Talk:Task:Open Source Proof Points - Revision history

imported_>sixwheeledbeast: Protected "Talk:Task:Open Source Proof Points": Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite))

2018-03-24T23:46:06Z

Protected "Talk:Task:Open Source Proof Points": Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite))

← Older revision	Revision as of 23:46, 24 March 2018
(No difference)

imported_>sixwheeledbeast: Reverted edits by 93.124.84.147 (Talk) to last revision by qole

2018-03-24T23:38:09Z

Reverted edits by 93.124.84.147 (Talk) to last revision by qole

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:38, 24 March 2018
Line 13:		Line 13:

	I tried to clean this section up, but there's so much wrong here that it might be better to remove it altogether. It's fine if there will be no decisions made using the info here, but I fear someone with little knowledge except this section might use it to make an important decision. That would be bad. --[[User:qole\|qole]] 05:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)		I tried to clean this section up, but there's so much wrong here that it might be better to remove it altogether. It's fine if there will be no decisions made using the info here, but I fear someone with little knowledge except this section might use it to make an important decision. That would be bad. --[[User:qole\|qole]] 05:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

	~~== commander cialis generique ==~~

	~~http://achat-cialis-generique.net/ cialis prix~~
	~~http://commandercialisgenerique.net/ cialis prix~~
	~~http://comprar-cialis-generico.net/ cialis venta~~
	~~http://acquistarecialisitalia.net/ comprare cialis online~~

	~~== commander cialis generique ==~~

	~~http://achat-cialis-generique.net/ cialis prix~~
	~~http://commandercialisgenerique.net/ cialis prix~~
	~~http://comprar-cialis-generico.net/ cialis venta~~
	~~http://acquistarecialisitalia.net/ comprare cialis online~~

	~~== commander cialis generique ==~~

	~~http://achat-cialis-generique.net/ cialis prix~~
	~~http://commandercialisgenerique.net/ cialis prix~~
	~~http://comprar-cialis-generico.net/ cialis venta~~
	~~http://acquistarecialisitalia.net/ comprare cialis online~~

93.124.84.147: /* commander cialis generique */ new section

2018-03-24T18:01:08Z

commander cialis generique: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:01, 24 March 2018
Line 13:		Line 13:

	I tried to clean this section up, but there's so much wrong here that it might be better to remove it altogether. It's fine if there will be no decisions made using the info here, but I fear someone with little knowledge except this section might use it to make an important decision. That would be bad. --[[User:qole\|qole]] 05:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)		I tried to clean this section up, but there's so much wrong here that it might be better to remove it altogether. It's fine if there will be no decisions made using the info here, but I fear someone with little knowledge except this section might use it to make an important decision. That would be bad. --[[User:qole\|qole]] 05:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

			== commander cialis generique ==

			http://achat-cialis-generique.net/ cialis prix
			http://commandercialisgenerique.net/ cialis prix
			http://comprar-cialis-generico.net/ cialis venta
			http://acquistarecialisitalia.net/ comprare cialis online

	== commander cialis generique ==		== commander cialis generique ==

93.124.84.147: /* commander cialis generique */ new section

2018-03-24T18:00:57Z

commander cialis generique: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:00, 24 March 2018
Line 13:		Line 13:

	I tried to clean this section up, but there's so much wrong here that it might be better to remove it altogether. It's fine if there will be no decisions made using the info here, but I fear someone with little knowledge except this section might use it to make an important decision. That would be bad. --[[User:qole\|qole]] 05:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)		I tried to clean this section up, but there's so much wrong here that it might be better to remove it altogether. It's fine if there will be no decisions made using the info here, but I fear someone with little knowledge except this section might use it to make an important decision. That would be bad. --[[User:qole\|qole]] 05:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

			== commander cialis generique ==

			http://achat-cialis-generique.net/ cialis prix
			http://commandercialisgenerique.net/ cialis prix
			http://comprar-cialis-generico.net/ cialis venta
			http://acquistarecialisitalia.net/ comprare cialis online

