Slashdot Mirror


The First Ubuntu Phone Is Here, With Underwhelming Hardware

A few days ago, Fast Company reviewer Jay Cassano was enthusiastic about Ubuntu's approach to apps for its new phone OS: namely, not relying on them, and instead interfacing seamlessly with existing websites and protocols. Now, new submitter ablutions (4006541) writes with a less than glowing review at The Daily Dot of the actual hardware that the OS is launching on. A sample that conveys the gist: Let's start with the good stuff: It sports a 4.5-inch multi-touch screen and a respectable 8-megapixel rear camera and 5-megapixel lens on the front. That's pretty much it. The list of negatives is a bit longer.

177 comments

  1. Hardware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Underwhelming software as well.

    1. Re:Hardware? by JMJimmy · · Score: 3

      Underwhelming software as well.

      Honestly, I don't care how mediocre it is - if it gives me control over the software on my device I'm sold. I was dreading buying a new Android

    2. Re: Hardware? by AvitarX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I scimmed tfa, and I'm not sure they touched the phone.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:Hardware? by cbhacking · · Score: 2

      The article neglects to mention both FirefoxOS and Jolla Sailfish. While neither is available on hardware with impressive specs - the first Jolla phone is nigh-identical to this one spec-wise, but at over a year old it has more excuse - I believe Sailfish may offer you the access you desire? It's descended from Maemo, which was pretty literally "Debian Linux compiled for ARM, with a touch-focused window manager and management tools". I haven't personally used Jolla enough to know anything about how much control it gives you, but on Maemo rooting your phone was a built-in (though hidden from casual discovery) feature.

      Alternatively, easily-rooted Android devices do exist. In fact, given that this device apparently runs a heavily customized version of Android (yes, I RTFA), it may even come pre-rooted; there's nothing preventing developers from doing that.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    4. Re:Hardware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So its like an iDevice?

    5. Re:Hardware? by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

      I just don't have the time to root/want to bother risking a bricked device anymore. FirefoxOS got dismal reviews and my experience with Mozilla is that they're more concerned with (bad) design rather than functionality. Jolla might be an option but I have my doubts as to whether they have the resources to hang in long term, Ubuntu might. Any option that allows me to delete (or does not have) the mass of pre-bundled crapware/social media apps/etc. and that can turn off the nightly Android phoning home is better than hardware specs in my books.

    6. Re: Hardware? by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      Yep. This is blogspam.

    7. Re:Hardware? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Give firefox os a try - it's simple to install as an emulator in your browser by selecting WebIDE

    8. Re:Hardware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >FirefoxOS got dismal reviews and my experience with Mozilla is that they're more concerned with (bad) design rather than functionality.

      Your experience is bizarre to me, because they've been obsessing with functionality in their products for a good decade now, only taking the odd detour into "bad design" (like most software does). But then I'm not surprised you'd think that, given how popular it is to be openly hostile toward Mozilla for some reason.

    9. Re:Hardware? by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      I'm not hostile to them, I'm using Firefox right now. I'm just critical of their choices in certain areas.

      Items like the burger menu and status bar being like Chrome's take priority over fixing major issues with the sqlite database(s) (install SQLite manager, you'll be amazed at how long data is being stored) and simple things like being able to view content inside the browser (example bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s... - yes, it's coming up on its 15th birthday).

      Most of their design choices are just "me too" instead of anything meaningful or original. I can't fault them too much though, they set out to copy the major browsers early on and they've stuck with it. I just wish they were quicker with less visible fixes and slower on design changes.

    10. Re:Hardware? by narcc · · Score: 1

      Old reviews focused on old hardware won't tell you much about the OS. Give it a try before you bash it. It's really well-done. Beats Android in my book. It can even properly switch tasks.

  2. First? by Macrat · · Score: 2

    Didn't the "first" Ubuntu phone fail as a kickstarter?

    1. Re:First? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      dunno, but you failed as a first poster.

    2. Re:First? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not very good at reading comprehension.

    3. Re:First? by aliquis · · Score: 2

      IndieGoGo.

      Likely still would had been a good purchase but it would had been better without the unfair pricing.

      Also if it ran Android too it would be a safer purchase (don't remember if it did.)

      Then again I guess OnePlus released close to what they intended to release (not necessarily at all the same phone but what I mean is a different premium phone) but the One wasn't not just premium priced (one could argue the Edge(?) deserved to have a higher price - since possibly the material selection would be closer to that of a new Apple device) but also come at a deep discount against similar devices from the established competition.

      Then again the Edge(?) was supposed to be an enthusiast phone where maybe OnePlus would be completely ok and want to sell to anyone, had they got the capacity (or maybe not to preserve demand for a future model with a better profit margin?)

    4. Re:First? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      No. Canonical has announced, then failed to deliver, a smartphone before that. IIRC, this is the 3rd or 4th attempt.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:First? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, i try to at least deliver premium writing comprehension.

  3. Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the software? by Nyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, the hardware sucks, but honestly I think people here are more interested in how the software works. At least I am.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  4. Look at the specs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let us look at the specification of this phone --- http://www.gsmarena.com/lenovo_a316i-6296.php

    Technology - GSM / HSPA
    Dimensions - 117 x 63.5 x 12.2 mm (4.61 x 2.5 x 0.48 in)
    Weight - 121 g (4.27 oz)
    SIM - Dual SIM (Mini-SIM, dual stand-by)
    DISPLAY - Capacitive touchscreen, 16M colors
    Size - 4.0 inches (~61.3% screen-to-body ratio)
    Resolution - 480 x 800 pixels (~233 ppi pixel density)
    Multitouch - Yes
    OS - Android OS, v4.2.2 (Jelly Bean)
    Chipset - Mediatek MT6572
    CPU - Dual-core 1.3 GHz Cortex-A7
    GPU - Mali-400
    Card slot - microSD, up to 32 GB
    Internal - 4 GB ROM, 512 MB RAM
    CAMERA -2 MP, 1600 x 1200 pixels
    Features - Geo-tagging
    Video - Yes
    SOUND Alert types - Vibration; MP3, WAV ringtones
    Loudspeaker - Yes
    3.5mm jack - Yes
    COMMS - WLAN. Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n, hotspot
    Bluetooth - v3.0, A2DP
    GPS - Yes, with A-GPS
    Radio - FM radio
    USB - microUSB v2.0
    Sensors - Accelerometer, proximity
    Messaging - SMS(threaded view), MMS, Email, Push Mail, IM
    Browser - HTML
    Java - Yes, via Java MIDP emulator
    BATTERY - Li-Ion 1300 mAh battery
    Stand-by - Up to 432 h (2G) / Up to 384 h (3G)
    Talk time - Up to 12 h 20 min (2G) / Up to 7 h 10 min (3G)
    Color - Black

    This phone also has MP4/H.264 player, MP3/WAV/eAAC+ player, Photo/video editor, Document viewer, Voice memo/dial
    The price? Less than $60.00

    In what way the new Ubuntu phone can match it?

    1. Re:Look at the specs by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      Size - 4.0 inches (~61.3% screen-to-body ratio)
      Resolution - 480 x 800 pixels (~233 ppi pixel density)
      OS - Android OS, v4.2.2 (Jelly Bean)
      Chipset - Mediatek MT6572
      Internal - 4 GB ROM, 512 MB RAM
      CAMERA -2 MP, 1600 x 1200 pixels
      BATTERY - Li-Ion 1300 mAh battery
      Stand-by - Up to 432 h (2G) / Up to 384 h (3G)
      The price? Less than $60.00

      In what way the new Ubuntu phone can match it?

      Eww, yuck.
      Pros: cheap, has FM radio
      Cons: every other single thing about it.
      Verdict: no thanks. I don't care what you compare it to, it still stinks. This is like comparing dog shit to wolf shit.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    2. Re:Look at the specs by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what this Ubuntu phone will cost, but it's specs look soundly mid-range to me. I mean, they aren't high-end, much less flagship, but they aren't low-end dross either. Nobody is going to be impressed by them, but an awful lot of people still have phones with worse specs, either because they bought a mid-range phone in the last year or because they bought a low-end phone yesterday.

