[maemo-developers] Public maemo distro
From: Marius Vollmer marius.vollmer at nokia.comDate: Mon Jul 23 14:23:31 EEST 2007
- Previous message: Public maemo distro
- Next message: Public maemo repository
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> Alright, so you want me to play evil's advocate role. Heh, don't put yourself on the evil side, that's my spot! :-) > > Change means work and there needs to be a reason for it. What > > I find to be usually missing is however a good justification > > of the status quo. > > The status quo works. The current process accomplishes its basic > mission. That's the _minimum_ requirement for something to be acceptable as the status quo, of course. I hope that is not the best justification we can find. > There are things to be improved but a public maemo distro is not the > only or automatic answer. There are always things to improve and there is always more than one way to do it, thus this line of argument hasn't much weight either. One nice alternative to getting serious about the maemo distribution ourselves is to let people do it that know more about it, such as Ubuntu. If you have other alternatives in mind, please share! :) > > I would like to see the crystal clear reasons why Nokia decided to > > [derive from Debian sources, including the packaging, but chose to > > build something out of it that is very much unlike Debian.] > > Who is in a better position to know than you? Ohh, many. :) Here is the history of my small corner: I joined Nokia shortly before the 770 launch and inherited the anemic "Application Installer" control panel applet that some might remember from the IT OS 2005 days. It ran dpkg as the "install" user chrooted to /var/lib/install. Packages made for this installer could not declare dependencies on the packages that made up the OS. Apt was not part of IT OS 2005. I guess this was the first WTF moment for people who had heard that the new Nokia Internet Tablet is "based on Debian". Thus, the original design of the IT OS was far away from a typical GNU/Linux distribution. We have come a long way since then, a bit because I assumed that the original limitations of IT OS 2005 were born out of conservatism (with respect to the approaches of Symbian and Windows), carefulness and time limitations. So we went ahead and 'fixed' the Application Manager for the next release to use apt and put 3rd party packages on equal footing with operating system packages. No crystal clear, tenable reasons in favor of the crippled Application Installer approach surfaced during this redesign process. > > This work is mainly caused by missing the boat in the first place > > If the boat was the 770 launch deadline, the boat wasn't missed. That's another boat. :) The missed boat that I am talking about is that we should have put out the open parts of the IT OS 2006 release (the one with the 'fixed' Application Manager) in a repository, provide a matching "extras" component, and declared the two to be the maemo distribution. I say this with hindsight, of course, and I don't try to point fingers at anybody. I was there and I missed the boat more than most. We did something that was quite close, tho: the maemo 2.x SDK repositories nearly contained the open packages of IT OS 2006. However, some packages were modified for the benefit of the SDK and this made them break on the device. This was considered unfortunate but OK since the repository was only for the SDK. I guess this was a second, smaller, WTF moment for some people. > > a distribution is a good tool to reduce gratuitous work. > > Yes, sure. I see you are concentrating in the code management, > perhaps overlooking the energy that takes to satisfy in a *public* > distro human expectations, communication, contributions. Well, I see getting serious about the maemo distribution as one ingredient in _addressing_ ours and others needs, expectations, etc. I don't think new expectations will arise, but old ones might be voiced more clearly and the community might grow larger since 'Nokia starts to get it', thus bringing more voices to the choir. > It is not difficult to have a public distro with users and > contributors unhappy because the human side is not working. Again, the unhappyness is not caused by having the distribution, the unhappyness exists and is addressed by improving the distribution. > In fact just a few distros (from many) succeed in their mission. But they didn't fail because they are a distribution and they would not have succeeded if they would have been something else than a distribution. > Failure factors are based more on human factors and context rather > than efficiency of the code alone. Just make memory and look around. Now we are talking about maemo as a whole. Will maemo succeed? What is the mission? What are the competitors? The scope of that discussion is indeed much bigger than what I try to talk about here.
- Previous message: Public maemo distro
- Next message: Public maemo repository
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]