Jump to content



Photo

Ubuntu chief isn't interested in 'leet' users, wants to bring L

ubuntu linux shuttleworth

  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#31 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 12 March 2013 - 07:17

Believe me, Neowin is full of them.


While there is a couple I wouldn't say it's full of them, I'd say we have more fanatical Linux and OSX fans. The thing is a lot of people think anyone that doesn't hate something or even just likes something is a fanatical fan.

And I'm sorry, but liking windows 8 doesn't make you fanatical. Neither does liking Ubuntu. Tough it's undeniable that a higher percentage of Linux and OSX users are fanatical. However neowin is a windows focused tech site and will thus have an above average windows fan ratio.


#32 Joshie

Joshie

    Wandering NPC

  • Joined: 01-March 02
  • Location: Seattle, WA

Posted 21 March 2013 - 23:54

I really respect him for having this perspective. That anyone would have a problem with him just goes to show that they themselves don't believe their own garbage about open source: certainly, if there's a "distribution for everyone", getting all sandy-###### about one distribution's approach makes no sense.

To believe this direction for Ubuntu should not be allowed to happen is to disagree with what Linux claims to be about.

All that aside, though, there's already a UNIX-based OS that's both developer friendly and geared toward the masses--Mac OS. It's just expensive as frak.

As always, the primary factor has always been, and continues to be, the $0 price tag on Linux.

#33 Arceles

Arceles

    Time Craymel

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 28-November 09
  • Location: 4th dimmension.
  • OS: Win 7 Ultimate / Win 8.1 Pro (With Start Menu Start8, otherwise is UNUSABLE) / Android 4.1.2 Jelly Bean
  • Phone: XT890 Motorola RAZRi (x86 processor)

Posted 22 March 2013 - 00:02

Go Ubuntu/Debian, you can... really you can :D

#34 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 22 March 2013 - 00:04

I really respect him for having this perspective. That anyone would have a problem with him just goes to show that they themselves don't believe their own garbage about open source: certainly, if there's a "distribution for everyone", getting all sandy-###### about one distribution's approach makes no sense.


It sure makes me wonder. I thought open meant everyone could do their own thing.

#35 Joshie

Joshie

    Wandering NPC

  • Joined: 01-March 02
  • Location: Seattle, WA

Posted 22 March 2013 - 07:50

It sure makes me wonder. I thought open meant everyone could do their own thing.

Open means you can do whatever you want until you have shareholders.

Then everyone hates you.

#36 vetsanctified

sanctified

    Your order is meaningless. My chaos is significant.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 29-November 01
  • Location: ø
  • OS: OS X 10.10 and Xubuntu 14.04
  • Phone: iPhone 5s

Posted 22 March 2013 - 07:55

They can't make linux for everyone because the people that make it spend more time arguing instead of innovating and they would rather do stuff different to spite someone rather then actually make it better for the users. Not gonna happen unless they get over thier little problems.


That's what Shuttleworth doing with Ubuntu. Likewise the eOS team with Elementary Luna.

#37 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:16

I really respect him for having this perspective. That anyone would have a problem with him just goes to show that they themselves don't believe their own garbage about open source: certainly, if there's a "distribution for everyone", getting all sandy-###### about one distribution's approach makes no sense.

To believe this direction for Ubuntu should not be allowed to happen is to disagree with what Linux claims to be about.

All that aside, though, there's already a UNIX-based OS that's both developer friendly and geared toward the masses--Mac OS. It's just expensive as frak.

As always, the primary factor has always been, and continues to be, the $0 price tag on Linux.


Firstly it's not unix based, it's BSD, as I recall

Secondly, even if the kernel was based on Linux, the OS is not inux based.

#38 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:32

While there are people who would like Linux to remain complicated to use, a lot of the problems people have with Ubuntu aren't due to them being "innovators", it's due to how they behave towards the open source community (Mir being a recent example, supporting Wayland in public to other projects while internally having no idea what it is and deciding to make their own custom version without telling half their own developers, etc.)

Firstly it's not unix based, it's BSD, as I recall

Secondly, even if the kernel was based on Linux, the OS is not inux based.


UNIX is just a name, Apple paid for it so it's "UNIX". The BSDs (being direct derivatives of the original UNIX) aren't called it for that reason, they haven't paid.

Edit: Well it's a name and a set of standards, but you can implement the standards and still not be "UNIX", etc.

#39 Brian M.

