Ubuntu Dumps X For Unity On Wayland

[securitybreach]

Ok this is getting ridiculous. First they want to move away from Gnome and make their own Window Manager. Now they want to do away with Xorg and make up their own display manager. Next thing you know they will charging for it.

"Canonical and Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth has announced that Ubuntu will move away from the traditional X.org display environment to Wayland — a more modern alternative. The move means there is now little reason for GNOME developers to recommend Ubuntu as an operating system. Shuttleworth said, 'We're confident we’ll be able to retain the ability to run X applications in a compatibility mode, so this is not a transition that needs to reset the world of desktop free software. Nor is it a transition everyone needs to make at the same time: for the same reason we'll keep investing in the 2D experience on Ubuntu despite also believing that Unity, with all its GL dependencies, is the best interface for the desktop. We'll help GNOME and KDE with the transition, there's no reason for them not to be there on day one either.'"

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/11/05/1...nity-On-Wayland

[Urmas]

Next thing you know they will charging for it.

That would be... interesting to see:

Will Ubuntu ever demand licence fees or royalties?No. Never. I have no interest in taking Ubuntu to join the proprietary software industry, it's a horrible business that is boring and difficult, and dying out rapidly anyway. My motivation and goal is to find a way to create a global desktop OS that is *free*, in every sense, as well as sustainable and of a quality comparable to anything you could pay for. That's what I'm trying to do, and if we fail, well then I will go and find some other project to pursue rather than get into the proprietary software business. I don't think any of the core Ubuntu developers, or much of the community, would stick around if I went loony and decided to try the latter, anyhow.If that isn't enough for you, then you will be happy to know that Canonical has signed public undertakings with government offices to the extent that it will never introduce a "commercial" version of Ubuntu. There will never be a difference between the "commercial" product and the "free" product, as there is with Red Hat (RHEL and Fedora). Ubuntu releases will always be free.That said if you want to pay for Ubuntu, or something that includes Ubuntu code, you probably can. There are proprietary apps that are certified for Ubuntu. Some Ubuntu-derivatives, like Impi (in which I am an investor) are targeted toward vertical markets that demand specific software, currently proprietary, which they bundle. There is already Ubuntu code in Linspire, which you can pay for (w00t!). Though Linspire is not (yet) based directly on Ubuntu, it's not infeasible that the Linspire guys figure out what a good option that would be for them sooner rather than later. There are likely to be many specialised versions of Ubuntu, under other brand names, that have commercial or proprietary features. They might have proprietary fonts or software like Impi, or add-ons or integration with services, etc. There is also likely to be quite a lot of proprietary software available for Ubuntu (there is already a fair bit - Opera for Ubuntu was announced recently, for example). But Canonical, and I myself, and the Ubuntu Community Council and Technical Board, will not produce an "Ubuntu Professional Edition ($XX.00)". There will certainly be no "Ubuntu Vista".

( https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarkShuttleworth )Wayland, huh? That was a new one for me... HEREOff-topic @Eric, Frank & other Radeon X1xx victims:Whilst searching for "Wayland", I found THIS:

As we already said, this next Ubuntu release [11.04 –Urmas] will also use R300g (the ATI Radeon Gallium3D driver for supporting GPUs up through the Radeon X1000 series) by default rather than the classic Mesa R300 driver.

[Urmas]

@Josh: Wayland on Arch Linux?

[securitybreach]

Yeah I seen that.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Read what I wrote about Ubuntu's future here --> http://www.lockergnome.com/nocturnalslacke...in-linux-world/ I took a lot of flak for those predictions. To some hardcore Ubuntu worshippers, Shuttleworth is a god.

[securitybreach]

Read what I wrote about Ubuntu's future here --> http://www.lockergnome.com/nocturnalslacke...in-linux-world/ I took a lot of flak for those predictions. To some hardcore Ubuntu worshippers, Shuttleworth is a god.

[BillD]

Well, Eric, it is an interesting viewpoint and would explain why Shuttleworth started Ubuntu; it is certainly a long range plan. I figured Canonical was making its money from providing support for organizations that adopted it (e.g. French Police) altho I believed in that case it was just a stepping stone for Canonical to add organizational and commercially based apps to its company portfolio for future use in "assisting" other large adopters, since it was my understanding that the French and Canonical cooperated with no expense to the French.In any event, I hope that you are wrong.Bill

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Myeh... just a silly guess on my part. Shuttleworth/Ubuntu have done amazing stuff in just a few years to further Linux on the desktop. Can't really complain. And whatever path they take in the future might very well lead to more good stuff. Besides, what's the big deal? Gnome is stagnant and Xorg is ancient technology. Maybe a shakeup of the status quo by Ubuntu would be beneficial to all Linux. Ya' never know...

