Active Topics
-
The N900 is now 15 years old! (8)
to Nokia N900 by whayong - 9 hrs, 17 mins ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 5 days, 5 hrs ago - more...
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Bratag For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-02-18
, 15:29
|
|
Posts: 316 |
Thanked: 150 times |
Joined on May 2006
|
#142
|
Originally Posted by Bratag
What do you think the result would have been if he had circumvented Nokia's system security to insert his product into the Ovi store, bypassing whatever QA/contractual processes exist?
And the vetting process for the OVI store is completely relevant because it ties back to the fact that if the app had shown up there people would have happily installed it without question. The software would still have been made by the same guy that you are all vilifying now, it would still have been the same software and no one would have cared.
| The Following User Says Thank You to jaark For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-02-18
, 15:30
|
|
Posts: 2,829 |
Thanked: 1,459 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Finland
|
#143
|
Bratag,
Only thing i´m pissed is his behaviour in voting and his lightness on this matter.
You see this as you see and I see it as I see. I respect your point of view and I really trying to understand how you are seeing this as so lightly. Or at least I have that expression.
And still Nokia's store has nothing to do with this matter. Their system and policies are COMPLETELY different from this place. Are you trying to play mind games and propose other scenarios how this could have gone? Still nothing to do with this matter.
.edit
I really hope that we can learn something from this and fix this whole mess. I really want game developers for this platform and that's why I paid for his software and gave feedback.
Last edited by slender; 2010-02-18 at 15:35.
Only thing i´m pissed is his behaviour in voting and his lightness on this matter.
You see this as you see and I see it as I see. I respect your point of view and I really trying to understand how you are seeing this as so lightly. Or at least I have that expression.
And still Nokia's store has nothing to do with this matter. Their system and policies are COMPLETELY different from this place. Are you trying to play mind games and propose other scenarios how this could have gone? Still nothing to do with this matter.
.edit
I really hope that we can learn something from this and fix this whole mess. I really want game developers for this platform and that's why I paid for his software and gave feedback.
Last edited by slender; 2010-02-18 at 15:35.
 |
|
2010-02-18
, 15:33
|
|
Posts: 445 |
Thanked: 572 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Oxford
|
#144
|
Originally Posted by Bratag
That's simply not true. I always tend to treat proprietary packages from non community sources with a greater degree of suspicion than ones from properly maintained open repositories because they're frequently much lower quality. That's true on full-size linux systems, and I expect it to be the case once Ovi gets up and running too.
And the vetting process for the OVI store is completely relevant because it ties back to the fact that if the app had shown up there people would have happily installed it without question. The software would still have been made by the same guy that you are all vilifying now, it would still have been the same software and no one would have cared.
A package's presence in the maemo-extras repo is something of a stamp of approval, and one that Ovi apps simply won't have. It's up to each end-user to decide whether they trust Ovi, and indeed whether they trust maemo.org. However, someone that's decided to trust maemo.org on the basis of it's published QA policies should not be tricked into installing something that hasn't legitimately passed through those processes.
It's completely unfair to assume that everyone would trust a package equally regardless of where it comes from, because they just don't.
| The Following User Says Thank You to ewan For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-02-18
, 15:37
|
|
Posts: 1,097 |
Thanked: 650 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
|
#145
|
I see a lot of people here taking the high-ground - wont touch your apps with a barge-pole, breaking trst is unforgivable and all that.
I admire the moral rightiousness of members and it is an essential part of a good human being - but having a moral compass is even more essential - where and how much to exercise your moral rightiousness is an important part of the moral fibre.
In this case one lone developer making commercial apps is all eager to publish his apps to make some money of his hard work - and lacking any other avenue chooses to break some rules (which were not enforced) to publish his apps SOONER than would have been the case.
Its not like he published apps which were never to be published (like porn maybe). He just skipped the QA process.
And then being a human (as we all are), when you are pushed to the wall with you back against it (as some strong language in these thread suggest), he partly tried blaming the system for the errors and partly took the blame himself and apologised for himself in between the blaming part. Ok, he didn't grovel and lay his head down to the floor and apologise profusely. That just seems pretty human when you are against the wall - you do get a bit defensive too.
Lets all be groun-ups and realize that and give a little face cover to him. He did realize what he did was wrong after all. Now lets not ask him to beg for mercy.
Be professional - tell gim he will have to go back with his apps thru the QA process and as normal it will get publsied after the bugs are sorted out. End of story.
And admins - do thank him at least for showing what a poor work was done on the system to implement a gated system of QA process. Now put up the security process and lets move on.
Everytime there is an error on someone part - I see a few members ready to put them to the fire - be it Nokia as a corporation when it fails to release enough info, or fails to deliver the goods or individual members when they fail in a human way. What's up with that ?
As for me - SIO2 - you are welcome to keep developing apps - just please for the sake of good apps - get it QA'd and listen to the feedback.
We will all forget what happened ina few days - till the next issue comes up to rile up the threads.
I admire the moral rightiousness of members and it is an essential part of a good human being - but having a moral compass is even more essential - where and how much to exercise your moral rightiousness is an important part of the moral fibre.
In this case one lone developer making commercial apps is all eager to publish his apps to make some money of his hard work - and lacking any other avenue chooses to break some rules (which were not enforced) to publish his apps SOONER than would have been the case.
Its not like he published apps which were never to be published (like porn maybe). He just skipped the QA process.
And then being a human (as we all are), when you are pushed to the wall with you back against it (as some strong language in these thread suggest), he partly tried blaming the system for the errors and partly took the blame himself and apologised for himself in between the blaming part. Ok, he didn't grovel and lay his head down to the floor and apologise profusely. That just seems pretty human when you are against the wall - you do get a bit defensive too.
Lets all be groun-ups and realize that and give a little face cover to him. He did realize what he did was wrong after all. Now lets not ask him to beg for mercy.
Be professional - tell gim he will have to go back with his apps thru the QA process and as normal it will get publsied after the bugs are sorted out. End of story.
And admins - do thank him at least for showing what a poor work was done on the system to implement a gated system of QA process. Now put up the security process and lets move on.
Everytime there is an error on someone part - I see a few members ready to put them to the fire - be it Nokia as a corporation when it fails to release enough info, or fails to deliver the goods or individual members when they fail in a human way. What's up with that ?
As for me - SIO2 - you are welcome to keep developing apps - just please for the sake of good apps - get it QA'd and listen to the feedback.
We will all forget what happened ina few days - till the next issue comes up to rile up the threads.
|
|
2010-02-18
, 15:38
|
|
Posts: 2,014 |
Thanked: 1,581 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#146
|
Originally Posted by ewan
Then you are making a mistake treating the packages in the extras repo that way. There is nothing that says the votes for packages there have come from people who conduct proper testing. I could quite easily vote for something that I have never even installed.
That's simply not true. I always tend to treat proprietary packages from non community sources with a greater degree of suspicion than ones from properly maintained open repositories because they're frequently much lower quality. That's true on full-size linux systems, and I expect it to be the case once Ovi gets up and running too.
A package's presence in the maemo-extras repo is something of a stamp of approval, and one that Ovi apps simply won't have. It's up to each end-user to decide whether they trust Ovi, and indeed whether they trust maemo.org. However, someone that's decided to trust maemo.org on the basis of it's published QA policies should not be tricked into installing something that hasn't legitimately passed through those processes.
It's completely unfair to assume that everyone would trust a package equally regardless of where it comes from, because they just don't.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that you are all treating this as if he has violated some sort of sacrosanct process and I am trying to point out that it is in no way anything of the sort.
