"The Community has decided"

[geneven]

So, a majority of users voted that they didn't want the ability to install .deb files easily to be part of the App Manager, where it has been for years.

Let's examine this. Let's imagine a word processing program. Now let's have a number of votes on the features and eliminate the ones that most users aren't interested in. Me, I never run mailing labels. So that should not be a part of a word processing program. Grammar checker? No way! Grammar checkers are too stupid. Importing word processing files into spreadsheets or vice versa? Hey, I never do that.

That is similar to the decision made by the community. They are not interested in the ability to install .deb files, so it should be taken away from the App Manager.

If all programs were constructed using the same principles, most programs would have practically no features.

In fact, if 20% of people want a feature in a program, that is a pretty good argument for INCLUDING it in a program. 40%, even better.

The point is that what the "majority" wants is irrelevant, and taking a vote on it is a sham because it is meaningless.

If I am wrong, let's put up all the Maemo programs and vote on who uses which features. developers will have to get rid of any features not approved by a majority.

[t7g]

Am I missing something? It's very simple to install .deb files still. Simply...

sudo gainroot
dpkg -i yourapp.deb

?

[geneven]

Am I missing something? It is a lot easier to install from deb file, as you could do with the N800 and N810, and probably from the N770. Why do N900 users need to be protected from installing .deb files and for years users did not need to be protected?

I am not talking about ADDING a feature to App Manager to make it easier to install .deb files. I am talking about NOT DELETING a feature that was already there.

[t7g]

Am I missing something? It is a lot easier to install from deb file, as you could do with the N800 and N810, and probably from the N770. Why do N900 users need to be protected from installing .deb files and for years users did not need to be protected?

I think the argument is this device appeals to a wider (and arguably much stupider) audience than their previous Maemo devices so they figured anyone who knew enough to want to install additional .debs could easily do so via the command line.

Do you see the contents of some of these threads? There are n900 users that have bricked their devices simply by installing too many applications. Nokia is just probably trying to avoid a ton of unnecessary tech support.

[GeneralAntilles]

That is similar to the decision made by the community. They are not interested in the ability to install .deb files, so it should be taken away from the App Manager.


Actually, the point is more like: "Installing random .debs from the internet is unsafe. Developers shouldn't distribute their software that way and users shouldn't be getting their software that way either."

It's a fringe use-case that shouldn't be supported through the GUI package manager. People that need to install .debs can manage dpkg. If you can't manage dpkg, then you shouldn't be installing .debs. Supporting it causes way more trouble than its worth. Backup doesn't work, updates don't work, dependency hell ensues, and users develop a tendency to install whatever from wherever.

Removing the functionality from the Application Manager is an easy way to encourage developers to push their packages through the autobuilder or Ovi (at the very least, any repository at all).

[geneven]

I ran Ruby for years on tablets by installing the .deb file. I'm glad it wasn't prevented. But thanks for the explanation.

[fatalsaint]

I ran Ruby for years on tablets by installing the .deb file. I'm glad it wasn't prevented. But thanks for the explanation.

um... it's... still.. not... prevented??? :confused:

[msa]

to be honest, i dont see why anyone would want to do that when its not the "official" way of installing apps on the n900.
your apps dont get updated by themselves and all this stuff. its a lose-lose-situation.

[mullf]

Some of you guys are such snobs. :-/

[GeneralAntilles]

Some of you guys are such snobs. :-/

Yeah, clearly that's the motivation here. :rolleyes:

If you can't bring anything more productive to a discussion than personal attacks, kindly keep your mouth shut.

[mullf]

I have a right to express my opinion. I've spent around $460 for two 770s, so I payed my membership dues.

[GeneralAntilles]

I have a right to express my opinion. I've spent around $460 for two 770s, so I payed my membership dues.

Your "rights" do not extend to personal attacks.

[mullf]

Who did I personally attack? And how did I attack them?

[geneven]

to be honest, i dont see why anyone would want to do that when its not the "official" way of installing apps on the n900.
your apps dont get updated by themselves and all this stuff. its a lose-lose-situation.

I don't know -- why did people want to do it for years? For one thing, the optification trap didn't exist yet -- that was an innovation of recent provenance. For another, in the case of Ruby, there weren't many updates. I think there was one a year, mainly because only a few developers were creating versions of Ruby that worked in the tablet environment, so automatic updates weren't crucial.