      The phone that the AC grandparent posted is low-end dross (actually, it's possible to get a significantly better phone for that "less than $60" if you're willing to look around a bit; the roughly-two-year-old Lumia 520 had better specs and was available for $50 or less for a while). Compared to it, the Ubuntu phone has a better display, twice the storage and twice the RAM, a much better camera... and now I'm out of things to compare, because TFA doesn't actually give much in the way of specs.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    3. Re:Look at the specs by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Larger screen, more pixels
      Twice the CPU - 1.3ghz quad core A7
      Twice the ram - 1GB
      Twice the storage - 8GB
      Two cameras, 8MP + 5MP (instead of a single 2MP)
      Almost twice the battery
      It's thinner too
      Bluetooth 4.0

      Costs 169 euros.

      It's not priced as a high-end phone, why did you expect it to be one?

    4. Re:Look at the specs by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Sounds like my HTC Desire A8181 from five years ago:

      Size - 4.0 inches (~61.3% screen-to-body ratio)
        Resolution - 480 x 800 pixels (~233 ppi pixel density)
        OS - Android OS, v4.2.2 (Jelly Bean)
        Chipset - Mediatek MT6572
        Internal - 4 GB ROM, 512 MB RAM
        CAMERA -2 MP, 1600 x 1200 pixels
        BATTERY - Li-Ion 1300 mAh battery

      vs

      Size - 3.7 inches (~54.6% screen-to-body ratio)
      Resolution - 480 x 800 pixels (~252 ppi pixel density)
      Chipset Qualcomm QSD8250 Snapdragon (1 GHz Scorpion CPU, Adreno 200)
      Card slot - microSD, up to 32 GB, 4 GB included
      Internal - 576 MB RAM; 512 MB ROM
      Camera - 5 MP, 2592 x 1944 pixels, autofocus, LED flash
      Battery - Li-Ion 1400 mAh battery

      http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_de...

    5. Re:Look at the specs by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

      I'm also confused by all the bashing. This Ubuntu phone is firmly grounded on Moto G levels of price and hardware specifications, and that phone was a major hit. It's not 2010 - you don't *need* a flagship phone for browsing the web or the UI decently. Flagship GPUs are incredibly overspecced for everything except HD gaming, which is not something most people would want to do on their phones, especially since they drain the battery pretty heavily. The screens are also overkill. QHD screens on phones look beautiful, but what's their point? Are you going to watch a movie on a 5" screen? Do they even release movies on QHD? That'd be a heck of a big file. No, you're mostly going to stare at a beautifully rendered UI for brief periods. Even briefier considering those screens tax the battery like mad.

      Rant aside, what I mean is bashing a new phone for having sensible specs just seems weird to me.

  5. Visually an Apple iPhone Clone? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Apple will pitch a fit about the fact that the design of the device is definatly based on the iPhone's visual form. I'm sure there are a zillion "industrial design" patents and copyrights involved...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  6. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Linux always underwhelms..

    Hence the need for extra hardware.

  7. good CHEAP phone by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

    I saw an "underwhelming post" must have been a -1. I was hoping to respond to it.
    some people want this to compete with an apple or samsung.
    Get a life!
    This is a cheap phone that works.
    Is it spectacular? Full featured?
    NO, but it works! too many idiots have no clue. this a a good phone, for the 3rd world.

    1. Re:good CHEAP phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People said the same thing about netbooks.

    2. Re:good CHEAP phone by Kjella · · Score: 1

      A 170 euro/$190 phone is cheaper than a flagship, but certainly not third world phone. For that you have manufacturers taking the cheapest SoC they can find, slapping the AOSP on it (free!) and selling it at cutthroat margins.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re: good CHEAP phone by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Netbooks were brilliant and were hot sellers before Microsoft decided they should run Windows CE instead of Linux (which they could do in the PC market) and laptop makers found people were buying the netbooks instead of the higher priced and higher margin standard laptops. Success killed the Netbook.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    4. Re: good CHEAP phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My first gen netboo, an Asus eeepc 4G, runs either Linux or Windows XP Professional.

      Where did you find these netbooks that run Windows CE? Selling for $8.00 at a Big Lots store somewhere? CE has been dead since long before netbooks even existed, except as an embeded OS in places where nobody cares.

    5. Re: good CHEAP phone by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Netbooks were brilliant and were hot sellers before Microsoft decided they should run Windows CE instead of Linux

      Windows CE? Most of them ran Windows XP or Windows 7 Starter.

    6. Re: good CHEAP phone by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm guessing GP has no idea what they're talking about. I've seen CE-based "laptops", but they pre-date the (original?) EEE netbook, and they didn't generally have x86 CPUs. Not that a netbook strictly needs to be x86 (and some Chromebooks aren't), but most of them were. The Windows ones definitely run NT (XP, WIn7, or more recently Win8.x), though.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    7. Re:good CHEAP phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asus is selling, in the next month or so, an Android Lollipop phone with a 5.5 inch full HD screen and a 64 bit CPU and 2 gigs of RAM for $199.

      Not sure how this phone is going to compete with that.

      Open source is cool and all..but you can run CM, ASOP and if Canonical were smart,Ubunt on most popular Android hardware.
      Setup a proper dual boot for Unbuntu and Android that was a no brainer to install and use, like CM, and that might be smarter than making their own phone and have it be poor value for the dollar.
      It's all about Apps folks......that's the thing that killing Windows Phone and Blackberry.....so making your OS run on as many phones as you can with a dual boot would make more sense to at least get apps going on this.

    8. Re: good CHEAP phone by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I think they probably mean Windows RT, which can be compared to Windows CE in that it is a limited version of windows which has no valid reason to exist.

      Windows CE had no reason to exist from the time when portable devices became powerful enough to run Windows NT, but Microsoft kept selling it right up until they cancelled it. Windows RT never had a reason to exist.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Compared to what? I can't even run modern MacOS or Windows on my old Macbooks and PCs, and Linux runs circles around the old versions of the OSes that came with them by default. Oh wait, you're joking. So hard to tell when people mistake Ubuntu for Linux around here.

  9. Hardware doesnt really matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as software is written well and it wont lag (doubt it).

    1. Re:Hardware doesnt really matter by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2

      As long as software is written well and it wont lag (doubt it).

      Name one phone with good software and crappy hardware that I'd consider using. There isn't one. Good software doesn't make the weak screen or camera good. Processor speed may be over rated, but adequate RAM is certainly not, especially with a low-end processor.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    2. Re:Hardware doesnt really matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with the screen or the camera?

    3. Re:Hardware doesnt really matter by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The screen has crappy resolution - less than 10% more pixels than those old Windows desktops displayed in 800x600.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Hardware doesnt really matter by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      You have your timeframe wrong; SVGA dates from the dos era of 1987 - several years before Windows 3.x

    5. Re:Hardware doesnt really matter by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      funny thing i'm writing a reply to you on a netbook with a 1024 by 600 screen. Physically bigger than the phone screen. Possibly comparable cpu with the n270 in this netbook too. Maybe a little light on ram. However it seems this was a phone designed for android so at least shares the specifications of an android phone.

      The question that intrigues me is will this phone upgrade like a pc or will its first and last operating system be the one that it ships with? Can it switch distro maybe run an arm version of debian ?

      Is it open enough?

      The spec seems reasonable, not stella but its a phone i think the gpu will be up to the job of playing youtube video's and capable enough for web browsing. I'm tired of throwaway android devices that don't get updates it might be ok. The article basically says nothing about the software at all and that is the difference between it running android and running linux.

    6. Re:Hardware doesnt really matter by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      The screen has crappy resolution - less than 10% more pixels than those old Windows desktops displayed in 800x600.

      Except that it's a 4.5" display. For that size of screen, 960x540 is a deluxe resolution.

    7. Re:Hardware doesnt really matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than ~300dpi is useless anyway and is an enormous battery drain and requires a lot more powerful CPU, GPU and a larger memory size. This phone's screen (240dpi) is close to ideal.

    8. Re:Hardware doesnt really matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jolla / sailfish os?
      I have one, I don't think it's impressive hardware, but it runs well.

