Ubuntu One taking care of Windows users ... not so much users of other Linux distributions

I don't remember where I read it, but I believe the client code is supposed to become open (if it's not already).

If that's the case, I don't see a problem. It's really not Canonical's job to make sure their stuff works on every distribution. As long as there's source available, then devs from other distros can make sure it works with their distro.

Personally, I don't use Ubuntu One, even though Ubuntu is my distro of choice. I use dropbox, because all I need is syncing of certain directories/files. I know that Ubuntu One offers more than just file sync (such as the music store), but I don't see myself using that. And I know that dropbox will run wherever I put the client, regardless of platform/distribution.

R.
==

The main goal of Ubuntu one is to drive users to ubuntu period. You would never see an ubuntuone or ubuntu music store in other distros because even though the client side is free software, It is too tired to ubuntu to work in other distributions. Personally I don't see what it brings to the table over offerings like dropbox. There too claim to have a foss based client side. But it is OS agonistic and works much better.

From the Ubuntu one TOS web page:

"The client software of Ubuntu One is released for free public use under several open source licenses, primarily the GPLv3 and Creative Commons licences."

You could have discovered that for yourself in half the time it took you to write this blog post.

But don't let that stop you.

Ubuntu One client already is FOSS and can be used in any Linux distro. You configure and package it as you would any of the other thousands of packages in the repositories.

For example: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30081

So this article is bogus.

While I too would like to see it work with any other distribution (I for one don't care for either the KDE or GNOME desktops -- I use Xfce myself), I think the fact that it works with Windows is a start, because in my case, I use Linux at home but at work, I'm on Windows, and not by choice, because no one else in the I.T. department knows a thing about Linux, and thus, what I'm on at work is unfortunately not my call to make.

I had no idea there was an Arch package for Ubuntu One. I'd like to know how well it works.

Do any other distribution offer such a package?

I'm not a Dropbox user, but I don't believe that you can designate any folder in your system to sync like you can in Ubuntu One. You basically have to put the stuff you want synced into the /dropbox folder. I like the idea of being able to sync any individual file or folder in the system, no matter where it happens to live in the directory structure.

Just because the code is GPL doesn't mean it's easy to integrate into another distribution.

Again, I'm just guessing/speculating, but you'd think that if this was workable, given that it's GPL, many other distributions would want to at least offer their users the option of using Ubuntu One.

From Julian Andres Klode's blog:

And the best thing about Ubuntu One is that the client is completely free software and written in Python. This makes it possible to package the client for other distributions, like Debian. Packaging it for RPM-based distribution such as Fedora should also be doable, but may require some more time.

In this Launchpad Answers post, somebody was able to get Ubuntu One working in Debian, but it was a hacky solution.

Otherwise, evidence of people using Ubuntu One outside of Ubuntu is a bit thin.

Ubuntu could help by pushing this upstream, or at least providing packages that non-Ubuntu, non-Windows users could install.

Just saying "it's GPL, so suck it," isn't enough.

Hi Steven,

I think your criticism of Ubuntu is a little misdirected: if you want Ubuntu One in your chosen distro, ask them to work on packaging if from upstream, which happens to be another distro.

Asking Ubuntu to push their code upstream is a really odd thing to say. Should they push it upstream to themselves?!

Their seems to be this favorite sport among developers at the moment of saying that Ubuntu doesn't do enough development in the kernel/GNOME etc. while at the same time complaining that they do too much development (Ubuntu One, App indicators etc).

Conrad, I see your point.

The argument about Ubuntu development is much like you portray it. I think Ubuntu is pretty much forking GNOME. I recognize that Ubuntu wants to do what it wants to do, and it doesn't want to be bound by the priorities of the GNOME project.

Many are saying this is bad, with Ubuntu both ignoring and being ignored by upstream to some extent.

Will we get to the point where Ubuntu GNOME and regular GNOME are so different as to be two distinct projects? I think we very well could.

Well, a Windows client would be very useful (given the fact that the other product of the same kind of Ubuntu One, Dropbox, has clients for all the platforms), but still no KDE client...

The Window client is fully opensource (lp:ubuntuone-windows-installer). Not only that, but the Windows client is actually making the code even more portable since we are reusing the code that we currently have on Ubuntu as much as possible, if it can work on Windows, it can work in an other Linux distro.

A diff question would be if Fedora user wants to have Ubuntu One installed on it.