Active Topics
-
How many of you still use N900 as main phone? (595)
to Community by deutch1976 - 19 hrs, 4 mins ago -
Big news (7)
to OS2008 / Maemo 4 / Chinook - Diablo by endsormeans - 2 days, 4 hrs ago -
Firefox with Leste (8)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by endsormeans - 2 days, 4 hrs ago -
Which is the best N95? What software modifications could be made to it? (3)
to General by Kalatti - 5 days, 4 hrs ago -
Installing CSSU Stable in year 2024 (2)
to Maemo 5 / Fremantle by teroyk - 5 days, 12 hrs ago -
Porting apps to Leste (34)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Arno_11 - 5 days, 21 hrs ago - more...
|
2009-09-25
, 16:17
|
|
Posts: 716 |
Thanked: 303 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Sheffield, UK
|
#142
|
I did not mean to say ALL proprietary software is superior to open source. For a start, Firefox is infinitely better than IE. But open source software does not exactly have a reputation of being easy to use. Simply because everyone is free to work on what they like rather than being paid to refine the UI.
As I have said before, my biggest complaint with Linux is the GTK vs QT issue. I can pop open a file requester in a QT based app and have my favourite paths bookmarked, then I pop one open in a GTK+ app (which from a user point of view, looks no different up to this point) and the file request behaves completely different and does not have my bookmarks.
Sure, Windows has the same problem due to legacy file requesters vs newer versions of the API. However the differences are a lot more minimal and if you stick with just newer software, you probably will never experience it.
Something like the N900 on the other hand can use both toolkits while maintaining the same interface throughout because it has stricter rules. Fact is, FOSS allows a little too much freedom sometimes and its detrimental to the end-user experience. However a commercial product will spend a lot of money refining the UI experience to a level FOSS rarely does and the only way to pay for that, make it proprietary.
Yet Nokia has actually been quite open about it. The main UI itself I believe is open, its just a few apps which they want to maintain their copyright on because presumably they spent a lot of money on it or maybe even licensed it from someone else. The fact the media player UI is the main one in question is all the more relevant, as I think most phones and in fact media player applications have terrible UIs. I never found one I was happy with on Windows Mobile. I REALLY hope the Maemo one is at least close to as good as the iPod/iPhone one.
As I have said before, my biggest complaint with Linux is the GTK vs QT issue. I can pop open a file requester in a QT based app and have my favourite paths bookmarked, then I pop one open in a GTK+ app (which from a user point of view, looks no different up to this point) and the file request behaves completely different and does not have my bookmarks.
Sure, Windows has the same problem due to legacy file requesters vs newer versions of the API. However the differences are a lot more minimal and if you stick with just newer software, you probably will never experience it.
Something like the N900 on the other hand can use both toolkits while maintaining the same interface throughout because it has stricter rules. Fact is, FOSS allows a little too much freedom sometimes and its detrimental to the end-user experience. However a commercial product will spend a lot of money refining the UI experience to a level FOSS rarely does and the only way to pay for that, make it proprietary.
Yet Nokia has actually been quite open about it. The main UI itself I believe is open, its just a few apps which they want to maintain their copyright on because presumably they spent a lot of money on it or maybe even licensed it from someone else. The fact the media player UI is the main one in question is all the more relevant, as I think most phones and in fact media player applications have terrible UIs. I never found one I was happy with on Windows Mobile. I REALLY hope the Maemo one is at least close to as good as the iPod/iPhone one.
| The Following User Says Thank You to Alex Atkin UK For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-09-25
, 16:25
|
|
Posts: 716 |
Thanked: 303 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Sheffield, UK
|
#143
|
Originally Posted by DaveP1
Indeed. Like how I would STILL prefer to use Paintshop Pro 9 rather than GIMP. GIMP seems to be targeted at only hardcore graphics editors who use multiple monitors. Its a completely nightmare when trying to edit loads of smaller files for web work on a single 1280x1024 monitor as you keep losing one window behind another.
While I use a number of Open Source programs, let's not go overboard. There are some Open Source projects which are massively supported with top level participants. There are also many more which are developed by a few average programmers who maintain the software sporadically and drop it unexpectedly. Much as I like Open Source, I have to admit that, in general, proprietary software is better tested and more stable when it is released and it is more likely to be maintained because people are being paid based on it being sold and upgraded.
By all means, find Open Source alternatives, use them, support them. But recognize that there are valid reasons to pay for proprietary programs as well.
People say Open Source is about freedom. But unless you know C++ you are pretty much screwed as there simply is no incentive for them to support every kind of user. Quite understandably, they write an application THEY want, not necessarily what a huge chunk of people want. Lets face it, would I personally redesign one of my own apps (should I ever get that good to create anything useful) just because a few people wanted me to? I doubt it, without a financial incentive. Because I have better things to do.
Quite simply, Open Source does not need to make as many people happy because you are not doing it to make money. Whenever there is a financial incentive you are naturally trying to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.
However much we all like to think we hate capitalism, we all do things for our own benefit even if its just to "make us feel good". Money makes the world go round, without it we would still be using the abacus.
Last edited by Alex Atkin UK; 2009-09-25 at 16:29.
 |
|
2009-09-25
, 16:33
|
|
Posts: 4,672 |
Thanked: 5,455 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Springfield, MA, USA
|
#144
|
Originally Posted by Alex Atkin UK
That's why Windows is such a smash success--not because of the legal strong-arming, exclusivity agreements and other unethical shenanigans that could have provided it with the unfair advantage it needed to be forced down our throats even when something else was cheaper, better supported and operated more reliably and faster. No, no.. clearly it was ALWAYS the better product despite not being the better product.
