Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 77

Thread: Ubuntu Set To Terminate Its Brainstorm Project

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r_a_trip View Post

    "But, but, but it is FOSS. It is out there and you can choose to use it." Oh yeah, but you'd have to become Ubuntu in the process. I don't think the whole world is waiting for an Ubuntu monoculture, with all distributions basically being an Ubuntu respin.
    Dunno, the world e.g. masses can actually welcome that kind of future. Gladly it should not kill current "independent" distributions like Gentoo, Arch, Redhat, SuSe, Debian and 100 other projects.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frign View Post
    It's not a Linux operating system, it is a GNU operating system with the (monolithic) Linux-Kernel; thus it's called "GNU/Linux".
    Cool story, bro.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frign View Post
    It's not a Linux operating system, it is a GNU operating system with the (monolithic) Linux-Kernel; thus it's called "GNU/Linux".
    Even though I would not consider Ubuntu to be free software at and after all, we shouldn't deny the fact it utilizes a lot of GNU software, rendering it a GNU OS.
    Unless their NiH-syndrome gets bad enough to attempt to replace those tools, this won't change, and even if, in no case it would turn into a Linux operating system.

    I am not a FSF-fanatic, but we should at least give them credit for their hard work. We wouldn't be here today without them.
    There is (probably) a person called John Smith. "Smith" is his surname and gives crucial information about his family, without whom he wouldn't exist. His friends all call him John though because they all know who John is, they know who his family are and don't need to specify that every time they mention him. When John is interviewed for a newspaper article, the article probably mentions him as John Smith at some point, but from then on simply refers to him as John, because we all know who they are referring to.

    A name is a name, it serves the purpose of identifying something. When there is ambiguity as to which Linux you are referring to, then additional information may be given, Ie Arch Linux or Ubuntu Linux. Even then they are usually just called Arch or Ubuntu, as the Linux is implied as they don't create anything else. A time may come when there is an alternative to GNU and the GNU cannot simply be implied. In which case, then referring to GNU/linux where there may be confusion with another form of Linux will make sense. Although if Hurd doesn't go anywhere, we would probably just call it GNU as the Linux would be implied.

    My point is that a name is there for identification. When I use the term Linux, people know what I am referring to, therefore calling it Linux is fine. Sure, if you want the full name to be GNU/Linux, then I have no objection to that, GNU/Linux is the term for the GNU OS with the linux kernel. But in the same way it is perfectly acceptable to refer to John Smith as John amongst people who know who you are reffing to, it is perfectly acceptable to refer to GNU/Linux as Linux.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
    There is (probably) a person called John Smith. "Smith" is his surname and gives crucial information about his family, without whom he wouldn't exist. His friends all call him John though because they all know who John is, they know who his family are and don't need to specify that every time they mention him. When John is interviewed for a newspaper article, the article probably mentions him as John Smith at some point, but from then on simply refers to him as John, because we all know who they are referring to.

    A name is a name, it serves the purpose of identifying something. When there is ambiguity as to which Linux you are referring to, then additional information may be given, Ie Arch Linux or Ubuntu Linux. Even then they are usually just called Arch or Ubuntu, as the Linux is implied as they don't create anything else. A time may come when there is an alternative to GNU and the GNU cannot simply be implied. In which case, then referring to GNU/linux where there may be confusion with another form of Linux will make sense. Although if Hurd doesn't go anywhere, we would probably just call it GNU as the Linux would be implied.

    My point is that a name is there for identification. When I use the term Linux, people know what I am referring to, therefore calling it Linux is fine. Sure, if you want the full name to be GNU/Linux, then I have no objection to that, GNU/Linux is the term for the GNU OS with the linux kernel. But in the same way it is perfectly acceptable to refer to John Smith as John amongst people who know who you are reffing to, it is perfectly acceptable to refer to GNU/Linux as Linux.
    offtopic
    I prefer to call it "Collection of Bits". How about that? Why "Linux", when its about bits?
    offtopic/
    ---

    Lol, wow, I presume bug nr 1 is unfixed and never bothered fixing xD

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    You have to consider that Ubuntu has been around for quite a while now, but it failed to take away any real market share from MS and Apple. So apparently a new strategy is needed.

    Not a big issue, IMO. There's plenty of Linux distros to choose from.
    I see the writing on the wall and I can sense where Canonical's little coup is leading them. I'd rather not wake up in a world where there are three behemoth OS vendors (Microsoft, Apple, Canonical) all with their own ways of being self serving to the detriment of their users and traditional Linux distro's now having to fight three nuisances instead of two.

