1) Firefox. Ecosystem is mainly defined by the myriad of extensions. Users who wanted to switch to another browser (like Chrome) found it difficult at first because the extensions which they were used to didn't exist yet
2) Android. Ecosystem is mostly defined by apps. People like to buy Samsung Android phones, but almost nobody buys Samsung Windows phones, despite price and hardware being very similar. Most of the important popular apps are on both platforms, but few of the important non-popular ones are on WP. Like the app from your local public transport company or sports team.
3) Ubuntu. Ecosystem is defined by the packages. Want the latest release of some software? Find it readily availabe in an Ubuntu PPA. Banks are distributing their homebanking software precompiled and dynamically linked against libraries that are currently in Ubuntu, causing grief to users and developers of other distros.
This leads to the remarkable situation that some of those people install DD-WRT/OpenWrt on their routers (because it doesn't crash, allows bittorrent without causing a gaming lag, etc.) while exclusively using Windows on their desktop computer.
You cannot legally obtain OS X without purchasing an apple computer as far as I know and last time I checked, they cost a hefty sum which is not a justifiable purchase in many economies.
If Canonical is able to produce an OS on par with the popular proprietary offerings free of cost then good on them and good on the community. If they fail to produce it, then bad on them but there are still many alternatives available no?
I don't understand why so many people are faulting Canonical for the vision they have. If you do not agree with their vision, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, there is no need to vilify them like they are responsible for clubbing baby seals or stealing first born children. People keep screaming that Ubuntu is taking their freedom when no one is forcing them to use Ubuntu.
It takes leadership to deliver that vision and that is what Canonical is offering to Ubuntu. Leadership.
There are many community developed distributions and a few more pop up every week while some die. This has been going on for many years, yet it has amounted to little with regards to making the Linux desktop mainstream. Why fault Canonical for diverging from the norm (Which obviously hasn't been working out)?
If Ubuntu's direction isn't your cup of tea then use another Distro. Many are doing just that. There is no need for slander.
With regards to the Wayland/Mir fiasco. For what Ubuntu wants to offer, Wayland may not fit well. Not that it is technically inferior to Mir. In fact it may be technically superior to Mir. It is certainly more complete at the moment. But let's say for example, Ubuntu adapts Wayland. 8-10 months down the road, they need to change the way Wayland works to accommodate some changes in their product offerings. How do they accomplish that? Do they force changes on Wayland that disrupts every other distro using Wayland. I doubt that would happen as such disruptive changes would be rejected upstream. What are their other options? Forking Wayland and maintaining the patches? Doable yes! But it may be better for them to have their own display server that they can integrate with their offerings and change when they see fit to do so without needing the blessing of the established oligarchy of Wayland devs.
Wayland may be ideal for a desktop distributions that do not change much over the years. However, the mobile consumer space that is fast to evolve might require a more flexible solution (Flexible meaning disruptive changes can be made as the market dictates).
Some people are behaving as if Wayland is the golden torch of Linux, as if everything will magically get better as soon as Wayland is adopted. Nothing much will change when Wayland is adapted. Linux wont magically see a higher adoption rate on the consumer desktop. X is not the reason linux isn't more popular in the consumer desktop space and Wayland will not solve that problem (Is that even a problem?). The only thing that will happen is that Distros will have a better graphic stack available alongside X.
You may never hear anyone say "Oh, I'm going to buy an computer with OpenSUSE preinstalled because it is using Wayland". Of course you may never hear someone say "I'm going to buy this ubuntu Computer because it us using Mir". However, you may hear someone say "I'm going to buy that Ubuntu phone because I can also use it as my desktop computer when docked".
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.v...43/focus=57918C++ is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot
of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it's much much
easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if
the choice of C were to do *nothing* but keep the C++ programmers out,
that in itself would be a huge reason to use C.
In other words: the choice of C is the only sane choice.
clang and llvm are also using C++.Migrating GCC to C++ as implementation language:
C++ is a standardized, well known, popular language.
C++ is nearly a superset of C90 used in GCC.
The C subset of C++ is just as efficient as C.
C++ supports cleaner code in several significant cases.
C++ makes it easier to write and enforce cleaner interfaces.
C++ never requires uglier code.
C++ is not a panacea but it is an improvement.
Last edited by Hamish Wilson; 03-08-2013 at 02:32 PM.
Last edited by prodigy_; 03-08-2013 at 02:49 PM.