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!

Ubuntu For Tablets Announced

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the it-does-look-sweet dept.

Ubuntu 148

hypnosec writes "Keeping its promise from yesterday Ubuntu has announced an operating system for tablets dubbed 'Ubuntu for Tablets' that it says will work on tablets of any size. Advertised to work on both entry level tablets as well as high-end tablets with enterprise specifications, the operating system offers multitasking, safer sharing, instant launch of applications through the menu bar on the left, effortless switching between applications among other features." The tablet version of the OS will also be presented at Mobile World Congress later this month. Also featured at SlashCloud.

cancel ×

148 comments

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

oh canonical (-1, Troll)

liamevo (1358257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946003)

Canonical is no longer a linux company, it's a company that uses linux.

Re:oh canonical (5, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946021)

Canonical is no longer a linux company, it's a company that uses linux.

Being that Linux can never really be "owned" by any one company, isn't that a given?

Re:oh canonical (-1, Redundant)

liamevo (1358257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946059)

You know what I meant Mr Pedant.

Re:oh canonical (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946141)

Actually, no we don't know what you mean. You're attempting to draw some distinction where there is none.

Re:oh canonical (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946349)

No, I don't think we do. What exactly *is* a 'linux company'? Is Redhat a linux company? What about Oracle? Intel?

I think perhaps the distinction is, for example, Microsoft is a company that uses linux. They have to in order to test and develop Hyper-V, since its advertised to work with Linux. They use it.

A linux company is a company that makes money off of selling a distribution or application or services for Linux, making active changes back into the community. By that standard, all the companies I listed above, *including Ubuntu*, are 'linux companies'.

You don't have to like Ubuntu, but you can't deny they've done some really great things for the community. Nothing they do is 'closed source', and you can like or hate their development and future planning methods (I think you have an issue with Unity, thats where most of the Ubuntu haters come from), but they are open and friendly to the community.

Re:oh canonical (0)

liamevo (1358257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946741)

Well, it seems I misjudged to simpleness of my sentence.

I meant canonical used to be a great part of the linux ecosystem, fitted in with the open source culture and understood the os community and what sort of "features" would be hated. Now, not so much.

Re:oh canonical (1)

liamevo (1358257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946793)

Urgh... are we ever going to have an edit feature?

Re:oh canonical (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946805)

You didn't misjudge anything. You just didn't say ANYTHING related to that in your original sentence, there was absolutely no correlation to be made and anyone could've made up their own perfectly valid interpretation that had nothing to do with the ecosystem.

If you want to say something, say it. It's not fucking hard.

Re:oh canonical (1)

liamevo (1358257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946901)

I thought what I inferred was obvious. Therefore, I misjudged.

Re:oh canonical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42947631)

*cough* Ubuntu One *cough*

Re:oh canonical (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946725)

I think so: you mean "I HATE NEW THINGS AND LOVE COMPLAINING AND BEING AN ELITIST ABOUT MY OPERATING SYSTEM!!!!!"

That about sum it up? Really, that's about all I got from your post. Reminds me of people who talk about "true americans."

Re:oh canonical (1)

liamevo (1358257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946757)

Elitist about my operating system? Couldn't be more wrong, running Win8 at home and win7 + ubuntu at work and I'm actually quite excited about the ubuntu phone.

Re:oh canonical (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946159)

Linux can not be owned by an company.

But a company can hire all named developers and have it turn into a muppet show. Even GKH is being influenced by GNyoME developers and those systemd mungos. Turning Linux into some gay ass GnomeOS type of cancer.

Re:oh canonical (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946155)

So many people put their faith in a company founded by a wigger from Africa. What the hell were they thinking?

Re:oh canonical (1)

drankr (2796221) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946329)

Forgive my ignorance, I'm continental - is a wigger a person who wears wigs? I don't think he does, though.

Re:oh canonical (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946879)

To put it as nicely as I can: A "wigger" is a fair-skinned fan of hip-hop culture.

Re:oh canonical (1)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about a year and a half ago | (#42947817)

To put it as nicely as I can: A "wigger" is a fair-skinned fan of hip-hop culture.

I think this clip from The Wire [youtube.com] accurately illustrates that particular social phenomenon.

