KDE's Aaron Seigo Bashes Ubuntu Phone

[phoronix]

Phoronix: KDE's Aaron Seigo Bashes Ubuntu Phone

Well known KDE developer Aaron Seigo has come out criticizing the Ubuntu Phone project, which has a developer preview coming out next week. He was quick to criticize the Ubuntu Touch Developer Preview and feels that free software developers and users interested in this project are "being duped" by Canonical...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTMwMzQ

[dh04000]

What false premense? They are making a phone, they are using QT/QML? I don't get whats false about that statement. Any explaination Michael?

[liamdawe]

I don't get it at all either, being duped by what exactly?!

People "buying into it" are fans of Ubuntu wanting a phone running it...it's quite simple and no duping involved.

[Akka]

From link

"When complete, the same Ubuntu code will deliver a mobile, tablet, desktop or TV experiences depending on the device it is installed on, or where it is docked."

He bash Canonicals market department.

I want to make it crystal clear that I think Ubuntu Phone a great thing to see; more Free software mobile efforts, particularly ones using Qt/QML, warm my insides like a good bowl of soup on a cold winter's night

But not the Ubuntu Phone.

[Reloaded211]

What false premense? They are making a phone, they are using QT/QML? I don't get whats false about that statement. Any explaination Michael?

The "too long; didn't read" version: Ubuntu Phone isn't the same as Ubuntu. While Unity uses QML that let's it achieve application portability across devices/platforms, Ubuntu Phone has no traces of QML in its sources, which means that Ubuntu Phone will be like MS Surface RT -- the "mobile apps" will work, the desktop ones won't. Caconical, on the other hand, claims that there won't be any difference between them, and they even promise binary compatibility.

in short, Ubuntu is becoming another Android.

[dh04000]

The "too long; didn't read" version: Ubuntu Phone isn't the same as Ubuntu. While Unity uses QML that let's it achieve application portability across devices/platforms, Ubuntu Phone has no traces of QML in its sources, which means that Ubuntu Phone will be like MS Surface RT -- the "mobile apps" will work, the desktop ones won't. Caconical, on the other hand, claims that there won't be any difference between them, and they even promise binary compatibility.

in short, Ubuntu is becoming another Android.

Source required, legit source it you would mind.

[frign]

Most of the posters don't seem to understand what Aaron Seigo wants to express and what he criticizes.

Although it is a pity, it still makes me think that those people don't deserve better than further proposing Ubuntu and moving away from the basic idea of what the GNU-OS is about.
You don't have to be a radical proponent of free software to perceive what Canonical's main interests are concerning Ubuntu and Ubuntu Phone.
To give you a little hint: These are not interests most of you would agree with, being mostly focused on creating an empire and monopoly on what most people believe is *free* software, but which in reality isn't at all.

[e8hffff]

If Canoncial can deliver the Ubuntu Phone as demo'ed then I'd be happy. This means being able to run software currently available for desktop.

I find all the other Tablet and Phone OS's limiting.

Plasma Active shows promise but when I tested it on my Nexus 7 it was riddled with flaws and missing abilities that are required to navigate or have power. The PA developers aren't listening to the community. Example I don't like apps running full screen, but PA devs don't want to know about it.

With QML Plasma Active will also benefit from Ubuntu Phone apps.

[mr_bombastic]

Most of the posters don't seem to understand what Aaron Seigo wants to express and what he criticizes.

Although it is a pity, it still makes me think that those people don't deserve better than further proposing Ubuntu and moving away from the basic idea of what the GNU-OS is about.
You don't have to be a radical proponent of free software to perceive what Canonical's main interests are concerning Ubuntu and Ubuntu Phone.
To give you a little hint: These are not interests most of you would agree with, being mostly focused on creating an empire and monopoly on what most people believe is *free* software, but which in reality isn't at all.

I see this kind of criticism a lot on the internet, aimed at Canonical, and I don't think it's fair. Yes, Canonical is for-profit, but they have done a tremendous service for Linux by allowing the userbase to be expanded. Thanks to easier to use distros like Ubuntu, Linux is now more widespread and we users have been gaining more attention. See Steam, for example, which also brings us more attention. Graphics drivers - both open and closed - are getting much better. Even Microsoft is releasing software for Linux now (Skype). Without the surge os popularity Linux has been enjoying - and that Canonical either brought or at least played a huge part in -, we'd be much worse off. Ask the BSD guys aout the kind of problems they have been facing lately.

So, yes, Canonical will probably make quite a few bucks with adverts, but the beautiful thing is that nothing is stopping anyone of creading a CentOS for their RHEL. And removing the bits they don't like, adding new stuff, whatever. Look at Mint. That's what the GPL is about. No one can own that code and monopolize anything, ever. There's no lock-in possible unless they start implementing closed-source software on top of Debian and calling that Ubuntu. But they haven't so far. Unity is available on other distributions now. As shitty as Unity is, I think it's great that it's an option.

Regarding the phone, we'll have to see. Regardless of its quality or the technology used, it seems to be at least as open as Android, which is also a positive and makes everything I said about their desktop distribution apply (look at Cyanogenmod for a particularly good example).

Having said all that, I'm not a fan of Ubuntu at all, vastly preferring either Mint of proper Debian. But I can't gloss over the advantages they brought us all and I certainly don't see them as a threat to free software.

[Talavis]

The "too long; didn't read" version: Ubuntu Phone isn't the same as Ubuntu. While Unity uses QML that let's it achieve application portability across devices/platforms, Ubuntu Phone has no traces of QML in its sources, which means that Ubuntu Phone will be like MS Surface RT -- the "mobile apps" will work, the desktop ones won't. Caconical, on the other hand, claims that there won't be any difference between them, and they even promise binary compatibility.

in short, Ubuntu is becoming another Android.

Rather the other way around. Unity is missing QML, while Ubuntu Phone is using it.