Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nokia Confirms Symbian Is No Longer Open Source

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the two-plus-two-equals-closed dept.

Open Source 246

theweatherelectric noted an article on the H. From the article "Nokia has confirmed that it has closed the source code for the Symbian smartphone operating system. It says that despite it describing its new model for Symbian smartphone operating system development as 'open and direct' the 'open' part did not refer to 'open source' but to being 'open for business'. The 'open and direct' model is designed, according to Nokia, to 'enable us to continue working with the remaining Japanese OEMs and the relatively small community of platform development collaborators we are already working with.''"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nokia who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753236)

Are they still around?

Re:Nokia who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753344)

Most mobile phones out there are still Nokia.

Re:Nokia who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753818)

Shhh.... don't try and buck the Slashdot groupthink. Remember, we don't like Nokia round here. They're like Microsoft, so they are bound to be out of business in a year or two.

Hey assholes ! Error 503 Service Unavailable (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753350)

You gonna fix it this year you think? This has been going on for weeks now. You dirty incompetent fucks.

Re:Hey assholes ! Error 503 Service Unavailable (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753502)

I'm sure they'll get around to fixing it right after they get around to fixing Slow down cowboy! It has been 3 hours, 26 minutes, and 12 seconds since you last posted a comment.

Some real rocket surgeons working at Slashdot, it seems.

Re:Hey assholes ! Error 503 Service Unavailable (5, Funny)

vuke69 (450194) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753802)

I'm sure they'll get around to fixing it right after they get around to fixing Slow down cowboy! It has been 3 hours, 26 minutes, and 12 seconds since you last posted a comment.

Some real rocket surgeons working at Slashdot, it seems.

Odd... that's almost exactly the amount of time it takes between when I hit the preview button, and when it finally lets me hit submit.

Re:Nokia who? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753452)

They made tyres, paper and had some telco interests.

Re:Nokia who? (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753624)

And boots.

Nokian studded bicycle tires can't be beat for riding on ice.

I think the only business they'll have left is their rubber products

--
BMO

Re:Nokia who? (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753996)

And they made some great CRTs back in the day.

just.. wow (4, Insightful)

VAElynx (2001046) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753242)

OK stop.
I get it.
Some asshole said he was "open"
but he was only open for business

Anyone remember this lyrics segment from one of the OpenBSD release songs (a bonus track)
It's sad that what's a joke one day becomes reality in few years

Re:just.. wow (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753470)

Damn. Beat me to it. OpenVOX [openbsd.org] .

In this case, it's kind of hard to see Symbian's brief flirtation with openness as a major loss; but it has always interested me that the OpenBSD guys, whose work lacks the legal terms in favor of remaining open that the GPLed Linux team has, are nevertheless some of the most consistent supporters of fully-open systems outside of the core FSF people.

It's Nokia's code, and they can do what they want; but it is rather hard to see this as anything other than the spasmodic flailing of a dying platform, rather reminiscent of the bipolar behavior Sun was exhibiting shortly before their demise(only more serious, since the odds of Symbian related techologies being installed by the end user on a phone sold as non-Symbian are basically zero, while absolute fuckloads of non-Sun servers and desktops end up running JVMs...)

Re:just.. wow (1, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753562)

but it has always interested me that the OpenBSD guys, whose work lacks the legal terms in favor of remaining open that the GPLed Linux team has, are nevertheless some of the most consistent supporters of fully-open systems outside of the core FSF people.

Some might argue that OpenBSD is more "open" than the GPL is.

The GPL places restrictions and obligations upon you ... the BSD people make no such restrictions. If you want to bundle it up into a project and sell it, go right the hell ahead.

GPL'd software is almost essentially 'emancipated' in that it is now 'libre' ... BSD software is 'free' and 'open', but doesn't have any rights of its own, but I as someone who wants to use it am totally free to do as I please.

There's a reason that people who release under a BSD license are some of the most consistent supporters of fully-open systems ... but it's an ideological difference with the FSF whereby if you can crib some good software to make your software better, we all benefit. In fact, you have our blessing. Even if that means you don't want to give back what you've done with it.

Sometimes I find the whole holier-than-though, libre software is more like the PETA of the software world -- they're much more obsessed with the ideological purity of code.

I applaud people who release code under a BSD license, since it basically says "go forth and write cool shit, you don't owe us anything".

Re:just.. wow (5, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753646)

And those some would be wrong.

