Mark Shuttleworth Complains About the 'Open Source Tea Party'

slack_justyb writes "In a blog post, Mark Shuttleworth sends his congrats to the Ubuntu developers for the recent release of 13.10 and talks about 14.04's codename (Trusty Tahr). He also takes aim at what he calls 'The Open Source Tea Party.' He writes, 'Mir is really important work. When lots of competitors attack a project on purely political grounds, you have to wonder what their agenda is. At least we know now who belongs to the Open Source Tea Party ;)' He cites all the complaints about Mir and even calls out Lennart Poettering's systemd, who is the past has pointed out Canonical's tendency to favor projects they control. Shuttleworth continues, 'And to put all the hue and cry into context: Mir is relevant for approximately 1% of all developers, just those who think about shell development. Every app developer will consume Mir through their toolkit. By contrast, those same outraged individuals have NIH’d just about every important piece of the stack they can get their hands on most notably SystemD, which is hugely invasive and hardly justified. What closely to see how competitors to Canonical torture the English language in their efforts to justify how those toolkits should support Windows but not Mir. But we'll get it done, and it will be amazing.' However, not all has earned Mark's scorn. He even goes so far to show some love for Linux Mint: 'So yes, I am very proud to be, as the Register puts it, the Ubuntu Daddy. My affection for this community in its broadest sense – from Mint to our cloud developer audience, and all the teams at Canonical and in each of our derivatives, is very tangible today.'"

Comments

Of course...

[stephenmac7]

You're referring to the fact that both groups like to stick to their values? I may not agree with one of them but they both have a very good record of not switching sides in the middle of a debate.

Re:Of course...

[Lord Kano]

People with flexible ethics are often inconvenienced by those with principles that they don't compromise.

LK

Re: Of course...

[ShanghaiBill]

I think we'd (the Linux community) be a lot farther ahead if they got together and implemented a single solution that solved all the known requirements.

Except that people don't agree on what the requirements are. Your requirements are not the same as mine. Even people that share requirements may not agree on what is the best solution. Your proposal will likely lead to this.

Re:Of course...

[Daemonik]

People with uncompromisable principles are often an inconvenience to everyone.

Re:Of course...

[Oligonicella]

Not nearly as much as those who change with the breeze.

Re:Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

Without people with uncompromisable principles it's the law of the jungle, and most of us will soon be reduced to serfdom again where might and money makes right.

Shut up and stop trying to sound clever without actually being it. As the last few years clearly have shown, we desperately need more inconvenient people.

Re: Of course...

[mcgrew]

I think we'd (the Linux community) be a lot farther ahead if they got together and implemented a single solution that solved all the known requirements.

A single solution? In Linux?? You're as crazy as whoever modded you "offtopic". Mods, read the FAQ. He isn't offtopic. I disagree with him, too, but that's not a reason to downmod someone.

Nerdfest, choice is one of the best things about open source. You're wrong, Shuttleworth is wrong, and those opposed to him probably are, too.

If you want a single solution, get an Apple or a Windows machine. Leave my choice alone, I LIKE choice.

Re: Of course...

[chmod a x mojo]

Except that people don't agree on what the requirements are. Your requirements are not the same as mine. Even people that share requirements may not agree on what is the best solution. Your proposal will likely lead to this [xkcd.com].

Not really. If we standardized everything ( or at least as much as humanly possible) similar to LSB it would make support of specialized distros much easier. Then it would all come down to who uses what standard modular configurations and / or provides the best support.

As an added bonus devs could not only write once but only have to worry about what particular package extension the program is packed in. If you know for a fact that lib X is going to be named exactly X and is in directory C you can just put out RPMs / DEBs that will install on any system using those types of packages.... as it is now, Ubuntu names things slightly differently than Debian / Mint / Other derivatives and you have to tweak the packages to install on each system. It would save a LOT of time if distro maintainers didn't have to customize the installs of thousands of different packages.

Re: Of course...

[hairyfeet]

No it isn't, not really. Right now FOSS is suffering from three MAJOR problems, which seriously hamper progress. If these problems were to be soled things would be a LOT farther along.

1.- The "Taco Bell" problem. This is where limited resources are squandered on the illusion of choice and ego stroking and its a serious issue. How many distros on distrowatch fit this description? "Its (insert Ubuntu/Debian) with (insert KDE/Gnome or derivative) along with (insert LO/FF/Gimp/Chromium) and just enough changes to make things incompatible"? Probably a good 90% at least. If this ego stroking illusion of choice were removed and that effort instead put to use fixing issues with one of the big three? It would go a LONG way to fixing the second problem.

