Android apps to run in UT?
-
@advocatux said in Android apps to run in UT?:
@RudiH, as I'm understanding it this conversation can be summarised in these terms: Is it UBports a free software project or are we willing to fill it with proprietary software?
My vote is for a free software project, needless to say.
How can it be bad thing if you have possibility to install Android apps? It's not like UT is going to come preinstalled with shitload of android apps.
You think wine is bad and should not exist, because you don't like to use any of the win software on Linux?
-
@RudiH, fellow or follow?
Honest question: Ubuntu is free software, Ubuntu phone was an attempt to develop a free software phone, UBports is the continuation of that effort. Why do you think UBports has to put work in develop proprietary software chunks?
-
Guys, lets come back to a technical point of view - opinions are not facts, but we only want to deal with facts here:
- Anbox is a project aiming at the possibility to install Android apps
- Anbox can be integrated into the phone because its just another container (as far as I know now)
- We will try to integrate it, because we are curious to what is possible with that thingie, unless it takes too much effort, or changes heavily our internal architecture (access to hardware etc.). Or it proofs to be a resource hog.
- If you want to install Anbox, you are free to do so. Period.
- UBports will NOT implement unofficial clients/Apps of any kind, since that is a loose situation for our reputation.
BR Florian
My languages: 🇦🇹 🇩🇪 🇬🇧 🇺🇸
-
@jamesp, please don't attribute to me words I didn't say. In which place I've mentioned Wine?
I'm all for freedom of choice, and whoever can run whatever software s/he likes, of course.
That doesn't mean I'd like to see UBports putting time and effort in non-free software.
-
@Flohack, I completely agree with your point of view.
-
@advocatux said in Android apps to run in UT?:
@RudiH, fellow or follow?
Honest question: Ubuntu is free software, Ubuntu phone was an attempt to develop a free software phone, UBports is the continuation of that effort. Why do you think UBports has to put work in develop proprietary software chunks?
Ubuntu tried and "failed". Perhaps it wouldn't have been such disaster if some work to run Android apps were taken and people could have used some of the familiar apps they were accustomed to.
I wouldn't say it has to, but should. Boys from Sailfish did most of the work and shouldn't be too big of a task to implement it on UT?
I wonder what is KDE Plasma Mobiles take on this matter?
-
@jamesp, I'm using Linux since late 90's. In all this time since then, many people have said some similar things to your "Perhaps it wouldn't have been such disaster if some work to run Android apps were taken and people could have used some of the familiar apps they were accustomed to."
One notable example was Internet Explorer. Why develop another browser if everybody is running, and developing for, IE? Well, you know the History. Thanks FOSS developers.
If we want a free (as in freedom), secure, and private phone we have to develop free software options.
-
@advocatux said in Android apps to run in UT?:
@jamesp, I'm using Linux since late 90's. In all this time since then, many people have said some similar things to your "Perhaps it wouldn't have been such disaster if some work to run Android apps were taken and people could have used some of the familiar apps they were accustomed to."
One notable example was Internet Explorer. Why develop another browser if everybody is running, and developing for, IE? Well, you know the History. Thanks FOSS developers.
If we want a free (as in freedom), secure, and private phone we have to develop free software options.
Internet browser hardly compares to this. Anyone can make browser and no problems with that, but when it comes to closed proprietary software people are using and software company has no interest to make app for UT so you have to do what you must like it was with wine.
-
@jamesp said in Android apps to run in UT?:
Internet browser hardly compares to this. Anyone can make browser and no problems with that, but when it comes to closed proprietary software people are using and software company has no interest to make app for UT so you have to do what you must like it was with wine.
It has everything to compare it to. Maybe you're too young to remember it, but everybody was grabbed by Internet Explorer and ActiveX.
No, it wasn't an easy task to convince people that another way to do things were possible. But they did it.
And yes, people thought they can't live without ActiveX the same way some people think there's no life outside some walled gardens.
-
The Jedi side of mobile devices: It´s easy to fall for the dark side. Just because it´s convenient. Just because everyone else uses it, and I want to be like everyone else. Just because it´s hopeless to resist. In fact, human beings are just used to follow trends as this increases the chance of surviving.
But from time to time there are people that want to be different. Sometimes they fail over and over again, but still the dont give up. So lets try to be different, and not start with what is not possible. Think about what IS possible today, and be positive.
The more we start to try to be similar, just in a different way the more we will fail. Chance does not come from being similar, it comes from being different.
That said, lets hope for Anbox.
BR
-
Also one should remember that not all Android apps are proprietary. There is in fact a huge amount of free software available as Android apps, as well as all the bits and pieces used to run those apps are all free software. So I don't think the point of relating Anbox to proprietary and non-free software is in any way valid.
-
@ZeroPointEnergy said in Android apps to run in UT?:
Also one should remember that not all Android apps are proprietary. There is in fact a huge amount of free software available as Android apps, as well as all the bits and pieces used to run those apps are all free software. So I don't think the point of relating Anbox to proprietary and non-free software is in any way valid.
