Active Topics
-
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (18)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 9 hrs ago -
Maemo 20th Anniversary (4)
to Brainstorm by teroyk - 2 days, 4 hrs ago -
Nokia Booklet 3G (RX-75) Drivers (64)
to Alternatives by teroyk - 2 days, 4 hrs ago -
Porting apps to Leste (46)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 4 days, 7 hrs ago - more...
 |
Benson |
2008-04-11
, 18:10
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#21
|
Originally Posted by tabletrat
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.)
|
|
2008-04-11
, 18:25
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#22
|
Originally Posted by Picklesworth
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.
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?
|
|
2008-04-11
, 18:41
|
|
Posts: 186 |
Thanked: 56 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
|
#23
|
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!
Last edited by Picklesworth; 2008-04-11 at 18:51.
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!
Last edited by Picklesworth; 2008-04-11 at 18:51.
 |
|
2008-04-11
, 19:38
|
|
Posts: 481 |
Thanked: 65 times |
Joined on Aug 2007
@ Westcountry, UK
|
#24
|
Originally Posted by Picklesworth
Indeed. That is why microsoft never got anywhere. Oh.. hang on!
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.
Originally Posted by Picklesworth
I was not considering quality at all in my original post, just the principles.
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.
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)
Originally Posted by Picklesworth
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!
Knowledge of what one's computers are doing for the same reason people hate when cars are difficult to self-service.
Originally Posted by Picklesworth
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Picklesworth
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.
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!
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.
|
|
2008-04-11
, 22:54
|
|
Posts: 566 |
Thanked: 150 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#25
|
Originally Posted by tabletrat
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.
(...). 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.
Last edited by iamthewalrus; 2008-04-11 at 23:01.
|
|
2008-04-11
, 23:33
|
|
Posts: 481 |
Thanked: 65 times |
Joined on Aug 2007
@ Westcountry, UK
|
#26
|
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus
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.
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.
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!
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus
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.
So I don't think there is something inherently about FOSS model that would make it unsuitable for end-user software.
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.
|
|
2008-04-12
, 00:21
|
|
Posts: 259 |
Thanked: 72 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
@ Halifax, NS
|
#27
|
Originally Posted by Karel Jansens
Those are pretty triviall already. Based more on preference than real defects.
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.
Now the bluetooth keyboard hosing the onscreen one... THAT'S a bug.
|
|
2008-04-12
, 09:44
|
|
Posts: 566 |
Thanked: 150 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#28
|
Originally Posted by tabletrat
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!
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?
|
|
2008-04-12
, 10:35
|
|
Posts: 481 |
Thanked: 65 times |
Joined on Aug 2007
@ Westcountry, UK
|
#29
|
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.
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.
|
|
2008-04-12
, 11:42
|
|
Posts: 566 |
Thanked: 150 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#30
|
Originally Posted by tabletrat
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.
However, getting back to the nokias, it would be nice to see a commercial section somewhere for it.
Last edited by iamthewalrus; 2008-04-12 at 11:46.