    The dream was to have a few major distro's on equal footing so the coopetition kept them honest and the users would benefit from this power balance. Canonical up ends this by deliberately setting a course to be incompatible with the very ecosystem that bootstrapped them.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Yeah. Who cares if you defeat windows, if you become windows in the process. Not listening to the users is bad business.
    It's indicative of the new Ubuntu. Canonical has the reigns tightly in hand and they don't need contributing users anymore. They need uncritical consumers, who ooh and aah at any new shiny thing Canonical tacks onto Ubuntu. Tada, look, shiny.
    You have to consider that Ubuntu has been around for quite a while now, but it failed to take away any real market share from MS and Apple. So apparently a new strategy is needed.
    This isn't about any of those things. This is about that particular site not being very useful. There are better ways to communicate with developers about what features are wanted now from both technical and non-technical users via Launchpad and the Ubuntu Store. Brainstorm served a niche usecase that no longer exists.

    So... does anyone know what features came about as a result of this project?
    IIRC Dell used Brainstorm to develop features for it's Ubuntu based latops, though I don't know any details.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r_a_trip View Post
    I see the writing on the wall and I can sense where Canonical's little coup is leading them. I'd rather not wake up in a world where there are three behemoth OS vendors (Microsoft, Apple, Canonical) all with their own ways of being self serving to the detriment of their users and traditional Linux distro's now having to fight three nuisances instead of two.

    The dream was to have a few major distro's on equal footing so the coopetition kept them honest and the users would benefit from this power balance. Canonical up ends this by deliberately setting a course to be incompatible with the very ecosystem that bootstrapped them.
    you said it: "the dream"...

    you need to come back to the real world.

    If ubuntu doesn't do something BIG soon, then the only "resemblance" of a linux distro for the masses will just be Android or chromeOS, which are incompatible with most of the linux tools and ecosystems.

    "The dream was to have a few major distro's on equal footing so the coopetition kept them honest and the users would benefit from this power balance."

    So your dream is to have the 1% distributed upon the major distros = 0.15% each ? YeS! I can now sense the balance of incredible powers!

    The land of OZ is awesome.
    Last edited by madjr; 05-14-2013 at 09:10 AM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r_a_trip View Post
    I see the writing on the wall and I can sense where Canonical's little coup is leading them. I'd rather not wake up in a world where there are three behemoth OS vendors (Microsoft, Apple, Canonical) all with their own ways of being self serving to the detriment of their users and traditional Linux distro's now having to fight three nuisances instead of two.

    The dream was to have a few major distro's on equal footing so the coopetition kept them honest and the users would benefit from this power balance. Canonical up ends this by deliberately setting a course to be incompatible with the very ecosystem that bootstrapped them.
    I on the other hand hope they succeed. Even though I don't actually use Ubuntu. The reason I want them to have a big market share is that this would increase software support. If it runs in Ubuntu, it most probably can be made to run on other Linux distros as well.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    90

    Default

    @ Madjr:

    No, it would have been nice if the general populace would have pulled their heads out of their butts and just picked their own preference of distro out of the available supply, but as the lemmings they are they just pick the one that screams the loudest and then they convince themselves that that is the only thing that lets them do any computing. Nevermind that Ubuntu is just a run of the mill, mediocre Linux distro for now (it could stop being a Linux distro).

    Doesn't matter. Now we just have to contend with Windows users, Mac OS X users and Ubuntu users. The elusive Linux user will just keep on trucking.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r_a_trip View Post
    It's indicative of the new Ubuntu. Canonical has the reigns tightly in hand and they don't need contributing users anymore. They need uncritical consumers, who ooh and aah at any new shiny thing Canonical tacks onto Ubuntu. Tada, look, shiny.

    Canonical is pulling an Apple. They are creating their own incompatible OS, completely Canonical specific and amazingly they do it while releasing the whole shebang under a FOSS license. It's quite a feat to create proprietary benefits while being FOSS to the letter. Brilliant, but completely detrimental to the larger Linux ecosystem.

    All the cheerleaders for Ubuntu will increasingly find them locked into Canonical's OS. Once they have structured their computing life around Ubuntu and Canonical succeeds in creating an Ubuntu specific ecosystem, they will be back at square one. Facing another switch if they don't want to be beholden to the whims of Bug #2.

    "But, but, but it is FOSS. It is out there and you can choose to use it." Oh yeah, but you'd have to become Ubuntu in the process. I don't think the whole world is waiting for an Ubuntu monoculture, with all distributions basically being an Ubuntu respin.
    Well.. duh, if there's a lack of an ecosystem, nobody would adopt it because of MS's monopoly, so you really can't help but pull an Apple. "Larger Linux ecosystem"? Honestly, if Canonical/Ubuntu didn't exist, I probably would be using Windows 8, and don't call it an ecosystem, as Linux has too much diversity when it comes to customization and lack of compatibility with legacy (both Windows and native) apps/programs. Also, forcing stuff on people is pretty much the way to get people to change, saying all the good stuff about your OS will pretty much get a whole flock of people that just hate Windows 8 and are willing to change without spending a fortune on OS X.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •