Ubuntu Linux For Mobile Phones Announced

[ryao]

No, it didn't mention ANY provider that will be picking up the phone as of this date. Nor do I think it mentioned that it turns into the FULL ubuntu desktop when docked to a hdmi capable tv and usb keyboard mouse combo. I found that detail on the ubuntu blog.

The phone that they showed in their videos is the Galaxy Nexus. They claim that images will be released in a few weeks. It takes to reason that it will be possible to use Ubuntu for Phones on any provider that supports the Galaxy Nexus.

Really? How they achieve X.Org Server running on top of Android drivers that doesn't support GLX?

The Open Moko people got it to work. They probably did the same thing.

[Awesomeness]

The problem is that I think qt may have some inherent performance issues

So you have some benchmarks to back up your claim or is it just in your head? I'd really see some comparison in drawing performance between Qt and EFL.

EFL is basically designed for the embedded space and is awfully . So while is has fewer developers it has been a very tightly focused project

Focused on what? Super slow development cycles? If EFL are focused on anything, it's being the foundation for the Enlightenment DE for PCs (hence the name). EFL are not focused to be a smartphone toolkit at all because E17 is not a smartphone DE. The only advantage from the point of view of Samsung etc. is that EFL is mostly BSD-licensed (although Elementary is LGPLed).

where Qt seems like it is desperate to be the toolkit to fit all needs. Besides, Qt's future looks none too bright.

1.) Qt IS a toolkit that fits almost all needs.
2.) Why would Qt's future not be bright? It's in the hands of an independent developer now and more and more vendors adopt it.

[jayrulez]

The problem is that I think qt may have some inherent performance issues.

What are these inherent performance issues?

Besides, Qt's future looks none too bright.

This is based on?

...and how is Qt's future not bright compared to EFL's future?

Qt has more commercial backers, more developers, is more widely deployed, offers more functionality and performs efficiently where it is used.

[liam]

What are these inherent performance issues?

The examples of Qt I've seen in embedded situations have been slow and laggy.

This is based on?

...and how is Qt's future not bright compared to EFL's future?

Qt has more commercial backers, more developers, is more widely deployed, offers more functionality and performs efficiently where it is used.

Since these are all related I thought I'd answer them as a type.
Nokia seems to be completely moving away from Qt. That leaves Attachmate as their Solè large backer. Now, that wouldn't be a problem if Qt had a strong position but it doesn't seem to since it seems like the companies have always struggled to find a way to monetize it.
EFL has, to my knowledge, always been designed to be extremely lean and it's original Dev still works on it. It has a clear goal and modest needs. Since it isn't trying to be all things it doesn't need tons of corporate support, though I'm sure more would be appreciated.

To be clear, I'm not backing any horse in this race but I'd liked to see the Ubuntu phone go somewhere and it SEEMS like Qt is the kiss of death.

[liam]

So you have some benchmarks to back up your claim or is it just in your head? I'd really see some comparison in drawing performance between Qt and EFL.

Like most on here, I am basing my statement on what I've observed, however I was careful in that I said MAY have problems. The problems I've seen are that every embedded Qt interface that I've seen (to be sure, I need to be aware that it is Qt, but Qt does have that certain look that kind of stands out) is laggy and slow. Examples? The ubuntu phone, Sailfish, N9 (with that being the best, IMHO, especially considering hardware).
If you can find actual performance comparisons I'd love links b/c I've looked for them. Here's a pdf that rasterman gave last year https://www.tizen.org/sites/default/...012_raster.pdf

Focused on what? Super slow development cycles? If EFL are focused on anything, it's being the foundation for the Enlightenment DE for PCs (hence the name). EFL are not focused to be a smartphone toolkit at all because E17 is not a smartphone DE. The only advantage from the point of view of Samsung etc. is that EFL is mostly BSD-licensed (although Elementary is LGPLed).

