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 554825
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Lunitik
Member since:
2005-08-07

No, not really. It took a really long time before they enabled Compiz effects by default. When finally enabled the settings was rather restrained (No wobbly windows, cube desktop switching and other nonsense).


Unity is a Compiz plugin, everything you see on the screen related to Unity is rendered by Compiz. Being a plugin, it has the same status as wobbly windows. This is changing, Mir will replace Compiz and use in-kernel functionality - that is great, but if they start trying to dictate driver specific things for Mir, they suck.

Funny, that's exactly why I use Ubuntu. It has usability out of the gates and I don't have to spend countless hours tweaking settings.


Who do you think has provided the mechanisms Ubuntu use to create that usability? They have done absolutely nothing still outside their particular investments. What they are doing is great, they have concentrated on what a distro is supposed to do: present the software in a seamless way. Do not think for a second that what the software was written by Canonical though, they are solely in the presentation arena. Be it Juju for enabling all the server goodness, or Unity/Mir on the desktop, absolutely nothing they're using to make these worthwhile is from them. Nothing you actually run from Unity, none of your hardware, nothing is there because of Ubuntu, it is only the pretty widgets around your actual tast.

Sure, I have done all that stuff (afterstep, awesomewm, black|open|flux|box, etc etc) and it was a learning experience but now I just want things to work and actually get on with doing interesting things.


I don't think this is true, what interesting things are you doing on your Unity desktop that you couldn't do elsewhere?

Unity is the best thing that happened to Ubuntu in terms of end-user usability.


Again, I don't think this is true. They have produced a beautiful system, but nothing you will actually use on a day to day basis is being done by them. Are you sure that it is actually contributing to usability? I spend half my time trying to remember where it put things, but Unity is certainly pretty and gives me the tools I am familiar with. We can begin to talk about Canonical usability when some of the Touch apps come out, but for now they aren't responsible for anything you actually use, they are only responsible for throwing that on screen.

You know, I keep hearing this but I never see it backed by any facts.


Have you actually seen genuine statistics to show Linux has increased exponentially because of Ubuntu? I have seen statics earlier today that show Linux marketshare has actually grown at a slower pace since Ubuntu came about compared to the years leading to their inauguration. What really seems to have happened is less users have gone to the other projects, it means that other projects have not gained as many technical people, or even lost many if many more average users are coming aboard.

For me, it is a shame Ubuntu is marketed as the best Linux distro for newcomers, as much as what they're doing impresses me, it has never been the best put together distro around - simple fact of the matter is Fedora will always win there because those developers actually write the software being integrated into the system. It is possible that will change now that Ubuntu is writing much of the stack themselves, but I think most of it will prove to be a wasted effort.

As Ubuntu move further and further away from the community, the rest of the community seems to be coming together. Projects like systemd and ensuring the core Linux system is the same for all distros, for instance. Maybe Canonical is bring ubuntu to Linux, just not in the way he intended. I would ask whether he thinks it is money well spent and a life worth living if he ends up being the cause of an even closer nit Open Source community after he's gone?

I think it would, so for me, it is really win win for him.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Unity is a Compiz plugin, everything you see on the screen related to Unity is rendered by Compiz.


Obviously I'm talking about before Unity.

Are you sure that it is actually contributing to usability?


Yes.

I don't think this is true, what interesting things are you doing on your Unity desktop that you couldn't do elsewhere?


I didn't say I can't do them anywhere else but there's less fscking about with things before I can get started on them with Ubuntu.
To put it simply, Ubuntu & Unity works well with my workflow, better than any other distro and that is really all that's important.

Again, I don't think this is true. They have produced a beautiful system, but nothing you will actually use on a day to day basis is being done by them


Except...Unity itself. And Upstart. And the software center.
Well, precious little I would use on any other distro is done by the distro itself anyway so I don't really see your point.


They have done absolutely nothing still outside their particular investments.


You mean just like every other commercial Linux company like Suse and RH?

Have you actually seen genuine statistics to show Linux has increased exponentially because of Ubuntu?


Uh no? so? I wasn't talking about Linux users, I was talking about the lack of support for the assertion that Ubuntu is losing users.

Projects like systemd


Talk about an NIH project. RH could easily have used Upstart or runit or any of the other pre-existing improved service management systems but no,they have to create their own (inferior) one.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Lunitik Member since:
2005-08-07

Talk about an NIH project. RH could easily have used Upstart or runit or any of the other pre-existing improved service management systems but no,they have to create their own (inferior) one.


systemd exists because upstart is fundamentally broken.

With upstart, if you start dbus, every service which can use dbus which is installed will start. This is not at all useful or intelligent. There are other problems systemd solves too, for instance every service can be managed directly, so its RAM and CPU use is configured as it is initiated. Further, each can have their own /tmp which is one of the leading causes of security issues on a Unix system.

Further, systemd isn't just a simple init, they are integrating the entire core. This means that Ubuntu will have to rewrite things like udev themselves or get on board with systemd eventually. Do you think Ubuntu has the man power or knowledge to manage all that stuff which has contributed to their usability? If they don't adopt systemd we will see soon enough.

If upstart had been done correctly, systemd wouldn't exist, but the simple fact is upstart is awful. There is no possibility of fixing it because its basic design is what is wrong. In the same way, Mir has been implemented because Canonical think something is wrong fundamentally with Wayland. Again, if Wayland had fulfilled what Canonical wanted, perhaps Mir wouldn't exist, but it doesn't apparently.

I don't think either of these have reasons beyond technical for existing, although few want to sign a CLA for the Ubuntu stuff and none of that is being adopted outside Ubuntu because of this. Mir will again be an Ubuntu-only program.

Edited 2013-03-09 23:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2