Their quest?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| ComputerBob Mar 06, 2012 2:27 PM EDT |
Quoting:It's really a snazzy new desktop. But that's the whole point--one that many detractors of Canonical, Ubuntu, and Unity seem to consistently miss in their quest to smack Mark Shuttleworth and crew around.From what I've seen over the past several months, no one is "on a quest to smack Mark Shuttleworth and crew around." In fact, I find it very disrespectful and dishonest to use such language to characterize those who have expressed valid complaints and concerns about what MS and crew have been doing. |
| DrGeoffrey Mar 06, 2012 3:50 PM EDT |
That article strikes me as another refrain from that old tune, "But, they don't understand our vision for a grand and greater universe!" |
| kennethh Mar 06, 2012 7:43 PM EDT |
I think most end user's have some reason to complain for the total shift in desktop platforms, especially from a distro that has had the same look and feel for so many user's for so long. I will also add that I can now see (after the facts) where Canonical is trying to take ubuntu--tablets, netbooks, phones, desktops. |
| flufferbeer Mar 06, 2012 8:50 PM EDT |
@kennethh,
But I just don't currently see Canonical having much enthusiasm for taking Ubuntu to the hot, new Raspberry Pi thingamabob (no disrespect to ComputerBob here!) 2c |
| ComputerBob Mar 06, 2012 11:30 PM EDT |
@flufferbeer, in fact, from what I've read, Canonical repeatedly pressured Raspberry Pi's creators to NOT mention anything about the fact that earlier versions of Ubuntu could run on their product. |
| lxerguest Mar 07, 2012 1:55 AM EDT |
On the Rasberry Pi issue,I believe Ubuntu is only supporting more modern versions of the Arm processor,and have discontinued support for the cpu used by Rasberry Pi. As for the article, it is the typical contortions heard from well-meaning Ubuntu users and free software journalists bending over backward not to sound "negative". By the author's own criteria,for Linux to succeed on the desktop,it needs 1)user-friendly interface,2)applications,and 3)exposure. But then he admits user friendly interface was a solved problem (Linux,including Ubuntu, was appreciated by a large and growing cross-section of people,not just geeks.I mean how much expertise is required to run a live DVD,then click on a start icon,for crying out loud?)Then how does does messing with this universally-accepted user interface constitute addressing point 1)? Then,even assuming point 2 is true,what has Canonical done to improve Photoshop performance on Wine (it was Google that actually did that job),or support Libre/Open Office, or open graphics,or upstream projects in general?Even maligned Linspire contributed to needed (at the time) apps like wysiwyg web editor,and cash-strapped Mandriva contributed to th Kernel and other projects while Canonical ex-engineers told GKH they were forbidden to contribute to the kernel. As for face time,let's see,how exactly did Justin Bieber go from zero to billions in the age of Youtube?By offering an appealing product,not suddenly changing his product just when it was getting succesful.Yes MS practices and SW compatibility inertia are barriers to entry,so where is the Ubuntu push in schools,netbook/arm PC competion against MS Desktops,NOT unfair Canonical-subsidized competition against Linux embedded companies who must balance a budget,AND unlike Ubuntu are not against upstream contribution? |
| lxerguest Mar 07, 2012 2:24 AM EDT |
Actually,we all agree that we could benefit from a Linux company that polishes the rough edges and uses its financial muscle to push into desktop markets,a company that we can all rally around.Most of what is good about Ubuntu is the groundswell of community suppport coalescing around the Ubuntu project,or at least what they think it stands for,with all their volunteer support in the form of PPAs like Myunity,documentation,evangelism,etc...It is sad that Ubuntu has structured itself so that effort around itself does not easily translate to the rest of the Linux distros.It has done this consciously,via their dishonest claim of upstream contribution being "not what is needed" despite no other Linux company making such an absurd claim whether they were on a mission to help free software or not,by their arbitrary incompatibility with Debian rather than just adding on with backports or promoting Linux Standard Base,by rapid churning and incompatibility with standard libs making it harder for smaller-budget