Mostly ignoring that snotty remark I'd say the focus is low memory usage and high performance. E17 isn't what the developers are getting paid to produce but a side effect of their obsession with efficiency has been that it is ideal for embedded systems. Aside from that, from a high level, the architecture looks nice and mature.

I found this post which was kind of interesting and may explain the slow release cycles (it may also be an ad hoc excuse): http://qt-project.org/forums/viewreply/89364/

I've never understood these Qt fanboys...

[Awesomeness]

I've never understood these Qt fanboys...

It's funny that you call others fanboys, yet YOU are the one who either completely dismisses or simply ignores sober and rational arguments.
Let me repeat in case it was an honest oversight:

Number of deployed smarphones with Qt: Tens of millions of Symbian devices (+ some N900, N9, and N950).
Number of deployed smarphones with EFL preinstalled: Zero.

Number of mobile platforms Qt runs: 7 (Android, GNU/Linux, iOS, OSX, QNX [=Blackberry 10 and Playbook OS], Symbian, Windows 8 [x86 tablets].
Number of mobile platforms EFL runs: 1 (GNU/Linux)
[GNU/Linux = Non-Android Linux variants like Ubuntu, MeeGo, etc.)

The numbers are not lying: Of the alternatives that are not bound to a specific vendor (as in Apple, Google, MS) Qt is the only viable alternative for native apps.
Qt experienced developers to write apps are available en masse because of Symbian.
So even IF Qt5’s pure drawing performance was somewhat lower than EFL’s, in this market a vendor can't be picky.
Samsung could easily choose EFL because the indication is that Tizen is focused on web apps written for WebKit. EFL has next to no developer base and convincing developers to learn a completely new toolkit is a hard task.

The examples of Qt I've seen in embedded situations have been slow and laggy.

And which of these ran Qt 5.0? I mean this story here is about Ubuntu Mobile and that one uses Qt 5 (probably 5.2 or so by the time it actually gets released).

Nokia seems to be completely moving away from Qt. That leaves Attachmate as their Solè large backer.

Nokia already moved away and it resulted in a sharp decline in handset sales. Despite what naysayers like you claim: Symbian with Qt was extremely successful up to the point Elop’s Burning Platform memo was leaked.
The N9 was actually even so successful, it resulted in the so-called N9 Bounce: In a time when Nokia’s Elop-caused revenue fell like a rock, the N9 caused an upward bump in Nokia’s sales: http://communities-dominate.blogs.co...41902ae970d-pi
(Source: http://communities-dominate.blogs.co...-elop-now.html )

I don't know what Attachmate has to do with this. Are you confusing Attachmate with RIM who are launching Qt-based BB10 devices this very month? http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2012/1...rting-program/

Now, that wouldn't be a problem if Qt had a strong position but it doesn't seem to since it seems like the companies have always struggled to find a way to monetize it.

That is simply untrue. Trolltech was constantly growing and profitable before being bought by Nokia. I have yet to see numbers from Digia but second largest current Qt contributor (and IIRC largest independent Qt consultant) KDAB is also very profitable.

EFL has, to my knowledge, always been designed to be extremely lean and it's original Dev still works on it. It has a clear goal and modest needs. Since it isn't trying to be all things it doesn't need tons of corporate support, though I'm sure more would be appreciated.

The original Qt devs in Norway also still work on it. The sign on front of the office just changed twice in recent years.

Qt does have that certain look that kind of stands out) is laggy and slow. Examples? The ubuntu phone, Sailfish, N9 (with that being the best, IMHO, especially considering hardware).

I never had an Sailfish or Ubuntu phone in my hands. How did you manage that? Did you make sure that those phones’ software was compiled without debugging code that naturally slows software down? After all, none of those platforms are done yet, therefore debugging code and incomplete optimizations are to be expected.

If you can find actual performance comparisons I'd love links b/c I've looked for them.

Actually, it was you who did performance claims, so it is your duty to either find benchmarks or at least conduct them yourself.

