Is Ubuntu leapfrogging off of the Linux community?

[richardsdma]

you are right, from my experience, unity is better than gnome-shell. i don't talk about the usability itself, that comes down to users preferences, but i am talking about the quality of the product itself.

[Bucky Ball]

And don't forget...actually the gnome project uses gnome shell...that IS the standard Gnome desktop now...not the older desktop environments you find in say, xubuntu, lubuntu, etc...

Don't understand. Xubuntu = xfce4, Lubuntu = lxde. Neither use Gnome desktop environment ...

[Elfy]

Don't understand. Xubuntu = xfce4, Lubuntu = lxde. Neither use Gnome desktop environment ...

I was wondering the same.

[ikt]

Is it enough to simply get the Linux software out to the general public, or should Ubuntu be trying to uplift the whole Linux community and its ideals?

I think it's enough, I almost think of Ubuntu and the linux community as two distinctly different entities, one is 'pure', just for enthusiasts, and crossing this path is heresy, they attempt to appeal to people based on a underlying philosophy that all code should be free, privacy is paramount etc, the other is fine getting its hands messy as it attempts to appeal to the general market.

My argument is that it's better to have 100 people with somewhat better security than 1 person with great security, and 99 without, but Mr. Stallman disagrees, it's all or nothing, so I don't really identify with GNU.

[3rdalbum]

Linux has been in a bit of a rut for a few years now. Linux distributions are happy to just pull together the latest versions of the packages in their base system, add the latest KDE on top, tweak their installer so it now installs on <insert esoteric configuration here> and call it a new release. Where's the vision? Linux distributions, for whatever reason, are generally happy with delivering the same product year in and year out, but each time with just a newer set of software. And generally the software developers are fixing bugs, adding minor new features, and having lots of flamewars about why they shouldn't fix a bug or add a new feature.

Ubuntu seems to be actively trying to build a better desktop. Its definition of "better" has nothing to do with adding a second row to the taskbar or making the clock read out in binary, but in making fundamental changes for the purpose of making things easier to use and smarter, to help the user. You might not agree that Unity accomplishes this, but it's a definite effort to break with tradition and bring something new and innovative to the table.

I think the worry with Wayland is that it's developed by the same people who maintain Xorg. How can they really get away from thinking in an Xorg mindset when that's their major point of reference? They're allowing multiple window managers and compositors because that's the way Linux has always been with Xorg. Also, because some of the old hands think Linux should be about giving you the freedom to mix and match components as you want even to the point of using Openbox within Gnome, with Docky on the top of the screen and Rox Filer as the file manager. The end result will inevitably be that Wayland and Weston will become a bloated tree of hacks, requiring deep and dark hacking arts to use, just like Xorg. Who cares if you have to edit a text configuration file to customise your mouse buttons - it's the way we've always done it, and any real Linux user should be able to do it. RTFM.

Ubuntu recognizes that most computer users just want to use their computer to make their lives easier. Unfortunately, this seems to go against what the "Linux community" generally wants. The Linux community generally wants everything to stay the same as it always was, with the ability to hack around with the system... nay, they almost want the system to REQUIRE hacking around with it in order to get it to work. Keep the riff-raff and n00bs away!

[grahammechanical]

Well, the Op won't like what I am doing know. I am posting from the Ubuntu Web Browser that was installed through the update channel on Trusty Tahr. I have not yet worked out how to get to it to let me paragraph the text. So, this will end up one block of text, at least on my machine.Browser, as it is called, is very much a touch and swipe application. We can use the mouse for imitating swiping. but it scales beautifully from phone size through tablet size to wide screen desktop size. It is a good example of how using the Ubuntu SDK will produce apps that are coded once but usable on phone, tablet and desktop.I like Ubuntu. I like Unity. I am pleased with the way Ubuntu is being developed. People like the OP do not speak for me. But they seem to have a deep psychological need to post insults on this forum. They stalk the forums. Does using a Linux distribution make people that way? This is why there is the Ubuntu code of conduct.

[Elfy]

Linux has been in a bit of a rut for a few years now. Linux distributions are happy to just pull together the latest versions of the packages in their base system, add the latest KDE on top, tweak their installer so it now installs on <insert esoteric configuration here> and call it a new release. Where's the vision? Linux distributions, for whatever reason, are generally happy with delivering the same product year in and year out, but each time with just a newer set of software. And generally the software developers are fixing bugs, adding minor new features, and having lots of flamewars about why they shouldn't fix a bug or add a new feature.