Re:oh canonical (2, Funny)

citizenr (871508) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946731)

Canonical is no longer a linux company, it's a company that uses linux.

Nah, they are a company that uses Linux users.

Ehhh (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946017)

And still no OEM partners like with the Ubuntu TV that we were going to be able to buy by the end of last year. This is going fail and fail hard. Maybe Canonical will then just go away and stop trying to push spyware on people.

And nothing of value was lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42947515)

Canonical has had enough opportunities to learn from hardware mistakes that it might not make a bad Linux hardware company...

Who cares ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946027)

Does anyone actually care ? If the Tablet won't run either iOS or Android then no one will ever buy it. It's an dead investment - no matter if Linux or not.

Re:Who cares ? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946127)

I don't want either iOS or Android, but I might get a tablet with KDE Plasma Active.

Re:Who cares ? (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948887)

I don't want either iOS or Android, but I might get a tablet with KDE Plasma Active.

Well most likely you'll get a tablet with Android which you'll have to wipe and then install KDE Plasma Active on, that's fine for you - and probably most of the readers of this site - but I see that as the major stumbling block when it comes to mainstream adoption.

Re:Who cares ? (4, Interesting)

nametaken (610866) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946133)

I have a Kindle Fire around here somewhere that runs aftermarket android roms. I see no reason why I should turn my nose up at a linux distro, if it works well. That part, of course, remains to be seen.

Re:Who cares ? (5, Interesting)

tylikcat (1578365) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946313)

My tablet-ish thing is an Asus transformer, and while I'm happy enough with Cyanogenmod, I have it set up to run linux in user space because sometimes I want it to be just a bit more of a real computer.

If Ubuntu for tablet could give me a reasonable front end and still let me write code (we're not talking serious compiling here, just hacking together a bit of python here and there, mostly) and give me cleaner access to system underpinnings, I'd be happy to switch. Well, okay, and reasonable functionality in other ways - power management, etc. I've yet to meet an Android distro that really lets me do what I'd like.

Re:Who cares ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42947159)

Ubuntu runs on ASUS Transformer quite well. You might want to try it.

Re:Who cares ? (2)

admdrew (782761) | about a year and a half ago | (#42947695)

Agreed. I *just* tried out Ubuntu on my Nexus 7, and I promptly went back to cyanogen 10.1; it was very cool to be able to run basically full blown Ubuntu (and it's relatively speedy), but it's definitely not tablet-optimized, and there are too many little annoyances for me to want to keep it at the moment.

In its current iteration, Ubuntu on tablets seems geared more towards those who prefer using some sort of physical keyboard with their tablet. In that case, I can already see the usefulness. For those who want a tablet they can use while on the livingroom couch, or on their commute to work, Ubuntu isn't yet ready for tablet consumption.

Re:Who cares ? (4, Insightful)

Albanach (527650) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946143)

Only a year or so ago, you could have said "If the Tablet won't run iOS then no one will ever buy it. It's an dead investment."

Today we have plenty of Android tablets gaining a footprint. Microsoft aren't going to let go of the market segment easily either, even after their late start and poor initial showing. I'm not sure why you think an Ubuntu tablet is doomed to failure.

What's going to be important is showing it can do things the others can't or won't. Some of the multi-tasking on their video looks impressive and may offer that differentiation.

Re:Who cares ? (4, Insightful)

GIL_Dude (850471) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946503)

Doomed to failure? No, not completely. But when you are this late to market and your competitors have entrenched and solid ecosystems, your stuff better kick some serious ass and be available on some seriously nice hardware and have a thriving app ecosystem ready to go. Otherwise? Yes, pretty much doomed. You end up struggling mightily like Microsoft is with Windows 8 Phone. It is actually a decent OS and the hardware is pretty much on par with other phones. But it doesn't come out and just blow the others in the market away and the app ecosystem is not really "there" yet (which is why I have an Android phone). So they languish unsold. A tablet competitor like Ubuntu would be the same way. Make it really rock out of the box and get some devs on it right now or it won't go very far very fast.

