Ubuntu Touch Beats Firefox OS For 'Best of MWC' From CNET

Jono Bacon writes "This week at Mobile World Congress both Firefox OS and Ubuntu have been wooing the audience with their mobile offerings. CNET reviewed both and felt that Ubuntu was 'the clear winner.' From the article, 'The team thought that Ubuntu Touch, the tablet version of which we got our hands-on for the first time at MWC, feels more like the complete package at this point. We liked its slick, elegant interface that makes use of every side of the screen and puts your content and contacts front and center, minimizing the time spent hopping back to a home screen.'" They still liked Firefox OS though, and the mere existence of multiple Free Software mobile systems with carrier support is a good sign if you ask me.

Comments

But but but

[noobermin]

Ubuntu is evil! Richard Stallman says so!!

Re:But but but

[Taco Cowboy]

No matter how evil it might be, CNET still thinks it's the best

Re:But but but

[Anonymous Coward]

Richard Stallman has contributed to society. His comments on the legalities and philosophies of open source software have provided the software community with the possibility of sharing their works without having them stolen.

Your comments on slashdot are not on the same scale.

Re:But but but

[MightyYar]

His comments on the legalities and philosophies of open source software have provided the software community with the possibility of sharing their works without having them stolen.

Actually, copyright law is what allows people to share code without it being "stolen". Stallman makes fairly novel use of it, but give credit where it is due.

Re:But but but

[BrokenHalo]

Anybody know if Canonical is tracking users with Ubuntu Touch, like they are with the desktop distro?

Re:But but but

[Frosty Piss]

Canonical is tracking users any more than Google.

Re:But but but

[BrokenHalo]

Is or isn't? Either way, you've missed the point.

Re:But but but

[mhall119]

If by "like they are with the desktop" you mean "not at all", then the answer is yes. If you mean something else, then then answer is "you're wrong".

Re:But but but

[exomondo]

I tried the preview build of it on my nexus 7 and while it seemed to work ok - although a LOT of functions didn't work (not implemented yet) and most of it was populated with dummy data - I didn't really see why I would want it.

Re:But but but

[slaker]

From the demo video, I'm kind of drooling over the split screen setup it can do, especially on a high resolution device like a Nexus tablet.

Re:But but but

[exomondo]

Yeah maybe on a nexus 10 or something.

Re:But but but

[drinkypoo]

Actually, copyright law is what allows people to share code without it being "stolen".

Actually, ideas can only be "stolen" because of intellectual property law. Without it, ideas can only be copied.

Re:But but but

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm trying to. Copyleft is a philosophy of copyright law. GNU and Creative Commons.

Besides, the original point I was trying to make is that gp isn't "funny". It's off-topic and childish.

Re:But but but

[fredprado]

Stallman would care very little if GNU code was "stolen" as long as there was no copyright at all and all systems were open. Copyleft is a way to use copyright to fight its own poison.

Re:But but but

[exomondo]

I lost a lot of respect for Stallman when he sunk to the RIAA/MPAA level with statements like 'proprietary software is unethical because it takes away users' rights', of course it doesn't take away anything, just like music piracy doesn't take away profits like the RIAA/MPAA claim, they can't take away something of yours if it's something you never had in the first place. You may not have been granted rights you would otherwise get with free software, but nothing was taken away.

Re:But but but

[fredprado]

But it does. Proprietary software enforces controlled standards, locked systems, treacherous computing like UEFI. It ends taking away the user ability to make choices and to even know what his system is doing. And if you leave it unchecked you won`t have choices because control gives economical power and economical power pushes for more control. UEFI is an example. Soon it will be hard to find computers without it, and soon enough it may be impossible. Little by little we are having our choices eroded by progressively more restrictive hardware with closed specifications, because hardware producers go to bed with big software corporations.

Re:But but but

[exomondo]

Proprietary software enforces controlled standards, locked systems, treacherous computing like UEFI.

Rubbish, if i run a proprietary application on my system i don't end up with a 'locked system', it doesn't enforce any 'controlled standards' and I don't end up with UEFI. I haven't had anything taken away, even if it does aid your agenda to suggest that.

Re:But but but

[fredprado]

You do. You are giving money and consequently power to corporations that are struggling to take our control over the system we buy from them and impose their standards and policies upon us. You are part of the problem. A big part.

Re:But but but

[Anonymous Coward]

WebRTC vs CU-RTC-Web.

Re:But but but

[exomondo]

You are giving money and consequently power to corporations that are struggling to take our control over the system we buy from them and impose their standards and policies upon us.

I'm not giving money to anyone, I said 'proprietary application', i didn't say i paid anybody anything, but i see you need that to justify your new extrapolation of your perceived evil to some other ridiculous scenario. Again, I can run a proprietary program on my system and I haven't had anything taken away from me, that's just rubbish propaganda spread by people like you that have an agenda.

Re:But but but

[fredprado]

Even if you didn't pay for the application. Just by using their standards you are helping them to enforce them, unless you live in a bubble, and if you did you wouldn't be here annoying us, would you?

And as you keep mentioning, I can't avoid noticing that the one who seems to have an agenda here is you, my good sir. You seem to be going out of your way to try and discredit RMS. Who do you work for? MS?

Re:But but but

[exomondo]

Even if you didn't pay for the application. Just by using their standards you are helping them to enforce them

Who's and what standards? Just because it's a proprietary application doesn't mean it uses any particular standards, much less secret or proprietary ones.

And as you keep mentioning, I can't avoid noticing that the one who seems to have an agenda here is you, my good sir. You seem to be going out of your way to try and discredit RMS.

I have no agenda, I just see that his claim is patently false, by comparison you resort to reductio ad absurdum to justify it, clearly it is you that has an agenda. Free software can pervert standards and be malicious just a proprietary software can. Again, the use of a proprietary program does not take anything away, it doesn't make it better in any way, and it certainly grants the use less freedoms, but it doesn't take anything away.
The benefits of free software stand on their own without having to spread FUD about proprietary software.

Re:But but but

[fredprado]

Free software can't pervert standards and be malicious just as a proprietary software can, because it can be easily branched if it becomes inconvenient (as it often happens). The use of proprietary programs does take a lot of things away as explained more than once, but if you refuse to understand and be part of the problem it is your choice.

You may believe in whatever absurdity you wish, it does not make it more true. It does not seem to be the case, though. You can't be so stupid. So I am forced to conclude that you indeed have an agenda. The fact you keep claiming you have no agenda just makes more apparent you do. And it is clear you will keep talking nonsense and trying to justify your incoherent beliefs in the hope of achieving it. You are nothing more than a corporate shill.

