Hi,
On 03/05/11 08:53, Andrew Flegg wrote:
Well, Intel wrote their own set behind closed doors and threw it over
the wall. These then got adopted as the "MeeGo UX" without any public
discussion; whereas Nokia were developing their own set in the open,
and then closed the doors so as not to leak the "precious" Harmattan
UI.
So, without the public discussion - and with Nokia's being closed now
- it's a case of (more) politics and whoever threw theirs over the
wall first.
I think you're oversimplifying this a bit.
On the one hand, we have meego-ux-components:
- initially developed closed
+ now developed in the open
+ fairly feature-complete
+ open, decent looking, usable theming (unlike the handset codedrop)
+ open reference applications and UI stack
On the other hand, we have Harmattan's components:
+ initially developed open
- now developed closed
- unknown state of completion
- unknown roadmap for completion
- presumably theming will be closed unless an open one is created (in
which case, pray it's not as ugly as the handset codedrop)
- presumably closed applications
To me, at least, the reasoning for the 'choice' seems pretty clear:
there was a need for components (ASAP, if not last *year*), and thanks
to Nokia's decision to take development closed, nothing open existed to
contribute to.
(BTW, provided API compatibility is a goal... this isn't even a problem.
Applications written for MeeGo will happily run on Harmattan, and vice
versa, and Symbian. Except for the occasional bit that uses components
limited to a specific platform.)
--
Robin Burchell
http://rburchell.com
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-dev mailing list
MeeGo-dev@meego.com
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
