Commercial Software. Evil?
 

One of the feelings you get reading threads here about other devices, is that software that isn't open source (and I guess all other commercial items) are evil and not to be welcomed to the NiTs.

Whereas it is interesting have a large open source model on the nokias, and I guess inevitable with the linux roots, it seems a very odd monoculture, and not very helpfull for any platform to have so little commercial support.

For a geek, obviously this is a good thing, but not so helpful for people who just want to do what they want to do, and want the nokia to help them. The people who don't know it is linux, more likely don't care what it is, or in some cases, the people who buy it despite it being linux.

Given the choice between spending £10 on a piece of software that works well and does what I want or spending an evening trying to get some other piece of software to work, I would be happy to spend the money - my time is worth more than that.

Also there is some software that just doesn't seem to happen. GIven that the platform has now been around for quite a long time, the lack of PIM facilities and other software that is in abundance on other platforms is quite disturbing. Lets face it, writing software like that is rather dull compared to games and media players and maemo is harder than a lot of platforms to write for, so why bother if you dont get to do fun stuff.
But it is what a lot of people want.

I am not saying that open source is bad, just that I don't think that commercial software is bad either, and I think it is desirable to have both for the long term health of any platform.

I guess I wouldn't see commercial software is bad. It pays for my food, my house and my toys!

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

I want a completely open source OS (including everything Nokia keep closed source)

and yes I would buy commercial software if it's not buggy and if I need it.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

I have paid thousands of dollars for commercial software, but it makes me nervous to have my computer controlled by forces that are hidden to me and to practically everyone. For example, to have to agree not to try to examine the software that is on my computer -- isn't that like getting a car and having to agree not to open the hood? The reason I didn't move on to Vista was basically because I felt that the progressive commercialization of my computing life had gone far enough.

I saw in the paper that some of the girls removed from the ultra-fundamentalist Mormon community didn't know their ages or how to spell their own names. Doesn't that remind you of some computer users? I'd rather be in a community where things are more complicated, but freer.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

I've asked several commercial software developers to port their offerings to the Itablet scene; none have responded favourably.

Let me rephrase that: Most haven't bothered to respond at all and those that did, said they weren't gonna.

I don't agree that all commercial developers are evil, but at their mercy we'll always be...

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

It is to agree not to, but again, for most people (including in this case me), I really don't care what is under there. I actually know what is under there, and I am glad that now I earn a bit more I don't have to deal with it any more!

In the same token, while something is working, why does it matter what is under the hood of a computer or a car, as long as it lets you do what you want to do?

looks around this vista clad screen. Well.. microsoft gave it to me for free so it seemed rude not to use it!
Actually I am a mac user, I am just (taking a break from) working at the moment!

no, it reminds me of religion. It mostly reminds me of what happens when you give people power over you and trust them with blind faith.

Freer as in not paying for things, or having more choice? I would certainly prefer the latter, although I am not convinced that a pure open source world gives me that.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

I must admit to not being entirely suprised. Do you think it is a lack of knowledge of the platform, a lack of interest in it or the belief that there is no return to be made?

I must admit if you want palm or pocketPC software there are hundreds of places you can get them. IT software, very few.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

Guess you don't buy much commercial software, then.

I've nothing against commercial stuff, but am not persuaded that much commercial development/porting to the tablets is likely.

Then there's commercial sorta-open stuff where you get the source if you license the software to use; that approach, alas, is largely limited to expensive research stuff, not games and office apps.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

Well, take the example of Softmaker, for instance. They make Textmaker and Planmaker, two excellent closed-source, cross-platform programs. Versions for Wince were available as well as for the Zaurus platform (admittedly they stopped working for the Z after it was abandoned by Sharp). I find it hard to imagine they'd have a hard time porting their stuff to the Itablet, especially as their software is as UI-agnostic as possible.

