Hello,

For the Multi Platform Award I see some other problems (maybe it's just me).
Since I don't have different devices from maemo/meego it would be difficult to me to test and vote for the multi-platform award, so my vote (and I think maybe others) will go to the one who says that his app run on many different devices, so basically you have only to trust the developer.

There will be no voting for that award like stated. Though the iFart concern seems reasonable.

Thanks, I haven't thought about the iFart problem...
Trying to find a solution this evening.

But do you agree with me, that it is a very important award, which shouldn't be missing from the competition?

Maybe we should do it as award for *new* multiplatform program?

/Estel

My concern about the multiple platform award is slightly different. If we consider our main focus as Maemo/Harmattan, then we have the N900 and N9(50) plus possibly the older legacy Maemo devices (N810/800/770). In my opinion the competition should be focusing on generating development for the two 'main' platforms N900 and N9(50) but it's great if they work with the legacy devices too.

Here's my concern. If you offer a prize for the application on the most platforms, aren't you really diverting the developers attention and time away from developing for the core devices that our members here at maemo.org use? It's cool that someone's Qt application can also run on Symbian, Android, BlackBerry, Raspberry Pi, Panda board - amazing! But is that time and effort for converting to the other platforms going to mean the finished application for our Maemo/Harmattan devices will have less features and will be less polished?

In my head I'm thinking that the competition runs for a finite time, and in that time the developer has to do everything. If it takes X days/weeks to port and test on his Android smartphone, then it's X days/weeks less that could have been spent giving us a better Maemo/Harmattan application. Maybe I'm being greedy and selfish, but I'm only concerned about what we can use here

It's a perfect category for a Qt coding competition, but I'm not sure how much it benefits maemo.org. For me, I would think twice about making it a category in the maemo.org coding competition.

On the other hand, it's only one category out of lots so I'm not overly worried about it

Now I got that off my chest, back to the things that do worry me.. like do I have enough ink in my printer to print a few of these out before tonight's Eurovision competition



If you'd like some voting practise before the competition starts, might I suggest you practise by voting for Engelbert in tonight's competition

/shameless

PS: Sweden or Spain should win imo

Why so? If people are willing to vote for Fremantle programs - and, apparently, they are - it shouldn't be "cut down" by construction of categories.

BTW, IMO, main point of interest for multiplatform are Fremantle, Harmattan, and Mer. After all, common COBS is going to happen for those 3 distributions, not symbian, blackberry, or whatever.

Of course, it's only my point of view - still, when I proposed it, long time ago, I had those 3 "main pillars" in mind. It's promoting good practices, that should benefit after start of COBS.

/Estel

I think what Im getting at is that the boundaries for the multiple platforms should be specified better so that the development will benefit the users here at maemo.org. I had seen this category described as a prize for the application on most platforms. That's very vague. It would be better described, imo, as a prize for the application on most platforms that benefits the users of our community - and I include all the offshoot projects in that ofcourse. You might need to specify which platforms in the rules, or the decision could be open to challenge.

To use a silly example, if we have two equally good applications entered - one that runs on Fremantle, Harmattan, and Mer and one that runs on Fremantle, an Android fridge freezer, and a BlackBerry tennis racquet - then they would have the same number of platforms but the first would be more valuable to the community. The rule for the category should make it clear that the winner(s) will be chosen on the platforms that benefit us most.

I think you're reading that as common sense. All I'm saying is that the common sense needs spelled out

Who defines "main"? Newsflash: the N900 has also been a legacy device for a while now.

If this is supposed to be a Qt coding competition then call it that, otherwise don't exclude valid (Maemo) targets please.

Thanks for the newsflash Ima, but I dont see how you're reading that I'm suggesting we exclude any valid Maemo targets. In fact, I'm suggesting the opposite. I'm saying that we should be focusing the platforms to valid maemo.org community targets. The whole point of the competition imo is to generate development for all maemo.org targets, and not to all platforms that Qt can potentially reach. I don't know if it's the way I've written it or the way you've read it, but It's like you're arguing with me with essentially the same view point

The use of 'main' to describe the N900 and N9(50) platforms is my own opinion only, and I use it in the context of where I see most development happening. I see them as being the 'main' bulk of entries for the competition, and the 'main' bulk of target devices that will be owned by the testers/voters in this competition. All imo, your mileage may vary I don't mean to use the word 'main' to belittle to exclude any other valid projects.

Apologies if I misread you, I just don't want to see this restricted to N9* only.