Shared publicly  - 
 
In Canonical's recent announcement (see link) about the upcoming preview of Ubuntu Phone, they make this claim (quoted verbatim):

"When complete, the same Ubuntu code will deliver a mobile, tablet, desktop or TV experiences depending on the device it is installed on, or where it is docked."

Now, this kind of device spectrum thinking is something we've been promoting for a number of years as part of our vision for KDE Plasma. Long before Canonical decided this was something that made any sort of sense, before they started using Qt and QML, we were there working towards this. Today, we deliver this kind of functionality and are working to jump even further down this road. So we know a few things about this topic: how compelling it can be for users, and also how hard it is to make it actually work. So we're huge fans of this kid of approach and feel it is one area that Free software is taking a lead. Huzzah, right?

However, having looked at the code behind Unity, knowing about their "Ubuntu for Android" product which pops up a Unity desktop when a supported phone is docked, and having looked into Ubuntu Phone APIs (such as one can right now; the cards are still fairly close to the chest) .. Canonical's claim is a hollow one.

We can start with the obvious clue: Unity currently does not use QML at all; Ubuntu Phone is pure QML. So, no, it is not the same code, it is not the sort of seamless cross-device technology bridge that they are purporting.

Ah, but the wording in the announcement is a bit cagey ... Perhaps if we define "same Ubuntu code" to mean "Ubuntu the distribution with all versions of the UI installed" we can cover this with a great amount of fudge factor. Perhaps Unity will eventually be merged with Ubuntu Phone, and that's what they mean by "when complete".

Yet if we read it at face value .. that is not the message one gets, and that message does not reflect reality. This is not accidental.

Making unfounded claims in this manner is, imho, ethically weak. But what is really disappointing here is that the Free software community is being told a fairy tale in hopes that they will believe it and as a result support Canonical .. under what amounts to false pretenses.

If you're a Free software developer, user and/or supporter and buying into these claims, I don't know how else to put it other than this: you're being duped.

Consider what supporting those who employ such tactics means for Free software.

p.s. I'm usually very hesitant to speak critically in public about other Free software projects as it usually does more harm than good, and given my professional interest in these areas some may wonder if I'm speaking from a conflict of interest. I want to make it crystal clear that I think Ubuntu Phone a great thing to see; more Free software mobile efforts, particularly ones using Qt/QML, warm my insides like a good bowl of soup on a cold winter's night. We've even been discussing how to harmonize QML APIs in future between Plasma and Ubuntu Phone ... all the same, it is difficult to sit on one's hands and say nothing when such communication techniques that are not healthy for the Free software movement are employed.
131
46
Vercovicium Maximus's profile photoIngolf Schaefer's profile photoLuke McDougald's profile photoFolmer Fredslund's profile photo
109 comments
 
that sums it up nicely :) Personally, I ignore all announcements done by Canonical, it is often just marketing talk. (or even ridiculous, e.g. the new "display server" they claim to develop. I only believe it if I see actual code.)
The 'real' stuff happens on the open-sourced code in Ubuntu, and I try to measure it by that. (also the "develop stuff behind closed doors"-concept is crap. When people can see the new project's code early, many people will know the codebase and people will easily contribute. Also, everyone knows what's going on and what is planned. Throwing a finished project and a large codebase at a community and say "now contribute to it" is a bit awkward.)
that's all just IMHO, of course
 
I don't feel like many people expected Unity to work out anyway, even those inside Canonical.

The idea that they're going to develop otherwise-identical software binding to two different toolkits, when the majority of the code is tying straight to the toolkit (especially in a DE, right?). 
 
I've been picking up on this too, and truthfully this type of style makes me more hesitant about the efforts then almost anything else.

I hope the motivations are pure though. They are trying to build awareness, and excitement to bring in talent and partners. 

But I think the big underlying fear here is they will inevitably under deliver. And this type of fuzzy language leads many to set their expectations very high.
 
The quote that strikes me more is:

 "Developers will not need to cross-compile or package applications differently for phone, tablet, PC and TV. One platform serves all four, a single application binary can do the same."

Are they saying they plan to completely port all their software to Qt/QML? Or have they decided to do something else with the phone interface? I'd say it's a little more than fuzzy language, it's outright confusing.
 
Or are they trying to make their own sdk? 
 
Which is more "ethically weak": making bold promises or publicly accusing those who make such promises of being unethical just because we don't believe they'll be fulfilled?

And why are you skeptical, BTW? What's so unlikely in the Canonical promise, if it's about the same thing you yourself have been planning for KDE Plasma?

I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to tell you about the future path, but for sure I can tell you that the text you quoted is sincere: it's what we are working on and are resolute to make it happen. :-)
 
There is a lot of confusion around Ubuntu Phones.
 
+Rob Boudreau One application binary is not going to happen due to the fact that there are (various) ARM and Intel chips on the different kinds of devices .. but one package with one set of QML can work indeed. We already do this with QML in Plasma.

+Alberto Mardegan It's not a promise that is being made, it is a claim that runs counter to the reality of the product. If Canonical makes claims, the design of the product ought to back it up.

In contrast, it is never ethically weak to note when the emperor has no clothes.

You ask why I'm skeptical, and that's easy: the design does not match the claim. This is not guesswork, it's observation. I have the code for Unity, the QML SDK, etc. on disk here :)

Saying "I can't say what we're working on" does not inspire confidence, either. To achieve the claims being made, significant changes in design would need to be realized. If that is happening but you can't talk about it, I'd suggest not making public claims until you can.

"if it's about the same thing you yourself have been planning for KDE Plasma"

That claim has been consistent with our codebase and we've delivered in accordance with those plans. We've shown it in action, you can grab the code right now. We we walk the walk, so when we say "device spectrum" people don't balk.
 
+Aaron Seigo I see your point, but you are talking of "claim" while I talk of "promise". The statement reads "When  complete, ...": you cannot just look at the code as it is now and accuse Canonical of not being honest. If the article said that at the present situation you can run the same code base across all form factors, it would be obviously false. But it doesn't.

Canonical is committed to make it happen, though, and I don't see how this can be unethical. It won't happen overnight, true, but on the other end the article doesn't say that this will happen this month.
 
+Alberto Mardegan So what you're saying is: the current state of things does not map to the claims being made. The claims in the article, when read at face value, imply this where things already are.

"Canonical is committed to make it happen, though, and I don't see how this can be unethical."

Intentions are not the problem, it's the delivery. Right now Canonical is stating things which they are currently not able to provide.

The way it is communicated right now, it is completely understandable if people think Unity is the same as Ubuntu Phone under the hood and it's this amazing device continuum enabler .. when you and I both know it isn't.

It is this creation of false expectation, which will undoubtedly influence decision making, that I object to.
 
There is a lot of confusion around Ubuntu phones - and that's helping people getting excited. The same we they were excited about Ubuntu TV last year.
 
+Aaron Seigo No, what I'm saying is: there are no claims being made! :-)
Or, if you want, the claim is about what will happen when the convergence will be complete (the infamous "When complete..." words), but that's not something that we can verify now, because the convergence is not complete yet.

The article indeed creates some expectations, but why do you say that it's "false expectation"? I believe that it will all happen as the article says, and I'm trying to understand why you think it won't.

Unless, of course, I misunderstood your original point, which is also well possible :-)
 
Actually, let me quote the whole paragraph:

"The release also marks the start of a new era for Ubuntu, with true convergence between devices. When complete, the same Ubuntu code will deliver a mobile, tablet, desktop or TV experiences depending on the device it is installed on, or where it is docked. Ubuntu 13.10 (due in October) will include a complete entry-level smartphone experience."

If you read the sentence in the proper context, it's obvious that it talks about a future that goes beyond a few months (or even years?) from now.
 
BTW, I find a lot of unnecessary and harmful statements from Canonical executives (which once again are unfounded). Mr Shuttleworth told WSJ " ...the operating system has drawn interest from carriers as well, many of which are eager to break up the smartphone market hegemony of Apple and Google. "

Which carrier? The same who were bringing Ubuntu TV to the market last year? Why don't we hear about Ubuntu TV anymore? Promise? Claim? Credibility?

Google hegemony? Really? Google is selling unlocked hardware. And why would carrier want to break the 'so-called' hegemony when its bringing them more business. In fact what Google is trying to do is break the hegemony of these abusive carriers but giving users more control over the platform. On the contrary Canonical wants to give carriers full control over the platform.
 
+Alberto Mardegan "there are no claims being made! "

The rest of the world has a different definition of "claim" than you. :) Generally one you make a press release saying "This is what's happening" then that is considered a claim.

Really, though, you hit the heart of the matter with this observation:

"that's not something that we can verify now, because the convergence is not complete yet."

Exactly. So at best it is a statement of intent that can not be verified, not even by the entity making the claim. It is a hazy statement about a future which does not match any of the existing product designs. If I could even see it in the current design of the technology, that'd even be something .. but it isn't there.

"I'm trying to understand why you think it won't."

The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. It is not anyone's job to prove the non-existence of the claim (a logical impossibility), but the job of the claim-maker to demonstrate the validity of the claim.

As you note, this is not possible right now.

However, as it is written in the announcement it gives readers the distinct impression that this claim is grounded in today's facts.

I simply want to help people gain an accurate picture because I believe they deserve that much.
 
+Aaron Seigo It's perfectly fine if you don't believe that the announced convergence will ever happen. The reason why I felt the need to pop into the discussion is this paragraph of yours:

Making unfounded claims in this manner is, imho, ethically weak. But what is really disappointing here is that the Free software community is being told a fairy tale in hopes that they will believe it and as a result support Canonical .. under what amounts to false pretenses.

You claimed that this is a "fairy tale": from your post it looks like you know that it won't happen. So, you made a claim, and along with that stated that Canonical's communication is being ethically weak just because you don't believe it. I don't mind you expressing severe doubts, but isn't your statement going a bit beyond that?
 
+Sebastián Gómez Always assume good faith :-)
I understand your reaction, but are you sure that he knew about KDE Plasma plans? I myself, which spend most of my time with Free Software, know about KDE's convergence plans since a couple of months only. And I didn't hear yet about plans to run KDE Plasma on phones, so I expect that also many other people didn't.
 
