The revolution: Linu ?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| hkwint Nov 05, 2010 9:15 AM EDT |
Wow, Ubuntu is serious about optimizing Linux for the desktop! First they ditched Gnome and now they're ready to take the X out of Linux. I read the comments, lots of people don't think it's a good idea (Linux without X but with Unity becomes Lunity?) to give up compatibility with old software, but hey, isn't that exactly the same behaviour we're blaming Microsoft for? Lots of them are also positive, and think it's a good step forward. Some of them are concerned because you need 'good open source drivers' to run it, and think nVidia users may be left in the cold. Some think 'tunneling over X' is an essential capability of Ubuntu, like Edubuntu which uses it by default. What would be nice - IMHO - is if they also were going to look at BFS as well (http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/bfs-faq.txt) , then we might have an even better Flash-experience, without the hiccups. |
| Koriel Nov 05, 2010 11:18 AM EDT |
Nice point about BFS, I run PCLinuxOS with its default BFS patched kernel and it is noticeably more responsive than Xubuntu 10.10 under load and some folks are reporting upto 50% performance improvements over a vanilla kernel although i myself find that figure hard to believe but their is definitely a significant improvement. Certainly on the desktop it would make sense to ship a patched BFS kernel as default and the normal CFS (very scaleable) one on their server based distro, at the bare minimum they could at least maintain a patched BFS kernel in their repository and allow the user to choose. Edited for bad speeling and grandma. |
| r_a_trip Nov 05, 2010 11:27 AM EDT |
Am I the only one wary of the current divergent antics of Canonical? Since when is Wayland the designated successor to our beloved X? Reading Mark's blog it is clear that it isn't. Progress on Wayland itself is sufficient for me to be confident that no other initiative could outrun it, especially if we deliver things like Unity and uTouch with it. And also if we make an early public statement in support of the project. Which this is! Is this in essence Canonical telling the world that they have decided that Wayland is our new Graphics Overlord? Yes it is! We’ll help GNOME and KDE with the transition, there’s no reason for them not to be there on day one either. No discussion with other Distributions, no discussion with Gnome or KDE (as far as we know). Just boldly tossing the proven LGXD (Linux, GNU, X, Desktop) stack overboard. In essence making Ubuntu something completely different than what people have come to know as Linux. I imagine that some will hail this as a brilliant move and they will cheer Canonical for their boldness and vision. I just see the birth of a fourth major OS (since this probably will end up incompatible with traditional Linux) and the birth of a third major OS where one company is calling all the shots and users will have to accept or leave. Over are the days that Linux = Linux = Linux on generic computing equipment. I feel sorry for X. All the hard work to clean up and modernize it while retaining the niceties and then it is unceremoniously and unilaterally deprecated by a cocky Millionaire. Well Mark, I'm a Linux user, so you can keep your Ubuntu. |
| herzeleid Nov 05, 2010 2:06 PM EDT |
Quoting:to give up compatibility with old software,Nope, X11 apps will continue to work. It's funny how folks say that linux has to streamline the desktop design and get rid of old baggage, and the minute someone actually sets out to create a release doing just that, the haters come out of the woodwork to register their outrage. I've got an easy answer for them - "if you don't like it, don't use it." |
| tuxchick Nov 05, 2010 3:32 PM EDT |
Quoting:Am I the only one wary of the current divergent antics of Canonical? Mark Shuttleworth does have a talent for polarizing and inflaming. Graphics and the user interface are probably the most difficult things to get right. It seems that Linuxers should be happy to see these two crucial elements get some serious attention, instead of controversy. I'm pretty sure there would be a lot less controversy if it were someone else, though of course there would still be the usual grousing about any kind of change. |
| Koriel Nov 05, 2010 6:32 PM EDT |
To me Unity is just YALD (Yet another Linux Desktop) and its more choices for users, those who like it will use it and the rest wont, cant really see what the hoohah is all about really. My only question is do we really need another new desktop on linux? |
| devnet Nov 05, 2010 7:07 PM EDT |
To Me, Unity is the linux distribution I helped found and continue to work at since 2008. http://unity-linux.org Thanks for stealing our name Shuttleworth. Butt Clown. |
| azerthoth Nov 05, 2010 7:10 PM EDT |
Trademark it :), not like he hasnt played that game too. |
| hkwint Nov 05, 2010 10:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:All the hard work to clean up and modernize it while retaining the niceties and then it is unceremoniously and unilaterally deprecated by a cocky Millionaire. Which was what the guy in favour of Win95-compability told to the Vista-developer team. Or what the guy doing PPC-optimazitions lamented when confronted with Apple's switch to Intel. Maybe it's what some horse breeder told the press when he heard about Daimler's effort. If people spent lots of efforts on bad software, which "just happens to work" due to obscure plumbing, that's no excuse for keeping it. Trying something else, is the way Unix, Linux and GNU (and Gnome?) came into existence. Still, MULTICS, Hurd and 'the proprietary UNIX stack' were no wasted efforts, but great learning tools. Android moved away from "Linux as we know it", and became the most popular consumer-device distribution ever. Maybe "Linux as we know it" just isn't good enough(!), and doesn't meet the requirements of the general public. Of course, Ubuntu is not going to contribute to something they don't deem "good enough". In February, even the people in the Xorg-development room admitted it was unstable and buggy. Up to a point not acceptable at all. Back in the days of XFree86, a group of users and devs had another viewpoint than the XFree's management, but they couldn't include their wishes. When Xorg forked, the whole wishlist suddenly went into it and that's the explanation of why Xorg became so unstable in first place. If it was forked earlier, the changes might have come at a slower speed meaning less instability, who knows. Nobody in these forums has never had problems with X. Still, after 6 years, Xorg - with their focus on functionality - didn't get it right. All most potential users wanted was only few functions done well - and something which doesn't fail. Rather something limited instead of some esoteric piece of software. They might have learned that from history, UNIX vs. MULTICS clearly shows so! Instead, Xorg listened to its existing user base and fiddled with multi monitor support and so. Perfectly fine for keeping the existing user base happy, but worthless if you want to expand your user base. Of course people are wary about Wayland, and rightly so. Read the many comments at the blog. Maybe the Wayland development team will quit next year, or if they don't, bugs in Wayland will 'crash' Ubuntu into oblivion, and lots of people are going to feel bad about open source. If people feel bad about open source because Ubuntu, we should not blame Ubuntu but their lack of education BTW. Fact is, after Ubuntu, another distribution will be the most popular one. On the positive side of things, Ubuntu is advertizing less and less with being Linux. So if people feel bad about Ubuntu (or Android for that part), they won't necessarily feel bad about Linux. Moreover, lots of people claim there are better distributions than Ubuntu. Well, if Ubuntu Unity becomes Linux Vista, then " better distributions" will finally attract more attention. If so, consumers don't have to wait for their 'Windows 7', but they can migrate to something better immediately! The whole post can be summed up with: Keeping the good (being conservative) things is well worth pursuing, but won't lead to anything better and stifles innovation. ed: Have to admit, only if one doesn't use, has not invested time in and is not dependent on Ubuntu, the above viewpoint would make sense. |
| herzeleid Nov 05, 2010 11:16 PM EDT |
Quoting:Thanks for stealing our name Shuttleworth. Butt Clown.I've never heard of it - do you ever think maybe Shuttleworth never heard of it either? |
| jdixon Nov 06, 2010 11:37 AM EDT |
> ...do you ever think maybe Shuttleworth never heard of it either? Probably not. But isn't that one of the things a company is supposed to research before they choose a name for something? Phrases like "due diligence" and "fiduciary responsibility" come to mind. |
| herzeleid Nov 06, 2010 2:17 PM EDT |
[quote]But isn't that one of the things a company is supposed to research before they choose a name for something? Phrases like "due diligence" and "fiduciary responsibility" come to mind.[quote] I see. So Shuttleworth is the villain of the piece, interesting. A quick google shows that there are a number of software projects called unity, as well as a number of towns, a religion, an insurance company, a fiim production company, an association of journalists, a number of songs and a number of bands called unity - and shuttleworth is the bad guy for using that name? |
