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.'"
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.
No, it's just Michael over at moronix who needs more clicks, so he misrepresents what someone says to get them. Slashdot gets on the bus for the same purpose. News at 11.
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".
Yes, it is QML, but it's long since discontinued.
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.
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.
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?
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.