Re:Who cares ? (3, Insightful)

saihung (19097) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946551)

iOS has existed since 2007. The iPad has been in existence for less than 3 years as a freestanding product. Don't fool yourself. However entrenched you think one operating system or manufacturer may be in this sector, all it takes is a little bit of rot and a solid kick to turn the entire thing onto its head.

Re:Who cares ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42947579)

iOS (and app stores in general) is perfect example of vendor lock-in. My GF has an iPhone that she'd love to get rid of but she's spent the last 5 years buying apps for it. That's hundreds of dollars of apps. She'd rather get something non-Apple - especially in light of the fragility of the recent iPhone models, the majority of people I know who have one have broken theirs - but she feels this is too much of an 'investment' to walk away from.

Getting an iPad would be a no-brainer for anyone who already has an iPhone for the same reasons.

Re:Who cares ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42947391)

Or just make into a owners tablet instead of a rental as every other one out there is right now. You may have purchased it but you don't own it.

Re:Who cares ? (3, Interesting)

Master Moose (1243274) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948091)

I think that the tablet space is the same as the home computing space in the 80's. You had your C64s, your Amigas, Ataris, Apples, IBMs, Acorns and various other vendors machines. People's choices were not made about the OS, but if the machine met their needs by having the right games, the correct applications, compatibility with work, friends and family etc. People also expected that if they bought a different vendors machine, that they would have a different experience.

If I am half right, then there is room for other vendors to come in with products and be quite successful. . Of course, we didn't have the litigation and patent trolling so bad back then (although I do admit it exsisted)

Re:Who cares ? (4, Interesting)

slim (1652) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946435)

In the demo of Ubuntu for phones, a Samsung S3 is running Android and Ubuntu *at the same time*.

I don't know whether Android is hosting Ubuntu, or Ubuntu is hosting Android, or some third piece of software is hosting both. But the end result is that you plug your phone into an HDMI monitor, operate an Ubuntu desktop on the monitor using a bluetooth keyboard/mouse, and use Android on the handset at the same time. The Ubuntu stuff had hooks into Android so there were desktop apps that interacted with your Android contacts etc.

Fairly neat. I got the impression that it wasn't all as open-source as I'd like it to be -- ain't that the Android way?

Re:Who cares ? (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948727)

Kernel and userland are android. The skin is from ubuntu.

How is this different then nomal ubuntu (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946031)

Considering it's CLEARLY not for desktops anymore.

Re:How is this different then nomal ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946461)

The difference is that this version could be for tablets. What regular Ubuntu is for remains to be figured out.

but does it run (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946043)

advertisements?

Nokia Tablet (1)

Paul Pierce (739303) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946101)

Could Nokia have a tablet in the works? If so could they release them with Ubuntu or would their Microsoft agreement limit them to Windows on those as well?

Re:Nokia Tablet (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946181)

Not holding my breath, considering that Nokia had a real linux smartphone and failed to market/properly develop it, all before the deadly embrace with MS (Ok it might not be deadly but most microsoft partners ended up screwed at one point, yes?).

Re:Nokia Tablet (4, Informative)

dwater (72834) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946317)

...real linux smartphone

Two, in fact (three if you count the n950)...not to mention their predecessors which were Internet *tablets*.

Re:Nokia Tablet (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946791)

Nokia had an internet tablet (a real one, not a PDA-sized one) about a decade ago. It was alas way ahead of the market. (Microsoft did too which has similar "success".)

Re:Nokia Tablet (1)

dwater (72834) | about a year and a half ago | (#42947135)

I think that's what I was saying...but they had not one internet tablet, but a few...iirc 770, n800, n810, then the n900 which took a sim card so was a phone.

Re:Nokia Tablet (2)

citizenr (871508) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946759)

Nokia is forced (by retarded agreement) to buy more M$ licenses that they are currently able to use. Why would they use another os when they are already sitting on unused M$ ones (and M$ will do marketing for them).

Re:Nokia Tablet (2)

Belial6 (794905) | about a year and a half ago | (#42947277)

Because they want to sell the tablets?

Re:Nokia Tablet (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946813)

Nokia had back to 2005 [wikipedia.org] a good Linux tablet already, and kept releasing improved versions of it till 2009 [wikipedia.org] . Then went into suicidal mode.

The next one releasing a native linux tablet with WebOS was HP with the Touchpad, and then they got crazy too.

Probably the best strategy for tablet manufacturers regarding Linux is to release them under some base, useful enough OS (i.e. Android) and let all drivers/boot/etc open enough to enable users to install on them the Linux flavor they want if need something better, be this Ubuntu, openWebOS, Mer, KDE Plasma Active or another.

They forgot one small tid bit... (1)

bogaboga (793279) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946149)

Advertised to work on both entry level tablets as well as high-end tablets with enterprise specifications, the operating system offers multitasking, safer sharing, instant launch of applications through the menu bar on the left, effortless switching between applications among other features."

I would modify the above piece to read...

Advertised to work on both entry level tablets as well as high-end tablets with enterprise specifications, the operating system offers multitasking, safer sharing, instant launch of applications through the menu bar on the left, effortless switching between applications among other features just like Linux does. "

And we all know how Linux is [generally] doing, right?

Re:They forgot one small tid bit... (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946637)

Linux is doing freaking fantastic - it's under the bonnet in every Android phone and tablet, every Smart TV, many set top boxes, virtually every domestic piece of network gear, the majority of web servers, a large number of application servers, etc, etc, etc.

It's not doing so well on the desktop, but the desktop, as we are constantly reminded, is becoming a niche item.

A user environment that manages to offer a coherent - but not stupidly consistent [1] - experience on the three big devices - phone, tablet, desktop - will have what it needs to do well.

[1] Stupid consistency would be keeping the same swipe UI for the desktop as well as the tablet, like I'm told Windows 8 does. Tablets have a touch screen. Even if you're plugging a tablet into a keyboard and mouse, you don't want to have to gorilla arm the screen to use the UI, or worse, have to use a touch UI with a mouse.

Re:They forgot one small tid bit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946715)

virtually every domestic piece of network gear

No, that would be VxWorks or QNX.

Re:They forgot one small tid bit... (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946779)

In what world are a Cortex A-15 and 2GB of RAM considered "entry-level?

dad, what is linux ? (-1, Troll)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946161)

well, once upon a time, this arrogant guy, RMS, did a lot of work that didn't pay off..so another guy LT, created a nice OS called linux. Dad, how do you know RMS is arrogant ? look at it is gnu/linux, not linux: hundreds of words where a single paragraph, well written, would have done the job nicely (and, rms , despite being the uber uber programmer, doesn't seem to realize that people are lazy and don't like to type, and that / characters are hard to index, and therefore no one ever was gonna type gnu/linux when the they could type linux, not to mention, people don't like products that are hard to pronounce But dad, why doesn't anyone use linux? Son, that is the fascinating thing: you see, everyone thought there was a lot of money in linux, so all the companies rushed out not very good non compatible versions. meanwhile, the hackers, who don't understand basic human psychology (choice is not good) made hundreds of non compatible forks; in the end, no one system had enough critical mass: not everyone can be a leader; it takes a lot of followers to make something big and complex.

Re:dad, what is linux ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946225)

Can I have some of that crack you're smoking? Oh, you smoked it al already.

Re:dad, what is linux ? (4, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946323)

Everyone uses Linux. You're using it right now. Even Microsoft uses Linux extensively.

The simple fact of the matter is that Linux became *the* mainstream OS a decade ago, and you never even noticed.

Re:dad, what is linux ? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946511)

cinnamon colbert, did anyone bother to inform you that you're a retard, or did they give it up as a lost cause?

Linux is just a kernel, and it happens to be by far the most popular kernel on the planet. The kernel gets coupled with many different kinds of user space to create an operating system. The GNU user space is just one of these, and Android is another, both extraordinarily popular.

You missed just one line from your narrative:

"Dad, why are you a retard compared to all my friends' dads?"

Re:dad, what is linux ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42947219)

Linux is just a kernel, and it happens to be by far the most popular kernel on the planet.

Linux is just a monolithic kernel and as it happens, because monolithic kernels are operating systems, so is the Linux.

The kernel gets coupled with many different kinds of user space to create an operating system.

