Talk:Maemo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Original Research

I have added the OR tag since the whole paragraph, continually reverted by Umpitious, is a rant against native code and cellular attached computing. The Nokia hardware does not have a cell phone or a way to dial a cell phone except through some very specialized software when paired with a bluetooth phone. Brontide (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Brontide: I was very specific about maemo not being used on phones. The question from an analyst/investors' POV is why not? Nokia IS a phone company! Reasoning is not necessarily the same as original research. The sources I used clearly showed that the degree of security maemo has would NOT be considered appropriate in a phone - that's definite, non-OR material, and I think it's worthwhile, but I'm definitely open to ***civil argument***. From someone who bothers to provide it. Btw, "rant" is a breach of wiki civility. Try harder.

I also find it hypocritical of you to accuse me of continually reverting: I've made it clear that my only objection has been to you and your colleagues deleting sourced material without discussion. This is called wiki vandalism and restoring is the correct thing to do, especially when the replacement material is unsourced and non-NPOV. I've done this several times while you and your fellow "evangelists" kept on deleting anything you didn't like. Umptious (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Otoh, as you note, maemo is deployed on platforms that control phones via bluetooth. So to satisfy you I could note - with no question OR at all - that it could ***already*** be used to make DOS attacks. Would that make you happier? Umptious (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC) : Write and source your own "Mobile security" article, stop dumping this information here. It's inapplicable to the maemo platform. Brontide (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

- Once again: 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." Now, for your own purposes it may not be important to consider how maemo's security model may affect its use in phones, but the question clearly *is* important to some people. And really, what is your problem? If maemo isn't suitable for phone applications shouldn't this be stated, especially when every other OS categorized as mobile is used that way??? I'm trying hard to understand here - please explain. As for the suggestion of a mobile OS security article, that would be the place to discuss general concepts - I'm concerned here with those specific to maemo.

The bottom line here is that you are using the OR tag to challenge material concerning factors that limit the correct use of a technology. In fact, defining the limits of a technology is a key part of understanding it, and referring to a limit - with copious sourcing - does not constitute OR. Umptious (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting it. Umptious, you try to explain how maemo fails to meet certain security standards that are necessary for things maemo doesn't try to do in the first place. You could as well add a section about maemo not being suitable as a car. It would be equally true - and equally useless information. You're trying to justify all this by saying that some community (who?) have been asking for maemo phones. Well, search for debian on mobile phones on google; ppl. asked for debian on standard mobile phones. - Would you now add your security paragraph to the Debian-article, too, please? And, of course, to the articles about Moblin and Ubuntu Mobile. 62.47.151.64 (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I point you to the Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight policy specifically "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

- This does NOT mean "If you and your friends who have all invested time and money in a platform and have received gifts and services from Nokia gang up to edit wikipedia, then your will shall prevail". It's talking about about the overall view of informed majority sources trumping that of eg a group of Debian hacker wannabe fanboys. Umptious (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

as well as Wikipedia:SYN#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position specifically "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." Brontide (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, "or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article". That's "or" not as you apparently think "and". A source on mobile OS security is directly related to the security section of an article on a mobile OS. Umptious (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE FOLLOW TALK PAGE GUIDELINES WP:TALK ESPECIALLY ABOUT EDITING OTHERS POSTS. Find primary sources, besides yourself, that come to the same conclusion or drop this topic. Brontide (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, OR and the "Possible use of ITOS in phones" section

I'm wondering how implying that maemo will kill people can possibly be considered NPOV. GeneralAntilles (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

- Then you don't understand what NPOV is. You appear to think it means "Saying things I, GA, don't like". It doesn't. It means using biasing adjectives, spin, or concealing facts. Umptious (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also a serious mischaracterization as "The community" has been asking for GSM data, not NIT as a phone. They are very different things. Brontide (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

