Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at) [LWN.net]

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 9, 2010 22:26 UTC (Mon) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

umm, I somehow missed the portion of this announement that said that they were going to make their 'fork' of gnome proprietary and not make the source available. please point it out to me.

Proprietary web services

Posted Aug 9, 2010 22:32 UTC (Mon) by sladen (guest, #27402) [Link] (6 responses)

Firefox is free software running on your desktop, that arrives configured to talk to a number of non-free web services (Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Ebay, ...) that allow you to preview and potentially buy online content.

Does integrating these so that they work out-of-the-box help to solve bug #1?

Proprietary web services

Posted Aug 9, 2010 22:45 UTC (Mon) by ewan (guest, #5533) [Link] (5 responses)

That's disingenuous - there's a difference between interoperating with proprietary systems that are already there and creating your own, and Ubuntu seems very keen on doing the latter.

Ubuntu != Canonical

Posted Aug 9, 2010 23:29 UTC (Mon) by sladen (guest, #27402) [Link] (4 responses)

Confusing Ubuntu (a distribution) with Canonical Ltd (a company) could be argued to be disingenuous...

Ubuntu != Canonical

Posted Aug 10, 2010 10:44 UTC (Tue) by ewan (guest, #5533) [Link]

I'm not confused. The proprietary services carry Ubuntu branding, not Canonical branding. They are Ubuntu services.

Ubuntu != Canonical

Posted Aug 10, 2010 10:50 UTC (Tue) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link] (2 responses)

Yes, it isn't like Canonical own the Ubuntu trademark or anything, or even have any special role in the Ubuntu project. And those proprietary applications with special relationships to proprietary services: are they purely optional, available only in a special Canonical edition of Ubuntu, or do the Ubuntu ISOs actually ship those applications?

And what does this have to do with GNOME? Well, if you start removing bits from GNOME and replacing them with components which may or may not be proprietary, you remove value from that project by diverting development away from it (people work on the replacement functionality and potential developers no longer see the need to improve the original components) and potentially damaging the project's reputation (by confusing people into thinking that the replacement functionality actually belongs to the project).

We've seen this kind of thing before with distributions like Corel Linux that swapped out upstream components (the file manager in that case) with proprietary replacements. The main difference here seems to be that some replacement functionality is at least openly developed and freely available, but the complaint is that such development seems to occur in "puppet states" that exist purely at the discretion of Canonical, making Jono Bacon's protests about "upstream" look a bit like some Soviet leader welcoming "support" from supposedly autonomous allies of the regime.

Ubuntu != Canonical

Posted Aug 10, 2010 12:15 UTC (Tue) by SEJeff (guest, #51588) [Link] (1 responses)

Give it a rest... Without Canonical who employs the vast majority of core Ubuntu developers and maintains control over launchpad, Ubuntu would die. Sure people would try to keep it alive, but it would fizzle and then pop.

The things like Ubuntu One and the Rhythmbox UbuntuOne music store are not on a "special iso". They are in the default Ubuntu install. In _fact_ they even took things such as the GNOME MagnaTune Rhythmbox plugin, which has a referrer id for GNOME and changed the referrer id to one of thier own. This means that the profits from music sales go to them and not to the GNOME Foundation.

Even if it is a pretty and easy to use distribution (I like notify-osd), Ubuntu does not play well with others. The kicking and screaming from Mark, Jono, and company just further solidifies that fact in my mind.

- ranted from my Ubuntu desktop

Ubuntu != Canonical

Posted Aug 10, 2010 15:23 UTC (Tue) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

Yes, I guess I probably should give sarcasm a rest in any first paragraph. The other paragraphs were worth reading, too, albeit not for any content with detectable levels of sarcasm.

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 9, 2010 22:48 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link] (2 responses)

It's going to be interesting to see if Gnome Project can work directly with 7digital and provide a different application level store front interface that isn't tied to a 3rd party service like U1. It really comes down to 7digital's business model and whether they are willing to give API access to some of their advanced features to independent program developers like the upstream banshee or rhythmbox developers instead of to a business entity like Canonical.

You'll note that 7digital storefronts on other platforms like blackberry and android aren't tied to a 3rd party service... they allow direct purchasing and downloads from 7digtal onto the client device. Its clear that a buffer service like U1 isn't strictly needed and Canonical is trying to position U1 between 7digital and end-consumers as a value-add service.

