×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

231 comments

He has a point, no? (5, Interesting)

jawtheshark (198669) | about a year ago | (#43544249)

I mean, he does have a high-profile Linux distribution he's responsible for. He has the problem that people hate change and he needs to take decisions. The thing is: change can be right too. Unity has many haters, but from the latest LTS release on, it is actually pretty good. I like using it now, and I originally dreaded the switch for my two "normal" users on it, being my mother and mother in law. I expected support calls to no end, when I finally did switch them from 10.04 (Gnome2) to 12.04 (Unity).

Surprisingly, neither had any problems adapting. That shows me that he was right: for normal users it is actually not all that hard. That said: when Unity was released it really did have a lot of rough edges. That's what it gave a bad reputation, IMHO.

Microsoft has the same problem: change is hated by their users. Probably even more so, in the Windows ecosystem.

I'm normally a proponent of "don't fix it if it's not not broken". The problem is that the Gnome guys "broke" Gnome, and thus they said "we can do this better". Whether this "better" is truly "better" lies in the eye of the beholder. My experience is: the common user reacts positively to it. That's a win in my book.

Re:He has a point, no? (5, Insightful)

YukariHirai (2674609) | about a year ago | (#43544305)

Microsoft has the same problem: change is hated by their users. Probably even more so, in the Windows ecosystem.

There's a reason for this: in the Windows world, change is mostly for the worse. Sure there are some important steps forward and changes for the better in amongst it, but it always seems like those are eclipsed by dumb decisions and change for the sake of change.

Re:He has a point, no? (5, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year ago | (#43544339)

in the Windows world, change is mostly for the worse.

Not just that.

In the Windows world, there are just two choices; run an old version, or put up with the awful interface. At least with Linux, you can use Mint, or even pick an XFCE, Enlightenment etc etc respin if you want Ubuntu and don't like Unity.

you can change windows shell (1)

cheekyboy (598084) | about a year ago | (#43544677)

to use those linux clones litestep, or some .net based shell managers too.

Who knows, maybe if Unity is really liked, it will be ported to windows.

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

Mike Frett (2811077) | about a year ago | (#43544693)

That's exactly why I use Linux exclusively now. I have choices as to how my system works and what it looks like. With Windows I was stuck using what Microsoft thought I wanted to use and no option to change it. Sure, I could go back and use the old version but I would have no updates. At least if I used an old version of Linux, I could add a PPA or something that ported back the security fixes and such.

I enjoy the freedom of choice that Linux offers me and the I enjoy being able to look at the code if I feel something may be out of the ordinary going on. Also if something doesn't work, and you know how to code, since you have access to the code; you have complete freedom to repair it and let others enjoy it. Disagree with me if you want, I am unable to use Windows anymore, it's just too damn restrictive.

Re:He has a point, no? (5, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43544483)

There's a reason for this: in the Windows world, change is mostly for the worse.

There's a reason for this: in the Windows world, change is mostly for the worse.

Lets see. I remember Windows from v1 all the way through to XP.

2 was better than 1. It had overlapping windows!
3 was better than 2. Icons and early networking.
95 was a huge step forward from 3. e.g. People didn't close down Windows to run their legacy DOS apps anymore. They ran them within DOS boxes.
98 was a better 95. It fixed the rough edges.
ME was apparently a step back. I didn't try it. I took a sidestep to 2000.
Windows XP was a big step forward in reliability, merging consumer UI with NT kernel.

I can't speak for versions after XP, as I went to OSX at that stage. But I've covered most of Windows history there, and you're wrong with that statement.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Microsoft or Windows, that's why I moved to OSX. I had grown to have complete contempt for Windows by the end. But it's wrong to say that Windows changed for the worse with most versions. It did generally improve.

Re:He has a point, no? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544603)

1 was broke, so they made 2 to fix it. 3 was broke, so they made 3.1 to fix it, then 3.11 to add network support. 95 was broke, so they made 95b to fix it. 98 was broke, so they made 98SE to fix it. ME was broke, then they fixed it with XP. Vista was broke, then they fixed it with Win7. Win8 is broke, so it's safe to assume Win9 will fix it going by their history.

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | about a year ago | (#43544685)

98 was a better 95. It fixed the rough edges.

98 was a 95 with IE4 rammed through its throat, bringing with it lots of bugs and stability issues. There was no reason to move to 98 when 95B existed. 98 made the interface worse by adding a pointless Windows logo on every window, web features due to IE4 integration, quick launch, a dynamic Start Menu, treating the user like an idiot by trying to discourage the viewing of C:\WINDOWS and Program Files, etc.

Windows XP was a big step forward in reliability, merging consumer UI with NT kernel.

At the same time it dropped DOS backwards compatibility, removed Windows compatibility, added activation, required loads of RAM to even work properly compared to previous Windows, etc.

Re:He has a point, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544863)

B or C edition of Windows 95 was with IE rammed through.

Re:He has a point, no? (5, Insightful)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43544775)

Windows 2000 and Windows 7 are the best releases. Win2000 took the best parts of NT but also allowed consumer stuff such as most games to work. XP only brought extra bloat, slight instability and horrible security record (which was later mostly fixed with service packs). Windows 7 is the pinnacle of the classic desktop: polished, secure, fast and nice.

Re:He has a point, no? (2)

Jesus_666 (702802) | about a year ago | (#43544829)

Well, initially XP was 2k in bad. They fixed that with XP SP1 and by SP2 it had enough staying power to compete with the next two Windows versions.

Then we got Vista, which was bloated as all hell, had more compatibility issues than early XP and gave us joys like UAC, which is kind of like gksudo or OS X's admin password dialog except that it takes ten seconds to load, tosses up a modal dialog that blocks the entire desktop and occasionally makes the modal dialog appear to be on top of the other windows while actually placing it behind them, leaving it (and the application that triggered UAC) unclickable until you bring it to the front. On the plus side, ctrl-alt-del became much more powerful, capable of breaking out of misbehaving programs that would've prevented access to the Task Manager in earlier versions of Windows.

