ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Andrea Bernabei <andrea.bernabei@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Thomas Voß <thomas.voss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Craig Harper <dexteruk75@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > I dont think you need to open any flood gates.  I think we just need to
> > break it down.  Keep the policies as they are Strict Policy or you could
> > call it Battery Saver Mode, this could be the standard mode that the
> Ubuntu
> > Touch uses now, If people want to optimise application for this mode and
> use
> > all the helper functions and system services.  But creating other
> profiles
> > that allow more user customised experience such a true multitasking,
> > applications that need this mode and inform the users, that to use the
> > application to its full potential you need to change the profile, with
> > warnings about battery life, close applications when your not using them,
> > etc etc.
> >
>
> Please see my comment about UX later on.
>
> > This would also give developers a migration path, to move from a none
> > optimised application, to a more Ubuntu Touch centric app, so still
> > encouraging developer to port existing apps, without having to start of
> with
> > how to get an app to work in a restrictive environment, once they see
> there
> > application is getting users then they can invest time in optimising it.
> > Maybe in the app store you can have Energy Efficiently rating for the
> app,
> > to encourage developers to get there app optimised.
> >
>
> Well, the same argument holds true in the case of a strict lifecycle
> policy. Get a first port into the store,
> potentially lacking functionality.  Users will like your app, and you
> can start integrating deeper with the system without
> us compromising on platform principles and guidelines, or negatively
> impacting users out there.
>
>
Why would users like your app if it cannot even do the main task it is
supposed to
accomplish? (<insert any sport tracking app here>)
I'd expect a list of reviews like:
"this doesn't work"
"1 star, useless"
"it's useless, doesn't work when screen is off"
"what were you thinking? Do you think I keep my screen on when running?"


> > In this scenario if the device is running low on power, the user can
> make a
> > choice to switch back the the Battery Saver Mode. maybe with some useful
> > information about an estimate how long battery will last in this mode
> > compared to Road Runner mode.
> >
>
> Now that's not really a great user experience, is it? Did you ever see
> something like that happening on iOS?
> It's common on Android, and one of the "features" that people complain
> about a lot, including numerous guides
> for fixing battery drain (see [1]). We can certainly do a lot better than
> that.
>
> > I think from this conversation, that if there is a complaint about Ubuntu
> > Touch its this one, MultiTasking is a must, we must have away to run
> > application in background without them being specially written.
> >
>
> Now that would be somewhat alien. Developers aiming at mobile
> platforms are already used to structure their
> applications differently, precisely for integrating with execution
> infrastructure and services offered by the respective
> platforms. I don't think Ubuntu is (or even should be) different here.
>
> I'm wondering: Did you try developing an app for android or iOS? It's
> an interesting exercise :)
>
> Cheers,
>
>   Thomas
>
> > Craig
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Thomas Voß <thomas.voss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Benjamin Zeller
> >> <benjamin.zeller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > Hey all,
> >> >
> >> > I also put my thoughts inline:
> >> >
> >> >> Hey Simon,
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for your thoughts and ideas. Please find my suggestions and
> >> >> replies inline:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Sturm Flut <sturmflut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Good morning dear list,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> this has been brewing for quite some time now and the discussion
> >> >>> Krzysztof Tataradziński started a week ago didn't lead anywhere
> again,
> >> >>> so I'm starting it yet another time:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In my opinion the "no background processing for apps on the phone"
> >> >>> design decision is wrong, is already hurting us too much and has to
> be
> >> >>> revoked as soon as possible.
> >> >>>
> >> >> To state this very clearly: We are looking at a continuum of
> potential
> >> >> solutions here.
> >> >> It is unfortunately not as simple as just revoking one solution and
> >> >> picking another one, but
> >> >> all the different objectives have to be balanced. To this end, let me
> >> >> clarify some of the guiding
> >> >> principles and objectives that have to be accounted for in the
> context
> >> >> of lifecycle policies:
> >> >>
> >> >> (1.) Battery life: One of the scarcest resources on a mobile device
> >> >> and something that we aim
> >> >> to protect as much as possible. Allowing arbitrary background
> >> >> processing hurts a lot here, with Android's
> >> >> lifecycle approach being one of the examples where battery life
> >> >> deteriorates and becomes unpredictable
> >> >> depending on the apps that have been installed on the device. Now
> this
> >> >> wouldn't be a problem for the
> >> >> quite technical audience subscribed to this mailing list. But it is
> >> >> certainly an issue for the average user who
> >> >> should not be forced to maintain a list of running apps and processes
> >> >> just to achieve sensible battery life.
> >> >
> >> > Agreed, having a solution that protects battery life is important,
> >> > however
> >> > that does not mean we can't have a way for the advanced user to allow
> >> > _some_ processes to run in background. Probably something that can
> >> > be turned on in the system settings per application. Giving full
> control
> >> > over
> >> > what can run in background.
> >> >
> >> > With convergence in mind, a user probably will need a way to allow his
> >> > terminal
> >> > to run in background while it compiles something, lets also make sure
> >> > we can give solutions to a more technical audience. After all this is
> >> > the
> >> > audience
> >> > that uses Ubuntu Phone atm!
> >>
> >> Sure, I'm not opposed to having dev-mode settings that can be
> >> leveraged by tech-savvy users. However, as saviq pointed out,
> >> we have to avoid apps not working as expected if the average user does
> >> not opt-in. On top, if we just allow settings to be tweaked
> >> there is no reason for app authors to pick up our platform principles
> >> and guidelines. The next step is a wave of apps in the store that
> >> only work if you switch on certain settings on the device. That's a
> >> worst case scenario from my POV.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> (2.) Security & privacy: One of the worst case examples are apps
> >> >> running in the background, feeding on a device's
> >> >> sensor data and sending it off to the cloud. There have been numerous
> >> >> examples exploiting the issue on Android.
> >> >> Again, the technical audience subscribed here would be fine, the
> >> >> average user likely is not.
> >> >
> >> > But won't this be possible with a system service and helpers as well?
> >> > Lets say we have a system service that lets a helper collect GPS data,
> >> > won't the helper be able to upload that data?
> >> > Because some apps might even need this, lets look at the famous sports
> >> > tracker
> >> > example. It needs to collect your gps positions and upload them.
> >>
> >> Well, that's debatable. We usually go for a very strict setting (e.g.
> >> in scopes) that prevents network access if access to local
> >> resources is granted. You only get network access if the only local
> >> resources you access are the ones specific to your app.
> >>
> >> We surely cannot solve the problem of spying applications once and for
> >> all. But we can work hard to make sure that a user
> >> stays on top of what apps _and_ the system is doing, putting her in a
> >> position of control and power.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> (3.) Predictable performance: A phone is expected to perform whenever
> >> >> it is needed to, and the application being front & center
> >> >> to the user should provide a smooth and crisp experience. To this
> end,
> >> >> the system has to be able to assign as much performance-relevant
> >> >> resources as possible to the currently focused app. If arbitrary
> >> >> background processing is allowed, the respective scheduling problem
> >> >> becomes
> >> >> very very hard to solve (if possible at all).
> >> >
> >> > Couldn't that be solved by giving the background processes time slots
> >> > when they can execute? And probably an API to register system
> resources
> >> > that can wake them up for a time frame? Lets say a socket.
> >>
> >> Sure, moving processes to specific cgroups if they are not visible to
> >> the user is possible and something we have on the list
> >> to explore. However, we are talking about heuristics, not a solution
> >> that will always work regardless of the installed apps.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Please note that there are way more aspects to this problem space
> than
> >> >> just the three points I elaborated on before.
> >> >> The key point is: For a technical or tech-savvy audience, the
> >> >> lifecycle approach we are taking for the phone might seem overly
> >> >> restricted.
> >> >> However, for the average user, such a harsh policy comes with a lot
> of
> >> >> benefits.
> >> >
> >> > I still agree for the average user will benefit from that, but until
> we
> >> > reach
> >> > that point of completeness we just lack critical APIs for apps, and
> devs
> >> > might not even start to write their apps or contact us to tell: "Hey
> I'm
> >> > missing
> >> > this or that, could you implement it please".
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, I would argue that we already have a lot of feedback that we
> >> have to systematically work on.
> >> We either go down the route of systematically iterating on the system
> >> capabilities or we open the flood gates and
> >> just give up on our principles. Point being that taking features back
> >> is almost impossible
> >>
> >> > Another drawback of doing things completely different is of course the
> >> > higher
> >> > cost in porting applications to our platform. There is no way to port
> a
> >> > Qt
> >> > app
> >> > that requires background processing to Ubuntu Phone without rewriting
> >> > big
> >> > parts
> >> > of it to use our system services and helpers. So the porting is no
> >> > longer
> >> > effortless
> >> > thus appdevs will wait for a critical mass of phone users to appear
> but
> >> > the
> >> > phone
> >> > users will only appear when there is a critical mass of apps.... this
> >> > problem again.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I'm all in for making porting as efficient as possible. That does not
> >> imply, though, to give up
> >> on our principles. In addition, our platform behaves and operates
> >> similar to other major mobile OS's, with the
> >> notable difference that we are working hard to ensure that "good
> >> practice" is actually adhered to :)
> >>
> >> I think we should avoid having battery optimizers and similar system
> >> maintenance tools in the store.
