Slashdot Mirror


Canonical's Troubles With the Free Software Community

puddingebola (2036796) writes "Bruce Byfield looks back at the soured relationships between Canonical and the free software community. Partly analysis, partly a review of past conflicts, the writer touches on Mir and Wayland, and what he sees as Canonical's attempts to take over projects. From the article, 'However, despite these other concerns, probably the most important single reason for the reservations about Ubuntu is its frequent attempts to assume the leadership of free software — a position that no one has ever filled, and that no one particularly wants to see filled. In its first few years, Ubuntu's influence was mostly by example. However, by 2008, Shuttleworth was promoting the idea that major projects should coordinate their release schedules. That idea was received without enthusiasm. However, it is worth noting that some of those who opposed it, like Aaron Seigo, have re-emerged as critics of Mir — another indication that personal differences are as important as the issues under discussion.'"

96 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The second any one party becomes big enough, or popular enough, to start making meaningful changes in the way Linux is implemented in their distributions, the knives come out.

    1. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not that being Apple has done that much good for their computing platform. They are still the same marginal also-ran that they have been since before Linux ever started.

      With $160 billion in the bank. And growing about $1B/week.

      I think they're ok with you calling them an also-ran.

    2. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative

      One party "in charge" just makes Linux an easier target.

      That, and the collective mentality of open source is not unlike a bunch of cats which have no desire to be herded by anybody who claims to be in charge.

      People work on projects they like, for their own reasons. Not to make something which benefits Canonical.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where did you pull that shit up from? I think red hat is a huge linux company, and i don't see any knives against them. Also IBM, where are the knives? The only knives against canonical is because their own fucking up and acting like they don't need to care and not contributing, and it's not the kind of knife you are thinking of.

    4. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have used it on the desktop for 15+ years, it works like a charm for my uses. then everyone else can fight over which distro is "best" or that it is not ready to for the desktop. i will just go on using it on my desktop.

    5. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      linux has already had its "Year" its called android.

    6. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by chris.alex.thomas · · Score: 1, Interesting

      which is fine when you're a cat, but when you're a group of supposed computer experts who think the world should be a better place and want to improve upon the old, it's not fine, it's a complete waste of energy and the top #1 reason why linux only makes steps forward when somebody steps forward to take that charge, e.g. Linus, Google (with android), Nvidia, ATI, the wayland team

      can you remember how bad the linux desktop was before ubuntu? it was atrocious....what about before x.org?

      the list is probably endless if you ask somebody for other examples, but I think I've made my point

    7. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by Mr_Silver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not that being Apple has done that much good for their computing platform. They are still the same marginal also-ran that they have been since before Linux ever started.

      Last year, the Mac took 45% of all profits in the PC market and earnt an average 19% operating margin on its Mac sales.

      In comparison, it was 4% for Dell and less than that for HP, Lenovo, and Acer.

      Pretty good for a "marginal also-ran" if you ask me.

      source

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    8. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet more people use apple for desktop computing than all linux combined. Stop with the hater bullshit. Linux has a long way to go for even OSX level of adoption on the desktop. I LOVE linux, but I cant use it because 90% of the apps I need are not on it nor have any real viable replacements.

      Example: video editing suites. NOTHING useable on linux compared to Final Cut X, AVID, or Sony Vegas. NOTHING on linux even close to After Effects.
      Nothing in linux even close to Lightroom.

      I want them to exist, but they dont.

      Hell even for business, NOTHING on linux even close to a real business accounting package. etc...

      every year I try to use linux in one way or another, and every year I have to go back to Windows or OSX because it just is not there yet.

      I WANT to use linux, sadly all the linux people are busy screwing around with bullshit like Desktop UI changes and doing nothing to make the platform useable for the masses.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    9. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by u38cg · · Score: 2

      Being a marginal also-ran with a cash pile of $50bn doesn't seem so bad to me.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    10. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by cjjjer · · Score: 1

      Mobile yes, Desktop not even close...

    11. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Interesting

      and the top #1 reason why linux only makes steps forward when somebody steps forward to take that charge, e.g. Linus

      Are you forgetting that Linus created Linux? He didn't step forward to take charge. You can't even include him in that list.

      can you remember how bad the linux desktop was before ubuntu? it was atrocious....what about before x.org?

      When I started using Linux (0.99a Kernel, Slackware on a million floppy disks), the X interface (and OS) was several years ahead of anything Microsoft produced. And I still consider fvwm to be one of my favorite desktop environments of all time, because it was lean, and worked quite well.

      I finished university using that machine, and having learned UNIX and C on it, it got me my first job.

      You know what I think are terrible desktops? The new stuff which looks like a dumbed down Windows from 10 years ago.

      the list is probably endless if you ask somebody for other examples, but I think I've made my point

      Well, you've made a point. I don't find it nearly as compelling as you do.

      Is open source fragmented and beset with infighting? Sure it is. Has it created really cool stuff despite that? Yup. Has it needed someone to be in charge of it (especially when that someone is a for-profit entity)? Nope. Is this likely to change? Doubtful.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    12. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by amiga3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not about money! It's about Freedom.

    13. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I've noticed a number of Mac computers running Windows 7 lately. It's kind of disturbing.....like seeing a Chevy engine in a Ford Mustang. Just wrong.

    14. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Linux kernel was nothing special. Seriously. There were many such hobby projects at the time, and it wasn't a particularly great one. The success of Linux was the success of Linus as "the guy in charge" of an open source project. It grew and flourished because of leadership, not (early) technological advantage.

      The open source community certainly needs more such strong leaders. What it doesn't need is CEO-style wankers. Any sort of "business leader" needs to find a new space. What's lacking are engineering leaders, who have a strong and consistent vision of what say, the desktop, should be that resonates with contributors, and who has the political savvy to lead. You can't boss around an open source project based on any granted authority, but you can lead and inspire people to follow. That means you have to appeal to the people who'd likely do the work, not follow some business plan to grow the customer base.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is the beauty of Linux. It'll never be mainstream and I'm okay with that.

    16. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by AxeTheMax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      can you remember how bad the linux desktop was before ubuntu? it was atrocious....what about before x.org?

      I'm afraid some of us think the ubuntu desktop was and is atrocious.

    17. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by dk20 · · Score: 1

      So you are saying by your comparison apple's products are overpriced? Apple, HP, Dell, Acer and Lenovo all make their stuff in China. Most of it from common producers but some have 4% margins and some have 19% margins?

    18. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by Kjella · · Score: 2

      The Linux kernel was nothing special. Seriously. There were many such hobby projects at the time, and it wasn't a particularly great one. The success of Linux was the success of Linus as "the guy in charge" of an open source project. It grew and flourished because of leadership, not (early) technological advantage.

      I hear you say it but my impression is that Linus personally wrote a lot of the critical code in early Linux. To use a car analogy, it's a whole lot easier to get people to work on fenders and windshield wipers if you know the engine is developed by someone with real drive so you won't end up with all the accessories (GNU utils) with no engine (HURD). It's easy to sit at the top and say this is the direction we're going and by we I mean you because by myself it's not moving at all, compared to actually taking charge and inviting others to tag along. True it doesn't scale as eventually the project needs more and more management, but Linux would never have gotten off the ground if Linus was just a good technical manager.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    19. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by lgw · · Score: 1

      Yes: part of being an engineering leader is building credibility with the engineers. No one can force them to listen to you (this is true for closed-source jobs as well), but demonstrate that you know what you're doing and they will. The code Linus wrote established his creds, gave coders a reason to follow him early on. Later of course (for most of the life of Linux thus far) it was his demonstrated skill at running the project.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    20. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by Rufty · · Score: 1

      My old macbook runs Ubuntu. Now where can I get a laptop with linux pre-installed to make a hackintosh?

      --
      Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
    21. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by Burz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The apps don't materialize because serious app developers (instead of the system tinkerers in FOSS who like to imagine themselves as good apps developers) with passion and committment to their ideas try out "Linux" and experience the following:

      1. Scant control of hardware features (even getting the screen to turn off can be a challenge) and the controls that exist suck, because the proper level of vertical integration isn't there.

      2. Myriad desktop environments and administration applets that make the thought of guiding users through tech support a nightmare. This is the most obvious reason why "Linux" is not a desktop platform, because most non-techie users of said distros wouldn't even be able to recognize most other distros (or the same distro with a different DE).

      3. Myriad combinations of support libraries; even the common ones are bundled together with versions of each other that create a unique and unsupportable platform 'landscape' for each distro.

      4. Distro culture itself: 'Thou art a creepy skank if you sell apps and/or offer direct downloads of a product.' Invoking Yum and Apt are almost like genuflecting before entering a pew. Only its a cult, not a religion, because strong dynamic relationships with people outside the repository are frowned upon.

    22. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Or that some of the other manufacturers are cutting their production costs to the point that the product is starting to suffer and they are losing customers because of it.

      There's no fixed cost for the production of a computer. Quality of components, design, materials, etc can be varied over a very large range and the quality of the final product is dependent on these inputs. Apple is certainly getting quite the profit margin, but I've used many computers over the years and their products fare very well in fit and finish and longevity (especially for the price).

      Chinese factories are capable of making goods of high or low quality, depending on what you pay. Most of the stuff we get from China is crap because the management of most the companies that move their manufacturing overseas are already in aggressive cost cutting mode and want the product made as cheaply as possible. Of course, if your schtick is quality, you can't cut production costs to the bone and still keep your customers.

      Anyway, much of the profit difference is based on how the different computer companies are structured. Other companies that make high quality computers gouge on those models as well, they just sustain themselves with cheap disposable junk (that has a lower profit margin).

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    23. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by guanxi · · Score: 1

      NOTHING on linux even close to a real business accounting package

      Try Moneydance, which is close to QuickBooks for a small business, depending on your needs:
      http://moneydance.com/

      In my limited experience it's well-designed, well-supported, and geek-friendly (extensible with Python, open API, etc.). It appears to be multi-user but I've never tried that feature.

    24. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Linux kernel was nothing special. Seriously. There were many such hobby projects at the time, and it wasn't a particularly great one.

      What? That's news to me. I was on comp.os.minix when Linus announced it, and downloaded version 0.11 (but I don't think I ran it until 0.12).

      The only other UNIX-like OS at the time IMHO was Minix, but due to Tannenbaums resistance to "complicating" Minix into something that used the full capabilities of the 386 (i.e. the MMU etc.) Linux took off like a rocket. (There was even a patch set adding i386 capabilities to Minux, but it had to be distributed as a patch set, Tannenbaum wouldn't let it be integrated into Minix proper.

      So, sure, 0.10, 0.11 and 0.12 weren't even complete but it only took on the order of weeks before Minix was left in the dust feature wise, and the rest as they say, is history. Remember that while 0.10 etc. may have lacked an init, it ran almost everything else, in particular they could self host gcc, i.e. they could compile gcc, which was no mean feat. (And something that Minix couldn't, though my memory is vague on that point).

      So what were these other systems that were so much more sophisticated? You aren't thinking about the various i386 BSD-variants that sought to bring BSD to the masses? They weren't really "hobby projects", the legal ramifications weren't at all clear, so their development was severely hampered, and the people had this stick up their collective asses about what hardware was good enough to be worthy of support. Which lead to the consequence that you couldn't actually run your BSD-of-the-month on hardware you had. Linux was above all a much more pragmatic affair. If the hardware was in widespread use, it usually got support quite quickly, no matter how much of an ugly cluge it was deemed to be. But of course some of them were fairly feature complete, since they were original UNIX, source code and all. (And also slower on i386, but that's another story.)

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    25. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by exomondo · · Score: 2

      So, you are saying you are proud to overpay for products that allow apple to have that money?

      Well when the choice is a free product vs an (subjectively) overpriced product and the latter is more popular then clearly they are doing something right. I'm sure many would like to believe that what they are doing right is all just marketing so they can stick their collective head in the sand and pretend Linux is perfect and it's everybody who doesn't use it that is the problem and that's fine if you want to be ignorant.

      The reality is that it is not just marketing, that the Mac really *is* a really good product and people are willing to pay for that (that said I find the Surface Pro to also be a really good product and that certainly isn't as popular so of course it is subjective).

    26. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by exomondo · · Score: 1

      I've noticed a number of Mac computers running Windows 7 lately. It's kind of disturbing.....like seeing a Chevy engine in a Ford Mustang. Just wrong.

      Why? The hardware is good and has the ability to dual boot so that you can have all of your OS X and Windows applications on the same machine.

    27. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by lgw · · Score: 2

      Oh, I was thinking of the BSD jazz. I may also be overestimating how good Minix was back then (if you're right about not being self-gcc yet!).

      The main advantage Linux had was that Linus didn't turn up his nose at the hardware people actually had and wanted to use - he was a smart "product manager" from the start.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    28. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      About the time Boot Camp came out, people (IIRC including PC World) were calling it the nicest Windows computer anywhere.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    29. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by bananaquackmoo · · Score: 1

      Actually there ARE apps close to Lightroom. They're only about 50% of the way there, but it's enough for my needs. Check out Darktable, its my preferred one of the bunch.

    30. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Android carries with it expensive patents, I think this is why chrome os exists.

      Given the cost of a Windows license I hardly think the patent cost of Android is prohibitive.

    31. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by Burz · · Score: 2

      Here's a thought experiment:

      Imagine you're a 7th grader who has become intrigued by computers. If that kid tries programming on "Linux" and creates her first couple of apps using whatever tools and libraries she can grasp at the start-- then what will happen??

      1. She becomes a web developer. OK, fine... but don't expect desktop apps from her. In fact, don't even expect "Linux" to enter her mind when she thinks of users.

      2. She gains a yen for all the *nix plumbing and becomes a system-level tinkerer, writing some KDE or Gnome apps as a way to fill some acute voids in a way that fits into her elite usage patterns. Again, don't expect *good* apps from her. She is interested mainly in cool new ways to arrange the plumbing and impressing only her hacker friends.

      3. She STOPS coding when those first tentative steps toward her big ideas ended up having zero chance of running on her uncle's or her classmate's "Linux" systems; copying her code to those other systems resulted in a flop. What's more, she wasn't able to describe to those people ways of troubleshooting the problems that prevented the apps from running, getting puzzling descriptions back from them that she didn't recognize.

      3. a) She discovers Windows and Mac systems have the consistency she needs to show-off to her non-technical friends and family, and since those are the people she's trying to impress early on (instead of impressing hackers) her personal development as a coder gains a healthy appreciation for the non-techies' point of view and she becomes a good app developer.

      TL;DR; The Linux distro eco system cannot "grow" good app developers. It just cannot. Its too chaotic for the right kind of nurturing of talent to take place.

      I think Shuttleworth has been inching away from the distro culture and this is part of the reason why Canonical is frequently criticized; they have needs for future releases of Ubuntu that the non-forked 'plumbing' projects aren't meeting. And then there is ElementaryOS, which seems to have a fully realized platform philosophy that doesn't include "Linux compatibility" (whatever that means) in its future; They plan to diverge increasingly in the future for the sake of internal consistency and usability. I wish them both great luck, and advise Canonical to commit to diverging the way ElementaryOS has, because the pack they're associated with now are just pretenders.

    32. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Yes, indeed. We're in violent agreement. That probably had something to do with him being just as poor a student as the rest of us. He had to make it work with the hardware he could afford. :-)

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    33. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      I got Yadrigsil Linux in about 1995. It came with FWM and standard X11. I ran it on an IBM PS2 which had 16MB (!) of ram. I remember being impressed that I could make it look very much like the Sparc 5 desktop I had at work, albeit it slower, and I could run GNUEmacs as a GUI client. It is that familarity and continuity that people like. I have Ubuntu 12.04 and after getting over the Unity nonsense, I can say that my biggest concern is that I'd like to be able to run legacy X11 stuff on it, if I want. I hope that whatever replaces X.org is compatable with legacy.

      Also, I think that the Unity type of interface, wanting to support mobile and touch technology, may be put at a disadvantage and soon, by choices that allow for desktop power to be run from mobile phone form factors. If I could run a tiny system with wireless display and keyboard, or maybe even with legacy peripherals from a USB hub, or from a projector in the device that creates a virtual display and keyboard projected on a wall, that makes UI wars moot. Standards and legacy still have a role, especailly with flexible technology.

