Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49

Thread: Ubuntu 14.10 Is Codenamed The Utopic Unicorn

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r_a_trip View Post
    Be careful what you wish for. A dominant Canonical and a ubiquitous Ubuntu, while bringing all the benefits of a mono-culture, like everybody and their dog standardising on and writing for and using Ubuntu, it'll also bring all the negatives. Once Canonical takes up the top spot in the OS market and network effects forces a majority of computer users to use Ubuntu as well, you'll be beholden to whatever Canonical deems best for their business and dependent on whatever functionality Ubuntu provides.

    Ubuntu being open source won't protect you against this. Forking only makes sense when one can deviate from whatever is unwanted in the parent. If Ubuntu has top spot and everybody writes to their homegrown software (Mir/Unity/Click), a fork needs to closely follow Ubuntu to be able to use all the third party infrastructure and applications written against ubuntu. A fork in such a situation becomes a symbolic relabeling, while still being Ubuntu for all intents and purposes.
    The strength of the Linux distro system up till now, iss that most of them are roughly equivalent. It gives users the power to reject unwanted changes, because they can swap distro X for distro Y and carry on with computing like nothing changed at all. It is an incentive for distributors to deliver systems devoid of anti-features.

    In a world with 90% Ubuntu and the rest fringe systems, you'll be back in the late 90's, early 2000's. Fine if you happen to like what Canonical releases, but a major nuisance when you don't fancy it.
    I doubt it would be that bad if Ubuntu gains a larger portion of overall Linux users. As Canonical does not develop any upstream projects upon which all distributions depend. They could continue as usual, forks could have a problem yes if Ubuntu becomes increasingly difficult to fork, but they have other options like LMDE efforts of Mint. It is much more likely that Ubuntu will become a ecosystem of its own, still Linux and fully compatible with Linux, and .deb packages arent going anywhere in Ubuntu, click packages are mainly targeted at mobile use, some will find their way on the desktop but they will not be dominant. Canonical aims at a greater server market share too, they are doing quite well on the cloud server market, and aiming at that requires Ubuntu to remain fully compatible, it is likely that in the end users on desktop wont see much difference compared to the situation now. Ubuntu will gain its own applications like file manager and music player but everything else will remain pretty much the same. The only problem might be forking Ubuntu, but maybe not even that if Canonical keeps X.org and other standard components present in Ubuntu repositories, which they probably will. I have been a Linux user since 90s and Canonical vision is a welcome change for me, I always wanted to see Linux create something unique and convergence is certainly unique, others will continue on their own while Ubuntu tries to make new things. No one forces anyone to use Ubuntu, if they dont like it they are free to install whatever Linux distribution they like better. Linux is supposedly all about freedom so what is the big issue with Canonical pushing their own ideas on their own distribution, it is not like they are trying to force Unity, Mir and convergence on everyone else. Which is why I dont understand the haters who constantly attack Ubuntu, no one forces them to use it, plenty of distributions out there to switch to if you dont like Ubuntu.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus View Post
    I doubt it would be that bad if Ubuntu gains a larger portion of overall Linux users. As Canonical does not develop any upstream projects upon which all distributions depend. They could continue as usual, forks could have a problem yes if Ubuntu becomes increasingly difficult to fork, but they have other options like LMDE efforts of Mint. It is much more likely that Ubuntu will become a ecosystem of its own, still Linux and fully compatible with Linux, and .deb packages arent going anywhere in Ubuntu, click packages are mainly targeted at mobile use, some will find their way on the desktop but they will not be dominant. Canonical aims at a greater server market share too, they are doing quite well on the cloud server market, and aiming at that requires Ubuntu to remain fully compatible, it is likely that in the end users on desktop wont see much difference compared to the situation now. Ubuntu will gain its own applications like file manager and music player but everything else will remain pretty much the same. The only problem might be forking Ubuntu, but maybe not even that if Canonical keeps X.org and other standard components present in Ubuntu repositories, which they probably will. I have been a Linux user since 90s and Canonical vision is a welcome change for me, I always wanted to see Linux create something unique and convergence is certainly unique, others will continue on their own while Ubuntu tries to make new things. No one forces anyone to use Ubuntu, if they dont like it they are free to install whatever Linux distribution they like better. Linux is supposedly all about freedom so what is the big issue with Canonical pushing their own ideas on their own distribution, it is not like they are trying to force Unity, Mir and convergence on everyone else. Which is why I dont understand the haters who constantly attack Ubuntu, no one forces them to use it, plenty of distributions out there to switch to if you dont like Ubuntu.
    99% agree. But, don't call the person you quoted and responded to, a "hater". He wrote a lengthy and well thought out statement, as you did, but in his own opinion and from his own point of view. As in all opinions, they are neither right or wrong, just different.

