Notices


Reply
Thread Tools
pichlo's Avatar
Posts: 5,246 | Thanked: 15,937 times | Joined on Sep 2012 @ UK
#3241
First of all, thank you for your answer!

Originally Posted by w00t View Post
Right now, when upgrading, your friendly package management system says: "please give me a list of all packages and their versions". Then it determines which versions are newer, of the packages you have installed, and it updates them appropriately.
Yes, this is how I see it working. It may be slightly inefficient but it is the only reliable method.

With this system, it says "please tell me what my private virtual repository contains", and it is sent metadata only for packages that have been installed over the store.
Yes, and that is the part that does not work when two devices with different app sets share the same account.

As far as I understand it, your proposal is: "I have these packages installed locally, please send me metadata for them".
No, that was not what I meant. I do realize the information leakage problem which is why I was not considering that scenario. I was assuming the "give me the full list with versions and I will choose" case. Yes, there is a potential for a performance hit as seen on e.g. the N900 but that can be alleviated.

Debian based systems are plagued by the fact that each time the catalogues are refreshed, the whole shebang with the dependencies is transferred (up to about 10MB per repository in Maemo's case) and parsed. One way to reduce that is to split it in two parts: 1) names and versions, 2) dependencies. That way, the difficult part (parsing the dependencies) would be done only for the specific package the user selects for installation or upgrade and only when he choses to do so.

Please note that there is still an information leakage ("Johny is installing package X"), but only to the repository that provides that package and that is unavoidable anyway.
__________________
In particle accelerators atoms are indeed not only touching each others. But banging together in a massive explosive orgasm.
-- nieldk in a TMO post
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to pichlo For This Useful Post:
w00t's Avatar
Posts: 1,055 | Thanked: 4,106 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Norway
#3242
Originally Posted by pichlo View Post
Yes, and that is the part that does not work when two devices with different app sets share the same account.
It does work, it's just not working at optimal efficiency. It says: "please give me a list of all my installed packages in the virtual repository", and then, locally, discards the ones that don't apply.

Originally Posted by pichlo View Post
One way to reduce that is to split it in two parts: 1) names and versions, 2) dependencies. That way, the difficult part (parsing the dependencies) would be done only for the specific package the user selects for installation or upgrade and only when he choses to do so.
You're right of course that with effort, it's possible to do this in any number of different ways, but looking at the large amount of things already on the plate, I question if this is something important enough to spend effort on.

Originally Posted by pichlo View Post
Please note that there is still an information leakage ("Johny is installing package X"), but only to the repository that provides that package and that is unavoidable anyway.
Yup, you implicitly trust your repository provider. If you don't, you might want to reconsider, considering you're installing software directly from them. The thing is what you trust them with, of course, which is a bit of a different thing
__________________
i'm a Qt expert and former Jolla sailor (forever sailing, in spirit).
if you like, read more about me.
if you find me entertaining, or useful, thank me. if you don't, then tell me why.
 

The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to w00t For This Useful Post:
pichlo's Avatar
Posts: 5,246 | Thanked: 15,937 times | Joined on Sep 2012 @ UK
#3243
Originally Posted by w00t View Post
It does work, it's just not working at optimal efficiency. It says: "please give me a list of all my installed packages in the virtual repository", and then, locally, discards the ones that don't apply.
Thanks w00t, that paragraph has finally answered the question for me.
I am completely satisfied.
__________________
In particle accelerators atoms are indeed not only touching each others. But banging together in a massive explosive orgasm.
-- nieldk in a TMO post
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pichlo For This Useful Post:
Posts: 281 | Thanked: 1,888 times | Joined on Feb 2010
#3244
Originally Posted by pichlo View Post
- You do? How? What data? Sorry, you've confused me.
If app is bound to the device, then the device needs to be identified somehow. If you buy an app, you need to pay it somehow, which in online world means you'll need to disclose certain information about yourself, which then can be easily identify you being the one using or paying for software used in that device.

You are suggesting nothing more than moving this backup out of your control and have it on some central server in Helsinki. Not that there is anything wrog with that per se, but it should not be compulsory.
Perhaps. However, knowing how hopeless it's to educate average people handling backups, I do think it would be quite a bit safer to store such data in some central server in Helsinki. Of course it would be nice if backup-set contained also list of software installed on device, in certain situations it would be quite effective.

