UBports Continues Working On Unity 8, Developer ISO Coming

[onicsis]

I think Unity 8 is better suited for mobile devices with 8" (or more) touch screen compared to Android, even without convergence working properly.

Samsung showed they intentions to covert a docked Galaxy S8 to run Linux as desktop, connected to a monitor.

Linux on Galaxy allows the latest Samsung Galaxy smartphone users to run their preferred Linux distribution on their smartphones utilizing the same Linux kernel that powers the Android OS to ensure the best possible performance

https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2018/02/...-galaxy-survey
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...ung-dex-review

[lucrus]

It's a very good interface. Full stop. We shouldn't answer this troll in any case.

Now asking why makes you a troll. Admittedly I could write my question better, explaining its motivation, but I thought it was clear enough. It wasn't, so I explain now.

Why the UBPorts developers chose to resurrect a project that Canonical ditched? Did they ask themselves why Canonical didn't manage to finish it? Why do they think they can do better?

The problem here is not Canonical or Unity or the code or who likes it and who doesn't. The problem is convergence, which was the only real motivation for Unity existence. You, as independent developers team, won't get any smartphone manufacturer to load your desktop on their phone, even if it were the best software out there. Canonical failed at that. Either you are a smartphone manufacturer, or you can provide other manufacturers support for every bit in your software. Canonical isn't the first and couldn't provide the second. The same goes for current UBPorts developers. Canonical didn't abandon Unity because of software problems: if that was the case, they could just drop MIR (which they didn't) and keep developing Unity: they did just the opposite, because convergence is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever. UBPorts is good and it is pretty. Maybe it will be pretty good in a few months, but that's all. It will never be the default user interface of any smartphone out there.

So, my question is: why are they developing exactly that desktop environment and not something else instead, considering the whole project is based on the now-known-to-be-wrong assumption that convergence will be a thing?

Hell, even the PC world alone hasn't converged anywhere, let alone making it converge around the mobile world.

However all the above is my humble opinion and I'm ready to realize I'm wrong. So I ask why they're doing what they're doing. Maybe they have good reasons I'm not seeing, something bolder than "because they can". If the only reason is because they can, then I'm sure I'm not wrong, the project will die in a year or so.

As important, they are fighting to make it work with nvidia drivers. That alone makes me ask why.

[Vistaus]

Because that's the future, where all bis OS aiming for. Microsoft failed, but they still on the way. Android is also going this way and Apple too. Convergence is the key...
Hardware is already that powerful, that you can easily use a Smartphone as whole PC.
Right now it's not designed for hardcore gamers, but for all who makes the world go round and use internet for work and consumption.

I would love, if I have my PC always in my pocket and can connect wireless to any display keyboard and mouse to use it as a full PC all around the world.
Why buying a huge local desktop PC, if the portable smartphone can do the same?

MS isn't on the way anymore as they stopped development on Windows Phone. So there will be no new phones anymore and no development for the existing ones, which is kind of important if you want true convergence.

[Mez']

Now asking why makes you a troll. Admittedly I could write my question better, explaining its motivation, but I thought it was clear enough. It wasn't, so I explain now.

Why the UBPorts developers chose to resurrect a project that Canonical ditched? Did they ask themselves why Canonical didn't manage to finish it? Why do they think they can do better?

The problem here is not Canonical or Unity or the code or who likes it and who doesn't. The problem is convergence, which was the only real motivation for Unity existence. You, as independent developers team, won't get any smartphone manufacturer to load your desktop on their phone, even if it were the best software out there. Canonical failed at that. Either you are a smartphone manufacturer, or you can provide other manufacturers support for every bit in your software. Canonical isn't the first and couldn't provide the second. The same goes for current UBPorts developers. Canonical didn't abandon Unity because of software problems: if that was the case, they could just drop MIR (which they didn't) and keep developing Unity: they did just the opposite, because convergence is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever. UBPorts is good and it is pretty. Maybe it will be pretty good in a few months, but that's all. It will never be the default user interface of any smartphone out there.

So, my question is: why are they developing exactly that desktop environment and not something else instead, considering the whole project is based on the now-known-to-be-wrong assumption that convergence will be a thing?

Hell, even the PC world alone hasn't conveged anywhere, let alone making it converge around the mobile world.

However all the above is my humble opinion and I'm ready to realize I'm wrong. So I ask why they're doing what they're doing. Maybe they have good reasons I'm not seeing, something bolder than "because they can". If the only reason is because they can, then I'm sure I'm not wrong, the project will die in a year or so.

As important, they are fighting to make it work with nvidia drivers. That alone makes me ask why.

It made you a troll to me (and some other readers I'm sure) because it was going to be another Canonical bashing: "Gnome is better. Why reviving it? Just don't."
The usual stufff.

