Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)MI
Posts
0
Comments
510
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Might be your ideal world but that will not happen. The only reason Android is "open" is because Google wanted to hit Microsoft and Apple where it hurts. If they were super pro open source they would have released all code for Okay Services and the hardware in Nexus and Pixel.

    But they didn't... So... Yeah... Not even Google is sharing your vision.

  • I'm pretty sure that looks better on paper than it will do in the real world. Today a lot of software libraries are incorporated into applications. These libraries solve specific problems that the vendor didn't have to solve themselves. Often these libraries are licensed to be used under specific circumstances. Even if you would get your hands on the source code, you are certainly not allowed to declare it open source.

    So even if Sony were to release the OS on the Bravia as open source, it would most likely be a Swiss cheese with holes that had to be fixed before it was usable.

    At that point you still wouldn't have gained much from an end user perspective since there is still no app store. Even if you set up your own local app store you would have to convince Netflix and other streaming services to release a client app for your tv.

    I think the solution is more in the direction of legal pressure. If you sell something, it should be expected that you honor that sale and not change it to something it wasn't when you happily accepted the money.

  • Actually, in the long run this might be something good. This will force EU lawmakers to act regarding software services being pulled without consent.

    A lot of things are sold with features relying on software services / cloud services. You buy a smart tv today and two years later the vendor decides to kill the appstore. (Had a friend who bought a Sony Bravia TV. Two years after she bought it she finally got a network outlet installed near the tv. However, Sony had decided to go another route and just killed 99% of all apps and the smart TV was really dumb)

    Is this what you initially paid for when you decided to buy the device? Should the consumer just accept that a major part of the listed features just disappears?

  • OS/2 3.0 "Warp" was a little too much ahead of its time and had the exact same problem that Windows Mobile had: no applications.

    IBM tried to solve that with Windows emulation but it was a headache from the start and often have a buggy experience.

    It didn't help that the real world hardest requirements were off the charts as compared to Windows 95 (still 16-bit MS-Dos based and not even close to what OS/2 was).

    IBM did everything right from an engineering perspective but failed miserably on what the market wanted.

    It never stood a chance. IBM had always been great at delivering solutions that was well engineered. What IBM has n-e-v-e-r been good at is marketing and understanding the volume market.

  • If it was OS/2 from IBM it was true multitasking and the OS in full control of memory allocation, something Microsoft only were able to offer after creating a new operating system from scratch (Windows NT).

    If you thought OS/2 took forever to boot on a 386DX with only 8MB of ram, imagine how long it would take to boot Windows NT 3.5 on that same machine....