Canonical Puts Ubuntu On Android Smartphones

nk497 writes "Canonical has revealed Ubuntu running on a smartphone — but the open source developer hasn't squashed the full desktop onto a tiny screen. Instead, the Ubuntu for Android system runs both OSes side by side, picking which to surface depending on the form factor. When a device — in the demo, it was a Motorola Atrix — is being used as a smartphone, it uses Android. When it's docked into a laptop or desktop setup, the full version of Ubuntu is used. Files, apps and other functionality such as voice calls and texting are shared between the two — for example, if a text message is sent to the phone when it's docked, the SMS pops up in Ubuntu, while calls can be received or made from the desktop." ZDnet has pictures; ExtremeTech has a story, too, including some words from Canonical CEO Jane Silber.

Comments

WAT

[Anonymous Coward]

INTEDEZTING

Tablets please

[DeBaas]

Very nice!, nonetheless I'd rather see it run on my Notion Ink Adam. I like the hardware, but somehow still grab my laptop more often.

So why the push for Unity?

[Culture20]

Why was there a big push for Unity if you're not going to use it in a small form factor? Why not just stick with a real desktop?

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unity/Gnome debate is silly and you're really missing the point.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[hawguy]

Unity/Gnome debate is silly and you're really missing the point.

I don't think he's missing the point - Canonical pushed the small touch-screen friendly Unity on everyone, and now that they have Ubuntu running on a small formfactor touch screen that is supposed to be exactly what Unity is good at, what do they do? They dump Ubuntu entirely on that small screen and only run Ubuntu on the big monitor with no touch screen.

So tell me again what the point of Unity is if it's not for touchscreen devices?

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Anonymous Coward]

NO U.

When a device â" in the demo, it was a Motorola Atrix â" is being used as a smartphone, it uses Android. When it's docked into a laptop or desktop setup, the full version of Ubuntu is use

Unity's design is for (small) touchscreen devices, but they use Android when it's used as small touchscreen device and switch to Ubuntu with Unity when used as desktop.

This kinda makes you wonder why the fuck did they spend resources on touch-friendly Unity, when they're not going to use it where it's meant to be.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because in due course we'll have Unity across all of these form factors. For now, however, Android is better on the phone UI than Unity, and so we're making it possible for people to start converging on the phone today with Android rather than waiting months for the Ubuntu phone UI itself.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[RocketRabbit]

If its silly why did you post as an AC?

You know damn well that it's not silly.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[N1ckR]

Because in due course we'll have Unity across all of these form factors. For now, however, Android is better on the phone UI than Unity, and so we're making it possible for people to start converging on the phone today with Android rather than waiting months for the Ubuntu phone UI itself.

You speak in the first person, are you involved with this project ?

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Algae_94]

I was under the impression that the Atrix was a touchscreen tablet that would use the Unity interface. That would be touchscreen but not small form factor. Canonical undoubtedly realized during the development of this that Unity was not well suited to very small form factors, or they knew that all the rest of the user software would not be well suited to running in Unity on a phone size device and found the Android GUI to be a better experience on a phone.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[datavirtue]

Big yawn.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[ohnocitizen]

Maybe Canonical released Unity for the same reason Adam Sandler made Jack and Jill?

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[amram9999]

No, the Motorola Atrix is a phone with a 4.0" screen, not a tablet. http://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_atrix-3709.php

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[hairyfeet]

Because with this and the killing of kubuntu its as I said and canonical is slowly bleeding to death? i'll get hate for saying this but truth is truth and the FOSS model simply doesn't work on the desktop. On servers companies buy support contracts, on embedded companies pay developers to customize it but on the desktop if you don't get MSFT's economies of scale (Windows 1.0 was $99, Win 7 HP is $89) you simply can't come up with the millions, and it WILL require millions to get an OS with 99% of the money being spent on server usage like Linux up to snuff for desktops, so the companies die. See Mandriva as just the latest line of a long line of examples, along with Xandros, Linspire, gOS, etc.

To make money on a desktop you not only have to have OEMs that are willing to sell your product (Canonical doesn't as Dell is most likely losing money on every sale of Ubuntu) but everyone has gotten spoiled to "clicky clicky plug and play everything just works" so you have to do slick and seamless BETTER than MSFT and Apple which simply isn't possible with free labor. its what i call the "busted shitter problem" in that there is a TON of work that is lousy, thankless, long, boring work that HAS TO be done, all the docs and QA and bug fixing, I mean how many bugs are listed in the Ubuntu bug tracker that are over 2 years old? How many "Update foo broke my drivers" posts do you see in Ubuntu forums with every release? if anything the FOSS model is worse because the developers are all coming from server backgrounds and have a "Meh just use CLI" attitude that uses CLI as a crutch and that simply won't fly on the desktop where you have to be BETTER than the other guy, not just cheaper. this attitude works on servers because Apple doesn't even care about that market and MSFT has assraping pricing for server OSes so admins will put up with a lot of shit to save tens of thousands of dollars. When an OEM copy of Win 7 HP is only $50 to the big boys it really don't take too many service calls from consumers before Windows is the cheaper alternative, not when HP makes on average $8 a sale on the low end.

So you mark my words in less than 5 years, I'd say less than 3, Canonical will join that long line of companies that tried to make a go with a FOSS desktop and found it simply unworkable. that isn't to say the FOSS model is bad, just that it simply doesn't work in all cases and this is one. What we need is a new license that will allow someone like canonical to concentrate on all the "buster shitter" work while still making enough profits to keep the lights on, maybe a "free to look at the code but if you distribute you have to pay" clause? because as a retailer believe me I WANT there to be choices, I WANT to see real competition but when I try to upgrade a system and the drivers break and I click a help file and get a "to be done" placeholder? Well my time costs and just like the OEMs it really don't take long before that copy of Win 7 HP is the cheaper deal, about 2 hours in my case.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[hairyfeet]

You mean they too was paid by the CIA to develop a method of inflicting horrible pain without leaving a mark on the victim? Those bastards! At least Sandler had an excuse as they threatened him with being forced to work on the new SNL and having to have Tom Green write all his material, but what's Canonical's excuse? Maybe a lucrative contract to supply all of Iraq and Afghanistan with non touch enabled desktops to teach the children the futility of trying to fight the system? the mind boggles.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[ozmanjusri]

So tell me again what the point of Unity is if it's not for touchscreen devices?

One device is not an entire market.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Daniel Phillips]

Because with this and the killing of kubuntu its as I said and canonical is slowly bleeding to death?

Exactly. If it was QT I would be interested, but GTK is one big "meh". Good luck Canonical, you will need it.

Well anyway at least it's not Java.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Daniel Phillips]

Oh wait, actually if Ubuntu does the work to boot Unity on it, it should be dead simple to substitute a decent QT interface, so I hereby change my mind and officially think this is a great project. So call me fickle :-)

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Algae_94]

Consider my comment 100% baseless then. For some reason I was thinking it was some kind of phone that plugged into a tablet body and shared processor power. Now that I think about it, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[laurelraven]

Much as I hate to admit it, there is a lot of truth in what you say. I think your "busted shitter" example is a perfect analogy...no one really wants to fix it, and since most aren't being paid...

That being said, I still think there is a way to make FOSS work for the desktop. I'm just not sure what it is, or how to get enough people to be on board with it. The biggest obstacle to it is, as you said, time: it simply takes longer to get things working initially on Linux, for many people (especially when they don't know it), and having to learn something new to do the same thing they've always done is not acceptable to them. Why change what, to them, ain't broken?

Anyway, my two cents (and probably a hit to my karma).

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[mcneely.mike]

I'll take that bet and say that in 3-5 years you'll be wishing that Canonical was selling shares.
Canonical has made some mistakes yes, but which company hasn't (see Msft, apple, google, RIM!!!): I wish i owned some shares... then maybe i'd be able to afford to buy the smartphone/laptop/tablet and smart tv that ubuntu will be linking.
Oh, being poor sucks. :-(

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody has ever claimed that Unity will not run on small screens. This does not in any way replace Ubuntu Phone.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[smg5266]

It plugs into a netbook shaped body and uses the phones internals to run a specialty software on a laptop screen. It is some type of limited proprietary software that Motorola developed, so I think Canonical is expanding on this idea with a full sized OS with a large application base.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[eaman]

Why was there a big push for Unity if you're not going to use it in a small form factor? Why not just stick with a real desktop?

Tablets, maybe, not phones.
There's no point in pretending to run "linux distro" on a phone, the apps user interface won't do.

Maybe the desktop UI for apps *could* do on tablets, for shure not on phones.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[nightfell]

Why was there a big push for Unity if you're not going to use it in a small form factor? Why not just stick with a real desktop?

Perhaps because Unity isn't as mature and feature-complete for use on a smartphone as Android is.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

Not going to happen.

This "latest innovation" is old news - some guy got Debian to run on the exact same phone last summer. So tell us, why would any manufacturer go to Canonical for this?

All they did, same as Canonical, was replace the customized linux os that was running when it's docked with Ubuntu, same as the Debian guy swapped it out for Debian.

And let's be honest, nobody wants to haul around a docking station that turns your smartphone into a netbook. Even Matt Asay - Canonical's former COO - says Canonical lacks focus and that netbooks are dead - two facts most of us have been aware of for a while ... so be happy you didn't blow millions trying to make this turkey fly.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

There wasn't much "work" to do - the Atrix already ran a cusomized linux when it was docked - all Canonical did was swap it out for Ubuntu. Debian on the Atrix - Last Summer.

Turning your smartphone into a netbook - why? Netbooks are dead, and nobody is going to carry around a docking station. The Atrix is a marketing failure, and those stupid commercials with the TSA guys didn't help.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

but what's Canonical's excuse?

Employees trying to justify being yes-persons to Shuttleworth's "Self-Appointed Benevolent Dictator for Life" so they can continue to collect a paycheck, duh!

