I completely understand the confusion. I could have been more specific when referring to the link. 
Funny that DeepL was involved, we were lost in translation.
2 Likes
Dear @jojo,
thanks for sharing this, thus you deserve some feedback.
I will start with simple things, and might address some aspects of the content in a follow-up post.
-
Quotation marks
You do not use them (either " ", “ and ” or antiquated » and «), instead you use apostrophes: ` and ’
This is very confusing, because you also use apostrophes as apostrophes! Often even in sentences, where you also use apostrophes as quotation marks, for example some of the footnotes.
Please use proper quotation marks at all appropriate places. -
File name
rapport.pdfis also the name of many thousands of other files, just asreport.pdfetc.
Hence please use a descriptive, unique file name! For example,digital-sovereignity-mobile-devices-2021.pdf -
The use of ™
You consistently write “Android™”, but do not use the trademark label for any other term (iOS etc.). Why?
IMO, this is also not really correct and would be a “registered term / trademark” today, indicated by ®, but this would require more research to be sure.
My suggestion is to eliminate the use of “™” everywhere in this document.
And some details:
- “this would cost 833 millions euros” without quoting a source: A no-go!
- The ordering of the sections 2.1.x: Apparently there is none, i.e. the ordering appears to be arbitrary!
Please mention which ordering is used (alphabetical, historical etc.) in 2.1 and order the 2.1.x sections accordingly. - Consistency in the source labels:
- Either “Dr. Michael Mandel …” (source 14) or “Michael Mandel” (source 15), assuming this is the same person.
- Either “I. Lunden” (source 4) or “I. Lunde” (source 5), assuming this is the same person.
- Many broken source descriptions: Please maintain a coherent structure for source labels.
- Incorrect spaces before “?” at the end of a sentence in the chapter headings of 2.1, 3.2 and IV: Just delete these superfluous space characters.
TL;DR: Please get the basics right, first.
P.S.:
“Sailors” are not the passengers but the shipmen of a boat.
Specifically in the context of SailfishOS, “sailors” addresses Jolla employees!
3 Likes
Please update your original posting (the one which starts this thread) with this updated link, and mention that it will cease to work on 2021-07-21.
Yeah, I’ve meant exactly this - that it is not entirely correct in my opinion. Or, to phrase it in a better way, “owning everything” is not the only possibility.
This AirTag thing is a good example where owning everything makes it a lot easier to achieve the tracking. Forcing every Apple device to listen on these beacons and phoning them home would not be possible if users would have full control.
Anti-patterns on iPhones like only allowing (in these quick settings) to disable WiFi till tomorrow but hiding “indefinite disable” somewhere deep in the settings certainly helps to transmit the measured locations…
My only point is that often an open standard would have work as well.
In that AirTag case, by limiting the scope to: “you can only track and locate stuff in your/your devices’ vicinity”.
(which has the nice side effect of severely limiting users to track unknowing other people)
This was not asked but still, here are the respective LaTeX tools for this :
\usepackage{csquotes} % \enquote{some quoted text}
biber + biblatex do a very good job: biblatex - How to use biber - TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange
latexmk might help to compile the whole thing.
And in general: Usually it helps to not work on such documents for a week and then doing an extensive critical review yourself.
1 Like
@jojo, note that I took the freedom to rectify the title a bit.
I hope it now states, what you intended to express.
Hi Olf and thanks for the reply,
-
Quotation marks
Thanks to your message I just learned that what I thought was a single quotation mark on my keyboard is indeed an apostrophe. I will correct this in the next issue. -
File name
In it’s initial release (when I posted it the first time) the document was named “eu_mobile_os_digital_sovereignty”. Because @circuit asked for the file I just compiled it again and didn’t think others were interested so I did not “bother” changing the file name. -
The use of ™
As written in the appendix, to differentiate AOSP from Android + GMS and not repeat the word “AOSP” too often, I differentiate the words by using “Android™” (for Android + GMS) and “Android” (for AOSP)
By the way this is how Alphabet wants it to be cited (Legal Notice | Android Developers) and it’s also how Jolla writes it in the Android settings of SFOS.
You must be referring to the Executive Summary, where indeed (I’ve been thought) should not contain sources. And apparently I’m not the only one to share this view (publications - References in Executive Summary? - Academia Stack Exchange). The number itself referenced later in the text.
I didn’t fought that one had any importance, I just took the names in the order that I searched them. Will correct this too.
I always took the author following what was written in the website. So for example the source 14 is this document : https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PPI_EuropeAppEconomy_2017_.pdf where the Dr. Mandel is refereed as a Doctor. And the source 15 is this link : Progressive Policy Institute European App Economy Jobs Update, 2019 - Progressive Policy Institute where Dr. Mandel is not refereed as a Doctor. To keep it simple for backward source checking I took the information as presented by the website. For Lunden it’s my spelling mistake, will also be corrected.
