Tag Opinion

Beautiful Open Source

Earlier today, HP announced that they are open sourcing webOS, the mobile OS that they bought from Palm, inspired by BeOS, which Palm acquired a few years before that. Of course, these news comes as a consequence of HP canning their hardware platform, ending their tablet ambitions in a spectacular fire sale where they lost money on every device sold.

I’ve been a fan of the simplicity and elegance of webOS for a while. I even used BeOS back in it’s day. I didn’t really like the HP devices tho, and for me this is the optimal outcome. Provided that HP choses a liberal license, this means that webOS might actually get some adoption.

I even belive webOS would make a foundation for a nice Linux based desktop OS (Something Linux desperately needs), if provisions were made for a usable keyboard and touchpad multitouch gestures. Some of the leading internet pundits are less optimistic about this move than I am tho. John Gruber of Daring Fireball writes:

I hope I’m wrong, but I think this is just the difference between putting your dog down and letting it free on a distant mountain road.

Matt Gemmel takes it even further:

Want to know what happens when you make an operating system open? The same thing as when you leave your car open: sooner or later, it ends up smelling like a urinal.

Which I find a rather ridicolous notion. Certainly, a lot of Open Source apps were made by neckbeards with little or no design skills. However, WebOS is already very well designed, and even contains a nice style guide for apps. Just look how nice this Open Source twitter client for WebOS looks (phnx):

The distinguished interface style is already there, with gui widgets for app developers to use, which makes it more likely that usable and user friendly apps may be developed by an open source community. From running iusethis.com, I’ve noticed that when there’s already a defined style like on the mac, there’s a better chance of getting well designed open source apps.

Just look at QuickSilver, Cyberduck, Transmission and even Adium, widely used open source mac apps that are far ahead of their equivalent Linux-based apps. Being open source doesn’t have to mean design by comittee. It’s not like closed source is a guarantee of good design either.

What WebOS does need is improved performance, stability, better apis, and wider availability. The first things are absolutely things that we beardy Unix types are quite good at. Obviously Open Sourcing a codebase also means that professionals from several companies contribute, just look at the kind of boost this has given to Webkit. While on the subject of WebKit, the fact that WebOS apps are made using open web technologies is a very good fit for the open source community as well. Some of us that have been developing for the IOS platform are secretly yearning for a equally good open platform. Android is certainly not it.

Hopefully Open Sourcing with a liberal license will help with the last point too. I specially see Chinese cell phone producers as likely to pick up this opportunity, but possibly some of the existing android players as well. I’m even hoping there might be a distribution available for the iPad, and as I mentioned earlier, I am hoping to see webOS on prominent Linux distributions in the near future..

It’s not like this is a big closed source platform that is totally alien to the Open Source community. webOS already runs on linux, and uses a lot of the same open source technology we know and love (just check the open source information in the OS to verify this).

Hopefully HP will allow the current team to steward the OS forward. In my ideal world they would move the project to github and keep the contribution flow through pull requests where the core team is able to maintain a certain level of control.

If this happens, I see a bright future ahead for WebOS.

Git results in silos?

Simon Wistow worries that the distributed nature of git results in fragmented software projects:

That model works well for Linux. Maybe. I’ll presume it does. Git eases the pain points expressed by Andrew Morton, the maintainer of the -mm tree, in this message entitled “This Just Isn’t Working Any More”

In short, it makes siloing easier.

My immediate reaction to reading his post was to think of the old saying ‹‹Guns don’t kill people, people kill people››. In fact, my experiences with forks so far has been two cases of forking repos on github, and doing a pull request to the author when my fixes were fit to be included in the main distribution. In both cases the authors included my changes in their versions.

Just because there exists a lot of works-in-progress doesn’t mean that they represent different authoritative versions of a given module. The situation for the rails OAuth plugin might be a bit muddled, but thanks to github’s excellent network map, it’s easy to track all of the 12 forks on github (substansially less than 27), out of which most seems to have merged into a new mainline.

The oauth Network - GitHub

It is clear that this project suffers from a inactive maintainer, but I believe that Git forks has lowered the barrier to contributing substantially, thus ensuring vitality for open source software projects. Our own Catalyst OAuth support, which resides in SVN is still non-working, despite several promises from people to look into it. These people might have working support in their local applications, but if that is the case, I’m unable to get to them or merge it into the started efforts in Catalyst SVN.

To summarize, Git lowers the barrier to contribution. Building or avoiding silos is up to the software maintainers, and giving support for patched versions is madness any way we look at it. Just the same way as developers are on their own when they use development versions of software, they can’t expect support for forked versions of that software either. If you live on the bleeding edge, you are going to bleed a little.

Copyright © marcus ramberg
nordaaker

Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress