Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KDE's Aaron Seigo Bashes Ubuntu Phone

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • KDE's Aaron Seigo Bashes Ubuntu Phone

    Phoronix: KDE's Aaron Seigo Bashes Ubuntu Phone

    Well known KDE developer Aaron Seigo has come out criticizing the Ubuntu Phone project, which has a developer preview coming out next week. He was quick to criticize the Ubuntu Touch Developer Preview and feels that free software developers and users interested in this project are "being duped" by Canonical...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTMwMzQ

  • #2
    What false premense? They are making a phone, they are using QT/QML? I don't get whats false about that statement. Any explaination Michael?

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't get it at all either, being duped by what exactly?!

      People "buying into it" are fans of Ubuntu wanting a phone running it...it's quite simple and no duping involved.

      Comment


      • #4
        From link
        "When complete, the same Ubuntu code will deliver a mobile, tablet, desktop or TV experiences depending on the device it is installed on, or where it is docked."
        He bash Canonicals market department.

        I want to make it crystal clear that I think Ubuntu Phone a great thing to see; more Free software mobile efforts, particularly ones using Qt/QML, warm my insides like a good bowl of soup on a cold winter's night
        But not the Ubuntu Phone.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dh04000 View Post
          What false premense? They are making a phone, they are using QT/QML? I don't get whats false about that statement. Any explaination Michael?
          The "too long; didn't read" version: Ubuntu Phone isn't the same as Ubuntu. While Unity uses QML that let's it achieve application portability across devices/platforms, Ubuntu Phone has no traces of QML in its sources, which means that Ubuntu Phone will be like MS Surface RT -- the "mobile apps" will work, the desktop ones won't. Caconical, on the other hand, claims that there won't be any difference between them, and they even promise binary compatibility.

          in short, Ubuntu is becoming another Android.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Reloaded211 View Post
            The "too long; didn't read" version: Ubuntu Phone isn't the same as Ubuntu. While Unity uses QML that let's it achieve application portability across devices/platforms, Ubuntu Phone has no traces of QML in its sources, which means that Ubuntu Phone will be like MS Surface RT -- the "mobile apps" will work, the desktop ones won't. Caconical, on the other hand, claims that there won't be any difference between them, and they even promise binary compatibility.

            in short, Ubuntu is becoming another Android.


            Source required, legit source it you would mind.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Reloaded211 View Post
              The "too long; didn't read" version: Ubuntu Phone isn't the same as Ubuntu. While Unity uses QML that let's it achieve application portability across devices/platforms, Ubuntu Phone has no traces of QML in its sources, which means that Ubuntu Phone will be like MS Surface RT -- the "mobile apps" will work, the desktop ones won't. Caconical, on the other hand, claims that there won't be any difference between them, and they even promise binary compatibility.

              in short, Ubuntu is becoming another Android.
              Rather the other way around. Unity is missing QML, while Ubuntu Phone is using it.

              Comment


              • #8
                When will people understand?

                Most of the posters don't seem to understand what Aaron Seigo wants to express and what he criticizes.

                Although it is a pity, it still makes me think that those people don't deserve better than further proposing Ubuntu and moving away from the basic idea of what the GNU-OS is about.
                You don't have to be a radical proponent of free software to perceive what Canonical's main interests are concerning Ubuntu and Ubuntu Phone.
                To give you a little hint: These are not interests most of you would agree with, being mostly focused on creating an empire and monopoly on what most people believe is *free* software, but which in reality isn't at all.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Reloaded211 View Post
                  The "too long; didn't read" version: Ubuntu Phone isn't the same as Ubuntu. While Unity uses QML that let's it achieve application portability across devices/platforms, Ubuntu Phone has no traces of QML in its sources, which means that Ubuntu Phone will be like MS Surface RT -- the "mobile apps" will work, the desktop ones won't. Caconical, on the other hand, claims that there won't be any difference between them, and they even promise binary compatibility.

                  in short, Ubuntu is becoming another Android.
                  Binary compatibility? I'm not an expert on this, but isn't QML interpreted?

                  Originally posted by frign View Post
                  Most of the posters don't seem to understand what Aaron Seigo wants to express and what he criticizes.

                  Although it is a pity, it still makes me think that those people don't deserve better than further proposing Ubuntu and moving away from the basic idea of what the GNU-OS is about.
                  You don't have to be a radical proponent of free software to perceive what Canonical's main interests are concerning Ubuntu and Ubuntu Phone.
                  To give you a little hint: These are not interests most of you would agree with, being mostly focused on creating an empire and monopoly on what most people believe is *free* software, but which in reality isn't at all.
                  Would you like to be more precise instead of just giving very vague and ambigous hints?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If Canoncial can deliver the Ubuntu Phone as demo'ed then I'd be happy. This means being able to run software currently available for desktop.

                    I find all the other Tablet and Phone OS's limiting.

