Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Sep 2010 22:42 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu If there's one consistent piece of criticism that gets lobbed in Canonical's and Mark Shuttleworth's direction, it's that they do not contribute enough code - or anything else for that matter - to the Free software world. Mark Shuttleworth has apparently had enough, and has written a very, very lengthy blog post detailing how he feels about this criticism.
Thread beginning with comment 441010
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
dragossh
Member since:
2008-12-16

Imagine Canonical was evil and selfish. What would be their objective? They would want their product to be successful (as is the only way to survive), so they need users, and the way to do that is with a good user experience.

A company is by definition selfish.

That is fine, but Fedora goes for the home run; a public, completely open source driver that has no license issues and can be used by all the distributions.

Which, last I heard, is still worse than the binary blob and at least on my card doesn't offer 3D acceleration.

Same with many other distributions which you have obviously not tried; e.g Fedora, OpenSUSE.

Yes, because things like LVM make so much sense to the home user!

Clearly you haven't tried PackageKit, which was developed by Fedora, for all distributions and all package managers, and eventually Ubuntu would also use it.

Yet Software Center is the easiest front-end. People like big buttons and fluffy clouds.

Canonical doesn't need to fix anything, they just need to make their code distribution agnostic, and perhaps push things in a truly open source way. See how Fedora made PackageKit available to everyone for example. But they simply don't care.

Why doesn't pacman work in Ubuntu? There, I suppose Arch is a selfish and evil distribution!

Reply Parent Score: 1

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Which, last I heard, is still worse than the binary blob and at least on my card doesn't offer 3D acceleration.

Shortsighted, short term and selfish. I want a driver that works now, doesn't have rough edges, long term viability be damned.

Yes, Ubuntu does deliver the short term solution. What the Fedora project is aiming at is complete independence from the whims of NVidia. Long term we don't want to be dependent on when NVidia deigns to update their driver for the new X-server. We don't want to be dependent on NVidia to support new technology like KMS. Long term we don't want to depend on NVidia for support for our older videocards. Using Nouveau as the default solves that problem long term.

End users can support this by being patient and looking long term. Yes, now it's rough, but when we get through the rough patch, we have good and lasting support. It used to be that that was what it meant being a Linux user and part of the community. We were all along for the ride to ever better software, even if it gets hairy here and there.

The current "I want it all and I want it now!" sense of entitlement won't lead to a sustainable Freedom Software platform. Short term inclusion of closed bits and bobs doesn't solve the long term problem of being free of these shackling dependencies.

Reply Parent Score: 3

dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

Shortsighted, short term and selfish. I want a driver that works now, doesn't have rough edges, long term viability be damned.

No. He praised the open-source driver which is YET to be as good as the binary blob. In fact, I understand very well the necessity and the usefulness of having an open-source nVIDIA driver. I mentioned "on my card" because someone would otherwise come with the Universal It WorksForMe Argument.

Not that you'd understand, but most users ARE shortsighted, short term and selfish. Yes, I'm able to put up with even broken drivers if needed, but the average guy will think Linux sucks and move back to Windows cause his drivers work!

End users can support this by being patient and looking long term.

"I want the one with better gee-bees." Yes, that's gonna work so well for them.

The current "I want it all and I want it now!" sense of entitlement won't lead to a sustainable Freedom Software platform. Short term inclusion of closed bits and bobs doesn't solve the long term problem of being free of these shackling dependencies.

It doesn't, but it offers a USABLE desktop. That's what people don't get and that's why even now I have to jump through hoops to install basic playback support in Fedora. Ubuntu? It's one click away. As they say, it just works.

Edited 2010-09-15 12:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

felipec Member since:
2007-09-25

"Imagine Canonical was evil and selfish. What would be their objective? They would want their product to be successful (as is the only way to survive), so they need users, and the way to do that is with a good user experience.

A company is by definition selfish.
"
But a company that collaborates (RedHat) is less selfish than a company that doesn't (Canonical). The point here is that RedHat could be more evil by not collaborating, Canonical doesn't really have any steps up in evilness.

"That is fine, but Fedora goes for the home run; a public, completely open source driver that has no license issues and can be used by all the distributions.