Edit: I tried -- foolishly -- to type a message on my Itablet again. And as usual, it got completely mangled. This is really getting beyond bad; no more Nokia tablets for me, ever again...

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

Nobody has brought it up here, but part of the reason might just be that proprietary software developers distrust platforms that are openly touted as being open. Thus Linux in general, and Maemo in particular.

The FLOSS community is a broad tent, politically speaking, and sometimes the outspoken fringe scares away proprietary developers, by making them feel that 1) they are not welcome, and 2) making the market for commercial software on Linux appears even smaller than it actually is

Notice that the commercial software available on Maemo are the ones that are free-beer on other platforms anyway: Skype, Rhapsody, etc. The ones that make money from some added-value service (since the Rhapsody client only plays streaming media, in this case the value is actually 0 unless you pay up!) are more likely to get ported.

(recalling how when Red Hat's Matthew Szulik came to campus, a student in the audience grilled him on how Red Hat is sponging off the community. Yikes!)

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

I was wondering this too. I hope the success of Skype and Canola will show people that developing commercial apps for an open platform doesn't mean giving away the crown jewels. I too would pay for an excellent PIM, and I'm a "free where possible, pay only if necessary" kinda guy.

The open source-only crowd are driving away customers and money from the platform. I would like to develop small cheap shareware apps for maemo myself, but I don't think it would fly, with that crowd around.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

While I like the ethos of open source, it must not preclude commercial and for-paid software either. Otherwise it becomes a monolitic world and that is not very conducive for a healthy ecosystem to develop around the NIT's. And without a ecosystem of app developers and marketers and 3rd party integrators etc, the market for the NIT's will not increase either. It will remain a niche market again.

And for more people to join the ecosystem, you cannot have a "free and open-source" only condition attached to it. There should be developes who will want to be in it for the money. I see nothing wrong with that. And for them to sell, there must be more users for the NIT's.
Again for more users to come to the NIT world, there must be more apps.

So its this cyclical system that creates a eco-system around any device.

And to what Karel.Johnson said about commercial developers not flocking to the NIT - hardly suprising. With no ecosystem where paid software can flourish around the NIT's I don't begrudge them for not making apps for the NIT.

How does that make us be at their mercy ? I think it's the other way around, where they are at our mercy to release only open sourced free apps or else...

As a longtime Zaurus user, I was very enthused to have such great apps as Textmaker, and some TheKompany apps for which I gladly paid money for. At the same time there were free apps also. That's how a ecosystem should be and that's how choice should be.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

You do realize that bug is fixed in OS2008? :rolleyes:

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

So far, I guess we have one post that could be construed as commercial=evil. You'd think the radical free-software only folks would be showing up for this, so I expect it's not as large a contingent as might have been expected.

And, BoxOfSnoo, don't write it off before you give it a shot; I think people would pay. I would, anyway, if you put out anything I liked.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

I see no reason both can't co-exist just fine. I have several apps I would be happy to pay a few bucks for without a problem. I worked too many years as a developer to not be willing to pay for software.

Then again maybe the commercial software people are gun shy if they write a viable app that because the open source community might then just create a free version of the same app and less people will pay when something just as good or better can be had for no charge.

Hard to say but I know there are several apps I feel naked w/o on my N800 and it sort of makes me, in general, regret even buying the device even though I am actually very happy with it...not sure if that makes sense but I hope the mindset comes through. Maybe better stated that the lack of these apps makes the tablet feel like a step backward even though in reality it's a big leap forward in almost every area...

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

commercial software is evil when they are allowed to build a monopol.
Except Window/Office i have nothing against paying for software.

EDIT: oh and MS VC++ 6.0

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

So? They fixed one "bug" (which, incidentally, has been there since OS2006!) and introduced scores of new ones. How is that going to help me?

I need softpoweroff, I need dual menus (for stylus and finger), I need a working Application Mangler, I need a fully functional xterm, I need a homescreen that I can lock... And those are only the things they f*cked up in 2008, don't get me started on my wishlist of trivial things that should have been incorporated by now.

