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!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hands On With Ubuntu For SmartPhones

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the looking-slick dept.

Cellphones 127

adeelarshad82 writes "Ubuntu for smartphones may be pretty late to the smartphone ecosystem, but as the hands-on video demonstrates, Canonical has been paying attention. The operating system is just called Ubuntu, allowing the company to complete their illusion that this operating system offers everything that desktop Ubuntu runs. If you're a fan of the Unity UI you will find yourself right at home with this interface since every bit of Ubuntu has visual cues that come straight from Unity. As the video shows, the animations looked great, and the phone feels incredibly fast. The top bar of the OS has several icons across it, offering a quick glimpse into things like battery life, messages and others. Settings for every app are available by swiping up from the bottom of the screen, in a gesture that is quite similar to the one used in Windows 8 to access the menu. Given that it's early days for the OS, Ubuntu is far from perfect. For instance, their welcome screen allows for way too many apps to be rapidly accessible without a pin lock of some kind."

cancel ×

127 comments

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

Suck it RMS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42521661)

Not your toes, I meant metaphorically.

Plus you smell, you hippy.

Re:Suck it RMS (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42524493)

According to timecop from the Gay Nigger Association of America (GNAA), Ubuntu is the first nigger friendly operating system, and I quote:

“Niggers is the problem, because when you make Linux dumb enough that even a nigger can do it, only niggers will use it.” — timecop 2006

Why not just call it 'coonix' It can't possibly work because niggers don't work and anything niggers
get their ape like hands into will cease to work as well.

Leave it to niggaz' to fuck up something that is free.

Anyway, I hear that they changed the man pages to "ape" pages! So instead of typing "man xorg" you type "ape xorg"

Want to know less about niggaz' ? Point your browsa' here: http://niggermania.com/tom/ [niggermania.com]

Love,

nigga crusher

Re:Suck it RMS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42524665)

Keep doing the good work. Windows will be associated with racism and poo-pooed by the media whores. Excellent.

Oh No (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42521747)

I wanted 2013 to be the year of the Linux desktop, not the Linux phone. Now I'm going to have to get this tattoo changed again.

Re:Oh No (2)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42521817)

That's okay, 2009 was the year of the Linux phone.

Re:Oh No (4, Interesting)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42521895)

At the time, I considered 2010 to be the year of the Linux phone, and had a signature that said such. From the beginning of the year to the end, there was a huge rise in numbers of available handsets running Android and proportion of users using Android compared to iOS and other OSs. 2010 also saw phones running Android 1.5-1.6 (which is terrible in retrospect) in the beginning to 2.3 (which is decent and still widely used) at the end. It was a rather impressive evolution in a single year. I'd love to see another popular Linux distro on the phone that could actually compete in the marketspace. Maybe this will be it. But we've already seen the year of the Linux phone.

Re:Oh No (-1, Troll)

eartsidi (2811219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523639)

http://www.cloud65.com/ [cloud65.com] until I saw the paycheck which had said $9377, I accept that...my... father in law was realey bringing in money part-time on their laptop.. there uncle has done this for only about 18 months and recently repayed the loans on there condo and bought a top of the range Land Rover Range Rover. I went here,

Wat (5, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about a year and a half ago | (#42521759)

I heard you have to use a terminal to dial the phone.

>call -n 8005551234 -calrid 0 | foneaudapp -spkr 1 -micr 1

Re:Wat (5, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42521915)

>call -n 8005551234 -calrid 0 | foneaudapp -spkr 1 -micr 1

Typical noob...

cat ~/mail/contacts/* | grep "[CONTACT_NAME]" | grep [0-9]???-[0-9]???-[0-9]???? | awk BEGIN { FS="," } { print $2 } | call -calrid 0 -n & ; foneaudapp -spkr /udev/audio/default/out -micr /udev/audio/default/in

Re:Wat (5, Funny)

realmolo (574068) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522129)

Emacs can already make cell phone calls. It's been built-in since 1980.

Re:Wat (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522159)

Emacs can already make cell phone calls. It's been built-in since 1980.