- Read the source used: "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." Now, ***you*** may want GSM, but the source was talking about something quite different. Umptious (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is the generalization of one user and the second is factually incorrect since maemo does not run on the openmoko although they do have some code sharing that goes on. Find a primary source for your assertions. Brontide (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Internet Tablet OS is designed for Nokia Internet Tablets, but has also been ported to run on Openmoko phones[8][unreliable source?]" I do not have any record of this. And it would be damn complicated i.e. how to make the Hildonized home in the OpenMoko screen size. If you strip down all the things you need to adapt for the Neo1973 hardware, you end up... with the many common low level components both platforms have. Reading the source I'd say the blogger simply got confused. --Qgil (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you, he was probably confused by the fact that OpenMoko uses Hildon. Cleaned up the section a bit and deleted the OpenMoko reference. Still needs some work, though. GeneralAntilles (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please link the section "Possible use of ITOS in phones" section to maemo or I believe it should be removed. It basically claims that the only reason that maemo has not been used in a true phone is that it's inclusion will kill people. Get a real source to back up that assertion and/or add another reason that section should not be removed for being off-topic or I will remove the whole section on or about the evening of the 24th or April. Brontide (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a threat of wiki vandalism: if you really believe this can't be resolved by discussion, apply for wiki arbitration. Umptious (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Find a primary source that come to the same conclusion about maemo security Brontide (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that Brontide is considering vandalism; remember that making bold edits in good faith is not vandalism, and providing advance notice that he considers a section off-topic and insufficiently sourced seems the courteous thing to do, and an effort to engage in discussion, not an indication that this can't be resolved by discussion. Also, I think WP:REDFLAG does seem relevant. 129.74.64.45 (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any editors, besides Umptious, that believe that this section is salvageable? Are there any primary sources that can claim that phones that support native code are a threat to human life? Brontide (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It reads like the section is trying to justify it's own existence, and failing. Nothing but FUD, and seems very out of place in an encyclopedia IMHO.--Vman81 (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the whole "Possible use of Internet Tablet OS in phones" section, as it is obvious crap. The described DOS attack can easily be applied with the tablets as is - the tablet can dial a number on a paired mobile phone. The suggestion that this is the reason for not loading maemo on phones is invented here - there is no indication anywhere that Nokia evaluated Maemo on a phone, or that this was the result of the evaluation. The advent of PCs with cellular modems included, makes obvious that this cannot be the case. SRG275 (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nokia's purchase of Trolltech and Qtopia

This section is once again original research because it's based on the assumption that the purchase by Nokia of Trolltech will directly effect maemo. Specifically "This was potentially significant to maemo" is a large leap to take when none of the cited sources come to the same conclusion. One of the linked sources only mentions maemo in passing and the follow-ups on the blog even come to the conclusion that Qtopia is failing and will be subsumed by GTK based systems. The part about developers leaving for an unrelated startup company is non-sequitor without first citing a primary source or multiple secondary sources for your first claim claim.

Once again, if you fail to do so in a timely manner I will remove the section. I recommend moving it to the Nokia timeline. Brontide (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Replying to myself. There is plenty of documentation as to what Nokia is doing with Qtopia without speculating. I will take a stab at this section this evening. Brontide (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The new section is called QT and should be limited to maemo QT. Topics including Nokia/Trolltech vs Android, while interesting, are probably best integrated into the Nokia article rather than here. Litl, while interesting, I have been unable to source a link with Trolltech, Nokia, or QT... especially maemo; with hundreds of developers I don't think it's wikipedia worthy to note that 3 4 of them left for an interesting startup. Brontide (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that it's "Qt", not "QT". Also, it is said "In January 2008, Nokia purchased Trolltech for over one hundred million Euros." In January 28 both companies announced the initiation of an acquisition process, which is still ongoing. As for today Nokia and Trolltech are still independent companies. http://www.nokia.com/A4136002?newsid=1185531 --Qgil (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging Software sections from the 770 and N800

I was looking for some references on os2005 and os2006 only to find them in the Nokia 770 article already on WP. The Nokia N800 also has a software section that is nearly identical and the Nokia N810 has none. I think it would probably be best to merge the os200X specific material into the maemo page. I would like to hear the feedback from other editors before I attempt such a change. Brontide (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be worthwhile paring down the software sections in the Nokia 770 and Nokia N800 articles a bit and moving most of the content to this article. Keep a short paragraph on each page (and add one to the N810's page) and provide a "more information" link here. GeneralAntilles (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've merged the information from the N770 article's "Software" section. It didn't contain much extra information, since the N770 is an old device without too many extra features. The N800 article might be more device-specific, and have information that's only relevant to the N800, though. Someone who knows more about the devices might do a better job at weeding out the relevant bits. Again, I'm looking at you, GeneralAntilles : ) InternetMeme (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop looking at me, it's creepy. :P I'll take a look at things later today or tomorrow. ;) While we're on the subject, there's no such thing as an "N770". The 770 wasn't yet part of the N series, unlike the N800 and onward. GeneralAntilles (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I merged the information from the N800 article too. I just went through very carefully, and picked out all the information that wasn't already included in this ITOS article. I then inserted it at the bottom of the appropriate sections in this ITOS article for safe keeping. Some of the information may not be that important, but I left everything in just in case. I then replaced the N800 article's Software section with the same basic overview as in the Nokia 770 article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetMeme (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Security

