zlacker

[parent] [thread] 20 comments
1. dcdevi+(OP)[view] [source] 2019-03-07 14:39:35
This is nice, but what problem does it solve? Mobile and Desktop operating systems solve different issues on their own.

Ubuntu tried this - how'd that go?

Second issue is: how do I use it? How can I install it on MY devices?

I'm all for privacy and I want to is it, just seems like a dream and it will never come to fruition

replies(4): >>meruru+43 >>joekri+r3 >>maskli+J3 >>Vinnl+Qd
2. meruru+43[view] [source] 2019-03-07 14:59:44
>>dcdevi+(OP)
It solves bug #1

This bug is widely evident in the PC industry.

Steps to repeat:

    1. Visit a local PC store.
    2. Attempt to buy a machine without any proprietary software.
What happens:

Almost always, a majority of PCs for sale have Microsoft Windows pre-installed. In the rare cases that they come with a GNU/Linux operating system or no operating system at all, the drivers and BIOS may be proprietary.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1

replies(1): >>maskli+T3
3. joekri+r3[view] [source] 2019-03-07 15:02:27
>>dcdevi+(OP)
> This is nice, but what problem does it solve?

It solves a _development_ problem, in that it reduces the amount of work needed to allow an application to reach a larger number of devices. Basically the same reason for things like React Native and PWAs.

> Ubuntu tried this - how'd that go?

So because someone else failed at solving a particular problem in a particular way previously, we should simply give up on it?

replies(3): >>maskli+i4 >>chongl+e5 >>toast0+s6
4. maskli+J3[view] [source] 2019-03-07 15:05:12
>>dcdevi+(OP)
> Ubuntu tried this - how'd that go?

See also: Microsoft. The entire point of Windows 8 and later UWP were convergence.

In fact that article reads like pure bullshit, they're only mentioning the two OS vendors which are not attempting convergence (some cross-polination at best) and ignoring the history of suck and failure that is "OS convergence".

replies(1): >>sixoth+I4
◧◩
5. maskli+T3[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 15:06:19
>>meruru+43
> It solves bug #1

It doesn't do so anymore than ubuntu already does.

replies(1): >>meruru+X5
◧◩
6. maskli+i4[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 15:08:55
>>joekri+r3
> It solves a _development_ problem, in that it reduces the amount of work needed to allow an application to reach a larger number of devices.

Sounds like a repeat of the Java strategy: you can run garbage nobody wants anywhere nobody wants to run it.

> So because someone else failed at solving a particular problem in a particular way previously

Microsoft also attempted it, and also failed quite miserably.

> we should simply give up on it?

Not necessarily, but at the very least you could avoid lying by omission (mentioning Google and Apple which don't exactly attempt convergence and pointedly ignoring every pre-existing attempt at the concept) and maybe consider humility and avoid overblown claims given you're not the first to attempt it, nobody's succeeded, there's no evidence available that you are succeeding, and you've really not shown anything which would made anyone think "this is going to succeed where everybody else failed".

replies(1): >>joekri+L5
◧◩
7. sixoth+I4[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 15:12:20
>>maskli+J3
As a developer I'm fairly disappointed in how Ballmer messed this one up for us. C# is a nice place to spend your day. And the promise of write once run anywhere is really starting to materialize.
◧◩
8. chongl+e5[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 15:15:52
>>joekri+r3
It solves a _development_ problem

I think the GP meant to ask "what problem does this solve for end users?" It's hard to market to consumers if your primary differentiator is only useful to developers.

replies(1): >>joekri+l6
◧◩◪
9. joekri+L5[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 15:19:40
>>maskli+i4
Microsoft failed in a completely different way: their entire mobile platform failed. I'm not sure it had anything to with UWP specifically, and as far as we know that had little to do with it. But regardless of the reason, I still don't think that should prevent others from trying to solve the problem in different ways.
replies(1): >>toast0+17
◧◩◪
10. meruru+X5[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 15:20:26
>>maskli+T3
It does so more directly by being a PC without Microsoft Windows pre-installed or proprietary BIOS.