	== commander cialis generique ==		== commander cialis generique ==

93.124.84.147: /* commander cialis generique */ new section

2018-03-24T18:00:45Z

commander cialis generique: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:00, 24 March 2018
Line 13:		Line 13:

	I tried to clean this section up, but there's so much wrong here that it might be better to remove it altogether. It's fine if there will be no decisions made using the info here, but I fear someone with little knowledge except this section might use it to make an important decision. That would be bad. --[[User:qole\|qole]] 05:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)		I tried to clean this section up, but there's so much wrong here that it might be better to remove it altogether. It's fine if there will be no decisions made using the info here, but I fear someone with little knowledge except this section might use it to make an important decision. That would be bad. --[[User:qole\|qole]] 05:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

			== commander cialis generique ==

			http://achat-cialis-generique.net/ cialis prix
			http://commandercialisgenerique.net/ cialis prix
			http://comprar-cialis-generico.net/ cialis venta
			http://acquistarecialisitalia.net/ comprare cialis online

imported_>qole: ports section worries

2009-03-31T05:58:37Z

ports section worries

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:58, 31 March 2009
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:There ''is'' a clear counter-argument. Without open source end-user application development there'd be no Firefox, there'd be no Evolution; so there'd be no Gecko, no Camel (and so no libtinymail). So, there'd be no microb and no modest. Nokia's "differentiation" argument is built-on the shoulders of giants. Open source UIs - in general - aren't great, with high profile exceptions. However, in the versions of Maemo to-date, I don't see the benefits of this differentation. All it does is prevent community solutions to "popular" problems (I won't mention 12/24 hour clock again; oops, too late ;-)). From what we've seen and heard of Fremantle, this differentiation ''could'' finally appear (as a user, I hope so). --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)		:There ''is'' a clear counter-argument. Without open source end-user application development there'd be no Firefox, there'd be no Evolution; so there'd be no Gecko, no Camel (and so no libtinymail). So, there'd be no microb and no modest. Nokia's "differentiation" argument is built-on the shoulders of giants. Open source UIs - in general - aren't great, with high profile exceptions. However, in the versions of Maemo to-date, I don't see the benefits of this differentation. All it does is prevent community solutions to "popular" problems (I won't mention 12/24 hour clock again; oops, too late ;-)). From what we've seen and heard of Fremantle, this differentiation ''could'' finally appear (as a user, I hope so). --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Turning the omelette, you are proving that there are indeed proofpoints, like microb and modest. :) Nokia has invested significant resources, directly or indirectly, pushing the development of the underlying technologies and contributing to the related community projects you are mentioning. Nokia wouldn't have the browser and email client Maemo is shipping now, but those community projects wouldn't probably be where they are now without those contributions. About differentiation, I agree the "benefits" are not clear at the moment. As you see we are cleaning a bit the house, opening some components while defining better the areas where Nokia decides to go on its own. Fremantle is seeing significant changes and I'd like to think that the picture will be clear and solid in Harmattan. Everybody agrees that there is nothing more pointless that a differentiation that doesn't differentiate ;) but I think Nokia is correcting and updating the picture with a consistent strategy (you may or may not agree with).--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)		::Turning the omelette, you are proving that there are indeed proofpoints, like microb and modest. :) Nokia has invested significant resources, directly or indirectly, pushing the development of the underlying technologies and contributing to the related community projects you are mentioning. Nokia wouldn't have the browser and email client Maemo is shipping now, but those community projects wouldn't probably be where they are now without those contributions. About differentiation, I agree the "benefits" are not clear at the moment. As you see we are cleaning a bit the house, opening some components while defining better the areas where Nokia decides to go on its own. Fremantle is seeing significant changes and I'd like to think that the picture will be clear and solid in Harmattan. Everybody agrees that there is nothing more pointless that a differentiation that doesn't differentiate ;) but I think Nokia is correcting and updating the picture with a consistent strategy (you may or may not agree with).--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

			== Ports section ==

			I tried to clean this section up, but there's so much wrong here that it might be better to remove it altogether. It's fine if there will be no decisions made using the info here, but I fear someone with little knowledge except this section might use it to make an important decision. That would be bad. --[[User:qole\|qole]] 05:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

imported_>qgil: /* Actually doable? */

2008-10-07T05:41:42Z

Actually doable?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:41, 7 October 2008
Line 8:		Line 8:
	: I basically agree with you - I'm happy collecting objective proofpoints of failure if you wish (seriously). [[Task:Mapping_openness]] was a first step needed as a foundation, but once that it is in a maneagable state we need to get serious into the [[2010_Agenda]] where ''collaboration'' is at the center point of all the objectives. "Review the Maemo contribution guidelines" needs to be recovered from [[Maemo.org_proposals]] and be put in the backlog, although Nokia is doing steps forwards working on a common policy for all its open source projects, including Maemo, Qt and the many tiny Linux projects around. [[Task:Maemo_public_roadmapping_process]] also needs to be in place, as well, as an open development process and setup for Maemo open source projects lead by Nokia. Still, I think some progress has been done and I hope we can extract proofpoints already, even if not as strong as you would wish. Note that these proofpoints help us getting approval and resources for next steps... Or better said, the lack of proofpoints won't help us working more and better with open source and in the open.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)		: I basically agree with you - I'm happy collecting objective proofpoints of failure if you wish (seriously). [[Task:Mapping_openness]] was a first step needed as a foundation, but once that it is in a maneagable state we need to get serious into the [[2010_Agenda]] where ''collaboration'' is at the center point of all the objectives. "Review the Maemo contribution guidelines" needs to be recovered from [[Maemo.org_proposals]] and be put in the backlog, although Nokia is doing steps forwards working on a common policy for all its open source projects, including Maemo, Qt and the many tiny Linux projects around. [[Task:Maemo_public_roadmapping_process]] also needs to be in place, as well, as an open development process and setup for Maemo open source projects lead by Nokia. Still, I think some progress has been done and I hope we can extract proofpoints already, even if not as strong as you would wish. Note that these proofpoints help us getting approval and resources for next steps... Or better said, the lack of proofpoints won't help us working more and better with open source and in the open.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
	:There ''is'' a clear counter-argument. Without open source end-user application development there'd be no Firefox, there'd be no Evolution; so there'd be no Gecko, no Camel (and so no libtinymail). So, there'd be no microb and no modest. Nokia's "differentiation" argument is built-on the shoulders of giants. Open source UIs - in general - aren't great, with high profile exceptions. However, in the versions of Maemo to-date, I don't see the benefits of this differentation. All it does is prevent community solutions to "popular" problems (I won't mention 12/24 hour clock again; oops, too late ;-)). From what we've seen and heard of Fremantle, this differentiation ''could'' finally appear (as a user, I hope so). --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)		:There ''is'' a clear counter-argument. Without open source end-user application development there'd be no Firefox, there'd be no Evolution; so there'd be no Gecko, no Camel (and so no libtinymail). So, there'd be no microb and no modest. Nokia's "differentiation" argument is built-on the shoulders of giants. Open source UIs - in general - aren't great, with high profile exceptions. However, in the versions of Maemo to-date, I don't see the benefits of this differentation. All it does is prevent community solutions to "popular" problems (I won't mention 12/24 hour clock again; oops, too late ;-)). From what we've seen and heard of Fremantle, this differentiation ''could'' finally appear (as a user, I hope so). --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Turning the omelette, you are proving that there are indeed proofpoints, like microb and modest. :) Nokia has invested significant resources, directly or indirectly, pushing the development of the underlying technologies and contributing to the related community projects you are mentioning. Nokia wouldn't have the browser and email client Maemo is shipping now, but those community projects wouldn't probably be where they are now without those contributions. About differentiation, I agree the "benefits" are not clear at the moment. As you see we are cleaning a bit the house, opening some components while defining better the areas where Nokia decides to go on its own. Fremantle is seeing significant changes and I'd like to think that the picture will be clear and solid in Harmattan. Everybody agrees that there is nothing more pointless that a differentiation that doesn't differentiate ;) but I think Nokia is correcting and updating the picture ~~to the right focus~~.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)		::Turning the omelette, you are proving that there are indeed proofpoints, like microb and modest. :) Nokia has invested significant resources, directly or indirectly, pushing the development of the underlying technologies and contributing to the related community projects you are mentioning. Nokia wouldn't have the browser and email client Maemo is shipping now, but those community projects wouldn't probably be where they are now without those contributions. About differentiation, I agree the "benefits" are not clear at the moment. As you see we are cleaning a bit the house, opening some components while defining better the areas where Nokia decides to go on its own. Fremantle is seeing significant changes and I'd like to think that the picture will be clear and solid in Harmattan. Everybody agrees that there is nothing more pointless that a differentiation that doesn't differentiate ;) but I think Nokia is correcting and updating the picture with a consistent strategy (you may or may not agree with).--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