I’m not sure to understand you on this one, do you mean the commentaries ? Because (unless I missed some) the source structure is always, Author/s, article name, minute on the video if it’s a video, date it was written, date it was read and the newspaper/website domain
I don’t see them on neither when viewing the document with Evince nor on the LaTeX code itself so I really don’t know how to fix that.
I think I read someone using that term before me to salute the users of SFOS, I liked it so I adopted it too.
Like I said here :
I can’t edit the original post…
I like this title too
1 Like
I 100% agree with you that open standards would solve many problems and wish for more of them.
In the text I refer to Alan Kay to demonstrate a commercial and strategical point of view, where a company that does not want other actors to take shares of it’s market would use such “technique” to keep a total/partial control over a product and service.
I took the AirTag thing for an example because it’s, on my opinion, a perfect example of a company (Apple) that wants to keep control over a device (the tag) and a service (finding lost objects).
But, me personally, would prefer an open standard.
Not asked indeed but I always appreciate tips to sharp my LaTeX documents. In the beginning, to minimize the mistakes, I used LyX but I’m not such a fan… So if you have other tips on that too, I’ll take them.
There is no such thing as a “single quotation mark”!
That sounds good, is descriptive etc.
- Back-references do not work well: The confusion lasts, until one may read the appendix thoroughly, which most people do not.
So did I, hence I did not understand it. - IMO, it is much easier for you and the readers to call AOSP “AOSP” and Android+GMS simply “Android”.
Plus to provide these easy definitions somewhere at the beginning of the document, either in the management summary or in the first chapter after it:- Android Open Source Project (AOSP) refers to the basic software stack, which Google releases as Open Source Software (OSS) and which anyone can use to build an Android-based mobile Operating System, for example LineageOS.
- The term Android is used in this document to refer to AOSP compiled by Google with their proprietary Google Mobile Services (GMS) software framework integrated. Consequently Android, as trademarked by Google, is de facto proprietary software due to the integrated GMS framework and must by licensed from Google.
By the way this is how Alphabet wants it to be cited (Legal Notice | Android Developers) and it’s also how Jolla writes it in the Android settings of SFOS.
Well, IMO you do not have to care and you should not, because Google does not really care, as long as you do not want to have any kind of a B2B relation with them.
“this would cost 833 millions euros” […] [is] referenced later in the text.
Sorry, I missed that (footnote 75).
Consistency in the source labels:
- […] where Dr. Mandel is not refereed as a Doctor. To keep it simple for backward source checking I took the information as presented by the website.
Well, either he obtained a PhD or not, so he carries that title or not!
Hence one of these two webpages must be wrong. IMO you should not stubbornly copy such an obvious error, just because it is there.
No.
Side note: But you just provided an nice example for the next point, below (superfluous spaces)!
Because (unless I missed some) the source structure is always, Author/s, article name, minute on the video if it’s a video, date it was written, date it was read and the newspaper/website domain
Unfortunately, it is not:
- Often fields are missing.
For example, footnotes 83 to 88 solely provide a web-link.
Others have only one or two fields omitted. - Many of the web-links are generic ones, not pointing at the source of an statement quoted in the text.
For example, blog.jolla.com instead of pointing to the specific blog post quoted. - Sometimes a dash between fields is missing.
- As someone already pointed out: Preferably use a TeX package for references / do not write them completely manually.
- That results in a common style for references.
- These also make it really easy to automatically generate an appendix with all references.
- I assume “Read the dd/mm/yyyy” is supposed to state “Retrieved on dd/mm/yyyy” or “Visited on dd/mm/yyyy”.
“Read the <date>” does not make any sense for me.
I don’t see [any space characters followed by a question mark] on neither when viewing the document with Evince nor on the LaTeX code itself so I really don’t know how to fix that.
Well, I do not use Evince (because it is crappy), but Okular.
A search for “ :” and “ ?” provides many ten hits for both! Plus also often a superfluous space is inserted between a word and its footnote reference.
These look awful and are simply not correct.
IMO you should really delete all these superfluous space characters.
Well, others writing nonsense or wrong stuff is no reason to copy that: It is still wrong.
And if you like it or not does not matter either. 
Side note: Another example of a superfluous space; you seem to either love them or type them on the go without realising.
Well, that was addressing content of your original post at swisstransfer.com; at least that was the context in which you wrote above quote.
I believe you should be able to edit your initial post here at FSO, the one with which you started this discussion thread: This is the one I asked you to update in order to prevent people following a dead link in the first place. And you have already edited it twice, at least the forum software indicates that.
But I may be wrong at this point, because this forum software is not really better than Askbot (which was driving TJC), just different crap.