Nokia Confirms Symbian Is No Longer 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.''"
just.. wow (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, how long does your battery last?
Re:just.. wow (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
...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: (Score:2)
"GPL pretty much forces closed source to make their own implementations of standards, which may or may not be 100% compatible."
Why is that a bad thing? A standard is only a standard if there are multiple different implementations. Also, BSD code opens up closed source code to modify the standard to their whishes with very little work of their own. With GPLed code I at least have the right to fix a broken implementation, with closed up BSD code I don't have the right. It's then nice to have BSD code that imp
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 *ne
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing to stop a commercial vendor from taking BSD code and creating their own intentionally incompatible closed source fork of it either, no guarantee of interoperability at all. At least if someone does that using GPL code, its easier to reverse engineer the changes they made.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Okay, I have three libraries, one licensed under the Apache 2.0 license, one under the Apple Public Source License 2.0, and one under the Mozilla Public License. I use them all in a program that I've written, which I can distribute under any license I choose. I decide to release it into the public domain. Then I want to incorporate some more functionality. There are two versions of a library that does what I want, that are functionally equivalent. One is GPL'd, the other is BSDL'd. Which one should I
Re:just.. wow (Score:2)
"The answer, of course, is the BSDL one. Why? Because if I pick the GPL'd one then I do not have the right to distribute the complete program to anyone.
Which library you end up using is irrelevant. Utilisation rates may be higher (and probably are) for many closed source programs. They are irrelevant to a discussion on source code freedoms and rights.
So tell me, what freedom did the GPL'd code give me, or people downstream from me, that the BSDL didn't give?"
You are not the the recipient of the freedoms, ju
Re: (Score:3)
Which library you end up using is irrelevant. Utilisation rates may be higher (and probably are) for many closed source programs. They are irrelevant to a discussion on source code freedoms and rights.
Absolutely not. The fact that I am writing a Free Software application, and the GPL specifically prohibits me from incorporating code released under that license is precisely the issue of relevance. It is the fundamental difference between the GPL and be BSDL. The GPL aims to make writing proprietary software difficult and, as a side effect, makes writing Free Software harder by being incompatible with a huge list of Free Software licenses. The BSDL aims to make writing Free Software easier, and as a si
Re:just.. wow (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Note that this is independent of the BSD Vs GPL argument. Google has a massive amount of proprietary code in their custom version of Linux, but they don't distribute it so the GPL doesn't kick in.
Last statistics I saw, 90% of programmers were employed on in-house projects that are never intended for distribution. Assuming approximately even productivity, this means that around 90% of code that is written can incorporate GPL'd code without having to be distributed. The only difference between the BSDL and GPL in this context is that the BSDL is simple for anyone to understand, while the GPL needs running past the corporate lawyers (who probably get nervous at at least one of the clauses and reject it).
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
You've posted in this thread a load of times, but you obviously haven't actually read the BSDL. It's only 2-4 clauses (depending on the version you read), so it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes. I suggest that before you argue about the merits of various licenses, you actually try reading them...
Re: (Score:2)
"You've posted in this thread a load of times"
Because so far 9 people have replied to my original post.
"but you obviously haven't actually read the BSDL"
I've read the BSD license several times before. The copyright notice and BSD license must be reproduced when binaries are distributed. Likely on page 400 of a manual that's probably online somewhere or on a cd rather than printed anywhere with the device.
It doesn't mandate telling you where the guy giving you the binary got it from, just a namecheck on the
Re: (Score:3)
GPL restricts some freedoms in exchange for guaranteeing others...
Society does the same thing, for instance there are laws against murder so that people can go about their business feeling relatively safe.
Under an anarchistic society you would still be free to go about your business, but you'd be less likely to without an armed guard.
It's all about trade offs, would you sacrifice your right to kill people in exchange for being able to walk down the street in relative safety? If there was nothing to stop the
Re: (Score:2)
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 redistributi
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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 wa
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 fr
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
GPL - you can freely use my code as long as you pass that freedom on
BSD - you can freely use my code including denying the downstream people the same freedom.
It's not about forcing anyone to do it your way, it's about maintaining freedom and openness.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
I don't know all the legal details, but my understanding is:
BSD is the academic license: use however you like
GPL is the hobbyist's license: use, but share your changes
Apache is the business license: use however you like, but keep the attributions, license, etc.
