maemo.org - Talk
Page 4 of 9 « First 23 4 56 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

maemo.org - Talk (https://talk.maemo.org/index.php)
-   Community (https://talk.maemo.org/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)? (https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=73896)

Frappacino 2011-06-15 05:41
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
If I could give woody14619 1000+ thanks I would - he has summed up the maemo vs meego debate quite succintly and with patience.

At the end of the day Maemo works at an end user level NOW while Meego MAY (and most likely never) work at an end user level.

So end users here want effort directed towards fixes that will have results, as opposed to a hobby exercise a few are engaging in for the fun of it.

Again - too bad there is not a 1000+ thanks button - thanks woody14619 !

freemangordon 2011-06-15 06:33
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frappacino (Post 1029389)
If I could give woody14619 1000+ thanks I would - he has summed up the maemo vs meego debate quite succintly and with patience.

At the end of the day Maemo works at an end user level NOW while Meego MAY (and most likely never) work at an end user level.

So end users here want effort directed towards fixes that will have results, as opposed to a hobby exercise a few are engaging in for the fun of it.

Again - too bad there is not a 1000+ thanks button - thanks woody14619 !
Same here, many thanks woody14619

tswindell 2011-06-15 06:44
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
I agree, we need good constructive criticism, instead of the normal flame bait.

geneven 2011-06-15 06:47
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
I have been both enlightened and dismayed by the virulent anti-user rhetoric posted in this thread. I didn't know that developers hated all of us, even the ones who aren't demanding and aren't know-nothings. I don't think you can prosper in a world that depends on cooperation between users and developers, and this site is a golden example of the good things that users and developers working together can achieve. Good luck in establishing an empire without users.

tswindell 2011-06-15 07:47
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by geneven (Post 1029409)
I have been both enlightened and dismayed by the virulent anti-user rhetoric posted in this thread. I didn't know that developers hated all of us, even the ones who aren't demanding and aren't know-nothings. I don't think you can prosper in a world that depends on cooperation between users and developers, and this site is a golden example of the good things that users and developers working together can achieve. Good luck in establishing an empire without users.
I have to apologise to those users that do infact make developers lives worth while when contributing in their own free time to Maemo/MeeGo. I was very broad in expressing myself when I said it and it really is a minority, but it's not a small minority. If it was just the odd one or two users that pissed us off, it wouldn't be an issue, but it must be in the 10s of users, which is evident from those devs that have left because of it.

@geneven, I don't include you in that statement. ;)

attila77 2011-06-15 07:52
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frappacino (Post 1029389)
At the end of the day Maemo works at an end user level NOW while Meego MAY (and most likely never) work at an end user level.

So end users here want effort directed towards fixes that will have results, as opposed to a hobby exercise a few are engaging in for the fun of it.
No, the users want devices with proper vendor HW and UX implementation, until that all this MeeGo does/doesn't work talk is pointless (it's like saying Android doesn't work at an end-user level because you can't even make phone calls with NITdroid).

woody14619 2011-06-16 15:40
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by attila77 (Post 1029244)
Can you share a source for definition ?
Tell me, when the Allies took governance of German territories after WW2, was that permanent? When you elect a governor (governance is the act of governing), are they elected or appointed to that position for life? In most democratic countries, when a group or individual is given governance over something, it's term often at the whim of the resource owner, and is by definition temporary.

Can you show me even a single example of where governance of a system was given to a group of people for all time, and not rescinded?


Quote:
Originally Posted by attila77 (Post 1029244)
Now, the resource control is a tricky business in software, esp. most open licenses like GPL, because while copyrights will allow you to change licenses and governance models, you cannot change them reatroactively.
That's all fine and good. The problem is MeeGo is not GPL, at least not the parts we're talking about. The drivers and bobbles we're talking about here are under NDA, and are NOT under GPL nor any other open license. That's what this whole discussion is about! Were the drivers and misc bits open-source and GPL, I'd be all behind this in a second. It's not, and probably never will be.


Quote:
Originally Posted by attila77 (Post 1029244)
Maemo Core has 285 bugs filed against it, while just browser+email+IM has over 1700 bugs filed against them (and Maemo userspace has a lot more stuff than just those three applications).
That's great. Tell me, how do you use a browser, email and IM when your wifi driver won't stay connected to an APN? Again, we were talking about the base OS here, not every app ever made for it. And despite Microsofts efforts to try to make it so, a web browser is not part of an OS.


Quote:
Originally Posted by attila77 (Post 1029244)
Oh yes you did ! :P
Yes and no... I was comparing it to the model as it exists now. Tell me, do you think the governance council here (freshly elected) has any voice with Nokia now? Many past council members have said they barely had a voice when it was the big thing. I'd be surprised if they can get someone at Nokia to answer an email for them now...


Quote:
Originally Posted by attila77 (Post 1029244)
In that context open source itself is not important (because it became or can stop being open source on somebody's whim).
How so? If it's open source, completely open, one can make a complete copy of it and retain it for their own use. The original presenter can in fact go away, or shut down the service/site promoting it. But if others have valid complete copies, how then can it be stopped?

The "resource" I'm talking about in this case IS source. Once that's out, there's little one can do to "govern" it, outside of garnering respect from the community and using political sway to guide it. (Linus T. being a pure example of that.) The fact that we're talking about governance means we're talking about a closed resource, virtual or tangible, that has limited availability. Until that availability status changes, that resource, and it's governance, can be revoked by the "owner" at will.

MeeGo has several closed bits still, which is what we're talking about here. Nobody is talking about "governance" of Mozilla on MeeGo. It's a moot point, as it's completely open. The governance is around how the closed parts are managed, and the general structure of the system as a whole. Both of which could be pulled back in at will by the collective corporations that hold the key bits to make it work on their devices.

Texrat 2011-06-16 15:50
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
This is the best debate here in a looong time. :D

tswindell 2011-06-16 16:01
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1030320)
Tell me, when the Allies took governance of German territories after WW2, was that permanent? When you elect a governor (governance is the act of governing), are they elected or appointed to that position for life? In most democratic countries, when a group or individual is given governance over something, it's term often at the whim of the resource owner, and is by definition temporary.
Everything is temporary, MeeGo's governing body is the Linux Foundation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1030320)
Can you show me even a single example of where governance of a system was given to a group of people for all time, and not rescinded?
I'll let you know when the universe ends.

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1030320)
That's all fine and good. The problem is MeeGo is not GPL, at least not the parts we're talking about. The drivers and bobbles we're talking about here are under NDA, and are NOT under GPL nor any other open license. That's what this whole discussion is about! Were the drivers and misc bits open-source and GPL, I'd be all behind this in a second. It's not, and probably never will be.
When were we discussing parts? Regardless, you're right, the N900 and in fact any handset for the foreseeable future will have closed parts, deal with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1030320)
That's great. Tell me, how do you use a browser, email and IM when your wifi driver won't stay connected to an APN? Again, we were talking about the base OS here, not every app ever made for it. And despite Microsofts efforts to try to make it so, a web browser is not part of an OS.
I disagree with pretty much all of that, anyway, I've never had problems with the WiFi on my N900 running MeeGo. So it's probably to do with router & wifi combination. Anyway, it's obviously being worked on, why is it such a major deal for you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1030320)
Yes and no... I was comparing it to the model as it exists now. Tell me, do you think the governance council here (freshly elected) has any voice with Nokia now? Many past council members have said they barely had a voice when it was the big thing. I'd be surprised if they can get someone at Nokia to answer an email for them now...
...

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1030320)
How so? If it's open source, completely open, one can make a complete copy of it and retain it for their own use. The original presenter can in fact go away, or shut down the service/site promoting it. But if others have valid complete copies, how then can it be stopped?
At least we have more upto date components, that are freely distributable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1030320)
The "resource" I'm talking about in this case IS source. Once that's out, there's little one can do to "govern" it, outside of garnering respect from the community and using political sway to guide it. (Linus T. being a pure example of that.) The fact that we're talking about governance means we're talking about a closed resource, virtual or tangible, that has limited availability. Until that availability status changes, that resource, and it's governance, can be revoked by the "owner" at will.
And now back on to source, Maemo is less than 50% open, MeeGo is > 90% open. Also, with having open governance, we have the ability to shape the future of MeeGo, this is something we've never had outside of a consumer-vendor relationship with Maemo in the past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1030320)
MeeGo has several closed bits still, which is what we're talking about here. Nobody is talking about "governance" of Mozilla on MeeGo. It's a moot point, as it's completely open. The governance is around how the closed parts are managed, and the general structure of the system as a whole. Both of which could be pulled back in at will by the collective corporations that hold the key bits to make it work on their devices.
And now you've gone in a full circle. But yes, you're right, no one is talking about Mozilla here, so why bring it up?

I think you're very confused, the MeeGo project doesn't define what is open or closed in a hardware adaptation. You could run a _completely_ free open (as in source) MeeGo based OS on a device where all drivers for the hardware are open. But good luck finding one.

The closed drivers in MeeGo <i>for the N900</i> are re-distributable binary blobs, we were lucky we were given that! And at least now they are up-to-date and have had most of the issues fixed. Good luck back porting it to your closed Maemo platform and having what we now have in "MeeGo N900 Community Edition".

For a competition of "Who's more open?" and your reasons for not backing MeeGo, well, I find your attitude (as well as others') extremely hypocritical.

SD69 2011-06-16 18:17
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1030320)
Tell me, do you think the governance council here (freshly elected) has any voice with Nokia now? Many past council members have said they barely had a voice when it was the big thing. I'd be surprised if they can get someone at Nokia to answer an email for them now...
I assume you're aware of what happened on 2/11. Maemo.org faces larger challenges than its communications with Nokia, including our ever-evolving relationship with MeeGo. Thank you for your good comments in this thread.

Please review governance issues at the Council Blog:
http://maemo.org/community/council/

and ask questions directly of council in this thread:
http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=41451

momcilo 2011-06-16 21:56
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Finally found this jewel-topic by following whereabouts of texrat!

Texrat 2011-06-17 04:27
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
I'm not really here.

attila77 2011-06-17 07:32
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1030320)
Can you show me even a single example of where governance of a system was given to a group of people for all time, and not rescinded?
"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

In theory, in some form similar things happened in every country that is a Republic (though in practice modern parliamental monarchies work that way, too) - of course if you talk in context of countries, it's unwieldy because millions of people cannot directly govern anything but formally, it *is* "We the People...".