But anyone can port those free Android apps (if they're truly free) to UBports, that's not the problem. The problem is when someone wants to run proprietary software and the developer company of that software does, and will do, anything to keep that software under its control.
-
It is not that simple. Android apps are written in Java against a completely different API. To port such an app to QT means a complete rewrite of the app. From what I understand, the idea of Anbox is to simply provide this APIs and the dalvik jvm in a chroot/container. All free software, it just allows you to run apps written for the Android userland on a system with a regular GNU userland.
This has all absolutely nothing to do with the problem of proprietary software. In fact there where quite a few proprietary apps in the Ubuntu store which where native apps running in the GNU userland.
The important thing here is that the OS is all free software and that the choice to give up your freedom by using proprietary software is one the user can make because he has this freedom which comes with the full control over his device in the first place. This is true with and without Anbox.
Now I recognise that the possibility to run Android apps will increase the probability that users run proprietary software on UT simply because it makes them available to the user. But they would run it anyway if they really need it but probably on a OS which does not respect the freedom of the user and may spy on you. So if they run it on UT instead of a stock Android full of proprietary spyware they at least gain control over the device they own.
For the people who want to stick to free software only, Anbox opens access to a lot more free software than they would have on UT with native apps only. This could make a big difference to make UT a viable choice as a device for them.
I also don't think this will in any way discourage people from writing native apps. The true power of UT is that it has a full GNU userland with all the tools people are used to from the desktop. But from what I see there has to be a lot of work to be done to make developing native apps viable for mere mortals again.
Sorry for the wall of text
-
FRENCH
je pense que l'on ne devrait pas penser qu'a soi, je m'explique si je m'écoute. Je veux ceci mais pas celà??????? UT doit être riche en application pour qu'il dure. La plupare des personnes qui ont un téléphonet, c'est qu'il soit complémentaire de notre pc .
Le fait d'avoir un UT avec des applicationt,s Android apporte à UT une plus vallue et c'est Plutôt positif. Libre à chacun de les installer et puis si l'on veux la tranquillité alors revenez sur notre bon Nokia 3310 il fait téléphone et SMS
ENGLISH
I think that one should not think that to itself, I explain to myself if I listen. I want this but not that ??????? UT must be rich in application for it to last. The plupare of people who have a phone is that it is complementary to our pc.
Having a UT with Android apps brings UT a more valley and it's pretty positive. Free of all installed and then if one wants the tranquility then come back on our good Nokia 3310 it does phone and SMS -
@advocatux said in Android apps to run in UT?:
@jamesp said in Android apps to run in UT?:
Internet browser hardly compares to this. Anyone can make browser and no problems with that, but when it comes to closed proprietary software people are using and software company has no interest to make app for UT so you have to do what you must like it was with wine.
It has everything to compare it to. Maybe you're too young to remember it, but everybody was grabbed by Internet Explorer and ActiveX.
No, it wasn't an easy task to convince people that another way to do things were possible. But they did it.
And yes, people thought they can't live without ActiveX the same way some people think there's no life outside some walled gardens.
No, i member well the rise of internet, and i used Netscape, IE and Opera and Firefox when they came around.
I never encountered ActiveX elsewhere except IP surveillance cameras and one ActiveX one was bought just last year. Don't remember anything else needing that.
Anyways there is shitload of great useful apps that we will never see UT native version and is pretty much impossible to remake or replace.
-
@Flohack said in Android apps to run in UT?:
Anbox appeared (https://anbox.io/) so there are guys who will try the same, maybe even in a better way.
That's interesting. Maybe it can be seamless integrated in Yunit in a similar way that X11 apps are integrated
![😕](https://forums.ubports.com/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/emoji-one/1f615.png?v=2465d8ca594 ":\")
-
From todays blog entry:
What’s happening with Anbox?
We definitely want Android App compatibility, but it is not our highest priority for the moment. Since there’s so much to be done, it will also probably not land for 15.04, but we’re looking forward to playing around with it on the soon-to-come 16.04 images. It is important to point out here, that we still need top push for native apps. Anbox will just be a way of getting crucial android apps that don’t exist on Ubuntu Touch otherwise to run, similar to Wine on the Linux Desktop. The experience will probably not be the same, but it will help eliminate the immediate need. Apps like WhatsApp, Snapchat or Netflix will probably not be ported to Ubuntu Touch, so it makes sense to run them in Anbox if it’s possible.
Why is Anbox needed? Can’t you just use Dalvik from the Android container?
It’s not that simple. This would require us to build compatibility with the Mir display server and all of the userland, it doesn’t work like that.
Also, we don’t want to be android! We want Ubuntu Touch to be a GNU/Linux distribution for mobile devices, the Android container is just the way for us to get hardware access and we don’t want features to depend on it.
https://blog.ubports.com/qanda/2017/06/14/community-update.html
-
This post is deleted! -
@vondes, I hope not.
-
