Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Canonical (Nearly) Halts Development of Ubuntu For Android

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the go-all-the-way dept.

Cellphones 55

rjmarvin (3001897) writes "In a since-removed bug report on Launchpad, Ubuntu's issue tracker, Canonical's Matthew Paul Thomas stated that Ubuntu for Android is no longer in active development. In a statement, Canonical stated that while the project is not completely dead, Canonical is currently focusing on pushing Ubuntu for Phones. The company is open to working with partners on Ubuntu for Android, but will not proceed with further U4A development unless they can form a partnership with an OEM partner to launch it. The Ubuntu for Android project was first announced in early 2012."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What's the difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46892849)

They have "Ubuntu for Android" and "Ubuntu for Phones", the latter of which seems to run on Android systems. What's the difference here?

Re:What's the difference? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#46893001)

I think they mean this one [ubuntu.com] ...

Re:What's the difference? (1)

Nexus7 (2919) | about 7 months ago | (#46893559)

At the link you posted:
"With all-native core apps and no Java overhead , Ubuntu runs well on entry-level smartphones..."

Are there known speed benefits, or is this speculation?

Re:What's the difference? (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 7 months ago | (#46896875)

Well, they would really need to define "runs" and "well"...

Re:What's the difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46951877)

K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

Re:What's the difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46893259)

Android is Linux, and Ubuntu is Linux. Yo dawg...

Re:What's the difference? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46893603)

"Ubuntu for Android" is Android that fires up an X11 environment when a Bluetooth keyboard is paired and an HDMI monitor is connected.

Re:What's the difference? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 7 months ago | (#46894745)

WTF is an "Android system"?

Re:What's the difference? (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 7 months ago | (#46898343)

Duh, it's the BIOS that C3PO boots to.

Re:What's the difference? (1)

Rafael Jaimes III (3430609) | about 7 months ago | (#46900857)

What is an "Android system"? Ubuntu for phones does not run on "Android systems", that is incorrect. Ubuntu for Android was not an OS, it was a layer on top of the Android OS. Ubuntu for Phones (Ubuntu Touch) is a linux based OS that happens to run on most of the same hardware as phones that run Android. The decision makes perfect sense, in my opinion.

ubuntu for first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46892895)

it has to be lean and mean.

Why (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46892905)

Whu would you want ubuntu on your phone?

To get a buggy UI and pointless removal of software without notice. Just because they can?

Re:Why (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46893031)

I personally LOVE them sending all my personal information to Amazon and anyone else they want from my PC, it can only get BETTER when they know where I live, where I work, what routes I drive, who I contact, when I take a shit.........Maybe they'll release a "send me TP" app with micro transactions! The first square is free, $.99 for the 2nd, 1.99 for the 3rd. It'd be GREAT!

Re:Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46893679)

Ubuntu is free software. Getting it on phones is a leap towards having other distros there as well. Unfortunately, I think they still depend on proprietary drivers, but, still, it's less horrible to have a few bad drivers in a good OS than having everything proprietary.

Re:Why (1)

dos1 (2950945) | about 7 months ago | (#46897991)

Android is free software as well, so what? Its application in real life generally is not, and judging from how well Firefox OS is able to overcome it (hint: it isn't), Ubuntu for phones will probably just follow the same path.

"Enjoy our awesome free system, but if device manufacturer locked down the bootloader and made access to root account troublesome, then it's not our fault, but manufacturers!"

Fortunately projects like OpenPhoenux [openphoenux.org] exist, Neo900 [neo900.org] will be available in few months. Both Firefox OS and Ubuntu for phones should work on it, as well as many other distros, including standard PC ones (making Debian usable as a phone is a matter of few apt-get installs and some basic configuration); without any proprietary drivers sans GPU acceleration (but looking at Replicant 4.2 running smoothly on GTA04 without 3D acceleration, I guess you can live without it if you really care about "software purity").

While Mozilla and Canonical might be doing some good job in software development, I simply don't care about their efforts in building hardware ecosystem, as they're even not trying to hide that they're doing it exactly the same like Android one, and that's unacceptable for me.

