What's wrong with Ubuntu and Canonical?

[Skara Brae]

What is wrong with Ubuntu/Canonical?

- I remember a clip that I saw, many months ago, about some guy (didn't/don't know him) mocking Canonical. I don't seem to find that clip right now.

- Just a while ago, a friend, himself a passionate Linux adherent, sent me a link to some guy's blog (don't know him) criticizing Canonical on his blog:

http://dehype.org/2012/ubuntu-design/

My friend (who himself keeps on drifting from one distro to the next...) seems to find my using and liking Ubuntu almost unethical and selfish...

The author of the article in the link called me, kind of, choosing Ubuntu because I was following a hype. (Following a hype is standing in line in front of a store for hours and hours, only to buy a cellphone--no offense to the iPhone users here who did so.)

-oo-

I must be missing something, because I don't get the fuss.

Ubuntu (10.04) is free (to download, to install and to use) and it is good.

I have tried OpenSUSE at my laptop (a Samsung R519); it gave me a few (probably minor) issues. It ruined the Vista Home Basic install, but I was able to 'save' that.

I have tried OpenSUSE at an old PC (I'm talking Pentium 4 & AGP here), and that computer was too slow/old. Xubuntu worked fine on this PC.

At work (federal government of my country) we use SLED 10. It is Linux, but sometimes it behaves a lot like MS Windows (yikes!). Or maybe it's just that it's KDE 3.5 and not Gnome. Ubuntu clearly eats both OpenSUSE and SLED 10 for breakfast...

I have never tried other distro's (yet). Oh, a live-CD of Debian, a few years ago.


-oo-

I don't care what Canonical is up to "behind the screens" (it seems that I should have to care?). As long as Ubuntu keeps on being free (to download, to install, to use) and as long as I like Ubuntu, I will keep on using Ubuntu, period.

I don't care that Mark Shuttleworth is to Ubuntu what Steve Jobs was to Apple (is he?)

I don't care (well, not much) that Canonical doesn't contribute much to the general development of GNU/Linux (that does not concern men, does it?).

I don't care that Ubuntu is developed "top-down" (that does not concern me, either). The day that for some reason I don't like Ubuntu anymore, then I will switch to another distribution.

All I care about is that Ubuntu is free and that it is good.

So, what's all the fuss about?

[eddier]

+1

Well said Sir!

So some users dont like Unity(me too !!),use something different

I find Unity interesting but clumsy-a bit like KDE4 when it first appeared,but look at KDE4 now!

Please dont run around like headless chickens yelling "Ubuntu sucks",thats damn rude.

Getting a useable linux onto tablets seems like a good way to promote linux,and thats what Gnome3/Unity/Ubuntu seem to be doing. The general community has found its own way round their dislikes with such as Cinnamon etc.

Getting Linux useable by lesser Geeks can only be good for Gnu-Linux in the long run.

ed.

[collisionystm]

I think the argument about Ubuntu is more of in depth than just Unity.

Some say there are stealing from debian because they dont give back what they take. Canonical takes code from debian, re-brands it and adds their own tweaks but does not give the same amount of work back to debian.


There is also the never ending argument of 'free software'.

Its all a bunch of rubbish. Personal choice. Everyone robs peter to pay paul in one way or another.

Your computer. Use what you want. End of story.

[Skara Brae]

I think they are nothing more than "purists"...

The GPL allows Canonical to use (parts of) Debian for Ubuntu, so I don't really see how Canonical is doing something wrong. Unethical perhaps if you search hard enough, yes - but as long as I don't have to pay for Ubuntu, I don't care much :p (this is the part where the friend that I was/am talking to calls me "selfish").

[collisionystm]

lol. An argument you will never win.

[IWantFroyo]

Everyone can find something to criticize. Operating systems especially. Something will always change and someone will always not like it.

Anyways, I look at all the criticism as a positive thing. The more people there are criticizing, the more people there are using Ubuntu, right?

[rg4w]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome


Edit: Just finished reading the comments from the first link in the OP. Jo-Erlend Schinstad's comment on 20 February 2012 at 19:47 pretty much undoes the article, politely enough to avoid the appearance of a public spanking, but no less decisively. :)

[winh8r]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_think
;)

[JDShu]

To answer the question rather literally, what's wrong with Canonical is that it's been 7 years and they're still not profitable. Nor have they solved Bug #1. Any other business would have shut down by this point, but luckily for Canonical, they get to be Mark Shuttleworth's expensive toy.

[collisionystm]

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ubuntu

[BrokenKingpin]

Some say there are stealing from debian because they dont give back what they take. Canonical takes code from debian, re-brands it and adds their own tweaks but does not give the same amount of work back to debian.

No, this is what Mint does not Ubuntu :P.

[collisionystm]

No, this is what Mint does not Ubuntu :P.

lol. It's a vicious cycle.

[Roasted]

I think they are nothing more than "purists"...

The GPL allows Canonical to use (parts of) Debian for Ubuntu, so I don't really see how Canonical is doing something wrong. Unethical perhaps if you search hard enough, yes - but as long as I don't have to pay for Ubuntu, I don't care much :p (this is the part where the friend that I was/am talking to calls me "selfish").

From what I understand of the GPL license, if Debian code is GPL'd and Ubuntu uses it, whatever Ubuntu brews up must be GPL'd as well. I don't see how that's not "giving back" in some way shape or form. Do other distros expect Canonical to package Unity as per their specs for every other distro? I really don't understand the fuss either (take note of signature for personal opinion). Ubuntu does what I need best with the least amount of headaches.

I do think it's kind of funny that some people (from what I can see, often times Gnome enthusiasts) talk negatively against Canonical for the Unity break-off. What's ironic about that is I heavily participated in the alpha stages of Gnome Shell. To say I've had countless frustrating discussions with Gnome devs about the lack of certain options/features in Gnome Shell (at the time) would be an understatement. That, to me, made me think "no wonder Canonical did their own thing." I can't help but to think I would have done the same thing! But hey, sometimes I think we all need to slow down and just have a great big group hug. :lolflag:

Also, I was heavily against Unity when it first came out, however I was a huge fan of Gnome Shell. I am now running 12.04 and I must say, Unity is looking bright enough that it may snag me back away from Gnome Shell. It runs very well and what quirks I had about Unity are now fixed. Ironically, Unity even has functionality that Gnome Shell lacks in (proper printer management to name one). Regardless of who's fault it is, it's the reality that when I fire up Gnome Shell, I cannot properly manage my printers, whereas in Unity I can.

PS @ Skara Brae - Did you play Ultima Online? Skara Brae was the name of one of the towns. Oh man that's bringing me back... :p

[Peripheral Visionary]

Some say there are stealing from Debian because they dont give back what they take. Canonical takes code from Debian, re-brands it and adds their own tweaks but does not give the same amount of work back to debian.

Somebody needed to tweak Debian so us mere mortals could install it and use it. Canonical has done a great job of that! And it isn't like others haven't used Debian as a base and rebranded it, even for profit. Mepis does it. Mint does it. Probably dozens of others do it.

CentOS does the same thing with Red Hat. And dozens do it with Ubuntu, by the way.

[collisionystm]

Somebody needed to tweak Debian so us mere mortals could install it and use it. Canonical has done a great job of that! And it isn't like others haven't used Debian as a base and rebranded it, even for profit. Mepis does it. Mint does it. Probably dozens of others do it.

CentOS does the same thing with Red Hat. And dozens do it with Ubuntu, by the way.


Agreed... tis why I said, 'Some Say'

I am not part of the 'some' :KS

[CharlesA]

Agreed... tis why I said, 'Some Say'

I am not part of the 'some' :KS
Indeed. I don't have any problems with Debian outside of having my RAID drivers not compiling correctly on Squeeze when they work fine on Lucid (go figure).

[kurt18947]

From what I understand of the GPL license, if Debian code is GPL'd and Ubuntu uses it, whatever Ubuntu brews up must be GPL'd as well. I don't see how that's not "giving back" in some way shape or form. Do other distros expect Canonical to package Unity as per their specs for every other distro? I really don't understand the fuss either (take note of signature for personal opinion). Ubuntu does what I need best with the least amount of headaches.

