5 ms·

Shuttleworth's well-articulated comment and decision to close bug #1 show the kind of open-minded, flexible thinking I wish I would see more frequently from oth

by cs702 13y ago

Shuttleworth's well-articulated comment and decision to close bug #1 show the kind of open-minded, flexible thinking I wish I would see more frequently from other project leaders in the free/open source ecosystem. The decision to close the bug reminds me of a quote attributed to John Maynard Keynes. During the Great Depression, he was accused of changing his position on monetary policy, to which he responded, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" As an Ubuntu user, I'm happy to see the project shifting its long-term goal from "dethroning Microsoft on the desktop" to "delivering the best possible experience for developers and regular people across all devices." -- Edits: added "on the desktop" to "dethroning Microsoft."

ealexhudson 13y ago
The bug wasn't ever about dethroning Microsoft, though. The first few lines: "Microsoft has a majority market share in the new desktop PC marketplace. This is a bug which Ubuntu and other projects are meant to fix." This bug hasn't been solved. Mark's comment is really saying that he doesn't think it's a relevant bug any more - that desktop is no longer important. I actually find that a particularly sad comment, and I'm not even sure it's true. Edit: I want to add (given your edit ;) that just because this was bug #1, it doesn't mean it was the raison d'etre of the project. Maybe this bug is less important now than in 2004; I disagree that it's "fixed" or that it's so unimportant it should be closed. #1 being open doesn't mean Ubuntu is a failure, far from it.
- TuringTest 13y ago
  Don't look at it as the Desktop not being important anymore, but as the market having expanded. This means that there are alternatives to the Microsoft monopoly, even if those are not on the desktop; therefore the original problem is no longer that severe and thus has been solved, but in an unexpected way.
  - ealexhudson 13y ago
    I agree with part of that - it's not longer that severe. So, in technical terms, reduce the severity of the bug. Or mark it 'wontfix'. 'Fix released' is inaccurate: MS still have the whip hand in the desktop PC market, and that market is important to many people (me included).
    - mikeash 13y ago
      If this were a real bug and not a political statement, I'd be complaining that the bug is badly written and leaves too much up to interpretation. The title makes a vague reference to "market share", but doesn't specify where. The body then limits it to desktop PCs. However, it then goes on a big discussion about proprietary software, and how the goal is to make sure PCs come with only free software. So, what does the person who filed the bug want? Is it: A. Undo MS's majority share in consumer computing, as the bug title suggests? B. Undo MS's majority share in desktop PCs, as the beginning of the body suggests? C. Ensure that a majority of desktop PCs are sold containing only free software? These are all quite different. The submitter seems to have assumed that the desktop PC would continue to be the only segment of consumer computing that mattered, and that the only possible alternative to MS having a majority market share is for free software to have a majority market share. These assumptions are clearly untrue today. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun bug and an interesting statement, but I'd be careful about being too precise about trying to figure out exactly what it's about. If it were technical, I'd probably kick it back to the submitter and ask him to figure out what he actually wants. Since it's a political "bug", this is a nice political "fix".
      - ealexhudson 13y ago
        I totally disagree with this. There's a really succinct test case on the bug: "Visit a local PC store, Attempt to buy a machine without any proprietary software". So "the submitter" (Mark) wants to be able to go into a PC store and buy a PC without proprietary software. Even in those general terms, the bug is clearly still evident and clearly has not been fixed: saying "ah, but you can go into a shop and buy an Android tablet" is pretty unsatisfying.
- prawks 13y ago
  > he doesn't think it's a relevant bug any more - that desktop is no longer important. I don't think the former implies the latter. The desktop can be (and is) still important, it's just that such a narrow view isn't healthy for such a large project.
  - zanny 13y ago
    > t's just that such a narrow view I'd argue its focus and specialization, something Ubuntu lacks. The TV and Ubuntu-on-Android products have not yet seen anything noteworthy happen, the phone might do something but they are jumping in a big pond. Their lack of focus on the desktop and the resulting obsolescence of their software (the software center, from 2008, mainly, but also compiz and upstart) is hurting the primary product people engage with them for, and it is for a grander scheme that isn't playing out. Yet, at least. I would never write Canonical off from eventually having one OS and thematic style to run on everything from phones to tvs to pcs to cars etc. It just doesn't look like it is coming soon, and their core product suffers for it. (I've switched my relatives to openSuse just because systemd + yast + software.opensuse.org is much nicer than searching launchpad).
    - prawks 13y ago
      > something Ubuntu lacks If Ubuntu lacks a solid base from which to build the rest of its empire off of, then that's likely worth its own defect. That prerequisite is just kind of common sense in most business models. I don't use Ubuntu or know enough about it to say for sure, but I don't think probing other spaces for opportunities is a bad idea. It's not difficult to understand the desire to not be a one-trick pony. However if those probes distract from their main offering (which has been the desktop, though this sort of discussion makes it seem like it may not be for long) then they are obviously a bad idea.
  - frogpelt 13y ago
