Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote: > Yeah, > > that's pretty sad. They should have picked FSO or even Pyneo or at least > something that is already in development for quite a while. This way it looks > like NIH syndrome.
kettle calling the pot black... I always thought one of open source's strengths was choice. > Until now, trying to co-work with these guys typically went like "yeah, you > can take our APIs, if you want. No, we don't want to look at yours, thanks.". This is partly due to the fact that they planned the roadmap forward in years, not weeks or months, not to mention the waterfall development style they are probably using. It might have been developed internally for quite some time before this. > > In contrast to that, FSO rather embraces application developer's requests. > > Lets see what happens this time. You tell me, is Nokia opening up and really embracing open source? http://qt.gitorious.org/qt -- Lorn 'ljp' Potter Software Engineer, Qt Software R&D, Nokia Pty Ltd _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
