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 <tho...@mashos.com> 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 <isan...@gmail.com> 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" <i...@binaryash.net> 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" <i...@binaryash.net> 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" <i...@binaryash.net> 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 <isan...@gmail.com> 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.schins...@gmail.com> 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@lists.launchpad.net >>> > > 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@lists.launchpad.net >>> > 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@lists.launchpad.net >>> 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@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > -- Thomas Mashos
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv Post to : ubuntu-tv@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-tv More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
