|
Re: Announcing the Internet Tablet Talk Software Section
Quote:
|
Re: Announcing the Internet Tablet Talk Software Section
I understand what you are saying. I just don't think it will make that big of a difference people are used to having to get software from more then one site. So I don't see why it matters.
Just because I don't agree with what your saying doesn't mean I don't understand it |
Re: Announcing the Internet Tablet Talk Software Section
Quote:
|
Re: Announcing the Internet Tablet Talk Software Section
What part of why I"m saying indicates I don't know what I'm talking about
|
Re: Announcing the Internet Tablet Talk Software Section
Quote:
The question is: why not? Before anyone jumps to a response, I'm going to be a really hard sell on any rationalization against using maemo as designed. To be quite blunt, if someone resists using the proper resources that stubbornly, do I want to use their software? I realize that's very broad and there are likely good apps that aren't managed using maemo, but I'm not using them-- nor, likely, will I. So again, the challenge is out there: why NOT use maemo? And I personally can't accept excuses like "I'm too lazy". In my opinion the only valid reasons against it would have to revolve around usability and technical issues. |
Re: Announcing the Internet Tablet Talk Software Section
THe point should be some of the downloads already have 100+ download and some of this software was on maemo.org or atleast posted about on these forums. So the download section is helping Night
|
Re: Announcing the Internet Tablet Talk Software Section
Even if that were true, andrew, and people were only,downloading them because they are listed in ITTSS, syndication would have achieved the same end, and with no intervention on the developer's part. Advertisement is not a bad idea - fragmentation is.
|
Re: Announcing the Internet Tablet Talk Software Section
My take on this (obviously not the consensus) is that the maemo os development community is too transient to force into a traditional debian/ubuntu maintainer structure.
A large portion of Maemo software is pretty much homebrew and ports. Forcing Maemo.org actually damages the homebrew aspect of it... mostly since its a broken website (akamai + midguard cms apparently do not mix). Perhaps ITT software could better enable this homebrew aspect. Additionally (and probably unpopularly) i think relying -solely- on repos hurts tablets. I think whenever possible, tablet developers should make some attempt to release a version which statically links any necessary libraries so that there is no dependency hell. This is done for desktop users with thumbdrives such as those here http://portableapps.com/ I vote that Reggie starts up his own repo, and provide a simple and logical means to publish to it, instead of the beaurocracy that is submitting to maemo extras. (Honestly do we really need a sign our packages for a tablet which ships with 256meg filesystem?) One reggie repo would be better than 10 or so independent repos, would it not? Of course that implies alot of potential bandwidth which may not be wanted. |
Re: Announcing the Internet Tablet Talk Software Section
Great point pipeline. Other examples are KDE, Debian, etc. that I guess will not make it to Maemo.org.
|
Re: Announcing the Internet Tablet Talk Software Section
I would just like to see how this works out. Why don't we just give it a little time? Maybe the web devs at maemo will learn something from it. Either through itT's upcoming success or failure with software management.
Maybe it'll just be motivation to make everything more efficient and friendly at the real site for maemo. Thereby avoiding fragmentation. (Ok, kinda grasping at straws). Because, to tell the truth, the developer side is fine at maemo.org (my opinion). But, the end-user side kinda sucks (my opinion). Ergo, we learn from this. I think we should at least give it some time. Thanks a lot, Reggie. This could pretty awesome :D |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:55. |
vBulletin® Version 3.8.8