

Why Mark Shuttleworth is important to desktop Linux - Nathandim
http://fossforce.com/2013/08/why-mark-shuttleworth-is-important-to-desktop-linux/

======
Mikeb85
Mark Shuttleworth is important to desktop Linux because he's the only one with
vision, and the means to carry out that vision. He's making the tough,
unpopular decisions that are advancing desktop Linux into the mainstream, and
the only one with the balls to go at it alone.

Despite its issues (and it has them), Ubuntu is by far the most usable Linux
variety, both on the desktop and server...

~~~
themstheones
Apparently you've never tried gentoo.

~~~
SeanDav
_" Apparently you've never tried gentoo."_

and this right here (sorry Parent, just using this as an example) is the
reason that Linux has always been consigned to the ranks of the also-rans on
the desktop. Someone will always come up with a reason why flavour x is better
than flavour y. No matter what aspect of Linux is discussed, there will always
be a significant proportion of users that think their flavour is better.

If you care about Linux on the desktop, you have got to see that people like
Mark Shuttleworth are absolutely essential if Linux is ever to compete
meaningfully on the desktop with Microsoft and Apple.

~~~
muyuu
I applaud Mark Shuttleworth and his vision.

Sadly we're missing "something else" other than Mark Shuttleworth.

What he does, is what most others are doing in a half-hearted, compromised
way: providing a "packaged" system that works without much hassle and which is
based in pretty much the same interaction principles of the 70s and 80s.

Being Open Source, Linux could do a lot more than that. But nobody explores
these avenues, it just aspires to be Windows/OS2/Mac in the desktop and Unix
in the server. Linux could exploit the fact that it doesn't need to hide its
workings, that it can allow any level of customisation in the workflow, in the
windows manager, in permission management, etc etc because the user owns the
software running in his or her computer. This basically has been exploited
just for virtualisation.

The problem with that is monetisation. But a lot of development in the Linux
community is non-for-profit anyway.

~~~
Raphael
I am fascinated with the idea of customizable window managers. I haven't
delved that deep, but the difference between XFCE and Unity is night and day.
I can choose color schemes, window decorations, and make custom task bars.
This should be table stakes for graphical interfaces.

~~~
muyuu
Have you checked Enlightenment lately? it's a decent shot but they seem short
on workforce.

Also [http://awesome.naquadah.org/](http://awesome.naquadah.org/) and
[https://code.google.com/p/wmii/](https://code.google.com/p/wmii/)

And that's just windows management which is probably the most obvious
advantage of an all-open approach, but there are other things like user
programmed priority systems, memory management etc which could potentially do
a much more effective usage of the hardware than the standard monolithic
opaque approach.

------
Joeboy
But, I don't particularly "want Linux to succeed". I want an OS to succeed
that's free, and doesn't suck for my purposes. This article seems to assume
that we "want Linux to succeed" simply because we're rooting for our home
team.

Edit: To clarify, I'm not saying I don't want Linux to succeed. I'm saying
that if that success comes at the cost of making it suck more or be less Free,
that will be a Pyrrhic victory.

~~~
skriticos2
1\. When I look for work, people expect me to use a particular OS I'm not very
found of and it seems natural to them. I'd definitely would like to see more
diversification and Linux is by far the best chance for that. So yes, I want
it to succeed. I want my next employer to tell me the interfaces they have and
let me figure out how to work with it instead of forcing me into their
restricted worldview.

2\. I'm not an administrator. I'm a software guy. And I want to make money to
buy food and shelter and stuff. I want the Linux desktop to succeed because
then I have a userbase that has various needs and is willing to spend money to
fulfill the needs. Yes, I want to create beautiful "works out of the box" apps
that people want to spend money for. Things like the Ubuntu software center
and Steam are pointing the way there, but we still have a long way to go. And
nobody else seems to be on this path.

------
stinos
_our superior operating system is only superior to computer savvy users who
are able to fix what they break and configure what they buy and who have the
patience to figure-out things like why a configuration made in the KDE UI
disappears at reboot. Hint–it might be because that particular configuration
in your particular distro must be made in the distro’s configuration panel
which overwrites anything done in KDE’s panel, even though it’s a KDE
configuration. How many grandmothers will figure that out_

now that is how you hit a nail straight on the head. In the last 15years or so
I tried many times to turn to the desktop, but it's exactly issues like this
(which are, under my impression at least, way more common on the desktop than
on the cli) that make me stick with the command line linux and enjoy it in all
it's glory. If I want a desktop I still use Windows. Or OsX if I must.

~~~
davexunit
There are many perfectly usable, free, desktop environments to choose from on
GNU/Linux. I just can't take complaints like this seriously.

~~~
stinos
yes there are such environments. Never denied that. But as I said, I consider
them only perfectly usable for _computer savvy users who are able to fix what
they break and configure what they buy and spend time on it_. That last part
kills it for me.

~~~
vertex-four
Honestly, as a current Debian Wheezy user... this isn't true any more. I
haven't had to fix anything since I installed it. It's all Just Worked.

If it didn't just work, I'd've bought a Windows license, as I have previously
done. This is, in fact, the first Linux install that I've continued using for
over a couple of months.

The "it's not very usable" argument was correct in the old GNOME2/KDE3 world,
but at least GNOME3 is exceptionally usable and the OS is extremely stable.

