Den 30. des. 2011 20:30, skrev Ted Gould:
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 :-)
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
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.
ubuntu-desktop mailing list