← Back to team overview

ubuntu-tv team mailing list archive

Re: Some basic ideas for Ubuntu TV.

 

Bottom line, we have a way to provide a default list of apps while still allowing advanced users the ability to customize their system as they wish. Is that a satisfactory solution for everyone?



Sent from my Palm PreOn Nov 29, 2011 22:11, Thomas Mashos <thomas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

That's not 100% accurate. You still would have multiple packages (one

for desktop, one for ubuntutv), otherwise you are making every user

download more than they need and everything gets bloated. You could

have a single code base as well, as a single source package can create

multiple binary packages.





On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Ian Santopietro <isantop@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> That's the big one, but it also takes a lot of load off of the servers,

> since you only need one copy of the package.

>

> On Nov 29, 2011 9:04 PM, "Ian Nicholson" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>

>> On 11/29/2011 10:01 PM, Ian Santopietro wrote:

>>

>> We could use a custom flag in DEBIAN/control or something in software

>> center to mark Apps as TV friendly. This would cover the majority of games,

>> plus any apps with an interface specifically for TV. This would allow for an

>> App to have two interfaces (this is defined in Gnome 3), without requiring

>> separate packages or code bases. That way we could add in an option to

>> software center to allow the installation of "desktop apps". That might be a

>> better option that using separate repositories, though it would require

>> extra effort on the part of the repository maintainer.

>>

>> On Nov 29, 2011 7:59 PM, "Ian Nicholson" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>

>>> On 11/29/2011 08:50 PM, Ian Santopietro wrote:

>>>

>>> > Other Ian - What do you mean when you say "desktop functionality"?

>>>

>>> I mean having a full desktop environment, and access to apps that haven't

>>> been optimized for TVs.

>>>

>>> On Nov 29, 2011 5:36 PM, "Ian Nicholson" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>> >

>>> > Other Ian - What do you mean when you say "desktop functionality"?

>>> >

>>> >

>>> >

>>> >

>>> > Sent from my Palm Pre

>>> > ________________________________

>>> > On Nov 29, 2011 18:09, Ian Santopietro <isantop@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>> >

>>> > What happened to Ubuntu One? I never said they'd be independent, I

>>> > said they'd function differently from each other, since most users

>>> > will use a TV for different things from what they use their computer

>>> > for. But everything would be linked to their Ubuntu One Cloud. Nothing

>>> > would necessarily be independent. Being connected to a personal

>>> > network doesn't mean it needs to function exactly identically to, or

>>> > even have the option to function exactly identically to, a desktop

>>> > computer. They have to access the same content, and synchronize

>>> > progress through this content. Once you download a movie to your

>>> > desktop, you can start watching it on the TV, and finish form the

>>> > place you left off on your laptop before bed. Once you start listening

>>> > to music on the TV, you can move over to your smartphone and drive to

>>> > work without losing your place in the song. Complete and total system

>>> > integration with Ubuntu One; and wrapping it up in a comfortable,

>>> > simple to use 10ft UI; is where Ubuntu TV really has the possibility

>>> > to shine and succeed, not by emulating Desktop functionality.

>>> >

>>> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:20, Jo-Erlend Schinstad

>>> > <joerlend.schinstad@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>> > > I give up.

>>> > >

>>> > > Creating independent Ubuntu appliances makes no sense to me. I won't

>>> > > buy

>>> > > something like that just because it has an Ubuntu sticker on it. It's

>>> > > either

>>> > > a part of my personal network, or it's not. If it's not, then I'd

>>> > > rather

>>> > > purchase one from Samsung or LG or something. Single user, one

>>> > > process,

>>> > > unconnected...

>>> > >

>>> > > That's not my cup of tea.

>>> > >

>>> > >

>>> > > Jo-Erlend Schinstad

>>> > >

>>> > > --

>>> > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv

>>> > > Post to     : ubuntu-tv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>>> > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv

>>> > > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

>>> >

>>> >

>>> >

>>> > --

>>> > Ian Santopietro

>>> >

>>> > Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.

>>> > See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

>>> >

>>> > "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast

>>> >  Ofer middangeard monnum sended"

>>> >

>>> > Pa gur yv y porthaur?

>>> >

>>> > Public GPG key (RSA):

>>> >

>>> > http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234

>>> >

>>> > --

>>> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv

>>> > Post to : ubuntu-tv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>>> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv

>>> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

>>>

>>> Ah I see.  This has been something I've been considering, why don't we

>>> just have a special repo for UbuntuTV, and then allow the users to enable

>>> the other repos as they wish, once they've been warned that it's not

>>> optimal?

>>> That way we could leverage the Software Center as a way to install

>>> applications like games.

>>>

>>> --

>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv

>>> Post to     : ubuntu-tv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv

>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

>>>

>> So it seems like the main advantage is that it would mean only one code

>> base that the developers would have worry about.  Is that a valid

>> assessment?

>

>

> --

> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv

> Post to     : ubuntu-tv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv

> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

>







-- 

Thomas Mashos



Follow ups

References