[email protected] wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Arjan van de Ven > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 8/20/2010 8:51 AM, Tobias Renz wrote: >>> >>> Thanks already for your answers! >>> >>> The targeted device is like a measurement device. So It's not too >>> important to have MeeGo compliance as a label. Also we would have >>> an overview of all third party apps that we would let the customer >>> install or offer to him. I guess that also 3rd party apps that would >>> run with OpenGL in mind would just run damn slow. But then we would >>> just avoid such apps for our customers. >> >> at some point you need to ask yourself... "am I still really using >> meego". > > Is there a possibility for MeeGo adapting compliance for a different > class/tier of vertical markets? Or is this a path that just shouldn't be > bothered with for those of us wanting to use it (in a branded way, and > working with the project to define compatibility) on platforms that the > originators aren't interested in?
It's theoretically possible, based on the claim: Compliance is profile based where a profile specifies a device category. Profiles are approved by the MeeGo TSG. I guess it would mean convincing the Steering Group of the value... (seems like this twist of the topic is more appropriate moved to another location per Dawn's request the other day) _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
