Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Firefox Ubuntu Cellphones Handhelds Open Source Linux

Ubuntu Touch Beats Firefox OS For 'Best of MWC' From CNET 152

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the everyone's-a-winner dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • But but but (Score:4, Insightful)

    by noobermin (1950642) on Thursday February 28, 2013 @09:05PM (#43041363) Journal

    Ubuntu is evil! Richard Stallman says so!!

    • by Taco Cowboy (5327)

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

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • by MightyYar (622222)

        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.

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          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.

          • by MightyYar (622222)

            I agree with you - thus the quotes around "stolen". I hate the terminology, but it's in the vernacular. All I can do is hope some of my sarcasm seeps through.

        • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

            by exomondo (1725132) on Friday March 01, 2013 @12:17AM (#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 (Score:4, Insightful)

              by fredprado (2569351) on Friday March 01, 2013 @12:27AM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

                by exomondo (1725132) on Friday March 01, 2013 @12:41AM (#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.

                • 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.
                  • by exomondo (1725132)

                    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.

                    • by exomondo (1725132)

                      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,

                    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                      by fredprado (2569351)
                      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 con
                    • by exomondo (1725132)

                      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 agend

                    • You only resort to that low level because you can't disprove my point, pathetic.

                      He's already given an absolutely clear justification which you have not addressed properly at all. If you have a proprietary program which processes data in any way then it is possible for it to do secret transformations on it or store parts of that data in undocumented formats which cannot be used elsewhere. Any FOSS program comes with the source code which fully documents those transformations and which can be adapted. This means that any proprietary software is a potential threat and should not be tr

                    • by exomondo (1725132)

                      If you have a proprietary program which processes data in any way then it is possible for it to do secret transformations on it or store parts of that data in undocumented formats which cannot be used elsewhere. Any FOSS program comes with the source code which fully documents those transformations and which can be adapted. This means that any proprietary software is a potential threat and should not be trusted without reason.

                      That still doesn't take anything away. It's obviously not be ideal but the fact is using it doesn't take anything away. You are right that proprietary software can be used in that way, but not all proprietary software - and that includes services you don't control, particularly web-based - do that.

                      He's even justified clearly why, by using proprietary software you are imposing problems on everyone else. Please look up the "network effect"

                      No, my using a proprietary program impacts nobody, unless i'm sharing proprietary formats, which is not the same thing. If i'm transporting jpegs or latex or obj or whatever then it doesn't matter whether i'm usin

                    • by exomondo (1725132)

                      Which would come entirely under the exception which I specifically added to my post in contrast to the grandparent and leads us to ask; did you really read the post you are replying to? This is the one which makes Microsoft evil and Google only slightly mean.

                      Which is exactly why the initial comment about 'proprietary software' is patently false, because it's overly generalised.

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

                Your examples could have easily be done with open source software and if they were implemented well would still give the exact same results. Unless of course you want to argue that security by obscurity is better than security by being open for review.

          • by MightyYar (622222)

            as long as there was no copyright at all and all systems were open

            How in the world would you open systems without copyleft? Fact is you need copyright to get anything like Gnu's version of open software.

    • but nothing. (Score:5, Informative)

      by tuppe666 (904118) on Thursday February 28, 2013 @09:41PM (#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.

      • 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?

        • 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]

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

            Do you have a better reference?

            • by ozmanjusri (601766) <aussie_bob@@@hotmail...com> on Thursday February 28, 2013 @10:55PM (#43042101) Journal

              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:

              • 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

                • by ozmanjusri (601766) <aussie_bob@@@hotmail...com> on Thursday February 28, 2013 @11:31PM (#43042341) Journal

                  "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]

                  • 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

                • 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 e
                  • 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.

                    • 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.
                    • 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.
                    • Oh, I am quite content with using something that is open and can be reviewed by anyone. I don't really need to review it myself. But good job trying to use a reductio ad absurdum fallacy to argue. Now it is time to go back to your logic 101 classes.
          • by Nerdfest (867930)

            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.

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

              • by Nerdfest (867930)

                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.

        • by gmuslera (3436)
          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.
      • by waspleg (316038)

        He's right as usual. I love Stallman. We need more of him.