Nobody's going to tell him his ideas are seriously out of date, that Canonical is a failure from the venture capital perspective, and that they should never have abandoned the goal of making the best desktop distro, period, instead of turning around and throwing their user base under the bus.

That's okay - Canonical's mistakes are encouraging others to step in to fill the void (Mint, for example), so in the end, it's all good, right?

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

Care to point out the lies?

Canonical had a goal of "fixing bug #1 - Windows majority market share" back in 2004. Here we are, 2012, and creaky old XP has 20x the market share.

Last year Shuttleworth set a goal of 200 million Ubuntu users by 2015. Since then, he's thrown all the Kubuntu users under the bus, same as he did to the Gnome users.

This latest announcement is old news - others have been running Debian on the same hardware combo since last summer. But seriously, turning a smartphone into a netbook? And one that can't even run Android apps when in "netbook mode"?????!!!!???? No OEM is going to bother with this. Netbooks are dead. And with the higher-res screens coming to tablets, Unity will be sub-optimal. Just like the idea of having to type stuff to run a program (their stupid "Heads-Up Display") is a step backwards for users.

That's okay - Mint was happy to take most of those disaffected Ubuntu users, along with their mindshare, and Fedora, Arch, and a few other distros are also seeing significant upticks. Choice is good, right?

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[hairyfeet]

Noticed i got modded a troll for daring to point out what should be quite obvious by now? I mean seriously, how many companies have to completely FAIL trying to bring a FOSS desktop up to snuff before everyone realizes the FOSS model simply doesn't supply the needed funds to turn a server OS (which is what Linux is, more than 90% of its R&D is spent on server issues and features and all its brightest programmers are working for server companies) into a desktop OS? I made it quite clear i don't think FOSS is bad, simply that it doesn't fit into every model.

Lets take Ubuntu and what I call the "busted shitter problem", now go look how many bugs in their bug tracker are over 2 years old, how about 3? 4? last i checked they had several that were 6! And remember for every ONE person you have reporting a bug you have SEVERAL HUNDRED that have simply given up and moved on. That is business 101 folks, for every one complainer you have probably 200 minimum that just walk away and quit, vowing just to never touch your product or darken your door again, and THIS is progress? This is why communism don't work, everybody wants to be the artist and NOBODY wants to be "Hi I'm Cleetus, I fix the busted shitters". Does anyone think apple and MSFT pay millions upon millions to programmers because they LIKE spending all that money? of course not, but you simply can't motivate anyone to take really shitty work without pay, its just human nature. Would YOU go clean your neighbor's nasty overflowing shitter for free?

In the end we are talking probably a good 100 million dollar minimum will need to be spent to get ubuntu or any other Linux up to the same level as Lion and Win 7. Now you may think I'm exaggerating but look at what needs to be done logically. you have a good 1600 page novel's worth of help files that need to be written, because frankly probably 35% are placeholders and the ones that aren't are so poorly written if you don't know the lingo you're fucked which kinda kills the whole damned point of a HELP file. then you got on average around 10,000 devices being released each month, so realistically you would have to have a hardware ABI to get the device manufacturers to build drivers so you're gonna have to do like Google and fork your own kernel. Now the ONLY argument you'll ever see against a hardware ABI, which just FYI but not only MSFT but Apple, Solaris, BSD, and even OS/2 Warp have, is frankly religious. It's "ZOMFG they might write a non free driver ZOMFG!" which ignores the quite obvious fact that the majority of Linux users use Nvidia which is a non free driver so it makes no fucking sense, but if you want to have to rewrite thousands of drivers because Linus changed a pointer that's cool, just quadruple the cost so now you're looking at 400 million.

But lets say you can magically get all those drivers to never fail, which FYI now Linux forums tell you with a straight face that "You have to install clean" which they USED to make fun of Windows for, but the users have frankly just given up on the drivers getting any better sadly. But lets say you fix the driver problem with some magic, then you still got QA and regression testing to make sure the new packages don't crap themselves on AMD, or Atom, or if they have a wireless plugged in. Then you have to pay for marketing because if nobody knows about it, how they gonna use it? You need promotions, deals with OEMs, a bank of techs for support, not to mention the guys working on fixing the bugs users find AND the guys working on new features.

Now you tell me laurelraven, where is that 100 million plus gonna come from when anybody can just take what you made and undercut you because they didn't have to pay ANY of the R&D costs hmm? Can't say the community will provide it out the goodness of their hearts, if that were true then 2/3rds of the web would be running on RHEL who donates more to the community than the next 4 providers combined. Heck AMD not only gave away their code they even hired developers to help the free guys

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[hairyfeet]

I agree with everything you said EXCEPT that netbooks are dead. I think netbooks have a great future only it won't be "ultrabooks" or some other "maximize profit potential" idea but what it was originally, a cheap mobile device that still lets you do basic work. Take the AMD C and E series for example, here you have a chip that lets them sell for equal or even sometimes less than Atom while still doing 720P on a 12 inch screen while getting 6+ hours, all for around $300 before the flood and by summer will probably be back down below $350. Its cheap, its more portable than a laptop, its easy to carry, yet you can still watch movies without killing your eyes or type without getting a headache from the strain of reading a teeny tiny phone screen. This is a good thing and people see the value of this, its Intel trying to upmarket it into some lame Mac ripoff ultrabook that will be toast, because if its the same price as an Air then WTF? Why wouldn't I buy the Air that has better resale and is cooler?

But while you and I were both modded down by those with perception bubbles i truly believe time will vindicate what we have said...Canonical is DOA, its getting on the cart no matter how "happy" it feels. Why does everyone think they keep going for wilder and stupider ideas? its because they are bleeding money and as the coffers get lean they get desperate to find a niche. Shuttleworth has already made it clear he won't give another dime, so they have to get into the black or die. remember how they originally said they'd never get into servers, that they were gonna focus on making "The best Linux desktop in the world"? What happened? Its obvious to anyone with eyes, the same thing that happened to Mandriva and Xandros and Linspire and gOS, they found that if anyone can take their code for free they simply have nothing to sell the OEMs or customers.

Xandros tried bundling non free software like crossover, Linspire tried selling click n' run, Mandriva a "pro" version and gOS tried cheap hardware tied to Google services. and now Ubuntu tries first netbooks, then a lame tablet UI they shove onto non touchscreen desktops, and now smartphones. Mark my words in 3 years there will be NO Ubuntu desktop except some "community" version which Canonical abandons to the volunteers which gets further and further behind. A couple of years after that they will shutter their doors because server admins don't need pretty simple GUIs and that's all Canonical really has to sell. Its sad but the model simply doesn't work on the desktop.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any idea what happens to people who purport ideas that Shuttleworth finds "regrettable"? You'd AC too...

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[drinkypoo]

Apparently to piss people off and drive them away from Ubuntu. My lady's machine has been losing gadgets off the menu bar randomly and crap like that. If Ubuntu can't maintain a little basic quality I will have to move her to another distribution that will result in less questions I can't answer. (Or at least, I won't spend hours in digital forensics to figure out why the GUI asplode when I have other options.)

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

An awful lot of what you say sounds like something I wrote over the weekend (to be seen elsewhere in a week).

In the meantime, remember this? Doesn't the Google Heads Up Display stuff sound an awful lot like the first step? So let them mod down all they want - I get it right more often than not, and there's only one way to salvage Canonical

0. Drop the Ubuntu brand - it's tarnished beyond repair.
1. On the support side - support ALL distros, ALL OSes. One-stop tech support for small and medium businesses and local governments. Or close it. Nothing in between will work - it's too niche.
2. On the projects side - cancel Unity, cancel UbuntuTV (it's just samygo.tv anyway), stop pretending that this "Ubuntu on Android" is anything new (and don't try to distribute the Debian hack from last summer that it's based on - it's not worth getting sued by Googlerola), cancel Ubuntu 1, cancel Ubuntu cloud.
3. As a show of good faith, immediately reinstate Kubuntu as a supported spin. Ditto for Xubuntu.
4. Cancel Bug #1 - it's childish in a world where interoperability is more important.
5. Add value by actually adding value, not surfing the net for ideas other people have developed (like UbuntuTV and Ubuntu on Android or whatever they call it) and slapping your name on it.
6. Fire all the disloyal people (the ones who were so busy being "yes-men" and "yes-women" rather than saying "hey, this is ****ed up, we need to get back to basics and stop throwing our users under the nearest bus").

Of course, the real question is, will the Self-Appointed Benevolent Dictator For Life do that, or just pull the plug?

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

There *is* one way ... but people will howl and scream like crazy. There are work-arounds that let you use GPL'd code in closed-source products, completely within the restrictions of current copyright law - and without resorting to TIVOization.

The question is, is it even worth it? Probably not, the market just isn't there. That's the real Bug #1, and it's not going to change, because TANSTAAFL. Linux is great for infrastructure, and for people who know what they're doing (for example, I'm currently running Fedora 16, but I certainly wouldn't just give an install disk to someone and expect them to be able to use it - most of their programs won't run, which is the root cause of the real-life Bug #1).

Bug #0, on the other hand, is social. It's the GPL itself, which has turned software into a closed-minded quasi-pseudo-religion for too many people. It's why more projects are switching to free/non-restrictive ABM licenses (Apache, BSD, MIT). They still get code contributions back, but they get them because the contributors find it's more effective in the long term, not because they "have to." Cooperation, not coercion.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Envy Life]

And with the higher-res screens coming to tablets, Unity will be sub-optimal. Just like the idea of having to type stuff to run a program (their stupid "Heads-Up Display") is a step backwards for users.

Keyboard navigation is faster. Your hatred for Unity has nothing to do with that fact. Let's compare:

Keyboard Option: Press hot-key, type "gvim" and enter. If you type 45wpm that's about 2 seconds.

