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 Touch Beats Firefox OS For 'Best of MWC' From CNET

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the everyone's-a-winner dept.

Firefox 152

Jono Bacon writes "This week at Mobile World Congress both Firefox OS and Ubuntu have been wooing the audience with their mobile offerings. CNET reviewed both and felt that Ubuntu was 'the clear winner.' From the article, 'The team thought that Ubuntu Touch, the tablet version of which we got our hands-on for the first time at MWC, feels more like the complete package at this point. We liked its slick, elegant interface that makes use of every side of the screen and puts your content and contacts front and center, minimizing the time spent hopping back to a home screen.'" They still liked Firefox OS though, and the mere existence of multiple Free Software mobile systems with carrier support is a good sign if you ask me.

cancel ×

152 comments

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

Third post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43041361)

second post ... <blink>this post<blink> ... fourth post.

But but but (4, Insightful)

noobermin (1950642) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041363)

Ubuntu is evil! Richard Stallman says so!!

Re:But but but (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041537)

No matter how evil it might be, CNET still thinks it's the best

Re:But but but (0, Troll)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041659)

Anybody know if Canonical is tracking users with Ubuntu Touch, like they are with the desktop distro?

Re:But but but (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041713)

Canonical is tracking users any more than Google.

Re:But but but (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041909)

Is or isn't? Either way, you've missed the point.

Re:But but but (3, Insightful)

mhall119 (1035984) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041913)

If by "like they are with the desktop" you mean "not at all", then the answer is yes. If you mean something else, then then answer is "you're wrong".

Re:But but but (4, Interesting)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041957)

I tried the preview build of it on my nexus 7 and while it seemed to work ok - although a LOT of functions didn't work (not implemented yet) and most of it was populated with dummy data - I didn't really see why I would want it.

Re:But but but (1)

slaker (53818) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042019)

From the demo video, I'm kind of drooling over the split screen setup it can do, especially on a high resolution device like a Nexus tablet.

Re:But but but (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042059)

Yeah maybe on a nexus 10 or something.

Installing Ubuntu Phone OS .. (1)

dgharmon (2564621) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042683)

"I tried the preview build of it on my nexus 7"

Where can I get it, do you have a link to the download and installation instructions?

Re:Installing Ubuntu Phone OS .. (2)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042709)

It's all on their website [ubuntu.com] .

Re:But but but (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43041549)

Richard Stallman has contributed to society. His comments on the legalities and philosophies of open source software have provided the software community with the possibility of sharing their works without having them stolen.

Your comments on slashdot are not on the same scale.

Re:But but but (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041605)

His comments on the legalities and philosophies of open source software have provided the software community with the possibility of sharing their works without having them stolen.

Actually, copyright law is what allows people to share code without it being "stolen". Stallman makes fairly novel use of it, but give credit where it is due.

Re:But but but (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042203)

Actually, copyright law is what allows people to share code without it being "stolen".

Actually, ideas can only be "stolen" because of intellectual property law. Without it, ideas can only be copied.

Re:But but but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43043331)

Copyright doesn't protect ideas, it protects specific works. Don't confuse copyrights with patents, don't confuse code with the ideas the code is based on. You're demonstrating why people like Richard Stallman object to the term "intellectual property".

Re:But but but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43042337)

I'm trying to. Copyleft is a philosophy of copyright law. GNU [wikipedia.org] and Creative Commons. [wikipedia.org]

Besides, the original point I was trying to make is that gp isn't "funny". It's off-topic and childish.

Re:But but but (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042355)

Stallman would care very little if GNU code was "stolen" as long as there was no copyright at all and all systems were open. Copyleft is a way to use copyright to fight its own poison.

Re:But but but (4, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042605)

I lost a lot of respect for Stallman when he sunk to the RIAA/MPAA level with statements like 'proprietary software is unethical because it takes away users' rights', of course it doesn't take away anything, just like music piracy doesn't take away profits like the RIAA/MPAA claim, they can't take away something of yours if it's something you never had in the first place. You may not have been granted rights you would otherwise get with free software, but nothing was taken away.