If Gnome as at project level could enter into a business deal with 7digital, they could encourage 7digital to open the necessary APIs for Gnome application usage and receive the referral revenue similar to how Gnome is getting referral revenue now via the Amazon Music integration in banshee and Magnatune referral revenue in rhythmbox without U1 acting as an interfacing service. Clearly if Gnome is okay working with Amazon for referral revenue for music, Gnome should be okay working with 7digital in a similar manner. 7digital just needs to open up their APIs enough to make it possible for independent developers to build the application storefront.

It should be noted that Canonical has worked a separate deal with Magnatune such that referral income that would have originally gone to the Gnome Project when Ubuntu users use the Magnatune rhythmbox plugin is set aside for distribution to Canonical instead of Gnome. Reference:
http://blogs.magnatune.com/buckman/2010/03/magnatune-send...

-jef

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 11:03 UTC (Wed) by filip7d (guest, #69503) [Link] (1 responses)

jef,

i hope you'll be happy to hear that opening our 7digital API to independent developers is something we're actively working on.

And we're especially keen on getting the open source community involved. Although most of the 7dgital API is already open to everyone there are still some advanced features that are not available out of the box as unfortunately each use of these requires us getting approval from the music labels. But if anyone is interested in integrating these just get in touch with us and let us know what you'd like to build and we always try to help.

More info on the API can be found at http://developer.7digital.net

Filip
7digital API Team

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 17:47 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]

I'd be happier if you provided vorbis and/or flac files so no vender would have to continue to work around the problems associated with mp3 patents and all vendors can provide out-of-the-box support for your music catalogue and would put your service into a position of being held high as a vendor who supports open standards, open protocols, and open data exchange formats.

But in the meantime, having an open API that upstream banshee, amarok and rhythmbox developers can rely on to write plugins to provide a means for users (across the myriad linux distributions available) to interact with your storefront would be a serviceable addition. Its clear that at least the banshee developers are interested in working directly with music stores as evidenced by the newly integrated Amazon music store support. Both Amarok and rhythmbox have shown upstream support for magnatunes so there's probably the potential there for discussing support for a mainstream music vendor if you can provide a published and reliable API.

-jef

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 10, 2010 8:37 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] (24 responses)

"I suggest all other companies follow the same plan too. Innovate in-house & leave GNOME to rot."

Um, isn't GNOME perfectly free to take the code Canonical developed, and use it in GNOME? Do you think that if GNOME rejects that code (for whatever reason), the Canonical is not allowed to use it either?

The code is free software. It's there for the taking if anyone wants it. How exactly is that "innovating in-house and leaving GNOME to rot"?

"Does becoming Microsoft in Microsoft's place count? How will the "majority of the PCs for sale should include only free software like Ubuntu" when Canonical itself is producing and including in Ubuntu proprietary software?"

Is Ubuntu One proprietary software?

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 10, 2010 9:05 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (23 responses)

"Um, isn't GNOME perfectly free to take the code Canonical developed, and use it in GNOME?"

GNOME doesn't just take random modules developed elsewhere and integrate it with GNOME. Just like in the Linux kernel, the maintainers involve have to bring it forward and propose it to GNOME formally

http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing

There is a feedback cycle after that. Often modules take multiple releases to get accepted. If they are rejected, the reasons for that rejection is provided and the maintainers of the module can take that feedback into consideration, revise and propose again. This is a long established way of doing things. Canonical did propose one of the module (IMO, they should have done it much earlier) and it got rejected by the GNOME release engineering team for that particular release and they stated the reasons why. This is no big deal. Canonical would just have to revise and propose again till it gets upstream like everyone else. They seem to have given up on it already however.

"Is Ubuntu One proprietary software?"

Ubuntu One has a server side and a client side. The client is free and open source. The server side which is the bulk of the software is proprietary.

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 10, 2010 14:43 UTC (Tue) by ean5533 (guest, #69480) [Link] (7 responses)

"This is no big deal. Canonical would just have to revise and propose again till it gets upstream like everyone else."

And what if it gets rejected again? Are they then allowed to say "well, we tried" and give up? Exactly how many iterations are they required to go through before they're allowed to just move on to other work without being hounded?