| jdixon Nov 06, 2010 4:35 PM EDT |
...there are a number of software projects called unity, as well as... The "as well as" aren't material, but the software projects are. > ...and shuttleworth is the bad guy for using that name? Where did I say he was? |
| r_a_trip Nov 06, 2010 5:29 PM EDT |
It's not that I am averse of change. Wayland might be better than X. Who knows. My problem is the distrust I have of Canonical as the steward of the future direction of the Linux desktop. Linux today is what it is, because there has been a tremendous amount of cooperation between projects and that has led to over 300 different distributions which still are part of the same family. This break away stance of Canonical, combined with their "shut up and like it" attitude towards users, makes me shudder. At the end of the ride, if Canonical succeeds, we'll have an OS that is Ubuntu, but no longer Linux where it initially derived from. Welcome another OS with a lot of "blind" users, under control of single company. In short, this will not do anything for the Linux desktop, as what Canonical will be pushing probably won't be Linux with all the attached freedoms anymore. They are already very fond of copyright assignments for their own concoctions. Wayland will be a viable option for me when other distributors decide to adopt it. |
| herzeleid Nov 06, 2010 10:40 PM EDT |
> > ...and shuttleworth is the bad guy for using that name? > Where did I say he was? A quick scan of the thread doesn't show anybody attributing that staement to you. Quoting:Thanks for stealing our name Shuttleworth. Butt Clown.I'm responding to the member quoted above, and any members who agree with him. |
| hkwint Nov 06, 2010 10:47 PM EDT |
Quoting:My problem is the distrust I have of Canonical as the steward of the future direction of the Linux desktop. Sorry, I probably misunderstood, didn't get it first time you explained - and may have been a bit harsh. It's just, I and probably many other people have lost the faith in Xorg (sometimes out of sheer despair when it failed again) as a steward of the future direction of the Linux desktop. Nonetheless, I have to admit currently Xorg is better than ever and certainly has improved due to a lot of hard work. Sadly - when looking at its sheer code size - you can't help but feeling it's bloated, probably because it is able to serve a gazillion needs, and it must be really hard to maintain. Using Xorg to expand Ubuntu's user base amongst people with 'limited needs' and maybe limited capabilities to fix problems maybe is not a good idea. Moreover because they're focusing on mobile media consumers* (instead of creators) as it seems that's the place to earn money. Personally, I also like the idea of tailoring some Linux distribution to the desktop only. A bit like Con Kolivas did when making the Rotating Staircase Deadline Scheduler and more recently BFS, just ignoring servers altogether and make the darn Flash / audio play without stuttering. Well, let's hope someone who earns more trust puts together a better desktop-Linux. Certainly, about half the people reacting to Mark's blog don't trust them either. Personally, I think Ubuntu is starting to behave more and more like Apple, the "we know what's good for you" mentality. As long as their users agree, not much of a problem. The only thing that may need to change is popular media stopping to see them as the steward of the Linux desktop, but I'm afraid there's not much that can be done about that. Together with your article on Unity, I think I can conclude you're not happy that distributions may be less tailored to content creation / "heavy lifting" on the desktop as a result of Ubuntu's 'new' focus, but let me know if I misunderstood. *You mentioned "lower powered devices to access already processed information" in your article, but I think we mean the same. |
| jdixon Nov 06, 2010 11:17 PM EDT |
> A quick scan of the thread doesn't show anybody attributing that staement to you. It was in the paragraph directly following my quoted statement. It seemed reasonable to think it was aimed at me. I'll take your word that it wasn't. My comment was merely to note that Canonical does have a responsibility to ensure the names of their software projects are free of encumbrances. Otherwise trademarking them becomes problematic, and I'd think Canonical would want the ability to trademark their major projects. |