                    Plasma Active shows promise but when I tested it on my Nexus 7 it was riddled with flaws and missing abilities that are required to navigate or have power. The PA developers aren't listening to the community. Example I don't like apps running full screen, but PA devs don't want to know about it.

                    With QML Plasma Active will also benefit from Ubuntu Phone apps.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Bashing?

                      Here's another part of Aarons post, quoted verbatim:

                      " I want to make it crystal clear that I think Ubuntu Phone a great thing to see; more Free software mobile efforts, particularly ones using Qt/QML, warm my insides like a good bowl of soup on a cold winter's night. We've even been discussing how to harmonize QML APIs in future between Plasma and Ubuntu Phone"

                      All he's really saying is that the phone uses different code to the desktop, despite the marketing department saying otherwise.

                      I smell Phoronix linkbait.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The problem with Canonical

                        Originally posted by alexThunder View Post
                        Would you like to be more precise instead of just giving very vague and ambigous hints?
                        Sure, even though it doesn't require much explanation:
                        Canonical is a company which hasn't been contributing upstream since day one, which means, that all patches they apply to their distribution (namely Ubuntu and now Ubuntu Phone) are not beneficial to the projects they are using (cf. Linux-Kernel).
                        I do have issues with proprietary software, but agree on the fact, that in some cases we have to deal with them until a future, better, *free* solution is developed.
                        In case of Ubuntu, it is the other way around. We cannot see it as a GNU/Linux-distribution any more, as it has been designed to be proprietary and incorporates many aspects which let Canonical earn a lot of money from those idiots *buying* their software for which there are lots of, mostly better, free alternatives.
                        Now the problem is, that most people don't see they are fooled and even support people like Mark Shuttleworth in their cause.
                        I personally don't deny the fact Ubuntu is very successful in fooling people this way.

                        Hopefully this statement cleared things up for you.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Aaron's response to this article

                          Aaron has responed on this article:
                          "Dear Michael Larabel, if you are going to post my Google+ updates to Phoronix (or anywhere else), please do so with accuracy. I clearly wrote in my posting last night that "I want to make it crystal clear that I think Ubuntu Phone a great thing to see", yet you write I'm "not a fan of the Ubuntu Phone".

                          These are difficult enough topics as it is, the last thing it needs are people misrepresenting my words and misquoting me.

                          I would appreciate a correction on your Phoronix article."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by frign View Post
                            Sure, even though it doesn't require much explanation:
                            Canonical is a company which hasn't been contributing upstream since day one, which means, that all patches they apply to their distribution (namely Ubuntu and now Ubuntu Phone) are not beneficial to the projects they are using (cf. Linux-Kernel).
                            I do have issues with proprietary software, but agree on the fact, that in some cases we have to deal with them until a future, better, *free* solution is developed.
                            In case of Ubuntu, it is the other way around. We cannot see it as a GNU/Linux-distribution any more, as it has been designed to be proprietary and incorporates many aspects which let Canonical earn a lot of money from those idiots *buying* their software for which there are lots of, mostly better, free alternatives.
                            Now the problem is, that most people don't see they are fooled and even support people like Mark Shuttleworth in their cause.
                            I personally don't deny the fact Ubuntu is very successful in fooling people this way.

                            Hopefully this statement cleared things up for you.
                            It's true that Canonical isn't very strong in contributing upstream, but it's not true, that they don't contribute anything at all (i.e. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTEyMDE, but even if it was true, that still wouldn't hurt anyone, would it?).

                            I'm also not too happy about any proprietary software and always prefer free alternatives, and I'm a fan of RMS. But I can't see how earning money is a bad thing per se. The shopping lens was actually the only instance of Canonical's money-making mechanisms I considered as bad (although I didn't care too much, since I' use KDE), but it's obviusly not going to stay this way. If they screw things up in a LTS, that's the point where I'd get worried.

                            On the other hand, Canonical is still pretty much the only one, pushing Linux into the market, without sacrificing freedom. For instance, Steam (yeah, I know - great example for freedom :P - but you still get the point, I hope) was developed for Ubuntu, but is usable for other distros as well (official support for non-Ubuntu distros is still coming, if it's not already there). In general: the more users we'll get, the more attention (especially from devs) we'll get (this also includes (potential) FOSS devs).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tsiolkovsky View Post
                              Aaron has responed on this article:
                              "Dear Michael Larabel, if you are going to post my Google+ updates to Phoronix (or anywhere else), please do so with accuracy. I clearly wrote in my posting last night that "I want to make it crystal clear that I think Ubuntu Phone a great thing to see", yet you write I'm "not a fan of the Ubuntu Phone".

                              These are difficult enough topics as it is, the last thing it needs are people misrepresenting my words and misquoting me.

                              I would appreciate a correction on your Phoronix article."
                              Hah Michael got burned!

                              It really is just to spur up flames and get himself more hits *sigh*

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X