Web/Mobile version

Have some feature requests, feedback, cool stuff to share, or want to know where FreeCAD is going? This is the place.
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
kwahooo
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 11:11 pm
Contact:

Web/Mobile version

Postby kwahooo » Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:36 am

To stop hijacking thread viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1891&start=40#p13730
normandc wrote:I agree, a client app (running in the browser?) sending commands to a remote install of FreeCAD is probably the best way.

But I don't really see a subscription model for it. I'm thinking more along the lines of a home PC running as server, that would cost nothing to implement.

Anyway, with what's been found about Android phones this week (the Carrier IQ rootkit), I'm less and less sure I want anything to do with this open-source-or-is-it-really OS. I'll hold for a real Linux tablet... But I fear it is already too late for that: MeeGo's gone bye-bye, like Moblin and Maego before it, and Canonical hopes for Ubuntu tablets in... 2014! To use Biff Tannen's words: Hello, anybody home??? :roll:
kwahooo wrote:IMO Android app makes no sense. I think in future Android will be much less important - Google works heavily on Chrome (V8, Crankshaft, NaCl, WebGL, WebRTC, etc.) as a apps platform. You will get Chrome/Windows, Chrome/Linux, Chrome/Mac or Chrome/Android operation system.
So, I suggest pure HTML5/WebGL client app for FreeCAD. There are many 3D libraries, for example pythonOCC WebGL demo uses very simple Three.js library.

Take look at http://shapesmith.net/ project. Client browser app and server in the Amazon EC2 cloud. Server app uses OpenCascade.
The news:
Google officially shows NaCl (Native Client): https://developers.google.com/native-client/
Qt for NaCl is available: http://developer.qt.nokia.com/wiki/Qt_f ... ive_Client
User avatar
NormandC
Posts: 18534
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:52 pm
Location: Québec, Canada

Re: Web/Mobile version

Postby NormandC » Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:26 pm

I'm too lazy to read the whole thing, but I'm getting very leery of Google's initiatives, They've started to implement features and technology exclusive to their Chrome/Chromium browser and to hell with the other browsers.
Google has implemented the open-source Native Client technology in the Chrome browser on Windows, Mac, and Linux.
I suggest reading this article: Is Google Chrome the New IE6?

Google is turning into a new Microsoft (or maybe I just opened my eyes :roll: ) and seems to be intent on dominating the Web to the expense of its openness, and we should not allow that to happen.

So if possible, choose another true open source technology...
kwahooo
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 11:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Web/Mobile version

Postby kwahooo » Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:50 pm

Wait a moment! If something is developed under BSD-like license and it can be incorporated into source code of every browser... it isn't true open? So, when it would be true open?
User avatar
NormandC
Posts: 18534
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:52 pm
Location: Québec, Canada

Re: Web/Mobile version

Postby NormandC » Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:55 pm

As I said, I didn't read the whole thing.

It's just that I was thinking about Android: it's supposed to be open source, but it actually isn't, because Google has refused to publish the Android 3 code so far.

So, maybe I'm paranoid, but I trust Google less and less with their open source efforts. ;)
ccccrnr
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:42 pm

Re: Web/Mobile version

Postby ccccrnr » Sun Dec 11, 2011 7:22 pm

normandc wrote:It's just that I was thinking about Android: it's supposed to be open source, but it actually isn't, because Google has refused to publish the Android 3 code so far.

So, maybe I'm paranoid, but I trust Google less and less with their open source efforts. ;)
Open source isn't that your hard worked code is PUBLISHED

Open Source code is that the text code has to be available to those that you Directly distribute the binary form generated by that open source text source code to and that receivers can choose(freely) to re-distribute (and so on)

this is an early technicality of open source ... one Google has long exploited
jmaustpc
Posts: 9639
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:28 am
Location: Australia

Re: Web/Mobile version

Postby jmaustpc » Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:08 pm

ccccrnr wrote:
normandc wrote:It's just that I was thinking about Android: it's supposed to be open source, but it actually isn't, because Google has refused to publish the Android 3 code so far.

So, maybe I'm paranoid, but I trust Google less and less with their open source efforts. ;)
Open source isn't that your hard worked code is PUBLISHED

Open Source code is that the text code has to be available to those that you Directly distribute the binary form generated by that open source text source code to and that receivers can choose(freely) to re-distribute (and so on)

this is an early technicality of open source ... one Google has long exploited
OK sound reasonable, so if you can't download Android binary then you also can't download the source.

I think one of the problems with all the "ARM" stuff is that, if I understand correctly, there is no single binary, at least not in the x86 way. I don't think you could just "download" a universal binary OS that would just work on all ARM devices, all different models need to be individually compiled, don't they?

But if the device/phone companies sell the phones etc. shouldn't they be offering the source as supplied on their devices?

