Talk:Maemo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why do we need this?

Not to be rude, but this is nothing more than useless fact dumping. Now somebody else is going to have to do the real work and add some actual meat. If you weren't willing to do that, you shouldn't have added the article. -- Foofy 00:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Stack: X Window System over Debian?

If Debian is to be in the stack, there shouldn't be much left, as it includes the X Window System, GTK+ and much more.--Chealer 02:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

How to pronounce?

How is Maemo pronounced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.221.197.20 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It kinda depends on your location, but MAY-mo or MAH-eh-mo seem to be the most accepted. I've not seen anything official from maemo or Nokia on it, though. The question may have come up during thoughtfix's interview with Quim Gil, though I don't recall the answer off-hand. -- GeneralAntilles (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule about this, but the maemo team at Nokia says "mah-EH-mo". A bit of background. Jesús Climent (Catalan & Spanish speaker) is the guy that came up with the name and Finland is the place where this happened. Catalan, Spanish and Finnish have only one thing in common: they pronnounce all the vowels as you see them. Accentuation rules in these language would put the stress in EH by default as is written.--Qgil (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiki style

It's nice that this article is being added to, but sources are as important as content, and a short clear article is usually much useful than one bogged down in obscure over-detail and buzz words. Umptious (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Technical terms are not "buzzwords" and somebody needs to learn how to use references. :\ GeneralAntilles (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Some is a technical word if it has a clearer more specific meaning than an English phrase. Ask yourself if this is then question when tempted in future. Umptious (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by General Antilles

GA: go and read the docs on how wikipedia works. Deleting sourced material because you personally disagree, with nothing more than an insulting comment breaks all the most important guidelines. If you really disagree with a sourced statement, alter it with a comment linking to this Discussion page where you provide a ***sourced argument*** explaining why your view is correct. For instance, I stated under security that maemo has a trivial default root password, using Nokia's own docs as a source. You deleted this as incorrect; would you like to explain why? You might then want to explain why you deleted "Although ITOS implements preemptive multitasking, the Hildon interface model limits the screen to showing a single window at a time. [1]"

Not following this procedure is, by definition, wiki vandalism, which if you persist in it can end in your being banned from editing wikipedia (although I would hope you have more sense: go and read those guidelines.)

Oh - and in future, do any controversial deletions separate to any positive contributions you make, annotating them careful. That way they can be preserved when your vandalism is undone.

Btw, I've done a search on your profile name on the Net (although I really should have remembered it from my research for the article): it appears a lot on a forum devoted to Maemo: do you have any business or other relationship with Nokia or vested interest in the platform? Have you been the recipient of any gifts such as free hardware or privileged access to new OS developments to influence your opinion? If so, its questionable as to whether you should be editing this article - and you should certainly be extra scruplulous in following wiki rules.

I'm going to assume for now that you're intentions are good, and that you haven't read the guidelines, but next time I will report you. In future: ***source and discuss***. And some basic civility wouldn't hurt. Umptious (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Any vandalism here was not done by GA, but by the other user who is pushing a myopic view of the maemo platform. He has already trolled the iTT forums and has decided to take out his anger on the maemo page.

- The above may be a civility offense under wiki guidelines. If you aren't mature to appreciate the benefits of civility of for its own sake, then do go away and read the guidelines and follow them by rote. Because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a troll or myopic: this is grownup life, please adjust Umptious (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

GA has been attempting a good faith cleanup of this page, nothing more. Brontide (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

- Calling vandalism a good faith cleanup is just spin. If content is wrong, it should be corrected - with sources and arguments being used, not abuse.

Umptious (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I recognise when I make a wrong decision, i'll leave it as is. Sorry, CycloneNimrod^talk? 16:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try and do an unbiased review of the diffs and see what NPOV materal can be salvaged Brontide (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at: http://www.internettablettalk.com/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=18863

So, GA goes to a forum for developers for the platform, screams that people are dissing it, people post saying they'll come and help him... And a group of people turn up in a few minutes on an article that ha hardly been touched in months all supporting him. This is NOT how wikipedia works. Getting together a group of people with an emotional or financial stake in as issue does not decide what appears on wikipedia. You use the discussion page, sources, and if necessary appeal for resolution from an editor. Otoh, this is SUCH a silly way of trying to influence wiki that it guarantees you're not professional PR people. Umptious (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The edits were biased and speculation while GA was in the middle of a good faith cleanup. GA's edits nor the community's efforts fall into WP's own guidelines for vandalism and the proper way to resolve this is on the discussion page as we are trying to do. Brontide (talk)

That forum is not for developers, and is not related to Nokia, so the "financial stake" argument is ridiculous on its face. As for emotional stake, that applies both ways,

- No, it doesn't. My only interest in maemo is writing an accurate article. This hardly compares with hundreds of hours of time invested and actual or potential gifts and jobs from Nokia. Umptious (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you, in fact, meanwhile from itT forums? If so, you have precisely the same evidence of emotional stake.129.74.108.111 (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

but NPOV of the text is what counts, not of the editor.

