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 554830
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

With upstart, if you start dbus, every service which can use dbus which is installed will start


No, that's not how upstart works. Only those services that has been configured to depend on dbus will start with dbus. It does exactly what a service management system is supposed to do: it manages services.

for instance every service can be managed directly, so its RAM and CPU use is configured as it is initiated.


Upstart can do this too. It's called ulimit and it's been around for ages.

Further, each can have their own /tmp which is one of the leading causes of security issues on a Unix system.


a) that can be done trivially without systemd
b) shared /tmp is not a leading source of security issues in Unix, insecurely created files are.

Further, systemd isn't just a simple init, they are integrating the entire core.


And that's one of the main problems with systemd. It does too much and integrates too many things, like suggesting that GNOME has systemd as a dependency. Welcome to stupid design 101.

The only good thing about systemd is that it obsoletes SysV init.

although few want to sign a CLA for the Ubuntu stuff and none of that is being adopted outside Ubuntu because of this.


Really. CLA seems to work fine for Apache, JQuery, Node etc etc. I don't see any lack of uptake for those projects.

Reply Parent Score: 3