Re:But but but (3, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042641)

But it does. Proprietary software enforces controlled standards, locked systems, treacherous computing like UEFI. It ends taking away the user ability to make choices and to even know what his system is doing. And if you leave it unchecked you won`t have choices because control gives economical power and economical power pushes for more control. UEFI is an example. Soon it will be hard to find computers without it, and soon enough it may be impossible. Little by little we are having our choices eroded by progressively more restrictive hardware with closed specifications, because hardware producers go to bed with big software corporations.

Re:But but but (4, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042687)

Proprietary software enforces controlled standards, locked systems, treacherous computing like UEFI.

Rubbish, if i run a proprietary application on my system i don't end up with a 'locked system', it doesn't enforce any 'controlled standards' and I don't end up with UEFI. I haven't had anything taken away, even if it does aid your agenda to suggest that.

Re:But but but (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042891)

You do. You are giving money and consequently power to corporations that are struggling to take our control over the system we buy from them and impose their standards and policies upon us. You are part of the problem. A big part.

Re:But but but (2)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042927)

You are giving money and consequently power to corporations that are struggling to take our control over the system we buy from them and impose their standards and policies upon us.

I'm not giving money to anyone, I said 'proprietary application', i didn't say i paid anybody anything, but i see you need that to justify your new extrapolation of your perceived evil to some other ridiculous scenario. Again, I can run a proprietary program on my system and I haven't had anything taken away from me, that's just rubbish propaganda spread by people like you that have an agenda.

Re:But but but (0)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042981)

Even if you didn't pay for the application. Just by using their standards you are helping them to enforce them, unless you live in a bubble, and if you did you wouldn't be here annoying us, would you?

And as you keep mentioning, I can't avoid noticing that the one who seems to have an agenda here is you, my good sir. You seem to be going out of your way to try and discredit RMS. Who do you work for? MS?

Re:But but but (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year and a half ago | (#43043063)

Even if you didn't pay for the application. Just by using their standards you are helping them to enforce them

Who's and what standards? Just because it's a proprietary application doesn't mean it uses any particular standards, much less secret or proprietary ones.

And as you keep mentioning, I can't avoid noticing that the one who seems to have an agenda here is you, my good sir. You seem to be going out of your way to try and discredit RMS.

I have no agenda, I just see that his claim is patently false, by comparison you resort to reductio ad absurdum to justify it, clearly it is you that has an agenda. Free software can pervert standards and be malicious just a proprietary software can. Again, the use of a proprietary program does not take anything away, it doesn't make it better in any way, and it certainly grants the use less freedoms, but it doesn't take anything away.
The benefits of free software stand on their own without having to spread FUD about proprietary software.

Re:But but but (1, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43043101)

Free software can't pervert standards and be malicious just as a proprietary software can, because it can be easily branched if it becomes inconvenient (as it often happens). The use of proprietary programs does take a lot of things away as explained more than once, but if you refuse to understand and be part of the problem it is your choice.

You may believe in whatever absurdity you wish, it does not make it more true. It does not seem to be the case, though. You can't be so stupid. So I am forced to conclude that you indeed have an agenda. The fact you keep claiming you have no agenda just makes more apparent you do. And it is clear you will keep talking nonsense and trying to justify your incoherent beliefs in the hope of achieving it. You are nothing more than a corporate shill.

Re:But but but (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year and a half ago | (#43043137)

Free software can't pervert standards and be malicious just as a proprietary software can

Ubuntu does! So yes it can! Perhaps you should give your definition of 'proprietary software', because you clearly think it has something to do with proprietary standards and paying corporations and treacherous computing...but it doesn't.

The use of proprietary programs does take a lot of things away as explained more than once

No, i simply refuse to accept reductio ad absurdum as justification for your point of view.

but if you refuse to understand and be part of the problem it is your choice.

Yet you persist in your ridiculous arguments.

You are nothing more than a corporate shill.

You only resort to that low level because you can't disprove my point, pathetic. Proof that I am not a shill of any sort nor have an agenda is in that I - unlike you - don't have a view one way or the other on proprietary software vs free software, you clearly do.