[*]Making sure you have the same applications installed on two different devices.
This is basically about the "centralized backup" as mentioned above. Well, I am the kind of a person who
a) May want two devices with completely different application sets;
b) Does not mind to install the same appliocation twice;
c) Would be p!$$ed off if the device forced the same app sets on my two devices because I used the same account. As happened with Android: the same patch from Motorola was forced on another device in our household. Who cares that the other device was a Samsung? It used the same account
I didn't suggest that installing them to all devices were compulsory. I said that I'd like to have a list of my purchased and/or installed apps, from which I can choose which ones I want to install on my other/new device. This can be done manually, searching and installing all apps one by one, but it's more time consuming and can be made more streamlined.
.
The transfer of intellectual property.
This is the only case when "something" - not the application, but the right to install it - is associated with the person. An account does not entirely answer that if it can be shared but it is better than nothing. An account also does not help if the app developer wants you to buy a different license for each device, so the developers will just have to suck it and put up with Jolla's distribution scheme. Luckily (for Apple followers, that is) there is alraedy a precedence that people are used to.
If developer wants to use different kind of licensing, he could do it even in scenario I mentioned. It's technically possible to even integrate such functionality to store that if such licensing is used, it would prompt for buying a new license on install.

Not unconditionally since, as I explained above, it also has its caveats.
Every single thing in software world has caveats. Especially when human beings are involved.

It could work as a "convenience" for some but not for others.
Convenience is utterly critical if the platform is to make any kind of market penetration. For this reason, anything that hinders convenience and ease of use has to have very strong reasons behind them. That has been my point all along. Usability and convenience should never be sacrificed for ideological reason, especially in consumer space. But if such approach is too bold or outright evil, then I guess I'm not geek enough. Anyway, w00t explained things better than me, so for now this will be my last take on this.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to JulmaHerra For This Useful Post:
pichlo's Avatar
Posts: 5,246 | Thanked: 15,937 times | Joined on Sep 2012 @ UK
#3245
Originally Posted by JulmaHerra View Post
If app is bound to the device, then the device needs to be identified somehow.
An app is bound to the device implicitly, simply by being on it. And no, the device does not need to be identified. That was the whole point. The device is the driver of the installation/update, not the Store. (As it turns out, it is the combination of both. I cannot say I prefer that solution but at least it provides the answer.)

I said that I'd like to have a list of my purchased and/or installed apps, from which I can choose which ones I want to install on my other/new device. This can be done manually, searching and installing all apps one by one, but it's more time consuming and can be made more streamlined.
We don't know anything about purchased apps yet as there is no such support. But my case with two Jollas in the family sharing the same account shows that the streamlining you mention above does not work. At least not at the moment.

Usability and convenience should never be sacrificed for ideological reason, especially in consumer space.
And therein I believe lies the crux of the whole thing. It is so common to bring up ideological issues to every discussion about anything even remotely connected to "Linux" and "open source" that people tend to automatically assume that every discussion is about ideological issues. I tried to convey all the time that I had technical reasons in mind, not ideological.

I know this is not the common way in the modern world but my approach to any problem is, "take as little as you need", as opposed to "take as much as you can get." That applies to buffer sizes as well as how much to pack on a holiday and... how much the central repository needs to know about each client.
__________________
In particle accelerators atoms are indeed not only touching each others. But banging together in a massive explosive orgasm.
-- nieldk in a TMO post
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to pichlo For This Useful Post:
nthn's Avatar
Posts: 595 | Thanked: 2,150 times | Joined on Jun 2014
#3246
Originally Posted by JulmaHerra View Post
That has been my point all along. Usability and convenience should never be sacrificed for ideological reason, especially in consumer space.
Hm. Well. Not sure if I can agree on that. Ideology, if there is one, should come before usability and convenience. But I suppose that in itself is already an ideology.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nthn For This Useful Post:
Posts: 281 | Thanked: 1,888 times | Joined on Feb 2010
#3247
Originally Posted by pichlo View Post
We don't know anything about purchased apps yet as there is no such support. But my case with two Jollas in the family sharing the same account shows that the streamlining you mention above does not work. At least not at the moment.
That's why I said how I'd prefer it to be when I receive my Jolla Tablet.

Maybe I should actually make a suggestion at TJC....

And therein I believe lies the crux of the whole thing. It is so common to bring up ideological issues to every discussion about anything even remotely connected to "Linux" and "open source" that people tend to automatically assume that every discussion is about ideological issues. I tried to convey all the time that I had technical reasons in mind, not ideological.
That may be because in Linux and Open Source world there are awful lot of ideological things. Just look at the discussion about SDXC-support in Jolla Tablet. I can hardly see any technical reason to implement the store otherwise (like performance, reliability, end user experience...) - if only motivation to do it would be like "I don't want them to know this and that or anything at all", I do count it being an ideological reason, not technical. If something makes things more difficult for end user, there has to be very concrete and strong reasons for doing it because every unnecessary snag average user hits will have negative impact on adoption rate and reputation of the platform, which are extremely critical for it to survive in the long run.

I know this is not the common way in the modern world but my approach to any problem is, "take as little as you need", as opposed to "take as much as you can get." That applies to buffer sizes as well as how much to pack on a holiday and... how much the central repository needs to know about each client.
Requiring username (which by itself does not identify person behind it in any way) and password is IMO quite far from "take as much as you can get."
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to JulmaHerra For This Useful Post:
peterleinchen's Avatar
Posts: 3,277 | Thanked: 6,043 times | Joined on Aug 2010 @ Ruhrgebiet, Germany
#3248
Let me repeat my question (as it may got lost).

Originally Posted by peterleinchen View Post
BTW
can anybody tell me where the data goes that you have to enter on first switch on, i.e. account, name, surname, telephone, birthday and so on?

I would to see that anywhere in settings or in a file or?
And would like to know if this data gets synchronized with jolla online account data?
__________________
SIM-Switcher, automated SIM switching with a Double (Dual) SIM adapter
--
Thank you all for voting me into the Community Council 2014-2016!

Please consider your membership / supporting Maemo e.V. and help to spread this by following/copying this link to your TMO signature:
[MC eV] Maemo Community eV membership application, http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=94257

editsignature, http://talk.maemo.org/profile.php?do=editsignature
 
pichlo's Avatar
Posts: 5,246 | Thanked: 15,937 times | Joined on Sep 2012 @ UK
#3249
Originally Posted by JulmaHerra View Post
I can hardly see any technical reason to implement the store otherwise
That's the scary bit. People are so used to the Apple way that they can't even imagine anything else. The technical innovation stopped in 2007.

Requiring username (which by itself does not identify person behind it in any way) and password is IMO quite far from "take as much as you can get."
True but it is just as far from "take as little as you have to", since "as little as you have to" can be absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch. As w00t admitted, the current way was just one of possible ways of implementing it. Perhaps not the best but good enough. And now it's too late and not enough reason to change it. I fully agree with that.

Originally Posted by peterleinchen View Post
Let me repeat my question (as it may got lost).
The phone says the info stays private and I have no reason to apriori assume otherwise. I would imagine its primary purpose is to identify your phone in case of getting lost or stolen but I would also like to know where the info is stored.
__________________
In particle accelerators atoms are indeed not only touching each others. But banging together in a massive explosive orgasm.
-- nieldk in a TMO post
 
Posts: 281 | Thanked: 1,888 times | Joined on Feb 2010
#3250
Originally Posted by pichlo View Post
That's the scary bit. People are so used to the Apple way that they can't even imagine anything else. The technical innovation stopped in 2007.
Or, no one has been able to convince people that there is a better way to do it. It it ain't broken, don't fix it.

True but it is just as far from "take as little as you have to", since "as little as you have to" can be absolutely nothing.
Yes. If you are willing to accept the limitations of that model.

The phone says the info stays private and I have no reason to apriori assume otherwise. I would imagine its primary purpose is to identify your phone in case of getting lost or stolen but I would also like to know where the info is stored.
AFAIK it's stored in the device only (at least that what it says in that screen), but it can also be skipped if one doesn't want to save such information to the device. No idea which file or db it's stored in though...
 
Reply

Tags
jolla, review, sailfish, the other half, user experience

Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:57.