7 ms·

It is not surprising if one follows their development, though. Neither Unity, nor mobile, nor Amazon integration was a move that anybody liked. And many of thes

by erikb 10y ago

It is not surprising if one follows their development, though. Neither Unity, nor mobile, nor Amazon integration was a move that anybody liked. And many of these were just announced to be dropped. That this strategical shift also means a shift in leadership is normal. And honestly, I have to say: Finally! Nothing of these things were really doing any good to the community as a whole, and therefore also can't be in the long term financial interest of Canonical. The only thing I wonder is if this Jane Silber, who I've never heard about before, is really responsible for all these failures or if she's just the goat that gets slaughtered for the oracle of public opinion.

4ad 10y ago
Well if we're speculating, I'll speculate something else. Mark is shopping the company around, trying to find buyers. The buyers told him he needs to axe some projects and fire Jane. These things might not be related outside this context. It even says in the other article that they are downsizing due to an "external analysis". External analysis happen when you are about to be bought.
- JdeBP 10y ago
  It says in this headlined article "We're now entering a new phase of accelerated growth".
- moomin 10y ago
  I think you've nailed it. Every move and announcement screams that Shuttleworth has given up on his ambitions. Which is a pity, because the ambitions themselves were laudable.
- ybaumes 10y ago
  I think 4ad has a good point here. It's been a long time since I has the same kind of thinking: Shuttleworth won't spend all his money in Ubuntu indefinitely and/or he wants his firm to be financially sustainable over time. They've tried hard to make a living out of desktop market, and it never worked out. Now they cut it and focus on B2B markets. No longer expect Canonical to make innovation for the end user market in foreseeable future. The way he is expressing his bitterness to the open source community in its Google+ post is telling. We may expect Ubuntu to drift slowly into the once-in-a-time-popular distribution graveyard.
- erikb 10y ago
  Could be the reason.
vacri 10y ago
Plenty of people like Unity, it's just that the naysayers are super-vocal about it. Mir was an attempt to meld mobile and desktop at a time when mobile still hadn't really settled down - it was a bold experiment that didn't work. Amazon integration was another experiment that didn't work. They have tried a lot of things, some work, some don't. But if ubuntu listened to the naysayers, there wouldn't be an ubuntu, and desktop linux would have nowhere near the user count it has today. Ubuntu drove a lot of development towards user-friendliness (directly and indirectly). Another of their success stories was Upstart simplifying service management, which was only unseated by Systemd (which started development nearly half a decade later with the benefit of hindsight). It's so tiring hearing the constant bitchfest aimed at Ubuntu when they've done so much for the community, including significantly growing it. Yes, they've made some missteps, but so have all of the big players.
- 4ad 10y ago
  I do not understand how Ubuntu brought users to the Linux desktop. When Ubuntu started, it was just a crappy version of Debian. It was exactly as user friendly (or user unfriendly) as Debian. It ran the exact same software! Everything that made Ubuntu user friendly (or not) was there on Debian. Then they made Unity, but that was after it was established in popular culture that Ubuntu is "user friendly". But now they are abandoning Unity anyway, so it must not have been that important after all. I do not understand why Ubuntu became more popular than Debian. I really don't. Something to do with those free CDs.
  - joshumax 10y ago
    I think one of the major driving factors initially was that Ubuntu didn't follow the long package tree freezes that Debian stable/testing was subjected to after a period of time. Debian stable still tends to contain older packages with security patches applied rather than the latest and greatest(tm), which most standard users tend to prefer over stability
  - justincormack 10y ago
    More frequent releases. Mattered a lot for hardware compatibility.
_pmf_ 10y ago
I don't understand their strategy; Red Hat has some unique offerings for enterprises, but I've never heard anything from Canonical. Getting involved inthe systemd and Wayland turf wars is probably not the most effective way to spend developer resources.
scotu 10y ago
only siths deals in absolutes? Maybe try: "Unity didn't provide enough advantage compared to use an already baked DE compared to the cost of making it". I would be happy also with: "not enough people liked unity or mobile". Plenty of people liked unity and I'd like in this discussions a little bit of respect was given to the people who thought, designed and liked Unity. At least acknowledge their existence now that you "won"... I liked unity and actively dislike kde and gnome 3 (gnome 2 was ok but clearly nowadays is old and I still liked unity more). Many people liked mobile too: I backed their failed indigogo and plenty of people did, but that was a weird move and it failed being TOO ambitious (I'm not sure they would have been able to deliver in hindsight). When they did make a mobile, plenty of people would have loved to have a more privacy minded alternative to google (but still open), but they focussed on lower end where google was already present (and where this privacy power users are not) and, I think, made the mistake of discarding the option of going with android that had the apps needed to make the platform viable for users. In a way it's the "unity" move of mobile, but the difference is that on desktop you didn't throw away all linux desktop software. I left linux on desktop a couple years ago, not because of unity but because * I suddenly needed to buy a laptop, I wanted it with linux and the dell xps was about to be replaced with the newer. I also didn't bother to understand how to get a lenovo (possibly I wasn't aware you could get it with linux at the time, I don't remember) so I got a mac * having a mac seemed like a good occasion to try some proprietary software I wanted to try for a while. Both the proprietary stuff and mac os were good and I could develop in virtualized linux so I couldn't see any reason to go back to linux for not linux. So I think ubuntu failed in the desktop and mobile. Not that others did any better there in the linux camp. Now for the armchair CEO moment: If I had to go mobile AND drop unity, a few years ago, I would have rebuilt ubuntu as a multi form factor experience based on android, possibly replacing (or giving the option to opt out from) the google bits. Now it could be late (but no problem I guess, as they are not doing it :D). This if convergence was the target, otherwise ubuntu + unity on desktop and android based ubuntu on mobile.
- chuckdries 10y ago
  I don't know about that android thing. It feels like there are pretty significant differences under the hood that would heavily disrupt the server and desktop areas where ubuntu is already popular
throw2016 10y ago
I honestly don't get the 'community' bit. Who gets to decide what is NIH, what is duplication of effort, fragmentation and what is 'good' for the 'community'? Who do these individuals speak for? Which community? There is no organized overarching community in Linux. Are they speaking for Debian, Redhat, Fedora, Suse, Mint, Ubuntu, Elementary, specific projects? They should clearly articulate who they represent. This looks like hijacking the 'community' to push personal preferences. I am beginning to feel there is a serious undercurrent of bad actors in the open source ecosystem who are threatened by anything not from that they perceive as 'their community'. For instance I don't see any knives sharpened by all these 'community' advocates for Flatpak when it is preceded by Ubuntu Snap. In this case no one is harassing Redhat and Fedora about NIH, duplication of effort, fragmentation and pressuring Flatpak developers to join hands with Ubuntu. Why the double standards? Wen it comes to Mir or Unity it is completely out of control. And its only when I decided to overlook the bad press to actually try Unity that I realized its by far the most polished desktop on Linux in 20 years. This kind of organized hatchet job is a serious loss for open source. Its too self serving and political and I suggest anyone presuming to speak for the community should be immediately treated with suspicion.
- erikb 10y ago
  > What is 'good' for the 'community'? Decision means someone has to do something. So probably nobody decides that. But everybody is free to have an opinion. Everybody presents what they see as "the community" and feels a fantasy connection to people who he has barely anything to do with, and a distinction from people who he may have more in common with than he assumes. That's how community works. It's mostly in people's heads.
hd4 10y ago
>The only thing I wonder is if this Jane Silber, who I've never heard about before, is really responsible for all these failures or if she's just the goat that gets slaughtered for the oracle of public opinion. The answer is in the question.. (Though I still do like Unity, it's the least memory-hungry DE of the popular ones)

