4 ms·

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

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.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        That's supposed to demonstrate the bug, but it's not necessarily the end-all and be-all of fixing it. In a hypothetical world where Apple somehow took over the PC market, would this bug be fixed? The title suggests yes. The first paragraph suggests yes. The rest suggests no. The bug is vague and contradictory.
        ealexhudson 13y ago
        Apple taking over is a hypothetical state in which you could argue the bug is fixed. I don't see anything in the actual state of things which allows that argument. Vagueness is a continuum, not an absolute. The bug could be less vague, sure. I don't think it needs to be less vague in order to evaluate it right now, though.
        mikeash 13y ago
        The vagueness which applies to the actual situation today is: did they really mean desktop PCs only, or did they mean consumer computing, with desktop PCs being the only pertinent example of it in 2004? And, did they mean no proprietary software on a majority, or just no MS software? Because right now, MS does not have a majority in consumer computing, but the majority is no longer desktop PCs, and the majority still ships with plenty of proprietary software. It's not possible to know whether or not this fits with the intent of the bug, because it's not sufficiently clear.
      - mhaymo 13y ago
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]

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.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      That's supposed to demonstrate the bug, but it's not necessarily the end-all and be-all of fixing it. In a hypothetical world where Apple somehow took over the PC market, would this bug be fixed? The title suggests yes. The first paragraph suggests yes. The rest suggests no. The bug is vague and contradictory.
      - ealexhudson 13y ago
        Apple taking over is a hypothetical state in which you could argue the bug is fixed. I don't see anything in the actual state of things which allows that argument. Vagueness is a continuum, not an absolute. The bug could be less vague, sure. I don't think it needs to be less vague in order to evaluate it right now, though.
        mikeash 13y ago
        The vagueness which applies to the actual situation today is: did they really mean desktop PCs only, or did they mean consumer computing, with desktop PCs being the only pertinent example of it in 2004? And, did they mean no proprietary software on a majority, or just no MS software? Because right now, MS does not have a majority in consumer computing, but the majority is no longer desktop PCs, and the majority still ships with plenty of proprietary software. It's not possible to know whether or not this fits with the intent of the bug, because it's not sufficiently clear.
    - mhaymo 13y ago

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]