imported_>qgil: /* Actually doable? */

2008-10-07T05:35:45Z

Actually doable?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:35, 7 October 2008
Line 8:		Line 8:
	: I basically agree with you - I'm happy collecting objective proofpoints of failure if you wish (seriously). [[Task:Mapping_openness]] was a first step needed as a foundation, but once that it is in a maneagable state we need to get serious into the [[2010_Agenda]] where ''collaboration'' is at the center point of all the objectives. "Review the Maemo contribution guidelines" needs to be recovered from [[Maemo.org_proposals]] and be put in the backlog, although Nokia is doing steps forwards working on a common policy for all its open source projects, including Maemo, Qt and the many tiny Linux projects around. [[Task:Maemo_public_roadmapping_process]] also needs to be in place, as well, as an open development process and setup for Maemo open source projects lead by Nokia. Still, I think some progress has been done and I hope we can extract proofpoints already, even if not as strong as you would wish. Note that these proofpoints help us getting approval and resources for next steps... Or better said, the lack of proofpoints won't help us working more and better with open source and in the open.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)		: I basically agree with you - I'm happy collecting objective proofpoints of failure if you wish (seriously). [[Task:Mapping_openness]] was a first step needed as a foundation, but once that it is in a maneagable state we need to get serious into the [[2010_Agenda]] where ''collaboration'' is at the center point of all the objectives. "Review the Maemo contribution guidelines" needs to be recovered from [[Maemo.org_proposals]] and be put in the backlog, although Nokia is doing steps forwards working on a common policy for all its open source projects, including Maemo, Qt and the many tiny Linux projects around. [[Task:Maemo_public_roadmapping_process]] also needs to be in place, as well, as an open development process and setup for Maemo open source projects lead by Nokia. Still, I think some progress has been done and I hope we can extract proofpoints already, even if not as strong as you would wish. Note that these proofpoints help us getting approval and resources for next steps... Or better said, the lack of proofpoints won't help us working more and better with open source and in the open.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
	:There ''is'' a clear counter-argument. Without open source end-user application development there'd be no Firefox, there'd be no Evolution; so there'd be no Gecko, no Camel (and so no libtinymail). So, there'd be no microb and no modest. Nokia's "differentiation" argument is built-on the shoulders of giants. Open source UIs - in general - aren't great, with high profile exceptions. However, in the versions of Maemo to-date, I don't see the benefits of this differentation. All it does is prevent community solutions to "popular" problems (I won't mention 12/24 hour clock again; oops, too late ;-)). From what we've seen and heard of Fremantle, this differentiation ''could'' finally appear (as a user, I hope so). --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)		:There ''is'' a clear counter-argument. Without open source end-user application development there'd be no Firefox, there'd be no Evolution; so there'd be no Gecko, no Camel (and so no libtinymail). So, there'd be no microb and no modest. Nokia's "differentiation" argument is built-on the shoulders of giants. Open source UIs - in general - aren't great, with high profile exceptions. However, in the versions of Maemo to-date, I don't see the benefits of this differentation. All it does is prevent community solutions to "popular" problems (I won't mention 12/24 hour clock again; oops, too late ;-)). From what we've seen and heard of Fremantle, this differentiation ''could'' finally appear (as a user, I hope so). --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
			::Turning the omelette, you are proving that there are indeed proofpoints, like microb and modest. :) Nokia has invested significant resources, directly or indirectly, pushing the development of the underlying technologies and contributing to the related community projects you are mentioning. Nokia wouldn't have the browser and email client Maemo is shipping now, but those community projects wouldn't probably be where they are now without those contributions. About differentiation, I agree the "benefits" are not clear at the moment. As you see we are cleaning a bit the house, opening some components while defining better the areas where Nokia decides to go on its own. Fremantle is seeing significant changes and I'd like to think that the picture will be clear and solid in Harmattan. Everybody agrees that there is nothing more pointless that a differentiation that doesn't differentiate ;) but I think Nokia is correcting and updating the picture to the right focus.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