        (PS, even if the original comment were true he's also right. I didn't know about the Amazon affiliation with Unity, even though I have an Ubuntu machine at work it's not got an outside connection and it has a single function, imaging other machines, so I've never used a Dash search or w/e the fuck it's called.)

        As an aside, is there anyone who can tell me what's so great about Ubuntu in the first place? I am honestly not seeing much in the way of

  • Fragmentation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28, 2013 @09:07PM (#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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • by MBCook (132727)

        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 choi

        • by Patch86 (1465427)

          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 somethin

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        That standard platform is the Android kernel.

        porting Ubuntu touch [ubuntu.com]:
        To rapidly support a wide range of devices, our architecture reuses some of the drivers and hardware enablement available for Android.
        porting Firefox OS [mozilla.org]:
        Boot to Gecko (Firefox OS) uses a kernel derived from Android, with a Gecko-based user interface on top of it.

        Meanwhile Plasma Active, Salifish, and Tize

    • by dgharmon (2564621)
      "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 ...
  • c|net? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrEricSir (398214) on Thursday February 28, 2013 @09:11PM (#43041415) Homepage

    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?

    • by Rogerborg (306625)
      Sadly, c|net is what marketeers skim in order to be all hip and jiggy with that nerd stuff, so it is influential.
    • by deniable (76198)
      Because they dish out awards to people who don't offend CBS.
  • by Osgeld (1900440) on Thursday February 28, 2013 @09:16PM (#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

    • by apoc06 (853263)

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

    • 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.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        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!

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        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.

    • by exomondo (1725132)

      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.

  • by D H NG (779318) on Thursday February 28, 2013 @09:28PM (#43041547)
    If Canonical sues or gets sued by CBS, they'll just get disqualified.
  • WebApp API (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alexandre (53) * on Thursday February 28, 2013 @09:54PM (#43041735) Homepage Journal

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

  • 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.

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

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

      +1 Smug.

    • My theory is that in a long-lost tongue coded in some people's genes, "canonical" means "will get you laid." It'd explain a lot about Ubuntu's popularity and blog names like "omg ubuntu!", if you think about it.

      As a Cyanogen newbie that ditched Ubuntu 3 years ago, though, it's nice to see that even if little else is familiar, I'll still get to periodically protest, "but my distro already can do that, dammit!" (Though admittedly it's very unlikely to get me laid.)

  • 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 ac

  • by thoughtlover (83833) on Thursday February 28, 2013 @11:55PM (#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.
  • 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 asi
  • Sailfish OS (Score:4, Informative)

    by SpectreBlofeld (886224) on Friday March 01, 2013 @10:24AM (#43044717)

    Not even a mention of Sailfish OS? This is the one I'm most interested in:

    http://pocketnow.com/2013/02/27/jolla-sailfish-video [pocketnow.com]

    Real X11/GNU/Linux phone with a fresh, elegant UI. Will support all Android apps out of the box with no porting required. Yes, please...

    • by Patch86 (1465427)

      Real X11/GNU/Linux phone with a fresh, elegant UI.

      I'm really excited about Sailfish, and will definitely be eyeing it up (along with Ubuntu Phone and Tizen) when I come to make my next purchase (assuming they're both on the market). However, Sailfish's UI is hardly ground-breaking. It looks essentially the same, in methodology, as Android (only with a few details changed). Home screen and widgets are stacked vertically, rather than horizontally. Status bar is swipe from the right, rather than from the top. You have to swipe through the screens with the wid

      • It's not just the UI that's noteworthy; it's the most Linux-y of Linux phones OS's out there.The UI being nice is just a bonus.

        • by Patch86 (1465427)

          More "Linuxy" than Ubuntu? Ubuntu's Mobile offering boasts (or will boast) a terminal application, Busybox, SSH, a shared UI with a desktop distro, etc. etc. Just about the only difference I can see with Sailfish is that it runs X11/Wayland rather than whatever it is that Android uses (and Ubuntu will share). Which is certainly nice, but I'm not sure that that's a game changer in any ways that matter.

"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.

Working...