    The desktop is still relevant and really its pretty close to as relevant as it was in the 90's. It's just there are more ways to use computers now than there were then and those new ways of computing have been largely dominated by new devices. In other words, the desktop doesn't have to lose relevance just because there are other relevant technologies.
- mehwoot 13y ago
  It's the Vietnam war- just declare victory and move on. Better than the promise of the "year of the linux desktop".
- teeja 13y ago
  Huh. I think what Mark is saying is: it's never going to happen, and we might as well get over it.
- LilValleyBigEgo 13y ago
  Closed - Won't Fix [insert some bleeding hard shit Mark made up while guzzling a Starbucks venti Americana]
ramayac 13y ago
A literal money quote right there: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
- chris_wot 13y ago
  Facts don't change. Our understanding of the facts change. The quote is ridiculous, and the question is fallacious.
  - johrn 13y ago
    If I have a list of true statements, that is a list of facts. If some of them become no longer true, and some other statements become true, the facts have changed.
    - chris_wot 13y ago
      If the statement changes from true to false, then it wasn't true in the first place. If the statement was dependent on some other criteria, and those other criteria change, then the fact doesn't change as it was dependent on the criteria that changes. e.g. My rooster crows in the morning. I ate my rooster. My rooster no longer crows in the morning. The criteria is that the rooster must be alive. When the rooster is no longer alive, the above fact should have been stated as "My rooster crows in the morning while it is still alive".
      - antiterra 13y ago
        That's completely ridiculous for a number of reasons. First, the usage of fact is not regulated by SI or something, it has a number of definitions and connotations. Second, stating that all facts must be stated with tautological and temporal boundaries is beyond pedantic. "I have two legs at this moment of Planck time, and not before they were formed in the womb and not after any possible incident in the future where I lose one or more legs." No. If you measure something, those measurements can change. Yes, the new measurements do not overwrite the existence of the old, that's generally understood. If your measurements change, you change clothes. That makes sense. On top of all that, the original quote is "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions."
brandoncapecci 13y ago
If Keynes was alive today, I cannot imagine the failures of stimuli based on his monetary policy would change his views on it.
duairc 13y ago
This is ridiculous. There's nothing "open-minded" about this. To quote the bug description: > What should happen: A majority of the PCs for sale should include only free software. This does not happen, so marking this bug as fixed is bullshit. The Ubuntu project used to have as its goal that the majority of PCs for sale should include only free software. This attracted people to the project who were motivated to contribute because they shared that same goal. I don't think Ubuntu would be anywhere as successful as it is today were it not for its community at the beginning. The "leaders" of the Ubuntu project have now shown that they don't really give a shit about free software, but they're still benefitting from the work of those who do and who did that work with an understanding that Ubuntu did give a shit about that stuff. This is like a leftist political party presenting itself as a movement for the abolition of capitalism and the creation of a fully classless, stateless, communist society; this attracts many dedicated people who make huge sacrifices to achieve this goal (or at least they think so). Then, as soon as the leftist political party takes power (e.g., by winning an election or whatever), the "leaders" of the party talk as if that was the entire revolution rather than a first step on the road to it. And then the "leaders" of the party start using their newly obtained power to actively eliminate the elements within the party who are still seeking a genuine revolution, labelling them "counter-revolutionary" or whatever. To the extent that this analogy holds, this is what Ubuntu is doing and has done. A few years ago at least, it seemed like Ubuntu was the vanguard of the free software movement. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but it was the best we had and it seemed like there might just be a small chance it could succeed (and it really did aim to). But let's make no mistake about it, let's not have any illusions about this: Ubuntu has betrayed the revolution. Fuck it, let's not use it, let's not promote it, let's have nothing to do with it. If "flexible thinking" means betraying the revolution then there's nothing virtuous about it and I hope we don't see more of it from the "leaders" of free software projects. And I hope we in the free software community learn a lesson from this about the power dynamics within communities and how it's important for our communities to have structures that prevents these kinds of co-options by individuals and companies with vested interests. In retrospect, it should have been obvious from the start (at least for me, as an anarchist) that the Ubuntu project was doomed to fail. You can't have a "'benevolent' dictator for life"; a dictator for life is dictator for life, and power corrupts. But you especially can't have a benevolent dictator for life who is/was the CEO of a corporation, whose sole purpose, by definition, is to maximise shareholder value. Now I accept that there are cases where the short-term goals of a corporation maximising its shareholder value can converge with the goals of wider communities, and I'll even admit that there are times when communities can benefit from the actions of corporations, but it must be recognised that ultimately their goals diverge. It should have been obvious that Ubuntu/Canonical's relationship with the wider free software community was doomed to end in this kind of betrayal. I just hope that people in the free software community learn from this and that it doesn't happen again.

