Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mark Shuttleworth Talks About What Ubuntu Contributes

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by mugginz View Post
    You'd think Canonical must have unlimited resources going by the way some people talk.
    I think that they have far more resources, both in terms of cash and in terms of users and paid developers, than either Debian or Gentoo.

    Or slackware.

    Comment


    • #32
      It is worth to say, Ubuntu is NOT a community distro. Community does not manage the way Ubuntu goes. It is commercial distro developed by commercial company which build commercial services upon it. It is good to realize this fact first.

      So. If they use code, developed somewhere else, and sell support and services upon it, i think it is quite logical request Canonical to contribute back. But Canonical does not contribute or contribute marginally. All their effort is targeted at self propagation and in addition they claim, that this propagation of their product helps linux in general. No matter how crazy it sounds, it is disgusting. The biggest Canonical engineering inovations where move of the buttons to the left and creation of violet wallpaper.

      Comment


      • #33
        Doesn't Ubuntu also do things different than the rest of the Linux community? Ubuntu was a fork of Debian but I don't think you can describe it that way anymore. Ubuntu is said not to be very thorough in bug followups and fixes. Then there's the sudo/su thing. It was just my impression that Ubuntu has a lot of fans based on a lot of polishing but I was wondering about the claims they do a lot of 'changes.' The most mentioned complaint is the lack of contribution to the kernel or upstream but I thought there's other concerns as well.

        I use Ubuntu, though and between Debian Testing, the two are my main distros. I use Ubuntu based on the popularity and thus, for practical reasons. I'm neutral on the assessment of it, though. I bring up the concerns for some feedback so maybe receive more understanding what these complaints are about and whether they're valid or not.

        Comment


        • #34
          They are - in the minds of trolls who hear "Ubuntu" and goes into trollrage overload. They seem to think that Ubuntu aims only to leech on the work of others and force them into oblivion. Or something.

          Ubuntu follows Debian unstable very closely, ships a few (freely available) custom themes, adds a few (freely available) patches and does some custom UI work (freely available, too).

          They don't employ many kernel hackers, like Red Hat, and some think this is a sin against god. Whatever.

          They design and implement UI concepts that do not exist in Gnome/KDE. They test the results and give them back with the hope they will be accepted upstream. Some think this is evil, others understand this is how progress is achieved.

          Seriously, would you like your distro to avoid modifying upstream software? Think before you answer. Would you like to use Epiphany instead of Firefox/Chrome?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
            They are - in the minds of trolls who hear "Ubuntu" and goes into trollrage overload. They seem to think that Ubuntu aims only to leech on the work of others and force them into oblivion. Or something.

            Ubuntu follows Debian unstable very closely, ships a few (freely available) custom themes, adds a few (freely available) patches and does some custom UI work (freely available, too).
            I think it's good practice in the open source community that if you have patches for open source software you are using and did not develop yourself, you do your best to try to get them integrated upstream. Not doing so is IMHO not only not being a good community member but it also often tends to break things.

            Also a lot of their development seems to be focused on Ubuntu One, which relies on closed source Canonical server side software, so it's not very useful for others. If they spend time and development resources on the Ubuntu Music Store and Ubuntu One integration in Nautilus (both of which depend on proprietary server side software) but do not on Rhythmbox and Nautilus itself, how is that not leeching?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by monraaf View Post
              I think it's good practice in the open source community that if you have patches for open source software you are using and did not develop yourself, you do your best to try to get them integrated upstream. Not doing so is IMHO not only not being a good community member but it also often tends to break things.
              Which is why they follow Debian closely and contribute their patches back upstream.

              Also a lot of their development seems to be focused on Ubuntu One, which relies on closed source Canonical server side software, so it's not very useful for others. If they spend time and development resources on the Ubuntu Music Store and Ubuntu One integration in Nautilus (both of which depend on proprietary server side software) but do not on Rhythmbox and Nautilus itself, how is that not leeching?
              But much more of their development seems to be focused on the new notification system, indicator applets, themes, fonts, Launchpad, Bazaar, the Unity desktop and the Ayatana project, all of which are freely available and coordinated with upstream.