[geneven]

um... it's... still.. not... prevented??? :confused:

Installing Ruby from a .deb file using the App Manager was definitely prevented. Fortunately, Ruby is supported now so it isn't an issue.

[fatalsaint]

Installing Ruby from a .deb file using the App Manager was definitely prevented. Fortunately, Ruby is supported now so it isn't an issue.

Installing Ruby from a .deb file with dpkg is not prevented.....

sooooooo what did you lose again?

[geneven]

Installing Ruby from a .deb file with dpkg is not prevented.....

sooooooo what did you lose again?

Ring around the rosy, anyone?

I lost the ease of installing .debs using the app manager.

[GeneralAntilles]

Who did I personally attack? And how did I attack them?

What does calling people snobs contribute to the discussion? It seems more likely you're deliberately trying to preemptively derail any possible productive discussion.

[Texrat]

As your elected semiofficial I support both of you in your right to battle over the internet.

[fatalsaint]

As your elected semiofficial I support both of you in your right to battle over the internet.

And this is still one of my favorite comics.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png ('http://xkcd.com/386/')

[mullf]

What does calling people snobs contribute to the discussion? It seems more likely you're deliberately trying to preemptively derail any possible productive discussion.

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.

[lfcobra]

And this is still one of my favorite comics.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png ('http://xkcd.com/386/')

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

[gerbick]

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.

[shadowjk]

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.

[geneven]

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.

[Texrat]

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???

[ragnar]

So, a majority of users voted that they didn't want the ability to install .deb files easily to be part of the App Manager, where it has been for years.

Let's examine this. --snip--

If all programs were constructed using the same principles, most programs would have practically no features.

In fact, if 20% of people want a feature in a program, that is a pretty good argument for INCLUDING it in a program. 40%, even better.

The point is that what the "majority" wants is irrelevant, and taking a vote on it is a sham because it is meaningless.

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 (http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=485587&postcount=5) 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".

[mece]

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.

[ndi]

@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.

[geneven]

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.

[geneven]

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

Well, we have to talk about what enforcement means? Ok. If a developer declines to, say, optify some program and a recommendation is posted that the program not be used, that is a kind of enforcement. Developers who don't follow that guideline are penalized by being criticized.

So, you wanted an example of enforcement. Are you claiming that uniformity among developers is totally not enforced in any way?

Enforcement does not mean that anyone who disagrees gets a bullet in the head. It means that penalties are attached to certain behaviors. No society exists without various enforcements of rules, written or unwritten.

Now we have had our refresher in Sociology 1a. Any more questions?

[Texrat]

recommend != enforce.

[CrashandDie]

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.

You know, when a metaphor fails to deliver the intended message, it's usually a good thing to scrap and try again. Sticking to the same metaphor regardless of its impact only displays how little you understand the subject yourself.

But for the fun of, I'll try to explain to you, using your own metaphor what you fail to understand.

So, let's say that in an alternative universe, the developers of a word processor (let's call it ClosedOffice.org) implemented a feature for themselves in version alpha 8, because it was very handy at the time. The users of the software, because they were so handy and so brilliant, discovered the feature, and started using it, publicising it, blogging about it.

The problem, is that the feature to print mailing labels wasn't documented, as it had never been an official feature. It wasn't very polished, and because it was a bit hidden, most users were very intrigued by it, because they thought they'd discovered a way to be cooler than school.

As the years went by, the developers of ClosedOffice.org were a bit amused by the whole thing, and nobody saw any harm... Until version beta 800 and 810 of ClosedOffice.org, when suddenly a lot of people were complaining that when they were using the feature, they started receiving a lot of junk mail due to the mailing labels getting lost everywhere. Another drawback was that after activating the feature, anyone could print off that user's printer... The users complained, and moaned, and were just very difficult.

The developers felt very much annoyed, how could anyone blame them for using a feature which was clearly not intended for the public at large? How could they prevent people from making those mistakes again?

So they ran a vote, they asked users what the best solution was. Now remember, this is ClosedOffice.org, and really, they didn't have to do this. They could've just said "Listen guys, you're idiots, we're removing it to protect you". But no, they still asked, and listened what the community had to say.