GUI Option: Grab mouse, move it to corner of screen, click on Applications, click on Editors, scroll down to "Gvim", click on it. One second per click, which includes targeting menu items, waiting for sub-menus to pop up. Total time 5 seconds.

Thing is, the launcher should be 100% user configurable, which would cut both times in half. What I described is how most OS launchers come as default. A good app launcher should have a GUI available for clicking to see an inventory of applications if one is not sure what is installed on a given PC. It should support the ability to put commonly used launchers at the shortest point (visible on screen, topmost app menu), and it should allow direct keyboard launching.

For me there are 10 applications that account for over 90% of my app launching. Most stock launchers fail their most basic purpose to launch things quickly. I have yet to find a launcher, stock or custom, that has the proper combination of GUI and keyboard customization and in that respect Unity seems just as good as anything else (if you ignore its bugs)

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[hairyfeet]

We agree on a lot of things again except one thing which is in this case #1. Frankly i don't think Canonical can be saved by support and here is why: The desktop is a catch-22 where those that could actually benefit from the support won't pay for it and those that have the ability and lack of aversion to paying for it simply won't benefit from it!

As a retailer I can tell you consumers HATE paying for extended support, just ask any of the BB guys what the reaction the majority give them when they have to push extended support. as a friend who took a shift there one Xmas season to get his GF a really killer Xmas said "You might as well be saying 'hey would you like a free dose of anal cancer with this laptop?' for how much they do NOT want this service" so if the cost isn't already written into the device where the actual cost is hidden from the user you can give it up. that is why MSFT retail copies are so high you know, they can't palm off support onto the OEM so what you are seeing is the cost of paying someone to answer all the stupid questions. I can tell you tech support is a thankless job where you are constantly asked REALLY fucking stupid questions, questions so damned dumb you think "How can someone this retarded even operate a computer?" so they'll have to have tiers to separate the "Update foo broke my drivers" questions from the "How do I change my wallpaper?" dumbshit ones, and all that is gonna cost a pretty penny.

This is why i think FOSS is doomed to forever be the last place lousy choice for the desktop, because how can you make money to improve the product? in every place FOSS has carved out a niche, every single one, there has been an easy and clear cut way to monetize it. With servers you have support contracts, with embedded you have developers being paid to write custom version or custom interfaces, with Android Google is datamining the hell out of anyone that touched it, but where does that leave desktops? How can they monetize and differentiate themselves from everybody else? Answer is they don't which is why all the flip flopping from one lame idea to another, we have a classic underpants gnomes dilemma. They are now on step three and as everyone knows there is NO step three hence the throwing crap at a wall and just praying something, hell anything, will just stick.

But you and I know that nothing will stick and in 3 years Canonical will be another Mandriva, or Xandros, or Linspire, or gOS, gee, notice a pattern here? Why it almost like there isn't a way to monetize a FOSS desktop! Android and iOS will lock in the phones, one making money off of datamining while the other hardware, and before anyone accuses Android of being Linux I'd point out its as much linux as OSX lion is actually BSD which is to say very damned little of it has anything to do with the other. The desktop market will remain MSFT's simply because the support costs (which they can't add into the cost of the product because every FOSSie zealot screams "It costs more than Windows so it must be a MSFT conspiracy!" so the OEMs simply can't make any money there, and finally after Canonical tries to jam itself into every have assed device with a chip they will shutter their doors in less than 3 years, you just watch. hell they haven't had a single profitable quarter since the whole thing started! Because just as you pointed out with Mint there is nothing stopping someone from taking all the work you put in and giving it away in their own wrapper. There simply isn't a way to generate the kind of capital required to spend the massive amounts on R&D and support to make FOSS a functional model when it comes to desktops and as soon as Canonical gets that it'll be going on the pile of failed distros, just you watch.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Anonymous Coward]

we would be better to figure out how to keep the government from spying on its citizens send these companies a message and take your cell phone and throw it in the ocean citizen band radios are just as about reliable as a cell phone anyway

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

Please remember, we're talking Unity here - something that was supposed to be for mobile devices. Typing is a PITA in a touch-screen environment. You have to launch the keyboard, then "type" on it (nothing nearly as good as a real keyboard), then "disappear" the keyboard again. So the HUD is slower.

Second, if you have 10 apps that you want to launch quickly, what's the problem? Most DEs support a place to dock launchers for your frequently-used apps. Or you could just stick them in your rc file.

Third, Alt-F2 works on most *nix DEs no need for anything "special".

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

I was thinking exclusively corporate support for mixed environments. Marketing to consumers is a losing proposition, as you pointed out. Consumers rightly take the need for an extended warranty as an indicator that the product is crap.

I personally think it's going to be neck-and-neck which is no longer "officially supported" - Ubuntu or XP ... it's going to be a tight race, for sure - and when XP is finally EOL, it will probably still have 20x the user base Ubuntu has (though at the current rate of attrition, it may be 100x in 2 years), so much for "fixing bug #1".

Basically, the only ways to monetize the desktop in meaningful numbers are to create a proprietary desktop, or create a proprietary application for an existing desktop. Free just doesn't work any more than free cars works.

Take transportation as an example. Free cars won't work - it just costs to much to give everyone a free car, and increases pollution, traffic, and road wear and tear. Free buses, on the other hand, could work because they reduce the need for capital outlays for wider roads, bridges, etc., as well as ongoing maintenance, resulting in enough savings to offset the cost of free buses. So buses are an indirect investment in infrastructure, but cars aren't. Linux is infrastructure. It's worth it for companies to invest in infrastructure, because they share in the benefits. It's not worth it for them to give everyone a free car.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[hairyfeet]

Actually you just tripped over the catch 22 I was talking about. See those corporate desktops are run by admins that are usually really fucking smart, hence they don't need a hand holding dumbed down GUI OS which is what Canonical's ONLY real claim to fame was. i mean how many times have YOU said to yourself "What i need is a really stupid interface here, something with lots of hand holding and clicky clicky" Barbara? I bet that thought hasn't crossed your mind in a looooong time has it?

As for XP I think MSFT has a plan and frankly its gonna be fucking brilliant in its simplicity. Remember how Sega got its ass kicked with the Saturn because after announcing a $399 price point Sony just walked up to the mike and said "$299 MSRP" and walked away? And you know how badly ballmer wants Win 8 to NOT be a flop, because frankly he's not only betting desktops but tablets AND cell phones on it? I have a feeling a month before the Win 8 release if not sooner MSFT will call a press conference and say these simple words..."Windows 8 Home is $50" and will just walk away while people crap their pants. hell at $50 you can keep that old XP dual core and just slap Win 8 on it, and since the new Windows is made for tablets and cell phones the resource usage will be adaptable like Win 7 only more so. you ever try running Win 7 on a P4 with 512Mb of RAM? I have and it uses less than 200Mb. the OS detects its being run on an older machine and drops or delays any extra crap, its already been announced that after we admins had been screaming about it for a decade FINALLY Windows will have services that launch on use and shutdown after instead of running all the time.

And finally your analogy is flawed because it forgets one little thing...greed Even Google refuses to give out its best stuff like GoogleFS because it might give the competition an advantage so why would I invest something that my competitor can then take for free? this hurts me NOT helps me. this only works in servers because the OS isn't being used in any way as the product, its the hardware, or the services, or the bandwidth,to these companies the server is just a tool but on the desktop it costs them more money with ZERO gain. I mean why should i pay a $100K a year Linux guru when I can slap an AD server behind the firewall and with it controlling the WinDesktops via GPOs frankly my 18 year old could learn how to run the whole thing in like a month? MCSEs are a dime a dozen, and when you are buying 100,000 desktops the cost of the OS doesn't even make it into the top 15, its just not something to care about.

So you see my friend ultimately linux desktops are ALL caught in a catch 22, as those that could actually USE Linux security simply won't pay support contracts and can't do it on their own with the current state of Linux and the guys that CAN do it themselves? Well we just don't see any bugs so why should we switch to an OS with less applications and more work for what applications it DOES have? Frankly other than religious zealotry or a few niche software areas where it makes sense frankly Linux on the desktop is currently pointless. I mean do you have ANY doubt you could secure a Windows box and use it without getting infected? of course not even basic common sense security practices like not clicking on links in PMs or running funny email attachments will protect you.

In the end my neighbor below me is a perfect example, to this very day he still can't tell the difference between RAM and hard drive or why one machine can run an app but another can't, hell he doesn't even get the difference between desktop and documents yet and libraries and breadcrumbs are right out. In Windows there is enough hand holding and wizards that a guy like him can actually use a PC, even though this is only his second year of even having a system, yet while a power user like myself can blow through our jobs with Windows guys like him can STILL get their work done. THESE are the kinds of users Linux needs, they already have the ones i call "freetards", you know, the

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

Well, @$50 a copy, people would buy it, AND it would get rid of the legacy copies of XP running after it's been EOL'd (because people will continue to run them, and when they get too messed up, just restore from a disk image or re-install).

I don't see the linux desktop usage numbers ever going above where they are today - they haven't really moved in a decade. Even Novell, with its decades of experience, couldn't get people to renew their SLES licneses (the ones Microsoft sold customers) w/o giving discounts of 80% to 90% - and Novell never made a profit with linux. I wonder how much they would have lost w/o Microsoft sending hundreds of millions their way ... but with numbers like that, a "deal with the devil" was their only alternative.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[hairyfeet]

See this is what made me so sad about Xandros. if you ever tried it back in the day it was brilliant, in many roles it could out Windows Windows while still giving you Linux security. it played nice with AD and even supported login scripts like Windows, had crossover built in with most of the common apps already having presets that were frankly saner than Windows, it even could do in place upgrades without crapping on a single driver and even supported broadcom wireless!