    That being said, I also don't think Ubuntu being dominate (they already are, according to "most figures" in users, but not in thnk space yet) will be harmful for linux. They could bring confindence for developers and hardware makers that linux is serious is a serious contender like ubuntu came above the noise of hundreds of distros and set a standard to target. This confindence would bring more apps to linux which will be 99% compatible with the rest of the eco system by nature of the upstream tech Ubuntu uses is the SAME as everyone else, and that won't change.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    99% agree. But, don't call the person you quoted and responded to, a "hater". He wrote a lengthy and well thought out statement, as you did, but in his own opinion and from his own point of view. As in all opinions, they are neither right or wrong, just different.

    That being said, I also don't think Ubuntu being dominate (they already are, according to "most figures" in users, but not in thnk space yet) will be harmful for linux. They could bring confindence for developers and hardware makers that linux is serious is a serious contender like ubuntu came above the noise of hundreds of distros and set a standard to target. This confindence would bring more apps to linux which will be 99% compatible with the rest of the eco system by nature of the upstream tech Ubuntu uses is the SAME as everyone else, and that won't change.
    I said haters, not hater, I did not mean the guy I replied to, I was speaking generally. And I agree with your post, people that bash Canonical do not realize that they should be happy if Ubuntu succeeds globally both as desktop operating system and on the mobile market, because that will make Linux more visible and attract attention from hardware and software companies. Much of the attention Linux got in recent years was due to Ubuntu expanding on desktops, coming preinstalled on laptops, and appearing as a desktop of choice for various public institutions around the world. Success of Ubuntu is success of Linux as a whole but some people refuse to see it. And you are absolutely right about coming on top of hundreds of distributions and setting a standard, Linux needed a standard that companies can rely on, Ubuntu became that.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r_a_trip View Post
    Be careful what you wish for. A dominant Canonical and a ubiquitous Ubuntu, while bringing all the benefits of a mono-culture, like everybody and their dog standardising on and writing for and using Ubuntu, it'll also bring all the negatives. Once Canonical takes up the top spot in the OS market and network effects forces a majority of computer users to use Ubuntu as well, you'll be beholden to whatever Canonical deems best for their business and dependent on whatever functionality Ubuntu provides.

    Ubuntu being open source won't protect you against this. Forking only makes sense when one can deviate from whatever is unwanted in the parent. If Ubuntu has top spot and everybody writes to their homegrown software (Mir/Unity/Click), a fork needs to closely follow Ubuntu to be able to use all the third party infrastructure and applications written against ubuntu. A fork in such a situation becomes a symbolic relabeling, while still being Ubuntu for all intents and purposes.
    That seems to contradict what happened with Ubuntu in the first place. It's not like they started as the dominant Linux distribution, they only achieved that by being a better choice than the alternatives for their users. There is nothing stopping any other distribution from taking that position today. Applications that are written against Ubuntu are going to use the same toolkits as everyone else, there is zero risk that they are going to be incompatible with another desktop. (maybe incompatible with desktop specific features like quicklists, but they will run just fine)

    Say that Mir somehow becomes more popular and dominant because of Ubuntu. That's not going to stop people from developing wayland, or Intel from investing resources into it. Gnome 2 became dominant relative to KDE and many other desktops but their developers didn't just give up and decide to fork Gnome 2 instead....

    Windows is dominant on the desktop but we're not beholden to Microsoft because we use open standards.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus View Post
    Dont bother, people like him will never change or see how unreasonable they behave,
    First of all, some friendly advice: please learn to use paragraphs and punctuation. Long posts without paragraph breaks are physically painful to read, and run-in sentences with 20 commas just make you seem like an out-of-breath teenager venting about his/her FEELINGS... neither of which do any favours to your credibility.

    With that out of the way, I can see you've adopted the same general tone as most devoted Ubuntu fans: "everyone else are just haters who are jealous and want Canonical to fail"... "others just want Linux to be hard and only use command line"... "Canonical is the ONLY one innovating on Linux, without Ubuntu, Linux will fail"...

    And as I've said before, it's no wonder - this rhetoric comes directly from Shuttleworth. Shuttleworth is, although a misguided, grandiose, and at times downright a pompous fool, also a charismatic person who has the gift to make people believe in what he's saying. That's not a bad quality for a leader as such, but it's also meaningless - and potentially dangerous - if not used responsibly...

    Many times I've now seen this same rhetoric being used by Shuttleworth, and then numerous Ubuntu fans come to forums and parrot his talking points - and it's only natural, it comes with the territory: you're a huge Ubuntu fan, you idolize Shuttleworth, you take your behavioural cues from him. Too bad that the rhetoric Shuttleworth uses is increasingly often arrogant, fallacious, passive-aggressive and even downright slanderous (remember the whole Mir FUD debacle...)

    Mark has a tendency to make strawman arguments. He likes to dress up his opponents as foolish old dodderers who are too set in their ways to see Mark's brilliance. And this is a narrative that is very effective - we tend to root for the underdog, the story of the little guy who nobody believed in, who everyone laughed at but triumphed at the end against overwhelming odds is ingrained very deeply in our culture: it's a story told thousands of times in various forms... it's a formula used very often in Hollywood movies, because it's an effective narrative, it's something people relate with very easily, and has appeal to most people. We want the little guy to win.

    And this is the narrative that Mark also uses - he wants to craft this story where he is a lonely, misunderstood genius, where the Old Guard laughs at him and doesn't believe in his brilliance...

    Of course there has been many good things made by Canonical, they've made some very useful contributions to the Linux ecosystem - but recently they've also made some very questionable moves, and it's delusional behaviour to claim that there hasn't been controversies because of those decisions.

    The problem is, when you accept Mark's narrative of "everyone is just a mean jerk who wants to keep us down, they just don't understand our visionary brilliance", you're also shutting out all criticism and honest debate about the decisions of Canonical. When your counter to all arguments made against Canonical, all criticism expressed towards Canonical's decisions, is to say "you're just a hater who wants to see Canonical fail"... that's a problem, because then, who is there to question the actions of Canonical?

    No man, no business, no government, no corporation, no organization should have our unconditional trust. You should never follow anyone blindly. Always think for yourself... Nothing is holy - everything should be open to be questioned and debated against.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post

    With that out of the way, I can see you've adopted the same general tone as most devoted Ubuntu fans: "everyone else are just haters who are jealous and want Canonical to fail"... "others just want Linux to be hard and only use command line"... "Canonical is the ONLY one innovating on Linux, without Ubuntu, Linux will fail"...
    You are putting words in my mouth, I never said anything of the sort. If I did then quote me, you cant because I never said that.

    And as I've said before, it's no wonder - this rhetoric comes directly from Shuttleworth. Shuttleworth is, although a misguided, grandiose, and at times downright a pompous fool, also a charismatic person who has the gift to make people believe in what he's saying. That's not a bad quality for a leader as such, but it's also meaningless - and potentially dangerous - if not used responsibly...

    Many times I've now seen this same rhetoric being used by Shuttleworth, and then numerous Ubuntu fans come to forums and parrot his talking points - and it's only natural, it comes with the territory: you're a huge Ubuntu fan, you idolize Shuttleworth, you take your behavioural cues from him. Too bad that the rhetoric Shuttleworth uses is increasingly often arrogant, fallacious, passive-aggressive and even downright slanderous (remember the whole Mir FUD debacle...)

    Mark has a tendency to make strawman arguments. He likes to dress up his opponents as foolish old dodderers who are too set in their ways to see Mark's brilliance. And this is a narrative that is very effective - we tend to root for the underdog, the story of the little guy who nobody believed in, who everyone laughed at but triumphed at the end against overwhelming odds is ingrained very deeply in our culture: it's a story told thousands of times in various forms... it's a formula used very often in Hollywood movies, because it's an effective narrative, it's something people relate with very easily, and has appeal to most people. We want the little guy to win.

    And this is the narrative that Mark also uses - he wants to craft this story where he is a lonely, misunderstood genius, where the Old Guard laughs at him and doesn't believe in his brilliance...

