Major setbacks for two new smartphone OSs, Tizen and Ubuntu Touch
gigaom.com
gigaom.com
That may imply Linux due to the lack of viable alternatives, but really, it should be built with users in mind, rather than perceived as a technical challenge of putting Touch on top of Linux.
(And please, stay away from Java in your next mobile OS. Among other things, you will ward off those of us, developers, who let's say are not neutral wrt. to certain programming languages. Edit: make Java optional if you wish.)
Samsung wants Tizen to gain back full control of their platform. Canonical wants Ubuntu Touch (and Mozilla Firefox OS) because the PC is getting less important for consumers.
> (And please, stay away from Java in your next mobile OS. Among other things, you will ward off those of us, developers, who let's say are not neutral wrt. to certain programming languages. Edit: make Java optional if you wish.)
Neither of them is based on Java. Tizen and FirefoxOS are (sadly) JavaScript only. Ubuntu Touch supports JavaScript/HTML5 and Qt (JavaScript + C++).
Is that still the case.
That makes no sense; Linux already has dominance in the mobile OS market via Android.
What Android competitors could do though would be to (1) forget Java, (2) make the platform completely OSS-license compatible, (3) make the UX understandable and loveable by children and kittens.
This will never happen given how the telecomunication market works
1. A technical sense: Canonical has a significant amount of distribution-specific software that has very little adoption outside of the Ubuntu ecosystem. Examples include:
* their own version control system, bzr (which I think has now been essentially abandoned in terms of development, and other than a few GNU projects never saw much uptake at all);
* their own desktop shell, Unity, which to the best of my knowledge has never been properly packaged for any non-Ubuntu distribution; their own display server, Mir, whose development is the subject of much controversy, and which has been rejected for well-founded technical reasons that have probably already been discussed at length on HN;
* their own init system, Upstart, which was initially adopted by other distributions, who then abandoned it in favour of systemd due to its fundamentally flawed design (for instance, there is no way to 100% reliably keep track of a process's children and the dependency resolution runs backwards, meaning that some configurations can cause hangs).
2. A social sense: Canonical's relationship with the rest of the Linux ecosystem has soured (beginning, in my opinion, around 2009-2010, but as a gradual thing, it's hard to pin down) to the point of outright hostility. In my opinion, most of the responsibility for this lies with Canonical's poor communication with others. There's a very detailed history of some events from 2009-2011 that you can read here [1] detailing their relationship with GNOME.
The culmination this year has been disgraceful personal attacks by Mark Shuttleworth on people who raise technical criticism of Canonical's software. I expect that more will follow whatever the fallout of Debian's systemd decision is.
The two are obviously related. The big problem is that there's (again, in my opinion) very little community appetite for contributing to Canonical's software. And why would there be, given that in order to submit patches for Ubuntu Touch, I need to give Canonical permission to relicence my code under any proprietary licence they choose? At that point, it's not a community contribution, it's just working for Mark Shuttleworth for free.
Does Canonical have the software engineering capability to maintain a bunch of stuff (an init system, a display server) that's really unrelated to their problem (making awesome products for users) and still be able to take on Android at the same time? I don't think so.
[1]: http://bethesignal.org/blog/2011/03/12/relationship-between-...
Unity as an interface is OK ish, apart from the bugs about accelerator keys in LibreOffice and other applications (e.g. Alt-F no longer brings up the file menu).
It's a fair point, but I think that my assessment still holds.
I would quite like a phone that becomes a desktop OS when I dock it. If they can actually pull that one off I think a lot of people might get interested.
Thats an odd statement. It implies that an init system and a display server are not building blocks of an awesome user experience.
For upstart, you have to note that it was Ubuntus contender to write a modern and fast init system when there were far less mature init systems. Its main competitor (systemd) is about 4 years younger that upstart.
Ignoring the whole problem about wayland, the display server is a central part for providing the user interface. So how is writing a new display server "unrelated" to providing an awesome product to the user?
Carriers and manufacturers love Android because they get it from Google for free. Cosumers love it because they can get cheap, good smartphones.
Carriers love the iPhone cause it generates massive revenues for them as customers love it. See what happened with NTT doCoMo as an example.
Tizen, ubuntuOS, firefoxOS, even Windows Phone do not solve anything between those two. "Openess" is not a problem for the above.
Bada was successful in 2011 and 2012 (3Q/2012: 5.054.000 world wide sales, 3.0% market share). Bada sales were higher than Win7/8 smartphone sales even back in 2012: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/e/e7/2012_11_15_Sma...
Ubuntu's unified OS on all platforms seems like an interesting idea at first glance, but Canonical has so far failed at providing the necessary vision for that to come through.
* Meego, Maemo, Mer (or did you count them under SailfishOS or Tizen?)
* Openmoko
All three of them exist more because of the companies that built them, than because there is a big gaping hole in the market that they fill. Without a big problem they are solving I think the market as a whole will shrug at their arrival sort of like the Palm Pre.
Did you write that comment on a phone or a personal computer?
That is the real Linux phone.