Mark Shuttleworth Makes More Comments On Ubuntu GNOME, Mir, Convergence

[blackiwid]

Wow very Clever to insult and blame the community, when you need the community to work with you in gnome and other projects.

I wonder if he is just a troll or if that is his strategy. Insulting people then sending them patches, they react very uncooperative, and then he can say: See I told you so that are asholes.

self-fullfilling prophesies.

Some investors forced him to do that move, else he would have stubbern tried to make that stuff work till the end of time. Thats what I hear from that bitter words.

He even startet forking gnome before gnome 3 even existed, so his claim that that was only a reaction to the gnome team is false, except he tried to push convergence on gnome 2. But than that would be his fault, I would not want to push I dont know VR on Windows 3.11.

I also dont belive he ever send a patch related to convergence, he shurly refered to general patches to gnome not specific to that..

Why is he such a sissy, just use the same base and libs and some infrastructure, cinnamon does that, and they dont whine about it, they just do it and have good success with it.

But therefor you would have to commit to desktop but you will push everything but desktop.

I am shure that when purism releases their gnome-phone they already talked about, it will be Mark that says look they finaly did what I told them to do. When such small company can make that work together WITH the community, you wonder how bad canonical is, if they dont get it to work.

Why doesnt he try to fork for real the linux kernel (not some small patches a real fork) and look what then happens, even companies like intel or even microsoft know that you have to get your shit in the official kernel tree or else it really really sucks. So even this much bigger companies know that they have to work WITH the community, maybe MS should send canonical a email to explain them that.

Also its not so much about WHAT they did, but HOW they did it. The FUD against wayland, the refusal of work of a developer of compiz they made belive that that work is needed, the spyware activated by default, the money steal action with that music-software, also how long did it take till a real gnome-shell blend of ubuntu was there? 3 years?

some users here even talk about gnome 3 was forced on users? Really? did the gnome team somehow restrict ubuntu or other distros to ship gnome2 alternative or exclusive? aperently not. But gnome forced unity on their users, at the end I had to deinstall unity and use 2 ppas to get a not even complete gnome 3 in ubuntu.

They activly fighted against gnome, using their market power, like preinstall internet explorer and give the user no other choice. Unity was their internet explorer they tried to force on users.

I find it also very unprofessional its one thing if linux as developer makes some comments that are not PC but as CEO or what he is, you should be able to shut up and dont troll other people. Even if you belive you are right.

I guess thats the Trump version of running a business, making some big cracy attack statements on people to try to intimitate them to get what you want. The strange comparsions to gun control and climate change supports this I guess.

The data of gun controll effects are pretty clear so its no belive system its hard facts, but climate change is really a belive system, which does not mean that its not real, it just means that its not a very good exact science field, but dont start that discussion here.

[JPFSanders]

I totally respect Mark's efforts and opinions; When Ubuntu (Gnome 2) first burst onto the scene it helped me convert quite a few Windows users to that flavour of Debian with relative (and increasing) ease.

Amen to that.

When Gnome 3 was forced on the userbase it was "their way or highway". Many were forced to take the highway, me included. I hear they've since made it possible to tweak their produce to work more like the traditional desktop, but I still can't bring myself to trust them enough to jump back.

The Gnome 3 debacle made the Linux desktop go backwards at least 5 years, and it has nothing to do with the code quality of Gnome 3, but with the "suddenly I do not know how to use anything anymore" syndrome it forced out of the blue. What bothers me the most is that the geniuses behind the decision have no clue how much damage they have caused to the ecosystem.

When Canonical, feeling powerful from Ubuntu's momentum, started deploying their own version of "their way or highway" it was time to dust off that old hobo gear again and catch another train.

I do not blame Canonical for coming with Unity, I blame them for not adding functionality to it fast enough, things like moving the dock should have been there in version 1.0.1 of it. The problem is not that they came with Unity but that unity was no replacement for Gnome 2 either.

I can totally understand if Mark doesn't like being subjected to that "their way or highway" treatment either, but it's not like the other established desktop environments pulled a fast one on him.

Exactly, had Mark being a clever person he should have put resources behind XFCE or MATE and produce a real alternative to Gnome 3 that worked well from day 1 and that would have benefited the entire Linux ecosystem, not just Ubuntu.

The problem with most of what Canonical pushes is that it is very Ubuntu Ethnocentric and not Linux Ethnocentric.

That said, I'm hugely appreciative of Mark's often pioneering work on bringing Free (secure and reasonably privacy-conscious) Software to the masses. Too bad Qt isn't going to play a part, but here's hoping that Gnome 3.x and onward will find a way to satisfy different user needs.

Gnome 3 will not stop being the train wreck it is, and if you have any doubts of what I say, notice that RHEL comes with classic mode enabled by default.

If you want an admission of defeat there you have it.

Gnome could have created Gnome 3 without disrupting the entire Linux Desktop, but they choose to cause damage in purpose.

This is the same that Mark attempted with Mir, and that is why while people may like or not like Unity, a large majority despised Mir.

