Slashdot Mirror

Seems generally more stable, I've been running the RC for a couple of days now. Not many immediately noticeable changes but lots of improved under the hood support. Beware if you have an older ATI card you might run into problems.

Anyway, the thing I'm really not sure of is the notifications system. Just about the only option with them seems to be to change their positioning via gconf-editor (and even that seems to be broken). I understand the philosophy behind them (see http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/253) but they seem to be a little too unconfigurable, even for Gnome. Their black appearance would suit the KDE default theme, but it certainly doesn't fit in well with my much lighter Clearlooks theme in Gnome and there's no way to change that. One of the things I like about Gnome is the integrated look and feel of the entire system, whereas these stand out oddly. There is no way to dismiss them, so things get irritating when I want to use the search bar in Firefox and there's a notification covering it (these things could well be click transparent but it's still irritating). There is no way to configure what gets displayed as a notification either; I don't think I need each and every Pidgin message to be displayed as a notification for reasons of both privacy and distraction. To me, the notifications system seems a little too much like an answer looking for a problem. I may well disable them soon, after giving them a fair trial. The only sane way to do that seems to be to remove the notify-osd daemon. So much for ease of use!

That all said, it's my only major gripe with the upgrade, and that system was always going to be controversial. Hopefully it grows and improves. If not, I'm not forced to run it. Overall, this seems to be a steady incremental release that smoothes over a few rough patches and should hopefully do me well for another 6 months. Ubuntu is still the only distribution that I have not had very regular problems with on the desktop.

Ubuntu, a long way ahead of other desktop distros, when they have no distinctive feature whatsoever ?

What about the shiny notifications that are designed to not notify you of anything important?

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/265

THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD! EVERYONE INSTALL UBUNTU!!!!!!!!

My comments almost three years ago on the Shuttleworth foundation also trying to reform schools, and applicable here:
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/26#comment-397

Also, a related essay I wrote:
"Why Educational Technology Has Failed Schools
http://patapata.sourceforge.net/WhyEducationalTechnologyHasFailedSchools.html
"So, there is more to the story of technology than it failing in schools.
Modern information and manufacturing technology itself is giving
compulsory schools a failing grade. Compulsory schools do not pass in the
information age. They are no longer needed. What remains is just to watch
this all play out, and hopefully guide the collapse of compulsory
schooling so that the fewest people get hurt in the process."

Gates' initiatives for small schools are probably just more of the same, to make digital slave laborers. Even the more radical reform in the news still puts the emphasis is still on making kids fit into the needs of business:
"To fix US schools, panel says, start over"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1215/p01s01-ussc.html

At least Shuttleworth's initiatives are trying to empower kids, but that group too can't get past seeing schooling as the solution, instead of realizing it is a big part of the problem disempowering the next generation.

In twenty to thirty years computers will be about another million times faster, and we'll have better 3D printers and smarter dexterous seeing robots, and most humans just won't be employable in any sense we now understand. A previous related post by me to Slashdot on computing and education and the mindset of the class of 2029:
"Ignores the big picture on exponential computing
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=279703&cid=20354965

Marshall Brain on that theme:
"Manna"
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

A bigger generalization on that theme by me:
"Post-Scarcity Princeton"
http://www.pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html

John Taylor Gatto, a New York State Teacher of the Year, in general on this:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm
"""
A lower middle class which has received secondary or even university education without being given any corresponding outlet for its trained abilities was the backbone of the twentieth century Fascist Party in Italy and the National Socialist Party in Germany. The demoniac driving force which carried Mussolini and Hitler to power was generated out of this intellectual proletariat's exasperation at finding its painful efforts at self-improvement were not sufficient
-- Arnold Toynbee, MA Study of History

Two Social Revolutions Become One

Solve this problem and school will heal itself: children know that schooling is not fair, not honest, not driven by integrity. They know they are devalued in classes and grades, that the institution is indifferent to them as individuals. The rhetoric of caring contradicts what school procedure and content say, that many children have no tolerable future and most have a sharply proscribed one. The problem is structural. School has been built to serve a society of associations: corporations, institutions, and agencies. Kids know this instinctively. How should they feel about it? How should we?