More free for the first party that gets the code, much less free for third parties that are given binaries later.

RMS is a zealot on this, it's true. But I applaud people who release GPL code because they are giving everyone the continuing right to learn and to tinker with the fruits of their labour, not just the first party. I also applaud people that release BSD code as it is very generous, but as an end user it is frequently less useful.

I am not free to tinker with my playstation 3, but there is BSD code in there.

Re:just.. wow (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753822)

You are still free to play with BSD code. The BSD code is never lost. You just can't tinker with the proprietary stuff Sony put in their machine.

MS used the BSD network stack in earlier versions of windows. The BSD folks were glad they did, because it ment the large number of machines coming onto the internet would have a stable TCP/IP stack that would play well with others. The BSD TCP/IP stack was never lost fo folks who wanted the BSD source code to play with. We all still use it today.

Re:just.. wow (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754338)

...which is probably what the BSD license is most appropriate for; improving interoperability between ALL types of projects both open and closed source.
GPL pretty much forces closed source to make their own implementations of standards, which may or may not be 100% compatible. LGPL makes it a bit less difficult but BSD (and similar licenses) make it easy for every piece of software to play together nicely.

Idealogically, GPL is like giving a gift and demanding gifts in return, BSD is like giving a gift for the simple joy of making somebody happy with a gift. Neither one is technically better than the other; it's just a matter of personal values.

FWIW, I release code with both BSD and GPL licenses and some others (ZLib/LibPNG, MIT and closed licenses).

Re:just.. wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35754418)

> The BSD code is never lost.

That may be true for the BSD code itself. But I am nearly certain that there is BSD-licensed code somewhere that was once available and was lost (server becoming unavailable etc). I wouldn't even exclude that that same code might still be available in binary form in a currently maintained commercial product.
Though this corner-case isn't _really_ the point of GPL.
However it should also be noted that some companies when they start contributing aren't willing to contribute with anything more liberal that GPL because they are afraid that competitors "take their code and run with it".
(Before I get flames: only making a counter-point here, use whichever license you want. For me that is usually whichever license the original project is and for my own irrelevant stuff GPL or LGPL).

Re:just.. wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753930)

And those some would be wrong.

Hardly. You make a nebulous argument about end users (for whom by and large, code is useless - sorry, Slashdotters, you are atypical) and freedom, while ignoring the rights of software producers and freedom.

The fact that the GPL throws chains upon developers - noble intentions or not - easily counters the, "But the users!" argument.

I submit BSD and GPL are equally free, if different.

Re:just.. wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35754122)

How is it less free for third parties? Is there an inherent right to source code? The BSD code is still there in all it's glory to modify and use as you wish. Unless there is an inherent right to source code then you do not (unless the license specifies it, such as GPL does) have any right - and therefor loose no freedom - to the changes the second party makes to the code.

You can't force freedom - ask the US govt how well that works, no different here. It is true by definition. That doesn't mean the GPL is Evil, I generally choose GPL over BSD for anything I have done but I do not fool myself into thinking I'm doing anything other than telling someone they have to do something to use the IP I chose to not charge money for (the subsequent releasing of their code/IP is the payment for use).

You are not free to tinker with your PS3 for other reasons, those reasons *are* wrong. You should be free to tinker with it all you want - you purchased it and it is yours (that should be, in fact, an inherent right). In fact, for the most part, releasing the source code ala GPL wouldn't make it suddenly legal to tinker with it either, you would just know what was happening better. Look an the Motorola Android phones - bootloader locked down and illegal to modify by the same license even though the base system is GPL. In fact, if we assume your definition of "freedom" is what the GPL is about then it failed fairly miserably. Of course others saw that too and thus v3 of the GPL, but that got watered down due to reality (people can choose not to use your software or accept your license - make it too draconian and few will use it). RMS certainly had that goal, but there are others involved in the GPL too.

They both have their place, however BSD certainly has less restrictions and that is generally the definition of "freedom" or most people. Open Source is a great term for GPL, not "freedom".

Re:just.. wow (2)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754408)

How is it less free for third parties? Is there an inherent right to source code?

That's a freedom granted to all future recipients of GPL software that is not granted by BSD software, yes.

you do not (unless the license specifies it, such as GPL does) have any right - and therefor loose no freedom

It doesn't matter if it's an "inherent" or "natural" right, and good luck defining those by the way. It doesn't have to be.

It is an additional freedom or right of code recipients that is granted by the GPL that is not there in the BSD license. It comes directly at the price of the right of intermediate parties to use the code without opening it.

Much like intolerance of intolerant behaviour is not evidence of a lack of tolerance in general, I don't see someone's right or freedom to deprive others of that same right or freedom to be something I consider worth protecting.

I guess it depends on your mindset.

Re:just.. wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35754256)

More free for the first party that gets the code, much less free for third parties that are given binaries later.

Wrong. The original code remains free forever. Modifications to that code (i.e. extra work) may or may not be free depending on what the person doing the modifying wants to do. BSD and GPL licenses have their plus and minus points, however GPL has more restrictions (perhaps with laudable aims) and is less free for all users of the code, who are restricted in their actions.

Re:just.. wow (2)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754374)

The GPL is not less free for all users of the code. It is less free for the immediate consumer of the code. It is far more free for others. The GPL guarantees those freedoms down the line, where BSD does not.

And BTW, the original BSD code may well go away, there's no guarantee it's going to be available forever. Making the binary distributor responsible for providing access to the source is a way to work around this.

Re:just.. wow (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754258)

And those some would be wrong.

More free for the first party that gets the code, much less free for third parties that are given binaries later.

That's only one possibility, and it's likely that without that BSD code the would have written their own (incompatible?) code instead. So the only loss is the potential interoperability, and if there is no interoperability then nothing is lost.

RMS is a zealot on this, it's true. But I applaud people who release GPL code because they are giving everyone the continuing right to learn and to tinker with the fruits of their labour, not just the first party.

Someone taking BSD code and marrying it with their own proprietary code doesn't do anything to the original code, that code is still there and free to be tinkered with and learned from. GPL just forces everyone else who wants to use that code into that way of thinking.

I am not free to tinker with my playstation 3, but there is BSD code in there.

That's a fair point, but in truth the bit you want to tinker with is the proprietary code, the BSD code is still free. So you want them to release their code under a free license as well.

Re:just.. wow (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754360)

Someone taking BSD code and marrying it with their own proprietary code doesn't do anything to the original code, that code is still there and free to be tinkered with and learned from.

Not when it comes on a closed up device, with no way of running it on that device and likely not even an indication that there's even any BSD code in there.

So, I as a recipient of BSD code in binary form - I might not know it's BSD, the original project could have disappeared or gone offline, all sorts of stuff. To say it *never* goes away is simplistic. The GPL grants this right, BSD does not. RMS would term this right one of his "fundamental freedoms", but then he does talk out of his fundament quite a lot :)

GPL just forces everyone else who wants to use that code into that way of thinking.

That's a fair point, but in truth the bit you want to tinker with is the proprietary code, the BSD code is still free. So you want them to release their code under a free license as well.

Actually it's neither. As a consumer I want to tinker with my device. As a FOSS developer (very small scale hobby) I want people who receive my code and things derived from my code, usually itself minor additions to other projects, to have the same rights I did. The right to ask the binary distributor for the source, and usually also the infrastructure (build systems etc, if not the software tools) to play around with it. It's not that I demand the right to use other people's code, it's that they have to play ball if they want the right to use mine.

I respect that the BSD author's wishes are to release code the way they do, so I'm not going to give you a list of "They should have done it my way!" items because that's nonsense.

I don't think either is necessarily superior in terms of freedom. The GPL just suits the freedoms I want for myself better than BSD does. If you like to think of BSD as more altruistic as a result then that's up to you, but if you look at the software ecosystem (particularly consumer devices with embedded operating systems) you'll see that the GPL often opens up a lot of areas of cool hobby-type stuff that would have stayed closed if there was no publishing requirement for linux. Not because companies are necessarily 'evil' or closed, but because it's at least a minor hassle and a minor cost to pull together that source tarball and shove it on your website, so nless you have to, why would you?

Re:just.. wow (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754404)

There is no restriction with BSD. No one can take it and lock you out of it. All they can do is fork a branch and close that off. Anyone can tinker with BSD code.

Re:just.. wow (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754432)

Fork it off. Close the branch, modify some of the loading code, sell you a closed device running it with no way for you to alter it or even really figure out what's going on inside. Original project drops off the 'net... what now?

As an (infrequent) FOSS contributor, I believe in granting freedoms to the consumer (i.e. also me) rather than the manufacturer (Sony, cisco, WD etc etc). This is the BSD/GPL freedom trade off.

Re:just.. wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35754478)

More free for the first party that gets the code, much less free for third parties that are given binaries later.

You say that like the code that the first party received is somehow destroyed after they get it. It's not.

GPL = You can modify the code with the restriction that you also release your modifications under the same license.
BSD = You can modify the code without restriction.

BSD is more free.

Re:just.. wow (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754604)

BSD - As someone handed a binary blob of stuff, the guy that gave it to me doesn't even have to tell me where he got it from, let alone provide me with the source

GPL - As someone handed a binary blob of stuff, I have the freedom to explore and alter the source of that program

GPL is more free.

(Yes, this is simplistic, but I'm responding to your stupid argument with an equally dumb one. Anyone saying either one is inherently more free is wrong. They provide different freedoms to different peopel)

Re:just.. wow (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754674)

For end users, for most practical reasons the license on the code doesn't matter. Most of them don't even know what license the software they use has. They just use it.

For developers (whether professional or hobby) it does matter of course.

Re:just.. wow (1)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753690)

I think that the GPL is too restrictive in cases where the software components are highly reusable and might be handy for a proprietary project; but that's where the LGPL comes into play. To me the BSD licence seems like a wasted effort when you're coding in your free time, as there's simply not enough "encouragement" for proprietary developers to contribute to the project, at least with the LGPL if they fix or modify something in your code then they are compelled to submit those changes before redistributing your code.

The BSD has it's place though, and you're point is valid, it is more open than GPL, and in some ways BSD'ers are even more generous with their time than GPL'ers, perhaps they're just a little too generous at times :).

Re:just.. wow (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753820)

The BSD has it's place though, and you're point is valid, it is more open than GPL, and in some ways BSD'ers are even more generous with their time than GPL'ers, perhaps they're just a little too generous at times :).

But, at the end of the day ... it is their time, and their code. So your opinion about how someone else allocates their labors is irrelevant.

The arrogance of someone to say "how dare you give away software that someone doesn't have to give to the end user" is exactly why I say that some really staunch GPL advocates are worried about the ideological purity of code.

Essentially, those people would impose their own ideology on the people who would release under a license which didn't place obligations on someone else. In effect, telling them they're wrong.

The GPL is a political ideology, and those who most strongly advocate it would claim that their ideology is better than someone who wants to be "free" in the sense that I can take it and do as I please.

I'm not saying both don't have their place, I'm saying that GPL to the exclusion of BSD (or the reverse) is completely unnecessary. Rabid *-ism is stupid in all of its forms. The GPL is no exception.

Re:just.. wow (1)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754482)

Flamewars aside, GPL advocates will certainly have an opinion on the issue, but I don't think very many of them wouldn't give credit to people willing to release their code as BSD or Public Domain. As you say, it is their choice.

On the other hand you do indeed have people who criticize GPL developers and the like for not giving away more, instead of being thankful for the gifts they do receive. Along the lines of "this is great, but it would be great if you could release it under BSD".

Re:just.. wow (2)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754052)

You misunderstand the GPL. People who modify GPL software don't have any obligation whatsoever to return any changes or fixes the make to you. They only have an obligation to provide the source code to people who they distribute the binaries to and to not restrict those people from further distributing that source.

If they don't give you the binaries and the people they do give the binaries to don't want to give them source to you, you're SOL.

Re:just.. wow (2)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753694)

Sometimes I find the whole holier-than-though, libre software is more like the PETA of the software world -- they're much more obsessed with the ideological purity of code.

Funny you should say that. I was just thinking how militant the BSD fans are getting these days. Every time OSS is even implied, there's some BSD fanatic / troll going on about how the GPL isn't truly open / free / etc.

Don't get me wrong - I've got nothing against supporting one's ideology (even if I disagree with the above sentiment - and "troll" is only on the off chance some are tossing this old argument around simply to tweak the GPL camp). But if you're going to start casting stones, you might want to check the ground you're standing on before you start.

Re:just.. wow (1, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753748)

But if you're going to start casting stones, you might want to check the ground you're standing on before you start.

My stance on the relative difference between GPL and BSD, and when they're comparatively "better" has been fairly established since the late mid-to-late 90s.

