I'm not sure what it means for the Linux community that Canonical is doing this, but I do think they are doing the right thing for "Ubuntu" if they want to make it a more mainstream OS, and also an OS that works on mobile hardware, and it's fast and smooth.
If that means they have to break clean from a lot of legacy stuff, then so be it. Ultimately, I want a strong mainstream OS alternative to Windows - one that is popular enough and gets support from all major software vendors for apps. If Ubuntu got at least as popular as Mac OS, it would be amazing, and I don't really care what they have to do to get there.
I also hope this means they will make it dead-easy for developers, whether paid ones or open source volunteers, to make beautiful apps for Ubuntu/Linux. I hate how ugly and old Linux apps look. Absolutely hate them. And if that's happenig to me, then I can only imagine the reaction of "normal" PC users and how much of a turn off that must be for them, especially now when we're living in a time of iOS, Holo and Metro apps. Most of them would find the majority of Linux apps unacceptable.
If Canonical gives developers easy to use set of design resources and tools, then even open source apps for Linux or cross-platform won't have an excuse to not look beautiful anymore.
If Canonical manages to get chip makers to make unified drivers for Ubuntu/Linux/Android that would be an amazing feat as well, and something I wish Google tried from the beginning or was already working on. But I haven't seen any hints of that happening, unfortunately. So Canonical might be Android's last hope for that.
> I want a strong mainstream OS alternative to Windows - one that is popular enough and gets support from all major software vendors for apps. If Ubuntu got at least as popular as Mac OS, it would be amazing, and I don't really care what they have to do to get there.
I can understand that Canonical wants to become a "mainstream alternative to Windows" because this means money for them. But why do you care how many buggy Windows or OSX clones are out there if you can just pay few bucks and get the real thing?
Comments
I'm not sure what it means for the Linux community that Canonical is doing this, but I do think they are doing the right thing for "Ubuntu" if they want to make it a more mainstream OS, and also an OS that works on mobile hardware, and it's fast and smooth.
If that means they have to break clean from a lot of legacy stuff, then so be it. Ultimately, I want a strong mainstream OS alternative to Windows - one that is popular enough and gets support from all major software vendors for apps. If Ubuntu got at least as popular as Mac OS, it would be amazing, and I don't really care what they have to do to get there.
I also hope this means they will make it dead-easy for developers, whether paid ones or open source volunteers, to make beautiful apps for Ubuntu/Linux. I hate how ugly and old Linux apps look. Absolutely hate them. And if that's happenig to me, then I can only imagine the reaction of "normal" PC users and how much of a turn off that must be for them, especially now when we're living in a time of iOS, Holo and Metro apps. Most of them would find the majority of Linux apps unacceptable.
If Canonical gives developers easy to use set of design resources and tools, then even open source apps for Linux or cross-platform won't have an excuse to not look beautiful anymore.
If Canonical manages to get chip makers to make unified drivers for Ubuntu/Linux/Android that would be an amazing feat as well, and something I wish Google tried from the beginning or was already working on. But I haven't seen any hints of that happening, unfortunately. So Canonical might be Android's last hope for that.
> I want a strong mainstream OS alternative to Windows - one that is popular enough and gets support from all major software vendors for apps. If Ubuntu got at least as popular as Mac OS, it would be amazing, and I don't really care what they have to do to get there.
I can understand that Canonical wants to become a "mainstream alternative to Windows" because this means money for them. But why do you care how many buggy Windows or OSX clones are out there if you can just pay few bucks and get the real thing?
It's pretty ridiculous to call Ubuntu a "buggy Windows or OSX clone".