Notices

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.

You do realize that bug is fixed in OS2008?

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.

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...

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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?