![]() |
2015-09-17
, 16:51
|
Posts: 285 |
Thanked: 1,900 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#452
|
But the same can be said about you! There are posters who try to paint an objective picture but the moment they include anything that can be considered even a little bit negative, you immediately snatch that opportunity and focus only on that.
There. Fixed it for you. It is the lack of details that give rise to gossip and bemoaning, not their presence. Providing unambiguous details prevents gossip and bemoaning.
This post is a typical example. Completely lacking any detail and a textbook invitation to speculations and gossips and, eventually, bemoaning.
The Following User Says Thank You to JulmaHerra For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2015-09-17
, 17:00
|
|
Posts: 6,453 |
Thanked: 20,983 times |
Joined on Sep 2012
@ UK
|
#453
|
Overtly negative and disproportionate is not same thing as objective.
The Following User Says Thank You to pichlo For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2015-09-17
, 17:33
|
|
Posts: 2,355 |
Thanked: 5,249 times |
Joined on Jan 2009
@ Barcelona
|
#455
|
No. Not open sourcing.
Dumping tons of dirt cheap TouchPad tablets on the market (fire-sale style) helped WebOS. People were hacking it like crazy even before releasing WebOS free. :-)
The Following User Says Thank You to javispedro For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2015-09-17
, 18:00
|
Posts: 529 |
Thanked: 988 times |
Joined on Mar 2015
|
#456
|
![]() |
2015-09-17
, 19:14
|
|
Posts: 423 |
Thanked: 478 times |
Joined on Sep 2014
@ Netherlands
|
#457
|
Ok, here is exactly my problem:
and
So, Qt is fully open, and receiving the many benefits of open source. Yay! But, I would also argue that if the Qt company were to die tomorrow, Qt dies with it. There's an enormous amount of inertia behind Qt right now, so it wouldn't die immediately, but I just don't see how the project works without the company standing behind it.
Yes! But doesn't this really apply to any project?
I do understand that there are many, many benefits to open-source code. But what I'm seeing is that fully open-source efforts produce Nemo-like projects, while commercial organizations that mix open and closed source produce Sailfish-like projects. Yes, we had the death of the N900 and Maemo, the death of the N9 and Meego, and in the fullness of time we'll probably have the death of Jolla and Sailfish. All commercial software projects are mortal. But in all that time, with the rise and fall and rise again of all these commercial platforms, it doesn't seem like any fully open platform has gained any sort of success...
The Following User Says Thank You to vistaus For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2015-09-17
, 19:16
|
|
Posts: 423 |
Thanked: 478 times |
Joined on Sep 2014
@ Netherlands
|
#458
|
![]() |
2015-09-17
, 19:26
|
Posts: 18 |
Thanked: 23 times |
Joined on Dec 2013
|
#459
|
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to jolla-pirate For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2015-09-17
, 20:23
|
|
Posts: 887 |
Thanked: 2,444 times |
Joined on Jun 2011
|
#460
|
Well! This has really gotten offtopic!
Any thoughts about Sailfish 2.0 anyone?
This post is a typical example. Completely lacking any detail and a textbook invitation to speculations and gossips and, eventually, bemoaning. It would have been better not to say anything at all but if you want to say something, say it properly. Provide the schedule or, if you do not have one, say you do not have one and why. Say exactly what obstacles are standing in the way. Not just, "we have some problems", but exactly what problems. It's just business 101. Managing expectations.
But this is waaaaay OT. Now back SFOS 2.0. I like it.
There. A positive comment. Feel free to ignore it and say that I am 100% negative.