On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Polyvertex <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:polyvertex@gmail.com">polyvertex@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
If I am a lambda user, I just want to get applications on my phone and<br>
don't want to spent time for downloading an another application B to<br>
note or vote for application A.<br></blockquote><div><br>I personally have no problem with that. I actually even support that - you don't want to test, you don't want to get karma, just plain Apps - cool ! That's still better than mobbing people into voting for apps.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
If I feel unhappy with the latest application I've downloaded, I just<br>
want a simple/unique place to say it to the maintainers and eventually<br>
have a voting system to vote for/against a (group of) developer(s)<br>
according to the quality of its/their releases, that would make sense<br>
here.<br></blockquote><div><br>You have that, but given the way HAM works, lambda users will have difficulties finding it and what you get is a talk thread with a 'Maemo sucks' title.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
So why such care for 'protecting' the users with an over-powered<br>
promoting system which could be naturally regulated by the community<br>
itself through a simple voting/Karma system ? Why ? Here is the<br></blockquote><div> </div>...<br><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
If you want such a perfect QA process, why not building a big<br>
Ovi/AppStore, hire some testers and application approval team, and<br>
stop saying Maemo.org is an open community ?<br></blockquote><div><br>Hey. That *is* a bit harsh. Ideas are of course always welcome. But just as I feel we don't have the right to do the above, I also feel we don't have the right to shove down updates/apps down the throats of unsuspecting users who are not interested in half-baked software. I mean, Extras-devel IS public and advertised - anybody interested in bleeding edge software can get it there, and that's OK. OTOH There ARE N900 owners who really don't want to reflash every other week and
think hunting down processes and broken/oversized packages is not fun - and that's who Extras is for. So there, to each to his own.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
I would prefer the Maemo.org community to act like a regular open<br>
community and let people vote for/against an application *after* it<br>
has been released. Thus, only 2 repositories should be enough :<br>
'extras' and 'extras-beta'.<br></blockquote><div><br>I must be missing something - that has nothing to do with community openness, and in fact I'm inclined to say there isn't a single distro that works that way. Imagine Debian said 'ok, everything the devs want to promote gets promoted to stable, and if there are complaints, we'll remove it from the repo'. We kind of had that with Chinook/Diablo. It didn't work, really. We had a lot (LOT) more complaints about borked installs. <br>
<br>Best regards,<br>Attila<br></div></div>