Commercial software isn't necessarily evil indeed, but Nokia has shown that a corporation can be pretty evil with OSS software...

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

I don't buy commercial software when there's a free alternative. But at work, we get commercial software for the support then for very specific applications.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

Ok, but softpoweroff is fixed with powerlaunch, App Muggr. works as well as ever AFAICT (and apt-get is fine), and we have builds of both OS2007 xterm and a non-broken OS2008 one from svn. Ok, home screen is useless, but that's the only one that you can argue is functionally holding you back; the rest are fixed, thanks to Nokia or not.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

That has nothing to do with software, that is down to companies and politics. I am more talking about the software itself.

Well, presumably you don't use windows and office then? I find the easy way to avoid paying for office is not to use it (although I do, so I do), the same can be said for windows. If you don't use it you don't have to pay for it.

Can you even buy that? But no, I had no problem paying for that back when it was around (about 2001?)

Well, I doubt anyone outside of an environment where software is mandated would buy software where there is a free alternative, assuming that alternative does what the commercial software is required to do (which I guess is a given, as otherwise it wouldn't be an alternative).
Really when I am looking for software to do something I want, the cost or openness of a piece of software isn't the highest priority.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

The idea with open source is certainly not to lock out profits and commerce, or to keep the price down, but to ensure that the software people use remains supportable for as long as people want it. One of the key benefits of the open source model is that legacy software can always be fiddled about to become compatible again, and the original author of the software does not suffer the same pressure trying to support his work. (Assuming it is successful).

For operating systems, shared libraries, core system processes and other widely used technologies (eg: A web browser for which people write many components), that open source model is very important because it ensures that the software lives on its own, detached from its original developers, more in the hands of its users. If the original developers keep doing good work, they will not have any trouble; people keep using their very good version, they can happily ignore outside patches if they so choose.
However, if said developers start doing bad work, for example dropping support of the software in favour of a completely unsatisfactory new product, the old software does not necessarily die. If enough people are still interested, the thing can keep on living with builds and fixes going into the future.

Open source is not necessarily a blind religion, as it is based on fact: This is sustainable, whereas closed source software is not.

Corporations can easily profit on open source, but they are afraid to because it is such a strange idea. What they need to realize is that software should not be considered a finite product, but a service. Microsoft, for example, is surprisingly close to that philosophy, selling "licenses" as opposed to actual products. With that in mind, it might not be a far cry for them to open source Windows with a beefed up license.

Depending on the intent of the software, this philosophy can change. I do not think it makes the same sense for games, for example, since they are generally shorter-lived creative works. Having said that, many developers do a fine job opening up their engines, attracting piles of positive attention to the name and themselves, but keeping the game's content as a commercial item.

I think what it comes down to, for developers, is a simple question asked in every industry: Do you care about making a great profit, or a great product?

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

Well, it can be an alternative, and still inferior; harder to use, slower, or just a different philosophy of working. (Compare Mathcad and MATLAB/Octave for an example of the latter, if you're familiar with them.) I don't think it's reasonable to assume that any alternative that meets the requirements is good enough that you would not pay for commercial software. (Though it often is, of course.)

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

For microsoft, I think that would be a far cry; but in principle, and without corporate traditions and cultures, sure. But why do you call that open source? It's not OSD, and I'm not sure what you hope to gain by broadening the term so.
Indeed; it seems clear that game engines are software, and game contents are creative works; this sorta scheme works well.
I think you're dead wrong; no-one is in business for their health. They're always after the greatest profit possible. Making a great product (and insuring you make a profit when people use it) is one way to make a great profit.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

Edit:
Should reply to the new posts here! I think a smart business is concerned about its customer's best interests. People like a company that is not run by robots, and do return when they feel they have been treated well. Besides which, it tends to be the big, soulless corporations which think in that robotic, matter-of-fact way...

As for the open source definition, I tend to capitalize it when I mean those guys, which I rarely do. It has turned into a blanket statement as well as a clearly defined definition, both under the same title...

Sorry, I am going to take a quick sidestep away from the real topic here...
I think a lot of you folks are jumping to an assumption that OSS is less capable software. Consider for a moment that Google and the US government (as well as numerous government agencies) rely on Linux servers. The French Paramilitary Police and the Swiss school system have recently adopted Ubuntu Linux on the desktop.

These are not just major organizations; they are organizations which get significant discounts on Windows (likely bigger discounts offered with moves like this, considering Microsoft's plan of world domination). Why?
Compatibility. Hardly any chance of a single monopolistic power unless every person in the world becomes stupid. Outside forces (eg: Standardization of OOXML) are not intended to force upgrades, but to improve existing functionality for users. Knowledge of what one's computers are doing for the same reason people hate when cars are difficult to self-service.
It is also, actually, quite often better in some respects that are rarely met from closed software. A major open source project (like GNOME) has contributors from a huge variety of places and skills; not just what suits the leaders. The result is great internationalization and unsurpassed usability work.

Sometimes open source software is the best choice; being financially cheap is just icing. With that in mind, I think a lot of people think of open source the wrong way; it is not a death sentence. It is a feature!

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

Indeed. That is why microsoft never got anywhere. Oh.. hang on!

I was not considering quality at all in my original post, just the principles.
I prefer to use a BSD OS to run as a server, or even linux for a normal webserver rather than a windows one.
I am not a fan of linux on the desktop (and I feel it shows how one of the major strengths of open source is also one of its weaknesses) but I can see how it suits a number of people in certain circumstances (especially in a business environment)

Again, back to the car analogy from earlier, most people don't want to service their cars. I can see the advantage of choice, but when my car breaks I really don't want to fix it. Also considering that one of my cars is quite fast and powerful, it would present a considerable hazard to other road users if I did!

Actually there is where I have an issue. For me, whereas I don't dispute the internationalisation issues, I find the great variety of places, skills and agendas makes a system that kills usability (for me) lacks any form of coherence or consistency and is very frustrating to use. Keys do one thing in one section, something else somewhere else, and it is completely confusing. My mother could not use any linux I have used. A large number of people I know couldn't use them either.

There is a lot of times where a 'design by committee' approach fails, and you need someone with a vision to ignore what everyone else wants and do what they think is right.

I agree. Sometimes open source software is the best choice - I have no argument with you. However, it isn't always, and no utopia actually works.
What works is a combination of things, and where the open source model works really well for some things, it can work really badly for something else.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

If you compare the current linux desktop situation with 5~10 years ago the improvement in terms of gui usability and looks (compiz-fusion) is huge. So I don't think there is something inherently about FOSS model that would make it unsuitable for end-user software. I could think of other arguments in favour of FOSS on the level of economy and society but that is not something the individual non-geek and non-corporate computer user would care about.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

Well, yes, the desktop has improved. Ubuntu has been a great progress in linux. It is getting to the stage that for people who like windows, linux is almost there as a free windows. So lots of clever creative people have managed to recreate a version of windows, but more open, which is great if you like windows.
Doesn't really move the party along though.

I didn't know what the compiz-fusion was, so I did a search and saw a youtube demo. Sure enough, lots of deforming cubes, and rotation and fancy effects. One thing I didn't get is, why? How does that help anything? OK, the geek in me loves the graphics, especially having done graphic programming before, but one of my loves is user interfaces and I didn't see anything in all of the compiz fusion demos that made the user interface better to use, or friendlier, or any more obvious. I watched the windows zooming round, and my thoughts went back to talking my mum through trying to download a scanner driver from the web. I am glad my mum doesn't have that!

No, I agree, there is nothing in the FOSS model that would make it unsuitable for end user software. In fact there is no reason that it should be any different for software than commercial software, if it was made the same way.