Re:But but but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43042895)

WebRTC vs CU-RTC-Web.

but nothing. (5, Informative)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041619)

Ubuntu is evil! Richard Stallman says so!!

No Richard Stallman says this http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/ubuntu-spyware-what-to-do [fsf.org] which is about the intrusive nature of an opt-out system on them in which local system search terms are sent to Amazon.

Quit with the hyperbole already. It is what it is.

Re:but nothing. (2)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041679)

From that link:

This is just like the first surveillance practice I learned about in Windows. My late friend Fravia told me that when he searched for a string in the files of his Windows system, it sent a packet to some server, which was detected by his firewall. Given that first example I paid attention and learned about the propensity of "reputable" proprietary software to be malware. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Ubuntu sends the same information.

Does anyone have more information and hard references or proof of this(as opposed to idle hearsay) in Windows, or is it just more of the anti-Microsoft urban legend hearsay FUD peddled around these parts?

Microsoft has all you information (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041769)

From that link:

Does anyone have more information and hard references or proof of this(as opposed to idle hearsay) in Windows, or is it just more of the anti-Microsoft urban legend hearsay FUD peddled around these parts?

Lots of information is passed to Microsoft how do you think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Genuine_Advantage [wikipedia.org] Windows [dis]advantage works. It is what pushed me into trying linux in the first place. [that and a 132GB hard drive limit]

Re:Microsoft has all you information (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041841)

I don't see anything related to user search terms being sent.

Do you have a better reference?

Re:Microsoft has all you information (4, Informative)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042101)

From Microsoft:

  "When Microsoft receives a Bing search query, we collect a number of pieces of information, including the search query provided, IP address, unique identifiers contained in cookies, browser configuration and the time and date of the search,"

“Microsoft may access or disclose information about you, including the content of your communications, in order to: (a) comply with the law or respond to lawful requests or legal process; (b) protect the rights or property of Microsoft or our customers, including the enforcement of our agreements or policies governing your use of the software; or (c) act on a good faith belief that such access or disclosure is necessary to protect the personal safety of Microsoft employees, customers, or the public,”

“Information collected by or sent to Microsoft by Windows 7 may be stored and processed in the United States or any other country in which Microsoft or its affiliates, subsidiaries, or service providers maintain facilities. Microsoft abides by the safe harbor framework as set forth by the U.S. Department of Commerce regarding the collection, use, and retention of data from the European Union, the European Economic Area, and Switzerland.”

These are the Windows 7 modules that Microsoft acknowledge phone home

1. Activation:
2. Device Information Retrieval:
3. Device Manager:
4. Dynamic Update:
5. Event Viewer:
6. Gadgets:
7. Games Folder:
8. Error Reporting for Handwriting Recognition:
9. Personalization Training:
10. IME Word Registration (available in Japanese IME only):
11. Installation Improvement Program:
12. Microsoft Error Reporting Service:
13. Plug and Play:
14. Program Compatibility Assistant:
15. Program Properties Compatibility Tab:
16. Rights Management Services (RMS) Client:
17. Teredo Technology: 18. Update Root Certificates:
19. Windows Anytime Upgrade:
20. Windows Customer Experience Improvement Program (CEIP):
21. Windows Defender:
22. Windows File Association:
23. Windows Help:
25. Windows Speech Recognition:
26. Windows Time Service:
27. Windows Troubleshooting:
28. Windows Internet Explorer 8:
29. Update Services:
30. Microsoft Genuine Advantage:
31. Windows Media Center:
32. Microsoft Windows Media Player 12:

Re:Microsoft has all you information (2)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042153)

RMS is talking about local file search keywords and you're talking about web search keywords on Bing.

Two VERY different beasts.

Here, I bolded it for you:

My late friend Fravia told me that when he searched for a string in the files of his Windows system, it sent a packet to some server, which was detected by his firewall

Re:Microsoft has all you information (4, Informative)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042341)

"he searched for a string in the files of his Windows system, it sent a packet to some server, which was detected by his firewall"

"Our telemetry data shows that 67% of all searches in Windows 7 are used to find and launch programs. Searching for files accounts for 22% of all Windows 7 Start menu searches, and searching for Control Panel items about 9%. Searching for email messages via Start Menu is very rare (less than 0.05%). The remaining 2% are searches executing the “Run” functionality."

