Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Mar 2013 16:13 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Mark Shuttleworth: "I simply have zero interest in the crowd who wants to be different. Leet. 'Linux is supposed to be hard so it's exclusive' is just the dumbest thing that a smart person could say." He's right. Lots of interesting insights in this blog post - I may not agree with everything Ubuntu does, but at least it's doing something.
Thread beginning with comment 554782
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Laurence
by Lunitik on Fri 8th Mar 2013 22:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Laurence"
Lunitik
Member since:
2005-08-07

I'm sorry, I understood your comment to be pertaining to marketshare.

It is the job of a distribution to create something cohesive out of the many projects which pertain to a given product. What you do not understand, it seems, is that Microsoft and Apple aren't all working together within their company either. They are also working on utterly unrelated parts of the system individually with a particular goal in mind.

What Ubuntu is doing is awesome, truly. With Juju and MAAS, the diverse projects targeting the cloud become irrelevant almost, you just concentrate on your particular mission. The strategy is the same in the desktop space, they are creating a great experience for utilizing the applications available. Make no mistake, for a developer, there really is no difference between Linux distributions until it comes time to compile and package their software. Only then do they have to worry about a particular systems library versions and package management. It is why you only ever see one tar.gz on a given projects site, the Linux system is quite cohesive if you know what you want to target, it is just complicated because there are many choices. Again, though, Canonical is addressing this, trying to help developers who are confused by those choices to make good decisions.

Linux is a kernel, it has never been related to desktops really. There are other components which generally target that kernel and a particular set of libraries. Unlike in the Windows world, you won't see software overwriting those libraries though, they can contribute directly to the libraries upstream. In this way everything on the system is cohesive and well defined, but to understand the whole system is complicated. This is why distributions exist, and Ubuntu does a better job than anyone else at bring that all together and delivering it in a meaningful way.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Laurence
by zcal on Fri 8th Mar 2013 23:53 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Laurence"
zcal Member since:
2012-07-27

It is the job of a distribution to create something cohesive out of the many projects which pertain to a given product. What you do not understand, it seems, is that Microsoft and Apple aren't all working together within their company either. They are also working on utterly unrelated parts of the system individually with a particular goal in mind.


The particular goal you speak of is to contribute to a unified product that will be consumed by end users. These products are branded and marketed. It's because of branding and marketing that the concept of market share exists. Windows is a brand. Mac OS X is a brand. Ubuntu is a brand. Ubuntu also happens to be a Linux distribution, which means it draws heavily from an ecosystem in which the actors are not all employed by Canonical and thus not necessarily interested in its success.

Again, the point of my original post. The "Linux desktop" is an amalgam of parts created by a community invested in open source software. It is not a branded, unified, tangible entity, and as such should not be viewed through the lens of "market share".

This is why distributions exist, and Ubuntu does a better job than anyone else at bring that all together and delivering it in a meaningful way.


Canonical has built a brand. Now, to steer their brand in the direction they want they will go it alone on projects like Mir. That's all this is about. So Shuttleworth is miffed that some people within the community to which Ubuntu owes much of its infrastructure disagree with his views. Well, his interests lie with a brand that seeks to prove otherwise. Fine. But again, that's all in service of building up Ubuntu, not the "Linux desktop".

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Laurence
by Lunitik on Sun 10th Mar 2013 18:55 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Laurence"
Lunitik Member since:
2005-08-07

Canonical has built a brand. Now, to steer their brand in the direction they want they will go it alone on projects like Mir. That's all this is about. So Shuttleworth is miffed that some people within the community to which Ubuntu owes much of its infrastructure disagree with his views. Well, his interests lie with a brand that seeks to prove otherwise. Fine. But again, that's all in service of building up Ubuntu, not the "Linux desktop".


The problem is that as they diverge more and more, they will have to maintain more and more of the system themselves. Gradually everything that actually makes people like Ubuntu right now will no longer work on their system. Things like udev, which is why hardware works on an Ubuntu system, will probably gradually depend more and more on systemd, for instance. Services are probably going to more and more target systemd systems because that is where the enterprise distros are heading. Most everything on an Ubuntu system that actually comprises the system is going to become obsolete. Either they move to what everyone else is using or they will basically have their own system. With the systemd vs upstart thing, they have shown a tendency to not adopt what everyone has standardized on, and the rest of the community has shown a tendency to not really care about that. KDE guys are already adamantly refusing to support Mir, because it is a single distro project and they don't do that.

Question is, can Canonical find enough competent people to actually do all this? Mark seems to fancy himself the next Steve Jobs, that's fine, I think it'll be good for everyone involved if they can achieve what they want to. It means the people using Linux because its cool can gradually separate away from the people that actually care about the movement Linux has depended on. Let them compete with the commercial entities, let them fight everyone, that isn't what Linux is about.

Linux is about working together, sharing expertise, becoming better because of everyone involved. It is ironic that the company whose name means all this is acting exactly against it.

Edited 2013-03-10 18:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4