Nokia buys rest of Symbian, will make code open source
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 24 June 2008 - 12:13 · 18 comments & 5159 views
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by 
markjensen on 24 Jun 2008 - 12:36
- Nokia buying the rest of Symbian up-front, so they don't need to pay every year makes sense.
It is the opening of the source (the article mentions "some parts" immediately with more being released over the next two years) that is a bit of a surprise to me.
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by Skynetfuture on 24 Jun 2008 - 13:03
- open source ...oh damn
Open source = less secure = hacker friendly -
#2.1 Posted by markjensen on 24 Jun 2008 - 13:12
- (Skynetfuture said @ #2)...Not sure if you are serious, or just trying to be silly.
Open source = less secure = hacker friendly
-
(6 replies)
#3 Posted by Borbus on 24 Jun 2008 - 13:10
- Wrong. Open source = more secure. Given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.
Also this will make it free software not just "open source". -
#3.1 Posted by dandin1 on 24 Jun 2008 - 13:34
- They're only making a small part of the code available under the Eclipse Public License, however the article mentions they will release more. I don't understand why Nokia and Google are doing this "progressive" release of code.
-
#3.2 Posted by Skynetfuture on 24 Jun 2008 - 13:37
- (Borbus said @ #3)Wrong. Open source = more secure. Given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.
Also this will make it free software not just "open source".
open source = anyone can access the code <<<<< that what i meant
then hackers can access the codes that way and create perfect exploits/virus for symban
as it is {symbian} all ready the biggest target in the mobile world
and no i am not anti -symbian as i have owned many Nokia symbian based Mobiles -
#3.3 Posted by Smigit on 24 Jun 2008 - 14:02
- (dandin1 said @ #3.1)They're only making a small part of the code available under the Eclipse Public License, however the article mentions they will release more. I don't understand why Nokia and Google are doing this "progressive" release of code.I don't know myself, but one reason off the top of my head would be if the OS itself was licensing Propriety code in which case those parts cant be made public, thus they are releasing what they can now in anticipation of getting the rest out.
Thats not to say thats the case, but its one of many scenarios that would force the need to either do it in stages or delay the release entirely until they could give out all the code. They may also have security issues they know of in code and as such don't want to release it until they are resolved. -
#3.4 Posted by markjensen on 24 Jun 2008 - 14:03
- (Skynetfuture said @ #3.2)open source = anyone can access the code <<<<< that what i meantNot having access to XP source code certainly didn't make it too tough to create malware that utilized exploits in Windows at the time.
then hackers can access the codes that way and create perfect exploits/virus for symban
Code is secure or it is not. Whether it is "Open Source" or "Proprietary" does not affect the code. -
#3.5 Posted by tareqsiraj on 24 Jun 2008 - 17:43
- (Skynetfuture said @ #3.2)(Borbus said @ #3)Wrong. Open source = more secure. Given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.
Also this will make it free software not just "open source".
open source = anyone can access the code <<<<< that what i meant
then hackers can access the codes that way and create perfect exploits/virus for symban
as it is {symbian} all ready the biggest target in the mobile world
and no i am not anti -symbian as i have owned many Nokia symbian based Mobiles
Being able to read through a code doesn't mean all the holes can easily be exposed ... think about the standard practice in software development... you are working on a closed source project ... and after you write your secured code ... you send it off for person(s)/team review ... how many people are going to look into it? 5? 10? ... for an active open source project ... this number sometimes goes 1000+ ... if there is a loophole ... i would say the open source people will find it faster.
There is no application in the world that is or can be hole proof. Despite what a lot of people thinks about opensource apps, its been proven to be one of the most secured apps for business. -
#3.6 Posted by jasonwitty on 24 Jun 2008 - 23:36
- (Skynetfuture said @ #3.2)(Borbus said @ #3)Wrong. Open source = more secure. Given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.
Also this will make it free software not just "open source".
open source = anyone can access the code <<<<< that what i meant
then hackers can access the codes that way and create perfect exploits/virus for symban
as it is {symbian} all ready the biggest target in the mobile world
and no i am not anti -symbian as i have owned many Nokia symbian based Mobiles
don't talk about things you don't know. isn't there a broken mouse your supposed to be replacing? get back to work.
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by Magallanes on 24 Jun 2008 - 13:55
- At least there are probabilities to shutting down SymbianSigned .
-
#4.1 Posted by Smigit on 24 Jun 2008 - 18:02
- Hell yes. I can see what they are trying to achieve through it, but ultimately it's just a huge barrier for mobile development. Perhaps they should still allow for signing and unsigned apps just throw a warning of some sort at install or runtime.
They definitely need to allow users to distribute apps that aren't signed but and will run with full functionality if they use features that typically would need the app to be signed. It'd only help drive development on the platform I think.
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by C++ on 24 Jun 2008 - 14:26
- I wish more mobile operating systems were open source. Symbian itself may be a crappy OS but at least you can find 3rd party apps for literally anything you want to do. Not so with iPhones or BlackBerries.
-
#5.1 Posted by neowinisnot on 24 Jun 2008 - 15:22
- (C++ said @ #5)Symbian itself may be a crappy OS
This is why its the most used smartphone platform in the world? Right....
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by Dogward on 24 Jun 2008 - 16:02
- Symbian is, for me, the best mobile platform, stable & secure... How come it is crappy ?? (any example ?)
-
#6.1 Posted by Skynetfuture on 24 Jun 2008 - 16:25
- (Dogward said @ #6)Symbian is, for me, the best mobile platform, stable & secure... How come it is crappy ?? (any example ?)
nah he is just a fanboy of iphone osx
-
(1 reply)
#7 Posted by boho on 24 Jun 2008 - 18:55
- Going through the process of upgrading company mobile, I am finding the choice of Nokia hopeless. I want a simple mobile phone that fits into a car kit cradle so employees are not radiated.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/he...tos-802602.html
Do they do one? No! The 6310 was their last decent phone, now they sell gimmicky rubbish for kids and future cancer victims. This purchase is money wasted, they'd do better developing Linux mobile and a decent corporate phone and car kit system. -
#7.1 Posted by jasonwitty on 24 Jun 2008 - 23:39
- nokia phones aren't simple or practical. i would recommend the blackberry curve for your employees and the blackberry bold for yourself.
Samsung Electronics, a partial stakeholder in Symbian, hasn't commented yet, but Nokia said it expects the company to agree to the sale. The deal doesn't come as a surprise to Geoff Blaber, an analyst at CCS Insight. "Nokia paid out more than $250 million in Symbian license fees last year, so it makes commercial sense to buy Symbian for about $410 million, rather than keep paying what is effectively a subsidy to the other shareholders," Blaber wrote in a company blog.