4 ms·

This is a bit of a shocker. Mark Shuttleworth's post is worth reading. [1] I actually liked Unity. There were a lot of reports of it being bloated and laggy bu

by throw2016 10y ago

This is a bit of a shocker. Mark Shuttleworth's post is worth reading. [1] I actually liked Unity. There were a lot of reports of it being bloated and laggy but I found the exact opposite when I finally tried it. Unity was lightweight, fast and by far the most polished Linux desktop I have used which made all the bad press a bit mysterious. There are a lot of folks online who seem to hate Ubuntu with an unusual passion and dismiss its projects as NIH. The key to understanding this is to seek out how many projects by Redhat, Fedora, Freedesktop or the Gnome ecosystem are dismissed as NIH? Zero. This is curious to say the least. Redhat funds a lot of projects, its become a cathedral in the open source bazaar. The danger of centralization and concentration of power and money is the cathedral then becomes more interested in its own influence than anything it publicly professes. [1] https://insights.ubuntu.com/2017/04/05/growing-ubuntu-for-cloud-and-iot-rather-than-phone-and-convergence/ https://insights.ubuntu.com/2017/04/05/growing-ubuntu-for-cl...

smitherfield 10y ago
SystemD is definitely attacked as NIH (and every other pejorative people can think of). And zfs fans say btrfs is NIH, etc, etc. I'd say RedHat gets just as much flak in that regard as Canonical.
- throw2016 10y ago
  Systemd was a highly controversial project and was attacked for a lot of technical and complexity reasons, not NIH. Btrfs origin is an Oracle project. We are taking about a section of the community who carry the flag for Redhat and dismiss anything not from that ecosystem as NIH. A typical example to show this is Snappy which precedes Flatpak. No one attacks Flatpak for NIH or demands they join hands with Ubuntu Snappy. Yet Snappy is routinely attacked as NIH and presented as another example of Ubuntu doing its own thing. There is definitely double standards and politics at play here.

smitherfield 10y ago

SystemD is definitely attacked as NIH (and every other pejorative people can think of). And zfs fans say btrfs is NIH, etc, etc. I'd say RedHat gets just as much flak in that regard as Canonical.

throw2016 10y ago
Systemd was a highly controversial project and was attacked for a lot of technical and complexity reasons, not NIH. Btrfs origin is an Oracle project. We are taking about a section of the community who carry the flag for Redhat and dismiss anything not from that ecosystem as NIH. A typical example to show this is Snappy which precedes Flatpak. No one attacks Flatpak for NIH or demands they join hands with Ubuntu Snappy. Yet Snappy is routinely attacked as NIH and presented as another example of Ubuntu doing its own thing. There is definitely double standards and politics at play here.