Senior Member
Looks like they didn't stick to the concept designs people contributed to;
https://ubuntu.mybalsamiq.com/projec...ecoreapps/grid
Senior Member
Totally agree, but with QML will come the need for coders to know Javascript as the glue. Obviously there are other means but Javascript is the fastest and cleanest language for this type of work and already has associations with DOM(HTML5) interaction used in widgets and other layout.Originally Posted by mark45
Senior Member
I can assure you I'm neither a Canonical PR agent nor am I a Canonical "fanboy", yet I still think your statement does not make sense.
Google did not offer a desktop operating system before they developed android.Google didn't betray their existing userbase(Desktop users) to target another entirely different userbase(smartphone users). And also, Google didn't create fragmentation in key parts of the Free software stack. They created something new.
Canonical is evil, it is now official!
How does targeting a users that are not in your current user base equate to being evil? Please explain, I'm genuinely curious.
Google did fork Linux kernel for android. Android still does not work with the kernel version from kernel.org. I am aware of existing efforts to mainline as many Android/Linux changes but that is yet to be realized. I would argue that the kernel is more important than the display server here. Why aren't you crying foul about that?
There were other smaller mobile OS projects. Why aren't you saying Google should have contributed to one of them rather than creating a competing project?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evil
Last edited by jayrulez; 03-12-2013 at 01:29 PM.
Senior Member
It's getting to be Android all over again.
An operating system that is based on Linux kernel but is hell for anyone even remotely interested in actually using an operating system.
Junior Member
That has to be the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. Are Software Center and Update Manager CPU-bound applications that choke on Python's lack of raw computational power compared to C? Do they run constantly?
You've made it obvious that writing high-performance applications is not your forte; I'll give you a hint: all of those network-enabled applications are slow for you because of your crappy internet speed, it has nothing to do with Python, and there would be no noticeable improvement if you moved it to C.
Python would be slow as hell for writing a video transcoder, but 99% of normal desktop applications and non-computationally intensive services/daemons/etc... run just fine as Python scripts. You can even make a full-on UI using PyQt, and most of the time it will be just as fast as one written in C++. Tornado is one of the most performant web servers out there, and ***gasp***, it's written in pure Python, including the networking part of it.
So please keep your FUD to yourself...
Senior Member
You don't understand, because you don't want to understand.
Google didn't create any fragmentation with Android. They didn't cause problems in existing solutions. They didn't bring a higher maintainance burden to upstream projects. They didn't threaten to split proprietary support (Graphic blobs). They didn't alienate their current userbase to make Android.
Look at what Ubuntu has done: Instead of contributing to GNOME Shell, they made Unity. Why? Why not write a different Shell for Gnome 3, like the Cinnamon project did with far less resources than Canonical? While Mutter is far better than Compiz? There would be less bugs, and less work for themselves, plus they would help an existing community project.
Instead of contributing to Wayland, they created Mir. Again, why? There are absolutely no technical reasons behind it. Just more fragmentation.
Google is less evil, because their actions didn't harm FOSS at all. They didn't harm the Gnu/Linux desktop at all. Canonical on the other hand, not only leeches like a vampire community efforts for free without giving anything in return, but threatens to slow down progress because of their schemes to take over the world. The sooner they go bankrupt, the better for us all...
Phoronix Member
Well, there are some devs working on the gnome-shell gtk3 mess that is a total waste. Cannonical's direction is a lot better. Even better since they are starting to use QT5/QML as a main toolkit .
Senior Member
No one is forced to use or maintain Canonical's project other than Ubuntu.
There are many people with many different opinions that use Ubuntu. Not everyone will be pleased with whatever direction the project takes. Some people may very well feel alienated because Canonical created Unity, but there are also many that are happy with it.
There is currently no wayland support in blobs so I do not see how their moves threaten to split support that is non-existent. Please explain.
May have had something to do with GNOME guys rejecting patches from Canonical because they had their own vision for GNOME? Different projects have different goals. If the goals do not align then it may be difficult to work together. The very reason why we have many different DEs right now.
Look at what Ubuntu has done: Instead of contributing to GNOME Shell, they made Unity. Why? Why not write a different Shell for Gnome 3, like the Cinnamon project did with far less resources than Canonical? While Mutter is far better than Compiz? There would be less bugs, and less work for themselves, plus they would help an existing community project.
Community developed projects are slow to progress. When everyone is working and depending on the same thing, there is not much motivation to operate with urgency. For example, as a result for Mer, you may see expedited adoption of wayland in GNOME (http://worldofgnome.org/working-on-a-bigger-proposal/).
Also, why are you praising GNOME 3 yet bashing Unity as the means by which Canonical betrayed its Ubuntu user base? They are both created to work on multiple form factors.
Are you sure about this?Instead of contributing to Wayland, they created Mir. Again, why? There are absolutely no technical reasons behind it. Just more fragmentation.
Also, reasons do not have to be technical. Many people are using one piece of software or another because of reasons that are not technical e.g. Licensing, politics etc...
In the case of Mir, it is valuable that Canonical can develop the display server at a pace that may not fit with the schedule of the "community". Most projects that plan to adopt wayland mostly target 1 form factor save for a few. Ubuntu is targeting multiple form factors. What if Ubuntu needs to optimize the display server or make changes to it for their products in the future, what do they do? Make those changes and break it for everyone else?
Control of th software stack is important in the game that Canonical wants to play.
GNU/Linux desktop is pretty much the same as it was a few years ago and may be very well the same a few years from now.
Google is less evil, because their actions didn't harm FOSS at all. They didn't harm the Gnu/Linux desktop at all. Canonical on the other hand, not only leeches like a vampire community efforts for free without giving anything in return, but threatens to slow down progress because of their schemes to take over the world. The sooner they go bankrupt, the better for us all...
Why are you bashing Canonical and not Oracle here? They re-brand Red Hat Linux as Oracle Linux and ship it with proprietary products that the community cannot use for free. I thought Canonical release the source code for everyone to use, so how can you say they do not give anything back? They provide infrastructure for multiple Ubuntu derivatives. Canonical gives much back to the community and to claim otherwise is dubious at best.
Also, Canonical's announcement of Mir seems to be speeding things up (Again, see: http://worldofgnome.org/working-on-a-bigger-proposal/).
Senior Member
A good google reader would be nice.
They should also create an email client. Thunderbird as the only email client that does everything I want needs some competition (yes, from you too, kmail2). Or perhaps they could fork evolution and make a gui that actually works. I have tried to use it for a while but it was constantly broken and always something caused it to hang.
Phoronix Member
Firstly, they never had an existing user base in the form of an OS, they were only a web platform at the time, so you're wrong there.
Secondly, it could be debated whether it caused fragmentation or not.
Android had their own in house Linux kernel and frameworks such as Audioflinger (instead of ALSA/Pulseaudio) and Surfaceflinger (instead of X) and for a while, while all the components in the underlying system were FOSS, they never pushed any of the changes into upstream projects or really supported them outside of an Android context. In fact, it fell back on the community to integrate all of the Android kernel changes back into the upstream kernel.
Now, some may say that this isn't fragmentation (creating your own tools for a specific OS and no others), or it is (not using existing FOSS components) and then many say that Android is evil too (usually forcing you to use their binary applications and frameworks such as GMail and the Play Store, or deal with an almost non-functional OS from a user perspective.)
So, second point is debatable, third point is just an inane comment so I have really nothing to say about that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote