View Single Post
Posts: 2,802 | Thanked: 4,491 times | Joined on Nov 2007
#20
Originally Posted by Stskeeps View Post
You'll have to wait for something offical on twitter
Perhaps I'm getting old, but I can't get over how absurd that sounds :-)

but in essence, it doesn't make much sense that Jolla is taking away freedoms they themselves use and have used to prototype their own systems on devices.
It doesn't make any sense, but the thing is, if they did they wouldn't be the first ones, and such a move wouldn't be entirely unexpected from former Nokia or MeeGo people in the first place.

Flashing own kernel and own OS and getting to keep both pieces if they break as a principle, is entirely fine with me, for example.
Where do you draw the line? Is it reasonable to void the warranty (again, not sure of the legality of this) if you install an entirely different OS? If you recompile the vendor kernel but with a software feature like IPv6 enabled? If you remove Big Brother anti-features? If you fix a bug in the email client?

And why is it appropriate that the people who can and want to do some of the above, the very people who write/test/debug a lot of the code that comes pre-installed on the device, be treated like undesirable second hand citizens?

Having non-free parts is one thing, but locking down the device to prevent tinkering is a whole different kettle of fish. I for one don't want to be a customer of such a company, even if I can jump through some hoops and obtain their Royal Highnesses' concession to modify the device (which I paid for and theoretically own) to do what I want.

Read everything together in context (both text and target audience) instead of just those lines and things look darned much better.
I'm trying, but they still don't. If things are better than they seem, would it be unreasonable to ask them to make a brief statement re: device freedom to the audience that actually cares about the issue?
 

The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to lma For This Useful Post: