Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sailfish OS 3.3 "Rokua" Released With Many Improvements For This Mobile Linux OS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by L_A_G View Post

    Outside of specifically advertising the bits that are very much open source, like the Mer core, Jolla hasn't advertised SailfishOS in general as being open source in years. So you're clearly misremembering things or making them up in your own head again.
    Currently from their website (jolla.com)
    Sailfish OS is based on open source and developed by Jolla and the Sailfish OS community.
    That's a lie, it's based on open source AND proprietary source. So they try to win users by misusing the term opensource and lying about it.

    I can't label my food item as organic / bio if I only have 50-90% organic things in it, it is either 100% or I have to at least mention clearly that both is in there in reality I am not even allowed to use the label bio at all I can't write bio and than small under (but also contains some not bio things), but they don't even have in small letters the constrains of that statement they just skip over the fact that it's proprietary software. Because a software that is even 99% opensource and 1% proprietary as a whole is proprietary. Like with allergic people you can't write "contains no nuts" because it only contains 1% nuts. 1% is enough to control the whole thing, at least if it's the important 1%.

    they even write:
    We invite [...] community members and Sailfish OS users worldwide to join us in building a more open future.
    How is that no lie? Their goal as we agreed on was never to get a fully opensource system, yet they claim adding stuff to their OS makes the world more opensource, while the more users switch from Android to their OS the less Open the world becomes?

    Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
    this is just how things work out here in the real world.
    Funny that the evil Google company released a 100% opensource Smartphone OS before and if you challenge that look at replicant just because some companies don't open up their drivers and most company preinstall the not needed optional gapps doesn't make that OS proprietary. You can easily use Android without gapps, you can't use Jolla without unfree parts. So a small competitor try to win against the market leader by offering a worse deal on the opensource front? Yes they must fool people in thinking some strange stuff that they fall for that.

    Also you say that is how things work, well the problem is they are/were not big enough to create a ecco system only by paid app developers they can't even keep their OS itself up to date as this post proofs. Even Microsoft could not enter with their proprietary OS the market succesful. So if you are not 100% opensource but even less than android 90-99% of opensource developer will ignore you and therefor your system is guaranteed to fail.

    So even if we ignore that users want freedom, just from a success only standpoint that is guaranteed receipe of failure.

    I think it comes down to that that you technically are right in saying they never said that they fully opensource it, but they used Opensource heavily in marketing and never gave a clear answer about getting it fully or even more opensourced. So you let people in the believe that you want it to be fully opensource if you use marketing language around it and not give a clear "we have no intentions in opensourcing the OS fully, we believe in proprietary software"

    I also then here the excuses like they have no right, on the other hand they had never communicated according to you that they want to make it opensource. So which is it now, could they not do it, or did they never have to goal/intention to do it?

    Companies always get shit storm not so much for what they do but the communication around it, btw also people... if you have a salami tactic or never say the full truth more and more people correctly start to hate you. If you are a piece of shit, at least be open about it, it's pretty simple.

    Comment


    • #32
      Sailfish OS is based on open source and developed by Jolla and the Sailfish OS community
      Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
      That's a lie, it's based on open source AND proprietary source. So they try to win users by misusing the term opensource and lying about it.
      Your reading comprehension really isn't as good as you clearly seem to think it is because saying that something is based on something doesn't mean that it's all that. It's just that, based on it, with other things built around and on top of it. The same way the original Tesla Roadster was based on a Lotus Elise chassis, but it obviously wasn't a Lotus trough and trough with Tesla's Electric drivetrain, a new interior, new front and rear end, etc.

      How is that no lie? Their goal as we agreed on was never to get a fully opensource system, yet they claim adding stuff to their OS makes the world more opensource, while the more users switch from Android to their OS the less Open the world becomes?
      The fact that you failed to understand what was written when it's plain and simple English really doesn't mean it's a lie. Not sure where you get that we agree on fully open sourcing SailfishOS when you acted like they had no intention of doing so until I pointed out that the only reason why it hasn't been fully open sourced is that the final word is out of their hands.

      Funny that the evil Google company released a 100% opensource Smartphone OS before and if you challenge that look at replicant just because some companies don't open up their drivers and most company preinstall the not needed optional gapps doesn't make that OS proprietary. You can easily use Android without gapps, you can't use Jolla without unfree parts. So a small competitor try to win against the market leader by offering a worse deal on the opensource front? Yes they must fool people in thinking some strange stuff that they fall for that.
      Considering that Google has used a tactic disturbingly similar to "Embrace, extend, extinguish" I really wouldn't be singing their praises like you are. When Android first released it was pretty open source with most of the proprietary code being their proprietary apps. However since then they've been progressively moving more and more things under their proprietary Play Store libraries with more and more applications being unable to run on fully open source equivalents like Replicant.

      In other words SailfishOS is as open source as Jolla themselves can make it while Android is slowly moving more and more towards the proprietary direction as Google moves functionality into the proprietary bits and applications being to rely more and more on those bits.

      I think it comes down to that that you technically are right in saying they never said that they fully opensource it, but they used Opensource heavily in marketing and never gave a clear answer about getting it fully or even more opensourced. So you let people in the believe that you want it to be fully opensource if you use marketing language around it and not give a clear "we have no intentions in opensourcing the OS fully, we believe in proprietary software"
      As I said, they want to fully open source it and it's unfortunately just that they can't do it because of factors outside of their control. The fact that you're misunderstanding plain and simple English doesn't really mean anything.

      I also then here the excuses like they have no right, on the other hand they had never communicated according to you that they want to make it opensource. So which is it now, could they not do it, or did they never have to goal/intention to do it?
      They've never said that SailfishOS is fully open source, only that they plan on making it fully open source sometime in the future. I suspect that this plan to make it fully open source is what lead to you incorrectly remembering that they've somehow said that it genuinely is fully open source. When people have then followed up on that they've then had to explain that they ran into the roadblock of the co-owners of the codebase in question refusing to allow them to.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
        They've never said that SailfishOS is fully open source, only that they plan on making it fully open source sometime in the future. I suspect that this plan to make it fully open source is what lead to you incorrectly remembering that they've somehow said that it genuinely is fully open source. When people have then followed up on that they've then had to explain that they ran into the roadblock of the co-owners of the codebase in question refusing to allow them to.
        First of all do you really have to explicitly say 3 times that you think that I can't undenstand plain simple english? That is pretty condescending, but I guess shaming me is a major goal of you. Just pointing out where I could be wrong so that we could come to a common understanding seem not be enough for you, apperently you take it personal if somebody attacks Jolla.

        2. in this block you basically agree what my original statement was, I did never say they claimed that they are 100% opensource already, I claimed that they implied or said that they want to be 100% opensource in the future, I didn't find quickly a quote that states that, but now YOU say that they indeed said they said that they "plan" to opensource it.

        Which is the lie, I am talking about. So that's like me saying I plan to get rid of all the nuklear bombs in the world in the next year (or in general time frame doesn't really matter), but I know for a fact that I will not reach that goal. what is to point out this goal then?

        As natural person it would probably virtua Signaling, but if I would sell a product with such a statement that will never be reached and I know I will never reach it, in my book that would be lying or at least I imply that I might reach this goal in a reasonable time frame. While Jolla exactly knew that they would NEVER reach that goal.

        That is the point I am making, it's misleading, sure technically they did not lie but they deluded people by creating the impression that they would eventually release everything as opensource or there is at least a good chance this gonna happen, why in reality they knew from the start that this will never happen.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
          First of all do you really have to explicitly say 3 times that you think that I can't undenstand plain simple english? That is pretty condescending, but I guess shaming me is a major goal of you. Just pointing out where I could be wrong so that we could come to a common understanding seem not be enough for you, apperently you take it personal if somebody attacks Jolla.
          When you go as far as to explicitly claim that somebody is lying and are a bunch of assholes multiple times you don't have a leg to stand on here. If you want to be treated with respect, you have to treat others with respect yourself or at the very least be capable of admitting when you're wrong. I could be really petty and start pointing out that your posts all contain multiple misspellings, but you're already giving me plenty of material.

