      http://economics.about.com/cs/microeconomics/a/monopoly.htm

      http://economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/
      Monopoly_power.html

      http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp#axzz25ImoYygT

    22. “Microsoft has done a lot of Anti-competitive things.”

      They have done exactly one. They bundled a browser with their OS back in the 90s. Which, by today’s standards, is perfectly normal.

      I mean, ChromeOS can ONLY run Chrome. What if I want to install IE, Firefox or Opera? I can’t. Now tell me how altruistic Google is; They would never do anything anti-competitive like make it impossible to install other browsers on their proprietary OS.

    23. “Big difference here is with Atari vs Odyssee, ColecoVision, Comadore, etc. Is that everyone else is not expected to pay Atari todo basic things.”

      What are you talking about? How much money changes hands in order for someone to implement the x86 specification? Oh wait; NOTHING! It’s a specification. I don’t have to pay Adobe to generate PDFs with Python scripts. Likewise, Apple doesn’t have to pay Adobe for including PDF support in their Preview application. Similarly, Google doesn’t have to pay Adobe to include Flash in Chrome, etc.

      Please link me to the exact documentation you’re basing your facts on, because you never do. Put up or shut up, where is the EVIDENCE you’re using to base your claims.

    24. “So you could say that x86 is very much a Monopoly in its own right. To make X86 chips you would have to get agreement from the 4 x86 makers. VIA, AMD, Intel and IBM.”

      It’s not a monopoly. ARM chips exist. Motorola chips exist. Cell chips exist.

      x86 isn’t a monopoly, it’s an instruction set that the major players build to. If they all built to ARM spec would you consider that a monopoly? No, because it’s not just one manufacturer owning the market; Anyone can build to the x86, x64, ARM, etc. specification.

      I don’t understand where you guys learned to count, because “mono means one”. If AMD and Intel are still competing, then there’s no monopoly. If ARM and Intel are still competing, there’s no monopoly. Unless they all go in cahoots and price fix their chips, THERE IS NO MONOPOLY.

    25. oiaohm says:

      TM Repository really x86 is a very restricted provide chain. There are only 3 active licenses to produce x86 chips VIA, AMD and Intel.

      So you could say that x86 is very much a Monopoly in its own right. To make X86 chips you would have to get agreement from the 4 x86 makers. VIA, AMD, Intel and IBM.

      Monopoly state is one dominate to the point that all other players have to pay them.

      Microsoft does have a Monopoly state how far do you think you would get if you release a OS that could not read FAT. So Microsoft wants to be paid for everything made is is a Monopoly in the desktop space. Basically one of MS Monopoly items dies in 2013.

      Big difference here is with Atari vs Odyssee, ColecoVision, Comadore, etc. Is that everyone else is not expected to pay Atari todo basic things. What to read a disc pay Microsoft. When FAT was coming to end MS tried to get new media out there using XFAT so keeping there Monopoly strangle hold on reading media going.

      Also Microsoft has not support UDF in a partition even that that format does support being in a partition being read write.

      Microsoft has done a lot of Anti-competitive things.

    26. “I have never claimed the desktop is dead. In fact it is very much alive in my home. What is dying is Wintel’s monopoly of the desktop.”

      There never was a Microsoft monopoly. Majority market share and an anti-trust suite, sure, but a monopoly, no. See, mono means one, and if Linux and OSX exist, then that’s three. And being anti-competitive by bundling a browser isn’t the same thing as owning the market. This would be like you claiming that Atari had a monopoly in 1984 on the video game console market; Sure, they had market majority, but there was the IntelliVision, the Odyssee, ColecoVision, Comadore, etc.

      Get it? Market majority is NOT A MONOPOLY no matter how desperately you want to believe it is. If there are other players in the market, then it’s not a monpoly.

      Finally, what’s with the “intel” jabs? There was a 5 year period where nobody would touch intel chips; It was AMD everywhere until the Core and Core 2 chips came out.

    27. “I don’t code in C-ish languages, not even JavaScript, sorry.”

      So fix an HTML or CSS bug then. Or use CoffeeScript which is a Javascript pre-processor that borrows from Python and Ruby which any pascal/basic developer should feel right at home with.

      “I have committed lots of miracles. Just ask students who were blown away by the improved performance of ancient PCs switched to GNU/Linux or used as thin clients.”

      Way to try to sidestep. “commit” is a software term, “perform” is what you’d say when it comes to miracles. You’ve rattled your saber over and over about open source, yet you’ve contributed NONE OF IT! Put up or shut up. What have you contributed to open source because an obnoxious, petulant voice?

