Ubuntu Daddy Mark Shuttleworth has blogged a pair of apologies for recent transgressions. One of his apologies concerns his recent remarks that those who oppose Mir, the Xwindows replacement oddly omitted from Ubuntu 13.10, are ”the Open Source Tea Party”. Shuttleworth now says it was “unfair” to use the term in reference to “ …
Yes, i think the people have the right to know your attempting to censor reviews of Ubuntu the you don’t like! Whether it was deliberate or not. Im of the opinion this was most certainly deliberate. Got that arrogant Shuttleworth attitude all over it.
Re: Media Firestorm?
I think your opinion is wrong. Doesn't sound like deliberate company policy to me. Shuttleworth isn't stupid. He's knows doing this sort of thing is going to end in bad publicity. To paraphrase, don't put down to maliciousness what could be blamed on stupidity.
Re: Media Firestorm?
Mr Hughes, if Mr Shuttleworth possessed the intellect and PR savvy you credit him with, he'd he'd have realised that calling people who disagree with him 'uneducated and stupid' was never going to convince them of the validity of his argument, nor result in a PR coup.
Re: Media Firestorm?
If he is savy as you say, he would have been clever enough to know that calling people who don’t support software "the open source tea party" would have got him bad press.
But he went ahead and did it anyway.
To save people looking
All the fixubuntu site has is a bash script to delete or turn off the stupider search lenses for Unity (Amazon, etc).
If you actually want a fixed Ubuntu, you probably want linuxmint.com
Re: To save people looking
If you actually want a fixed Ubuntu, you probably want
People oppose Mir for sound reasions
1. It mostly solves the same problem that Wayland is there to solve - rendering surfaces directly into hardware, proper input device handling without jumping through hoops caused by X11's arcane architecture.
2. Resources. Contributors are already hard pressed enough to migrate QT/GTK, display drivers and X over Wayland without adding another backend which does something similar but differently.
3. The differences in behaviour are quite vague (the Ubuntu wiki talks of 3d input devices and protocol agnosticism but doesn't explain why this is a big deal). IMO it is more likely that their business strategy dictates that they own the display stack and the technical reasons are excuses to support that decision.
4. Wayland is MIT licenced, the same as X.org meaning it's largely a slot in replacement.
5. Mir is dual licenced - GPLv3 or Canonical proprietary. It is not a slot in replacement.
6. Canonical do not accept contributions unless people sign an agreement which turns over distribution rights. The proprietary licence is there so they can easily release tablets or mobile devices with proprietary drivers or signed binaries while competitors are hamstrung by the GPLv3 which prevents those things.
So ultimately I think resistance is a combination of all these things. Companies like Intel are probably more concerned about licencing issues. Contributors are probably more concerned about the best use of their time and resources.
Given as how Ubuntu is probably the most widely publicized* desktop Linux distro nowadays, you could certainly compare that trademark debacle to a software bug - a software bug in a respirator.
Mentoring, Mr. Shuttleworth - ever heard of it?
*I said, "probably", Mint fans, please don't kill me!
Respirators run software now?
Support is coming out in the next release, apparently. I wouldn't hold your breath.
I hope Mr. Shuttleworth is open to technical critics of his often non-sentient decisions.
Mark Shuttleworth - the Ken Bates of Linux.
TBH, in the real world does anyone really care what he says? He's the Alpha male of a minority Desktop Environment of a minority Desktop Operating System. Gets me coat and waits for the down votes.
Not anti Linux or FOSS. Just don't see it's relevance on the desktop
Well he wasn't wrong was he. The Linux fanbois got in with their down votes. You do kind of expect this on El Reg. Someone point out the obvious about Desktop Linux and they get upset. Listen guys, wake up and smell the coffee. Desktop Linux is going nowhere. Live with it. Use it if you want but don't expect the rest of the world to cut you any slack. I've been wanting to like it since, IIRC 1997, SuSE 5.2 on a magazine cover disk (PC Format?). I gave up 4 years later, gave up on Windows too. Mac on the desktop Linux on the server, although I have dabbled with Solaris
Linux needs better financial models
Pretty good example of what is wrong with the big donor financial model. When the big donor makes bad decisions, the project goes down. Rather late for Ubuntu, which has already suffered from far too many bad decisions. At one point I had high hopes that Ubuntu would become a viable competitor for Windows and iOS, but now I cannot recommend Ubuntu to anyone (though I still run it on at least three or four computers).
Rather than go into the weeds of what went wrong, let me just briefly refer to the economic model that I think would be better. I don't think there's anything wrong with Linux in a technical sense, but it is absolutely clear that the economic models used by Microsoft and Apple work, even in support of inferior software, whereas the economic model used by Ubuntu has not worked. I recommend "reverse auction charity shares", where the donors would in essence pool their donations to guide the specific direction of the software development.
Re: Linux needs better financial models
Shannon, an excellent point. Now some open source projects are big business in the real sense of an integral part of making real money (and livable income for real people), the code support models may need to change. The reality that most major open source projects are now sponsored by one or two big companies means the original approach of many contributers and volunteer maintainers is not appropriate for all projects. I suggest this is because the code bases are big enough that only a team can maintain a coherent upgrade and improvement path. This indeed requires a predictable team and money flow. Bug hunting is an issue where individuals with the mind for that contribute as volunteers.
Still, the way Open Office forked rapidly when a major sponsor vanished suggests the current model copes well with disaster. The way projects fork as a dispute resolution is both a strength and weakness. Strength because it is natural deselection in action, but a weakness due to duplicated effort and the funding problem. I beg to differ with you over funding because the model of big company may work if all decisions were mostly accepted by all major coders and sponsors. This is unrealistic, given the nature of coders and for that matter, end users. The Linux kernel team is the exception that proves the rule as Linus and his team have an ownership that has survived disputes because he has copyright. There is always BSD anyway. Canonical is trying the Apple/M$ approach. Is it working ? Ask M$ how much users are adopting Windows 8? Not a unique problem. How many forks have come from Ubuntu ? Heck, all bigger desktops seem to have a death wish. Later KDE desktops are hard to configure in places and the design decisions have meant after 16 years I am test driving others, mostly because I want a small applet like kweather that talks to local data sources, not some hard to find config thing that hangs off a very remote merkin or pom data source. Wont mention Gnome as I gave up on that years ago.
The system works
Has anyone noticed that?