    9. Re:Hardware doesnt really matter by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      funny thing i'm writing a reply to you on a netbook with a 1024 by 600 screen.

      I have three netbooks, but sadly, any portable PC with less than 1280 lines is dead to me because that's what it takes to run some of the last windows programs I'm actually using. And that program is older than netbooks.

      Similarly, any handheld device on which I'm expected to surf the web with less than 720p resolution is dead to me, because that's not really enough resolution for that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. Bring me a phone... by Kekke · · Score: 2

    That is pure linux inside without any of the big corps "all your data are belong to us" thingys in the background.
    And so that user could actually, really, honestly, decide Him/Her self whats going on under the hood (on software side).....
    Slam it with some top end hardware, I'd be one of the first lining it up.

    Why ohh why, those hardware specs. Since this could have been the phone for geeks. Above specs met, I'd be happy to through in 500 or so €

    1. Re:Bring me a phone... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      What says Ubuntu or Jolla or Firefox isn't that?

      Whatever you can modify it all that much after that I don't know.

      What for a new phone (though they sold the tablet with the old phone at a discounted price)?
      http://www.theverge.com/2015/1...

    2. Re:Bring me a phone... by JoSch1337 · · Score: 1

      For a phone without "all your data are belong to us" thingys in the background check out the neo900: http://neo900.org/

    3. Re:Bring me a phone... by JoSch1337 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While many parts are open source, Sailfish OS is not completely free software and contains parts under a proprietary EULA.

      Firefox OS is mostly open source as well but contains binary android drivers.

      Without free drivers, there will always be a binary blob on your system which can then "phone home" or do other nasty things. Before a phone is created which does not require these blobs, there will be no phone completely running free software.

      The openmoko gta01 and freerunner were attempts at this.

      The gta04 by golden delicious was pretty good too and was able to run without any binary blobs (it was not necessary to install the binary powervr driver to use the phone normally without 3D).

      The next upcoming thing is the neo900: http://neo900.org/

    4. Re:Bring me a phone... by AntiSol · · Score: 1

      Does the GTA04 actually work? like, useable as a phone?

      And when I say "useable" I don't mean "useable" in the same sense that openmoko did, i.e "it might work, as long as you're at home with it plugged in, and you don't want any actual features, because we can't be bothered making the power management work properly, so it has no battery life, or building good software to actually run the phone and give you features, or doing hardware revisions to sort out our horrible design flaws like a display that can't even do 30fps at full resolution. But we have got a few different, incompatible, mutually-exclusive and largely undocumented frameworks we've been working on which will give you themeable widgets and pretty animations (but obviously not at 30fps)..."

      I did enquire about the GTA04, it did look promising, but I couldn't justify spending even more on my freerunner - it was already a very expensive paperweight, and I couldn't run the risk of turning it into a paperweight with a price comparable to a cheap car when what I wanted was a phone.

      The Neo900 does look pretty interesting, assuming that it works. Like a phone.

  11. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linus is so open and complicated it's essentially locked down to hardware haha lol

  12. "5-megapixel lens" by DavidinAla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't have any opinion about this phone — although I've long wondered why they were bothering — but I have to question the technical savvy of a reviewer who refers to a "5-megapixel lens." A sensor is rated in megapixels, but a lens is not.

    1. Re:"5-megapixel lens" by aliquis · · Score: 0

      I saw a board game today which had "10 sided D10":
      https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...

      (Guess one could go creative in dice designs but .. it really is the standard.)

    2. Re:"5-megapixel lens" by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      technically, you are not correct. lenses do have a resolving limit and with good slrs and their lenses, you can see that the better lenses do resolve better on a given sensor. its very possible for your sensor to be 'better' than some cheap kit lens. otoh, its never a problem to have 'too good' of a lens even if the sensor is not high res.

      but we are talking about camera phones, so in that light, I take back everything I just said.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:"5-megapixel lens" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a new type of sensor that uses faceted lens with separate 8 pixel sensor under each facet. Very much like insect eye. Then there is some cleverly written software that puts together the image from all 5 million sensors.

    4. Re:"5-megapixel lens" by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      (Guess one could go creative in dice designs but .. it really is the standard.)

      Even by going "creative", you won't be able to create 10 sided dice... it's a mathematical impossibility as there are only five possible convex regular polyhedra, and none of them have 10 sides.

      The way a D10 is usually made is by using a 20-sided Icosahedron, and have each number occur twice (i.e. there will be 2 faces labeled 3).

    5. Re:"5-megapixel lens" by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      lenses do have a resolving limit

      true, but it is not expressed in Megapixels...

    6. Re:"5-megapixel lens" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have never seen a 20-sided die labelled at 10 sided, but I have seen plenty of actual 10 sided dice. They are pretty common in tabletop roleplaying games:

      http://www.dicecollector.net/J...

    7. Re:"5-megapixel lens" by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      It can be :
      www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Looking-for-new-photo-gear-DxOMark-s-Perceptual-Megapixel-can-help-you

    8. Re:"5-megapixel lens" by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You take a pair of pentagon-based pyramids and join them base to base.

      Hand it in at the door.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:"5-megapixel lens" by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Did that chafe when you pulled it out of your arse?

    10. Re:"5-megapixel lens" by aliquis · · Score: 1

      It's not impossible.
      http://www.starlitcitadel.com/...

      But that is a 10 sided D10.

      What I meant with creative was say roll a cylinder and put 0-9 on it.

      Such a "die" would only have three sides.

      But regular D10s have 10 sides. Of course.

  13. A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While this review of the Ubuntu offering may be "less than glowing", it's still much more positive than this review of Firefox OS. I've never seen any other device or software review filled with so many negatives.

    At this point, Mozilla needs to ask itself, "What chance does Firefox OS really have?"

    I mean, we already have iOS, Android, Windows Phone, Blackberry OS, Tizen, Sailfish, and now Ubuntu Touch, among others. Firefox OS is at the very end of that list in terms of quality, usability, usefulness, and every other practical measure.

    Why is Mozilla wasting so many resources on an 8th place (that's an optimistic ranking, too) mobile OS that is generally disliked by anyone who has actually had to use it?

    I know that Mozilla supporters will toss out some vague claims of "openness" or "freedom" in response, but those are just forms of denial. Or they'll claim it's targeting third-worlders, but even they can do better by buying older Android devices.

    Ubuntu Touch should be the final nail in Firefox OS's coffin, were Mozilla to have any sense. It will clearly never be able to compete. So they're best off cutting their losses, and putting an end to the project. They should redirect the resources toward something that will actually benefit users, like undoing some of the awful changes that have been made to Firefox these past few years, or finally getting Electrolysis to work (after so many years of trying and failing). Regardless of what they do with such resources, they need to admit that these resources are better spent elsewhere, rather than wasted on Firefox OS.

    1. Re:A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

      Please don't compare a piece-of-shit $35 phone, with abysmal specs, running an ancient build (1.3) from March 2014 with a 170euro device.

      Firefox OS 2.1 is decent on Mozilla's developer phone, the Flame.

    2. Re:A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Give it up already. Nobody cares what you think about Mozilla or FirefoxOS except other ACs who want them both to fail because... well, because it's popular to hate on them for not being perfect or something. How about you stop wasting our resources spouting this tirade every chance you get?

    3. Re:A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your response proves that you care what the GP thinks. I think you know that what the GP wrote is true, too, and that's why it bothers you so much. Firefox OS is a miserable failure. Every cent Mozilla spends on it is one less cent available for improving Firefox, the only product of Mozilla's that anyone actually uses.

    4. Re:A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by narcc · · Score: 0

      FirefoxOS is one the most important projects I've seen since ... well ... Firefox.

      Why anyone would want it to fail, or spread FUD this this, is beyond me.

    5. Re: A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would android try to break into a market when iphone and blackberry already dominated it? When android was released it was a complete dog turd of an os on poor hardware that was doing its best to pretend to be blackberry. Then they switched to trying to be iphone and took over.