    34. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by socceroos · · Score: 1

      Oh my.....I never realised this....Linux is hipster paradise - it will never get popular with the masses.

  2. They may not officially coordinate by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    but from what I can tell, the Ubuntu style release schedule took off over-all.

    And as long as things are consistent, it will have the effect Ubuntu wanted (or close too it, they basically wanted upstream to release 4 months before them, so they could integrate if memory serves).

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    1. Re:They may not officially coordinate by keltor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Back when these guys were best buddies with KDE and GNOME, both orgs thought this was a perfectly fine plan. Things have since heavily soured.

    2. Re:They may not officially coordinate by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      yeah.

      Ubuntu started projects used to get adopted, as time went on, they went more off the walls, and their projects became tainted.

      The Mir thing is really upsetting to me as a user, because Wayland has demonstrated the ability to take feedback and adapt, making the whole split seem like lies.

      Wayland really seems like a smartly run project handled very well, that seems to be a huge mistake.

      Even if in principal I like the idea of Android drivers working, I think Wayland has been working on that too though.

      Upstart vs Systemd I have no specific opinion of (though systemd I think addresses a security risk designed into upstart), but at this point upstart is done, everyone else has chosen, even those that initially used upstart (Fedora).

      They need to take credit (even false) for spreading ideas (upstart, actually using wayland, experimenting with what it can and cannot do), and use what gets settled on, unless there truly is something missing.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:They may not officially coordinate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ubuntu is switching to systemd:
      http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316

      Lets hope they'll eventually switch to Wayland, too.
      Unfortunately it also remains true that Ubuntu is the most usable Linux distro out there for the "I'm not afraid of computers, but also don't have the time to learn Linux, I just need a working environment and the ability to quickly google stuff" crowd.

    4. Re:They may not officially coordinate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even if in principal I like the idea of Android drivers working, I think Wayland has been working on that too though.

      The library supporting Android drivers, libhybris, does not come from Canonical. It was developed by a Jolla employee, and is already in use in the Wayland powered Jolla phone. Canonical just gave the impression that they were the ones creating it -- one more reason for the current bad blood in the community, I guess.

      For a short history of the library, check http://mer-project.blogspot.fi/2013/04/wayland-utilizing-android-gpu-drivers.html.

    5. Re:They may not officially coordinate by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      And Unity isn't terrible, as long as they keep things easily replaceable (by using Wayland etc. under it), they have real potential I think.

      What they are doing with phone has real promise too. They really need to work within the system though. KDE is working on similar things with Plasma (netbook, vs desktop, vs active), it'd be great if at least some of the work between the two is sharable. Not just great, but part of the platonic idea of FOSS.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re:They may not officially coordinate by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I did state take credit for "ideas", "even falsely".

      I thought the wayland/android thing was a response to Mir though. And that part of the reason Mir came to be was to use Android driver.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    7. Re:They may not officially coordinate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. The idea was to make things easier for upstream. If every distro pulling in for example VLC at the same time, VLC would have less of a problem coordinating all the issues. Problem is everyone is so blinded by their canonical hate that they don't see these good ideas that they come out with.

    8. Re:They may not officially coordinate by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      In my limited poking at Linux Mint, it seemed as usable as Ubuntu.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. Sadly for Canonical... by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... they and Shuttleworth disappeared up their own backsides in a blinding flash of self importance and inability to listen to users (Unity - the OSS version of Windows 8 Metro, need I say more). I'm afraid their We Know Best doesn't tend to adhere them to many people and I suspect they've now peaked in terms of their importance in the free software world and will slowly fade away as the years go by.

    1. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That and once they decided to monetize our search results and share it with Amazon ... well, I'll never have an Ubuntu installation again.

      My perception of Canonical is now "greedy assholes who don't care about user's privacy"

    2. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by NaiveBayes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Canonical have been making a major loss for years and yet still put more and more money into Ubuntu and open source software development. You may still want to see them as greedy, but is it greedy to not want to make losses year on year?

    3. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're wrong. I like unity and I'm glad as a ubuntu user that they developed it. It disgusts me how many self claimed free software users get angry when someone wants to go off and make something different.

    4. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by quonsar · · Score: 1

      adhere: stick fast to (a surface or substance).
      endear: cause to be loved or liked.

    5. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yeah, fuck them for not wanting to be in the red in perpetuity. They apparently care about user privacy enough to anonymize the data and allow to opt out entirely.

    6. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by ThePhilips · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... they and Shuttleworth disappeared up their own backsides in a blinding flash of self importance and inability to listen to users (Unity - the OSS version of Windows 8 Metro, need I say more). I'm afraid their We Know Best doesn't tend to adhere them to many people and

      The same load of BS is repeated over and over again. That doesn't make it true.

      Unlike Metro:

      1. Unity actually provides some benefits. Like for example full screen zoom on smaller laptop screens.

      2. It breaks much less of UI conventions.

      3. You can actually replace Unity with something else within minutes. (Or you can even install the Ubuntu edition without it.)

      First two are also applicable to GNOME3 v. Unity comparison.

      I suspect they've now peaked in terms of their importance in the free software world and will slowly fade away as the years go by.

      Yeah. Ubuntu is going to be replaced by Mint. Oh wait, Mint *is* an Ubuntu-based distro.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    7. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by iroll · · Score: 2

      Canonical also dump buckets of money into a lot of things that are either of no interest to me (Ubuntuphones) or actively putting me off Ubuntu (divergence away from mainstream Debian and linux in general because of NIH syndrome). Covering such losses with cheap tricks like feeding Amazon search (yes, I know I can turn it off) just makes them even more unappealing.

      If Canonical stopped tilting at windmills for five minutes and invested their money in finding ways to sell more real services, they'd probably be better off.

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    8. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Yea! Like GNU Hurd!

      What version are they on again?

    9. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yup. I suspect Canonical is going to continue down a path towards irrelevancy. They've got a solid userbase and a pretty good lead for now, which means it's not going to happen soon, but I can't see anything but a decline in the future for them.

      I'm seeing a lot of parallels with Cyanogen Inc, the company that was formed by some of the CyanogenMod leads. They're delusionally self-important and consistently speaking things in direct conflict with their actions ("Everything you see now will remain open-source" at the same time they're trying to force a contributor to dual-license a major GPL work so they could have commercial rights to it. Fortunately their CLA wasn't as powerful as Canonical's). I suspect they're going to wind up going down the same road as Canonical.

      Cyngn is doing EVERYTHING in nearly the exact same way Canonical has - and seems oblivious to the fact that Canonical has been doing a good job of alienating all of their potential partners and many of their contributors. Canonical should serve as a shining example of how NOT to monetize open source software in a sustainable fashion (especially by coopting existing projects), yet certain people feel that Canonical's example is the best one to follow.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    10. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is basically how I feel. I use Ubuntu with XFCE. I don't even have Unity installed so it doesn't bother me any. The main reason I use Ubuntu is that I can easily find answers with a quick Google search when I run into problems. I just don't have time to spend hours dealing with minor driver issues or finding out why my OS isn't playing nice. As much as the idealistic "fragmentation leads to competition which leads to more and better options" sounds nice, I think it's good that Ubuntu provides a more accessible option for people who want to use Linux without devoting their life to it. That's not to say that I think all the other distros should just go away and Ubuntu should be the one Linux to rule them all -- I just think the community's recent hostility toward Ubuntu and Shuttleworth is a case of cutting off its nose to spite its face. It's almost as if these members of the community don't want Linux to be successful outside of the server space.

      Maybe CentOS will succeed in getting the community behind it while simultaneously extending Linux's popularity beyond its current niche, but I fear that if Red Hat succeeds in making CentOS more popular and accessible then the community will just turn on them the minute they try something new.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    11. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by ThePhilips · · Score: 2

      Maybe CentOS will succeed in getting the community behind it while simultaneously extending Linux's popularity beyond its current niche, but I fear that if Red Hat succeeds in making CentOS more popular and accessible then the community will just turn on them the minute they try something new.

      That has already happened - with the Red Hat Linux 8 & 9, the predecessor of Fedora.

      I was there and the results were not pretty. I mean: it looked very very pretty, but the rest of it was turning ugly very often.

      Red Hat is too much of a mindless corporation to deliver any innovation. (On desktop one needs to tell users what to do - RH fails at that. Mindlessness works on server side, because there customers are engineers and can tell you what they need.)

      Canonical's problem is that they overplay a visionary. That obviously hurts ego of way too many F/LOSS developers. Thus the bitterness. The thing many miss when criticizing Canonical's decisions is that they are pretty small company with very limited resources: they simply do not have the weigh to skew the whole Linux landscape. It is IMO miracle that they have managed to get as far they have got.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    12. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1. Unity actually provides some benefits. Like for example full screen zoom on smaller laptop screens.

      The start screen provides benefits as well. Larger shortcuts allow for information to be displayed (live tiles) which means I don't have to open some applications to get the information I need. The ability to customize the layout via drag and drop is a vast improvement over the start menu. The ability to deep pin shortcuts is another big advantage as well (i.e. I can pin shortcuts to websites, or shortcuts to albums that I frequently listen to). Also the start screen and all my preferences sync across all my devices. I can keep going on if you want more.

      2. It breaks much less of UI conventions.

      They both break conventions, and that's part of the backlash. I'd say they're about equal here.

      3. You can actually replace Unity with something else within minutes. (Or you can even install the Ubuntu edition without it.)

      You can replace the start screen and all of metro with any of dozens of replacement shells with a few clicks.

    13. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Am I the only one who LIKES Unity? Ubuntu is the distro that got me to switch from Win 7 to Linux (still have to keep Win 7 around for one or two things though). I really don't understand all the hate other than the stupid Amazon search lens thing (which I disabled). My best guess is that it might be because I'm a new convert to Linux rather than a long time user.

    14. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by horza · · Score: 1

      Yup the Facebook of Linux distros. The worst thing is when you are wiping all your friends and families Ubuntu and putting on Mint instead, you get the groans "I have to learn a new desktop AGAIN?". It was an uphill battle shifting people from Windows to Unity. Having to shift people between distros makes it look pretty unstable and fragmented.

      On the plus side, nothing like an impending reformat to remind people to back up their data!

      Phillip.

    15. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by Arker · · Score: 1

      "Am I the only one who LIKES Unity?"

      No, there are at least 6 others, and that is not counting the ones who are drawing a paycheck from canonical.

      "Ubuntu is the distro that got me to switch from Win 7 to Linux (still have to keep Win 7 around for one or two things though). I really don't understand all the hate other than the stupid Amazon search lens thing (which I disabled). My best guess is that it might be because I'm a new convert to Linux rather than a long time user."

      Yes, that's likely to have a lot to do with it. Coming over from the commercial world late you are used to being treated in exactly the ways that the early adopters found so bitterly objectionable.