But instead of seeing Xandros as a really great chance to get people that had "must have" apps or had to easily join domains off of Windows the "community" practically crapped itself and screamed 'ZOMFG they actually signed deals with teh evil M$ KILL IT WITH FIRE!' and pretty effectively boycotted it. Now its dead, its last update in 2009 and Asus doesn't even sell it with a EEE netbook anymore, the community promptly shot themselves in the foot and then sat down in the middle of the race track to write a bash script that put "M$ Suxorz!" all over the screen in long PHP codes.

And it is THIS that will ultimately doom FOSS to a teeny tiny niche, the zealots and the "freetards" that treat it as a religion instead of an OS and programs. Hell you hang out on LinuxInsider, next time you are there look at everything Pogson writes as he is a perfect example. When i pointed out a need for simpler GUIs he asked, I swear, "How will you write "for" loops with a GUI" because I swear the nut actually thought the average person write for loops. Its like the "FOSSies" as I call them, not the rational FOSS users like you, but the crazies like Pogson that have taken over (BTW look and see how he NEVER writes the word Microsoft or even MS, classic Voldemort syndrome) and they refuse to accept that the average consumer is NOT LIKE THEM and has no desire to learn their fiddly ways. they think, again i swear one of them told me this, if "users would just embrace the POWER of CLI" (isn't that cute, they think CLI is the force!) that all would be happiness and puppies. they simply can't see that for Suzy the checkout girl you might as well have tried to hand them DOS. They don't care how poweful it is, because they don't need that damned power, they just need it working and easy.

But thanks for the links, it just proves what I've been saying all along, FOSS simply doesn't work for all use cases and desktops are one of them. MSFT spent something like 300 million on Win 7, Apple regularly spends north of a hundred million on OSX, without at least an equal amount spent Linux will be just as you say, stuck. Oh and you mark my words, Win 8 HP at $50. They tested the waters with this with the presale on Win 7, I paid $50 for the HP I'm typing this on and I was able to switch my entire family to Win 7, all 6 computers, with 2 family packs for $200. Ballmer wants Win 8 to sell bad enough I'm betting you'll see Win 8 HP at $50 and Win 8 family pack at $100 and at that price XP will die quick. Hell I wouldn't even be surprised if they cut the OEMs a break for the first year just so they can lower the prices on laptops and desktops to get as many XP boxes replaced as they can. MSFT knows it make or break on their mobile plans with win 8 and Ballmer is sitting on enough cash he can afford to sell it cheap for at least a year or until it overtakes XP, whichever comes first. Personally while I'll try it I think I'm gonna stick with Win 7, hell if it ain't broke?

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

Xandros - a friend of mine was using it for years to go online to protect his computer. It did everything he wanted, and he would have paid for updates, same as Apple charges.

On "How will you write "for" loops with a GUI" - Computer Associates dbFast for Windows 3x FTW. It was a cute product, but I quickly stopped using the GUI development tools and just wrote code, because it was easier to modify.

I wouldn't be too harsh on Robert - we've all been there at one time or another, either with F/LOSS or with something else in our lives.

Now here's a question - is there room for a PAY-FOR proprietary (as in "it can actually generate sales and has to be responsive to user demands") OS that doesn't have the problems of updates b0rking systems (no dynamic linking, etc), simpified installation and management (none of this UUID= garbage in grub, for example*, scripts that are dead simple and GUIs for each one), and a common-sense desktop?

* people who make excuses for that sort of stuff don't realize that it ultimately causes more problems than it solves, and treating anyone who has to move hard drives around as an idiot is a poor policy. It's their box - let them mess around with fstab as they want, w/o this uuid crap.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[hairyfeet]

I'd give Pogson a break Barbara if he was just a zealot, but Voldemort syndrome? there is NO excuse for that. Voldemort syndrome actually makes FOSS users look like a bunch of tinfoil hatters and makes it the punchline of jokes. I mean would it REALLY cause the end of civilization if he wrote MSFT or even MS? but not once, not once has he been able to write anything but "M$" or "The OTHER OS" like they are listening to his thoughts through the walls. the LAST thing FOSS needs is another Twitter.

And while I would like to think there would be room for a proprietary Linux frankly the "free as in beer" tards would have such a damned screaming shitfit it would never happen. i mean what was Xandros' crimes? it signed a deal that would give it access to the Exchange and Sharepoint protocols along with access to MSFT tech like AD and GPO backend protocols, that's it. And anyone with a brain would know that for a business OS having the ability to use Exchange and AD is pretty much a must have. Instead the community destroyed what as your friend found out was the only really sanely designed linux I had ever seen, it all "just worked" without "pulling a Gnome" and restricting the user. you had full CLI,could run apt-get and use any app, it just had sane defaults so you didn't need to if you didn't want to. it even had on first startup a "behavior" choice which would make the OS respond to Windows,Mac, or Linux conventions when it came to things like right click so it was simple to convert users. I used to have a Xandros laptop I'd hand to a client to use while i worked on site, just so the person whose machine I was fixing wouldn't be completely down for the day ya know? i had not once needed to spend a single minute teaching them "The Linux way' because it all "just worked". it would detect the AD, ask for a login, plug it into an AD network and it would be up and running faster than XP.

And I agree that Grub and most of the underpinnings have frankly gotten just dumb, what these guys are cooking up is frankly more of a hindrance than a help. And again the fundamental problem is how to pay for the work? How do you pay for the focus groups and QA and regression testing required to bring everything up to a point that while the home user can run it the power user and admins don't feel hamstringed? I truly believe Canonical is gonna be the final straw, after they close their doors any thought of Linux having a prayer on the desktop will be finally dead, well except for pogson whom I'm sure will think "Its a vast conspiracy to keep GNU away from the masses!" while ignoring in the end its the busted shitter problem, in the end the shitty jobs just don't get done. Vista was a pig so the users didn't buy, MSFT got the feedback and built Win 7 which runs great even on netbooks. there just isn't that kind of positive feedback in F/LOSS. I mean how do you tell a dev working for free 'What you are doing isn't helping, it doesn't follow the GUI conventions, its got too many bugs, and it relies too much on CLI and its help files are poorly written"? Answer you don't, they say "take it or leave it" which is why you end up with a shit sandwich, because the devs say 'hey you want a free sandwich?" and when you say yes hand you a turd on bread and say 'No complaining now, because its free". Well a shit sandwich is still shit, like Joe Rogan said "If someone hand you a sandwich that is 95% shit and 5% ham, would you call it a ham sandwich?".

In the end users don't care WHY it don't work, all they care about is their wireless is broke, or their sound is now static, or their GUI doesn't have the options they require. Hell even Nichols admits the new GUIs are shit, and I NEVER thought he'd have a bad word to say about F/LOSS. But you have yourself a great weekend Barbara.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

Well a shit sandwich is still shit, like Joe Rogan said "If someone hand you a sandwich that is 95% shit and 5% ham, would you call it a ham sandwich?".

That reminds me of the saying about a bottle of wine:

If you have a bottle of sh*t and add 1 ounce of wine, what do you have? A bottle of sh*t.
If you have a bottle of wine and add 1 ounce of sh*t, what do you have? A bottle of sh*t.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Envy Life]

Unity was designed for notebook computers with keyboards, not phones and touchpad devices.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

Unity was originally designed for notebook computers with keyboards, not phones and touchpad devices.

FTFY.

In case you haven't noticed, they've been announcing that there would be OEM tablets or smartphone deals within a year - for almost 2 years now. One quick example - Chris Kenyon (Canonical VP. Services) promised it by 2011 back in June 2010 - it's 2012 an not a single OEM tablet in sight.

The simple fact is that Canonical is at a dead end. They keep announcing big OEM deals are coming, but the best they've done lately is a crappy WebTop for $190, that Vodaphone South Africa expects to sell ... not hundreds of thousands ... not tens of thousands ... but "thousands". As in one or two - maybe. A couple thousand over the course of a products' lifetime is something you'd expect from someone working out of their bedroom. Even if they got the OEM to pump them out for $120 (leaving a 35% margin), after you take into account shipping, returns, etc., this is penny-ante stuff. And lets face it - people will buy a cheap Android tablet instead for less money and have more apps.

Shuttleworth will either turn off the tap within 2 years, or let his ego get the best of him.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Envy Life]

Using Android as the phone UI is an indication that Unity will remain a keyboard centric UI. There's enough FUD surrounding Unity without the need to muddy up that simple fact.

Re:So why the push for Unity?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

The real reason is that Canonical can't get Android to run Ubuntu, or vice versa.

Unity

[Sarten-X]

So let me get this straight...

The Unity desktop was arguably intended for tablets and phones... so it's only active when connected to a full-size monitor?

I appreciate the concept of a single computing device for everything, and having that device be tiny... but couldn't somebody other than Canonical do it? Please?

Re:Unity

[GameboyRMH]

So close yet so far. I'd buy a phone running Ubuntu but I have no use for Android. I'd have it run the same OS all the time, just using a mobile GUI (Unity or preferably Hildon) on the small screen and a traditional desktop GUI (I'm thinking XFCE) on the large screen.

If I can make a Droid 4 run Ubuntu I'll buy one ASAP. Once you can run a regular GNU/Linux distro you can customize it to do anything the hardware is capable of. That's the only problem with my N900, the hardware's old and out of date.

Re:Unity

[AvitarX]

Arguably if complete lack of functionality on a touchscreen is your argument (requires hover).

It was designed for netbooks, and after the fad of netbooks.

Single low-mid (by todays standards) monitor is the target for Unity.

Re:Unity

[Jonner]

Canonical first officially released Unity as part of Ubuntu Netbook Remix. Currently, they call it "A powerful desktop and netbook environment that brings consistency and elegance to the Ubuntu experience." I don't think Canonical has said it was intended for tablets and phones, but others have incorrectly assumed that.

