Rather than agile, lean.
About maemo, i wouldnt call its death yet. Theres interesting stuff happening with leste.
debian is an excellent choice for upstream.
ps project management and agile in the same sentence should not be used, as they are opposites. /tonepolishing:off
Since nobody else asked, what in your opinion is architecturally broken about it?
And still you attack Jolla…
That’s real life my dear [¹]: it delivers apple, pears, lemons, etc. and we have to manage and cope with it. 
Life is that amazing experience for which, it teach the lesson first and it might explain the lesson after! 
Consultancies are usually paid…
However, because there is not a solution but re-starting from scratch, I opt-out from this duty.
Moreover, I did not simple wrote a arbitrary judgment, I also explained the reason for it.
[¹] It is called: multi-disciplinary approach or holistic approach. Paradoxically, it is simpler to manage the whole business in all it aspects without doing micro-management rather than split it in separate and theoretically inconciliabile ways/levels/departments. Then, why we split it? Mainly for three reasons:
nowadays we have a lot of know-how and we can deal with a multi-disciplinary holistic approach the whole but it was not true in the past
since industrial revolution boosted because Henry Ford invented the assembly line and everything evolved around that model - material goods production - the managers grow-up with that model and used it also for Information Technology. In fact, the first project management model used was the so called “waterfall” which disastrously failed because
a) Information Technology people was strongly opposing it because was a non-sense for them
b) therefore the frustrated managers instead of changing the project manager model, enforced the HR model from industry to the IT people in order to take “the control” back of situation and to push this choice, they leveraged the idea that treating IT people like blue-collars would have cut down the costs.
c) because this approach was a disastrous failure, as well - they accepted to go with the Agile model but they weren’t able to remove the project management because the PM was essential for the business plan which was essential for the investors / propriety.
d) finally, they realized that SCRUM is even better than Agile but even more incompatible with project management and business plan because it moves much more decision-making power power to IT people. Hence, the traditional “decision maker” - the managers - where not in charge anymore, in fact.
e) Innovation Technology and its first principle - if you do not do it, you will undergo others doing - put the managers even more in pressure because investors want innovation but innovation requires to move even more decision-making power to technical people which is against the managers interest.
f) To maintain the control - the illusion of the control - departments have been separated increasing costs, inefficiency, complication, bureaucracy, etc. and Innovation Technology Management Consultancy has been invented with all the stuff related to it: leadership, brainstorming, thinking out of the box, etc.
g) Paradoxically the Innovation Technology Management Consultancy is expected to be a controllable multi-disciplinary bridge among departments but without real decision-making power. Like a orchestra director that coordinates separated small groups of people working with different strict rules.
Moreover, the #3 is also the main reason for which almost all the European big banks - despite they have a great financial awareness and know-how - had been flooded by huge amount of toxic NPL.
When people are forced to work as they were robots, then everything is like a machine and every machine and every automatism can be exploited in one way or another even if everyone acts for the good.
Nations or the world itself, suffer about the same “vulnerability”. 
I am not writing this because I read some “fancy” book or a “conspiracy” Facebook post. I am writing this because I as myself, in person did it - benignly - many times to prove that companies and organisations are vulnerable and easily exploitable even if everyone is acting properly and for the good of the company or the organisation.
All this pile of sh*t accumulated exponentially until nobody is anymore able to deal with it. Suddenly, started to appear - also in Europa, not only in USA - companies founded and directed by technical people educated in business also. Without surprise, they are the most innovative companies and therefore those that can revolutionize their market.
However, because those companies are growing in a business landscape in which HUGE companies are well-established and they are very defensive about their legacy, the new start-ups need to find their way in the cracks of the status-quo. Like water, infiltrate the rocks cracks and sets it way day-by-day enlarging it.
Guess what? Quantitative Easing worked out as financial aid to the status-quo big companies.
