Ubuntu's Mir Moves Ahead With Unity 8 Interface

[valeriodean]

It seems like is mine the job to move back the topics on the funny side. :-)
Let me say something about the Mir protocol-agnostic approach:
every time you discover yourself as unable to write a good protocol, well written and future proof, that is the right time to think about a sort of protocol agnostic approach.
LOL
Basically, break the compatibility every time you find a wrong protocol choice is a bad things. But what happen if you can change everything, no matter what, just because you are not overcame the protocol freeze point? Fantastic! But how you can achieve this results? Easy! There is no protocol freeze point, if you haven't a protocol at all.
ROFL

The only persons that matters cares. The user.

The user? I remember the time when the unity is been pushed in ubuntu, I remember the "user" opinion about it and I remember as well the canonical opinion about the user's opinion. Do you remember?
So, seems like the users importance is more strictly correlated to the advantage that can give to your discussion rather than of a value di per se.
What you think about the needs to implement wayland as a prerequisite for implement Mir in other compositors?
It's so funny to me!! :-)
Just image a dialog like this:
"Hey, what do you need to be Mir compatible?"
"Implement Wayland".
ROFL
No, seriously, ROFL!!!

[dee.]

Megalomaniac like Shuttleworth at helm. Right. He's insane. He's just a dictator. Like Stalin. Fuck he's satan I was told by the little fairy last night. Do you even have an argument why Shuttleworth is a megalomaniac or you just heard that somewhere?

"Don't trust us? Tough, we have root. " -Shuttleworth

Yeah, that doesn't seem iffy at all. Really inspires confidence.

He just tries to make things as easy as possible for people who don't like to compile their own shit. If you want to dominate the market you don't cater to the 0.000001% of geeks. That won't do you any good especially if you want to turn some profit after all these years in which you only gave money and haven't even made ends meet.

So Ubuntu dominates the market now? Interesting...

Besides that, you're throwing out false dichotomies like cheap cigars. Also, strawman arguments. Didn't you ever learn to discuss or debate in an intellectually honest manner? No one has asked for Canonical to cater to geeks. I don't know where you get that from. What is needed is for them to respect the rights of users, respect the freedom and ideals of open source, the foundations upon which their OS is built upon. Like it or not, without the Linux kernel being developed as open source, without all the countless packages, software, work by "geeks" outside of Canonical, Ubuntu couldn't exist. There's tons of code that Ubuntu depends on to function. Without taking advantage of the free and open source software, Ubuntu couldn't exist. That should teach them some humility, and how to collaborate and co-operate with the ecosystem that makes your distro possible in the first place.

You like to talk shit about the FSF, but without FSF and the GNU toolchain, Ubuntu wouldn't exist.

If Canonical wanted to make money, there's plenty of great ways to do that. Earn the trust of the users. Don't go pushing your "vision" on everyone, listen to the users, what they want, then make it happen. Find funding models that respect user rights and freedoms. We don't need to pay for our OS by ads in the launcher. Offer some real services like cloud storage, web hosting, email boxes, remote bitcoin wallets, all integrated into the OS itself. Do it at a reasonable cost, and there's your funding model right there, all without the dishonesty and shady deals. Make more deals with hardware people. There's a good market niche for small time hardware vendors selling used hardware with a Linux distro. Especially after WinXP expires, then there will be a good shot at buying lots of cheap WinXP machines, refurbishing it with Linux and selling it for profit. Not everyone needs a latest, top-end machine. The lack of UEFI/SB would probably even be a selling point to some.

Well first of all it's not crap. You want to think of it as crap.

Uh, yes it is. It's a flop, it's a crap. No one likes it except some paid microsoft boosters, and diehard fanbois. Everywhere you look you can find another story about how windows8 is flopping. All the experts are saying the UI is horrible. Plus it's riddled with DRM and ads. Want links?

What do they do for linux development? Well they did create Unity

That no other distro uses nor is even able to use due to Canonical designing it so that it's too hard to get it working for any other distro. It may be open souce in name, but if they purposefully make it nearly impossible to use in any other context than their own, it doesn't matter much, unless someone forks it... but why would anyone want to fork a fork?

and if you don't want to be mean I think that you can come up with things created by Canonical yourself.

Upstart: Soon to be irrelevant. Bazaar: Never got to be relevant. Mir: Never will be relevant.

And yes we've got the internet. Another medium for brainwashing. Don't think that just because the masses have internet they won't continue to make foolish choices. By your argument internet will kill all dictatorship in the world and transform humanity in a perfect democracy. You do realize that won't happen don't you?