Quote:
That's all fine and good. The problem is MeeGo is not GPL, at least not the parts we're talking about. The drivers and bobbles we're talking about here are under NDA, and are NOT under GPL nor any other open license. That's what this whole discussion is about! Were the drivers and misc bits open-source and GPL, I'd be all behind this in a second. It's not, and probably never will be.
This is what I'm saying when I say people don't know what MeeGo is and thus are wrong when they say MeeGo this or MeeGo that. MeeGo is GPL (and related FOSS licenses). Period. No but. No if. MeeGo is not a complete, device installable product. Nor will it be, it is a proto-distribution, that then people/companies make custom, but compatible versions of adding whatever closed crap they need, drivers, flash, you name it. And no, you cannot say the same to Android as closed API, license driven services are NOT open by any means. In a similar context Maemo is in a similar camp as there are middleware parts that are not open source (though admittedly with Maemo it's impossible to discern the OS from the device/product implementation so it gets a bit tricky).


Quote:
Yes and no... I was comparing it to the model as it exists now. Tell me, do you think the governance council here (freshly elected) has any voice with Nokia now? Many past council members have said they barely had a voice when it was the big thing. I'd be surprised if they can get someone at Nokia to answer an email for them now...
Yes. Actually, one of the key priorities in the Council's dealings is to see how to relate to any possible upcoming related Nokia products and projects (hate to use this formal wording, but hey).

Quote:
How so? If it's open source, completely open, one can make a complete copy of it and retain it for their own use. The original presenter can in fact go away, or shut down the service/site promoting it. But if others have valid complete copies, how then can it be stopped?
Oh, so when Google pulls an API what happens to your copy of that translation using open source project ?

Quote:
we're talking about governance means we're talking about a closed resource, virtual or tangible, that has limited availability.
Yes, but it is not what you think :) In the case of open source projects that is because it's ONE project you are talking about (and to a lesser extent because law links to particular names and entities). There is one Qt, one Apache, one Linux. Hence the question of governance. Don't like it ? Make an Ot, Sioux, Randomdudux (same sources!) and you have just assumed governance ! yay !

Quote:
MeeGo has several closed bits still, which is what we're talking about here. Nobody is talking about "governance" of Mozilla on MeeGo. It's a moot point, as it's completely open. The governance is around how the closed parts are managed, and the general structure of the system as a whole. Both of which could be pulled back in at will by the collective corporations that hold the key bits to make it work on their devices.
No, the pullback that kills open projects in company exits is the void created by the size of contribution/maintenance those companies make. There is only so much blood you can lose in one blow without fainting and/or dying.

Texrat 2011-06-17 13:33
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frappacino (Post 1029389)
At the end of the day Maemo works at an end user level NOW while Meego MAY (and most likely never) work at an end user level.
Can you explain how you arrive at that odd "most likely never" conclusion?

erendorn 2011-06-17 13:36
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by attila77 (Post 1030674)
No, the pullback that kills open projects in company exits is the void created by the size of contribution/maintenance those companies make.
:confused:
The post is interesting so I would like to get this sentence as well

lemmyslender 2011-06-17 16:14
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texrat (Post 1030825)
Can you explain how you arrive at that odd "most likely never" conclusion?
Perhaps from this very thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tswindell (Post 1028505)
You raise fair points, MeeGo up until 2 1/2 months ago on the N900 was at the whim of contributors who were mostly scratching itches and getting odd bits & bogs working. When Nokia got involved and created the N900 Community Edition project (previously Developer Edition), we suddenly got a huge amount of momentum, because for the first time we actually had clear goals and targets. And they were simple and achievable. So recently MeeGo for the N900 has become a much more active and viable option.

I guess there's a misconception of what we're doing here. We've always said MeeGo on the N900 will never be ready for "end users" it's not yet and probably never will be a goal for the project. And that is probably fundamentally the issue when posting things about MeeGo on this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tswindell (Post 1029051)
I would love MeeGo on the N900, whether through Cordia, or MeeGo N900 Community Edition, to be end-user acceptable, and even though I don't think this is our primary goal for the project, it is certainly a possibility. I'm pretty sure by the end of this year MeeGo on the N900 will be something very functional and useful for most N900 users. That is, if we keep going in the direction at the pace we're going at.
Both those quotes are kind of contradictory. But the bolded parts both suggest that "end user ready" is not a goal of the project. Which is why I feel "Community Edition" is a bit mis-leading (unless you read "community" to mean developers/power users and not end users, and lets face it, there are more end users here than ever before).

And there's the biggest problem with posting information here. If it is not meant to be end user ready, and you post about MeeGo CE in a community that contains members it's not targeted at, there is bound to be confusion.

Texrat - Apparently you believe "most likely never" to be incorrect. Which would imply you believe it will be "end user ready"? If so, what has led you to that conclusion?

Texrat 2011-06-17 16:27
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemmyslender (Post 1030919)
Perhaps from this very thread?

