Shuttleworth sorry for 'Open source Tea Party' jibe

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

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.

Non-technical?

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

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.

'Nuff said.

The system works

Has anyone noticed that?