Feel free to continue pulling things out of your ass, it's fun to watch, in a "man, how did that fit in there" kind of way.

Maybe you're too young to remember the time before the internet? Well, let me tell you about it. Before internet, there was no way to get information. Corporations could do pretty much whatever, and the only discourse you'd have was basically to pass out pamphlets on the streets. This didn't only apply to corporate abuse, it applied to every facet of society. Entertainment came from a strictly top-down model - you had the sources for content, the distribution channels, and that was it. For example - TV shows: you could only see them on TV channels, in the order they wanted to show them. There was no way to get your voice heard in any meaningful way for the average citizen.

Compare and contrast: now, we have this global village called the internet. If you told a person in the 90s or 80s that in the near future, they could easily converse with people from all around the world for no cost at all, that there'd be free forums for exchanging information, knowledge, or just yapping about some bullshit, they'd think you were talking about a sci-fi show. Now, if a corporation does something really sketchy, it's almost guaranteed to get posted all over the internet. The same for governments - there's plenty of people ready to just pounce on that shit, activism is easier than ever, organizing people for causes is easier than ever... remember how we repealed the ACTA treaty? Yeah, that could never have worked before the internet (well, before the internet there wouldn't have been an ACTA treaty, but you get my point, I hope). The point is, people can get their voices heard, there's a channel for communication, distribution, entertainment, almost anything at all - and it's available to pretty much anyone. The internet has changed the world for good.

And yes, people will make foolish choices, because that's what people do. Nothing will ever eradicate human stupidity, it's an infinite resource. That doesn't really matter though.

You seem to think that I am in love with the idea of corporation. That is not the idea. I don't like corporations because they are big and have alot of money. Corporations exist in order to provide a service for profit. That makes sure that they create what the users want. And that is the problem with linux. Since there is no user to satisfy and can't check if your product is profitable or not there are a lot of things in the linux world that make no sense from the point of view of the market.

I can't believe even you would be so naive. Open source doesn't mean noncommercial. Open source follows a different business model, and there exists plenty of incentive for improvement in open source. It's simply a much more efficient way of sourcing development: by making it open and transparent. It's the way of the future. Just look at the Linux kernel.

Corporatism doesn't do any good. Corporatism incentivizes selfishness and short-term thinking, especially in the current economic system that disincentivizes co-ops and other alternative organizational models. Corporations are only good for throwing money at the guys who really make things happen... often enough, it's the actual nerds who really get the shit done, usually DESPITE their corporate bosses, not because of them.

And especially when it comes to open source, the corporate structure doesn't help if you don't have a real community of knowledgeable and innovative people working to keep the gears oiled and wheels spinning.

Red Hat has a lot of influence on the linux kernel and that is a good thing because they actually have investors that must be satisfied. That keeps them in check. That is what I like. For example with Windows 8 they thought that they knew better than their users and failed (well they have a 59 million userbase at the moment. Which isn't actually a failure if we were to compare with linux desktop).

Red hat doesn't have any more influence than any other company that works on the linux kernel.

Also, windows 8 sales numbers as reported by ms are fudged. They count copies sold to OEMs as sales, regardless if they've been bought by actual users. This is a known fact.

I've got news for you. The user that just came from windows to your beloved distro doesn't know, want to know, or ever do that.

I've got news for you. Who cares? Also, you're wrong. I compiled my first software on Linux during the couple first weeks of using it. Some people even compile things on windows, why do you assume everyone who migrates to linux from windows is a brainless moron? You're basically saying, if someone has ever used windows, they will never want to compile anything. Really? That leaves probably about... uh, almost zero people to do all the programming?

Remember, you're only a noob until you learn to not be one.

A lot of stuff may have started in the basement but let's think for a moment about the UI that was used by Apple and Microsoft. It was copied from Xerox Parc. In fact that innovation that came from the basement was actually a very thin layer that merged some things from a diverse batch of corporations. I am not saying that corporations are the most innovative things in the universe but usually the need for profit focuses them. And when it doesn't they just go bankrupt.

Nope. That's when they get bailed out by governments thanks to inside connections. They're "too big to fail", don'tchaknow.

Capital that just screams to be invested in geeky projects, open source, open hardware? Mostly not. See, most ideas aren't worth shit even in open source. And investment means expecting more than you put in. Most open source projects couldn't turn a profit. So most won't be funded. In fact I suspect that all these new found riches people will a) lose all their money investing in 'cool' projects that don't turn jack shit in the market or b) turn around and embrace the corporation closed model that will maximize their ROI even at the expense of others. Don't think that after becoming multimillionaire you remain the same hippie with the same ideals. Things change and persons change when that kind of money gets involved. I think most will lose their money to old hardcore businessmen and a small minority will become hardened businessmen if they don't want to be parted with their newfound cash.