Whose repository is the least bad: Ubuntu wins (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46894857)

Whu would you want ubuntu on your phone? To get a buggy UI and pointless removal of software without notice.

My Ubuntu installations don't have a buggy UI on the desktop. XFCE is great. If you're talking about Unity, then I see the problem: you shouldn't use that. All you have to do is take a look at that, say "ewww" and then you won't even care how buggy or bug-free it is.

Here's the thing: this is basically all about which repository you think sucks the least. I think I've gotten to the point where I don't give a rat's ass which packages come by default in a distro, but I do care which packages I end up running. And in this respect, Ubuntu has turned out to be pretty pleasant. I wish my previous Gentoo system had this few problems, or that "plain" Debian had the right stuff for playing videos (really, that's still an issue?!) on the boxes that need to do that, but they don't. Ubuntu comes though.

Compare Ubuntu to the alternative repository that we're talking about here: The Google Play Store. Because functionally that's all Google Play is: a few files within /etc/apt.

Tell me: do you really want to "who has more garbage that you might actually end up experimentally installing" shit-off about which repo is worse, between those two? Ubuntu so utterly embarrasses Google, that you might as well be advocating Windows 95.

That's why (though I don't use one now) I still do look forward to an Ubuntu phone. I don't care whatever foolish UI projects Ubuntu misguidedly works on, but I still like them as repo maintainers. Like 'em the best, actually. At least right now. (And yes, they're even better than Mint!)

It would be nice... (2)

Richy_T (111409) | about 7 months ago | (#46893215)

It would nice to be able to have a realistic alternative to Apple and Google. Unfortunately, signs are that Ubuntu will stand with them rather than apart from them with regards to privacy intrusions.

If somehow the phones are not locked to Ubuntu, I'll count that as a win though.

Re:It would be nice... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 7 months ago | (#46893235)

There's always Windows Phone. I haven't heard much bad about it other than the people who hate it just because it's from Microsoft. I suppose there are less apps, but as long as it can do what you need it to do, what does it matter how many apps there are?

Re:It would be nice... (3, Funny)

Richy_T (111409) | about 7 months ago | (#46893687)

Microsoft are trying hard to be as evil as Apple and Google but they just don't have in them, poor saps.

Re:It would be nice... (1)

RLiegh (247921) | about 7 months ago | (#46895681)

My, how the mighty have fallen. I never thought i'd see the day when MS took 3rd place on the big list of evil...

Re:It would be nice... (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 7 months ago | (#46903009)

They were mostly evil because their monopoly power meant their ineptness damaged computing (we've been set back at least 10 years). Now their ineptness mostly damages their market share.

Re:It would be nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46908735)

(we've been set back at least 10 years)

Oh, you mean linux.

Re:It would be nice... (1)

bakedbread (2009504) | about 7 months ago | (#46897081)

It would nice to be able to have a realistic alternative to Apple and Google. Unfortunately, signs are that Ubuntu will stand with them rather than apart from them with regards to privacy intrusions.

I'm a happy owner of a FirefoxOS device (the geeksphone revolution). Privacy and Softwarefreedom wise it is unbeatable. It is my first modern smart phone so I don't really feel the pain of the apps I am (currently) missing (never had an iOS/Android). I do think that the html5 platform has an interesting future.

Re:It would be nice... (0)

GNious (953874) | about 7 months ago | (#46897855)

Go for a Jolla, or install Sailfish on your Nexus :)

Re:It would be nice... (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 7 months ago | (#46903021)

Already on my todo list. Need a nexus or appropriate Galaxy first though.

There are (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46900301)

Maemo, Firefox OS

Re:There are (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 7 months ago | (#46903037)

Maemo is dead on the vine, right? I haven't tried firefox OS. May have to look into it.

Re:It would be nice... (1)

Rafael Jaimes III (3430609) | about 7 months ago | (#46900883)

You can have a Google-free experience with Android. Android is developed by AOSP, not Google. If you flash an AOSP ROM, it will be almost completely FOSS as long as you don't flash the Google applications on top. You can use F-droid for the majority of your FOSS application needs, and/or side-load .apks. Further, if you are against blobs, Replicant is an AOSP based alternative but with firmware blobs removed (thought the supported hardware is extremely limited).

