181–190 of 201 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I am.
Huh. Where I come from, people having a choice as to where they can get their apps is a Good Thing©. Care to elaborate why you think it's so bad?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The open source definition and free software definition both prohibit a "not for profit" clause. What is something that you consider to be an "open source project" that has such a clause? http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
That's a good question. I thought Zed Shaw had licensed lamson under those terms, but I see nothing about that on his github right now. While I can't find a use in the wild, an example of a license I would consider to be: * open source * prohibit for profit use is: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ You are welcome to say that creative commons is not open source (many people whose opinions I value highly…
CC licenses are not supposed to be used as software licenses anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see what you did there. But yes, it's great that two things came out of Nokia+Microsoft: Microsoft finally has a really solid mobile hardware partner, and Nokia finally has a well-designed operating system.* *That they care about. Shed a tear for MeeGo Harmattan.
Ha, I didn't see what I did there until you pointed out what I did there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh. Where I come from, people having a choice as to where they can get their apps is a Good Thing©. Care to elaborate why you think it's so bad?
In a word: fragmentation. Just look at what Amazon have done with the Fire. Separate branch of Android with a separate app store. Same thing happening to webOS would be bad news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> JS/HTML5 on top of QNX would capitalize on their strengths (more responsiveness over Android) and patch over their weaknesses. We're talking about RIM here, how would web technologies (a game they are still late at) "capitalize on their streights"? Let alone "patch over their weaknesses"?
The PlayBook ships with a recent version of WebKit and all Blackberry 7.X phones contain a WebKit based browser. Starting with the Torch last summer most BB phones shipped with WebKit. The days of the Java based browser on BlackBerry's are over. Disclaimer: I am part of the WebKit team at RIM.
Nobody wants to have to open a browser and load a bookmark to get to an application that has browser widgets taking up space at the top, bottom, and side of the screen. They want a home screen icon they can tap once and get an application with native look and feel. If developers can write that app in HTML5/JS then it's a win/win for both developers and users. Developers get a highly portable framework that allows them to rapidly develop software and users get a native app experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been an iPhone user since 2007 and have had every model with the exception of the 4s. I fully intended on moving to Android, specifically the Galaxy Nexus, but after playing with the Mango UI I bought the Samsung Focus S and I'm glad I did. It is by far the best OS I've used on a phone yet! It makes the iOS UI simply look dated (which in all honesty it hasn't changed much since 2007).
Unfortunately, the app ecosystem has not caught up to the system UX yet. A lot of the apps are slower and have fewer features than their iOS/Android counterparts. That seems to be the case with webOS as well. Hopefully, these platforms catch on a little bit to provide a refreshing counterbalance to the app grid UX of iOS/Android.
The one thing I'm really excited about though is that the developer tools are second to none. Microsoft has made it very simple to build very nice looking applications very quickly. As a developer that just moved to this platform I see the limited apps as great opportunity to help improve this platform even further and I plan on doing just that!
WebOS is about the cloud, not the devices. It's about sharing data as a user between many cheap devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did not point you to the definition of copyleft or the definition of GPL, but to the definition of Free Software. If you read the definition of "Open Source" by OSI, or the DFSG by Debian, they're very similar and clear: the (royalty-free) license includes the right to make derivative work and publish/distribute the modifications. None of the definitions above include "not for profit" clause as valid. If you have n…
Ah, I see, so you can take the trademarked name of any open source project and modify and distribute the software under that name, for profit, and everyone will be okay with it. Otherwise some people will think the vendor looks foolish. I see.