> >>
> >> >>> Why? Let me make a list of examples.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - Open Telegram for Ubuntu, send a picture to a friend, switch to
> >> >>> another app or scope. On any other platform the message would
> continue
> >> >>> to be sent in the background, but not on Ubuntu. Now you might say
> >> >>> "Telegram is going to become a Telepathy plugin, and that one can
> run
> >> >>> in
> >> >>> the background", but there is no sign of a Telepathy system service
> >> >>> and
> >> >>> even if it were already present, you're now forcing everybody to
> build
> >> >>> Telepathy plugins for their services. That's just not going to
> happen.
> >> >>> Let's be honest, WhatsApp and Viber and friends will not go this way
> >> >>> for
> >> >>> a number of very good (economic) reasons.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - Notifications for the myriads of services out there. On any other
> >> >>> platform the app would just register a small background service that
> >> >>> wakes up every minute or so and then goes to sleep again. Now you
> >> >>> might
> >> >>> say "We have the Ubuntu Push Notifications service for that", but
> that
> >> >>> requires the service provider to change his whole server side, which
> >> >>> noone except Telegram does. That's why we already have to run
> >> >>> account-polld.
> >> >>>
> >> >> That's actually not true in the general case. Most often, the
> services
> >> >> use the platform's push notification
> >> >> infrastructure to deliver updates. Please note that we require
> >> >> account-polld to work around the limitation that
> >> >> facebook, twitter and google have not integrated with our
> >> >> infrastructure
> >> >> (yet).
> >> >>
> >> >>> - An app that processes location updates in the background, e.g. a
> >> >>> fitness tracker or a navigation app. Now this is IMO the best
> example
> >> >>> for how the "no background processing" decision complicates
> everything
> >> >>> to infinity: The simple solution would be to have a small background
> >> >>> service that just does whatever it has to do. But since we can't do
> >> >>> that, we have to come up with a very convoluted system that most
> >> >>> likely
> >> >>> involves registering for some list of events with location-service,
> >> >>> which then calls a small handler binary provided by the app (like
> the
> >> >>> push notifications design). But how do you prevent that handler from
> >> >>> running amok, or from just keep running in the background? Ah, yeah,
> >> >>> kill it after five seconds, like the push notification handlers. But
> >> >>> five seconds on a slow CPU aren't much when I e.g. also have to do
> >> >>> some
> >> >>> I/O and use D-Bus, while five seconds on a fast CPU are a lot of
> time
> >> >>> if
> >> >>> I don't have to do much. So what's the right maximum runtime for a
> >> >>> handler that covers all use cases? There is none. Will
> >> >>> location-service
> >> >>> support all the event/filter/callback options I need for my specific
> >> >>> app? Most likely not.
> >> >>>
> >> >> It will grant a certain amount of processing time to your app or
> >> >> better its location update helper. A fitness tracker could easily
> just
> >> >> store
> >> >> the respective update for later processing.
> >> >
> >> > Even a fitness tracker might give you stats while you are still
> running,
> >> > e.g. Endomondo tells you how fast you managed to run the last lap, for
> >> > that is has to process the data while the screen is off and not just
> >> > store
> >> > it.
> >> > Not sure if the small timeslot for a helper is enough for that.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Now that's certainly a solvable problem.
> >>
> >> >> A navigation app would
> >> >> require more sophisticated schemes, but we are happy to evolve the
> >> >> service as required (as pointed out earlier).
> >> >>
> >> >>> - Cloud and P2P services like Owncloud, Dropbox, Syncthing, Tox etc.
> >> >>> Apps that control devices via Bluetooth, like my FitBit or a
> >> >>> Smartwatch.
> >> >>> What's the design for those? More system services? We can't afford
> to
> >> >>> write a system service for each and every use case. That doesn't
> >> >>> scale.
> >> >>> It already isn't scaling right now. And even if we could, is the
> >> >>> proposed solution really to have 100 system services running for all
> >> >>> users, instead of five to ten third party background processes that
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> user really needs and knowingly installed herself?
> >> >>>
> >> >> We would not write a system service for each of them, but instead
> >> >> provide a framework to handle the specific problem area.
> >> >> It is a lot of work to get those frameworks right, and your help is
> >> >> obviously greatly appreciated in doing so. Other than that, it is
> >> >> really really easy
> >> >> to integrate cloud services with the content-hub infrastructure and
> >> >> thus exposing the content in the system.
> >> >>
> >> >>> I can come up with many more examples for how this is simply
> >> >>> complicating our lives, and for what reason? A (tiny) gain in
> battery
> >> >>> life.