Yup, and its implimentation inspired Mick Jagger to scream into the microphone "You make a grown man cry" a year later.

Re:Wat (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about a year and a half ago | (#42524885)

However, it hasn't been tested yet because no responsible emacs user uses a cell phone (because it can track you). Nevertheless, cell-phone.el works just fine if you configure and patch it correctly.

Re:Wat (4, Insightful)

Inf0phreak (627499) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522235)

Typical noob...

cat ~/mail/contacts/* | grep [...]

You earned yourself a Useless Use of Cat Award [partmaps.org] !

Re:Wat (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522413)

You earned yourself a Useless Use of Cat Award!

for i = 0; i++; i But more seriously, when you get used to pipes in UNIX, you'll do this too. Everyone does because like many UNIX commands, 'cat' is dead simple and easier to remember than whether it was -f or --file or --directory or consulting the man page to figure out what will convince the next command (in this case, grep) to read one or more files. So stop flogging a decades-dead horse and just smile and enjoy the geeky 1UP.

Re:Wat (2)

kwark (512736) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522595)

You never noticed that just about all *nix commands reads input from a file (without any arguments to point out the file)?

Re:Wat (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522755)

You never noticed that just about all *nix commands reads input from a file (without any arguments to point out the file)?

Yes, but that's beside the point. All of this comes down to bitching about style... and frankly, I could give a damn about style. Does it work? Good! That's all that matters.

Re:Wat (1)

kwark (512736) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523023)

How is it beside the point if you claim to use cat because you can't remember what argument to give to read from file? There is no argument to read from file, every last string not preceded by an option is to be parsed as file to read input from (after -- if you want to read file named "-x" or "--foo"). You absolutely want to a extra program to do stuff the second one can already do, you should use dog. It is a better than cat.

Useless - schmuseless! (2)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523455)

You're forgetting command line development and editing
time. If I need to do something like:

head -n 120 FILE | grep foo

and on first run it doesn't turn out what I was expecting, I
may well edit the previous command line changing it into:

cat FILE | grep foo

Plenty of seeming redundancy there too, but not when you
take the actual editing into acount as well.

Re:Useless - schmuseless! (4, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about a year and a half ago | (#42524229)

Good lord what have I started?

Re:Useless - schmuseless! (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year and a half ago | (#42525957)

Haha. I never did grok command line scripting. But it's heartening I can learn more in a Slashdot discussion than in a 300 page 'Ubuntu for laypeople' paperback. :)

Re:Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523491)

Style ... and efficiency. Spawning a new process takes time and resources, and the pipe uses RAM. Pipes are awesome, and one of the greatest features of *nix .... but overusing them is bad. doing more with 1 command is USUALLY better. there may be cases where a purpose built tool & pipe could be better than a slapped on switch that's not optimized, but I can't think of anything.

Re:Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42525039)

If RAM becomes an issue when running cat, go find a shotgun and shoot yourself because literally nobody gives a flipping fuck what machine you're working with.

Re:Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42525727)

not cat, the pipe.

Re:Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42526277)

Get two cartridges then.

Re:Wat (1)

tolkienfan (892463) | about a year and a half ago | (#42526447)

cat and grep (for example) sometimes works better as they run in parallel. plus, there isn't actually anything WRONG with using cat and pipe vs the alternatives.

Re:Wat (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523121)

for i = 0; i++; i But more seriously, when you get used to pipes in UNIX, you'll do this too. Everyone does because like many UNIX commands, 'cat' is dead simple and easier to remember than whether it was -f or --file or --directory or consulting the man page to figure out what will convince the next command (in this case, grep) to read one or more files. So stop flogging a decades-dead horse and just smile and enjoy the geeky 1UP.

Shell redirection man, shell redirection.

Since it's a pipeline that's linking stdout of one to stdin of another, you can just use shell redirection to set the stdin of the first command to the file.

Doesn't work for multiple files. And filename: != (1)

billstewart (78916) | about a year and a half ago | (#42524833)

The original command line we're flaming about started with " cat ~/mail/contacts/* | grep [...] ", so assuming there's more than one file in that directory, you can't just use
Also, "cat ~/mail/contacts/* | grep [...] " produces different results than "grep [...] ~/mail/contacts/* " - either RTFM or try it. Pay attention to the filename: at the beginning of each line. Maybe you want it, maybe you don't.

Re:Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523149)

Except the complaint isn't that you should use "grep [...] file", it's that you should use "<file grep [...]" which is universal and spawns one fewer processes.

Of course, even knowing that, I still write "cat file" all the time. Oh, well.

Re:Wat (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523229)

Everyone does because like many UNIX commands, 'cat' is dead simple and easier to remember than whether it was -f or --file or --directory or consulting the man page to figure out what will convince the next command (in this case, grep) to read one or more files.

You can feed files to the stdin of a program using the '<' operator.

For example: grep Gottfried < phonebook.txt

Original was multiple files *, not just one. (1)

billstewart (78916) | about a year and a half ago | (#42524857)

Look at the original - the source data was ~/mail/contacts/* , which is potentially multiple files.

Re:Wat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522751)

What else could you expect out of moronintraining?

Re:Wat (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522981)

You earned yourself a Useless Use of Cat Award [partmaps.org] !

When did using cat (aka 'concatenate files and print on the standard output') to concatenate multiple files and print them to the standard output as input to another command become 'useless use of cat'?

Re:Wat (3, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523377)

You earned yourself a Useless Use of Cat Award!

When did using cat (aka 'concatenate files and print on the standard output') to concatenate multiple files and print them to the standard output as input to another command become 'useless use of cat'?

Any time you use cat to send one or more files' contents to grep is a "useless use of cat" because grep already supports that directly:
grep [options] PATTERN [FILE...]

Re:Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42524091)

Except that includes the name of the matching file at the start of each line. There's probably an option to grep to suppress that, but you could also just use cat...

Re:Wat (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | about a year and a half ago | (#42524815)

-h, --no-filename suppress the prefixing filename on output

besides, nobody ever needs to know in which file the grepped phrase is located, right?
 

Re:Wat (3, Insightful)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523085)

While cat is superfluous there, structuring the command in that way can make what's happening more obvious to the novice. Personally, grep's argument handling has always seemed backwards to me. I tend to think of it as "search this file for this pattern" (grep ), not "search for this pattern in this file" (grep ), so when I was first using Linux, I often used cat | grep because I kept getting the command wrong.

Re:Wat (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | about a year and a half ago | (#42524873)

grep works just like most cli tools processing files: [command] [fluff] [files]
i guess that's because it's easier to parse fixed parameters first and potentially unlimited list of input at the end.

Re:Wat (1)

jw3 (99683) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523283)

You earned yourself a Useless Use of Cat Award [partmaps.org] !

I would not agree with that. Yes, very often, cat is not necessary, strictly speaking; for example, the list of arguments could be directly passed to grep in this case. However, personally I consider it to be bad style. A verbose cat (i) doesn't cost anything in terms of memory or CPU (if it does, then 1981 called, they want their computer back), (ii) facilitates or invites additional filters, for example adding sort -u (or sort | uniq, as I would rather have it), (iii) makes the whole pipeline more readable. I find it especially funny when people who do not hesitate to launch a terrible misuse of resources (also know as a "Web browser") hesitate to put an additional cat command to a long pipeline.

Re:Wat (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522389)

It looks to me like somebody forgot to specify the network device over which the call is supposed to go out, as well as failing to specify the tty that the SIM is listening on...

Environment variables (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522923)

It looks to me like somebody forgot to specify the network device over which the call is supposed to go out, as well as failing to specify the tty that the SIM is listening on...

It's not forgetting if they're in environment variables that the system sets when it enumerates radios and SIMs.

Re:Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523911)

Stop abusing poor /bin/cat. Everyone knows you can just do:

grep "[CONTACT_NAME]" ~/mail/contacts/*

Re:Wat (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about a year and a half ago | (#42524159)

When the noob replies that that command didn't work on his system, remember that you have to scoff and tell him to compile his own drivers, or go buy a mac, or somesuch.