imported_>qgil: /* Actually doable? */

2008-10-07T05:26:05Z

Actually doable?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:26, 7 October 2008
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Some people have done small hacks (disable the irritating Nokia-Legal-enforced "warning" when installing packages) and published them on ITT, but real open source contributions happen when it's ''collaboration''. Code can be open sourced - and thrown over the wall - but without open ''development'', the real successes are yet to be seen. --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)		Some people have done small hacks (disable the irritating Nokia-Legal-enforced "warning" when installing packages) and published them on ITT, but real open source contributions happen when it's ''collaboration''. Code can be open sourced - and thrown over the wall - but without open ''development'', the real successes are yet to be seen. --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
			: I basically agree with you - I'm happy collecting objective proofpoints of failure if you wish (seriously). [[Task:Mapping_openness]] was a first step needed as a foundation, but once that it is in a maneagable state we need to get serious into the [[2010_Agenda]] where ''collaboration'' is at the center point of all the objectives. "Review the Maemo contribution guidelines" needs to be recovered from [[Maemo.org_proposals]] and be put in the backlog, although Nokia is doing steps forwards working on a common policy for all its open source projects, including Maemo, Qt and the many tiny Linux projects around. [[Task:Maemo_public_roadmapping_process]] also needs to be in place, as well, as an open development process and setup for Maemo open source projects lead by Nokia. Still, I think some progress has been done and I hope we can extract proofpoints already, even if not as strong as you would wish. Note that these proofpoints help us getting approval and resources for next steps... Or better said, the lack of proofpoints won't help us working more and better with open source and in the open.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
	:There ''is'' a clear counter-argument. Without open source end-user application development there'd be no Firefox, there'd be no Evolution; so there'd be no Gecko, no Camel (and so no libtinymail). So, there'd be no microb and no modest. Nokia's "differentiation" argument is built-on the shoulders of giants. Open source UIs - in general - aren't great, with high profile exceptions. However, in the versions of Maemo to-date, I don't see the benefits of this differentation. All it does is prevent community solutions to "popular" problems (I won't mention 12/24 hour clock again; oops, too late ;-)). From what we've seen and heard of Fremantle, this differentiation ''could'' finally appear (as a user, I hope so). --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)		:There ''is'' a clear counter-argument. Without open source end-user application development there'd be no Firefox, there'd be no Evolution; so there'd be no Gecko, no Camel (and so no libtinymail). So, there'd be no microb and no modest. Nokia's "differentiation" argument is built-on the shoulders of giants. Open source UIs - in general - aren't great, with high profile exceptions. However, in the versions of Maemo to-date, I don't see the benefits of this differentation. All it does is prevent community solutions to "popular" problems (I won't mention 12/24 hour clock again; oops, too late ;-)). From what we've seen and heard of Fremantle, this differentiation ''could'' finally appear (as a user, I hope so). --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

imported_>qgil: Talk:Open Source Proof Points moved to Talk:Task:Open Source Proof Points

2008-10-01T07:17:10Z

Talk:Open Source Proof Points moved to Talk:Task:Open Source Proof Points

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:17, 1 October 2008
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:41, 7 October 2008
Line 8:		Line 8:
	: I basically agree with you - I'm happy collecting objective proofpoints of failure if you wish (seriously). [[Task:Mapping_openness]] was a first step needed as a foundation, but once that it is in a maneagable state we need to get serious into the [[2010_Agenda]] where ''collaboration'' is at the center point of all the objectives. "Review the Maemo contribution guidelines" needs to be recovered from [[Maemo.org_proposals]] and be put in the backlog, although Nokia is doing steps forwards working on a common policy for all its open source projects, including Maemo, Qt and the many tiny Linux projects around. [[Task:Maemo_public_roadmapping_process]] also needs to be in place, as well, as an open development process and setup for Maemo open source projects lead by Nokia. Still, I think some progress has been done and I hope we can extract proofpoints already, even if not as strong as you would wish. Note that these proofpoints help us getting approval and resources for next steps... Or better said, the lack of proofpoints won't help us working more and better with open source and in the open.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)		: I basically agree with you - I'm happy collecting objective proofpoints of failure if you wish (seriously). [[Task:Mapping_openness]] was a first step needed as a foundation, but once that it is in a maneagable state we need to get serious into the [[2010_Agenda]] where ''collaboration'' is at the center point of all the objectives. "Review the Maemo contribution guidelines" needs to be recovered from [[Maemo.org_proposals]] and be put in the backlog, although Nokia is doing steps forwards working on a common policy for all its open source projects, including Maemo, Qt and the many tiny Linux projects around. [[Task:Maemo_public_roadmapping_process]] also needs to be in place, as well, as an open development process and setup for Maemo open source projects lead by Nokia. Still, I think some progress has been done and I hope we can extract proofpoints already, even if not as strong as you would wish. Note that these proofpoints help us getting approval and resources for next steps... Or better said, the lack of proofpoints won't help us working more and better with open source and in the open.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
	:There ''is'' a clear counter-argument. Without open source end-user application development there'd be no Firefox, there'd be no Evolution; so there'd be no Gecko, no Camel (and so no libtinymail). So, there'd be no microb and no modest. Nokia's "differentiation" argument is built-on the shoulders of giants. Open source UIs - in general - aren't great, with high profile exceptions. However, in the versions of Maemo to-date, I don't see the benefits of this differentation. All it does is prevent community solutions to "popular" problems (I won't mention 12/24 hour clock again; oops, too late ;-)). From what we've seen and heard of Fremantle, this differentiation ''could'' finally appear (as a user, I hope so). --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)		:There ''is'' a clear counter-argument. Without open source end-user application development there'd be no Firefox, there'd be no Evolution; so there'd be no Gecko, no Camel (and so no libtinymail). So, there'd be no microb and no modest. Nokia's "differentiation" argument is built-on the shoulders of giants. Open source UIs - in general - aren't great, with high profile exceptions. However, in the versions of Maemo to-date, I don't see the benefits of this differentation. All it does is prevent community solutions to "popular" problems (I won't mention 12/24 hour clock again; oops, too late ;-)). From what we've seen and heard of Fremantle, this differentiation ''could'' finally appear (as a user, I hope so). --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
	::Turning the omelette, you are proving that there are indeed proofpoints, like microb and modest. :) Nokia has invested significant resources, directly or indirectly, pushing the development of the underlying technologies and contributing to the related community projects you are mentioning. Nokia wouldn't have the browser and email client Maemo is shipping now, but those community projects wouldn't probably be where they are now without those contributions. About differentiation, I agree the "benefits" are not clear at the moment. As you see we are cleaning a bit the house, opening some components while defining better the areas where Nokia decides to go on its own. Fremantle is seeing significant changes and I'd like to think that the picture will be clear and solid in Harmattan. Everybody agrees that there is nothing more pointless that a differentiation that doesn't differentiate ;) but I think Nokia is correcting and updating the picture ~~to the right focus~~.