All SailfishOS devices are Android-devices flashed (in the factory) or reflashed by their owner, no matter if “officially” supported or a community port.
They all use an “Android vendor kernel”, hence the kernel version(s) the device vendor is distributing.
SailfishOS is actually designed to run on an “Android vendor kernel”. And while it technically also runs on an stock Linux-kernel, AFAIK no such mobile device exists.
More important from that statement - KDE is going to use Qt6 they are the biggest OSS consumer of Qt6 and the only party that would be able to hard fork.
That does not alter the fact that I’m running a 4.4 kernel (the android base system image is android 9) and the claim was 3.9 is standard for the sony’s?
My uname output is clear. And I’m running a ‘debug’ kernel from piggz, so it’s more ‘on the edge’ presumably.
I don’t think they are the biggest consumer by far. That would be the large video and FX studios that use QT. For instance, Maya (formerly silicon graphics) and companies like autodesk:
https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/2020q2/006162.html
I hadn’t seen that KDE is going Qt6. Thanks!
KDE is the biggest OSS (Open Source Software) consumer and the only party with the resources/capability (and the mandate given to them by some clause in the licensing) to do a hard fork since they are also major contributors to Qt and understand its inner workings better then most other parties.
Maya OTOH is a commercial license taker and probably could not care less about the FOSS status of Qt they pay and get support and don’t need to change internals of Qt.
1 Like
Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant. KDE seems likely to be the biggest single FOSS consumer.
The commercial users, however (had you read the mail I linked?), very much care about the FOSS version. That is one reason I posted the link.
However, having looked at the patch page above, it’s clear KDE is mooching up to QT6. The language is dripping in marketing ooze… quote …
… but to be ultimately made obsolete by the adoption of Qt 6 when Qt 6 enables superior Open Source product development.
But, that is just the way it is. I don’t like it, but I’m commited to Silica. Free Software. Damn it. Not OSS software. Sigh.
As much as I’d like to respect all opinions… I can’t believe some people actually think a fork would turn out cheaper than paying for Qt licences.
Which, by the way, is far from certain: as far as I can tell by https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=101127, the only problem with LGPL v3 seems to be some “wording”. Well, it might be, but I highly doubt it: v3 was designed to combat Tivoization, not corporate usage. But there’s no need to even guess: the FSF has lawyers which would readily give any clarification. If it turns out that there’s no significant difference between “licensee” and “user”, it would mean Sailfish can sa(il)fely use a newer Qt including 6.
1 Like
I don’t know how much it would cost Jolla but I also never understood Jollas fear to be more OSS it is actually frustration with Jollas way too closed processes that makes me seriously consider moving to other platforms every once in a while.
The community was chomping at the bit to be involved 7 years ago and I think a lot of that momentum has been lost, now there are a ton of more open platforms out there and it’s a genuine waste that we keep having to have these discussions about outdated toolchains, outdated stacks security issues etc.
Granted there is still a very loyal core community but sometimes I really ask myself how long can this last.
7 Likes
This is plain bullshit and is not the content of the original statement by @Keeper-of-the-Keys!
Correct, full statement:
The Sony vendor kernel, which Jolla uses as a base for its SailfishOS kernel for the Xperia X (only!), is at Linux 3.10.
No need for cursing. I appended a question mark. That is a question and not an assertion, so why the cursing?
Thank you for clarifying and please stop cursing without cause.
As much as I would like to stay on topic, this is too true. At the beginning I was patient myself, but then I remembered Sailfish actually started a full decade ago and its UI and SDK are still closed. It’s a major point of frustration as I can tell by both the forum and openrepos.net that an extremely large amount of developers started working on wonderful applications and then abandoned them - exactly as you said. A few days ago I came upon a piece of text where the author explicitly states he gave up on Sailfish mostly because of 2 disappointments: the old Qt and major pieces of the system being kept closed for so long. It also seems to me that the deal with the Russian state has nothing to do with it - apparently it all comes from Jolla’s management’s (un)willingness. Which I hope reads this and understands that no programmer’s patience is endless and if there are no programmers, there’s also no platform.
I would be extremely happy to be refuted by any official Jolla representative.
Yes the pine64 and librem 5 and their truly open systems are making me seriously consider whether I want to jump ship, if I find out I can easily migrate my contacts, message etc. and there is a decent (and compact) device that can run these new truly OSS systems I don’t know how long I’ll be sticking around here any more.
BTW all my contacts and messages go back all the way to my first symbian device (nokia 6120 classic) which got migrated to an n900 which got migrated to a JP1 which got “backported” to an n9 and then back onto a JP1 and currently rests on an Xperia X (F5122), I guess I’m a bit of a digital hoarder…
1 Like
I checked the Pine 64 with Plasma Mobile myself. Fortunately for Jolla, Anbox doesn’t work well enough yet which means Plasma Mobile cannot run Android applications. This is obligatory for regular users as there are too many applications to catch up to. However, this only wins Jolla some time. If they don’t get their act together reasonably soon and Anbox catches up, we’ll be simply forced to switch: be it to Plasma Mobile, Pure OS, or the Russian Aurora.
2 Likes
Oh i totally missed that meeting. That is unfortunate. I think staying on an old QT version brings many disadvantages, which have already been mentioned in this thread.
One argument is the security issue. I can’t evaluate it exactly, but continuing to use a version that hasn’t been supported for about 4 years can be dangerous.
QT has been developed further in the last years. Progress has been made in the area of execution speed and memory management (in addition to new modules/features).
There are two issues which, in my opinion, need to be improved about SFOS:
- QT version
- Make the closed source components of Sailfish open source.
I understand that a version upgrade can be difficult due to the license of QT and the contracts with Jolla’s customers. But I think that sometime in the near future the step of QT upgrade will be inevitable. I would really like to have a better communication with Jolla about this topic, especially about the pain points. Maybe there are some tasks, where the community can support Jolla.
3 Likes
In the long run this will only harm SFOS because I highly doubt that Jolla has the resources to backport security patches to its’ stack constantly.
BTW I think that the two issues you raise @Systematics go hand in hand, if Silica was OSS the effort to upgrade would not fall on Jolla only and thus be “reduced” while also of course relieving Jolla of the licensing issue.
1 Like
That’s unfortunate… but I think Jolla hasn’t the resources to do all 
That could be true. What we are really need to have is an open communication. An answer like
08:40:22 #info Qt Upgrade is not on our plans for the near future.
Source: #sailfishos-meeting log
is not really open or gives the community the opportunity to help. I have the feeling that this topic is on the minds of almost all community members, but it is not readily discussed on the part of Jolla.
EDIT: well one correction about the word open. I appreciated that Jolla told us directly that the qt upgrade is not planned for the near future. In that case it is an open communication. However, the reasons could be mentioned so that it would be better understandable.
Version 6.2 LTS with support until 2024 would be appropriate. I think with such a change we can cancel the normal releases in part. I also don’t know if an update would be possible at all in terms of rights. Were there not changes in QT?
1 Like