You just don't seem to get it... your simplistic, naive black-and-white-view of reality where you can fit everyone in neat little boxes based on your own prejudices, plus tropes and stereotypes learned from hollywood movies, actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the real world.

I can't believe I have to even explain this to you: Firstly, people who are now investing in bitcoin are not "hippies". They're mostly people who are real money people with real money education. They're the innovators of the money field - they're the future Googles and Red Hats. The actual geeks have gotten in on it way before already, they're the ones building the infrastructure, setting up mining rigs, getting involved in the political side - voting, protocol updates. Secondly, being someone who appreciates geeky stuff and open source ideals does not contradict with being someone with good business sense. This should be obvious, if you look at companies like Google, and where they started from. Or the Raspberry PI. Or countless other examples.

Thirdly, you don't seem to understand the scale of this cryptocurrency thing. It's not going to be just some "new thing" for geeks to play with. It's not just going to be a better version of paypal or google wallet. It's an actual, honest-to-dog Currency. A de-centralized currency that cannot be controlled by any bank or government. An open source currency (the whole protocol is open source) that can be used anonymously, that cannot be tracked. It cannot be stopped, short from shutting down the entire internet. It's a currency with no inflation, and it's very likely going to bring a bigger change than the internet did - because it will undercut and subvert the entire government-controlled economical system that has been in place ever since fiat currency was first invented. That's a huge thing, no matter how you think of it.

Or use windows and never have that problem to begin with. Great way to sell linux by the way.

Or fix your distro. Sounds to me like there's something wrong with your setup, because I've never seen behaviour like that even in extreme conditions.

Tell that to the user who doesn't know what GTK and KDE are and doesn't care. All he sees is that some applications look like shit with no explanation.

And no one forces him/her to use those applications. No one forces them to use KDE. That still doesn't matter. Most regular users really don't give a shit if some application has weird looking buttons, as long as it works. Maybe you've spent too much time with the hipsters, but most people don't really need all that glitter on their desktops.

So as long as there is code available you're happy. It's open source and that's all that matters. You don't see it as controlled by a corporation because you can see the code and fork it. Happy forking! See you at 0.0000000001% userbase. Firefox OS doesn't exist yet. The idea of browser only will probably go only with the lowest end phones. Don't know how they will make $$$ from it but maybe they have a plan.

You seem to enjoy talking about things you don't know about. LIKE I ALREADY SAID PREVIOUSLY, Tizen, Firefox and Sailfish all are probably LESS centrally controlled than Android already is. Firefox certainly is, Mozilla accepts pathces from users as far as I know. Sailfish has many packages that are developed in an open model. Tizen is hard to say for sure.

Firefox OS does already exist! There are already PHONES that are MADE for it, available, with FFOS preinstalled! Firefox also is not a "browser only" OS, it supports local apps! Please don't pull things from your ass! If you don't know, it's ok to say so! No need to make things up!

Other OSes except Android an iOS might have a chance at the pie, but the big chunks will go to these 2.

And this guess is based on what exactly? By your logic, we should all be driving Fords and nothing else...

Microsoft hasn't managed to get anything on the market because they came in too late. Even with their money they couldn't get to the market.

Uh no, that's not it. Microsoft didn't get on the market because they have a shitty reputation, they have shitty relations with carriers, they're unable to work well with OEM's, and they have high licensing costs. No one trusts microsoft, and the windows brand is simply worthless in the mobile world. It has such a bad name, and microsoft has such a bad name that no one really trusts them. They tried to usurp Nokia but that shit backfired so badly that it only ended up dragging Nokia down with them - but that's fine for MS because they can just use plan B: butcher Nokia and use their patents to fight FOSS by proxy (ie. selling Nokia patents to patent trolls and siccing them on companies that use FOSS, that's what they do now).

Even now, ms is only able to get windows phones out by threats, extortion and lies... They use bullshit software patents to blackmail android phone makers into offering windows phones... that's the kind of business ms is.

Now think of desktop linux with even less money coming in even later in the market. Sure it will dominate. Microsoft made a lot of mistakes in their strategies and yes even with all those money they were still idiotic enough to not gain marketshare. Money alone won't get you at 90% of the market but with a half-well executed product it sure helps.

Desktop linux, on the mobile market, what? What're you talking about?

Android wasn't exactly the poor underdog that you say it was. It was made by Google. That Google. That rich corporation.

