No it isn't, what business of Microsoft is it to decide what third parties get to distribute their own software on a so called public Marketplace
So let me get this straight... Microsoft doesn't get to decide whats sold on their store? You think you can walk into Walmart and just start selling stuff that they don't want? Can someone walk into your house and just go to sleep for the night because its none of your damn business?
You made an absolutely fucking retarded statement. Its their store, they can do whatever the fuck they want to do with it. You don't get to tell them what to do in their store any more than they get to tell you what to do in your home.
Anyway, BSD isn't an Open Source license, it's a Free Software license. BSD is allowed because all you have to do is keep the copyright notice at the top.
Then your definition of open source is clearly wrong. Better grab a dictionary and possibly a cluepon, maybe visit the FSF website to get an education.
Which would cover the license to any library used in software, essentially meaning no one could possibly pull in Windows Phone libraries since their sole purpose is to provide a foundation for derivative works. So if you read that the way you want to read it, you can't write an app for WP7 at all.
It would also prevent you from using pretty much any MS library anyway since most of them have some form of BSD code in them somewhere.
Now very different from how some Linux & GPL fans dislike the CDDL because it prevents ZFS from being included in the Linux kernel (intentionally, according to Danese Cooper).
Actually, its GPL that prevents it. Yes, CDDL was designed that way, but it is a restriction in GPL that prevents it, not a restricting in CDDL. CDDL just took advantage of one of the obvious (to those outside the cult) dumbshit things in the GPL license to ensure it doesn't get mixed in with it.
Its pretty much the exact same thing. Its neat that you try to blame it on someone else, but GPL is what is preventing it, not the other way around.
It doesn't require that it is 'freely provided'. It simply requires it to be available. You are in fact able to charge any fee you like for distributing the source.
So they have some reason to upgrade old phones. They aren't going to do it with no incentive.
Otherwise you might as well just quit now cause devs will either target the phone with the features they want and have a limited amount of potential customers until everyone has completed the 2 year contract upgrade cycle OR devs will target 1.6 to get the largest audience and well, it won't be worth bothering with Android devices.
When the only tool you know how to use is a hammer, you tend to look at every problem as it it were a nail.
So why are you still doing so? You clearly don't know and haven't bothered to figure out why people use Outlook, yet you keep beating away with the hammer...
My company makes sells a service which can be used from within Outlook via an COM addon. A couple things I can tell you about Outlook users.
They aren't using it for email only. Those people quickly go switch to something that doesn't suck at reading email.
Sales people LIVE in Outlook. Contacts, notes, scheduling, reminders, workflow, document management, CRM and sales process are just the first and obvious things that come to mind. Every one of our customers that uses Outlook in a corporate environment has multiple plugins installed before we even get to them. These plugins make Outlook a client for some other system in their company and typically roll it all into one client reasonable well for the more well established plugins.
To put it bluntly, as much as Outlook sucks for Email, it is in a class all by itself when it comes to being a PIM for someone in a large company.
Nor even remotely necessary.
What you utterly fail to understand is while you think Outlook is an email client, you have absolutely no clue how people actually use it in the real world. You're just spouting off random crap because you think you understand what Outlook is used for, when in reality you don't. Its not a email client, its a PIM with a large feature set that you actually DO need to mimic if you expect people to use something else.
There isn't a Outlook/Exchange replacement, I've been looking for years. If it wasn't needed or people didn't want the features of Outlook, people would use something else in large companies... but look around, it doesn't happen unless.
I haven't even touched on server side features.
With all that said, I freaking hate Outlook and Exchange, they are big over complicated piles of crap that need to be replaced by an open alternative, but thats not going to happen until the OSS world stops trying to change the way people use software like Outlook into their model and instead tries to make software that fits what those users want. That won't happen until someone can make money off it as its a very big project to take on.
Shouldn't they focus on something like, oh I don't know, actually Releasing Gingerbread for existing phones, like they said they were doing "in a few weeks" back in November/December?
The source is available, has been for a while. OEMs could have it running on their phones now, but they haven't done so yet, why should they, wheres the profit?
No updates, no word from Google about why they aren't sending it out. Looks like things might be falling apart over there.
Its not falling apart, its the same now as it was the day the Nexus One went on sale, you're just now noticing.
If you want OEMs to actually provide updates and do so in a timely manner, you need to incentivize it.