A bit after the release of ClosedOffice.org 900, the feature was removed, and all was well... for about 38 seconds. People started yelling, moaning and being difficult again...

The users were childishly screaming: "But why did you remove my feature? It made me feel warm inside". The developers replied "But we didn't remove it! We just made it safe and moved its location!"

But we all know how it ends... Even in a parallel universe, users only think about themselves... They sprout stupidities like "what the majority thinks is not relevant"... True, except when it is.

[Texrat]

Did a majority or minority decide this was Off Topic?

:p

[earthling]

Perhaps it is time to make a nice little gui for dpkg ?

[CrashandDie]

Did a majority or minority decide this was Off Topic?

:p

Autocratic is my middle name.

[wmarone]

Perhaps it is time to make a nice little gui for dpkg ?

No, installing via dpkg -i is effectively a "debug" route and should be avoided unless absolutely essential. The gist I get is that red mode led some people to think that installing .deb files directly was somehow normal.

Of course, no one can stop anyone else from creating such a GUI, but don't expect anyone to support software you install via that method.

[earthling]

No, installing via dpkg -i is effectively a "debug" route and should be avoided unless absolutely essential. The gist I get is that red mode led some people to think that installing .deb files directly was somehow normal.

Of course, no one can stop anyone else from creating such a GUI, but don't expect anyone to support software you install via that method.

Yes of course this is done to protect people from themselves, and more importantly to protect the manufacturer from bad press. People who don't know what they are doing wreck their phones and blame Nokia. But it is also results in more control over who supplies applications to the broader market.

[wmarone]

Yes of course this is done to protect people from themselves
And to protect the system as a whole. Installing packages via dpkg directly is highly unusual for -any- distro that uses APT for package management.

it is also results in more control over who supplies applications to the broader market.
Not in the slightest. An apt repo can be set up by anyone with an HTTP server, and if you can't get your app into the Maemo repos (even -devel) then there's probably a good reason.

[earthling]

And to protect the system as a whole. Installing packages via dpkg directly is highly unusual for -any- distro that uses APT for package management.


Not in the slightest. An apt repo can be set up by anyone with an HTTP server, and if you can't get your app into the Maemo repos (even -devel) then there's probably a good reason.

You are implying that the reasons for not getting an application into the semi-official repos will be purely technical. That there will be no market reasons, no personal reasons, none of that stuff. That would be the first time, but we can hope.

I am not saying that there is bad intent, I said that there <i>is</i> more control this way, not what such control would be used for.

[wmarone]

You are implying that the reasons for not getting an application into the semi-official repos will be purely technical. That there will be no market reasons, no personal reasons, none of that stuff. That would be the first time, but we can hope.
The moment it comes down to Nokia controlling what goes into the repositories for marketing and political reasons then maemo.org will have far more problems.

I am not saying that there is bad intent, I said that there <i>is</i> more control this way, not what such control would be used for.
There is no additional control. Instead of having a simple GUI to do it you have to go down to the console, switch to root, and do it. I increasingly get the sense that users begging for it back are not regular users of Linux.

[earthling]

The moment it comes down to Nokia controlling what goes into the repositories for marketing and political reasons then maemo.org will have far more problems.


There is no additional control. Instead of having a simple GUI to do it you have to go down to the control, switch to root, and do it. I increasingly get the sense that users begging for it back are not regular users of Linux.

Sigh. I am just saying that there will be personal disagreements on maemo.org about what is encouraged and discouraged on places like maemo.org. There always are personal issues eventually.

[GeneralAntilles]

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.

Not true, features always cost in terms of added QA and increased complexity. Just because it's been coded, doesn't mean it's done causing trouble.

Besides, with Nokia's Ovi architecture it would have made things significantly more complicated, even, than that.


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

Actually, the decision was based on two factors, a discussion on maemo-developers arriving at a consensus that Red Pill caused more harm than it was worth, and the reality that Nokia's Ovi Store architecture is a bit of a joke. In that order.

[maacruz]

Directly using dpkg could be dangerous, but...
doesn't the n900 have apt-get? (I don't have one, so I don't know)
Coming from a big linux distro with excellent package management, I never could make any sense of the red pill thing, so I use apt-get. In my experience it is easier, faster and safer.
While I think that removing features is not a good thing, in this particular case I think it is better for everyone.