[maemo-developers] [maemo-developers] Maemo alarms ==> retutime

From: Jason Mills jmills at vmware.com
Date: Mon Aug 7 12:22:20 EEST 2006

Rather than getting hot under the collar, perhaps your energy could be better
spent in steering the grassroots efforts you suggest may be brewing in a
diretion which would be the most friendly to the next generation of
time/alarm/notification frameworks which Nokia is already in the midst of
designing/implementing. I've been chasing the tail of the '770 alarms
question since December 2005. The hardware limitations make things even more
complex, but so be it.

Something which would be time better spent could also be:
* Working with the various players (ARM, TI.OMAP, Nokia, Maemo) to get
details on things like ARM9-core Java acceleration, hw SHA1/RNG, USB-OTG,
etc... documented in a concise and non blame-assigning manner.

* Investigate why .deb dependency failure checks show packages one would not
expect to be missing but are.


-----Original Message-----
From: maemo-developers-bounces at maemo.org on behalf of Koen Kooi
Sent: Mon 07-Aug-06 00:45
To: maemo-developers at maemo.org
Subject: Re: [maemo-developers] Maemo alarms  ==> retutime
Hash: SHA1

Weinehall David (Nokia-M/Tampere) schreef:
> On mån, 2006-07-31 at 14:17 +0200, ext Nils Faerber wrote:


>>  - Second put that "internal" implementation somewhere so that it can be
>> enhanced and productised by the community, like e.g. Garage.
>> If you do not do so I see the danger that the community might not be
>> willing to wait for a next IT2007 edition which might eventually have
>> the framework in place (or may not). But instead we might end up with
>> double effort, i.e. the community develops such a framework, uses it
>> until you/Nokia release your version and the community version will
>> become obsolete - very annoying.
> Well, it all boils down to manpower.  It might seem that it's an easy
> enough thing to just release things into the public and let the
> community to the rest, but everything has to go through the Nokia legal
> machinery before this can happen, thus the work needed is pretty
> significant.  At the moment we prefer using our time to make the new
> alarm framework as good as possible (which will be properly documented).

This is worrying me a lot. You're effectively saying "We don't want the
community to be involved". I'm pretty close to exchanging 'maemo' with
'qtopia' (and vice versa) in this mail:
http://lists.trolltech.com/qtopia-interest/2006-06/msg00000.html and
repost it to this list.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers at maemo.org

More information about the maemo-developers mailing list