      Windows phone faced the same argument. Why would anyone want a windows phone when android and iphone already exist? I've used a windows phone, and they're actually alright. The lack of apps isn't a bad thing because everything you need to do is mostly baked in and the android and iphone app stores are 95% junk. (On androids behalf I will not break that down further into malware or insane resource hogs or privacy issues). Most people I know that have them have no problems with them, "they just work". And since most are nokias, they're built like tanks.

      As for why anyone would want something besides android or iphone (or now, windows phone), why not? I don't want a market leader. I want something different. I not only want to keep the greedy bastards at the top on their toes and pushing to be better, I want the end result to be real, actual freedom. I don't want to be tied to a cloud service or a fucking email address or an App Store, which is all really a front for tracking each and everything we're doing anyway to get a few pennies when we do decide to buy something.

      I have an iphone now, but before that I had a Nokia n900. The App Store was filled with people rebuilding things to work, or to make the device better. It could steal passwords off networks, be a web server. People made waze and what's app work on it. Most apps were not pretty but the functionality would blow everything else away. I would happily go appless again if it meant I was part of an amazing community that cared about each other (and the devices).

      TL;DR you don't see the forest for the trees.

    6. Re: A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an iphone now

      I knew it. Despite all the rah-rah-rah cheerleading you folks do for Firefox OS, like most Firefox OS advocates your own phone runs iOS or Android.

      Like the GP said, Firefox OS is a lost cause. Even those who push for the use of Firefox OS can't actually manage to use it because it's so bad!

    7. Re:A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      I think even if FirefoxOS and Ubuntu are failures they could still be important. If they come up with a UI innovation something similar will likely find its way into the more mainstream OSs. I think the problem is they can't likely get a good piece of the rich world market (look at MSs attempts and they were the incumbent), so that leaves the low end. But Android and Win Phone are free for small devices so as far as smartphones are "insperational" devices why would the 3rd world user chose to copy valley snobs but then at the same time go for something different?

      May guess is this is one of the ways MS is going the way of Sun: they'll give away WinPhone to cheap devices and get a large market share of free. Actual high margin users will still stick with Android/iOS and MS will have a growing user base paying $0 (not saying they'll get large but even say 15% of the global market would be a huge growth for them). Sure they can sell apps into that larger market share but how big is the apps budget for someone living in Ivory Coast?

    8. Re:A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      important to who and why and why is it more important than the other open(even all gpl even) phone projects? it's only an important project for mozilla and let's face it nobody of the users asked for it. if there's anything I want from mozilla it's another phoenix now that they've fucked around with firefox enough.

      nobody really cares about it. I'm aware of it, as I'm a mobile developer and smartphone "professional" going back more than 10 years, but heck, but most of the mobile developers I know don't even know it exists. it's basically just as obscure as say openmoko neo 1973 to most it professionals and hobbyists.

      that and the users even being unaware of what it runs, it being in the segment it is in. try to build brand with that...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just your own selfish view. Once you leave your country and visit places that want smartphones, but can't afford our prices, you start to realize just how high-handed and impractical all those "just buy a cheap droid" arguments really are. Competition in that space is just as vital as competition is in the first world. Basically, just because some people don't want things Mozilla are working on doesn't mean NOBODY wants them. It's the height of arrogance to stick to that notion, and it's highly tiresome to see that illogic trotted out every since time there's a chance to bash Mozilla for not just doing precisely what certain people wish they would.

    10. Re:A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I mean, we already have iOS, Android, Windows Phone, Blackberry OS, Tizen, Sailfish, and now Ubuntu Touch, among others. Firefox OS is at the very end of that list in terms of quality, usability, usefulness, and every other practical measure.

      Not just this, let's consider a few things. Why would one buy a smartphone, as opposed to a dumb phone running some sort of Symbian or the other? Only reason - the apps. Even the old dumb phones could do some web-browsing, and one wouldn't need a smart phone for that. But the apps totally transform one's cellphone experience, and that's here to stay.

      Well, and herein lies the rub. Most of the apps one would be interested in are implemented properly in iOS first, and then Android: anything else is usually an afterthought. Like most of the apps on the Windows Phone are web wrappers, and the ones that are implemented are usually poor in comparison to the first 2. So none of the others are gonna get too many native apps, and the ones that decide to run Android apps in some form - Tizen, Sailfish, and Ubuntu Touch - how exactly will they get access to the Play store? That one is clearly Google's.

      Now, if these players - Tizen, Sailfish and Ubuntu Touch are playing for dumb phones, fine, but then their requirements have to be far lower than that of Android. Maybe the BQ is a good target towards that market, but even there, the target people (namely geezers who can't handle a phone w/o buttons) will have enough issues w/ a touchscreen.

    11. Re:A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by narcc · · Score: 1

      You're too short-sighted. There are positives for you as well, not just the developing world.

      See, Mozilla is pushing an open standard app package that other platforms can implement, built completely on existing open standards. That means easy cross-platform mobile apps additional distribution options for developers, For smaller platforms, it means a ready-set of apps for their new platform before launch. Competition in the mobile space for consumers!

    12. Re:A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot tizen....
      http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/samsung-z1-review-the-first-tizen-smartphone-still-feels-like-plan-b/

      looks to be yet another phail of course that depends on how long Samsung is willing to throw money at it and IF they can ever come up with anything better...

    13. Re:A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox has become so awful recently, to have that crashy junk for a phone would be pure hell. Before they make a phone, maybe firefox should try to make a browser that doesn't' suck.

    14. Re: A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm sure you don't like Firefox either. I wonder how hard I would need to dig into your history to find posts about how you left Firefox and switched to chrome and lived happily ever after.

      Most of the "I don't see the point of Firefox os" crowd is also part of the "I don't see the point of the Firefox browser" crowd.

      Google is bae.

    15. Re: A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a mobile developer, you're the last person I would expect to know.

      Your job description is to be obsessed with android and iPhones development minutiae, because that is what puts bread on your table. Likewise, you would rather keep doing what you know so you support those systems.

      You're exactly the type of person to ask "why? I don't see the point"

    16. Re: A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by narcc · · Score: 1

      Right now, I have a BlackBerry and a FirefoxOS Phone. Not just any FirefoxOS phone, mind you, but the original craptastic ZTE Open. It's still better than the last Android I had. Even running an antique build (1.2) on third-rate hardware, it hasn't crashed on me once.

      Give me higher specs and a US release and I'll switch over permanently, not just when traveling.

      Out of morbid curiosity, why do you think it's "unusable". (I can actually safely switch tasks and close apps in FXOS, which Android still hasn't quite worked out. It's always a gamble on Android. Will my app stay up while I check this notification or will it close? Is it worth the risk? That alone makes it more usable than Android.)

    17. Re: A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you aware that a Linux phone can make use of pretty much any library that full blown desktop Linux has? Everything that is reverse engineered can be worked on.

      Or you could hope that the maker of that app for your random device still supports the random device next year.

      Once someone adds a library in Linux it pretty much works unless they change the protocols just to be jerks.

    18. Re: A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Except that Linux hardly has what it needs to make a platform stand on its own. For the mobile ecosystem, the standard is Android, not desktop Linux. So all the me-too Linux competitors for mobile platforms - FireFox OS, Tizen, Sailfish, Web OS, et al - all would be pretty worthless if they don't have a way to run Android apps, and not just that, but get Android apps as well. A phone would have to run more than just FireFox/Chrome, Thunderbird, LibreOffice and a few games.

    19. Re: A more positive review than Firefox OS got. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, AC, are apparently exactly the type of person to shit all over the planet and not give a fuck if anybody else survives. Some of us, unlike you, do care a bit about things bigger than just ourselves.

  14. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's all about the hardware. BlackBerry's latest phones give you both android and qnx in one package. Since the hardware ain't "hot" it still doesn't move them up in the phone world. :(

  15. slow processor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are complaining about a 1.3 GHz processor? My ZTE Valet is slower. The display is 320 x 480 pixels (3.5 inches.), internal storage is 4 GB with 2 GB available to me, 512 MB of RAM. My phone only has one camera, I think. You don't see me complaining.

  16. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I'd give you points for making me reply, but it's not because your troll succeeded. I just want to know what the hell you mean?

  17. Darn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh, underpowered phone... now it can be irrelevant before it even hits the market.

