But, again, it doesn't matter. If they would choose GTK+ for Unity Next, (or Mobile, or whatever the name it has) you would support that idea too.
Yet this has nothing to do with "forking the parts of our ecosystem in order to put a stop to forking" idea of yours and, as you claim, theirs.
Of course I have my doubts that removing Windows from power is such a good thing because basically windows 7 just works and has a ton of applications written for it so why go back to dark ages and wait another 10 years to reach the point at which we already are today. Maybe more effort should be put into improving windows instead of challenging its domination and the world would be a better place than it would be if linux would become dominant.
As for the record, monopolism is fascism.
Windows is dominant because of their agreements with countries for education purposes (yeah, education purpose, they support education, we love that lie), Windows is dominant because there wasn't any alternative to that, Windows is dominant because over years many software developers created their own software on Windows and this was because of it's populism. Now, it's a standard and it's already becoming pointless while people actually seeing alternatives.
People are getting more and more aware about Linux. But they have their doubts.
Neither Windows, nor Mac is popular because of Fascist Standards.
Edit: Stockholm Syndrome.
Last edited by reznov; 07-10-2013 at 02:30 PM.
I agree there should be only one toolkit. What I'm saying is not that it shouldn't, I'm saying Mir doesn't play *any* role in killing it if they promise supporte. Which they did.
That idea could work only if Canonical refused to support GTK+ and Mir succeed at a point that almost nobody else used a distribution that doesn't use Mir.
Also, they'd need GTK+ to not support Mir. If they do, devs can continue using it, and you keep the toolkit alive and kicking.
Can you see where it fails?
So tell Microsoft to make it open source, how else should we be able to improve it?Maybe more effort should be put into improving windows
Make windows open source? No need. It would be a pretty bad idea, you people would probably create 10 toolkits and make everything look like shit. I was saying they should put more effort into improving it while having a clear vision and direction. These things are important but the 'linux community' chooses to ignore them at their own peril.
Sometimes I wonder, is it really that bad that Microsoft is in power on the desktop? Would I really want these Stallman fanbois to determine how I use my computer? The thing is Microsoft seems a lot more saner. People like to think that Microsoft got in power because of using illegal tactics but ignore the fact that on the other side you have a bunch of software fundamentalists driven by Stallman and other idiotic 'leaders' who squander every opportunity for advancement in the name of some religion...pardon me: ideology. Because this is what your claiming, having one toolkit would be a monopoly and it would be evil. No it wouldn't. Not everything needs to come in 10 variants.