From mickey at vanille.de  Mon Nov 27 08:33:19 2017
From: mickey at vanille.de (Dr. Michael Lauer)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 08:33:19 +0100
Subject: [Fso] FSO EOL?
In-Reply-To: <CALN8YxCymV++TUzjj7HdVyjFxetFUYQNO5rEiZdW8r0K24u9Cw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5548300.tqQSqsBVN7@saturn>
 <CALN8YxCymV++TUzjj7HdVyjFxetFUYQNO5rEiZdW8r0K24u9Cw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D5F19C0B-0419-42FC-9C16-9988DF55A6B0@vanille.de>

Hi folks,

> Have you asked Micky about current status of FSO? The website still works. 
> 
> On Sep 19, 2017 1:14 PM, "joerg Reisenweber" <joerg at openmoko.org> wrote:
> It's a pity how FSO middleware seems to vanish in oblivion. Particularly since
> it's the _only_ decent middleware for embedded/phone I know of. maemo has some
> unstructured organically grown mess instead and that's the only other approach
> I think comes near. Ofono is for modem control only afaik.

There hasn?t been any _new_ development on FSO since about 2012. That said,
the code that is there should more or less still work, might need a bit of polishing
due to Vala changes.

I still believe in the concepts of FSO as a holistic approach to a special-interest
middleware, there?s some good and intense thinking behind it based on the
experience with all kinds of mobile and embedded systems we gained when
working with OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus, OpenEZX, OpenSIMpad, OpenMoko, 
and what not.

I would love to continue working on FSO, but without it being used on an actual
hardware platform, I don?t see much motivation. Also, it needs to be at least somewhat
financially attractive, as these days, I don?t have the luxury anymore to spend
more than just a few hours per week on non-paid work (god, how I miss those
university days?).

That?s my dilemma.

Best regards,

Mickey.


From hns at goldelico.com  Mon Nov 27 08:53:04 2017
From: hns at goldelico.com (H. Nikolaus Schaller)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 08:53:04 +0100
Subject: [Fso] FSO EOL?
In-Reply-To: <D5F19C0B-0419-42FC-9C16-9988DF55A6B0@vanille.de>
References: <5548300.tqQSqsBVN7@saturn>
 <CALN8YxCymV++TUzjj7HdVyjFxetFUYQNO5rEiZdW8r0K24u9Cw@mail.gmail.com>
 <D5F19C0B-0419-42FC-9C16-9988DF55A6B0@vanille.de>
Message-ID: <9330C7A0-AE25-4ED8-A13F-DEF04F4972FD@goldelico.com>


> Am 27.11.2017 um 08:33 schrieb Dr. Michael Lauer <mickey at vanille.de>:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
>> Have you asked Micky about current status of FSO? The website still works. 
>> 
>> On Sep 19, 2017 1:14 PM, "joerg Reisenweber" <joerg at openmoko.org> wrote:
>> It's a pity how FSO middleware seems to vanish in oblivion. Particularly since
>> it's the _only_ decent middleware for embedded/phone I know of. maemo has some
>> unstructured organically grown mess instead and that's the only other approach
>> I think comes near. Ofono is for modem control only afaik.
> 
> There hasn?t been any _new_ development on FSO since about 2012. That said,
> the code that is there should more or less still work, might need a bit of polishing
> due to Vala changes.
> 
> I still believe in the concepts of FSO as a holistic approach to a special-interest
> middleware, there?s some good and intense thinking behind it based on the
> experience with all kinds of mobile and embedded systems we gained when
> working with OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus, OpenEZX, OpenSIMpad, OpenMoko, 
> and what not.
> 
> I would love to continue working on FSO, but without it being used on an actual
> hardware platform, I don?t see much motivation.

Looks like a hen&egg to me. Since FSO isn't worked on, nobody having an actual
hardware platform risks to use it. Rather, they prefer something with intensive
development === Android.

> Also, it needs to be at least somewhat
> financially attractive, as these days, I don?t have the luxury anymore to spend
> more than just a few hours per week on non-paid work (god, how I miss those
> university days?).
> 
> That?s my dilemma.

I think we all share this. Up to 3-4 years ago there was a lot of public funding
for people working on/with open source. But now this has been commercialized as
well. If you look at kernel.org, 80% of the developers come from chip manufacturers
and the big Linux distributions. Both have a business model which needs the Linux
kernel to be maintained and developed. Same for e.g. Debian.

But for middleware, there is no such need. Or if it is (Librem...) they run their
own decisions. Which may not favour what we have been doing and would like to do :)

Another important change seems to be that university students appear not to be
very interested in such topics any more. Partially, because the goal of getting
Linux on smartphones is reached. Game over. Won. Unfortunately by Android, but
that can't be changed any more. So I'd assume students find playing other games
interesting today.

Maybe we should more discuss about this dilemma and ways out of it than simply
accepting it and waiting for the "white knight".

For example coming out of the "if others would do, I'd do" dilemma, it works
in very many very small steps. The first ones may even go backwards :)

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Mickey.

BR,
Nikolaus