Hence, when you are going to write something like “the books said that bla-bla” or the “manual said that bla-bla”, check the publishing data, first of all. Books and manuals say what the status-quo wants they said, not what it is useful for you or it is right for you. The date in which they are published can shows you the evolution of this phenomenon. If you are following “the book” or “the manual”, then you are just following “orders” unless you are able to put together all the pieces and see the whole picture.
Nothing new under the sun!
Your view of the world is very much off-topic here. The thread was already split because of this once.
Your stated short opinion for why the architecture of App Support is allegedly broken is almost meaningless. Such an opinion is meaningful to you. It isn’t to anyone else.
I asked what is broken about it. I can potentially value your opinion as a programmer and we both know others here will critique it.
From the lack of any detail meaningful to a software architect, I assume your opinion is political and therefore does not need repeating.
Answer me this, @robang74
Why are you this annoying online? I can see why your posts get routinely flagged. I’m almost convinced you’re not even a real person and are powered by ChatGPT.
Regardless, I hope Jolla pulls through whatever tough times they are going in. I’d hate to see Jolla succumb in the face of an even stronger Android/iOS duopoly.
You know what? I rest my case.
Who asked you ever?
5 min only? Then, a black espresso without sugar, a chocolate croissant and a glass of gas-bubble water at environment temperature, please!
Hope is a tough bet, EU is captured by short sighted USA grab all we can while we still can policy.
As long as that doesn’t change, there will be no option for an independent Mobile Phone OS until the portable spy / control population implants move to more advanced technological stages (remote control of human brain without it needing to carry candy bar “device”)
Like this one, for example?
When the most of the people of a group or a team or a company took the wrong decision despite they received correct information and feedback from my side, I feel that my role is to let them face the consequences as fast as possible because if I would have not the gut to do this, then I will be part of the problem not part of the solution. Whatever, the solution exists or not.
Yes, regardless the consequences.
I’m still very satisfied with SFOS.
Even if in Europe there is a strong FOO movement we have a lot to do, and SFOS is a fundamental part of the walk
So what’s next from FOSS community?
Why SFOS is not considered as much as UBports or the new Debian based distros on the open hardware projects?
I showed the Xperia 10 ii at last linux day and all the people that tested it not found any missing feature. It’s the more mature O.S. on mobile scenario and is the only one with a robust Android sandboxing.
What we have to do is to promote the SFOS introduction on expanding environments (as AI based assistants or on IOT, automotive, and other mobile platforms)
What JOLLA have to do is to enlarge the SFOS license to more devices (and also a subscription campaign as 7ofnine suggests)
P.S. there is a European call for FOSS Mobile OS, it’s inside the GSR24 for automotive (let’s have a dedicated thread for it)
Depending on the liabities of Jolla, I’d be potentiality open to buying the company and establishing an office in north San Antonio or Austin. I’m not privy to any information about the debt restructuring though. So it’s a wait and see.
The last time that I collected opinions about SFOS, it was considered:
In my last SFSCON presentation and slides, I made people notice that 2/3 of the binary code running at root level or a more privileged level is about HW vendor firmware, and it would change nothing, whatever SFOS or AOSP in terms of freedom.
This means that at this time we do not have any system for mobile devices that can provide us a fully working smartphone and fully FOSS-compliant. Moreover, probably, it will be not exist for years.
Forget about community or FOSS.
Name it in the proper way: fan club.
If you were in a position to buy Jolla Oy or were even in contact with people who could buy it, you would just know the liability and the assets without asking. Feel free to confute this statement.
Parts of it are (still) closed source afaik.
Ah, you asked. I am afraid, because I lack the will to listen. Why? I have too much to do. Why, @piggz says I’m OCD. How? Maybe it was nutrition at an early age that failed me … What am I afraid ‘from’. Hmm. Ah, I ain’t afeared a’ anything!
I’d be willing to invest (middle 5 figures). (EDIT: PS: I know it’s not much, but I’m investing in other money losing propositions, as I speak 