Ubuntu: Where Did the Love Go?

[zridling]

[attach]

[MilesAhead]

I never really understood the buzz about Ubuntu in the first place. To me, Mandrake, now Mandriva, has a much better one CD install if you have broadband.

Seemed to me like the buzz was manufactured before anyone even tried it. A big nothing as far as I'm concerned.

[Josh]

I am running ubuntu on my spare laptop now and really see nothing special about it. Mandriva, like MA above points out, is much more complete feeling in my experiences. It is what I choose to dual boot this very laptop with.

[timns]

I'd love to stick linux on one of my old machines and give it a whirl... but then I think... "why?"

- I'm at the point where I simply have no good reason to do it, which is quite sad. Got a nice backup server, nice media server, my dev machines have to be Windows... what is left?

[40hz]

I think this is just another classic case of a bright non-technical newcomer, who is thinking outside the culture, coming face to face with and older and established "tech & coding" crowd who don't feel a need to automatically go along with everything they're being cajoled into doing.

Shuttleworth no doubt feels unappreciated and not getting the respect he should. And the old guard are likely feeling that somebody who's mostly talk and charisma is trying to coopt or dominate the work they've dedicated hundreds of unpaid man years developing.

Sad thing is, they're both right and wrong in feeling the way they do about each other.

It's a complicated set of issues. Unfortunately, Bruce Byfield can't seem to see much beyond what's directly in front of him when he wrote his article.

And when I see people like inkscapee wondering whether it's "fanboy fickleness" or Canonical being "more into serving their own interests than creating a great Linux distro" I just have to laugh.

Canonical HAS created a great Linux distro. One which did more to successfully popularize Linux than the rest of the combined community was ever able to do. So to make a comment like that is (to be polite) somewhat misinformed.

Maybe he should try writing for the WSJ or the NYT? They're where you go to read tech columnists who show a talent for getting a story almost right.

I personally think the biggest problem for some dragons in the Linux community is that Shuttleworth is not out to personally destroy Microsoft, or humble Bill Gates, like they are. (Not that Shuttleworth's such a prize package either.)

Ah well...growing pains, real issues, and geek politics - combined with just a dash of green eyes. That's what makes the NIX world go round.

[Renegade]

I'd love to stick linux on one of my old machines and give it a whirl... but then I think... "why?"

- I'm at the point where I simply have no good reason to do it, which is quite sad. Got a nice backup server, nice media server, my dev machines have to be Windows... what is left?

You could always simply manufacture an excuse. Got any quick little utilities you've made that you feel like porting over to Linux?

I'm stuck on Windows as my primary platform. There's just no way I can switch. My clients pretty much dictate the formats and software I need. e.g. There's no escaping Microsoft Office (and no -- I've already checked other office suites -- they don't work for what I need).

It makes it tough to switch like that. Right now I only run Linux in a VM.

[Renegade]

That was an excellent article. WOW. 2 in 1 day!

It's nice to read a balanced view that isn't brown-nosing one OS and dissing another. Very refreshing!

[40hz]

Seemed to me like the buzz was manufactured before anyone even tried it.

Be interested in hearing you expand a bit on why you feel that way.

Because I can't think of anything that occurred that would give me any reason to think that. And I go back a long way with Linux. The first distro I ever successfully loaded was Softlanding's SLS back somewhere around 1994. We were trying (unsuccessfully ) to get a version of the Fido BBS to run on it.

[MilesAhead]

Seemed to me like the buzz was manufactured before anyone even tried it.

Be interested in hearing you expand a bit on why you feel that way.

Because I can't think of anything that occurred that would give me any reason to think that. And I go back a long way with Linux. The first distro I ever successfully loaded was Softlanding's SLS back somewhere around 1994. We were trying (unsuccessfully ) to get a version of the Fido BBS to run on it.

I can remember loading up Slackware 3.0 and being amazed how solid the 2.0 kernel was.  First kernel I used seriously was 1.39 I think.  The reason I felt that way was because there's all this talk Ubuntu Ubuntu this revolutionary stuff. I load it up and nothing special at all. How else should I feel?  All air and no balloon.

I'm no guru but when I started with Linux if you wanted a window manager you had to either copy X-Files(pun intended) off the CD if it came with them, or download off the net, set it all up and tinker with the configuration file until you got it to come up without crashing or hanging.

It was common to boot into console mode, then run X to start X and load a window manager. I think Red Hat 6.0 was the first one I tried that did it all for you.