As soon as you break free of the orbit of received wisdom y

"Notifications are only for things which you can safely ignore or miss out on." Fred explains well -- do not display anything that nobody needs to see.

The best portion of this proposal is everything using Mark's API can be safely disabled completely. The bad is wasting effort on something completely useless. The worst result is splitting the interface for applications communicating with people. This interface does not allow actions, therefore any communications requiring actions must use a different interface so using this project requires multiple interfaces for communicating with people.

Programmers were (and most are still) not trained about usability. A good interface for a messaging system would have been easy if dialog boxes with standardized buttons had not become common. Windowing systems also kept the modal model from the single-thread paradigm. Multi-threading has been used for performance rather than interfacing with people.

Specifications: Only the front-end application can force message window to front. Applications can check whether a message was answered and receive the answer, preferably asynchronously, but people can switch applications freezing the current application if the response was mandatory and urgent. System may limit frequency of additions and checks by applications to prevent overloading. Every message appears in list interface and log(s). Reactivating a message moves to the top of list. List remembers first time, last time, and number of appearances. People can remove messages from list without using application-defined actions (to prevent fear that application dialog box's close action has other consequences.)

The new API is simple. Only the first string is required in each function. Answers are the text of the parameter (so changing the order has no other effect.)
Synchronous (application waits for answer, gaining focus automatically reopens message):
action = ask_wait("Question", "Action1", "Action2", "Action3");
Asynchronous (application can continue):
ask_log("Question"); - Add to list without move messaging to front, and continue.
id = ask_new("Question", "Action1", "Action2", "Action3"); - Add question, move to front, and continue.
ask_again(id); - Move question to top of list and move messaging to front.
action = ask_get(id); - Empty string if no answer.

Should be easy to create library for use with Gnome, KDE, and Win32. Simplification includes:
- Window title cannot be specified.
- One standard font without decorations. This avoids Gnome's practice of using bold for the first line so the critical question at the end is less visible.
- No images. Some systems add icons to indicate type of dialog. These types are unnecessary. People only care if they need to choose an answer.
- Text is required for actions, hopefully ending the reign of OK|Yes|No|Cancel dialogs.

Future possibilities include:
- Filter/sort list by application and whether actions exist.
- Incorporate the messaging system as a status bar in applications.

An early version of this text was posted on the original article. The comment either will not appear until moderated or failed moderation. My website contains an expanded version.

"Notifications are only for things which you can safely ignore or miss out on." Fred explains well -- do not display anything that nobody needs to see.

The best portion of this proposal is everything using Mark's API can be safely disabled completely. The bad is wasting effort on something completely useless. The worst result is splitting the interface for applications communicating with people. This interface does not allow actions, therefore any communications requiring actions must use a different interface so using this project requires multiple interfaces for communicating with people.

Programmers were (and most are still) not trained about usability. A good interface for a messaging system would have been easy if dialog boxes with standardized buttons had not become common. Windowing systems also kept the modal model from the single-thread paradigm. Multi-threading has been used for performance rather than interfacing with people.

Specifications: Only the front-end application can force message window to front. Applications can check whether a message was answered and receive the answer, preferably asynchronously, but people can switch applications freezing the current application if the response was mandatory and urgent. System may limit frequency of additions and checks by applications to prevent overloading. Every message appears in list interface and log(s). Reactivating a message moves to the top of list. List remembers first time, last time, and number of appearances. People can remove messages from list without using application-defined actions (to prevent fear that application dialog box's close action has other consequences.)

The new API is simple. Only the first string is required in each function. Answers are the text of the parameter (so changing the order has no other effect.)
Synchronous (application waits for answer, gaining focus automatically reopens message):
action = ask_wait("Question", "Action1", "Action2", "Action3");
Asynchronous (application can continue):
ask_log("Question"); - Add to list without move messaging to front, and continue.
id = ask_new("Question", "Action1", "Action2", "Action3"); - Add question, move to front, and continue.
ask_again(id); - Move question to top of list and move messaging to front.
action = ask_get(id); - Empty string if no answer.

Should be easy to create library for use with Gnome, KDE, and Win32. Simplification includes:
- Window title cannot be specified.
- One standard font without decorations. This avoids Gnome's practice of using bold for the first line so the critical question at the end is less visible.
- No images. Some systems add icons to indicate type of dialog. These types are unnecessary. People only care if they need to choose an answer.
- Text is required for actions, hopefully ending the reign of OK|Yes|No|Cancel dialogs.

Future possibilities include:
- Filter/sort list by application and whether actions exist.
- Incorporate the messaging system as a status bar in applications.

An early version of this text was posted on the original article. The comment either will not appear until moderated or failed moderation. My website contains an expanded version.

You're referring to an issue that was solved earlier by altering the User-Agent string to reflect that it was a Debian fork, and you didn't mention that the main reason for this was back-porting later Firefox security fixes to older Firefox versions. The issue at hand is that the Firefox logo has a branding license (see grandparent post) which is incompatible with Free Software licenses and thus it cannot be wholly released as Free Software. (If I recall correctly, the branding license is more clearly incompatible in small part due a policy change on these forks, amplifying the logo issue that had been largely ignored up until that point).

This issue surfaces with Debian because they, like Stallman (but unlike Shuttleworth for Ubuntu), will not make compromises in their definition of Free Software. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) are not compatible with the Firefox branding licenses, and that will not change in the future (DFSG is also not compatible with the GFDLv2, another non-code license, which causes similar issues).

Seriously. These days I'm torn between whether or not he's an asset or a liability to the free-software community.

Go back to making software. The rest of us seem to prefer taking a slightly more moderate approach (Viva Ubuntu!)

Linus comes across as being reasonably "normal," although he clearly shows a preference for actually working on the kernel over being a spokesperson.

Mark Shuttleworth would be a great pick, although he himself lists "public speaking" as one of his personal dislikes.

Only LTS releases will get point releases, but they're not really "releases" just refreshes of the ISOs, it's nothing meaningful as far as installed systems are concerned (I guess it's useful for setting milestone goals or something, but that's not technical). They take the updated packages, throw them on the CD so you don't have to download as many updates after you install.
Having an installed system that you updated completely the day the images were released* would leave you with the same system.

And while we're being thorough they're offset by three months, so January an August.

See http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/146 for more information (including fancy pictures).

* It's likely a day or two before release, whenever the images are created, yadda yadda.

Which window manager are they using for the Ubuntu version? I hope its not Gnome; I have nothing against it but Gnome is not really designed for this type of layout. I am very interested in something like the Remix WM and would love to know if it would work on the Inspiron Mini 9.

Does anyone have any details?

Actually Gnubuntu existed first (November 2005), but nothing more than an IRC channel and some artwork came of it. We started talking about gNewSense in May 2006 as a way to make Gnubuntu happen, with the first release 2 years ago today (August 25th 2006).

A quick check indicates that Gobuntu was first released July 10th 2007.

See https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2005-November/013261.html http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/130

someone with a stuffed wallet. They essentially would have no more room in their pocket to earn money from people who simply want want credentials on their verified, secure web site. Unfortunately that isn't happening soon.

Sounds like a job for Shuttleworth then!

Well, for one, DRM doesn't work. There have been plenty of discussions about that on Slashdot. You cannot give out the lock and the key together and expect it to not get cracked. For a much more in-depth explanation, you can read this: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/96

Mark brings the idea up in this post.
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/146

For the extended discussion..
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/150

Mark brings the idea up in this post.
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/146

For the extended discussion..
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/150

Here is Mark Shuttleworth's insightful response when I asked him, "Why would Red Hat cooperate with Ubuntu, especially now that Ubuntu also has its sights set on the server market. Don't they consider Ubuntu a threat?"

Who is Wieers?
  What did Shuttleworth propose?
 
Why he would propose it is sort of the point. RTFA.
 
I don't think it is a big stink. In fact it seems a rather well thought out bit of analysis.

Much has been written about Microsoft's allegation of patent infringements in Linux (by which I'm sure they mean GNU/Linux ;-)). I don't think Microsoft is the real threat, and in fact, I think Microsoft and the Linux community will actually end up fighting on the same side of this issue.

It doesn't effect anything..

Read Mark's blog he posted about this ages ago...

With regards to the CNR technology what is the big deal. Linspire rsyncs Ubuntu debs and allows people to download them and pay for some commercial packages on a website. Hardly a "deal". I'm still going to use apt-get anyway.