I do think it's kind of funny that some people (from what I can see, often times Gnome enthusiasts) talk negatively against Canonical for the Unity break-off. What's ironic about that is I heavily participated in the alpha stages of Gnome Shell. To say I've had countless frustrating discussions with Gnome devs about the lack of certain options/features in Gnome Shell (at the time) would be an understatement. That, to me, made me think "no wonder Canonical did their own thing." I can't help but to think I would have done the same thing! But hey, sometimes I think we all need to slow down and just have a great big group hug. :lolflag:

Also, I was heavily against Unity when it first came out, however I was a huge fan of Gnome Shell. I am now running 12.04 and I must say, Unity is looking bright enough that it may snag me back away from Gnome Shell. It runs very well and what quirks I had about Unity are now fixed. Ironically, Unity even has functionality that Gnome Shell lacks in (proper printer management to name one). Regardless of who's fault it is, it's the reality that when I fire up Gnome Shell, I cannot properly manage my printers, whereas in Unity I can.

PS @ Skara Brae - Did you play Ultima Online? Skara Brae was the name of one of the towns. Oh man that's bringing me back... :p

Here's a simple printer administration fix. I shared your dismay with Gnome Shell's poor printer management. I found this somewhere, perhaps Ubuntu Geeks? Anyway, if you want to give this a go, it puts a launcher on Gnome Shell's desktop.


gnome-desktop-item-edit ~/Desktop/ --create-new

A 'Create Launcher' window should open. The command I entered was

system-config-printer Of course you don't have to create a launcher but eh, why not?

The result should look familiar :cool:.

[Roasted]

Here's a simple printer administration fix. I shared your dismay with Gnome Shell's poor printer management. I found this somewhere, perhaps Ubuntu Geeks? Anyway, if you want to give this a go, it puts a launcher on Gnome Shell's desktop.


gnome-desktop-item-edit ~/Desktop/ --create-new

A 'Create Launcher' window should open. The command I entered was

system-config-printer Of course you don't have to create a launcher but eh, why not?

The result should look familiar :cool:.

There's a package you can install which brings back the printer GUI that Ubuntu has always had in the past. I forget the name of it... system-config-printer perhaps? *shrug* At any rate, it's not that it's a game changer for me, because installing the package is easy. But look at it from an outsider, somebody who's new to the platform.

"Hey, I really suggest you try Gnome Shell. You just have to install additional packages if you'd like to manage your printers at all."

Whereas Unity works great out of the box...

Again, I know it's something minor, but it's something that shouldn't have been overlooked, in my opinion.

[gradinaruvasile]

The thing with Canonical is that they introduced many experimental stuff in Ubuntu that wasnt called for. And they introduced these in STABLE (or should i say "stable"?) versions. For example PulseAudio integration was ****-poor and broke sound on many many computers. This is because they neded field-testing and THEY DID IT IN THE STABLE VERSIONS.
The fiddling with the UI isnt nice either, guess what, all people i know and use Ubuntu for production/work have gone WTF when they upgraded Ubuntu and saw Unity. They ALL use the fallback mode now (that isnt that customizable), and hate Ubuntu for their UI decisions.
Mind you, if you want your distro to become mainstream, you should do it in a way that it can be used in enterprise (provide stability), something Ubuntu almost achieved until they really started to mess around with stuff using their user base as guinea pigs (9.04 was the most stable Ubuntu version, IF you removed PulseAudio). I work on my computers, have no time and willingness to debug AN UNTESTED new interface forced on me because some at Canonical decided to do their own stuff when there is one that is already proven and works.
Give me a REAL choice dammit, let me use my old interface and offer the new one AS OPTIONAL, so the ones who want, use it, debug it or whatever, BUT let the interface be for the ones who want stability.

I suppose the Gnome devs are to blame for this partially, they are guilty of starting changes like this.

You cannot force the users of a free OS because you are not alone in the market and they will simply switch to something that looks and works familiar. I switched to Debian+Xfce (first, because i lost my trust in Ubuntu, second because i lost my trust in Gnome) after i saw the changes in 9.10 and gnome-shell.