Both those quotes are kind of contradictory. But the bolded parts both suggest that "end user ready" is not a goal of the project. Which is why I feel "Community Edition" is a bit mis-leading (unless you read "community" to mean developers/power users and not end users, and lets face it, there are more end users here than ever before).

And there's the biggest problem with posting information here. If it is not meant to be end user ready, and you post about MeeGo CE in a community that contains members it's not targeted at, there is bound to be confusion.

Texrat - Apparently you believe "most likely never" to be incorrect. Which would imply you believe it will be "end user ready"? If so, what has led you to that conclusion?
With all due respects to my friend Tom, I don't believe he's speaking for MeeGo project management there.

Of course end-user readiness is a goal of MeeGo, at least tablet, handset, netbook etc builds. And IMO 1.2 is very, very close. So I'm still confused by contrary claims and wonder why I'm being challenged to defend a no-brainer sort of conclusion... :confused:

If MeeGo is never intended to be end-user ready, then what is Intel spending a small fortune on? let's just stop now... right?

SD69 2011-06-17 16:38
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemmyslender (Post 1030919)

And there's the biggest problem with posting information here. If it is not meant to be end user ready, and you post about MeeGo CE in a community that contains members it's not targeted at, there is bound to be confusion.
There is a developers sub-forum, an alternatives sub-forum, etc. And there are lots of postings about specific topics that are of interest to only a small percentage of the community, and not of much interest to the broader community. There really isn't much to debate on the literal question that was posed in the OP.

lemmyslender 2011-06-17 18:31
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texrat (Post 1030929)
With all due respects to my friend Tom, I don't believe he's speaking for MeeGo project management there.

Of course end-user readiness is a goal of MeeGo, at least tablet, handset, netbook etc builds. And IMO 1.2 is very, very close. So I'm still confused by contrary claims and wonder why I'm being challenged to defend a no-brainer sort of conclusion... :confused:

If MeeGo is never intended to be end-user ready, then what is Intel spending a small fortune on? let's just stop now... right?
Sorry, I was reading the quote with respect to the topic at hand (MeeGo CE on the N900), as opposed to MeeGo in general. I'll happily agree that a goal of MeeGo in general is to be end-user ready.

*edit* I don't believe Tom is speaking for MeeGo either, however it does seem he wants to speak for MeeGo CE on the N900, which is what I thought this thread was about.

Texrat 2011-06-17 18:54
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemmyslender (Post 1031021)
Sorry, I was reading the quote with respect to the topic at hand (MeeGo CE on the N900), as opposed to MeeGo in general. I'll happily agree that a goal of MeeGo in general is to be end-user ready.

*edit* I don't believe Tom is speaking for MeeGo either, however it does seem he wants to speak for MeeGo CE on the N900, which is what I thought this thread was about.
I was going by the general nature of the post I replied to as well as the thread title.

tswindell 2011-06-17 20:04
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemmyslender (Post 1031021)
Sorry, I was reading the quote with respect to the topic at hand (MeeGo CE on the N900), as opposed to MeeGo in general. I'll happily agree that a goal of MeeGo in general is to be end-user ready.

*edit* I don't believe Tom is speaking for MeeGo either, however it does seem he wants to speak for MeeGo CE on the N900, which is what I thought this thread was about.
You're right, I don't speak for anyone but myself. Regardless of that, I don't see anything contradictory in those statements, the first one I said that end-user readiness wasn't an explicit goal, our goals are clear, basic functionality that makes the MeeGo N900 Community Edition day-to-day usable for developers and power users.

As the project increased in momentum, what was originally a hardware adaptation project and a few enthusiastic users that tweaked the higher layers, gained resources from Nokia and we had this Developer Edition project. That project injected a lot of energy and progress into MeeGo on the N900. And today, it is day-to-day usable in-my-opinion. But I don't think it's user ready, and there are clearly issues, issues that are being actively worked on.

My second statement was just; sure, I'd love to see MeeGo on the N900 end-user ready, mainly because I think our efforts with MeeGo "N900" Community Edition will last a lot longer than the N900s life. Now, what's the point? How many end-users are actually going to be interested in upgrading to a capable MeeGo? But the next devices will have a huge headstart with what we've started with on the N900.

This project, doesn't have a life expectancy, the Community Edition, hopefully, will be around for a long time, a lot longer than the N900, and hopefully a lot longer than the Harmattan device after that. And like all projects you'd hope the goals are to make it better. So, end-user ready is really just a matter of when, but what matters here is, when is it acceptable from the N900s perspective. If it takes another year? Is that acceptable to the users here. And we can't progress completely without valuable feed back from users, obviously we want to start with the more experienced users. Mainly because we don't what the type of people that'll try to boot it, and fail, or if they succeed be like "This is bull ****, why do you bother and why is it so crap after _all_ of this time" like some people tend to do.

geneven 2011-06-18 02:58
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
I would guess that a lot more users will be interested in MeeGo than were interested in Nitdroid. As for the"this is crap" commenters, I think the community at large already deals with them fairly well. Developers need to live with a certain amount of unfair commentary. Politicians do. Artists do. Parents do.

tswindell 2011-06-18 06:24
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by geneven (Post 1031224)
I would guess that a lot more users will be interested in MeeGo than were interested in Nitdroid. As for the"this is crap" commenters, I think the community at large already deals with them fairly well. Developers need to live with a certain amount of unfair commentary. Politicians do. Artists do. Parents do.
Sure, I'm just saying why I'm not personally, actively, inviting them to the party. :) The fact is MeeGo works on the N900, it's a bit rough around the edges, but it works, and I think it works well. Especially now we're utilising the hardware more to it's potential, and that will only continue as we migrate to Wayland and Qt5 for the 1.3 track, which I'm very excited about :)

tswindell 2011-06-18 06:25
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Also, if you are a developer, and you want to play around with the sort of things Harmattan will have, MeeGo N900 Community Edition is a good head start in that area.