    1. Re: Darn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the Atari 600. I owned once, because a liquidator was selling them for about $20. This was back when a Commodore 64 was about $200 and an XT clone (8088 processor at 4.77 MHz and all 640K, no hard drive) was a $1500 machine. The Atari 600 was abandoned by Atari before any peripherals or software was created for it.

      What I am saying is that this phone is dead on arrival. Crates of them will end up recycled in their sealed original packaging eventually.

  18. good CHEAP phone by Joshua+Fan · · Score: 1

    The article talks about their sales tactic, artificial exclusivity in Europe, which makes it likely that they are aiming for the tech enthusiast crowd.

  19. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol... You mean how people will need to constantly search the internet for scripts and workarounds to get things to work half of the time? Lol. Yeah right. I've tried to care about Linux for 15 years now and it's too much of a commitment to fixing everything yourself.

  20. Haters gonna Hate... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    I will buy one. My question is it going to be EASY to purchase? It's at a price point that is trivial and if Ubuntu runs on it decently, then I will mess with it. But I tried ubuntu on the Nexus 4 and it was unholy horrible and chunky, so I cant see this lesser phone being better.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Haters gonna Hate... by cbhacking · · Score: 0

      According to TFA, it's not really "Ubuntu" in the sense that you might install on a phone with an unlocked bootloader. It's a heavily customized Android image. I don't doubt there's some Canonical-developed code that it has in common with the desktop Ubuntu bot not with either AOSP or, say, RHEL... but it's probably not the Ubuntu you tried on your Nexus 4.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    2. Re:Haters gonna Hate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the hardware is recycled from an old android phone, not the software

    3. Re:Haters gonna Hate... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Mir uses Android drivers via libhybris, and possibly reuses other parts of aosp to bootstrap the platform

  21. Faggy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The phone is fine. If you're comparing it to the S5, but you dont NEED an S5, then you're just a bitch.

    1. Re: Faggy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitches. Bitches everywhere.

  22. That was a review? by Rhys · · Score: 2

    I expected comments from someone who has, you know, maybe touched the device at least once.

    I'm not enamored with the phablet trend. I like my Galaxy Nexus, its about the idea size to me. Something smaller with touch could be exciting. I don't need a billion pixels on the phone, but it needs to have some grunt and a good way to get a big keyboard, mouse, and monitor attached.

    --
    Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
  23. they skipped firefox os by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why wasn't firefox os listed under smart phone platforms. It is not awesome but it is an alternative that is out there.

  24. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by adolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps better than you think, if it's natively-compiled code instead of some Java-esque thing.

  25. sadly I rtfa by hilather · · Score: 4, Informative

    And it doesn't say much of anything other than rambling off hardware specs. Is this what qualifies as a review these days?

    1. Re:sadly I rtfa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no where does it saw its a review numbnuts

  26. Who cares? it's Canonical by s.petry · · Score: 1, Informative

    Sorry, but "Linux" from Canonical is not something I'll willingly use even (and perhaps especially) on a phone. Oh, I know I know.. after they got caught installing spyware they completely changed.. or so they say.

    Look, if I had time to dig I may change my tune. I don't, and they lost my trust. Not that I was ever a user of Ubuntu, but up until they got caught I was not against them either.. thinking that getting more people into Linux was a good thing and they made it easier.

    yeah yeah.. all of them other guys are bad too. At least I know what to do to protect myself a bit from those other guys.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Who cares? it's Canonical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All ubuntu did was forward your searches to other search engines, in a feature that was easy to disable.

      Android tracks and records everything, everything you do with your phone, every search you lookup on the phone, every location you go with the phone. Google's business model hinges on collecting that data and selling it. They ARE the evil of privacy.

      I don't think it's possible to do worse, even if Canonical wanted to

    2. Re:Who cares? it's Canonical by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Well I don't use Android either, for exactly the reasons you state. Not that I think Apple is that much better. That said, I don't use Siri and know how to disable location services and other information that makes it easy. Yup, IPs are still track-able as is tower information but those are supposed to require warrants (yes, I know better but at least I have the law on my side).

      Be honest about what Canonical was doing. Without any user knowledge they were forwarding _ALL_ of your searches to Amazon, even what should have been a local search (locate). Key in on that part "Without any user knowledge" and you see the big problem with _on_by_default_ "Lens". Then note the clear lack of information in Release notes about what this was and how it worked.

      I don't often find RMS to be agreeable, but when he told people to all out boycott Ubuntu/Canonical I had a rare moment of agreement.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  27. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

    If it takes too long to boot, to switch appications, to accept input, has too short a battery life, or cannot keep with simple video applications due to hardware limitations, the architectural fanboys are not going to be enough of a market to keep it in business. Small sales won't bring down the cost of manufacturing to compete.

  28. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SystemD is basically the solution here.

  29. Mobile will be a HUGE lesson for open source/Linux by recharged95 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obviously Ubuntu devs thought the biggest selling point for this phone was that it was running Ubuntu/linux.

    We've been here before, it was called OpenMoko. Though that project blazed the trails for ARM-based Linux, it never got off the ground due to the lack of driver support (the chipset guys knew it) and underwhelming h/w. Once an openmoko developer, and seeing how ARM linux has evolved, we really haven't progress much aside from getting driver support and Android (though the biggest mobile player, has an OS that runs less efficient than iOS, BB, WP7).

    I'm starting to believe that Linux has finally hit a limit--it excels in the business (server, routers, robots). Forget the direct-to-consumer space--it's not gonna happen, and Ubuntu phone sort of solidifies it w/all the hype that came with it. Hi, FreeRunner 2....

  30. shit CHEAP phone by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    some people want this to compete with an apple or samsung.

    How about comparing it to a Motorola? It's no cheaper than a Moto G, which is twice the phone it is.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  31. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Perhaps better than you think, if it's natively-compiled code instead of some Java-esque thing.

    Right, just like how iOS apps written in Objective C and compiled for the CPU core in the phone and not for a VM are faster than Android apps. Except they aren't.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  32. Open source drivers, root access ? by bug1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do we get all the source code ?
    Are they happy for people to make custom images for it ?

    1. Re:Open source drivers, root access ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course NOT!

  33. Re: Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Android's ART runtime compiles apps to native code. They literally become ELF files, just like every other executable on Linux. The Dalvik format that apps are distributed in is now serving a similar purpose to the LLVM IR used internally by Apple's compiler.

  34. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has nothing to do with native code. If you think it is, you lack the knowledge on the subject necessary to comment on it.

  35. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You mean how people will need to constantly search the internet for scripts and workarounds to get things to work half of the time?"

    Sounds just like half the functionality in Windows.

  36. nobody wanted to pay for canonicals development co by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Interesting

    well were it open enough then it wouldn't be a big problem to port over dalvik for some android action. it's probably possible. with the current one as well.

    besides, the phone HAS apps. it's just that they decided to focus more on HOMESCREEN WIDGETS.

    the fucking "cards" are HOMESCREEN WIDGETS on limited home screen. limited, how so? their shape and positions are limited, so the copped out. cheaper and faster to make the home screen like that

    besides all that, you can get pretty decent android phones for sub 100$ now with specs about the same - and you get to run android apps AND you get to run custom homescreens AND you get to read your news, control your music playback and everything else from the homescreen if you really want to, except you get more control over how the homescreens are laid out(you could make one of the homescreen pages a "music" page, one a "news" page and so forth).

    besides, if the cards concept as they call it is any good you'll have it in android next week. fuck, the material design guidelines are pretty much "material" cards too(that's the new android recommended ui paradigmschimshshit). I wouldn't be so as surprised to go to android market today and finding some homescreen replacement or another that does the same thing.

    furthermore, you can make android apps in qml/qt as well! in fact, it's much less cumbersome method than doind native android(you need to do some android shims only for very few native api's that most apps don't need anyways and it's outweighted by the ease of integrating c++ code into your qt/qml projects vs. native android using ndk).

    in short, the ubuntu guys are putting a lot of spindoctoring and this is a completely different much cheaper to achieve cop out than the original ubuntu phone and has almost nothing to do with the original ubuntu phone concept, which at least had the aspect of running desktop ubuntu if you wanted when connected to something! by the way, you can get ubuntu for android on any friggin android phone! or debian for android as well for that matter!

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  37. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Why not?

  38. Re:nobody wanted to pay for canonicals development by aliquis · · Score: 1

    I don't really care if it have others.
    And I don't necessarily care for Dalvik VM either.

    What I meant was actual Android. So whatever the OS was good/flopped or not the phone would so to speak had been a no-risk purchase (Maybe they don't want to spend that time and effort moving over Android though.)

    I guess Dalvik is better than nothing. I don't know how good it's on the Jolla phone.

    Nokias MeeGo and last Symbian phones had USB OTG and MHL too. I didn't really see that as all that interesting (sure Ubuntu would have better desktop software than Symbian.)

    I wonder where Microsoft will be in all of this (using shared OS foundation won't it?), the very likely competition from them vs Steam kinda have materialized in something real with Xbox for Windows 10.

  39. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by jones_supa · · Score: 1, Informative

    Compared to what? I can't even run modern MacOS or Windows on my old Macbooks and PCs, and Linux runs circles around the old versions of the OSes that came with them by default. Oh wait, you're joking. So hard to tell when people mistake Ubuntu for Linux around here.

    Just compared the latest preview version of Elementary OS and the latest preview version of Windows 10 on a notebook with C1D and GMA950.

    Elementary OS had horrible tearing, choppy and slow animations, and popped up a "System problem detected" right on the first boot.

    Windows 10 worked fully smoothly with all the bells and whistles.

    Linux is not the way to breathe life into an old computer anymore. That time was 15 years ago. These days you can make an old PC run Linux fast only by using a simple window manager and turning off all the desktop effects. Even then you would be left dealing with loads of bugs everywhere.

  40. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    True, but in Slashdot you're supposed to be a mindless zombie who automatically hates everything SystemD-related.

  41. y so surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an Ubuntu phone. What did you expect? A rockstar phone that would blow all Apple, Microsoft, and Android products away while being affordable / not costing an arm and a leg for an upper class person? If there were a good and profitable reason to do this, then it would be a hit and this wouldn't be a problem. Oh wait, don't they have Android for that?

    tsh

  42. Re: nobody wanted to pay for canonicals developmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and you can get any of those apps for doing things like reading news to want access to your contact info and auto start privileges because those are absolutely necessary for an app that fetches small pieces of text from an RSS feed!

    I love android! A++++ would drain battery again!

  43. Re: Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the soft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine how much better it would be if android had decided to just improve Linux rather than try to fork Linux, build a weird user vm layer on top, then decide they should rejoin the real Linux tree and then later decide to have their OS still use the vm layer but convert apps back to native code. I imagine their next move being "y'know this vm sandbox isn't a great idea we've lost control completely. Let's ditch the vm for the os layer"

    You can complain about ubuntu phones being a slow start but at least they're starting in the right place.

  44. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Why not?

    Ask Apple.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  45. Re:Mobile will be a HUGE lesson for open source/Li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The latest openmoko is a community mod on the GTA-04 called the Neo900 and should be available soon. The OSS porting of closed source components of Maemo5 and the large(useful) app collection used in the Nokia N900 is progressing. The prototype can already run Android and the other OSS phone OSs. It will switch from the OpenMoko 1-4 puck shape to using the housing and screen from the N900 with a big hardware, CPU, and memory upgrade but retaining the hardware keyboard. http://neo900.org/

  46. Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The fact that Ubuntu Touch can run on low-spec hardware is a great thing which also saves consumers a lot of money when buying new phones... Give it time and an all singing all powerful phone will appear with Ubu Touch pre-loaded...

  47. Phones are overpriced by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 1

    If the Ubuntu phone isn't too overpriced for its hardware, it's fine.

    I still don't understand why anyone who isn't wealthy would pay $1000 for an iPhone.

    Ok, I'm poor so I have a small, cheap samsung. For 1/6th the cost of an iPhone it runs Android and does everything just fine with a tiny screen and crumby cameras.

    It's my music source 100% of the time.

  48. Specs don't matter that much anymore by heldal · · Score: 2

    Articles like these are absolutely worthless. Sure, it's always interesting to see some numbers, but what matters is how it works. Saying the entire phone is bad purely based on its technical specifications says a lot about the reviewer. Quote: "[The Ubuntu phone is] ... a phone that is so middle of the road it could be arrested for loitering". Is this journalism?

    Can anybody please tell my how such an article is able to reach the Slashdot front page?

  49. Re: Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    System d is pretty much just trying to turn Linux into Windows.

    There. I said it.

  50. Re: Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the soft by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

    Don't underestimate the choice of programming language for Android's success - Java has a huge developer base (and a history with J2ME).

    i.e. Apple has enough of a cult following with objective-c but would the Play app model have succeeded if the technology had been C++ or open source darling python?

  51. Nexus 4 vs. BQ by slashfrog.leg · · Score: 1

    Here's a comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  52. It was supposed to be a Real Computer by blind+biker · · Score: 2

    running a Big Boy's OS. You know, a device that gives its user a lot of freedom and power. A phone that could be connected to a keyboard and monitor to do the same or similar things my 6 year old desktop can do.
    These specs are not a good match for that vision. I can live with the poor resolution, the mid-range camera and the relatively small screen size (though I'm definitely a fan of phablets). The slow CPU and limited amount of RAM are killers, though, and not in the good sense of the word.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  53. Bummer by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Instead of offering 3 different models of a phone based on the memory it contains, I'd prefer an option for faster processors.

    It's no longer the century of the fruitbat, we live in the centrury of streaming, we don't give a crap about memory.

  54. Re:Mobile will be a HUGE lesson for open source/Li by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

    I'm starting to believe that Linux has finally hit a limit--it excels in the business (server, routers, robots). Forget the direct-to-consumer space--it's not gonna happen, and Ubuntu phone sort of solidifies it w/all the hype that came with it. Hi, FreeRunner 2....

    Linux does fine in direct to consumer space, actually.

    You just have to abandon the notion of "a Linux box" as acting how Linux does on the server and other things you know and love.

    Replace the upper level guts with something more reasonable and you know, Linux is popular. A stunningly large number of devices run Linux in consumer devices, and Android powers a lot of phones. The thing in common is that the Linux core is hidden behind a pile of custom code that hides its nature because it has to.

    Things like SystemD, NetworkManager, PulseAudio and other big blob programs are attempts to get "regular" Linux to behave more like how consumers expect their devices to behave. Which are incredibly complex behavior that can't just be tied together with a bunch of shell scripts.

    Just think how basic operations are done on Android. It's obvious Linux can do them, since Android can do it, but damn is it hard to get desktop Linux to behave like Android.

  55. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

    Elementary OS had horrible tearing, choppy and slow animations, and popped up a "System problem detected" right on the first boot.

    Uh ... my guess would be ElementaryOS somehow didn't auto-detect your graphics card right and you were using X with VESA. That would do that. I just set up a Linux laptop with an Intel graphics card. Worked great; VA-API allows hardware-accelerated 1080i H264 video, with deinterlacing, with no tearing. I'm sure it could handle the 10 or so polygons used for desktop effects without problem.

    Linux is not the way to breathe life into an old computer anymore. That time was 15 years ago. These days you can make an old PC run Linux fast only by using a simple window manager and turning off all the desktop effects. Even then you would be left dealing with loads of bugs everywhere.

    Dude, Linux runs on the Raspberry Pi. In the last few years I set up Linux on a system with a 700MHz Celeron and 256MB RAM. I've purchased a Linux VM with 128MB of "virtual" RAM. It'll run.

    Use XFCE on old hardware. And new hardware; it's the current king of traditional desktop interfaces in the window manager world.

    GNOME, KDE, and the others have lost their minds. That doesn't mean you have to drink the kool-aid, too.

    Re bugs, my experience has been Linux is pretty bug-free. The only thing I'm running into trouble with is X deciding to segfault every week or so on my work machine. Annoying as fuck, but at least I can restart it without restarting the whole computer. It seems to be fixed in the last update, too, though it hasn't been long enough. And, I'm running Slackware-current, which is technically a beta distro though it's usually pretty stable.