              As far as I can tell, Canonical has a single proprietary project (the backend to Ubuntu One). Big deal.

              Besides, how is that different from other Linux vendors with proprietary/closed-source projects, such as Novell?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                Which is why they follow Debian closely and contribute their patches back upstream.
                When I was talking about upstream I meant about where the code originates, not some other distro who's also mostly in the 'packaging business'. Do an apt-get source on any package and you are almost guaranteed to find that they have added their own patches. Sometimes those are cherry picked bug fixes, sometimes they just develop code of their own on top of the software and add it as patches without communicating with upstream. Then when the software with their patches breaks and a user files a bug report, then they just forward the bug upstream, and expect them to fix it! This is really terrible.


                But much more of their development seems to be focused on the new notification system, indicator applets, themes, fonts, Launchpad, Bazaar, the Unity desktop and the Ayatana project, all of which are freely available and coordinated with upstream.
                That's easy because they are upstream there, and since Canonical requires copyright assignment it's basically just a Canonical show without much outside contributors. Not at all comparable with projects such GNOME and KDE who are not only open source, but also follow the open source development model, but more in the style of Sun now Oracle.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                  I think that they have far more resources, both in terms of cash and in terms of users and paid developers, than either Debian or Gentoo.

                  Or slackware.
                  And you assume that what resources they have isn't already deployed.

                  If you can point to an employee of Canonical that's sitting on their hands and not pulling their weight, then perhaps you should.

                  If you think they're all pulling their weight and it's simply a case that you don't think Canonical have enough employees perhaps you could donate the wages of another programmer to the cause yourself.

                  Tell us in what ways your contribution to the Linux desktop is out-doing the benefit that Canonical provides.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by next9 View Post
                    It is worth to say, Ubuntu is NOT a community distro. Community does not manage the way Ubuntu goes. It is commercial distro developed by commercial company which build commercial services upon it. It is good to realize this fact first.
                    I'm not so sure they're completely unique in this regard.

                    Originally posted by next9 View Post
                    So. If they use code, developed somewhere else, and sell support and services upon it, i think it is quite logical request Canonical to contribute back. But Canonical does not contribute or contribute marginally. All their effort is targeted at self propagation and in addition they claim, that this propagation of their product helps linux in general. No matter how crazy it sounds, it is disgusting. The biggest Canonical engineering inovations where move of the buttons to the left and creation of violet wallpaper.
                    If they write new parts which provide what they consider better functionality for the desktop but upstream doesn't want those changes and ideas, and instead want to plot a different course then surely that leaves Canonical in one of about two places.

                    1) Take on-board upstreams perspective on what the Linux desktop should look like, behave and function like and simply throw away any of their research and vision that points the way forward to a better desktop experience and be happy with that,

                    or

                    2) They can accept that upstream is entitled to their view of what the desktop should be and at the same time trust in their own view of a better, more functional and smoother working desktop and deploy that while at the same time still leaving the code there for upstream, or for that matter, anyone else to adopt if they so wish.

                    If upstream doesn't like Canonical's vision for the Gnome desktop should Canonical stop "wasting" resources on that and only allow themselves to move in Gnomes particular sanctioned blueprint.

                    Don't things move forward when different ideas can be deployed to see which ones people prefer?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Mugginz - nicely put!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                        I'm not so sure they're completely unique in this regard.
                        Yes they are. Other commercial distributors contribute much more, even if you count it relatively. And you should realize they contribute to upstream projects controlled by someone else.


                        If they write new parts which provide what they consider better functionality for the desktop but upstream doesn't want those changes and ideas, and instead want to plot a different course then surely that leaves Canonical in one of about two places.

                        1) Take on-board upstreams perspective on what the Linux desktop should look like, behave and function like and simply throw away any of their research and vision that points the way forward to a better desktop experience and be happy with that,

                        or

                        2) They can accept that upstream is entitled to their view of what the desktop should be and at the same time trust in their own view of a better, more functional and smoother working desktop and deploy that while at the same time still leaving the code there for upstream, or for that matter, anyone else to adopt if they so wish.

                        If upstream doesn't like Canonical's vision for the Gnome desktop should Canonical stop "wasting" resources on that and only allow themselves to move in Gnomes particular sanctioned blueprint.

                        Don't things move forward when different ideas can be deployed to see which ones people prefer?
                        Most of the Ubuntu contributions are to the Canonicals own projects, usually used only by Canonical, because nobody else wants this code. For example command-not-found was written so ugly, that other distributions rather wrote it from scratch instead of adopting original ubuntu version.

                        When you look at Ubuntu packages, they are quite usual patched. Do you think upstream ever seen these patches? No. Because Ubuntu does not even recognize it is good idea to send those patches. They usually say, "look, this code is GPL, you can take it, so what is the problem?". Problem is, any upstream developer does not search patches across the repositories of zillions of existing distributions. If they does not cooperate with upstream actively, it is the same as not developing any code at all.

                        It is easy to find upstream developers today, who accidentally find out, that their software was patched in Ubuntu, but no one let them know about it, no one sent this patch to them.... This is the exactly the point, where Ubuntu sucks the most.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Just to be clear, you said:

                          Originally posted by next9 View Post
                          It is worth to say, Ubuntu is NOT a community distro. Community does not manage the way Ubuntu goes. It is commercial distro developed by commercial company which build commercial services upon it. It is good to realize this fact first.
                          To which I said

                          Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                          I'm not so sure they're completely unique in this regard.
                          And you now say

                          Originally posted by next9 View Post
                          Yes they are. Other commercial distributors contribute much more, even if you count it relatively. And you should realize they contribute to upstream projects controlled by someone else.
                          ----------------------------------------------------------------

                          Firstly, you are wrong to say that Canonical are unique with regard to your original statement.

                          But now to try to sure up your position you now want to move it into an argument about who contributes more upstream.

                          ----------------------------------------------------------------

                          If you are going to even attempt to rate companies in this way I would expect you to do your research and find out how much money each company has, how long they've been in business, what their current work loads are, etc. before attempting to determine what one should consider a fair effort.

                          May I ask, what are your contributions to the Linux desktop?

                          If you are seriously going to publicly state that in your view they don't do enough, and at the same time you haven't contributed as much as they have, then that must make you even worse then they are. What are you going to do about your level of upstreamed code?



                          Originally posted by next9 View Post
                          Most of the Ubuntu contributions are to the Canonicals own projects, usually used only by Canonical, because nobody else wants this code. For example command-not-found was written so ugly, that other distributions rather wrote it from scratch instead of adopting original ubuntu version.
                          If other projects don't want their code Canonical can not force them to take it!

                          The code is there for whoever wants it, whether that be you, me, Gnome or whoever.


                          Originally posted by next9 View Post
                          When you look at Ubuntu packages, they are quite usual patched. Do you think upstream ever seen these patches? No. Because Ubuntu does not even recognize it is good idea to send those patches.
                          And here you demonstrate clear ignorance.


                          Originally posted by next9 View Post
                          They usually say, "look, this code is GPL, you can take it, so what is the problem?". Problem is, any upstream developer does not search patches across the repositories of zillions of existing distributions. If they does not cooperate with upstream actively, it is the same as not developing any code at all.
                          If Canonical and upstream have different views as to what should be the official code set then tell us what you think Canonical should do in this situation. Let me guess. You think that they shouldn't innovate or have any say at all. They should simply ask upstream "What do you want written?" and Canonical should simply do this, no more and no less.

                          Originally posted by next9 View Post
                          It is easy to find upstream developers today, who accidentally find out, that their software was patched in Ubuntu, but no one let them know about it, no one sent this patch to them.... This is the exactly the point, where Ubuntu sucks the most.
                          And you are a troll and that's where you suck the most.

                          To say you're trying to over simplify the argument would be an understatement. What are you 5 years old? The situation is a bit more complex and nuanced than what you try to make it out to be and you demonstrate to the greater public who read these forums how simple minded you are.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by next9 View Post
                            When you look at Ubuntu packages, they are quite usual patched. Do you think upstream ever seen these patches? No.
                            Oh look! More FUD!