Re:It would be nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46910533)

They should ditch anything that nobody is actually going to use. Right now I tried to install 14.04 on my legacy desktop system with HP anthlon x2 processor and nvidia 7000 graphics adapter and NO DICE. It will not get past the ubiquity installation menu right at the point where it asks me if I want to format my hard drive. This OS is not something I can recommend to other people if I can't even install it on my 4 year old desktop generic computer. It is an HP that already has 12.04 working fine. What happened to my support for my specs? What the hell happened here? Ubuntu? Hello?

I use Ubuntu (5, Insightful)

Dimwit (36756) | about 7 months ago | (#46893231)

I use Ubuntu as my desktop, because while I like Arch and Slackware, I'm too old to spend time futzing with getting backups to work or writing custom trayer configurations or whatever. (And when I finally got everything I wanted on Arch, half of GNOME or KDE was installed anyway, so I didn't really see the point.)

Anyway, you know what I wish Canonical would work on? Ubuntu for Computers. I don't need yet another mobile operating system; Android is there, iOS is there, Windows Phone is there, FirefoxOS is there. There's nothing that Ubuntu Touch is going to offer that isn't done better somewhere else. All it's doing is cannibalizing resources from Ubuntu Desktop and Ubuntu Server. Working on Mir just creates divisions within the open source community; there's nothing wrong with Wayland.

So yeah, Canonical, don't just jump on the mobile bandwagon. You have a core product, focus on it.

Re:I use Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46893329)

Anyway, you know what I wish Canonical would work on? Ubuntu for Computers.

Me too. I feel they've really dropped the ball. There are literally thousands of sites they could be sending my data to, but aren't.

Re:I use Ubuntu (3, Interesting)

Dutch Gun (899105) | about 7 months ago | (#46893999)

I use Ubuntu as my desktop, because while I like Arch and Slackware, I'm too old to spend time futzing with getting backups to work or writing custom trayer configurations or whatever. (And when I finally got everything I wanted on Arch, half of GNOME or KDE was installed anyway, so I didn't really see the point.)

Anyway, you know what I wish Canonical would work on? Ubuntu for Computers. I don't need yet another mobile operating system; Android is there, iOS is there, Windows Phone is there, FirefoxOS is there. There's nothing that Ubuntu Touch is going to offer that isn't done better somewhere else. All it's doing is cannibalizing resources from Ubuntu Desktop and Ubuntu Server. Working on Mir just creates divisions within the open source community; there's nothing wrong with Wayland.

So yeah, Canonical, don't just jump on the mobile bandwagon. You have a core product, focus on it.

Wasn't the entire point of Unity that it was more mobile / touch focused? I think this is when they began to alienate a lot of their users, and spawned the rise of Mint. We've seen two companies now (Canonical and Microsoft) that have alienated many of their core desktop users by trying to slap on a touch/mobile focused desktop, replacing the more powerful and desktop-focused mouse+keyboard user interface that have been refined over the course of decades.

I agree with you. Ubuntu/Linux offers a distinct and practical product in the PC world. I'm not really seeing what they would offer in the mobile space. Are they really thinking they can build up a unique ecosystem of their own to compete with Android or iOS? Hell, even MS can't seem to dent that market.

We're moving to a stratified computing society, with big servers running the infrastructure, desktop PCs doing the bulk of the real production work or gaming, laptops for mobile or light work, and tablets and phones for casual computing or data consumption and communication. Eventually, people will figure out that you DON'T want to share the same user interface between a desktop computer and a tablet. Touch is fantastic for data consumption on small devices, but a disaster for production work on a PC.

Hopefully the loss of market share of both Ubuntu and Windows 8 will make that fact clear to those making the decision. At least Apple has had the good sense not to discard their desktop operating system functionality in favor of an iOS-like interface.

Re:I use Ubuntu (1)

Beck_Neard (3612467) | about 7 months ago | (#46894247)

The first versions of Unity weren't that nice, but recent iterations are quite usable and have maybe even slightly raised my productivity over the traditional desktop configuration. It was Microsoft and Gnome who didn't handle this whole mobile thingy gracefully.