[ChipDoc]

Read what I wrote about Ubuntu's future here --> http://www.lockergnome.com/nocturnalslacke...in-linux-world/ I took a lot of flak for those predictions. To some hardcore Ubuntu worshippers, Shuttleworth is a god.

I really can't imagine why you took flak for those predictions. They may or may not be right, but they most certainly hang together logically and make sense to me. It's even cool with the License, since it's the service they'd be selling rather than the product itself.Bill must have had a cow when he caught wind of the BestBuy deal - which is probably why it's news to me today. Money may not buy happiness, but it'll certainly buy pretty much everything else.

[BillD]

Bill must have had a cow when he caught wind of the BestBuy deal - which is probably why it's news to me today. Money may not buy happiness, but it'll certainly buy pretty much everything else.

No, because the links seem to be dead this morning. Get page not found deal.Bill

[lewmur]

Myeh... just a silly guess on my part. Shuttleworth/Ubuntu have done amazing stuff in just a few years to further Linux on the desktop. Can't really complain. And whatever path they take in the future might very well lead to more good stuff. Besides, what's the big deal? Gnome is stagnant and Xorg is ancient technology. Maybe a shakeup of the status quo by Ubuntu would be beneficial to all Linux. Ya' never know...

I guess the more Mark tries to assure everyone he will never make Ubuntu proprietary, the more you believe he's lying.

[ChipDoc]

I guess the more Mark tries to assure everyone he will never make Ubuntu proprietary, the more you believe he's lying.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.-Hamlet, Act III, scene II

[lewmur]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.-Hamlet, Act III, scene II

Have you heard of LibreOffice? If he ever tried to make Ubuntu proprietary, a group would immediately appear to fork it. And Mark knows it. Not everything is about the money. Do you think Larry is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on sailboats because he thinks he can make sailboat racing proprietary? Or do you think it's remotely possible he just enjoys the challenge? Edited November 7, 2010 by lewmur

[saturnian]

Judge the man by his actions, not by what you or other people speculate that his motives might be.How many people would continue to use Ubuntu if Shuttleworth started charging for it? How many people would ever believe another word he said?Back when I was getting started with Linux, I found a cheap notebook that came with Linspire. It was a nice step into the Linux world -- got me going, showed me that Linux was the way to go. But then I quickly realized that Linspire was out to make money, and that there were tons of other choices out there -- free choices. When I saw that Linspire was trying to charge people for virus protection, which can be had for free even for Windows users, and which was (arguably) not even necessary for folks who use only Linux, well, that was the end of Linspire for me. I kept the notebook, but installed other distros on it. Linspire (the company) had completely lost my trust.The same thing would happen with Ubuntu if Shuttleworth started charging for it. Ubuntu has been one of my main distros since Dapper, but I'm certainly not locked into it, and nobody else is, either. Shuttleworth's and Canonical's reputations would be completely destroyed by a move like this. As he said, he'd lose the core Ubuntu developers and much of the community. Ubuntu would certainly lose me.He'd be better off continuing to offer Ubuntu for free and finding other ways to make a buck on it, which appears to be exactly what he's trying to do. But charging for Ubuntu after he's stated repeatedly that he would never do so, and while there are so many other options out there for folks who want to use Linux, wouldn't make much sense, IMHO.

[ChipDoc]

Most folks don't know the guy at all, so they wouldn't be bothered by the fact that he's repeatedly said he wouldn't charge for Ubuntu. They aren't even aware that he said it. In most cases, they probably don't even realize that Linux is free. If Shuttlesworth is trying to position Ubuntu as a corporate desktop replacement for Windows, it's actually to his advantage to charge something for it, since that's the way corporate bean counters think.But I think he's smart to charge for the service of providing a corporate help desk environment - particularly for firms which are actually making the switch. It's filling a legitimate need without infringing on the licence. And as one of those articles Eric cited pointed out, even if you pay the Geek Squad $129 to set it up for you, it's still only half the cost of a Windows seat.

[lewmur]

Most folks don't know the guy at all, so they wouldn't be bothered by the fact that he's repeatedly said he wouldn't charge for Ubuntu. They aren't even aware that he said it. In most cases, they probably don't even realize that Linux is free. If Shuttlesworth is trying to position Ubuntu as a corporate desktop replacement for Windows, it's actually to his advantage to charge something for it, since that's the way corporate bean counters think.But I think he's smart to charge for the service of providing a corporate help desk environment - particularly for firms which are actually making the switch. It's filling a legitimate need without infringing on the licence. And as one of those articles Eric cited pointed out, even if you pay the Geek Squad $129 to set it up for you, it's still only half the cost of a Windows seat.

That's a big if. I see no indication that the "corporate desktop" is his focus. The reason I used Larry Ellison's sailboat spending is that I think that is much closer to Mark's motivation than any desire to get richer. If I had his money, I think I'd be much more interested in the "glory" than I would in the money. I firmly believe that his motive is to become "Mark the Giant Killer." And he doesn't need "corporate desktops" to achieve that goal.

[saturnian]

In most cases, they probably don't even realize that Linux is free.

Seems like you'd have to be living with your head in the sand to use Linux for any amount of time without realizing that most Linux distros are free.

[Urmas]

Read THIS blog post by "our" Alain [Wamucota]... then think about Unity & Wayland – what kind of computers "need" this... also, think about why Mark Shuttleworth "demoted" himself "on product design, partnership and customers". Maybe these two blog posts give a hint:Unity, and Ubuntu LightUnity on WaylandOne more linky: How to engage with Canonical and ship Ubuntu (.pdf)Just guessing here, mind you, but the way I am connecting the dots is that there is going to be some netbook/assorted gizmos OEM activity – pretty soon, too, given the hurry [unity --> 11.04 default desktop]... could well be that, as Chip put it, Bill is going to have a cow.If my guessing is correct, what does that mean? It might mean that the development focus shifts from "desktop" to "netbook" for a while, at least. But my guess is as good/bad as anyone else's.

[amenditman]

Ubuntu already ships on many Dell offerings. Not as easy to get as Windows, but still Dell is a major OEM.Many small OEMs already ship Ubuntu as standard, with no Windows option.Bill is done having cows about this stuff. It's little Steve who's freaking out about this.Why else would he do this? http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/11/b...-18-of-his.html

Edited November 7, 2010 by amenditman

[ChipDoc]

That's a big if. I see no indication that the "corporate desktop" is his focus. The reason I used Larry Ellison's sailboat spending is that I think that is much closer to Mark's motivation than any desire to get richer. If I had his money, I think I'd be much more interested in the "glory" than I would in the money. I firmly believe that his motive is to become "Mark the Giant Killer." And he doesn't need "corporate desktops" to achieve that goal.

Let me preface this by saying that I haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention to the political maneuverings within the Linux world. Nor have I much awareness of any OS outside of Windows, which I've been working with every day for years. But it strikes me that if he wants to become "Mark the Giant Killer," he's going to use desktops to achieve that goal. After all, "success" is measured by the number of people using your product. Even a small company like the local newspaper/television station I worked for had a thousand desktops. There are literally a million business desktops even in the Tampa Bay area, and Windows has almost every single one of them. Sure there are Apple shops, but they're rare and concentrated mostly in the creative business.But if someone can take even 10% of that market from Windows, then the whole project will reach critical mass and people will begin to take a long hard look at the value they're getting from the Microsoft product. Many of them will choose to stay, but a large minority will decide that the tipping point has been reached and take the plunge into Linux.Incidentally, the ENTIRETY of the reason I'm here right now is that I got a new job at a shop which is already making the move to Linux. I figured it behooved me to not rely on my 15-year-old Linux experience and freshen my skill set. Falling in love with it is just a pleasant surprise.

[ChipDoc]

Seems like you'd have to be living with your head in the sand to use Linux for any amount of time without realizing that most Linux distros are free.

Not really. Most people have about the same awareness of Linux as people outside the Tampa Bay area have of Gasparilla. Some have heard of it, but hardly anyone knows much of anything about it. The information's out there, but nobody bothers to look.

[lewmur]

But it strikes me that if he wants to become "Mark the Giant Killer," he's going to use desktops to achieve that goal.

I have no quarrel with that statement. But that's not what you said before. My quarrel is with the notion that he has to make money on Ubuntu in order for it to be a success. And your original statement was that you couldn't see him succeeding with CORPORATE desktops without charging money. I don't think that even that is true but even if it was, he doesn't need corporate desktops, as opposed to desktops in general, to succeed.