Re:Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42525093)

Typical noob... useless use of cat.

Re:Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42521949)

You're joking but people would unironically rave that this is simpler than using the Dialer app to dial the phone if they made it that way.

Re:Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522031)

you say that like it's a bad thing. I'd love it if unlocked android or iOS even had a command line, let alone one I could have bash scripts call or text me.

Re:Wat (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522449)

The android command line is accessible via a terminal emulator app. But you have to root the phone to get access to su/sudo, obviously. It's a little awkward as few of the familiar binaries are available, but you get cd/ls/cp/rm, which is enough for a little poking around the filesystem and copying files you want to SD card.

Re:Wat (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523257)

There is busy box available even without root.

http://kevinboone.net/kbox.html [kevinboone.net]

This is actually much less funny than you think! (1)

yooy (1146753) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522239)

This is how the first types of the OpenMoko phones worked. AFAIK, picking up a call was similar weird.

armel (1)

Faisal Rehman (2424374) | about a year and a half ago | (#42521769)

is it linux armel kernel?

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42521783)

but as the hands-on video demonstrates, Canonical has been paying attention

lol paying attention to what?

Unity (2)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | about a year and a half ago | (#42521795)

Tablets and phones are where Unity should be, it seems like it would function best on those devices.

Looks nice. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42521829)

I would take APT over play.google.com any day.

Careful what you wish for (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year and a half ago | (#42521999)

I would take APT over play.google.com any day.

Just wait 'till you see the Ubuntu Software Center!

Re:Careful what you wish for (1)

nschubach (922175) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522259)

Ubuntu Software Center doesn't use APT? That would be kind of dumb...

It's not too late! (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42521871)

There's still tons of room for improvement in the mobile market, example: better networking features for wifi networks aka the whole desktop experience on a phone, which is what this is all about, so right on ubuntu!

Re:It's not too late! (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523691)

are you implying that wifi networking works well on desktops and laptops?

Fast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42521965)

Every single other "hands-on" article I've read about the phone version of Ubuntu talks about how it's a developer release, with lag issues and is promising, but noticeably slow. The summary above says the phone "feels incredibly fast". So which is it?

Re:Fast? (1)

scorp1us (235526) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522139)

They are using Qt5 / QML to make native applications. Qt5/QML is fully hardware accelerated.

Re:Fast? (1)

scorp1us (235526) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522785)

Also, those developer build have debugging information in them which slows them down. When you run production code they are stripped down to be lean and mean.

Re:Fast? (1)

eric_herm (1231134) | about a year and a half ago | (#42525373)

That's quite stupid to have debug symbol on a demo. If it crash, that's likely too late ( ie, your software is buggy forever ), and if it doesn't, it is slow. And if you cannot prepare a demo for CES, then you are doing it wrong.

Now, maybe that's regular build and Ubuntu on phone is just slow, but people are so eager to believe that it will have a real impact that they start to imagine this is debug build.

Someone explain how this works? (4, Interesting)

scorp1us (235526) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522179)

I'm on board with this Ubuntu-on-a-phone idea. But I want to know how it works. Is the phone itself one display (display 0) and when you plug in another display (conventional monitor) you get a traditional Ubuntu desktop on display 1? Two display managers on one system? How does the window manager work? Can I drag windows to my phone screen?

Re:Someone explain how this works? (1)

freshlimesoda (2497490) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523299)

It cannot possibly provide the fimiliar full Ubuntu Desktop on (display 1). Since it isnt.

Re:Someone explain how this works? (2)

scorp1us (235526) | about a year and a half ago | (#42524369)

Why can't it? it's just Ubuntu compiled for arm.

Re:Someone explain how this works? (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523313)

I believe the "Ubuntu for Android" scheme (which was running on at least the Motorola Atrix 2) killed the phone's screen when it was in desktop mode- so only one desktop manager at a time.

Presumably a full Ubuntu phone will basically be using the "Ubuntu for Android" code to handle the docking functionality. Indeed, I've been wondering if that was actually the whole point of the "Ubuntu for Android" project- just an incidental benefit of their Ubuntu Phone project proper.