by erikb 10y ago

4ad 10y ago

Well if we're speculating, I'll speculate something else. Mark is shopping the company around, trying to find buyers. The buyers told him he needs to axe some projects and fire Jane. These things might not be related outside this context. It even says in the other article that they are downsizing due to an "external analysis". External analysis happen when you are about to be bought.

JdeBP 10y ago
It says in this headlined article "We're now entering a new phase of accelerated growth".
moomin 10y ago
I think you've nailed it. Every move and announcement screams that Shuttleworth has given up on his ambitions. Which is a pity, because the ambitions themselves were laudable.
ybaumes 10y ago
I think 4ad has a good point here. It's been a long time since I has the same kind of thinking: Shuttleworth won't spend all his money in Ubuntu indefinitely and/or he wants his firm to be financially sustainable over time. They've tried hard to make a living out of desktop market, and it never worked out. Now they cut it and focus on B2B markets. No longer expect Canonical to make innovation for the end user market in foreseeable future. The way he is expressing his bitterness to the open source community in its Google+ post is telling. We may expect Ubuntu to drift slowly into the once-in-a-time-popular distribution graveyard.
erikb 10y ago
Could be the reason.

vacri 10y ago

Plenty of people like Unity, it's just that the naysayers are super-vocal about it. Mir was an attempt to meld mobile and desktop at a time when mobile still hadn't really settled down - it was a bold experiment that didn't work. Amazon integration was another experiment that didn't work. They have tried a lot of things, some work, some don't. But if ubuntu listened to the naysayers, there wouldn't be an ubuntu, and desktop linux would have nowhere near the user count it has today. Ubuntu drove a lot of development towards user-friendliness (directly and indirectly). Another of their success stories was Upstart simplifying service management, which was only unseated by Systemd (which started development nearly half a decade later with the benefit of hindsight). It's so tiring hearing the constant bitchfest aimed at Ubuntu when they've done so much for the community, including significantly growing it. Yes, they've made some missteps, but so have all of the big players.

4ad 10y ago
I do not understand how Ubuntu brought users to the Linux desktop. When Ubuntu started, it was just a crappy version of Debian. It was exactly as user friendly (or user unfriendly) as Debian. It ran the exact same software! Everything that made Ubuntu user friendly (or not) was there on Debian. Then they made Unity, but that was after it was established in popular culture that Ubuntu is "user friendly". But now they are abandoning Unity anyway, so it must not have been that important after all. I do not understand why Ubuntu became more popular than Debian. I really don't. Something to do with those free CDs.
- joshumax 10y ago
  I think one of the major driving factors initially was that Ubuntu didn't follow the long package tree freezes that Debian stable/testing was subjected to after a period of time. Debian stable still tends to contain older packages with security patches applied rather than the latest and greatest(tm), which most standard users tend to prefer over stability
- justincormack 10y ago
  More frequent releases. Mattered a lot for hardware compatibility.

_pmf_ 10y ago

I don't understand their strategy; Red Hat has some unique offerings for enterprises, but I've never heard anything from Canonical. Getting involved inthe systemd and Wayland turf wars is probably not the most effective way to spend developer resources.

scotu 10y ago

only siths deals in absolutes? Maybe try: "Unity didn't provide enough advantage compared to use an already baked DE compared to the cost of making it". I would be happy also with: "not enough people liked unity or mobile". Plenty of people liked unity and I'd like in this discussions a little bit of respect was given to the people who thought, designed and liked Unity. At least acknowledge their existence now that you "won"... I liked unity and actively dislike kde and gnome 3 (gnome 2 was ok but clearly nowadays is old and I still liked unity more). Many people liked mobile too: I backed their failed indigogo and plenty of people did, but that was a weird move and it failed being TOO ambitious (I'm not sure they would have been able to deliver in hindsight). When they did make a mobile, plenty of people would have loved to have a more privacy minded alternative to google (but still open), but they focussed on lower end where google was already present (and where this privacy power users are not) and, I think, made the mistake of discarding the option of going with android that had the apps needed to make the platform viable for users. In a way it's the "unity" move of mobile, but the difference is that on desktop you didn't throw away all linux desktop software. I left linux on desktop a couple years ago, not because of unity but because * I suddenly needed to buy a laptop, I wanted it with linux and the dell xps was about to be replaced with the newer. I also didn't bother to understand how to get a lenovo (possibly I wasn't aware you could get it with linux at the time, I don't remember) so I got a mac * having a mac seemed like a good occasion to try some proprietary software I wanted to try for a while. Both the proprietary stuff and mac os were good and I could develop in virtualized linux so I couldn't see any reason to go back to linux for not linux. So I think ubuntu failed in the desktop and mobile. Not that others did any better there in the linux camp. Now for the armchair CEO moment: If I had to go mobile AND drop unity, a few years ago, I would have rebuilt ubuntu as a multi form factor experience based on android, possibly replacing (or giving the option to opt out from) the google bits. Now it could be late (but no problem I guess, as they are not doing it :D). This if convergence was the target, otherwise ubuntu + unity on desktop and android based ubuntu on mobile.

chuckdries 10y ago
I don't know about that android thing. It feels like there are pretty significant differences under the hood that would heavily disrupt the server and desktop areas where ubuntu is already popular

throw2016 10y ago

I honestly don't get the 'community' bit. Who gets to decide what is NIH, what is duplication of effort, fragmentation and what is 'good' for the 'community'? Who do these individuals speak for? Which community? There is no organized overarching community in Linux. Are they speaking for Debian, Redhat, Fedora, Suse, Mint, Ubuntu, Elementary, specific projects? They should clearly articulate who they represent. This looks like hijacking the 'community' to push personal preferences. I am beginning to feel there is a serious undercurrent of bad actors in the open source ecosystem who are threatened by anything not from that they perceive as 'their community'. For instance I don't see any knives sharpened by all these 'community' advocates for Flatpak when it is preceded by Ubuntu Snap. In this case no one is harassing Redhat and Fedora about NIH, duplication of effort, fragmentation and pressuring Flatpak developers to join hands with Ubuntu. Why the double standards? Wen it comes to Mir or Unity it is completely out of control. And its only when I decided to overlook the bad press to actually try Unity that I realized its by far the most polished desktop on Linux in 20 years. This kind of organized hatchet job is a serious loss for open source. Its too self serving and political and I suggest anyone presuming to speak for the community should be immediately treated with suspicion.

erikb 10y ago
> What is 'good' for the 'community'? Decision means someone has to do something. So probably nobody decides that. But everybody is free to have an opinion. Everybody presents what they see as "the community" and feels a fantasy connection to people who he has barely anything to do with, and a distinction from people who he may have more in common with than he assumes. That's how community works. It's mostly in people's heads.

hd4 10y ago

>The only thing I wonder is if this Jane Silber, who I've never heard about before, is really responsible for all these failures or if she's just the goat that gets slaughtered for the oracle of public opinion. The answer is in the question.. (Though I still do like Unity, it's the least memory-hungry DE of the popular ones)