+Alberto Mardegan The source of my skepticism is twofold:

1. Canonical has expressed goals that are outside of their reach in the past.

The "cadence" theme was one such episode: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/tag/cadence

I expressed my fact- and reason-based objections to those assertions at the time, and was dismissed with the same kind of response you're offering me here. We've been down this road before .. more than once. :)

2. The current design of Unity, Ubuntu Phone and Ubuntu T.V. do not match the claims being made. If it is unclear how that is so, I'd be happy to jump onto a Hangout with you and discuss that in more detail. :)

If Canonical demonstrates my skepticism to be uncalled for with future releases, I'll be the first to acknowledge that publicly.

However, the information currently at hand favors the skeptical viewpoint, and I believe the public deserves to know that.
 
+Aaron Seigo I think we need to distinguish goals that depend solely on one's forces and goals which depend also on external factors/parties. The "cadence" one is of the latter type, as well as the delivery of Ubuntu devices (be that TV or phones) depends largely on deals with hardware manufacturers.

On the other hand, the current goal of a converged platform is entirely on Ubuntu's hands -- that's why I'm surprised to see so much skepticism around it. Given that you aim for the same goal for KDE, you are aware of the difficulties, but you should also be confident that it's not out of reach.

Yes, the current situation of the code base cannot be farther from that of a converged product, and something will have to change. I cannot say much more, unfortunately (and I'd better avoid a hangout on this topic as I'm sure I'd talk more than needed :-) ), other than there's a work in progress. :-)

That's for the OS, anyway. As far as applications are concerned, the goal of having applications developed with the Ubuntu SDK run unmodified for different form factors is just going to be there real soon. :-)
 
+Alberto Mardegan "are you sure that he knew about KDE Plasma plans? I myself, which spend most of my time with Free Software, know about KDE's convergence plans since a couple of months only. And I didn't hear yet about plans to run KDE Plasma on phones, so I expect that also many other people didn't."

Here was a really early screencast from over 2 years ago:

    KDE Plasma Mobile on Nokia N900

We been talking about device spectrum pretty publicly for a while. I fully understand not everyone will have been following along.

However, if one is going to make public claims it is incumbent upon that person to be informed. Saying "I got it wrong because I didn't inform myself" is not a valid excuse, it just demonstrates incompetence.

This is why, as someone involved in this area, I routinely keep up with the comments, claims and progress other teams share. It's why I have the actual code of various projects checked out on disk and read through them before making claims. It's why I subscribe to so many relevant blogs.
 
+Alberto Mardegan "I think we need to distinguish goals that depend solely on one's forces and goals which depend also on external factors/parties"

The issue is making public claims that one is in no position to make. Why it doesn't work is a different issue from the propensity to make unfounded public claims.

In the case of cadence, the underlying ideas were simply wrong, which is why it did not come about. Yet the claims that cadence was indeed the best idea for Free software kept being made.  It had nothing to do with others outside of Canonical somehow not getting it.

There are other examples, but I don't want to chase down every rat hole in history here ... I just picked one that I had also been involved with so we could see the track record on both sides of the equation.

"the current situation of the code base cannot be farther from that of a converged product"

Thank you for stating that with candor.

So now we're back to the beginning: this is not the impression that Canonical is giving people through their official statements. I do not believe "trust us" makes up for that. People deserve accurate information so they can make properly informed decisions.
 
When I read the announcement of unity I sighed. Because at the time at and plasma could have formed a perfect base for any new desktop that wanted to target multiple form factors. It just seemed like a stubborn attempt at doing something different and ignoring all the collective progress of the free software world. So now they have to admit failure and use qml which they should ha e done from the start. Maybe I am wrong. That is just my opinion.
 
+Tjaart Blignaut I sighed at that when I heard about Unity, Cinnamon and lately Consort. All of that would be so easy to do with Plasma, would allow to collaborate and would prevent forks. But alas that's the world we live in.
 
I did a similar post to this awhile ago:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/111877913137189967796/posts/bV1A1F2u3mp

The Ubuntu for Android is using the Webtop software that motorola built. It's why every demo video showing off Ubuntu for Android was demoed on the Atrix 2.

We will NEVER see Ubuntu for Android because the version of Webtop that runs Ubuntu only works with Ginger Bread. The newer Webtop 3.0 is basically just Android in tablet mode. So there isn't a version of Webtop anymore that will run Ubuntu on Android 4+
 
+Antoni Norman given you haven't seen the code for Ubuntu for Android I'm not sure how you can make such bold (and wildly inaccurate) claims. 

+Aaron Seigo I can see how it looks from the outside but I think we can achieve the convergence goal, even if all the pieces aren't completely in place yet. 

We're agile enough that we can migrate our desktop to QML if that's the decision that gets made. Unity has existed on four toolkits already, what's a fifth between friends ;)
 
Quoting from the web-page you refer to:

The release also marks the start of a new era for Ubuntu, with true convergence between devices. When complete, the same Ubuntu code will deliver a mobile, tablet, desktop or TV experiences depending on the device it is installed on, or where it is docked. Ubuntu 13.10 (due in October) will include a complete entry-level smartphone experience.


If I understand correctly, you say that they claim to have, now , the complete Ubuntu code for the convergence, when the paragraph clearly states that this marks the start of a new era.
 
I believe that KDE and other freetard desktop environment people are just jealous that Canonical/Ubuntu is successful and them not. Canonical succeeds where you don't.
 