I think there's a fundamental miscommunication between the two sides of this debate. I don't think people who are on "Ubuntu's side" are arguing that Canonical is giving back just as much as, say, RedHat is giving back; rather, I think everyone (including myself) is just tired of hearing Canonical being trashed by those who aren't happy with the amount of upstream patches being accepted. For the last two weeks everyone has been jumping on the "we hate Canonical" bandwagon and it's honestly gotten very old, very quickly.

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 10, 2010 15:20 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

There is no bright line divide. If they want to give up on first try and move on, that is certainly their choice but if you wanted to make a feature a part of a larger project, it usually requires more persistence than that. If you can live with that divergence, more power to you. It has been my experience that downstreams sooner or latter realize that it is too much of a burden even if it does buy you some uniqueness in the shorter run.

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 10, 2010 17:23 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (5 responses)

> For the last two weeks everyone has been jumping on the "we hate
> Canonical" bandwagon and it's honestly gotten very old, very quickly.

If you can't stand two weeks of bad press, how to you think people feel about five years of Canonical marketing push to create the image they are a major Linux contributor (if not *the* major Linux contributor), while actually contributing very little (as every study that actually tried to count contributions shows)?

Part of the press has even started using "Ubuntu" as "Linux logo", that's how hard Canonical has pushed to claim the work of others (and people get mad at RMS just for pre-pending GNU to Linux, when the FSF has actually produced boatloads of code everyone uses).

Life is unfair but there is nothing unfair about the blame Canonical is getting today.

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 10, 2010 22:51 UTC (Tue) by kripkenstein (guest, #43281) [Link]

> If you can't stand two weeks of bad press, how to you think people feel about five years of Canonical marketing push to create the image they are a major Linux contributor (if not *the* major Linux contributor)

I'm sorry, what? No such 'marketing push' ever existed AFAIK.

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 11:58 UTC (Wed) by ean5533 (guest, #69480) [Link] (3 responses)

"If you can't stand two weeks of bad press, how to you think people feel about five years of Canonical marketing push to create the image they are a major Linux contributor (if not *the* major Linux contributor)"

If you could dredge up ANY kind of proof that a marketing campaign like this existed, I'd be surprised. But by all means, please try. Until then, please don't spread B.S. rumors like this.

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 13:27 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (2 responses)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10092376-16.html

> Ubuntu and Canonical are making a very big difference in free
> software, and that has little to do with how many patches in the kernel
> have an @canonical.com e-mail address associated with them

[...]

> Canonical has been hiring usability and design experts to feed
> improvements to the "upstream" Linux community.

Can "upstream" here mean anything but GNOME?

> It is hard to overstate
> how important this work could prove to be to consumer Linux adoption.

Two years later someone actually measures the improvements Canonical fed "upstream" and finds precious little.

(just an example found after 10s of Googling, I don't think I had even read this particular article before).

I don't think Canonical would have hired Matt Asay later if there was any disagreement on how it reported Canonical views.

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 17:04 UTC (Wed) by ean5533 (guest, #69480) [Link] (1 responses)

That? That's your proof that Canonical had "five years of Canonical marketing push to create the image they are a major Linux contributor (if not *the* major Linux contributor)"? There's a huge difference between "we're hiring experts" and "we're *the* major Linux contributor".

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 19:24 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

You didn't ask for a good proof, you asked for "ANY proof". And I don't have the time to do a complete web survey for you (I do note that there is only one side of the debate providing actual facts backed by external links here, and it's not yours).

I do suspect that a literature major would have a field day collating all the public Shuttleworth interviews, blogs and articles, and counting all the occurrences of:
1. some FLOSS players need to do foo or bar (when those players are totally outside Canonical's control, but the words used imply to non-technical reporters Canonical either has this kind of control or is owed it)
2. Canonical wants others to do foo like it is going to now, followed later by see how influent we are, we asked for foo and others *are* doing foo now (when they were already doing foo long before Canonical realised it was a good idea)
3. Canonical is going to invest heavily in foo, and the future will be wonderful (when the heavy investment never materialises except in press articles)

Taken alone each of those is pretty innocent, repeated again and again they create a perception in the press which has little to do with reality. This is what I call a deliberate marketing push.

But feel free to point out examples where Canonical has actually given the press an accurate assessment of its capabilities.

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 10, 2010 19:25 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] (14 responses)

You didn't answer my question: if GNOME refuses to use the Ubuntu-developed code, does that mean that Ubuntu can't use it either? And is Ubuntu required to offer it proactively to GNOME (have they done that btw?)? The code is still free software, free for anyone to take and use.

