Ubuntu 14.04 Codename Revealed, Mir Haters Attacked

[DanLamb]

Most of what Ubuntu does only benefits Ubuntu, despite the fact they still rely themselves on the work done by other distros.

The basic definition of a distro is just a custom packaging of pre-existing software. All distros rely on the great work of others. You can't single a distro out for doing that.

The main complaint is not that they don't do anything, but the fact that when they do do something it is usually only for themselves. Unity and Mir are almost unusable on anything other than an Ubuntu system by design

You may be right, they may be complete jerks from a dev perspective, but it sounds like internal politics that I am not a part of. I am a humble external user, I try to cheer for everyone trying to make Linux better and use whatever technology I judge to best suit my needs.

[DanLamb]

That is hardly a basic human right. The right to life is a basic human right, which is the main point that mrugiero was referencing. Without access to medical care, the right to life can not be assured to its most reasonable extent. Unless such services are insured by somebody, that right is violated.

And how exactly are you being silenced? And how much of your assets and really being seized by the government? Who foreclosures your house, the government, or private banks/individuals?

Also, do you believe in the rule of law? Because if you do, then you are a hypocrite (I will save judgment on this until this point has been established, however).

I disagree that the right to life saving medical service is always a fundamental basic right that trumps other rights. Particularly in the case of very expensive services that have a low chance of prolonging a life for very long.

The US government is supposed to have a majority rule system that protects fundamental rights of the minorities that do not win the major elections. Those fundamental rights are being eroded as the federal majority rule government absorbs more power and assumes larger authority over society and makes the most powerful people on the planet even more powerful.

I do believe that people and communities should have more meaningful engagement regarding how health care, education, and various other basic pieces of society operate. Of course, people can vote, but in such a vast country, even large, passionate, highly articulate communities can have their preferences and views destroyed with extreme prejudice when they aren't part of the overall majority rule party. Regular people have more meaningful engagement and participation with local community governments than with a giant, remote federal government.

How much of my assets are being seized by government? I don't know exactly. The federal government goes to great lengths to hide and obscure its costs. Sure, it's a private bank that forecloses homes and collects real estate taxes, and private businesses that collect sales taxes, but the source of coercion is clear. Deficit spending doesn't show up on my tax bill, but it's clearly money and power that is being usurped by the federal government from the rest of society. But beyond me as an individual, I don't believe that one group of society should not have the power and the right to seize money and write invasive rules to impose on another group just because they won a giant centralized election.

How am I being silenced? Most would agree that those the viewpoint of those who control of congress and the executive branch of government are silencing those of competing viewpoints with extreme prejudice.

I believe in some laws. Other laws are unjust. I don't believe the federal government has the moral right to write the laws that they are doing regarding health care and education.

[ceage]

Without access to medical care, the right to life can not be assured to its most reasonable extent. Unless such services are insured by somebody, that right is violated.

That's why rights are called 'rights', not 'guarantees'.

Trying to enforce access to medical care for everybody under all circumstances is completely unreasonable, because medical care is a scarce resource. Fooling people into believing it's infinitely available is wrong.

[Hamish Wilson]

Health care is hardly an extravagance - and is something that most public health services handle far more efficiently and cost effectively than the American system does in trying to interact with its current private model. You can point to corner cases all you want, such as concerns over keeping people with chronic illnesses alive, but public health is actually more sustainable and cheaper in the long term, and produces a safer more cost effective environment. It is the decentralized private model that is filled with the most inefficiencies and provides less service to the population as a whole.

I am not surprised to see these kind of responses from Americans though, who are blinded by the inefficiencies and inequalities of their own system and are often too ignorant or unwilling to look past their own nation to see how such issues as the powers of governments play out on a people as a whole.

I do agree with DanLamb to the extent that the left do believe in building some form of concentrated power. This comes from a pragmatic worldview that recognizes that wealth and privilege are finite resources, and holds that there does need to be some sort of balancing force in society to guard against the endemic inequalities that materialize in a society. Theses forces are often unavoidable, and as such need to be constantly countered by some authority, be it material or idealistic.

Anarchists hold that this balancing force is present in human nature - something I view to be impractical even if true, because good will alone can not stop the almost overpowering material inequalities that a society must battle in order to stay a valid and ethical structure.

Socialists hold that some physical force, traditionally in the form of a people's state but not necessarily tied to this, needs to exist in order to counter such inequalities to the best of its abilities.

Social Democrats or so called followers of Social Liberalism, far to the right on the left spectrum to such an extent that Obama barely qualifies, believe in some government services and reforms in order to balance perceived inequalities, but still believe that private initiative should be encouraged and private control should still ultimately rule the economy.

I am undoubtedly socialistic in my views, as I do not believe that one group's concerns should rule the fate of so many without some form of controls placed upon them, which is why I do not believe that private individuals or firms should control vital services such as health care, education, certain utilities, services, etc. I also do not believe in private concerns dominating an economy, as it is an interconnected system where one man's actions can have seriously adverse consequences on another.

I am also not naive enough to believe that government is the only force that governs how I interact with society or affects what I am allowed to do. Without government, I would be at even greater mercy to the private individuals that provide me essential services, and have little to no control over how they hold this power over me. You may sneer at democracy, and indeed the current American system is far from representative, but it at least offers me some outlet to voice concerns in a far more powerful manner than I could as a simple individual, especially as an individual with very little resources and little recourse outside of public opinion.