Guys, this isn't some huge philosophical debate. If Canonical has started convergence, which implies a QML version of Unity, they are hiding it, which is unethical in the FOSS world. And if they aren't, they just lied.

It's that simple.

Of course, one might note that Canonical almost has to be working on a QML version of Unity because of the hostile nature of the GTK project, or at least some Qt version. But still, Canonical should show said code. It's FOSS, guys. This is not the way it's meant to be played. 
 
+Jérôme Bartand you must be from another planet. No one has leveled the same level of complaints against KDE as have been raised against Unity. The only thing I personally complain about is PIM (namely, I've had bad luck with account sync with Gmail, but I think it isn't Akonadi's fault).

KDE has small faults. Unity has monstrous ones, still! Which is why it's so stunning that Canonical is sticking with a different toolkit than its other platforms, since it isn't a huge loss to just cut Unity and get it right the second time. 
 
I don't get this. I mean, +Aaron Seigo you're right, but isn't this what "When complete" means? I read the statement from Canonical and I understood it exactly the same way.

I think this is exaggerated.
 
+Alexander Herbst yes, but they haven't even started, and their words make it sound as if once Mobile is done then convergence is done. Sure, it isn't explicitly stated but even implying such a thing is too far from reality.

Furthermore, they said first convergence, which is a flat-out lie. 
 
+Luke McDougald Not everyone has the same ethics. I, for one, don't see anything unethical in not sharing a project until it's of a satisfactory level of completion. Almost everyone does it, not just Canonical.
 
+Luke McDougald I know, I know - but isn't this exaggerated?

Maybe it's just my habit, but I never start developing things upon promises - they may catch my interest and observation, though.

But this should be usual among sane devs, shouldn't it?

If you're this sensitive, actually no project could announce its intentions to do something cool or great, because it would be a lie, because they ain't already finished.
 
+Alexander Herbst From the same article: "The release also marks the start of a new era for Ubuntu, with true convergence between devices."

The bulk of the article reads the same way, including the quotes from people such as Shuttleworth.

I actually chose to quote what is probably the most non-committal part of the entire article in my original posting.

Moreover, if we do wish to read it as a statement of intent then we must also observe that their extant technology does not reflect this plan.

There is a difference between showing a roadmap the reflects accurately on current work and announcing wishfullnessware and then saying, "Just trust us! We're working on it behind closed doors. Wish we could share it with you. ..." when someone observes the disparity between reality and announcement.

Is that really what you want Free software development to become? I know I don't, if only because then anyone can come along and spout any sort of nonsense.

We ought to have something akin to standards.
 
What does being based on QML or not have to do with convergence? Detecting the appearance of new displays is something X supports, the compositing WM can notify applications, including full screen root windows, that the screen size has changed.

Unity isn't a complete desktop environment anyway, it displays applications written in many different toolkits with optional integration through a DBus API.

QML is a great approach to a resolution and screen size-independent toolkit, but not all applications on Ubuntu are Qt based, QML would not be a complete solution for them, so would not meet the promise that the same applications will run on both desktops, making it more likely that this is another smartphone-targeted application SDK, and Qt/QML with Python, JS, etc would be a good fit for that.

On a side note, disappointed with the limited hardware support for solutions like Ubuntu on Android and Webtop, I ported X to Android as an application a couple years ago. I haven't look at current versions of the Android API, but it's possible it could be used to support external displays as well. (Code: https://github.com/tmzt/androix)
 
What does being based on QML or not have to do with convergence? Detecting the appearance of new displays is something X supports, the compositing WM can notify applications, including full screen root windows, that the screen size has changed.

Unity isn't a complete desktop environment anyway, it displays applications written in many different toolkits with optional integration through a DBus API.

QML is a great approach to a resolution and screen size-independent toolkit, but not all applications on Ubuntu are Qt based, QML would not be a complete solution for them, so would not meet the promise that the same applications will run on both desktops, making it more likely that this is another smartphone-targeted application SDK, and Qt/QML with Python, JS, etc would be a good fit for that.

On a side note, disappointed with the limited hardware support for solutions like Ubuntu on Android and Webtop, I ported X to Android as an application a couple years ago. I haven't look at current versions of the Android API, but it's possible it could be used to support external displays as well. (Code: https://github.com/tmzt/androix)
 
What does being based on QML or not have to do with convergence? Detecting the appearance of new displays is something X supports, the compositing WM can notify applications, including full screen root windows, that the screen size has changed.

Unity isn't a complete desktop environment anyway, it displays applications written in many different toolkits with optional integration through a DBus API.

QML is a great approach to a resolution and screen size-independent toolkit, but not all applications on Ubuntu are Qt based, QML would not be a complete solution for them, so would not meet the promise that the same applications will run on both desktops, making it more likely that this is another smartphone-targeted application SDK, and Qt/QML with Python, JS, etc would be a good fit for that.

On a side note, disappointed with the limited hardware support for solutions like Ubuntu on Android and Webtop, I ported X to Android as an application a couple years ago. I haven't look at current versions of the Android API, but it's possible it could be used to support external displays as well. (Code: https://github.com/tmzt/androix)
 
Sorry about that, trying to Follow you/Add to circle from a smartphone Google+ has a few things to learn from Twitter.
 