So why isn't Ubuntu allowed to use that code in their distribution? Because GNOME does not use it? Um, excuse me, but when did GNOME get the authority to decide what code Ubuntu can and can't use?

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 10, 2010 20:04 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (13 responses)

> If GNOME refuses to use the Ubuntu-developed code, does that mean that Ubuntu can't use it either?

Perhaps. Ubuntu would have to continually forward-port their patches to each new Gnome release. That's a difficult job because, as shown earlier in this thread, Ubuntu is making fairly fundamental and incompatible design changes as well as code changes.

Just because Ubuntu is (obviously) allowed to use their code doesn't mean that it is actually possible or realistic.

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 8:59 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] (12 responses)

"Perhaps."

Perhaps? So you are saying that Ubuntu MIGHT be allowed to use their own free code in their own distribution? Whatever happened to that much ballyhooed "freedom"? Or does that "freedom" mean that people/organizations (Ubuntu included) are free to do whatever they want with their own code only as long as certain powers-at-be (like GNOME) let them? In this case Ubuntu has some free code that changes some aspects of GNOME, and here we are being told that Ubuntu is "perhaps" allowed to use that code in their distribution. Why shouldn't they be allowed? Seriously?

"Ubuntu would have to continually forward-port their patches to each new Gnome release. "

So? That's Ubuntu's problem, and if they are willing to do that, I fail to see what grounds others have to whine about it.

"That's a difficult job because, as shown earlier in this thread, Ubuntu is making fairly fundamental and incompatible design changes as well as code changes."

Again: that's Ubuntu's problem, and it should not concern anyone else.

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 9:20 UTC (Wed) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (10 responses)

If Ubuntu were going off and doing their own thing, without reference to other players in the Free Software ecosystem, we'd be OK (albeit unhappy) about the "it's Ubuntu's problem" answer.

As it is, when Mark Shuttleworth is asking both other distributions and Ubuntu's upstreams to align their release cycles with his company's distribution's cycle, thus reducing the chance that upstream will be in a state of flux when Ubuntu wants to stabilise (as upstream developers tend to not break things massively just as they get busy stabilising their employers' distributions, and when they do, they know which release they can take and be happy with, thanks to understanding the codebase), Ubuntu people can't be surprised that upstream is annoyed when Canonical is punching below its weight, and justifying this with "but we do our stuff in our own sandbox!"

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 9:58 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] (9 responses)

"As it is, when Mark Shuttleworth is asking both other distributions and Ubuntu's upstreams to align their release cycles with his company's distribution's cycle"

Um, isn't Ubuntu (and Fedora) pretty much tied to GNOME's release-cycle? I think Shuttleworth has talked about synchronized releases, but it seems to me that it's already happening, when two of the major distros have tied their releases to GNOME's release-cycle. And no-one was forced to do that. And it was not Ubuntu that forced others to tie themselves to their releases, they were the ones who decided to tie their releases to GNOME.

"Ubuntu people can't be surprised that upstream is annoyed when Canonical is punching below its weight, and justifying this with "but we do our stuff in our own sandbox!"

So what is this "annoyance" about? That Ubuntu dares to ship Ubuntu-developed free software in Ubuntu, even though GNOME has decided to not use that code? Again: whatever happened to freedom?

Like I said: what is the problem here? If Ubuntu decides to shoot themselves in the foot by using code that is tied to GNOME yet not part of GNOME, Ubuntu's problem? shouldn't all those Ubuntu-haters be rejoicing since Ubuntu is wasting their resources on something like that? But no, they are bitching and moaning instead. Why?

This is yet another example of the constant bickering and whining that plaques Linux and free software. So much time and energy is being wasted arguing with each other.

At this point you might say "well, what about Ubuntu, and their divisive act of using that software?". Well, what about it? It's their software, and they are perfectly in their rights to use it.

If that software really improves things and users like it, then aren't we better off as a result? Linux-desktop will be improved as a result. Why not let users decide if this effort is worthwhile or not? If the software is not success, then people will choose some other distro instead and/or Ubuntu will drop that software. In any case, the userbase will adapt and evolve.

So what exactly is the problem here?

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 10:18 UTC (Wed) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (8 responses)

As it happens, distros are choosing to align with GNOME anyway. But when Canonical's CEO makes a fuss about how distros should align, yet his company isn't doing upstream work, it looks a lot like a power grab by Canonical.