Even Redhat thinks Gnome Shell is an ugly mess (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 7 months ago | (#46895605)

Gnome Shell, in its default configuration, is good for neither desktop nor mobile. Proof the it's not the best UI for the desktop is the way RHEL 7.0 has Gnome Shell set up to look like a polished version of the Gnome 2 desktop.

So in terms of usability, even the chief financial backer of Gnome thinks Gnome Shell needs serious work to be a pleasant experience for users other than its core developers and designers.

Re:I use Ubuntu (3, Interesting)

uncomformistsheep (2950041) | about 7 months ago | (#46894503)

Wasn't the entire point of Unity that it was more mobile / touch focused?

No. Originally, Unity was designed for notebooks (cheap and small laptops, now obsolete for tablets), and it was shipped only as a special Ubuntu notebook edition. Then they decided to make it the official desktop shell. I have a touch screen and I can tell you Unity is not very good for those. Unity is very keyboard based (launching applications is particularly impossible to do by touch), and using the menu bar and even closing a window is simply not suited for touch. You cannot do any meaningful work without a mouse and a keyboard with Unity. I am not complaining about Unity, I actually like it, but Unity was not designed for touch screens -- if it was, it is awful at it. It is designed for small screens, and (arguably) some people like it for wider screens as well.

Re:I use Ubuntu (5, Interesting)

xeno (2667) | about 7 months ago | (#46894243)

Anyway, you know what I wish Canonical would work on? Ubuntu for Computers. ....... You have a core product, focus on it.

That would be Mint Linux. [linuxmint.com]

No soapbox, no high-minded reasons here, just pure practicality: One of the places I've volunteered for a long time is a shelter for abuse victims. This county-funded program receives and triages women (mostly) and children into appropriate programs and mid-term housing, and provides courses ranging from home-ec and job training to computer literacy and online privacy before sending them back on their own. For several years those who completed the computer literacy program were given a good-spec laptop with Ubuntu + many apps, configured for security and privacy in the same way we'd done the training. We saw them all: hopeless tweaker prostitutes who went back and gave everything to their pimps, to beaten trophy wives hell-bent on recovering their independence after disconnecting the GPS tracker on the mercedes. After the first few months, the success rate surprised even us: Of those who were given a modern-spec PC with Ubuntu, more than 2/3 were still in active use a year later (still with Ubuntu, and usually with separate accounts for the kids). We probably had 250 Ubuntu PCs in the field at any given time.

Then Shuttleworth jammed Unity forward. Ubuntu's shift to a Metro-esque gui was a disaster with this novice audience. We had people decline a free computer because they couldn't make sense of Unity. Others installed XP over it and called us when it broke or they discovered you had to pay for Office. Others called over and over for basic navigation support. In general, the answer was "no thanks" to Ubuntu.

Switching over to Mint (first with Mate, then Cinnamon) rescued our program, and was a huge hit with the end users. Several years of .deb and ubuntu-based config & tuning was re-usable on Mint, and the interface didn't scare off the novices. Similar enough to the older W95/XP/7/OSX interfaces that they knew were to start, but modern enough for good security and functionality. Just to be clear *I* like playing with the latest and weirdest geekery, my s.o. does malware reversing to calm her nerves (so hot!!), and my home has kids who think nothing of reflashing cyanogenmod on their phones and argue over whether to use Win8+visual studio or Mint+Eclipse for their homework. But that's not the world most people inhabit, and it's really important to recognize that /. readers are not the norm or a good baseline for what is useful and usable to the general populace.

Clem's just a regular guy solving regular problems.
Shuttleworth is a philosopher of the future, with some distinctly reality-adjacent ideas of what ought to be, and enough monetary thrust to make his pigs fly just fine.
I'd rather live and help people in the present. So yeah.... "Ubuntu for Computers" is Linux Mint.

Re:I use Ubuntu (1)

steelfood (895457) | about 7 months ago | (#46895901)

Core product's probably not making them enough money.