staffs to keep up despite apologists saying it is free software and therefore available to all.Lets be logical and not emotional and admit that it is very hard for a small company to compete with a big company that can spend millions without ever needing to make a profit.That's why it is called "dumping" and illegal under antitrust law.But this is how Canonical discourages there from being any Linux company other than itself from playing the role we want it to play.If it keeps competing with Linux companies and not MS Windows/Office cash cows,there would logically be less success for Linux on the desktop and less upstream contribution from embedded/server companies than there would be if Linux companies other than Canonical would predominate.Too bad people are so Ubuntu,not what it stood for. |
| lxerguest Mar 07, 2012 2:38 AM EDT |
That should be,too bad some people are so attached to what Ubuntu claimed to stand for,that they are less than objective about what its overall effects are,negative as well as positive.There is actually a huge opportunity in the market for a rival OS to MS windows.Look at what they charge per license.Their so-called competition charges even more for PC's and does not even really compete in the PC OS market. What we need is not some behemoth to take the bottom out of the "commercial polished Linux" market but to charge a small price so as to make an honest sustainable profit,and to get serious about actually competing with the MS monopoly on business desktops by adressing real strategic deficits not B.S. smokescreen deficits,like the "needs of Joe User",none of who were complaining about the UI,but rather about sw/hw compatibility,upgrade issues,etc. |
| Khamul Mar 07, 2012 3:52 AM EDT |
@lxerguest: Canonical ex-engineers told GKH they were forbidden from contributing to the kernel? Do you have a citation for that? I'm not doubting you, I'm just really interested in reading more. Thanks. |
| ComputerBob Mar 07, 2012 8:02 AM EDT |
@lxerguest, here are some spaces: Feel free to use them in your posts, after periods and commas, to make them readable. Thanks. |
| flufferbeer Mar 07, 2012 11:56 AM EDT |
@ComputerBob, Yeah, without spaces, it seems to me that lxerguest's three-part writing comes out as one LONG rant! Also, you wrote >> in fact, from what I've read, Canonical repeatedly pressured Raspberry Pi's creators to NOT mention anything about the fact that earlier versions of Ubuntu could run on their product. << From what I've read, Canonical is ignoring the Pi until such time as they can "encourage" Raspberry Pi creators to upgrade an older version 6 of their ARM CPU to at least version 7. I have no idea how the Ubuntu devs and $huttleworthtoomuch's supporters can "encourage" this hardware-manufacturing upgrade to happen, although I see that another distro, Arch Linux, has recently picked up supporting the Pi with an advanced non-GUI installer for its present ARM version 6 architecture. -fb |
| Khamul Mar 07, 2012 12:20 PM EDT |
@CB: Maybe lxerguest is simply mentally scarred from all the stupid text boxes on websites where there's an idiotic 500-character (or less) limit for no good reason. I just had to deal with one of those on Paypal last night; what a PITA. I had to resort to cutting out some text, cutting out some spaces, and using abbreviations ("1st") just to get my message in there. |
| lxerguest Mar 07, 2012 1:56 PM EDT |
Khamul:
'My comments about “not allowed to contribute” were based on conversations I had with former Canonical kernel team members, and I thought they were independently verified at the time as well.' http://bethesignal.org/blog/2011/03/15/timeline-gnome-user-e... |
| lxerguest Mar 07, 2012 2:03 PM EDT |
ComputerBob,point well taken!I actually have nothing personal against spaces - I just think this cellphone web browser ,or the proxy site, strips them out.For example,here are four spaces in a row: ,and here are two carriage returns in a row: ,and here is a code section: some code some more code |
| lxerguest Mar 07, 2012 2:07 PM EDT |
flufferbeer,you are right,it DOES sound like a long rant,not that I have anything against long rants.;)Please see above space issues. |
| Khamul Mar 07, 2012 3:50 PM EDT |
@lxerguest: Thanks for the link. Very interesting. |
| lxerguest Mar 07, 2012 8:10 PM EDT |
@Khamul,no problem.The real thanks goes to these people who painstakingly document all this stuff,so I can just copy and paste a link,;) |
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!