5 ms·

> I had to learn that it is no longer possible to criticize Ubuntu/Canonical for their technical decisions and to disagree with them. There are many users who s

> I had to learn that it is no longer possible to criticize Ubuntu/Canonical for their technical decisions and to disagree with them. There are many users who seem to think that Ubuntu is a religion and Canonical without fail. If you criticize technical decision you are a heretic and the holy inquisition is coming after you to burn you. Ubuntu has lost it's meaning. There is no human kindness in this community any more. People criticise Ubuntu and Canonical all the time. There are countless posts and comments about the Amazon lens, and many on their decision to go with Mir over Wayland. This is ridiculously hyperbolic.

Ygg2 13y ago
He proably means from a position of someone developing/working with guys from Ubuntu.
lambda 13y ago
Of course it is possible to criticize Ubuntu or Canonical. What he means is that it's impossible for a prominent developer to criticize their technical decisions without facing a ton of hateful backlash from Ubuntu fans and Mark Shuttleworth himself. Which he knows, from experience, because he did just that, criticized the design of Mir and said that he wouldn't support it, and he got exactly that backlash. If Mark Shuttleworth actually followed the Ubuntu code of conduct http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/conduct http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/conduct, we would not have gotten here: Be respectful Disagreement is no excuse for poor manners. We work together to resolve conflict, assume good intentions and do our best to act in an empathic fashion. We don't allow frustration to turn into a personal attack. A community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. Calling people "the Open Source Tea Party", "purely political", "outraged individuals" who have "NIH'd just about every important piece of the stack" is pretty much in pure opposition to the Ubuntu code of conduct; but since Mark does this, other people feel like this kind of behavior is acceptable and pile on the attack.
- pachydermic 13y ago
  I thought that was so childish and crass of him. I really dislike the term "Open Source Tea Party". It's just so infuriating on so many levels. First of all, it's a lazy insult - it's just applying a label (also known as name calling) to put people down without any context. It implies that these people are irrational, inflexible and idealistic, but with a bad connotation. He could have argued that those things are true in a more diplomatic way, and more importantly, by using evidence other than just claiming that mir is "important" or "a huge leap forward for gaming performance...". Instead, he just labels the people who happen to disagree with him as the tea party. Great. Secondly, I think it's fair to be concerned about what's going on with mir. Maybe he's telling the truth that they just want the best solution... I think everyone, whether you want Wayland or not, would like to move away from X. So maybe mir is the right way to go. However, they failed to make the case for this in a typical open source way. Why not improve Wayland instead of going off and doing your own thing? If the direction of Wayland is awful or wrong, why not point that out? And instead of just claiming that's the case, why not try to use evidence to prove that it's the case? I have been following this closely, but have no idea what the advantages of the two proposed systems is better... but it certainly seems that almost everyone other than Canonical is rooting for and working on Wayland, which isn't really a good sign... It's very easy to be skeptical because of all the good will they sacrificed by sticking Amazon adds in my god-damned desktop. Honestly, that seems like such a shameless land-grab for clueless users' personal data which really damages their privacy. It wouldn't even have been an issue if it was simply opt in. So, because they made that poor decision, people are skeptical, critical, maybe even a bit irrational. But that shouldn't be surprising. And even if you're being personally attacked yourself, it doesn't make it right to attack other people - many of whom aren't trying to make their contributions a business and are doing their work with pure intentions - unlike Canonical and Mark who clearly have a business angle in all this (which, in and of itself, is totally fine). Sorry for the rant, guys. I mean, do people really think "open source tea party" is at all fair?
  - MrZongle2 13y ago
    "Sorry for the rant, guys. I mean, do people really think "open source tea party" is at all fair?" No. If nothing else, it is an insult to the original (Boston) Tea Party. One might remember that those individuals were protesting irrational decisions made by a king who was far isolated from said subjects.

Ygg2 13y ago

He proably means from a position of someone developing/working with guys from Ubuntu.

lambda 13y ago

Of course it is possible to criticize Ubuntu or Canonical. What he means is that it's impossible for a prominent developer to criticize their technical decisions without facing a ton of hateful backlash from Ubuntu fans and Mark Shuttleworth himself. Which he knows, from experience, because he did just that, criticized the design of Mir and said that he wouldn't support it, and he got exactly that backlash. If Mark Shuttleworth actually followed the Ubuntu code of conduct http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/conduct http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/conduct, we would not have gotten here: Be respectful Disagreement is no excuse for poor manners. We work together to resolve conflict, assume good intentions and do our best to act in an empathic fashion. We don't allow frustration to turn into a personal attack. A community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. Calling people "the Open Source Tea Party", "purely political", "outraged individuals" who have "NIH'd just about every important piece of the stack" is pretty much in pure opposition to the Ubuntu code of conduct; but since Mark does this, other people feel like this kind of behavior is acceptable and pile on the attack.

pachydermic 13y ago
I thought that was so childish and crass of him. I really dislike the term "Open Source Tea Party". It's just so infuriating on so many levels. First of all, it's a lazy insult - it's just applying a label (also known as name calling) to put people down without any context. It implies that these people are irrational, inflexible and idealistic, but with a bad connotation. He could have argued that those things are true in a more diplomatic way, and more importantly, by using evidence other than just claiming that mir is "important" or "a huge leap forward for gaming performance...". Instead, he just labels the people who happen to disagree with him as the tea party. Great. Secondly, I think it's fair to be concerned about what's going on with mir. Maybe he's telling the truth that they just want the best solution... I think everyone, whether you want Wayland or not, would like to move away from X. So maybe mir is the right way to go. However, they failed to make the case for this in a typical open source way. Why not improve Wayland instead of going off and doing your own thing? If the direction of Wayland is awful or wrong, why not point that out? And instead of just claiming that's the case, why not try to use evidence to prove that it's the case? I have been following this closely, but have no idea what the advantages of the two proposed systems is better... but it certainly seems that almost everyone other than Canonical is rooting for and working on Wayland, which isn't really a good sign... It's very easy to be skeptical because of all the good will they sacrificed by sticking Amazon adds in my god-damned desktop. Honestly, that seems like such a shameless land-grab for clueless users' personal data which really damages their privacy. It wouldn't even have been an issue if it was simply opt in. So, because they made that poor decision, people are skeptical, critical, maybe even a bit irrational. But that shouldn't be surprising. And even if you're being personally attacked yourself, it doesn't make it right to attack other people - many of whom aren't trying to make their contributions a business and are doing their work with pure intentions - unlike Canonical and Mark who clearly have a business angle in all this (which, in and of itself, is totally fine). Sorry for the rant, guys. I mean, do people really think "open source tea party" is at all fair?
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  "Sorry for the rant, guys. I mean, do people really think "open source tea party" is at all fair?" No. If nothing else, it is an insult to the original (Boston) Tea Party. One might remember that those individuals were protesting irrational decisions made by a king who was far isolated from said subjects.