Talk:WebOS

Flash Support Now Included

Palm just announced that it has collaborated with Adobe to integrate Palm into the webOS platform and, subsequently, the Palm Pre. http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/16/palm-joins-adobes-open-screen-project-pre-to-support-flash/ --CanesOL79 (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

People, just to be clear, this post from 2009 is correct. But it was never delivered to webOS 1 devices. A nice WP:Dragon removed en bloc a NPOV discussion of this whole debacle the day after HP's "relaunch" in SF of webOS 2 and 3, which was interesting timing. But editorial comments are frowned on, so I won't say any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeatherPluma (talk • contribs) 03:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

webos not open source

i dont believe webos is open source.. what license has it been released on?? how many non palm devices is it running on?? how much of OS manipulation is allowed?? it is unfair to call it open source.. there may be open areas in the OS but overall.. it isnt exactly open... someone should look into this.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

just because it is based on the linux kernal doesnt make it open source.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In light of the article [1] , I believe WebOS is open source, released under the GPL license, and the source code is available at [2] (this link I originally added, but it has since been removed; in the interests of not edit-warring, I have not put it back). The Linux kernel is GPL version 2, so it is permitted for Palm to digitally lock down the operating system to thwart modifiability (Tivoization) on Palm devices; nevertheless, it is still considered open source. (One could, in principle, build your own device and download, compile, and run Palm's software on your device.) I believe there are some userspace aspects of webOS, probably in the Graphical User Interface, which are not open source, though now we would have to define where webOS ends: is it just the operating system (i.e., kernel), or does it include the userspace application stack including the GUI? WebOS is not that different from Android, which is marked open source. John85 (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

To refer to webOS as a proprietary operating system based on Linux, (something which is not possible), makes the maintainers of the page appear to be less than qualified to maintain the page. Keep your page anyway you want it, but you need to learn what free software is and what its licenses are. Free software has court enforced legal obligations associated with its use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.130.42 (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Programmed in" section

What's the deal with the "Programmed in" section being "C and C++" ? While the kernel and low level service code contain C and C++ code, the whole user interface of the OS as well as all the default client applications that come preinstalled on the device are written in Javascript (+HTML/CSS), somebody please add that. -- 77.10.89.225 (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Designed by Matias Duarte"

Misleading bit. Matias Duarte was an SVP and led design - he did not 'design webOS'. There were a lot of designers and skilled individuals involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.75.54 (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've started a bit of a clean up in this section and will return to it. Just to explain the problems evident through-out; the point of a criticism section is to describe cited cases where the article subject (i.e. HP WebOS) has been criticised by reliable sources. It is not a place for;

• editors to collate facts and figures from a number of places, combine them, and then present them as evidence of WebOS' of HP's failings. That is original synthesis and not acceptable.
• editors to demonstrate what they perceive as failings by HP by demonstrating that areas of their website don't work. That is original research and not acceptable.
• citing criticism from forums or blogs. These are not reliable sources. Forums in areas like this inevitably attract users with complaints. That is not sufficient to demonstrate that this criticism is common-place, notable, fair or even accurate.

In a nutshell; unless a reliable source can be cited that contains the actual criticism itself, then the criticism shouldn't be in this article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Its webOS, dude. webOS, small w. OK, business of day: let's clean this whole section out, because your WP:Dragon interpretation of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:RS is particular enough that developing a fair NPOV is precluded. webOS is an entity that is presently undergoing profound changes so it really makes no sense to argue the merits of citations one by one. It's just not the right fit for WP, no problem.FeatherPluma (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is much improved from your input. But let's be clear. An encyclopaedia article is not the place for a "fair discussion" where editors contribute facts gathered from around the web over a few years, then sit back and say "HP should be criticized for this, and as long as it goes in the criticism section it's fine and fair." That's not what encyclopaedias are for, that's what forums are for and there are plenty on the net where this can be done. Encyclopaedias have summaries of criticism that has already been made by reliable and authoritative sources. And if you can't find any good sources that do that, you can't just go ahead and assemble the criticism yourself. Some of what was in this criticism section was from good sources, and much of it was indeed cited fact. But the way it was presented, in a criticism section, (which are always problematic and undesirable), was mostly synthesis, that is; a collection of cited material assembled to advance an argument that none of the sources make themselves. Synthesis is not "fair" to the reader, as they have no idea if what is being said is a misrepresentation of the facts, or if anything pertinent has been deliberately or carelessly omitted. Other than that, there was far too much technical detail in the section that would quickly date and be incomprehensible to anyone not immersed in the webOS community. The fact it had to go into such detail, with so many disparate cites, was indication enough that it was synthesis. All this detail belongs to the source making the criticism. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

We seem to agree on the present WP product. I do not experience "synthesis" in the way you do, but I have the interpersonal ability to appreciate WP's paradigmatic definition of "synthesis" that you have elegantly clarified. The material simply isn't a good fit for WP. I enjoy icecream by the way and I am off with Peter Pan to sample some.