    --
    vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
  56. Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Recently, I heard about this new Ubuntu OS phone called Canonical BQ Aquaris E4.5 Ubuntu Edition Smartphone Launched at $ 190 http://wp.me/p5143A-1jJ

  57. Re:Mobile will be a HUGE lesson for open source/Li by virens · · Score: 1

    Indeed, this spectacular failure MUST be a lesson for those opensource yahoos and pottering-like primadonnas. However, I'm not sure if they learn this lesson.

    The biggest problems with Linux phones are not specs, or drivers, or hardware, but:

    1. UI polish. I bough that horrible piece of sh%t called Nokia N800. The UI sucked like an old Vietnamese prostitute, pardon me. And this was not the worst one: NeoFree Runner anyone?! The phone where you needed to use terminal to send SMS? Who the **** will buy this piece of crap? No one, and this is why Ubuntu phones will be collecting dust on shelves (I've been saying this for years).

    2. User Applications. You hear me, Canonical morons? I said USER application! No, WhireShark, ssh, and gcc are not for a regular user. The apps must do something useful, and do it well. No, crashing every 2 minutes is not acceptable (unlike your desktop trash). Because you competing with Android and iOS, you should be at least on par.

    3. Apps installation process. God forbid you messing with debian-style repositories - this is a sure path to nightmarish demise of the whole platform. No dependencies, no fuss, no repos. AppStore was a great invention, and is perfect for mobile devices (app sideloading in Android is good, I hope they will not remove this feature).

    In short: Ubuntu phone (just like every other opensource phone) is a failure by design. This is because UI is always an after-though of unpaid designer wannabies, apps are half-baked crap that crashes every time you tap in a wrong place, and the whole installation process (go type a debian repository address on a tiny screen!) is usually typical Linux distro fiasco. Add to this pile an outdated hardware, stupid bugs (we don't have QA - our users will do this for free!), miniscule number of apps, low built quality, and non-existent marketing - and there you go! Opensource fiasco of the Year!

  58. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Uh ... my guess would be ElementaryOS somehow didn't auto-detect your graphics card right and you were using X with VESA.

    I verified that and it is properly using the official Intel graphics driver.

    Dude, Linux runs on the Raspberry Pi.

    The desktop is quite crusty on R-Pi too. It's fine for embedded/server use though, and I do not have complaints about those scenarios. It will be interesting to see how Windows 10 performs on R-Pi 2. :)

    Use XFCE on old hardware. And new hardware; it's the current king of traditional desktop interfaces in the window manager world.

    XFCE hasn't seen a new release in almost 3 years, the compositor tears (because it is based on XRender), and it does not have any desktop effects. Windows on the same hardware runs cool zoom animations and translucency without a hitch. Other than that, XFCE seems relatively glitch-free, so I agree that it's one of the best choices.

    Re bugs, my experience has been Linux is pretty bug-free. The only thing I'm running into trouble with is X deciding to segfault every week or so on my work machine.

    Now you are just cheerleading. :) You can't realistically say that your experience is "pretty bug-free" if X (in practice: whole desktop) crashes roughly weekly.

  59. WTF? by Kludge · · Score: 1

    we really haven't progress much aside from getting driver support and Android (though the biggest mobile player, has an OS that runs less efficient than iOS, BB, WP7).

    WTF? Well, Android is Linux, and well, it is the biggest mobile player, but... Linux will never amount to anything.
    Who modded up this shit?

    1. Re:WTF? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      When people say Linux they mean GNU/Linux. Most people dont call it GNU Linux because it give Stallmen too much credit. But they never really came down to a better name.
      Linux is the kernel. GNU/Linux is the operating system. Ubuntu is the distribution.
      Linux is the kernel. Android is the operating system. The vendor provides the distribution.
      GNU/Linux has trouble getting into the end user space. Mostly due to the community belief in GNU licensing, where companies are not on board with, as they want to make money off of selling software, not consulting services (there software is too easy to use), not distributing (a download isn't that much work), they may be too specialized to get enough donations to keep running.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably the same people who "modded up" your "shit," i.e. you have multiple accounts to boost your own karma because otherwise nobody would get to read your obvious troll posts.

    3. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Well, Android is Linux, and well, it is the biggest mobile player, but... Linux will never amount to anything.

      If Android switched to BSD or some other Unix underneath, no one would give a shit as long as all the apps kept working. The fact that it's Linux underneath currently is worth exactly nothing.

      >Who modded up this shit?

      People with better reading comprehension than you apparently.

    4. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When people say Linux they mean GNU/Linux. Most people dont call it GNU Linux because it give Stallmen too much credit. But they never really came down to a better name.

      You are dead wrong.

      It is not properly called GNU/Linux because Linus and the Linux foundation don't own the trademark for GNU. And because if you want to have your software and GNUXXX you need to assign your copyright to the FSF. That's why we had X-Emacs and Emacs.

      Stallman also made his rebranding attempt before Linus had a trademark on Linux. It it had caught on, Stallman and the FSF might very well be the ones who own the Linux trademark instead of Linus/Linux Foundation.

  60. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by AntiSol · · Score: 1

    Linux is not the way to breathe life into an old computer anymore.

    XFCE hasn't seen a new release in almost 3 years, the compositor tears (because it is based on XRender), and it does not have any desktop effects.

    Um, just so we're clear, you're saying that you want desktop effects on an old machine - Linux is crap because it can't make your old computer do all the things that your new computer can do?

    I feel your pain - I've been trying to get Call Of Duty running on my EGA 386SX25 with 4MB RAM for weeks now, and Microsoft wouldn't even assist me with installing windows 7. They keep talking about some "minimum requirements" crap. All I want to do is breathe new life into this old hardware, and they're completely unhelpful. I think it's a conspiracy to make me buy new hardware. Windows really is the worst OS ever.

    I use XFCE on all my machines, including my beefy multi-core nvidia-powered gaming rig which could easily run your bells-and-whistles environment. It's fantastic on a high-end machine - so fast! I had tearing too on that machine (but not on my intel-powered laptop), for about 15 minutes. Did you try typing 'xfce [graphics card model] tearing' into a search engine?

    I just had a really "out there" thought: maybe XFCE hasn't had a new release recently because it's not broken and therefore doesn't need fixing?

  61. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by AntiSol · · Score: 1

    Now you are just cheerleading. :) You can't realistically say that your experience is "pretty bug-free" if X (in practice: whole desktop) crashes roughly weekly.

    I am forced to agree with this.

    But here's my experience: I can't remember the last time I restarted a machine or my window manager. I don't think it was this year. I just ran 'uptime' on all my machines, and I certainly haven't rebooted this year.

  62. Re: Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the soft by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    // to do: Quip about systemd goes here

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  63. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Um, just so we're clear, you're saying that you want desktop effects on an old machine - Linux is crap because it can't make your old computer do all the things that your new computer can do?

    Yes, exactly. Because somehow Windows manages to do it just fine.

  64. Open Source triumphs again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where will the innovative world of open source development lead us next?! Oh, just look at an Apple press release from 5 years ago to see...

  65. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >Except they aren't.

    Actually, in many cases they are. Why does Android music software suck so bad? Because there is a horrible latency between touching the screen and having your software instrument play music. Remember how annoying playing quake with a high ping was in Quake back in the day? Now imagine playing a synthesizer with that latency. Welcome to the world of suck that is Android.

  66. Re:Mobile will be a HUGE lesson for open source/Li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SystemD, NetworkManager, PulseAudio

    Linux does fine in direct to consumer space, actually

    top kek

  67. Silicon Anode Battery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised not one single person here has mentioned that we haven't heard a peep if or not the new silicon anode battery they touted in the original crowd funding campaign would be included or not.