    Of course there has been many good things made by Canonical, they've made some very useful contributions to the Linux ecosystem - but recently they've also made some very questionable moves, and it's delusional behaviour to claim that there hasn't been controversies because of those decisions.
    That is your viewpoint on Shuttleworth and that is perfectly fine, problem is I never mentioned Shuttleworth in my posts and he is not even relevant to what I wanted to say.

    The problem is, when you accept Mark's narrative of "everyone is just a mean jerk who wants to keep us down, they just don't understand our visionary brilliance", you're also shutting out all criticism and honest debate about the decisions of Canonical. When your counter to all arguments made against Canonical, all criticism expressed towards Canonical's decisions, is to say "you're just a hater who wants to see Canonical fail"... that's a problem, because then, who is there to question the actions of Canonical?

    No man, no business, no government, no corporation, no organization should have our unconditional trust. You should never follow anyone blindly. Always think for yourself... Nothing is holy - everything should be open to be questioned and debated against.
    You are presuming that you know who I am and how I think, and that I accepted "Mark's narrative" as you call it, you do not know me.

    I never ever said no one has the right to criticize Canonical, it is everyone's right to disagree with Canonical. Your reply missed my whole point, if one criticizes something why make an obssession out of it? Many of those who criticize Canonical cant stop coming to Canonical and Ubuntu related news all over the Internet and start flame wars, is that sane criticism? No, it is hate bordering fanaticism, religiously following news concerning something one doesnt like is not really a healthy attitude is it. So the issue is not whether one can or cannot criticize Canonical, the issue is why some people are so obssessed by it that they need to start flame wars and derail ANYTHING coming out of Canonical. Those are not rational critics with arguments, those are haters plain and simple. Or you think that sort of behavior is normal, constructive criticism? If you think so then we have nothing else to discuss.

    And why do you think that if one defends Canonical's vision, one automatically accepted everything they said and is having Canonical do the thinking for them? Maybe some people support their vision because they LIKE it?

    Unity? I like it and Unity 8 is going to be faster and better. Mir? If it works properly I dont mind it being an Ubuntu only project. Convergence? You bet I like it. See? I like how they are doing things, that does not mean I will agree with everything coming from them in the future, but Ubuntu is Canonical's project, project they invested a lot of money in, and they have every right to do as they please with it, Ubuntu users may or may not like it, those who like it will stay and those who dont will move on. Or you are denying Canonical the right to do with their distribution as they please? They are obviously doing something right because number of Ubuntu users is rising, and even the supposedly much hated Unity is used by a good deal of Ubuntu users.

    And no one here explained why non Ubuntu users have such strong criticism for a product they do not use. Fear of Ubuntu dictating terms to upstream? Not going to happen, not even if Ubuntu becomes very big, so why are non Ubuntu users so concerned with a product that will not affect their favorite distribution or development of Linux in general? I am still waiting for rational answers on that. I am not denying them the right to criticize but I am "denying" them the right to act as fanatics whose sole purpose is not constructive criticism, but inciting arguments and bashing Canonical for the sake of it, often with rather vulgar words.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus View Post
    And no one here explained why non Ubuntu users have such strong criticism for a product they do not use. Fear of Ubuntu dictating terms to upstream? Not going to happen, not even if Ubuntu becomes very big, so why are non Ubuntu users so concerned with a product that will not affect their favorite distribution or development of Linux in general? I am still waiting for rational answers on that. I am not denying them the right to criticize but I am "denying" them the right to act as fanatics whose sole purpose is not constructive criticism, but inciting arguments and bashing Canonical for the sake of it, often with rather vulgar words.
    You've echoed many of my thoughts in your post but one thing that stands out to me in particular is this point. When I think about it, even though I dislike some of the decisions of major projects in the Linux community and criticize them for it (Gnome, KDE, openSUSE, Fedora, and Unity as well), I tend to do it once and move on. I don't go into every news article on Gnome and repeat all the things I hate about it that have nothing to do with the topic itself. Or quote the positive things people say and troll them. I don't think I will ever understand the motivation to attack something that is not negative to you in any way, but maybe that is a result of how I perceive the Linux ecosystem. Even if I choose not to use Gnome, I like some of the ideas that come out of the project and want them to be adopted in my desktop. I don't view the entire Gnome project as a diversion of scarce resources that MY project of choice could benefit from.

    I think engaging with dee is a waste of time, but I enjoyed reading your post so thank you. I only wish more people in the Linux community were as accepting and positive about projects doing things differently. I think it would make a much better impression on new users and lead to a better desktop experience for everyone.

