Right, and this is about MeeGo. Not Nokia, not Maemo

I see, you don't think there is a difference between Maemo and MeeGo or a relationship to Nokia. Here is a quote form the MeeGo about page, first line, actually:

MeeGo is an open source, Linux project which brings together the Moblin project, headed up by Intel, and Maemo, by Nokia, into a single open source activity.

A large part of the base of MeeGo comes from Nokia's Maemo and it is supposed to support legacy Maemo apps. In addition to this, Nokia N900 is the only phone I know of that can even run MeeGo. Do you know of another model that people can actually buy? The "Technical Steering Group" of MeeGo mentions people only from Intel and Nokia. Intel has given up on even marketing MeeGo as a phone OS with their main phone partner, Nokia, baling out, and with LG looking to do (done?) the same.

Or are you comparing the MeeGo open source project to what actually ends up on Android phones? You couldn't be comparing MeeGo to AOSP, because they both have Open Source licenses, or all we talking about differences between licenses? It's the actual devices and carriers that make Android closed, because MeeGo has neither I don't believe it's a fair comparison.

And you can do the same thing with MeeGo.

You can do the same thing with MeeGo, but nobody does...

But unlike MeeGo, on a whim Google can (and has) withhold the source for it.

Granted, Google has withheld the source for the user space stuff in Honeycomb, because they can. What licensing provisions has MeeGo made on this front that I am unaware of? Because this is what MeeGo's license policy says about user space stuff:

The User Experience license policy, on the other hand, is driven by satisfying the needs of operating system and device vendor users of MeeGo to help them in fast adoption and in providing the best value to their customers. A policy of primarily permissive BSD-style open source licenses and secondarily copyleft licenses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft) meets these needs best.

So, as I've been saying, the same thing could happen to MeeGo IF it ever gets any "device vendors".

The reason I support MeeGo (not maemo) more than Android is because unlike Android, no one source controls everything.

MeeGo is currently directed by only one company... But if we are talking about the open source projects; as with any, they aren't controlled by antything.

And I'm amazed that people are attacking me for supporting what is fundamentally a mobile version of a traditional Linux distro that pulls in from good, working open source projects. On Slashdot, even.

Because everyone else thinks you are talking about what IS the stillborn child of Intel and Nokia but you are talking about an Open Source project with NO implementations. Not only this, but you are attacking Android, a large phone and tablet contender, which is a popular, open as MeeGo, project.

What clients are good in Windows XP+, Linux/Debian, and Mac OS X?

Sorry to be rude, but I am simply not going to google your sentences anymore. Seriously, google the exact sentences that you have written that end in a question mark and you will get your answer.

If you think my reply is rude, consider how rude it is that someone can't be bothered to easily help themselves but then expects others to help them. Your /. id is too low to need hand holding.

No, I like to have some independence from large corporations with vested interests that conflict with mine. I also like having open source things actually be open, rather than just "here you go, we are done with this."

Are you trying to be hypocritical on purpose? "Here you go, we are done with this" is PRECISELY the attitude Nokia has with Maemo/Meego. I can understand you're upset; Nokia has turned Maemo/Meego into an also-ran and they now see more potential with WM7 (which I think is why everyone is making comments about MS, which you seem to be missing). Anyone who owned an N770 or an N800 knew this was coming. Many of the comments you have made also apply to Nokia and their attitude towards their community. In some cases, like your quote above, I thought you were talking ironically trying to defend Android. You just must be too new to the Maemo/Meego "community" to have figured it out yet, or you've selling something. Yes, some of their code is GPL'd; the stuff that they modified that was already GPL'd or the stuff that was created/GPL'd by outside developers.. For the longest time, they didn't even open the source for their own apps. I'm not sure if that is the case today, because I own an N800 and have since moved on right around the time where they stopped providing "official" support for my device, go figure. Oh ya, there's Mer, I'm sure it's very polished by now (~2 years later). Or maybe even the Meego ARM port (which was last updated almost a year ago) Oh wait, that's right, they tried to use only the open bits that Nokia released which left them with an unworkable system. See, I'm angry too and I will not be fooled again.