[Ekland]

Mir offered nothing to the community that Wayland didn't, what it offered Canonical was full control and thus a chance to sell licenses to mobile/IoT vendors.

Why should the community care ?

If it had some technical advantage over Wayland, then that would be different, but it doesn't.

[blackiwid]

When Unity first came out, I was one of those critics too. Because why change the interface so drastically when the old Gnome desktop was working well? After a short time I quickly came to appreciate Unity, its innovatism, interface and performance. Boy was I wrong to criticise it so fast. Have to say it's never been perfect for me, but Gnome wasn't either or any of the other options. I noticed that many users evolved their opinions in the same way. But there were still quite a lot of those die hard Unity haters that really needed to have their opinion heard every time, even though the other options were still available.

If that would just be true, it was not, Canonical used his market power to shove down unity all its users. I liked gnome-shell more, it became harder and harder to install that on ubuntu, in the end I had to every 6 months on all machines install 2 ppas to get a half usable gnome desktop. So the alternatives werent there, except you switched to fedora or somethnig like that.

Even that gnome-shell blend was not there, you have to see that some completly unimportant (not so much users) lxde and xfce official blends were there for them, but not even a unofficial for gnome-shell the major linux desktop with most users. then at some time a unofficial blend came out, and I belive since 1 year? its a official blend?

They should have made a gnome-shell blend assap. they also have no gratitude, gnome made them the major distro and then they show the middle finger to that project and try to backstab them, horrible ethics.

[Mez']

The problem is not that they came with Unity but that unity was no replacement for Gnome 2 either.

I don't think it's ever been the goal, and I don't see how that was a problem at all.

Exactly, had Mark being a clever person he should have put resources behind XFCE or MATE and produce a real alternative to Gnome 3 that worked well from day 1 and that would have benefited the entire Linux ecosystem, not just Ubuntu.

Why? Because that's what you want?
I'm personally very happy they went that way. Gnome 3 and Unity are ergonomically speaking new paradigms that improved many people's workflow.
XFCE, MATE or Cinnamon have the exact opposite purpose, to stay with the old but stable paradigm (and it suits many other people's workflow, hence it's good). It makes perfect sense that they wanted to stick to the new paradigm but with their own vision. And it still makes perfect sense that they're going back to Gnome, not any other DE. Even though goals, ergonomy, usability are a lot different from Unity, Gnome is still the paradigm least furthest to their vision.

[existensil]

I am a member of many communities. Several programming communities (Ruby, JavaScript, Java, PHP, etc.), their various open-source sub-communities, multiple political (as in public policy) communities, gaming communities, car communities, and the linux community. All are very fluid and have lots of characteristics, contradictions, factions, and toxic elements. All have wonderful thoughtful people. None are as toxic on average as the linux community.

That's right, the communities most likely to start actual wars (political communities) are on average more respectful and less toxic. You are more likely to have a civilized conversation almost anywhere else. To be fair, gaming communities are also hate filled and on average worse than public policy communities, but in my multiple decades being members of both, Linux is more toxic and has always been more toxic.

All of the programming communities I participate in are serene by comparison. Ruby in particular has things like MINSWAN, codifying "niceness" into the core ethos of the community. Even corporate Java community with its large egos is a generally respectful and thoughtful place to be. You certainly don't have people name calling or saying crazy things like "open source is not for creating parallel projects" while following it up with a laundry list of desktop environments he likes without a hint of irony. As an open source developer I can state unequivocally that open source is anything and everything you want it to be. Competition is good. Cooperation is good. Trying crazy things is good. Doing the same old thing in a new way just because you can or want to is good. Creation is always good.

Whole books could be written on exactly why the linux community is so angry, hate-filled, and toxic. I'm not here to point fingers on why. If you are reading this with any kind of anger I suggest you take a long look in the mirror.

[roothorick]

Anyone else worried about them switching DEs during an LTS release? I've been a GNOME 3 advocate and user since 12.04 and "GNOME Remix", but such a drastic change doesn't belong in LTS. Bump it up to 18.10, seriously.

Also, you want to talk about toxic? Look at Windows enthusiasts and Windows 7 vs. Windows 10. Oh dear lord. They jump into other communities that have nothing to do with which Windows the moment someone says they prefer one or they other, straight down people's throats.

[genstorm]

Anyone else worried about them switching DEs during an LTS release? I've been a GNOME 3 advocate and user since 12.04 and "GNOME Remix", but such a drastic change doesn't belong in LTS. Bump it up to 18.10, seriously.

They don't switch it *during* an LTS release, they switch it *with* an LTS release. They are dropping Unity development, do you really think it is a wise decision to drag out a dead piece of code for another several years? They do that with enough non-Canonical software already in their LTS releases.

[bregma]

Anyone else worried about them switching DEs during an LTS release?

17.10 will not be an LTS release.

[paupav]

Idiots like to keep together. I'm also a Windows user, so it shows how stupid you are. Community is responsible for Shuttleworth faults now?

I just agreed with someone that community is toxic and provided example. We aren't talking here about Unity8's failure, we are talking about community. I wonder how many times did you had to twist my words in order to adapt it to your toxiness level.