Mobile's the hot thing, and the "open" niche is actually turning out to be quite sizeable. A lot of small phone manufacturers would love to be able to put out products that are unencumbered by the policies of certain U.S. corporations. That's where these alternative mobile OSes fit in. They're trying to cater to these small manufacturers largely out of the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China) who can't or don't want to afford the MS surcharge on top of the Android tax, or aren't interested in playing by Google's rules.

Even Cyanogen has jumped into this market. That's how underserved it is.

Re:I use Ubuntu (1)

drolli (522659) | about 7 months ago | (#46897865)

I used Ubuntu (from 2006-2012). I used debian before and i use debian now. I could not agree more with you. What made me move away was that they stopped focusing on "Ubuntu for Computers".

When Ubuntu started, they made "Debian" + "whatever it takes to get it running without pain". That was great.

Then they continued to make small improvements which greatly improved usability (which was definitly great). I think the best releases where around 2010. Consistent, reliable, and yet compatible with most other FOS.

Then they started to push their own shit (Ubuntu one could, Unity etc.) and most of it before it was ready. They stopped focusing on fixing annoying bugs (like, problems with hibernation).

I waited for two upgrades, then i switched back to debian. Now the things which work do work consitently and all functions which are mandatory work.

Canonical? Announcical! (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 7 months ago | (#46893379)

Withdrawical.

The inevitable (1, Redundant)

Drunkulus (920976) | about 7 months ago | (#46893443)

Soon, the headline will read: "Canonical Halts Development of Ubuntu, Recommends Users Migrate to Windows 8"

awesome plan, shame it'll never happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46893481)

I was really excited for the dual android/ubuntu running off the same kernel they had going (which is, I assume, what this is talking about). it doesn't seem like Canonical is the kind of company to spearhead technology for technology's sake, however

Ubuntu Spyware: What to do? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46893651)

by Richard Stallman - Published on Dec 07, 2012 01:52 AM

One of the major advantages of free software is that the community protects users from malicious software. Now Ubuntu GNU/Linux has become a counterexample. What should we do?

Proprietary software is associated with malicious treatment of the user: surveillance code, digital handcuffs (DRM or Digital Restrictions Management) to restrict users, and back doors that can do nasty things under remote control. Programs that do any of these things are malware and should be treated as such. Widely used examples include Windows, the iThings, and the Amazon "Kindle" product for virtual book burning, which do all three; Macintosh and the Playstation III which impose DRM; most portable phones, which do spying and have back doors; Adobe Flash Player, which does spying and enforces DRM; and plenty of apps for iThings and Android, which are guilty of one or more of these nasty practices.

Free software gives users a chance to protect themselves from malicious software behaviors. Even better, usually the community protects everyone, and most users don't have to move a muscle. Here's how.

Once in a while, users who know programming find that a free program has malicious code. Generally the next thing they do is release a corrected version of the program; with the four freedoms that define free software (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/... [gnu.org] ), they are free to do this. This is called a "fork" of the program. Soon the community switches to the corrected fork, and the malicious version is rejected. The prospect of ignominious rejection is not very tempting; thus, most of the time, even those who are not stopped by their consciences and social pressure refrain from putting malfeatures in free software.

But not always. Ubuntu, a widely used and influential GNU/Linux distribution, has installed surveillance code. When the user searches her own local files for a string using the Ubuntu desktop, Ubuntu sends that string to one of Canonical's servers. (Canonical is the company that develops Ubuntu.)

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.

Ubuntu uses the information about searches to show the user ads to buy various things from Amazon. Amazon commits many wrongs (see http://stallman.org/amazon.htm... [stallman.org] ); by promoting Amazon, Canonical contributes to them. However, the ads are not the core of the problem. The main issue is the spying. Canonical says it does not tell Amazon who searched for what. However, it is just as bad for Canonical to collect your personal information as it would have been for Amazon to collect it.

People will certainly make a modified version of Ubuntu without this surveillance. In fact, several GNU/Linux distros are modified versions of Ubuntu. When those update to the latest Ubuntu as a base, I expect they will remove this. Canonical surely expects that too.

