mikeumo at gmail.com
Sat Feb 16 07:30:46 CET 2008
On Friday February 15 2008 13:54:27 Brandon Kruse wrote:
> In that case it is not an open phone or platform. It is well worth the
> investigation to go fully open somehow IMO.
> But I guess we could be like olpc and have a MOSTLY open platform
> (wifi chip is not, as you could have guessed)
Basically what I thought was:
a customer buys a phone with whatever firmware is in it and what ever
mechanism the OS uses to upload it to the hardware on startup if necessary;
if a customer wants to update/upgrade firmware then one has to download a
binary update app (say from OM website) and the firmware update itself (from
OM or a hardware vendor). Then install the app, the firmware and be happy
about new features/speed and the fact that there is a (small) binary module
on his/her system he/she knows nothing about.
Alternatively, one can send the phone to OM and request an firmware update;
Alternatively, one can refuse to put anything non-FOSS on the phone and live
happily with (presumably buggy/malfunctioning) existing firmware and try to
fix any problems the FOSS-way.
I do not think OM can achieve *completely* (=absolutely) open OS with any
sensible effort. Let's be realistic. What OM/community needs to decide is the
degree (or ratio) of open to non-open soft. I would not even demand a
certain, community decided API from firmware vendors -- just that they *open*
whatever API they have. The greatest problem for community to produce
software is not that some API has changed: it's when API is not available in
the first place. So, let's get the functioning hardware in our hands -- there
is plenty of things to do beyond firmware updates.
More information about the community