Quote Originally Posted by porkbutt View Post
I recently evaluated all of the other distros since Ubuntu 12.10 was such a turd.

What I discovered was that even though 12.10 sucks, it was still better than anybody else's.
Well this is where I feel like I'm up crap's creek. It seems that each new release of Ubuntu is worse than the prior and Canonical seems completely pleased knowing the turd is swirling around the bowl. But as bad as it is, the only reasonable alternative seems to be to abandon Linux altogether. I think I'll just stick with 12.04 for as long as possible, and try to work around its shortcomings.

So Android comes out of nowhere with it's own display server to become the dominant consumer OS, better than Windows OSX, iOS or anything else. Maybe Wayland isn't as good as everybody claims, and if Ubuntu can write something that's small, simple, and fast, and STILL beat Wayland to market, then why shouldn't they? Should they have also just went with Gnome3 instead of Unity so that they could be as crappy as Fedora 18? Or why not the perpetually buggy KDE? In all fairness though, the latest Gnome3 is so buggy that KDE is probably the stable one now, and I never thought I'd say that. More competition in Linux standards is great, because a some of the current standards suck and need to be dethroned by a new contender.

Those of you that think Ubuntu should wait until Ubuntu 14.10, 16.10, or whenever to adopt Wayland when it's finally ready, probably have no credentials to be telling Ubuntu how to operate. Ubuntu just works, and the only other distro that can make that claim is RHEL and it's copy-cats, and RHEL accomplishes that by sitting on really old versions of software. Ubuntu is the only distro in LInux history that can properly do bleeding edge kernels and other software, I trust them over the armchair-quarterbacks of the internet.
I've never been into the Wayland hype myself, as the project claims to bring pretty much nothing better than X except cleaner code and protocols. From a user perspective, big whoop. As far as I can see, no real new "features" are actually planned, and Windows 7 & 8 continue to have far more advanced display servers.

So in that sense, if Canonical wanted to do something better I could definitely get excited. But it's Canonical. And looking at the way things have been going recently, nearly every move is hair-brained and hardly beneficial for the user. And, worse, quality is garbage. If Apple's slogan was "It just works!" then Canonical's is clearly "It just doesn't work... and we don't care... and we're pushing it out the door anyway." So I have very high doubts about their ability to pull off a desktop-quality display server without cutting major corners. In 12.10 the end-user could not even *install* proprietary drivers without borking his system. And this group is going to write a whole display server that works?

Canonical keeps talking about bringing in the new users, and getting the non-tech savvy people into the fold. You know... "Linux for human beings." But they seem to be avoiding the fact that critical show-stopping bugs (like black screens on boot -- insanely common in Ubuntu now) are absolutely unacceptable to non-tech savvy people. Yeah maybe we can dump into a console and restart LightDM or re-install the nvidia-current package or whatever the solution, but expecting that of people who are new to Linux is just asinine.

And they don't care. They're more concerned with all these superficial, valueless changes like collapsing the Software Updater or having the Scopes perform searches on a central database or whatever other "improvement" that is entirely moot when all I've got is a blinking cursor.