Ubuntu Tries To Attract New Developers

[Thaodan]

"Ubuntu Desires Lower Audio Latency For Gaming"
And yet they use PulseAudio.

"Ubuntu Needs To Improve OpenGL Drivers For Gaming"
And yet they use Unity.

"Ubuntu Tries To Attract New Developers"
And yet they don't contribute upstream.

"Ubuntu Developers Realize Need For Non-3D Desktop"
And yet they use Unity. Do they even know that there are fully developed desktops already existing out there?

I woud bet that in some years Ubuntu is no longer a Linux Distrubtion like Debian or Arch. I bet that it will be still based on Linux but imcompatible to rest of the GNU/Linux world (imcompatible from ubuntu to other distrubtions and not from upstream Linux to Ubuntu), like OS X and *BSD. Ubuntu is a curse and a blessing: in one side its a blessing cause it brings more people to Linux and gets more companys to develop software for liux, in other side its a curse cause it does compared to other distrubtions with simlar size less and cause it develops without the community of the oher projects: it dosn't uses the strengh that the community has.

[frign]

I'd rather cut my hand off than working on Ubuntu's development. I would like to see Ubuntu and Canonical fail not because I think it is too mainstream, but because it falsifies the purpose of a free operating system in the interest of making money with it.
Their intent to attract new developers is not beneficial to Linux and is just an expression of the strive for more profit.

[arcas]

I woud bet that in some years Ubuntu is no longer a Linux Distrubtion like Debian or Arch. I bet that it will be still based on Linux but imcompatible to rest of the GNU/Linux world (imcompatible from ubuntu to other distrubtions and not from upstream Linux to Ubuntu), like OS X and *BSD.

They definitely seem to be pushing towards becoming their own self-branded operating system. I'm thinking they aim to become something along the lines of Android minus the upstream contributions (has Canonical ever contributed anything upstream?)

[frign]

(has Canonical ever contributed anything upstream?)

Yes, they committed to their own calculator-program a few years ago! <sarcasm>I dare you not to be so rude to them</sarcasm>.

[Larian]

They definitely seem to be pushing towards becoming their own self-branded operating system. I'm thinking they aim to become something along the lines of Android minus the upstream contributions (has Canonical ever contributed anything upstream?)

Yes. Yes they have. Just because they don't commit as much as Red Hat doesn't mean they're not contributing. If nothing else, look at what they've done to popularize Linux on the desktop. If that's not a contribution, I don't understand English.

[Larian]

I'd rather cut my hand off than working on Ubuntu's development. I would like to see Ubuntu and Canonical fail not because I think it is too mainstream, but because it falsifies the purpose of a free operating system in the interest of making money with it.
Their intent to attract new developers is not beneficial to Linux and is just an expression of the strive for more profit.

Methinks thou dost protest too strongly. You're a brainless hipster who doesn't like Ubuntu because it's not obscure. By your logic, you should also want to see Red Hat fail.

And how is wanting to attract new developers to Linux not benefiting Linux? Is it because Canonical is the one wanting to do the attracting? That's petty. I award you a box of Fail.

[DanL]

"Ubuntu Tries To Attract New Developers"
And yet they don't contribute upstream.

False. They contribute packaging fixes back to Debian. David Henningsson contribute a lot to the audio stack since Ubuntu has a large sample size and every HDA device needs its own hacks. I could go on, but I'm not going to waste more time on this "they don't contribute upstream" idea, since you'll probably just keep repeating it anyway.

[RealNC]

False. They contribute packaging fixes back to Debian. David Henningsson contribute a lot to the audio stack since Ubuntu has a large sample size and every HDA device needs its own hacks. I could go on, but I'm not going to waste more time on this "they don't contribute upstream" idea, since you'll probably just keep repeating it anyway.

It's not me who makes these claims. It's people who know what they're talking about. Like Greg KH:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2SED6sewRw

[Teho]

It's not me who makes these claims. It's people who know what they're talking about. Like Greg KH:

That video is over four years old and covers only some pieces of the desktop stack so it doesn't tell much if anything at all.

[Hamish Wilson]

If the only gripes against PA are that the latency is too high (on some hardware? definitely not mine) and it adds an unnecessary layer to hardware mixing, it's doing quite well -- considering the very grave problems presented by every other solution, including any totally new solution, which would just cause a re-hashing of all the upheaval and arguments that occur every time a new audio solution is presented for Linux. It's time to stop running and start sticking to our guns. PulseAudio has plenty of bullets left.

I think you really need to post this in another thread.