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)		::Turning the omelette, you are proving that there are indeed proofpoints, like microb and modest. :) Nokia has invested significant resources, directly or indirectly, pushing the development of the underlying technologies and contributing to the related community projects you are mentioning. Nokia wouldn't have the browser and email client Maemo is shipping now, but those community projects wouldn't probably be where they are now without those contributions. About differentiation, I agree the "benefits" are not clear at the moment. As you see we are cleaning a bit the house, opening some components while defining better the areas where Nokia decides to go on its own. Fremantle is seeing significant changes and I'd like to think that the picture will be clear and solid in Harmattan. Everybody agrees that there is nothing more pointless that a differentiation that doesn't differentiate ;) but I think Nokia is correcting and updating the picture with a consistent strategy (you may or may not agree with).--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:35, 7 October 2008
Line 8:		Line 8:
	: I basically agree with you - I'm happy collecting objective proofpoints of failure if you wish (seriously). [[Task:Mapping_openness]] was a first step needed as a foundation, but once that it is in a maneagable state we need to get serious into the [[2010_Agenda]] where ''collaboration'' is at the center point of all the objectives. "Review the Maemo contribution guidelines" needs to be recovered from [[Maemo.org_proposals]] and be put in the backlog, although Nokia is doing steps forwards working on a common policy for all its open source projects, including Maemo, Qt and the many tiny Linux projects around. [[Task:Maemo_public_roadmapping_process]] also needs to be in place, as well, as an open development process and setup for Maemo open source projects lead by Nokia. Still, I think some progress has been done and I hope we can extract proofpoints already, even if not as strong as you would wish. Note that these proofpoints help us getting approval and resources for next steps... Or better said, the lack of proofpoints won't help us working more and better with open source and in the open.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)		: I basically agree with you - I'm happy collecting objective proofpoints of failure if you wish (seriously). [[Task:Mapping_openness]] was a first step needed as a foundation, but once that it is in a maneagable state we need to get serious into the [[2010_Agenda]] where ''collaboration'' is at the center point of all the objectives. "Review the Maemo contribution guidelines" needs to be recovered from [[Maemo.org_proposals]] and be put in the backlog, although Nokia is doing steps forwards working on a common policy for all its open source projects, including Maemo, Qt and the many tiny Linux projects around. [[Task:Maemo_public_roadmapping_process]] also needs to be in place, as well, as an open development process and setup for Maemo open source projects lead by Nokia. Still, I think some progress has been done and I hope we can extract proofpoints already, even if not as strong as you would wish. Note that these proofpoints help us getting approval and resources for next steps... Or better said, the lack of proofpoints won't help us working more and better with open source and in the open.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
	:There ''is'' a clear counter-argument. Without open source end-user application development there'd be no Firefox, there'd be no Evolution; so there'd be no Gecko, no Camel (and so no libtinymail). So, there'd be no microb and no modest. Nokia's "differentiation" argument is built-on the shoulders of giants. Open source UIs - in general - aren't great, with high profile exceptions. However, in the versions of Maemo to-date, I don't see the benefits of this differentation. All it does is prevent community solutions to "popular" problems (I won't mention 12/24 hour clock again; oops, too late ;-)). From what we've seen and heard of Fremantle, this differentiation ''could'' finally appear (as a user, I hope so). --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)		:There ''is'' a clear counter-argument. Without open source end-user application development there'd be no Firefox, there'd be no Evolution; so there'd be no Gecko, no Camel (and so no libtinymail). So, there'd be no microb and no modest. Nokia's "differentiation" argument is built-on the shoulders of giants. Open source UIs - in general - aren't great, with high profile exceptions. However, in the versions of Maemo to-date, I don't see the benefits of this differentation. All it does is prevent community solutions to "popular" problems (I won't mention 12/24 hour clock again; oops, too late ;-)). From what we've seen and heard of Fremantle, this differentiation ''could'' finally appear (as a user, I hope so). --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
			::Turning the omelette, you are proving that there are indeed proofpoints, like microb and modest. :) Nokia has invested significant resources, directly or indirectly, pushing the development of the underlying technologies and contributing to the related community projects you are mentioning. Nokia wouldn't have the browser and email client Maemo is shipping now, but those community projects wouldn't probably be where they are now without those contributions. About differentiation, I agree the "benefits" are not clear at the moment. As you see we are cleaning a bit the house, opening some components while defining better the areas where Nokia decides to go on its own. Fremantle is seeing significant changes and I'd like to think that the picture will be clear and solid in Harmattan. Everybody agrees that there is nothing more pointless that a differentiation that doesn't differentiate ;) but I think Nokia is correcting and updating the picture to the right focus.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:26, 7 October 2008
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Some people have done small hacks (disable the irritating Nokia-Legal-enforced "warning" when installing packages) and published them on ITT, but real open source contributions happen when it's ''collaboration''. Code can be open sourced - and thrown over the wall - but without open ''development'', the real successes are yet to be seen. --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)		Some people have done small hacks (disable the irritating Nokia-Legal-enforced "warning" when installing packages) and published them on ITT, but real open source contributions happen when it's ''collaboration''. Code can be open sourced - and thrown over the wall - but without open ''development'', the real successes are yet to be seen. --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
			: I basically agree with you - I'm happy collecting objective proofpoints of failure if you wish (seriously). [[Task:Mapping_openness]] was a first step needed as a foundation, but once that it is in a maneagable state we need to get serious into the [[2010_Agenda]] where ''collaboration'' is at the center point of all the objectives. "Review the Maemo contribution guidelines" needs to be recovered from [[Maemo.org_proposals]] and be put in the backlog, although Nokia is doing steps forwards working on a common policy for all its open source projects, including Maemo, Qt and the many tiny Linux projects around. [[Task:Maemo_public_roadmapping_process]] also needs to be in place, as well, as an open development process and setup for Maemo open source projects lead by Nokia. Still, I think some progress has been done and I hope we can extract proofpoints already, even if not as strong as you would wish. Note that these proofpoints help us getting approval and resources for next steps... Or better said, the lack of proofpoints won't help us working more and better with open source and in the open.--[[User:qgil\|qgil]] 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
	:There ''is'' a clear counter-argument. Without open source end-user application development there'd be no Firefox, there'd be no Evolution; so there'd be no Gecko, no Camel (and so no libtinymail). So, there'd be no microb and no modest. Nokia's "differentiation" argument is built-on the shoulders of giants. Open source UIs - in general - aren't great, with high profile exceptions. However, in the versions of Maemo to-date, I don't see the benefits of this differentation. All it does is prevent community solutions to "popular" problems (I won't mention 12/24 hour clock again; oops, too late ;-)). From what we've seen and heard of Fremantle, this differentiation ''could'' finally appear (as a user, I hope so). --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)		:There ''is'' a clear counter-argument. Without open source end-user application development there'd be no Firefox, there'd be no Evolution; so there'd be no Gecko, no Camel (and so no libtinymail). So, there'd be no microb and no modest. Nokia's "differentiation" argument is built-on the shoulders of giants. Open source UIs - in general - aren't great, with high profile exceptions. However, in the versions of Maemo to-date, I don't see the benefits of this differentation. All it does is prevent community solutions to "popular" problems (I won't mention 12/24 hour clock again; oops, too late ;-)). From what we've seen and heard of Fremantle, this differentiation ''could'' finally appear (as a user, I hope so). --[[User:jaffa\|Jaffa]] 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)