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/18/designing-search-for-the-start-screen.aspx [msdn.com]

Re:Microsoft has all you information (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042417)

You don't even know what telemetry in Windows means.
You get one notification after installing asking you explicitly if you want to opt in to help improve Windows by sending telemetry information.
Even if you opt in, those calculations you see in the post are done locally and only the stats are sent to the server.
Those stats do not include people who haven't enabled telemetry.
It's similar to Firefox's dialog here:
http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/send-performance-data-improve-firefox [mozilla.org]
OMG FIREFOX IS SNOOPING ON YOU.

You're welcome to prove me wrong.

This has nothing to do with sending packets when you search local files.

Re:Microsoft has all you information (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43042961)

Windows Desktop search components SearchFilterHost.exe & SearchProtocolHost.exe routinely connect to Microsoft-owned domains and send encrypted data.

Re:Microsoft has all you information (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43042441)

Windows telemetry doesn't send search keywords to Microsoft you dumbass.
AND IT'S OFF BY DEFAULT.

Re:Microsoft has all you information (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43042445)

They don't need search strings to determine that so you still haven't shown anything. Also worth noting that telemetry data is only sent if you have CEIP switched on.

Re:Microsoft has all you information (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042377)

The problem is, considering Windows send information to MS encrypted every time you check for an update, and considering it is a closed source OS you won`t ever know what it is capable of sending and how. MS for example, lets say, under request of a governmental agency, could spy on you and you would never know.

You may think it is paranoid, but it is not, it is simply a matter of not trusting blindly on corporations. They may not even do it now, but the fact they have the power and can do it at will is enough on my book to avoid it like the plague.

Re:Microsoft has all you information (2)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042531)

Wait, so it went from "Windows sends your file search keywords" to "it may or might send things"?

Yes, being careful is good, but spreading lies and FUD is not.

As a funny aside, Shuttleworth said they have root on all Ubuntu computers.

Re:Microsoft has all you information (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042609)

As I said I have no information if it is indeed sending your file search keywords to the net, you will have to ask to the guy who made the claim (RMS is usually a very accessible person if you are really interested).

But the fact they can do it without my knowledge is enough for me. It is too much power to give blindly to a corporation.

Re:Microsoft has all you information (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43042751)

As I said I have no information

No shit! This is how FUD gets spread, people like you ignorantly and unthinkingly regurgitating things they don't even know about.

Re:Microsoft has all you information (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042877)

Everything I said was true. I challenge you to find anything at all that I wrote that was not true.

People like you, on the other hand, are ignorant and like to remain like so. Suit yourself. Keep being an ignorant asshole.

Re:Microsoft has all you information (1)

tftp (111690) | about a year and a half ago | (#43043169)

But the fact they can do it without my knowledge is enough for me. It is too much power to give blindly to a corporation.

I guess then you are using your own OS and your own browser. Or perhaps you did the code review of your current Linux system (with all the binary patches and like) and conclusively proved that the system is safe under your definition of "safe."

Most people, however, do not treat their computer as a trusted system [wikipedia.org] . They know that their activity can be monitored, just as they themselves may be monitored when they walk in public. It is expensive and cumbersome to maintain a trusted system, and it is always one compromise away from spilling all your secrets. Better to not keep any secrets on it - or at least compartmentalize those.

The best way to build a trusted system is to cut the network cable that goes to that system. Then pretty much any OS can be used, and it would take one wickedly hacked OS to leak data through whatever USB Flash disk you stick into it from time to time.

Re:Microsoft has all you information (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43042201)

naturally those services phone home but i see no reason you would not have a equally long list for android, ios, rhel, osx, ubuntu, etc. they all have services that phone home, time, update, crash reporting, improvement programs, media information retrieval, etc.

Re:Microsoft has all you information (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042211)

What Vista was sending to Microsoft was what switched me over to Linux full time. Part of their indexing program was sending content from even things like my RSS feed. I thought it was a virus, but apparently it's standard behaviour, or used to be.