Re:But but but

[exomondo]

Free software can't pervert standards and be malicious just as a proprietary software can

Ubuntu does! So yes it can! Perhaps you should give your definition of 'proprietary software', because you clearly think it has something to do with proprietary standards and paying corporations and treacherous computing...but it doesn't.

The use of proprietary programs does take a lot of things away as explained more than once

No, i simply refuse to accept reductio ad absurdum as justification for your point of view.

but if you refuse to understand and be part of the problem it is your choice.

Yet you persist in your ridiculous arguments.

You are nothing more than a corporate shill.

You only resort to that low level because you can't disprove my point, pathetic. Proof that I am not a shill of any sort nor have an agenda is in that I - unlike you - don't have a view one way or the other on proprietary software vs free software, you clearly do.

Re:But but but

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright doesn't protect ideas, it protects specific works. Don't confuse copyrights with patents, don't confuse code with the ideas the code is based on. You're demonstrating why people like Richard Stallman object to the term "intellectual property".

Re:But but but

[rtfa-troll]

You only resort to that low level because you can't disprove my point, pathetic.

He's already given an absolutely clear justification which you have not addressed properly at all. If you have a proprietary program which processes data in any way then it is possible for it to do secret transformations on it or store parts of that data in undocumented formats which cannot be used elsewhere. Any FOSS program comes with the source code which fully documents those transformations and which can be adapted. This means that any proprietary software is a potential threat and should not be trusted without reason.

He takes this a little far. There are certain specific proprietary software groups which make promises such as Google's data liberation front. These companies specifically promise that they will stick to standards and/or allow you to export your data to those standards. As a counter example, try asking Microsoft to provide a support contract including Linux clients for their Exchange servers. This is something that they almost go out of their way to break in some new subtle way with each new release. Google will do this without a problem (their commercial contract guarantee is that whatever works now will work in future versions). However, with the specific exception of companies committed to true open standards (and that doesn't include RAND or ISO standards) the general point stands.

He's even justified clearly why, by using proprietary software you are imposing problems on everyone else. Please look up the "network effect"

Re:But but but

[Chrisq]

Anybody know if Canonical is tracking users with Ubuntu Touch, like they are with the desktop distro?

While were about it does anyone know if you've stopped beating your wife?

Re:But but but

[exomondo]

If you have a proprietary program which processes data in any way then it is possible for it to do secret transformations on it or store parts of that data in undocumented formats which cannot be used elsewhere. Any FOSS program comes with the source code which fully documents those transformations and which can be adapted. This means that any proprietary software is a potential threat and should not be trusted without reason.

That still doesn't take anything away. It's obviously not be ideal but the fact is using it doesn't take anything away. You are right that proprietary software can be used in that way, but not all proprietary software - and that includes services you don't control, particularly web-based - do that.

He's even justified clearly why, by using proprietary software you are imposing problems on everyone else. Please look up the "network effect"

No, my using a proprietary program impacts nobody, unless i'm sharing proprietary formats, which is not the same thing. If i'm transporting jpegs or latex or obj or whatever then it doesn't matter whether i'm using proprietary or free software, the only thing that matters there is the file format. I've used Blender to create models collaborated with guys using Max and Maya with no problems, them using proprietary modeling programs had no effect on my use of Blender.

Re:But but but

[Anonymous Coward]

According to some people you have rights, like the right to free speech, the right to life, and similar, even if they are not granted to you. You have them simply by existing. Now, people may infringe on your rights, but you still have them. Proprietary software is unethical because it infringes on your right to use and modify software as you see fit. You have that right as inherent to your use of a computer.

The more you know.

Re:But but but

[fbobraga]

I can try it on my p698?

Re:But but but

[fbobraga]

change "intellectual property law" by "patent law" and the GP point is valid...

Re:But but but

[fbobraga]

Why are you posting AC, man?

Re:But but but

[fbobraga]

... or woman.

Re:But but but

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, look at that! The old Burson Marsteller astroturf team is back in action. BrokenHalo, exomondo, recoiledsnake all here. I'm sure I saw ByOhTek commenting a day or so ago, next it'll be Bonch back with his unique line of FUD and MS adulation.

What's happening guys? Is Microsoft releasing a new product?

Re:But but but

[RaceProUK]

Proprietary software is unethical because it infringes on your right to use and modify software as you see fit.

I'm all for open source, but I wouldn't file this as an inalienable right.

Re:But but but

[bmullan]

haahaaaa good one

Re:But but but

[MightyYar]

as long as there was no copyright at all and all systems were open

How in the world would you open systems without copyleft? Fact is you need copyright to get anything like Gnu's version of open software.

Re:But but but

[MightyYar]

I agree with you - thus the quotes around "stolen". I hate the terminology, but it's in the vernacular. All I can do is hope some of my sarcasm seeps through.

Re:But but but

[Bill_the_Engineer]

CNET still thinks it's the best

Well since CNET is the source that really isn't saying much.

Re:But but but

[Bill_the_Engineer]

So we devolved into picking the lesser of two evils rather than picking based on principle?

Re:But but but

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Proprietary software enforces controlled standards, locked systems, treacherous computing like UEFI.

Your examples could have easily be done with open source software and if they were implemented well would still give the exact same results. Unless of course you want to argue that security by obscurity is better than security by being open for review.

Re:But but but

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-free software doesn't "take away" any rights, not yours, not mine, not anybody's. Why? Because who in God's name (pun intended, choose your own deity) gave us these rights? where does it say that these *things* are, in fact, rights? are inalienable?

they certainly don't derive from some ancient text written in some dead language? they were never handed down to any religiuous figure of old from any manifestation of a particular deity.... like some other rights are said to have been.

They come from some observation and conclusions that RMS and some other guys had back in the '60s...or something. These are not like other Rights we have. They are priviledges, or (small) freedoms that we have chosen to give ourselves and others. I do, I really do, recognize and acknowledge their benefits and usefulness, but their absence is not a denial of any rights, basic or complex; and in and of itself, by definition is not a damaging action been done upon us and the public at large by some nameless faceless corporate entity.

It is entirely possible to have a closed-down, proprietary, you-can't-look-at-my-code-EVER-don't-ask software system that still respects you as a user...it seems to be less and less frequent to see this in the real world, but it's possible. And THIS is the thing that we should be fighting the most; and FOSS is one of the many tools (weapons) we can use in this fight.

so there....my 0.00002 € worth

Re:But but but

[drinkypoo]

Copyright doesn't protect ideas, it protects specific works.

Great, but the works are just series of thoughts.

Re:But but but

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no right to use the fruits of other peoples labor for free. None whatsoever. If someone wants to make software and give out free, great; if not, that fine too.

According to your logic, a doctor who manages to put your throat cancer into remission should do it for free - after all, you have the right to free speech.

And ethics is not a physical science - its not a "science" at all. What you consider to be unethical only affects your behavior, not anyone else's. Your morals and values only apply to you.

Just as you are free to decide on what you consider to be ethically right and wrong, so is everyone else.

Re:But but but

[Anonymous Coward]

I lost a lot of respect for Stallman when he sunk to the RIAA/MPAA level with statements like 'proprietary software is unethical because it takes away users' rights', of course it doesn't take away anything, just like music piracy doesn't take away profits like the RIAA/MPAA claim, they can't take away something of yours if it's something you never had in the first place.

Every government-enforced copyright and patent removes rights from the individual. That's the whole fucking point. If you're preaching BS in the public town square, my right to copy and regurgitate what you say or repeat the tune you hum, or rebuild the gizmo you were hocking, is going to reduced by any copyrights or patents in effect at the time.

If you were a bird whistling a tune and building a nest in the public town square, there are no such limitations. No matter how nice a nest or however pleasing the tune.

Copyrights and patents also restrict me from constructing certain things either by coincidence or possibly similar in functionality (even if our designs never crossed paths... first to file and such). Copyrights aren't just combinations of thousands of words but could be a few notes or plot structure.

Copyrights and patents are a treacherous abuse of government power. Far better would be a system whereby every individual has the same rights as an island nation. We ought to be able to comply with terms and engage in the desired trade or reject those terms and do without that trade. Trade in this context could be a job Disney or a seat in a movie theatre.

If protecting IP is mutually beneficial then there ought to be a voluntary mechanism of partial but not total enforcement. Sadly, dipshits like you have been roped into supporting a system that is not and can never be mutually beneficial. You have no seat at the bargaining table. WTG.

Re:But but but

[rtfa-troll]

Non-free software doesn't "take away" any rights, not yours, not mine, not anybody's. Why? Because who in God's name (pun intended, choose your own deity) gave us these rights? where does it say that these *things* are, in fact, rights? are inalienable?

I hope that you are not from the USA like most on this site; because if you are then

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

ought to be a familiar quote and you should know where it comes from. However, even if you are not, the Universal declaration of human rights ought to be clear enough:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

And, in case you are wondering, the fundamental right we are talking about is the right to freedom of speech. And that right can only be guaranteed if you have control over your own information.

Re:But but but

[rtfa-troll]

I've used Blender to create models collaborated with guys using Max and Maya with no problems, them using proprietary modeling programs had no effect on my use of Blender.

Which would come entirely under the exception which I specifically added to my post in contrast to the grandparent and leads us to ask; did you really read the post you are replying to? This is the one which makes Microsoft evil and Google only slightly mean.

Re:But but but

[BrokenHalo]

Hey, look at that! The old Burson Marsteller astroturf team is back in action. BrokenHalo, exomondo, recoiledsnake all here.

Err, who? Maybe you need to go find something else to do. I have been a sysprog on a wide variety of "Big Iron" mainframes since the 1970s, and worked primarily with Linux boxes since 1995, so I really don't think I qualify as a Microsoft astroturfer. I just have some reservations about Ubuntu, that's all.

Re:But but but

[exomondo]

Which would come entirely under the exception which I specifically added to my post in contrast to the grandparent and leads us to ask; did you really read the post you are replying to? This is the one which makes Microsoft evil and Google only slightly mean.

Which is exactly why the initial comment about 'proprietary software' is patently false, because it's overly generalised.

Re:But but but

[Anonymous Coward]

You and I can implement the same series of thoughts without infringing on each other's copyright.

Re:But but but

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, no, I'm not from the USA, though I did live there for a while.

I still fail to see the link between Free Speech and "I can copy this piece of software and do with it as I please". I also don't see the Creator giving the right to copy any particular piece of software, or text, or image.

I'm not arguing against Free Software, mind you, I'm all for it. But it does bother me when we take the "Free as in Free Speech, not as in free beer" argument to mean Free Software is a manifestation of Free Speech.

  To name one example, there's a particular speech (address) given by MLK Jr in the late 60s about a dream he apparently had. Under Free Speech he was well within his rights to pronounce such words and have them be heard by others, but try broadcasting a recording of it under the same Free Speech banner.

Having said that, I stand by my argument that non-Free software does not take away any "rights"...while it does, as previously stated, take away from privileges. You can't copy or redistribute the software as-is? can't change it beyond a certain level of config parameters? can't study the code? fine, this is all you're losing.

Fragmentation

[Anonymous Coward]

the mere existence of multiple Free Software mobile systems with carrier support is a good sign if you ask me.

Actually the mere existence of multiple such systems fragments the market for them, thus reducing the already-slim chance they have of becoming real competitors to the established players in the market.

Re:Fragmentation

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello from 1997.

I agree that this 'fragmentation' thing everyone speaks of is not so great for the makers of different operating systems, such as Apple.

But before The Jobs declared it to be Evil Incarnate, we used to call it 'choice.' And choice was good for consumers. I thought. How strange.

Re:Fragmentation

[BrokenHalo]

I used to wonder about this back in the mid-'90s, but seeing the quality of some of the free software out there gives me the feeling that it's in a pretty good position at the moment. One reservation there is a common assumption that Linux==Ubuntu, which can be a pain in the ass if you want to experiment with occasional bits of software for which the source is unavailable or too troublesome to compile. (I personally find Ubuntu about as irritating as Windows, and for a lot of the same reasons.)

But all those people who don't really care too much about freedom of choice won't use anything other than Windows or Macs anyway (and, despite its many faults, even Windows is more customisable). While, on the other hand, widespread acceptance of Android, with its plethora of different apps and interfaces, has spurred a renewed interest in looking for new or different ways to use your devices.

Re:Fragmentation

[MBCook]

It's why in 2007, every feature phone could get games, but there were only a handful. They were mostly copies of old arcade games and often cost $3/mo or so. No one developed more ambitious things because of the porting effort and size of the individual markets. A few bigger games would be made (I remember there was a God of War cell phone game), but it would only be on one carrier and maybe 2-3 phones.

We already have 3 platforms (4 if BBOS can survive), plus there are a few other little ones. We have choice and competition.

We don't need 8 or 15 options.

Re:Fragmentation

[Anonymous Coward]

Jobs was referring to fragmentation of a specific distribution of Linux - namely Android - not the multitude of different GNU/Linux operating systems in general.

