Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Canonical Promoting Ubuntu Software Center To Game Devs

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    Well, when you invest millions of dollars and build your own industry respected company and OS, you can decide to only show free opensource software n your own software center.

    Tell me when you have that done, I'll try it out. A weekend project right?

    In the mean time, ignoring non-intrusive ads seems like a good compromise for all.
    I don't mind that it by default shows ads for proprietary software. But I want a config setting even if its hidden away somewhere to disable that. Because I never ever going to buy proprietary software (I very much want to donate to open source software though).

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    118

    Default

    /opt - http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-3.12.html
    /usr/local - http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-4.9.html

    I'm not so sure its the rational of "binary only", just more that despite being installed by the software centre, the commerical software isn't part of the distro, thus should be put in /opt. Funnily enogh, /opt specifically states that the distro can put software there, but it doesn't seem to say the same about /usr/local, which I guess would mean /opt is more apt.

    http://wiki.debian.org/FilesystemHierarchyStandard

    Debians wiki is maybe slightly more clearer if you argue there is a disctinction between a package and a piece of software, and they did refer to tar'd binaries vs those you compile yourself. Personally I think its confusing and some of it needs to be rewritten, or at least defined better.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M1kkko View Post
    No, no, no, I can't take any more of this.

    Unity is SLOW, is HORRIBLE and it's the reason why I haven't been able to recommend Ubuntu to ANYONE since 11.04. If anything, canonical should be getting RID of it instead of embracing it like this.....

    Hahaha. Sorry, I just couldn't resist...
    Did you even read what the article was about? If not, read again.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectre View Post
    Is the unity IDE being ported to Linux? As in what you would use to create a game with? Or so far is it just the web player etc.
    Yes, the full editor is being ported.

    Note that it will only be in release preview form by 4.0. No word on when it'll be a fully supported stable platform for Unity, but quite possibly in a 4.0.x release.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    189

    Default crap united

    how ironic, that all having "Unity" in its name and something to do with Ubuntu is sounds like a mess and looks good for nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thaodan View Post
    I don't like Steam so much, but it's better than the Ubuntu Software Center for Linux.
    BTW: It might be a bit OT but why the Ubuntu Software Center requires that commercial Software goes to /opt?
    Quote Originally Posted by ownagefool View Post
    I'm not so sure its the rational of "binary only", just more that despite being installed by the software centre, the commerical software isn't part of the distro, thus should be put in /opt. Funnily enogh, /opt specifically states that the distro can put software there, but it doesn't seem to say the same about /usr/local, which I guess would mean /opt is more apt.

    Debians wiki is maybe slightly more clearer if you argue there is a disctinction between a package and a piece of software, and they did refer to tar'd binaries vs those you compile yourself. Personally I think its confusing and some of it needs to be rewritten, or at least defined better.
    that's current standard description: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-...FTWAREPACKAGES
    but yeah, basically, all /opt descriptions are come down to a polite way to say "for haphazardly designed, unmaintainable crap, third-party or otherwise".
    and that is clear and nice.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    13

    Cool No Python On Desktop

    Regarding UCS being so slow, I also think that canonical devs are sacrificing performance for just a little more ease of use . I strongly believe that Python is not for desktop, it's one of the best on web though!
    Python apps are just slow and heavy-weight like hell. It kills me when I see canonical promotes python like shit. Don't get me wrong, I like ubuntu, use it and still believe it's the best linux distro out there. I hope that one day canonical devs look at folks at "elementary-os" camp and realize how awesome is to use Vala language to build desktop apps.

    Below are a few Vala features:
    Easy to use and learn.
    Fast(It compiles to C/GObject which then compiles to native binary) the speed is close the C/C++ produced binary.
    Is light-weight.
    Has modern interface.
    Has 0 day support for all GLib based libraries like Gtk, Clutter, GDBus, etc
    Also has good support for many other non GLib/GObject based libs like SDL, Zlib, etc

    I hope for the next ubuntu app showdown we see Vala gets more love from ubuntu folks.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dfx. View Post
    how ironic, that all having "Unity" in its name and something to do with Ubuntu is sounds like a mess and looks good for nothing.





    that's current standard description: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-...FTWAREPACKAGES
    but yeah, basically, all /opt descriptions are come down to a polite way to say "for haphazardly designed, unmaintainable crap, third-party or otherwise".
    and that is clear and nice.
    Yes and software that is installed through the software center don't fill in the categories, that why it's wrong from canicial to say put software that is in the software center to /opt.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colombia
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sepisoad View Post
    Regarding UCS being so slow, I also think that canonical devs are sacrificing performance for just a little more ease of use . I strongly believe that Python is not for desktop, it's one of the best on web though!
    Python apps are just slow and heavy-weight like hell. It kills me when I see canonical promotes python like shit. Don't get me wrong, I like ubuntu, use it and still believe it's the best linux distro out there. I hope that one day canonical devs look at folks at "elementary-os" camp and realize how awesome is to use Vala language to build desktop apps.

    Below are a few Vala features:
    Easy to use and learn.
    Fast(It compiles to C/GObject which then compiles to native binary) the speed is close the C/C++ produced binary.
    Is light-weight.
    Has modern interface.
    Has 0 day support for all GLib based libraries like Gtk, Clutter, GDBus, etc
    Also has good support for many other non GLib/GObject based libs like SDL, Zlib, etc

    I hope for the next ubuntu app showdown we see Vala gets more love from ubuntu folks.
    Vala is pretty cool, but there are far more resources for learning Python. Learning Vala requieres either know GLib, or know C#. There is no newcomer's entry point, so looks pretty logical that Python is the chosen path.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    What the F-Bomb are you talking about?
    This is how commercial/proprietary software works on Windows.
    Canonical seem to have no rules which forbids this type of bullshit behavior in software submitted to the Ubuntu Software Center.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    13

    Default OK

    Quote Originally Posted by Desiderantes View Post
    Vala is pretty cool, but there are far more resources for learning Python. Learning Vala requieres either know GLib, or know C#. There is no newcomer's entry point, so looks pretty logical that Python is the chosen path.
    Your concern is right, but you have to take a look at http://valadoc.org/ It has full documentation on every single method and property of different calsses in all available libraries.
    Also there are many good tutorials on the vala's official website which you can find it here: https://live.gnome.org/Vala/Documentation

    Let's not forget that one way to promote vala (by canonical) is to provide more sample codes and also documentation for ubuntu-specific technologies which is kind of available right now but not satisfying.

    I even go further and suggest canonical to make vala their official choice for desktop app developing. Another crazy suggestion is to create a user-friendly IDE based on vala for ubuntu. Windows has VS(maily for C#/C++ devs) and OSX has XCode(mainly for Objective-C/C++ devs) why not a new one UDev for Vala/C/C++ devs or maybe Python!

    (I know many IDEs already exist but they all have their own issues, none of them is designed to address ubuntu specific needs)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •