What's the story with signing? I thought symbian was sort of open source, creative and forward-looking. In whose interest is it that I cannot load apps onto my N95? I'm specifically trying to use the beta of Tomeraider (the reason I'd still like to go back to a Treo) - but there's all sorts of other stuff I'd like to try.
I was shown the iphone the other day - lovely, but the talk plans don't suit me (too expensive) - but when I was shown the apps part of the 'phone - well, why isn't Symbian like that? Who controls this monopoly - and why should they be allowed to?
Finally, if anybody could help me with signing, only to my own device, I'd be really grateful. I've tried the devcert route - failed; I've tried genialsis, gets stuck at the captcha stage. I'm getting a bit bored now...
Thanks and all the best
Jim
Symbian is not yet open source software. It is going to be.
Whether it isn't or is has nothing to do with signing or not signing. That's a separate thing/policy.
You can self-sign any application yourself, if the application is not using any capabilities (privileges) where self-signing is not enough.
You can also use the Open Signed Online method for free signing:
https://www.symbiansigned.com/app/page/public/openSignedOnline.do
For more details read this:
http://developer.symbian.com/main/downloads/files/AGuideToSymbianSigned_Ed3_hires.pdf
An excerpt:
"Signing is the process of encoding a tamper-proof digital certificate into an application. The
certificate identifies the application’s origin, and grants access to those Capability-protected
APIs in Symbian OS that the application declared at build-time.
"On Symbian OS, protected APIs are those that allow sensitive operations, such as those that
may:
• access end users’ private data, thus potentially breaching privacy
• potentially create billable events, thus costing the end user money
• access the mobile phone network, potentially affecting its operation
• access handset functions that can affect the normal behavior of the phone
• potentially impact the performance of other applications running on the phone.
"Developers creating straightforward applications should find it possible to avoid the signing
process altogether by not using Capability-protected APIs. Alternatively, where certain
Capabilities are required, the developer may rely on the user to grant blanket permission to
the application at install time, or ‘single shot’ permission at run time (for example, agreeing to
send a message) if the security policy of the Device Manufacturer allows it. Although this is
possible on some devices at the time of writing, there is no guarantee that Device
Manufacturers or network operators will always allow unsigned applications to install on their
devices."
jimcamera wrote:
I was shown the iphone the other day - lovely, but the talk plans don't suit me (too expensive) - but when I was shown the apps part of the 'phone - well, why isn't Symbian like that? Who controls this monopoly - and why should they be allowed to?
Apple are far more restrictive in what apps they allow on the iPhone - and I think the vast majority have a download fee.