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

"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...