Anyway, I found a somewhat vacuous video of "Ubuntu for Android" working on You Tube if you want to see it in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6eEDZva1W8 [youtube.com]

Re:Someone explain how this works? (1)

scorp1us (235526) | about a year and a half ago | (#42524351)

From what I could tell, that's just a hypervisor.

Re:Someone explain how this works? (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | about a year and a half ago | (#42524535)

I remember the marketing fluff at the time promising that Ubuntu For Android was all native- no virtualization or emulation.

I don't really know though, so maybe you're right; I've never looked into it too closely.

Re:Someone explain how this works? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523737)

It's just Ubuntu on your phone.
Of course you can plug an external display, just like you can plug an external display on a laptop.

Re:Someone explain how this works? (1)

scorp1us (235526) | about a year and a half ago | (#42524389)

I think you missed the point. What happens when you get a call on your phone and you've got a 2nd display plugged in? You click a mouse to answer? You use speaker phone? etc. There are usability questions...

Re:Someone explain how this works? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42525043)

Well I guess speaker phone or Bluetooth would work. Or Ideally you're using something like miracast to feed the display so you could just pick up and answer. A dock could achieve the same though as long as the phone can remember the Window details.

If you're a fan of the Unity UI... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522287)

If you're a fan of the Unity UI...

snigger

Good one.

Re:If you're a fan of the Unity UI... (4, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522525)

I don't think Unity has many fans when it comes to desktops and laptops. But tablets and netbooks? Yeah, I can see that. I don't like Canonical forcing a tablet OS on the desktop (and I like it even less when Microsoft does it). But moving a touch-based tablet OS onto a phone sort of makes sense. Perhaps we'll see the day when Ubuntu is nothing more than a tablet and phone OS and we'll all laugh when we think about the days we used it on the desktop.

Re:If you're a fan of the Unity UI... (2)

Simon Brooke (45012) | about a year and a half ago | (#42524627)

I don't think Unity has many fans when it comes to desktops and laptops. But tablets and netbooks? Yeah, I can see that. I don't like Canonical forcing a tablet OS on the desktop (and I like it even less when Microsoft does it). But moving a touch-based tablet OS onto a phone sort of makes sense. Perhaps we'll see the day when Ubuntu is nothing more than a tablet and phone OS and we'll all laugh when we think about the days we used it on the desktop.

To be fair, they aren't forcing Unity on you. They're offering it as an option. I don't like it so currently I'm running Gnome 2 as my window manager, but I also have KDE4, Gnome 3, LXDE, OpenSTEP, wm2 and twm installed so I can choose whichever I feel like on the day.

Re:If you're a fan of the Unity UI... (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522615)

I'm still using Ubuntu Netbook Remix (Unity style GUI) and it's great for smaller screens. No, no way would I prefer Unity over a traditional desktop if I'm working on a traditional desktop, but it works for me on small screens where space is at a premium (and you can always switch to a traditional GNOME/KDE/etc interface if you wish). For a phone Unity or similar does actually make sense.

Re:If you're a fan of the Unity UI... (1)

eric_herm (1231134) | about a year and a half ago | (#42525399)

I fail to see what seems so great in unity on a small screen. besides the "merge the title bar" system, the dock do not seems so great when the space is limited, or did I miss something ?

Feature Phones need an OS (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522349)

Nothing seems to be stepping up to replace Symbian. An operating system is needed for baseline devices. Not all phones need a camera, accelerometer, smooth window transitions, but these features are expected with every smart phone, and hence app developers expect them also.

Feature phones and dumb phones do not receive the spotlight often, however many users do not need or want a 600 dollar computer in their pocket all the time, but still need the functionality of email and web browser. If a dedicated low resource mobile OS was available, then the OS could receive updates and applications suitable, unlike the current ecosystem of leaving old phones with their original operating system.

Wait For (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42524297)

..The Xubuntu Phone. That will run on 128 MB RAM.

Re:Wait For (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42526979)

A LUbuntu Phone

"Desktop story" (1)

notknown86 (1190215) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522683)

Ubuntu sacrificed usability on the desktop for usability on a phone OS that, ironically, no-one is likely to use at all.