Quite simply, Open Source does not need to make as many people happy because you are not doing it to make money. Whenever there is a financial incentive you are naturally trying to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.
Originally Posted by Alex Atkin UK
I hate monopolistic capitalism, but I love the free market! Isn't that ironic?
However much we all like to think we hate capitalism, we all do things for our own benefit even if its just to "make us feel good". Money makes the world go round, without it we would still be using the abacus.
| The Following User Says Thank You to danramos For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-09-25
, 16:49
|
|
Posts: 206 |
Thanked: 72 times |
Joined on Jun 2009
@ Switzerland
|
#145
|
Originally Posted by DaveP1
I prefer to pay for a copy of a Free Software (FOSS) for it evolves than pay for a very restricted licence for only use a proprietary software.
While I use a number of Open Source programs, let's not go overboard. There are some Open Source projects which are massively supported with top level participants. There are also many more which are developed by a few average programmers who maintain the software sporadically and drop it unexpectedly. Much as I like Open Source, I have to admit that, in general, proprietary software is better tested and more stable when it is released and it is more likely to be maintained because people are being paid based on it being sold and upgraded.
By all means, find Open Source alternatives, use them, support them. But recognize that there are valid reasons to pay for proprietary programs as well.
 |
|
2009-09-25
, 17:38
|
|
Posts: 1,878 |
Thanked: 646 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ San Jose, CA
|
#146
|
Originally Posted by korbé
Great. Then clearly, since you don't believe what I said, you believe you can go build your own N900-clone from commodity parts, and put your own choice of OS on it, just like you can with a PC. So, go do that, and stop fretting about Nokia, Nokia's policies and licenses, and Nokia's OS, on here.
@ johnkzin M#134:
Your arguments do not convince me
__________________
My Personal Blog
My Personal Blog
|
|
2009-09-25
, 17:42
|
|
Posts: 206 |
Thanked: 72 times |
Joined on Jun 2009
@ Switzerland
|
#147
|
Nobody has the right to contradict Nokia model ?
Beautiful mind. Very.
We have no right to propose to change on something ?
So why the Maemo Community exist ?
Last edited by korbé; 2009-09-25 at 17:53.
Beautiful mind. Very.
We have no right to propose to change on something ?
So why the Maemo Community exist ?
Last edited by korbé; 2009-09-25 at 17:53.
|
|
2009-09-25
, 17:55
|
|
Posts: 543 |
Thanked: 181 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
@ Universe,LocalCluster.MilkyWay.Sol.Earth.Europe.Slovenia.Ljubljana
|
#148
|
This thread has started to spin wheels... There is no more discussion in it sadly. Just my view other view etc.
To pragmatists - great that you can get the best of both worlds by using best of open and proprietary
To idealists(myself included) - Would be nice if we would get the benefit of the doubt and get our wishes then we could actually compete on an even playing field - as it is we can only follow whatever is locked down
I wish for a day when open vs proprietary would not be an issue. It would simply co-exist and play fair. Until that happens though open is at a disadvantage due to needing to reverse engineer APIs, drivers etc. Or when open comes up with anything original get's instantly spewed upon by people as being lame/not like $whatever other thing/etc... then copied by some proprietary vendor and marketed as the next big thing.
If you want better cooperation between QT and GTK+ it's easy. Make them both use the same bookmarks format and even file. GTK+ uses ~/.gtk-bookmarks with a simple: file:///some/path/to/someplace no clue what QT uses though.
Having used both and others as well I must say I still like GTK as a user the most.
But I would like to have them better interconnected. It's possible to theme each other supposedly though I only manage one way always gtk apps as qt.
Freedesktop should specify all these things so that irrelevant of the toolkit it would be the same data in the end.
Anyway rant over
To pragmatists - great that you can get the best of both worlds by using best of open and proprietary
To idealists(myself included) - Would be nice if we would get the benefit of the doubt and get our wishes then we could actually compete on an even playing field - as it is we can only follow whatever is locked down
I wish for a day when open vs proprietary would not be an issue. It would simply co-exist and play fair. Until that happens though open is at a disadvantage due to needing to reverse engineer APIs, drivers etc. Or when open comes up with anything original get's instantly spewed upon by people as being lame/not like $whatever other thing/etc... then copied by some proprietary vendor and marketed as the next big thing.
If you want better cooperation between QT and GTK+ it's easy. Make them both use the same bookmarks format and even file. GTK+ uses ~/.gtk-bookmarks with a simple: file:///some/path/to/someplace no clue what QT uses though.
Having used both and others as well I must say I still like GTK as a user the most.
But I would like to have them better interconnected. It's possible to theme each other supposedly though I only manage one way always gtk apps as qt.
Freedesktop should specify all these things so that irrelevant of the toolkit it would be the same data in the end.
Anyway rant over
|
|
2009-09-25
, 17:58
|
|
Posts: 4,672 |
Thanked: 5,455 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Springfield, MA, USA
|
#149
|
Originally Posted by johnkzin
Isn't that kinda-sorta what Crunchpad came out of?
Great. Then clearly, since you don't believe what I said, you believe you can go build your own N900-clone from commodity parts, and put your own choice of OS on it, just like you can with a PC. So, go do that, and stop fretting about Nokia, Nokia's policies and licenses, and Nokia's OS, on here.
 |
|
2009-09-25
, 18:08
|
|
Posts: 2,427 |
Thanked: 2,986 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#150
|
Originally Posted by Texrat
So Not True
oxy*****: enterprise open source.
__________________
N9: Go white or go home
N9: Go white or go home
 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:43.
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net