I don't care about how you perceive BSD fans nowadays as I'm not the one making those statements. And, I can't tell you how often I see GPL people talking like Communist revolutionaries who are obsessed with the ideology ... "it's more free because it's libre" ... and you guys whine about the Apple people wearing black turtlenecks and doing beat poetry? I've thought RMS was a bit of a crank since I hear him speak in 93.

I've both used BSD code in commercial software and submitted bug-fixes to GPLd code. They each have their place and their application -- I'm in favor of both of them.

That doesn't mean there aren't times when I'm not grateful to be able to take some really useful piece (BerkelyDB, for example) and building something useful with it because it accomplished a lot of the plumbing to build something on top of it without worrying about if I'm legally covered. Or, grab a copy of Linux and set up a server.

I think the notion that there is one "correct" form that "free software" can take is mostly rubbish.

Re:just.. wow (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754314)

I think the notion that there is one "correct" form that "free software" can take is mostly rubbish.

Neither is more 'open' or more 'free', the only fact is that one is more restrictive than the other. BSD is much more altruistic, the GPL is more about supporting an ideology, which is 'better' depends on your point of view.

Re:just.. wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753984)

Really, man? This shit again? And you got modded insightful. Should be negative a brazilian redundant.

Re:just.. wow (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754230)

Sometimes I find the whole holier-than-though, libre software is more like the PETA of the software world -- they're much more obsessed with the ideological purity of code.

That's why i prefer BSD-style licenses, they are more altruistic, it's not about forcing people to do things your way. With the GPL it's more of a 'you can freely use my code within the scope of my idea of freedom' whereas the BSD is a 'you can freely use my code'.

Re:just.. wow (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754504)

Risking off-topic mods here but OK can happen.

BSD license I know what it's doing, it's simple.

GPL I also know the basic features of.

Google uses the Apache license for lots of their Android related stuff; Firefox has the Mozilla license; and so there are many more. Those I don't know much about - but am interested to know about. I find the GPL quite restrictive too; BSD maybe a bit too free.

I'm looking for a simple, laymen style, non-legalese write-up of what those licenses basically do. Any suggestions?

Re:just.. wow (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754378)

It's only a dying platform because it's been murdered while the new CEO wrecks as much as he can with the goal of making Nokia small enough to easily take over.

Next (1)

smileygladhands (1909508) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753250)

Next is Qt.

Re:Next (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753314)

Rock on, bitches:
http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php

Re:Next (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753448)

Someone mod parent up, plox.

--
BMO

Re:Next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753468)

This actually makes me respect KDE a little more... I had no idea...

This is exactly what we need more of in the open source world, though. If some company is in charge of something, make it so that the community can keep it open source, regardless of what the company does, by contract.

Re:Next (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754544)

This actually makes me respect KDE a little more

Not being Gnome isn't enough?

Re:Next (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754596)

Not being Gnome isn't enough?

Microsoft Windows isn't Gnome either.
Just saying.

Re:Next (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754656)

Not being Gnome isn't enough?

Microsoft Windows isn't Gnome either. Just saying.

How dare you say something nice about Microsoft here!

Re:Next (2, Interesting)

sdiz (224607) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753632)

Actually, they are following this guide: http://lwn.net/Articles/370157/ [lwn.net]

If Nokia close Qt, the community win.
If Nokia keep Qt open (but make it sucks), the community is destroyed.

Why close it now? (2)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753252)

Symbian division is gonna be shutdown within the next 2 - 3 years. What's the point of closing it now?

Re:Why close it now? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753292)

To ensure that it really dies, instead of some roque developers actually making it an viable option?

Re:Why close it now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753450)

To ensure that it really dies, instead of some idiot developers actually making it an viable option?

ftfy

Re:Why close it now? (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753798)

So you're saying Nokia closing the Symbian source is like cutting the head off a zombie you blasted with a 12-gauge a little while ago just to make sure it's good and dead?

Re:Why close it now? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754420)

Yes, if it revives Nokia may stay large enough to operate as their own company instead of the taken over mobile phone division of another company that can't afford to buy it at the moment. You are seeing yet another deliberate corporate wreck in progress.

Re:Why close it now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35754150)

To ensure that it really dies, instead of some roque developers actually making it an viable option?

Don't you play WoW? It's spelled "rouge". :P

Re:Why close it now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35754214)

Too late. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. If some rogue developer cares, he'll just fork an existing free version.