Re:Microsoft has all you information (1)

mystikkman (1487801) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042461)

Any references or proof, or just hearsay and handwaving with urban legends?

Re:Microsoft has all you information (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042503)

I was actually just looking around for the name of the module that was sending the data. I remember one thing it was doing was sending URLs to a DNS server on a non-standard port on a cloud server form that was registered to Microsoft. It really looked like a virus. I'll keep digging for the name of the offending module.

Re:Microsoft has all you information (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042553)

Perhaps you're referring to IE's smartscreen filter?

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/smartscreen-filter-frequently-asked-questions-ie9 [microsoft.com]

You do that know that Chrome, Firefox and Opera have similar functionality enabled to block fishing and malware ridden sites right?

Re:Microsoft has all you information (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042577)

This was not IE. I found the offending executable ... it was SearchFilterHost. I found threads at Microsoft (which seem to have been removed, but it has been quite a while) asking why it was accessing the network.

Re:but nothing. (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041863)

You mean, something like this [wikipedia.org] ? You don't have to search a lot to find several [thenextweb.com] examples [theregister.co.uk] . You are renting their software after all, so better that they are aware how you use it.

Re:but nothing. (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042165)

Those don't say anything about local file search keywords going to Microsoft like RMS was insinuating.

Re:but nothing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43042241)

WGA doesn't send your file search keywords home you dumbass. Prove if otherwise.
This place is full of retards that fail at reading comprehension.

Re:but nothing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43041917)

How about you tell us? You work for them!

Re:but nothing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43042395)

It wasn't search, but rather windows update, but some folks used a shim to access the unencrypted data sent to MS during windows update and they stated there was a lot of personal data that was transfered in direct opposition to the assurances of MS.

But, MS became irrelevant long ago for me, so you will have to your own Googling :)

Re:but nothing. (0)

mystikkman (1487801) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042465)

Hahahah, so you're just regurgitating the FUD by professional Microsoft haters. Good to know.

Re:but nothing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43043105)

That was Mike Hartmann, from tecChannel.

They found Windows Update sends Microsoft a complete list of all the hardware devices, including make, model and driver version, every software package installed on your computer as well as a unique identifier which could be used for tracking (eg, of online/desktop searches and other activities) or for update denial.

Fragmentation (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43041377)

the mere existence of multiple Free Software mobile systems with carrier support is a good sign if you ask me.

Actually the mere existence of multiple such systems fragments the market for them, thus reducing the already-slim chance they have of becoming real competitors to the established players in the market.

Re:Fragmentation (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43041545)

Hello from 1997.

I agree that this 'fragmentation' thing everyone speaks of is not so great for the makers of different operating systems, such as Apple.

But before The Jobs declared it to be Evil Incarnate, we used to call it 'choice.' And choice was good for consumers. I thought. How strange.

Re:Fragmentation (2)

MBCook (132727) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041969)

It's why in 2007, every feature phone could get games, but there were only a handful. They were mostly copies of old arcade games and often cost $3/mo or so. No one developed more ambitious things because of the porting effort and size of the individual markets. A few bigger games would be made (I remember there was a God of War cell phone game), but it would only be on one carrier and maybe 2-3 phones.

We already have 3 platforms (4 if BBOS can survive), plus there are a few other little ones. We have choice and competition.

We don't need 8 or 15 options.

Re:Fragmentation (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | about a year and a half ago | (#43043433)

We already have 3 platforms (4 if BBOS can survive), plus there are a few other little ones. We have choice and competition.

We don't need 8 or 15 options.

I'm intrigued as to which OS you had in mind for number 3. Surely not Windows Phone, which still lags behind BBOS (combining v7 and v10) in market share terms. And Symbian still outstrips both of them.

Really, we only have two major mobile OS at the moment, and half a dozen others scrapping it out for distant third place. There's no real reason why another OS (Ubuntu or Firefox or Sailfish or Tizen) couldn't leapfrog the others into third place, and may even be able to start growing third place into something respectably close to the market leaders.