The way I see these things are that there are two reasons for doing things. One is for love, and one is for money. Both are valid (and both need to exist). For money I write document processing and display systems (electronic documentation, that sort of thing). For love I write little games, little utilities and graphic stuff. Although I enjoy my day job, I don't think it is exactly what I would do for love, so from my point of view, it wouldn't get done without the money.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

Those are pretty triviall already. Based more on preference than real defects.

Now the bluetooth keyboard hosing the onscreen one... THAT'S a bug.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

The demos show the potential, and indeed it doesn't add much usability. But it does impress the kiddies, just look at the comments. That means more followers of the penguin cult!

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

It is definitely impressive, and great to see as its own thing.
It would be nice to see more research on usability though

However, getting back to the nokias, it would be nice to see a commercial section somewhere for it. I don't intend to write commercial software (not that I intend to write open source either - I am too lazy for that!), maybe just a few games or utilities (although happy to join with others on something bigger) . Having said that, I don't even know if there is a way to protect commercial software, like there is on the palm. I suppose you can tie it to wlan MAC address.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

Lots (maybe even most) FOSS is either made by or sponsored by commercial companies (Novell, Google, IBM, Sun etc.) so it depends on how you define commercial. But a separate section for proprietary/closed source wouldn't hurt.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

I define commercial software as software you pay for.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

Well, there's several window-hunting aids (including an exposé clone), and OS X style zoom; also, live displays of windows can replace icons in the task switcher (Alt-Tab), and can be deployed on mouse hover over taskbar. So I'd say there really is some usability advances there, even though there's more eyecandy.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

I have absolutely no idea how to make Powerlaunch work and I dare not install it. I've read the documentation pages and my only thought was: "WTF???!!!" And that's coming from someone who has (successfully) edited mce.ini...

We have been complaining about Application Mangler since day one and it's only got worse. It's now gone so far that I can no longer see package names. I agree that apt-get works (thank Bog for that!), but why is it seemingly so difficult to implement something that works?! Synaptic is a perfectly working package manager; as it now stands, it just gives the impression that Nokia doesn't want to admit defeat and replace its own cr*p by working community software. It's the Bluetooth débâcle all over again.

You may think that the defective home screen is a detail, but it happens to be the screen I have open the most.

As I don't have crapOS2008 installed, I haven't seen the xterm build for it. Does it do everything I can now do in my 2007 xterm?

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

Absolutely, the package manager needs a) an overhaul and b) options. Aptitude is another great utility. I haven't been having problems with App Manager, though I think it's clumsy.

Again, you call it defective, many don't. Same with the applications menu, I like the big icons much better. I install favorites-menu too and have everything in two or three taps... last thing I want to do is pull out the lousy stylus to launch a program that is probably finger-friendly anyway.

The shipping one is weak; the toolbar options are broken. The Ctrl button is ******ed, but it was in OS2007 too (the dialog comes up and the keyboard goes away?!). The newest build, available from some individuals is much better.

Re: Commercial Software. Evil?
 

OK... it's not really all that hard, as long as you know what you're in for going in...

That's fixed in SVN, IIRC; someone around said they built the SVN and it fixed it. And it doesn't die when one repo fails anymore... Major improvement, it's now actually usable.

The build from OS2007 is identical to OS2007 maemo-hackers xterm. The OS2008 one is functionally equivalent, IMHO. Differences:
Horizontal toolbar at bottom, instead of vertical. (Less screen space in portrait, so I'm happy.)
No tabs, since separate windows are accessible through the task switcher anyway. (Less screen space; happy again.)
Toolbar disabling works; not sure about the OS2007 version, though.

Otherwise, they're both the same, AFAIK. Character encoding is selectable, toolbars go to the window they belong with, closes window when shell exits (I think OS2007 had some glitches with this and multiple tabs, but it's been a long time...).