101–110 of 346 posts
If Canonical is serious about attracting mainstream Linux adoption, this is going to have to be addressed from the start.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What I like about the GNU/Linux ecosystem is that a lot of distros share a lot of common underpinnings, and everyone benefits from a large community fixing bugs and improving those underpinnings Exactly. Standards exist in the GNU/Linux world for reason. Mir, Unity, etc. all don't seem to play too well with other distros and are very tightly integrated with Ubuntu; if this continues Ubuntu might turn into a slightl…
Standards are great and all, but holding on to those standards is what's keeping back the UX of linux. Gnome3 is familiar, but very dated. X is supported by all, but it's a tangled mess that everyone hates. Yes Ubuntu is straying from the pack, but I'd rather have them stray and the rest follow when they find something good then have the entire linux community sit in the same place they have been for years. Regardles…
RH is doing similar stuff, although they're more deeply involved, and while I don't especially like how they impose some of their technology, at least it's generally well though out.
Maybe this is a good idea, I don't know about X/Wayland enough to say. But it worries me that Ubuntu is increasingly striking out on its own. What I like about the GNU/Linux ecosystem is that a lot of distros share a lot of common underpinnings, and everyone benefits from a large community fixing bugs and improving those underpinnings. It's also less knowledge to have to keep in your head for system administration st…
It doesn't sound like a good idea. What's wrong with Wayland?
* The input event handling partly recreates the X semantics and is thus likely to expose similar problems to the ones we described in the introductory section.
* The shell integration parts of the protocol are considered privileged from our perspective and we'd rather avoid having any sort of shell behavior defined in the protocol.
[1]: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MirSpec#Why_Not_Wayland_.2BAC8_Westo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Ubuntu's raison d'etre, which is to bring Free (libre) software to the world. Except the rest of the (consumer) world doesn't value libre as a first-class feature. They want the shiny. The way we get to bring our values to the world is to be commercially relevant. Because otherwise, hardware vendors don't care about you, ISVs ignore you, app developers target other platforms,…
Seems dishonest and manipulative to me. Con a bunch of people into adopting something that doesn't really fit their needs, is just shiny, so that you can use them as leverage... that is not something I am interested in. Meanwhile all of those unskilled users are not without a cost. Free software support infrastructure is not set up to handle that many unskilled users. If Canonical is going to be giving all of those p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It certainly improves certain details of the user experience, when it works correctly, also usually consuming more CPU than flash player You make a sweeping statement which is not true for every system. Looking at what happens playing a Youtube music video, according to htop: - pulseaudio is using between 0 and 1% CPU - plugin-container (wrapping Flash) is at 3% - firefox oscillates between 20 and 40% Now, my under…
Thanks for this insightful answer I'm not sure I have a bad driver, the last two chipsets I used were Intel (and no weird audio devices), works fine with other sw. Latest distro tested: RHEL 6 and Fedora 16 For me, PA would stay around 5%, 10% sometimes, and even more depending on the task. Not to mention crashing every week (at a random moment)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813407
I'm not sure if this could affect the CPU usage. I hear that you can play with the resample setting to lower it, but I haven't had to do that on a 5+ yo desktop.
Maybe this is a good idea, I don't know about X/Wayland enough to say. But it worries me that Ubuntu is increasingly striking out on its own. What I like about the GNU/Linux ecosystem is that a lot of distros share a lot of common underpinnings, and everyone benefits from a large community fixing bugs and improving those underpinnings. It's also less knowledge to have to keep in your head for system administration st…
Canonical might have problems with the current de'facto toolchains of the GNU/Linux ecosystem, or it is to large or unmaintainable for what they want to do with it. Like you said maybe its a good idea, maybe its not. Starting clean you can take all the knowledge gained from previous open projects and create something fresh that is more lightweight, faster and easier to maintain. But will this new components live up t…
1) Make the GNU/Linux stuff work on Android. That's what Tizen does, AFAIK. It's a lot of work. Advantage: everything works with it, and it's well understood.
2) Glue stuff up to work with whatever Android does. That's what they're aiming for. Advantage: less work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not Debian?
Debian stable tends to be too stable for my tastes; Fedora is much more bleeding edge. It's just a matter of preference, really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of the technical considerations, Linux and its surrounding ecosystem has a long history of many different companies co-operating on core software. Canonical's philosophy seems to fly directly against that - so far we have: Launchpad / Upstart / Unity / Mir Launchpad is free-software by name only, and Canonical actively discourage you to setup your own instance. Upstart hasn't been widely adopted outside of…
Upstart is a bad example. pacman is a package manager only used by Arch Linux and nowhere else. Should Arch abandon it because it hasn't seen wide use yet? Better yet, there are plenty of package managers that are better than both aptitude and pacman ( http://nixos.org/ ). Should we abandon the technically inferior solutions for the technically superior ones? Unity is the same way: it is open source. If you don't lik…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Standards are great and all, but holding on to those standards is what's keeping back the UX of linux. Gnome3 is familiar, but very dated. X is supported by all, but it's a tangled mess that everyone hates. Yes Ubuntu is straying from the pack, but I'd rather have them stray and the rest follow when they find something good then have the entire linux community sit in the same place they have been for years. Regardles…
Yeah, like Unity cough or upstart cough . RH is doing similar stuff, although they're more deeply involved, and while I don't especially like how they impose some of their technology, at least it's generally well though out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are sacrificing your objectivity, there is no reason other distros cannot be 'just as shiny' as Ubuntu or Mac OS. Furthermore it is horrible because Canonical has a history of secrecy and authoritarianism and they absolutely go against the spirit of open source software development.
If the "spirit of open-source software development" can't stand for distro maintainers to have strong control over what goes in their own distros, this open-source spirit sounds pretty authoritarian itself. If (for example) I want to maintain my own window manager for my distro and I provide the source under a free license but don't accept outside contributions into my own distribution, what is wrong with that? Isn't…
Additionally, an upstream package has authority only on ONE component. The distro has authority on ALL components. That makes ALL the difference.