I was simply trying to say that Canonical wouldn't support as many platforms if they were the original AURA developers, nor would they actually use their resources to create a project from scratch in the first place when they can just rebrand others', make small modifications and call it their own.
Canonical solution = Fork, rebrand, make small modifications, advertise as being significantly superior to the original in every way.
Google is only doing something to a single application, one which they have made from scratch (well, minus the webkit stuff) without major 3rd party contributions. Canonical, on the other hand, controls an entire distribution and all the applications it ships with. And most of those are from 3rd parties. So i really don't see the comparison here at all. That's the apples and oranges.
Last edited by smitty3268; 03-12-2014 at 03:52 AM.
This is what I hate about diehard ubuntu fanboys. The constant passive-agressiveness, the persecution complex, the need to turn every conversation into Canonical and how everyone supposedly persecutes them... "wah wah wah! everyone hates canonical! why does nobody UNDERSTAND mark's great vision!"
You're all like a bunch of whiny emo hipster kids.
I've read plenty of complaints already regarding the new toolkit. What does Aura even do that neither GTK nor Qt couldn't do?