Slashdot Mirror
KDE's Aaron Seigo Bashes Ubuntu Phone
sfcrazy writes "KDE's Plasma Active team leader Aaron Seigo has raised some concerns around Ubuntu Phone. He says 'We can start with the obvious clue: Unity currently does not use QML at all; Ubuntu Phone is pure QML. So, no, it is not the same code, it is not the sort of seamless cross-device technology bridge that they are purporting.' He then concludes, 'If you're a Free software developer, user and/or supporter and buying into these claims, I don't know how else to put it other than this: you're being duped. Consider what supporting those who employ such tactics means for Free software.'"
Is this the same guy that tried to sell Kickoff launcher as being "One Click"?
I never get used to these constant resurrections
Man, if only there was a way to take code written for one display device and. what's a good word, "compile" it into a program that uses a different display device.
He has a point (actually two: the phone isn't using the same API, and Canonical marketers implied that it was) but he seems to think that that is disqualifying for users of free software. I don't think it is.
Point it out, but just add "KDE's approach is quite different. Here's what we're doing instead..." instead of talking about ethics and such.
KDE's Aaron Seigo Bashes Ubuntu Marketers.
Fixed that for you.
Unity's 2D version is QML and is not the standard there up til very 'recently'; and has been used for the phone version.
Why making /. headline before even the people could check the phone version out.
Androidist's FUD ?
Not, he's not bashing Ubuntu phone, mostly because such a thing does not exist - yet. He is criticizing Canonical's less than sincere approach to the rest of the world. That's all.
There is almost no correlation between this story headline and the actual content Aaron wrote. Among other things Aaron wrote:
The GPL doesn't ensure that you can "actually contribute to or even see developmental android code" and Google not offering that doesn't mean that their products are a "proprietary exploitation". The problem here is a nerd's sense of entitlement.
I doubt Aaron has many complaints with the technology used in Ubuntu Phone, because that's Qt Quick using QML, the same is used in Plasma. The thing is, Plasma was conceived as a very flexible way to create the primary user interface (that is, the visible thing that is not the applications). At that time, that was the "desktop shell" (Plasma Desktop), and nowadays is also a touch-device user interface and others (Plasma Active, Plasma Media Center, etc.).
The vision the KDE guys had was right, and with few resources have created a great framework. Instead, Canonical had to write Unity several times. The "normal" Unity I don't even remember in what's written (GTK+, Clutter, Nux... can't follow it), but I remember that there is the Qt-based Unity-2D (dead, AFAIK) and the new Ubuntu Phone version, which uses Qt again.
They could have saved tons of resources by choosing the technology and sticking a bit to it, helping to develop it. And now they claim they provide a seamless user experience across devices. Well, that could be true, but not using the same technologies, so the user experience is not going to be consistent with different bugs, different features, because the code bases are totally different.
on Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/107555540696571114069/posts/HSL2C21DJt7
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
IF Canonical does this right. That is a big IF. We will have the same advantages of the linux desktop on our phones. That is the ability to install any window manager you want. No one corporation will have the power to decide what my work environment will be like. So if you don't like it what Unity is, it is 5ish magic words to get something else installed. Please I beg you Canonical just let me type "sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop".
The GPL doesn't ensure that you can "actually contribute to or even see developmental android code" and Google not offering that doesn't mean that their products are a "proprietary exploitation". The problem here is a nerd's sense of entitlement.
The problem is that Google sets expectations when they describe something as "open" (as if that meant anything by itself, but still) and then breaks them when they do not utilize an open development process.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Read Cathedral vs Bazaar to understand just what exactly open means.
Some pearls from the original conversation. Alan Pope:
Daniel Stone on wether Ubuntu Phone uses Wayland or not:
And the best one, the only thing that Mark Shuttleworth had to say:
I wish success to Ubuntu Phone, really, but it hurts me a little bit that it receives the same or more attention from the community than Plasma Active, when the later delivered the same or more (specially if you value open governance and source code from day 1), with way less resources.
Read Cathedral vs Bazaar to understand just what exactly open means.
Uh, no. Not only have I read it, but he didn't invent the term open, nor for that matter open source. Nor did anyone else who claims to have done so, oddly enough.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Still, the "cathedral" model was used by GNU back in the day, and you'd probably be nuts not consider Emacs open.
Still, the "cathedral" model was used by GNU back in the day, and you'd probably be nuts not consider Emacs open.
You will never ever catch me saying that GNU's Not Open. That's not how it expands anyway.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Then we can't blame Google for not being open - after all, they are doing the same thing GNU did, using the Cathedral model of development.
Then we can't blame Google for not being open - after all, they are doing the same thing GNU did, using the Cathedral model of development.
Google is Open Source. That's a fact. But Google uses a closed development model. I don't blame Google for not being open, I blame Google for claiming to be more open than they are. If they call Android "Open Source" I cheer. If they call Android "Open" then I scowl, that doesn't mean anything.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
C-C-COMBO BREAKER!
There is almost no correlation between this story headline and the actual content Aaron wrote. Among other things Aaron wrote:
So then the question becomes "Why is this false story being posted on slashdot?" Is it that the OP wants to slander KDE or Ubuntu or maybe slashdot itself? We all regularly complain about mainstream media and yellow journalism, so how come slashdot isn't doing something about this story?
We can start with the obvious clue: Unity currently does not use QML at all; Ubuntu Phone is pure QML.
I knew they wouldn't put Unity in the phone. It's just too slow. Even on the PC it takes almost a second to open the Dash or Alt-Tab between applications.
"We can start with the obvious clue: Unity currently does not use QML at all; Ubuntu Phone is pure QML. So, no, it is not the same code, it is not the sort of seamless cross-device technology bridge that they are purporting."
I hear what he's saying, but Ubuntu cross-platform seamless operation isn't really about what's going on underneath. Canonical know full well that we're entering into an age of dumbed-down users. It's not about smartphones, it's about dumbed down computers/PC's. One flavor of Linux had to dirty itself to go down this mucky highway. .and it was Ubuntu
Yes, things have changed. Stallman and his high horse are still back in the Unicorn land with HERD which is now leaving heaven to grace earth somewhat.. and we need him too. We need a pure reference in case the Earth does some day make a u-turn and we know how to get back to the origin
Then in the middle we have KDE, Gnome, Mint, Muffin, Cinnamon etc.
The true way for our society..as it is now.
But Ubuntu is more like the battleship - the one that has go in and work with these creatures that are pushing a centralized Borg-like server grid on us, with wire-tapped "smart" phones.
I still say Ubuntu will do a hell of a lot better across the board, including cross the range of devices, than any other offering out there including the jailed Linux that is Android..
Small steps guys and remember, Ubuntup on the phone won't even have a true Linux kernel, it's going to be an Android kernel.
KDE on the phone would still need the android kernel for now and they wouldn't be too happy about that you can be sure.
I've said this time and time again. Linux is not taking the lead anywhere. It's not pushing new types of interfaces, capability or user experience. We have our holier than thou / zen or source of things with GNU, but we're not getting our hands dirty with the new ways Linux on the warrantless-tracking mobile devices. Essentially we're in the matrix with no reliable way to dial out, unless you accept jailbroken iphones.. probably about the only good thing going in the mobile world really.
Google is open source? Where can I download the code that calculates their search rankings?
If they call Android "Open Source" I cheer.
Well that seems dubious, you can't really call 'Android' open source, only specific versions. I suppose you could say Android is open source based on the released versions - well assuming Android was open source until 3.0, then was not open source for a while, then became open source again - but i think it's best to do it version-specific since when a new version is announced it isn't open sourced until the first devices are shipping to protect OHA member exclusivity. I don't think there's anything wrong with their model - it's their product so they can do with it as they wish - but I absolutely agree with you on the 'open' argument, it's pretty disingenuous.
Tisk tisk. An Ubuntu Phone is now years too late.
Perhaps Canonical should focus their attention of Ubuntu Glasses or Ubuntu Watches ... ah ha ... Google has the Glasses and Apple has the Watches. What next ?
Ah Ha ! Ball Point Pen ! How can Canonical get Ubuntu into a 'Ball Point Pen' ? ! And do more than a 'Ball Point Pen' !
Oh Yeah ! This IS a REAL engineering project. Uh ... Cough ... Cough. ... If Canonical WONT or CAN"T do the nasty ... I know some one who ... has ! Wink ... wink .... nudge ... nudge. :-0
He let KDE4 exists and still dares to talk?!?
If they call Android "Open Source" I cheer.
Well that seems dubious, you can't really call 'Android' open source, only specific versions.
OK, all versions but 3. And all three customers are really bent about it. Your point is taken, and I was a bit miffed about it at the time, but 4 really did come out shortly thereafter and the lack of Android 3 code really didn't impact much. Still, yes, your qualifier is valid.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"