Frappacino 2011-06-18 06:43
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
see this is another illustration of this problem

ppl and ts talk about developer edition for n900 and coupled with ts comments of course they dont care about meego n900

now tex seems to be sayoing otherwise ?

so confusing

at least with maemo its simple - bug fixes that make this platform better - thats what cssu is

no need to guess about developer edition or intent or whatever - just plain old bug fixes that can be applied as they roll the line

u can spin all these statemjents all u want but at the end of the day the normal users just get confused and switched of

tswindell 2011-06-18 07:16
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
@Frap, well, mission accomplished then :P there is no spin, if they don't understand what's going on then it's probably best to stay away.

Texrat 2011-06-18 12:00
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Agreed with Tom, there is no spin from the MeeGo side, but certainly a clear naysaying agenda from some here.

FYI, I am not part of MeeGo project management, either, and just calling it as I see it.

woody14619 2011-06-27 22:45
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tswindell (Post 1030332)
For a competition of "Who's more open?" and your reasons for not backing MeeGo, well, I find your attitude (as well as others') extremely hypocritical.
Who's competing for that? You maybe, but I've NEVER said Maemo is "more open" than MeeGo, ever. In fact I said many times that it's pointless to argue about which is "more open", since either way you still have binary blobs that will probably not transition from one version to the next. That's been my main point in several posts in this thread!

My argument is that Maemo is more functional than MeeGo, and by far more mature. You are the one that started making claims that because it was "more open" it was "better". I've consistently said that regardless of how much more open it is, unless it's 100% open it has the same flaw as Maemo, making the argument of which is "more open" a moot point.

As for "attitude"... I'm not the one saying "this isn't for users" and imply that end users can essentially go stuff themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by attila77 (Post 1030674)
"His Brittanic Majesty ...
Bravo. And you only had to go back 200 years to find one example. :) To be fair though, that was signed more as a way to cut loose a major expense (a war) than it was to grant governance. I doubt the US being a free nation hinged on the king of England "granting" it. I'm pretty sure it was already well under way when that was signed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by attila77 (Post 1030674)
MeeGo is GPL (and related FOSS licenses).
Quote:
Originally Posted by attila77 (Post 1030674)
MeeGo is not a complete, device installable product.
Having your cake and eating it too? MeeGo for the N900 is not GPL. It has binary blobs of closed source that are required for it to deliver something even comparable to the existing system already available for the N900. And really, if you're arguing MeeGo is a non-installable stand alone, then based on the semantic discussion we had before, does it still qualify as being an OS?

I'm quite happy that MeeGo as a base (apparently not as an OS) is open source. But that's not really what we're talking about here is it? I thought we were talking about MeeGo for the N900. If we're talking about weather to talk about MeeGo here as the generic, non-installable base that is GPL, then I'm changing my vote to a firm NO. They have their own forums for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by attila77 (Post 1030674)
Oh, so when Google pulls an API what happens to your copy of that translation using open source project ?
Please show me where I've ever said Google/Android is open source? I haven't. And yes, if their API is public, you can continue to use that API with other servers.

Look at XMPP. It's an open standard, and several people have jumped on to it, including Facebook and Google. Suppose either decided tomorrow to drop XMPP support and start using it's own API. How many customers would it lose? How many would hop to other open platforms for their chatting needs?

How many servers speak XMPP? How many speak other open protocols (like IRC)? How many speak CompuServeChat? See the difference? That's the power of open source. You can continue to use it, improve on it, etc, even if the original provider goes away. IRC, for example, started on a BBS/server that has long since gone away. But it's open, so it survived. If Yahoo were to go away tomorrow, how long do you think the chat client/protocol would last once the servers a Yahoo shut off? A month? A week? A day?

Quote:
Originally Posted by attila77 (Post 1030674)
No, the pullback that kills open projects in company exits is the void created by the size of contribution/maintenance those companies make. There is only so much blood you can lose in one blow without fainting and/or dying.
Thus my point. When (not if) Nokia pulls back on MeeGo for N900, the game's over. Done. What's out there is out there, and nothing more (if you're lucky, and they don't build in timeout bombs into the blobs). We already have a static "last image" blob with Maemo, just a matter of time before it happens to MeeGo too.

At that point, a real comparison can be done. Which is more stable? Which is more usable? Which is more supported? Which has a longer shelf life?

