Jolla Brings Wayland Atop Android GPU Drivers

[Kivada]

Would you stupid people PLEASE quit spreading your "fragmentation" FUD? Fragmentation is a GOOD THING. Fragmentation is what ***MAKES ANDROID STRONG***. There is NO magic configuration that works perfectly for everybody. Fragmentation is the allowance for VARIATION, and VARIATION is necessary in order to be able to satisfy EVERYBODY.

Also, you can't have "unified android drivers for everybody" because everybody has DIFFERENT HARDWARE. DIFFERENT HARDWARE = DIFFERENT DRIVERS. Again... FRAGMENTATION IS A GOOD THING. MAKES ANDROID STRONG.

too much fragmentation doesn't allow the smaller players to have a fighting chance. If the hardware drivers in android worked identically in all other linux based ARM OSs then we could see some more interesting products that would provide actual competition and would thus spur on further development.

It would be quite interesting to see a near even split between andoid, firefox OS, ubuntu mobile, jolla, ios, blackberry and windows mobile 8 as then each would have to constantly try and out do the competition at every step of the way thus leading to a much more healthy market.

Likewise, it's also a problem of fragmentation that every time an OSS dev gets butthurt over something trivial he goes and forks the project, often taking a few other devs with him, diverting resources to his side project that will likely go nowhere but serve only to slow development of the project he forked from. This is a major problem in OSS since it's making the smallest player even smaller and slower.

[daniels]

FACT: Weston is on MIT. You can fork Weston and sell it as proprietary.

It's not the same as LGPLv3 with copyright assignment, though. With MIT, you can develop a diverse ecosystem with a hell of a lot of contributors more or less on a level playing field. With LGPLv3 plus copyright assignment, you put yourself head and shoulders above everyone else, and pretty much guarantee that no other company will ever contribute to your project, since the entire point is to allow you to sell proprietary-friendly relicensing for profit. With no-one else contributing or even trying to develop deep expertise with your project, you have no competition for services revenue, so you can go to hardware vendors and tell them that you'll do the port of their drivers to your project for a set fee. With no competition, they'll be more or less forced to say yes if they want to ship a product running your stack.

Probably not the worst decision from a business point of view, though, especially if you're looking for a short-to-medium-term revenue boost.

[Serge]

My point is that corporations are amoral. I'm not 100% sure where you were going with your previous post, but it seems to me that you were trying to say that even the positive, charitable works undertaken by Monsanto are done with an agenda, in which case you're only further proving my point.

[dibal]

Here ya go: http://www.monsantofund.org/

God I love the internet.

Does Monsantofund founds projects in countrys that not accept patents on life ? Or is is a door opener to accept the Monsanto patent policy ?

God I love people who believes in greenwashing.

[Serge]

Do you know any non evil action from Monsanto ?

Here ya go: http://www.monsantofund.org/

God I love the internet.

[dibal]

Companies cannot be evil. They can be profitable or not.

Do you know any non evil action from Monsanto ? I cannot imagine a computer company that opens a biological war against life on planet earth.

[Serge]

The question is not whether outsiders believe ethics should apply to corporations or not, the question is whether the corporations themselves are aware of the ethical implications of their decisions, which I think they are not. Corporations don't actually make decisions - which means they don't have free will, and that has a whole other host of ethical implications, but that would be off-topic to this conversation - but as I was saying, corporations don't make decisions, their employees make the decisions. We can judge the ethics of these employees, because they are people, but we can't judge the ethics of corporations. Corporations simply have no conscience.

[dibal]

Every company that sells services for a whole distribution should definitively also work on the kernel. If Canonical only did Unity and sold that for other distributions, you'd be right, but Canonical distributes Ubuntu as a whole.

For me, it is completely ok to work on other aspects from the open source software stack. The linux kernel is just a (maybe replaceable) part of the open source software stack.

[t.s.]

Bullshit. Ethics don't stop applying to you just because you decide to act as a "corporation". If you do unethical things, you're evil. If your company does unethical things, your company is evil. It's not rocket science.

Profitability has nothing to do with it. You can make profit without doing evil things.

+1 Doing evil != profitable.

[dee.]

Companies cannot be evil. They can be profitable or not.

Bullshit. Ethics don't stop applying to you just because you decide to act as a "corporation". If you do unethical things, you're evil. If your company does unethical things, your company is evil. It's not rocket science.

Profitability has nothing to do with it. You can make profit without doing evil things.