Most free software developers would abandon such a plan given the prospect of a mass switch to someone else's corrected version. But Canonical has not abandoned the Ubuntu spyware. Perhaps Canonical figures that the name "Ubuntu" has so much momentum and influence that it can avoid the usual consequences and get away with surveillance.

Canonical says this feature searches the Internet in other ways. Depending on the details, that might or might not make the problem bigger, but not smaller.

Ubuntu allows users to switch the surveillance off. Clearly Canonical thinks that many Ubuntu users will leave this setting in the default state (on). And many may do so, because it doesn't occur to them to try to do anything about it. Thus, the existence of that switch does not make the surveillance feature ok.

Even if it were disabled by default, the feature would still be dangerous: "opt in, once and for all" for a risky practice, where the risk varies depending on details, invites carelessness. To protect users' privacy, systems should make prudence easy: when a local search program has a network search feature, it should be up to the user to choose network search explicitly each time. This is easy: all it takes is to have separate buttons for network searches and local searches, as earlier versions of Ubuntu did. A network search feature should also inform the user clearly and concretely about who will get what personal information of hers, if and when she uses the feature.

If a sufficient part of our community's opinion leaders view this issue in personal terms only, if they switch the surveillance off for themselves and continue to promote Ubuntu, Canonical might get away with it. That would be a great loss to the free software community.

We who present free software as a defense against malware do not say it is a perfect defense. No perfect defense is known. We don't say the community will deter malware without fail. Thus, strictly speaking, the Ubuntu spyware example doesn't mean we have to eat our words.

But there's more at stake here than whether some of us have to eat some words. What's at stake is whether our community can effectively use the argument based on proprietary spyware. If we can only say, "free software won't spy on you, unless it's Ubuntu," that's much less powerful than saying, "free software won't spy on you."

It behooves us to give Canonical whatever rebuff is needed to make it stop this. Any excuse Canonical offers is inadequate; even if it used all the money it gets from Amazon to develop free software, that can hardly overcome what free software will lose if it ceases to offer an effective way to avoid abuse of the users.

If you ever recommend or redistribute GNU/Linux, please remove Ubuntu from the distros you recommend or redistribute. If its practice of installing and recommending nonfree software didn't convince you to stop, let this convince you. In your install fests, in your Software Freedom Day events, in your FLISOL events, don't install or recommend Ubuntu. Instead, tell people that Ubuntu is shunned for spying.

While you're at it, you can also tell them that Ubuntu contains nonfree programs and suggests other nonfree programs. (See http://www.gnu.org/distros/com... [gnu.org] ) That will counteract the other form of negative influence that Ubuntu exerts in the free software community: legitimizing nonfree software."

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/... [fsf.org]

Copyright 2012 Richard Stallman
Released under the Creative Commons Attribution Noderivatives 3.0 license

Re:Ubuntu Spyware: What to do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46894375)

yeah ... tl;dr ... rms ... Amazon = evil, ubuntu = spies. whatever.

you are making the real issue look foolish with paranoid ranting. (again)

Re:Ubuntu Spyware: What to do? (1)

jordanjay29 (1298951) | about 7 months ago | (#46896031)

lol,wut?

Release the code? (1)

sbditto85 (879153) | about 7 months ago | (#46893773)

Last I checked they hadn't released the code for all of us to play with ... if they aren't going to do anything with the code anyways, why not release it so I can break my phone trying to install it? err ... install it on my phone. I for one love the concept and would definitely be interested in the project.

Re:Release the code? (1)

Lisias (447563) | about 7 months ago | (#46894057)

if they aren't going to do anything with the code anyways, why not release it

Because if they do it, some other distro will use the code to itself and fatally will launch a Linux over Android disto that will, for sure, undermine the need for Ubuntu for Phones.

Re:Release the code? (1)

sbditto85 (879153) | about 7 months ago | (#46897101)

What does Ubuntu for Phones offer that android doesn't? (honest question as I haven't used it)

Well I can see the business reason behind not releasing, isn't Ubuntu built around the concept of open source? If they released it and it became super popular on another distro then that would prove the market for something other then just android/iOS/Windows and possibly pave the way for the Ubuntu Edge?