by cs702 13y ago

ealexhudson 13y ago

The bug wasn't ever about dethroning Microsoft, though. The first few lines: "Microsoft has a majority market share in the new desktop PC marketplace. This is a bug which Ubuntu and other projects are meant to fix." This bug hasn't been solved. Mark's comment is really saying that he doesn't think it's a relevant bug any more - that desktop is no longer important. I actually find that a particularly sad comment, and I'm not even sure it's true. Edit: I want to add (given your edit ;) that just because this was bug #1, it doesn't mean it was the raison d'etre of the project. Maybe this bug is less important now than in 2004; I disagree that it's "fixed" or that it's so unimportant it should be closed. #1 being open doesn't mean Ubuntu is a failure, far from it.

TuringTest 13y ago
Don't look at it as the Desktop not being important anymore, but as the market having expanded. This means that there are alternatives to the Microsoft monopoly, even if those are not on the desktop; therefore the original problem is no longer that severe and thus has been solved, but in an unexpected way.
- ealexhudson 13y ago
  I agree with part of that - it's not longer that severe. So, in technical terms, reduce the severity of the bug. Or mark it 'wontfix'. 'Fix released' is inaccurate: MS still have the whip hand in the desktop PC market, and that market is important to many people (me included).
  - mikeash 13y ago
    If this were a real bug and not a political statement, I'd be complaining that the bug is badly written and leaves too much up to interpretation. The title makes a vague reference to "market share", but doesn't specify where. The body then limits it to desktop PCs. However, it then goes on a big discussion about proprietary software, and how the goal is to make sure PCs come with only free software. So, what does the person who filed the bug want? Is it: A. Undo MS's majority share in consumer computing, as the bug title suggests? B. Undo MS's majority share in desktop PCs, as the beginning of the body suggests? C. Ensure that a majority of desktop PCs are sold containing only free software? These are all quite different. The submitter seems to have assumed that the desktop PC would continue to be the only segment of consumer computing that mattered, and that the only possible alternative to MS having a majority market share is for free software to have a majority market share. These assumptions are clearly untrue today. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun bug and an interesting statement, but I'd be careful about being too precise about trying to figure out exactly what it's about. If it were technical, I'd probably kick it back to the submitter and ask him to figure out what he actually wants. Since it's a political "bug", this is a nice political "fix".
    - ealexhudson 13y ago
      I totally disagree with this. There's a really succinct test case on the bug: "Visit a local PC store, Attempt to buy a machine without any proprietary software". So "the submitter" (Mark) wants to be able to go into a PC store and buy a PC without proprietary software. Even in those general terms, the bug is clearly still evident and clearly has not been fixed: saying "ah, but you can go into a shop and buy an Android tablet" is pretty unsatisfying.
prawks 13y ago
> he doesn't think it's a relevant bug any more - that desktop is no longer important. I don't think the former implies the latter. The desktop can be (and is) still important, it's just that such a narrow view isn't healthy for such a large project.
- zanny 13y ago
  > t's just that such a narrow view I'd argue its focus and specialization, something Ubuntu lacks. The TV and Ubuntu-on-Android products have not yet seen anything noteworthy happen, the phone might do something but they are jumping in a big pond. Their lack of focus on the desktop and the resulting obsolescence of their software (the software center, from 2008, mainly, but also compiz and upstart) is hurting the primary product people engage with them for, and it is for a grander scheme that isn't playing out. Yet, at least. I would never write Canonical off from eventually having one OS and thematic style to run on everything from phones to tvs to pcs to cars etc. It just doesn't look like it is coming soon, and their core product suffers for it. (I've switched my relatives to openSuse just because systemd + yast + software.opensuse.org is much nicer than searching launchpad).
  - prawks 13y ago
    > something Ubuntu lacks If Ubuntu lacks a solid base from which to build the rest of its empire off of, then that's likely worth its own defect. That prerequisite is just kind of common sense in most business models. I don't use Ubuntu or know enough about it to say for sure, but I don't think probing other spaces for opportunities is a bad idea. It's not difficult to understand the desire to not be a one-trick pony. However if those probes distract from their main offering (which has been the desktop, though this sort of discussion makes it seem like it may not be for long) then they are obviously a bad idea.
- frogpelt 13y ago
  The desktop is still relevant and really its pretty close to as relevant as it was in the 90's. It's just there are more ways to use computers now than there were then and those new ways of computing have been largely dominated by new devices. In other words, the desktop doesn't have to lose relevance just because there are other relevant technologies.
mehwoot 13y ago
It's the Vietnam war- just declare victory and move on. Better than the promise of the "year of the linux desktop".
teeja 13y ago
Huh. I think what Mark is saying is: it's never going to happen, and we might as well get over it.
LilValleyBigEgo 13y ago
Closed - Won't Fix [insert some bleeding hard shit Mark made up while guzzling a Starbucks venti Americana]

