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

Verizon backs Ubuntu smartphone

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Verizon backs Ubuntu smartphone

#41

Post by comex »

dragonwriter wrote: post #32
binarycrusader wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The need for a native SDK is not going to magically go away just because Mozilla is a non-profit organisation. There are real, quantifiable, technical reasons for having a native SDK that I personally believe are not going to be resolvable in the next 2-3 years, even with asm.js and all the other great things Mozilla is doing to advance the web. I'm fine with Mozilla wanting to advance the web; but not at the cost of…

> The need for a native SDK is not going to magically go away just because Mozilla is a non-profit organisation. Well, no. Its not going to "go away", its not going to exist in the first place. > There are real, quantifiable, technical reasons for having a native SDK Sure, there are reasons for having one, they just happen to be reasons that are irrelevant to Mozilla's purpose. > I'm fine with Mozilla wanting to adva…

Firefox OS will advance very little if it flops because it has crappy apps because Mozilla refused to admit pragmatism.

I do not know if this will actually happen or if such pragmatism is actually required, but developers' needs are far from irrelevant.

Re: Verizon backs Ubuntu smartphone

#42

Post by eksith »

u2328 wrote: post #30

I'm bored by Ubuntu, much less the promise of a Ubuntu smartphone. I thought the appeal of Ubuntu was that it was a freedom-respecting but user-friendly alternative to Windows and Mac. Turn out, their Unity interface ships your desktop search results off to Amazon and tried to sell you something when searching for a program or a file on your system. So, for a Ubuntu phone, at least on the privacy/respect front, it's…

I'm sure we can look forward to a Linux Mint phone pretty soon ;)

On a more serious note... People who say, "Linux, therefore it can be hacked to your liking" really don't understand the public at large or aren't empathetic. I mean if you have the complete source (we're talking, no proprietary binaries as well), as Stallman would say, you can pay someone else to change the thing for you, but how many people would really invest the time and effort to that?

We would need an army of people like this : http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1047633/one-writes-...

... willing to invest time & energy and have a passion for doing things because they should be done so those who can't or, for various reasons, won't will still benefit.

I can count on one hand, the number of strangers I've met that come close.

Re: Verizon backs Ubuntu smartphone

#43

Post by dragonwriter »

comex wrote: post #41
dragonwriter wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The need for a native SDK is not going to magically go away just because Mozilla is a non-profit organisation. Well, no. Its not going to "go away", its not going to exist in the first place. > There are real, quantifiable, technical reasons for having a native SDK Sure, there are reasons for having one, they just happen to be reasons that are irrelevant to Mozilla's purpose. > I'm fine with Mozilla wanting to adva…

Firefox OS will advance very little if it flops because it has crappy apps because Mozilla refused to admit pragmatism. I do not know if this will actually happen or if such pragmatism is actually required, but developers' needs are far from irrelevant.

> Firefox OS will advance very little if it flops because it has crappy apps because Mozilla refused to admit pragmatism.

Sure, but it will advance nothing that is in Mozilla's purpose if it has native apps rather than apps built with web technologies. Can a phone OS survive with just web technologies and not native apps? I think so, even though it won't do everything some people would like, and even though we're some ways off from the point that it is likely to be a strong competitor to the major players in that field.

The arguments that Firefox OS can't survive seem very similar to the ones that ChromeOS couldn't.

Re: Verizon backs Ubuntu smartphone

#44

Post by u2328 »

pilgrim689 wrote: post #34
u2328 wrote: post #30

I'm bored by Ubuntu, much less the promise of a Ubuntu smartphone. I thought the appeal of Ubuntu was that it was a freedom-respecting but user-friendly alternative to Windows and Mac. Turn out, their Unity interface ships your desktop search results off to Amazon and tried to sell you something when searching for a program or a file on your system. So, for a Ubuntu phone, at least on the privacy/respect front, it's…

I think its killer feature is how it's an all-in-one OS. In you pocket, it's a smartphone; docked, it's a complete linux desktop environment.

I thought that was a feature for 'Ubuntu for Android' (a different product). I could be wrong, but I don't see that feature available under the 'Ubuntu Phone' list of features.

Re: Verizon backs Ubuntu smartphone

#45

Post by binarycrusader »

dragonwriter wrote: post #43
comex wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox OS will advance very little if it flops because it has crappy apps because Mozilla refused to admit pragmatism. I do not know if this will actually happen or if such pragmatism is actually required, but developers' needs are far from irrelevant.

> Firefox OS will advance very little if it flops because it has crappy apps because Mozilla refused to admit pragmatism. Sure, but it will advance nothing that is in Mozilla's purpose if it has native apps rather than apps built with web technologies. Can a phone OS survive with just web technologies and not native apps? I think so, even though it won't do everything some people would like, and even though we're som…

I would call ensuring the survival of the platform they want to market as "advancing ... Mozilla's purpose".

To ensure the survival of that platform, they're going to need a native alternative to the HTML5/JS or whatever non-native APIs they're providing.

Perhaps they'll be successful on low-end hardware where applications and games don't matter, but non-native stuff is a long ways from the battery life and performance metrics that native apps can provide.

The right tool for the right job. And non-native SDKs are not yet the right tool for every job.

Re: Verizon backs Ubuntu smartphone

#46

Post by dragonwriter »

binarycrusader wrote: post #45
dragonwriter wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firefox OS will advance very little if it flops because it has crappy apps because Mozilla refused to admit pragmatism. Sure, but it will advance nothing that is in Mozilla's purpose if it has native apps rather than apps built with web technologies. Can a phone OS survive with just web technologies and not native apps? I think so, even though it won't do everything some people would like, and even though we're som…

I would call ensuring the survival of the platform they want to market as "advancing ... Mozilla's purpose". To ensure the survival of that platform, they're going to need a native alternative to the HTML5/JS or whatever non-native APIs they're providing. Perhaps they'll be successful on low-end hardware where applications and games don't matter, but non-native stuff is a long ways from the battery life and performan…

> I would call ensuring the survival of the platform they want to market as "advancing ... Mozilla's purpose".

Mozilla's purpose is to advance the open web. Firefox OS is a means to that end, promoting a platform with that name independent of its actual nature is not an end to itself.

> To ensure the survival of that platform, they're going to need a pragmatic alternative to the HTML5/JS APIs.

The entire premise of Firefox OS, and the only reason that offering it is consistent with Mozilla's organizational purpose, is that Mozilla believes that this is false.

> Perhaps they'll be successful on low-end hardware where applications and games don't matter,

That would be, IMO, a very big success in advancing Mozilla's mission, though probably less than they hope Firefox OS can provide.

> This "all web" viewpoint you seem to be sold on is not sufficiently pragmatic.

I'm not "sold" on it; I suspect that Firefox OS may well be premature. But that doesn't stop me from recognizing that a conventional mobile OS of the type you suggest Firefox should be, with native development along with web technologies, is completely useless for the purpose for which Mozilla exists.

> The right tool for the right job. And non-native SDKs are not yet the right tool for every job.

So? Firefox OS doesn't have to be suitable for every job for it to survive, or for it to advance Mozilla's purposes.

Re: Verizon backs Ubuntu smartphone

#47

Post by duaneb »

dragonwriter wrote: post #27
binarycrusader wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No native development kit is a non-starter for me personally. Apple tried to go the same route with the original iPhone and there's a very good reason why it wasn't successful -- and it wasn't just the state of JavaScript technology at the time. If Apple can't do without a native SDK and Google can't, I don't know why Mozilla thinks it can.

> If Apple can't do without a native SDK and Google can't, I don't know why Mozilla thinks it can. Apple is a for-profit corporation that makes money off its market for native apps. Google is a for-profit corporation that makes money off its market for native apps. Mozilla is a non-profit organization whose mission to advance the open web. Different goals, different requirements.

> Mozilla is a non-profit organization whose mission to advance the open web.

So why on earth are they making a phone? It's a piece of hardware, kind of weird/painful that I still have to go through javascript. The best fix for this is compiling to javascript, which is distinctly unappealing.

Re: Verizon backs Ubuntu smartphone

#49

Post by duaneb »

dragonwriter wrote: post #43
comex wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox OS will advance very little if it flops because it has crappy apps because Mozilla refused to admit pragmatism. I do not know if this will actually happen or if such pragmatism is actually required, but developers' needs are far from irrelevant.

> Firefox OS will advance very little if it flops because it has crappy apps because Mozilla refused to admit pragmatism. Sure, but it will advance nothing that is in Mozilla's purpose if it has native apps rather than apps built with web technologies. Can a phone OS survive with just web technologies and not native apps? I think so, even though it won't do everything some people would like, and even though we're som…

> Can a phone OS survive with just web technologies and not native apps?

Why would you cripple yourself like this, though? Modern web technologies are far from ideal for doing websites, why would I extend the pain to offline apps?

Re: Verizon backs Ubuntu smartphone

#50

Post by mdeslaur »

jebblue wrote: post #48

I'm encouraged but I watched the video here: http://www.ubuntu.com/phone We can't lock the phone? The phone decides how to search? Developers empowered by Java on Android would have to go back 1 or 2 decades to C or C++ to make apps? That's sounding pretty limiting.

Yes, you can lock the phone. The main programming environment is QML, not C or C++.
Post reply on HN