ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Michal Suchanek <hramrach@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 15 October 2013 18:40, Roberto Alsina <roberto.alsina@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Michal Suchanek <hramrach@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 15 October 2013 18:13, Roberto Alsina <roberto.alsina@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Michal Suchanek <hramrach@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 15 October 2013 17:42, Martin Albisetti <argentina@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Rasmus Eneman <Rasmus@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> What Michal Suchanek tries to say is that he wants a way to install
>> >> >> click
>> >> >> apps from the store while not having internet access on the phone
>> >> >> (ie.
>> >> >> download it on a computer with internet access).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A solution to this that I see is to have it possible to install
>> >> >> phone
>> >> >> apps
>> >> >> to the phone from the software centre on the computer.
>> >> >> What I mean is:
>> >> >> Connect the phone to the computer (by usb for example)
>> >> >> Launch Ubuntu Software Center
>> >> >> Choose phone in some way (designers needed)
>> >> >> Now the software centre shows phone apps instead of desktop apps.
>> >> >> Allow the user to install any app (the apps get installed on the
>> >> >> phone,
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> the computer)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Could be a great feature actually.
>> >> >
>> >> > Right. So while that is a use case, it certainly isn't top use case
>> >> > at
>> >> > all for the majority of the users. It would be foolish for us to
>> >> > invest time in something like that at this point.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, you invest time into making this use case difficult and then say
>> >> that's not top use case so will not invest into making it easy.
>> >>
>> >> Wouldn't it be easier to just not invest into making the use case
>> >> difficult in the first place?
>> >>
>> >> Noo, then Canonical could not have control over users with One Store
>> >> To Rule Them All.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I see we are back to sarcasm.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Oh well. I will see how this pans out but so far it's looking like you
>> >> will need an actual Touch device or an emulation somehow attached to
>> >> the net so you can download the click apps directly to the Touch
>> >> device or fake it somehow - just as sucky as Google store.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, you are wrong. You don't need a touch device, you don't need any
>> > emulation. You do need to be connected to the Internet to download the
>> > app.
>> > You do need a U1 account to download it from the store. But you can
>> > write a script to download it without a device. It's probably 30 lines
>> > of
>> > code.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > That said, because authentication is simple (oauth signed request,
>> >> > the
>> >> > source code to do so is open source), you can implement it yourself.
>> >> > Write a script that searches the store, signs the URL, downloads it
>> >> > do
>> >> > the desktop and sends it to the phone. This is what's different from
>> >> > Android (and certainly iOS), there's no secret to how to authenticate
>> >> > to the store, it's fully open source.
>> >> > All our infrastructure on the server and on the phone support this,
>> >> > anyone's welcome to write such a script to fit their use case.
>> >>
>> >> But then for all practical purposes you have connected the phone to
>> >> the net - there is stuff like the USB Ethernet gadget or adb or ..
>> >>
>> >
>> > No. You need to have had a general computing device capable of running
>> > software in
>> > it, connected to some sort of internet access system at some point in
>> > the
>> > past in order
>> > to download a file.
>>
>> Yes, just as you need a general computing device capable of running
>> software in to download Google applications.
>>
>
> It's a oauth-signed download from a public API, and there's nothing
> device-specific about it.
> Find me that in Google Play and I will accept it's the same thing.

Where is that public oaut-signed API documented?

Sure, it's in development, has miles better design compared to Google
and whatnot.

But until the documentation is there it's about as good. Plus the
point is that HTTP GET is an open standard that is widely supported.
Some U1 oauth signed bullshit is supported by nothing.

>
>
>>
>> > Then you have a click file. Which you can install. From the phone's SD
>> > card.
>> > In the phone. Without any 3rd party apps. Using the terminal. That comes
>> > with the phone.
>>
>> But you *DO NEED 3RD PARTY APPS ON THE DEVICE WITH WHICH YOU DOWNLOAD
>> THE CLICK FILE*. A plain web browser clearly does not suffice.
>
>
> I don't even know what 3rd party would mean in this context. You can write
> it yourself. Would that make it
> 1st party?
>
> If I took my lunch hour and wrote the script for you (I would rather have
> lunch, really), would that be 2nd party?

Will that script then come with my dumb phone? With a Chromebook? With
an Andriod tablet? Will it come preinstalled on internet cafe
machines? No. It won't even run on half of the platforms.

But all those support HTTP GET out of the box. So when I buy a game on
GOG I can log in on any such device to my GOG account I can download
it. Even it is *gasp* meant for a different platform than what I am
running. That's what I call open.

>
>
>>
>> Thanks for making it clear that Ubuntu Touch is an alternative to
>> Android and iOS but not an *open* alternative.
>>
>
> So, the difference between "open" and "closed" is one link on a website.
> Awesome.

Oh yeah. Canonical values their statistics above usability of the
service. Awesome.


On 15 October 2013 18:47, Fola Dawodu <folabiklan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Gentlemen.
>
> At this point it appears you are feeding the troll........
>
> Contribute code. Contribute testing/bug reports. Complaining won't help

The server is closed source. Clearly code is not wanted. It is broken
by design. Testing/bug reports are useless.

Regards

Michal