Based on the state MeeGo is in right now, assuming Nokia pulls that trigger in the next week, Meego is the loser in all 4 questions. That may all change in a day, a month or two, or in a year. But I'm not willing to toss out a perfectly good and working system for one that may be good in a month or a year. I live based on where I am now, and where the past has shown me things are likely to wind up. In this case, the present tells me MeeGo for the N900 isn't going to do anything I can't already do with Maemo. And the past tells me that's unlikely to change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tswindell (Post 1030332)
I disagree with pretty much all of that, anyway, I've never had problems with the WiFi on my N900 running MeeGo. So it's probably to do with router & wifi combination. Anyway, it's obviously being worked on, why is it such a major deal for you?
Because I use wifi a lot. Enough that it being unstable is a big reason for me to not move to it right this second, as many here (yourself include) have been advocating for, in an odd "no users" type of way. I still don't get that. With one breath you're saying it's wonderful, the future, fully functional, and the best thing since sliced bread. Then with the next you're saying it will never be ready for "users", it's unpolished, and non-developers can essentially go stuff themselves. Which is it?

Btw: I assume having several viable bugs logged against it in the bug tracker, all showing random disconnect problems implies there's an issue. The fact that it's being worked on is great. You saying it's not an issue because you've "never had problems with it" just reminds me of replies from Nokia's bug tracker. They never had issues with key broken items that lots of users had. Just another yellow flag against Meego from where I'm standing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tswindell (Post 1030332)
At least we have more upto date components, that are freely distributable.
Again, newest doesn't mean better. Remember my example of which is better (Win98 vs WinME driver)? You could have the best binary blob driver in the world for the N900 GSM in MeeGo. If I can't make a phone call by tapping on the UI, it's useless. Even if I can make a call, but can't use the device the way I use it now because of an issue with some other closed component that's borked in some way, that "newer/better" GSM driver is still equally useless. I have a desk full of gadgets that half work. I don't need another one. Especially when I can have it work fully with the existing system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tswindell (Post 1030332)
Good luck back porting it to your closed Maemo platform and having what we now have in "MeeGo N900 Community Edition".
Good luck forward porting them to MeeGo 2.0 when it comes out. See my point? And what exactly is it that you have in MeeGo N900 CE that we don't have in Maemo? Instability? Lots of apps? Didn't you say just a few posts ago that the reason you're here is to siphon off app developers, and/or get them to compile apps for MeeGo? What does MeeGo have? A future? How so, if it's not going to ever be ready for users?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tswindell (Post 1030332)
And now you've gone in a full circle. But yes, you're right, no one is talking about Mozilla here, so why bring it up?
I was using it as an example. I was noting that "governance" isn't needed for purely open products, like Mozilla. The fact that MeeGo needs it implies there are non-open components, and/or that someone is granting that in a rescindable way.



Again, bravo for trying, and I do wish you luck in getting it all worked out. But please stop touting it here like it's already finished, or "better" than Maemo until it's at least on par.

That's all I've been asking of people with their competing OSes (with ALL the alternatives, NitDroid, MeeGo, Baad, or whatever it's called...). Every time I ask that people stop claiming their system is "better", or comparable when it's not, they get their panties in a bunch and start ranting about how it's "more" open, or how it's "governed", or how it's "faster" or has a better UI. That's great. Call me when it can perform solidly for a week without rebooting, while taking calls, browsing the web, syncing with my calendar and running home made scripts and apps in the background. Until then, you're not competing against Maemo.

Present it for what it can do, great. But talking it up and calling it better does nothing but get people all riled up and trying to install a half-ready system. Most often they either screw up their device trying, or will get it installed only to find major issues unresolved. Either way, it hurts your project when you misrepresent it, since doing so drives people away from it and gives it a bad name.

Most often, you get one shot to impress people with a new system. MeeGo already has a bad reputation because it blew it's own welcome horn way to early. Repeating that mistake again and again is the best way to kill it before it even has a chance.

lma 2011-06-27 23:21
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by attila77 (Post 1030674)
MeeGo is GPL (and related FOSS licenses). Period. No but. No if.
But! - it's actively hostile to GPLv3 and friends, to the point of forking old obsolete versions of several components, contradicting both its own compliance spec and "upstream first" policy in the process.

abill_uk 2011-08-03 04:57
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1028548)
To what end? It's like trying to get Amiga developers to "help out" this wonderful new project called Windows back in the 80s. Sure, it may never actually run stably on the Amiga hardware, but that's not the goal! Wait, what is the goal? To suck away developers from the initial platform? I'm not sure I like that!

The goal you're touting (as I see is) is to pull people off of the platform I'm using, that's vibrant, active, and starting to really show off what it can do, and into another that has no real future for the current hardware. For what?

Especially given that it's not even guaranteed at this point that anyone is going to make a MeeGo-based device. There's been lots of talk, tons of announcements, but we're 6 months into 2011, and even Nokia looks like they may be back-tracking now. Not to mention a complete lack of any vendor talking about doing phone support, outside of maybe LG on one device. Nokia has been quite mum on weather it's only announced MeeGo offering will have any GSM capabilities.



I don't think I could get most people here to agree on what the color "blue" is, yet alone what the goals here have been over the past 5 years. To say they've "always been clear" is farcical. More so seeing as a good number on the forum are here because of the N900, which was less tablet and more of a cross-over device.

