Den 30. des. 2011 20:30, skrev Ted Gould:
Hey,Thanks for writing this up. I appreciate it. We're never perfect, but it's nice to see some positive reviews every once in a while :-) Thanks again, Ted
It was not meant as a positive review and I don't want it to be understood as such. The point was to separate between what users see and what programs see and why that's important. The ultimate goal for me, is to teach everyone that there are no fundamental differences between 10.04 and 12.04. Obviously, it's still Ubuntu, but it's also still GNU with Linux, it's still X. It's still Compiz. Gnome Panel is still available for those who may want it, and there's no radical difference in that either. There are no radical differences at all and all competent participants know it, but they're tired of trying to revert the bad communication of these last cycles. So we're left with those who blog more than they explore.
Some people have said that I'm tilting against windmills. I see the giants in the horizon. I know exactly what they are. They are what I call "misconceptions". I will fight them. What I cannot do, is to fight continuously bad communication from community leaders, such as Canonical and Gnome. In this specific case, it's been bad all over. Gnome has been horrible. It's like they _want_ to loose. Canonical has done _nothing_ to rectify this.
This is assumption and speculation. I believe that Gnome wanted to hype the Gnome 3 desktop by reducing the value of the old one. That was a poor choice. They should instead hype the benefits, that have been completely forgotten in the shadow of the pale benefits of Gnome Shell. We _must_ make everyone aware that there are no radical changes. This is continuity. We have all the software we've always had. There is no Mark Shuttleworth who can remove software from our society. Well, there is a Mark Shuttleworth who can add to it, and maybe even overshadow others, but not even he could ever take away from it. This is the core of Free Software. Even if he could, it's highly unlikely that he would ever even try. We know this. We've spent time. We've read. But we are preparing for a different kind of community, when millions of people suddenly join. How do we react? We need to react with strong and clear communication.
In essence, what I perceive is that Gnome has felt threatened by Unity and that Unitys followers have felt as if they were under attack by Gnome Shells followers. Mark Shuttleworth warned against this kind of tribalism a long time ago. This is a classical example of a false dilemma. You're either with Unity or with Gnome Shell. Reality falls victim. The simple truth is that Unity 2D uses the same Window Manager that Gnome Panel primarily used, which is called Metacity. So does Unity, except that it uses Compiz, which has also been a vital part of our desktop for a long time. Canonical should've made it obvious to everyone what the differences really mean. It is still my perception that supporting Gnome Shell actively and giving people a smooth transition will eliminate all doubt and help people focus on real issues.
There are no radical differences between Gnome 2 and Gnome 3 from any users point of view. Any other belief is a misconception, unless someone enlightens me. And I am certainly willing to learn.
What we must do is to keep the fog away and remember that this has been the primary reason why we have not succeeded in the past. We will win by providing good software and lucid documentation. Now, we are going to provide Precise software and Precise documentation. For that to happen, we must eliminate this crap before it ruins the entire GNU with Linux community. We who are confident, understand the situation. There is no loss if people want to progress onto Fedora, Debian or anything else. We are the ones who make things easy to understand. If people want to delve deeper into the system, that's a good thing. Ubuntu is not so much about software as it is about users. Ubuntu is still the small kid. We are not in any way ready to dictate to anyone and everyone knows it. There is a growing misconception that we're now taking things way. It's not true. We who are very interested, know that. But it really doesn't matter what we do if people misunderstand our intentions. This used to be crystal clear; We are the ones who do not ever tell people to RTFM. We are the ones who explain. We are the ones who will never give users the impression that we are taking things away from them when we're not.
This is very important to me. Ubuntu is not something I adapted to or adopted. It is my core belief of how we should do things. All this nonsense with MATE and that crap, and I don't apologize because I've read the code. It is crap in relation to its hype. It doesn't _do anything_.
Canonical have neglected its role as a supporter of Ubuntu. This is obvious. As a provider of software, it's done a great work. It's not enough. Now, people blame Canonical for everything, because it is somehow regarded as the "creator of Ubuntu". That would never have happened before, because it is obvious that Canonical does not have the position of Apple or Microsoft. Should never want to, either. Canonical should be the beacon of knowledge that makes it easy to learn and become part of the community. The moment that Ubuntu depends on Canonical, we have lost. Even the perception is destructive.
We desperately need to improve Ubuntus communication. If we do not, then we _will_ fail. If you want me to, I'll be happy to spend any amount of time helping Canonical in private, but everyone must always know that they are different things at all times. Otherwise, Ubuntu becomes an ideological product instead of societal effort. The difference is radical.
Oh, I seriously didn't intend for this to become so long winded. Thanks for your patience. :)
Jo-Erlend Schinstad -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