I haven't tried Ubuntu after the first couple of releases since I saw no reason to.  Other distros such as the Mandrake I mentioned not only set you up and booted right into a Window manager, but downloaded the packages you wanted so the first time you came up into your account everything was set up.  I think apt-get was more responsible than anything for making Linux easy to mess with. I can remember downloading tar balls and spending several days to get something to install and load correctly.  After apt-get it was mostly push button.  Nothing to it.

I didn't see the innovation. All I saw was hype.

[zridling]

The first distro I ever successfully loaded was Softlanding's SLS back somewhere around 1994.

Holy smokes, you were in on it at the beginning! And I thought I was daring in '98 and then again in'01. Took me until '06 to make the full switch.
_____________________
I've said many times here, I think the problem with Ubuntu is the failure to address bugs that carry over from one version to another. And I do agree with the author that Shuttleworth has never really delivered on the 'promise' of his big talk. Now if Mint were his, then he might have something to brag about.

[40hz]

I didn't see the innovation.

I did.

I handed a copy of a Ubuntu 6.06 live CD to my GF Alexis who, though very bright (and not afraid of technology), is definitely not a "computer person" like most of us here are.

She got it installed with no help from me. And she used it regularly, with very little hand holding afterwards. And that included installing/upgrading software and sorting out the occasional "missing dependency" problem when not installing from a repository.

Wish I could say the same thing about her experiences with Windows 7 when it first came out.

Which is why I have so much trouble understanding some of the pith and grumping on the part of some DCers who apparently are having all sorts of problems with Linux.

If my non-tech GF was able to effectively use it - and roll with the punches when the occasional problem cropped up - why in the name of Buddah do these same tech-savvy people seem to act as though they're completely brought to their knees by it?

It's a bit of a mystery and a disconnect for me.

re: Hype

There was some, but everything I saw was mainly the tech press trumpeting the demise of Microsoft Windows. Which was weird since Shutteworth went to great lengths to argue (in my mind very sensibly) that a peaceful coexistence with Windows was not only possible - but desirable as well.

With the crash & burn that was Vista, Linux had one golden opportunity to unseat Microsoft. But that was not going to happen through anything the Linux camp could do by itself. The only way it might (only might) have happened would have been if Microsoft totally screwed up on Windows 7.

And to it's credit, Microsoft acquitted itself rather well. Windows 7 is a very nice desktop OS. No argument from anybody (including most of the saner Linux crowd) on that score.

Of course, now that it's fairly obvious there won't be a new king on the throne, the tech press is back to it's old tactic of ripping Linux for every single thing it gets wrong, no matter how small.

I find it very telling that many of the same pundits that heralded a new era of computing - one which didn't include Microsoft - turned into exceptionally harsh critics of Linux almost overnight.

I guess it's important to gauge which direction the wind is blowing if you write a column for a living. Probably right up there with knowing what to kiss - and when.

I wonder if that might have been because the US computer industry finally woke up and realized it wasn't in the best interests of their business for Linux to triumph over Windows?

Because as long as Windows is the de facto OS for desktop, the US computer industry is able to exert a larger influence over the technology and direction of the industry than would be the case if a non-American controlled OS were running on most PCs.

But either way it doesn't really matter. Linux will be around for a long time. And Microsoft isn't going anywhere either.

[40hz]

Holy smokes, you were in on it at the beginning! And I thought I was daring in '98 and then again in'01. Took me until '06 to make the full switch.

Don't be too impressed. It took me almost six months to get it to where I was happy with it. And about two years total before I began seriously thinking it might someday be the dominant future OS. 

...aaaand we never were able to get Fido working smoothly on it

Although other people apparently did.

(Or at least claimed they did. )

It wasn't until Knoppix 1.6 came out (2001? 2002?) that I became completely convinced we were really onto something.

---

That's why I had to ask MilesAhead why he felt the way he did.

Maybe it's just a matter of perspective based on where you started from - and where you're now standing.

If you started with SLS, Ubuntu was a major major major piece of innovation.

Much like an 18th century bricklayer would, no doubt, look at an electric cement mixer and an 8-hour workday and think he had seen the apogee of human progress and enlightenment.

It's all a matter of where you look and how you see it.

[MilesAhead]

I did.

I handed a copy of a Ubuntu 6.06 live CD to my GF Alexis who, though very bright (and not afraid of technology), is definitely not a "computer person" like most of us here are.