So, Umptious (AKA meanwhile) goes to the same forum, argues about security with more or less everyone, sees General Antilles thanking people right and left, and then suggests he "really should have remembered <GA's handle> from <Umptious's> research". And advocates discussion. Trouble is, that only works when both parties are discussing in good faith. 129.74.87.216 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It was looking at precisely that thread - which advocates using wikipedia for non NPOV propaganda - which reminded me who GA was.

Perhaps this thread is the one referred? 129.74.108.111 (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Be careful here... let's keep it civil and not presume anything. Right now things have settled down and I will be reapplying a bunch of changes. Brontide (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Diff Review

Here are the contested sections and my input. Future: the 4.1 and 5.0 ( Diablo and Elephanta ) should probably get a mention on the page as they are well know in the community and should be easy to source. The part about Trolltech is pure speculation and should not be included.

- If there is a source for something, it is hardly "pure speculation". Since announcing the plans for future versions of maemo, Nokia has spent far than the maemo project cost buying a competing technology, aimed at exactly the same market, with maemo's security flaws fixed. This is worthy of discussion, and such discussions are part of many wikipedia articles on businesses and technologies.

Umptious (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Security: The edits violate NPOV since they are generic arguments against unix and original research that are used to slam the maemo platform.

- 1. something is a generic argument against unix, then if correct and sourced, it may still have a place in an article about a unix variant.

- 2. a sourced discussion of a generic unix security flaw, given 1. is NOT necessarily a violation of NPOV. Arguing that unix security flaws should not be discussed *is*

- 3. I wrote the contested text - and I'm unware of ANY the security flaws discussed (trivial default poassword, lack of security software) applying to unix in general

- 4. Maemo is a mobile OS; that means it has different security requirements to a desktop or server OS; saying that maemo should be judged by the same standards is ridiculous: in particular, the potential for telecom dos attacks has to be considered with a potential phone OS (or in maemo's case to possibly explain why although it is sponsired by a phone company it is NOT used on phones)

Umptious (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Your "sources" consist of links to the Register (not a source known for its reliability), a google search page (which changes daily) and original research (you need to read the Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:No original research), and it's certainly not NPOV. You've also managed to completely break the footnotes with your "sources". GeneralAntilles (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The updating between os versions should probably be reintegrated into the page as well as the references to the maemo "single window" design. Brontide (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reintegrated most of the content. I have tried to use high quality sources for the future software where possible, but it could probably use some more Brontide (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

maemo software architecture

Full disclosure: I work at Nokia, being responsible of the maemo.org project. I won't edit the page nor will I try to influence the content, but I guess it's ok to help with corrections and question here in the discussion page.

The graphic with the architecture is not correct. What is the source? You can find accurate information in the Architecture section of http://maemo.org/development/documentation/maemo-quick-start-guide.pdf and all the details at http://maemo.org/development/documentation/how-tos/4-x/maemo_architecture.html --Qgil (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I pulled it from a presentation slide on maemo.org, actually. I believe it may have been from the GNOME Mobile and Embedded Initiative conference. GeneralAntilles (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I see: all my fault, sorry about that. http://www.slideshare.net/qgil/nokia-and-maemo-in-the-new-gnome-mobile-context/ slide 13. The URLs above are more recent and accurate. --Qgil (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ITOS 2008

There is a reference to "ITOS 2008". The previous versions were called "Internet Tablet OS 200*" and "ITOS" is the short version used by the community, but not an official denomination. Since the name was long it was changed to "OS2008" i.e. http://nokia.com/os2008 --Qgil (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Maemo vs. Internet Tablet OS

The maemo page itself states that maemo is properly distinct from the Internet Tablet OS; however, most of the page focuses upon the OS. Should these topics be split into separate pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.66.56.73 (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably worth doing now, but the article was a little underweight for that when I started out and the maemo page is going to be very stubbish once it gets split at this point. GeneralAntilles (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, right now I would even argue that too many of the linked pages are stubs and should be pulled back into the maemo page until there it more meat as well. Brontide (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I dunno. I suppose you could make an argument about Matchbox, Hildon, and Scratchbox, but they're all relevant outside of maemo, so including them in this article (despite their small size) wouldn't really make sense. Modest, maybe, I could understand, but it's new today and going to be expanded soon. GeneralAntilles (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought "What the heck, Carpe diem!", and went ahead and separated the article in two. I figure that the Internet Tablet OS (being an operating system and all) deserved its own page : ) I agree that the maemo page is too small to be left on its own, but it's got the SDK to keep it company, so it should be okay. InternetMeme (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine, but what about all the Internet Tablet OS wikilinks that still point to the maemo page? GeneralAntilles (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see what you mean, but anyone clicking a link to maemo will very quickly find their way to the Internet Tablet OS via some very conspicuous links in the maemo article. Over time, the other articles will be updated to link directly to the Internet Tablet OS by their respective editors. I think it should be okay. Maybe we could help: Special:WhatLinksHere/Maemo. Btw, good work on tidying up the maemo/Internet Tablet OS article : ) InternetMeme (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. GeneralAntilles (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored security