Put this way. When I see the statistics, look at Canonical's decision to ban me from working on Bazaar, Launchpad, Upstart and other Canonical projects (copyright assignment that's incompatible with my contract of employment - not needed when I work on X11, for example), then read Mark's blog, and Jono's apologia, I hear, "Guys, you're doing great work for us. But you should do it on our timetable. Oh, and we're not going to help you much, because it's easier for us that way. But you should definitely help us, because we're Free Software people, even if we won't ever help you, because you're not prepared to hand over ownership of everything to us."

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 11:24 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] (7 responses)

"But when Canonical's CEO makes a fuss about how distros should align, yet his company isn't doing upstream work, it looks a lot like a power grab by Canonical. "

Um, no, it doesn't. So Shuttleworth has his ideas and opinions on how to do releases. And guess what? We all have our own ideas and opinions. If I decide to voice my opinion about something, is that a "power grab" by me? No, it's not.

You might have a valid argument if Shuttleworth was somehow forcing everyone to adhere to his ideas and opinions. But he's not. He's voicing his opinion, and he has every right to do that.

""Guys, you're doing great work for us. But you should do it on our timetable."

Well, "their timetable" is in this case "GNOME's timetable".... And still: who cares? Shuttleworth has his opinions, and he has every right to voice them. When he does that, he's not bullying anyone, nor is he "power grabbing". Is Fedora "power grabbing" when they decided to tie their releases to GNOME's release-schedule? Or is this "power grabbing" by GNOME? Why aren't you complaining about that? Because no-one from GNOME or Fedora said "I think everyone should do like this"? Why is it so terrible to say that aloud? Because it's "power grabbing"? Puh-leeze!

So let's recap: Ubuntu has not forced anyone to adhere to their timetable. What Ubuntu has done is to tie THEIR timetable to someone elses (GNOME) timetable. And supposedly that is a bad thing? But when Fedora does the exact same thing, it's suddenly not terrible at all?

It's amazing how a community that is supposedly so gung-ho about freedom, get so upset when someone uses his right to free speech and opinion... So Shuttleworth thinks that projects should align their releases. Burn him on the stake, the heretic!

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 12:31 UTC (Wed) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (6 responses)

Yes, the difference between distros naturally choosing to align around upstreams they consider important, and distros telling each other how they should behave is important. If Ubuntu, Fedora, RHEL, SLES, Mandriva, Gentoo, Arch and others all end up aligned naturally around GNOME's release schedule, that's great. If Canonical's CEO, a man of some power thanks to his money and control of a distro, tries to tell other distros and non-GNOME upstreams (such as KDE) that they should all align together, he'd better be putting his not inconsiderable money where his mouth is, and working upstream to ensure that aligning to a schedule that suits Canonical is in upstream's interests, not just Canonical's. His failure to do so is hypocritical, and he's being called on that. You will notice, for example, that no-one's calling Mandriva on their failure to show up strongly in the statistics - this is in large part because Mandriva aren't making the same degree of noise as Canonical.

I'm explaining why I personally find Mark's statements distateful given the statistics (and as CEO of Canonical, when he's talking about Linux stuff, he can't expect it not to rub off on his company, just as Steve Ballmer's words on the future of computing rub off on Microsoft, or Mr Jobs talking about the future of mobile rubs off on Apple). I'm trying to do so in a constructive manner, so that you can understand why Mark's statements combined with his company's behaviour is causing this reaction, and I get shouted down and accused of trying to silence Mark Shuttleworth, a man who's sufficiently rich that I could spend every penny I have on trying to shut him up, and still not succeed! What's more, he could spend a relatively small fraction of his fortune on upstream development, and have Canonical punching above their weight in upstream (they're about a tenth the size of Red Hat in terms of engineer count, I believe, so supplying 1/10th the upstream commits would remove the distaste). And, on top of that, when this was brought up 2 years ago as Canonical not contributing to the kernel, the defence brought up (and accepted for lack of statistics) was that Canonical mostly did work in GNOME and other higher levels of the stack, so of course they don't show at kernel level, but Mark's statements aren't hypocritical because they'd show up at GNOME level. Now, they're being shown to not pull their weight at that level, making the statements clearly hypocritical, and reopening the old discussion that got closed off by the lack of statistics before.