__________________
Class .. : Power Poster, Potential Coder
Humor .. : [*********] Alignment: Chaotic Evil
Patience : [***-------] Weapon(s): +2 Logic Mace
Agro ... : |*****-----] Relic(s) : G1, N900
Class .. : Power Poster, Potential Coder
Humor .. : [*********] Alignment: Chaotic Evil
Patience : [***-------] Weapon(s): +2 Logic Mace
Agro ... : |*****-----] Relic(s) : G1, N900
|
|
2010-02-18
, 15:51
|
|
Posts: 3,841 |
Thanked: 1,079 times |
Joined on Nov 2006
|
#147
|
Originally Posted by Bratag
Come on, I'm sure you know that there's no real way of blocking you. It's like WEP security, it only keeps away casual usage, not the abusers. Those online giveaways, and this site, can only work if there's a certain level of trust.
Really? Because I enter a lot of online give aways and they always seem to be pretty on the ball when it comes to stopping me entering from multiple emails. We could have at least TRIED.
So from your moral tone I take it you have never done anything remotely questionable to gain an advantage in any situation.
__________________
N800/OS2007|N900/Maemo5
-- Metalayer-crawler delenda est.
-- Current state: Fed up with everything MeeGo.
N800/OS2007|N900/Maemo5
-- Metalayer-crawler delenda est.
-- Current state: Fed up with everything MeeGo.
|
|
2010-02-18
, 15:55
|
|
Posts: 445 |
Thanked: 572 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Oxford
|
#148
|
Originally Posted by nilchak
The thing is, you don't know whether they'd have been published in this form or not, that's the entire point of having a testing repository. If the testing process had turned up bugs that needed to be fixed (as it appears there may have been) they would not have been pushed to -extras itself until they were fixed.
Its not like he published apps which were never to be published (like porn maybe). He just skipped the QA process.
Originally Posted by Bratag
You could, but that would be pretty poor behaviour in a community too, and as a general rule this sort of testing approach does actually work in community linux distributions. Things get tested, bugs get fixed, fixed versions get released.
Then you are making a mistake treating the packages in the extras repo that way. There is nothing that says the votes for packages there have come from people who conduct proper testing. I could quite easily vote for something that I have never even installed.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that you are all treating this as if he has violated some sort of sacrosanct process and I am trying to point out that it is in no way anything of the sort.
|
|
2010-02-18
, 15:59
|
|
Posts: 459 |
Thanked: 669 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ The DMV
|
#149
|
I tried the Hoops game, I liked it, and I bought it via PayPal. It works well for me. I personally think that commercial developers are good for the platform, and hope more are eventually encouraged to come on board.
With that being said, I am disappointed that the developer tried to circumvent the extras-testing system. I missed what was going on in the main SIO thread, but why couldn't he have just continued to host his own repository, like he was doing before? That would have saved a lot of drama, it seems to me...
Last edited by klinglerware; 2010-02-18 at 16:04.
With that being said, I am disappointed that the developer tried to circumvent the extras-testing system. I missed what was going on in the main SIO thread, but why couldn't he have just continued to host his own repository, like he was doing before? That would have saved a lot of drama, it seems to me...
Last edited by klinglerware; 2010-02-18 at 16:04.
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to klinglerware For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-02-18
, 16:00
|
|
Posts: 122 |
Thanked: 73 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
@ Turku, Finland
|
#150
|
I think we made him abondon us... Great... well, my opinion on this is that it is lesser great. This should really have been made more privately...
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to antoarts For This Useful Post: | ||
As far as what should be done about it. Remove the approval for the app, let him get 10 valid votes - move and and forget about it.
And the vetting process for the OVI store is completely relevant because it ties back to the fact that if the app had shown up there people would have happily installed it without question. The software would still have been made by the same guy that you are all vilifying now, it would still have been the same software and no one would have cared.
Class .. : Power Poster, Potential Coder
Humor .. : [*********] Alignment: Chaotic Evil
Patience : [***-------] Weapon(s): +2 Logic Mace
Agro ... : |*****-----] Relic(s) : G1, N900