You are deluding yourself if you think Maemo/Meego is more open than Android. Both have closed firmware bits. But the thing is, with Android, developers can take the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) and keep the stock kernel from a device and change nearly everything else. I say nearly, because there are still some closed apps, but this is also true of Maemo/Meego. Even if this was possible with Maemo/Meego, there is simply not enough momentum behind it for outside developers to do this. Mer is proof of this. Whereas with Android, every device seems to have a few people willing to make mods for it and that includes backporting future versions that aren't released by carriers for those devices.

Throughout my time on the maemo user and devel lists, any official voice from Nokia had been absent, but you occasionally would get people with @nokia.com email addresses to act like they know what they are talking about but that provide more disruption than direction. Then when you ask them about it, they say they aren't representing Nokia in any way. Things like changing from hildon/GTK to QT and then dropping everything and saying Meego is the new thing doesn't help. Oh, they will support hildon on Meego? I'm sure that will look great and that the developer of said app has stuck around through the bullshit to give a damn anymore about updating the app to meet the standards of Nokia's flavor of the week.

But the issue is this, and the reason why you are angry that people jumped from Maemo/Meego to Android: Google has created Android but continues to be heavily involved with it's development in kernel, user space, and marketing, while, on the other hand, Nokia created an open source operating system, but then depended VERY HEAVILY on the community to develop the user space apps for it and treat it as a testbed for their "real products". In Nokia's case, "real products" seems to be referring to WM7 now. You are aware of this, right? Not even Nokia believes Maemo/Meego is ready for mainstream consumption and they treat it as the red headed stepchild. This makes Android seem much better polished and acceptable for mainstream use.

TL;DR:

I guess my point is, the only reason you see a difference between Maemo/Meego and Android is because the former comes with busybox installed by default, uses apt-get (oh wait, now rpm!) and allows root after downloading straight from the repos. This does not make one more open than the other and if legit rooting is your thing, then their ARE Google developer phones you can buy.

If you go into court and argue the facts with no analogy to prior cases you won't win. Even in cases of first impression you will analogize your facts to anything even remotely related.

Do you see what you did there? You have created an analogy to defend the idea of using analogy's to come upon a logical conclusion, thus begging the question. Analogies should be used as guides for understanding and giving reference, they should not be used to come to logical conclusions.

The wort is still fermented to create beer; they're playing with it further it after it's been fully fermented.

When you make whiskey, the grain is also fermented. It's still not called mash when you drink it.

It's thought of as a distillation, although it isn't technically a distillation.

It is thought of as distillation because IT IS distillation, atleast by any definition of distillation that I know of.

These are all just nitpicks; it really doesn't matter in the end. There just isn't a technical reason why it /should/ be called beer, just that it's widely considered to be such. I just wished they would come up with some cool name to better describe this, like beerbon or something. I think there is some really cool science going into actually brewing the beer to have a high ABV and in created a yeast strain strong enough to handle the high alcohol content. I still definitely would like to try some either way though :)

The parent wasn't referring to federation, which is the server-to-server communication. The parent was referring to client-server communication, in which google's servers and their web client are all wrapped up together.

I believe what he was referring to, cryptically, was the already open source console client for wave. It was released, as an example, when they open sourced some of the federation code. It doesn't have the realtime updates, so it's kind of meh. Either way, client-server communication and a rich client is definitely possible, and I'm having trouble figuring why someone would think otherwise.

3. Cops... I like cops, I appreciate cops, I have cops in the family; it's not really the cops, it's the people who drop below the speed limit simply because one is nearby.

I live in the Atlanta, GA area, and this seems to be common practice around rush hour. I approve of it though and actively participate; it's my protection from speeding tickets. I can get a good idea where cops are just by looking at taillights a mile ahead. This allows for a much a higher avg speed (~80mph) which makes up for the slow-down around speed traps (which tend to only slow down to around the speed limit of 55mph - enough to back things up on I-75). Additionally, it makes it impossible for the cops to catch anyone speeding, or even drive to a new position. Over time, the cops learn that they simply shouldn't be gunning people around rush hour - it only makes things worse. Although they're back now due to their "Summer Heat" initiative.

Can anybody give a synopsys on how WAVE will protect me from unwanted commercial solicitation?

From what I gather from their wave-protocol-verification whitepaper, it seems that wave has built-in callback verification.

Alot of the spam we see today in email comes from forged sender addresses. Email wasn't originally designed to verify sender addresses and alot of hacks have been developed to try to fix that but none of them are perfect (as you can see from the wikipedia article). Google Wave should do better since it was built-in from the ground up.

There are other ways to send out spam, but those seem to be easy to blacklist since they will all point back to the spammer's address.

This seems to have been covered during "Federation Day", but I haven't been able to find anything that was actually said during it...

Please post the link to the server code download package.

Mercurial checkout. This actually just came out recently from Google Wave Federation Day earlier this week.

Taken from the "Federation Day Notes" wave:
What's in today's open source release
org.waveprotocol.wave.model
operational transformation (OT)
operations, documents
org.waveprotocol.wave.protocol
protobuf definitions for signing, hashing, internal use
org.waveprotocol.wave.examples.fedone
end-to-end prototype
wave server, wave client, federation port spec
some security and other gaps filled
XMPP mapping refinements

What's missing from today's release
not a reference impl
no persistent storage
crude indexing
no concern for performance, redundancy, scaling
simplistic client
no private replies
no client-side OT, no optimistic UI (get new state from svr )
crude ACLs
no groups
no attachments
simple expensive crypto signing
no Merkle-tree bundles


So, still no reference implementation, but considering the protocol is "a moving target", that's understandable.

There are quite a few more maliciously defaced sites out there then you'd expect.

How do I quantify that? I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm fully aware that it can indeed happen. I'm just saying it's improbable if the right precautions are taken, and none of those precautions have to be anti-virus software.

Well, I was originally saying that "Runaway" could have been perfectly safe from any remote exploits if he had been behind a home router. I then got alot of replies talking about the user being inside a firewall and still vulnerable to other exploits and all sorts of hypothetical situations, which is valid, but also outside any point I was trying to make. Although I do think such concerns are overrated even sans anti-virus(again, when the right precautions are taken).

That same Average Joe User is probably using Adobe's PDF/Flash viewers, not knowing or caring about any alternatives, so yeah, I'd say they still have a problem.

You act as if every site that is using those formats is acting maliciously. It's simply not true. Even in the rare case a mainstream site would be attacked, you would find out about it within a day and be able to take action. Not a big deal and definitely not common.

I've run anti-virus before; it got very old scanning my computer and having the thing freak out over some simple tracking cookies and never a virus. No thanks. I guess some people just go to cooler websites than me.

In fact, your scenario is increasingly looking like an edge case by the second.

Again, here is the point: "My post was simply refuting the parents clame that it was impossible to run a clean computer without anti-virus." Edge case or not (although I still think not).

Man you need to seriously have your system evaluated if you are relying on a firewall alone to prevent attacks

My post was simply refuting the parents clame that it was impossible to run a clean computer without anti-virus. I can also come up with situations where a firewalled computer can be compromised, but that isn't the point. Average Joe User behind a home router browsing regular sites w/o ActiveX and not opening executable attachments probably won't have a problem.

Virtually useless--many entry vectors exist that bypass firewalls easily, and if one of your co-worker's machines are infected, then you have no firewall!

All of which require the person inside the firewall to do something. That thing should not be done. In other words, some type of social engineering is needed to trick the user into running the untrusted software. No security system is immune from social engineering, even the precious anti-virus. I would recommend at least a software firewall in the co-worker case.