She got it installed with no help from me. And she used it regularly, with very little hand holding afterwards. And that included installing/upgrading software and sorting out the occasional "missing dependency" problem when not installing from a repository.

But did you hand her a copy of Debian or Mandrake?  I think what happened is Ubuntu basically took credit for the Debian Advanced Package Tool.  As I noted, the easy install up to an X window manager with all your programs condfigured, including C/C++ compilers, interpreters like Perl and Python, was there with Mandrake, which used APT. It wasn't an innovation of Ubuntu.  They just started shouting as if they thought of it. So I guess the "innovation" was to shout loud enough that people who might not try Linux would try it and think what they saw was "new."

Also a lot of the ease of installing and configuring Linux programs came after 2 things.  PCI winning the bus wars, and developers standardizing on APT using standard directories to put things. Instead of fiddling with a tarball for 3 days I ran the installer for the APT package. Most of the time the app worked with maybe a tweak or two.

None of this stuff is a Ubuntu invention.

[MilesAhead]

It's all a matter of where you look and how you see it.

I don't see innovation as taking credit for other people's work.
I started with Slackware having to edit the scripts under /etc to
get the system to boot with the options desired and recompiling
kernels to get driver support. To me the first innovation was modules support.

People will go by their own experience. If you tell them Lexus invented the automobile and it's the only car they've ever driven, then that's the fact until they learn better.

In any case, Linux to me is "been there done that."  The guys who really wanted to make a living at it didn't have multi-boot with Windows there as a crutch like I did.  They just did Linux. Maybe they came from a unix environment and saw a free PC equivalent.  In any event when I first started some of the stuff you'd never figure out on your own. You had to get a book on configuring Linux, then go on usenet and carry water for a guru until he gave you a hint where to look.  Some script under /etc that calls another script that calls another script that sets an environment variable.

If there's any props to easy Linux it's probably deserved by Debian.

[40hz]

None of this stuff is a Ubuntu invention.

I don't see innovation as taking credit for other people's work.

I understand what you're saying, although I don't completely agree.

Because in some respects, it misses the point of the 'open' software development model. The whole point is nothing belongs to any one distro, group, or individual.

And while it's all well and good to try to claim something as "my innovation," most of the Linux world has a very good idea of who the real "firsts" and innovators are, and consequently ignores the wannabes and claim-jumpers.

Now if the press could just exercise a little journalistic discretion and actually research some of the things they report instead of cribbing it directly off somebody's press release, a lot of misunderstanding could be avoided.

re:GF

I showed her Mandrake. She didn't like it. She prefers Gnome to KDE. From what I've seen, most Windows users do. At least initially. That's because Gnome works, it's pretty - and it feels familiar. So rather than opting for the supposed "best" or more powerful window manager, Ubuntu went with something almost as capable, but more likely to be quickly understood by someone coming over to it from Microsoft Windows.

I think therein lies Shuttleworth's real contribution. Not being a part of those of us who "came up" through the ranks, he ignored all the techno-political philosophies (and other baggage) and created something that he - a non-"old guard" nixer - liked and could work with. And most of the new adopters seemed to appreciate what he put together - and paid for - out of his own pocket. (Don't forget Ubuntu was the only distro that ever shipped free CDs, in quantity, to anybody that requested them.)

I guess the way I look at it is a paraphrase of a comment by Gerry Weinberg. Basically, he said:

There is no limit to how much you can accomplish, or the amount of good you can bring into this world - as long as you don't care who ends up getting the credit for it.

From what I can see, the people who do the most to contribute to Linux have all come to embrace that philosophy.

[zridling]

"Most" people confuse -- and stay confused -- Linux desktop environments with Linux itself. KDE and GNOME are the two most popular environments for the big distros and provide intuitive, attractive desktops. They offer a large array of editors, multimedia software, games, administration programs, network tools, educational applications, utilities, artwork, web development tools, etc. These two desktops focus more on providing users with a sleek environment with all the bells and whistles featured in Win7. But there are many others built for low spec, netbooks, or older machines such as Xfce, ROX, and LXDE among others.

With version 6.04, Ubuntu was notable for putting GNOME together in an attractive and coherent way for first time users. And even as simple as it was five years ago, someone like me had to unlearn several things that Microsoft had burned in my brain, e.g., software installation -- "You mean it updates all my programs at the same time?!" My biggest attraction to openSUSE has been its advanced integration of KDE. It's been a lot of fun and the progress in just the last two years has been impressive.