      Accepting that all software sucks, as long as what you had before sucked a little less than what you have now, you will be happy. So Win8 -> Ubuntu = :)

      On the other hand
      Slackware -> Ubuntu = :((

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    16. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's always seemed to me (since they started pushing Unity, anyway) that Canonical is mainly concerned with pushing their own in-house software out as open source. It's like they want to point everywhere and say, "See, RedHat uses an init system we created, a display server we wrote, and a desktop environment we built. We ARE the Open Source Desktop."

    17. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by andydread · · Score: 1

      I thought the OSS version of windows 8 Metro was GNOME 3. What a disaster that is and Nautilus has been dumbed down to the point of annoyance.

    18. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by styrotech · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who LIKES Unity?

      Nope. I hated it at first, and held off really using it until 12.04. But it has steady improved and as I've got used to it I've come to like (most of) it.

      I'm not emotionally invested in it though - every now and again I'll think I need to switch to something else and I'll go back to Debian with some other desktop, but the others just seem less polished and I end up back on Unity again.

      It's not just me either - recent Ubuntu releases have meant the small software company I work for have gone from 5% Linux and 95% Windows to 80% Linux and 20% Windows over the last couple of years. Of the Linux desktops, they are all *buntu and about 80% Unity, 10% KDE, and 10% Gnome3.

    19. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      When compared to the Windows' Metro, which you can only try to avoid, yes, this is definitely a feature.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    20. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by thelamecamel · · Score: 1

      I really like it too, but obviously not enough to post "OMG I LOVE UNITY AND PONIES" every time this discussion comes up. Dislike of the status quo/a future direction is more motivating to make people speak up.

      But yeah, I've been using it since the netbook remix days, in which it was a godsend for my eee pc (clawing back my 7" screen, 24 pixels at a time). Until the end of last year I was primarily a mac user though; Apple's direction post 10.6 combined with unity's superior experience (tiling, super-A for application launching, super-num to launch/switch to the first 10 apps, the alt-tab/` to switch between applications and windows in an easier-to-follow way than OS X...) saw me switch to ubuntu on my 27" iMac.

      The only problem I have with global menus on such a big screen is due to the mouse acceleration curve (or lack thereof), which I believe is going to be fixed on 14.04.

      So there's a lot of noise around, and I even got the impression that ubuntu installs were now being outnumbered by mint, which didn't match the first actual data on this topic that i've come across (the steam hardware survey). My philosophy is to let the people who dislike it complain, and I'll start speaking up if they look like they're going to get things changed away from what I like!

    21. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      That and once they decided to monetize our search results and share it with Amazon ... well, I'll never have an Ubuntu installation again.

      How is it different from Google?

      My perception of Canonical is now "greedy assholes who don't care about user's privacy"

      But it's open source, it's free software. If there's one little element there that you don't like then just turn it off, change it. That's the whole point of free software!

    22. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's not like alternative shells for Windows have been around for decades...oh wait

    23. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      Availability of alternative shells doesn't suddenly convert back all Metro applications into native Windows applications.

      All they do is replace/bring back the start menu, so you see less of the Metro. But it is still there. You still can accidentally invoke it.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    24. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Availability of alternative shells doesn't suddenly convert back all Metro applications into native Windows applications.

      Of course not, it's a shell. What metro applications do you love so much that you need converted to Windows applications?

      All they do is replace/bring back the start menu, so you see less of the Metro.

      Litestep?

    25. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      Litestep?

      Wow. That brings memories. One of the few things which helped to use the WinNT 4.0 on 16MB RAM.

      Have they finally fixes the tray? It was mostly broken why in the end I had to go back to the default shell (explorer.exe) instead.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    26. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      1. Unity actually provides some benefits. Like for example full screen zoom on smaller laptop screens.

      LOL! full screen zoom! such advanced technology! its only been there in windows and linux for ~15 years.

      2. It breaks much less of UI conventions.

      no it doesn't. it breaks everything. at least windows has the decency of letting users switch between the desktop and metro.

      3. You can actually replace Unity with something else within minutes. (Or you can even install the Ubuntu edition without it.)

      forgive me if i don't want a neglected product without any sort of support. and the easily replaceable part is moot, that is a property of linux. if canonical thought they could get away with it, they would have locked that down too.

      Oh wait, Mint *is* an Ubuntu-based distro.

      yeah, one that cares for and upholds the principles ubuntu was built upon.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    27. Re:Sadly for Canonical... by maestroX · · Score: 1

      3. You can actually replace Unity with something else within minutes. (Or you can even install the Ubuntu edition without it.)

      Stop using phrases ".. replace with something else". XXX is alright, because you can replace it by YYY. Something default is not optional, it is the DEFAULT. Here, have this ton of spam; no problem, you can opt out right?

  4. systemd. That is all that needs to be said. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately it has spread to other distros.

  5. Bazaar anybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Once dubbed the official version control system of GNU (partly because of Git's GPLv2-only licensing and stuff), it's been sunk into oblivion, mostly by Canonical pulling off their own workers and nobody wanting to fill the void given Canonical's assignment policies and contracts (in contrast, the FSF at least gives guarantees regarding free-only use in return for an assignment).

    Now even Emacs, once the poster child for Bazaar, is organizing its transition to Git.

  6. Open Source Is About Decentralization by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    '... probably the most important single reason for the reservations about Ubuntu is its frequent attempts to assume the leadership of free software ... [S]ome of those who opposed it, like Aaron Seigo, have re-emerged as critics of Mir â" another indication that personal differences are as important as the issues under discussion.'

