i would have used ubuntu if it still stuck on gnome 2 desktop (no 3d necessary AT ALL! *thumbs up*) so there goes unity
Mir vs. Wayland ... seriously? i still haven't heard any real arguments in favour of mir that wayland cannot do. If its leaner cause ubuntu devs say, that ubuntuusers dont need certain features, its ok. Still it would probably have been easier to make unity(2d?) a wayland based client/DE/shell (whatever)
there goes Mir...
actually i feel a little insecure, when i propose ubuntu to newbies (example elderly people that dont want to worry about viruses and causing mayhem to settings or deleting files that shouldnt be deleted) about the shops that you cannot even get rid of (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and that the amazon symbol is stalking my shopping attempts...
so going back to why i use ubuntu and not arch or gentoo or fedora? its simple to install and i know how to maintain it with a reasonable amount of time and knowledge. i know that because of its size there are partners ready to admit, that ubuntu may have some weight as a userbase, there will be precompiled binaries that are easy to install. which means its not canonicals recent developements success.
and i by the way consider the software center a bloody blackbox. i have absolutely no possibility whatsoever to see what is actually being installed. All hails synaptic! a tool to set the system back to defaults would be nice. like the janitor once was. and using packages that are beyond debian levels i would consider a real effort. like getting vdpau-compiled, s3tc and floating point enabled (with a little read where its legal to use) mesa packages (if stable)
and as said before som customizability on the desktop would be nice, like the time for osd events displayed. and like it was in 9.10 i think... the amount. 1 is just too few. screens are so freaking huge these days. make it 3 and it will still not cover a remarkable amount of the screen. or change position of the OSD. some people might use applications that require visibility in the top right corner.
and some control over startup events and automatically done tasks would be nice. as it seems disabling searching automatically for updates it does not disable ubuntu to still search for them, which i consider mayhem.
yet another thing. loading all these shops into the installation image while not porting vim to python 3 making it necessary to still ship python 2.7 and saying that they have to worry about image size makes me really wonder...
has anyone successfully used empathy?
the ease to use is the only thing that really binds me to ubuntu.
Technical superiority has nothing to do with being the most popular. When I show someone something like Linux Mint they're like, oh it's like Windows, but it doesn't run Windows... When I show someone Ubuntu they're like, oh it looks like a Mac! And if they liked the idea of a Mac in the first place but were turned off by the high price, they'd go for Ubuntu instead. If they were thinking of getting Windows cause they needed Windows they aren't going to choose mint.
Ubuntu is seriously the most popular desktop Linux distro among the general population. If you're a programmer and you love Debian, Fedora or Mint, knock yourself out, but don't smear your crap about Ubuntu all over these forums.
Edit: Also, yes I believe Upstart was up and working before systemd was stable enough for the average user.
I pretty much agree with you, except you don't have to be a programmer to have a different taste on distribution than "the average user", and even if you like the same thing, some people "like" the Windows interface (the quotes are because I'm not sure if it's actual liking or just being used to) but don't *need* Windows, and those might as well fall for the most Windows-looking, the same way Mac lovers fall for Ubuntu for looking like Mac to some extent. Anyway, I know several non-programmers who like distros other than Ubuntu, and I also know people who started learning about free software, liked Ubuntu for being free software and became interested in programming (the ones I know, non-professional programming, but maybe someone else knows people who relized that was what made them for them, who knows) thanks to using it. Also, AFAIK upstart wasn't *only* up and running before systemd was stable enough, but IIRC it *existed* before systemd existed.
And here begins the story about how Canonical ruined lives across the world by starting WW3, promotes world hunger, killed your cat, or whatever other terrible thing you want to give the illusion they did just because you disagree with the general thought or appearance of Mir and/or Unity likely due to bandwagon-related reasons...
Unity and the store, your are right. Mir, upstart, bzr? End-users don't even know what they are. Anyway, upstart was there before systemd. I have no idea if bazaar was there before git or if it is the other way around, but I don't feel like checking now. If systemd and git are better right now than their Canonical counter part is a whole different story.
It should* matter 0 what was there first, development costs are sunk. What matters is which one will give more value for the money now and in the foreseeable future (with the transition costs are factored in).
Right now Canonical have cut costs associated with both bzr and upstart, but that means these components (especially since no-one else contributes significantly) will increasingly be less powerful compared to their competitors (currently git and systemd). I would not be surprised if the same happens to Mir 2 years from now.
* I say should because of course in practice it does matter: Sunk-cost fallacy and loss aversion are well documented phenomena.
Many (most?) times in competition between open source projects in system, infrastructure and tools area, the winner takes (nearly) all. There is always some competition at the fridge, but usually the leading project in a given domain sees 90% of the usage and contributions, and who is on top changes seldom and slowly. Consider Linux in the kernel-area, GNU coreutils in lower parts of userland, X.org (after XFree86 fork) in display system, GCC in compiler toolchain.
Which such domain-dominating projects projects have Canonical, "produced"?
Upstart was such a project for a short while, nearly everyone used it, but it has given way to systemd.
Ubuntu Desktop (as in the distro project) is arguably one.
bzr is not. Mir is not. lightdm is not. Launchpad is not.
I would expect a company of its size, if to be able to call itself a successful open source company, to be key players in several such projects. Not just try to make things that are useful for them, and them alone (not the other companies and people interested in the same problem domain).
Kinda cool that a company can go on and operate on a loss every year for a decade.
Sure its funded by billionaire Mark Shuttleworth, but its cool there are people who can do that and who that.
Kinda like running a company as a hobby and not caring about profit.
Lately it seems they're getting desperate for profit tho, with Amazon ads and much marketing talk and Ubuntu Phone, Ubuntu Touch and Ubuntu TV that seems go be going nowhere.
Spending billions and incapable to implement a sane configuration system that would prevent all the text editing.
Also, this completely unnecessary CLA crap paired with duplication and isolation from global contribution, and finally, proposing closed source with much higher priority than pushing FLOSS projects and loosing the deal with Valve. Their strategy is just getting worse and worse.
But they do fix the "Amazon spyware" aka Unity Lens, they replaced it with filters. Don't want Amazon or anything similar - disable the filter right in Unity. That was really good decision. But its still opt-out, not opt-in, so basically its spyware.
Cannonical did a fantastic thing - they took the technically superior, but harder to install and a bit intimidating Debian and made it into a paragon of out-of-the-box usability that rest of the Linux distributions and even rest of the OSes are still struggling to replicate parts of. Ubuntu and Cannonical sent out millions of free Linux Live CDs to developing nations that not only helped develop their IT infrastructure in a more indpendant way, but also brought in a fresh and entusiastic wave of Linxu and free software users and, later on, developers. Some of those newcomers and some newcomers attreacted by other distributions that emulated some parts of Ubuntu success now appear to be doing some things better than Ubuntu does. That is not a reason to hate Ubuntu. Cannonical do things and people that do things make mistakes; nobody is perfect. If someone does something better than Cannonical then we have two implementations where before we had none and we all are richer as a result.
Basically all that Cannonical has created from scratch did not have a functional precedent at the time. Or at least it was not know well enough or has some significant deficiencies. Some things still have basically no precedent - does anyone have a PPA system?