If Google wants OEMs to upgrade old devices they need to provide a way for that upgrade to make money for the OEM/Provider.
iOS gets upgraded because Apple adds new features that make them more money, so its in their financial interests to make sure all their phones can run it and users want to upgrade too it.
You want HTC to get 2.3 on a phone quickly? You're going to need to come up with some sort of motivation like Apple has to do so.
These OEMS are corporations. They're legally required to try to make money. Yes, I know that corporations don't have to focus on making money, but all the ones making smartphones DO have their charters based on profit so that argument doesn't matter here. They could almost argue that its illegal for them to provide updates as it is a cost with no immediately visible or guaranteed return on it (which would be things like customer loyalty due to happiness) and you may cause them to wait longer between updates meaning you also lost a device sell.
Open source or not, theres its not cost effective to concern yourself with updating phones already sold.
If you want people to sell devices that run OSS software and you want them to support it, you are going to have to pay for it somehow. No one is bothering upgrading Android phones so you have no incentive to switch to someone else, which means they have no reason to worry about upgrading you to keep you, so they have no incentive. They win. You aren't going to beat them by being a bunch of OSS vegan pussies and making empty threats about shopping elsewhere (which is going to buy you the same thing anyway), you're going to have to play their game and balance that with keeping the Android open enough for your tastes.
I'm not sure what he's referring too, but I'm referring to the plugins directory under my home directory that allows me to install codecs for myself without root. But hey, just because your OS doesn't do it, certainly means no OS does it.
I'd love the flash editor if it would output SVG... a standard Adobe helped to create and used to force Macromedia to sell out... which it then promptly and completely abandon and refuses to properly support in any product it makes.
But there are multiple you can install, so whats your actual point? You want everything for free and you want your old OSes to automagically support new things that weren't around when the OS was released?
If your free OS provided a standard plugin system then you could get your codec for the free OS.
That is unless you're enforcing some other restriction that you haven't actually said like:
1) Has to come free with my OS cause I don't ever want to pay for anything at all, ever, never.
2) My OS developers or my idealogical crusade against the man prevents me from using software that I can't see the source too even though I have absolutely no clue what the source actually does nor the ability to change it.
The reality of it is, having a system wide codec system, which the browser can then use takes ALL the code for out of the browser and the OS and lets you plug it in. The only thing stopping you at that point is your own personal objections, which frankly, no one cares about that particular group of people because you're going to bitch, moan and whine unless whatever it is you're fanboying for gets what you want exactly the way you want it. The world isn't going to change to support an irrelevant portion of the population on some idealogical crusade that no one else cares about. You should probably face reality.
Your OS can certainly DO it, you just don't it want to, thats your problem, not anyone elses. The rest of the world isn't going to wait around for you.
That's just great (not). My Windows XP doesn't have the newer codecs built in.
So install them, thats why theres a codec system, and thats why you can install just about any codec you want in Windows, including installing any modern codec on an XP machine.
Neither does Ubuntu or Puppy Linux. Or Commodore Amiga OS.
So your arguing that you shouldn't move on to the modern intelligent way of doing things because you use several OSes that are out of date or unable to focus long enough to keep up with what users want?
If you expect Linux to have any weight in the world its going to have to be popular and being popular is going to require it doing things like providing system wide support for things. Unfortunately, no one can agree long enough to standardize and provide a single interface to work with, so it ends up fragmented and not worth being supported by anyone who values their time.
No one is going to sit around and wait on Linux to come up with a solution to a problem the other two more popular desktop OSes solved at least 15 years ago.
The could have done so, and included a non-shitty x86 core in the interrium for backwards compatibility while everyone was transitioned to new code.
They didn't. The started over breaking compat, then didn't provide a decent emulation path for old software. To top it off, IA-64 isn't even a little bit impressive compared to what could do by just scaling technology from 20 years ago to modern production plants and lithography.
Slashdot Mirror
So let me get this straight ... Microsoft doesn't get to decide whats sold on their store? You think you can walk into Walmart and just start selling stuff that they don't want? Can someone walk into your house and just go to sleep for the night because its none of your damn business?
You made an absolutely fucking retarded statement. Its their store, they can do whatever the fuck they want to do with it. You don't get to tell them what to do in their store any more than they get to tell you what to do in your home.