You are wrong, Monolithic kernel is a OS architecture what builds whole operating system in single address space and works like a single binary (can be modular with modules but at architecture level it is like single binary and modules needs to be attached to main binary to use them). For monolithic operating systems (like Linux aka Linux kernel) there is no other software involved. Monolithic architecture is the first one and oldest one for software what for decade(s) later were started to call as "operating system".

The story is totally different when it comes to much newer architecture what were promote to make older monolithic architecture obsolete, the Server-Client architecture whats basic idea is to slice monolithic operating system to multiple independent parts called as servers and all servers are controlled by very small microkernel what only implements critical functions of the monolithic operating system, while resto of needed OS functions are in servers. Every server implements specific OS function as independent program and can be ported and updated separately from other servers and microkernel.

Most people talk about Linux (and RMS as well) as it would be a Server-Client by its architecture but they don't have a clue about two different main OS architecture (nor they want to admit it as their lies would be called).

he's a mop-boy at the peepshow downtown (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946995)

true story, I know his dad.

Re:dad, what is linux ? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about a year and a half ago | (#42947419)

I don't know about you, but I don't think I know a single person who isn't running Linux a at this point. Sure a lot of them also run other OSes, but they all run Linux.

Video (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946203)

In the video on their website, Mark Shuttleworth bears a striking resemblance to Steve Jobs.

I thought that was pretty amazing.

Re:Video (1)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946307)

Well, I guess there is a a little bit of resemblance.

Now that I think about it he looks like someone sawed Steve's and Linus's heads in halves and attached Linus's top half on top of Steve's bottom half.

Re:Video (1)

dwater (72834) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946365)

I didn't think so, though it did occur to me to make the comparison, so perhaps there's something there.

Re:Video (1)

dwater (72834) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946615)

I noticed he waves his hands about too much - a pet peeve of mine :)

Re:Video (1)

admdrew (782761) | about a year and a half ago | (#42947615)

...I was thinking Denholm [youtube.com] from The IT Crowd.

Shuttleworth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946269)

Shuttleworth seems to be inhabiting an alternate reality these days. Unfortunately, it's one with a Unity dock running down the left hand side.

FINALLY!! the year of Linux (0)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946353)

on the desktop is here!! oh wait

Available as user-installe distributions? (2)

DdJ (10790) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946361)

I've got a Nook Color tablet, in part because its boot loader is not locked. I can pop in a microSD card with an arbitrary OS (that supports the hardware) on it, and no DRM or cryptography or "secure boot" stuff is there to prevent it from just loading up.

Today, I use this with a stack of microSD cards with different versions of CyanogenMod installed, to be able to rapidly test code on completely different versions of Android.

Anyone know if I'll ever (or soon) be able to boot up Ubuntu on this device the same way? (If so, I'm in, but I'm not buying new hardware just for this OS.)

Re:Available as user-installe distributions? (2)

DdJ (10790) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946375)

Never mind -- the minimum specs are so far beyond what the Nook Color offers that device driver support and the like would be a moot question.

How many tablets meet the minimum specs and don't have locked bootloaders in firmware?

Re:Available as user-installe distributions? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946907)

All depends on how important that minimum spec really is. I have a Kindle Fire that runs Jellybean. Supposedly the Fire's spec is too poor to run anything of the sort. Yet the OS feels as smooth as it does on my Galaxy Nexus (and that's very, very, smooth.)

Re:Available as user-installe distributions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42947149)

I see what you mean, their idea of entry-level seems a bit confused at the moment, i suppose it's quite convenient to forget about the existing tablet userbase and expect everyone to go out and spend money on a tablet for ubuntu, this seems like a mistake, considering how many users there are out there who are stuck with reasonably capable hardware and an outdated android version with no hope of updates, that includes me, i'd love a usable meego-alike for my Hannspad, then again, to make any money out of this arrangement they'll have to convince me to consume content through their store, which is sadly never likely to happen, i don't touch google's offerings at present and i can't see ubuntu's being more compelling.

Re:Available as user-installe distributions? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946657)

You can dualboot Android and Ubuntu (13.04) on Nexus 7, and also this "real" tablet version of 13.04 will be available for Nexus 7 and 10 soon.