Windows 7 is essentially what Vista should have been at launch. Many of the worse kinks have been ironed out and you can now change the network setup (such as reordering NICs) without rebooting, which is very welcome. Few complaints here except for UAC still taking ages to load. Privilege escalation is not a trivial task in Windows-land, it seems. It's certainly not as easy as "verify user password, confirm that user is in appropriate group, become root". Oh, and Windows 7 revamped the VFS, making it a bit convoluted. Still, it's a fairly solid release.

Windows 8 assumes that everyone uses a desktop with a touchscreen monitor. If you don't use that configuration parts of the UI won't work particularly well. The Metro UI (or however they call it this week) is built around touchscreen gestures while the desktop mode still assumes that you have a mouse and can perform precise clicks with at least three buttons. Oh, and no start menu; you're expected to use Metro instead. There's a reason why they're talking about adding a start menu and a "boot to desktop" option to the next Windows.


As you can see, Windows release quality got really spotty after Windows XP. It's no longer a question of how big an improvement the next version is; these days you consider how long you can possibly last with your current setup because half of the new versions are severely unappealing. Of course it doesn't help that Windows seems to have run out of killer features as far as the ohme user is concerned. Vista gave us window tiling, 7 gave us "now with 80% less horribleness" and 8 gave us a user interface that virtually no computer on Earth is really compatible with... and the killer feature for 9 seems to be "we removed Windows 8's killer feature".
Sure, there's new DirectX versions but many people don't even care to do the research neccessary to notice the difference between DX 10, 11 and 11.1.

Re:He has a point, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544849)

But it's wrong to say that Windows changed for the worse with most versions. It did generally improve.

You left out an awful lot in your revisionist history there...

Windows for Workgroups (Warehouses)

The entire OS/2 marriage/divorce, which begat

Windows NT (What all Windows is based on today)

And, by leaving after XP you conveniently overlook something that was worse than Me, Vista.

There's a lot of cruft in the Windows history.
 

Re:He has a point, no? (0)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | about a year ago | (#43544925)

you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but that is understandable since you're an Apple chimp.

Re:He has a point, no? (2)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | about a year ago | (#43544983)

For my use patterns, Windows peaked with NT 4.0, combining the Windows 95 interface with the reliability of the NT kernel.

Re:He has a point, no? (2)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year ago | (#43544323)

The problem is that the Gnome guys "broke" Gnome.

And the KDE guys broke KDE when they transitioned from 3.5 to 4.

Maybe broken early releases are an inevitable outcome of step changes to interface projects that are developed out in the open. Maybe the problem isn't with KDE, Gnome and Unity, but with our expectations, and people who don't want to experiment with cutting-edge DEs should be explicitly warned away from them?

Re:He has a point, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544353)

That's true. Of course KDE breaks with every .0 version - that should not come as a surprise. However, the problem with KDE was that even 4.1 was still lacking features that many users considered essential. For me it was KDE 4.2 that felt reasonably bearable again. It is a shame that KDE always does 2 steps forward and 1 back. There are some features from KDE 1.1 that I am still missing...

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544417)

"There are some features from KDE 1.1 that I am still missing." - yeah like a usable email app :(

Re:He has a point, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544457)

U cant be srs???

What could you do in ~99 that you can't do now?

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#43544645)

"There are some features from KDE 1.1 that I am still missing." - yeah like a usable email app :

Actually, that isn't as flamebaity as it appears. I am a comparatively recent convert to KDE (pretty much since Gnome 3, in fact, and currently 4.10 on Slackware), and have made periodic attempts to get kmail working just for the sake of having a "native" mail client. Each attempt has been frustrated, however, and I am really not happy about being forced to run akonadi/wallet when I don't need it for anything else.

The good news is that good ol' Thunderbird still works just fine, and with just a bit of care can be made to fit in quite smoothly with KDE.

Re:He has a point, no? (4, Insightful)

pmontra (738736) | about a year ago | (#43544743)

I'm also a TB user so I'm happy you can use it on KDE (no surprise). However a mail application doesn't belong to an OS. It's a matter of personal choice and what one was using on other computers and in previous years. For example, I've been using TB for maybe 10 years over 4 maybe different computers and I'll keep using it on the next one, if I ever find a modern laptop worth buying. So, no good mail client on KDE should not be a problem. Actually, why bother developing an integrated client?

Same thing for a web browser: it's nice if the OS provides a default browser so the user can download the one s/he prefers after the first boot, but that's it. Any toy browser preloaded with links to the major ones would be good enough for that.

Re:He has a point, no? (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43544847)

Each attempt has been frustrated, however, and I am really not happy about being forced to run akonadi/wallet when I don't need it for anything else.

Ooh, this so much! The wallet subsystem drives me nuts with KDE+KMail. I don't want to type either my wallet password or e-mail password all the time, just remember my passwords and get it working. You have to type too much your password in Linux anyway...

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#43544981)

I don't want to type either my wallet password or e-mail password all the time...

You're missing my point. I don't have that much of a problem with wallet systems (though in general terms, I prefer to use my brain), but since I don't use konqueror or any other KDE programs that require PIM, there's no point in running an entire service to do just that. Thunderbird remembers all of its relevant passwords. It's just that kmail (or at least the builds that I have tried since the 1990s versions which worked fine) have all made it problematic to set up my multiple email accounts. And rather than persist for hours to make it work (which I assume is possible), I simply abandoned the attempt and continued with an app that has always "just worked" instead.

Re:He has a point, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544481)

KDE only transitioned from 3.5 to 4 at about 4.3 or 4.4, if I recall correctly. Prior to then 3.5 was actively maintained any the only version that KDE recommended for day-to-day use.

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

marsu_k (701360) | about a year ago | (#43544567)

For me it was KDE 4.2 that felt reasonably bearable again.