    Seeing the same critics reappear does not necessarily mean it is a personal difference. It really only indicates that the underlying disagreement remains. Mark Shuttleworth believes in centralization of authority, Open Source is implicitly about decentralization of authority. That is a difference with Mark Shuttleworth's world view; as long as he holds it, and particularly when he tries to be the central authority, he will not fit in the Open Source world. That is not personal in the sense of holding a grudge, but it won't change unless Mark genuinely embraces the decentralized nature of this method of software development.

    1. Re:Open Source Is About Decentralization by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      What is the purpose of benevolent dictators for life then? (Torvalds/Stallman/ blender/drupal/mullenweg etc.)

    2. Re:Open Source Is About Decentralization by Arker · · Score: 2

      I will disagree with those that say there is no place for it.

      I was actually hopeful when Shuttleworth first got into the OS business he would provide a much needed benevolent-dictator function in exactly this way. And he's tried to. But I am afraid they have bungled it so badly and often his credibility is shot.

      What's he actually produced? A distro with advertising, and a UI even more broken than is typical.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    3. Re:Open Source Is About Decentralization by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      What is the purpose of benevolent dictators for life then? (Torvalds/Stallman/ blender/drupal/mullenweg etc.)

      To continue to curate the projects and organizations they founded, for as long as the community continues to trust them to do so. Sort of like Shuttleworth directing his distro, if his position were dependent on grassroots support instead of a corporate charter.

    4. Re:Open Source Is About Decentralization by spectrumlogic · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with the decentralization of authority thing...but I think its more about decentralization of earnings...which is not a bad word. The problem I see is that the decentralization of both make it difficult to compete with the corporate model because of mission creep (some would call it loss), distribution of risk and the resulting poverty of capital. At the end of the day...that's what makes Red Hat and their ilk successful...that and the recognition that a good programmer actually deserves to get paid for his work..particularly if he wants no part of the inherent risk of plying his trade (writing software) and just wants to be a regular guy (not a disciple). The best thing Canonical/Shuttleworth could do might be to put a carrot on that stick he seems to like to carry around. On time and feature projects may require different motivation when the complexity and scale of projects reach a critical mass. It's real glamorous to develop "new" products but it's a different game as a product matures...starts to look like real work doesn't it...almost enough to want money for doing it.

  7. As a KDE user... by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... I gave a chance to Unity about 3 months ago, with 12.04 LTS. I liked the desktop disposition (Mac global menu with side launcher), and the general integrated look and feel. Use of apt-get is really nice (as in Debian), and with use of PPAs I can keep almost all my software update to date in a global way. Almost all configurations are simple, which helps new users. Driver support is good (I just had to setup the hybrid graphical cards with Bumblebee). In the other side, I thought the fonts were a bit big, and I don't like the dark theme. How to text font sizes? Install third part software. How to install new themes? Install other third part software (themes is one of the most cool features of Linux DEs!). Can I change the duration of notification? Re-position launcher? No, no, only using more third part softwares. But ok, in my mind, all the problems can be fixed in the future. Then I started to look into launchpad to see the bugs opened, and the future plans. Almost all important issues related to Unity are still open, with almost no comments from Canonical (usually in KDE we have an official dsposition after few hours). Most of Canonical efforts then are focused in "convergence", which my question is "who asked for?". As the future Ubuntu phones will not use the same desktop applications, why I need a new Linux based device? I'd love if Canonical works in better integration with Android: the MTP support is a joke (stop to work after few minutes), and would be nice to attend my mobile calls with my desktop headset, read my SMS on systray, etc. I think that offer a better support for the most popular linux based mobile will be a nice flag. And then, I tested the new Ubuntu version. And I saw that I have Amazon over all the places: in desktop search, in the launcher, all activated by default. Why this? In these days of all the concerns about NSA and privacy, why not sell the "you're using an open source product with all the privacy concerns" flag? If they want financial support, why not allow users to donate, like on KDE? (I'm a KDE e.V. member). I remember too, the old Mandrake club, where users have access few days earlier than "normal" users. In my minds, it's a shame that the most talked Linux distribution has enabled, by default, a shareware scheme. And the worst: the dash search do not works well. I have avidemux installed, and if I type "demu", I got nothing. If I want to run the calculator, and I type "calc", I'll get "OpenOffice Calc" as first result. So, I mean, I can understand when Canonical choose the Unity way. Gnome team is out of this planet, removing all basic features from applications, and forcing a tablet/mobile interface too. But I cannot understand why force the shareware behavior, or other duplicate efforts, like Mir, Ubuntu mobile, etc.

    1. Re:As a KDE user... by geek · · Score: 1

      Its sad that these days it is easier to theme Windows than it is Linux. It's also sad after so many years of mocking Windows users for their unstable desktop experience that we're now stuck with Unity, GNOME 3 and KDE 4 which are less stable than Windows ME. It's like Linux on the desktop is going backwards instead of forwards. I have all my hopes on Wayland but if I don't see major improvement in Linux desktop distro's within the next year I'm just going to give up and move to FreeBSD for servers and Mac OSX for desktops. Enough with the endless beta test.

    2. Re:As a KDE user... by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 1

      Exactly, it's so cool use a custom theme on desktop... of course, just eyecandy, but this was one of the cool features about open source desktops: configure it in your way. Gnome 3 is the worst case, in my opinion: they're removing a lot of important features, saying "nobody" uses, aiming the "convergence".

      KDE4, in the latest releases, become stable and fast, but this was what we got on KDE3 years ago...

      So, basically, now each 2 years, we have the same cycle where Linux desktops starts a migration to a new library, throwing away all existing applications.

      I have to assume that I'm thinking about Mac OS too for desktops. But none of we talked here applies to Linux as a server.

  8. Re:Here is a major concern by JucaBlues · · Score: 1

    Makerware is proprietary software. Live with it.

  9. As the Sun sets by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Is this different from how Sun tried to become the defacto standard UNIX? I never cared much for their tactics, eventually they burned out too.

    1. Re:As the Sun sets by unixisc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I thought that Sun was the de facto UNIX standard. SCO lacked a proprietary hardware platform that could have locked them in, IBM had too many options, same for HP, DEC was more into VMS and NT, SGI was a niche player initially in visualization workstations and later in supercomputing. Essentially, Sun was the standard, until Linux came along.

  10. Re:Here is a major concern by neonKow · · Score: 1

    I see no problem with this. You had to deal with it when people only released software for Windows. How is this any different?

  11. Leadership is both good and bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People don't like/want leaders. Think about presidential candidates: as soon as one stops talking about how he'll competently adminstrate, and starts going on about leadership, you start thinking, "oh well, I sure ain't gonna vote for that one." What people want, is for others to get the fuck out of the way and stop putting up obstacles. And while most leadership isn't about really creating obstacles, if you have any ideas of your own, someone else's leadership is usually going to look like that.

    Sure, you can see that as a Linux "weakness." But if the community didn't have this weakness, then it would be just another Windows or Mac OS, where the dictator says how things will be, and it might even have an internal logic and not necessarily be a bad idea, and yet 99% of the users are prevented from getting what they want. And if that's your idea of strength, then you already use Windows or Mac OS.

  12. Re:systemd. That is all that needs to be said. by 0racle · · Score: 2

    systemd is from Red Hat. It was adopted by other distros because they believed it solved a problem, not because Red Hat tried to tell others that they must use it.

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
  13. LMDE by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    I think rather quickly, Linux Mint Debian Edition will rise to greater prominence, eclipsing even the Ubuntu-based Mint for the same reasons.

    1. Re:LMDE by geek · · Score: 1

      Not likely. You can already see most people moving to Arch, Gentoo or one of the RPM based distros in greater numbers. Linux Mint is just a slightly less ugly Ubuntu and the Debian edition doesn't offer any compelling benefits over the Ubuntu edition for end users. I'm sorry to say but apt/dpkg really haven't aged well and are replaced nicely by yum/pacman and other tools.

  14. Linux weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Interesting point on lack of business and video suites buy why blame Linux for that. When vendors look to port their apps, Windows and Mac are considered, forget Linux. For crying out loud, ever tried to use a web app like Netflix! Supported by everything but Linux. Many vendors are scared to death of Linux and open source with other vendors pushing FUD so nothing gets done. Find a way to overcome all the "haters" and may have something.

    As for replacements, I agree. For personal use, other than Netflix and Turbotax, I've used Linux for years without issue. Office apps, programming, other uses, all works great. For specialized software mentioned, users will not accept an alternative even if something does exist. Sometimes their are apps, ie Gimp, Blender but not the features or polish. Other issue, try to get your boss to accept running Linux on your workstation. In many businesses, just not an option unless you are IT with a special use case. Sometimes apps other times for a host reasons, much of it FUD from commercial interests who don't want the competition.

  15. Re:systemd. That is all that needs to be said. by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    yea the problem it solved is ensuring there will exist continued access to udev and udisks which are a hard dependency a long way up the stack now. The systemd folks are doing everything they can to make sure the udev and udisks projects end up having systemd as a dependency.

    So in short no I guess nobody held a gun to any other distro maintainers heads and forced them to package systemd but its been made abundantly clear that not doing so means they will have to devote enormous resources to maintaining compatible forks of udev an udisks.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  16. Strength is weakness by bregmata · · Score: 1

    Yes, damn Canonical for not toeing the party line as set forth by the self-appointed central committee of the supreme soviet who decide what The Software should be. The whole gang of miscreants should be banished to the gulag until reeducated properly to the free market, that is to say the market fee of competitive ideas. Only then will the One True Way be realized. Until then, they are stealing bread from the mouths of our software children.

  17. proprietary firmware by JucaBlues · · Score: 1

    That's for sure a trouble with the free software movement!

  18. Weasel words by peppepz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Just some days ago we were already told that the Free Software Community hates Canonical. Then again, who is this Free Software Community? I've been using free software since before it was fashionable to call it thus, so I think that I use lots of software coming from the Free Software Community. Today I happen to use some pieces of free software from Canonical. Of the works by some of the persons spotted in TFA as speakers for the "Free Software Community", I use nothing, so I see more contribution to the Free Software Community from Canonical than from them.

    Don't like software form Canonical? Don't use it. They're a commercial company, so they have to break even ultimately. I understand if, after listening to everyone, they make their own decision. Their Mir project is all about Ubuntu phones: should that platform be successful, they'll take the merit, should they fail, the Free Software Community will still have Android as their reference platform. Even if Google is a commercial company, too, and compared to them Canonical is Candy Candy.

  19. Re: Here is a major concern by Arker · · Score: 1

    "Considering that a .deb is nothing more than a zip file with scripts that you can open with most archive softwares I would say that it's vastly different."

    Apparently you dont know what a windows .cab file is.

    However it is different, because Windows has never really been a platform that claimed to respect user freedom.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.