With fixed ABI, how would things like Wayland ( or even mroe radical) be possible ?
Developer and end-user are not mutually exclusive roles.
There are few distro's that are community ran and also let the community dictate the direction of the distro. For example:And something tells me that the rest tries to follow suit but when they fail they say that they don't care about the end user but the developer.
A lot of distros don't really do much in development but simply repackage. Most of your development work for linux comes from commercial entities that are not interested in the desktop market. For example: http://www.tuxradar.com/content/red-...-desktop-linux Instead they concentrate their development on where the money is which is big enterprise.I mean there are plenty of distros that focus on the end user because they want linux to gain mass acceptance (which is also the goal of linus torvalds from what I heard).
The number one reason is because the desktop market is far less profitable then the mobile/embedded/enterprise market and given their limited resources that is what they concentrate on for their development work.The reason devs are #1 is because of people like you who think that somehow linux doesn't want to be on all computers and use it as an excuse to not improve their software.
Canonical did introduce many end-user interesting projects: software center (much more comfortable to find and discuss software), jockey (to autofetch drivers), automatic Xorg restarts (to eliminate "CLI suprise" in case of bad drivers), upstart (before systemd was born), networkmanager (this is clearly userfriendly) early adoption of PulseAudio (with funny effects).
They do develop much less inkernel, but they do work on integration and desktop consistency. And they have not misused their lead/semi-lead position to prevent other distributions to profit from their efforts, as of today.
Last time I looked into it (maybe 6 months ago) the vendor's drivers were still untouchable for OpenGL feature support and execution speed compared to the open source drivers.
Even on 2D operations like redraw window contents during window resize, the open source drivers drag.
Using open source drivers I find that Firefox may not use hardware acceleration and is thus dog slow. Never had that problem with proprietary.
Having all drivers in kernel / refactoring: before I buy a new video card I check for vendor support for the new card for Linux. If the kernel devs refactor or otherwise improve the APIs or kernel internals then it is AMD or NV responsibility to support the new kernel. In any case, how often does a major kernel subsystem like graphics (or SCSI layer or network stack) get overhauled? Every five years? Longer?
Other people's comments:
(paraphrase) "too stupid to uninstall a driver": I am perfectly capable of removing Nouveau after an install. But it's a pain in the neck: the VESA driver will just not get used if I install proprietary driver, so why should I have to mess with blacklisting the nouveau module? It's as if someone does not want me to disable it. It's not as bad now as it was when it first showed up, I guess some zealots at e.g. Fedora got half the message.
FPS & game consoles: I use PCs & Linux professionally, I play shoot 'em up games on Windows. I do not think consoles offer a compelling value proposition.
"trolls": I reject you out of hand. My comments about open source AMD/NV video drivers are perfectly valid.