Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

Bad example. I wouldn't call that admitting to a problem (not the one raised anyway) nor a fix (unless it's a PR fix) but I do agree with the point you are trying to make about the advantages of open source.

That was a very good read about open core. The problem for me is that I do not see any alternatives for Nokia.

To me ( Not being a pro programmer) it appears that Nokia have actually done what is suggested in that article, closed portions of it where somebody with time can create an alternative from the core, but perhaps I have misunderstood the article?

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

I think it was meant as an example of a bug that persisted in a closed source application for years that would have been found and fixed very quickly if that same application had been open source.

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

that's what I thought he was trying to say, which is why I think it's a bad example of that case. It is very likely this "bug" was intentional so that people see full bars more often and think "hey I have great reception now" but the problem with the antenna on the outside is still the flaw which persists which this "fix" is trying to cover up and shift blame to AT&T. way OT though.

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

(Psst! Then instead of just deleting the body of your post when you "Edit", hit the delete radio button instead while on that edit screen, give your "double post" reason, and make the duplicate disappear.)

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

*raises hand*

The company I work for now has different PHYSICAL networks for "inside" and "outside". "Inside" network has the SMS sending daemons (we send reminders of expiry to users who want), and the interface to add, mode and delete.

There are no bridges. There are only two PCs that have access to both networks, via separate NICs, and both reside in the IT dept (one is mine), and there is no routing.

There are firewalls, no sharing (except via mounting the file server's), per-user and per-department permissions.

There is no log-in service, but if there were, I'd use a hash to logon. There's be a PC that only has a *custom* service port open through a physical firewall and I'd put the phone number server to periodically send a hash of the numbers to the login server. The login server gets the number from the user, hashes it, and compares it to the available hashes. That way, a hacked server only publishes a list of hashes that can't be unhashed. Unlikely hash matches (shouldn't happen) are distinct by passwords.

And all I'd have to do is buy a firewall and a silly daemon that hashes a list of numbers and sends it. 500-800$?

Also, communications with Nokia, which embeds support for good measure.

No and no. Those make my phone worth keeping. Also, it doesn't actually crawl to an unusable mess. It's just that memory starts to be swapped and when I unlock the phone and start apps it swaps and swaps, less responsive. If I keep using it it will eventually swap enough to return to usable, it's just that it takes less to reboot than to wait for swapping.

Also, if it's swapping, the something leaked. Sooner or later ...

Bottom line is, it's not unusable after 4 days. It's just visibly slower.

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

I didn't say that was an ideal solution; i was just identifying the problem. I only have one or two widgets on my four screens of desktop real estate because of this really nasty bug. And it did become unusable for me. Incoming calls would cause all kinds of weird and highly undesirable things to happen because of the swapping, etc.

The explanation given in the bug tracker was that python widgets fragment memory too much, but there wasn't really a solution given. I can't wait until all the applets are python or wrt/javascript as is being pushed for (meego?): that should be awesome.

Anyway this is really off topic at this point. Sorry.

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

Well, people have had a couple of years or more to try rewriting drivers and other closed portions on the older Nokia tablets... how's that going, then? More importantly, try asking them (Mer, for example) for hardware details so that drivers CAN be written. Go ahead. Then come back here and let me know whether Nokia has done what the article is suggesting. When it comes to writing a critical portion of the operating system that deals with the hardware and there's no openness, there's not a lot of enablement for writing an open alternative. (See also nvidia proprietary accelerated drivers vs open-source unaccelerated drivers.)

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

Yeeesh... What part of the councils request for an explanation about the forced MyNokia subscription in PR1.2, and Nokia's response is about open source?

If we as seasoned members can't keep a thread focused "On Topic" it becomes hypocritically to expect new members to do the same.

***

My opinion on this matter is that the option to opt out should be presented before any information is sent. That is, an option to not send any information, anonymous or otherwise, to anybody. Period.

In the case of My Nokia, I believe that is what the councils request amounted to; the ability to opt out before information is sent.
I also believe that everyone would agree that this is the type of communication that the council should be having with Nokia on behalf of our membership.
Kudos!

From what I gather from Nokia's response that, (kudos yet again), our council posted to open this thread was:

1. The "cherry" EULA, the information gathered, and the method used to obtain it is no different with any other Nokia phone. The only information that is exchanged (for now) is SMS related and is designed to enhance the users experience.

2. A means to opt out is available.

3. This is no different than what your service provider does when your SIM first registers on its network.

***

As I see it the purpose of this thread is to gather member feedback in order to determine if a counter response is warranted by the council.

I believe a counter response is warranted and it should be specific and along the lines of:

1. Legacy Maemo device users who may have used Nokia devices for years may never have owned a Nokia "phone" before and as a result this is the fist time that they experienced this behavior from a Nokia device.

We would have appreciated a better explanation or at least a little more effort extended toward the NiT users whose only interest in the phone part of the N900 may be as a means in having a persistent packet data connection.

2. Although one can "opt" out through various means, this can only be done after the fact. The council request I believe is for a means to do so before any information is passed.

***

If we wanted to be witty we could also add that you can't have your cake and eat it to. If they justify the reasoning for this "let them eat cake" response because this is no difference from what they do with any other Nokia phone then we would have appreciated if Nokia had also provided the N900 with all the phone features any other Nokia phone customer would expect. :cool:

That^ would have saved this organization from much of the tumult that we recently experienced from new members expecting a dang Nokia phone. :eek:

It would also explain why some of our membership after having handled that tumult for Nokia, expected a better response from them... or at the very least a little more effort.

As far as attaching anything else to a counter response from the council relating to any other past Maemo specific expectations goes... I'm thinkin' it would only confuse the issue at hand and perhaps cloud any counter/counter response we receive from Nokia should the council choose to persue this further.

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

As for the on-topic discussion: I registered for OVI/MyNokia long before PR 1.2 came out, so "MyNokia" was already setup/on when the "bomb" went off. It just pulled the settings and now I have an extra icon in my settings for something that use to be somewhere else. :p

I do get why people are upset about it, and agree we should try to make it clear to Nokia that it was a poor choice, and should not be repeated. But griping on a forum they don't monitor won't change their behavior. If you want to make a point, organize a letter writing campaign or setup a date/time for everyone to call their support like to complain about it en-mass. They need something big and explosive to see how big of an issue this is, not bits on a drive on a server they don't even remember they own.

Linux doesn't mean it's 100% open, never has, never will. Lots of things use Linux as their base OS, many of which you don't even consider as having an OS (like your home/office security system). It by no means means are you free to browse their code.

All this fuss over a number. You do realize that every time your phone gets/makes a call, or an sms, or even an alert back that it's on, the phone and/or the tower you're talking to transmits that number in the clear, yes? All one needs is a radio packet sniffer and about 10 minutes to collect all this information from every phone that's on and within transmission distance. Your number is transmitted and stored all over the place in the clear, it's not a national security secret.

This whole uproar reminds me of how people were upset when they discovered some web sites would "store" passwords in clear text files. At one point I saw someone say they wouldn't use the web server side of a file share, and would only use the ftp site until the "bug" was fixed. Completely not realizing that FTP transmits their username and password in clear text to the server (always has, still does)...

So if I run my code through an obfuscator a few times, remove all the comments (or put in misleading ones) and then publish the resulting "code" as opensource, since I published it, it's "open"? Code isn't the only piece in play here. You can say it is all you want, but there's more to it than just publishing code.

I'll be quite happy with it, since it does everything I really need it to do now. Most of the closed bits have a very nice API, and it's millions of times better than any other working phone on the market. Every device has closed bits (even Android), and most of them don't publish any code for their devices. This device comes with a good chunk of the base code, tons of documented API calls for the closed parts, and a fully operational development system. Show me one other device out there that does that at a higher lever than the N900 that's stable enough to use as a daily phone as well. You'll be hard pressed to do so...

Yes, I'd love complete open source. I'd also like a pony and a 20 acre ranch on which to raise it, oh, and a couple million dollars too... But given the existing options, this is as close as one can currently get and still have a working device. That's why a bought it, to encourage the trend toward opening, and to use it as best I can with the few limits placed on it.

Re: [Council] Nokia response to MyNokia subscription in PR1.2
 

I'm not sure if you guys are talking about what I'm thinking about, but I've seen apps that I didn't want or request to be installed on numerous occasions, so much so that I routinely roam my installed programs to toss interlopers. One example: the AP News Installer. I've been assuming that these are programs Nokia favors for commercial reasons, or that they get in for some other reason I don't understand. It happens often. though.