Also a company can redact something but that doesn't mean that they agree with the redaction and aren't going to continue to push the same nonsense along different vectors in a form they'll think the community will accept better.
On the contrary - they were the first group to publicly promote Wayland, Mark grandly declaring that within a year or so, Ubuntu would be moving to it. But as you say, things change.Yes, in 2010 they got behind Wayland, but at the time seemingly not believing it was a perfect solution, if I read Mark's statements from back then correctly. But by 2012 they wanted to do their own thing for whatever reason. Things change.
On the economic/commerical front, i would be curious to see Redhat or Oracle vs. Canonical incomes, in terms of paid support / services / subscriptions, annually. ~ and in those terms, the sheer number of servers, really doesn't mean anything. ~ for example, you go look at XYZ statistic about RHEL vs. Ubuntu, you will probably soon realize that most of the RHEL servers probably have paid support ~ but is the same true of Ubuntu? maybe, but i am guessing no where near to the same degree. (likewise with SLES or Oracle, they are making money hand over fist, compared to Canonical).
I remember a couple of years ago, Mark Shuttleworth claimed that people were migrating in droves from RHEL to Ubuntu - but was that really the case? (i doubt it, Canonical would be making tons of money if that were really the case, and RedHat would not be). More likely the numbers were probably misleading, not accounting for some of the examples that i have listed above and not accounting for that fact, that the numbers give no distinction of who is running those servers, nor their 'success' in terms of capital...my guess at the time, was that very few RHEL customers had switched to Ubuntu.
anyway, the point is - statistics don't always give you a clear picture, nor do they account for all factors, involved.
Last edited by ninez; 03-08-2013 at 12:57 AM.
I suspect the stuff they were doing "in private" came from things learned from their Ubuntu-for-Android and other touch research, but they didn't want to come forward with anything publicly until they knew they could commit to something on their own. A few weeks ago someone at Canonical mentioned that they were considering their own display server solution. I think we all expected something in-house and Google-like for their mobile OS. That they're extending it to the desktop as well is surprising, and where the real potential for failure is IMO.
I could be wrong, but this sort of sounds like what Canonical was attempting to do with Mir. (minus, the R&D part, since obviously, Canonical made a bunch of remarks about Wayland that were simply incorrect / FUD ~ but they are aiming for Android drivers/compatibility and Wayland is lacking that, even if attempts have been made in the past). I kinda feel like this is what Canonical intended to do, but it seems this approach could easily backfire on them, being as the people they are trying to 'sweep the market from' is the larger FOSS/linux community, which they so heavily rely on...Originally Posted by SmSpillaz
but obviously, this is speculation
Last edited by ninez; 03-08-2013 at 01:25 AM.
when ubuntu ships with mir i would purposely boycott it and not use ubuntu.
But Sam's article also made another important point that I think explains the motivation for an in-house project: depending on the community doesn't work for a business with business-oriented goals. The decisions have to be in-house and much of the work and direction has to be in-house. The writing was on the wall when GNOME went batsh!t crazy. To not have control over your final product is a scary proposition for a business to accept. And it can't accept it.
Though Sam also paints a somewhat depressing view of what can be realistically accomplished by the open source "community" and talks about the struggles of spreading FOSS. Frankly, I just don't get it... and it seems like he's come to accept some of the realistic limitations as well. But what is the deal with FOSS that makes it such an ethos or almost religion for many? And don't get me wrong, I love religion... but I go to a church for my religious experiences. FOSS is an extremely poor substitute for a holistic belief system. I, personally, only really believe in "open source" in the sense that I think code should be visible to verify no invasions of privacy and the like. I don't have any particular fondness to one open source license over another.
But otherwise, yeah... community-driven projects = failure.