Being discontinued doesn't mean deleting the source code or recycling the idea.
Originally Posted by CTown
I see this kind of criticism a lot on the internet, aimed at Canonical, and I don't think it's fair. Yes, Canonical is for-profit, but they have done a tremendous service for Linux by allowing the userbase to be expanded. Thanks to easier to use distros like Ubuntu, Linux is now more widespread and we users have been gaining more attention. See Steam, for example, which also brings us more attention. Graphics drivers - both open and closed - are getting much better. Even Microsoft is releasing software for Linux now (Skype). Without the surge os popularity Linux has been enjoying - and that Canonical either brought or at least played a huge part in -, we'd be much worse off. Ask the BSD guys aout the kind of problems they have been facing lately.
Originally Posted by frign
So, yes, Canonical will probably make quite a few bucks with adverts, but the beautiful thing is that nothing is stopping anyone of creading a CentOS for their RHEL. And removing the bits they don't like, adding new stuff, whatever. Look at Mint. That's what the GPL is about. No one can own that code and monopolize anything, ever. There's no lock-in possible unless they start implementing closed-source software on top of Debian and calling that Ubuntu. But they haven't so far. Unity is available on other distributions now. As shitty as Unity is, I think it's great that it's an option.
Regarding the phone, we'll have to see. Regardless of its quality or the technology used, it seems to be at least as open as Android, which is also a positive and makes everything I said about their desktop distribution apply (look at Cyanogenmod for a particularly good example).
Having said all that, I'm not a fan of Ubuntu at all, vastly preferring either Mint of proper Debian. But I can't gloss over the advantages they brought us all and I certainly don't see them as a threat to free software.
Canonical have said they want to do their own freaking display server instead of Wayland.
Originally Posted by Filiprino
Ubuntu Phone, the tech, is good. For KDE, it is great, you can throw a QML skin on your kde app and stick it on the Ubuntu Phone easy, as long as you bundle all the KDE libs you use.
I'd still rather see an openly developed project like Plasma Active take off, but it is more a tablet OS rather than a phone one.
please read the original posting. the 'article' is a mess that does not transport the message - at all. In fact I feel like this 'article' was written to libel Saigo - and to enrage ubuntu fanbois.
I just wanted to link your quote for the 1st and 3rd points:
Originally Posted by chuckula
1. a) Yeah, Aaron has done some fantastic work with KDE and that's the only desktop I personally use. Unity has been a mess since its inception, but its getting better. Canonical is making huge inroads in the Linux forum and has the chance to put Linux on the map (If it hasnít already) due to Canonical's huge corporate resources.
I applaud their drive, commitment, and desire to continue making money and thriving! However, I don't agree with everything they do! Personal data and security are very important to me and my family. When we get a new Android phone, we turn off ALL syncing to Google, Skype, automatic backups, etc. and point those services to our own cloud (Yeah, Owncloud - a KDE application.)
When I log into Ubuntu 13.04 and do a desktop search for software or resources on MY OWN MACHINE while Wireshark is up and running and see all my installed applications and other personal data crossing the wire over to Canonical's servers, I get a little pissed off! So, I use OpenSUSE with KDE! Personal security and safety issues solved!
But, I still admire Ubuntu for what its doing for Linux, and most of the rest of the world doesn't seem to mind their data strewn all over the internet - this is a personal thing for me and my family!
b) I see a man's personal lifeís work threatened here (Arron) with Ubuntu phone and his childish rants about it. Who gives a f--- whether or not someone else's code base is accurately depicting something that is not even released yet. Why does Arron even give a crap about Ubuntu or Unity at all. He doesn't use the OS or the desktop environment.
No, this is pure jealousy at its worse! Here is a man who has worked 15+ years on a product that they could not get out the door, unfortunately, and he is pissed because someone else, with allot more corporate clout, is beating him to the door. So, now, there is pressure and animosity about it and he is venting. That's all it is!
2. I always have an ad blocker on with every website I use. To hell with the site owner who is too poor to not be able to afford his/her own website and imposes on me that resource for a welfare check! So no, I don't click on ANYTHING I don't want to see. If some entity can't afford, on their own, to provide a free service on a free internet, then they need to lock out all users to a members only and charge for the service...
This is coming from a guy who's own work is such garbage that KDE continues to be the less supported desktop environment compared to the clusterfuck that is Gnome.
Miguel de Icaza
One just has to laugh at all the Slashdot kiddies running their mouths off about 'teh power of open source' leveraging its developer talent from the entire planet.
And yet these incompetent clowns is the best Linux has to offer.
Unfortunately there is a grain of truth in that...
Originally Posted by BeardedGNUFreak
Free Licensing - Corporate Identity
Originally Posted by mr_bombastic
Of course, based on the GPL, most projects are definitely not endangered to become proprietary software. Nevertheless, Ubuntu doesn't provide much in terms of Free-Software-Development, and not every user is capable of creating his own OS, let alone understand the difference between Ubuntu and RHEL.
For my taste, Ubuntu is too locked down to be a viable alternative for me. I prefer using Gentoo and tweak my system where it is possible . Ubuntu would be too boring in this regard, hell, even Debian would be.
So, it is a very hard topic to discuss about, as it is mainly based on the users' preferences. My point rather is that we should not risk users identifying Linux with the proprietary software building upon it (Steam, Ubuntu).
That's happening already, isn't it? Everything Linux nowadays is targeted mainly at Ubuntu, and then trickes down from there to other distros. Which I think is annoying, since more stable distributions are aggressively left behind. Let's take Steam as an example, since it's the latest Linux boom in terms of commercial software. I'm using Debian testing and Steam just won't run because it requires a newer version of glibc6. So it sucks that various major distributions are being overlooked. However, it's a mixed blessing because this situation makes Linux somewhat of a fixed target. You develop for Ubuntu and lots of distros can then port the software, with varying degrees of ease and success. IIRC, Shuttleworth was talking a few years back of coordinating LTS releases with other distros to take advantage of that, which I think is a neat idea (Debian Stable being at least in the same ballpark as Ubuntu LTS instead of about two years apart) but very hard to execute.
Originally Posted by frign
Still, people confusing Linux with Ubuntu is still a major victory for FOSS, I believe. Sometimes we forget to poke out of our own knowledge bubble and look at ordinary users; which can be very good for maintaining our mental health, since I was rendered speechless when I heard a new Ubuntu user (that I haven't converted myself, which was also a first for me) saying that "oh yes, this Windows made the computer much faster". So maybe we should take baby steps in that regard. First letting people differentiate OSs, then distros, then maybe even what's Linux and what's GNU...
Edit: by the way, I don't think Ubuntu can be called proprietary software. All they have is a trademark, if I'm not mistaken. Other than that, they're a bundle of OSS and a few third-party proprietary bits.
Last edited by mr_bombastic; 02-18-2013 at 11:38 AM.
To be honest I never faced a real computer-user being new to Linux and misunderstanding the difference to Windows, but I am sure it exists.
Originally Posted by mr_bombastic
That's why I also agree with you on the point to *know* what the average user needs. It is not about political wars or optimizing one's system, but about being able to use it easily. And that's where Ubuntu shines, despite the questionable political background.
Regarding your edit, Ubuntu *is* proprietary software. You are right with the OSS in the repos, but most core-utilities are heavily patched with proprietary additions, so the user does not really have much/any insight into it.
Last edited by frign; 02-18-2013 at 12:16 PM.