Upstream X/Wayland Developers Bash Canonical, Mir

[Hamish Wilson]

RedHat Guts Gnome and nobody cares
RedHat Guts X and nobody cares
RedHat Guts Linux and nobody cared

In a word: Horseshit.

[Ibidem]

Heh. It's our turn to pull a systemd!

My favorite line in the whole thing...
(upstart came first, Red Hat adopted it, then systemd came along claiming that there were technical issues with upstart. So this is almost an exact mirror, with the shoe on the other foot.)

For the anti-BSD trolls:
This is the first display server I know of to be licensed as (L)GPL3. I doubt it will be popular anywhere outside Linux (there, did I irritate anyone yet?) and Hurd.


...Meanwhile, I'm sticking with X11, and sysvinit (well, and bb init!).

[Hamish Wilson]

It has been a while since I tried Fedora, but the general vibes I get are very short support cycles and that if you have a problem and Google it you will be less likely to find an answer than if you had the same problem on Ubuntu. The equivalents to PPAs also seem less plentiful/popular. I also hated using Fedora as a developer because it was secure - things wouldn't work and I'd have to track error messages and magic incantations to let me do whatever I wanted. As for the others, my concern is things like installing Chrome, Virtualbox, Steam and similar software which all choose only a subset of Linux distros to mention and is an issue for new users.

You do know about RPM Fusion, right?

As for the secure thing, you can turn off SELinux if you prefer (I am assuming that is what you are referring to). Now, this may be more than a new user wants, but then I never said it was necessarily the best for new users, just that it's "issues" are severally overstated.

When it comes to support, I just ended up at the Arch Wiki anyway. That is why I am on Arch now.

[Hamish Wilson]

(upstart came first, Red Hat adopted it, then systemd came along claiming that there were technical issues with upstart. So this is almost an exact mirror, with the shoe on the other foot.)

I will admit to some ignorance on this, but did Upstart's technical issues actually exist? Because in this case it seems that Canonical was just spreading FUD.

[daniels]

RedHat Guts X and nobody cares

Red Hat have been the primary driving force behind X for a very long time. If it weren't for them, X would've died at least a couple of years back.

[garegin]

Red Hat is the primary force behind most linux technologies/infrastructures. Without them the desktop would have been painfully unusable. I really hope they can bolster the gnome project though. I would have donated to them, but I don't want my money to be wasted by some freetard hacker who doesn't know a thing about user interface design. Maybe I'll donate to the gparted project. They seem to be serving a very focused, pragmatic purpose.

[funkSTAR]

My favorite line in the whole thing...
(upstart came first, Red Hat adopted it, then systemd came along claiming that there were technical issues with upstart. So this is almost an exact mirror, with the shoe on the other foot.)

Technical AND license issues. Upstart is dual license due to Canonicals contributor license.
http://www.canonical.com/contributors

So systemd is about breaking down walled gardens. Mir is about building walled gardens.

[grotgrot]

You do know about RPM Fusion, right?

I didn't, but browsing through doesn't seem to show that many packages. It looks like Debian (and hence Ubuntu) has about double the number of packages as standard. Ubuntu's PPAs fill in any missing gaps very well. The Fedora package list is definitely more complete than when I've looked in the past.

As for the secure thing, you can turn off SELinux if you prefer (I am assuming that is what you are referring to).

I was developing an Apache module, along with other software. It wouldn't work with no apparent explanation as to why. Eventually I'd find a clue, address it and try again. This would happen several times. I didn't want to disable selinux since then everyone I gave the module to would also have to do so, which is clearly the wrong thing. The issue wasn't the existence of selinux, but rather that diagnosing something you wanted to happen and didn't was extremely tedious.

When it comes to support, I just ended up at the Arch Wiki anyway. That is why I am on Arch now.

The installation docs are astonishingly bad (this page) especially compared to the Gentoo ones, or the convenience of a gui/auto-detection. Of course installs are so rare that it doesn't matter for most people. I am seeing the Arch wiki showing up in searches a lot more, like Gentoo used to (eg the arch page for btrfs is my 4th result for that term). Part of my problem is that the arch netboot kernel hangs in VirtualBox during boot most of the time.

On Ubuntu I use these instructions to get rid of all the Ubuntu specific stuff and get a more genuine Gnome experience. If that approach doesn't work in 13.04 then I will definitely quite Ubuntu, almost certainly for Arch. The only remaining problem is why to recommend to new users since I still don't have a better answer than Ubuntu.

[Ericg]

I will admit to some ignorance on this, but did Upstart's technical issues actually exist? Because in this case it seems that Canonical was just spreading FUD.

Yes actually there were legitimate technical problems with upstart, check the various wikis for a description. What it basically comes down to is...upstart pushed the hardwork to the app developers, systemd kept the hardwork to themselves so that everyone could benefit simultaneously.

As far THESE technical problems... So far, Krh, David Airlie and Daniel Stone have all come back with: "FUD until proven otherwise."

[zxy_thf]

Huh? What is happening to Ubuntu? Personally lost interest in it years ago, but still glad it promotes Linux (on the desktop), but now? This is the end, in a few years it'll be the bastard child of Linux, and then into oblivion like all the rest of once popular desktop distros... Google can pull stuff like this off with Android, because they are freaking Google, but Mr. Shuttleworth must be delusional if he thinks Canonical can do the same. Until then all they do is damage the ecosystem. Shame...

Nothing to surprise.
I've found Canonical is just an Apple-wannabe for a while.

But it will never become another Apple because it has never invested as many human resources as Apple had.
To get a better UI, Apple replaced X server many years ago. But what about Canonical? It just adopted compiz to attract users with the fancy but useless graphics.