Jim
kwahooo
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 11:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Web/Mobile version

Postby kwahooo » Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:25 pm

jmaustpc wrote: I think one of the problems with all the "ARM" stuff is that, if I understand correctly, there is no single binary, at least not in the x86 way. I don't think you could just "download" a universal binary OS that would just work on all ARM devices, all different models need to be individually compiled, don't they?
You can get pure Android 4.0 source and compile it for specific ARM. AFAIK ARM is mostly binary backward compatible, software for ARMv6 should work on ARMv7.
What's is the problem? Drivers. Some manufacturers are publishing sources (example - Samsung Exynos graphics), some don't.
Interesting thing, there is a community edition of Android called CyanogenMod.

BTW Android isn't original Google project. It born in Android Inc. company.

About freedom and openness: of course Linux in Android is GPL, so it cannot be closed. But Dalvik VM is Apache license:
The Apache License, like most other permissive licenses, does not require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the same license (in contrast to copyleft licenses).
Google like Apache license, because it gives developers more freedom than GPL. GPL is better for users, Apache or BSD is better for developers.

The story
Many years ago Richard Stallman visited Poland. He spoke long about two meanings of "free": "as freedom" and "as free beer". "Free" in Polish ("wolny") also has second meaning: "slow". Someone asked Stallman: "Is Emacs slow?" :D
At this moment these open/free web technologies (HTML5/Javascript) are slow. Useless as advanced apps platform. Flash is faster, .NET is faster. IIRC NaCl will be first fast and free web technology - about 10 times faster than JavaScript, even much faster than JVM and Android Dalvik VM.
jmaustpc
Posts: 9639
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:28 am
Location: Australia

Re: Web/Mobile version

Postby jmaustpc » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:12 am

Hi all

Most of you probably know that HP has decided to make all the WebOS software from its pad line opensource.

This is a slashdot link to a related article discussing Tizen which is apparently the old meego and WebOS.

http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/11/12/ ... lashdot%29


Both of these OSes are basically a Linux distro for these typical pad and the like mobile devices, presumably only ARM but being opensource they could also be x86.

I might be wrong or at least "out of fashion" in my ideas, but I do not really trust web based software, certainly not something that relies on having a connection to the net to work. One reason is ownership/control/privacy, I want the program and data on MY machine. The other is the amount of time I have spent in remote places with no, or at least impractical/expensive/slow Internet service.

I'm not real "big" on the mobile device craze in many ways, but I do think they are getting close to powerful enough now to run more like a desktop computer. So the interesting thing for me will be to see FreeCAD just ported to work as it currently does, as an application in a Linux distro but compiled for ARM.

But having said all of this, it will no doubt be years before I get involved with these devices. I think they are missing the point, they should be sold for under $150.00 which as HP showed is about the price where a good device would take off in a really big way, because that's really about all they are worth.

For MOST people/applications they would just look at the current price and think "I could get a real computer for that, or actually less money,that is far more powerful, so are they ripping me off? I'll just buy a laptop ".

We live in interesting times! :)

Jim
User avatar
NormandC
Posts: 18534
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:52 pm
Location: Québec, Canada

Re: Web/Mobile version

Postby NormandC » Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:28 am

Hi Jim,
jmaustpc wrote:This is a slashdot link to a related article discussing Tizen which is apparently the old meego and WebOS.
It's more complicated than that. :)

Tizen has no relation to WebOS. Tizen is the new project supported by the Linux Foundation, out of the ashes of the MeeGo project. MeeGo was itself the fusion of two projects, Intel's Moblin and Nokia's Maemo. Nokia abandoned MeeGo since it threw itself last year in the arms of Microsoft (I'm sad to say it is the work of Nokia's new Canadian CEO, an old hand from... Microsoft, go figure). Way to go, guys, jump ship to get on the Windows Phone sinking boat. What a brillant move!!! :roll:

On the other hand, Intel was backing MeeGo since it had hopes to compete against the ARM chips in portable devices (including phones) with its Atom line of CPUs. But the Atom is physically too big and power hungry, it's been a flop so far. It seems with Tizen Intel is still in the picture, along with Samsung.

Anyway, I don't understand why they can't keep with a single project instead of killing the existing one every 2 years to start from scratch again. :roll:

As for WebOS, it was initially developped by Palm Computing as a successor to the aging PalmOS. Palm marketed the Pré smartphone terribly in 2009, got further in financial trouble and in 2010 was bought by HP (for $1.2 billion!!!) which thought it could market an iPad killer with WebOS. You know the rest of the story!

As for tablet prices... I've read that the new Amazon Kindle Fire tablet, which is sold less than $200 in the US with weaker specs than the iPad is sold at a loss. Amazon expects to make money on the content Kindle users will purchase on the Amazon store (ebooks, magazines, music...). They're trying in essence to pull an "Apple" by creating an ecosystem with a captive user base.
carlod
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:52 pm

Re: Web/Mobile version

Postby carlod » Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:46 am

something is moving in that way?

https://github.com/kivy/python-for-android