Michael Hasselmann

So there are people who say that Nokia's N9 isn't MeeGo ...

... and those people are right, if we followed the MeeGo Compliance Spec to the letter.

But at the same time, Nokia's N9 is one of those devices that the MeeGo community has always been waiting for.

Nokia's N9

If "This is not MeeGo!" is the only thing that comes to your mind whilst reading about all the N9 excitement then you still haven't realized MeeGo's biggest problem: No. Compelling. Devices. And if - at the same time - you are one of the MeeGo project leaders, then you should do yourself and everyone else involved with MeeGo a favor and simply resign.

We need more visionary leaders than you.

Comments

JR commented on June 23, 2011 at 2:14 p.m.

I just wanted a N950 with a QWERTY sliding keyboard. Hearing that they only made 250 of them, which they will only *lend* to select developers, made my heart sink. I never got a N900 and by now its hardware is pretty dated, so there's little incentive for me in buying one, since I'd use it as my main phone.

I guess I'll get a Desire Z. Maybe 2012 some other manufacturer will come along with the phone I want.

Mathias Hasselmann commented on June 23, 2011 at 4:06 p.m.

JR: They made more than 250 of them, but only 250 of them are handed out for free(?) to FOSS developers. Everyone else must use Nokia Forum to get one. If I understood things correctly.

Adam Williamson commented on June 23, 2011 at 5:36 p.m.

Reading that LWN thread...is there an Official Pin at Nokia headquarters, for you all to dance on top of?! sheesh.

I believe the 'free' N950s are on a loan basis, that's how it sounds from the page, anyway. So if I apply for that, and I don't get one, I can sign up with this other thing and pay for one? Is that right? Are we talking about http://www.developer.nokia.com/Device... ?

JR commented on June 23, 2011 at 6:25 p.m.

@Mathias Hasselman;
Hmm.
>To aid the speedy development of apps for the Nokia N9 smartphone, Nokia has produced a limited number of developer phones, the Nokia N950 phone. This phone isn't available for purchase and can only be obtained through selected developer programs, such as Nokia Developer LaunchPad.
http://www.developer.nokia.com/Device...

Also related forum thread;
http://www.developer.nokia.com/Commun...

Quim commented on June 23, 2011 at 11:40 p.m.

Your questions about the MeeGo community developer device program, are welcome at http://forum.meego.com/showthread.php...

anonymous commented on June 24, 2011 at 12:34 a.m.

> So there are people who say that Nokia's N9 isn't
> MeeGo ...
>... and those people are right, if we followed the
> MeeGo Compliance Spec to the lette

http://wiki.meego.com/images/MeeGo-Co... says

MeeGo™  Compliance Specification 
DRAFT Version 1.1.80.1 (target: MeeGo 1.2) 
 
What means that the specs are older then the implementation.

Can you point out which parts in the specs do not fit to the implementation?

Michael Hasselmann commented on June 24, 2011 at 1:35 a.m.

Simply put, because of its debian packaging, Harmattan violates MeeGo's Platform Compatibility (§2.2, first paragraph): "System implementers MUST use the source code of the MeeGo Reference Implementation and SHALL NOT replace or omit MeeGo Core or MeeGo Profile components. They SHALL NOT repackage the software such that individual files appear in different binary package names than those used in the MeeGo Reference Implementation."

Joe commented on June 24, 2011 at 1:46 a.m.

I hardly think "no compelling devices" is the biggest problem with Meego. It's had half-hearted support from before it was born (i.e., even the platforms it was based on were weakly supported by Nokia). Since then we've seen Nokia abandon flagship phones, sell out to Microsoft in corrupt backroom deals, abandon TWO platforms as a result...

Sigh. I can't even be bothered to enumerate all their failures. Nokia is dead. N9 looks nice, but given Nokia's track record (with hardware as well as software) and now their corrupt involvement with microsoft, I'll never even bother to pick up an N9 in a store.

anonymous commented on June 24, 2011 at 2:33 a.m.

@Michael

So you say that the N9 replaces or omits MeeGo Core or MeeGo Profile components cause of its debian packaging?

Or do you mean that the N9 repackages individual files of there own MeeGo Reference Implementation[1] cause of the debian packaging?

I don't got it.

[1] MeeGo Reference Implementation – the reference implementation shall be the source code released by the MeeGo project for the packages listed in Appendix A. 

anonymous commented on June 24, 2011 at 3:04 a.m.

One more thing. On the first page of the specs I linked above you find following note in red letters:

This document is a preliminary draft and all content is subject to change.  No product compliance decisions should be based on this draft.  

"to the word"?

Michael Hasselmann commented on June 24, 2011 at 10:49 a.m.

> So you say that the N9 replaces or omits MeeGo Core or MeeGo Profile components cause of its debian packaging?

The first. If you check the SDK you will also notice how the same libraries got packaged differently, with different names. The latter wouldn't be a problem, as any device can come up with its own MeeGo profile.

That the compliance spec for MeeGo 1.2 wasn't finalized yet (5 weeks after its release) is indeed a problem (feel free to ask MeeGo's Technical Steering Group about this).

anonymous commented on June 24, 2011 at 11:51 a.m.

http://developer.meego.com/meego-sdk/... says

The MeeGo 1.2 SDK release provides the latest tools for creating and debugging MeeGo applications for tablets, netbooks, and handheld devices.

That means it's used to produce applications for the 1.2 stack outside of the MeeGo stack like on Windows. To my knowledge those produced and packaged applications do not include libraries under different names which are already on the device.

The point is that the specs do not apply to the SDK cause those specs are related to the Core and Profile (§1.1. Scope) only.

anonymous commented on June 24, 2011 at 12:08 p.m.

To extend that: So the SDK itself is not MeeGo compliant. Since the N9 does NOT ship with that SDK preinstalled I still don't got the original point that the N9 isn't MeeGo.

Quim commented on June 24, 2011 at 12:16 p.m.

Nobody is trying to say that MeeGo 1.2 Harnmattan is MeeGo compliant. Nokia requested a trademark exception and got it granted.

Can you please take a step back and ask yourselves these non-technical questions?

- Who out there in the world of iOS, Android, WP, Blackberry, WebOS etc cares about the diff between MeeGo and MeeGo 1.2 Harmattan?

- Who inside the MeeGo and Qt communities care and why?

- What is more beneficial to the MeeGo project, to call it MeeGo or call it something else, to direct commu ity contributors to meego.com or somewhere else?

In practice what matters is the role of Qt in the platform, and in this sense the Nokia N9 is a MeeGo handset champion.

anonymous commented on June 25, 2011 at 4:12 a.m.

> - Who inside the MeeGo and Qt communities care and why?

It would be interesting to know which parts are not MeeGo compliant cause
- they need to change to be compliant
- that tells what changes to expect in 1.3
- names problem-fields on switching between 1.2 implementations
- is news about the MeeGo landscape

> Nobody is trying to say that MeeGo 1.2 Harnmattan is MeeGo compliant. Nokia requested a trademark exception and got it granted.

I hope that is solved better in 1.3 then.

matrixx commented on July 1, 2011 at 11:28 a.m.

As a member of Qt Community, I accompany Quim's opinion: we really don't care the differencies.

What does it matter if N9 reminds us more about our beloved Maemo than MeeGo. It's still Linux, it's Qt and looks awesome!

When creating applications, only difference is packaging, and with the help of QtCreator and the great SDK's, we don't even need to care about the packaging if we don't necessarily want to do it ourselves :)