Brian M.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 11
  • Joined: 07-January 05
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 22 March 2013 - 10:01

I actually disagree with him. Linux isn't "hard" at all, depending on the distribution:

- It's no harder to install than Windows (especially with GUI installers)
- It's no harder to use day-to-day
- It's no harder to install things from pre-compiled packages (in fact, it's often much easier with apt).

Personally - I think that if they want to go for average users - they don't need to spiff up the UI, or anything like that. They need to get it onto OEM machines. I can walk into PC World, and see hundreds of Windows machines, a few Macs, and nothing running Linux. The average user will stick with whatever is on their machine - if they want to target non-nerds, they need to make it so you can walk into a store, and buy a computer running it.

#40 Arceles

Arceles

    Time Craymel

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 28-November 09
  • Location: 4th dimmension.
  • OS: Win 7 Ultimate / Win 8.1 Pro (With Start Menu Start8, otherwise is UNUSABLE) / Android 4.1.2 Jelly Bean
  • Phone: XT890 Motorola RAZRi (x86 processor)

Posted 22 March 2013 - 10:03

I actually disagree with him. Linux isn't "hard" at all, depending on the distribution:

- It's no harder to install than Windows (especially with GUI installers)
- It's no harder to use day-to-day
- It's no harder to install things from pre-compiled packages (in fact, it's often much easier with apt).

Personally - I think that if they want to go for average users - they don't need to spiff up the UI, or anything like that. They need to get it onto OEM machines. I can walk into PC World, and see hundreds of Windows machines, a few Macs, and nothing running Linux. The average user will stick with whatever is on their machine - if they want to target non-nerds, they need to make it so you can walk into a store, and buy a computer running it.


I like apt... I don't like make (I already have enough of it on windows with cygwin).

#41 seta-san

seta-san

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 17-February 05

Posted 22 March 2013 - 11:05

I actually disagree with him. Linux isn't "hard" at all, depending on the distribution:

- It's no harder to install than Windows (especially with GUI installers)
- It's no harder to use day-to-day
- It's no harder to install things from pre-compiled packages (in fact, it's often much easier with apt).

Personally - I think that if they want to go for average users - they don't need to spiff up the UI, or anything like that. They need to get it onto OEM machines. I can walk into PC World, and see hundreds of Windows machines, a few Macs, and nothing running Linux. The average user will stick with whatever is on their machine - if they want to target non-nerds, they need to make it so you can walk into a store, and buy a computer running it.


now take a basic user who doesn't know computers like you. have them install Linux just fine. now imagine when it finishes and reboots it tries to start and boot to X but fails and either kernel panics or drops them at the console. Would you EVER be able to expect this person to figure out how to maybe install updated video drivers, update X, or alter configuration files with VIM? Thought not.

#42 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 22 March 2013 - 11:13

now take a basic user who doesn't know computers like you. have them install Linux just fine. now imagine when it finishes and reboots it tries to start and boot to X but fails and either kernel panics or drops them at the console. Would you EVER be able to expect this person to figure out how to maybe install updated video drivers, update X, or alter configuration files with VIM? Thought not.

And what about when that happens on Windows?

#43 seta-san

seta-san

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 17-February 05

Posted 22 March 2013 - 11:20

And what about when that happens on Windows?


windows doesn't suffer from incompatibilities between it's kernel and graphics layers because windows is one package made by one manufacturer. so problems with windows equivalent of X just wouldn't happen. When the OS fails to boot and the computer restarts it's probably going to try to get the user to restart to safe mode with a basic VGA driver. 256 colors and 1024x768 isn't sexy but it's functional.. functional enough to find the problem and fix it. any deeper problem and the OS doesn't expect the end user to be able to fix and doesn't even try to coax them into doing it by dumping them at a command prompt.

All this above and windows still has system restore functionality and the install discs have graphical, easy to use, programs that fixes most all basic issues that prevent the computer from booting.

edit..

not to mention one day I want to install Ubuntu on my tablet

http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/tablet

#44 n_K

n_K

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 19-March 06
  • Location: here.
  • OS: FreeDOS
  • Phone: Nokia 3315

Posted 22 March 2013 - 11:32

I agree with him about getting more people to use linux and whatnot, but one big way to be a complete tosser about it is to screw projects in development that have the support of many industrial players and come up with your own product that's pretty much a dumber idea that no-one wants (I'm talking about MIR here)...

I just can't take anything anyone from conical says seriously because really, they haven't got a clue.

#45 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:57

Windows always has VGA fallback, those users are to stupid to know the difference. And the or usually have an update all hardware program that runs one every boot nowadays