[zridling]

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols confirms 40hz and weighs in with other distros that fell out of favor and have come back:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/loving-ubuntu-linux/8310

For years there was a site called Boycott Novell, now called Techrights, which pounded on Novell for its Microsoft partnership and related issues. Back in 2004, I wrote about why Linux users hated Red Hat. The reason then was that many Red Hat Linux users felt betrayed by Red Hat leaving its personal distribution behind for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I could go on and on, but you get the point. FOSS fans tend to be passionate. They don’t dislike something, they “hate” it. They don’t like anything, they “love” it. To which I can only say, “It’s just software people!” Without Ubuntu I know many people who never in a million years would have touched Linux. It was too strange, too techie. Ubuntu has made it possible for pretty much anyone to use Linux.

_______________________
Q: How can a man have a hyphenated name? I see male athletes now putting hyphenated names (Smith-Jones) on their jerseys. Someone please unstupify me.

[mahesh2k]

Ubuntu did experiments from release 7.10 onwards i guess. Apple like window theme skin was one experiment they still continue to do. It's just me or every software after some time tries to come up with more complexity than simplicity, in the name of feature richness.

[40hz]

It's just me or every software after some time tries to come up with more complexity than simplicity, in the name of feature richness.

It not just you.

It's a problem that has been dogging the entire end-user software industry for about 25 years now.

But it's mostly our own fault it's happening.

A little history:

Back around 1990, PC Magazine and others began what seemed to be an editorial policy of hand wringing over "feature bloat."

No matter how good or bad a product was, the reviewer always felt the need to wrap up by bemoaning how big and bulked up the product had become since it's original or previous release.

This went on for a couple of years until "bloat" started to become an industry buzzword. By the mid-90s almost everybody was complaining about feature bloat.

I'm not 100% sure who finally called them all to task in a guest editorial. But it was one of the biggies. I think it was Jim Manzi of Lotus Development Corp. (Everybody remember Lotus 1-2-3? They were bigger than Microsoft once!)

What he said was that software developers were caught between a rock and a hard place because the trade press and its readers were sending mixed messages. If a developer didn't add features to a new release, it got slammed in it's review. And that meant it received a lower 'ranking' than a product that had so many features it risked bursting its shrinkwrap. However, if a developer went ahead with a big "feature release," they then got slammed for feature bloat.

Manzi pointed out they couldn't have it both ways.

For those who don't remember the "golden age of computer magazines," maybe I should point out that this was a time when product showdowns and shootouts were a very popular type of tech article. Back then, receiving an Editor's Choice or Top Pick designation by a major magazine had a huge impact on sales. Especially if it was a "corporate" (i.e wp, spreadsheet, database) product you were selling.

Manzi went on to say that while everybody compained about bloated apps, it didn't actually seem to bother them all that much. Sorta like how most people tell TV polls they want more cultural and educational programming but rarely watch any of it once it's on. He also went on to say Lotus' sales research found that when given a choice between more features or less, customers picked the product with more features every time. Even if it meant paying more.

He wrapped up by saying products would stop experiencing feature bloat when the press and the people stopped penalizing the developers for not putting more and more in.

Shortly after that, feature bloat fell out of vogue as a soapbox issue for most magazines.

Unfortunately the bulk of the buyers still veer towards huge feature sets because "you just never know" when you're going to need something. That's one of the reasons why so many people still buy a full office suite when all they really need is a simple wordprocessor or basic spreadsheet. Same goes for servers. Tons of small businesses bring in a full server when all they really need is some network storage and a decent backup system.

I think the software market will eventually reach a higher level of sophistication and start moving away from huge products and opt for a more snap-in type computing environment. One where the end-user decides (and buys) what will be in there. In-app purchases are one manifestation of that trend. But it will be a while before it becomes the generally accepted way to purchase and install software. Customers are leery of being nickle-and-dimed. And the developers are hesitant to make any structural changes that could adversely affect sales or screw up their development roadmaps.

It will all get worked out eventually. But until then, "bigass apps" are something we'll have to live with.

[Paul Keith]

It will all get worked out eventually. But until then, "bigass apps" are something we'll have to live with.

Is this specific to corporate software?

From my personal knowledge as well as the software I have tried, I can't help but think there aren't any bigass apps anymore.

This doesn't mean there aren't any bloated software but setting aside "secret, only if you know about it" software like MS Office - I can't help but complain that often times all the bigass software I've used are well... not bigass but just wrongly bloated.

