5 ms·

HP Kicks webOS To The Kerb

31 points by Hoff 15y ago

quanticle 15y ago
While the open sourcing of webOS and the exit of HP from the tablet and phone market may not be good news for the continued existence of webOS as a separate entity, it does allow us to learn from webOS and integrate it's best features into other systems, such as Android. And who knows? Maybe webOS will catch on. I know it made some design decisions that were superior to Android, in many ways. It was designed from the ground up for touch interfaces, whereas Android was designed initially for a keyboard + trackball interface. I think webOS will at least make Android stronger, even if it doesn't survive on its own.
- cjrandolph 15y ago
  HP isn't getting out of tablets entirely. They will be making Win 8 tablets. http://www.bgr.com/2011/10/28/hp-windows-8-tablets-arriving-next-year-ceo-says-webos-future-up-in-the-air/ http://www.bgr.com/2011/10/28/hp-windows-8-tablets-arriving-...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
sho_hn 15y ago
"Releasing a product as Open Source isn’t always an admission of failure; see exhibits Linux or, more recently, WebKit." WebKit in particular is a derivative of KHTML and KJS, KDE's HTML and JavaScript engines. Given their LGPL licensing, Apple had no choice but to make WebKit open source as well. Now, The article doesn't preclude this, but since the above follows a rant about "corpospeak" and is thus chiefly concerned with the behavior of corporate/commercial entities around open source releases, it seems prudent to point out that the WebKit codebase wasn't originally the product of such an entity -- and the same of course applies to Linux, too, making both rather poor examples for the author's purpose. Cringe-cringe at the iTunes analogy, too, with the "more or less legally" not applying to what's in RHEL. This is also indicative of sub-par writing: A simple explanation using clear language ("customers pay for services, not the code") is eschewed in favor of trying to make a comparison that doesn't really fit, but has brand recognition. Summarizing Firefox in terms of Mozilla Corp.'s financial situation is also doing poorly by it. Mozilla's possible financial dependence on Google is an interesting topic in and of itself, but anyone who's measuring Firefox by its success as a "3. Profit!" scheme doesn't understand its history or its makers - nor its true success/impact in web history. Gassée can range from entertaining to insightful, but this one's just too lazily executed and seemingly unaware of a lot of context. Well, it was a Sunday I suppose.
- freehunter 15y ago
  The Linux example in particular is awful. Linux was not a product released as open source, it was an open source project from the beginning. Project, not product. Products are open sourced either as a principle or as an admission. It's difficult to tell which side WebOS falls on, as parts of it were open source all along, and Palm/HP has always embraced the hacker community since the Pre came along (allowing booting from USB, custom kernels, Preware, root access without jumping through hoops, etc). This could be a natural progression, or it could be a last-hurrah. It will be decided in the marketplace, not in the media, and it won't take long to find out. The next 6 months will define WebOS' future, if other companies jump on board or not. A system doesn't often get three chances at success, and WebOS has used up two of them already.
  - sho_hn 15y ago
    > The Linux example in particular is awful. Linux was not a product released as open source, it was an open source project from the beginning. I may not have gotten this across properly, but the same is true of WebKit or rather its KHTML/KJS progenitors (KDE is an open source community and its trademark-holding legal entity is a not-for-profit).
  - georgemcbay 15y ago
    "The Linux example in particular is awful. Linux was not a product released as open source, it was an open source project from the beginning." I'm pretty sure that was exactly Gassée's point, though it may not have been clear enough. Linux and Webkit (and Apache, etc, etc) are very successful FOSS projects, but they grew organically out of open source and weren't closed software that was thrown over the wall of a company later in life like WebOS will be. One could point to projects that were handled somewhat like this and were still successful (like Mozilla), but IMO there's still a valid point that situations like the WebOS release result in stalled projects more often than they result in a successful long term FOSS project. Unless there is very clear and committed leadership (which would probably have to come out of whatever is left of the existing WebOS team to have any sort of authority), the project will be doomed.
- aufreak3 15y ago
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- ryannielsen 15y ago
  If you look it up, you'll find that "kerb" is the alternate, UK spelling of "curb". As Jean-Louis Gassee is French, it's not unreasonable to expect he learned UK English rather than American English. Perhaps before we criticize the efforts of others, we should consider that not all English variants have the same spellings.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- muppetman 15y ago
  I was going to criticise you, but then I realised I don't know what criticize means.
muppetman 15y ago
I think this is bad for WebOS myself. Look at Linux - I love it to bits, but it has terrible traction because there's KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc etc. It's so customisable and fragmented that it's totally confusing for novice users. That's not even to mention Debian, Ubuntu, CentOS etc. So much choice is great for the niche user, but has gone a long way (in my opinion, of course) to stopping widespread adoption of Linux as an OS. I worry this'll happen to WebOS, each tablet maker will release their take on it, app stores will be different etc and it'll be relegated to that Tablet OS only nerds use.
- firefoxman1 15y ago
  It already is the Tablet OS only nerds use, so there's nowhere to go but up. If you look at the hugely popular DROID franchise, perhaps each vendor putting their own spin on the OS isn't a bad thing?
  - muppetman 15y ago
    You raise a good point (that it already is nerds only) - I hadn't thought of it that way. I do hope it does see some increase in deployment, having used a WebOS device it really is quite nice.
- dman 15y ago
  Such rich choice along with tinkerability will create the next generation of nerds :)
- nknight 15y ago
  Yes, look at Linux. Most servers run on it, most smartphones run on it, an ever-growing number of home electronics such as TVs run on it... Oh, by the way, "most smartphones" includes the ones running WebOS. That Linux isn't widely used in desktop PC operating systems is a point of ever-shrinking interest and of little economic relevance.
  - muppetman 15y ago
    Right - and show me the app I can install on all those various places Linux is deployed. Show me the consistent UI experience across them all. It's not there. You can't. My point isn't about the the underlying OS (the kernel) itself, which has gained huge traction. It's about an experience to the end-user and the developers that's consistent. Not having to pick a .deb, .rpm, to know what libraries are/aren't available etc. That's my fear for WebOS - that many different versions will get built. Some will support WebGL, some HTML5 etc. (These are examples, please don't tell me the do/don't exist already - I wouldn't know). The whole fragmentation thing people talk about with Android, but to a much greater and detrimental degree.
DiabloD3 15y ago
This article tries to make a point, and then double backs on itself and makes a totally unrelated point that has nothing to do with HP, WebOS, or anything remotely related. Am I the only one who thinks this?
azakai 15y ago
So many things wrong here. In particular, > But the successful Open Source offerings were created in Open Source form. They weren’t “contributed” in a last-ditch effort to save face after unsuccessful attempts to monetize a proprietary version. No, that isn't true at all. Many very successful open source projects were "contributed" after commercial development, for example OpenOffice and Netscape/Mozilla. And we might as well list Android there too, it's developed behind closed doors and contributed periodically as open source - and it seems to be doing quite well. It's true that sometimes projects are "contributed" in the sense of donating them and forgetting about them. But that doesn't mean all contributions of previously closed-source code are unsuccessful. Furthermore, the author seems to only value huge amounts of revenue as a marker of success. The only FOSS project they consider to be "a success" is apparently Red Hat with $10B market cap. It's a success, to be sure, but to say all other open source projects are not (including ones with hundreds of millions of users!) is just funny. Given the situation HP is in, open sourcing WebOS makes the most sense. There is no other good option. Some good analysis, which is spot on as opposed to the article here, can be found at http://www.andrewsavory.com/blog/2011/2168 http://www.andrewsavory.com/blog/2011/2168
nl 15y ago
What's with this "Chrome marketshare has surpassed Firefox, therefore Firefox is worthless" meme that is going around lately? Firefox still has >25% browser share[1]. That gives them de-facto control of the searches from a large number of of them (excluding the people who change their default search engine). If Mozilla can't get >$100 million a year form Google with 25% of the world's deployed browsers then I'm going to start a search engine and pull an Lycos[2]. [1] http://gs.statcounter.com/ http://gs.statcounter.com/ [2] I think it was Lycos. One of the early search engines bid money they didn't have to get a placement on the Netscape search engine, and then went and got funding based on the placement.
- zobzu 15y ago
  Firefox will probably get more this year. They had a long term deal.
- kermitthehermit 15y ago
  I hate people who believe and / or promote that meme with a passion. If the deal with Google dies for Mozilla, I will reduce my use of Google's search services and use other search engines whenever possible. I strongly believe people who say they use Chrome "because it's better than Firefox" have no clue what they're talking about. They usually have no idea and don't care about not being tracked, nor about not having their browser secured with addons such as adblock plus, noscript and others.
Tichy 15y ago
What about Star Office and Blender, didn't they start as closed source and now live on happily as open source projects? (I might be wrong, too lazy to look it up).
- gvb 15y ago
  Yes and yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarOffice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarOffice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_%28software%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_%28software%29 Don't forget QT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28framework%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28framework%29 There are enough counter examples to call BS on the whole diatribe.
- kermitthehermit 15y ago
  The article itself is a load of FUD. It's funny how articles like these appear like mushrooms after the rain whenever one of the following things happens: - an open source project which can "lower" the sales of Microsoft's products is launched - a new commercial product is launched and it might lower Microsoft's sales - an application / product gains enough traction to threaten Microsoft's position in some market - Microsoft's products become less relevant to the needs of the people & the companies - people talk about issues with Microsoft's products - try to saturate all the websites and news feeds with counter-offensive articles against the competition - IE / Bing / etc lose market & people migrate to other browsers and search engines I've seen this happen with Android, Linux, open source database software, Open Office, web servers and others.
aaront 15y ago
He brings up the point of Symbian going open source and having a fallout. I think this is different. Symbian was a old, tired OS that wasn't extremely exciting. webOS has a fairly active homebrew community that will do some pretty cool stuff with the source. Also symbian was pretty much a phone-only OS, and I'd imagine was pretty tied down to feature phones. webOS will most likely be ported to netbooks pretty early on when it's released (the development emulator runs an x86 version), thus making a low-power consumption cloud-based netbook environment.
- kermitthehermit 15y ago
  Any kind of resources invested in Symbian (people, money, time, hardware, etc) could only have a limited return. As you've said, it was only for phones, it was a pretty bad inflexible platform and improving it was very difficult. However, Android and WebOS can help each other and improvements which end up going into the Linux kernel (as that's the "real OS") can be of use to ALL Linux devices. After all, WebOS has a thinner stack above the Linux kernel. From what I've seen so far, it does a pretty good job at connecting the web to the Linux kernel and wrapping it nicely for the end user. This means people will be able to customize it to their needs and provide patches upstream. From what I have seen so far, WebOS is a lot easier to work with when it comes to making something cool for it. I've even thought of using it for some of my own projects and I am now confident that it will be the right stack to use for those projects. This is what will allow a far more rapid expansion than any other OS on mobile devices and touch based appliances - flexibility. That guy who wrote the article didn't have the slightest idea about what he was talking or what he wanted to say.
teyc 15y ago
Can someone explain to me what WebOS actually is? Wikipedia says it is based on the Linux Kernel, so is it like Android which sits on top of a small Linux kernel, but has its own API for UI and telephony? My understanding is that to achieve fluid, high FPS UI we need to HW accelerate, which means getting specs from HW manufacturers, which traditionally has been a problem for Linux hobbyists. The people who have access to these are the manufacturers. In this sense, WebOS would have difficulty achieving any kind of traction.
- cpeterso 15y ago
  The webOS stack looks roughly like this: 5. Enyo (webOS 3) and Mojo (webOS 2) JavaScript application frameworks 4. SDL native development kit 3. Luna RPC messaging system 2. OpenEmbedded userspace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenEmbedded 1. Linux kernel
- masklinn 15y ago
  > Can someone explain to me what WebOS actually is? It's the OS Palm developed for its tactile smartphone "Pre" line (which sadly failed in the market). > Wikipedia says it is based on the Linux Kernel, so is it like Android which sits on top of a small Linux kernel, but has its own API for UI and telephony? Yes. > My understanding is that to achieve fluid, high FPS UI we need to HW accelerate, which means getting specs from HW manufacturers, which traditionally has been a problem for Linux hobbyists. The people who have access to these are the manufacturers. That's an issue when trying to get open-source drivers, but these don't have such restrictions (all Android phones have "the right" GPU drivers, Android is just awful at using them). Phone manufacturers have all the specs they need when the build phones, and can use binary blobs provided by chip manufacturers if need be. > In this sense, WebOS would have difficulty achieving any kind of traction. This issue really has very little relevance.
  - teyc 15y ago
    Thanks. The absence of GPU drivers mean WebOS has little relevance for tinkerers.
macspoofing 15y ago
>Google has been Firefox’ sugar daddy as the Mountain View company battles Microsoft’s Internet Explorer quasi-monopoly. Wrong. Firefox is downloaded by millions of users - there's value in being the default search engine. If Google didn't offer fair market value, Microsoft or Yahoo would.
swdunlop 15y ago
While the article itself is just a rant, what makes it interesting is that it is Jean-Louis Gassée's rant. JLG is memorable for me as one of the founders of BeOS -- and was with Be right up until Palm acquired their IP in a firesale. Perhaps he is bitter about how things turned out with Palm and HP?

31 points by Hoff 15y ago

While the open sourcing of webOS and the exit of HP from the tablet and phone market may not be good news for the continued existence of webOS as a separate entity, it does allow us to learn from webOS and integrate it's best features into other systems, such as Android. And who knows? Maybe webOS will catch on. I know it made some design decisions that were superior to Android, in many ways. It was designed from the ground up for touch interfaces, whereas Android was designed initially for a keyboard + trackball interface. I think webOS will at least make Android stronger, even if it doesn't survive on its own.

cjrandolph 15y ago
HP isn't getting out of tablets entirely. They will be making Win 8 tablets. http://www.bgr.com/2011/10/28/hp-windows-8-tablets-arriving-next-year-ceo-says-webos-future-up-in-the-air/ http://www.bgr.com/2011/10/28/hp-windows-8-tablets-arriving-...

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

sho_hn 15y ago

"Releasing a product as Open Source isn’t always an admission of failure; see exhibits Linux or, more recently, WebKit." WebKit in particular is a derivative of KHTML and KJS, KDE's HTML and JavaScript engines. Given their LGPL licensing, Apple had no choice but to make WebKit open source as well. Now, The article doesn't preclude this, but since the above follows a rant about "corpospeak" and is thus chiefly concerned with the behavior of corporate/commercial entities around open source releases, it seems prudent to point out that the WebKit codebase wasn't originally the product of such an entity -- and the same of course applies to Linux, too, making both rather poor examples for the author's purpose. Cringe-cringe at the iTunes analogy, too, with the "more or less legally" not applying to what's in RHEL. This is also indicative of sub-par writing: A simple explanation using clear language ("customers pay for services, not the code") is eschewed in favor of trying to make a comparison that doesn't really fit, but has brand recognition. Summarizing Firefox in terms of Mozilla Corp.'s financial situation is also doing poorly by it. Mozilla's possible financial dependence on Google is an interesting topic in and of itself, but anyone who's measuring Firefox by its success as a "3. Profit!" scheme doesn't understand its history or its makers - nor its true success/impact in web history. Gassée can range from entertaining to insightful, but this one's just too lazily executed and seemingly unaware of a lot of context. Well, it was a Sunday I suppose.

freehunter 15y ago
The Linux example in particular is awful. Linux was not a product released as open source, it was an open source project from the beginning. Project, not product. Products are open sourced either as a principle or as an admission. It's difficult to tell which side WebOS falls on, as parts of it were open source all along, and Palm/HP has always embraced the hacker community since the Pre came along (allowing booting from USB, custom kernels, Preware, root access without jumping through hoops, etc). This could be a natural progression, or it could be a last-hurrah. It will be decided in the marketplace, not in the media, and it won't take long to find out. The next 6 months will define WebOS' future, if other companies jump on board or not. A system doesn't often get three chances at success, and WebOS has used up two of them already.
- sho_hn 15y ago
  > The Linux example in particular is awful. Linux was not a product released as open source, it was an open source project from the beginning. I may not have gotten this across properly, but the same is true of WebKit or rather its KHTML/KJS progenitors (KDE is an open source community and its trademark-holding legal entity is a not-for-profit).
- georgemcbay 15y ago
  "The Linux example in particular is awful. Linux was not a product released as open source, it was an open source project from the beginning." I'm pretty sure that was exactly Gassée's point, though it may not have been clear enough. Linux and Webkit (and Apache, etc, etc) are very successful FOSS projects, but they grew organically out of open source and weren't closed software that was thrown over the wall of a company later in life like WebOS will be. One could point to projects that were handled somewhat like this and were still successful (like Mozilla), but IMO there's still a valid point that situations like the WebOS release result in stalled projects more often than they result in a successful long term FOSS project. Unless there is very clear and committed leadership (which would probably have to come out of whatever is left of the existing WebOS team to have any sort of authority), the project will be doomed.
aufreak3 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

ryannielsen 15y ago
If you look it up, you'll find that "kerb" is the alternate, UK spelling of "curb". As Jean-Louis Gassee is French, it's not unreasonable to expect he learned UK English rather than American English. Perhaps before we criticize the efforts of others, we should consider that not all English variants have the same spellings.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
muppetman 15y ago
I was going to criticise you, but then I realised I don't know what criticize means.

muppetman 15y ago

I think this is bad for WebOS myself. Look at Linux - I love it to bits, but it has terrible traction because there's KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc etc. It's so customisable and fragmented that it's totally confusing for novice users. That's not even to mention Debian, Ubuntu, CentOS etc. So much choice is great for the niche user, but has gone a long way (in my opinion, of course) to stopping widespread adoption of Linux as an OS. I worry this'll happen to WebOS, each tablet maker will release their take on it, app stores will be different etc and it'll be relegated to that Tablet OS only nerds use.

firefoxman1 15y ago
It already is the Tablet OS only nerds use, so there's nowhere to go but up. If you look at the hugely popular DROID franchise, perhaps each vendor putting their own spin on the OS isn't a bad thing?
- muppetman 15y ago
  You raise a good point (that it already is nerds only) - I hadn't thought of it that way. I do hope it does see some increase in deployment, having used a WebOS device it really is quite nice.
dman 15y ago
Such rich choice along with tinkerability will create the next generation of nerds :)
nknight 15y ago
Yes, look at Linux. Most servers run on it, most smartphones run on it, an ever-growing number of home electronics such as TVs run on it... Oh, by the way, "most smartphones" includes the ones running WebOS. That Linux isn't widely used in desktop PC operating systems is a point of ever-shrinking interest and of little economic relevance.
- muppetman 15y ago
  Right - and show me the app I can install on all those various places Linux is deployed. Show me the consistent UI experience across them all. It's not there. You can't. My point isn't about the the underlying OS (the kernel) itself, which has gained huge traction. It's about an experience to the end-user and the developers that's consistent. Not having to pick a .deb, .rpm, to know what libraries are/aren't available etc. That's my fear for WebOS - that many different versions will get built. Some will support WebGL, some HTML5 etc. (These are examples, please don't tell me the do/don't exist already - I wouldn't know). The whole fragmentation thing people talk about with Android, but to a much greater and detrimental degree.

DiabloD3 15y ago

This article tries to make a point, and then double backs on itself and makes a totally unrelated point that has nothing to do with HP, WebOS, or anything remotely related. Am I the only one who thinks this?

azakai 15y ago

So many things wrong here. In particular, > But the successful Open Source offerings were created in Open Source form. They weren’t “contributed” in a last-ditch effort to save face after unsuccessful attempts to monetize a proprietary version. No, that isn't true at all. Many very successful open source projects were "contributed" after commercial development, for example OpenOffice and Netscape/Mozilla. And we might as well list Android there too, it's developed behind closed doors and contributed periodically as open source - and it seems to be doing quite well. It's true that sometimes projects are "contributed" in the sense of donating them and forgetting about them. But that doesn't mean all contributions of previously closed-source code are unsuccessful. Furthermore, the author seems to only value huge amounts of revenue as a marker of success. The only FOSS project they consider to be "a success" is apparently Red Hat with $10B market cap. It's a success, to be sure, but to say all other open source projects are not (including ones with hundreds of millions of users!) is just funny. Given the situation HP is in, open sourcing WebOS makes the most sense. There is no other good option. Some good analysis, which is spot on as opposed to the article here, can be found at http://www.andrewsavory.com/blog/2011/2168 http://www.andrewsavory.com/blog/2011/2168

nl 15y ago

What's with this "Chrome marketshare has surpassed Firefox, therefore Firefox is worthless" meme that is going around lately? Firefox still has >25% browser share[1]. That gives them de-facto control of the searches from a large number of of them (excluding the people who change their default search engine). If Mozilla can't get >$100 million a year form Google with 25% of the world's deployed browsers then I'm going to start a search engine and pull an Lycos[2]. [1] http://gs.statcounter.com/ http://gs.statcounter.com/ [2] I think it was Lycos. One of the early search engines bid money they didn't have to get a placement on the Netscape search engine, and then went and got funding based on the placement.

zobzu 15y ago
Firefox will probably get more this year. They had a long term deal.
kermitthehermit 15y ago
I hate people who believe and / or promote that meme with a passion. If the deal with Google dies for Mozilla, I will reduce my use of Google's search services and use other search engines whenever possible. I strongly believe people who say they use Chrome "because it's better than Firefox" have no clue what they're talking about. They usually have no idea and don't care about not being tracked, nor about not having their browser secured with addons such as adblock plus, noscript and others.

Tichy 15y ago

What about Star Office and Blender, didn't they start as closed source and now live on happily as open source projects? (I might be wrong, too lazy to look it up).

gvb 15y ago
Yes and yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarOffice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarOffice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_%28software%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_%28software%29 Don't forget QT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28framework%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28framework%29 There are enough counter examples to call BS on the whole diatribe.
kermitthehermit 15y ago
The article itself is a load of FUD. It's funny how articles like these appear like mushrooms after the rain whenever one of the following things happens: - an open source project which can "lower" the sales of Microsoft's products is launched - a new commercial product is launched and it might lower Microsoft's sales - an application / product gains enough traction to threaten Microsoft's position in some market - Microsoft's products become less relevant to the needs of the people & the companies - people talk about issues with Microsoft's products - try to saturate all the websites and news feeds with counter-offensive articles against the competition - IE / Bing / etc lose market & people migrate to other browsers and search engines I've seen this happen with Android, Linux, open source database software, Open Office, web servers and others.

aaront 15y ago

He brings up the point of Symbian going open source and having a fallout. I think this is different. Symbian was a old, tired OS that wasn't extremely exciting. webOS has a fairly active homebrew community that will do some pretty cool stuff with the source. Also symbian was pretty much a phone-only OS, and I'd imagine was pretty tied down to feature phones. webOS will most likely be ported to netbooks pretty early on when it's released (the development emulator runs an x86 version), thus making a low-power consumption cloud-based netbook environment.

kermitthehermit 15y ago
Any kind of resources invested in Symbian (people, money, time, hardware, etc) could only have a limited return. As you've said, it was only for phones, it was a pretty bad inflexible platform and improving it was very difficult. However, Android and WebOS can help each other and improvements which end up going into the Linux kernel (as that's the "real OS") can be of use to ALL Linux devices. After all, WebOS has a thinner stack above the Linux kernel. From what I've seen so far, it does a pretty good job at connecting the web to the Linux kernel and wrapping it nicely for the end user. This means people will be able to customize it to their needs and provide patches upstream. From what I have seen so far, WebOS is a lot easier to work with when it comes to making something cool for it. I've even thought of using it for some of my own projects and I am now confident that it will be the right stack to use for those projects. This is what will allow a far more rapid expansion than any other OS on mobile devices and touch based appliances - flexibility. That guy who wrote the article didn't have the slightest idea about what he was talking or what he wanted to say.

teyc 15y ago

Can someone explain to me what WebOS actually is? Wikipedia says it is based on the Linux Kernel, so is it like Android which sits on top of a small Linux kernel, but has its own API for UI and telephony? My understanding is that to achieve fluid, high FPS UI we need to HW accelerate, which means getting specs from HW manufacturers, which traditionally has been a problem for Linux hobbyists. The people who have access to these are the manufacturers. In this sense, WebOS would have difficulty achieving any kind of traction.

cpeterso 15y ago
The webOS stack looks roughly like this: 5. Enyo (webOS 3) and Mojo (webOS 2) JavaScript application frameworks 4. SDL native development kit 3. Luna RPC messaging system 2. OpenEmbedded userspace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenEmbedded 1. Linux kernel
masklinn 15y ago
> Can someone explain to me what WebOS actually is? It's the OS Palm developed for its tactile smartphone "Pre" line (which sadly failed in the market). > Wikipedia says it is based on the Linux Kernel, so is it like Android which sits on top of a small Linux kernel, but has its own API for UI and telephony? Yes. > My understanding is that to achieve fluid, high FPS UI we need to HW accelerate, which means getting specs from HW manufacturers, which traditionally has been a problem for Linux hobbyists. The people who have access to these are the manufacturers. That's an issue when trying to get open-source drivers, but these don't have such restrictions (all Android phones have "the right" GPU drivers, Android is just awful at using them). Phone manufacturers have all the specs they need when the build phones, and can use binary blobs provided by chip manufacturers if need be. > In this sense, WebOS would have difficulty achieving any kind of traction. This issue really has very little relevance.
- teyc 15y ago
  Thanks. The absence of GPU drivers mean WebOS has little relevance for tinkerers.

macspoofing 15y ago

>Google has been Firefox’ sugar daddy as the Mountain View company battles Microsoft’s Internet Explorer quasi-monopoly. Wrong. Firefox is downloaded by millions of users - there's value in being the default search engine. If Google didn't offer fair market value, Microsoft or Yahoo would.

swdunlop 15y ago

While the article itself is just a rant, what makes it interesting is that it is Jean-Louis Gassée's rant. JLG is memorable for me as one of the founders of BeOS -- and was with Be right up until Palm acquired their IP in a firesale. Perhaps he is bitter about how things turned out with Palm and HP?