Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Oct 2010 19:00 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Well, this is sure to raise a few eyebrows here and there. Today, at the Ubuntu Developer Summit, Mark Shuttleworth held his keynote speech, and in it, he announced that Ubuntu will switch to the Unity user interface come release, for both the netbook as well as the desktop, leaving the GNOME user interface behind (but keeping the GNOME platform).
Thread beginning with comment 447203
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
sorpigal
Member since:
2005-11-02

Canonical is not backing a FOSS project so much as it is building something in-house which is also visible to the outside and willing to accept patches. No one else wants or needs this, so while we all cheer for the GPL you can't really say that Ubunut is contributing to the movement. They're adding further fragmentation and not refining the common core.

There is a real and important difference between a community-driven project and a corporate-driven project. It's not enough to simply make it and release the code.

Reply Parent Score: 2

earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Agreed that there is a big difference between community and corporate sponsored code, but I dispute that the corporate path is inferior or bad. Moreover, you can't say "this project is corporate-driven" and then link it to fragmentation or irrelevance. OOo under Sun was a great example of a corporate-driven OSS project (note that I didn't write "FOSS") that the world needed and that didn't meaningfully fragment the field.

And I don't know how anyone can assert at this point that Unity is something that "no one else" wants or needs. Not only do I not know that no one wants or needs it, but thinking in such terms isn't conducive to innovation. Apple has a knack of designing products that we didn't think we'd need until they make it, for instance. At least Unity shows some character and vision.

Edited 2010-10-26 16:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

No one else wants and needs unity because no one else is stepping up to join the project. Whether Canonical can prove long-term that it was something people didn't know they wanted is debatable.

OO.o is an example that proves my point, not yours. It's a corporate-directed OSS project that is successful, yes, but only because there exists no non-corporate equivalent. KOffice is unsuitable because it is tied to KDE and the DE warse, the old "GNOME Office" effort was just a collection of independent apps and never a serious contender. Unity is trying to present itself as an alternative to the community-directed effort. When two options exist and one is broadly accepted and supported by the community while the other is narrowly accepted and supported by a single company, the latter will fail and the former will succeed. OO.o has, as of lately, fragmented into two: OO.o proper and LibreOffice, a community driven effort. Which one would you like to put money on?

Reply Parent Score: 2