~~~
stinos
It's probably better than it used to be. But it just keeps on coming back to
me. Like last month I downloaded a live CD of the latest Debian because I
coulnd't find the one I normally use, and it didn't even want to start X. Not
on an old pc with a recent graphics card, not on a new one with another recent
graphics card. Not generalizing this to everything and maybe I just have bad
luck but things like that are an unfortunately large part of my experience
with desktop linux.

~~~
davexunit
I haven't used a live CD of Debian, but you should know that since Debian
Squeeze, nonfree graphics drivers are _not_ included. Perhaps that was an
issue? If you want something that "just works", use a Debian derivative like
Ubuntu. Debian is great and I use it on a few of my machines because I can
install a minimal set of packages and build on top of it.

------
pachydermic
I'm highly suspicious of Mark Shuttleworth and the Canonical guys... hopefully
that suspicion is misplaced. It's true that they've done an immense amount of
good for desktop Linux - hell, I'm not sure I ever would have gotten into
Linux without Ubuntu. On the other hand, they haven't shown that they're
really willing to play nice with the rest of the community.

Going off on their own to develop Mir is a big deal, if for no other reason
than it looks alienating. Adding Amazon search (by default) to the unity lens
is an even bigger deal! I don't come to Linux for that shit! Unity as a whole
is _not_ a big deal because you can still just install something else.

I'm just not sure any more. They've burnt a lot of bridges with the community.
How is that a good strategy? How is being an asshole a good thing if what
you're achieving is partnering with Amazon to snoop on users? What are they
trying to achieve here? I don't want to suggest that just because they're
trying to make money means that what they are doing is automatically evil, but
intentions do matter. What are their intentions? Just to spread awesome _free_
software? I don't think that's all they are trying to do. And honestly, who
needs another Apple, Microsoft or Google? We need something better.

------
Schiphol
This article reads like it was written in 2006. The ideas that Linux distros
lack polish, and that Ubuntu brought that to the table; that this is a
capitalist world and Mark Shuttleworth understands capitalism, etc. are very,
very trite.

~~~
arkitaip
Also, what kind of bizarro world is this where Android doesn't exist? You
know, the Linux distro/interface that's leading the development on the
consumer side? Smart phones, tablets and other mobile devices is the future
for Linux and computing in general.

~~~
hollerith
You have not explained how Android is relevant to a conversation about
_desktop_ Linux.

>Smart phones, tablets and other mobile devices is the future for Linux and
computing in general.

Even if that is true, it does not automatically make Android relevant to a
conversation about _desktop_ Linux.

Will you concede that at the current time, essentially no one uses Android as
desktop OS?

~~~
mkr-hn
What is a desktop but a tablet or smartphone with a keyboard and mouse? It
wasn't long ago that "Desktop" meant a rarely moved laptop or a tower attached
to a big monitor and some peripherals, so we're not used to thinking of it in
more abstract terms. This is changing as the traditional desktop--a computer
you set on a surface and do work on--becomes something more modular and
tablet-like.

~~~
hollerith
>What is a desktop but a tablet or smartphone with a keyboard and mouse?

Hardly anyone uses Android with a keyboard and mouse (for good reason).

You might believe that that will change, and that is a reasonable conversation
to have, but it does not make it unreasonable or silly to have a conversation
about desktop Linux that ignores Android.

(When the person I replied to wrote, "what kind of bizarro world is this where
Android doesn't exist?" he implied that such a conversation _is_ unreasonable
or silly.)

------
wyz9
Mark Shuttleworth and Canonical are important to ‘desktop Linux’ mainly
because they are attempting to kill it. Note that they do not even advertise
Ubuntu as a GNU or Linux distribution.

It seems the current strategy of Canonical is to change enough of the system
so that developing cross-distribution will become more and more of a hassle,
and trust software developers to just target Ubuntu due to its market share in
Linux-land.

Unity was a step in the direction. It’s not critical to other programs, but
Unity itself appears to be very hard to port to other distributions (and to be
honest it was the first thing that actually made Ubuntu distinct from other
Debian derived distributions).

Mir takes it a step further, now wm and toolkit developers will have to target
either just Wayland, and lose out on the vast Ubuntu userbase, or target just
Mir.

Canonical does its best to bring closed-source commercial desktop applications
to the operating system through the Ubuntu app store. With good reason: they
know the developers of these commercial applications will only target Ubuntu,
since unlike open source programs where the distribution’s packagers do the
work of bringing your application to their OS for you, that can’t be done very
well with just binary packages compiled against x version of y library. Thus
forcing users who want to use one of these applications to switch to Ubuntu.

EDIT: and let’s not forget that Canonical ships what is basically spyware with
Ubuntu. Local searches on your desktop should _not_ be used to help Amazon
advertise. Shuttleworth’s reaction to the complaints were extremely cynical as
well.

