securitybreach Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 A maxim of communication theory says that conflicts are seldom about the topic discussed. Almost always, they are about the relationships between the people arguing.For instance, World War I did not start because an archduke was assassinated, but because of the complicated grievances that had divided Europe into two arm camps were triggered by the assassination . In the same way, the conflicts between Ubuntu and its commercial counterpart Canonical on the one hand and other free software projects on the other hand are not just about Unity, the wording of the Canonical Contributors' License Agreement, the technical differences between Mir and Wayland, or any of the half dozen other issues being so passionately discussed at any given time.... http://www.datamatio...en-rules-1.html 3 page article but it is well worth the read and explains why myself and others dislike Canonical. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Too late tonight. I'll give it a looksee tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunrat Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Some good insights there. Thanks for posting, SB. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymac46 Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) A problem Mr. Shuttleworth has is that - although the Ubuntu brand has become almost a generic term for Linux in the public mind - he does not have the power or influence to direct open source development the way (say) the presidents of Microsoft or Apple do in their respective spheres of influence. Mr, S. as a result cannot easily walk the talk in Linux innovation - or at least he can't as much as he would like to. Trying to lead Linux development is more a matter of herding cats than anything else, especially when the community already has as much "leadership" as it seems to want. Edited March 27, 2014 by raymac46 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon James Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) Thank you for that interesting article SB. As an Ubuntu user who normally doesn't give any consideration whatsoever to political issues/arguments, I have always wondered why Ubuntu is surrounded in controversy. For every user who likes it and supports something new, there's another user who hates it and bashes the decision to try something new or in a different way. I just don't understand the antagonism between the parties. I suppose I can understand the disenchantment with Ubuntu thumbing its nose at the conventional community, failing to properly attribute credit where appropriate, and in a manner considered appropriate. For contributors who are primarily/solely motivated by the recognition of their contributions, this is a pretty serious slap in the face. And it's wrong on Ubuntu's part. If you're going to stand on the shoulders of giants and call yourself tall, you should at least reference "we" are tall, not "I", and you should say "thank you" to the shoulder you're standing on. However, with that said, Ubuntu has been a disruptor since its inception. Free Software/OSS has ALWAYS been about scratching your own itch in the way you want it to be scratched. If your itch isn't being scratched, or isn't being scratched in a satisfactory manner, aren't you supposed to scratch your own? There are hundreds of versions of linux because someone always thinks they can improve a distro in some way that was previously lacking. Same with software. Linux is spoiled with choices of abundance of software for the same reason; choices of office suites, music players, video players, e-mail clients, desktop environments, command-line-tool GUIs, etc... And Ubuntu was founded in a way that re-spun a distro in a more user-friendly manner to more people. And it has provided contributions to the FreeSoftware/OSS community, and Ubuntu methods have been copied and arguably, improved upon by Ubuntu AND other distros. Isn't this the way it is SUPPOSED to be? Ubuntu has been a disruptor from the beginning because it challenged the status-quo of how Linux did things. Were egos this bruised in 2005 when Ubuntu burst on the scene? I don't know because I wasn't on the Linux scene back then, but I can reasonably infer from history that Linux improved from this challenge. While the Ubuntu approach could perhaps be less antagonistic(?), the response could be less "defensive" of the status quo. While the methods can be questioned, the results are obvious, IMO. I am anti-authoritarian by nature. Anti-government, anti-corporation...you name it...show me a concentration of power and I'll show you the cancer of corruption. For this reason, I personally do not care if Ubuntu partakes in the nuanced group-think of the elite of Linux developers. By all means, participate in the discussion, share ideas, share resources, and collaborate when you can. But if you think "your way" is better, while no one else is in agreement, why SHOULDN'T you forge your own path, on your own? If you're right, other users have options; if you're wrong, you'll quickly fall back in line. Let's not forget how FreeSoftware/OSS works. Good ideas or better implementations blossom and spread; bad ideas are quickly shelved and die on the vine. Don't like buttons on the left side? Don't like Unity? Don't like Mir? By all means, provide feedback and submit bug reports. Give them a chance to improve it. But if it doesn't, SWITCH to SOMETHING ELSE!!! There are too many choices in Linux to continue using something you don't like and that the developer has no inclination to address. Ubuntu has other desktop environments; in fact, I believe they have an implementation of pretty much every desktop environment