你们所有的基地都属于我们 !
Would me a more appropriate title (All your bases are belong to us) :-)
China is backing a mobile operating system designed to offer a state-approved alternative to foreign platforms. Dubbed China Operating System (COS), the platform is set to launch first on handheld devices, with a possible expansion to other platforms. According to reports from tech blog Engadget China, COS was designed by …
Anyway, the question is: Will it be gloriously open?
Exactly right. Personally, I don't think there will be any other way to get this to market, otherwise it'll be buried in claims of "containing spyware" from those very trustworthy entities in the US (NSA, Google et al).
(note: for the humour impaired, that was sarcasm),
Maybe not to our market, but I doubt the entity making this is targetting our market. This product is clearly for their home market, and I don't know if Chinese users have yet grasped the importance of Open Source.
And if their product is user-friendly and useful, then the question may be moot. Besides, we all know that, if the Chinese government wants integrated surveillance, there will be no one (alive) to oppose it.
The kernel isn't very important. What's more important is whether there is a common hardware platform to enable easy vendor-independent updates. Another important issue is the software distribution model. Will there be a healthy model like the one most Linux distributions use, or an App-Store?
Just saying "It's based on Linux" is more or less a null-statement. It's the default kernel for new projects. Few are insane enough to build something new on VxWorks or Nucleus.
That is based on the amount of crapware, malware and spyware installed alongside other famous Chinese language software packages.
Strangely, the international (English), versions of these packages are only a fraction of the size.
Dont believe me?? Go compare the Chinese language and International versions of QQ, the Chinese version of Skype/IM.
(Go Compare! Go Compare!!# argh!!, now I have visions of that nasty bloke with the twisty moustache stuck in my head).
PS, hasnt anyone told G.C. that Blakey was an INSPECTOR, not a driver yet??
That could be due to the fact that there is a gazillion Chinese characters instead of the paltry few hundreds most of the rest of the world uses. Text input methods are also a nightmare to program, and things like a simple text-to-speech converter are hideously complex for Chinese. And a Siri equivalent would probably need several times more computing power than that available to all the NSA. ;-)
And on top of all that, 'Chinese' is not a single language, but dozens of dialects, many of which are mutually unintelligible.
Actually, they only have ONE written language; and I speak from experience on how much spyware, malware and crapware they install by default on the "local" version, I cleaned it all out of my (Chinese) wifes computer and got the final install down to nearly the same size as the international version.
PS. Text input is done in "PinYin" which uses English characters that convert on-screen in Chinese ideograms.
PPS I have also had experience of the Chinese "360" Internet browser and Security suite, which is basically a rip off of Internet Explorer and also chock full of malware, spyware et al; so much so it actually shows as malware on most Western AV and AM packages (and breaks underpowered PCs with its payload demands).
Well, TWO written languages, Traditional (used in Taiwan, Hong Kong and other places) and Simplified (used in the Mainland). And dozens of input methods, PinYin being the most popular phonetic one on the Mainland, but shape-based methods, such are Cangjie and CKC are also popular. There's also the handwriting-input methods.
This post has been deleted by its author
The definition of "Enough work to exempt it from the GPL" is "Enough for it to constitute an entirely new work in its own right, aot a derivative work based on an existing copyrighted work".
Funnily enough, nobody seems to have any problem with this concept when dealing with old-fashioned, closed copyrights (the kind which the GPL specifically forbids you to apply to derivative works of GPLed works).
If you start with the original work, and replace every single line of it, it is still a derivative work of the original.
If you start with one guy in a room somewhere reading the original work and telling you in his own words what the module should do, whilst you sit in another room without the original work reimplementing it, it is not a derivative work.
"The definition of "Enough work to exempt it from the GPL" is "Enough for it to constitute an entirely new work in its own right, aot a derivative work based on an existing copyrighted work".
Funnily enough, nobody seems to have any problem with this concept when dealing with old-fashioned, closed copyrights (the kind which the GPL specifically forbids you to apply to derivative works of GPLed works)."
A headache that's yet to be resolved....
Cos after all, when a GPL project discovers they're carrying code that ísn't GPL compatible, they "rewrite" the code -- no cleanroom, just "delete code and add something that does exactly the same thing" -- and then they tell us that it's not a derivative work of the very same code that they were directly recreating....