I made the switch from KDE3 to 4 when 4.2 was released, and I think you're being a bit too kind. It's wasn't quite up to par even then. However, they've since made a lot of progress. Running Arch I get the latest version in a week or two after it is released, and I can't say I've noticed a lot of visible changes in the past few releases, it just keeps getting more polished. For example the kwin resize animations in 4.10 are a nice, if somewhat subtle, touch (and generally I find kwin in its current incarnation to be a wonderful WM, a nice combination of functionality and reasonable eye candy).

Personally, there's no longer anything I miss from 3.x. Wait, scratch that, there is one thing (any KDE devs listening?): the ability to drag a single file from Ark to Konsole and have it extracted there (in the directory where the shell is open, that is). But that is a minor annoyance.

Re:He has a point, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544545)

It's a recurring theme in the FOSS world, maybe particularly around Ubuntu. I remember being frustrated when Kubuntu first shipped with KDE 4, but I persevered and after a couple of releases I grew to love it. Likewise when Kubuntu started using pulseaudio, plymouth, GRUB 2... the initial implementation of something new is often buggy and frustrating, but over time the bugs get ironed out and the features polished and we're all better off for it.

I think it's not productive for us to loudly proclaim we're switching to another distro when the developers of our distro of choice have the foresight to see a better way to perform a function but don't manage to polish it before the release.

Re:He has a point, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544613)

The problem is with the increasing fascination by GUI developers with new features and technologies and an "experience" over usable tools. See the old "Luxury of Ignorance" essay by Eric Raymond about *exactly* what is wrong with a lot of open source interfaces, specially the recent Gnome abuse of the user's eyes and brains. The essay was written in 2004: and some things just don't change. (The CUPS management tool, used as an example, has not fixed a single problem described in the essay.)

          http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cups-horror.html [catb.org]

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43544643)

The problem is that the Gnome guys "broke" Gnome.

And the KDE guys broke KDE....

And the HURD desktop guys broke .... oh wait

Re:He has a point, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544873)

I am trying to use HURD here, you insensitive clod!

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43544877)

Sorry, but nothing excuses GNOME people from GNOME Shell... or Canonical from Unity. Who "did it first" anyway? Doesn't matter. Neither occurred because there was a need. They did it "anticipating" a need or a change of public interest. I think it is clear that anticipating change can be just as bad as being "late to the party." (right Microsoft?)

I think neither would have been so bad if they hadn't taken this "all or nothing" / "one direction" approach to their development. A better idea, I think, would have been to keep things as they were and create a "skunk works" spin for people to get more comfortable with and to develop suitable use case scenarios. The fact that people jumped ship on these UIs with such anger speaks volumes.

Re:He has a point, no? (3, Interesting)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about a year ago | (#43544343)

Unity has many haters, but from the latest LTS release on, it is actually pretty good.

I switched to Xubuntu for the time being but am willing to give it a second try. I only have one question: Does Unity by now have a menu of all applications reachable with one click or mouse hover?

When I had to fix the graphics drivers on my girlfriend's laptop yesterday, I had to guess the German localizations of applications for monitor settings and drivers and scroll through lists of oversized icons. The concept of searching for applications by a name (that you must remember) is inherently flawed and was discarded with the invention of the desktop and folders in the early 80s. If that has been fixed I'm happy to give Ubuntu another try. (The application "dock" is also pretty annoying, especially since it only seems to pop up every second time I try, but I assume it is easier to customize by now.)

Re:He has a point, no? (2)

ais523 (1172701) | about a year ago | (#43544357)

It doesn't. You can do it with two clicks in two different ways, but as far as I know, there's no way to pin the applications lens, which is what would be required to do it in one. (They have fixed the dock, now, though.)

Re:He has a point, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544563)

I believe webupd8.org had a folder-like capability that you could pin to the launcher in one of their posts. very useful.

Re:He has a point, no? (2)

jawtheshark (198669) | about a year ago | (#43544363)

I also preferred the "Menu" system of Gnome 2. Thing is: that concept is going the way of the dodo (Mac OS X doesn't have it at all, Windows 8 shows their vision of the future, which isn't rosy either). I don't like it either, but it's the way it is. To make it useful for me, I just changed the dock to the applications I use most. The last time I tried Gnome3, I didn't understand what to do whatsoever. Okay, that's a while ago. It might be better now.

The application "dock" is also pretty annoying, especially since it only seems to pop up every second time I try

I think you are referring to the fact that the dock used to auto-hide in earlier releases. It doesn't do that any more. I vastly prefer it that way.

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | about a year ago | (#43544927)

At least with KDE you get to choose on almost every level. I also think they made the right choice with their default approach: a complete menu that is searchable, not search-only.

That's the best of both worlds. I've never much liked kicker's interface, I was using lancelot as my KDE menu since it's earliest releases and I love it, full listing of apps with a zero-click launch design, searchable menu (that also searches documents and all other relevant data sources), application favorites, integrated views of documents and other data-sources in the main menu. Frankly I never look at my desktop anymore, I can get instantly to anything and everything I want from lancelot.

This suits my preffered working style (two screens - on each a window that is maximized - generally this will be something like geanny on the one screen with code being edited and a konsole on the other to test the code as I go) - since my desktop is always covered by maximized windows, if I need to open something else the last thing I want to do is have to minimize each of the 6 to 8 other maximized windows behind it or find the show-desktop button - I just open lancelot and find whatever I need immediately.

I am using KDE on mint as my standard desktop on about six computers, as is my (absolutely non-techie) wife - and it's a pleasure to work with.

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

rvw (755107) | about a year ago | (#43544531)

Unity has many haters, but from the latest LTS release on, it is actually pretty good.

I switched to Xubuntu for the time being but am willing to give it a second try. I only have one question: Does Unity by now have a menu of all applications reachable with one click or mouse hover?

Install the ClassicMenu app. It installs an icon in system tray. So the location is different, it works mostly the same. It works for me. I switched to 12.04 LTS, after hanging on to 11.04 for as long as possible, and I'm glad I changed. It's not as smooth as OSX, if I had the choice I would still use Gnome 2, but this is good enough and all the Unity bashing is a lot of BS in my opinion.