2.- The "busted shitter" problem. You ask someone to paint you a picture or write you a song for free? You'll have plenty to choose from,many of which might even be good. Ask them to fix your stinking shitter for free? Better get used to pissing in the sink. All the "easy and fun work" in Linux is pretty much done,while all the nasty work, regression testing, documentation (how many place holder help files are in your average distro?) bug fixing, drier testing, application compatibility testing, all the nasty work that really adds polish to an OS and make it shine? Too much of it simply isn't getting done. For proof go look at any distro's forums after a major release and how many "update broke my driers" posts you see. More importantly look at how many of these are involving the "bog standard" hardware, the Realtek and Via sound, Realtek and SiS networking, the major wireless chips, things that should frankly NEVER be allowed to break because of the number of people using those chips...yet they are crapped on constantly. It doesn't matter how well your OS looks, the second it starts crapping on bog standard hardware it looks Mickey Mouse.

3.- The "FOSSie faction" which is frankly what TFA is talking about. Right now there is a war going on in the FOSS camp, on the one hand you hae the pragmatists that want Linux to be able to compete and hold its head up high when compared to OSX and Windows, then you have the "FOSSies" which I use that term because like Moonies its ALL about the dogma, who frankly don't care if Linux is a broken POS as long as its "purity of essence" with regards to GPL remains 100% intact. Try to bring up the lack of a hardware ABI and you'll find out soon enough its not a technical issue, not a design issue, its a RELIGIOUS issue. You'll quickly hear things like "it would allow companies to put out non GPL drivers" (Newsflash, they already do and ya know what? They are often the ONLY drivers that work worth a shit, see Nvidia) and "spirit of the GPL" and other such nonsense. At the end of the day you can have a useless "GPL pure" distro, see GNUsence, or you can compromise and actually make something work.

At the end of the day his calling them the TEA party is an apt description, as like the frankly ever more militant RMS there is NO talking to them, NO compromise, its their way or the highway PERIOD. This frankly is trashing Linux as Joe and Sally Average don't give a shit about your "GPL Spirit" all they know is their wireless was trashed and video wonked on the last update. Its sad really, to have so much good work, killer DEs, better than Windows now honestly, plenty of killer software, but the whole driver and subsystem situation really isn't any better than a decade ago and sadly its not the code, as Shuttleworth is finding out its the politics.

Re: Of course...

[RMingin]

While I agree that "FOSSies" can be detrimental to some proposed feature additions, I disagree with your general sentiment that they are detrimental to all progress.

If you take the opposite point, that anything should be added if it adds to the user experience, you'll end with a distro that is Windows. Fully binary, almost impossible to support or troubleshoot, but it has SOO MANY shiny things, also binary-only.

The FOSSies may be extreme, but they built and maintained the sandbox up from nothing. While you think you have grand plans for that sandbox, you MUST respect those who set the original rules, or you will not be welcomed in their sandbox.

For a real world example, I run Debian on my laptop. In it's purest post-install form, it is lacking quite a few things, a very few I consider essentials (needs binary blobs to make the Intel WLAN go), and some others that I very much like but could live without (Chrome with all the Google services instead of Chromium). I even installed a few things that would make the Debian purists cry (Steam, which is binary-only, and on my desktop, the binary-only Nvidia driver).

What's the point? With a few minor tweaks, I can add any binary-only shinies that I'd like. Debian doesn't stop me. It just doesn't offer them out of the box, which seems to be your preference. The difference between us? I accept a little adjustment and tinkering to make everything Just So, and acknowledge the POV and desires of the DFSG or FOSS purists, even where I disagree or don't feel as strongly, while you mock and deride them and seem to expect the distros to package things YOUR WAY and support YOUR vision.

If you don't understand why the GPL is important, you're still free to use and abuse Linux. Just don't expect anyone who DOES understand it's importance to care about your POV.

Re: Of course...

[jasno]

I'm not trying to be too snarky, but do you work on open source projects?

Whenever I hear someone talk about what the FOSS community should or needs to do, I first ask myself that question. This 'FOSS community' is not some monolithic entity which acts in some coordinated way to make you or anyone else happy. The 'FOSS community' is a collection of folks ranging from developers donating their time and efforts to paid devs hired by companies that derive benefit from FOSS software. Sure, that s/w engineer with too much time on his hands could probably advance the 'FOSS cause' by shuttering his unique distro and instead running regression tests of recent packages against modern hardware, but what makes you think you or anyone else can place those moral obligations on him? Did you ever think that many folks in the 'FOSS community' are having fun and enjoying their hobby?

What you call 'an illusion of choice' is *actually* choice. You can choose not to use those developers efforts and instead donate your time to a project you deem worthy.

Have a problem with the "busted shitter" problem? Are you offering to spend your time and energy on a thankless project with little personal rewards? Why not? This is one of the problems for which distributions were created in the first place. Companies charge money for their software so they can pay people to do these thankless, mind-numbing tasks. Support one of them, or figure out a new way(bug bounties maybe?) to motivate people to work on the broken shitter, or, you know, stop putting moral obligations on the 'FOSS community'.

I'm sorry - I know this is coming off as rude. You sound, to my ears, like an idealistic kid who points his fingers at the world but doesn't actually pitch in. Try to understand what the 'Foss community' is, and how it got to be what it is.

The 'Foss community' is many things, but it is not slave labor. It is not here to provide you with no-cost software that performs as you wish.

Yikes

[cookYourDog]

When you can turn a grass roots political party into a pejorative, you have succeeded. Well done American media and the powers that be.

I never thought that desire for fiscal responsibility, constitutional rule, and limited concentration of power would be masked over with such a contrived caricature. Then again, Americans who reveal widespread domestic spying by the government are called 'leakers' and 'traitors'. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Re:Yikes

[Microlith]

Yeah, intelligence doesn't mean sane. The Tea Party's problem is that they're crazy.

Re:Yikes

[evilviper]

Limited government DISEMPOWERS corporations. It removes barriers to bring products into the market place which enables smaller cottage players into the game.

That's utter nonsense that has been extensively and repeatedly disproven. There is no government involvement that causes "economies of scale", which naturally favors big, entrenched players. Government involvement PREVENTS collusion that would lock-out smaller players. And we have ample historical references for exactly what you're proposing, and it led to giant monopolies, robber barons and the great depression.

None of the mega banks would have survived the financial crisis without the BIG GOVERNMENT BAILOUTS;

Several big banks were well capitalized and did not need the government bail-out, UNTIL it came time to acquire some of the failing players, in which case the fed helped to cover some of the massive losses they inherited.

Which industries were most abusive: rail, mining, oil would be likely candidates and hmm which industries did the Government have the biggest roles in....

Standard Oil developed WITHOUT government involvement, and it was the Supreme Court ruling that broke it up. They're a good example of what a large company will do to squash all competitors, if there are no government regulations around to stop them. You should seriously read up on it, because this one company alone stands as stark proof that everything you're saying is patently false, and directly contrary to all reality.

Re:$$ for software

[houstonbofh]

I'm SO happy that I pay for software. I don't have to deal with all of this open source drama bullshit, and have to worry about when somebody's temper tantrum decides to end or radically change some software that I rely on for my business. My eyes glazed over halfway through the story summary, and I really don't care.

I agree with you in concept, but how does Windows 8 fit in with that world view?

Re:Love the smell of authoritAyrianism in the morn

[Connie_Lingus]

hey...it's always good politics to strike while iron is still hot.

the media has force-fed the "Tea Party Is The Whole Problem" narrative into gullible mouths for a few weeks now...why waste all that free brain-washing on just the federal budget?

expect a few more metaphorical comparisons before things cool down...i'm sure they are coming

Re:Wait, what?

[visualight]

Wow. What we've had (and loved) for decades is a clusterfuck. How enlightening. Don't complain about dependencies -why the hell would you want to choose your own system logger or cron daemon. Idiocy!

Also, no one reinvent anything ever okay? Unless your name is Lennart and you want to replace all that modularity and flexibility with one big thing.

Hey, lets have a registry while we're at it okay? /sarcasm

Language like yours typifies pretty much every pro systemd statement you can find.

Re:B-O-O H-O-O.

[KiloByte]

Actually, systemd's kind of socket activaction has one use: if you run a large server bank of small customers' virtual machines whose daemons stay off a vast majority of the time. For any other use, it's useless or even actively harmful: you won't know the daemon fails to run until you actually need it.

Another part of systemd is that it cripples cgroups for any other users, forcing them to beg systemd for any action. Again, this matches Red Hat's server farm's needs, but not those of most of us.

Re:We have. It's called the X Window System.

[0123456]

remote using X requires a bit of thought to setup

Adding -X to the ssh command is really freaking hard.