Shuttleworth can sprout all the design language he wants. Fact is, he completely missed the most simple of principals when breaking Ubuntu with Unity - make sure the audience exists before you design for it.

Re:"Desktop story" (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523827)

The Canonical story makes me imagine someone throwing a "free pizza" party, then after it's good and busy, swapping all the pizza for lutefisk [wikipedia.org] because that's what the host likes, and everyone else should Goddamn love it as well.

Re:"Desktop story" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42524549)

+1

Love linux, but this is stupid (3, Interesting)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522851)

I don't want a Shuttleworth phone, I want a linux capable phone. I want a phone so controllable that if the phone is capable of doing it then I or someone else is doing it. The ideal phone would be one so controllable that some hardcore dude would instantly cobble together a complete command line interface to the phone:

phone-dial 5551234
sms-message -u5551234 'I will be 5 minutes late'
list-recent-calls
I am sick of phones that are missing features that would tick off the telcos. I want to block text messages from certain users (I'm looking at you Telus) I want to have a list of people who can and can't call me at certain times of the day. I want to block calls from certain callers. I want an easy button to turn my cell data on and off. I want to delete any app that I don't want. When (not if) I reinstall the OS I want to strip out everything and then put back only that I want (I'm looking at you NewsStand). Whereas I see an Ubuntu phone as being Shuttleworth trying to get his piece of the appstore pie. I want a phone that cannot be locked to a carrier.

Re:Love linux, but this is stupid (2)

ptaff (165113) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523221)

The ideal phone would be one so controllable that some hardcore dude would instantly cobble together a complete command line interface to the phone

GTalkSMS [google.com] (for Android) can already do most of what you ask for, via XMPP.

Re:Love linux, but this is stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523331)

Normally GSM radios do in fact respond to AT commands, ie ATDT 5551234, ATZ etc.

You totally can dial the phone by writing AT commands (maybe not exactly ATDT since that is obviously very old), into /dev/gsm or similar.

Of course it is probably much easier to install minicom and connect that to the device to speak to it.

Re:Love linux, but this is stupid (1)

ssam (2723487) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523395)

i guess you missed the openmoko

Re:Love linux, but this is stupid (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | about a year and a half ago | (#42526887)

Got one, put debian on it, lying in the drawer.. it didn't handle calls well.

  But I will turn it into an SMS gateway for my PC. Gotta love Linux and F/OSS!

Re:Love linux, but this is stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523793)

Sounds like you are looking for cyanogenmod (http://cyanogenmod.org). Give it a test drive.

Re:Love linux, but this is stupid (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42524503)

Well, get an unlocked, open, Android phone, such as a member of the Google Nexus family, and load whatever operating system you want on it.

Your complaint may have been justified five years ago, when pretty much all phones were entirely locked down, and every phone OS was burdened with carrier customizations, but you now have choices, you don't have to buy those things. Yes, they're what the carriers continue to push. But even Verizon carried the Galaxy Nexus.

Go Ubuntu! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522859)

Yeah we may not like what they've been shoving into the desktop UI space, but if that bears fruit in this market I think we should all applaud them. Imagine a phone where you can actually write real software in native code without jumping through a bunch of hoops put in the way by paranoid vendors dead-set on keeping everything in a little padded cell (be that by requiring one company's desktop hardware for development -- Apple --, or by being stuck in a VM with no real language choices (Java/Dalvik).

I wanna code my phone apps in C or Python or friggin' assembler if I want, dammit!

Great Comment ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42524411)

For some tremendously stupid reason Nokia, M$ and Google seem to think that they have to force the Java/C# crapola onto phone users.
But phones don't take cruft easily, as it drains batteries and kills user experience. I predict Ubuntu to be a raging success, simply because it does away with these crap decisions. I fully expect people to replace Android with a hacked version of Ubuntu, maybe some Xubuntu variant or Mint. Very much like with PCs, Ubuntu will run very well on low-end hardware and save battery energy, too.