Enjoy!--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed this entire section again today, which I had removed some time ago in response to assertions that it represented breaches of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. I came to the decision at that point in reading the relevant noticeboards that the section was inappropriate for WP under these guidelines. I am mildly gratified that someone cared enough to go back and re-enter the material. On consideration though, the issue here isn't whether the section is useful to prospective readers... it is whether it is consistent with these WP policies. I think it is also fair to state that the material in question was not removed for failing to have aNeutral point of view or to lack Verifiability, but WP:NOR with WP:SYNTH is deemed to be one of the 3 main policy pillars of WP and that seems to trump any other consideration. Various editors seem to have taken diametrically opposite views about this material, removing large blocks due to the NOR and SYNTH issues, or adding it back; I am not taking a personal stance on the issue, but as the person who "put the biggest proportion of the section together" I can see that it does run up against these guidelines. Whether these guidelines are appropriate in the big picture is also not the issue.FeatherPluma (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported Palms

Jæs has twice added now a statement in the lead that is neither supported by the cite provided, nor mentioned in the rest of the article.

From my reading of the cite, it says that certain older models of Palms will not be upgradeable to webOS 2.0. The article, however, expands on this to say this "effectively eliminating any official upgrade path sooner than previously promised by Palm and HP."

My problem is threefold. Firstly we have the weaselly "effectively". Either it does eliminate or it doesn't eliminate. If it does, and the cite says this, then we can removed this word. If it doesn't, or the cite does not say this, then we can remove this statement entirely. As it stands, this word looks like it is supporting either an uncertain opinion or speculation, neither of which is in the cite.

Secondly we have the "sooner than previously promised". I can't see any specified dates or promise in the cite. So how is the reader to verify that an upgrade path was "promised" and has been removed "sooner"?

Thirdly; this all rests on a single cite. While I don't question it should be in the article, what significance does it have that it should be in the lead? Does this move break any contractual obligations by HP? Do owners of older Palms have any legal recourse? Or is this just a disappointment on their part? The reader should be informed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You could source it at least a dozen or two cites if you feel that's necessary, just do a simple Google News Archive search. (I've included a few additional ones below for your convenience. These are in addition to the source that was already in the article, which quite clearly does support the statement, despite your accusation to the contrary. In case you missed it, the title is: "HP Breaks Promise -- webOS 2.0 Upgrades for Palm Pre and Pixi Not Coming.")

I used "effectively" because that's how I write, you can feel free to remove it; the sentence would effectively say the same thing. I also used it to qualify the fact that there is leaked, unofficial software out there. The senior vice president and general manager for Palm at HP has said, in no uncertain terms, that webOS 2.0 will absolutely not^[3] be available as a software upgrade for the original Palm Pre, Pixi, and Pre Plus and Pixi Plus devices. He had clearly promised, on several occasions, that the update was coming last year.^[4][5]

HP has acknowledged that reversing their earlier position was a "tough decision," and they've said they're going to make some sort of concession to "make things right"^[6] (which has been speculated to be a discount on a new device for existing customers, but there's been no official word on that in particular).

Personally, I think it's probably a smart business decision to move forward and focus on future devices. I don't think we should be advising customers on legal recourse, but the sources seem to indicate it is a very significant issue relating to webOS devices. Effectively (there I go again), on February 9, HP announced that every webOS device available through any carrier in the United States up and including that point would never have an upgrade path to webOS 2.0. That's why I suspect this has received a fair bit of coverage, and why it appears to be quite relevant and significant in the overall history of webOS. jæs (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have completed a NPOV edit that 1) tries to avoid unduly constructionist arguments that seem to suggest that INDUSTRY STANDARD reporting sources that QUOTE company spokespeople are somehow inadequate, or that wrongly assert that the material objected to is "neither supported by the cite provided, nor mentioned in the rest of the article," or that wrongly suggest multiple secondary sources are needed while 2) following thru on the lesser stylistic recommendations. Probably nobody will be happy now. Except for icecream eaters.FeatherPluma (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if someone can see a way to make the header somewhat more substantial while avoiding dependence on current news and evolving changes with the OS that would be a good contribution.

Thanks FeatherPluma. I think the article is improved by your edits because they approach the subject matter from what is actually said in the cites, rather than extrapolating from them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Emulators

Are there any WebOS emulators besides Preenv? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.15.11 (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OTA updates

It is stated that:

"The operating system became one of the first to widely use over-the-air software updates for all devices."

I don´t think that this is true. I was part of introducing OTA updates for Sony Ericsson OSE platform in 2006 and it has been used on this platform ever since for all products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.115.10.98 (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Killed :-(

Maybe this was the last version:

 http://www.internetnews.com/blog/skerner/linuxcon-hp-kills-webos-after-keynote.html

user:tothaa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.206.24.242 (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)