Apparently no laptops today currently support OpenBIOS, according to the RMS talk in an earlier topic.
He said the reason is "Trusted Computing", which is a hardware component that allows, among other things, something called Remote Attestation.

Remote Attestation basically allows software running on the system to be unchangeable by the user, and to take control of the computer away from the user. This can be done, for example, to enforce DRM.

As Mark Shuttleworth has pointed out, firmware is not the only non-free part of computers. The BIOS is important too.

Mark Shuttleworth says: We are steadily releasing pieces of Launchpad, but the whole thing still has proprietary elements. We offer services to people who make Ubuntu derivatives using it, and that revenue stream is important. You can get all your data out easily (and this will soon get even easier to automate) so you're not locked in. In time, LP will all be published under a free software license, but for now it is not.

The article is just about a short comment he made; now he made a full post about it: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/127

Well why slashdot http://www.markshuttleworth.com/ ? ;-)

I linked to Steven Rosenberg's blog because he did a great job of finding a comment buried deep in Mark Shuttleworth's blog and because he nicely summarized Shuttleworth's opinion. Rosenberg broke that story by exhuming it from lots of other content on Shuttleworth's very active blog. Without Rosenberg's blog highlighting of Shuttleworth's blog entry, we /. readers would not have noticed it. Shuttleworth posted his comment on 15 June 2007, and a full day passed without that comment being noticed on /., which is a long time for a comment by the founder of a major GNU Linux distro to go unnoticed by /.

Also, Rosenberg saved busy readers a bit of time by summarizing Shuttleworth's longer opinion. Shuttleworth clearly took the time to make sure that his comments were diplomatic and well-rounded, but the result is that his comments were not subject to the kind of quick-glance summary that many /. readers need.

So, in summary, I felt that Rosenberg provided two important journalistic services, and that he deserved to get the attention and traffic for his good work.

Aysa is critical of the decision to link to Roseberg's blog, but IMHO, Aysa's criticism is directed more toward his or her disdain for bloggers and evinces a bias toward big media. Aysa would have had no complaint if this same summary had appeared on say Newsforge. Notice that Aysa doesn't complain about the caliber of Rosenberg's summary or Rosenberg's editorial choice to discuss Shuttleworth's blog. Indeed, Aysa could not have made such complaints, because Rosenberg's summary is pithy and his choice to run a comment by news-making Shuttleworth was unimpeachable. Rosenberg's only "fault" was the fact that his work did not appear on Newsforge. IMHO, Aysa's criticism of the link to a blogger therefore lacks substance and shows a meritless disdain merely for Rosenberg's status. If journalism is good, it's good regardless of where it appears.

Here's the article... at the top of Mark Shuttleworth's personal blog: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/.

Here's a better link: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/127 This one is a top-level entry in Shuttleworth's blog in which he states his position. The one TFA references is a comment attached to some other blog entry.

Here's the official statement by Mark. This is not an official statement by Canonical or Ubuntu, but I do not think either will disagree with Marks position.

...to link direct to Shuttleworth's post on his blog?

here is the source: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/125#comme nt-112738 It is good to know Mark doesn't fold under bogus patent threats like novell/xandros/linspire did. keep up the good work Ubuntu :)

The real problem here isn't Microsoft, it's software patents. If Microsoft really was the problem, IBM might save us. But... IBM isn't going to save anyone from software patents - extorting companies with their giant patent portfolio is the *reason they have laywers*. As Mark Shuttleworth says, Microsoft may actually end up being one of the good guys on this issue in the medium to long term.

Mac is fantastic because of one guy: Steve Jobs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs

Now since a few years, Linux as its own "magic" guy: Mark Shuttleworth http://www.markshuttleworth.com/

It takes time to catchup, but Ubuntu becomes more and more viable for the Desktop. Mark digs Linux and understand what needs to be done. But it takes time to develop is vision. Be patient.

No, I'd go with Fedora. Given Mark Shuttleworth's admiration for Microsoft and the Dell/Canonical deal, I wouldn't be surprised if Ubuntu joins Suse in the MS patent blackmail.

