Mark Shuttleworth is important to desktop Linux because he's the only one with vision, and the means to carry out that vision. He's making the tough, unpopular decisions that are advancing desktop Linux into the mainstream, and the only one with the balls to go at it alone.
Despite its issues (and it has them), Ubuntu is by far the most usable Linux variety, both on the desktop and server...
That is definitely under the 'fit and finish' heading! Imagine a future version of Ubuntu with Unity with that bug landing on the desktops of a few thousand users doing office work...
Having the good sense to set up a system that can create Ubuntu and let it work is a kind of vision. I vaguely recall something about this being how Steve Jobs worked: he created a system where people could work on ideas, and he only acted as the gatekeeper who kept the bad ideas from reaching the market.
Yes, Shuttleworth has good leadership skills and has pushed an agenda all these years, not to mention putting quite a few $million where his mouth was.
Do you think Jobs would have allowed a MacOs X update to badly break the way MS Office worked?
and this right here (sorry Parent, just using this as an example) is the reason that Linux has always been consigned to the ranks of the also-rans on the desktop. Someone will always come up with a reason why flavour x is better than flavour y. No matter what aspect of Linux is discussed, there will always be a significant proportion of users that think their flavour is better.
If you care about Linux on the desktop, you have got to see that people like Mark Shuttleworth are absolutely essential if Linux is ever to compete meaningfully on the desktop with Microsoft and Apple.
Sadly we're missing "something else" other than Mark Shuttleworth.
What he does, is what most others are doing in a half-hearted, compromised way: providing a "packaged" system that works without much hassle and which is based in pretty much the same interaction principles of the 70s and 80s.
Being Open Source, Linux could do a lot more than that. But nobody explores these avenues, it just aspires to be Windows/OS2/Mac in the desktop and Unix in the server. Linux could exploit the fact that it doesn't need to hide its workings, that it can allow any level of customisation in the workflow, in the windows manager, in permission management, etc etc because the user owns the software running in his or her computer. This basically has been exploited just for virtualisation.
The problem with that is monetisation. But a lot of development in the Linux community is non-for-profit anyway.
I am fascinated with the idea of customizable window managers. I haven't delved that deep, but the difference between XFCE and Unity is night and day. I can choose color schemes, window decorations, and make custom task bars. This should be table stakes for graphical interfaces.
And that's just windows management which is probably the most obvious advantage of an all-open approach, but there are other things like user programmed priority systems, memory management etc which could potentially do a much more effective usage of the hardware than the standard monolithic opaque approach.
> and this right here...is the reason that Linux has always been consigned to the ranks of the also-rans on the desktop. Someone will always come up with a reason why flavour x is better than flavour y.
No it isn't. The number of people who don't use Linux on their desktop, simply because someone else commented on a forum that they preferred one distribution over another, is utterly negligible. In fact, the theory is just ludicrous!
But it does impact companies that might otherwise try pre-installing Linux. Whichever distro they pick, they lose 100% of the Windows market plus the 97%* of the Linux market who bitch about not getting their fave version.
* Made up number but I remember Acer shipping netbooks with Linpus Lite...
Not at all. I bought a System 76 laptop that came pre-installed with Ubuntu. But I don't like Ubuntu.
However, I knew that Linux ran on it out of the box, and that meant I could run Slackware without worrying about missing drivers, etc. Also, it was a great way to support a company that supports free software.
To me, a company that sells pre-installed Linux on decent hardware has my admiration and support, regardless of the distro.
No, it does not impact companies that might pre-install Linux, unless they perform their market research by picking random anecdotes from web forums.
They lose exactly 0% of Windows market by offering another option in Operating System (in fact, I tend to avoid hardware that only does Windows as it tends to be crap, so it might actually be a gain).
If you remember people bitching about Linpus Lite because it wasn't people's favourite distro, you remember wrong.
You should list your phone number as the support hotline for those users of Ubuntu that take your word for it, and change to Gentoo to improve in usability. :)
Personal use: Someone at the level of confidence with IT required to install and configure gentoo would probably be able to install and configure just about any popular GNU/Linux distribution.
Corporate use: Ubuntu desktop can be deployed in various ways automatically. Canonical will sell configuration systems as well. There was at one point a desktop image available for corporate use that has the social and media integration removed. Not sure about gentoo in that area (if anyone has supported a large scale gentoo installation for end users, let us know!). I would imagine people would be looking more at CentOS or openSuse.