The concept of searching for applications by a name (that you must remember) is inherently flawed and was discarded with the invention of the desktop and folders in the early 80s. If that has been fixed I'm happy to give Ubuntu another try. (The application "dock" is also pretty annoying, especially since it only seems to pop up every second time I try, but I assume it is easier to customize by now.)

I agree. This is really bad and I can't understand that they haven't fixed this yet.

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about a year ago | (#43544703)

When I had to fix the graphics drivers on my girlfriend's laptop yesterday, I had to guess the German localizations of applications for monitor settings and drivers and scroll through lists of oversized icons.

I'm pretty sure that the dash shows you programs not only by their local name but also by their original name.
At least when I'm typing stuff into the dash, I have non-obvious hits.

Also, you can reach the settings by going top right on the screen. The list is not that long so that going through the icons would have helped.

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

agoliveira (188870) | about a year ago | (#43544797)

You don't have to know the application by it's name. If you need the application to, say, scan a document, you can type "scan" and you will see all the aplications that you can use for scanning.

Re:He has a point, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544345)

While I like and use Unity for years now, even with the latest updates, it's too unstable. Like many programmers, I use a big monitor I connect to my laptop (at times). Do connect/disconnect multiple times and one of these things happen:

1) All desktop icons end up on top of each other (because the resolution was lower, so it just caps them and so they end up on top of each other).
2) The dock crashes (boy does it do that often; I even click on report, doesn't seem to improve anything so far). I now put a gnome-terminal launcher shortcut on the desktop, it happens that often.
3) The menu has weird problems finding out on which monitor it's supposed to pop up submenus on when I use keyboard shortcuts (I always do)
4) The window manager (!!!!) crashes, leaving me without any way of moving focus. That was at a live presentation with me as a presenter. Did I ever feel like Bill Gates himself? Yeah.
5) for some reason after this crash, laptop standby doesn't work anymore, causing me to pack a running laptop into a backpack, overheating it, causing $80 in damage (new case, new fan, new thermal paste). Could have caused $1800 in damage if I didn't check as early as I did.

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

Clarious (1177725) | about a year ago | (#43544561)

I agree, while Canonical has paved the way for linux on desktop and they have some really good ideas (HUD for example), their solution is often quite bad, technical wise. When they introduced new notification system (ubuntu 9.04? can't really remember), I remember the notification applet for ibus (written in python) eats up to 1 GB of RAM after awhile. And Unity has its fair share of problems too.
But hey, it's open source, we are free to join and fix the code and let Canonical deal with the UX problem.

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

YoungHack (36385) | about a year ago | (#43544911)

Instability is also my big beef with the recent Ubuntu. It seems to be due to three causes (so it's been forever for anyone to make progress on fixing anything): Intel wireless drivers suck (kernel issue), gnome-screen saver sucks, and the Unity interface sucks. Getting rid of gnome-screensaver and installing xscreensaver is probably the best improvement I've seen, after finally finding a kernel where the Intel wireless driver worked. But I've put my computers on XFCE (with the menu bar on the left like Unity) and they're finally usable again.

Re:He has a point, no? (3, Interesting)

slacka (713188) | about a year ago | (#43544425)

Say what you will about Ubuntu, of all the Linux distros, it has the most polished out of the box experience. In my career, I’ve probably installed close to a thousand Linux images and Ubuntu has consistently provided best hardware compatibly and least issues over the years. When Unity was started, the Gnome 2.x panel, was completely broken and useless in vertical mode, necessary for 720p netbooks and widescreen monitors. Gnome 3.x was looking to be the next KDE 4.0.

So I can understand Shuttleworth's desire for something like Unity, but what I disagree with is how he went about it. Instead of going off on his own with Unity and Mir forks, He should have worked with Gnome and Wayland to fix what was broken. See the Mint MATE project for how Ubuntu should have proceeded with Unity. All of these unnecessary forks just weaken and already stretched thin open source development efforts.

Re:He has a point, no? (2)

heypete (60671) | about a year ago | (#43544449)

Say what you will about Ubuntu, of all the Linux distros, it has the most polished out of the box experience.

That used to be the case. Since the time of 10.10 of the "mainline" Ubuntu, I've found it to be considerably less intuitive than expected. I much prefer Mint+MATE over any of the mainline Ubuntu releases. That and Xubuntu.

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43544485)

Say what you will about Ubuntu, of all the Linux distros, it has the most polished out of the box experience.

I'm not convinced that's true any more.

Basically the magical auto everything system they've concocted to give the polished experience is now so huge and poorly documented that things now go wrong and it is very hard to debug them. I've had weird problems which I can only put down to some sort of race condidion, but after fairly extensive digging, I've still no idea how everything integrates properly.

It's not like ubuntu is exactly alone in this either. People seem obsessed with complexifying the boot process to the point where every distribution is (a) completely different and (b) completely undocumented and (c) completely impossible to debug.

I think it's a victim of cascade of attention deficit teenagers syndrome all over again.

Instead of going off on his own with Unity and Mir forks, He should have worked with Gnome and Wayland to fix what was broken.

Or just stuck with X11 and fixed what's wrong with that. Even better.

I don't care for unity. I find it irritating (like the tiny handles for resizing, the fact that resizing directions are tied to whichever direction you went in first, the funny top menu thing, the odd mazimization if you drag to funny places thing, the whole mac like "try to open two of that program lol" thing and a whole bunch of other annoyances). Then again, I never cared much for Gnome either, so I don't particularly mind what they do in that regard (though Gnome was a bit less irritating).

All of these unnecessary forks just weaken and already stretched thin open source development efforts.

Not really, if anything they're a strength, provided the crap forks die and the good ones stay. Choice is good. I just don't happen to like the choices Ubuntu has made, particularly. Sadly, others seem to be making similar choices as well which is a big shame.

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | about a year ago | (#43544763)

Or just stuck with X11 and fixed what's wrong with that. Even better.