Ars technica has more info: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/02/ubuntu-for-tablets-arriving-on-nexus-7-nexus-10-this-week/

Also Ubuntu's Nexus 7 wiki is worth checking: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Nexus7/Installation

how does this play with existing Android accounts? (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946421)

The Canonical website wasn't very clear on this, so can someone comment: given that I have an Android tablet w/ a stack of GooglePlay apps, what happens if I install UbuntuTablet on my hardware? Can I log into GooglePlay & get my apps and credentials (what's paid for and so on) back?

I suppose I really should be asking what will happen if I try to put Ubuntu on my actual tablet-- Onda, A10 based :-( .

Re:how does this play with existing Android accoun (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946961)

Ubuntu is not Android, so no. Not that it's impossible for Ubuntu to have an Android compatibility layer, but even if it did, it's unlikely Google would support it (ie the Play Store wouldn't be available.)

Re:how does this play with existing Android accoun (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42947633)

Google hasn't interfered with the Play Store running on things like Cyanogen Mod, as long as it's not bundled. Why would they do it here? Besides: Amazon has an android app store. What's preventing them from selling apps directly to Ubuntu users? It would benefit both Ubuntu and Amazon by having such a compatibility layer. It would be even nicer if Google could partner with Canonical so searching for an app through the lenses would yield results for both stores. Users could choose the cheaper price.

Re:how does this play with existing Android accoun (1)

admdrew (782761) | about a year and a half ago | (#42947793)

I think squiggleslash's comment that Google is unlikely to support it is true; they don't support cyanogenmod, nor do they support any of their apps running on any modded versions of Android. Doesn't mean they're preventing it from happening, just means they're not officially backing it.

What's preventing them from selling apps directly to Ubuntu users?

At this stage, it's probably not worth it for either Amazon or Google to work with Canonical on this type of support.

Re:how does this play with existing Android accoun (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42947945)

I guess the "sensible" thing to do, then, is put UbuntuTablet on an SD card, boot from there, and see how GooglePlay and AmazonStore work out.

Re:how does this play with existing Android accoun (1)

admdrew (782761) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948623)

Keep in mind that Ubuntu and Android are completely and intentionally unrelated OSes. It's like wanting all of your purchased Windows apps to run on OS X (and vice versa), or your Google Play apps on iOS devices. Some technical possibilities exist to do this, but those are hacks or workarounds.

I'm not saying that Android apps on Ubuntu shouldn't ever be possible, I just think it's silly to assume they *should* work just because this flavor of Ubuntu runs on tablets that were originally intended for Android. If you Boot Camp your macbook, there's no expectation that OS X apps will run on your bootcamped Windows install.

Re:how does this play with existing Android accoun (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948197)

Google has played nice with CyanogenMod but they don't officially support it, and moreover they consider CyanogenMod a version of Android (because it is, it's AOSP plus some bits that don't affect compatability, not bits of AOSP in something else.) Google has been fairly hostile towards operating systems that have compatability layers but that aren't, essentially, Android systems.

They're right, in fact, to take on this policy. Google runs the Play Store not just for the benefit of users, but also developers who want to sell their apps. Developers do not want to support app sales to users who aren't running predictable versions of the Android operating system. It's bad enough, in many ways, that they have to navigate their way through "ICS + Sense" / "Gingerbread + Motoblur" type crap, actually having a situation where the apis don't necessarily do what they're expected to do adds another layer of awfulness.

The chances of Google supporting the Play Store under Ubuntu is close to zero. Amazon? Slight chance in that they distribute their store's APK to anyone who wants it, but it's notable that the Amazon App Store running under, say, an SDK image, rarely offers anything like the same range that it does on a real phone or tablet. In other words, they may also be uncomfortable supporting app sales to people with non-standard systems.

Re:how does this play with existing Android accoun (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948313)

The same thing will happen as when you install Ubuntu Desktop on a machine with Windows 7- your Windows programmes will disappear. They are different operating systems- Android apps will almost certainly not run on it, and even if they did it would be very unlikely that you'd be able to simply install Google Play and go. As on a desktop, dual booting may be an option.

It is possible to run Linux (I've seen it done with Debian, but the principal should be universal) on Android in a chroot, using VNC to display the desktop environment. I see no reason you couldn't do this with the potential Ubuntu Tablet edition if you wanted, although obviously that's more technical effort. Google "Debian chroot" if you're interested.