When you can buy a brand new laptop/tablet/device running gentoo, we can talk. Ubuntu got over that chicken/egg problem where OEMs don't want to ship linux on their computers because it's not popular, and it's not popular because OEMs don't ship linux on their computers. That, in and of itself, is a huge feat. Unfortunately, it can only really mean something for maybe a few years before casual desktop computing is "gone".
Then you set some env vars, compile a bunch of applications for hours and then realize that your env vars were wrong or you want to change them for some reason and you have to start compiling all over again.
Unless you want some console-only LFS. But that's not me.
I'm confident that that was hyperbole, but the overall idea is not wrong. It takes much less time to install a pre-compiled binary from a .deb or .rpm file than it does to configure and compile source code, even if you have an especially powerful CPU to hand. Why? Your distro has already done the hard work of configuring and compiling for you.
I’m sorry, but what exactly is the vision of Mark Shuttleworth? The only one I can think of right now beyond pushing away other distributions would be Ubuntu as a universal operating system that works across mobile phones, tablets, servers and desktop computers, but that’s pretty recent.
"Linux for human beings" basically, and Linux that 'ordinary people' can use. That has been a fairly constant thread from the first tentative release (4.10 was it not?).
Shuttleworth has also been active in educational projects especially in South Africa.
But, I don't particularly "want Linux to succeed". I want an OS to succeed that's free, and doesn't suck for my purposes. This article seems to assume that we "want Linux to succeed" simply because we're rooting for our home team.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not saying I don't want Linux to succeed. I'm saying that if that success comes at the cost of making it suck more or be less Free, that will be a Pyrrhic victory.
1. When I look for work, people expect me to use a particular OS I'm not very found of and it seems natural to them. I'd definitely would like to see more diversification and Linux is by far the best chance for that. So yes, I want it to succeed. I want my next employer to tell me the interfaces they have and let me figure out how to work with it instead of forcing me into their restricted worldview.
2. I'm not an administrator. I'm a software guy. And I want to make money to buy food and shelter and stuff. I want the Linux desktop to succeed because then I have a userbase that has various needs and is willing to spend money to fulfill the needs. Yes, I want to create beautiful "works out of the box" apps that people want to spend money for. Things like the Ubuntu software center and Steam are pointing the way there, but we still have a long way to go. And nobody else seems to be on this path.
It would be good for Linux to succeed just to have competition- even if there was a better (for me) OS I would still want Linux to succeed so in the distant future I will still have a choice and an even better OS spurred on by competition.
our superior operating system is only superior to computer savvy users who are able to fix what they break and configure what they buy and who have the patience to figure-out things like why a configuration made in the KDE UI disappears at reboot. Hint–it might be because that particular configuration in your particular distro must be made in the distro’s configuration panel which overwrites anything done in KDE’s panel, even though it’s a KDE configuration. How many grandmothers will figure that out
now that is how you hit a nail straight on the head. In the last 15years or so I tried many times to turn to the desktop, but it's exactly issues like this (which are, under my impression at least, way more common on the desktop than on the cli) that make me stick with the command line linux and enjoy it in all it's glory. If I want a desktop I still use Windows. Or OsX if I must.
yes there are such environments. Never denied that. But as I said, I consider them only perfectly usable for computer savvy users who are able to fix what they break and configure what they buy and spend time on it. That last part kills it for me.
Honestly, as a current Debian Wheezy user... this isn't true any more. I haven't had to fix anything since I installed it. It's all Just Worked.
If it didn't just work, I'd've bought a Windows license, as I have previously done. This is, in fact, the first Linux install that I've continued using for over a couple of months.
The "it's not very usable" argument was correct in the old GNOME2/KDE3 world, but at least GNOME3 is exceptionally usable and the OS is extremely stable.
It's probably better than it used to be. But it just keeps on coming back to me. Like last month I downloaded a live CD of the latest Debian because I coulnd't find the one I normally use, and it didn't even want to start X. Not on an old pc with a recent graphics card, not on a new one with another recent graphics card. Not generalizing this to everything and maybe I just have bad luck but things like that are an unfortunately large part of my experience with desktop linux.