Yes, creating an open tablet platform has been a key part of this forum. I can see how MeeGo is a natural continuation of that in the minds of some people, especially the N700/800 crowd. I can even see the desire to get people excited about it and get them to jump the shark and start working on the next big thing. But you shouldn't do so using false pretenses, which is exactly what you're doing when touting MeeGo on N900, while saying you never intend to see it for casual users.

If the N900 is never going to run on MeeGo as primary OS, via a simple update/reflash procedure for common people, then it's wasted effort. Better to put the time and energy into something useful, like getting the Calendar to sync with on-line services, or Contacts to not crash the device randomly. (Those are active bugs too, but I'm too lazy to link them right now.) Pouring time and energy into a single device that's never going to be run by more than a handful of developers, used to make apps for... who again? Who's going to use the things they make? Not N900 owners, if the target is only getting developers on to it.



To the contrary, it has been said and proven to some degree. It is open in that as a developer you can take the core, add the bits and bobbles for your hardware, and toss it on just about anything. As long as you don't care about continued development, or have a few people to manage upstream code merges on occasion, it's just as open as MeeGo. How many device manufacturers have picked up Android? How many have picked up Maemo? Which is more open? Again, it's all mixed... none of it is totally open, and claims of one being "more open" than the other often are blurred by the perspective of the person making that judgment.

<SNARK>
Besides, ask any Android user and they'll tell you, it's all open-source! They can do whatever you want on their Android phone, no really. :p Until you ask them to plug in a USB stick, and serve data from it to a laptop, while acting as both a web server and an AP hotspot... Because no phone can do that... Until yours can. But then you're just "showing off" with your "geeky phone". Not that I've ever done that... :rolleyes:
You deserve a medal for this post woody !.

You even quoted some of my words ;).

javispedro 2011-08-20 14:17
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1040369)
Who's competing for that? You maybe, but I've NEVER said Maemo is "more open" than MeeGo, ever. In fact I said many times that it's pointless to argue about which is "more open", since either way you still have binary blobs that will probably not transition from one version to the next. That's been my main point in several posts in this thread!
Sorry, but that's plain stupid.

It is one thing to have bme, the GL driver and some pulseaudio GSM components closed (a rather interested hacker could probably get #1 and #3 reimplemented in a week, and NOONE is getting #2 opened in the near future).

It is an entire different thing to have 40% of the system closed.

If you really believe this important difference in openness level is moot then I'm sorry but I think you'll have a hard time forward porting _anything_, because it clearly shows your lack of experience.

javispedro 2011-08-20 14:18
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lma (Post 1040388)
But! - it's actively hostile to GPLv3 and friends, to the point of forking old obsolete versions of several components, contradicting both its own compliance spec and "upstream first" policy in the process.
That's a much more interesting point about Meego's openness that anything else made on this thread.

woody14619 2011-08-30 18:06
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by javispedro (Post 1073575)
Sorry, but that's plain stupid.
The feeling is mutual... Especially when one comes late to the topic (replying months after the discussion is over), and clearly hasn't read the abundance of examples given.

Quote:
Originally Posted by javispedro (Post 1073575)
NOONE is getting #2 opened in the near future).
So tell me... If say, 5% of MeeGo is closed, and "40%" of Maemo is closed... If just one thing in that blob for MeeGo sees a major update in Meego 2.0, but a new blob isn't released for N900 CE, doesn't that mean you can't update? At the very least it means you'd have to backport the old interface into the new system, which even if you could, would break lots of things and probably make that port/platform an outcast. How is that "so much better"? Claiming one thing is vastly "better" because it's "more open" is a farce.

If you're comparing something 5% open vs something 5% closed, there may be a tangible difference. But MeeGo, for all it's community governance (see how long that lasted?) is still quite closed, in almost identical ways to Maemo. I'd wager if you tally the numbers, the difference between the two is under 10% when it comes to how much is closed, which makes arguing that point effectively moot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by javispedro (Post 1073575)
If you really believe this important difference in openness level is moot then I'm sorry but I think you'll have a hard time forward porting _anything_, because it clearly shows your lack of experience.
I have a solid resume in micro systems design, close to 20 years of experience in the field, and am first signer on several patents through Xerox. I've worked in open and closed source systems in the past, and have extensive reverse engineering skills. So yeah, I totally lack experience. And I've clearly never ported anything.

But hey, think what you want to. If it helps you sleep better at night to have that "extra 5% openness" in MeeGo, you go for it. To me, the point is moot. Just as moot as caring about your thoughts about me, or your baseless aspersions to my character and credentials. :rolleyes:

freemangordon 2011-08-30 18:33
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
[offtopic]
@woody14619 - I think you and estel are a must for the next council. Pure engineering, like it.
[/offtopic]

erendorn 2011-08-30 18:40
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1040369)
And what exactly is it that you have in MeeGo N900 CE that we don't have in Maemo?
Supported development.


It is obvious that Maemo is today in a better shape than MeegoCE.
It at least seems obvious to me that development on the Meego platform is more active than on the Maemo one.
If I understood you correctly, you assume that Meego shouldn't be considered because "it is right now less functional than Maemo" or at least because "Nokia will stop support, or community support will be blocked due to closed bits, before MeegoCE reaches / brings a viable alternative to Maemo functionality"

This last one is definitely possible, but far from certain, which make the position "I would still like to see, just in case" highly defendable (yet not absolute).