~~~
keithpeter
_" Mir takes it a step further, now wm and toolkit developers will have to
target either just Wayland, and lose out on the vast Ubuntu userbase, or
target just Mir."_

Won't the toolkits simply support existing widget libraries? I mean GTK-Mir
and GTK-Wayland or QT-Mir and QT-Wayland &c? Else there will be something of a
dearth of applications! I'm genuinely asking as this is an area I don't know
much about.

PS: There is a privacy settings manager in system settings probably as a
result of the reaction to the Amazon search thing.

------
hack_edu
The most important thing he can do is railroad through a Nexus-style Ubuntu
exemplar hardware platform. All you need is one or two devices.

I'd pay 25% over a comparable Apple for a _real_ Ubuntu-Debian laptop with
Apple-quality build and a real software-hardware pairing. I'm tired of flimsy
setups from a weekend configuration tutorial hack job or Dell's XPS empty
gesture.

~~~
StavrosK
I hate to recommend this, but my Macbook Air runs Ubuntu pretty much
perfectly, and pretty much out of the box.

~~~
hpaavola
So does Asus Zenbook Prime and many models from Lenovo. I have Zenbook and
it's almost perfect. Minor touchpad issues, ambien light sensor does not work
and screen is always at max bright after reboot, that's about it. The problem
of course is that this is fairly expensive machine and people won't tolerate
those quirks when enough money is involved.

~~~
hack_edu
_almost_

I have a ZenBook too as my primary Ubuntu machine. It's _almost_ good enough.
I also suffer all the points you list, each of which are 100% dealbreakers and
perfect examples of how _almost_ it is yet no one goes the extra mile. A
little bit of effort/sway from Canonical would go a long way.

~~~
oinksoft
As they say, "God is in the details."

~~~
kapilvt
then buy certified hardware. thinkpads work great. or go pre-install with
system76 or zareason.. the new system76 (clevo shell) 14.1 pro looks pretty
sweet (quad core, 16gb ram, half the price of a macbook pro, ubuntu
preinstalled)
[https://www.system76.com/laptops/model/galu1](https://www.system76.com/laptops/model/galu1)

------
mkr-hn
I use a non-free Windows 7 install dual booted with my free Ubuntu install.
All the software I use works roughly the same on both, and the formats I
create in are open specifications with widespread support.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm free. I can take my data anywhere I want and do
anything I choose with it. The presence of proprietary formats and proprietary
software hasn't crowded out the--by my perception--superior open source
options, which seems to be the main fear of people who tell me not to use
proprietary software. Show me a free-by-your-definition operating system
that's compelling enough to make me want to switch from an environment where
I'm already free to do whatever I want.

Mark Shuttleworth found a way to get ordinary people to use a Linux-based
operating system. If you want your idea of a free desktop operating system to
thrive, you need to figure out how The Ubuntu Foundation did it with their
definition of free.

------
Nursie
Because he pumps a load of cash into it and isn't afraid of new things?

I don't actually like many of the new things, but you can't fault him for
having a go and getting some decent results, and (X/K)Ubuntu always looks
pretty polished

------
jorgecastillo
I could write more but I don't want to. Whether Ubuntu is the best Linux
distribution or not is debatable, whether Ubuntu has made or not made
significant contributions to desktop Linux is also debatable, saying otherwise
is ludicrous. Preference of one distribution over another comes down to
personal taste, individual experiences with hardware support and individual
experiences with the maintenance of the system. However the marketing effort
Ubuntu made is undeniable, I don't remember any other distributions that made
such commitment to promoting desktop Linux.

~~~
alipang
I'd say for sure it's one of the best "gateway" desktop linuxes. The only
competition here I see are the ones based on Ubuntu, like Mint.

------
hugh4life
I think Shuttleworth/Canonical are wasting their time with the phone stuff.

They should focus on building a branded/licensed ARM desktop/laptop ecosystem.
That is where they can best compete. If they do well there, then they could
move to tablets and phones.

One thing holding back desktop linux, is that the options for programming
linux GUI's are not that great. There's basically C++, python, and various
red-headed step children. Canonical should put some backing into bindings for
Rust, Dart, and ES.Next on node.js once they become stable.

~~~
rdtsc
That market segment is shrinking. Not disappearing but shrinking. Their idea
is to make the phone the desktop (or rather their desktop the phone).

I for one, am excited. Their edge device looks great as far as design and
specs so far.

> There's basically C++, python, and various red-headed step children.
> Canonical should put some backing into bindings for Rust, Dart, and ES.Next
> once they become stable.

------
shmerl
I disagree. The approach that Canonical advocated for Ubuntu won't help Linux
desktop. It would help, well Ubuntu which only becomes increasingly
isolationist with NIH syndrome on every corner. Unity, Mir etc, etc. The list
will go on.

Jolla for example help Linux desktop much more than Canonical. They actually
work on improving Wayland. I.e. they push mobile Linux using components which
allow sharing the effort with the desktop Linux. Unlike Canonical.

~~~
wyz9
As I’ve said in my comment down below: I agree. Canonical isn’t very
beneficial to the ‘Linux desktop’.

------
AsymetricCom
What exactly is the point of this article? Linux will be fine with or without
Shutteworth.