Ubuntu seems to be actively trying to build a better desktop. Its definition of "better" has nothing to do with adding a second row to the taskbar or making the clock read out in binary, but in making fundamental changes for the purpose of making things easier to use and smarter, to help the user. You might not agree that Unity accomplishes this, but it's a definite effort to break with tradition and bring something new and innovative to the table.

I think the worry with Wayland is that it's developed by the same people who maintain Xorg. How can they really get away from thinking in an Xorg mindset when that's their major point of reference? They're allowing multiple window managers and compositors because that's the way Linux has always been with Xorg. Also, because some of the old hands think Linux should be about giving you the freedom to mix and match components as you want even to the point of using Openbox within Gnome, with Docky on the top of the screen and Rox Filer as the file manager. The end result will inevitably be that Wayland and Weston will become a bloated tree of hacks, requiring deep and dark hacking arts to use, just like Xorg. Who cares if you have to edit a text configuration file to customise your mouse buttons - it's the way we've always done it, and any real Linux user should be able to do it. RTFM.

Ubuntu recognizes that most computer users just want to use their computer to make their lives easier. Unfortunately, this seems to go against what the "Linux community" generally wants. The Linux community generally wants everything to stay the same as it always was, with the ability to hack around with the system... nay, they almost want the system to REQUIRE hacking around with it in order to get it to work. Keep the riff-raff and n00bs away!

Nicely put.

=D>

[buzzingrobot]

The OP is making assumptions that aren't universally shared and often cannot be shown to be accurate.

The overriding assumption is that FOSS is less a software development method that it is a cultural phenomenom with rules and expectations of acceptable behavior that must be enforced. Personally, I don't like people telling me how to behave and what to think.

Adherence to the various FOSS licensing formulas is *all* that is required. If portions of the developer community oppose Canonical's choices because they think Mark Shuttleworh should act and behave less like someone trying to create a profitable business and more like an out-of-touch figure like RMS, they need to ask themselves what's more important: Writing better software for users or forcing every FOSS user and participant to think and behave as they require, in the service of a quasi-religion?

If the FOSS community cannot accept that kind of diversity, if it focuses on compelling one kind of thinking and ostracizes those who disagree, then it's doomed to be little more than an irrelevant, and cranky, cult. That''s emblematic of the condescending elitism that has restrained the growth of Linux for 20 years: The RMS-esque insistence that it's better to maintain the ideological purity of an irrelevant cult than to change the software people use.

Gnome: The OP is wrong to say Canonical "ditched Gnome". This bogus assertion continues to float around with no justification. The Gnome developers stopped developing the Gnome 2 interface used in Ubuntu, and elsewhere, and eventually released the Gnome Shell interface. Canonical made the choice to go with its own interface -- Unity -- rather than commit to the then entirely unproven new Gnome interface. They were not alone in that decision to choose another interface.

Unity: Very tightly linked to Ubuntu's architecture? Certainly. Difficult to port to another distribution? Very likely? Is that of any consequence? No. It's an interface built to run on and leverage Ubuntu. Why should Canonical dumb down or decrease the capabilties it wants to put into Unity simply to make it easier to port?

Canonical needs to focus on building better software for users. All FOSS developers should do the same. The community shouldn't be about the business of enforcing "uplift" and "ideals". We already have enough thought police.

[Frogs Hair]

I have never understood conforming to a status quo in regards to Linux open source software. When I started using Linux/Ubuntu I really bought into the freedom to reuse, invent, and explore different software options. I have noticed from reading articles and bogs that many Linux users to be just as resistant to change as any other group of people ( Human ! ). It seems strange to me to promote freedom and then resent changes brought about by exercising it.

[craig10x]

@ Bucky Ball and Elfy: Just to clarify what i meant....yes, i know the other ubuntu variants don't use the gnome desktop...but gnome's original desktop was much more like what they CURRENTLY (examples: xfce or lxde) use...Gnome project changed it first, (when they went from gnome 2 to gnome 3 and developed shell)...THEN ubuntu followed with their own variation on it...