  68. Re:Mobile will be a HUGE lesson for open source/Li by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm starting to believe that Linux has finally hit a limit--it excels in the business (server, routers, robots). Forget the direct-to-consumer space--it's not gonna happen,

    We have it, and it's called Android. It has an even more radical departure of an interface and userland than Ubuntu, proving that this is not the problem with Ubuntu's phone effort — the problem is that theirs sucks. Shuttleworth's vision of Linux is a dumb one, coated with candy but devoid of function. Android is candy-coated for easy swallowing, yes, but it actually does stuff. And if you really want to, you can run pretty much any Linux software you want which is available for your architecture. You can get an X server, and wayland will use android drivers. So in just what way do you justify not calling Android linux?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  69. Re:Mobile will be a HUGE lesson for open source/Li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the end, none of those things do the job in question "right" at all. Closest one is NetworkManager, which now mostly does the right things (How long did THAT take? And that's HONESTLY not that complex...). PulseAudio injects problematic latencies that don't need to be there for gaming and is still coming at it from wrongheaded notions of what needed and needs to be done in that space. We won't get into the fact that systemd's not the answer by several fronts, including having no graceful way to get info out of it when it breaks- mainly because it'd be a very, very long rant backed up by facts.

    Yes, we need these things. Execution of them has been VERY poor indeed, though. Not because of the complexity. We seem to have NetworkManager largely doing it's job right- it's the others...and they have a common denominator.

    The system architect for both of them. We need the things done- just now HOW they're getting done. Pottering's the wrong person for this gig on several fronts- this needs to be mission critical level code and he doesn't have a single clue, based on what he's shown up to this point, of how to actually DO that sort of thing. He fails, basically, at executing PulseAudio (Partly because it IS difficult, partly because his notions about what needed to be done there were wrong), moves to things like avahi, fails at that in a similar manner, and then moves on to ever greater disasters like systemd's panning out to be. We need something like systemd. We don't need what's getting DONE in that form though.

    Why *ANYONE* defends or supports this man or Kay is beyond me. Neither of them are quality developers. They got there mainly by politics as best as I can tell. Like a PHB, they keep getting promoted to the level of their incompetence in my not so humble opinion.

  70. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Use XFCE on old hardware.

    Ugh, XFCE. Even LXDE is better, and it's lighter, too. But both have absolute shit file managers.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  71. Re:Mobile will be a HUGE lesson for open source/Li by maestroX · · Score: 1

    If only BBQ opened QNX / blackberry os to be a competitor instead of a dead end road.

  72. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, yes, more snarky hipster comments from the peanut gallery about how Xfce sucks, without actually caring to substantiate why. I can't wait for your inevitable crap-slinging when the new Xfce comes out.

  73. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

    The desktop is quite crusty on R-Pi too. It's fine for embedded/server use though, and I do not have complaints about those scenarios. It will be interesting to see how Windows 10 performs on R-Pi 2. :)

    Umm ... R-Pi 2 is still ARM, right? So, wouldn't the answer be, "not at all, because MS is bailing out of ARM"? They discontinued the ARM-based Surface recently.

    I verified that and it is properly using the official Intel graphics driver.

    Weird. Have you checked what glxinfo says? I think it's possible for OpenGL to be software rendering even if the driver isn't VESA in certain broken setups. Another good step would be to try Knoppix on it, to see if it's a distro-specific issue or not. I used Knoppix recently on some random computers with Intel drivers and desktop effects worked fine.

    XFCE hasn't seen a new release in almost 3 years, the compositor tears (because it is based on XRender), and it does not have any desktop effects. Windows on the same hardware runs cool zoom animations and translucency without a hitch. Other than that, XFCE seems relatively glitch-free, so I agree that it's one of the best choices.

    No, they haven't had a major release recently, but XFCE is definitely still maintained. It's possible to get Compiz to work with XFCE, but, like sibling poster suggests, I would just not use desktop effects if they're not working. I'm sure I could get them working if I really tried, but I'm not using desktop effects on any of my machines. They're a novelty item that wears off quickly.

    Now you are just cheerleading. :) You can't realistically say that your experience is "pretty bug-free" if X (in practice: whole desktop) crashes roughly weekly.

    One machine out of six, man :) And I was using a beta distro, and I think it might be fixed now. I actually think it's one screensaver that causes or caused it, but I don't know which one because xscreensaver uses a random one each time it starts. It could also be a hardware issue with the machine, though I doubt it.

    --
    vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
  74. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

    Like I said: one machine out of six, and I'm using a beta distro.

    Like you, I typically only reboot when the power goes out.

    --
    vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
  75. Re: Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well; the "Linus" app is so special it's implemented on a one of unique computing system that is used by no other software in the world. Not only that, apparently there's no source code whatsoever. They approached the original developers, the so called "parents" of the system, but not only did they refused to reproduce it, they laughed in the face of the project manager "don't you think we did our share producing one of him". Unfortunately the project manager was incompetent and Finns are difficult to blackmail so it ended there.

  76. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by jma05 · · Score: 1

    15 years ago, most distros did not work out of the box on most *current* hardware then. The common quip in forums then was: "Oh, you did not check all the hardware for Linux compatibility before you bought it? It's your fault then". Then we got spoilt by Ubuntu which worked out of the box on most hardware.

    Desktop effects did not work on most computers for many years or at least made the desktop unstable after some use.

    I think you are pining for a past that never was. You *could* make old hardware work with Linux, but only with some effort. You always toned down your fancy desktops when running on old hardware. If you want to make old hardware work, try a stable, mainstream distro like Debian or Ubuntu, not some "preview" distro. For that old hardware, I'd go with Lubuntu desktop.

  77. Fail troll is fail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who's got numbnuts?
     

    no where does it saw

  78. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    1 GB of RAM is not that bad for a phone.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  79. I dont know if the phone is that underwhelming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before you all get your panties in a Tiz,
    It's probably more likely that the Ubuntu will be aproaching many manufacturers. One of the companies that they were in talks with was Meizu
    And they were looking to put the the Ubuntu touch OS on their Meizu MX5. Which is a pretty top of the line phone, even by the exacting standards of slashdotters

  80. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by AntiSol · · Score: 1

    Oh, I get it, you were being sarcastic. Very funny!

    Damn this intarweb and it's lack of intonation and body language.

  81. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    15 years ago, most distros did not work out of the box on most *current* hardware then.

    That is not the point here. Although I agree that hardware support is these days very good in Linux. It does not cause big problems for me.

    The point is that in relation to Windows, today Linux is generally not "significantly more lightweight" like it was in the past. All those people running Xfce can run full modern Windows 10 on the same machines without any problems. I'm not saying that they would necessarily want to, but perfomance-wise it would work fine.

  82. ZTE Open by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even more shitty hardware for Firefox OS launch. The touchscreen was very, very bad. Came with FFOS 1.0, hardware was abandoned 0.2 versions later.

  83. looks great by sad_ · · Score: 1

    i'm looking at this phone, and the only thing that is so-so is the screen resolution.
    All other things just look fine, 1.3Ghz quad core, 1Gb ram, 8Gb storage (expandable), ... and running a real linux, all for less then 200 euro.
    What is not to like? I'm buying this.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  84. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by jma05 · · Score: 1

    Yes, but I would argue that Windows was not heavy even back then. In my tests, XP consumed a little less than 60 MB of RAM with unnecessary services turned off. In 2000, Linux certainly consumed less than that, but mainstream Linux desktops got more heavy than that fairly quickly. Most average Windows users had sluggish desktops because they had too many programs that put themselves in startup, rather than with the Win OS itself being bloated or sluggish. Vista did become a bloat, which was an exception rather than the norm. Win 7 quickly corrected that.

    I am not arguing with the point that Linux can be as bloated as Windows or more. My KDE desktop is certainly not more responsive than my Windows boot. I am just saying that this is not a new thing.

    And it was always the case that regardless of how much better Linux got with hardware support, Windows generally had it better.

  85. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    I fully agree.

  86. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many android apps are compiled using native code as well. If you compare a java app to an app written in C, it is because of a massive difference in processor power; your java app may run faster than my C app, but it certainly isn't more _efficient_. Android phones that compare to Apple hardware are massively overcompensating with processor and battery life.

  87. Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Android phones that compare to Apple hardware are massively overcompensating with processor and battery life.

    Wait, is the iPhone powerful, or are other phones overcompensating when they have powerful processors? I'm not up on the iFanboy newspeak this week.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"