Linked by John Mills on Tue 13th Feb 2007 21:49 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu "The Ubuntu Technical Board has made two technical decisions of which we would like to inform the Ubuntu community. Both of these decisions concern the upcoming 7.04 release of Ubuntu, scheduled for mid-April." Ubuntu 7.04 will not activate binary video drivers by default, essentially meaning nothing will change from the previous releases. The second change is a major blow to the PowerPC architecture and thus owners of Apple PPC hardware: "The PowerPC edition of Ubuntu will be reclassified as unofficial. The PowerPC software itself and supporting infrastructure will continue to be available, and supported by a community team." Translation: Ubuntu PPC can shake hands with the dodo.
Thread beginning with comment 212689
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

Yes. Long ago I bought into the idea that it would be better if we focused all our efforts upon one desktop, etc.

Eventually, I realized that it wasn't ever going to happen. Later on, I realized that it was not even desirable.

Look at one of the few pieces of the stack that *has* been effectively single-sourced in the past: XFree86.

Remember what happened to us there? How many years were wasted in effective stagnation thanks to David Dawes strangle-hold upon the project (as the rest of us cowered in fear at the project's monolithic complexity?)

We still haven't recovered.

Sometimes things *do* get out of hand and we end up with *too many* competing projects in a specific area.

But we should always have at least two realistic and popular alternatives as checks and balances to each other.

It may not be "optimal". But, pragmatically speaking, it is best.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Janizary Member since:
2006-03-12

I disagree, I find the BSD idea of, "one problem, one tool, one way to solve it," is better than, "one problem, a dozen tools and as many ways to solve it." It wastes a great deal of time developing all the varied solutions when just having one works fine.

XFree86 was mismanaged until soneone finally said enough, oddly enough, OpenBSD was one of the first to say it - forking XFee86 until X.org was announced. There need not be two projects for X, or any other single task, it just needs to be run with a very clear guideline of what it's goals are and how to get there. Dawes never really had that, he had the glory of being in charge of a vital project.

Having the GTK/qt nonsense is bad enough, there should be a singular toolkit, but the number of Desktop Environments is too high, and it's even worse with Window Managers. There are too many projects all doing the same thing differently, most are bloated, slow and do not work on hardware without 256 MB, or at least 128 MB, of RAM these days.

There should be one project doing it's job well and people keeping an eye on it to make sure it continues to, X's fork is a good example, the fork should have happened earlier, but when the last straw snapped, it was done and everyone left XFree86 behind.

People use the term pragmatic too much, it's not a part of pragmatism to be wasteful, that's beurocracy. Pragmatism is about approaching things logically, in a straight-forward, matter-of-fact, direct means. No bouncing around with multiple options, but taking the right path with things going properly. Dropping minor needs for greater goals, taking the bull by the horns and leading it. It is about getting things done right, rather than just getting things done.

Reply Parent Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I would point out that "*BSD and the BSD way" vs "Linux and the Linux way" is, in itself, a free choice.

While acknowledging that there are many more factors involved than the topic we are discussing, I will point out that Linux has solidly trounced *BSD for popularity.

I suspect that someone might point out that, by that standard, Microsoft has the best methodology of all, so I will address that now.

Linux and *BSD started out from very similar positions. If anything, Linux came from behind. As BSD fans are eager to point out, BSD has been around longer. And from a technical standpoint, *BSD was still ahead at the time that its legal troubles ended.

Neither had the kind of marketing muscle that has always insured Windows' success in the marketplace.

Maybe a lot of other factors are involved. But Linux can't be doing things too terribly unpragmaticly and still enjoy the continued lead that it has over *BSD.

But remember that in my philosophy "*BSD and the BSD way" is just another choice. And one that is no doubt a good fit for many.

I can understand your position because I used to hold it. But not anymore.

Reply Parent Score: 3

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I disagree, I find the BSD idea of, "one problem, one tool, one way to solve it," is better than, "one problem, a dozen tools and as many ways to solve it." [...] Having the GTK/qt nonsense is bad enough, there should be a singular toolkit, but the number of Desktop Environments is too high, and it's even worse with Window Managers.

I'm sorry, but as far as I know the BSDs use both Gnome and KDE as well.

As for having a single toolkit, no major OSes does: not Linux, not Windows, not OS X, not the BSDs.

Efficiency is *not* always desirable. Yes, there is less waste, but it is also less creative. For things to evolve, it doesn't hurt to have a bit of chaos.

The problem is that you *can't* prevent people from making their own (sometimes redundant) projects, and sometimes the competition actually produces *better* results. So instead of criticizing something that *won't* change, I think it's more constructive to see the good sides of it...

Reply Parent Score: 2