Brian <bn...@rochester.rr.com> writes: > > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:55:21 +0200 > "Dr. Michael Lauer" <mic...@vanille-media.de> wrote: > > > > Unfortunately the freedom loving people are doomed to either work on > > anti-vendor-ports (such as HTC devices etc.) or live with one of the > > semi-free alternatives (Palm Pre, Nokia N900). Right now there is no > > device rivaling the FreeRunner's openness, nothing comes close. > > I wouldn't necessarily color all ports of FOSS as anti-vendor. In fact > don't they demonstrate the versatility and adaptability of FOSS in > relation to all hardware, especially hardware that isn't open? That's a > good thing if the goal is to strive towards choice for consumers. > Granted it's not the ideal situation but it is a step in the right > direction.
The term "anti-vendor port" initially struck me as a little odd, as well, but now I think that Mickey is using a fairly strict definition of "anti-", meaning "contrary to"--with "anti-vendor" meaning "contrary to the vendor" or (more clearly) "contrary to the wishes or actions of the vendor". -- "Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr))))." _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community