Even Nokia could use memory-safe languages on Series 40, without a MMU. See this as an example of what I mean:

http://sourceforge.net/p/sappeurcompiler/code-0/2/tree/trunk/doc/SAPPEUR.pdf?format=raw

http://sourceforge.net/p/sappeurcompiler/code-0/2/tree/trunk/

Re:Go Ubuntu! (1)

eric_herm (1231134) | about a year and a half ago | (#42525461)

Nokia N9 :
- developper mode right from the UI, just a click ( and it install ssh, and lots of linux tools ), really pleasant
- developped in qt, mostly free software ( not all, unfortunately ), and using regular linux stuff ( dbus, hal, bluez ) and some custom stuff too
- lots of doc

too bad that nokia/elop killed it before even living. Take a look at mer and jollia.

"Far from perfect" (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523275)

I for one am in high anticipation of the 1000 paper cuts.

Re:"Far from perfect" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42524447)

Just wait a few months and the kinks will be ironed out.

the fans of Unity (1)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523583)

If you're a fan of the Unity UI you will find yourself right at home

I hear he feels right at home.

Re:the fans of Unity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42524585)

Are you claiming Unity has a fan? Sorry, but [citation needed]. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This has all the problems of windows phone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523683)

I like ubuntu, but i'm torn about this. This has all the poorly defined context and mistery meat controls of Win8 where you just have to guess your way through it. Even in the video the phone (or the user) confuses the back and raise keyboard controls and ends up with a keyboard up in an app that doesn't need input. Further if right-to-left is back is left-to-right forward? NO, it's the launcher, awesome, opposite action, tangental reaction, glad i'm left to guess through this, it'll be easy. Speaking of the launcher, it looks like it handles just as poorly as unity does on a desktop but with more mistery icons to ponder the meaning of, and I love how 90% of the screen becomes dead space.
Let me just add that I too can run a full screen web browser on my mobile and call websites native web apps, an os that does not make.

So What ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42524525)

Rip out the Shuttleworth pieces you don't like and use the other Shuttleworth pieces to have freedom on your phone. See Xubuntu, Mint, Kubuntu and similar distros to see what I mean.

In the future, you don't carry a laptop. You carry a X-Buntu phone which has a HDMI and a USB interface. Keyboards and monitors will be ubiquitous in public places such as airports, cafes, lobbies, corporate visistor rooms, unis and the like. You pull your phone out of the pocket, connect to monitor and keyboard and continue to write on some document using OpenOffice or LaTex.

No Need for Government Docs (yeah, they call it "drive" these days) any more. Your docs will be versioned and shared using git or svn.

Put it on my HTC THunderbolt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42524049)

Since HTC and Verizon won't update my phone after 1.5 years, though I am still beholden to a contract, i will be happy to volunteer my phone for porting.

Seriously, fsck Verizon and HTC.

Wow, Desktop on my phone... (1)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | about a year and a half ago | (#42526235)

Just when the nerd hodes scorn and berate Microsoft for bringing the desktop to the mobile, suddenly the FOSS think it makes sense... shit, make up your minds. Can I have a desktop on my phone or not?

ill check this out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42526241)

and if its good enuf THEN SO LONG GOOGLE AND THANKS FOR NOTHING
however if it sucks id like to retract that statement and continue on hoping and waiting for a more free platform to contribute to.
seriously man google is locking thier shit down tight
if your not in "the club" good fucking luck trying to do jack shit with android
seriously its just a big run-around
i havent attempted to "play" with apple for several years
have all but given up with android since jellybean
im not trying tp change thier platform that much and its not like im funded to do this anyway
its just not a very hobbyiest-experimentalist platform by thier own choosing
i have good success with thier older stuff and then pass certain milestones and the sources just wont work for me and there is no documentation about anything--maybe some post 8 months ago by somebody on thier building forum that has some vague ststement about what im trying to achieve being unworkable at this(that) time and tight lips about this when asking if any updates
same old same old snarky ass forums with one or two guys who know "everything" and a bunch of ass kissers waiting for crumbs of info to be blessed upon the " little people"
ITS SO FRUSTRATING

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?