You needed indeed to explain your views and argument them. Which you did and now I can reliably say you're not just trolling. ;-)

I still disagree with you though. Not on the fact that convergence was the primary goal, but because it resulted in a fantastic desktop environment workflow-wise to a lot of users. They are now left with different options, with many of them not bringing them the same satisfaction on the behaviour of their system. Only this justifies the why to me. You don't need other reasons for passionate to offer continuity and improvements to that basis and make plenty of users happy.

I honestly don't care anymore about the touch bit, as I switched back to Android on my M10 FHD after the announcement and I need the apps. Some might want to stick to it since it is the reason why they bought the phone or tablet in the first place and this is another worthy why.
But I want Unity (as a DE) to be revived and to bring me again its out of the box workflow that I strongly miss by having non-satisfactorily switched to Gnome. And I'm sure I'm far from being alone.

[onicsis]

Will be nice to have the chance to switch between Wayland Unity/Plasma/Gnome preloaded on the same mobile phone and officially supported by manufacturer. At least in the future, not impossible.

[espressobeanies]

Because that's the future, where all bis OS aiming for. Microsoft failed, but they still on the way. Android is also going this way and Apple too. Convergence is the key...
Hardware is already that powerful, that you can easily use a Smartphone as whole PC.
Right now it's not designed for hardcore gamers, but for all who makes the world go round and use internet for work and consumption.

I would love, if I have my PC always in my pocket and can connect wireless to any display keyboard and mouse to use it as a full PC all around the world.
Why buying a huge local desktop PC, if the portable smartphone can do the same?

Now you've become a true believer....

Yes, the only restraint for mass adoption of this is that there aren't enough Ubuntu phones at the moment for everyone to pitch in and help with the development. The last good Ubuntu phone was the latest model. It worked very well with the Ubuntu tablets. I dunno why Canonical stopped there and dumped the whole project.

[AlanGriffiths]

Yes, the only restraint for mass adoption of this is that there aren't enough Ubuntu phones at the moment for everyone to pitch in and help with the development. The last good Ubuntu phone was the latest model. It worked very well with the Ubuntu tablets. I dunno why Canonical stopped there and dumped the whole project.

What's so hard to understand?

Canonical did enough to prove the idea feasible (which is why UBports are able to pick up the project).

A business like Canonical needs to react when it becomes clear that the cost of continuing work exceeded the likely returns. Mark Shuttleworth has said it a number of times (e.g. https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/10/...rth-explains):

“We had this big chunk of work, which was Unity, which I really loved.

I think the engineering of Unity 8 was pretty spectacularly good, and the deep ideas of how you bring these different form factors together was pretty beautiful.

“But I couldn’t make an argument for that to sit on Canonical’s books any longer, if we were gonna go on a path to an IPO."

[GizmoChicken]

What's so hard to understand?

Canonical did enough to prove the idea feasible (which is why UBports are able to pick up the project).

A business like Canonical needs to react when it becomes clear that the cost of continuing work exceeded the likely returns.

While Canonical doesn’t owe anyone an explanation as to why the Unity 8 project was dropped, I don’t fully accept the explanation presented.

As I understand it, Canonical claims to have ended Unity 8 development upon realizing that Canonical wouldn't recoup its investment in Unity 8. That is, Canonical didn’t want to throw good money after bad.

But in deciding whether to complete Unity 8, whether Canonical would recoup its entire investment in Unity 8 was the wrong standard. Rather, the proper question should have been: moving forward, would each additional dollar/pound invested yield at least one additional dollar/pound in return?

My understanding is that Unity 8 is about 95% complete. Of course, I have no idea what completing the remaining 5% will cost. But whatever the cost, even if there is little or no profit to be made from Unity 8 on mobile devices, I’d wager that bringing Unity 8 to completion for the desktop would have been a marketing bonanza for Canonical’s profitable services, with a marketing value potentially exceeding the cost to complete the remaining 5%. And if so, that would have added value for a potential IPO. But that's all just my speculation.

In any case, regardless who completes Unity 8, I’m looking forward to using Unity 8 as my default DE.

[AlanGriffiths]

While Canonical doesn’t owe anyone an explanation as to why the Unity 8 project was dropped, I don’t fully accept the explanation presented.

As I understand it, Canonical claims to have ended Unity 8 development upon realizing that Canonical wouldn't recoup its investment in Unity 8. That is, Canonical didn’t want to throw good money after bad.

Then you have understood wrong: The cost of *continuing* work exceeded the likely returns.

But in deciding whether to complete Unity 8, whether Canonical would recoup its entire investment in Unity 8 was the wrong standard. Rather, the proper question should have been: moving forward, would each additional dollar/pound invested yield at least one additional dollar/pound in return?

Agreed.