Here's a pdf that rasterman gave last year https://www.tizen.org/sites/default/...012_raster.pdf

Great PDF. He compares EFL memory use to Qt and GTK memory use by looking at Ubuntu with E17 and Unity with Unity being not even written in either GTK or Qt (Unity is written in a toolkit called Nux).

I find it hard to believe that he has no clue how to at least somewhat fairly compare memory sizes for toolkit (he's a developer after all). This looks more like a deliberate tactic. For someone like him who knows this stuff, it's so very easy to write a simple app that draws an X amount of pre-defined lines on screen and then print an output how long that took and how much memory it required.

[jayrulez]

The examples of Qt I've seen in embedded situations have been slow and laggy.

Again, what are these inherent performance issues?

Are you aware of the many improvements in Qt5 including performance improvements?

Since these are all related I thought I'd answer them as a type.
Nokia seems to be completely moving away from Qt. That leaves Attachmate as their Solè large backer. Now, that wouldn't be a problem if Qt had a strong position but it doesn't seem to since it seems like the companies have always struggled to find a way to monetize it.
EFL has, to my knowledge, always been designed to be extremely lean and it's original Dev still works on it. It has a clear goal and modest needs. Since it isn't trying to be all things it doesn't need tons of corporate support, though I'm sure more would be appreciated.

Nokia has already backed away from Qt. Qt's new owner is Digia. Qt development is sponsored by the likes of Digia, KDAB and others and receives contributions from KDE, RIM and others. The new Blackberry 10 OS uses parts of Qt as the native API. How is Qt in a weaker position compared to EFL? Please explain.

To be clear, I'm not backing any horse in this race but I'd liked to see the Ubuntu phone go somewhere and it SEEMS like Qt is the kiss of death.

This is unscientific. Google took linux which was never widely successful in the mobile space and made it the most popular mobile operating system in the form of Android using something like Java.

Success depends on execution. If companies that use Qt fail to meet some goals then Qt is not to blame. Execution or the lack thereof is.

Where are the companies that became successful because they used EFL?

What makes you think EFL is a better option than Qt in the case of Ubuntu Phone OS?

The case I can make for Qt is:
1. A wide range of APIs that can be leveraged for Ubuntu Phone OS including the Qt mobility APIs (This means less work for Canonical).
2. Great development tools (The Qt SDK).
3. Larger potential developer base
4. Optimal performance
Instead of basing your claims on gut feelings, try to do some research to form an unbiased and objective opinion. Check out Qt on resource constrained devices which are less powerful than current gen mobile phones by four or more times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq7IJLIIs2c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1189Pj1mkDk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwsoInZk428
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7tMrRuUDFA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yiC5tEpF98
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wulbR2R1GpM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xIBYClmTSU
http://www.ics.com/technologies/qmlivi
5. Larger install base for applications since Qt is more widely ported and ports are in progress for the popular Android and IOS platforms.
6. More existing applications that can be readily used.

In my opinion, the performance gains of using EFL are offset by the advantages Qt offers as there is not much of a performance difference and certainly not enough to be noticeable in the user interface of a smartphone.

P.S, I am interested in your case for EFL.

[liam]

Since there were shared points between jayrulez and awesomeness I thought I'd handle them as a whole.

First, the successful company known as Trolltech

Nokia bought trolltech for about $150 million (after tt had posted a few years in the red: http://blogs.kde.org/2008/01/28/trol...ia-and-numbers).
A few years later nokia unloads qt for a fraction of what it paid for it (http://www.phonearena.com/news/Nokia...coming_id33147).
Sounds like a thriving business.

Second, my lack of evidence.
I never said I had hard evidence. I did say that I haven't been able to find any direct comparisons. The pdf doc that I linked to was more to show what efl is than anything else.
Assuming the link I gave to the qt site was correct info (if either of you can prove that the statements made were incorrect I'd be interested), that certainly suggests that Qt has been at a disadvantage in the embedded space.