known to Linux. I'm sure one of these options will be more to your liking. Go ahead and change it...it's okay! It's your desktop and you're allowed to in Linux! Don't like Mir? Switch to another Debian distro that will support Wayland instead. The display server is invisible to the user, but if it matters to you, who says you're wrong? SWITCH!!! If you don't care for Ubuntu or the way they handle their business, you can switch! There are no sunken costs to be lost by abandoning their platform. And if switching distros solves this problem, why wouldn't you do that?! This is what Ubuntu is doing. They're changing things up in an effort to improve the Ubuntu experience. Some things will be successful and will spread to other distros; some things will fail and will be replaced with yet another option. Isn't this one of the main reasons that most of us are using Linux? The freedom to choose? Based on that premise, I just wish "haters" would exercise that option and quit campaigning so hard to get me to agree. If your way is better, spin your own distro and I'll give it a fair shot, 'cuz I'm always looking for a better way. Otherwise, you're just a complainer with nothing else to offer... EDIT: after reading my rant, I wanted to be clear that I have no issues with SB or anyone else who doesn't like Ubuntu. I understand your perspective, and I respect your position. You have done exactly what I think should be done...you tried something else until you found what works for you. My beef is with the haters who can't seem to respect MY decision to stick with Ubuntu and Unity because it works for me the way I need it to. If the day comes when that is no longer true, guess what I'll be doing? Edited March 27, 2014 by Hedon James 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon James Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 saw this on Facebook, immediately after leaving BATL: https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/1395448_259480377563403_1208127944_n.jpg Perhaps this sums it up better? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 That is so true, Hedon James! Let's put it in image format so all can see without having to click: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturnian Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 I thought that the article was pretty good, and interesting. The author did do a good job of explaining why many people dislike Canonical. Hedon James: Excellent post (post #5, above)!!! Well, from Canonical, every couple of years I get a free operating system to download (I use only LTS releases), and so far it has worked out quite well here. Looking forward to 14.04 next month! I feel like such an oddball, sometimes, because I'm a Debian user (and, now, an Arch user) who also enjoys using Ubuntu. While I was reading the article, I was thinking that it sure is a good thing that we have Canonical and Shuttleworth and Ubuntu out there disrupting things, stirring stuff up, giving folks things to think about, talk about, and complain about! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
securitybreach Posted March 27, 2014 Author Share Posted March 27, 2014 Well the article was not about running Ubuntu and how it works for you. The article was discussing how unethically Canonical treats their roots and the rest of the open source community. From the last paragraph: Ubuntu has always been ambitious. In addition, though, when you look back on its history, it has usually been in too much of a hurry to realize its ambitions. No doubt the drive to make Canonical profitable has only increased its rush.The main problem with this rush is that it has encouraged Canonical to focus on its own goals, and too often to neglect its relationship with the rest of free software. Instead of cultivating tactical alliances, it has trampled over the unspoken conventions, creating animosity instead of acting in its own best interests. Admittedly, the larger community can be slow to change and quick to defend the way things are. You could argue with some success that an attempt to innovate and to do things differently is long overdue. But while Canonical has helped to transform the Linux desktop, at times its rashness has made its failures (and partial successes) as significant as its successes. The bottom line is that Ubuntu and Canonical's relationship with the rest of free software is severely dysfunctional -- and that no one on either side appears to have the will to fix it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturnian Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Well the article was not about running Ubuntu and how it works for you. The article was discussing how unethically Canonical treats their roots and the rest of the open source community. Understood. Pretty much gathers up lots of flaws and negative things about Canonical and puts them all in one place for the reader. Excellent. To me, Canonical (like everything and everyone else) is not all bad and not all good. I tend to focus more on the good, and, for my purposes, at least, they do put out a useful operating system, available to download for free for anyone who wants it. That's the bottom line for me, rather than all the things about Canonical that seem to disgust so many people. Hey, that's how things go, different people will always look at something and see it in a different light... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) I remember when Redhat did the unthinkable and people were anxious about what that would mean to the community. Fedora was a bit shaky for a while because of that. I understood what they did and why. CentOS came out of that change which is a pretty good OS on it's own using generic RHEL. Fedora iwas OK in time, too but I felt betrayed. I gravitated away from Redhat after that. Why couldn't Redhat have created a new thing for their new licensing scheme and service for pay scheme. I don't have a problem with them making money from Linux. The model is there. But don't take what was the community's from the beginning, They took our own Redhat and well...anyway... Felt the same way when things started getting weird with Canonical. Deja Vu it felt like to me. DIdn't want to go there again. Finally settled in on to Stable Debian -- Lenny at that time and haven't looked back. I feel pretty safe that Debian will not do what Redhat and Canonical are doing to the community...call me jaded. Don't forget I am an old Linux user who has been around since Redhat 6.0 when my Jim installed that a couple/three years before I tried Linux. I was here when Redhat (and Ubuntu) were true community projects. Many of these young whip'r'snappers using today's Linux don't remember them thar days... Edited March 27, 2014 by LilBambi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crp Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 re; was Shuttleworth use of Ubuntu/Canonical always criticized for lack of credit giving? Yepp. re: RedHat going commercial- there was a lot of "hey , wait a minute" when they did that but when the Linux licensing terms were looked at, most realized RedHat was on solid footing. CentOS was not really started up as a response to RedHat going commercial but because Fedora versions were abandoned too quickly. re: Ubuntu is a disrupter good for the Linux community - I'd give that at best a "perhaps". I'm open to someone pointing out a change to the Linux world that would not have happened without Ubuntu. But I think it changes the real argument, which is is Shuttleworth worth his "rule breaking"? to which i reply No. To do what he wants, he should have started up a new OS branch forked away from Linux. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturnian Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Canonical has been around for (how many years now?), and it looks like they aren't going away anytime soon. I'm sure lots of folks would like to see them do this: Anyway, Canonical's critics should have lots to complain about over the next several years, at least. Gonna be a lot of sore wrists from all that hand-wringing, I think. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymac46 Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 It's interesting that Linux Mint introduced a new desktop environment, forked the file and window managers and there hasn't been nearly the controversy stirred up by Ubuntu. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
securitybreach Posted March 28, 2014 Author Share Posted March 28, 2014 It's interesting that Linux Mint introduced a new desktop environment, forked the file and window managers and there hasn't been nearly the controversy stirred up by Ubuntu. Indeed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Excellent article! Byfield always has something interesting to say. Oh, and just so you know... There CAN BE ONLY ONE BDFL and his name is Patrick Volkerding! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
securitybreach Posted March 28, 2014 Author Share Posted March 28, 2014 There CAN BE ONLY ONE BDFL and his name is Patrick Volkerding! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abarbarian Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Ubuntu has other desktop environments; in fact, I believe they have an implementation of pretty much every desktop environment known to Linux. Nah they don't and that is probably why they are in trouble. If they had done a Window Maker version from the start who knows how popular they would be by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 You can't install Gnome or KDE from the repos after installation like you used to be able to do? That would not make sense not to have other GUIs/Desktop Environments at least available in the repos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Years ago when I installed Ubuntu Feisty Fawn I think it was, (this was before Waylon/Unity), I installed Gnome which was available at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymac46 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 I've found over the years that if I really wanted to run a specific DE I could usually find a distro that enabled it in an elegant way. So I just used that approach. Ubuntu has a number of flavors. Mageia does KDE with style. Debian Wheezy will give you pure unadulterated Gnome Shell. Linux Mint has MATE and Cinnamon on tap. There's always Arch if you really want a custom look and feel. I can't see taking Ubuntu with Unity and then hitting yourself in the head with a brick installing all the KDE stuff, but that's just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Debian does KDE DE quite well too. I run it all the time, as well as Xfce on lesser computers/netbooks. That's my point. Most distros will allow you to install ANY Desktop Environment or GUI available to GNU Linux from their Repos. They may not offer it as a Distro installation with that DE/GUI but it's available in the Repos and can be installed at will. I have KDE, Gnome, Xfce, LXDE all installed on my systems. Gnome because I love many Gnome apps. KDE because I use it on anything that is strong enough to run it. Xfce and LXDE for those that aren't so lucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon James Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 I've found over the years that if I really wanted to run a specific DE I could usually find a distro that enabled it in an elegant way. So I just used that approach. Ubuntu has a number of flavors. Mageia does KDE with style. Debian Wheezy will give you pure unadulterated Gnome Shell. Linux Mint has MATE and Cinnamon on tap. There's always Arch if you really want a custom look and feel. I can't see taking Ubuntu with Unity and then hitting yourself in the head with a brick installing all the KDE stuff, but that's just me. I agree with Ray. Bolded is what I was talking about. Kubuntu is basically KDE on Ubuntu; Xubuntu is basically XFCE on Ubuntu; Lubuntu is LXDE on Ubuntu, etc... And even if you felt the need for something less mainstream, you could always install Ubuntu server edition, drop to the CLI, and install IceWM, or OpenBox, or FluxBox, or JWM, or Enlightenment, or whatever else you're feeling... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturnian Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 You can't install Gnome or KDE from the repos after installation like you used to be able to do? Yes, of course this is still possible. For example, if you take a look at the Ubuntu Packages Search site (http://packages.ubuntu.com/) and search for "kde" in "saucy" (13.10), you'll see kde-full ("complete KDE Software Compilation") and kde-plasma-desktop ("KDE Plasma Desktop and minimal set of applications") among lots of other package options. I have GNOME Shell installed in Ubuntu 12.04. I still can't decide which I like better between GNOME Shell and Unity. But I think that both are considered to be "shells" on top of GNOME 3 (same with Cinnamon, right?) (by the way, I see that Cinnamon is also available for installation in Ubuntu -- in 13.10, at least). I have KDE, Gnome, Xfce, LXDE all installed on my systems. Gnome because I love many Gnome apps. KDE because I use it on anything that is strong enough to run it. Xfce and LXDE for those that aren't so lucky. I've done things like that in the past; not so much now. I might add a few KDE apps to an Xfce installation, something like that. I usually have Openbox or Fluxbox added to my KDE installations, and often I'll log into one of those instead of into KDE. I've kinda gotten away from having any two "major" DEs (KDE, GNOME, Xfce) installed on the same system -- I just feel like I don't need more than one of those present. I'll have to take a look at LXDE and see how it's coming along. The last two times I tried it (in earlier Ubuntu releases, by the way), I ended up using Openbox (which comes with LXDE) instead. LilBambi, I installed both Debian Wheezy KDE and Kubuntu 12.04 here, some time ago, mainly to see how those two compared. Plus, I hadn't run Kubuntu in quite a while, and wanted to take another look. My impression was that Kubuntu 12.04 was nicer than Wheezy KDE "out of the box," but once set up, seems to me that one's about as good as the other. I have the desktops in both installations set up pretty much the same, and both installations seem quite solid, dependable, problem-free. YMMV, of course, but that's how things look here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 (edited) That's great. I thought things had really started going awry with some distros! Glad to hear it! Well, mostly I have Gnome Libraries needed for the apps I run in other DE/GUIs but in a few cases I also have Gnome. I don't use Gnome btw. LXDE is not very configurable and although it looks good, I don't care for something that is not fully configurable like the other ones. Exactly. You can install any version of a given flavor of Linux that is already optimized based on the likes of the person who created the specific version based on a GUI or DE. But I always tailor mine to my own likes regardless. I do like my apt-get though. I don't use package managers. Edited March 29, 2014 by LilBambi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 (edited) It's interesting that Linux Mint introduced a new desktop environment, forked the file and window managers and there hasn't been nearly the controversy stirred up by Ubuntu. I think that is because Linux Mint didn't try to change the backbone of the GUIs and then say it would be proprietary to them. Wayland. If they have changed their stance on that, I sorely apologize. Edited March 29, 2014 by LilBambi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymac46 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/29/cinnamon_2_0_review/ I believe that the latest Cinnamon 2.0 does not require Gnome 3 to be installed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 It is still just a GUI or DE. It is not a remaking of the engine that does the GUI. That's what I understood Wayland to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Cinnamon is more in line with what Unity was for Ubuntu than what Wayland was doing. And Wayland was what they were trying to make proprietary. Now they apparently have gone in favor of Mir instead of Wayland. From the Wayland page: *** Please note that we are no longer considering Wayland, but instead we will be moving to Mir. *** Wayland license Mir license Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymac46 Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 I am certainly no expert on graphics stacks, but I thought the purpose of Wayland or Mir was to eventually replace X in a lot of instances. That can be a good thing but - if Mir is tied into Unity and not say KDE or Gnome Shell and also if Mir is not the same as Wayland in the way it acts - there could be a mess. It's great if you want to run Unity I suppose, but what if you want Gnome Shell with the same distro? When you are messing about with something as fundamental as a graphics server, it would seem to me that standardization would be the way to go. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.