No idea what the exact differences between BSD and Apache are, but with BSD anyone can release the same code under a different license if they want. With Apache, I think they can't, but they can combine it easily with proprietary code (essential for m
Re: (Score:2)
You can change BSD licenced code to closed, and people still have the open code
You can change GPL licenced code to closed, and people still have the open code
from this point of view they are as open as each other
Why close it now? (Score:2)
Re:Why close it now? (Score:5, Insightful)
To ensure that it really dies, instead of some roque developers actually making it an viable option?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why close it now? (Score:5, Insightful)
LoB
I'm scared (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Open (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not so sure. I think Microsoft is running their playbook just fine. They even have one of their own at the top.
Re: (Score:3)
They made almost two billion in profit last year. Microsoft paid them another billion to use Windows Phone 7 this year. They have about 15 billion in liquid assets (cash and short-term investments). They'd need to be spectacularly incompetent for a long time before they hit bankruptcy.
Nokia doesn't seem to be dying as a company, just dying as an interesting company.
Re: (Score:2)
Goodbye Symbian, Goodbye QT, Goodbye Nokia. Everyone start migrating now, the droids are about to swallow them all.
FTFY.
Borg assimilation in progress (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:2)
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! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, the reality is that little that is done in major companies is done primarily for the company's benefit. What happens, happens because it will make a manager somewhere better off in some way (financially, psychologically, whatever). To the extent that company well-being is actually tied to rewards that may happen to also benefit the company, but that is usually a secondary consideration.
When some manager comes up with some crazy mandate that everybody knows will hurt the company, do they all raise a b
Stick a Fork in it, its done! (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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 pri
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Debian seems to be doing quite well, despite not being very commercial
How much code is Debian responsible for? The kernel comes from Linux (of GNU or FreeBSD, depending on the variant), the userland from GNU, the toolchain from GNU, the GUI from X.org, the apps from other third parties. About the only thing that's Debian-original is apt, and that has a lot of non-Debian contributors these days. Debian packages software fairly competently, but it isn't a shining example of development.
Re: (Score:2)
Worked at a Symbian-using Japanese Company (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The iPhone 4 is much better now in this regard, the oleophobic coating actually works. I rarely notice my fingerprints on the screen.
My original iPad and original iPhone 1st gen are pretty horrible with fingerprint smudges constantly visible. I've been told the iPad 2 is still the same in this regard.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Interesting point. Would touch screens be more popular among people with glasses? It wouldn't even surprise me all that much.
Good move! (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Nokia Confirms Symbian Is... (Score:3)
Open Is As Open Does (Score:3)
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? (Score:2)
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 (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm amazed that the shareholders haven't dumped him yet.
This.
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.
And that.
I really don't think there's anyone on the planet other than Microsoft and one particular ex-Microsoft employee, who is happy with Nokia's new direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia was blindsided by Android. Instead of adopting it and riding its wave of success, they thought they stood a chance with their own line of products. For too long they ignored that Android was far more popular than what they had to offer. I think they didn't dare to go the Android way as it would compete directly with one of their own products (Symbian/MeeGo), making them look foolish and not competent at producing their own products. So I guess they hoped to stay re
Re: (Score:3)
Somebody gave somebody lots of money.
Uh yeah, OK. (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
And thus, a chapter of history closeth.. (Score:2)
How sure are we that current Nokia leadership doesn't have shares in other phone manufacturers? As fas as I can see there isn't much else left to screw up now..
nothing to do with the Microsoft deal (Score:3)
I guess this has nothing to do with the Microsoft deal :)
Re:Next (Score:5, Informative)
Rock on, bitches:
http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php
Re: (Score:2)
Someone mod parent up, plox.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not being Gnome isn't enough?
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft Windows isn't Gnome either. Just saying.
How dare you say something nice about Microsoft here!
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft Windows isn't Gnome either.
Has anyone informed Michael de Icaza of this?
Hey assholes ! Error 503 Service Unavailable (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
And they made some great CRTs back in the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nokia who? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's only because their older phones are practically indestructible. Nokia seems rather determined to be on the way out at the moment.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? I don't know if it's different where you are, but here in the UK Nokia's presence in all the big phone stores is seriously down over the last 6 years.
They're not dead by any means, I grant you, but the days when everyone and his dog had a Nokia 3310 except for business users who were given a 6210 are long gone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My nerd nostalgia is for EPOC32. The original name of the OS whilst it was used for it's original purpose of powering Psion 5 PDAs. In many ways a beautiful OS... before Nokia started fucking it up.
Re: (Score:2)