It's not a productive discussion. They are not going to put the capability back into the Application Manager, no matter what we say. So there is no chance of things changing. This is just a *****ing thread. Some people ***** that they want to install easily from .deb files, other people ***** that they are just "protecting you from yourself". The world remains physically unchanged.

HAHAHA! I must have missed this one, but its soooo true!!! i <3 xkcd!

While I know that if this had been taken away from my N810 that I'd show up with at least a torch and angry mob type signs - like "Boo!" and "Heck No, *deb install must not go!" - I can actually sorta see why this was taken away from a mainstream-ish phone.

Either you can get it from the OVI store... or you can dpkg install it via commandline. Both camps are covered, it was the more convenient - and more easily screwed up - middle ground that got lost in this.

The geek in me like they didn't block dpkg - if they did, THEN I'd be truly up in arms if I owned a N900.

And since Maemo 4.1 is ignored, I don't worry about ever losing that functionality on my N810.

Seems to me like there's a demand for an app that takes a .deb, creates a "mini repository" on the N900 itself, and then tries to apt-get install it. It still has the click-itis vulnerability, but atleast it would provide some protection against breaking dependencies and OTA updates.

Another thing that makes me nervous about this is the continuing insistence on roping in developers and making them follow the True Path. I have always like rogue developers. I can see that there are great things about enforcing conformity and uniformity, but it still bothers me.

That statement makes no sense to me. Who's enforcing what???

I'm not quite I completely follow this logic.

For nearly any feature, you can always find a percentage of users that will say "well why not". "What's the harm?" "I might use this feature one day."

Then basically all polls are either meaningless, or then the result of all polls would always be that a feature is good to have.

Features are not free. Each and every feature is costly to develop and maintain, each and every feature makes it harder and slower to make changes in the future.

I think GA had a really good reply on this particular topic.

It doesn't remove the feature from those users that really need it, but it somewhat hides a command which easily allows you to break your device, i.e. from "the normal users".

the reason for removing the feature, as I see it , is that when people installed random stuff that exploded their 770, there were people on itt to help those few. However the N900 have a much wider user scope, hence the problems is much greater. Removing this feature actually discourages people to install applications from dubious sources, but does not prevent it.

A nice shellscript and browser add-on to run it, would make a click-to-install debs straight off the interwebs feature available.

@geneven/OP

I believe that in this case your analogy is false. This isn't about including a feature that 20% want, this is about removing a feature (for one) and about some people being for it and the rest not really caring, save for admins/developers.

Frankly, save for a few people, nobody really cares if some random guy fried his N900 by installing -well frankly- shift. I don't. I help if I can, but I don't feel sorry for people who delete files with no backup.

I don't believe in having features removed for safety. It's a complicated discussion because one can still do it via CLI, and one assumes that if you know what to install then one would know how to use the terminal.

Still, it's a removal and *I* disagree with it. It was hidden anyway. Add a hefty red warning that dings, if you want. But why go back?

Besides, it's a hindrance to natural selection. What better lesson against installing non-approved than a semi-brick?

Yes, I kid.

Ndi:

As the Taxi Driver would say, "you talking to me?"

I agree with you, I think. You seem to think I disagree with you.

Ragnar: You say that "features are not free." That is true with one exception. Features that have already been created are free thenceforth. Removing a feature that already exists is not free.

My point with regard to percentages is this: Say a minority of people use a word processor for creating mailing labels. One could do a poll that says, "how many of you use this word processor for mailing labels" and get only 20% who use them. But that is not an argument for removing the mailing label feature from the word processor.

The argument was stated that the decision was made because users voted against the feature. The majority has spoken, was the basic claim.

But what the majority thinks is not relevant.

GA's argument was indeed decent, and I thanked him for stating it. You might have noticed that in the thread.

But that does not make the argument that the majority has spoken a good argument. That makes GA's argument a good argument.

GA seems to me to have a lot of power, and I don't. I have stated a lot of opinions that are not accepted. I stopped arguing. That doesn't mean that I agree. It means that I see who has the power and who doesn't. It is not a matter of voting.