Third, Qt is everywhere.
Well, it depends on what you mean. As I've said in the past, there don't seem to be many major applications going the Qt route. It seems more common that they build their own toolkits, or maintain code for each platform.
The highest profile apps that seems to be using Qt are Google Earth, Maya and mathematica. Chrome apparently uses it's own toolkit, as does android, firefox, opera. The point is that qt is not the clear win its supporters make it out to be, and while it may have a presence on many platforms, it doesn't appear to be a significant one.


I watched the youtube vids and I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be. I never said the RPi had a pathetic gpu. Here's the same device running Quake 3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_mDuJuvZjI).

BTW, I came across an interesting discussion on stackexchange about why more people aren't using qt: http://programmers.stackexchange.com...ritten-with-qt
The big takeaway is that big binaries are produced with Qt.

Unless someone either answers with actual numbers, or something equally provocative, I don't think I'll continue this discussion.

[jayrulez]

I watched the youtube vids and I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be. I never said the RPi had a pathetic gpu. Here's the same device running Quake 3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_mDuJuvZjI).

The point is: Current gen mobile devices which Ubuntu Phones are targeting are significantly more powerful than the Raspberry Pi on which Qt performs quite well. It was your claim that Qt is disadvantaged in this arena.

BTW, I came across an interesting discussion on stackexchange about why more people aren't using qt: http://programmers.stackexchange.com...ritten-with-qt
The big takeaway is that big binaries are produced with Qt.

Regarding big binaries... Qt5 has been modularized like EFL is so you only include and compile what you need resulting in smaller binaries.

BTW, I came across an interesting discussion on stackexchange about why more people aren't using qt: [url]http://
Unless someone either answers with actual numbers, or something equally provocative, I don't think I'll continue this discussion.

It is you who has made baseless claims then refuse to give straight answers to questions I have asked.

Your claim is that EFL would have been a better option for Ubuntu Phone OS. I've made a case for Qt and asked you to do the same for EFL but you instead just post what you "feel".



The questions you've yet to answer:
Again, what are these inherent performance issues?

Are you aware of the many improvements in Qt5 including performance improvements?

Where are the companies that became successful because they used EFL?

What makes you think EFL is a better option than Qt in the case of Ubuntu Phone OS?

And other questions:
Since you have suggested that there aren't major applications using Qt. What major applications are using EFL?

[Awesomeness]

My mistake: confused attachmate with digia.

You confuse lots of things regarding Qt, proving that you have absolutely no clue at all and should rather keep your fingers off the keyboard if you don't want to make a greater fool of yourself than you already did!

tt had posted a few years in the red: http://blogs.kde.org/2008/01/28/trol...ia-and-numbers

Quote: “Revenue has been growing at a pretty consistent 40%”

A few years later nokia unloads qt for a fraction of what it paid for it (http://www.phonearena.com/news/Nokia...coming_id33147).
Sounds like a thriving business.

I already posted hard proof that Nokia with Qt was extremely successful. I also posted hard evidence proving that Elop is a complete retard business-wise.

Second, my lack of evidence.
I never said I had hard evidence.

Strangely you demand evidence from others. We give it to you, yet you dismiss it. At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt but after clarifying things twice, I came to the obvious conclusion that you are an irrational Qt hater and an EFL fanboy.

Well, it depends on what you mean. As I've said in the past, there don't seem to be many major applications going the Qt route. It seems more common that they build their own toolkits, or maintain code for each platform.
The highest profile apps that seems to be using Qt are Google Earth, Maya and mathematica.

IVI is a whole industry that almost completely centers around Qt.
KDE is the world's second largest FOSS community that completely centers around Qt.

The point is that qt is not the clear win its supporters make it out to be

EFL is a clear loss.

Unless someone either answers with actual numbers, or something equally provocative, I don't think I'll continue this discussion.

I already answered with actual numbers. You did nothing to back up your claims about EFL with numbers.
Glad to see you go!