Not "the free phone"
faivrem at gmail.com
Mon Jul 16 20:22:58 CEST 2007
Everybody here emphasises on this OSS concept, but I think like
Marc-Olivier, that we do not need to speak about OSS at all.
This phone will update its software automatically, bugs will not live
more than 3 days, it's skins will be customizable, every piece of
software you do not use will be removable to gain memory for your mp3,
etc.. etc... Where is the OSS concept for a end user here ? *You* know
that bugs will be quickly corrected because you are a developper, not
everybody. We do not care if it's open, we care about the features
other phones do not have.
Let's find something without "free" in it. Exercice left to the reader :)
On 7/16/07, Marc-Olivier Barre <mobarre at gmail.com> wrote:
> Damn... hit reply, needed reply-to all ;-)
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Marc-Olivier Barre <mobarre at gmail.com>
> Date: Jul 16, 2007 7:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Not "the free phone"
> To: Dirk Bergstrom <openmoko at otisbean.com>
> On 7/16/07, Dirk Bergstrom <openmoko at otisbean.com> wrote:
> > Pius A. Uzamere II wrote:
> > > I agree with your first sentence, but came up with precisely the opposite
> > > conclusion! I think Freedom Phone would work extremely well in the US.
> > The set of people who would want a "Freedom Phone" probably does not
> > have much overlap with the set of people who would want an open source
> > phone.
> > "Freedom", at least in the US, has been even more violently co-opted
> > than than "free phone"...
> ok, why not something totaly different from free, freedom and open?
> Marc-Olivier Barre.
More information about the community