By X11 you must actually mean X.org. The original version of X11 that Linux used to ship with was Xfree86 but that ended when they got hissy and tried to change the licence to one that may (I am not a layer so have no idea if this is actually true or not, the important thing was that the community thought it might have been) have been incompatible with the GPL. This caused no end of crap and resulted in everyone moving to x.org.

The problem is that X.org is pretty much a dead project now. Ok, Ubuntu could have single handedly kept the project going but why should they if X11 is not ideal anyway (believe me, it wasn't). The X11 Window system was created almost 30 years ago and things have moved on along way since then. Sometimes you just need to look at old software in an objective way and decide to take a clean break from it.

At a rough guess I would say that the main reason for throwing X11 in the bin is the idea of the client - server separation. This might have made sense when you had to support dumb terminals and multiple users with different desktops on the same server but it makes no sense now. Nowadays every device (even phones!!!) have a dedicated CPU and Graphics Chip that the display manager can talk to directly without going over a possibly insecure network. Now you want to be able to give applications a direct pipeline to the graphics hardware to make it feel as responsive as possible if they need it.

Re:He has a point, no? (2)

Urban Garlic (447282) | about a year ago | (#43545077)

What you say is likely true for almost all users, but for server management, the network transparency features that come with server-client separation are a huge asset. My own "use-case" is that I frequently need to install commercial scientific software on remote headless systems, e.g. the head node of a computational cluster in the server room. These installers invariably have GUIs, which I use by SSH-ing into the box with a forwarded X connection and just running it.

There are other ways to do this, of course, you can use some kind of remote desktop scheme to accomplish the same goal, but you don't actually need the whole desktop, you really only need to operate the remote GUI on your existing local desktop. X can do this, Wayland (and Windows and Quartz) sacrifice this in order to have better local display performance.

I also worry that it's part of a general trend towards more monolithic software, and towards doing less in order to do it better. Unix (and Linux) were initially attractive to me because of their mind-set of having a good set of powerful, conceptually simple tools that I could chain together to accomplish my goals. Now, it seems like I'm seeing more and more conceptually complex, monolithic applications that are very, very good at solving the most frequent use case, but are somewhere between useless and harmful if you try something the developer didn't anticipate, because it's a niche requirement or a corner case. I'm starting to miss systems that worked in the corner cases.

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

Alomex (148003) | about a year ago | (#43545091)

Or just stuck with X11 and fixed what's wrong with that. Even better.

Which is pretty much everything, but *nix fanbois don't like to hear that, as in how could it possibly be screwed up since it is part of the *nix holy trinity???\

Noobs forget that there is much that is/was wrong with Unix (for example initially it had no security). It has gotten to where it is because people like the Wayland's Hogsberg, Ubuntu's Shuttleworth and FSF's RMS.

Re:He has a point, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544525)

"Most polished" doesn't mean "most useful". Sure it works to the specs, out of the box and as designed. Thing is that design is abysmally uncomfortable for actual practical use. It works smoothly and looks pretty but it's counter-intuitive, makes you jump through hoops to do simple things, and serves presenting itself first, instead of trying to be as unobtrusive in user's use of the applications as possible. That's an OS that serves presenting itself, not helping the users get work done.

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43544917)

What kind of hoops do you mean? I find the UX of Unity just fine (its abysmal slowness is my main gripe).

Re:He has a point, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544899)

Say what you will about Ubuntu, of all the Linux distros, it has the most polished out of the box experience.

Actually, that would be SuSE Linux.

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43544535)

I'm normally a proponent of "don't fix it if it's not not broken". The problem is that the Gnome guys "broke" Gnome, and thus they said "we can do this better".

Let us know when they get around to doing that.

Every release gets harder to customize for utility.

Re:He has a point, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544537)

I like using it now, and I originally dreaded the switch for my two "normal" users on it, being my mother and mother in law.

If your mother in law counts as normal, I'd hate to meet your problem users. You must work for EA, or something.

Windows 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544577)

Microsoft has the same problem: change is hated by their users. Probably even more so, in the Windows ecosystem.

The biggest gripe that I have to deal with in regards to Windows 8 is that most folks so far bought machines without touch screens.

Windows 8 - with its default interface - is a PITA without a touch screen.

If the OEMs and MS actually planned better - like only computers/laptops with touch screens would have the default interface, everything else gets a "classic" interface - then there wouldn't have been a problem.

Overall, Windows 8 is a good product.

Yes, I like Unity.

Yes, I will leave now because I don't belong. *sniffle*

Re:He has a point, no? (3, Insightful)

Vintermann (400722) | about a year ago | (#43544635)

Just because people will criticize you no matter what you do, still it may be the case that the criticism is valid. In the article, Shuttleworth does nothing to defend Mir - he calls it convenient and effective for them, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was why Wayland would NOT be convenient and effective for them.

Wayland isn't primarily a library, it's a protocol, and the big challenge for a protocol is getting people and companies (like NVidia!) on board, not that work has to be duplicated. Realistically, some will choose to go with one and not the other, and that means more wasted effort, whoever "wins" in the end.

Re:He has a point, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544821)

Who appointed you to pick the next-gen display server?

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

div_2n (525075) | about a year ago | (#43545035)

If you step back and ignore what comes out of Canonical word for word and the criticism that follows and examine the situation a bit more objectively, the decision to go to Mir gets more clear and makes a bit of sense. Ignore the technical feasiblity for a moment of them getting Mir to a sane state rapidly enough for it to be used in the next year like they claim.

Canonical decided to make a gamble a few years ago which now the data suggests was wise -- mobile is the future of computing and the old laptop/desktop paradigm is going to become niche. From their perspective, Wayland didn't start out that way and might hamper their efforts to make a mobile-centric Linux distro that scales to any display format and input method seamlessly and intuitively. Add in the comfort of being the controlling party of a central component to their strategy for good measure.

Now whether or not Wayland will turn out to be great for mobile devices or they just staple on the necessary parts to the protocol in a way that isn't as efficient as possible remains to be seen. And maybe they already have solved this, I don't know.

Re:He has a point, no? (2)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43544665)

Change for the sake of change is bad for a great many things and especially in the PC/Computer/Internet world. Let me offer a car analogy... no wait, let's change that.

