Originally Posted by mushroomboy
One of the issues, it's why Trashour said what he said, is the diversity.
Originally Posted by FateousMaximous
Take a look at Canonical's track record with Unity, they made it difficult to use on any other distro, so assuming they continue to operate the same way Mir will be fairly difficult to get working on any other distro. Meaning that if Valve makes a game for Ubuntu it doesn't work for any other distro, and the reason why Valve picked Ubuntu is because it's the most Windows like Linux Distro. So where is this line you said you were going to draw? Because they are purposely forcing devs to make things for only their distro over others.
You might think that diversity is an issue, but I personally think that is is one of Linux's strengths (aka choice). You can choose to use what you want and have an OS your way, instead of being stuck with how someone else thinks your OS should be.
Since i've been brought up :), you know speak of the devil and all, I will try to expand on what i've previous said, and what mushroom is referring to (as it came from a instant message conversation).
We are at a turning point atm in the development of linux, where the things that make it great are also the same things that in end keep us divided.
Reading thru this thread, some have obviously misunderstood what i meant here, or only read part of it and instantly hit their "berzerk" button, and have responded before thinking about it.
To address some of the things that have been said, Yes we are at a turning point in linux development. this is not some sort of lame ass attempt to claim "year of the linux desktop" or any other foolish thing. the turning point is replacement of xorg, the divide is caused by what many will attribute to linux greatness, choice.
Ubuntu, the undeniable, most popular by a great margin distro out there, has literally said they don't care about the linux "ecosystem" (but do you blame them? this supposed community shun's them every chance they get). they have announced that they are developing their own display server, cause xorg nor weyland meets their requirements.
The rest of the "community", will either stick with xorg cause they believe nothing is wrong with it, and others will adopt weyland/weston cause they do believe something is wrong with xorg or they will do it out of spite, to fanwank the haters of ubuntu.
^ so there you have it, linux/OSS greatest strengths, turns into its greatest weakness. you will now have the 3 camps, spouting off at the mouthpiece why their decision is the best. this will go on for several years, but developers will flock to the most popular, where their application, will see the most acceptance...
Now i haven't been asked here this, but i have been asked by several colleagues of mine, do i agree with canonical's decision?
This is a tough one to answer, cause i fully support Ubuntu's stated philosophy and goals. Giving us an easy to use, free (as in freedom) operating system. Since the onset of this project and my adoption of ubuntu in 2006/7, I haven't really given much thought to how they would accomplish this, i still haven't. I believe in to use the right tool for the job, and if that tool doesn't exist, then you make it. so the things ubuntu has done of late have more or less gelled with my own personal beliefs, and they have not abandoned their goals or philosophy. I do have my criticism of Ubunut, as i originally didn't care much for Unity, but after seeing what it can do on my tablet, and how much changes are happening with it on the desktop as well, my initial assessment of it has changed, its not horrible as it was, and its quickly moving towards becoming my daily driver.
I will also have to stress, I personally find this internal drama in the ecosystem that we are constantly being bombarded with. Is far more damaging to linux, than anything Ubuntu could ever do. A lot of the that is, we simply don't have any leadership in FOSS, well, strong leadership.
Look at the creator of the kernel, there are several videos up on his youtube and tons of articles written in poor taste, about how he said "F* you nvidia", when he should've called for the community to lay pressure on nvidia to be more cooperative and open about their drivers. even if it was said jokingly, the negativity of that statement alone sent a ripple of hate mongering thru out the linux ecosystem, and every elitist nitwit with a blog had something bad to say about nvidia after that, even when before they prolly had no real opinion on the subject.
Then you have stallman, who looks like the guy i gave my last dollar to at 7-11 the other night, when given a chance, will remind you how he created GNU and linux should really be GNU/Linux, that its a GNU OS using a linux kernel. i do believe in giving credit, where credit is due, but not when it boils down to semantics.
We need strong leadership, if this is a community, the "leaders" we have now, only seem to further divide us. Shuttleworth is no exception, I think he is a fine leader, but only for ubuntu. In times like these a leader should unite us behind the decisions.
So in conclusion, this a divide the only weakens Linux. Some support the decision to make linux a viable desktop, where others say they support, but get their panties all in a twist when people try to fix the problems, then you got those ones "CLI is all i need". right now there simply isn't enough information out there, to form a concise opinion on what ubuntu is doing. Mir isn't done, neither is weyland, and xorg, well, it works for now. Its a race i guess.