| KernelShepard Nov 07, 2010 10:17 AM EDT |
Did Canonical even come up with the name of this project? Have they even devoted any resources to this project? Wayland, afaik, is was not started by Canonical (it was started by Kristian Høgsberg who works at Red Hat) nor have they, afaict, assigned any developers to contribute to it - looking at the git logs shows only Kristian Høgsberg and 1 other person contributing to it. So, it would appear that Canonical was never in a position to worry about the naming or trademarking of this project. |
| gus3 Nov 07, 2010 10:54 AM EDT |
I thought the name in question was "Unity". |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 07, 2010 11:27 AM EDT |
Gus, As always, confused again by facts. So again I tell you when the facts don't match, make it up*. YBT * Unify - my patent applied for principle of enrichment based upon the obvious. |
| r_a_trip Nov 07, 2010 12:38 PM EDT |
@hkwint Yes, I think it is ludicrous to castrate a multicore, powerful, multipurpose machine into a "smart" phone. If the multipurpose nature isn't a good fit, then we need to get the majority, scared of real power and choices, on to Galaxy Tabs, WeTabs and iPads. Don't make a mockery of desktop computing, just because most people want to treat their programmable machines as magic toasters. If that is the ultimate destination of computing technology, we wouldn't have had to advance past the original Pentium 60 MHz. Winning the desktop by negating the desktop is pyrrhic. My problem with Canonical and Wayland is not Wayland in itself. Maybe Wayland on the desktop is the best way forward. I know I probably don't use 90% of what X11 and X.org are capable off and a local display system would be adequate near 100% of the time. What irks me is that Canonical just anounces Wayland as the new Viceroy of display. As if rest of the people working on Linux and the surrounding technologies don't need to be consulted about a change that major. Linux today is where it is, because the majority of projects have sought coherence and gotten it through consensus and cooperation. I know that the licenses allow Canonical to do just what they are doing right now. It doesn't mean that I have to just accept it silently and cheer them on. What they are doing now will eventually splinter the coherent experience that Linux offers today on the desktop. I don't want to live in a world where there are Windows packages, OS X packages, Ubuntu packages and Linux packages. We need less controlling OS companies, not more. Canonical is on its way to become a big "proprietary" OS vendor, selling something that used to be Linux. (No, I don't believe they will maintain compatibility with the current crop of Linux software in the long run). p.s. Before someone mentions Android. Different use case. Android is a phone and pad OS and I don't feel they will take over the desktop. If they do... Well, the dream of the Linux desktop was pretty while it lasted. |
| jdixon Nov 07, 2010 2:52 PM EDT |
> As if rest of the people working on Linux and the surrounding technologies don't need to be consulted about a change that major. Well, whether we like it or not, they don't. Ubuntu belongs to Canonical, and they can do pretty much anything they wish with it, as long as they abide by the licenses. Now, if this were some small distribution (say Linpus, merely to pick one at random from Distrowatch) I doubt anyone would care. It's the fact that it's Ubuntu that makes it important to people. |
| hkwint Nov 07, 2010 5:25 PM EDT |
R.A. Trip: Fair enough. When starting this thread, I wanted to type: 'Next month Mr. Shuttleworth will announce Ubuntu will replace the Linux kernel with something else", but I didn't. I think such a joke is applicable though. |
| r_a_trip Nov 08, 2010 5:19 AM EDT |
@Jdixon Ubuntu belongs to Canonical, and they can do pretty much anything they wish with it, as long as they abide by the licenses. Maybe you've missed it, but I already pointed that out myself: I know that the licenses allow Canonical to do just what they are doing right now. Still, downstream concocting all kinds exotic stuff, which diverges significantly from upstream will eventually bring Linux that dreaded "fragmentation" that has been used as a contra to Linux use. If all distributors get fancy, we'll be back at the Unix wars. |
| jdixon Nov 08, 2010 9:50 AM EDT |
> Maybe you've missed it, but I already pointed that out myself: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :) |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 08, 2010 3:41 PM EDT |