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus View Post
    You are putting words in my mouth
    That's what he does. Don't even bother to argument. He'll twist your words just for fun. It's called trolling.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynical View Post
    You've echoed many of my thoughts in your post but one thing that stands out to me in particular is this point. When I think about it, even though I dislike some of the decisions of major projects in the Linux community and criticize them for it (Gnome, KDE, openSUSE, Fedora, and Unity as well), I tend to do it once and move on. I don't go into every news article on Gnome and repeat all the things I hate about it that have nothing to do with the topic itself. Or quote the positive things people say and troll them. I don't think I will ever understand the motivation to attack something that is not negative to you in any way, but maybe that is a result of how I perceive the Linux ecosystem. Even if I choose not to use Gnome, I like some of the ideas that come out of the project and want them to be adopted in my desktop. I don't view the entire Gnome project as a diversion of scarce resources that MY project of choice could benefit from.

    I think engaging with dee is a waste of time, but I enjoyed reading your post so thank you. I only wish more people in the Linux community were as accepting and positive about projects doing things differently. I think it would make a much better impression on new users and lead to a better desktop experience for everyone.
    Amen.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus View Post
    You are putting words in my mouth, I never said anything of the sort. If I did then quote me, you cant because I never said that.
    Canonical and Ubuntu hate is the new fashion among certain portions of the Linux community. They dont use Ubuntu, they hate Canonical and yet they will spam nearly every thread about Canonical and Ubuntu on the Linux news websites and forums, apparently they cant imagine their life without Canonical and Ubuntu, if they really do not care about Canonical and Ubuntu (something they constantly claim) they would not post on Canonical related threads with almost religious dedication, but they do and often it is in a very hateful manner.
    The same tone that is there with every Ubuntu-fan is there. "Everyone else just hates us for no reason!" It's the Canonical Persecution Complex (let's call it CaPeCo for short).

    You're asserting that no one ever has any good reason to criticize Canonical's decisions, and then you're also making up a narrative of good and evil - you're inserting this whole "hate" thing there because the underdog needs the antagonist, the mean jerk who opposes him just because he's old and bitter and hateful.

    No one is putting words in your mouth. That's just your CaPeCo talking.

    problem is I never mentioned Shuttleworth in my posts and he is not even relevant to what I wanted to say.
    To the contrary, he is entirely relevant to what you want to say. Your rhetoric is so clearly inspired by his that it's impossible to ignore.

    You are presuming that you know who I am and how I think, and that I accepted "Mark's narrative" as you call it, you do not know me.
    But you also assume that you know who everyone else is and how they think. You assume that everyone is just posting here because they "hate Canonical".

    And I'm not presuming anything. I'm looking at the similar behavioural patterns and making conclusions. If you don't want me to think you accept Mark's narrative, then show it to me by your behaviour. Show that you're capable of thinking for yourself.

    I never ever said no one has the right to criticize Canonical, it is everyone's right to disagree with Canonical. Your reply missed my whole point, if one criticizes something why make an obssession out of it? Many of those who criticize Canonical cant stop coming to Canonical and Ubuntu related news all over the Internet and start flame wars, is that sane criticism?
    How is that relevant here? People troll and start flame wars everywhere. This is not a pattern unique to Canonical.

    And if we want to talk about flame wars, just look at this thread here. Everything was perfectly cordial and peaceful here, until one person made a comment where he asserted that "many people dislike the direction Canonical has taken". This caused several Canonical defenders to go up in huff and storm over to the thread... the original poster, the one who started this whole conversation, never said anything that bad about Canonical. Just that he personally has doubts about their decisions, and that he's seen many people dislike their recent decisions. Which is reasonable enough to most people, but apparently not to some Canonical fans...

    So if anything, judging from the contents of this thread, it's the Canonical fans going around "starting flame wars".

    No, it is hate bordering fanaticism,
    Well, Mark certainly wants it to be. I mean, where's the conflict if there's no Bad Guy to fight against? Hard to be the Oppressed Little Guy if no one is hating on you... hard to fight against Overwhelming Odds if no one is being the old and bitter dean, not getting the fresh ideas of the new college student. If there's no Apollo Creed for Rocky to fight, it becomes a very short and boring movie that no one wants to watch.