          2. in this block you basically agree what my original statement was, I did never say they claimed that they are 100% opensource already, I claimed that they implied or said that they want to be 100% opensource in the future, I didn't find quickly a quote that states that, but now YOU say that they indeed said they said that they "plan" to opensource it.
          No, you very explicitly brought up the line about them being based on open source and used that to claim that they're lying to people about being open source. You've never claimed that they planned on being open source until I pointed out that this was their goal until I brought it up. Instead you were very adamant about how they're not open source and are just lying about it.

          Which is the lie, I am talking about. So that's like me saying I plan to get rid of all the nuklear bombs in the world in the next year (or in general time frame doesn't really matter), but I know for a fact that I will not reach that goal. what is to point out this goal then?
          Seems like the concept of being "based" on something isn't the only common speech concept you don't understand as you also don't seem to understand the concept of lying either. Lying is when you to deliberately misinform someone, not when a third party stops you from doing something you've said you're going to do. In that nuclear disarmament example lying would be if you had no intention to even try nuclear disarmament rather than what happened here where Jolla genuinely tried open sourcing the whole of SailfishOS, but were blocked from doing so by the co-owners of the codebase.

          As natural person it would probably virtua Signaling, but if I would sell a product with such a statement that will never be reached and I know I will never reach it, in my book that would be lying or at least I imply that I might reach this goal in a reasonable time frame. While Jolla exactly knew that they would NEVER reach that goal.
          Oh, so now you're claiming to be psychic and going back on what you said only a couple of paragraphs back. Just make up your mind already because I've already pointed out that they've said that they'd fully open source SailfishOS in a heartbeat if they were allowed to.

          That is the point I am making, it's misleading, sure technically they did not lie but they deluded people by creating the impression that they would eventually release everything as opensource or there is at least a good chance this gonna happen, why in reality they knew from the start that this will never happen.
          Again with the flip-flopping... You claimed they were lying in only the last paragraph so if you're going to make claims as strong as that, at least make up your mind and stick to it. I will admit that they could haven communicated much more openly about what happened with the open sourcing of SailfishOS, but that obviously would have antagonized a major stakeholder and could have caused some major retaliation from them in response.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
            No, you very explicitly brought up the line about them being based on open source and used that to claim that they're lying to people about being open source. You've never claimed that they planned on being open source until I pointed out that this was their goal until I brought it up. Instead you were very adamant about how they're not open source and are just lying about it.
            .
            I didn't? On phoronix people have apperently a problem with selective reading:

            Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
            But what I would consider more Scamy was their lie about opensourcing stuff, it was never any priority and in my view also never their true intention to do so, of course you can't proof intentions, but actions tell more than words.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
              I didn't? On phoronix people have apperently a problem with selective reading:
              I'm not sure if that's impressive or just sad... Misreading your own writing and then presenting that misreading as it's an "A-ha!"-moment.

              You clearly said that they lied about their open source plan and followed it up with further claims that essentially amount to you claiming to be able to read their minds.

              For your own sake, just stop replying because your posts are just getting dumber and dumber.

              Comment


              • #37
                You:
                You've never claimed that they planned on being open source until I pointed out that this was their goal until I brought it up.

                Me in my first comment in this thread #24:
                But what I would consider more Scamy was their lie about opensourcing stuff
                It goes an with that:
                it was never any priority and in my view also never their true intention to do so
                That implies at least that I am claiming that their "untrue" / advertised / claimed intention was to opensource stuff, I mean how old are you that you don't understand things that clearly get implied and are clear out of the context, very small children only understand things literally they also don't get irony and stuff like that, it sounds like I talk to you. So you did not explicitly write it, but the implication is clear... but you never said it word by word...

                But thanks maybe I should write things now down like I speak to a 3 year old in phoronix, I get the feeling that would help, something learned.
                Last edited by blackiwid; 05-09-2020, 07:22 AM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X