If X hadn't been a fairly regular source of incompatibility on just about every machine I've run over the past few years, I'd be piling on, too. But the breakage I've suffered on Intel and now ATI across many Linux and BSD systems has made a non-believer out of me. A little competition in the display space is welcome. |
| jdixon Nov 08, 2010 4:39 PM EDT |
> A little competition in the display space is welcome. Yeah. It's the decree from above aspect of the situation that's bothering people. Slackware would have rolled out Wayland in testing for those who wanted to try it, let people who wanted to bang on it for at least one or two revisions, then finally rolled it out in stable as an option when Patrick thought it was ready. It wouldn't have been made the default until some time later, if at all. |
| herzeleid Nov 08, 2010 6:48 PM EDT |
Quoting:Yeah. It's the decree from above aspect of the situation that's bothering people.Good Heavens, there is no "decree from above". Nobody is touching your slackware or whatever your distro of choice, so take a deep breath and relax. Since Shuttleworth has a say at Canonical, and rightly so, he ought to be able to make decisions about the direction of *his own distro* without being howled at and pelted with debris from the cheap seats. If you don't like his leadership, don't think his vision is valid etc,you're free to use any other distro - and probably already do - but I think I'll wait and see what form this crude starting point will eventually take... |
| hkwint Nov 08, 2010 8:00 PM EDT |
Quoting:Slackware would have rolled out Wayland in testing for those who wanted to try it, let people who wanted to bang on it for at least one or two revisions, then finally rolled it out in stable as an option when Patrick thought it was ready. Nowhere is it said this isn't the approach Ubuntu is taking, one year means two Ubuntu releases at least. Moreover, there's the obvious similarity in both distro's if one person says it's good to go, it goes in. So in approach, I see no difference. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 08, 2010 8:27 PM EDT |
If Ubuntu wants to go their own way, I'm all for it. We can judge their decision on merit after the release (i.e. the same as any other distro). I'd rather somebody do their own thing so we can have more diversity out there - different technologies to choose from and see what works better. |
| azerthoth Nov 08, 2010 8:50 PM EDT |
Well said, my guess is that they are shooting themselves in the foot ... with a machine gun, but hey, let them try. The worse thing that could happen is that they would be fatally wrong. |
| jdixon Nov 08, 2010 9:21 PM EDT |
> Good Heavens, there is no "decree from above". I don't no what else you'd call it herzeleid. Yes, it's only Ubuntu, but that doesn't change the fact that not even Ubuntu users were given a chance to have any input. > ...If you don't like his leadership, don't think his vision is valid etc,you're free to use any other distro. What part of "I use Slackware" has escaped you over the years? Believe it or not, I'm not criticizing any of Ubuntu, Canonical, or Shuttleworth. My statement was intended as an analysis of how other people were reacting, not my personal position. I apologize if that wasn't clear. > Nowhere is it said this isn't the approach Ubuntu is taking, True. And nowhere is it said it is. Ubuntu's history doesn't indicate that it's likely though. They've tended to push the envelope, especially in their non-LTS versions. > So in approach, I see no difference. Hans, with all due respect, if you see no difference, you haven't followed Slackware's development over the years. Believe me, there's a world of difference. |
| r_a_trip Nov 09, 2010 7:36 AM EDT |
@Steven_Rosenber I'd rather somebody do their own thing so we can have more diversity out there - different technologies to choose from and see what works better. If wayland was an inconsequential technology, I would agree wholeheartedly. Wayland, like X, is a major piece of plumbing and everything above it will one way or the other have to be adapted to it. Even that isn't a problem, though. At least if Wayland would be the undisputed and designated replacement of X.org. Problem here is that Ubuntu is the only one pushing Wayland right now. So we'll end up with a Wayland distro and a slew of X.org distro's. What will developers have to do to target these different platforms? Trust that the "legacy" X on top of Wayland will be around for a long time and target X with their apps and instantly make their apps "legacy" on a Wayland distro? Or do they have to forgo X and all the X distro's and target Wayland directly in the hope that Wayland one day will become the designated replacement of X.org? I'd feel a lot more at ease if a few other big distro's came out and also declared their intention to switch to Wayland. Too much divergence in the plumbing will only lead to incompatibilities. Linux already has an undeserved bad rap in that department. Making it true by using different display systems is counterproductive. |
| herzeleid Nov 09, 2010 2:51 PM EDT |
@jdixon - > What part of "I use Slackware" has escaped you over the years? What makes you think any of that escaped me? You use slackware, but there are others in this forum. If the shoe doesn't fit, feel free to conclude that it's someone else's. > not even Ubuntu users were given a chance to have any input. What exactly did you have in mind? I'm an ubuntu user, and my input was heard loud and clear - and trust me, it doesn't mean that I want the design team to be checking in with me and all the other users to get consensus for every single design decision. It means I voted with my hardware to give ubuntu the position, and that means I accept their design leadership, and their vision. If I ever decide that I don't agree with where they are going, I'm free to bail. isn't choice wonderful? I'm thinking that by the time unity on wayland is shipping, all these concerns will all seem rather quaint. |
| jdixon Nov 09, 2010 3:09 PM EDT |
> If the shoe doesn't fit, feel free to conclude that it's someone else's. You're probably correct. I do seem to be a bit touchy lately and taking things too personally when they're probably not meant that way. > What exactly did you have in mind? Well, as already noted, it's not really any of my concern. But a simple post on the Ubuntu forum boards asking for user feedback before making the final decision would seem to be reasonable for a change of this magnitude. Of course, in their minds what they've done may be exactly that. The public announcement of their plans may be their way of asking for feedback. > isn't choice wonderful? Yes, it is. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 09, 2010 4:19 PM EDT |
Somebody's got to go first. If Ubuntu wants to do that, fine by me. |
| herzeleid Nov 11, 2010 3:43 PM EDT |
Just for perspective, here's a quote from a fedora developer - Wayland's not a usable default yet. It'll probably be packaged in F15 as something you can play with. We don't even have a complete list of transition criteria yet, let alone a timeframe for switching the default. But it's likely to happen eventually because it's a serious win for a lot of things, and the downsides are pretty negligible despite the fear from the peanut gallery. -- Adam Jackson |
| hkwint Nov 11, 2010 8:07 PM EDT |
I think F15 is pretty coherent with the 'multiple Ubuntu-versions ahead' of Mr. Shuttleworth. |
| Steven_Rosenber Nov 16, 2010 10:09 PM EDT |
There's always Xfce. It's my hedge against GNOME going bat-s%^ crazy. |
| devnet Nov 25, 2010 2:12 PM EDT |
Quoting:I've never heard of it - do you ever think maybe Shuttleworth never heard of it either? Well before they even had 'Unity' in ubuntu we were asked to give up that name in launchpad. We did because it's their playground...but we asked them to put a link on the front page for Unity Linux...so we play nice with them. However, it's not like we'd have had a choice in the matter. Mark knew our project existed because all you have to do is google Unity Linux and we're the #1 project out there. We're also unique because we preemptively used Smart with RPM5 before Mandriva ever did...now they're coming to our side...we have cookies. Even though you guys may not have heard of us...we're still out there and we were a simple search away...I highly doubt that Mark didn't have 15 people looking to see if the name was taken. I think he just feels we're small fish...that I don't care about. What I do care about is having a company put their thumb on our heads later on when they feel they must protect their product. I sure hope it doesn't happen. As for calling him a Butt Clown...that's a bit playful if I were trying to draw blood with a comment so you might understand that I'm not trying to call him out on anything...I'm just expressing worry. If I didn't like the guy or his distro I'd call him a jackass or worse. Butt clowns are those guys that embarrass you in front of hot chicks when you're in a group of guys out on the town (man, that was 20 years ago for me!) so I'm saying Mark is a goofy guy for naming his stuff the same as our stuff :) Just wanted to clarify. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!