As for the closed source bits, isn't there a strict inclusion of what is closed in MeegoCE in what is closed in Maemo?

woody14619 2011-08-30 18:40
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemangordon (Post 1079127)
[offtopic]
@woody14619 - I think you and estel are a must for the next council. Pure engineering, like it.
[/offtopic]
While I'd love to... I really lack the time for it right now. I'd have to drop at least two other projects, one of which is a local non-profit that I really care about and want to see stay afloat. Until that's stable enough to not wobble every time I take a vacation, that's taking priority. I love having my gadget, but in the measure of things, it's not as important as a service that makes life changes for dozens of kids a year.

javispedro 2011-08-30 18:41
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1079115)
So tell me... If say, 5% of MeeGo is closed, and "40%" of Maemo is closed... If just one thing in that blob for MeeGo sees a major update in Meego 2.0, but a new blob isn't released for N900 CE, doesn't that mean you can't update? At the very least it means you'd have to backport the old interface into the new system, which even if you could, would break lots of things and probably make that port/platform an outcast. How is that "so much better"? Claiming one thing is vastly "better" because it's "more open" is a farce.
So, if you're going to do the backporting thing, don't you think it's more easy if it's 5% closed than 40%? Don't? Seriously? Seriously?

Look. I've run WebOS on the N900. A operating system that is more closed than Maemo. I studied the components that were open to understand what those that were closed did. And I've thanked god for every single component where they decided to reuse existing opensource code instead of reinventing the wheel.

You saying that "the more open components the better" isn't true as long as there's one single component that is closed just feels plain insulting to me. And probably insulting to all the people that have fight harder than you have for what has been opened. Or those who have reimplemented the parts that itched them most.

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1079115)
If you're comparing something 5% open vs something 5% closed, there may be a tangible difference. But MeeGo, for all it's community governance (see how long that lasted?) is still quite closed, in almost identical ways to Maemo.
You mean Meego on the N900 I guess. Last time I saw Meego was still 100% open (and Intel even gets to release somewhat working graphics driver for free, something we have not yet seen from Nokia).

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1079115)
I'd wager if you tally the numbers, the difference between the two is under 10% when it comes to how much is closed, which makes arguing that point effectively moot.
No, sorry. I can at least boot Meego on the N900 with only open components. I cannot do that with Maemo. I can probably consider replacing all what is closed in Meego within a lifetime. I cannot do that with Maemo.
Both are in a different league. You are calling the point moot way too early.

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1079115)
I have a solid resume in micro systems design, close to 20 years of experience in the field, and am first signer on several patents through Xerox. I've worked in open and closed source systems in the past, and have extensive reverse engineering skills. So yeah, I totally lack experience. And I've clearly never ported anything.
Sorry, but I keep my "baseless" accusation even more after reading your last post. You don't even know what the closed components in Meego for the N900 are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody14619 (Post 1079115)
But hey, think what you want to. If it helps you sleep better at night to have that "extra 5% openness" in MeeGo, you go for it. To me, the point is moot. Just as moot as caring about your thoughts about me, or your baseless aspersions to my character and credentials. :rolleyes:
*Sigh*. Well, go on with your opinion then. I do not want you to change it. I just want to avoid people quoting your post like it was the last truth ever spoken.

And please note that yes, an extra 5% of openess makes me and a lot of people sleep better. Means shorter night hacking sessions, thus longer sleep times. So you are right in this regard.

woody14619 2011-08-30 18:49
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by erendorn (Post 1079131)
Supported development.
Yes and no. Activity on both is about the same last I looked. But then we've had a few major losses lately due to totally unrelated things. (Like university starting up again, and a couple of key players being students and/or teachers.) Lots of projects see summer activity, in part because folks in education, on either side of the desk, have summers off. :p

Quote:
Originally Posted by erendorn (Post 1079131)
This last one is definitely possible, but far from certain, which make the position "I would still like to see, just in case" highly defendable (yet not absolute).
Which is really the position I took through most of this. I wish the project well. I just would hope that it's survival doesn't mandate Maemo going away (which some would seem to be advocating for).

Quote:
Originally Posted by erendorn (Post 1079131)
As for the closed source bits, isn't there a strict inclusion of what is closed in MeegoCE in what is closed in Maemo?
Not entirely, but there's a very high correlation, yes.

javispedro 2011-08-30 19:10
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by erendorn (Post 1079131)
As for the closed source bits, isn't there a strict inclusion of what is closed in MeegoCE in what is closed in Maemo?
Yes.

However, Meego is using more recent versions of the binary blobs. Therefore it is not a a literal "strict inclusion"; you cannot get the ones from Maemo. But they're just new versions of those you can get from Maemo.

gerbick 2011-08-30 19:23
Re: Should MeeGo developers continue to publish info on this forum for maemo users (wrt Nokia device support)?
 
I voted "No".


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:46.
Page 4 of 9 « First 23 4 56 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

vBulletin® Version 3.8.8