You make it sound as though there are never any differences between things that actually matter, and that's not the case. Android is substantially different to Maemo in that it tries to lock down your device so that it's controlled by Google (or your network, or whoever) and not you. Maemo doesn't do that.

If you value your freedom at all, that doesn't just mean that Android is different, it means that it is inferior.

Is it possible to value freedom and see android as superior? How about valuing smartphone market penetration: does that mean that maemo is inferior?

My point is simply this: to view wholly a thing as superior or inferior based on a small set of characteristics is to indicate the pattern of thinking in absolutes. It is possible to think in a different way.

But I do understand the futility of argument on this particular subject. I will leave it at that. Best of luck!

}:^)~

no way, i wouldnt want them too either.

qt is strong and viable and everything I heard at the summit was spot on with how it is being prepared (matches what i've openly discussed with many people for a long time)
i want it too because a complete end to end development environment is essential.

whether or not i can use the new simplified qt widget within liqbase is another conversation all on its own.
i would love to have access to full the catalog of qt functionality with the current development speed i have

There are few things more tedious than "fanboyism" than the attempt to outflank it altogether by suggesting (in pseudo-psychological jargon) that any attempt to rank and/or compare two things "is a pattern of thinking in absolutes" or, as an earlier post suggested, that any criticism of Android stems from an inferiority complex.

So, tell me, is it "thinking in absolutes" or an exercise in "futility" to state the following?

1. I do most of my work using *nix tools and appreciate being able to set up my OS the way I like it.

2. I think Linux is a fantastic platform for #1.

3. I was disappointed when Google (one of the few major companies capable of going toe to toe with Apple and Microsoft and a supporter of open source) decided to create their own operating system instead of throwing their weight behind a Linux distro like Ubuntu.

4. For something based on the Linux kernel, I find Android needlessly restrictive (i.e., it prevents me from doing #1).

5. So Ubuntu is creating the possibility of running Android apps on Linux. But what if I want to run traditional *nix apps on Android?

6. Android's growing market share should mean greater hardware support for Linux. But for my own personal use, #4 still applies.

7. Android is a great smartphone system---it made sense to add the java application layer to reduce the complexity for mobile developers. But I think Google's strategy is increasingly to develop Android (or Chrome OS) as a thin client that can access web services. And I happen not to like the thin client model.

8. I'm glad companies such as Nokia are still catering to niche *nix users such as myself.

Yes it is possible to value freedom and see Android as superior. But it's the degree of Freedom the individual is looking for. For example, Android is more free than the iPhone, but both are less than Maemo. But that doesn't make it necessarily worse, it just depends on what you want out of it.

Maemo will always have Android beat in the freedom aspect unless Nokia starts locking it down more or Google lightens up. And yes maemo is inferior in smartphone penetration.

And all are inferior to Symbian, which oddly never enters in these arguments. That's because they compliment each other.