Re:Fragmentation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43042007)

Jobs was referring to fragmentation of a specific distribution of Linux - namely Android - not the multitude of different GNU/Linux operating systems in general.

iOS is the odd duck (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042131)

Jobs was referring to fragmentation of a specific

Ironically while the rest of the world has chosen on Android its Apple who fragments the market :)

Re:iOS is the odd duck (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43042287)

Actually iOS seems to be the system of choice which is why the iPhone always tops the best selling phones, Android makes up the numbers thanks to its prevalence in the low end of the market. Android is like Windows, people don't so much choose it as they use it because when an OEM wants to put out a phone they just chuck Android on it, so if you don't care you've probably got Android.

The Android Killer (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042369)

Actually iOS seems to be the system of choice

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23946013 [idc.com] these are the latest figures from IDC as you can see Android occupies 70% while iOS occupies 20%. However you try to spin in Android is *THE* smartphone OS of choice, and however you spin it Android binaries will work on more phones that iOS binaries. This is true even if you don't care what OS you run on your phone :), perhaps the phones were simply better designed than Apples, perhaps if Apple spent more money on designing its phones, people wouldn't be buying then 350% more Android Phones.

On topic my point was about compatibility...and increasingly Android compatibility is a must, iOS is simply a niche OS without it.

So... (0)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042539)

...using your logic Windows is *THE* desktop OS of choice and Linux & OSX are just fragmenting the market?

Re:So... (2)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year and a half ago | (#43043121)

using your logic Windows is *THE* desktop OS

Was, not is.

Android is becoming the defacto phone/tablet OS because it is open and supports a huge array of form factors and use-cases.

MS Dos/Windows gained early advantage by the same means - it could be installed on a variety of commodity hardware, and be adapted to a almost any computing task. MS later chose to become predatory and restrictive to enforce and protect its monopoly, but they got their start because they were more open than their competition.

Re:So... (0)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year and a half ago | (#43043143)

Was, not is.

Ok so what is the desktop OS of choice then?

Re:Fragmentation (4, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042205)

In 1997?

Proprietary vendors keep spreading this FUD, as "fragmentation" is core to Linux/FOSS adoption. Freedom and opportunity for choice in the Linux world means anyone can start their own distro, or fork an existing one to meet their own needs. To many of us, this is one of the truly great benefits of the open source world.

OS vendors like Microsoft and Apple have a sales/distribution model that's antithetical to this sort of freedom, so it's in their best interest to portray one of Linux's great advantages as a negative. Hence the more than a decade's worth of FUD.

Re:Fragmentation (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43043461)

The significant factor in fragmentation is whether or not it's disruptive fragmentation. To date, the existence of GNOME has not greatly hindered the adoption of KDE. Nobody is going to reject Firefox OS because another company has adopted Ubuntu Touch any more than people are going to reject Android for Ubuntu Touch because companies are starting to adopt Ubuntu Touch. No, these platforms will be judged on their merit and applicability to the desired result and chosen accordingly.

If anything, the variety and maturity of alternatives will weaken the hold that established platforms have. Are people rejecting their Apple devices because of Android market dominance? No. Neither is the opposite true, and it's quite obvious that vendors of Android devices have taken historic momentary successes as an incentive to jump into the market themselves.

Re:Fragmentation (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041839)

I used to wonder about this back in the mid-'90s, but seeing the quality of some of the free software out there gives me the feeling that it's in a pretty good position at the moment. One reservation there is a common assumption that Linux==Ubuntu, which can be a pain in the ass if you want to experiment with occasional bits of software for which the source is unavailable or too troublesome to compile. (I personally find Ubuntu about as irritating as Windows, and for a lot of the same reasons.)

But all those people who don't really care too much about freedom of choice won't use anything other than Windows or Macs anyway (and, despite its many faults, even Windows is more customisable). While, on the other hand, widespread acceptance of Android, with its plethora of different apps and interfaces, has spurred a renewed interest in looking for new or different ways to use your devices.

Re:Fragmentation (2)

wiredlogic (135348) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042123)

With luck there will eventually be a push for a standardized tablet platform that is open enough to permit users to select their own OS. Most likely this will come from the second tier Chinese manufacturers who would benefit most from a common reference standard.

