ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Thomas Voß <thomas.voss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Andrea Bernabei
<andrea.bernabei@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Thomas Voß <thomas.voss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Andrea Bernabei
>> <andrea.bernabei@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Thomas Voß <thomas.voss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Andrea Bernabei
>> >> <andrea.bernabei@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:46 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.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > If we really want users to be able to have full control over the
>> >> > devices
>> >> > like
>> >> > we say we do, then they should be able to enable/disable apps
>> >> > permissions,
>> >> > which is what BlackBerry10 does, for instance.
>> >> >
>> >> > And the apps will have to take care of that, warning the user
>> >> > whenever
>> >> > they
>> >> > cannot complete a task because of a permission that the user has
>> >> > denied.
>> >> > That is giving power to the user, isn't it?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Sure, our trust infrastructure handles exactly that. The notable
>> >> exception is that we don't offer a generic
>> >> background execution service for reasons discussed here. Also: Putting
>> >> users into power requires us to make
>> >> sure that users are well informed and able to handle granted powers.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Of course we should make sure that they are well informed. The problem
>> > here
>> > is that
>> > it seems we haven't moved anywhere regarding background processing for a
>> > long time...
>> >
>> > how can we push this? Is there a roadmap you can share that shows how
>> > we're
>> > going to
>> > tackle the main usecases which have been brought over and over?
>> >
>>
>> not as consolidated and clear as I would like it to be. So I will take
>> the action to assemble the required information
>> together with a central place to capture and handle use-cases brought
>> up for background processing. For issue/use-case tracking
>> purposes, I went ahead and created:
>> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu-application-lifecycle
>>
>
> Great, thanks :)
>
>>
>> > I just fear we're kind of ignoring the problem, or at least that's what
>> > the
>> > user sees from
>> > the outside. Every time a new thread on background processing starts,
>> > we're
>> > back to
>> > square 1.
>> >
>>
>> Rest assured that we are certainly not ignoring the problem. On the
>> contrary, but we are also facing the reality of
>> finite resources to tackle them. With that, we need a very clear
>> understanding of use-cases and priorities.
>>
>
> Maybe we just need to reprioritize it based on users' feedback :/
> This is one of the hottest topics on this ML, but yet unsolved after a long
> time...
>
> Finite resources is indeed a problem, that's when prioritization comes in :)
>
> Let's not make that new project become "the graveyard of background
> processing ideas",
> the place where "eventually" someone will take inspiration from, if we
> "ever" happen to
> have 10x engineers :D
>

obviously, but we need a more explicit place to track the feedback and
actual use-cases than threads on mailing lists.
I'm fine with all the feedback we received thus far and we are
discussing the issues internally very regularly. I think the missing
link
is the public facing documentation of those issues.

We might find that the launchpad project is not the right place, but
it's a starting point.

Cheers,

  Thomas

>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>   Thomas
>>
>> > PS: I really appreciate you taking the time to reply to every single
>> > person
>> > :)
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> (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
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>