+Alexander Herbst if it is open and they announce intentions, that is communicating to developers AND users what is planned. But with a closed project it is only the latter, and so there better be something to back up the promise.

Also, note that the implications from the article suggest that the desktop part is done. That's what we are complaining about. It isn't converged. Or it is, and it's hidden. 
 
+Rob Boudreau

No, a QT5/QML app runs just fine on regular ubuntu, even though unity on regular ubuntu does not use QT. Just because unity isn't written in QT doesn't mean that QT apps don't run fine under it... They didn't say anything untrue in that quote.
 
+Aaron Seigo "Moreover, if we do wish to read it as a statement of intent then we must also observe that their extant technology does not reflect this plan."

Yes, and I won't develop anything until they deliver what they announced. Nor should anyone. But that is, or should be, the usual procedure.

I guess, the point is, that I don't see the "Just trust us!" in Canonicals statement and therefore consider your post as an overreaction.

Considering the development behind closed doors, I'm totally on your side - but that was not the point of your original post, was it?
 
To me, is a typical company press release. And that's fine, it just has to be taken as any self-promotional press release.
However for me it will be true when I see it and can do stuff with it, not a moment earlier, not a moment later.
And that's not because it's Canonical, just because is the skeptical (scientific, if you want :p) attitude one should have with pretty much everything.
 
+Alberto Mardegan you and others have quoted this paragraph:

"The release also marks the start of a new era for Ubuntu, with true convergence between devices. When complete, the same Ubuntu code will deliver a mobile, tablet, desktop or TV experiences depending on the device it is installed on, or where it is docked. Ubuntu 13.10 (due in October) will include a complete entry-level smartphone experience."

The problem with this, is it says, "When complete," and so you think when what is complete.  The subject of the previous sentence is "the release" which later on the paragraph says is "due in October" so we are only left to conclude from this article that when this release ships in October the same Unity code will run on a mobile, tablet, desktop, or TV.  If as you say, the current code for desktop unity is far from this then we can only conclude that this press release is false.
 
I attended to several Qt events like the Contributors or Developer Days. Canonical has been present most of the time when I was there.

The people from Canonical were very encouraging and blissful with working on Qt and the components. They seemed committed to these projects. They earned my respect and grate. Hat off from my side. Alberto is one of those nice QML contributors, too!

I am excited and very interested in what they will come up with.  I do not personally feel their announcement "unethical" either, but I think other(s) already summarized my opinion. So, I will not repeat them.

For what it is worth, I also have the same definition as Alberto about claim.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Off-topic, but just in case: not to forget, Canonical supported KDE (and hence the Qt ecosystem) for years. So, I would like to grab this opportunity for saying many thanks to them for that again!
 
+Aaron Seigo Let us just hope for the best while being prepared for the worst.
But just another remark: Canonical had a very nice QT-based unity 2D which felt superior to "proper" Unity in many ways. This is what powers Ubuntu TV and Ubuntu on Android IIRC. I guess they are using this codebase to move everything over to QML behind the scenes. I wouldn't be surprised if the skunk works project for 13.04 is just the QML version of Unity which could run everywhere.

Update: As was pointed out below, Unity 2D was using QML already.
 
+Antoni Norman he seems to be reviewing a fake product. See the last comment from the manufacturer. No, I'd not say that's a "good review". I don't know why you seem to have your knickers in such a twist over which devices we have or haven't demonstrated Ubuntu for Android on, and it's somewhat aside from the issues +Aaron Seigo seems to be raising.
 
^wrong. Used KDE 4.3 on a Pentium III Coppermine successfully. Used 4.8 on a Core Duo (Isaiah-based iirc), with far better results than Gnome 3 and Unity. And really, it felt nicer and faster than XFCE.

So, resource hog? Try again. 
 
I find articles like this completely useless. All it does is throw doubt at the community.

Just because all of the code is not yet public doesn't mean it can't be done. From Day 1, Canonical have said that it isn't close to done yet and they still have more work to do. So you decide to come out and say they are completely lying to everyone?

Really seems like they announce that they are shipping on hardware in October, and since you have failed to bring out a working product due to delay after delay, that means that another group isn't capable?
 
Aaron, Canonical/Ubuntu has a lot of fans and sites that are writing Ubuntu stuff now are pointing to your post. Get ready for unthought opinions and a lot of hatred...
 
+Nate Wiebe doubt and uncertainty into the community, from this? No. The uncertainty is because a FOSS project is being kept in the dark. That is the "source" of uncertainty. Now really, Aaron never suggested that it couldn't be done, but claiming convergence implies a converged code base which is not visible here. So they're either hiding something or lying, hence this post.

+Lilian Moraru yes, but so? Those pieces are only read by users, who either don't really know nor care which developer did what, or users who are already so polarized (fanboys, basically) that it doesn't matter.

Basically, Aaron just got a new topic for hate mail, not new senders. 
 
I've never really been a fan (well not a fan at all) of canonical and their "marketing" of GNU/Linux. I'm glad this was posted as it might shed some light on what canonical's doing to some of the "duped" free software developers.
 
+Luke McDougald the issue is people treat Canonical like a group of devs. They are a company. There is no way that releasing the code from the beginning and having no momentum would look good to their investors, or potential investors. Yes the project will be FOSS, that's what Canonical does, but don't expect everything to be developed and designed in front of your eyes. The issue isn't them, it's people that have this idea that everything should be done in public with no initial planning or development. This is just bad for business.
 
I'm not sure how this is being misunderstood. The quotations as well as everything else I've read state the convergence WILL happen. It's all properly worded in future tense. They also state future dates regularly. If someone takes any of this as present, then they have an issue with English, not Canonical. It really just comes off as jealously from the KDE community. Push for transparency if that's what you want, but don't misrepresent the language put out by Canonical to further your own goals. Looks weak. 
 
I am currently running Ubuntu Precise 12.04 LTS on several Android devices in a chroot environment. I have several miniPCB board ARM equipped mini dongles currently dual booting Android and Ubuntu 12.04... this is entirely possible and definitely something I'm excited for. Sounds like a real effort is being placed towards a similar effort by Motorola with their lapdock (which I currently own and am running several Linux distros on several arm devices) as far as software goes every device I own regaurdles of CPU architecture runs Ubuntu 12.04 and assuming I will be able to dual boot Ubuntu phone OS and Ubuntu Precise or 13.04 if Canonical doesn't follow through its as simple as a three step proccess for someone like me to implement a lapdock Ubuntu Desktop Dock solution while unsocking and running Ubuntu Phone. Love how a designer of a Graphical Environment has anything to say about a company he knows nothing about. Blind hate causes blind ignorance. Embrace change embrace the idea because if it isn't a reality we can absolutely make it one. I will be following the Ubuntu Phone release close and the minute I have that image I'm posting a video and linking it here to rub your entitled sold out nose in it :) Congrats on being a giant pessimistic hater! Its a color that suits you well.
 
Normally I'd kinda nod and agree, but if I were the guy behind Vivaldi, I'd probably be pretty hesitant about heckling people for vapourware.  Very hesitant.
 
+Daniel Stone kind of a low blow don't you think? +Arthur D enlighten us with some benchmarks please. Otherwise you are just being a troll.

+Nate Wiebe it doesn't matter what companies do. The way things are done is discussed. Transparency is essential for free software. You cannot tell a bunch of developers to f@#£ off until you release something and then expect them to do what exactly? That is not open. I for one would never work on any project that keeps secrets from me. As for marketing speak I think that free software communities have always been more sincere and honest about their stuff. There is no need to emulate corporate methods to be successful. 
 
+Tjaart Blignaut No, I don't.  Normally I'd not say anything like that, but when Aaron's writing a blog specifically for the purpose of publicly bashing Ubuntu on the grounds that it's vapourware ...
 
+Daniel Stone Given that we were actually showing the hardware in action, it wasn't vaporware. Given that it did what we purported, it wasn't vaporware. Given that we continue to put out OS images for various pieces of hardware, while we have continue working on sourcing the hardware, it wasn't vaporware. So, no, it's not the same at all.

While I imagine everything you've done in life has turned out perfectly the first time around, I appreciate your clever, clever comment which addressed the issue at hand.

shrug
 
+Aaron Seigo You feel that your hardware fulfilled every single one of its launch promises?
 
+Aaron Seigo Because I'm pretty sure Ubuntu Phone has been shown in action, does what it's purported to, and has OS images.  So by that standard, I'm not sure exactly why you're posting public updates for the 100% sole purpose of shitting on a competing software stack.
 
+Frank Mertens Unity2D, which was a different design from Ubuntu Phone, has been discontinued.

+Lilian Moraru Yes, I'm sure it will happen. (We're already seeing it here.) Regardless, truth needs to be spoken. I'm not concerned about the trolls or the fanboys as they are not the audience with which this conversation needs to happen with.

In any case, I already have the "fanboys flung their shit at me" t-shirt..

People may wish to consider that the number of positive things I observe about Free software projects outnumbers the critical by orders of magnitude, and when I step out and make a critical observation it tends to be accurate and does not fall along "party lines".

In case anyone figures I have a special place in my heart just for Ubuntu: people may have noticed my outing of OwnCloud's security stance a couple weeks back, and they may have noticed the last time I had mentioned Ubuntu it was about cooperative API work that was happening (e.g.: a positive).

So .. whatever. What matters is this: If nobody in our community holds people accountable, what do we have left?
 
+Daniel Stone You seem to have completely missed what was actually being said somehow. It is not a critique of Ubuntu Phone (you may wish to read the last paragraph of my original post again), it is regarding the over-eager assertion in marketing material that Canonical is delivering a single device-spectrum-spanning technology.

On an unrelated topic, since we don't get a chance to catch up much: I watched your recent presentation on Wayland and thought it was quite good. Cheers ...
 
Why Canocial don't uses just Plasma instead of writing their own stuff?
 
As Kipling put it:

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools

The rest of the poem is pretty apt, too. My kingdom for a link.
Mark
 
http://youtu.be/CN1EvEcKNb4 Check this Q&A with Janon Bacon. Slide to 9:23 and then to 19:23. The technology behind ubuntu isn't seamless. From what I understand watching the hangout video is that the "user experience" is seamless and that "users" shouldn't bother about what lies inside the code as it can be changed any time without affecting the "user experience".