Almost always, a majority of PCs for sale have Microsoft Windows pre-installed. In the rare cases that they come with a GNU/Linux operating system or no operating system at all, the drivers and BIOS may be proprietary.

Ubuntu helped enable Purism to exist and they are great for that too.

replies(1): >>maskli+mm
◧◩◪
11. joekri+l6[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 15:22:24
>>chongl+e5
When I was typing that comment, I was actually going to elaborate on this point, but decided not to for brevity.

The reality is, if a developer can generate greater reach, it gives more options to the consumer. And so in that regard it does solve a problem for the end user - they have more software options to choose from. Perhaps there is more competition, which I think we can all probably agree is good for users.

replies(2): >>chongl+ca >>JohnFe+fB
◧◩
12. toast0+s6[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 15:23:15
>>joekri+r3
> It solves a _development_ problem, in that it reduces the amount of work needed to allow an application to reach a larger number of devices.

That's great for developers, but how does that help users? As a user, I would rather use something built specifically for the device (and os) I'm using, I've used enough things that were supposed to work everywhere that it's a major turn off at this point.

If developers want to share code cross platform, really, the way to do it is write a shared core logic (probably in C, because that is available everywhere), and then write the UI from scratch everywhere, conforming to the platform guidelines (unless it's a media player). It's more work than hoping a write once run eveywhere will work well, but it delivers a much better result.

replies(1): >>ascii_+Ec
◧◩◪◨
13. toast0+17[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 15:27:43
>>joekri+L5
I think the failure of Windows Mobile 10 could be attributed to UWP in that Microsoft applied it internally, there was no separate Mobile team like with the previous releases of Windows Phone, and as a result, the released OS did not run well on mobile devices until about a year after release. That's what experience has taught me to expect from write once, run everywhere.
◧◩◪◨
14. chongl+ca[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 15:47:07
>>joekri+l6
Sure, I get that it's important for your product to attract developers in order to present a thriving software ecosystem to the users. It is, but the users don't care how you do it. So marketing developer-centric features to end users is a waste of time and money.
replies(1): >>ascii_+hd
◧◩◪
15. ascii_+Ec[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 16:01:18
>>toast0+s6
>but how does that help users?

It helps users by providing apps.

Purism phone is very niche product. It is unreasonable to think that a lot of developers will start writing their application for PureOS. But hopefully some of them can port app if it will be easy enough. So instead of OS without almost any apps you will have OS with some apps.

replies(1): >>toast0+Yp
◧◩◪◨⬒
16. ascii_+hd[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 16:05:23
>>chongl+ca
But their market audience are developers/power users.
replies(1): >>chongl+7n
17. Vinnl+Qd[view] [source] 2019-03-07 16:08:34
>>dcdevi+(OP)
The problem it solves is writing an app suite for the phone from scratch. There's now a really quite capable web browser running on their phone, which is likely to be a far better experience than had they written it from scratch. Pair that with upstreams that appear to have enough goodwill to agree to maintain their patches for them, and it's obvious why they're pursuing this.
◧◩◪◨
18. maskli+mm[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 17:02:26
>>meruru+X5
> It does so more directly by being a PC without Microsoft Windows pre-installed or proprietary BIOS.

Ah, so it does so by redefining the inconvenient bits completely out of bug #1.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
19. chongl+7n[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 17:07:03
>>ascii_+hd
I'm a developer/power user and I don't find the product very compelling. I'm not a mobile developer though. I see my phone as an appliance: I just want it to work (and it does that very well, with the exception of touchID).

My laptop is where I do all of my serious computing. I have no desire to run bash or vim or tmux on my phone.

◧◩◪◨
20. toast0+Yp[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 17:23:15
>>ascii_+Ec
As a user, is there a significant difference between an OS with no apps and an os with mostly half-hearted ports of apps?

Having been a user of Windows Phone, I would say, don't bother giving me an app if it's going to be garbage.

◧◩◪◨
21. JohnFe+fB[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-03-07 18:26:17
>>joekri+l6
> The reality is, if a developer can generate greater reach, it gives more options to the consumer.

But if the cost of doing so is that the apps have to be mediocre, is that really good?

[go to top]