                            I dare you to search Launchpad for patches that have not been upstreamed. Go on, I'm waiting.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                              And you assume that what resources they have isn't already deployed.

                              If you can point to an employee of Canonical that's sitting on their hands and not pulling their weight, then perhaps you should.

                              If you think they're all pulling their weight and it's simply a case that you don't think Canonical have enough employees perhaps you could donate the wages of another programmer to the cause yourself.

                              Tell us in what ways your contribution to the Linux desktop is out-doing the benefit that Canonical provides.
                              First you tell me how anything in this post has anything to do with anything I've posted.

                              You said that Canonical does not have infinite resources. I simply pointed out that there are distributions with far less. Not having infinite resources is not much of an argument, really.

                              Personally, I don't mind Ubuntu, nor do I care much for it. It's a distro not meant for me, and it doesn't hurt me in any way. As long as it does not interfere with other Linux-using folk, I don't particularly care. I don't even care if they leech, as leeching has never worked for a distro in the past.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                                Just to be clear, you said... blah blah blah...
                                You completely misinterpreted this discussion. This thread is full of statements how poor Canonical without resources can not contribute more compared to RedHat or Novell. This is fact,... long before I came here.

                                So let me clear how RedHat, Novell and Canonicals contributions work:

                                RedHat use Linux kernel, gcc, GNOME, etc... to sell his commercial product (support, services etc...)

                                Novell use Linux kernel, gcc, GNOME, etc... to sell his commercial product (support, services etc...)

                                Canonical use Linux kernel, gcc, GNOME, etc... to sell his commercial product (support, services etc...)

                                It seems they should contribute the same way. But, the most important catch is - THE DONT. There are many of important projects, all these distributors critically need for their commercial products. So both RedHat and Novell recognize their commitment to support them. Canonical does not. If RedHat would not contribute expecting Novell to do RedHatīs work, and Novell would not contribute expecting RedHat to do Novellīs work (which is exactly what Canonical does all the time), then there would probably be no kernel, no gcc, no GNOME and no Ubuntu at all.

                                As You can see neither Novell or RedHat does not support only their distro-specific or even proprietary software, they invest great part of their resources to contribute into these distro agnostic part of Linux ecosystem. They do not expect others to create this code for them.

                                So lets have a look at Canonical. What does this company do? They take others work, build Ubuntu upon it, without participate in this process everybody benefit from! Instead, they put their resources into Ubuntu popularization, Ubuntu usability, Ubuntu look and feel etc...

                                So. If RedHat and Novell invest lets say 50% (exact percent number is not important for our discussion) of their resources into these important part of the Linux ecosystem everybody use, I think it it fair suppose Canonical to do the same. But reality is, Canonical does not. Their invest 1% to the common work, and 99% into Ubuntu, that definitely can not exist without that "common work". Oh, look at Mandriva how they contribute with less money than Canonical!

                                In addition, I read official statements of Mark Shuttleworth or Canonicals representatives claimed Ubuntu does not need to contribute to kernel, GCC, GNOME, because they take this code as is.... What ugly demagogy! If they sell commercial products upon them, they should contribute. That is how it works. Imagine that RedHat would say their are satisfied with Linux kernel and they stop to contribute into it!


                                That why Ubuntu is ugly parasite, nothing more!


                                If Canonical and upstream have different views as to what should be the official code set then tell us what you think Canonical should do in this situation. Let me guess. You think that they shouldn't innovate or have any say at all. They should simply ask upstream "What do you want written?" and Canonical should simply do this, no more and no less.
                                Nobody criticize Canonical their patch was not accepted. Everybody criticize Canonical, their patch was not sent! I know that from upstream developers, kid.

                                And. Launchpad? Let me laugh at you. Launchpad is Canonicals own playground. Yes. There are some universal project, but if you think, that posting patches on Launchpad solve anything in this situation you are Idiot. Most of the Ubuntu components have upstream somewhere else and don't use Canonicals launchpad for their development!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X