I haven't used a live CD of Debian, but you should know that since Debian Squeeze, nonfree graphics drivers are not included. Perhaps that was an issue? If you want something that "just works", use a Debian derivative like Ubuntu. Debian is great and I use it on a few of my machines because I can install a minimal set of packages and build on top of it.
I have never noticed what people have been complaining about regarding fonts. Ubuntu uses some freetype patches that have not been accepted upstream, right? The fonts look just fine to me. It's a very minor gripe at best.
And you would be wrong. GNOME 3, Cinnamon, Unity, etc. are all made for "regular people" to use and they work just fine when I have used them. I think you are perpetuating a popular myth that GNU/Linux desktop environments are only for so called "power users" and programmers.
FWIW, they did give a valid use case and a valid issue in their initial post -- regarding configuration of distro vs. desktop environment. However, I don't know how valid that problem is in many Linux desktop environments today. There have been leaps and bounds in terms of usability and smoothing out the user experiences on Linux desktop environments lately.
It's also why Windows does work on the desktop. For all of its issues, it works the vast majority of the time. I never truly appreciated it as an OS until I tried using something else as a daily, desktop OS.
Counterpoint -- this could be just that you are used to using a tool, and any other tool would initially be unfamiliar, unintuitive, and difficult.
People stick to what works for them until a compelling value proposition comes along. Indeed, the value proposition of FOSS to the average user isn't compelling (yet).
I'm highly suspicious of Mark Shuttleworth and the Canonical guys... hopefully that suspicion is misplaced. It's true that they've done an immense amount of good for desktop Linux - hell, I'm not sure I ever would have gotten into Linux without Ubuntu. On the other hand, they haven't shown that they're really willing to play nice with the rest of the community.
Going off on their own to develop Mir is a big deal, if for no other reason than it looks alienating. Adding Amazon search (by default) to the unity lens is an even bigger deal! I don't come to Linux for that shit! Unity as a whole is not a big deal because you can still just install something else.
I'm just not sure any more. They've burnt a lot of bridges with the community. How is that a good strategy? How is being an asshole a good thing if what you're achieving is partnering with Amazon to snoop on users? What are they trying to achieve here? I don't want to suggest that just because they're trying to make money means that what they are doing is automatically evil, but intentions do matter. What are their intentions? Just to spread awesome free software? I don't think that's all they are trying to do. And honestly, who needs another Apple, Microsoft or Google? We need something better.
This article reads like it was written in 2006. The ideas that Linux distros lack polish, and that Ubuntu brought that to the table; that this is a capitalist world and Mark Shuttleworth understands capitalism, etc. are very, very trite.
Also, what kind of bizarro world is this where Android doesn't exist? You know, the Linux distro/interface that's leading the development on the consumer side? Smart phones, tablets and other mobile devices is the future for Linux and computing in general.
What is a desktop but a tablet or smartphone with a keyboard and mouse? It wasn't long ago that "Desktop" meant a rarely moved laptop or a tower attached to a big monitor and some peripherals, so we're not used to thinking of it in more abstract terms. This is changing as the traditional desktop--a computer you set on a surface and do work on--becomes something more modular and tablet-like.
>What is a desktop but a tablet or smartphone with a keyboard and mouse?
Hardly anyone uses Android with a keyboard and mouse (for good reason).
You might believe that that will change, and that is a reasonable conversation to have, but it does not make it unreasonable or silly to have a conversation about desktop Linux that ignores Android.
(When the person I replied to wrote, "what kind of bizarro world is this where Android doesn't exist?" he implied that such a conversation is unreasonable or silly.)
I only want Linux to succeed because I want there to be open software stacks, especially for poor and beginning developers. Android's implicit distribution of LInux core means a more secure open stack ecosystem (even if it is special purpose at the higher levels). The same is true for the fledgling ChromeOS. And actually, ChromeOS is the real next step and competition for "distros." I mean, does ChromeOS outnumber Ubuntu yet? How long will it take?
Were you using Linux on your desktop in 2006? As I remember, the arrival of Ubuntu marked a massive shift in usability. I held out on various other distros, but eventually the extra polish Ubuntu offered was too compelling. Raising the bar has raised the game of other distros, but the introduction of Ubuntu was massive.
Mark Shuttleworth and Canonical are important to ‘desktop Linux’ mainly because they are attempting to kill it.
Note that they do not even advertise Ubuntu as a GNU or Linux distribution.