I don't hate Unity as so many others seem to, but neither have I found it particularly useful. What I'd like to see is a way to run arbitrary Free *nix apps on an Android system in as seemless and integrated way as possible. At a bare minimum, this would require an X11 server, but integration of notifications would be another obvious thing to do.

Re:Unity

[Barbara, not Barbie]

It's because it's not actually "running in the smartphone" - all they did was replace the linux os in the Lapdock100 (which is a separate accessory for the smartphone) with Ubuntu.

In other words, nothing to see here. Ubuntu still can't run Android, or Android apps, almost 3 years after Canonical announced their "Android Execution Environment."

Re:Unity

[Anonymous Coward]

You are incorrect. Nothing runs inside the dock. Everything runs on the phone.

You are half right though. There is nothing to see here because it is just a Motorola Atrix (released a year ago with all these features) with a recent Ubuntu installed instead of the original Webtop software (which was a fork of Ubuntu anyway.) It even uses exactly the same software for the Android integration.

Re:Unity

[Barbara, not Barbie]

Sorry, you're right. I should have done better - both OS images are stored in the phone, it's just the display, kb, etc., that are external. btw, here's a video of Debian on the Atrix from August 2nd, 2011.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8-92J9hfkA

It's really funny how their "touch UI" (disUnity) only runs on the non-touch device :-)

Re:Unity

[Eponymous Hero]

well they missed the mark. the first thing i did when i got my netbook was install ubuntu, and very soon after it upgraded to the unity desktop. total garbage. if i wanted a mac desktop i'd use a macbook. which is why i don't.

Re:Unity

[stub667]

Considering the gnome-do like application launcher and the newer keyboard driven replacement for menus landing in the new version, I certainly wouldn't consider Unity 'intended for tablets and phones'. Unity is indented to be a common GUI across all form factors. I'm not sure who else it seriously attempting this. Maybe Google trying from the other end with Android? Or are they focusing on ChromeOS for the laptop and desktop form factors?

Re:Unity

[rdnetto]

If I can make a Droid 4 run Ubuntu I'll buy one ASAP. Once you can run a regular GNU/Linux distro you can customize it to do anything the hardware is capable of. That's the only problem with my N900, the hardware's old and out of date.

Modifying an Android kernel to run Ubuntu isn't very hard, as long as you have the ability to flash the new kernel. There just isn't much interest in doing so right now given the lack of suitable mobile operating systems (compared to certain Android tablets, which can get by with desktop OSs), but I think it'll pick up once Kubuntu Mobile is released.

Not ready

[Guspaz]

It's the right idea, but Ubuntu on ARM is nowhere near ready. It's crazy buggy, and you're going to miss out on hardware accelerated graphics for the vast majority of applications, because most apps still expect OpenGL, and can't take advantage of OpenGL ES.

The other problem is that devices like the Atrix, while an interesting concept, aren't really ready to host desktop Linux yet. The performance just isn't there yet. I suspect that the next crop of smartphones, with dual core A15s or quad-core A9s, those will probably do a decent job at it.

Disclaimer: my experience with playing around with this is limited to various versions of Ubuntu on a pandaboard, which is a TI OMAP dev board with similar specs to the Atrix.

Re:Not ready

[rdnetto]

It's the right idea, but Ubuntu on ARM is nowhere near ready. It's crazy buggy, and you're going to miss out on hardware accelerated graphics for the vast majority of applications, because most apps still expect OpenGL, and can't take advantage of OpenGL ES.

This isn't limited to Ubuntu. Hardware acceleration is probably the hardest thing to get working on ARM Linux as it stands, because the drivers are binary blobs and Android has a completely different architecture (e.g. no X server). Everything else (bluetooth, audio, etc.) has a similar architecture which means that even if the driver is a binary blob, you can still just load the kernel module and use it. Realistically, getting hardware acceleration working would require a massive amount of reverse engineering, and would take several years to complete for just one chipset, by which point its successors would have been released.

The other problem is that devices like the Atrix, while an interesting concept, aren't really ready to host desktop Linux yet. The performance just isn't there yet. I suspect that the next crop of smartphones, with dual core A15s or quad-core A9s, those will probably do a decent job at it.

Desktop Ubuntu might be a poor fit, but a customized Linux distro should run fine. Keep in mind that the N900 ran a derivative of Debian on 600 MHz with 256 MB RAM. A Tegra 2 will run Kubuntu comfortably (as long as you don't open too many tabs in Firefox).

My experience stems from running Kubuntu on my Asus Transformer, so take that as you will.

Turn my phone into HTPC

[na1led]

I would really like the ability to dock my phone with my TV, and turn my phone into a HTPC. Only challenges to overcome would be - content providers like (Hulu and Netflix), and a remote (bluetooth?).

Re:Turn my phone into HTPC

[ganjadude]

wouldnt a wireless connection make more sense and have the phone act as the remote?

Re:Turn my phone into HTPC

[jedidiah]

...an inferior solution for people with no taste that can be easily distracted by shiny things.

If your phone can decode it, I don't want it on my large screen HDTV or projector.

Re:Turn my phone into HTPC

[GameboyRMH]

Been doing this for years on my N900, although I don't use Hulu or Netflix (one is region-locked and one uses DRM). I can hook up a BT keyboard and mouse and a DS3 controller. The big problem is that there isn't much processing power so you can't play HD movies.

Re:Turn my phone into HTPC

[spire3661]

I have both a large screen and a projector, and while hi-def is nice, I grew up with tube TVs watching WKRP and Good Times. I dont NEED a source to be HD to enjoy it. Anything 480p or more is quite adequate for universal viewing. True HD is a merely one point in the spectrum of video, not the ultimate goal of all video. You will bankrupt yourself in the pursuit of perfect picture (apologies to Eisenhower)

Re:Turn my phone into HTPC

[Merk42]

Some of the screenshots on Verge show Ubuntu TV. http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/21/2812663/canonicals-ubuntu-webtop-environment#3028281

Re:Turn my phone into HTPC

[Anonymous Coward]

blah blah blah...my my my iPhone....punch in the stomach, knee in the face, now STFU

Re:Turn my phone into HTPC

[na1led]

Apple TV still lacks the cpu and gou power of some of todays cellphones. Plus my phone has a camera, perfect for skype on my tv.

Ubuntu is Linux for Hipsters

[Anonymous Coward]

Hipsters already ruined the Mac which is why shit like this happens. They aren't welcome on Linux either. Ubuntu lost all credibility when they forced their lol unity interface on us now all real Linux users such as Slashdot readers have told Ubuntu to fuck off. If you use Ubuntu after 10.04 (the last non unity LTS) then you are disgrace to humanity. I'd rather use a Blackberry or even a WiNokia than a Ubuntu phone.

Re:Ubuntu is Linux for Hipsters

[Phat_Tony]

I've been saying that this is where Apple's going for a while. Either the iPhone 5 or the one after it will only have a Thunderbolt port, no other dock connector (the Thunderbolt port can take a USB2 or Firewire to Thunderbolt cable for everyone with old computers/pc's and all.) And I be that after Mountain Lion, about two years from now, iOS and OSX will merge into one OS. The OS will know what hardware it's on and provide an appropriate user interface.

Phones will have all the power and storage most users need for everything they do. All many people will need is their iPhone and docking monitor, and the phone will behave like a phone when it's not docked, and like a computer when it is docked. At that point, yes it will cannibalize their PC sales, but the writing has been on the wall for PC sales since before the PC as we know it was even invented -since 1965 when Gordan Moore formulated his law. It's been inevitable that all the computing power and storage the average user needs will eventually be cheap and tiny, it's just amazing how long we've managed to come up with higher needs for power and storage space. But for the past 10 years usage requirements haven't kept pace with progress. Lower and lower end machines increasingly handle everything most users do. Apple is a smart enough company that they'd rather cannibalize their own sales and be the market leader in something than hold back on selling an inevitable progression for fear of cannibalization, like Kodak.

I wish Ubuntu luck with being first to market here, but I think it's a little early (not quite enough power and memory in this generation phone to be a good desktop), not a complete solution (this doesn't let you run the monitor off the phone and replace the guts of the computer entirely, it just lets you use a desktop interface for the phone when it's docked to a computer), and probably not going to be hugely successful.

Re:Ubuntu is Linux for Hipsters

[rtfa-troll]

Hipsters already ruined the Mac .....they aren't welcome on Linux either

Your comment has been modded to oblivion; but within there is a kernel of truth that should be answered. I've loved both the Mac and Ubuntu (quite a bit before 10.04). Both really have changed in spirit; the Mac from a platform for creation (remember they used to bundle what at the time was a top end paint program and word processor with the original system) towards a platform for media consumption. Ubuntu from an easy way to get the full GNU/Linux experience which absolutely tested every usability corner case to death into a strange visionaries test ground.

But.. Let's hold on a sec. There's a fundamental difference which stems from their cultural basis, one in BSD an the other in GNU. With OS X the consumer vision is becoming more and more entrenched and there is no escape. Where you used to just download and install developer tools or get Hypercard for free, now you: sign up for an apple account/sign up for Xcode/agree to a developer agreement/download macports/install the apps/find it's not compatible/have to search for an x server... etc. etc. etc.

With Ubuntu you are still one command and a re-login away from a civilised XFCE desktop. If you download Kubuntu you don't even need to use that one command. Linux Mint is fully available and fully Ubuntu software compatible. You won't get that on Android, let alone your 'WiNokia". Ubuntu have had some bad luck with anti-FOSS and FOSS corrupting people like Matt Assay, but they are still in the fold of people who are pushing forward software where you can do what you want with the end result. As long

If the hipsters are paying for that, there isn't much to complain about. Concentrate instead on companies like Apple and to a large extent Google which produce "Open Core" software where everything is open except the very bit that matters. These guys take your effort and turn it into their user's lock in. Ubuntu is still driving forward free and open code and free and open user experiences. That counts for plenty. The thing is to make sure that Ubuntu is encouraged to stay with Copyleft as much as possible and push back against their use of contributor agreements and unprotected code.