      “The technology courses were numerous short modules and students had such flexibility. She immediately showed the class how to trim the wires more precisely than I and went on to enroll in post-secondary education in IT.”

      That’s great. Two of my students who graduated last year built a top 50 mobile app. Yet I still found time to teach myself new languages and skills.

      Face it, you’re lazy, not busy. You’re scared to try something new because you won’t be the guru of that domain. Not like your microcosm classroom where whatever you feed the kids becomes gospel. I teach my students concepts and problem solving skills, you try to train them to be your church choir.

    28. Thorsten Rahn says:

      The most stunning human en-devours, The pyramids, Great Wall, Project Apollo, etc. required a lot of collective effort – central to this was sharing.

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that central to all such endeavors were labourers. And in FLOSS you’re not even paid for labour, so, yes, it’s the ultimate culmination of an ancient scheme. Making people believe that what they’re doing is for some undefined greater good when it’s just plain old exploitation at the end of the day. At the same time the FLOSS King, Richard Stallman, let’s himself get royally paid for delivering the same mind-numbing lectures and speeches over and over.

      Go, FLOSS!

    29. TM wrote, “Stop telling me to believe in Jesus and try performing some of your own miracles for a change.”

      I have committed lots of miracles. Just ask students who were blown away by the improved performance of ancient PCs switched to GNU/Linux or used as thin clients. “Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic.”

      I have a particular example. A few years ago, I had a student who was our valedictorian. She worked hard in school but had no ambition beyond high school. She was going to make her parents proud, and retire… One day, she came into my classroom looking for a pencil, of all things, and saw me teaching termination of Ethernet Cables 101. She said that looked interesting and asked if she could transfer to that course. The technology courses were numerous short modules and students had such flexibility. She immediately showed the class how to trim the wires more precisely than I and went on to enroll in post-secondary education in IT. Her life was magically changed by something I did and very few other teachers were doing. I believe I was the only one teaching such courses in the school division. I was asked to present to other IT teachers about GNU/Linux, too.

      So, I have done my part and continue by writing this blog among other things I do.

    30. TM, the troll, wrote, “claiming the desktop is dead”

      I have never claimed the desktop is dead. In fact it is very much alive in my home. What is dying is Wintel’s monopoly of the desktop. Small cheap computers don’t invalidate/kill the desktop. Small cheap computers can be desktop units too. e.g. years ago, I used thin clients for most units in a new school. Students and teachers loved that such small units could do the job and stay out of their way. Those thin clients were huge by modern standards but tiny compared to ATX cases. Now, decent PCs can be made the size of small chocolate bars and cost ~$50. That’s small and cheap but good. Notebooks have still not beaten desktops in unit share in some places but that may well be because the desktop units were smaller and cheaper.

    31. oiaohm says:

      TM Repository pull you head in.
      “Right, but it’s not you. I don’t see any FOSS developers who are proficient with NT in here leading the cheer squad the way you are.”

      I have a long history with Reactos and wine even before Reactos was called Reactos. There is a reason why I know where the errors are hiding in NT so well. I am a very skilled person at running test systems against NT based OS’s and clones to locate defects. I am not the developer for items like wine and reactos I am the tester. The tester role is still very important.

      The more I worked around Reactos the more pissed off with Microsoft I become. Because there is just error after error causing security problems.

      Really part of the reason why I know where the defects are in windows is I started off doing NT internal cloning.

      “This is my whole point, the least capable are the ones who are the most demanding. It’s time you put up or shut up and actually prove you’ve contributed something.”
      A few things like rollcage with wine I have follows all the way public through using oiaohm.

      http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=8018 When it started there was a major direct x issue with it. Mostly caused by developer following the MS software reference of Direct X and no video card in existence ever implementing the complete feature set of direct x 6. Result was a lot of patches needing to be rejected because implementing all the software reference was breaking the games. As you can see have not played it for ages.

      TM Repository so where is your example of working with any project that is FOSS to prove that you are not working from the base of a complete incompetent presume of how it works. You see that others have found my name in the Linux kernel Mailing Lists. Standard bodies and other places. When I have a problem I raise. When I don’t have problems I don’t raise anything.

      Web OS I don’t use. Since I don’t use at all I would not working on it.

      TM Repository X11 dieing is not the Linux desktop dieing its changing.

      Desktop machines as we know them will die. But the work we need a desktop style interface for will remain.

      Even if the desktop PC stops being sold this does not mean the desktop as a software construct ends.

      To provide thin terminals you still need a software construct of a desktop that works.