...I'm starting to see that Mark Shuttleworth was right.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if an Ubuntu/Microsoft patent deal is forthcoming, since Dell and Microsoft have such a deal for Dell's Suse Linux servers. Since Dell will be selling desktop systems with Ubuntu, they may make that same deal.

Also, Shuttleworth appears to be a bit of a Microsoft fan. Read his confused comments here: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/118

Especially this gem:
"I have high regard for Microsoft. They produce some amazing software, and
they made software much cheaper than it ever was before they were around.
Many people at Microsoft are motivated by a similar ideal to one we have
in Ubuntu: to empower people for the digital era."

Sorry, but I think Shuttleworth is an idiot for believing that nonsense. Too bad for Ubuntu.

Over at groklaw they discuss some recent statements in Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz's blog about ms now suing. Even Mark Shuttleworth says a few words about Microsoft and patents. Jonathan doesn't say they will not sue but makes some comments about it and Mark says he doesn't think they will.

from digg.. Much has been written about Microsoft's allegation of patent infringements in Linux (by which I'm sure they mean GNU/Linux ;-) ). I don't think Microsoft is the real threat, and in fact, I think Microsoft and the Linux community will actually end up fighting on the same side of this issue. .... And I'm pretty certain that, within a few years, Microsoft themselves will be strong advocates against software patents. Why? Because Microsoft is irrevocably committed to shipping new software every year, and software patents represent landmines in their roadmap which they are going to step on, like it or not, with increasing regularity. They can't sit on the sidelines of the software game - they actually have to ship new products. And every time they do that, they risk stepping on a patent landmine. They are a perfect target - they have deep pockets, and they have no option but to negotiate a settlement, or go to court, when confronted with a patent suit... Read the rest here. http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/118

Don't make me laugh. Novell hire far, far more open source developers than Canonical, contrary to what Shuttleworth states in a recent interview with him. My favourite one there is "Google uses Ubuntu on all of their developer desktops" (emphasis mine). That is outright false, as even Shuttleworth himself has said.
Soon Ubuntu will not even need users -- it will run completely on hype.

1. We have not been forceful enough about our policy on software patents and other, similar threats to software freedom. As a result, we have joined FFII and other organisations that are fighting software patents (I am personally co-funding an EFF representative in Brussels to focus on this and other work related to software and content freedom). We will also shortly announce participation in another patent-related initiative aimed at preventing a hostile take-over of the free software space by those with entrenched software IP positions.
2. We will actively support Nouveau and other efforts to develop free software drivers that enable the requisite functionality. I am happy for folks working on these efforts to contact me directly or to follow the community channels in Ubuntu. Either way, we will provide financial and development support for those groups and will integrate their work as soon as it does the necessary hardware magic. Proprietary drivers are not the preferred solution and will be eliminated once the community delivers a free alternative.
3. We will work closely with the hardware vendors concerned, and part of that will be to continue to make the strong case in favour of free drivers.

In addition to all of this, we have restarted the effort to produce a flavour of Ubuntu that includes no proprietary drivers or firmware at all. In fact, this flavour will take an ultra-conservative approach to all forms of content on the .iso, whether that be artistic or code. More on that initiative later.

Bill Gates is software's Dr. Death. It doesn't matter what the customer wants; Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, wants more money, and will drag everyone through his neurosis.

Microsoft's business model is to do what hardware manufacturers want. Hardware manufacturers want operating systems that can't run on old computers, so customers will be forced to buy new computers. Sometimes it has seemed to me that Microsoft is not really primarily a software company, but primarily an abuse company that accomplishes abuse through software.

Windows XP was not really stable until Service Pack 2 was released. Before that, Windows XP was full of grief for administrators. Service Pack 2 contained something like 330 documented fixes, if I remember correctly, and I verified that there were fixes that were not documented. Now Microsoft wants people to go through that again??? With a Service Pack 0 release?

Someone said that Microsoft's motto is "The whole world is our beta test site." The entire reason people wanted to migrate away from Windows 98 is that it has an unstable file system, and artificial limits to system resources. Otherwise, many companies would have wanted to stay with their old systems, because employees often run a very limited set of software packages.

Managers in a company that has a virtual monopoly, like Microsoft, may think that the way to make more money is never to release a good product, so that customers will always want more.

Eventually, I think, more and more companies and universities and governments will decide they don't like expensive, stupid, forced upgrade cycles, and will migrate to a managed distribution of Linux like Ubuntu.

The problem with Linux and BSD has always been that developers don't like to document what they have developed. Sometimes user-friendly GUIs and documentation can be 80% of the work, and that work isn't done very well by people who "just want to program".

Linux distributions need a manager like Mark Shuttleworth of Ubuntu. Developers don't like to manage their own work, as Mark said he has discovered. The Linux kernel has a manager, Linus Torvalds, and the rest of Linux needs a manager, also.

I have several times offered to help document open source software, but my offer has always been refused. Apparently there is a strong attachment to doing things the old way. Apparently there is a feeling that someone who writes the documentation will get too much credit, even though I did not expect to have my name on what I wrote.

Changing to any new operating system tends to be expensive because of the re-training required. Good top management could help design methods of easing that transition by coordinating the details that tend to be forgotten when no one is really in charge.

Talk about timing...

Just the next day: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/100

Basic point... linux users are too fussy and it discourages vendors from installing it.

For every linux user who would work like you do, another 99 would bitch if dell ships a preinstalled linux box that doesn't run everything perfectly.

Seems like an as-yet unsolved problem.

There have been proposals to have a centralized mozilla bounty system at mozilla.org, but they've been dismissed as WONTFIX in anticipation of human conflict becoming distracting to those with authority over the code base.

Some, like Mark Shuttleworth, once held hope for more support for bounties from Mozilla, such as a bugzilla feature to associate bounties with bugs. That hope seems to have disappeared.

Mozilla-related Wiki attempts have also disappeared, and the other websites out there seem to lack critical mass.

However, Mozilla has started a limited bounty program for security bugs, with help from long-time bounty advocate Mark Shuttlesworth.

As far as the mechanics of moving money around, http://fundable.org/ might be an option.

other sites
----------
http://bountycounty.org/
http://www.opensourcexperts.com/bountylist.html?bo untytype=1&cat=33
http://croczilla.com/zap/bounties/

A short note from Mark Shuttleworth on this topic http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/95

I don't know where you got the idea that Ubuntu cares about software freedom. Ubuntu exists solely to tear market share from Microsoft any way it can.

The Firefox update issue is probably not a fair consideration, since it's not actually Canonical, it's a function of Debian's issues with Mozilla.

As for the point about Gnome, you're quoting someone from Novell who's fighting to avoid losing Suse developers to Ubuntu. I'll reserve judgement until I see some facts.

The link I posted above is to the blog of Josselin Mouette, one of the lead developers and maintainers of GNOME in Debian and in fact the Debian Developer responsible for getting GNOME 2.16.2 into testing. It's true that he is quoting a Suse developer, but if you scroll down to the comments you'll see that he himself asserts, "as one of the other GNOME maintainers, I can assure you this charge is true."

If Debian had no derivative distros geared towards end users, that would be a bad thing for Debian.

Debian itself is geared toward end users, just not the ones you have in mind. And honestly, why should Debian care about people who will use proprietary drivers over free ones just so they can "bring the bling"? That's not who Debian was meant for in the first place, and it's really none of our business to go around proselytizing to the masses. Debian is maintained by a community for that community and there's no reason why so much of the Debian Developers' time should be wasted trying to appease people who aren't interested in free software in the first place. I'm not saying Debian shouldn't care about making their distribution easier to maintain and install. I'm just saying that we should not give up the basic ideas and rights that the distro was founded on in the process, and we certainly shouldn't concern ourselves with the tinkerings of some company outside of Debian whose self-described "benevolent dictator for life" has admitted himself that Debian and Ubuntu have very different goals. I think it was said best by the Debian Developer, Gustavo Franco: "Debian is about us. The result of our work and feedback from our users, that are potential contributors in a much more powerful manner than alternative solutions." If Ubuntu wants to piggy-back off the labor of Debian to meet their own, very different goals then that's fine, but let's not forget what Debian is all about. This is a distribution for free software enthusiasts. The fact that there is another distribution out there that closely resembles Debian, but has entirely different goals and values does not help Debian to meet its own goals and values.