Which, last I heard, is still worse than the binary blob and at least on my card doesn't offer 3D acceleration.
"
That's NVIDIA's fault, not RedHat's. Fedora is trying to help their users in a collaborative/free way, while giving the users the option to use NVIDIA by using a 3rd party repository. Ubuntu is hardly helping the situation at all. IOW Fedora is part of the solution, Ubuntu is not.

At some point the open driver would work just fine, in part thanks to Fedora, and then Ubuntu will jump the bandwagon claiming that they are giving their users the best experience... but in reality they hardly did anything.

"Same with many other distributions which you have obviously not tried; e.g Fedora, OpenSUSE.

Yes, because things like LVM make so much sense to the home user!
"
So do partitions. The user don't have to ever see them. Just say "automatic" and Fedora will pick a sensible default that would not affect your experience at all if you don't know what a partition or a volume is.

"Clearly you haven't tried PackageKit, which was developed by Fedora, for all distributions and all package managers, and eventually Ubuntu would also use it.

Yet Software Center is the easiest front-end. People like big buttons and fluffy clouds.
"
Ubuntu is going to move to PackageKit, that's a fact you can see in their notes. If they don't like the UI they can change it, or they can make "Software Center" use PackageKit's backed. You see, it was designed to fit the needs of everyone.

Ubuntu could repay the favor by improving PackageKit's UI; i.e. contributing, but I guess that would be too much to ask.

"Canonical doesn't need to fix anything, they just need to make their code distribution agnostic, and perhaps push things in a truly open source way. See how Fedora made PackageKit available to everyone for example. But they simply don't care.

Why doesn't pacman work in Ubuntu? There, I suppose Arch is a selfish and evil distribution!
"
You are punching yourself; pacman does work in Ubuntu, just like in any other distribution, I've used it in Fedora; it doesn't conflict with the system's package manager. But you chose a very bad example anyway, because by definition the package management system is the single most important thing that defines a distribution; you wouldn't want to change that unless you are creating your own distro.

Reply Parent Score: 1

dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

But a company that collaborates (RedHat) is less selfish than a company that doesn't (Canonical). The point here is that RedHat could be more evil by not collaborating, Canonical doesn't really have any steps up in evilness.

"Evil is generally accepted to be defined as the intention of causing harm or destruction while threatening or deliberately violating morality."

Did Canonical burn your computer or something? Killed your cat?

That's NVIDIA's fault, not RedHat's. Fedora is trying to help their users in a collaborative/free way, while giving the users the option to use NVIDIA by using a 3rd party repository. Ubuntu is hardly helping the situation at all. IOW Fedora is part of the solution, Ubuntu is not.

What I'm saying is, Ubuntu is providing a driver that WORKS. Users don't care about experimental, half-working drivers, trust me.

At some point the open driver would work just fine, in part thanks to Fedora, and then Ubuntu will jump the bandwagon claiming that they are giving their users the best experience... but in reality they hardly did anything.

They will be giving their users the best experience. How's that not true?

It's like saying Windows doesn't give people the best experience because Microsoft didn't work on the nVIDIA/ATI drivers.

So do partitions. The user don't have to ever see them. Just say "automatic" and Fedora will pick a sensible default that would not affect your experience at all if you don't know what a partition or a volume is.

I am tempted to try this, but I don't have a 2nd hard drive to spare. I'm farily confident Fedora's installer is a bit more cryptic than Ubuntu's.

Ubuntu is going to move to PackageKit, that's a fact you can see in their notes. If they don't like the UI they can change it, or they can make "Software Center" use PackageKit's backed. You see, it was designed to fit the needs of everyone.

Good. That means they are using the most sensible solution and not jumping on the ITLLWORKLATER projects that pop up every year or so.

Ubuntu could repay the favor by improving PackageKit's UI; i.e. contributing, but I guess that would be too much to ask.

Why aren't you trying to improve the frontends? Oh, wait, it's easier to call out Canonical.

Again, it's GPL. They can take it, modify it, and even sell it. All without being required to contribute back.

You are punching yourself; pacman does work in Ubuntu, just like in any other distribution, I've used it in Fedora; it doesn't conflict with the system's package manager.

Oh, it doesn't? Hey, let's use my distro's package manager to remo-- darn it.

Reply Parent Score: 1