This obnoxious behaviour on the part of the Ubuntu community is why I don't normally speak up about things that I perceive as going wrong with it. All I'm trying to do is explain why the mix of Shuttleworth's public statements, Canonical's active behaviour to discourage community around their projects, and Ubuntu's lack of upstream contribution gives me a bad feeling.

It's times like this that I wish that Ubuntu took its Code of Conduct seriously. I'm trying to explain why I find the mixture of Canonical's behaviour with the statements made about co-operation by Canonical's CEO problematic; if Ubuntu took its Code of Conduct seriously, Ubuntu's community would react the same way Mandriva's community does (by understanding why I'm saying what I'm saying, and explaining how Mandriva is going to do things differently - even if that's just by not making provocative public statements).

Instead, I'm seeing my words twisted and I'm being personally attacked for not agreeing with Ubuntu's behaviour, despite trying to explain what it is that I dislike. That is why this is so important; it very much feels like if I don't agree with everything Canonical does, they'll sic their attack dogs on me, and aim to attack me until I go away and stop disrupting their nice little world.

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 13:15 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] (5 responses)

"If Canonical's CEO, a man of some power thanks to his money and control of a distro, tries to tell other distros and non-GNOME upstreams (such as KDE) that they should all align together, he'd better be putting his not inconsiderable money where his mouth is"

Why? Because he's rich? I'm sorry, but your logic does not follow. He can have opinions about various things, and he can voice them freely without actually having to invest resources towards that goal. Wishing for something, but not proactively investing in it does not make the man "hypocrite". I wish for world peace, but I do not participate in peace-marches.

"His failure to do so is hypocritical, and he's being called on that."

Huh? So because he has an opinion, but he does not invest money towards realizing his opinion, he's a "hypocrite", and he's being called out on it? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

And I bet that if he DID invest towards that goal, you would be whining here how "Shuttleworth tries to force everyone do as he pleases!".

"this is in large part because Mandriva aren't making the same degree of noise as Canonical. "

So, if Mandriva had a famous CEO and an active blog, then they would be target if whining?

"I'm trying to do so in a constructive manner, so that you can understand why Mark's statements combined with his company's behaviour is causing this reaction"

No, you are not being constructive. You are whining because Shuttleworth said that distros/projects should align their release-schedules. Excuse me, but there's nothing in that comment to cause anyone to get annoyed. If someone becomes annoyed by that comment, it's quite obvious that that person has an axe to grind with Ubuntu.

"and I get shouted down and accused of trying to silence Mark Shuttleworth, a man who's sufficiently rich that I could spend every penny I have on trying to shut him up, and still not succeed!"

So, basically you are annoyed because Shuttleworth happens to be rich? I mean, you have made repeated comments about Shuttleworths wealth, so it's becoming apparent that you are annoyed/bitter because Shuttleworth happens to be rich.

"so of course they don't show at kernel level, but Mark's statements aren't hypocritical because they'd show up at GNOME level. Now, they're being shown to not pull their weight at that level, making the statements clearly hypocritical, and reopening the old discussion that got closed off by the lack of statistics before. "

They are putting their weight in to that level, it just happens that GNOME does not want the code they wrote. Or do you think that since GNOME refused their code, Ubuntu should just stop developing it entirely? That if they want to write code, they MUST do it inside GNOME? Why can't they simply ship it as part of their distro?

Fact is that the code they write for GNOME will end up benefitting users (Ubuntu-users at least), even if that code is not actually part of official GNOME. And if they fail... well, then they fail, and no-one but Ubuntu is harmed by it.

If Ubuntu's work proves to be wildly succesfull, then others can use it as well, and everyone benefits. If they fail, then Ubuntu will take the hit for that. Why should there be only one way of doing things, and (in this case) it's the official GNOME-way, and no-one is allowed to deviate from that? Why not try something different and new, and see if it works? What if the approach GNOME is taking ends up being a mistake, and we would be stuck with it because there were no alternatives developed?

"This obnoxious behaviour on the part of the Ubuntu community is why I don't normally speak up about things that I perceive as going wrong with it. All I'm trying to do is explain why the mix of Shuttleworth's public statements, Canonical's active behaviour to discourage community around their projects, and Ubuntu's lack of upstream contribution gives me a bad feeling."