What I mean by this are things like project managers. I can't help but bang my head at how some programs like Chandler sell themselves as a suite but they can't even offer such basic features as how RemembertheMilk works. This is especially glaring because a more featureful free version that is bigass compared to RTM is Toodledo and yet all they needed to do was add "sub-folders".

Here's another example, Outlook and Thunderbird. Good apps but if Gmail had a cloud version with the same interface + some of the lab add-ons they have - which is the more advanced desktop client? That thing with it's flags or that thing where you can change the color of the labels and treat them as tags?

PIMS - which is more advanced? Simple applications like TreeSheets, InfoQube and Surfulator that revolve around one idea or ...well... name any other powerful alternatives that not only confuses you without really giving a way for you to replicate those apps' full simple features.

[40hz]

Is this specific to corporate software?

From my personal knowledge as well as the software I have tried, I can't help but think there aren't any bigass apps anymore.

This doesn't mean there aren't any bloated software but setting aside "secret, only if you know about it" software like MS Office - I can't help but complain that often times all the bigass software I've used are well... not bigass but just wrongly bloated.

Quick clarification. By "big ass" I meant "bloated."

I was trying to inject a touch of humor.

Apparently I've failed.

[Paul Keith]

No...no... I did get it the first time but my head just went into things like Scrivener, Outliner 4d, Final Draft which I consider bloated and big ass still but are they really? Should we instead turn those things into extensions and plug-ins?

Once that happened, I had to write what I wrote.

[MilesAhead]

@40hz

I think the argument got confused between those saying "Ubuntu is way easier than Slackware" or other nuts and bolts distros where you had to dig into scripts(which is certainly true) and my point, which is Ubuntu didn't spring out with a new system that's easier. In fact just refreshing my memory by checking the Wikis it seems it's initial release was 4.10 since it was a Debian offshoot so to speak and is dated 2004.  The Mandrake 9.1 I used was released in 2003.  So my only point is that Mandrake did it earlier and implemented it better in my opinion.  Mandrake too used the APT packaging system but it didn't go around shouting like it invented it. It just made a distro easy to use that still catered to developers. It made it very easy to install software development tools as well as user apps.

I guess it's kind of like Al Gore "inventing" the internet. If you are a Democrat ward boss then I'm sure for you he did.  Other people think internet developed for quite awhile and zoomed to popularity in the early 90s.

Perhaps because Ubuntu is a Debian offshoot then the dude felt justified with the hoopla.  But I would recommend before anyone with broadband  makes up their mind, try the Mandriva one CD install, then try Ubuntu equivalent.

As much as some of the Linux programming was fun and I could obtain incredible database software, even Corba development systems for the download, I started in Dos so I guess I have a masochistic streak.  Linux is too easy to maintain now. If you have a UPS and a journaling file system the damn thing never breaks!! Windows otoh requires constant tweaking for those of us who feel we have to "improve" something every day.

[MilesAhead]

She prefers Gnome to KDE

Mandrake 9.1 made it a one click to choose either. I remember using both and it was no big deal to switch around. I think I eventually settled on Gnome just because much of the software I downloaded seemed to be tuned for it. But it's been a long time.  Many of the sites I used to visit to check out the latest developments don't even exist anymore.

[40hz]

@MilesAhead - I agree with you that Mandrake was way ahead of it's time. If it hadn't shot itself in the foot so often it just might have been where Ubuntu is today. Shame really, but what can you do? Mandriva is also very nice. But it's got a lot more quality competition to contend with now than it used to. I wish it well. The more good distros the better AFAIC.

I guess it's kind of like Al Gore "inventing" the internet. If you are a Democrat ward boss then I'm sure for you he did.  Other people think internet developed for quite awhile and zoomed to popularity in the early 90s.

Kinda funny that you mentioned that. That's one of those stories that drives me nuts. Probably because I watched that interview - and I didn't hear him say what the Republicans started claiming he said. (For a while, there were so many people I knew insisting he had, that I began to worry maybe I was mistaken thinking I hadn't heard it.)

So with no knock on your point, I'd like to go off topic to quote Snopes.com's conclusion on that story (link here):

Internet of Lies

Claim:   Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.

Status:   False.

Origins:   Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
Clearly, although Gore's phrasing might have been a bit clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings — the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea. (To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean exactly the same thing, we have to ask why, then, the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet, even though he never used that word, and transcripts of what he actually said were readily available.)

OK everybody? He never said that!