Re:Fragmentation

[wiredlogic]

With luck there will eventually be a push for a standardized tablet platform that is open enough to permit users to select their own OS. Most likely this will come from the second tier Chinese manufacturers who would benefit most from a common reference standard.

Re:Fragmentation

[ozmanjusri]

In 1997?

Proprietary vendors keep spreading this FUD, as "fragmentation" is core to Linux/FOSS adoption. Freedom and opportunity for choice in the Linux world means anyone can start their own distro, or fork an existing one to meet their own needs. To many of us, this is one of the truly great benefits of the open source world.

OS vendors like Microsoft and Apple have a sales/distribution model that's antithetical to this sort of freedom, so it's in their best interest to portray one of Linux's great advantages as a negative. Hence the more than a decade's worth of FUD.

Re:Fragmentation

[dgharmon]

"Actually the mere existence of multiple such systems fragments the market for them, thus reducing the already-slim chance they have of becoming real competitors to the established players in the marketa."

Good for the hardware makers though, remember when the OEMs controlled what OS went with their own hardware, instead of the current situation where it has to be certified by a software vendor ...

Re:Fragmentation

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Ubuntu have carrier support? Jono implies it does, couldn't find a reference to it.

Re:Fragmentation

[Patch86]

We already have 3 platforms (4 if BBOS can survive), plus there are a few other little ones. We have choice and competition.

We don't need 8 or 15 options.

I'm intrigued as to which OS you had in mind for number 3. Surely not Windows Phone, which still lags behind BBOS (combining v7 and v10) in market share terms. And Symbian still outstrips both of them.

Really, we only have two major mobile OS at the moment, and half a dozen others scrapping it out for distant third place. There's no real reason why another OS (Ubuntu or Firefox or Sailfish or Tizen) couldn't leapfrog the others into third place, and may even be able to start growing third place into something respectably close to the market leaders.

Re:Fragmentation

[CAIMLAS]

The significant factor in fragmentation is whether or not it's disruptive fragmentation. To date, the existence of GNOME has not greatly hindered the adoption of KDE. Nobody is going to reject Firefox OS because another company has adopted Ubuntu Touch any more than people are going to reject Android for Ubuntu Touch because companies are starting to adopt Ubuntu Touch. No, these platforms will be judged on their merit and applicability to the desired result and chosen accordingly.

If anything, the variety and maturity of alternatives will weaken the hold that established platforms have. Are people rejecting their Apple devices because of Android market dominance? No. Neither is the opposite true, and it's quite obvious that vendors of Android devices have taken historic momentary successes as an incentive to jump into the market themselves.

c|net?

[MrEricSir]

Why the hell are still linking to c|net articles again? Would it kill the editors to wait for a real news organization to review Ubuntu Touch instead of just posting the first crap that comes along?

Re:c|net?

[Rogerborg]

Sadly, c|net is what marketeers skim in order to be all hip and jiggy with that nerd stuff, so it is influential.

Re:c|net?

[deniable]

Because they dish out awards to people who don't offend CBS.

slick, elegant interface

[Osgeld]

glad is uses every side of the screen, but just like every other mobile device its almost all unused dead space in the middle, glad it takes millions of pixels to put "5 facebook updates" in plain text onto a screen

Re: slick, elegant interface

[apoc06]

Looks nice, but honestly I wish Ubuntu/ Canonical would have devoted their time on the usability issues in Unity.

Re: slick, elegant interface

[BrokenHalo]

but just like every other mobile device its almost all unused dead space in the middle

That's because the first thing every user does when he gets the phone is put a picture of {his,her} {cat,dog,offspring} there.

Re: slick, elegant interface

[Anonymous Coward]

glad it takes millions of pixels to put "5 facebook updates" in plain text onto a screen

Better than the enormous, non-portable desktop PC + keyboard + mouse + monitor that you're using to do exactly the same thing. Seriously the amount of rubbish posts like this that attempt to trivialize smartphone as devices for nothing more than angry birds and facebook is astonishing. "ZOMG! Why do you need a retina display for Angry Birds?!" or when new iDevices come out the likes of "iSheep marching to the tune of their Apple overlords, enslaving themselves just so they can get facebook lolcatz on their phone."
I really cannot emphasize enough how much this is applicable, it's been posted here thousands of times yet there's still a bunch of dimwits that actually believe it about themselves.

Re: slick, elegant interface

[exomondo]

glad is uses every side of the screen

It's not discoverable though, it's exactly like Windows 8, same problem of being horribly unintuitive. Like that swiping down a little bit from the top where the sound and wifi indicators are to reveal a context menu and then moving left and right to change the menu between those icons is just awful from a usability perspective, it looks neat in a video though.

Re: slick, elegant interface

[drinkypoo]

For all the shit they get for Sense, HTC did the right thing by putting a big fat clock there. I was pretty bemused by the UK ROM I flashed to a used Xperia Play. Front and center, big fat open screen. To the right, gigantic clock, which belongs front and center. I can slide left or right to get to some apps, I want to know what damned time it is!

Re: slick, elegant interface

[drinkypoo]

I really cannot emphasize enough how much this is applicable, it's been posted here thousands of times yet there's still a bunch of dimwits that actually believe it about themselves.

And yet, if everyone believes that, there may still be some for whom it is true, while the others are doing a fair imitation due to their programming.

Re: slick, elegant interface

[Anonymous Coward]

Unity itself is a usability issue.

Re: slick, elegant interface

[fbobraga]

Unity itself is a usability issue.

... so true :P

Re: slick, elegant interface

[Anonymous Coward]

Well no, its not true of anyone. No one has any deeper insight into The Way Things Should Be than anyone else does - there are however, quite a few fruitcakes who ~think~ they do.

Just sue CBS

[D H NG]

If Canonical sues or gets sued by CBS, they'll just get disqualified.

but nothing.

[tuppe666]

Ubuntu is evil! Richard Stallman says so!!

No Richard Stallman says this http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/ubuntu-spyware-what-to-do which is about the intrusive nature of an opt-out system on them in which local system search terms are sent to Amazon.

Quit with the hyperbole already. It is what it is.

Re:but nothing.

[recoiledsnake]

From that link:

This is just like the first surveillance practice I learned about in Windows. My late friend Fravia told me that when he searched for a string in the files of his Windows system, it sent a packet to some server, which was detected by his firewall. Given that first example I paid attention and learned about the propensity of "reputable" proprietary software to be malware. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Ubuntu sends the same information.

Does anyone have more information and hard references or proof of this(as opposed to idle hearsay) in Windows, or is it just more of the anti-Microsoft urban legend hearsay FUD peddled around these parts?