Why do you care? You can use some other distro, so what Ubuntu does (or does not do) has no bearing on you at all. Why do people insist on whining about things that do not touch their lives at all?

And, FWIW, I would say that we are better off with Ubuntu, than we would be without it. They are about free software, they write free software, they try to make Linux mainstream... How are those a bad thing? Because it threatens the "purity of the faith" or something?

"Instead, I'm seeing my words twisted and I'm being personally attacked for not agreeing with Ubuntu's behaviour"

OK, few points:

a) How exactly have I been "twisting your words"?

b) How exactly have I been "personally attacking" you?

Do you know what "personal attacks" are? If I commented on your looks or something (in other words, attacked your person) then you might have a point. But I haven't done that. I have disagreed with you, called you out on your illogical statements etc.,, but I have NOT resorted to personal attacks!

"despite trying to explain what it is that I dislike."

And what exactly is that? The fact that Canonicals rich rockstar-CEO dared to say that "distros and projects should align their release-schedules"? I'm still at a loss in figuring out what exactly is it that Shuttleworth did wrong there. Is it the fact that he had an opinion, but he did not throw millions towards making his opinion a reality? Besides, he HAS done something: he synced Ubuntu's release-schedule to GNOME's release-schedule.

"it very much feels like if I don't agree with everything Canonical does, they'll sic their attack dogs on me, and aim to attack me until I go away and stop disrupting their nice little world."

Oh please, don't play a martyr. First of all, I'm in no shape or form associated with Ubuntu and/or Canonical, I don't even run their distro! The reason I'm having this particular discussion is because I saw comments and claims being made that frankly made no sense at all. At their core the argument seems to be "I just find Ubuntu and Shuttleworth so damn annoying!" without really giving any tangible reasons why that is. Maybe because some people are still stuck in the idea that only way we can improve Linux is by hiring a legion of hackers and writing code. Or maybe it's because whenever something becomes popular, others get this weird need to tear it down.

With that kind of thinking, no wonder Linux is stuck at 1% on the desktop...

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 13:36 UTC (Wed) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (4 responses)

He has a strong opinion on what the rest of us should do. He's not guiding his company in a direction that's compatible with his company doing what he says the rest of us should do. That's what I object to.

Then, add in the Ubuntu Code of Conduct, which says that people should be respectful and considerate; when I try to explain as best I can just what I'm finding problematic about Canonical, it goes by the wayside; more hypocrisy from Ubuntu's community.

If Mandriva's CEO was telling the rest of us what we should do, but not then making Mandriva go down that route, then damn right I'd criticise Mandriva. While I disagree in many respects with the FSF, I don't criticise them, because they're at least living up to what they ask me to.

I'm not, despite your claims to the contrary, asking Shuttleworth to shut up. I'm not asking him to do anything other than accept that if what he says and what his company does diverge, people will criticise, and that's a fact of life. You accused me of being an Ubuntu hater. You accused me of saying that Shuttleworth should shut up. All I am doing is saying that what Shuttleworth says I should do, and what he is doing with his company don't match up. Why is this deserving of such a huge attack?

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 13:52 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] (3 responses)

"He has a strong opinion on what the rest of us should do. "

And you have a strong opinions on what he and his company should do, so what's your point? And we all have opinions regarding what others should do. When it comes to how they should vote, how they should behave in public... Yes, you and me included.

"He's not guiding his company in a direction that's compatible with his company doing what he says the rest of us should do. That's what I object to. "

Huh? He said that distros/projects should align their release-schedules. And he aligned his distros release-schedule to GNOME's schedule. So, isn't he doing what he suggested others should be doing as well?

Of course he can't align his schedule to everything, since different projects have different schedules. And he can't force KDE (for example) to align it's release-schedule to that of GNOME's. So he did what he could, which is to align his distros release-schedule to that of a major upstream-project (GNOME). What else should he do?

"Then, add in the Ubuntu Code of Conduct, which says that people should be respectful and considerate; when I try to explain as best I can just what I'm finding problematic about Canonical, it goes by the wayside; more hypocrisy from Ubuntu's community. "

How exactly does Ubuntu Code of Conduct have any bearing on discussion that takes place in LWN.net? I'm not part of Ubuntu-community in any shape or form. And what "hypocricy" are you talking about? That when I disagree with you, I'm "violating the Ubuntu Code of Conduct"? That the CoC requires that I agree with you? That if I disagree with you, I'm "violating the Ubuntu CoC"? I'm not representing Ubuntu, I'm not part of Ubuntu-community and this discussion is not taking place in Ubuntu-relates website, so what Ubuntu CoC says is irrelevant.

"If Mandriva's CEO was telling the rest of us what we should do, but not then making Mandriva go down that route, then damn right I'd criticise Mandriva. "

Again: Shuttleworth said that distros/projects should align their release-schedules, and he aligned Ubuntu's schedule to that of GNOME's. Isn't that EXACTLY doing what he suggests others should do as well?

"I'm not, despite your claims to the contrary, asking Shuttleworth to shut up. I'm not asking him to do anything other than accept that if what he says and what his company does diverge, people will criticise, and that's a fact of life."

What "divergence" are you talking about? Fact is that Ubuntu's schedule is aligned with GNOME's schedule, and that is an example of the thing he suggested others to do as well. So what exactly is the problem here???? Seriously, your argument is lacking in logic.

"All I am doing is saying that what Shuttleworth says I should do, and what he is doing with his company don't match up."

Uh, hello?!?! Yes they do! Ubuntu's release-schedule is synced to GNOME's release-schedule, and that's EXACTLY what Shuttleworth was talking about!

"Why is this deserving of such a huge attack? "

Huge attack? Should I just say "well, I disgree with you", and leave it at that, otherwise your feelings would be hurt?

Well, maybe your argument "deserves a huge attack" because it's is illogical and rotten to the core? Shuttleworth talked about syncing release-schedules, just like Ubuntu has synced it's release-schedule to that of GNOME's. And yet, here we have people saying that "Ubuntu does not follow the advice they are giving to others!". Huh?????

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 19:53 UTC (Wed) by dhaval.giani (guest, #45724) [Link] (2 responses)

Let me try to rephrase the objection.

Janne, why don't you write all the code. I will sell it as my innovation, and oh yeah, I want you to write the code and release it as per my schedule. BTW, I am not paying you anything for it but I will whine if you don't do what I want you to.

That is the issue.

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 11, 2010 22:07 UTC (Wed) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

except for the fact that by choosing the license you are explicitly saying that you are ok with other people taking your work and trying to sell it.

Ubuntu isn't ever claiming that they wrote everything, they aren't removing copyright notices, they just aren't making a big deal of the fact that (like every linux distro) they are including things from many/many different projects.

I see very little whineing from ubuntu folks, I see a lot of it directed _at_ ubuntu.

Yes they are suggesting syncing releases, they aren't the only ones to make the suggestion (just Mark S is high profile so people notice and remember his statement)

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 12, 2010 8:03 UTC (Thu) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]

"Let me try to rephrase the objection.

Janne, why don't you write all the code. I will sell it as my innovation, and oh yeah, I want you to write the code and release it as per my schedule. BTW, I am not paying you anything for it but I will whine if you don't do what I want you to.

That is the issue."

So, "the issue" is that Canonical uses bunch of free software to create a distro? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that free re-use and free distribution the exact point of GPL? Maybe those others should be writing proprietary software if they are so annoyed when Ubuntu uses their software in their distribution?

And like I already said, Ubuntu hasn't been forcing anyone to adhere to their schedule. Quite the opposite in fact! They tied their schedule to GNOME's schedule! They tied their schedule to someone else's schedule! Yet people are complaining that Ubuntu tries to force other to adhere to their schedule, when Ubuntu has been doing the exact opposite! Basically, Ubuntu has allowed a third-party to determine their release-schedule.

And about Shuttleworths comment... When he said that projects and distros should align their schedules, it does not necessarily mean that they should be align with Ubuntu's schedule. The schedule could be different from the one we have now.

And what "whning"? Shuttleworth argued that it would make sense for distros and projects to align their resources. I'm not going to argue whether that's a good or bad idea, but I don't think that's "whining". It's an opinion, a suggestion, a point of discussion. But whining? I don't think so. Or do you think that every point of discussion or opening of discussion is "whining"?

Ubuntu: "We have no plans to fork GNOME" (derStandard.at)

Posted Aug 12, 2010 4:04 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Janne, your impassioned first paragraph makes it clear that you did not read my last paragraph. I wish you would slow down and engage in a two-way discussion. Both sides of this argument have good points but there's no way they can be heard above all the shouting.

Take er easy, ok?