As for the point about Gnome, you're quoting someone from Novell who's fighting to avoid losing Suse developers to Ubuntu. I'll reserve judgement until I see some facts.

The link I posted above is to the blog of Josselin Mouette, one of the lead developers and maintainers of GNOME in Debian and in fact the Debian Developer responsible for getting GNOME 2.16.2 into testing. It's true that he is quoting a Suse developer, but if you scroll down to the comments you'll see that he himself asserts, "as one of the other GNOME maintainers, I can assure you this charge is true."

If Debian had no derivative distros geared towards end users, that would be a bad thing for Debian.

Debian itself is geared toward end users, just not the ones you have in mind. And honestly, why should Debian care about people who will use proprietary drivers over free ones just so they can "bring the bling"? That's not who Debian was meant for in the first place, and it's really none of our business to go around proselytizing to the masses. Debian is maintained by a community for that community and there's no reason why so much of the Debian Developers' time should be wasted trying to appease people who aren't interested in free software in the first place. I'm not saying Debian shouldn't care about making their distribution easier to maintain and install. I'm just saying that we should not give up the basic ideas and rights that the distro was founded on in the process, and we certainly shouldn't concern ourselves with the tinkerings of some company outside of Debian whose self-described "benevolent dictator for life" has admitted himself that Debian and Ubuntu have very different goals. I think it was said best by the Debian Developer, Gustavo Franco: "Debian is about us. The result of our work and feedback from our users, that are potential contributors in a much more powerful manner than alternative solutions." If Ubuntu wants to piggy-back off the labor of Debian to meet their own, very different goals then that's fine, but let's not forget what Debian is all about. This is a distribution for free software enthusiasts. The fact that there is another distribution out there that closely resembles Debian, but has entirely different goals and values does not help Debian to meet its own goals and values.

"edit": I apologize for bad bad html editing and wrong link

just a few questions:

- Why don't you integrate Noia theme as default, since it is the most popular theme according to addons.mozilla.org - and lets face it your theme kinda sucks being spartan and all.. look at what Mark Shuttleworth wrote recently, and you know he is right

- How about investigating further into famous memory leak? Version 1.5.0.7 was far worse than 1.5.0.4 , 2.0 is alot better than 2.0, but it still hangs now and then - maybe just concentrate on one fully stable release without new features? I know it's hard being open source and all.. but ;)

- Will there be a lightweight version of Firefox for older computers and/or small devices? - How was the cake? heh

just a few questions: - Why don't you integrate Noia theme as default, since it is the most popular theme according to addons.mozilla.org - and lets face it your theme kinda sucks being spartan and all.. look at what Mark Shuttleworth wrote recently, and you know he is right - How about investigating further into famous memory leak? Version 1.5.0.7 was far worse than 1.5.0.4 , 2.0 is alot better than 2.0, but it still hangs now and then - maybe just concentrate on one fully stable release without new features? I know it's hard being open source and all.. but ;) - Will there be a lightweight version of Firefox for older computers and/or small devices? - How was the cake? heh

They could simply have moved it to non-free

No they couldn't. The objective of the Debian Project is to create the universal free operating system. The existance of the non-free branch is a minor evil, and there have been discussions not too long ago to remove it.

What do I care, I use Ubuntu. Debian is becoming the new XFree86.

You sir are an ignorant. Read the words of Mark Shuttleworth when he says that I'm of the opinion that Ubuntu could not exist without Debian . Debian is a much bigger and important project than you think.

I'm appalled that people detests someone or something for standing up for their rights and their freedom, I don't understand why.

Well, I can't say that I knew of him, big name or not, so for those of you who were similarly ignorant, here is a link to his biography.

Do a Google on "Cutter" and "Orwell school" - they've been smart because for some apps you need Windows - all the rest is done via Terminal Servers (note to OpenOffice: why is your memory footprint so much larger than StarOffice?).

The Ubuntu lot have a link into the SchoolTool efforts of Mark Shuttleworth, and anyone who's followed the FLOSS in Government trails will know about the fantastic work that has taken place in the Extramadura region in Spain. Link to all the presentations.

There is far, far more happening out there than the UK Government seems to know - I wonder when they finally try and spend some money efficiently and emulate what the Spanish did. Could be a new concept: actual *efficient* use of tax money...