Now that the article is coming along again I would like to take another stab at the security section. Following the policy on undue weight and no original research I would like to pair it down and limit it's content to ITOS specific topics. I will pull all content not sourced properly and any improper synthesis if it can't be sourced from a reliable source. Based on the policy guidelines I think that limits us to developers and security experts who have worked with ITOS and documentation from Nokia. Sourcing from iTT would be ok in cases where you are quoting from a first hand experience from a well known developer from Nokia or from the community on a specific topic. I would like to hear other editors thoughts on this issue since this section has been a source of problems in the past. Brontide (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• There are 5 paragraphs currently:
  • First is nonsense. Java is not an OS. Symbian has keyloggers.
  • Second says nothing specific to ITOS. On any general purpose OS, and application can always send data through a firewall by merely running the default browser, and pointing it to a specific URL.
  • Third is probably technically correct, but does not actually say anything interesting.
  • Fourth paragraph uses two years old "statistics" to deduce current popularity, and claims an
  • Fifth lists a trivial feature available in almost any OS (for mobile devices or otherwise).

Seems like this whole section is useless, and should be deleted. SRG275 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Handheld, Mobile, and Tablets... oh my!

Much of the recent debates about security has centered around the term mobile and what it means. Right now I'm inclined to say that ITOS is not a "mobile" os but a Tablet pc or handheld operating system. This would bring it in line with Hildon and maemo.org seems to use the two terms interchangeably. There is also the problem that the device is a hybrid between a tablet PC and a handheld style device. Things like the list of "Mobile Operating Systems" is therefore either woefully lacking in items or misapplied to this page. It would also bring it back into comparisons with the eeePC, tablet pc's, and the iPod Touch rather than the iPhone and blackberry. Brontide (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Security section

This is ludicrously poorly-sourced (seriously, a Google results page?) and of next to no encyclopedic value. The following sections will shortly be removed:

1. Similar to Windows, OSX and many other typical operating systems, ITOS does not use either managed code (as used by Java) or a Capability-based security system (as used by Symbian) to run applications in an environment that prevents them from behaving maliciously, e.g. by installing a keylogger to steal email and PayPal passwords. This is unusual for a mobile operating system that allows users to install applications developed by non-validated third parties (see Symbian).

   No sources for either the statement or the conclusion.

2. Currently no virus checker is available for the platform [1] and although ITOS does contain the usual Debian Linux firewall , this can only be accessed by advanced users capable of writing their own scripts.

   The first statement is a) a primary source and b) indirect (proving a negative by absence of positives is rarely acceptable). The second statement is unsourced, vague (The "usual Debian Linux firewall"?) and does not provide sufficient context to establish why this is a bad thing (does this mean that the firewall is off by default, or does it mean that only advanced users can turn it off?).

3. Additionally, it would be ineffective as a means of preventing malware from forwarding confidential data from the machine, due to the role of daemon processes as forwarders of such messages. (Malware could use a firewall approved daemon to send data out, by-passing the need to get permission itself.) [2]

   This is sourced to an anonymous user by the name of "Meanwhile" on an Internet forum, is speculative, and is by self-admission based on no rigorous investigation.

4. The only discussion of security in the N800 userguide is the advice not to install applications from untrusted sources, which in effect is the only security measure available to most users.

   The statement is original analysis of a primary source, the conclusion is unsourced, and the wider context (why is this any more of an issue than a security warning on, say, a toaster) is absent.

5. Despite the above, attacks on the platform seem to be rare to non-existent

   Sourced to a Google results page.

6. possibly due to the relatively small number of machines shipped.

   Synthesis. The source make no reference to security. In addition, the source is Andrew Orlowski, who is barely a reliable source on what Andrew Orlowski had for breakfast this morning.

I am satisfied that all remaining statements in the section are adequately sourced and will remain. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Umptious here and meanwhile on internettablettalk.com are the same person, so he was citing himself. GeneralAntilles (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Release History Table

Added a release history table, but the Notes section of the table still needs filling out. If somebody who remembers better than myself wants to go through (was it really almost 3 years ago now? O_o) it and expand. . . . GeneralAntilles (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2