[spynappels]

The fiddling with the UI isnt nice either, guess what, all people i know and use Ubuntu for production/work have gone WTF when they upgraded Ubuntu and saw Unity. They ALL use the fallback mode now (that isnt that customizable), and hate Ubuntu for their UI decisions.

That is your experience, others, including myself, have the opposite experience. In our office, several users have moved to Ubuntu since Unity came in and became stable (11.10) because it is uncluttered and lets us get things done. Most of our stuff is remote management of Unix servers through the Terminal, we would pretty much consider ourselves advanced users and have no problems with Unity.

[TeoBigusGeekus]

What about this then?
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PrecisePangolin/TechnicalOverview/Beta1#New_features_in_Precise

Beta-1 includes the 3.2.0-17.27 Ubuntu kernel...
"Ubuntu kernel"?:roll:

In a few years, Ubuntu will have the same relationship with Linux as OSX has with BSD now...

EDIT: In the same page, the only mention of the word "Linux" is in this sentence:

On PowerPC, when installed alongside linux, the system does not automatically boot into the newly installed system. The workaround is to hold down option key to get a boot menu and proceed from there.

[Docaltmed]

To answer the question rather literally, what's wrong with Canonical is that it's been 7 years and they're still not profitable. Nor have they solved Bug #1. Any other business would have shut down by this point, but luckily for Canonical, they get to be Mark Shuttleworth's expensive toy.

You've never run a business, then. For a lot of businesses, it isn't until year 7 that things start to click.

[CharlesA]

What about this then?
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PrecisePangolin/TechnicalOverview/Beta1#New_features_in_Precise

"Ubuntu kernel"?:roll:

In a few years, Ubuntu will have the same relationship with Linux as OSX has with BSD now...

EDIT: In the same page, the only mention of the word "Linux" is in this sentence:
Things that make you say "hmmmm." Wonder if it's a branding thing or if they have drastically changed the kernel.

My vote goes to a branding thing.

[SeijiSensei]

The thing with Canonical is that they introduced many experimental stuff in Ubuntu that wasnt called for. And they introduced these in STABLE (or should i say "stable"?) versions. For example PulseAudio integration was ****-poor and broke sound on many many computers. This is because they neded field-testing and THEY DID IT IN THE STABLE VERSIONS.

I don't know what you mean by a "stable" version. There are only two types of Ubuntu releases, ones with Long Term Support, and everything else. Do you mean an LTS version?

In my experience with Ubuntu I've used two LTS versions, 8.04 and 10.04. 10.04 had PA, as I recall, and I agree it didn't work well with Kubuntu, though I don't know whether that was true of "vanilla" Ubuntu or other flavors like Lubuntu or Xubuntu.

One problem I've had with Kubuntu is that KDE's development and release schedule doesn't always fit Ubuntu's schedule. 10.04 was released while KDE4 was still in rapid development. As a result, Kubuntu 10.10 was what 10.04 should have been, but as this isn't the mainstream release, I don't really hold Canonical or even the Kubuntu devs responsible.

[TeoBigusGeekus]

Things that make you say "hmmmm." Wonder if it's a branding thing or if they have drastically changed the kernel.

My vote goes to a branding thing.

It's a "we don't want to mention much about Linux, cause Linux is difficult and used only by geeks and it could scare future users and make them afraid to use Ubuntu; how can we become a new Apple if we have such a legacy related to our product?" thing.

I'm too lazy to search it myself, but does Apple mention anything about BSD in their web page(s)?

[CharlesA]

It's a "we don't want to mention much about Linux, cause Linux is difficult and used only by geeks and it could scare future users and make them afraid to use Ubuntu; how can we become a new Apple if we have such a legacy related to our product?" thing.

I'm too lazy to search it myself, but does Apple mention anything about BSD in their web page(s)?
I don't think Apple mentions anything about BSD.

Sounds like you might be right.

[TeoBigusGeekus]

I don't think Apple mentions anything about BSD.

Sounds like you might be right.

Not that it makes any difference, as long as Ubuntu is free.
But still... it makes me feel a bit bitter...