Then your definition of open source is clearly wrong. Better grab a dictionary and possibly a cluepon, maybe visit the FSF website to get an education.
Which would cover the license to any library used in software, essentially meaning no one could possibly pull in Windows Phone libraries since their sole purpose is to provide a foundation for derivative works. So if you read that the way you want to read it, you can't write an app for WP7 at all.
It would also prevent you from using pretty much any MS library anyway since most of them have some form of BSD code in them somewhere.
Your reading comprehension skills suck.
Now very different from how some Linux & GPL fans dislike the CDDL because it prevents ZFS from being included in the Linux kernel (intentionally, according to Danese Cooper).
Actually, its GPL that prevents it. Yes, CDDL was designed that way, but it is a restriction in GPL that prevents it, not a restricting in CDDL. CDDL just took advantage of one of the obvious (to those outside the cult) dumbshit things in the GPL license to ensure it doesn't get mixed in with it.
Its pretty much the exact same thing. Its neat that you try to blame it on someone else, but GPL is what is preventing it, not the other way around.
It doesn't require that it is 'freely provided'. It simply requires it to be available. You are in fact able to charge any fee you like for distributing the source.
The BSD license software can be relicensed in a way that is compatible with their requirements.
As is pretty typical, this is a GPL problem, not an OSS problem.
Phones are 'succeeding' right now because of paid apps, not OSS ones. Hence why a certain phone OS is still trouncing all over everyone else.
Uhm, their corporate charter says pretty much that exactly ... so wheres the bullshit?
So they have some reason to upgrade old phones. They aren't going to do it with no incentive.
Otherwise you might as well just quit now cause devs will either target the phone with the features they want and have a limited amount of potential customers until everyone has completed the 2 year contract upgrade cycle OR devs will target 1.6 to get the largest audience and well, it won't be worth bothering with Android devices.
Can and Should are two different words.
I can 'run' Linux on 4 megs of ram, and much like GIMP on a N900, it would be effectively worthless.
Kindle + calibre + torrents = awesomeness. Screw paying for anything.
So you think we're going to be impressed by the fact that you're nothing more than a petty thief?
What are you going to do when your boss says 'screw paying for your time'?
Ignorant shits like you give them a reason to push for DRM.
So why are you still doing so? You clearly don't know and haven't bothered to figure out why people use Outlook, yet you keep beating away with the hammer ...
It is if you want to replace Outlook.
My company makes sells a service which can be used from within Outlook via an COM addon. A couple things I can tell you about Outlook users.
They aren't using it for email only. Those people quickly go switch to something that doesn't suck at reading email.
Sales people LIVE in Outlook. Contacts, notes, scheduling, reminders, workflow, document management, CRM and sales process are just the first and obvious things that come to mind. Every one of our customers that uses Outlook in a corporate environment has multiple plugins installed before we even get to them. These plugins make Outlook a client for some other system in their company and typically roll it all into one client reasonable well for the more well established plugins.
To put it bluntly, as much as Outlook sucks for Email, it is in a class all by itself when it comes to being a PIM for someone in a large company.
Nor even remotely necessary.
What you utterly fail to understand is while you think Outlook is an email client, you have absolutely no clue how people actually use it in the real world. You're just spouting off random crap because you think you understand what Outlook is used for, when in reality you don't. Its not a email client, its a PIM with a large feature set that you actually DO need to mimic if you expect people to use something else.
There isn't a Outlook/Exchange replacement, I've been looking for years. If it wasn't needed or people didn't want the features of Outlook, people would use something else in large companies ... but look around, it doesn't happen unless.
I haven't even touched on server side features.
With all that said, I freaking hate Outlook and Exchange, they are big over complicated piles of crap that need to be replaced by an open alternative, but thats not going to happen until the OSS world stops trying to change the way people use software like Outlook into their model and instead tries to make software that fits what those users want. That won't happen until someone can make money off it as its a very big project to take on.
"it's" is a contraction of "it is" all the time.
Except when it's "it has".
I can't think of an example where using it's would fit in place of it has.
The source is available, has been for a while. OEMs could have it running on their phones now, but they haven't done so yet, why should they, wheres the profit?
Its not falling apart, its the same now as it was the day the Nexus One went on sale, you're just now noticing.
