Canonical Is Forking The GNOME Control Center

[TheBlackCat]

We already knew they were switching their stuff over to Qt, so keeping their stuff co-installable with Gnome's in the meantime seems a step forward rather than backward.

[sarmad]

Sounds like a good decision to me, not that it makes a big difference to end users anyway.

[duby229]

The people who are complaining the most will never forget. Kind of like how people never forget to hate on MS. Though they actually do deserve the large majority of the distaste thrown at them. The "Scroogle" campaign is really embarrassing, I mean seriously.
Point is, people will always find a way to complain, even if it's by way of convoluted cherry picking and twisting facts. Oddly enough, this article hasn't attracted that much sour attention yet, which is quite nice. But on slashdot it's really discouraging how misinformed people are on this matter. And the majority of readers seemed to agree.
The person above me is a good example. I never at any point said Canonical was the savior of the Linux desktop, but he tries to frame the hypothetical statement that way to sling an insult at me, completely missing the intent of my post.
Even when Canonical deserves some criticism (which they do at times), it's the people who blow it out of proportion and/or frame it in a way that has nothing to do with the actual story that make reasonable discussion difficult at times.
I will leave it alone to avoid a big argument over nothing. The thread was doing fine as is.

I'm the person above you as you put it. I understand how I could be seen as misinformed. But really I'm really not. Just hear me out for a minute while I explain myself.

The thing is that Canonical has been going out of their way to split off from the greater community of upstream sources. They haven't even really done that many forks yet if you consider what Canonical has done so far. I think most of it is that they have stopped trying to use existing projects for things like display servers and desktop environments. That's where they get alot of their grief from. Do they deserve it? I don't know.

What I do know is that Canonical is using a lot of resources that don't seem like they are going anywhere. If they had just put that same amount of effort into existing projects I think the greater community as a whole would be better off for it. But that isn't what they want. Unfortunately.

It's not that I'm uninformed as much as I just don't care anymore. None of what they are doing is benefiting me in any way.

[Bathroom Humor]

Even though I did understand what you meant (that's why I haven't commented before, as I agreed), you put it in a way that was prone to be misunderstood, with the whole "could end up being the saviors" phrase.

On the topic not bringing a flamewar (at least not until now), I think it has a lot to do with the fact people here are not mere haters (well, most people here), but people who understand what's going on in some degree and have different, but informed, views. This led to no flamewar because it is obviously a good thing, however you look at it, as it is a mere package conflict fix. Mir leads to conflict, Upstart leads to conflict, systemd leads to conflict, because there are reasons to like them and to dislike them.

I probably should have put a bigger emphasis on the word COULD.
Different points of view, I have no problem with. But even informed viewpoints can be scewed if the person really dislikes a certain thing.
The thing was, I wasn't talking about Phoronix in my example. The conversation on /. was in stark contrast to how calm it was here. And it was disappointing, but not surprising. That's the whole point I was trying to make. I had no intent on starting a big hullabaloo.
I'm not a Canonical fanboy. I'm largely indifferent to most of what they do (like Upstart and Ubuntu One), but I do really enjoy some of their software like Ubuntu. I think there is a difference between the two.

[dee.]

Seems to me, Canonical fans are the only ones trying to make this into a controversy here. No one else really gives a crap.

[TheBlackCat]

Not only that, the mailing list post indicates that it's not a long-term fork, just a convenience thing in the near term...

Yes, the article says that too.

[mrugiero]

The person above me is a good example. I never at any point said Canonical was the savior of the Linux desktop, but he tries to frame the hypothetical statement that way to sling an insult at me, completely missing the intent of my post.

Even though I did understand what you meant (that's why I haven't commented before, as I agreed), you put it in a way that was prone to be misunderstood, with the whole "could end up being the saviors" phrase.

On the topic not bringing a flamewar (at least not until now), I think it has a lot to do with the fact people here are not mere haters (well, most people here), but people who understand what's going on in some degree and have different, but informed, views. This led to no flamewar because it is obviously a good thing, however you look at it, as it is a mere package conflict fix. Mir leads to conflict, Upstart leads to conflict, systemd leads to conflict, because there are reasons to like them and to dislike them.

[Bathroom Humor]

Erm... No offense, but it'd be better if you don't bring this up, since the best way to make people stop hating Canonical is to let everybody forget the whole conflict. You can defend, but don't be on the initiative :-)

The people who are complaining the most will never forget. Kind of like how people never forget to hate on MS. Though they actually do deserve the large majority of the distaste thrown at them. The "Scroogle" campaign is really embarrassing, I mean seriously.
Point is, people will always find a way to complain, even if it's by way of convoluted cherry picking and twisting facts. Oddly enough, this article hasn't attracted that much sour attention yet, which is quite nice. But on slashdot it's really discouraging how misinformed people are on this matter. And the majority of readers seemed to agree.
The person above me is a good example. I never at any point said Canonical was the savior of the Linux desktop, but he tries to frame the hypothetical statement that way to sling an insult at me, completely missing the intent of my post.
Even when Canonical deserves some criticism (which they do at times), it's the people who blow it out of proportion and/or frame it in a way that has nothing to do with the actual story that make reasonable discussion difficult at times.
I will leave it alone to avoid a big argument over nothing. The thread was doing fine as is.

[duby229]

Oh, I think this is funny... ... We have one guy trying to make it sound like Canonical is the savior of desktop linux, and another guy saying that shouldn't be mentioned so that "haters" will forget that they actually aren't.

Canonical fanboys are just too funny. haha...

[busukxuan]

It's really weird that some people are actually getting fed up over this good news... Or it would be weird if inconsiderate Canonical hatred wasn't the norm. Canonical could end up being the saviors of desktop Linux and people would STILL find reasons to sling insults all over it.

Erm... No offense, but it'd be better if you don't bring this up, since the best way to make people stop hating Canonical is to let everybody forget the whole conflict. You can defend, but don't be on the initiative :-)