Let me offer a wife analogy. Everything is going just fine... things are stable. And then one day your wife says "...we need to talk..."

How is that not "oh shit...."?

In the grown up IT world, we do a change management process which includes things like "purpose" and "impact assessments" before making sweeping changes. I see no indication that goes on at Ubuntu. If it did go on at Ubuntu, then I am sure they wouldn't mind sharing the relevant data on the subject. It seems indicative that they haven't done anything of the kind when they resort to calling their Linux "art." Once they call it art, it can't be judged by real standards or expectations. "It is what we say it is."

Nice response. Don't expect to be taken seriously for much longer.

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year ago | (#43544929)

Unity spent at least 2 years with rough edges and even now arguably it's still seriously lacking as a desktop UI. In particular I think the global menus and the hover scrollbars might be reasonable compromises when someone has a low resolution screen and needs the space but they are serious usability problems on larger screens.

Unity itself is tolerable in most ways but when its compared to GNOME 3 (probably its closest counterpart) one wonders why it exists at all. GNOME 3 could be skinned to resemble Unity, probably almost exactly. Why bother maintaining two codebases at all?

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

dc29A (636871) | about a year ago | (#43544995)

The problem is that the Gnome guys "broke" Gnome, and thus they said "we can do this better".

Gnome 3 has become much better these days. With a few extensions like application menu, places menu and drop down terminal, it's actually very usable. Unity on the other hand is slow piece of shit. I ditched Unity for Ubuntu Gnome, never been happier with my DE choice!

Re:He has a point, no? (1)

Threni (635302) | about a year ago | (#43545053)

> He has the problem that people hate change

I love change - as soon as I saw Unity I changed to using Linux Mint.

Seriously, I have no idea why people think the only criticism of Unity is that it's different. People say "at first I didn't like it, but..". Well, a whole lot of people instead said "at first I didn't like it, so...".

Mark Shuttleworth is a copy of Bill Gates (-1, Troll)

bobeil (2821629) | about a year ago | (#43544283)

This is the result, what happens if you let a business person put his hands on Linux. For him, it's just a game. He doesn't really care if he uses Windows or Linux. He won't take any advantage from retaining freedom. He just wants to be another Bill Gates, and uses Linux just as a tool to surpass his rival. Therefore, Ubuntu is on its path to be just as bad as Windows 8.

Re:Mark Shuttleworth is a copy of Bill Gates (3, Insightful)

deusmetallum (1607059) | about a year ago | (#43544319)

I don't know if you've seen/heard much of what Mark Shuttleworth has ever said, but he is clearly very passionate about Linux and open source. I get this feeling that a lot of people are attributing to malace that which can easily be attributed to a differing opinion. He doesn't want to destroy linux, he doesn't see it as a play thing, but he does want to give users a great experience, give administrators/engineers a great platform, *and* make some money out of it. The latter point seems to be what many people have an issue with, which to me is insane! Just take a look at Geary. They've been asking for $100,000 for an email client, yet Canonical are trying their best to give you the best desktop environment for free, while persuing a buck in other ways.

Re:Mark Shuttleworth is a copy of Bill Gates (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544649)

naw, its more like if BIll Gates took a shit in a service station toilet on the side of a deserted highway and forgot to flush and that turd sat there for months in stagnant water and eventually came to life and crawled out of the toilet thats what shuttleworth is like (an asshole baby of Gates)

Mint (1, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#43544291)

Moved to Mint sinse Unity. Competition in action.

Re:Mint (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544355)

Can't get Mint installed on sub GB RAM hardware, resource waste is my biggest beef with Unity and Mint doesn't solve it (and it seems only the installer is the bottleneck).

Re:Mint (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544491)

If you are able to get the cd to load at all, set up some swap space. Or install the zram-config package (swap space on a compressed ramdisk--it works better than you'd think)

Re:Mint (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year ago | (#43544705)

This is probably worth posting a bug report about, because the desktop definitely doesn't need that much RAM but I'm not surprised the ramdisk for the installer can over do it.

Re:Mint (1)

silviuc (676999) | about a year ago | (#43544753)

Looking at the Steam hwsurvery Mint is not such a big competitor afterall. it's a very nice distro with a very vocal community.

Re:Mint (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#43544837)

Well, I moved to Mint and I moved a number of clients to it as well (Mint Mate to be precise). I don't know if it's a vocal community or not, all I care about is that the desktop works for business use.

Shark Muttleworth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544293)

He has to be the most annoying trollbait in the Linusphere....

Bow to your betters (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544347)

And payeth your taxes, socialism is for the people, not the socialists you douchebags.

Friday was the Edwardses' 27th anniversary, so, in keeping with tradition, they hit the Newburgh Wendy's, along with the Kerrys, campaign mascot Ben Affleck and accompanying press crew.

The photo-op didn't go smoothly. Kerry went over to say hi to some marines, who turned out to be Bush supporters and resented the interruption to their lunch. More telling was Teresa Heinz Kerry. She pointed to the picture of the bowl of chilli above the clerk's head: "What's that?" she asked. He explained that it was something called "chilli" and she said she'd like to try a bowl. The Senator also ordered a Frosty, a chocolate dessert. They toyed with them after a fashion, and then got back on the bus.

It then emerged that Wendy's had just been an appetiser. The campaign advance team had ordered 19 five-star lunches from the Newburgh Yacht Club for Kerry, Edwards, Affleck and co to be served back on the bus: shrimp vindaloo, grilled diver sea scallops, prosciutto, wrapped stuffed chicken, etc.
I'm not sure whether Ben had the shrimp and Teresa the scallops, but, either way, it turns out John Edwards is right: there are two Americas - one America where folks eat at Wendy's, another America where the elite pass an amusing half-hour slumming among the folks at Wendy's and then chow down on the Newburgh Yacht Club's specials of the day.

If he would just STFU and stop talking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544349)

...perhaps we would not find him so annoying. Performance art. LMAO.

Ubuntu vs. Slackware (4, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | about a year ago | (#43544409)

An interesting contrast: Volkerding does what he does with Slackware with no fuss. Shuttleworth gets all defensive on what he does with Ubuntu.

Re:Ubuntu vs. Slackware (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544465)

I would say that is because Ubuntu is more popular and has a lot of eyes on it. I too, like some other pasters, hated unity when it came but I do like it now, and overall I think Ubuntu is trying new stuff and innovating, inevitably they will get flames, I hope they conitnue doing that rather the status quo. and Thanks to all who contributed to give us Ubuntu.

Re:Ubuntu vs. Slackware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544695)

That's probably because Slackware has a few hundred users at most...

Re:Ubuntu vs. Slackware (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | about a year ago | (#43545003)

>An interesting contrast: Volkerding does what he does with Slackware with no fuss. Shuttleworth gets all defensive on what he does with Ubuntu.

Interesting, and part of the reason (besides size of userbase) I believe is their different attitudes. Volderding actively ENCOURAGES other people to do what he chooses not to. Remember a few years ago when slackware dropped Gnome support ? Patrick stated that he was dropping it because gnome (at the time) required patches to libraries which were not part of the standard versions of those libraries, meaning that to support it at all you had to ship those patched libraries even for people who chose not to use gnome - something he disliked.
At the same time - in the very mail where he announced the change he also gave a list of the outside projects that were already providing custom gnome builds for slackware - so users who preferred it could use those projects instead. By then quite a lot of the regular gnome users were already using them anyway since their builds were more complete and advanced and nobody minded much.
If you wanted gnome rather than KDE on slackware, you just got it from one of the other projects - and Patrick actively encouraged this.
In contrast Shuttleworth has a bombastic attitude about unpopular decisions - of the "if you don't like it, you're an idiot" variety.
That I think annoys people. Sure ubuntu lets you run other desktops, but only if you sacrifice the very integration that made it good - and no longer actively supports the respins for those who prefer other desktops like they used to.

Honestly, if I had to explain the difference in how their actions are perceived I would lay 90% of the blame purely on the tone in which they announce and defend those actions.

Performance Art? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544429)

Yeah, the distro is a regular comedy.

Forcing change before you are ready is the issue (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544455)

IF Unity and Gnome 3 had taken the time to FIRST fully develop their products while at the same time fixing existing products, maybe they would have been better received. But they didn't do that. Gnome, Linux, Ubuntu are far from perfect. Nautilus for instance is a nightmare with samba shares. None of this has been fixed. If you got a spotty internet connection and connect a 3G modem, there is no easy way anymore to tell Ubuntu to prefer one over the other. Multi-monitor support finally works but you can still only select one wallpaper.

It works... but it could be better.

And then instead of improving, fixing what is there, KDE, Unity and Gnome 3 all decide to instead go for something new and unproven and give us highly buggy versions of it as non-optional replacements... and the users said FUCK NO! It isn't just that the basic core idea is wrong (more on that later) but that we would have prefered to:

A: have existing bugs fixed.

B: Not be forced to change how we use our computers.

C: Not be forced to deal with a whole lot of new bugs, on top of the old bugs.

Windows 8, Unity, Gnome 3 and KDE have taken a fundamentally flawed approach to the desktop. Their unified idea seems to be: The user wants to see his desktop and play with it.

Reality: The desktop is there to put things on, that then obscure the desktop which I never ever see again unless something crashes. In real life, if you can see a users desktop, the user is not doing anything productive. I got a large screen multi-monitor setup and the desktop is barely visible, what you do see instead are the applications I am running because THAT is where my work is being done.

Go back to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Desktop or Enlightenments animated wallpapers. All very nice, very cool and totally and utterly useless on an actively used PC because the moment you start using your PC, the desktop is hidden underneath the application you want to use. A pro has few desktop icons because to reach them, he would first have to close a dozen windows.

An active desktop is like the stock picture in a picture frame, useful to have something on the screen when the PC/frame is in the shop, but essentially useless once actively used. You take the picture frame, open it and put your own picture in front. Bye bye active desktop, won't see you again until my PC crashes and the few seconds between boot and me having opened my applications again.

OSX is just as bad with that gigantic dock at the bottom. Thank you Steve Jobs, just what I wanted, less horizontal pixels for my windows. At least Unity puts it to the side. Screen space is simply not cheap/available enough yet to waste pixels on stuff I don't "need". The only people that like Windows 8 and the likes are people who have toolbars installed in their browser. The rest of us want more SPACE! Not less.

And I be honest, once I had winamp/xmms installed with skins and made room for it in my windows layout. These days my music player lives on the notification bar and is 16 by 16 pixels or so.

Had these new "desktops" launched as optional side extra's (how many of you ever used Active Desktop or the various versions of Widgets), they might have been well received... well, as well received as their ancestors. Which is to say, not at all. Remember, ALL THE PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS AT TURNING THE DESKTOP INTO A GADGET ZONE: FAILED

So, instead of taking the hint, developers thought: "Well we just not going to make it fucking optional anymore!".

"Yah... well I am simply fucking not going to install it then".

With mobile phones the old idea got some new fuel but lets face it, how many of us think of our mobile phone as a marvel of usability? I sure as hell don't. It would be like taking away the mouse form a PC gamer and give him a touchpad instead... NO! It is not that touchpad on laptops are totally unusable but why should I replace the far superior mouse on my desktop with a laptops second rate input method?

The new desktop work slightly on small screens for people who barely use their PC's... nice for them but is Ubuntu used by those sorts of people? Oh wait, YES! I installed it for a few friends who always had issues with malware on their PC's and just used their PC for browsing anyway. It worked just fine. Until the system upgrade that delivered Unity. They had no problem with Gnome 2 but Unity, they just couldn't figure out.

So it is a failure for power users and noobs alike.

And that is just fucking bad business. You can see it in the increase in searches not for Ubuntu but for Mint.

Ubuntu is not performance art. Unity is going one a shooting rampage in your own store after having nailed the door shut and then wonder why your sales have gone down.

Re:Forcing change before you are ready is the issu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544987)

s/horizontal/vertical/g

Never compare yourself to performance art (0)

Grashnak (1003791) | about a year ago | (#43544505)

When people hear the words "performance art", they imagine a filthy, flea-infested guy with an MFA, fellating an chimp in the middle of times square while his acolytes hand people burning dollar bills and chant about hegemonic paternalism. You don't ever want to compare yourself to that.

Re:Never compare yourself to performance art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544625)

I'd watch that.

Re:Never compare yourself to performance art (2)

sunderland56 (621843) | about a year ago | (#43544969)

When people hear the words "performance art", they imagine a filthy, flea-infested guy with an MFA, fellating an chimp in the middle of times square while his acolytes hand people burning dollar bills and chant about hegemonic paternalism.

Yes, that is what Unity is like. Good comparison.

Nice that you can ignore Unity & Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544519)

Unlike Windows 8, where you have no choice at all, it's great that I can totally ignore Ubuntu and Unity. I can also ignore Gnome 3. That's what's great about choice, and why it stinks to have no choice. - (signed) A Happy KDE User

Ubuntu, going back to Gnome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544549)

Since Ubuntu 10.10 it has gone downhill and that's a fact.

Ubuntu now misses handy tools like Synaptic, Aptitude (better than Apt-get IMO), GIMP and it has that crap called Unity.

Let's be real here, Unity is the reason most people flew to other distros, being one of them the now popular Mint (which is what Ubuntu should have been from the start). This is so true, even Shuttleworth and Ubuntu are going back and giving the chance to boot the next Ubuntu 13.04 with Gnome Desktop.

unity, wayland... HOW ABOUT SPYING?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544551)

That's what you should critique Ubuntu and Shittleworth for!

If you use Ubuntu, I hope you love and trust all these companies as they will know a lot about you http://www.ubuntu.com/privacy-policy/third-parties [ubuntu.com]

Also be sure to read the actual http://www.ubuntu.com/privacy-policy [ubuntu.com] (and yes, like any legal document, it's a long sad read to discourage you from ever actually doing so...)

And what about the spyware (5, Interesting)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about a year ago | (#43544589)

The effective keystroke monitoring in recent Ubuntu monitoring is a _much_ bigger problem. The desktop search result is broadcasting your searches back to the Ubuntu mother company for Amazon search results. Despite Mark's claims, this is not "putting ads in Ubuntu" it is far more than merely adware. By effectively tracking local user searches, by default, it is clearly spyware. Worse, the queries were being sent in clear text, and there was no graceful way to turn it off. Those had to be top level decisions for the new release, and they were terrible decisions.

To quote Mark from his own response to this at http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182 [markshuttleworth.com] .

> We are not telling Amazon what you are searching for. Your anonymity is preserved because we handle the query on your behalf. Don’t trust us? Erm, we have root

Mark's claim that "your anonymity is preserved because we handle the query" is nonsensical. Tracking cookies and the sometimes abusive tracking tools of doubleclick.net provide thorough tracking of the search queries and the results, and to automatically be doing This, along with other recent changes, has demonstrated that Mark Shuttleworth and the leadership of the Ubuntu distribution _cannot be trusted_. Having "root" access is not an excuse: it's a reason that Ubuntu should never have even tried this obvious and adware and spyware attempt.

Also note: the queries are not going to be encrypted to protect you, the user. They're going to be encrypted to make them less obvious to network monitoring and tougher to block.

Re:And what about the spyware (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43545039)

So is it still there? I thought they fixed it already because of all the negative feedback. Can't they just put a dialog box during installation:

"Ubuntu gives you an option to use the Amazon shopping lens to extend your desktop search. Discover exciting products from the vast catalogue of Amazon while you help to support Ubuntu. Click here to read the privacy disclaimer. Would you like to participate? [Yes] [No]"

Or even better, also separate it from the regular filesystem search.

let the user numbers then do the speaking. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43544593)

if it's so good, how come your user retention has gone to shit?

and the performance art thing.. he refers to how he decided to decide in advance when the release is - NO MATTER IF IT'S SHIT you'll still have to release on that day! that's what he meant with it. and it's stupid.

Mir (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544601)

He'll probably say the same about that Mir abortion.

What's next? Ubuntu Kernel? Or kerneld/lennux-potterix?

I don't get this (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43544965)

I can understand normal users hating change, but techies? Come off it... There is nothing constant in tech but change. I, while not liking (or using) Unity, don't dislike it. I prefer KDE or Enlightenment, but whenever a new version of Ubuntu hits the mirrors, I dutifully download it and give it a week before redoing things to suit my tastes.

To those that bash Mark: running a company is no small feat. Running a tech company is a very difficult feat. Running a company with a release deadline every six months and still innovating is a moving target and he and the Ubuntu team do it very well. At least they are trying to innovate and deliver new ideas and functionality.

Please stop with the betrayel (1)

duckgod (2664193) | about a year ago | (#43545057)

Free open source software has the advantage of living in a very darwinistic world. Normally if someone screws up a piece of open source software it will die or someone will fork it to better align with their goals. Mark Shuttleworth is giving away this piece of software for free and everyone has the right to take it or leave it.

That may be the situation up front. But I can't get over this growing sense of betrayel towards the open source community. More and more the communities input is being ignored. It was this very community that for a good period of time was fairly united behind making Ubuntu the definitive spokesperson for linux. I have continously helped as best I can with writing bug reports and providing forum support for no cost. But it is getting harder and harder for a company that is going more and more behind a curtain.

Ubuntu is a southern African ethic or humanist philosophy focusing on people's allegiances and relations with each other. [Wikipedia]

Typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43545069)

I'm sure he called it Performance Fart.

Ubuntu is nothing more than Spyware (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43545121)

Ubuntu is nothing more than O/S level Spyware (like Chrome OS) that sends records of everything you do to Amazon and its "affiliates."

Anyone who uses Ubuntu is a fucking idiot.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...