> There are other good reasons to have a central repository but I > don't really buy the ease of use argument for the user. The end > user still has to enable the extras repository. It would be just > as easy for a user to install a meta package, maybe call it > "maemo-universe", which adds every single repository in the > universe to the sources list. For example, if it added all the > repositories listed at http://www.gronmayer.com/it/, the end-user > doesn't need to know the difference that n repositories were added > versus one. The meta package could automatically update as new > repositories are added/removed. > > Of course there are issues about trusting repositories, quality, > etc. but that isn't an issue really solved with the extras > repository unless some Nokia person is actually checking packages > submitted to extras (which I doubt). I would trust a > maemo-universe package with a repository list created by the > community just as much as a random package in extras. As a long-time Debian user and even longer-time Unix developer, I look at the maemo world and see chaos. I'd love to build and port some apps but the barrier to entry is just too high. And as a user I see only confusion. The maemo community would benefit greatly if a nucleus of volunteers would step forward to implement some of the social apparatus behind Debian: * A body of package maintainers who are trusted to make sure that packages are OK. * GPG keys with which trusted maintainers can *sign* packages. * A *small* number of repositories with clearly defined missions. (As a user, I want to *understand* /etc/apt/sources.list and know who is signing the repositories that are in it.) * A process by which anybody can become a package maintainer. It's too bad Nokia didn't bootstrap such a process, but they didn't. In fact, I think Nokia is making the problem worse by making critical applications closed-source. (Or at least if the source to things like Email, RSS Reader, and Clock is available, I can't find it.) I can understand there is a business case about keeping device drivers as closed source, although this is a question about which reasonable people can differ. I can't see *any* reason why *any* application should be closed-source. This doesn't benefit Nokia, and it inhibits the formation of a community because only Nokia can see the major applications. If anyone at Nokia is listening, I think if you move to a model of open source apps, open-source kernel, proprietary device drivers, which is a model the community understands, in the long run you are going to sell a *lot* more tablets! Norman Ramsey http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/nr