> >> >>
> >> >> Please see the initial list of objectives and guiding principles. On
> a
> >> >> very personal note, I don't think the aim should be to make "our"
> life
> >> >> easier but
> >> >> to make the life of users as pleasant as possible. If that means to
> >> >> come up with novel and probably harsh solutions and policies to
> >> >> address certain
> >> >> problems ... that's what it is.
> >> >
> >> > I agree that we should not make "our" life easier and aim for a good
> >> > solution, however we need to be careful to not aim too high for a goal
> >> > we can not reach in a suitable time.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> We have many apps that cannot be built/ported right now because we
> >> >>>
> >> >>> are waiting for APIs and system services that haven't been coming
> for
> >> >>> a
> >> >>> year now and only have to be created because we can't just run in
> the
> >> >>> background. Do we even know if the effect on battery life is really
> >> >>> worth it? I challenge you to run e.g. Dekko as a lifecycle exception
> >> >>> and
> >> >>> check if the background polling is noticeable. Because it's not like
> >> >>> those system services don't consume any resources at all, the work
> has
> >> >>> to be done by somebody. A "bad" Telepathy plugin will consume just
> as
> >> >>> much resources as a "bad" background process, the "better" design of
> >> >>> using Telepathy alone is not going to prevent this.
> >> >>>
> >> >> They do consume resources, for sure. The point is: A fixed set of
> >> >> system services controlled and maintained by us results in
> predictable
> >> >> battery life (modulo bugs).
> >> >> The real question is not if battery life would deteriorate for
> >> >> allowing a specific app to poll in the background. Instead, the
> >> >> question has to target the general behavior of
> >> >> the system with arbitrary apps being installed in the system.
> >> >
> >> > So please correct me if I'm wrong, is the idea here that lets say
> >> > Facebook
> >> > provides
> >> > his own closed telepathy plugin? If that is so, what's the difference
> >> > from a
> >> > "normal"
> >> > background process? If that plugin behaves badly we can not do much
> >> > about it
> >> > right?
> >> > At least not without probably breaking its functionality.
> >> >
> >>
> >> There are multiple benefits to it:
> >>
> >>   (1.) Tight integration with our platform UI and UX.
> >>   (2.) The ability to tightly control resources granted to the
> >> respective backend.
> >>   (3.) We will likely setup a more strict review procedure for those
> >> extensions, together with domain-specific test-suites and potentially
> >> audits.
> >>
> >> In terms of handling extensions that behave poorly: With the context
> >> of the problem domain (e.g., messaging) handling errors and confining
> >> operation in general becomes a lot more tractable. The more specific
> >> the use-case the more specific control mechanisms can be.
> >>
> >> > Or is the idea here we will provide something more generic that will
> use
> >> > app
> >> > helpers
> >> > like we do in other scenarios?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> What also really confuses me about this issue is that the "no
> >> >>> background
> >> >>> processing" approach apparently only applies to mobile devices and
> >> >>> confined apps. Isn't that somehow against the whole idea of an
> Ubuntu
> >> >>> that is the same on all devices?
> >> >>>
> >> >> It certainly is not. A lifecycle policy is always specific to a
> >> >> device, its resources and even the specific usage scenario.
> >> >> With that, allowing multiple apps to run even if not focused in
> >> >> desktop-like use-cases is perfectly fine. Even altering the behavior
> >> >> in case of a phone being plugged in to a power supply would be
> >> >> perfectly
> >> >> fine.
> >> >
> >> > +1, but it would be nice if the user could override that in some way.
> >> > Right
> >> > now I'm also
> >> > able to override powersaving on my laptop if I really want to waste
> >> > battery
> >> > life.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> I would really like to hear all your thoughts on this and how we're
> >> >>> going to solve the situation, because we quite frankly have actual
> >> >>> problems (broken GPS, no SD card support for apps, no Bluetooth, no
> >> >>> SIM
> >> >>> Toolkit, etc.) which should have a much higher priority than
> building
> >> >>> convoluted and complex designs just to potentially save three hours
> of
> >> >>> battery life over the course of a week.
> >> >>>
> >> >> As pointed out in my introductory comment: battery life is one of
> >> >> multiple concerns we have to address.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >>
> >> >>    Thomas
> >> >
> >> > Just want to point out, I'm aware this is no easy decision and with
> >> > whatever
> >> > we decide we have to stay with or break apps later. So there is no
> >> > temporary
> >> > solution we
> >> > can deprecate later without breaking apps, which is IMHO not an
> option.
> >> >
> >>
> >> +1, whatever we come up with has to be aligned with what we want to
> >> support in the future.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >>   Thomas
> >>
> >> > Cheers,
> >> >
> >> > Benjamin
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> >> Post to     : ubuntu-phone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> >> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
> >
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> Post to     : ubuntu-phone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>