Re:Why close it now? (4, Insightful)

Locutus (9039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753788)

Just remember who they signed a billion plus dollar contract with and you have your answer. Part of the cleanup and part of the plan to make sure Nokia is dead in 5 years and everything goes to the partner. IMO

LoB

Re:Why close it now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35754634)

Then didn't close it, it was never open in the first place. It was reported to be opened a few days ago. This is an update about that they didn't open it.

I'm scared (2)

vgerclover (1186893) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753326)

Really, I like KDE. I like QT. I'm started to feel like Nokia is becoming something awful. I hope that if anything happens, KDE has enough developer power to keep QT going.

Yeah, I know: this is about Symbian, but really, does anyone think that Nokia is going to be working towards an Open (Source, not business) future?

Re:I'm scared (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753574)

I've been a KDE/Qt user for a really long time, and I like both, but it's starting to look like time to migrate to Gnome which at least has a future.

Re:I'm scared (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753836)

Unfortunately KDE is dying as a desktop. Most distros these days are using Gnome by default. It's unfortunate since the competition betters both of them, but given the QT situation it seems KDE is facing some headwinds.

Re:I'm scared (1)

Qubit (100461) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753938)

I'm started to feel like Nokia is becoming something awful [somethingawful.com]

I guess it's better to have it turn into a robot that shoots out sparks and pushes grandmothers down stairs than having it turn into Microsoft...

Re:I'm scared (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35754570)

For a minute I thought you were going to let slip the Terrible Secret Of Space [newgrounds.com] .

Re:I'm scared (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754666)

I'm started to feel like Nokia is becoming something awful [somethingawful.com]

I guess it's better to have it turn into a robot that shoots out sparks and pushes grandmothers down stairs than having it turn into Microsoft...

Possibly. So far "The Doctor" had failed to come and save us from Microsoft. He always turns up when killer robots push grandmothers down stairs.

another bad news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753334)

What did Microsoft with Nokia? :(

Open (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753336)

Nokia Exec: "We're Open and direct"

Slashdot BS filter: We're open, like Goatse. And direct, like flying chairs.

Goodbye Symbian, Goodbye QT, Goodbye Nokia. Everyone start migrating now, the borg are about to swallow it all.

Re:Open (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753410)

QT will be sold off for pennies on the dollar if they don't jettison it before the bankruptcy filing to try to keep their core business afloat a little longer.

Re:Open (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753552)

I'm not so sure. I think Microsoft is running their playbook just fine. They even have one of their own at the top.

Borg assimilation in progress (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753348)

This is exactly what happens when a Microsoft mole takes over a company. Past example:

-Rick Belluzo: while at HP, he announced to the press that HP would be "dumping HPUX" in favour of Windows NT (it wasn't true, and it did cause a panic of sorts). Windows NT 3.1, no less. Later, the mole moved on to SGI where he did precisely that: threw IRIX in the trash and attempted to shove Windows NT where it didn't belong. After thoroughly destroying SGI, he then moved to the Borg Cube itself, I'm sure with a big fat reward.

Seriously? (1)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753364)

Are they TRYING to lose relevance? This is just bound to drive developers towards android, and what exactly would the benefit be? It's not as if they're in a position to press clients into paying license fees since that would just drive them away.

Yes! (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753512)

What I get from this is that they've seen and fear Android's success! You see, technical support is one of the largest expenses in maintaining your own platform, and they've cleverly deduced that if you don't have customers, you don't have to pay for technical support! They plan to ride this strategy all the way to the top of the heap!

Re:Yes! (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753814)

Nokia's strategy: lose on every sale, and make it up on volume. Sad to see a storied, century-old company [wikipedia.org] go like this.

Re:Seriously? (5, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753642)

Are they TRYING to lose relevance?

Yes. And the exec that is making the calls is going to get out with a nice golden parachute and get all his Microsoft Stock Options back, while the people who own Nokia Stock are getting screwed.

Stick a Fork in it, its done! (2)

ramriot (1354111) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753378)

Is it even possible to close an open source project? If the license allows derivatives under the same license then would not the community create a Fork and start developing from that?

Re:Stick a Fork in it, its done! (2, Insightful)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753392)

Maintaining a project the size of a complete, commercial-grade, operating system takes incredible resources. Saying "let the open-source community handle it" without commercial backers isn't viable.

Re:Stick a Fork in it, its done! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753474)

It would not have failed for that reason alone (many open source projects are commercial quality) and who says that commercial backers are not an option with open source projects?