Re:Ubuntu is Linux for Hipsters

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time I looked at doing some development on OSX (10.6), Xcode was on the install DVD. I didn't need to download anything.

Re:Ubuntu is Linux for Hipsters

[Anonymous Coward]

it just lets you use a desktop interface for the phone when it's docked to a computer/quote

False. You only need a HDMI monitor and USB keyboard and mouse.

Re:Ubuntu is Linux for Hipsters

[rtfa-troll]

No longer true for Xcode 4. It is free download in the apps store so it's pretty available but you do have to register which is a perfect example of how Apple sets its self up able to tighten the screws whenever they want.

Re:Ubuntu is Linux for Hipsters

[nightfell]

Well, since there's no longer an install DVD, Xcode can't be on it. It's completely free, and they aren't going to "tighten the screws". It's all about simplifying the process for finding, downloading, buying, etc., software.

Xcode is arguably much more accessible to install now than it has ever been in broad terms, since a computer today is more likely to be connected to a high speed network, and discs are usually packed away and often lost. Let alone the fact that the version on the disc is likely to be out of date, leading to then downloading the updated version of Xcode anyway (which, on the Mac App Store is now a delta update, vs the old way which was not).

Re:Ubuntu is Linux for Hipsters

[rtfa-troll]

If you don't see the difference between "everybody gets the development kit automatically" and "you can only get the development kit if you register", which an apple account requires, then there is a serious problem. They could very easily include it on the default install and even offer to automatically delete it if it hasn't been used by the time the disk is full if they are worried it will take too much space.

Where you come from, all computers may be connected via fast links to the internet. That is nowhere near true in much of the world.

Re:Ubuntu is Linux for Hipsters

[nightfell]

If you don't see the difference between "everybody gets the development kit automatically" and "you can only get the development kit if you register", which an apple account requires, then there is a serious problem.

Who said there's no difference? In fact, I pointed out that there is a difference: that it's now more accessible than before.

"Ooh, people have to get an Apple ID!" It's not like there aren't hundreds of millions of people with such accounts--more accounts than Macs. I don't see how this is a problem.

They could very easily include it on the default install and even offer to automatically delete it if it hasn't been used by the time the disk is full if they are worried it will take too much space.

They could do millions of things, all of which people like you would find something to bitch about. What's wrong with the way it works now? In your imagined scenario, everyone would have to download the Xcode tools (Lion is primarily available via download only), and have the system delete it afterwards. Xcode is something that 90%+ users have no idea what it is and will never use.

Where you come from, all computers may be connected via fast links to the internet. That is nowhere near true in much of the world.

No one said it is. So what? This is the same tired complaint that was thrown around when Lion came out. It hasn't turned out to be much of a problem. All Macs come with a functional OS install. No Mac will cease to function without Mountain Lion, and OS updates themselves can exceed 1GB.

Are there places and circumstances where this can become a problem? Sure. But it's really not that big of a deal. I can never understand this line of reasoning. "Something bad *can* happen, therefore the entire model is bad". Somehow this only seems to ever apply to the system a person has an irrational hatred of.

Besides, how are MS developer tools distributed? How are many Linux distro dev tools distributed? How is Android's SDK distributed? They're all distributed via the Internet. Some of these *may* also have official physical distribution options (which are not stocked in stores). If you really are somewhere that you can't download a couple of gigs in a reasonable amount of time, you can always have someone send it to you on disc or flash drive. Apple will not go after you for doing this.

Re:Ubuntu is Linux for Hipsters

[rtfa-troll]

Who said there's no difference? In fact, I pointed out that there is a difference: that it's now more accessible than before.

"Ooh, people have to get an Apple ID!" It's not like there aren't hundreds of millions of people with such accounts--more accounts than Macs. I don't see how this is a problem.

I don't see how this is a problem for you either. You are obviously not a Syrian dissident. If you were, then every place that your and the use of your computer is registered becomes a risk to you and the more you have the less you have time to make . Facebook and Twitter are ways that the underground communicate at the same time as being ways that people are discovered by the government. Your Apple ID might also be used in the same way; to see who generated software for the rest of the underground and so it becomes an additional barrier to your computer use.

There are lots of other people who are in situations different from yours; even just people who like their privacy and who don't want to be registered on principle; choosing solutions which can include everyone is better.

Re:Ubuntu is Linux for Hipsters

[nightfell]

You keep grasping at straws. Who is at risk for downloading Xcode? It's an absurd parallel.

Once you quit making up bullshit imaginary scenarios, you'll see that there's really nothing evil, nefarious, onerous, or otherwise significantly negative about how this works.

Keeping it walled in

[oakgrove]

According to what I read, they're planning on keeping it from the community and only working it in with OEM's on future devices. Where did you go wrong Canonical?

Re:Keeping it walled in

[Anonymous Coward]

Where didn't they go wrong lately?

Re:Keeping it walled in

[GameboyRMH]

keeping it from the community and only working it in with OEM's on future devices

FFFFUUUUUUUUUUU

Re:Keeping it walled in

[Anonymous Coward]

The PCPro article says "Silber said Ubuntu for Android would be released under an open source license, but that Canonical expects it to mostly be pre-installed on specific hardware." I honestly hope they don't screw this one up, it's got the potential to be huge.

Re:Keeping it walled in

[fiver22]

From the extremetech article: "The other problem is that while Canonical is pushing the build to hardware manufacturers and mobile carriers, it has no plans to release it to the general public for independent development. This means that you won't see a CyanogenMod ROM with this functionality built into it. While Ubuntu is open source, Canonical plans to control the release of this version." Spooky Canonical.

Re:Keeping it walled in

[Anonymous Coward]

All your bootloaders are belong to us

Re:Keeping it walled in

[zarlino]

Canonical already made a great job in making the Linux desktop usable for the masses for free. They need to monetize their work if they're going to keep doing it. Giving Ubuntu for Android to the community as an unsupported do-it-yourself hack, would bring zero profit and lots of users whining.

Re:Keeping it walled in

[Anonymous Coward]

All the Ubuntu parts will be released when they ship.

Re:Keeping it walled in

[oakgrove]

I'm not trying to take anything away from Canonical. I wish them the best of financial success and have used every version of Ubuntu in some capacity since 2007. I hope they can work out a deal with every Android OEM in existence to become an integral part of their products. As a matter of fact, if they could team up with Google and be integrated with AOSP, I would be ecstatic. My problem is, why actively keep it from the community. That doesn't make sense to me. The ROM makers like Cyanogenmod aren't going to hurt you. Besides, you're talking what, 5 percent of the market? It's not going to hurt them and can only add to the good will.

Re:Keeping it walled in

[nschubach]

The comment right above parent says:

The PCPro article says "Silber said Ubuntu for Android would be released under an open source license, but that Canonical expects it to mostly be pre-installed on specific hardware." I honestly hope they don't screw this one up, it's got the potential to be huge.

...
So is it going to be open sourced (where CyanogenMod can do it themselves...invalidating the extremetech article) or not?

Re:Keeping it walled in

[Anonymous Coward]

> only working it in with OEM's

Of course they have to work with OEMs, that is how it gets to work on their devices. It may also be how Ubuntu gets paid for.

They won't 'keep it from the community', the community is where it comes from (except the special bits that are uniwue to each OEM's devices).

Re:Keeping it walled in

[RDW]

From a reply by the author in the extremetech comments:

'In my interview with Silber, I asked her specifically about releasing the software to 3rd party developers like Cyanogenmod to include in builds of Android. Silber replied that while Ubuntu is open-source, the implementation of the platform in this way isn't. I will certainly forward your question on to them and see if there is some clarification.'

So the plot, apparently, thickens.

Re:Keeping it walled in

[Barbara, not Barbie]

If you really consider this as "Ubuntu for Android" (it's not, it's just that the Atrix originally came with a cut-down linux for when it was docked, and Android for when it wasn't - you're just hibernating one and waking up the other, and sharing the data files and some hardware), and Canonical doesn't want to share it, use last year's Debian on Atrix - same hardware, 7 months earlier.

Just like last months' UbuntuTV was samygo.tv running Ubuntu instead of whatever linux distro you wanted to run.

Who knows what "new" product Canonical will hype next month that someone already demoed last year? Even Matt Asay, their former COO, thinks they're basically scr*wed.

Re:Keeping it walled in

[Anonymous Coward]

Usable ? More like a buggy mess of broken updates and regressions which never get fixed.

What about the battery life?

[arisvega]

the Ubuntu for Android system runs both OSes side by side

Nice trick. Anyone knows if this scheme respects battery life?

Re:What about the battery life?

[kvvbassboy]

How does it matter? You will be running Ubuntu only when it's docked apparently.

From the website:

Ubuntu for Android requires minimal custom hardware enablement, allowing fast and cost-efficient core integration. It requires a core based on Android 2.3 (Gingerbread) or any subsequent version.

Ubuntu and Android share the same kernel. When docked, the Ubuntu OS boots and runs concurrently with Android. This allows both mobile and desktop functionality to co-exist in different runtimes.

Shared services and applications are delivered using a Convergence API module which ensures the tight integration between desktop and mobile environments. Work is balanced across the cores of the phone. When the handset is not docked, both CPU cores transfer their full power to Android.

This is simply brilliant! If I can get gcc, vim and python, and I managed to compile (if not just download) some packages I need, I don't think I will need to buy a full fledged desktop. :)

Re:What about the battery life?

[kvvbassboy]

Oops :%s/I managed/if I manage/

Re:What about the battery life?

[GameboyRMH]

I've similarly run a Debian chroot on my N900, the only difference in battery life will come from the heavier desktop apps you might be running.

Re:What about the battery life?

[Jonner]

the Ubuntu for Android system runs both OSes side by side

Nice trick. Anyone knows if this scheme respects battery life?

I strongly suspect this is a mischaracterization of what happens. Since both Android and Ubuntu are based on Linux, there's no need to run two kernels side by side. Most likely, Canonical just added their userspace, which is mostly general GNU/Linux stuff packaged by Debian. It's not the OSes running side by side, but the ordinary processes. When "Ubuntu" apps aren't running, they aren't consuming anything but secondary storage space.

Re:What about the battery life?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

Actually, you have to run them side-by-side. Canonical failed to deliver their "Android Execution Environment" that they announced withi such a big splash in 2009.

It's simple, really - you use the existing hypervisor in the Atrix, and just replace the desktop os with the os of your choice.

Re:What about the battery life?

[Anonymous Coward]

You already could get those things....

You can run linux in a chroot of android. If you require gui apps, you can install a vnc-server and use any android vnc viewer to remote in.

https://market.android.com/details?id=com.zpwebsites.ubuntuinstall&hl=en

https://market.android.com/details?id=com.galoula.LinuxInstall

Re:What about the battery life?

[Jonner]

Actually, you have to run them side-by-side. Canonical failed to deliver their "Android Execution Environment" that they announced withi such a big splash in 2009.

It's simple, really - you use the existing hypervisor in the Atrix, and just replace the desktop os with the os of your choice.

If you're right, that's disappointing. I want to be able to run ordinary GNU/Linux programs on my Android device without special hardware requirements or running a separate VM.

Re:What about the battery life?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

You can't run them "side-by-side" in the conventional sense. The hardware activates one OS image or the other. And none of this is new - here's a video of Debian running on the same device, back in August of last year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8-92J9hfkA

Canonical announced their "Android Execution Environment" 3 years ago, then abandoned it 2 years ago because they couldn't do it.

This is as "innovative" as UbuntuTV was - which was just Canonical customizing the freely-available samygo.tv software to run Ubuntu instead of another distro http://www.samygo.tv/ You too can have your own brand TV distro running right inside your TV - Slackware, RedHat, Debian, even MythTV ...

Of course, the other question is why anyone would want to run a half-baked "mobile UI" on a desktop display like they propose ...

Re:What about the battery life?

[eaman]

Nice trick. Anyone knows if this scheme respects battery life?

Should be good, it's stille the 'droid kernel that runs the enviroment.

A first step

[detachable_halo]

Aw man, and I thought the idea I had for a single computer with multiple display formats for different input and output devices (keyboard/monitor, tablet, phone, digital music player, etc) was totally revolutionary. At least I can claim I thought it up on my own. And certainly, it was far more extensive than what Canonical is doing here, but what they have is the first step in that direction. So far it seems like they're running dual OSes with common data points, but my vision was a single OS that simply determined the appropriate display configuration depending on the user interface device being used, making data universally available without requiring multiple copies that have to be monitored to keep them in sync.

As a Red Hat lover

[CodeReign]

This might make me switch from Fedora to Ubuntu. Red Hat has been sorely lacking when it comes to pushing new technologies. So this interesting little achievement might be the thing that pushes me off of Fedora into that world.

Re:As a Red Hat lover

[eric_herm]

There is no achievement, you can already run Debian side by side of Android on most phone. And if you look at the pictures, you just see ... Unity on a regular screen. Where is the innovation there ?

Even the idea of having a phone as pc is not their own, seek google for people already doing it with bt keyboard and galaxy s II.

Re:As a Red Hat lover

[KugelKurt]

This might make me switch from Fedora to Ubuntu. Red Hat has been sorely lacking when it comes to pushing new technologies.

What are you talking about? Red Hat is the prime technology creator for Linux. Wayland, for example, started as Red Hat project and only later did the lead developer switch employers to Intel. sysdemd, Plymouth, GNOME Shell, PulseAudio, LLVMpipe, Nouveau, GTK, etc. are all primarily created by Red Hat.
What's more important: Red Hat develops those technologies in a way that they can easily be adopted by others.
Canonical OTOH rarely develops technologies and when it does, it does in a way to make it as hard as possible for others to pick up -- see how openSUSE and Fedora were unable to adopt Unity.

Webtop mod

[Anonymous Coward]

just wander over to xda-developers and search for webtop mod or webtop2sd, people have been doing this since shortly after the Atrix came out. I bought an inexpensive lapdock and I run gimp and oo on mine.

WM8650

[Windwraith]

I wonder if this can be made to run in a low-grade "Wondermedia" Chinese tablet? If so, would be a totally nice thing to make the most of the hardware. I'd get it installed like right now.
It's mostly because I get mixed feelings for Android. While it certainly works for little things to do with a phone or tablet, I can't help but feel it lacks stuff to make it productive. It'd be so convenient to have a little bash+sed+awk+etc environment to do little scripts on the road, or a working python terminal**...and the market is convenient, but a lot of the stuff takes me back to the bad aspects of shareware. So I would really want to run Ubuntu on it, and use familiar apps like Pidgin with OTR, a bash scripting environment...etc. And I think Unity in a tablet is a good thing to have, even if just Unity2D.

Re:WM8650

[Spykk]

Install a terminal emulator and a copy of busybox and you can have a bash scripting environment on android.

Re:WM8650

[MonsterTrimble]

I'm with you - but I'm thinking I'd like to run it on a Droid phone sans SIM as a MP3 player. Why buy a new Droid or iPod for $240+ when I can buy a used droid phone for $80 off eBay, throw on Ubuntu and use it for the next five years as my portable media player?

Re:WM8650

[Windwraith]

I have a terminal and, somehow, my tablet came with busybox installed, but I am used to Bash.
I happened to find, not long after my post, a collection of basic binaries such as wget, grep, coreutils, bash, etc. That kind of does the work, but I require rooting to go any further.
Because of the hard-to-identify-because-of-too-many-models nature of WM8650 tablets, I am not attempting flashing the ROM until I have recovery hardware (I bricked a tablet with a ROM supposedly custom-made for the model, got it repaired but not risking it until prepared). Maybe I can work with a chroot and a minimalistic debian, investigating if I can bypass the need for root right now (AKA without requiring mount, that should work). Stuff like superoneclick does not work because the tablet is never recognized by windows, and z4root says it works but doesn't. I have a "su" binary installed in the tablet, but it will never work (something about requiring suid)... painful stuff.

Re:first Post

[Sarten-X]

Gesundheit.

What's to squash?

[clarkn0va]

the open source developer hasn't squashed the full desktop onto a tiny screen

I think that's a given, considering Canonical hasn't squashed a full desktop onto a 30" screen in the past year or so.

uphone

[Anonymous Coward]

http://people.ubuntu.com/~mhall119/uphone/

What Windows 8 Could Have Been

[FunkyELF]

If Microsoft allowed Windows 8 on ARM to have desktop applications this is what could have been.

This sounds very intriguing. I hope something comes of this. I'm not sure I care about this for a phone but for a tablet it would be awesome.
Imagine the Asus Transformer Prime running Ice Cream Sandwich as a tablet, and when docked its a full blown laptop.

Possibly a smart move

[Anonymous Coward]

So here's what I'm getting from this story. They have Ubuntu as a dual-boot(?) alongside Android and they use the Android drivers to get at the device's functionality from within Ubuntu, without having to write new drivers for each device. This might be a great first step from Canonical to get a foot in the door on smartphones and tablets before going full OEM. Hopefully when they release the source, the community will adapt it to run another distro (Debian with KDE Plasma Active anyone?), although I wouldn't mind Unity on a tablet, much as I hate it on the desktop.

Unfortunately I couldn't tell from the corporate-speak if they're just implementing yet another (albeit official) chroot application. I'd love a full Linux distro on my tablet (like my n900). One can hope.

Hardware performance a problem?

[grimJester]

I find that hard to believe. Win7 only requires a 1 GHz processor and 1G of RAM; surely you can tweak an Ubuntu distro to run fine on a current phone?

If you use software that doesn't run smoothly enough on current phone, your requirements are likely to scale up with increased processing power so you'll never feel anything but a desktop is sufficiently powerful.

Re:Hardware performance a problem?

[VMaN]

Sadly, all GHz are not created equal..

Re:Hardware performance a problem?

[Guspaz]

Win7 *requires* that to run, but that doesn't mean it will run well. Using modern websites and web apps on that sort of machine will be painful. Besides that, Windows counts on there being a certain amount of hardware acceleration for graphics, even if it's just GDI (2D) acceleration. But few smartphone GPUs have 2D components, so there's no accelerated 2D drawing. You end up basically drawing and compositing everything entirely in software, which puts a huge burden on your already underpowered CPU.

A few things are going to improve this going forward:

1) More apps are getting support for OpenGL ES, enabling 3D hardware acceleration. Ubuntu's desktop composition now supports this.
2) Newer mobile GPUs are starting to get 2D GPUs; the OMAP4470 and onwards has one, but the OMAP4430 and OMAP4460 don't. But the 4460 is the newest available at the moment; the 4470 hasn't shipped yet.
3) Mobile CPUs are getting faster fast, tackling this from the other end. The Cortex A15 is a huge improvement clock-for-clock over the A9, and will be clocked at higher speeds to boot.

On top of all of this, many desktop apps are designed with assumptions about the sort of resources they'll have available and run on, and not all of those assumptions are true when you're running on a low-power SoC. For example, RAM. I've got 6 tabs open in Chrome right now, and that's using 768MB of RAM. That's not a problem on my desktop, which as 12GB of RAM, but that kind of memory usage wouldn't fly on a smartphone platform with 512MB of 1024MB of RAM. There are things they could do to mitigate that (cache less things, keep less rendered bitmaps in RAM, etc). A desktop app will probably trade RAM for performance by a different standard than a smartphone app can afford to.

Linux on ARM exists already

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the Nokia N770 (2007), Linux has been on ARM - maybe even prior to that. I have a N800 and it runs Debian/Maemo happily. No rooting needed.