Re:Release the code? (1)

Lisias (447563) | about 7 months ago | (#46905607)

What does Ubuntu for Phones offer that android doesn't? (honest question as I haven't used it)

I don't have a clue.

Linux on mobile devices are a mess since the good old times from PalmOS (see OPIE - interesting at that time, but slow as hell).

Android was the single and best successful attempt to use Linux on mobiles (BADA and TIZEN are far from being successful - mainly BADA, I did some projects on BADA, and this thing is mainly a updated Symbian API!! Honest!). I just can't see how yet another Linux for mobile would get any traction.

How about just bringing the desktop over? (1)

sethstorm (512897) | about 7 months ago | (#46893849)

The phones are plenty capable to pull light desktop loads, why not turn this effort into bringing a workable Ubuntu image to phones (read: doesn't require x11rdp/vnc) that works alongside the Android stack?

Interesting that it can be found by search (1)

sethstorm (512897) | about 7 months ago | (#46894113)

According to their link [archive.org] as of this posting:

Pages matching "1313802" in Launchpad
Bug #1313802 “Ubuntu for Android described as "must-have feature...
3 days ago ... describes Ubuntu for Android as "the must-have feature for late-2012 high-end Android phones". Ubuntu for Android is no longer in...

Since neither them nor Slashdot won't pick up the full content, here is the page content:
Text: Pastebin [pastebin.com]
Site: imgur [imgur.com]

Re:Interesting that it can be found by search (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46894557)

don't forget:

https://www.archive.is/ [archive.is]

Damn, saw that coming. (1)

Abalamahalamatandra (639919) | about 7 months ago | (#46894297)

That's too bad, but I expected it - they announced it, asked for partners, and then it was crickets until they started on the Ubuntu for Phones path.

It's a damn shame, though, I bet it would ROCK on my Note 3, it's so crazily powered - 2.3 gHz quad-core CPU, 3 GB of RAM and 96 GB of storage. I would freaking LOVE to see Ubuntu run natively on this thing to a screen or a lapdock. Same for the new CyanogenMod phone, except it doesn't have MicroSD storage as an option.

Re:Damn, saw that coming. (2)

frisket (149522) | about 7 months ago | (#46894723)

Canonical is doing what Nokia did, and will pay the same penalty.

I wrote some years ago [silmaril.ie] about how Nokia was missing the point, having developed a pocket computer before knowing what they had done. Their blinkers said "phone" on them, so they never saw the giant road sign that said "computer". As one veteran of a firm then free-falling out of the Fortune 500 put it in The Cluetrain Manifesto [cluetrain.com] , "The clue train stopped there four times a day for ten years and they never took delivery."

Now Canonical have developed another Maemo/Meego: a life-size OS that runs on a pocket device. And Mark Shuttleworth seems to have inherited Nokia's set of blinkers that say "phone", and Lo! and behold! he too cannot see the sign that says "computer". As I said in that article, 'the current pox of "partnerships" is a particularly Good Clue, because it means management is spending more time schmoozing on the golf course than down on the shop floor making or selling.'

I truly hope this doesn't apply (mutatis mutandis) to Mark Shuttleworth, but if you have invested your money, time, or life in Canonical, you need to consider if your forecast of the future concides with theirs.

What is it anyway? (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 7 months ago | (#46896457)

Does it provide you with an environment that replaces the Android UI, or is it launched as an Android application? Does it run Android apps or only Ubuntu apps in Ubuntu mode? Does it work only when the phone is "docked"? What are the Android versions supported or needed, and will I be left behind when the Android part inevitably doesn't get updates? What are the system requirements..

That's too many questions and I don't think consumers want or can learn all the details. Only a small fraction of people would ever install or use this thing and that's before considering (non existing) carrier or phone vendor support.

I think everyone is misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46897407)

This article refers to ubuntu for android (http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/ubuntu-for-android), wich is different from ubuntu mobile (http://www.ubuntu.com/phone).
The first is a awesome project (imho) that allows you to bring your desktop pc anywhere with integration to your phone (calls, text, ecc.).
The latest is just another os that tries to compete with Android and iOS.

I'm very sad they're going to shut down it

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?