ramayac 13y ago

A literal money quote right there: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

chris_wot 13y ago
Facts don't change. Our understanding of the facts change. The quote is ridiculous, and the question is fallacious.
- johrn 13y ago
  If I have a list of true statements, that is a list of facts. If some of them become no longer true, and some other statements become true, the facts have changed.
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    If the statement changes from true to false, then it wasn't true in the first place. If the statement was dependent on some other criteria, and those other criteria change, then the fact doesn't change as it was dependent on the criteria that changes. e.g. My rooster crows in the morning. I ate my rooster. My rooster no longer crows in the morning. The criteria is that the rooster must be alive. When the rooster is no longer alive, the above fact should have been stated as "My rooster crows in the morning while it is still alive".
    - antiterra 13y ago
      That's completely ridiculous for a number of reasons. First, the usage of fact is not regulated by SI or something, it has a number of definitions and connotations. Second, stating that all facts must be stated with tautological and temporal boundaries is beyond pedantic. "I have two legs at this moment of Planck time, and not before they were formed in the womb and not after any possible incident in the future where I lose one or more legs." No. If you measure something, those measurements can change. Yes, the new measurements do not overwrite the existence of the old, that's generally understood. If your measurements change, you change clothes. That makes sense. On top of all that, the original quote is "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions."

brandoncapecci 13y ago

If Keynes was alive today, I cannot imagine the failures of stimuli based on his monetary policy would change his views on it.

duairc 13y ago

This is ridiculous. There's nothing "open-minded" about this. To quote the bug description: > What should happen: A majority of the PCs for sale should include only free software. This does not happen, so marking this bug as fixed is bullshit. The Ubuntu project used to have as its goal that the majority of PCs for sale should include only free software. This attracted people to the project who were motivated to contribute because they shared that same goal. I don't think Ubuntu would be anywhere as successful as it is today were it not for its community at the beginning. The "leaders" of the Ubuntu project have now shown that they don't really give a shit about free software, but they're still benefitting from the work of those who do and who did that work with an understanding that Ubuntu did give a shit about that stuff. This is like a leftist political party presenting itself as a movement for the abolition of capitalism and the creation of a fully classless, stateless, communist society; this attracts many dedicated people who make huge sacrifices to achieve this goal (or at least they think so). Then, as soon as the leftist political party takes power (e.g., by winning an election or whatever), the "leaders" of the party talk as if that was the entire revolution rather than a first step on the road to it. And then the "leaders" of the party start using their newly obtained power to actively eliminate the elements within the party who are still seeking a genuine revolution, labelling them "counter-revolutionary" or whatever. To the extent that this analogy holds, this is what Ubuntu is doing and has done. A few years ago at least, it seemed like Ubuntu was the vanguard of the free software movement. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but it was the best we had and it seemed like there might just be a small chance it could succeed (and it really did aim to). But let's make no mistake about it, let's not have any illusions about this: Ubuntu has betrayed the revolution. Fuck it, let's not use it, let's not promote it, let's have nothing to do with it. If "flexible thinking" means betraying the revolution then there's nothing virtuous about it and I hope we don't see more of it from the "leaders" of free software projects. And I hope we in the free software community learn a lesson from this about the power dynamics within communities and how it's important for our communities to have structures that prevents these kinds of co-options by individuals and companies with vested interests. In retrospect, it should have been obvious from the start (at least for me, as an anarchist) that the Ubuntu project was doomed to fail. You can't have a "'benevolent' dictator for life"; a dictator for life is dictator for life, and power corrupts. But you especially can't have a benevolent dictator for life who is/was the CEO of a corporation, whose sole purpose, by definition, is to maximise shareholder value. Now I accept that there are cases where the short-term goals of a corporation maximising its shareholder value can converge with the goals of wider communities, and I'll even admit that there are times when communities can benefit from the actions of corporations, but it must be recognised that ultimately their goals diverge. It should have been obvious that Ubuntu/Canonical's relationship with the wider free software community was doomed to end in this kind of betrayal. I just hope that people in the free software community learn from this and that it doesn't happen again.