I restored the previous security section for three reasons:

1. It contained sourced, relevant discussion that seems to have been delete just because would-be maemo evangelists don't want potential weaknesses of the OS discussing. These points should only be removed after discussion which proves them to be untrue. Which I suspect is unlikely as much of the material objected to comes from Nokia.

2. The new version was deep in weasel wording and obscuring spin, eg saying "Internet Tablet OS security concentrates on preventing remote attacks[12] (e.g. by wireless networking and Bluetooth)" by way warning that ITOS is stated by Nokia to have little or no provision for stopping attacks by hosile applications installed on a machine.

3. Maemo is a mobile OS. Discussing it's security features against those of other mobile OS's makes the most sense for users, developers, analysts, investors - in fact, absolutely anyone who doesn't object to a comparison that they feel shows maemo, which is weak here, in a poor light.

4. It was stated that >>> "maemo makes use of a root account like Debian does but has a trivial default password"—meaning if a user installed a hostile or malicious application it could seize control of the operating system. However, root logins are disabled by default, so extra software such as OpenSSH must be installed to expose this vulnerability. Recommended practice is to change the root password before installing such software (which is forced during the installation of the OpenSSH server). <<< Now, this implies (but does not absolutely state) that OpenSSH or an equivalent is required for the vulnerability to be present. However:

i. It doesn't quite say that, and given the obvious effort to put in spin into the article discussed above (often showing a very professional level of PR writing...) this requires disambiguation.

ii. No source is given, but only a link to the OpenSSH article on wikipedia. This article does NOT support the view that OpenSSH is required for the vulnerability to be useful to an attacker, but instead that OpenSSH is just a safe way of performing certain tasks (such as changing the password involved) that might otherwise be dangerous.

But definitely, if someone is willing to make an un-spun, definite statement, backed by a source, this would be very useful.

Umptious (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Umptious (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

2. I don't see any weasel words there. Perhaps you could be more specific. The quote you mention seems perfectly accurate; my only concern with it would be that it's a direct copy from a Nokia document, presumably not GFDL-compatible.

4.i You seem to claim that "However, root logins are disabled by default, so extra software such as OpenSSH must be installed to expose this vulnerability." isn't an absolute statement that "OpenSSH or an equivalent is required for the vulnerability to be present". To me, it seems that it is an absolute statement to that effect; I can see no other way of interpreting it.

4.ii It seems to be supported by the source referenced at the end of that paragraph. Quoting from that source (the Maemo Quick Start Guide):

- The source given follows a claim re the screen lock code and supports that claim. It doesn't support - or even mention - any claim regarding the root password, which is quite different and much more important. 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Ubuntu, maemo makes use of a root account like Debian does but has a triv-

ial default password. The user should really change the root password before installing

e.g. OpenSSH to the device with root login.

- 1. This quote doesn't come from the source given, which was P14 of the guide. If you want to quote the whole guide, well, that would be poor style - but link to the whole guide. If you to quote different pages to prove different things, use multiple quotes with the correct page reference in each one. —This is part of a comment by Umptious , which was interrupted by the following:

Correct, I said the wrong one; it's the link to page 11 of the same document, earlier in the paragraph. 129.74.64.45 (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

- 2. There is a BIG difference between "There is no vulnerability unless you install X" and "If you install X, be sure to do Y". This is fairly basic logic. You can't use the second to prove the first. In this case, the second warning actually seems to mean that installing OpenSSH adds a vulnerability to networking attacks as well as on-board ones - this is what happens if you add a network administration tool to a device with an unsecure root password! Is there a Nokia support forum where we could clarify this if you disagree? If not I will pick a respectable security or OpenSSH forum and ask (although Nokia probably won't thank you, either way if I'm right..) —This is part of a comment by Umptious , which was interrupted by the following:

