Which Fairphone OS flavour to use for Beta tests?

[fp1_wo_sw_updates]

I gladly test an Google-untested image every day.

This would also speed up fixing bugs before sending it to Google HQ to see if it is googly enough. Oh, and please add a FP1 image to the list.

I’m not sure what will happen first:

a) Someone will buy my FP1
b) An updated FP1 image will be released.
c) Google releases the FP2 image
d) My FP1 will die because of the badly designed usb-port placement

Currently, I think d).

[fp1_wo_sw_updates]

Isn’t it a bit early to remove this thread from the main thread? I think the non-google image would be a great beta to begin with … and it’s still not out.

[Johannes]

Could be that there’s some confusion:
The version currently in Beta-test is version with GMS. This version needs to be verified by Google before general release. This topic discusses that verification process.
The non-google version of Fairphone OS (FP OSOS) is a different matter, though I realise I may have dragged in a post too many. (I intended to leave the original topic for discussion of the Beta programme for the GMS-enabled build). Though in terms of release time:

@anon12454812

Our plan is to release our own open source build and the GMS build around the same time whenever there is an update.

if you want discuss whether the Beta tests should be on FP OSOS or FP OS (with GMS), that would be a different topic altogether.

[fp1_wo_sw_updates]

@Johannes

The version currently in Beta-test is version with GMS. This version needs to be verified by Google before general release. This topic discusses that verification process.

@Johannes

if you want discuss whether the Beta tests should be on FP OSOS or FP OS (with GMS), that would be a different topic altogether.

Yep. I think beta testing non-google images would make more sense and would be faster.

[paulakreuzer]

@fp1_wo_sw_updates

Yep. I think beta testing non-google images would make more sense and would be faster.

But many bugs would not be detected, as FP1 showed that many many bugs are caused by google and are never experienced on a google free os.

[fp1_wo_sw_updates]

@paulakreuzer

But many bugs would not be detected, as FP1 showed that many many bugs are caused by google and are never experienced on a google free os.

This is not an argument to not release a non-google image with the fixes. It would increase the chance of finding google-only bugs.

[paulakreuzer]

That’s true, releasing both would be an option worth considering. Maybe they just want to keep it simple by not having different versions being discussed in the beta-category at the same time.

[Roboe]

As long as I’d be more confortable testing Google-free betas, I think the beta flavour should match the default flavour the phone is being sold with. And in this case, that’s the GMS version, unfortunately for our (early) FP2 freedom.

[fp1_wo_sw_updates]

@Roboe

And in this case, that’s the GMS version, unfortunately for our (early) FP2 freedom.

I don’t get that build chain-wise. But honestly I’m getting tied of arguing (not with you Roboe!). I just gave my community feedback to a company. Not more, not less.

But why not create both versions at the same time, release the non-google image and send the other to google?

Everyone is happy. I think it’s pretty fishy that the non-google image is still not released at all. The code is there, the licence is there … so what’s missing?

The non-google freaks would get something to test and play with and the Google crowd would get a “tested” image a few days/weeks later. I wonder if “Privacy Impact” was a google checklist item

Everybody would be happy with both images out.

There is this magic thing called “tags” so anybody could put a label his/her bug report. Oh, I forgot, there is no real bug tracker for the forum, but hey, tags work in the forum as well.

And invite only with mail addresses? Sound pretty old school to me. We have a forum, why don’t we use it? Or redmine?

[Douwe]

@fp1_wo_sw_updates

The code is there, the licence is there … so what’s missing?

You can read about the plans to publish the image, and what we are currently working on here:

Fairphone Open OS roadmap discussion

Hi all, Some of you already played with the source code that we released on code.fairphone.com, and we are currently working on preparing a binary release. Interested FP2 owners can install this on their device without going through the trouble of compiling the operating system themselves. As this build is for you (FP2 owners), we want to make sure that this OS develops into something that is useful for you, while using free and open source software where possible. So let’s start talking about…

[fp1_wo_sw_updates]

@Douwe

You can read about the plans to publish the image, and what we are currently working on here: Fairphone Open Source roadmap discussion Road Map

I read the text. But it does not answer the simple question: Why not just publish the image for the code that currently complies?

I totally agree with @keesj about the features he wants to add some day in the future (root, recovery, busybox) … but there is nothing said in his text about releasing/not releasing the current code. Why not publish an image for the code you currently have? Nobody stops you. Neither google nor not yet implemented features. And a lot of people want an image based on this code.

And people could even use the App Store by using mircoG if they really really need to for some apps. The non-google people are only a small crowd … but the most tech aware. They know how to give feedback. And it might also help with the google rom. I don’t see the big issue here.

This is what @keesj wrote:

@keesj

(…) we want to create an OS for the Fairphone that helps users to gain full ownership of the device. (…) Fairphone OSOS will thus not come with Google Mobile Services (GMS). (…) we want you to have the possibility to take full control over your system. This is why it will be possible to enable root access in the developer settings. Additionally an alternative recovery will be offered that allows to disable signature verification and we are looking if we can offer busybox in the open source builds.

And I just say: Release what you have right now and we improve it from there.

The next release doesn’t haven to happen next week … but not everybody has 70 GB free disk space and a fast computer and likes to waste power on compiling useless code (= they won’t edit it anyway) for hours.

Update: And yes I would understand an answer like “@keesj is totally busy and is told/decided to focus on the Google image because this is what we want support with the highest priority right now … because this is we think our main user base wants”

But currently there is no answer to the question why the image for the non-google code that complies is not beging released. That’s why I’m asking. Not so much for me, but for others.

[Douwe]

@keesj

(…) we want to create an OS for the Fairphone that helps users to gain full ownership of the device. (…) Fairphone OSOS will thus not come with Google Mobile Services (GMS). (…) we want you to have the possibility to take full control over your system. This is why it will be possible to enable root access in the developer settings. Additionally an alternative recovery will be offered that allows to disable signature verification and we are looking if we can offer busybox in the open source builds.

That is the answer. We currently do not have that.

An easy way to enable root access in the developer settings and the alternative recovery that allows to disable signature verification are not ready yet.

Releasing now will mean a sub-optimal user experience, and break the promise that @keesj made.

We also want to keep the OS and the GSM version in sync as to minimize workload on the team and make sure people have clear expectations what they are getting.

It won’t be much longer now as we are testing the final stuff with you and others.

In the meantime nothing stops you from getting the code and compiling it yourself as many already did.

Best
Douwe