[saturnian]

Not really. Most people have about the same awareness of Linux as people outside the Tampa Bay area have of Gasparilla. Some have heard of it, but hardly anyone knows much of anything about it. The information's out there, but nobody bothers to look.

Chip, that's true of people who don't use Linux, but anyone who bothers to use Linux figures out pretty quickly that almost all of the distros are free to use, wouldn't you say?

[ChipDoc]

Chip, that's true of people who don't use Linux, but anyone who bothers to use Linux figures out pretty quickly that almost all of the distros are free to use, wouldn't you say?

a. You are exactly correct in this.b. People who use the software aren't the people who choose the software in corporate IT environments. Ever see a corporate presentation? There are two - one for the geeks who will have to deal with it, and one for the suits who look ONLY at the bottom line. The geeks are, generally speaking, already convinced. The suits are another matter altogether.The suits are naturally suspicious of anything they don't understand. When it comes to IT, that covers pretty much everything. The suits got to be where they are by understanding the business they're in so, except in companies where the technology itself is the focus, they don't know much about it. They're most aware of the tech which was in use while THEY were coming up the corporate ladder and these days that means their awareness is downright ancient. These are people for whom "the cloud" is that puffy thing in the sky and for whom WinXP (or even Win98!) is the hot new technology.The concept of a system which runs their entire company yet for which there isn't a money trail (and, therefore, an accountability trail) is just alien to them. They're not going to make the jump to Linux lightly. They're going to want to keep the legacy systems because that's what they understand. Back in the 70s there was a truism which went: Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM. These days IBM is a second-tier performer and nobody gets fired for choosing Microsoft. Edited November 8, 2010 by ChipDoc

[Peachy]

From a technical perspective, I think Wayland might be better than X11 in the long run, especially when touchscreens are used. That's probably one reason (though not the only reason to dump X). Also, Wayland has been designed to accept X11, RDP, and other remote desktop protocols as clients to the Wayland server daemon.

[securitybreach]

From a technical perspective, I think Wayland might be better than X11 in the long run, especially when touchscreens are used. That's probably one reason (though not the only reason to dump X). Also, Wayland has been designed to accept X11, RDP, and other remote desktop protocols as clients to the Wayland server daemon.

Hmmm...It may be a good thing then.

[lewmur]

a. You are exactly correct in this.b. People who use the software aren't the people who choose the software in corporate IT environments. Ever see a corporate presentation? There are two - one for the geeks who will have to deal with it, and one for the suits who look ONLY at the bottom line. The geeks are, generally speaking, already convinced. The suits are another matter altogether.The suits are naturally suspicious of anything they don't understand. When it comes to IT, that covers pretty much everything. The suits got to be where they are by understanding the business they're in so, except in companies where the technology itself is the focus, they don't know much about it. They're most aware of the tech which was in use while THEY were coming up the corporate ladder and these days that means their awareness is downright ancient. These are people for whom "the cloud" is that puffy thing in the sky and for whom WinXP (or even Win98!) is the hot new technology.The concept of a system which runs their entire company yet for which there isn't a money trail (and, therefore, an accountability trail) is just alien to them. They're not going to make the jump to Linux lightly. They're going to want to keep the legacy systems because that's what they understand. Back in the 70s there was a truism which went: Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM. These days IBM is a second-tier performer and nobody gets fired for choosing Microsoft.

I guess it is natural for you to think that the PC world revolves around "corporate" because that's your bailiwick. I don't think that's true, but for the sake of this discussion, let's assume it's true. The "suits" might (probably do at this point in time) distrust anything that purports to be free. But the people offering "Linux Desktop Solutions for Your Enterprise", aren't offering it for free. The underlying OS might be free, but the "expertise" to put it to use in the corporate environment certainly isn't. And "suits" don't care whether they are paying for "licenses" or for "expertise". They only care about the "bottom line".Secondly, the "suits" are all already quite familiar with Linux. Most of them are already using it on their servers.And, IBM's own belief in the phrase that "Nobody ever got fired for recommending IBM", is what made them a "second-tier performer". They just couldn't believe a pipsqueak like MS was any danger.Finally, the growth of Linux may be slow but so is a lava flow. And you 'aint gon'na stop either one.

[striker]

the growth of Linux may be slow but so is a lava flow. And you 'aint gon'na stop either one.]

That would be a good siggy!

[securitybreach]

That would be a good siggy!

[lewmur]

That would be a good siggy!

Good idea, Striker. Done.