I'm actually interested in the ubuntu phone but not the way I'm interested in Plasma Active. I want vivaldi so bad
 
since +Daniel Stone is here, can you tell as whether ubu-phone uses X or something else, and what is the progress towards wayland, if any for kde and unity.
 
+stavros daliakopoulos No idea, no-one from the project will respond even to direct questions.  They've said in the past that they're writing their own window system, which is pretty tragicomic.
 
+stavros daliakopoulos KWin is currently going through a port away from Xlib to XCB and the Plasma libraries are being  updated for QML2 (we have a test shell that already runs, though certainly not a replacement yet for any of the libplasma1 shells). +Martin Gräßlin has also done some early experimental work with Wayland and KWin and at Qt Dev Days in California last year QtWayland came into the picture for us as well.

These are all steps on our way to being able to support Wayland, and our initial goal is to do so on mobile devices. The desktop will likely take longer (more variety of configurations, rather higher number of use cases that need to be gotten exactly right), but we'll eventually see Wayland there too.

To avoid confusion, as the question was asked to both KDE and Unity, +Daniel Stone's comment refers to Canonical. KDE has no intention of writing our own display system as that is, as he points out, a "tragicomic" road to take, all things considered.
 
+stavros daliakopoulos Mark said that they 'supported' Wayland development, but they only ever made a couple of contributions and it seemed driven more by personal interest than anything else.  +Jono Bacon subsequently said that Wayland was 'too bloated' for their needs and they were developing their own window system for Ubuntu Phone.
 
Wayland is bloated? That must be a joke! :D I don't think Canonical has the manpower to re-invent (and maintain!) the whole Linux middleware. It already will be (and is) a major pain to stick with ConsoleKit while everything else is moving to a systemd-managed system.
Because the underlying software is moving forward quickly into a different direction, Canonical has to patch every component to work with their system. And that just won't work in the long-term, it is like building a house on quicksand. (sticking with an older GNOME stack in Raring is just a logical consequence of that)
 
I like it. omgubuntu distorted your facts and deleted my `to defend is not to defame` reply. so I think this one is really true.
 
I seem to remember a KDE press release a long time ago when KDE 4.0 was released (barely usable at the time) that went something to the effect of "KDE 4.0 is the beginning of the KDE4 era.  When complete, KDE4 will offer x, y, and z".  

How is what Canonical is saying here any different?  

I'm laughing out loud over this post and your complaints that the "reality of the product" doesn't match what comes after the word "when complete", because KDE was in that exact situation for years, and Aaron was all emo about the un-useable releases being part of a "process" and that the community needed to give time for the awesomeness to happen. 

I guess the giving of time only applies to KDE and not anyone else.
 
+Andrew Bingham What we referred to in those early communications was already evident and present in both the code and the technical design underneath them. That is a significant difference.

I don't think anyone has an issue with someone putting out a "0.1" version that implements a given design concept and stating "we're working towards this end goal based on that design".

What is questionable is putting out a release of software that implements design X and then stating it is an example of design Y.

The former is guidance, the latter is misleading.
 
+Cary Hartline what is referred here is not user experience, but exactly the part of the press release talking of  "the same ubuntu code will deliver... ... depending on the device is installed on" ie explicitly about the platform and about developer experience, that bit is demonstrably not true right now, at least based on their release code.
they may or may not have an internal still secret project for that, but again, will belive when i see, because this is asking developers to do work based on a conjecture.

this is the base of the criticism.
is not a criticism of ubuntu phone per se (that is a very welcome effort, and yes, we are talking about api interoperability for the ui stack with them)
is not a criticism about user experience or ui
is just about an announcement that explicitly states that ubuntu desktop and phone are the same software platform, while in reality, at least at the moment they are two and very different, on every level. maybe this will change, but to be believed is needed code, not promises.
 
+Alberto Mardegan "You claimed that this is a "fairy tale": from your post it looks like you know that it won't happen."

I'm afraid this is splitting hairs for the sake of trying to look as if you have a point.
 
+Andrew Bingham KDE was not in that situation. KDE 4.0 had actual code in it and they backed up what they said about it......with actual code. The difficulty with Canonical is they have a track record of not backing up what they say nor reflecting what the current reality actually is.
 
So is it actually confirmed that "Unity Mobile is pure QML"? Because I haven't seen any source code or official announcements beyond the developer API, which is not necessarily the same thing they used to make the UI.
 
+Vercovicium Maximus There were lots of things that were future features on the roadmap when KDE 4.0 happened, without a corresponding implementation.  It seems like attaining the level of integration indicated is on Canonical's roadmap for October - 2 Ubuntu releases from now.  Wouldn't the alpha/beta phase for 13.10 be where it would be appropriate to state beating them up over meeting their goal or not?

As far as I can tell no one has even seen the source code for Ubuntu Phone, that will be out on February the 21st with the Developer Preview.  And I agree with +Alistair Buxton that the developer APIs aren't the same as what the UI is written in....
Rohan M
 
+Luke McDougald DUDE did u just say KDE is fast ????????
u r highly mistaken.I have tested Fedora 18 (KDE) on my
Dell Latitude E5420(2nd Generation Intel Sandy Bridge) and Acer Aspire One 725(AMD Dual Core C70)
It was so buggy and slow that i cannot believe that it is a DE.It consumed 800MB RAM and idle CPU usage was at 30% consistently
on both the systems

XFCE is really fast ,stable,mature and reliable.although the apps in this DE is wierd.but the required apps can be easily installed

Cinnamon frankly speaking is really awsome it consumes only 200MB
RAM and works like a charm.i still cannot believe that it is a fork of GNOME 3.x.it is faster than both xfce and windows

KDE intentions are good but very poorly executed.if it goes on like this then it faces a grave danger of falling into obscurity

PS Windows 8 is really fast on my acer laptop n became even more faster when i disabled the indexing service and also disabled the animations and several other optimizations.the only DE which comes close to windows like performance is cinnamon and then xfce

  
 
+Rohan Muksi so you say that windows 8 is fast after disabling features but complain that Fedora 18's out-of-the-box KDE is slow? Well that's one fine comparison. Really, try the KDE of other Linux distributions, I have always had the feeling that somehow the default KDE setup which Fedora brings is a little sluggish. I tried Sabayon's KDE and Arch's KDE and and there is nothing left to wish for as far as performance and memory consumption are concerned. Try opening Explorer in Win7 right after login and try opening Dolphin right after login, you'll see that in the first case your request is right out ignored in 90% of cases while KDE just does what it's asked for. Promptly.
Important note on my claim of Fedora performance: I did not look closer at the defaults that are enabled and did not measure anything, my experience is purely subjective.
Writing this from my KDE setup with load average of <0.5% btw ;)
 
over 50% of my current RAM usage is on Nepomuk indexing, which should get better once Stringi is replaced as I understand it.

CPU, well, I idle at 1% on a rather fast machine, but idled about 20% of one core on previously mentioned Core Duo and around 35% on the PIII.
Rohan M
 
+Thomas Gahr +Luke McDougald  win8 is FAST out of the box but it just becomes becomes faster after certain optimizations as i have said in the previous post which is quite normal for ANY OS.i had to do optimizations in case of my acer laptop which has a slow AMD processor 
but playing around with the KDE setting did not yield any substantial result
i havent tested KDE of sabayon and arch but i want to try KDE 4.10 
of opensuse which is rewrittten using Qt5 (which should theoretically improve performance) 

PS IE has always been  buggy and always will be ;)
even on my win8 laptop,IE 10 shows errors and force closes 
 
Bookmarked. See you When September Ends :)
 
Speaking of consistent user experience, I always wished for easier ways to make my desktop look same across all devices. Granted, I don't expect my UI on phone to look the same as my desktop, but same theme, same customizations etc. Right now, it's a pain to customize a new desktop out of the box, or propagate a small change to all your machines. I want to have an experience like on google chrome, which within minutes, looks exactly the way I want once I sign into my google ID on a new install. Probably DE like KDE alone cannot do this without help from the underlying distro, but it would be really cool if your customizations are just a click or two away.
 
+Paresh Adhia You're right that it will take more than only KDE, but we work with a good number of projects these days, and this "portable personalization" you speak of is one of the things we've been working towards for some time.

The next step in that is the "one shell" effort that is part of the Plasma Workspaces 2 project. Right now we can do quite a bit of look and feel harmonization across different system, but switching smoothly on and between devices is something we're still working towards.
 
As the man said it's just "semantics" so let's get excited rather than criticise prematurely - and let those opensource naysayers in the media have to quote less reputable sources.
 
+Evan Summers When did reality versus claim become semantics?

And I can't quite parse the latter half of your comment: "let those opensource naysayers in the media have to quote less reputable sources."

Would you care to clarify what you meant?
 
That last bit is suggesting that you don't provide arguments against other OSS, let it come from people aren't as reputable.

This, of course, ignoring that Canonical is BASICALLY closed. Not entirely, but simplified, yeah. 
 
sorry to come late, but Mark said 
"We'll consolidate the Dash in QML in all form factors. Help appreciated, lots to do."
https://plus.google.com/117754537616115960941/posts/MFUti6hsqvc

Another thing that annouced by Ted Gould in his blog, is that they will build applications and make them communicate through DBus. Going this way will allow them to have the same application core running everywhere, and they'll just build let's say "unity interfaces" why show different interface depending on the device and send commands to the core. This reduces a large amout of development when targetting multiple platforms.
One more thing is the ability for applications to communicate between each other in a pipleline (for scripting and more complex operations)

I am willing to release a demonstration of all what is possible to do when going in this direction before June.
 
+Mohamed Ikbel Boulabiar Using the same QML for the Dash (and similar simplistic code sharing) is not what was claimed.

I mean, we can claim things such as: XFCE can be run on a device, et voila! Or, we use DBus and systemd (and lots of other bits) across devices and so there you go.

Commonality between code bases in the device spectrum is a revolution that started happening probably 15 years ago (Montevista was started in '99).

"they will build applications and make them communicate through DBus"

this already happens everywhere. networkmanager, e.g. that also isn't what was claimed was being delivered.

"I am willing to release a demonstration of all what is possible to do when going in this direction before June."

I appreciate that, but I'm well aware of what's possible when going in those directions ... I'm involved with Plasma Active and we're already there.
 
A bit late, but better late than never. Good luck to them with the app ports, though. 
Add a comment...