Re:Fragmentation (1)

dgharmon (2564621) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042713)

"Actually the mere existence of multiple such systems fragments the market for them, thus reducing the already-slim chance they have of becoming real competitors to the established players in the marketa."

Good for the hardware makers though, remember when the OEMs controlled what OS went with their own hardware, instead of the current situation where it has to be certified by a software vendor ...

Re:Fragmentation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43043369)

Does Ubuntu have carrier support? Jono implies it does, couldn't find a reference to it.

c|net? (4, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041415)

Why the hell are still linking to c|net articles again? Would it kill the editors to wait for a real news organization to review Ubuntu Touch instead of just posting the first crap that comes along?

Re:c|net? (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041487)

Sadly, c|net is what marketeers skim in order to be all hip and jiggy with that nerd stuff, so it is influential.

Re:c|net? (1)

deniable (76198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041901)

Because they dish out awards to people who don't offend CBS.

slick, elegant interface (5, Funny)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041449)

glad is uses every side of the screen, but just like every other mobile device its almost all unused dead space in the middle, glad it takes millions of pixels to put "5 facebook updates" in plain text onto a screen

Re: slick, elegant interface (1)

apoc06 (853263) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041481)

Looks nice, but honestly I wish Ubuntu/ Canonical would have devoted their time on the usability issues in Unity.

Re: slick, elegant interface (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43042391)

Unity itself is a usability issue.

Re: slick, elegant interface (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041871)

but just like every other mobile device its almost all unused dead space in the middle

That's because the first thing every user does when he gets the phone is put a picture of {his,her} {cat,dog,offspring} there.

Re: slick, elegant interface (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042221)

For all the shit they get for Sense, HTC did the right thing by putting a big fat clock there. I was pretty bemused by the UK ROM I flashed to a used Xperia Play. Front and center, big fat open screen. To the right, gigantic clock, which belongs front and center. I can slide left or right to get to some apps, I want to know what damned time it is!

Re: slick, elegant interface (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43042049)

glad it takes millions of pixels to put "5 facebook updates" in plain text onto a screen

Better than the enormous, non-portable desktop PC + keyboard + mouse + monitor that you're using to do exactly the same thing. Seriously the amount of rubbish posts like this that attempt to trivialize smartphone as devices for nothing more than angry birds and facebook is astonishing. "ZOMG! Why do you need a retina display for Angry Birds?!" or when new iDevices come out the likes of "iSheep marching to the tune of their Apple overlords, enslaving themselves just so they can get facebook lolcatz on their phone."
I really cannot emphasize enough how much this [xkcd.com] is applicable, it's been posted here thousands of times yet there's still a bunch of dimwits that actually believe it about themselves.

Re: slick, elegant interface (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042381)

I really cannot emphasize enough how much this is applicable, it's been posted here thousands of times yet there's still a bunch of dimwits that actually believe it about themselves.

And yet, if everyone believes that, there may still be some for whom it is true, while the others are doing a fair imitation due to their programming.

Re: slick, elegant interface (0)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042107)

glad is uses every side of the screen

It's not discoverable though, it's exactly like Windows 8, same problem of being horribly unintuitive. Like that swiping down a little bit from the top where the sound and wifi indicators are to reveal a context menu and then moving left and right to change the menu between those icons is just awful from a usability perspective, it looks neat in a video though.

Just sue CBS (4, Funny)

D H NG (779318) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041547)

If Canonical sues or gets sued by CBS, they'll just get disqualified.

WebApp API (5, Insightful)

alexandre (53) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041735)

I just hope that Tizen, Ubuntu, FirefoxOS et al. can agree on a common WebApp API...

Re:WebApp API (3, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041965)

Thats the nice thing about standards, there are so many of them.

I would add Webkit to that list.

And something that the people of Ubuntu should agree on UI components [slashdot.org] with the people of Sailfish (that was also in that show), and KDE plasma active (and maybe Blackberry and WebOS), making it easier to port apps between different mobile OSs (i.e. like this calculator [jollausers.com] ).

Once you can have everywhere the apps that you want, you are free choose the best OS that fits better in your device/needs.

Re:WebApp API (1)

alexandre (53) | about a year and a half ago | (#43043211)

I hope they are working on this NOW, it is THE defining factor for this to succeed, it has to become a W3C / RFC standard and be sold as the solution to adopt eventually... maybe in HTML 5.2 or something!

Is CNET awarding a product even relevant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43041813)

Last time I checked CNET's record of awarding products is tarnished http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/10270121658/cnet-reporter-resigns-over-cbs-interference-dish-ces-award.shtml

How CNET could choose Ubuntu Touch which has only a few working apps and no ability to make calls over Firefox OS which is a complete platform and has 23 partners and great apps is beyond me.

Cnet? That's a credible source... (2, Interesting)

Theoden (121862) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041887)

Stopped caring about CNET reviews after their parent company pulled their review of the Dish Hopper because it's a competing product.
Now, I actively avoid their site.

Nothing new (1)

ripdajacker (1167101) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041899)

My cyanogen 10.1 device does all those things. What's the fuss about?

Ubuntu Is Becoming As Trustworthy as Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43041933)

Which is 0.

Further, Ubuntu Touch is a rip off of the android stack, with a canonical generated frontend...yes, it's GPL, but it's a fairly shameless copy...

Re:Ubuntu Is Becoming As Trustworthy as Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43042141)

Unlike Android the interface isn't a terrible mess of Java bloatware.

Slick? Elegant? (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042299)

Those weren't exactly the words that entered my mind when I watched Shuttleworth demo the OS (go see it for your yourself on YouTube). No, for me, it was more like "clunky" and "cumbersome".

I'm not sure am interface that's based entirely on various swipe gestures is really the best balance.

The way the left app bar shows up every time you swipe left through your running programs will get annoying pretty quickly.

Or the fact that you need to swipe through your running programs in a next/previous fashion (I actually need to manually remember all the software I'm running at any given moment? How quaint). Google got this one right with Android 4: a dedicated button that opens a list with previews of everything running in its most recently used state.

The perceived lack of a main "get me outta here and back to where I started" screen makes it feel very claustrophobic.

I really want to like Ubuntu Mobile, but I don't think it's going to happen. Swipe is great for a number of things, but not everything. They took what was a neat, and sometimes useful element of UI design and went overkill with it.

Re:Slick? Elegant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43042393)

> Google got this one right with Android 4: a dedicated button that opens a list with previews of everything running in its most recently used state.

FirefoxOS has this too ... you hold down the button (there's only one). You can also swipe away running apps from the preview list to kill them, which is pretty cool.

If that's the case... (2, Interesting)

thoughtlover (83833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042501)

...then why is the story's icon the Firefox logo instead of Ubuntu's? Makes me think Unknown Lamer likes Mozilla Foundation more than Canonical. I do. In the end, the browser really could be the beginning and the end of the interface. Windows linked IE to the filesystem, albeit rather clumsily. I dislike how Apple tries to keep the filesystem of the iPhone (or iAnything) out of the consumer's reach. I keep thinking that the first company that puts a really nice mobile OS on a phone that has a microSD slot will reap many rewards of loyalty from a whole new fanbase. I've been waiting and waiting to escape inane pricing tiers for hardware that has a really meager amount to begin with. Really, you can't get much 1080 video on an iPhone5 with only 16GB (actually 14) of storage.

really? (1)

Derwood5555 (828126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042655)

Is this what CNET really thinks or did some exec at CBS tell them what to think?

What a laughable review (2)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042755)

That looks shocking.

- Swipe in from the side to load a vertical menu which requires further scrolling to use. Why not fill the whole screen?
- Swipe in from the top to load settings, then swipe, swipe, swipe, swipe to find the right setting. Why not fill the whole screen?
- Swipe in from the right side to find the first application, then swipe, swipe, swipe, swipe until you find the application you're looking for. Why not display the open applications as a full screen menu?

And what do we get as an aside? No applications? Fragmentation for mobile phones?

If that's the best mobile operating system available, I hate to think of what the others were like. But at least it's an annoying device I can take a swipe at.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?