Good! (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946433)

Now all someone needs to do is fork it into a version that doesn't send my every keystroke somewhere.

I no longer care. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946489)

Did they fix the keylogging yet?

If not, I don't care about anything they come up with.

Re:I no longer care. (4, Funny)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946543)

Yes. The tablet has no keyboard.

Re:I no longer care. (2)

horza (87255) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946613)

Commenting to undo wrong mod by mistake. Agreed, this is a sticking point for many of us.

Phillip.

crazy requirements (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42946517)

Good grief, Mark! Those minimum specs are mad!

And here I was thinking that I could try it on my HTC Inspire 4G. Then again, I'm not sure if I'd be even able to boot something arbitrary from an SD card there.

Re:crazy requirements (2)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946753)

Yeah it's hilarious that they define "entry-level" as a Cortex A-15 and 2GB of RAM. Their OS must be pretty bloated and slow to need all that.

Re:crazy requirements (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42947561)

I suspect it's more to do with not wanting to rape the tablet's flash memory with a swap partition, and wanting users to be able to run more than a few apps at a time. I wouldn't worry too much about it, though. I'm sure in time there will be custom Ubuntu roms built for all sorts of other devices. Personally, i'm hoping for Nexus 7, which has 1GB of ram.

Re:crazy requirements (1)

admdrew (782761) | about a year and a half ago | (#42947857)

Meh, "minimum specs" have been lies since the beginning of time. The Nexus 7 technically doesn't meet those requirements, and yet Ubuntu runs pretty well on it (incidentally, it runs better than ChrUbuntu does on my ARM Chromebook, although that's assumed to be more hacky than Canonical's "official" release for the Nexus 7).

Android app compatability? (2, Insightful)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946591)

Without this, I can't see much adoption. Who wants to buy a tablet if it has no apps? Linux has plenty, sure, but are they optimized for a tablet interface? Given that it's already a linux kernel, wouldn't it be possible to add the dalvik VM and run android apps? So far as I undrestand, this was the case with the previous Nexus 7 iteration of Ubuntu. Why was this changed? If they release this for Nexus 7, i'll probably run it off a USB stick if possible, but I won't flash it over android unless there is some compatibility there. Simply put, I've purchased Android apps, and I don't want to lose those.

Re:Android app compatability? (2)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946827)

Without this, I can't see much adoption. Who wants to buy a tablet if it has no apps? Linux has plenty, sure, but are they optimized for a tablet interface? Given that it's already a linux kernel, wouldn't it be possible to add the dalvik VM and run android apps? So far as I undrestand, this was the case with the previous Nexus 7 iteration of Ubuntu. Why was this changed? If they release this for Nexus 7, i'll probably run it off a USB stick if possible, but I won't flash it over android unless there is some compatibility there. Simply put, I've purchased Android apps, and I don't want to lose those.

Debian had a boatload of apps available via apt-get before Ubuntu existed. It will run all of them. And all the apps that were added to the Ubuntu ecosystem since then should also run.

Being that all the "legacy" apps are open source, they should be relatively easily ported across architectures, as opposed to Win8 which won't run legacy code on ARM.

Ubuntu is far better poised than you give them credit for

Re:Android app compatability? (3, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42946941)

Tablet apps require their own UIs. I don't think the availability of ordinary desktop GNOME apps can really be considered part of the pile when evaluating software support for a tablet running Ubuntu.

Re:Android app compatability? (3, Insightful)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42947011)

You miss my point, which is that while plenty of linux apps already exist, few have table compatible UIs. You're also leaving out the fact that many commercial apps and games, such as Steam and World of Goo, for example, are for the moment x86 only, and are likely to remain that way unless there is enough adoption of Ubuntu Tablet to justify a port (assuming it requires more than just a recompile, which is likely). My prediction is without Android compatibility, no tablet manufacturer will adopt Ubuntu, and without significant adoption, no developers of existing Linux apps will bother writing new UIs for Ubuntu Tablet. You absolutely need to start off a new mobile OS with a rich selection of appropriate (eg. Tablet UI) apps or you're dead in the water.