If you want OEMs to actually provide updates and do so in a timely manner, you need to incentivize it.
If Google wants OEMs to upgrade old devices they need to provide a way for that upgrade to make money for the OEM/Provider.
iOS gets upgraded because Apple adds new features that make them more money, so its in their financial interests to make sure all their phones can run it and users want to upgrade too it.
You want HTC to get 2.3 on a phone quickly? You're going to need to come up with some sort of motivation like Apple has to do so.
These OEMS are corporations. They're legally required to try to make money. Yes, I know that corporations don't have to focus on making money, but all the ones making smartphones DO have their charters based on profit so that argument doesn't matter here. They could almost argue that its illegal for them to provide updates as it is a cost with no immediately visible or guaranteed return on it (which would be things like customer loyalty due to happiness) and you may cause them to wait longer between updates meaning you also lost a device sell.
Open source or not, theres its not cost effective to concern yourself with updating phones already sold.
If you want people to sell devices that run OSS software and you want them to support it, you are going to have to pay for it somehow. No one is bothering upgrading Android phones so you have no incentive to switch to someone else, which means they have no reason to worry about upgrading you to keep you, so they have no incentive. They win. You aren't going to beat them by being a bunch of OSS vegan pussies and making empty threats about shopping elsewhere (which is going to buy you the same thing anyway), you're going to have to play their game and balance that with keeping the Android open enough for your tastes.
I know of at least one person who didn't by an iPhone because that update would solve his problem and he'd be happy and not want to switch.
So their PR worked, he didn't buy one in December ...
However, instead he was more pissed off last week when finally got tired of waiting and bought an iPhone :/
And now the PR was worse than if they had said nothing at all.
I want my app to be the most profitable, you loose.
I'm not sure what he's referring too, but I'm referring to the plugins directory under my home directory that allows me to install codecs for myself without root. But hey, just because your OS doesn't do it, certainly means no OS does it.
I'd love the flash editor if it would output SVG ... a standard Adobe helped to create and used to force Macromedia to sell out ... which it then promptly and completely abandon and refuses to properly support in any product it makes.
No they don't, I've written plugins with hardware acceleration for safari, works perfectly. Its well documented.
The most you EVER have to pay is $10k/year.
Thats less than the cost of someones office.
They can afford it, you're going to need a new argument.
But there are multiple you can install, so whats your actual point? You want everything for free and you want your old OSes to automagically support new things that weren't around when the OS was released?
If your free OS provided a standard plugin system then you could get your codec for the free OS.
That is unless you're enforcing some other restriction that you haven't actually said like:
1) Has to come free with my OS cause I don't ever want to pay for anything at all, ever, never.
2) My OS developers or my idealogical crusade against the man prevents me from using software that I can't see the source too even though I have absolutely no clue what the source actually does nor the ability to change it.
The reality of it is, having a system wide codec system, which the browser can then use takes ALL the code for out of the browser and the OS and lets you plug it in. The only thing stopping you at that point is your own personal objections, which frankly, no one cares about that particular group of people because you're going to bitch, moan and whine unless whatever it is you're fanboying for gets what you want exactly the way you want it. The world isn't going to change to support an irrelevant portion of the population on some idealogical crusade that no one else cares about. You should probably face reality.
Your OS can certainly DO it, you just don't it want to, thats your problem, not anyone elses. The rest of the world isn't going to wait around for you.
So install them, thats why theres a codec system, and thats why you can install just about any codec you want in Windows, including installing any modern codec on an XP machine.
So your arguing that you shouldn't move on to the modern intelligent way of doing things because you use several OSes that are out of date or unable to focus long enough to keep up with what users want?
If you expect Linux to have any weight in the world its going to have to be popular and being popular is going to require it doing things like providing system wide support for things. Unfortunately, no one can agree long enough to standardize and provide a single interface to work with, so it ends up fragmented and not worth being supported by anyone who values their time.
No one is going to sit around and wait on Linux to come up with a solution to a problem the other two more popular desktop OSes solved at least 15 years ago.
The could have done so, and included a non-shitty x86 core in the interrium for backwards compatibility while everyone was transitioned to new code.
They didn't. The started over breaking compat, then didn't provide a decent emulation path for old software. To top it off, IA-64 isn't even a little bit impressive compared to what could do by just scaling technology from 20 years ago to modern production plants and lithography.