      So desktop PC dies. Linux Desktop still gets to live on in thin clients.

      This is the important thing. We have DMA-BUF/PRIME entering Linux. This is 3d rendering on a video card without a real connected screen. So displaying 3d rendered on thin clients is now possible.

      The difference between a thin-client and a desktop PC will reduce.

      TM Repository really this show why you are being idiot. The style of desktop Linux has always been has never been Microsoft or OS X style.

      X11 what was is prime design. To provide multi graphical terminals from 1 box.

      What is http://plugable.com/ New version same thing less overhead and better secuirty. Reality Linux Desktop has never been design for the stand alone PC. Its always have the multi user on single system in back of mind.

      The dominate form of computer going forwards in business is most likely multi user on a single system.

      The Linux desktop is not dead because the design is not that of the desktop personal computer. Plugable is starting to appear in distributions by default.

      So the Linux world is terminate one for of multi users per machine ie X11 to be replaced with a new form that is far more secure without all the historic defects.

      Linux is changing for the secure thin terminal world coming.

      Audio Compression Offloading and Video compression off loading has some advantages with thin terminals.

      Basically the desktop computer is in a lot of places dead.

      The question I have is how long before Microsoft has to include multi-seat support on Windows by default.

      Really how bad of effect would it have on Linux if all that was sold in future is Servers.

      As you all say Linux makes bugger all from the PC computer market. So Linux world will not notice that death. Desktop work still has to happen on something.

    32. TM wrote, “Robert, I expect you to lead this charge. “

      I don’t code in C-ish languages, not even JavaScript, sorry. Also, my “To Do” list is longer than my ability for the foreseeable future. e.g. now that renovations on the old house are just about done, I have to remove all equipment and material on top of harvesting the corn and getting the weeds under control. Also, we were teased today by a light shower instead of a good rain that my land needs. If I have to water stuff manually, there just are not enough hours in the day to amuse you.

    33. Pogson, Dougman, Oiaohm, Koz, all of you advocates of “open source that I can’t even contribute to”. I issue you a challenge to:

      – Get the WebOS dev environment running
      – Pick a reasonable bug from their bug tracker (there is a tracker, right?)
      – Fix that bug
      – Make sure it passes the test suites (there is a test suite and you know how to run it, right?)
      – Commit that fix
      – See it through the triage stages (there is someone at the helm of this project, right?)
      – Post the link to your commit on the public repo

      Robert, I expect you to lead this charge. What do you say? Challenge accepted?

    34. “Most of the history of Linux kernel development reads like ok required for server then desktop second. We are now seeing serous desktop development.”

      No we’re not. We’re seeing Linux advocates like Pog moving the goal posts, claiming the desktop is dead (still using the “wintel” moniker from 1992 that the MacOS faithful used to use). It would seem that “serious desktop development” on Linux started just in time to see it die…at least, according to you and Pogson.

    35. “FOSS developers exist that understand NT internals.”

      Right, but it’s not you. I don’t see any FOSS developers who are proficient with NT in here leading the cheer squad the way you are.

      This is my whole point, the least capable are the ones who are the most demanding. It’s time you put up or shut up and actually prove you’ve contributed something. Stop telling me to believe in Jesus and try performing some of your own miracles for a change.

    36. oiaohm says:

      FOSS developers exist that understand NT internals.
      http://www.reactos.org and http://www.winehq.org have very good knowledge of the internals of windows. Some of the random issues both run into would be sorted out by being able to look at the source code.

      Not true
      –When they say “with open source you can fix a bug yourself” what they mean is “someone else can fix a bug…hopefully”.–

      Depends on the bug. This is only true for bugs that need new code added to fix them that you need a developer. Bugs what need code removed is a different matter you only need people who can test to work out the code to remove.

      Have you ever done a regression test. If the bug is caused by a introduced patch the normal it worked but now its broken. Its basically possible for anyone who will spend the time to find the defective patch with open source and even remove it from there production.

      Closed source you don’t have the option of regression test solution. Instead you have to run old version with none of the new patches. This is the open source advantage if 1 patch someone breaks your program you can remove just that 1 patch and apply the rest and send the issue upstream for resolution proper-ally.

      Regression testing is not a high skill thing. Its a time consuming thing.

      I have not added code to the Linux kernel but I have had code removed due to defects.

      By the way no one understand the full kernel of Linux. Each issue is module by module. This is why big kernel lock issue happened inside Linux errors that have happened with Linux shows how the development model is working. So the thing is not monolithic development. Locking these days is restricted to subsystems of the Linux kernel because most developer only know a subsystem well.

      Basically Comment 5 and 6 are bogus. Regression testing is still contributing.

      –Expecting anybody but a kernel developer to be able to effective contribute to the kernel is wishful thinking.–
      All the release testers that perform regression tests of the Linux kernel do effective contribute most of them are not developers.

      So everything in comment 5 and 6 is based on a lie.

      FOSS gives you options to attempt to fix. Some require skill some don’t. Regression testing is mostly brute force. As with all brute force you don’t need much skill todo it.

      You don’t have brute force options using closed source that remain secure. Not being able to apply security updates because closed source application fails under windows is not good.

      Clarence Moon 2 decades is how long key patents last. You are aware MS patented FAT and does not support UDF on harddrives so has had no patent free format to use to receive files on removable media until 2013. Writing your own file-system driver for windows breaks often because that section of the ABI MS changes a lot.

      2013 MS Fat patents fall. So anyone releasing a Linux accessing Fat media MS has been going after patent licenses this include Android. Discounts if you release MS products.

      Clarence Moon if you get all the roadblocks against doing FOSS desktop we had to wait 2 decades.

      Forcing MS to used documented file formats, Network protocols and so on were all required before the push for desktop could start.

      Android is changing many things about Linux. Like we are now seeing Audio Compression Offloading and port detection being worried about by ALSA. These things are not required by servers.

      Most of the history of Linux kernel development reads like ok required for server then desktop second. We are now seeing serous desktop development.

      Some of the upcoming changes being talked about are going to mess with people.

      Clarence Moon the only major road blocks to Linux now is how fast Linux can get rid of X11 and across to wayland and how fast the audio system can be fixed up. Everything else in applications mostly likely will be ready before that point.

    37. It seems the people shouting the loudest for the source to be opened are the people who are least fit to use contribute to it.

      When they say “with open source you can fix a bug yourself” what they mean is “someone else can fix a bug…hopefully”. Which is the same position you’re in with closed source software, you’re waiting for someone else to hopefully fix bugs, because you can’t.

      You try to make it sound like it’s a choice but really you’re just not able. You’re at the mercy of others just like you always were.

    38. “Imagine all the open-source development and *improvement* that would be made.”

      We don’t need to imagine them, they exist in the current versions of Windows. You guys seem to be stuck in a time warp.

      If they DID open the source to NT5.x (2000 and XP) I’d be really impressed if you could make heads or tails of it. Just like you haven’t made heads or tails of the Linux kernel either. I’m a developer, that’s my job, but even I can’t contribute to the kernel because it isn’t my domain and it’s a huge monolithic project that takes years to unravel and understand.

      It would be like expecting a dentist to be able to perform brain surgery. Sure, they’re both doctors, but their fields are wildly different. Expecting anybody but a kernel developer to be able to effective contribute to the kernel is wishful thinking. Expecting ordinary users to take it upon themselves to fix bugs is pure fantasy.

      But by all means, prove me wrong and link me to your kernel contributions.

    39. The GPL is probably the root of why Linux dominates among FOSS and probably will come to dominate all IT within a decade or so

      Regardless of how carefully one parses this bit of nonsense, it doesn’t seem to have any meaning. How does Linux “dominate” FOSS? What does the term “among” add to whatever the answer might be? As I understand it, the GPL is not a factor in Apache or PHP at all and Linux and MySQL only reference an old version of the GPL, with Linux refusing to use the new version and Oracle not really offering an unfettered GPL at all. So how would any of this affect “all IT” in ten years? For that matter Linux is going nowhere and in two decades has failed to break out of its 1 in a 100 shackles.

    40. Ivan says:

      That’s good stuff for a FLOSS project but there’s something that bugs me.

      Heaven forbid. I’m sure HP will certainly bend over backwards to not bug you. Your opinion about their failed mobile operating system matters so much to their bottom line.

      While they open the source, they allow it to be closed again at whim by using the ASL which does not require source code to be distributed along with the binary code.

      It uses the same license as Android, Bob. Seems hypocritically silly to argue in defense of one while getting a bug up your ass about the other.

    41. oe says:

      The most stunning human en-devours, The pyramids, Great Wall, Project Apollo, etc. required a lot of collective effort – central to this was sharing. The GPL is probably the root of why Linux dominates among FOSS and probably will come to dominate all IT within a decade or so.

    42. dougman says:

      Its a real shame that M$ doesn’t do this with older versions of Windows.

      I am sure lots of people would love to get their hands on Windows 2000 and to include XP, after it expires in 2014.

      Imagine all the open-source development and *improvement* that would be made. 🙂

    Leave a Reply