Re:Android app compatability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42947897)

I run world of goo in my android phone, and I'm pretty sure it's not x86 based.

Re:Android app compatability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948325)

Definitely not, I run WoG on my Wii, which has a PowerPC chip.

Re:Android app compatability? (1)

Zigurd (3528) | about a year and a half ago | (#42947081)

Android app compatibility is available for Linux in several forms: You can install an Android distro in a virtualization container, Canonical's "Ubuntu for Android," Open Mobile's ACL (disclosure, I used to be CTO there), and others.

My view of the best way to do this (and not surprising that this is how Open Mobile does it) is that Android can be integrated into "foreign" desktop environments as if it were a Java SE-like runtime environment.

As for how I would want to use Ubuntu on a tablet, I would put it on a powerful tablet such as those Windows 8 will be shipping on. Then I can have my Android development tools in a tablet form factor, and I can run an x86 Android build in a VM or QEMU for testing/debugging.

Re:Android app compatability? (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42947373)

None of those solutions, so far as has been said, will be set up or bundled with Ubuntu Desktop. I get there is almost always a way to do something in Linux, but that won't matter if it isn't already set up when a person buys a tablet. They want to click on the Google Play store (or perhaps search these through a lens, which I find very cool) and download apps. If there is going to be any significant adoption of Ubuntu desktop, this needs to be bundled in, even if means paying the "Google Tax". Even Amazon's android app store would work. At the absolute minimum, it needs to be able to run .apks out of the box so a person can install a market and those apps need to be treated as equal citizens. Otherwise it'll be a niche rom that nobody outside of a very small technical circle will ever flash and will likely stagnate and die, which I would hate to see as from the video, the interface looks like a nice mix of some of the best tablet UIs so far, with some very creative additions.

Re:Android app compatability? (1)

mcrbids (148650) | about a year and a half ago | (#42947423)

Simply put, I've purchased Android apps, and I don't want to lose those.

I have several Android devices all linked to the same google account. I'm able to access apps I've purchased interchangeably on all of them. I have

1) a Droid 2 Razr Maxx HD (that I LOVE),

2) a Samsung Stratosphere that I was happy to replace,

3) an Acer Iconia 7" tablet.

With the exception that the Stratosphere won't play the 3D games, I'm able to share my stuff between them.

I love Linux, I want Linux, but this isnt Linux (3, Interesting)

updatelee (244571) | about a year and a half ago | (#42947237)

This is as Linux as Android is. Hell Android is probably more Linux this this.

I just dont understand why these mobile OS's keep wanting to force developers into a specific language. Android push's Java hard (ewe) sure you can use the NDK but from my perspective its not as straight forward as youd think. iOS push's Objective-C. and now Ubuntu mobile OS is pushing QML/Javascript/HTML5.

Sure you can make a webpage that does basic calculations or simple animations. But real raw data crunching within JS? seriously ? thats such a joke its not even funny. If all I wanted was a notepad, calender app, and a webbrowser then Id just continue using Android.

Show me a FFT JS implementation thats anywhere near as fast as C/C++. I write only in C/C++ and have zero interest in JS or Java, zero. Im not going to waste my time learning a new language that just anoy me.

Id love to see how JS interacts with low level stuff like gpio's, serial, usb etc. Oh there's a lib for that? what if there isnt... then what? wait out? thats not the point of open source, your supposed to be able todo whatever you want.

Linux imo is popular with developers because we can write whatever we want in whatever language we choose. Linux isnt supposed to force you into anything, why do all these linux mobile OS's feel the need todo so.

UDL

Re:I love Linux, I want Linux, but this isnt Linux (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42947925)

The developer info on the Ubuntu website says that you can use C/C++ for apps that need performance and QML/JS/HTML5 for lightweight, website wrapper type stuff.

Ubuntu on tablets, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42947697)

now tracking your fingertips...

A lost cause (2)

dhaen (892570) | about a year and a half ago | (#42947819)

Only Geeks will want to upgrade the OS on their tablet. Ubuntu is now out of the running for us Geeks.

Looked... (1)

soupbowl (1849394) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948781)

Looked pretty good to me.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?