KDE's Plasma Active Running Nicely On The Nexus 7

[jmcharron]

and the most instable DE in history. it crashed even more than windows on that time.

Sorry NO, that would be KDE 4...

[Thaodan]

Please refrain from this erroneous statement. I have seen it repeated all to often, so much so that people start believing it. It is true that Canonical is focused on end-user-experience, it is true that they are nowhere close to the level of code contribution from Red Hat, but keep in mind that they only have about 3% of Red Hat's revenue. Their focus has been on getting the desktop mature. They did a lot of polish to Gnome2, witnessed by the polish and success of 10.04. Unfortunately, their contributions had a hard time being accepted upstream, which probably is a main reason for their choice to build a new DE, Unity, a significant code base. They have also made Upstart, but that seems to be out-run by Systemd these days, nevertheless it was a significant code base contributed. They have contributed Launchpad, a large project that has gained significant popularity. As part of Launchpad, you have the version control system Bazaar and the very popular ppa's. Right now they are contributing to maturing GNU/Linux on ARM, with direct contributions to Linaro.

Unfortunately they have included proprietary offerings in the mix with Ubuntu One and Landscape. Personally I see that as their downfall. Red Hat has demonstrated how important it is to stay open, Novell already demonstrated the slippery slope of making deals under the table. It really is sad, Ubuntu has made invaluable contributions to linux popularity and viability of the desktop, it saddens me tremendously to see them crumble in this way, I am afraid it marks the beginning of their downfall.

Launchpad package management is only useable for Ubuntu, even not for Debian.

[zanny]

It's sadly looking more and more like Ubuntu doesn't care about the FOSS ideals or the FOSS community, they just want to use linux to become the new apple.

Honestly, give me a break. They are a for profit company (albeit private). It is always a conflict of interests in the short term to do the right thing vs do the easy thing. Never trust a business unless you hold majority ownership or are on the board, because you aren't their friend, you are (hopefully) their revenue stream. If you are not, you matter even less to them. In the end, Canonical has been a net positive in FOSS, because they have had engineers commit to plenty of projects, and even if they never released another contribution they are still an effective Linux gateway drug.

[a user]

Guys, plasma is just a framework for writing desktop elements.

There are many plasmoids which are pure bling, but you don't need to use them. With KDE 3, you had a desktop and a panel.

and the most instable DE in history. it crashed even more than windows on that time.

[dee.]

Unfortunately they have included proprietary offerings in the mix with Ubuntu One and Landscape. Personally I see that as their downfall. Red Hat has demonstrated how important it is to stay open, Novell already demonstrated the slippery slope of making deals under the table. It really is sad, Ubuntu has made invaluable contributions to linux popularity and viability of the desktop, it saddens me tremendously to see them crumble in this way, I am afraid it marks the beginning of their downfall.

Yes, and now their "smart scopes" server also runs proprietary software. That is, even though it is a remote server, still something that is very closely tied in with their desktop environment, something that the "scopes" system in the dash requires to function. So now Ubuntu basically has proprietary software tied in with the DE. Their Ubuntu One server is also proprietary and their excuse is "we can't stay competitive if we open up our code!"... hmm, now where have I heard that one before...

It's sadly looking more and more like Ubuntu doesn't care about the FOSS ideals or the FOSS community, they just want to use linux to become the new apple.

[Del_]

But it's true what I said. Canonical does not write their own desktop apps for end users. The web browser, text editor, et al are not written by them. The same goes for other distros. I'm not talking about desktop environments or init systems but actual user applications. I was responding to a post asking if Canonical uses qt for their newer apps when they really don't have any. The choice of toolkit is made by app developers.

Sorry, then I misunderstood your post.

[n3wu53r]

Please refrain from this erroneous statement. I have seen it repeated all to often, so much so that people start believing it. It is true that Canonical is focused on end-user-experience, it is true that they are nowhere close to the level of code contribution from Red Hat, but keep in mind that they only have about 3% of Red Hat's revenue. Their focus has been on getting the desktop mature. They did a lot of polish to Gnome2, witnessed by the polish and success of 10.04. Unfortunately, their contributions had a hard time being accepted upstream, which probably is a main reason for their choice to build a new DE, Unity, a significant code base. They have also made Upstart, but that seems to be out-run by Systemd these days, nevertheless it was a significant code base contributed. They have contributed Launchpad, a large project that has gained significant popularity. As part of Launchpad, you have the version control system Bazaar and the very popular ppa's. Right now they are contributing to maturing GNU/Linux on ARM, with direct contributions to Linaro.

Unfortunately they have included proprietary offerings in the mix with Ubuntu One and Landscape. Personally I see that as their downfall. Red Hat has demonstrated how important it is to stay open, Novell already demonstrated the slippery slope of making deals under the table. It really is sad, Ubuntu has made invaluable contributions to linux popularity and viability of the desktop, it saddens me tremendously to see them crumble in this way, I am afraid it marks the beginning of their downfall.

But it's true what I said. Canonical does not write their own desktop apps for end users. The web browser, text editor, et al are not written by them. The same goes for other distros. I'm not talking about desktop environments or init systems but actual user applications. I was responding to a post asking if Canonical uses qt for their newer apps when they really don't have any. The choice of toolkit is made by app developers.

[Del_]

Ubuntu Software Center is python and gtk.
Ubuntu One client is in Qt.

Other then that Canonical doesn't write their own apps, just repackage other applications.

Please refrain from this erroneous statement. I have seen it repeated all to often, so much so that people start believing it. It is true that Canonical is focused on end-user-experience, it is true that they are nowhere close to the level of code contribution from Red Hat, but keep in mind that they only have about 3% of Red Hat's revenue. Their focus has been on getting the desktop mature. They did a lot of polish to Gnome2, witnessed by the polish and success of 10.04. Unfortunately, their contributions had a hard time being accepted upstream, which probably is a main reason for their choice to build a new DE, Unity, a significant code base. They have also made Upstart, but that seems to be out-run by Systemd these days, nevertheless it was a significant code base contributed. They have contributed Launchpad, a large project that has gained significant popularity. As part of Launchpad, you have the version control system Bazaar and the very popular ppa's. Right now they are contributing to maturing GNU/Linux on ARM, with direct contributions to Linaro.

Unfortunately they have included proprietary offerings in the mix with Ubuntu One and Landscape. Personally I see that as their downfall. Red Hat has demonstrated how important it is to stay open, Novell already demonstrated the slippery slope of making deals under the table. It really is sad, Ubuntu has made invaluable contributions to linux popularity and viability of the desktop, it saddens me tremendously to see them crumble in this way, I am afraid it marks the beginning of their downfall.

[n3wu53r]

I'm not completely sure as I don't use Ubuntu. But I think they use Qt in there own newer applications? Unity is mostly written in Nux which I think is some sort of Canonical developed clutter replacement.

Ubuntu Software Center is python and gtk.
Ubuntu One client is in Qt.

Other then that Canonical doesn't write their own apps, just repackage other applications.

[Akka]

Great news! I like when same software is running everywhere: Linux, KDE/Qt. I don't like what Canonical is doing. If they use gtk on a desktop then they should use it on the phones as well. Or just use Qt on the desktop.

I'm not completely sure as I don't use Ubuntu. But I think they use Qt in there own newer applications? Unity is mostly written in Nux which I think is some sort of Canonical developed clutter replacement.