No it wasn't. ACTUALLY it was MADE by a small start-up of "basement rebels" (to borrow your term), which was later BOUGHT by Google. Surprised?

Spaghetti code? What makes you think of that? You really have contempt for Microsoft. You do realize that some of the best engineers in the world work there right? And those same very people will continue to work at windows even if the company will be called differently.

Because it's a documented fact? Even ex-microsoft programmers and engineers have said as much. All the "best engineers" in the world won't help when your organization is full of bureaucracy and inertia and inability to adapt or move fast.

And what makes you think the same people will continue to work on windows? Even rats leave a sinking ship.

[pandev92]

this way of thinking is the reason because ubuntu today is the same % of 3 years ago, pepole who want to do an apple environment with linux, are not welcome, and finally will be demostrate that ubuntu without the community are nothing.

We only need to wait like mir die

Is ridicolus how people like to suck .... to a company.

[dee.]

Seriously the US government can shut down GPS system whenever they want. They could probably shut down the internet if they wanted to.

Hah.... I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously anymore. It's the NWO shadow government! They control the milk supply!

Reality check: No one can shut down the internet. US can shut down internet in the US, but unless they want to go to war with everyone else in the world, there's no way in hell that they could shut it down globally. Even domestically, it's questionable whether they could do it - there's already way too much infrastructure depending on the internet, it'd be really hard for them to pull it off.

Oh also,

Well it's true what would you have wanted him to say. That no they don't have root? Would that have seemed more honest to you?

It's kind of telling that you don't see anything wrong with the message... yeah.

The rest of your post is basically just "nuh-uh" at this point, being contrary for the sake of being contrary, so I'm just going to pass it by... I've no interest in descending to sandbox-level conversations (any more than I already have).

[ворот93]

Hah.... I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously anymore. It's the NWO shadow government! They control the milk supply!

Reality check: No one can shut down the internet. US can shut down internet in the US, but unless they want to go to war with everyone else in the world, there's no way in hell that they could shut it down globally. Even domestically, it's questionable whether they could do it - there's already way too much infrastructure depending on the internet, it'd be really hard for them to pull it off.

They could shut down DNS easily and guess what? They are doing it already. Reality check for you:

http://torrentfreak.com/tag/domain-seizures/

[ворот93]

windows is the most popular OS in the world, and is a techonlogical shit, What do you want me understand with that?

And , continue to use the most ridicolous "DE" (unity)with the most crappy compositor(compiz), other distros don't need this kind of users

On Linux technological superiority over Windows:

http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html

[varikonniemi]

The only thing that keeps ubuntu alive and the best choice for beginners is the sheer amount of ready made stuff available (ppa, debs, guides). Until that changes, it will keep on being the go-to solution. It simply won't happen that a normal user starts to fire up git and compile from source, if the link next to it says download for ubuntu and you are done with one click.

Until other distros realize that the best thing they may do to strengthen their standing in the distro land is to hire beginner developers who will go around compiling ready made packages, writing guides etc. for their distro, i think ubuntu will stand strong. It has the momentum and it will take effort to divert that momentum towards something else. The only reason Mint has gained popularity is because it is a fork of Ubuntu meaning most ubuntu stuff works directly.

Arch is something i have been interested in, and AUR seems nice, but it is no comparison in ease-of-use to the ubuntu ecosystem. Hell, arch is not even installable by a normal user.

[pandev92]

On Linux technological superiority over Windows:
http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux...p.current.html

I never see 80% of this problems, and others problems, are presents in windows too.

[r_a_trip]

Hell, arch is not even installable by a normal user.

No, but Manjaro, Antergos(previously Cinnarch), Bridge Linux, Chackra, etc. are, and they are cushy enouh to be used daily by people not obsessed with being in total control. Nothing wrong with wanting to be in control, but that is why there is Arch and also why not everybody uses it..

[uid313]

Reality check: No one can shut down the internet. US can shut down internet in the US, but unless they want to go to war with everyone else in the world, there's no way in hell that they could shut it down globally. Even domestically, it's questionable whether they could do it - there's already way too much infrastructure depending on the internet, it'd be really hard for them to pull it off.

You're sure?

Don't be so sure. Couple years ago, members from the Cult of the Dead Cow witnessed before congress that they could take down the Internet in 12 minutes.

You can disrupt the Internet by bringing down the root name servers of the Domain Name System (DNS). That is just a dozen servers.
You can also disrupt the Internet by sending malicious/fake BGP advertisements, these gets re-propagated and things gets nullrouted.
Much trouble could also be caused by compromised Certificate Authorities (CA).