Yes, and if you don't like Maemo, there's Mer, which tries to be
completely free. Nokia doesn't prevent you from installing any
OS/software you'd like on the n8x0 devices.

On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 21:20 -0500, Peter Silva wrote:
> Do people like what Nokia has done with Maemo?
> It's a really nice device, and practically debian...
> That's pretty free software bigot compliant, no?
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Stefan Monnier
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>         >> Raising awareness about the problem.  Until people are
>         aware of the
>         >> problem, there's little hope to see significant competitors
>         that provide
>         >> the freedom we want.
>         > But there currently can't be any competitors that provide
>         the freedom we
>         > want.
>         
>         
>         Yes, that's a corollary of what I wrote above.
>         
>         >> Just becuse there is currently no alternative, doesn't mean
>         we shouldn't
>         >> critize what there is, right?
>         > Absolutely. But in the end you have to recognize that a
>         great deal of what
>         > you are criticizing is out of that providers control.  If
>         the underlying
>         > problem was dealt with, a lot of these issues would work
>         themselves out.
>         
>         
>         The underlying problem can't be "dealt with" until a large
>         fraction of
>         people understands that it's a problem.  I.e. at this point,
>         there's no
>         point putting pressure on anyone, all that matters is to raise
>         awareness.
>         
>         >> >> In the obvious sense.  In which sense have they made
>         efforts to keep the
>         >> >> end products free?
>         >> > Which end products? Android, Chrome? What exactly is it
>         you want, search?
>         >> > If it's obvious then you can give plenty of concrete
>         examples.
>         >> That's the thing: I can't think of any sense in which they
>         have made
>         >> such an effort.  So, obviously, that means that from my
>         point of view
>         >> they haven't made any such effort.
>         > http://code.google.com/opensource/
>         
>         
>         In what way is that related to the freedom of the end
>         products?
>         
>         > This specific comment is directed at the platform. Even if
>         someone were to
>         > accept that Google was supportive of the Open Source
>         movement but not the
>         > Free Software movement, the point is that Android is covered
>         under a Free
>         > Software license and anyone is free do to with it as they
>         please (including
>         > getting it running on your FreeRunner
>         > http://code.google.com/p/android-on-freerunner/).
>         
>         
>         Yes, but as you pointed out, the issue is not just the
>         manufacturers but
>         also (and maybe more importantly) the phone companies.  And
>         neither
>         Google nor Android has put any pressure on them to change the
>         slightest bit.
>         
>         >> My point is that there are many other ways to protect it,
>         such as
>         >> barriers of entry.
>         > This is Apple's model.
>         
>         
>         And Debian's, and many others, yes.
>         
>         > As in they approve everything that goes into the market
>         place.
>         > That way you would never know about a application not being
>         allowed on
>         > the market, because it would never get approved.
>         
>         
>         That doesn't have to be the case, as long as installing apps
>         outside of
>         the app store is not made impossible.
>         
>         > Furthermore, it would be pretty easy to write a trojan/etc
>         and wrap it
>         > into another application so that Apple/Google/etc won't even
>         > detect it.
>         
>         
>         That's a theoretical possibility, of course.  There are many
>         other
>         interesting theoretical possibilities (e.g. the trojan could
>         start by
>         deactivating the remote-removal code).  But there again, there
>         are many
>         ways to try and address them.
>         
>         > Anyone that uses a phone they received as part of a contract
>         is part of the
>         > problem. I can't see how a platform provider can be held
>         accountable, is
>         > there a solution you can come up with so a platform provider
>         can fix the
>         > issue?
>         
>         
>         Of course.  As mentioned, a good enough system that phone
>         companies
>         would want to distribute could impose more openness.  E.g. the
>         iPhone is
>         exactly in this situation of power.
>         
>         
>         
>                Stefan
>         _______________________________________________
>         mlug mailing list
>         [email protected]
>         
> https://listes.koumbit.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-listserv.mlug.ca
>         
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mlug mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://listes.koumbit.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-listserv.mlug.ca


_______________________________________________
mlug mailing list
[email protected]
https://listes.koumbit.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-listserv.mlug.ca

Reply via email to