It seems the current strategy of Canonical is to change enough of the system so that developing cross-distribution will become more and more of a hassle, and trust software developers to just target Ubuntu due to its market share in Linux-land.
Unity was a step in the direction. It’s not critical to other programs, but Unity itself appears to be very hard to port to other distributions (and to be honest it was the first thing that actually made Ubuntu distinct from other Debian derived distributions).
Mir takes it a step further, now wm and toolkit developers will have to target either just Wayland, and lose out on the vast Ubuntu userbase, or target just Mir.
Canonical does its best to bring closed-source commercial desktop applications to the operating system through the Ubuntu app store. With good reason: they know the developers of these commercial applications will only target Ubuntu, since unlike open source programs where the distribution’s packagers do the work of bringing your application to their OS for you, that can’t be done very well with just binary packages compiled against x version of y library. Thus forcing users who want to use one of these applications to switch to Ubuntu.
EDIT: and let’s not forget that Canonical ships what is basically spyware with Ubuntu. Local searches on your desktop should not be used to help Amazon advertise. Shuttleworth’s reaction to the complaints were extremely cynical as well.
"Mir takes it a step further, now wm and toolkit developers will have to target either just Wayland, and lose out on the vast Ubuntu userbase, or target just Mir."
Won't the toolkits simply support existing widget libraries? I mean GTK-Mir and GTK-Wayland or QT-Mir and QT-Wayland &c? Else there will be something of a dearth of applications! I'm genuinely asking as this is an area I don't know much about.
PS: There is a privacy settings manager in system settings probably as a result of the reaction to the Amazon search thing.
"Canonical does its best to bring closed-source commercial desktop applications to the operating system through the Ubuntu app store. With good reason: they know the developers of these commercial applications will only target Ubuntu, since unlike open source programs where the distribution’s packagers do the work of bringing your application to their OS for you, that can’t be done very well with just binary packages compiled against x version of y library. Thus forcing users who want to use one of these applications to switch to Ubuntu."
First, I drove the App Store both strategy and was responsible for development - in other words _I know_ why we did it. I am my own citation!
Strategically, what do you think the biggest reason is for why end-users don't move across platforms? Guess what it's application software, specifically lack of important application classes and brand names end-users are familiar with. It comes across in all the user-research. So, what you want to do is to encourage commercial software developers and prove out a market - which leads to a situation where familiar applications are available on an unfamiliar platform.
Guess what the other problem is in the Linux ecosystem compared to other 'alternative platform' ecosystems - the lack of a set of commercial software developers. Think back to Apple in the mid-90's a period where the media thought they "were dead". They could still attract thousands of developers to MacWorlds and there were lots of software companies developing great software for users of the platform. Desktop Linux doesn't have that because it never created a market. The result is not as much fully polished, long-term end-user grade software.
So finding a way to create a market place and create the ability for commercial software developers to target the platform is good for end-users. That's the strategic reasoning.
Next, consider the problems that developers face.
If you go to some conferences and ask developers why they don't target Linux - go ask at some Game developers conferences - they'll tell you two things a) Linux users don't pay for anything/market is too small b) developing for Linux is too hard. Now a) is just a hard problem and the only thing that changes is it is time. But, when you dig into b) what you discover they mean is that the development tools on Linux are hard and that the swathe of packaging options is confusing. Which is exactly why Ubuntu started cutting through the "tyranny of choice" to provide information on how to develop/port - see http://developer.ubuntu.com . It's also why we reduced the complexity of packaging, provided tools and a web portal which is what developers are used to on other platforms - now a developer just has to use the autopackaging tool and the system takes care of the rest of it.
Result is that there are more commercial applications available on a desktop Linux (Ubuntu) than every before. Result, some of the commercial tool developers are targeting a Linux desktop in a way never done before. I'm proud of that. And, since by definition it's easier to port from one distribution of Linux than it is to port from another platform to Linux - you should be proud of that as well.
Either way, that's the _facts_ on _why_ Ubuntu targets developers and full explanation of how it's not an evil genius plan.
The most important thing he can do is railroad through a Nexus-style Ubuntu exemplar hardware platform. All you need is one or two devices.
I'd pay 25% over a comparable Apple for a real Ubuntu-Debian laptop with Apple-quality build and a real software-hardware pairing. I'm tired of flimsy setups from a weekend configuration tutorial hack job or Dell's XPS empty gesture.
