A Note To Canonical: "Don't Piss On Wayland"

[BO$$]

Ubuntu is made by Canonical Ltd. with some help of volunteers.

And it shows in terms of usability. There clearly is a need for somebody to create the necessary focus in order to get it right. For now this somebody seems to be a corporation (talking not only about Canonical but also Red Hat and others).

[Vim_User]

And it shows in terms of usability. There clearly is a need for somebody to create the necessary focus in order to get it right. For now this somebody seems to be a corporation (talking not only about Canonical but also Red Hat and others).

I find it funny how you tend to ignore anything that shows your arguments debunked.

[TheBlackCat]

Unlike Bozo the Clown, Canonical have been successful so far. Sudden hate outburst proves that.

Way to completely miss the point. Just as there are reasons to laugh at people besides them being geniuses, there are reasons for hatred besides success. Sometimes people say things that are considered funny. Sometimes people do things that are considered bad.

And by all counts Bozo the Clown was extremely successful. He has been a hugely popular franchise for decades and was played by hundreds of actors. Ubuntu is a total failure by comparison, in terms of popularity, financial success, and cultural impact.

[BO$$]

That is why they submit their code upstream, something that Ubuntu rarely does. So community developers already have come to their senses, their code is not only used on their machines.

Almost any major distro uses a patched kernel, do you want to say that all of them are slowly diverging from mainline Linux? This is simply bullshit.

Even if that would be true (it probably was at the time when Ubuntu was released in 2004), Ubuntu has simply not the manpower to abandon the Debian base, they are relying on Debian, a distribution that revolves about the community. Let Ubuntu try to diverge from Debian, it will dig its own grave with that, Ubuntu totally can not exist without Debian.
This does not make any sense at all. Ubuntu can only submit patches upstream, but why should any upstream project care about patches that are only necessary for one distro? If they would submit patches (in the needed quality and quantity, not submitting a wall of code after secretly developing something in-house for months) that benefit the whole project I doubt that the patches would be shunned just because an Ubuntu developer wrote them. But why should they care about Ubuntu specific patches? If Canonical sees the need to divert from the cosdebase it is their own problem to manage the patches.
I see it the other way around. Canonical needs to realize that shunning the community they rely on will only result in shunning themselves from all the projects that are developed by the community.

First you do not know what manpower does or doesn't Canonical have. Shuttleworth can talk to a lot of rich people and make them invest in this company, so they can diverge as much as they like from upstream. They already are a 500+ company. All I am saying is that not only is Canonical diverging from upstream but that it might be a good thing. I am not saying that in 3 months they will be a completely new OS but they're clearly starting to leave the community behind since the community no longer fits their vision. About the linux kernel, if the number of diffs increases than you can consider it's diverging. If other distros do the same well they are diverging also. I am talking about variations in time. If the number of patches increase than you can consider it's diverging.

Also when you try to execute your vision you'll need more control. So that's why you may choose to develop in house. Think Mac OS X. They were based on something open source but then it wasn't open source anymore and they developed the UI and everything in house. Jobs was focused on the UI. Mac OS X couldn't have been made by a 'community'. It needed a clear leader. A person to hold everyone accountable. A CEO. Open source is nice as a foundation you build your company on. In themselves, 'community' products aren't that usable.

[ethana2]

I think that teamwork is better than competition, but I think the combination of both is the absolute best case scenario. 3 is a healthy number I think. I mean, if everyone and their mom wrote a windowing system, that would be a problem, but this is just Xorg, Wayland, and MIR, since SurfaceFlinger is basically just on Android. Canonical has their requirements for their windowing system and instead of dumping those requirements on wayland, they're doing their own thing. I still hold that if Canonical just went into wayland and submitted 150 patches saying "we want this to be completely different, so we're making it completely different, starting with switching from client-provisioned to server-provisioned canvasses" --you really think that would go over well? What is it you want? You want Canonical to compromise their vision for the future of the desktop? Go fuck yourself. Maybe it'll help you calm down.

[Vim_User]

First you do not know what manpower does or doesn't Canonical have. Shuttleworth can talk to a lot of rich people and make them invest in this company, so they can diverge as much as they like from upstream.

So you think they have the possibilities to pay 1000+ developers alone to maintain their Debian base, after they have forked it to have control over their base? I doubt so and they won't do it. They simply are hipocrites, saying that what they want is not to rely on the community that doesn't have a strong leader and a vision, while in the meantime they say absolutely nothing about the fact that their OS would just plop out of existance without that community.
If the community is such a bad thing they simply should fork Debian now, any day longer they rely on the community of "idiots that can code" they don't like makes them look like what they are: parasites on the open source ecosystem.

[BO$$]

So you think they have the possibilities to pay 1000+ developers alone to maintain their Debian base, after they have forked it to have control over their base? I doubt so and they won't do it. They simply are hipocrites, saying that what they want is not to rely on the community that doesn't have a strong leader and a vision, while in the meantime they say absolutely nothing about the fact that their OS would just plop out of existance without that community.
If the community is such a bad thing they simply should fork Debian now, any day longer they rely on the community of "idiots that can code" they don't like makes them look like what they are: parasites on the open source ecosystem.

Yeah parasites that made the OS exist in the eyes of the many. Ubuntu is the most popular distro and it was made popular by Canonical. That is not exactly parasitic behavior. They did what others couldn't do: made linux a valid choice on desktop.

[Hamish Wilson]

Mcann is a software developer not a trained designer.

And Shuttleworth is? Still, that does not even dispute my point - Gnome Shell had a person in charge of design and ensuring a consistent vision. And it was in fact because of this "leadership" that many seem to have gotten upset about it (for real and imagined reasons). And yet this is exactly what people say they want out of Canonical...

Mac OS X couldn't have been made by a 'community'. It needed a clear leader. A person to hold everyone accountable. A CEO. Open source is nice as a foundation you build your company on. In themselves, 'community' products aren't that usable.

Where you go wrong is this assertion that it needs to be a CEO. There can be leadership in the community, and there has been lots of it. Also, I am certainly finding my community distro to be usable, but then you will not give up these wild hateful assertions of suckitude.

[Hamish Wilson]

I still hold that if Canonical just went into wayland and submitted 150 patches saying "we want this to be completely different, so we're making it completely different, starting with switching from client-provisioned to server-provisioned canvasses" --you really think that would go over well? What is it you want? You want Canonical to compromise their vision for the future of the desktop? Go fuck yourself. Maybe it'll help you calm down.

Those are not the only two options and you know it. What we wanted was for them to talk to the Wayland developers when they were taking suggestions on board about crafting the ABI (you know, before they went 1.0) just like all of the other vendors were doing. We are not the ones applying double standards when it comes to Canonical here, they are doing that themselves when compared to to other vendors.

[TheBlackCat]

I still hold that if Canonical just went into wayland and submitted 150 patches saying "we want this to be completely different, so we're making it completely different, starting with switching from client-provisioned to server-provisioned canvasses" --you really think that would go over well? What is it you want? You want Canonical to compromise their vision for the future of the desktop? Go fuck yourself. Maybe it'll help you calm down.

Everything in Canonical's "vision" is possible in Wayland, much of it without having to change anything in the core in Wayland. Canonical devs would have known this if they had asked. That is the reason they had to backpedal on all of their technical complaints about Wayland, in reality none of them would have been an issue. At most they would have had to maintain their own backend or compositor bits, but that is much less work than maintaining an entire display server and would have caused much less of a rift amongst the Linux community.