GNOME vs Canonical

[george.standish at gmail.com]

Eric,

Some comments I have about your post, and "Ubuntu" in general.

> Before Ubuntu Linux was just an alternative of Windows for tech savvy people
> only.

I think Ubuntu excelled at "install-time".  People with little
technical background can have Ubuntu up-and-running long before they
could: reinstall windows (finding their license key and entering it
correctly); installing 3rd party drivers for hardware; installing
there required applications (such as an office suite for example),
installing anti-virus/anti-malware software;  and just generally sort
out all the other "issues" involved with a Windows installation or
re-installation (I'm thinking re-installation after a virus).

Not only was the installation simple enough that average people could
easily do it.  It was also the distribution I personally used - after
much configuration and customization of course.  Coming from a Gentoo
background, I switched because I was tired of fixing my system all the
time (Gentoo is a labour of love, but requires nearly constant
attention) and wanted something that both worked, and was reliable.
Ubuntu was a great match for my needs and I could recommend it to
anyone, "Oh, you're interested in trying linux?  Download an Ubuntu
LiveCD.  You can 'try it out' first, without installing anything on
your system, just from the CD.  When you're ready to give it a 'real'
shot, setting up a dual-boot is easily configured during install."
Ubuntu was great "For Human Beings" and "Geeks".

> Nevertheless Mark Shuttleworth had a different
> vision and he decided to take the advantage of Linux (Open Source, Simple,
> Fast, high performance) and put it into an OS that could challenge Mac OS X
> and Windows.

Regarding Mar's vision.  I speculate, that prior to Mark's involvement
with Google and ChromeOS, Ubuntu was being positioned as an affordable
Mac OS X "clone."  After seeing the direction Google was taking with
ChromeOS - of giving users a "tailored," but heavily controlled,
environment in which to interact (primarily with the Web) - the nature
of Ubuntu Netbook Edition changed.  From my perspective, as both an
Ubuntu user and EEE owner, the first few releases of that was then
called Ubuntu Netbook Remix were excellent.  They provided a
customized interface for those small 7" screens, but under the hood it
was still "Ubuntu".  As time and Ubuntu releases passed, more and more
options began to disappear from UNR, or where simply much more
difficult to implement.  In my opinion the UI was getting too "locked
down" for my liking.  Unity, the base for the Netbook Edition, took my
"locked" feeling to even higher levels.

> ... it still looks like other Linux Distribution and it is almost limited to what any other Linux distro can do.

Taking the UI in new (or sometime old) directions, seems to be a key
focus for Ubuntu recently.  For instance the moving the buttons to the
left side in Lucid.  Why was this change made?  Who requested this
feature?  I believe this was perhaps Mark's "testing the waters" of
what users will accept as change.   The #ubuntu !controls factoid
still links to my crappy Google sites page I created during Lucid
development to keep my notes.  I guess with 11.04 that will be
removed.


> But Unity is the start of something new.

Agreed.  I think Ubuntu/Canonical is making a bold move with Unity.
One which they hope will attract people that have never considered
using "gnu/linux" on their computers.  These might be people who love
their smart phones and wish their computers behaved more like their
phones.  I hope Ubuntu is successful in this endeavor, it's a
smart/interesting move I think (it's just not how "I" want to interact
with my computer).

> Thanks to Unity a lot of features
> will come native and built in.

One of the pivotal issues for me.  I want to use Ubuntu for the
applications "I" want.  This doesn't always align with what the
"ubuntu-desktop" meta-package wants for me.  I have to duplicate
programs which perform the exact same task - trying to remove any of
the Ubuntu default (err, "approved") applications results in apt
trying to remove seemingly 75% of the installed packages on the
system.  Isn't there a method to install ubuntu without relying on
these "overreaching" meta packages?  Ubuntu decided to have a single
application to perform a job or task in the default install - makes
sense to me.   So why do I now have two on my system?

> For example, this days you need to install
> and configure a lot of stuff from Ubuntu 10.10 in order to get a better
> graphical experience (Compiz Fusion, Docky, Google Gadgets, ect). With
> Unity everything will come on by default.

So long as, what you want, is what Ubuntu is installing.  Package
selection and configuration, provides a lot of possibilities and
combination, rather then just one.  This is a great strategy for the
future non-linux folk (or Apple people, who should be familiar with
this pre-decided-for-you systems).

> Besides it makes Ubuntu unique and a better rival for Mac OS X.

Rival?  Really?  I think linux has been a much better OS (than all
other alternatives) for years.  The popularity of Windows, or Apple,
does not make them a "better" choice - it's a tyranny of the majority.
 BUT HEY, I'm a "linux-guy" I may be impartial ;)

> Maybe it will be hard to adapt at the beginning but I feel it will become
> better on every Ubuntu deployment.

If you choose to adapt to the Unity change, I'm sure it will.  It
didn't take me long, before I stopped switching my controls back to
the "right" (vs left) side on Lucid - I got used to the buttons new
location.


> I do Like Gnome but the same thing happened to all "Debian" Users that had
> to let it go for a better OS.

What do you mean by this exactly?  I'm was an Ubuntu user, now I'm
running Debian...  I don't thing one is "better" then the other -
they're just aided at different groups of people.  Some people (myself
being one, and reading the Debian ML I've seen other Ubuntu converts
as well), are switching from Ubuntu to Debian.  Some Ubuntu
derivatives, such as Mint and gNewsense are moving towards using
Debian for their base.

In summary, Ubuntu "was" a great distribution "for me" - but the
direction Ubuntu is heading in now, doesn't reflect my "old-school"
linux requirements.  In the #ubuntu-offtopic channel a couple months
ago, when the news that Unity was going to be default in 11.04, I
asked in anyone knew if there would be a Gubuntu (Gnome) subversion.
"rww" suggested that I examine if it was easier to: 1) add what I
wanted to Debian OR 2) take out what I didn't want from Ubuntu.  When
11.04 with Unity as default is released next month - it will be easier
for me to add to Debian -- my early switch was simply pre-emptive.

Ubuntu, and Mark Shuttleworth, have certainly built a great community
of people - around a GNU/Linux distribution - which is very
impressive.  After cancelling my other Ubuntu mailing lists, I
couldn't let go of this one ;)

GS