So does Asus Zenbook Prime and many models from Lenovo. I have Zenbook and it's almost perfect. Minor touchpad issues, ambien light sensor does not work and screen is always at max bright after reboot, that's about it. The problem of course is that this is fairly expensive machine and people won't tolerate those quirks when enough money is involved.
I have a ZenBook too as my primary Ubuntu machine. It's almost good enough. I also suffer all the points you list, each of which are 100% dealbreakers and perfect examples of how almost it is yet no one goes the extra mile. A little bit of effort/sway from Canonical would go a long way.
then buy certified hardware. thinkpads work great. or go pre-install with system76 or zareason.. the new system76 (clevo shell) 14.1 pro looks pretty sweet (quad core, 16gb ram, half the price of a macbook pro, ubuntu preinstalled) https://www.system76.com/laptops/model/galu1
Thinkpads. Thinkpads have good build quality - they pass more military toughness tests than 'toughbooks' do, and they're generally 'just work' when it comes to linux (sometimes you'll need a broadcom driver or similar if you're using Debian)
generally... and I hate to be that guy, but Thinkpads build quality has really suffered of late; plastic is not a way to go. And, 'military-grade' or 'passed all one-hundred and whatever tests used to certify for the US Army' are well-known marketing gimmicks used out of context.
Recently bought a thinkpad (Christmas 2012). I didn't encounter any marketing specific to military grade/army use. Perhaps it's different now.
Some plastics are very durable, and the type that comes with the thinkpad is not the cheapo dell plastic. Regardless the plastic shell isn't designed to provide structural strength in the first place. The inner frame is the core strength of the thinkpad; magnesium or some kind of metal (I forget exactly).
Please provide links for your claims of suffered build quality... if only for my sake to perhaps look at other laptop manufacturers.
I use a non-free Windows 7 install dual booted with my free Ubuntu install. All the software I use works roughly the same on both, and the formats I create in are open specifications with widespread support.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm free. I can take my data anywhere I want and do anything I choose with it. The presence of proprietary formats and proprietary software hasn't crowded out the--by my perception--superior open source options, which seems to be the main fear of people who tell me not to use proprietary software. Show me a free-by-your-definition operating system that's compelling enough to make me want to switch from an environment where I'm already free to do whatever I want.
Mark Shuttleworth found a way to get ordinary people to use a Linux-based operating system. If you want your idea of a free desktop operating system to thrive, you need to figure out how The Ubuntu Foundation did it with their definition of free.
Because he pumps a load of cash into it and isn't afraid of new things?
I don't actually like many of the new things, but you can't fault him for having a go and getting some decent results, and (X/K)Ubuntu always looks pretty polished
I could write more but I don't want to. Whether Ubuntu is the best Linux distribution or not is debatable, whether Ubuntu has made or not made significant contributions to desktop Linux is also debatable, saying otherwise is ludicrous. Preference of one distribution over another comes down to personal taste, individual experiences with hardware support and individual experiences with the maintenance of the system. However the marketing effort Ubuntu made is undeniable, I don't remember any other distributions that made such commitment to promoting desktop Linux.
I think Shuttleworth/Canonical are wasting their time with the phone stuff.
They should focus on building a branded/licensed ARM desktop/laptop ecosystem. That is where they can best compete. If they do well there, then they could move to tablets and phones.
One thing holding back desktop linux, is that the options for programming linux GUI's are not that great. There's basically C++, python, and various red-headed step children. Canonical should put some backing into bindings for Rust, Dart, and ES.Next on node.js once they become stable.
That market segment is shrinking. Not disappearing but shrinking. Their idea is to make the phone the desktop (or rather their desktop the phone).
I for one, am excited. Their edge device looks great as far as design and specs so far.
> There's basically C++, python, and various red-headed step children. Canonical should put some backing into bindings for Rust, Dart, and ES.Next once they become stable.
I disagree. The approach that Canonical advocated for Ubuntu won't help Linux desktop. It would help, well Ubuntu which only becomes increasingly isolationist with NIH syndrome on every corner. Unity, Mir etc, etc. The list will go on.
Jolla for example help Linux desktop much more than Canonical. They actually work on improving Wayland. I.e. they push mobile Linux using components which allow sharing the effort with the desktop Linux. Unlike Canonical.
Despite its issues (and it has them), Ubuntu is by far the most usable Linux variety, both on the desktop and server...