Ubuntu's Unity Desktop Can Now Run Natively On Windows

[finalzone]

There was one Canonical project that actually did get buy-in from outside - PID1 on RHEL/CentOS 6 is Upstart. So why isn't everyone using Upstart today, and instead systemd has seen wide adoption among distros? Easy answer, the Canonical CLA.

An eerie similarity with SUN when they tightly controlled OpenOffice source and prevented outside contributions to fix and improve.
Let remind readers that systemd is what Upstart would be without Canonical CLA.

[starshipeleven]

CLA cannot override opensource. GPL applies in any case.

CLA allows Canonical to wake up one day and simply decide that they ahd enough, and that from that point on all their projects become closed-source. EDIT: because the copyright holder (them since all contributed code belongs to them thanks to CLA) can always change the license at their whim, legally.
What is out already will of course stay GPL, but if the project leads are now on a closed source project, it will likely become dead code.

This is a liability, since it allows them to use their software as a bait for vendor lock-in, once you have committed your infrastructure to using something it's easier to just pay whatever Canonical wants for it once it is closed-sourced.

[starshipeleven]

A piece of shit?

This. Upstart is a piece of shit, even their lead devs admitted that it failed.

[starshipeleven]

I have no problem with companies adding products on it, this is real freedom.

Drivers is not "on it". Drivers run hardware, that is under it.

I have no problems with running closed blobs OVER linux if they are properly sandboxed and secured, but drivers, no thanks.

[boxie]

A while ago a similar situation happened with web developers and now most of them use linux. I think my perspective is spot on. Who cares what MS wants? It certainly isn't those people that are leaving it in droves. Canonical should be concentrating on attracting those users to linux, not on alienating the current userbase. The only thing they are going to ensure is that their share of that 2% is going to shrink even more.

Pretty sure most the "web developers" went to Mac OS X.

And how is this alienating Linux users? Cooperating with a company that used to hate OSS but now embraces it?

Similar to how the fat person at the gym should be encouraged and not ridiculed, Microsoft should be encouraged to participate more in OSS.

And like I said, why exclusively fight for a slice of 2% of the desktop market when you can potentially increase that 2% and take more of that.

It is an interesting and smart business move on Canonicals part, as long as they are careful they should come out on top.

[liam]

Wasn't it OSX? Most of those I know use a MacBook Pro.

Yup. That's been my experience*.

*Never claiming all things orbit about it, mind you

[Passso]

Drivers is not "on it". Drivers run hardware, that is under it.

I have no problems with running closed blobs OVER linux if they are properly sandboxed and secured, but drivers, no thanks.

Well, since the NSA controls the hardware itself nowadays, having a properly coded driver, be it closed source is not that frightening...

[DDF420]

CLA allows Canonical to wake up one day and simply decide that they ahd enough, and that from that point on all their projects become closed-source. EDIT: because the copyright holder (them since all contributed code belongs to them thanks to CLA) can always change the license at their whim, legally.
What is out already will of course stay GPL, but if the project leads are now on a closed source project, it will likely become dead code.

This is a liability, since it allows them to use their software as a bait for vendor lock-in, once you have committed your infrastructure to using something it's easier to just pay whatever Canonical wants for it once it is closed-sourced.

You could wake up one day and go and murder 50 people. I tend to judge folk on their actions not on the what ifs. Thus far your fear mongering seems rather unwarranted.

[starshipeleven]

I tend to judge folk on their actions not on the what ifs.

Choosing and implementing CLA is an action. A deliberate action to leave the door open to that kind of trickery. Most other projects don't do that.

The code of most projects remains owned by each individual contributor, and this makes changing the licensing a major pain in the ass as you need to track down everyone and have his approval to do so. Or rewrite that code.

Thus far your fear mongering seems rather unwarranted.

It's not fear-mongering, it's an explanation to why most open projects and contributors (paid or not) stay away from Canonical's stuff. Which is a fact.

Well, since the NSA controls the hardware itself nowadays

Go back using Win10 then, since you are already doomed there is no reason to use a crappier OS.

[starshipeleven]

It is an interesting and smart business move on Canonicals part, as long as they are careful they should come out on top.

As said above, this "move" has nothing to do with Canonical proper, it's a guy that managed to get Unity to run through Windows's own linux-compatibility layers.

So if there is someone that deserves a mention, that is MS for making the compatibility layers.

It's easier to port Unity on Windows than it is to port it on another Linux distro... that should tell something.