Fair enough on the logic side; but I know for a fact (OR, of course) that the default config has root login disabled. (Which implies root password doesn't matter, until something else permits it; one of the main reasons people install ssh on ITs is to permit root login by ssh root@localhost.) Not sure on a source, though; I don't know of any Nokia forums. Clearly, a discussion of the specific initial configuration of ITOS won't get anywhere useful on general forums. 129.74.64.45 (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

- 3. Believe it or not, I would be glad if you were correct on this issue vulnerability was lower than I thought! However, the responsible thing to do would then to be to define the remaining level of vulnerability correctly, not to brush the whol issue under the carpet. Eg if keyloggers are prevented this way, can a program still read other program's files?'' 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's not good, what exactly do you think we need a reference to support? (I'm not sure about the assertion that installing OpenSSH forces a root password change; I installed it so long ago I don't remember if it's true, much less have a reference. I agree that that needs a reference.)

-- Again, see 2. immediately above. I think you don't understand the basic logic here, although it's nice to see an attempt to discuss.

Umptious (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it'd seem good if you separated your additions regarding matchbox and such from your alterations of the security section, for the same reasons you pointed out to General Antilles.129.74.64.45 (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

- Quite true. All I can plead in my defence is that I am dealing with a concerted attempt by a group - whose members often use personal abuse and disregard basic wiki ettiquette. Under those conditions, standards will slip. Be polite, sign in to edit, use the discussion page correctly, etc, and no doubt things will improve.... Umptious (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of using the discussion page correctly, this discussion page is getting hard to follow; WP:TALK#Technical and format standards suggests using indentation; I think that would help a lot.129.74.64.45 (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You not only "restored" it you reverted all of the work that other had placed on that paragraph. It equivocated Maemo with iPhone and smartphone despite the fact that have no phone hardware in any of the devices. Most of the section was a rant against either native code or cell phone attached computers and is NOT related to maemo. Brontide (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Some short remarks about Umptious points above: 1) As already stated you use your own forum post as a source and a Google query - those are no real sources. 3) It's a mobile OS but it's not a phone OS unlike all other systems you compare it to. 4) If you install OpenSSH under OS2008, you will be asked for a password so this all has nothing to do with OpenSSH. If you install ANY application you will do this with root privileges and hence ANY application can compromise the system at install time. This is a basic "security flaw" in almost all other environments and operating systems. If you "trust" the application and it does malicious things you will have a problem. All "open" platforms suffer from this - some might ask one more time if you want to allow certain things but if you "trust" the application you might also grant further access. 85.177.93.19 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rootstraps

Scratchbox-compatible rootstraps are available for both x86 and ARMEL, so the majority of development and debugging takes place on x86, with final packaging being for ARMEL.

1. source!

2. missing logic (ie explain why with rootstraps available for both cpus, x86 is used until the late stages - yes, I know, but the reader doesn't - and you edited out my explanation, so I'll leave it to you to restore/replace it)

3. does the term rootstrap really add enough meaning to counter for its obscurity? this is a general encyclopedia, and articles should be written appropriately

4. ditto "final packaging"

If the above is not accomplished, then content may have to be deleted to be in accordance with wiki guidelines. Umptious (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Future Vandalism/Edits

Unlike General Antilles and Brontide, I've discussed my reasoning for edits that they may object to at some length. I expect them to do the same rather than just deleting material they feel "disses" the OS they work with. I also expect them to avoid NPOV and spin and to simply write as accurately and clearly as they can. ***And once again, use sources***

It's this simple: if you object to material in the article, then explain why it breaks wiki guidelines or in is incorrect. Be abusive, and you will be will be reported for a civility offense. Remove material without relevant explanation (which means more than "wrong!") and you may well be reported for vandalism. I have no interest in maemo - positive or negative- beyond getting an accurate wiki article up. That precludes allowing spin or the removal of information which may reflect on the OS badly if it is being removed only for that reason - it does not mean that I am somehow an enemy of this obscure OS. Umptious (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop breaking up discussions on this page, it makes the text impossible to follow Brontide (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Maemo is "mobile" in that it's a handheld peice of consumer electronics, it is not "mobile" as in directly attached to the cellular network. Your rant against the platform continues to equivocate physical mobility and cell-phone based mobility. Neither the fact that this system could a bt phone for data or it's new WiMAX edition change the fact that no NIT produced has phone hardware built in or has the ability to damage the cellular network. Brontide (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

- Maemo is an operating system, not a piece of hardware. The above is therefore nonsense in the literal sense - ie it can't be logically applied. Nokia is a phone company and the maemo community have been - as I suspect you are aware - **asking** for maemo phones: [1] "The big hope in the Maemo communitiy is that Nokia will release a Maemo phone. Already Maemo has been ported to FIC's Neo, the OpenMoko phone." Umptious (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please use proper formatting and stop breaking up the discussion. Brontide (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)