I've moved to Android for work requirements on both phone and tablets. In comparison, Android sucks unless you are an end-user and do not care about privacy at all.

You can run Debian inside a chroot under a root'ed Android today. There are many how-to guides out there. This is less than ideal in my testing because a single 'apt-get update/upgrade' fracks with the nice Firefox. The other issue is that Android doesn't have X/Windows, so you connect over VNC to the chroot debian/ubuntu on the same device to gain GUI access. For me, the mouse/keyboard don't quite work. I have a USB keyboard, but every time I press 'm', the damn email app gets launched. Yes, I've rebooted, like that would help.

"Terminal IDE" and a few ported CLI GNU tools has brought most of the the things I missed about Maemo to Android, but I still miss the crontab for lite scheduling needs of rsync.

Outside development, I haven't found a use the the Android phone besides games. I prefer a $20 motorola for 7+ day battery life and the N800 for real-GPS (not assisted). The N800 has user swappable batteries too.

Google, Apple, Amazon, Rim, B&N and other vendors are so afraid they will lose control over the platform (like microsoft) that they are doing everything they can to block other solutions and calling it a "security measure." I'm calling bullshit.

Re:Linux on ARM exists already

[Culture20]

Since the Nokia N770 (2007), Linux has been on ARM - maybe even prior to that.

Way prior to that. I was using Familiar Linux on iPaq devices (and one Zaurus) back in 2003-2004, and it was mature at that point.

No tethering fees!?

[scorp1us]

One big holdup for me buying a webtop with my Atrix was that I needed to downgrade from unlimited data to 4Gig, then buy a separate tethering plan, which is absurd. This looks like and even better solution, because I can keep my unlimited plan.

Imagine this on an Asus Transformer

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Prime, just for the lols. You get a toy that hot switches between a Macbook Air with a better OS and an iPad 2.5 with a better OS.

More Canonical vaporware?

[Animats]

Canonical announced an EEEpc with Linux, and that never happened. I'm wary of Canonical claims that they're "partnering" with somebody, when the other "partner" doesn't announce the deal too. Where's the announcement from Google?

Re:More Canonical vaporware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canonical announced an EEEpc with Linux, and that never happened.

It launched in several GEOs, and there have already been launches with Ubuntu on carrier-branded netbooks as well.

http://www.monclick.it/catalogo/search/ricerca.asp?testo=ubuntu&x=0&y=0

This isn't new

[sangreal66]

The Motorola Atrix was launched last year, and this was supported out of the box. It was the major selling point of the phone

Re:This isn't new

[Jonner]

The Motorola Atrix was launched last year, and this was supported out of the box. It was the major selling point of the phone

The Atrix was launched with Android, HDMI output and Webtop, which is certainly not a full-featured desktop Operating System. If Motorola said it was running Ubuntu or any other full-featured GNU/Linux desktop OS, they were lying.

Re:This isn't new

[sangreal66]

Motorola's Webtop, which is being replaced here, was originally based on Ubuntu in the first place. While this iteration for the Atrix's successor may be more full-featured, the concept is identical. All of the features mentioned in the summary are already present.

Re:This isn't new

[N2UX]

Motorola never claimed to be running a full featured Ubuntu or other Gnu/Linux desktop, but the functionality to do so *was* built into the phone. All of the stuff you need to install packages is there.. You just have to be willing to root the phone so you can break out of the jail.

Re:This isn't new

[scorp1us]

What the Atrix gave you was a half-assed linux environment, that was not networked. To get the webtop to talk, you had to tether it to you phone. Which means you had to downgrade your unlimited plan to 4gig, then buy a tethering feature. Meanwhile your phone was plugged into the lapdock port, which was behind the webtop LCD.

The difference is this should not require any changes to your plan, and your phone should remain accessible.

Re:This isn't new

[Digicrat]

The Motorola Atrix was launched last year, and this was supported out of the box. It was the major selling point of the phone

The Atrix was launched with Android, HDMI output and Webtop, which is certainly not a full-featured desktop Operating System. If Motorola said it was running Ubuntu or any other full-featured GNU/Linux desktop OS, they were lying.

And within a few months of its release the fine hackers at xda-developers.com unlocked the webtop to work as a fully-featured desktop operating system. Hence, this is not new. This is simply Canonical claiming credit for re-packaging what's already been done.

OT: Come to think of it, what has Canonical done in Ubuntu Desktop lately besides forcing Unity, adding an installer and a few configuration GUIs that isn't already in Debian? (Note: I do think Ubuntu does a great job of neatly packaging Linux for new users with user-friendly installers and such, but for myself I've been a lot happier since I switched over to Debian Squeeze.)

Re:This isn't new

[Jonner]

Just because Webtop was "based on Ubuntu" doesn't mean I can run Thunderbird, Emacs or Nethack on it. Everything I see indicates it is intended to run a browser and nothing else.

Re:This isn't new

[Jonner]

The Motorola Atrix was launched last year, and this was supported out of the box. It was the major selling point of the phone

The Atrix was launched with Android, HDMI output and Webtop, which is certainly not a full-featured desktop Operating System. If Motorola said it was running Ubuntu or any other full-featured GNU/Linux desktop OS, they were lying.

And within a few months of its release the fine hackers at xda-developers.com unlocked the webtop to work as a fully-featured desktop operating system. Hence, this is not new. This is simply Canonical claiming credit for re-packaging what's already been done.

OT: Come to think of it, what has Canonical done in Ubuntu Desktop lately besides forcing Unity, adding an installer and a few configuration GUIs that isn't already in Debian? (Note: I do think Ubuntu does a great job of neatly packaging Linux for new users with user-friendly installers and such, but for myself I've been a lot happier since I switched over to Debian Squeeze.)

Thanks for supplying more evidence for my assertion that Motorola did not provide a full-featured GNU/Linux destkop system on the Atrix as shipped. I'm not surprised that others have succeeded in getting a real GNU/Linux system working on the Atrix despite Motorola's attempts to prevent it.

I think Canonical has done a lot of good by polishing Debian and making it easier to use in some ways, which is why I still use Ubuntu. I am not terribly impressed by Unity and am currently using GNOME Shell, but I'm sure Unity is a good choice for some. The suggestion that Canonical may be trying to keep some of this Android development proprietary is deeply disturbing. Despite a number of mistakes, I thought they were pretty committed to keeping all their contributions to Ubuntu Free Software.

Re:This isn't new

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect. The Android integration is exactly the same as it was on the Atrix, because this demo is running on the Atrix, with exactly the same dock and everything.

Nothing new here....

[N2UX]

Other than being a more recent version of the Ubuntu apps, this is no different than a non-locked down version of the 'Webtop' functionallity that comes stock with the Motorola Atrix and kin. In fact I'd would not be surprised to find bits of Motorola's open sourced webtop code in the Ubuntu for Android distribution.

This is not big news...

[RocketRabbit]

I have had multiple window managers running on a machine before too...

Re:This is not big news...

[nightfell]

But you have not created a major distro that does this for Android smartphones in a more polished and well supported fashion.

Your running of multiple Xservers on the same computer on different ports or screens does fuck-all for a phone. So, yeah, it's big news (for nerds at least), and pretty damned interesting. For all the crap Canonical gets, at least they are trying new things, even though there is no shortage of people giving them shit for doing so.

Re:This is not big news...

[RocketRabbit]

It's not really new though. It's just doing it on slightly different hardware.

Ubuntu?

[lennier1]

There's still some of it left which Canonical hasn't managed to ruin?

Good for business

[frup]

While clearly Google could just turn around and canibalise the idea, this may help Canonical's growth with businesses.

A company could provide certain employees who don't need fast machines a simple work phone. Anywhere they could communicate and work on the same device.

Lets face it, the idea of the pocket computer is the future. The people who will be most happy if this succeeds would probably be ARM chip makers. Maybe Mark Shuttleworth is trying to setup his company to be bought by Google now.

Re:first Post

[Anonymous Coward]

Nein. Krankheit.

this is a hack

[NynexNinja]

Really what they need to do is come out with a flash rom that you reflash your particular android device with and boom you're using ubuntu both in dock and undock mode... Doing it the way they are currently doing it, basically as an app running on the phone, is a step in the right direction, but really the road map should be to fully replace Android with Ubuntu. I think most people who use Android devices wish these devices were just running ubuntu, because ubuntu (and any desktop linux OS really) has a ton of more features out of the box than Android. With Android, they took linux, stripped away all the things that made it great, and then put a clunky window manager on top of it and a sandbox with limited features. I bet the same Android device running Ubuntu would run almost twice as fast, due to the natively compiled nature of Ubuntu versus the interpreted Java-based Android.

Parasite approach

[mykro76]

It seems to me Canonical are hoping to piggyback on Android's popularity. By shipping along with a recognisable and proven OS, they get their foot in the door with carriers and customers. As kludgy as the dual-OS approach seems, I have no doubt their end goal is to displace Android entirely and ship a pure Ubuntu phone that does everything in docked and undocked forms.

Re:Parasite approach

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they explicitly mentioned that this is one of their future goals.

Alternative lets you carry any OS on your phone

[dan_fonleap]

There's already an alternative solution called PocketVM for iPhone/iPad and Android that lets you carry Windows, Linux, BSD or other full desktop OSes on your phone or tablet with you. e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXlkCOsuHE8

Re:first Post

[Sarten-X]

And that's the way it is, February 22nd, 2012.

Now they can shove it up their ass !

[Anonymous Coward]

Great news, now the Gnome and Unity developers can take their wretched, unusable, excuse for a desktop environment, pop it on a phone and stick it up their asses !

I'd prefer Andoid in Ubuntu

[jago25_98]

Personally I'd be looking for an open source kernel I can trust but able to run Android in a sandboxed environment quickly too.