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 212713
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

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 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:

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

Janizary Member since:

Certainly it's a free choice, but it's not the pragmatic choice, pragmatism dictates the clean direct path to getting the job done right. Anarchism doesn't tie into that.

The popularity of the various Linux-based operating systems verus the various BSD-derived systems isn't in question. But saying Linux and *BSD is not the right way to look at things, instead saying Ubuntu has stomped FreeBSD or Fedora Core has clobbered OpenBSD, or even that OpenSuSE has desimated NetBSD works better.

There is no uniform entity known as Linux, that's what we've all just agreed to, and we know that the three major BSDs are there own systems. So let's deal with these based on operating systems when talking popularity - Windows 2000 is still more popular than Windows XP.

Microsoft's methodology of system development is that of a mostly uniform system, it's tools are almost exactly the same between different editions of the same operating system, what does that have to do with pragmatism or lack thereof in the way that Linux-based systems develop?

Going off on your unrelated tangent, who cares what marketshare anyone has? The popularity of a system does not reflect it's pragmatism, only it's popularity.

I have no idea why you associate popularity with system development directness - American Idol is popular, does that mean it's pragmatic? The connection makes no sense, right? That's what you're saying.

Reply Parent Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:

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

stestagg Member since:

Yeah. If a major new feature shows up in KDE, you can bet that it'll be released in Gnome sooner or later. Likewise, Gnome features will be ported to KDE. So the two projects will feed off each other and increase the development rate compared to having only one project. Of course, there's always a counter-argument.

The issue is summed up rather well at:

Reply Parent Score: 2

Janizary Member since:

No, they don't. The three major, and thus to date only ones that matter, BSD-derived operating systems all use no Desktop Environment nor Window Manager. They have ports, and ports let people install whatever random crap the user wants.

The closest thing to BSD using GNOME or KDE is PC-BSD, a distribution of FreeBSD that tries to be as Linux-like as possible, running KDE and using a shitty package system it made on it's own. Or I suppose OpenBSD's usage of FVWM if someone installs

I could care less what people do on their own, but calling the anarchodevelopment system pragmatic is silly, they're very much polar to one another. It's people's choice to develop what they will, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. Competition does drive production, but so does drive itself. If something simply has focus and goals it develops just fine, there is no need to have competition if there is an actual foucs on improvement.

If efficiency isn't desired, that's fine for you, but in the end efficiency is one of the things at the core of any programmer's goals. There are efficiency, cleanness, security, portability and a few others, throwing away one of the core precepts that are drilled into a programmer's head just doesn't work for me.

Edited 2007-02-15 00:27

Reply Parent Score: 1