Re:but nothing.

[gmuslera]

You mean, something like this? You don't have to search a lot to find several examples. You are renting their software after all, so better that they are aware how you use it.

Re:but nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you tell us? You work for them!

Re:but nothing.

[recoiledsnake]

Those don't say anything about local file search keywords going to Microsoft like RMS was insinuating.

Re:but nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

WGA doesn't send your file search keywords home you dumbass. Prove if otherwise.
This place is full of retards that fail at reading comprehension.

Re:but nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't search, but rather windows update, but some folks used a shim to access the unencrypted data sent to MS during windows update and they stated there was a lot of personal data that was transfered in direct opposition to the assurances of MS.

But, MS became irrelevant long ago for me, so you will have to your own Googling :)

Re:but nothing.

[mystikkman]

Hahahah, so you're just regurgitating the FUD by professional Microsoft haters. Good to know.

Re:but nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

That was Mike Hartmann, from tecChannel.

They found Windows Update sends Microsoft a complete list of all the hardware devices, including make, model and driver version, every software package installed on your computer as well as a unique identifier which could be used for tracking (eg, of online/desktop searches and other activities) or for update denial.

Re:but nothing.

[waspleg]

He's right as usual. I love Stallman. We need more of him.

(PS, even if the original comment were true he's also right. I didn't know about the Amazon affiliation with Unity, even though I have an Ubuntu machine at work it's not got an outside connection and it has a single function, imaging other machines, so I've never used a Dash search or w/e the fuck it's called.)

As an aside, is there anyone who can tell me what's so great about Ubuntu in the first place? I am honestly not seeing much in the way of improvement over a linux based desktop in the 90's (in fact they're shockingly similar, and blackbox or one of the others was faster).

Re:but nothing.

[RaceProUK]

a complete list of all the hardware devices, including make, model and driver version

How else would it know which drivers to offer?

every software package installed on your computer

MS software I can understand (again, how else would it know what updates to offer), but I seriously doubt it'll include non-MS packages.

Re:but nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I seriously doubt it'll include non-MS packages."

You must be feeling a little disappointed right now.

Windows 8 Tells Microsoft About Everything You Install, Not Very Securely

There are a few serious problems here. The big problem is that Windows 8 is configured to immediately tell Microsoft about every app you download and install. This is a very serious privacy problem, specifically because Microsoft is the central point of authority and data collection/retention here and therefore becomes vulnerable to being served judicial subpoenas or National Security Letters intended to monitor targeted users. This situation is exacerbated when Windows 8 is deployed in countries experiencing political turmoil or repressive political situations.

This problem can however get even more serious: It may be possible to intercept SmartScreen’s communications to Microsoft and thus learn about every single application downloaded and installed by a target.

Nadim Kobeissi

Re:but nothing.

[RaceProUK]

You mean MS knows what I've bought from the MS App Store? That's terrible! I mean, what if Google knew what you bought from Google Play, or worse, if Apple knew what you bought from iTunes?

WebApp API

[alexandre]

I just hope that Tizen, Ubuntu, FirefoxOS et al. can agree on a common WebApp API...

Re:WebApp API

[gmuslera]

Thats the nice thing about standards, there are so many of them.

I would add Webkit to that list.

And something that the people of Ubuntu should agree on UI components with the people of Sailfish (that was also in that show), and KDE plasma active (and maybe Blackberry and WebOS), making it easier to port apps between different mobile OSs (i.e. like this calculator).

Once you can have everywhere the apps that you want, you are free choose the best OS that fits better in your device/needs.

Re:WebApp API

[alexandre]

I hope they are working on this NOW, it is THE defining factor for this to succeed, it has to become a W3C / RFC standard and be sold as the solution to adopt eventually... maybe in HTML 5.2 or something!

Re:WebApp API

[soapdog]

At least the people from Mozilla is trying to get their APIs approved by W3C and spread to other vendors. Check out https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI

Re:WebApp API

[alexandre]

Indeed, but I'm not too hopefull after this video from Mobile World:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkEb3WSs3CI&t=40m20s

Microsoft has all you information

[tuppe666]

From that link:

Does anyone have more information and hard references or proof of this(as opposed to idle hearsay) in Windows, or is it just more of the anti-Microsoft urban legend hearsay FUD peddled around these parts?

Lots of information is passed to Microsoft how do you think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Genuine_Advantage Windows [dis]advantage works. It is what pushed me into trying linux in the first place. [that and a 132GB hard drive limit]

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[recoiledsnake]

I don't see anything related to user search terms being sent.

Do you have a better reference?

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[ozmanjusri]

From Microsoft:

  "When Microsoft receives a Bing search query, we collect a number of pieces of information, including the search query provided, IP address, unique identifiers contained in cookies, browser configuration and the time and date of the search,"

“Microsoft may access or disclose information about you, including the content of your communications, in order to: (a) comply with the law or respond to lawful requests or legal process; (b) protect the rights or property of Microsoft or our customers, including the enforcement of our agreements or policies governing your use of the software; or (c) act on a good faith belief that such access or disclosure is necessary to protect the personal safety of Microsoft employees, customers, or the public,”

“Information collected by or sent to Microsoft by Windows 7 may be stored and processed in the United States or any other country in which Microsoft or its affiliates, subsidiaries, or service providers maintain facilities. Microsoft abides by the safe harbor framework as set forth by the U.S. Department of Commerce regarding the collection, use, and retention of data from the European Union, the European Economic Area, and Switzerland.”

These are the Windows 7 modules that Microsoft acknowledge phone home

1. Activation:
2. Device Information Retrieval:
3. Device Manager:
4. Dynamic Update:
5. Event Viewer:
6. Gadgets:
7. Games Folder:
8. Error Reporting for Handwriting Recognition:
9. Personalization Training:
10. IME Word Registration (available in Japanese IME only):
11. Installation Improvement Program:
12. Microsoft Error Reporting Service:
13. Plug and Play:
14. Program Compatibility Assistant:
15. Program Properties Compatibility Tab:
16. Rights Management Services (RMS) Client:
17. Teredo Technology: 18. Update Root Certificates:
19. Windows Anytime Upgrade:
20. Windows Customer Experience Improvement Program (CEIP):
21. Windows Defender:
22. Windows File Association:
23. Windows Help:
25. Windows Speech Recognition:
26. Windows Time Service:
27. Windows Troubleshooting:
28. Windows Internet Explorer 8:
29. Update Services:
30. Microsoft Genuine Advantage:
31. Windows Media Center:
32. Microsoft Windows Media Player 12:

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[recoiledsnake]

RMS is talking about local file search keywords and you're talking about web search keywords on Bing.