Only thing funny about this is your total ignorance of the relative security of current versions of operating systems. Windows Server 2008 R2 was very secure and WS 2012 is leaps and bounds ahead of any flavor of Linux in that regard. Either you don't work in the industry or if you do I feel sorry for the folks who are writing your check as they should really invest in someone who keeps up with current tech.
they should really invest in someone who keeps up with current tech
Errm, small tip: Linux moves on too. The issue is not how easily a platform can be secured and be kept stable, it's how much effort it takes. With Linux you spend less time planning for the bandwidth involved in updates.
...this is a) the Chinese state trying to increase its control over the population, 2) is designed and run by the secret service, and iii) will mean that the state harasses and punishes manufacturers who stick with Android (or Windows Phone, if there are any).
Oh, and that design and probably some of the code will be straight-up stolen from the competitors. Plus of course that it will very rapidly become wildly successful in China.
design and probably some of the code will be straight-up stolen from the competitors
You mean, do it the American way? That's how they started, you know (and some have had trouble shaking that habit ever since, like Microsoft vs Stacker).
Personally, I don't think so. A large percentage of that market lies abroad, and every US actor in this game would start screeching about "spyware" etc because it would threaten their own schemes, so the worst China can do to those state actors is to make it totally open. Not only would that encourage uptake, it would also put any attempt NOT to be open in a bad light.
It's quite an impressive move on a geopolitical level.
This post has been deleted by its author
quote: "You accuse me of having stolen and intimidated?
Don't use terms you do not know what they mean."
Nope, I was alluding to (my) position that the "Chinese way of stealing and intimidation" is also the American way, thus claiming your refutation to instead be a tautology. I had assumed that you had posted that in a deliberately ironic way, rather than actually being serious. If it was really just a misguided attempt at patriotism, instead of the deliciously ironic masterpiece I took it for, then I apologise :(
You'll note that the US administration has been in the limelight recently by overturning an import ban because of "the effect on competitive conditions in the US economy and their effect on US consumers" even though the US International Trade Commission found that a US company had infringed a key technology patent from a non-US company, and imposed a ban on the import and sale of the infringing equipment. Apparently the loss of revenue for the infringing (American) company was far more important than, say, the intellectual property rights of the infringed upon (not American) company.
Strangely enough, those exact same 2 companies are in a reverse position over other products and IP, and the US administration have been absolutely fine with the dirty foreigners getting punished for the affront of stealing US IP.
So (to name names), The US administration have allowed Apple to infringe Samsungs IP with impunity, and allowed Samsung to be heavily punished for infringing Apple's IP. Does that not sound like "stealing and intimidation" to you? It certainly stinks of jingoism to me...
This post has been deleted by its author
Actually Meego/Maemo was at least _years_ ahead of Android. You had native applications and a sensible software distribution model. If they had licensed it for other manufacturers, you'd have had a great product for the professional market. You would have had what's essentially a hand-held laptop. Now put that into the case of a Nokia Communicator.
... Population wants it's own OS, tailored for it's language, that will never work.
As for being based on Linux, why would you not? It's just solid business sense, last time I looked to build the equivalent of Linux from scratch would be in the region of $3 Billion, that's without the development time and subsequent long lead time to market. Linux *just* a kernel, but a remarkably successful and necessary one all the same.
I'm not surprised China doesn't want NSA software.
I'm sure the US government would not be happy if Chinese software was the only option for US citizens (the US government, especially Sen. Rogers complain about us Canadians having the mere option of Chinese software).
I just wonder why more governments are not following this path to protect their citizens.
I just wonder why more governments are not following this path to protect their citizens.
The Germans do. They have built up quite a history of funding Open Source projects that were close to what they needed to get it viable for production. GPG is but one example. I vaguely recall the US government doing that too, looooong ago. I think that gaves us the Internet.
This is why the whole privacy and intercept situation saddens me deeply: there is a lot of good stuf the US can do, but they have pretty much shot themselves in the foot with the laws they now have, and the government's attitude towards the rights of even their own citizens. Not good.
WhatEVER happened to Mark Shuttleworth's much-bragged-about (so what else is new?) Chinese adoption of Ubuntu?
Can't these Chinese wait for a few more missed deadlines--with accompanying feeble, transparent, prevaricating excuses by Mark Shuttleworth--on Ubuntu Touch?
What a bunch of wimps. WE can, and DO!
"and things like a simple text-to-speech converter are hideously complex for Chinese."
Not really, given that there are only a finite and relatively limited number of sounds in spoken Chinese.
"And a Siri equivalent would probably need several times more computing power than that available to all the NSA"
ditto