We are both concerned about others having powers over us, I just accept that it has to happen to some extent in an interconnected and physically unequal society, and wish for the system that provides the best controls and best results in taming such a society for the closest approximation of the public good.

All systems will have aspects of corruption, and our democratic models are far from ideal and need a lot more building up, but tearing them down over some misplaced fear is far from conducive to building society, especially in a time of great strife as we are entering now thanks to the effects of climate change. DanLamb speaks in whispers about a shadowy government taking assets from him through secret coercion and going to great lengths to silence him, even though he is speaking all of these thoughts quite apparently and quite openly on an online forum. He distracts you with these hollow thoughts of an idealistic libertarian paradise which is an illusion brought on by a more ignorant society that feels that just because forces become less observable in a society without a centralized power such constraints no longer would exist. This is a farce.

No matter what, some force is going to have power over another, be it through private or public means. The question is on which you choose to rely on.

[Hamish Wilson]

The basic definition of a distro is just a custom packaging of pre-existing software. All distros rely on the great work of others. You can't single a distro out for doing that.

All distributions are interdependent, yes, which is why there is an outcry when one distribution does not want to work with the others. There is a vague social contract in effect, and even though it is not binding, people do get upset when it is broken.

You may be right, they may be complete jerks from a dev perspective, but it sounds like internal politics that I am not a part of. I am a humble external user, I try to cheer for everyone trying to make Linux better and use whatever technology I judge to best suit my needs.

Unfortunately developers are not shielded from the actions of each other or their own users, which makes this whole notion that we can all just keep going to best of our own abilities in a spirit of good well without outside constraint a fools dream.

[MartinN]

ohh my god, he is detached from reality.

extremely so, I'm afraid. Profoundly unrelated to the people he is supposed to be making allies with. Maybe he's suffering from something....

[MartinN]

ohh my god, he is detached from reality.

profoundly. and manages for some reason to alienate those whom he needs most - developers, developers, developers, developers (to quote Ballmer ).

It's like he got afflicted with something since Unity and onward.....

[DanLamb]

All distributions are interdependent, yes, which is why there is an outcry when one distribution does not want to work with the others. There is a vague social contract in effect, and even though it is not binding, people do get upset when it is broken.

The open source world is filled with competing factions. If one group isolates themselves, that may hurt them, but I don't see a justification for an outcry from other groups. One distro has no innate obligation to the others.

[DanLamb]

good will alone can not stop the almost overpowering material inequalities that a society must battle in order to stay a valid and ethical structure.

Society should accept and adapt to material inequality that occurs as a completely natural part of a society based on personal and community choice and responsibility. I don't accept that society must battle inequality to stay valid and ethical. This may be a more root distinction between us. If I did believe that material inequality must be stopped by any means necessary, I probably would support an all powerful central government structure that would override personal and community freedoms to achieve that aim. To me that seems wildly unjust.

public health is actually more sustainable and cheaper in the long term

Any system that insulates people from the cost of the services that they consume is inherently cost inefficient. The equality mindset is a more logical rationale for public health care. I don't think there is a logical case to be made that it is cheaper to society. It's cheaper in the sense that the cost is hidden to individuals as they consume service so at a superficial level it may feel free, but ultimately it is still a cost to society and the people within the society.

It is the decentralized private model that is filled with the most inefficiencies and provides less service to the population as a whole.

I agree that the US health care system, pre ACA, has tons of problems, but that is definitely not a private model. Medicare and medicaid alone are major forces that are not remotely private institutions.

far to the right on the left spectrum to such an extent that Obama barely qualifies

You are saying Obama is far right on the left spectrum? I don't see that. The Blue Dog Democrats are the far right of the left, Obama is not at all. Clinton was much more right and moderate than Obama. Obama has made massive moves in health, education, and charity to absorb much more of society under federal government control.

No matter what, some force is going to have power over another, be it through private or public means. The question is on which you choose to rely on.

The big difference is that with the largest private companies on this planet like Walmart/Exxon/Volkswagen/Samsung: the source of their power is much more justified in that it provided benefit to people and the scope of their power is much more limited in what they can do with it. All of those companies couldn't band together and wield the kind of power that the US federal government does in health care and education.

So sure, some forces will always have power over others, but there is a large difference in how they are justified and what checks and balances are in place to limit abuse of that power.

[sarmad]

The open source world is filled with competing factions. If one group isolates themselves, that may hurt them, but I don't see a justification for an outcry from other groups. One distro has no innate obligation to the others.

It depends on the component in question. If a group isolates itself it may hurt itself more, but it doesn't mean it won't affect others. For example, it's ok for Ubuntu to come out with Unity as a replacement for Gnome, but it's not ok when they came out with Mir because in the case of Mir they are affecting everybody. When the Xorg replacement camp is split, application and driver developers have to choose between the two sides, and consequently users also have to choose between the two camps. It's basically splitting the OS into two incompatible operating systems. Or, the other alternative would be to ignore them both and stick to Xorg, which is what's happening right now. Canonical has simply killed the efforts for a next-gen graphics stack. We already started hearing about new plans to improve the Xorg in various ways, which means developers started anticipating that Xorg is staying with us for the foreseeable future.
That said, it doesn't mean we should label Canonical as an evil company or something. I'm still using Ubuntu despite my bitter feelings towards Mir.