Two VERY different beasts.

Here, I bolded it for you:

My late friend Fravia told me that when he searched for a string in the files of his Windows system, it sent a packet to some server, which was detected by his firewall

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[Anonymous Coward]

naturally those services phone home but i see no reason you would not have a equally long list for android, ios, rhel, osx, ubuntu, etc. they all have services that phone home, time, update, crash reporting, improvement programs, media information retrieval, etc.

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[Nerdfest]

What Vista was sending to Microsoft was what switched me over to Linux full time. Part of their indexing program was sending content from even things like my RSS feed. I thought it was a virus, but apparently it's standard behaviour, or used to be.

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[ozmanjusri]

"he searched for a string in the files of his Windows system, it sent a packet to some server, which was detected by his firewall"

"Our telemetry data shows that 67% of all searches in Windows 7 are used to find and launch programs. Searching for files accounts for 22% of all Windows 7 Start menu searches, and searching for Control Panel items about 9%. Searching for email messages via Start Menu is very rare (less than 0.05%). The remaining 2% are searches executing the “Run” functionality."

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/18/designing-search-for-the-start-screen.aspx

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[fredprado]

The problem is, considering Windows send information to MS encrypted every time you check for an update, and considering it is a closed source OS you won`t ever know what it is capable of sending and how. MS for example, lets say, under request of a governmental agency, could spy on you and you would never know.

You may think it is paranoid, but it is not, it is simply a matter of not trusting blindly on corporations. They may not even do it now, but the fact they have the power and can do it at will is enough on my book to avoid it like the plague.

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[recoiledsnake]

You don't even know what telemetry in Windows means.
You get one notification after installing asking you explicitly if you want to opt in to help improve Windows by sending telemetry information.
Even if you opt in, those calculations you see in the post are done locally and only the stats are sent to the server.
Those stats do not include people who haven't enabled telemetry.
It's similar to Firefox's dialog here:
http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/send-performance-data-improve-firefox
OMG FIREFOX IS SNOOPING ON YOU.

You're welcome to prove me wrong.

This has nothing to do with sending packets when you search local files.

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows telemetry doesn't send search keywords to Microsoft you dumbass.
AND IT'S OFF BY DEFAULT.

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't need search strings to determine that so you still haven't shown anything. Also worth noting that telemetry data is only sent if you have CEIP switched on.

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[mystikkman]

Any references or proof, or just hearsay and handwaving with urban legends?

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[Nerdfest]

I was actually just looking around for the name of the module that was sending the data. I remember one thing it was doing was sending URLs to a DNS server on a non-standard port on a cloud server form that was registered to Microsoft. It really looked like a virus. I'll keep digging for the name of the offending module.

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[recoiledsnake]

Wait, so it went from "Windows sends your file search keywords" to "it may or might send things"?

Yes, being careful is good, but spreading lies and FUD is not.

As a funny aside, Shuttleworth said they have root on all Ubuntu computers.

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[recoiledsnake]

Perhaps you're referring to IE's smartscreen filter?

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/smartscreen-filter-frequently-asked-questions-ie9

You do that know that Chrome, Firefox and Opera have similar functionality enabled to block fishing and malware ridden sites right?

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[Nerdfest]

This was not IE. I found the offending executable ... it was SearchFilterHost. I found threads at Microsoft (which seem to have been removed, but it has been quite a while) asking why it was accessing the network.

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[fredprado]

As I said I have no information if it is indeed sending your file search keywords to the net, you will have to ask to the guy who made the claim (RMS is usually a very accessible person if you are really interested).

But the fact they can do it without my knowledge is enough for me. It is too much power to give blindly to a corporation.

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[Anonymous Coward]

As I said I have no information

No shit! This is how FUD gets spread, people like you ignorantly and unthinkingly regurgitating things they don't even know about.

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[fredprado]

Everything I said was true. I challenge you to find anything at all that I wrote that was not true.

People like you, on the other hand, are ignorant and like to remain like so. Suit yourself. Keep being an ignorant asshole.

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows Desktop search components SearchFilterHost.exe & SearchProtocolHost.exe routinely connect to Microsoft-owned domains and send encrypted data.

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[tftp]

But the fact they can do it without my knowledge is enough for me. It is too much power to give blindly to a corporation.

I guess then you are using your own OS and your own browser. Or perhaps you did the code review of your current Linux system (with all the binary patches and like) and conclusively proved that the system is safe under your definition of "safe."

Most people, however, do not treat their computer as a trusted system. They know that their activity can be monitored, just as they themselves may be monitored when they walk in public. It is expensive and cumbersome to maintain a trusted system, and it is always one compromise away from spilling all your secrets. Better to not keep any secrets on it - or at least compartmentalize those.

The best way to build a trusted system is to cut the network cable that goes to that system. Then pretty much any OS can be used, and it would take one wickedly hacked OS to leak data through whatever USB Flash disk you stick into it from time to time.

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[fbobraga]

+1 Informative!

Re:Microsoft has all you information

[fredprado]

Oh, I am quite content with using something that is open and can be reviewed by anyone. I don't really need to review it myself. But good job trying to use a reductio ad absurdum fallacy to argue. Now it is time to go back to your logic 101 classes.

Is CNET awarding a product even relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked CNET's record of awarding products is tarnished http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/10270121658/cnet-reporter-resigns-over-cbs-interference-dish-ces-award.shtml

How CNET could choose Ubuntu Touch which has only a few working apps and no ability to make calls over Firefox OS which is a complete platform and has 23 partners and great apps is beyond me.

Cnet? That's a credible source...

[Theoden]

Stopped caring about CNET reviews after their parent company pulled their review of the Dish Hopper because it's a competing product.
Now, I actively avoid their site.

Nothing new

[ripdajacker]

My cyanogen 10.1 device does all those things. What's the fuss about?

Re:Nothing new

[wonkey_monkey]

My cyanogen 10.1 device does all those things. What's the fuss about?

+1 Smug.

Re:Nothing new

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

My theory is that in a long-lost tongue coded in some people's genes, "canonical" means "will get you laid." It'd explain a lot about Ubuntu's popularity and blog names like "omg ubuntu!", if you think about it.

As a Cyanogen newbie that ditched Ubuntu 3 years ago, though, it's nice to see that even if little else is familiar, I'll still get to periodically protest, "but my distro already can do that, dammit!" (Though admittedly it's very unlikely to get me laid.)

Ubuntu Is Becoming As Trustworthy as Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is 0.

Further, Ubuntu Touch is a rip off of the android stack, with a canonical generated frontend...yes, it's GPL, but it's a fairly shameless copy...

Re:Ubuntu Is Becoming As Trustworthy as Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike Android the interface isn't a terrible mess of Java bloatware.

iOS is the odd duck

[tuppe666]

Jobs was referring to fragmentation of a specific

Ironically while the rest of the world has chosen on Android its Apple who fragments the market :)

Re:iOS is the odd duck

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually iOS seems to be the system of choice which is why the iPhone always tops the best selling phones, Android makes up the numbers thanks to its prevalence in the low end of the market. Android is like Windows, people don't so much choose it as they use it because when an OEM wants to put out a phone they just chuck Android on it, so if you don't care you've probably got Android.

Re:iOS is the odd duck

[fbobraga]

Android makes up the numbers thanks to its prevalence in the low end of the market. Android is like Windows, people don't so much choose it as they use it because when an OEM wants to put out a phone they just chuck Android on it, so if you don't care you've probably got Android.

No, you are very wrong here: iPhones do no support 2 carrier chips at once (what is a necessity to me), nor have a small "dropdown" keyboard (what seem to be a necessity to many...)

Slick? Elegant?

[FuzzNugget]

Those weren't exactly the words that entered my mind when I watched Shuttleworth demo the OS (go see it for your yourself on YouTube). No, for me, it was more like "clunky" and "cumbersome".

I'm not sure am interface that's based entirely on various swipe gestures is really the best balance.

The way the left app bar shows up every time you swipe left through your running programs will get annoying pretty quickly.

Or the fact that you need to swipe through your running programs in a next/previous fashion (I actually need to manually remember all the software I'm running at any given moment? How quaint). Google got this one right with Android 4: a dedicated button that opens a list with previews of everything running in its most recently used state.

The perceived lack of a main "get me outta here and back to where I started" screen makes it feel very claustrophobic.

I really want to like Ubuntu Mobile, but I don't think it's going to happen. Swipe is great for a number of things, but not everything. They took what was a neat, and sometimes useful element of UI design and went overkill with it.

Re:Slick? Elegant?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Google got this one right with Android 4: a dedicated button that opens a list with previews of everything running in its most recently used state.

FirefoxOS has this too ... you hold down the button (there's only one). You can also swipe away running apps from the preview list to kill them, which is pretty cool.

Re:Slick? Elegant?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The way the left app bar shows up every time you swipe left through your running programs will get annoying pretty quickly."

Not every time you swipe left. Only when you swipe in from the very left edge does the app bar show up.

"Or the fact that you need to swipe through your running programs in a next/previous fashion (I actually need to manually remember all the software I'm running at any given moment? How quaint). Google got this one right with Android 4: a dedicated button that opens a list with previews of everything running in its most recently used state."

Agree with this. Going back 3 or 4 applications is going to become cumbersome rather quickly.

The Android Killer

[tuppe666]

Actually iOS seems to be the system of choice

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23946013 these are the latest figures from IDC as you can see Android occupies 70% while iOS occupies 20%. However you try to spin in Android is *THE* smartphone OS of choice, and however you spin it Android binaries will work on more phones that iOS binaries. This is true even if you don't care what OS you run on your phone :), perhaps the phones were simply better designed than Apples, perhaps if Apple spent more money on designing its phones, people wouldn't be buying then 350% more Android Phones.

On topic my point was about compatibility...and increasingly Android compatibility is a must, iOS is simply a niche OS without it.

If that's the case...

[thoughtlover]

...then why is the story's icon the Firefox logo instead of Ubuntu's? Makes me think Unknown Lamer likes Mozilla Foundation more than Canonical. I do. In the end, the browser really could be the beginning and the end of the interface. Windows linked IE to the filesystem, albeit rather clumsily. I dislike how Apple tries to keep the filesystem of the iPhone (or iAnything) out of the consumer's reach. I keep thinking that the first company that puts a really nice mobile OS on a phone that has a microSD slot will reap many rewards of loyalty from a whole new fanbase. I've been waiting and waiting to escape inane pricing tiers for hardware that has a really meager amount to begin with. Really, you can't get much 1080 video on an iPhone5 with only 16GB (actually 14) of storage.

Re:If that's the case...

[Anonymous Coward]

:) I got a N808, it has 80 GB with a microsxcd and a built-in HDMI port.
But I bought it for the 41 megapixel camera and pureview technology.
And being able to FM transmit songs to the car stereo without cables.
But then, you won't buy one, because you and everyone else have an issue with Symbian Belle being allegedly "dead".
Well - it's plenty alive for now, and who knows how long the beloved iOS 13 or Android Version K will run anyhow ...
webOS was the end-all-be-all too, until it wasn't ...

And you can reach the exFAT file system directly through loaded apps or a regular USB 2 cable.
The product you want already exists, but nobody wants it.

So...

[exomondo]

...using your logic Windows is *THE* desktop OS of choice and Linux & OSX are just fragmenting the market?

Re:So...

[ozmanjusri]

using your logic Windows is *THE* desktop OS

Was, not is.

Android is becoming the defacto phone/tablet OS because it is open and supports a huge array of form factors and use-cases.

MS Dos/Windows gained early advantage by the same means - it could be installed on a variety of commodity hardware, and be adapted to a almost any computing task. MS later chose to become predatory and restrictive to enforce and protect its monopoly, but they got their start because they were more open than their competition.

Re:So...

[exomondo]

Was, not is.

Ok so what is the desktop OS of choice then?

really?

[Derwood5555]

Is this what CNET really thinks or did some exec at CBS tell them what to think?

Installing Ubuntu Phone OS ..

[dgharmon]

"I tried the preview build of it on my nexus 7"

Where can I get it, do you have a link to the download and installation instructions?

Re:Installing Ubuntu Phone OS ..

[exomondo]

It's all on their website.

What a laughable review

[OhANameWhatName]

That looks shocking.

- Swipe in from the side to load a vertical menu which requires further scrolling to use. Why not fill the whole screen?
- Swipe in from the top to load settings, then swipe, swipe, swipe, swipe to find the right setting. Why not fill the whole screen?
- Swipe in from the right side to find the first application, then swipe, swipe, swipe, swipe until you find the application you're looking for. Why not display the open applications as a full screen menu?

And what do we get as an aside? No applications? Fragmentation for mobile phones?

If that's the best mobile operating system available, I hate to think of what the others were like. But at least it's an annoying device I can take a swipe at.

whichever Linux

[bigtreeman]

I just want the freedom to install my favourite flavour of Linux to whichever device, tablet or phone just as I currently do with my pc without hacking.

Is there a Tor phone yet?

[trout007]

Could it run on this?

Sailfish OS

[SpectreBlofeld]

Not even a mention of Sailfish OS? This is the one I'm most interested in:

http://pocketnow.com/2013/02/27/jolla-sailfish-video

Real X11/GNU/Linux phone with a fresh, elegant UI. Will support all Android apps out of the box with no porting required. Yes, please...

Re:Sailfish OS

[Anonymous Coward]

The best of all options, yes. Ability to take over the market? Probably not.

Ask a normal person what Firefox is and they might know. Their answer might be "my nephew who is really smart says I should use it". Ask them what Ubuntu is and they will say "I don't know, I've seen the name in the news but have no clue".

Ask them what x11 is and...you see where this is going. Simple brand recognition.

Sailfish may just have the niche n900 supergeek market and little more.

Re:Sailfish OS

[SpectreBlofeld]

The recognition issue could be remedied by partnering with a big name or manufacturer. Nobody's heard of Tizen, either, but say 'Samsung' and and they'll say, 'Oh, right'.

HTC has been struggling with identity issues. They used to lead smartphone manufacturing, now they're becoming just another 'me too' in the increasingly saturated Android/WinMo/iPhone landscape. Hell, they make a Windows phone that's a design ripoff of the N9:

http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=3902

And here's a reason why a company like HTC might want to back someone other than Android:

"Microsoft is demanding that Samsung pay it $15 in royalties for every Android phone it sells, Korea's Maeil Business Newspaper reported on Wednesday. While Samsung is attempting to negotiate the royalty fee lower, it does indicate that Microsoft plans to become more aggressive in pursuing Android manufacturers over use of technologies within Android that it says it has rights to.

The Redmond company is already receiving $5 for every HTC phone sold with the Android operating system, and that has made the company some $150 million, according to reports. With Microsoft asking three times that from Samsung, the potential is there for the company to make much more from this licensing deal."

http://betanews.com/2011/07/06/microsoft-wants-15-for-every-samsung-android-device-sold/

Keep in mind that the article is 2 years old, and HTC's payout to Microsoft is certainly several times $150 million by now.

Now, add the fact that Sailfish can run any Android application out there, but does not have an equivalent to the Play Store yet. HTC could create their own app store and offer both native and Android apps, and actually see a cut of profits added to their device sales instead of money subtracted for licensing fees.

I want to get HTC and Sailfish in a room together and tell them to kiss. And make me a device.

Re:Sailfish OS

[Patch86]

Real X11/GNU/Linux phone with a fresh, elegant UI.

I'm really excited about Sailfish, and will definitely be eyeing it up (along with Ubuntu Phone and Tizen) when I come to make my next purchase (assuming they're both on the market). However, Sailfish's UI is hardly ground-breaking. It looks essentially the same, in methodology, as Android (only with a few details changed). Home screen and widgets are stacked vertically, rather than horizontally. Status bar is swipe from the right, rather than from the top. You have to swipe through the screens with the widgets before you get to the grid of icons screen.

Don't get me wrong, Sailfish (in the video you linked) looks much nicer than my current Android phone's UI; but just a nicer version of the same thing. I'm sure it'll compare fairly evenly with whatever the most recent Android phones are when it is finally on the shelves.

Say what you like about Ubuntu Phone / Unity Touch- at least they're punting out in their own direction, with a UI which they've built and designed from the ground up over several years of production releases. I don't know whether it'll be any good or not (I reserve judgement until I've gotten my hands on a ready or nearly-ready version of it), but full marks to them for effort.

Re:Sailfish OS

[SpectreBlofeld]

It's not just the UI that's noteworthy; it's the most Linux-y of Linux phones OS's out there.The UI being nice is just a bonus.

Re:Sailfish OS

[Patch86]

More "Linuxy" than Ubuntu? Ubuntu's Mobile offering boasts (or will boast) a terminal application, Busybox, SSH, a shared UI with a desktop distro, etc. etc. Just about the only difference I can see with Sailfish is that it runs X11/Wayland rather than whatever it is that Android uses (and Ubuntu will share). Which is certainly nice, but I'm not sure that that's a game changer in any ways that matter.

Re:Sailfish OS

[SpectreBlofeld]

It makes it almost trivial to port over 'real' Linux apps.

the common platform is Linux (Android/Mer) or web

[spage]

With luck there will eventually be a push for a standardized tablet platform that is open enough to permit users to select their own OS.

That standard platform is the Android kernel.

porting Ubuntu touch: To rapidly support a wide range of devices, our architecture reuses some of the drivers and hardware enablement available for Android. porting Firefox OS: Boot to Gecko (Firefox OS) uses a kernel derived from Android, with a Gecko-based user interface on top of it.

Meanwhile Plasma Active, Salifish, and Tizen are based on a traditional Linux platform, and the Mer project hopes to be the common core distribution for them.

For the tiny fraction of users who "select their own OS", device popularity and an unlocked bootloader matter far more than standardization. If you buy an unsuccessful phone, it won't have a community providing images for it and jailbreaking its bootloader if necessary.

The standardized platform is vital for all these also-ran OSes to get lots of apps. Aaron Seigo's post about standardizing the QML compontents across KDE Plasma, Jolla Sailfish, BlackBerry 10 and Ubuntu is a good sign, but they still suffer from inconsistent device APIs and different packaging requirements. That's where Firefox OS has a theoretical edge: apps for it are just web pages with a manifest. The number of web developers (incuding "app" developers who just put a wrapper around an HTML app) is orders of magnitude more than QML developers.

The Mozilla Open Web Apps project proposes some small additions to existing sites to turn them into apps that run in a rich, fun, and powerful computing environment. These apps run on desktop browsers and mobile devices, and are easier for a user to discover and launch than Web sites. They have access to a growing set of novel features, such as synchronizing across all of a user's devices.

Most likely this will come from the second tier Chinese manufacturers who would benefit most from a common reference standard.

They don't push for anything. They ship Android.

Whats the USP?

[Xolve]

Ubuntu phone is just using CyanogenMod as the base and running on top of it. It doesn't liberate or innovate, but just adds more dependencies. I have to upgrade Ubuntu phone then I need to upgrade the base Android too. Why not just run Qt/QML apps on Android and provide an Ubuntu launcher, Ubuntu Launchpad Store, Ubuntu One app etc. and we are done? Why fool the users? While Sailfish OS and Firefox OS they actually try to bring something new. Fragmentation? But thats the effect of "new", don't want it then stick to old platforms. BTW Sailfish id based on Qt (so is Ubuntu) and Firefox on HTML5.