Re:Stick a Fork in it, its done! (2)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753498)

What massive-scale open-source project is commercial-grade without being largely commercial backed?

Re:Stick a Fork in it, its done! (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753944)

Debian seems to be doing quite well, despite not being very commercial. Plus there's quite a few non-profit foundations like Apache, Mozilla, KDE, Gnome, FSF etc. that don't as such exist to become the next Red Hat, but there's no doubt raising enough funds to say it is your day job is a huge advantage. If it's just your hobby outside of work/studies then it takes a lot less to make you give it up. Things like crunch time at work, exam time, spending time with a girlfriend or just life in general taking priority. Besides, people don't come home from one work day and regularly pull another 8 hour shift. Not if they want to live to see 30 anyway. I guess what I wanted to say is I don't think it's "commercial" in the sense of "turning a huge profit" that does it, but as in "I can work on this all day and it pays my bills". But then again, turning a profit is a good way of having money to pay salaries...

Re:Stick a Fork in it, its done! (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754072)

Debian isn't massive-scale. It might have a lot of users, but the amount of code which is purely debian is actually fairly small. Coding Symbian would mean maintaining the entire OS, and perhaps more importantly it would mean making the entire OS not suck which Nokia couldn't do with millions of dollars.

Re:Stick a Fork in it, its done! (1)

dlgeek (1065796) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753960)

Debian

Unleash the Fury (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753382)

of the Nerd Rage.

Re:Unleash the Fury (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753500)

This is Symbian we are talking about. Not interesting enough to stir nerd rage; but not dead enough to stir nerd nostalgia. Try back in a decade, maybe, and there might be a tiny group of hardcore Symbian retrophone enthusiasts, like the Amiga guys, pulling impressive but irrelevant stunts to keep their favorite OS running on available hardware....

Worked at a Symbian-using Japanese Company (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753416)

Fujitsu. Musashi-Nakahara office, actually.

Entire rows of programmers working late overtime, desperately trying to figure out how to get something working in Symbian. It was the most ridiculous thing I ever saw. Even more, in order to get into the office to talk to someone, you need to sign a release that permits you to view the Symbian source.

I'm sure Symbian is a source of income for Nokia, with unimaginative Japanese companies like Hitachi and Fujitsu stumbling over themselves trying to find new ways to get a return on their 10 year "experience investment". God forbid they actually try to build something that Docomo and AU didn't order them to build - the idea of building a phone for the gigantic foreign market never hit them, apparently.

As an side, my supervisor there was a intelligent lady who was chosen out of 400 applicants. Her response when I told her about the iPhone 2g? "Why would anyone use that? Won't it get finger prints all over it?"

Re:Worked at a Symbian-using Japanese Company (1)

tftp (111690) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753696)

Her response when I told her about the iPhone 2g? "Why would anyone use that? Won't it get finger prints all over it?"

Believe it or not, this is one of my several reasons to not use any of those finger-oriented touch screen devices. I guess different people perceive it differently, but for me it is disgusting to look through fingerprint smudges.

Re:Worked at a Symbian-using Japanese Company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753810)

You can buy a scratch protector that is fingerprint resistant. It's like 5 bucks for 3 of them. I have no smudges or fingerprints on mine and I use it every day. They sell them at the Apple store.

Re:Worked at a Symbian-using Japanese Company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35754020)

i don't like fingerprint smudges either, but is it that hard to wipe the screen every now and then? I mean it's not like the smudges are permanent stains

Re:Worked at a Symbian-using Japanese Company (1)

tftp (111690) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754092)

but is it that hard to wipe the screen every now and then?

I don't want to pay several hundred dollars for the privilege to carry a cloth and wipe the screen like a cleanliness-obsessed mental patient. If the device is designed to be dirty then I don't want it. Hardly any loss to me, by the way - I have little use for such slow and small devices (that's where my other 17 reasons for not using them are coming from.)

Re:Worked at a Symbian-using Japanese Company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35754166)

Parent here: Hope you don't have a pair of glasses :-)

Re:Worked at a Symbian-using Japanese Company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35754046)

All things aside - the iPhone is a huge huge hit in Japan. It's completely overturning previous ideas about phones here. Docomo, for example, has an entire price level set aside for "Smart phones". When compared to the "innovative" Apple, Fujitsu is just another brand that competes on its phone case and colours.

While your observation is correct, it is too conservative. Trying new form factors & ideas at the same time is necessary when you want to keep at the spear's edge. After years of barely-profitable "just past the gate" efforts, they now are merging their mobile division with Hitachi (another anonymous Galapagos handset builder). I'm willing to bet that the merger of the two poorly managed mobile sections will result in twice the mediocrity.

There were some interesting things that they did last year, but from my understanding, no one bought them. Could you blame them? Fujitsu has some of the worst software interfaces ever built. (Japan also has some pretty awful programmers, but that's another story...)

Good move! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753428)

Closing the source of such a poor operating system as Symbian may be a clever move. People might start to think that there is now some value in it. I used to program in it quite some years ago and my impression at the time (not changed since) was that it owed its position to being owned by Nokia, and being at the time was the only smart phone system on the market. Programming in it was not easy and took at least 4 times as long as programming Windows. I remember any kind of memory leak was forbidden, or the software wouldn't work. When I eliminated all the ones in my code I discovered that the OS calls I was making were themselves leaking. At that point I threw in the towel.

Re:Good move! (1)

BobboBrown (541913) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753902)

When I eliminated all the ones in my code I discovered that the OS calls I was making were themselves leaking. At that point I threw in the towel.

So you wrote code with only zeroes?

Oblig Simpsons Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753462)

I love when sentences can be ambiguously changed later by redefining the meaning of words...

Hutz: All right gentleman. I will take your case. But I will require a thousand dollar retainer.
Bart: A thousand dollars. But your ad says "no money down".
Hutz: Oh, they got this all screwed up. [corrects ad with felt-marker]
Bart: So you don't work on a contingency basis?
Hutz: No, money down. Oops, I shouldn't have the Bar Association logo here either. [Hutz eats ad]

Re:Oblig Simpsons Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753546)

I love when sentences can be ambiguously changed later by redefining the meaning of words...

You have it backwards...when you see a sign on the window of a shop that says 'we are open' that doesn't mean 'open source'.

Re:Oblig Simpsons Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753904)

oh... should have told me that before I liberated all those CDs.

Nokia Confirms Symbian Is... (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753478)

...dead.

Re:Nokia Confirms Symbian Is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35753978)

Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the lakes.

Open Is As Open Does (2)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753986)

Last year, I attended a meeting in Mountain View, CA hosted by Nokia to announce their new app store, Ovi, and 'open' platform based on JavaScript, the language everyone loves to hate. It seemed like a sincere attempt to recruit talented programmers to join a trip on the Titanic. There were a lot of sincere people making excuses and promising to do whatever it took to take on Microsoft. "We are the largest mobile phone company in the world, and we will respond accordingly," or something like that. I will say that the food was good.

They did respond like the largest mobile phone manufacturer, sinking their 'open' platform and joining up with the largest proprietary OS manufacturer. It is like a binary star system imploding into a black hole. Ironic, too, since Microsoft will buy RIM in Q4 for $39B, effectively screwing this deal. If this were fiction, then nobody would read it. Reality has such a wonderful way of making an acid trip seem like a lukewarm bath.

So much for open. And direct? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754032)

So "open" is not for open source but for "open for business".

And I guess "direct" is not for, well, "direct", but rather for "we just act as if we're doing something useful", as in "directing a movie". Or is direct now the opposite of erect, i.e. the opposite of upping something up?

It's all in the definition. Not the delivery.

Amazed (2)

Trogre (513942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754158)

I'm still amazed at how the Microsoft trojan managed to work his way into Nokia so effectively. Someone must have let it happen.

Does anyone have any ideas as to what could have happened?

Re:Amazed (2)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754460)

I'm amazed that the shareholders haven't dumped him yet. I'm sure the government over there is also getting twitchy and thinking of looking for an angle before they lose the biggest source of export income their nation has. With software coming from the US, dropping about 90% of their current market (by requiring expensive hardware to run the MS software) and manufacturing from China there isn't much for Nokia to do in Europe apart from being a mailbox.

Uh yeah, OK. (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754176)

Fuck you, Nokia. You're rapidly falling behind and becoming irrelevant. Your handset hardware is pretty nice, but the software is sorely lacking. You're very last decade at this point.

Last Open Version (1)

rdnetto (955205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35754476)

Does anyone know where I could get a copy of the last version that was actually open? Even if it's out of date, it would really useful as a starting point for writing emulators and he like.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?