Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PureOS is convergent

puri.sm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 299 posts

Re: PureOS is convergent

#41

Post by 0815test »

wjoe wrote: post #27

That's cool, and it's good to see work going on in more fundamental building blocks of Linux like Gnome to support mobile and reactive UIs. I always felt like this was the biggest blocker to using a Linux system on handheld devices - having a good ecosystem of open source projects that work for that, and having the ability to pick your own desktop environment and components rather than having to have an "all in one"…

> ...I'm quite happy with my own custom Linux setup on my laptop, I don't want to install PureOS on there.

PureOS is just Debian with a few tweaks. This work is being done as part of the GNOME mainline branch, so any GNOME user is going to benefit from it down the road. And as "alternative" Linux desktops (MATE, Xfce, LXDE) transition to GTK3+, users of these environments will likely be able to make use of it, as well.

Re: PureOS is convergent

#42

Post by iBelieve »

presscast wrote: post #34

What's the state of running linux natively on Mac these days?

I used to run Linux quite well on a 2013 MacBook Pro, then I got a new 2016 MacBook Pro through work, and ran into tons of issues and finally gave up running Linux on it and just use Linux on my home-built desktop. Issues included the keyboard not working out of the box, suspend not working quite right, issues with the dedicated+integrated GPUs, etc. I don't know the current state of Linux on recent MacBooks, but here are the two GitHub repos I had used: https://github.com/Dunedan/mbp-2016-linux and https://gist.github.com/roadrunner2/1289542a748d9a104e7baec6...

Re: PureOS is convergent

#43

Post by aliswe »

tombert wrote: post #38
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #20

My primary concern with this is that different applications are inherently optimized for the platform on which they were originally designed. There are some applications that have a very dense UI because there's simply alot of functionality that the program handles (think of a video editor, an IDE, etc). Trying to slim down those applications to make them reactive so that they will scale onto a phone or tablet just s…

I have the GPD Win that I bought a couple years ago, which is more or a less a Nintendo-DS-Sized computer running "real" Windows, and I love it. I can do programming on the train, even while standing up, as well as use all the tooling that I like, including Vim actually. The only limitation for me has honestly been Windows, since I'm more of a Unixey guy. Something that has always bothered me is that smartphones are…

That is an amazing device, thanks for sharing!

Re: PureOS is convergent

#44

Post by fiddlerwoaroof »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #20

My primary concern with this is that different applications are inherently optimized for the platform on which they were originally designed. There are some applications that have a very dense UI because there's simply alot of functionality that the program handles (think of a video editor, an IDE, etc). Trying to slim down those applications to make them reactive so that they will scale onto a phone or tablet just s…

I find that modal editing is a really good fit for Mobile keyboards: text manipulation (select, copy, cut, edit) is pretty hard on a touchscreen and being able to hit a couple keys to make the edit instead of fiddling with dragging out a range on screen makes a huge difference.

Re: PureOS is convergent

#45

Post by anoncake »

0815test wrote: post #41
wjoe wrote: post #27

That's cool, and it's good to see work going on in more fundamental building blocks of Linux like Gnome to support mobile and reactive UIs. I always felt like this was the biggest blocker to using a Linux system on handheld devices - having a good ecosystem of open source projects that work for that, and having the ability to pick your own desktop environment and components rather than having to have an "all in one"…

> ...I'm quite happy with my own custom Linux setup on my laptop, I don't want to install PureOS on there. PureOS is just Debian with a few tweaks. This work is being done as part of the GNOME mainline branch, so any GNOME user is going to benefit from it down the road. And as "alternative" Linux desktops (MATE, Xfce, LXDE) transition to GTK3+, users of these environments will likely be able to make use of it, as wel…

LXDE transitioned to Qt, under the name LXQt.

Re: PureOS is convergent

#46

Post by jxdxbx »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #20

My primary concern with this is that different applications are inherently optimized for the platform on which they were originally designed. There are some applications that have a very dense UI because there's simply alot of functionality that the program handles (think of a video editor, an IDE, etc). Trying to slim down those applications to make them reactive so that they will scale onto a phone or tablet just s…

Android tablet apps have always sucked because Android was designed with the expectation that you can easily and automatically scale apps to different sizes.

It turns out, you can--within particular size classes. And Android's ability to support lots of different phone screen sizes was a major advantage over iOS for a long time.

But, Apple's requirement that iPad apps have separate, hand-tuned interfaces was also a huge advantage for iOS, since blown-up phone apps suck on tablets.

So now we know that the right approach is adaptive designs, but within certain bounds. Both iOS and Android have this now (iOS is more adaptive, and Android supports custom tablet layouts), the problem for Android tablets being that it's not enforced or required.

Anyway, all of this is to say that while platforms can and should do a lot of work to make it easier for developers to support multiple device classes, screen sizes, and so on, it will never be automatic.

Re: PureOS is convergent

#47

Post by rinchik »

presscast wrote: post #34

What's the state of running linux natively on Mac these days?

linux natively on Mac? Why? whats the point?? the experience will be just horrible and 60% of the hardware will be idle, unused or just incompatible. You'll get an overpriced Thinkpad wrapped in gorgeous Mac's case.

The amount of details, little "sprinkles" that average Mac and MacOS users take for granted is greatly underrated.

When you look at the stats from all native available hardware, sensors etc, it really feels that Macs are comparable to space shuttles, not a single OS can come even close to support all this (or will be allowed to)

Re: PureOS is convergent

#49

Post by freeone3000 »

solarkraft wrote: post #28
SeripisChad wrote: post #15

I keep looking at their products (laptop & phone) and can't pull the trigger based on what seems like a lack of apps/UX. I really want have better privacy and support companies with that in their DNA. I almost purchased a black-phone before. I really think sandboxing built-in emulator for android apps has to occur for the phone to get traction. I think i'm their ideal consumer and still can't see the value yet. I'm a…

> I really think sandboxing built-in emulator for android apps has to occur for the phone to get traction > I think i'm their ideal consumer and still can't see the value yet I don't think you are their ideal consumer. They're appealing to the Stallmans, the people who aren't looking to replace their smartphone, but for which this would be one of their first. I have heard someone say about the Pinephone (similar proj…

Acknowledging that missing Google Play Services is a big deal and will in fact miss most apps that people want when they think "android", you could do it with AOSP which is mostly Apache-licensed. As for having to install Google Play Services yourself, lineageos users don't seem to mind.

Re: PureOS is convergent

#50

Post by chongli »

joekrill wrote: post #35
chongli wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It solves a _development_ problem I think the GP meant to ask "what problem does this solve for end users? " It's hard to market to consumers if your primary differentiator is only useful to developers.

When I was typing that comment, I was actually going to elaborate on this point, but decided not to for brevity. The reality is, if a developer can generate greater reach, it gives more options to the consumer. And so in that regard it does solve a problem for the end user - they have more software options to choose from. Perhaps there is more competition, which I think we can all probably agree is good for users.

Sure, I get that it's important for your product to attract developers in order to present a thriving software ecosystem to the users. It is, but the users don't care how you do it. So marketing developer-centric features to end users is a waste of time and money.
Post reply on HN