Upstream X/Wayland Developers Bash Canonical, Mir

[Hamish Wilson]

I didn't, but browsing through doesn't seem to show that many packages. It looks like Debian (and hence Ubuntu) has about double the number of packages as standard. Ubuntu's PPAs fill in any missing gaps very well. The Fedora package list is definitely more complete than when I've looked in the past.

Between the official repositories, RPM Fusion, and Google's YUM repo I have not had much trouble finding packages. I find Arch's repos to be in a rather similar state, not counting AUR which should not be counted the same way as it is fundamentally different.[/QUOTE]

By the way, Ubuntu officially package Gambas3 yet (sorry, just took a little frustrated jab)

[Hamish Wilson]

And gnome developers don't suffer from the NIH syndrome? Unity for example, was available before gnome shell. I wonder how did you get into such strange conclusions? Ubuntu is the most popular distribution and Ubuntu having X replacement that is supported by proprietary drivers will become even more popular. If something will end it's gnome shell and fedora/red hat leadership in dictating Linux future. And this is good, because they have no clue about desktops. Nobody cares about bsd crap here. There are no anti-bsd trolls here, but only bsd trolls. Linux users have no reasons to troll about bsd which is meaningless to us. There's no way it will go down. They have Valve behind them and it seems MIR will be supported by proprietary drivers which isn't so sure about Wayland. I didn't like Ubuntu to use SurfaceFlinger in cost of Wayland, but I MIR has my full support. And even with X Ubuntu is way faster than OS X. Furthermore, Ubuntu is using Linux kernel rather some crap and it seems you're an only one who doesn't see Apple's OS X will be dead in the near future.And even with X Ubuntu is way faster than OS X. Furthermore, Ubuntu is using Linux kernel rather some crap and it seems you're an only one who doesn't see Apple's OS X will be dead in the near future.

Put these all together and it almost makes my point for me.

Seriously, you should choose one target to attack and stick with it, rather than lashing out anything that is not brown. Still, your argument seems to be "I dislike GNOME Shell, therefore anything that Red Hat touches is evil" which is nigh on pathological (especially since saying GNOME Shell is a Red Hat product is a bit of a stretch).

Would you elaborate on how this is "destructive"? As far as I can tell, the only one who loses here is RedHat and various proponents of a RedHat-based monoculture. RedHat took advantage of open source software to form the basis of their company, adopting various projects as their own. That enabled Redhat to sell support contracts as the company that lead development of the software, which has been very profitable for them. Now that organizations have decided to do the same, RedHat's supporters are crying foul.

RedHat should never have published open source software if they expected to dictate how the source code is used. Various BSD people accepted that a long time ago, which is why they make no attempt to dictate how their software is used. On the other hand, Redhat and their supporters seem to have mistaken the GPL as a means to establish their company as the Microsoft of open source, but things do not work that way. RedHat has praised the benefits of open source software for years. Now that others are following suit, it is time to accept that no organization can has exert monopoly control over how open source software is developed and used.

With that said, those that want a monoculture to exist in open source software should establish it through merit and not petty harassment.

First off, Wayland is not even developed by Red Hat, so how is this going to break this "Red Hat monopoly"?

Second, there is some serious skewing of the facts based on what you are implying. Red Hat does not own any of these projects, has no copyright assignment on them, and does not even lead or develop on some of them (see Wayland where they do not do any development). Red Hat does indeed make a lot of money off of free software (are you going to say this is wrong when you are defending Canonical's fumbling attempts to get a profit?) but to say they "took advantage" of the software is almost a laughable statement, considering how much developer resources they have given back, many of which do not even benefit them directly but instead feed the entire upstream ecosystem. They profit from the ecosystem, as do you and I, but if I were to compare their contributions to yours and mine (and yes I know you are a developer) they would be so small we could be said to be the leeches.

Red Hat has never released proprietary software (Canconical has), never taken out a software patent (despite Alan Cox's jest back when he was a Red Hat employee), and has a good history of working with others in broader upstream projects instead of rolling their own and throwing a wrench in others (which Canonical certainly does). What does upstream mean? It means it is applicable for everyone, is peer-reviewed by everyone, and everyone can come on board assuming they have something to offer. This whole debate is not even about Red Hat, it is about the value of upstream contributions and mutual standards compared to competitive individualism and bringing Linux back to a state of tribalism.

Red Hat has gotten to this position through merit. But the odd thing is that is not what is really relevant with regards to this discussion.

[YaPeL]

I have no relationship with Canonical, financial or otherwise. However, it would be nice if they did pay me.

With that said, I am currently independent from the various companies vying for control of the open source world.

I don't follow much of the FOSS world in terms of their developers, but then are you just pushing in mir because you believe in the project? or what, I don't get that part right, you are not an employee of canonical, yet you work for their own display server? how is that? I'm not judging, just curious.

[jalyst]

Ay, caramba... :-/

[nightmarex]

I didn't, but browsing through doesn't seem to show that many packages. It looks like Debian (and hence Ubuntu) has about double the number of packages as standard. Ubuntu's PPAs fill in any missing gaps very well. The Fedora package list is definitely more complete than when I've looked in the past.



I was developing an Apache module, along with other software. It wouldn't work with no apparent explanation as to why. Eventually I'd find a clue, address it and try again. This would happen several times. I didn't want to disable selinux since then everyone I gave the module to would also have to do so, which is clearly the wrong thing. The issue wasn't the existence of selinux, but rather that diagnosing something you wanted to happen and didn't was extremely tedious.



The installation docs are astonishingly bad (this page) especially compared to the Gentoo ones, or the convenience of a gui/auto-detection. Of course installs are so rare that it doesn't matter for most people. I am seeing the Arch wiki showing up in searches a lot more, like Gentoo used to (eg the arch page for btrfs is my 4th result for that term). Part of my problem is that the arch netboot kernel hangs in VirtualBox during boot most of the time.

On Ubuntu I use these instructions to get rid of all the Ubuntu specific stuff and get a more genuine Gnome experience. If that approach doesn't work in 13.04 then I will definitely quite Ubuntu, almost certainly for Arch. The only remaining problem is why to recommend to new users since I still don't have a better answer than Ubuntu.

What's wrong with the Arch installation guide? Anyhow a release or two ago I would of defended Fedora but it's getting harder to justify telling people to use it. I always suggest new users use Mint but I get the feeling you want something else, Mandrakes new incarnation Mageia may float your boat OpenSuse is still around. All I know is Mint is pretty decent if you like the Ubuntu-ish feel. Personally I don't use SUDO and never have much fun maintaining those types of systems but eh, kinda fucked either way.

[ryao]

ryao how much canonical pays u?

I have no relationship with Canonical, financial or otherwise. However, it would be nice if they did pay me.

With that said, I am currently independent from the various companies vying for control of the open source world.

[phoen1x]

ryao how much canonical pays u?

[ryao]

But that does not change the fact that what they are doing is likely to be destructive. And just because someone has the right to does not give them the right not to be criticized for it. So can we drop this line now?

Would you elaborate on how this is "destructive"? As far as I can tell, the only one who loses here is RedHat and various proponents of a RedHat-based monoculture. RedHat took advantage of open source software to form the basis of their company, adopting various projects as their own. That enabled Redhat to sell support contracts as the company that lead development of the software, which has been very profitable for them. Now that organizations have decided to do the same, RedHat's supporters are crying foul.

RedHat should never have published open source software if they expected to dictate how the source code is used. Various BSD people accepted that a long time ago, which is why they make no attempt to dictate how their software is used. On the other hand, Redhat and their supporters seem to have mistaken the GPL as a means to establish their company as the Microsoft of open source, but things do not work that way. RedHat has praised the benefits of open source software for years. Now that others are following suit, it is time to accept that no organization can has exert monopoly control over how open source software is developed and used.

With that said, those that want a monoculture to exist in open source software should establish it through merit and not petty harassment.

[daniels]

From what i understand -from the comments of many seasoned devs- they created something that is quite similar to WL but different enough to be incompatible with the whole stack for reasons that dont hold any water. Plus they did not even talked privately to any WL devs before they start it in order to see if WL could fit their usecases.

Someone wouldn't describe the above as smart would he?

RAOF didn't create it, and I wouldn't describe his technical skills or general intellect as approaching idiocy. You can see that I don't like the whole situation, but I wouldn't be abusing any of the developers involved.

[jan1024188]

Yup. The writing was on the wall a year or two ago.

MS shot itself in the foot with Win8 but the Linux community blew off all its arms and legs in the meantime.

If Microsoft makes Cinnamon like desktop, and introduces new, intuitive, easy and automated ways to install apps (ms store or some more convenient way to install like simply dragging in and out of /Applications like on OSX) they would probably win. Heck, even Id go back to windows.

But as long as windows experience is garbage Linux Desktop still has a chance. And I support Canonical in their attempt to be kinda like Apple, an enterprise, to partner up with manufacturers of hardware and big software companies. Because that is the only way for Linux Desktop to grow out of just us who are big fans to more people.
Linux Desktop lacks proprietary professional software, which will come with more standardized stack and corporate backing.

Because right now, if you are game developer/gamer, Linux is not for you. If you are professional in audio/video industry, Linux is not for you. If you are ______ professional, relying on professional corporate proprietary software to do your work, Linux is not for you. Don't slap around with Wine! Wine can only do so much. Running VM? Why would you RUN VM on machine, where most of your time you spend in VM itself?

Notice how I am only referring to GNU/Linux for Desktop experience here, which is the most problematic area right now. Server space for instance is clear win for GNU/Linux, Id never ever want to use osx or microsoft crap for that.