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.'"

39 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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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]
    6. 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.
    7. Re:Infighting: Linux's biggest weakness by amiga3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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
    12. 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.

    13. 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
    14. 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).

    15. 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.
    16. 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.

  2. 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.

  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 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.
    4. 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
    5. 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?
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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.

  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 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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."
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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