    So Mark purposefully creates this narrative of conflict, to drum up a us-vs-them situation, to "rally up" his "followers" so that they don't question his own decisions. It's a thing used in political propaganda since ages...

    And why do you think that if one defends Canonical's vision, one automatically accepted everything they said and is having Canonical do the thinking for them? Maybe some people support their vision because they LIKE it?
    Well, if you're defending Canonical's "vision", then you pretty much implicitly DO accept everything they're doing and saying. "Vision" is a very broad and vague concept.

    Is it part of Canonical's vision to fragment the graphics stack? Is it part of Canonical's vision to make legal threats to hobbyist websites who inform people on how to disable features they dislike (but which bring Canonical money)? Is it part of Canonical's vision to attempt to prevent competition on the OEM market by telling Mint they need a license to use the binary packages compiled by Canonical, part of this license terms being that Mint would be prevented to compete with Canonical for OEM deals?

    Ubuntu is Canonical's project, project they invested a lot of money in, and they have every right to do as they please with it
    BP also invested a lot of money in the Deepwater Horizon drill rig. Did they thus also have every right to do as they pleased with it?

    Canonical does actually NOT have the right to do "as they please" with Ubuntu. Their rights are limited by several things: first and foremost, the licenses under which the software which they use are licensed under. 90% of the code in Ubuntu comes from other sources - Debian, the kernel, the FOSS community in general... there are many limitations to what Canonical is allowed to do with Ubuntu.

    Secondly, there's the moral rights - corporations do not have the right to do just what they please. They need to take responsibility for their actions like everyone else.

    They are obviously doing something right because number of Ubuntu users is rising
    Do you have a source for this claim? How is it measured?

    And no one here explained why non Ubuntu users have such strong criticism for a product they do not use.
    Several reasons. Some of which were already explained to you by another poster, so your claim that "no one explained" is again false.

    Mostly it's because Ubuntu doesn't exist in a vacuum. In an open source software ecosystem, the actions of one affect others, which is why collaboration is so crucial part of open source, and necessary for succesfully leveraging open source software.

    You said it yourself - many people use Ubuntu. There are many Ubuntu users - perhaps even more than on any other distro. Counting derivatives, definitely. So their decisions definitely affect the lives of many people - you can't have it both ways: you can't be an influential innovator, someone whose actions carry weight in the community, and also be this individual hero who does what he wants without consequences.

    Canonical has made some decisions which are likely to be harmful to not only to the desktop Linux ecosystem and GNU/Linux as a desktop platform, but also to themselves. They're creating pointless fragmentation which is unhealthy for the ecosystem on which Canonical also depends on. Remember, 90% of their code comes from the community. Without a healthy community, without a healthy software ecosystem and collaboration with others, they can't succeed.

    That's why this new direction of "let's be a monolithical island like Apple and do things in-house" is dangerous for Canonical. Someone like Google or Apple can easily pull that off, because they have the huge wallets to pay for all that - but not a small company like Canonical. For Canonical, it's crucial to collaborate and leverage the benefits of the community and shared development. And with their recent decisions, they're harming themselves and potentially also others. They're harming developers by creating fragmentation on a level where there shouldn't be any fragmentation. They're harming the desirability of desktop Linux as a platform to target.

    And that all said, the entire question you're asking is also flawed: you're basically saying "well if you don't like it, don't use it then!" That's no way to respond to criticism. That's very passive-aggressive (again, an attitude spawning directly from Mark), and it's basically implying that you don't have the right to criticize products you don't use. I don't use Windows, so does that mean I can not point out the flaws in Windows, or the behaviour of Microsoft?

    bashing Canonical for the sake of it, often with rather vulgar words.
    Who's bashing Canonical for the sake of it?

    I don't hate Canonical. I actually want them to succeed and become a strong supporter of the open source community and software ecosystem that they were meant to be. But I fear their recent actions and decisions are counter-productive to this goal. I fear they're shooting themselves in the foot with bad decisions and harming not only themselves but the community as well. If I didn't care at all about Canonical, what would be the point of criticizing their decisions? I criticize because I still have hope they will correct their behaviour.

    Just like I talk to you because I still have hope for you. Some of the other posters in this thread are clearly already beyond helping... (just look at the couple of posters above, they're like desperately trying to extinguish any and all kind of critical thought and debate.) But you at least seem to be open to discussing things rationally, so I have at least some hope you might take something home from this.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •