The Ubuntu App Showdown
developer.ubuntu.com
developer.ubuntu.com
Forgetting all the things Visual Basic did wrong, the biggest thing it did right was the UI builder. When you put a button on the screen, it wrote the code for you. When you put a text box on the screen, it wrote the code for you. When you double click the button in the designer, it takes you to the code for that button. You select "onClick" and type "textbox1 = "Hello world!". Save and run, click the button, and the textbox says "Hello world!".
VB made UI easy. Glade is nice, but it still doesn't come close to the ease of use that VB brought to the market. I don't know of anything else that has since. VB was a ecosystem that let accountants build software. With all the bad that comes with the good, this is still unmatched as far as my research has shown me.
BTW how about Mono? Isn't that supposed to be .NET clone?
Seriously, what Ubuntu Software Centre needs is a 'wanted app' system of some kind. Perhaps people say how much they would pay as well. Could be fun.
Turns out there is a place to post suggestions
They do want apps that integrate well with Ubuntu. So if you write an app that integrates with Ubuntu One or with Unity then you're going to have a better chance of winning than if you write a plain GTK+ app. So that will probably tend to keep these apps in Ubuntu and out of other distros, but that's the extent of that and I don't think the goal of it is to keep apps out of Fedora or whatever.
If this is indeed their plan, though, there is a pretty big flaw in it. Why are they trying so much to get "inspired" by Mac OS, when they should be trying to get inspired by Windows, and make it easy for the many more Windows users to transition easily from Windows to Ubuntu? As a Windows user, this is why I find Linux Mint Cinnamon (also based on Ubuntu) so much easier and less frustrating to use than regular Ubuntu. Of course Windows 8 is completely changing the direction for their UI/UX from the "old Windows" style, too, so there's that, but I have no reason to believe it will be successful, yet.
Turns out cheap looking Windows clone that can't run most Windows apps isn't really what the market is looking for.
Of course they are inspired by what Apple is doing (so is pretty much everyone now, including MS) but I think Unity/Gnome3 are different enough to stand on their own merits (or lack thereof).
I'm not sure what Canonical would get out of a partnership with Dell though , since their software is free they aren't going to get a cut on units sold.
Canonical charges 20% transaction fee for each app sold http://developer.ubuntu.com/publish/commercial-software-faqs...
Ubuntu-as-a-platform can make opinionated choices what to support. This is why when someone asks "How do I make an application for Ubuntu" you can answer with "Quickly and Python" instead of "well that depends."
It's nice to have a default.
* It presents the idea of adding several dozen new rapidly-created "apps" to Ubuntu as a necessarily good thing. We don't need "more apps", we need better solutions, which IMO often means fewer apps.
* From the rules: "The application must contain exclusively original code and the Participant must be the original author of the content." This effectively limits library use to only what's in the default repositories, right? I suppose we're not allowed to use things along the lines of the Dropbox SDK?
HumanTask is a personal task manager for humans - http://srirangan.net/2012-06-humantask-is-a-personal-task-ma...
Picture from a python conference:
http://www.efytimes.com/admin/useradmin/photo/Pycon-UK.jpg
As in all the other pictures that appears from a google search it's >90% men. It's perfectly understandable that review panels will have >90% men on average, if they select for (presumably equally distributed among programmers) qualifications, passion and interest.
Do men know best what women want? No. Get women involved, and there is a better result.
If we don't begin to be inclusive, then Ubuntu will stay a closed mens club - and we will all be poorer for it.
http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/management/
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/exec/slt.aspx
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/programming-and-development...
I expect an objection that assumes for-profit businesses don't act rationally to maximize profit, I won't pursue that.
Why not? Sounds like a valid objection that undermines your entire argument.
Further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction