I know I'm in no position to criticise but really GNOME, really? (d0od rant)

With Gnome 3.0 on course to be released later this year developers have begun making the tough decisions on what will be included as part of the desktop - and, perhaps more controversially, what won’t be.

One major component that won’t be making it into the revamped release of the GNOME Desktop is Gnome Activity Journal - The Zeitgeist toting tool that allows users to search their files and user data intelligently using timelines, tags and other ‘meta’ relationships.

This has somewhat taken me aback as, to my mind at least, GAJ was very much in the vein of Gnome 3.0’s etho’s and vision; making the desktop and user data easier to manage, sort and access. The ‘plan’ for GNOME 3.0 states that a core aspect is: -

“Changing the way we access documents (via a journal, like GNOME Zeitgeist): having to deal with a filesystem in their daily work is not what makes users happy -- on the contrary, they generally just want to access their documents and not to browse their hard disk. Providing new solutions to this problem (using timelines, tags, bookmarks, etc.) is something that has been of interest in our community for a long time, but we never completely jumped in. We simply should.”

Why was it removed? In the words of GNOME release manager Vincent Untz it needs “…more integration with the rest of the desktop and the overall Gnome design.” . Another meek reason offered up was that “it feels too much like a standalone application.”

GAJ does feel different to other GNOME applications that I've tried partly because it is a different breed of application. Perhaps from technical and adherence guidelines there may be some discrepancies with GAJ in GNOME but surely what GAJ has to offer users far outweighs any quibbles on it not blending in enough? I am not a developer and, having aggrieved upstream once already this week, I’ll just sigh loudly at this decision and move on.

On the flip side, showing that wacky decisions are clearly the order of the day in GNOME dev land, the awesome visually-rich Clutter library was also rejected, this time on the grounds that there are still outstanding copyright issues rather than that it isn’t conformist enough. (Sorry, did that sound bitter?). This reason is pretty sound all things granted and the development team are hoping the situation can be resolved.

Most significantly was that Gnome Shell has been approved meaning GNOME 3 will be breaking with the traditional desktop model and introduce the oft-criticised but highly anticipated new method of managing windows and applications.

I’m excited for the direction GNOME 3 is taking, if not slightly annoyed that some salient opportunities to really enhance the desktop experience are being squandered.

Gnome 3.0 is scheduled for release in September this year.

Continue reading

GNU/Linux: The Name Game

I have been asked several times why I do not refer to Linux as "GNU/Linux," or "the GNU/Linux operating system," or some variation thereof. Most of you are well aware of the controversy around using the term "Linux," but many people who have recently switched or are considering trying Ubuntu, or some other distribution of Linux, are likely confused already, and so this may require a bit of explanation. Wikipedia has a decent, concise article that explains the two sides to this argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

Here is my position on it: Though I am familiar with both sides, I do not choose to call Ubuntu (and other distros) "Linux" because I feel the GNU/Linux folks don't have a leg to stand on. I do so because, quite simply, the target audience of my videos are newbies to Linux, or those who have never even tried it before. Linux is by far the most widely used and understood term.

I want to make things easier for them to understand, not more difficult. I feel that I am not doing anything wrong; when I choose to call Microsoft Windows Vista "Vista" I am not doing a disservice to Microsoft. Nor do I do a disservice to Canonical by calling Ubuntu "Ubuntu." A great many people and groups have to come together to make any particular operating system, particularly community-created ones, and credit for success should go to each and every one of them.

I am not a political activist, I am simply someone pretty new to Linux who hopes to help people avoid some of the pitfalls I ran into when I first tried it. I have never claimed to be an expert, but I do feel that we can do even more to help users of other operating systems feel comfortable in trying Linux as their desktop O/S, and Ubuntu in particular.

I plan on making a new series of videos which show how easy Ubuntu is to work with - completely without the terminal. If just one person who was scared of Ubuntu because they thought that using the command line was required tries and likes Ubuntu because of the videos, I will feel like they are a success.

So, back to the point: Am I an evildoer who helps spread misinformation and avoids giving credit where credit is due by using "Linux," or is it perfectly OK to do so - what do you guys think?

Photo courtesy of Alles-Schlumpf

Continue reading

Songbird drops Linux support; Why this doesn't matter

The big news today is the announcement by the Songbird team that they will no longer be officially supporting Linux versions of their media player. Community versions, will, however still be provided but there is no guarantee that these versions will see new features of thorough bug testing before release.

So if you're a glass half full kind of geek it's not entirely bad news for Linux Songbird users - it means it's sort of up to us now. Many PPC Mac users have already relied on community builds of Songbird for a long time and whilst they have often been released a few months behind official releases they remain passionately tended to.

So here comes one of those opinion pieces where I tend to go against the grain.

Songbird, Schmong bird

I don't think the loss of Songbird is a big deal. And here's a quick kung-foo style bulletpoint list of why I think so: -

• Rhythmbox just got the UbuntuOne store so legally purchasing music is a snap.
• Banshee has better media player support and has been managing videos for a while now.
• Both of the above have great extensions support so adding context info, last.fm, lyrics etc is a snap.

Songbird, whist having some awesome features, still has yet to find its feet and dropping Linux support officially and focusing on Windows and Mac may prove to be more beneficial to the project - as will turning it into an all-in-one media centre (Songbird had added video support). For music alone Songbird was just one fish too many in the sea of music players.

And lets face it – Songbird was never the most agile or flawless beast on Linux anyway. This moves will save both camps a lot of headaches.

Thanks to all who sent this in!

Continue reading

Why Mark Shuttleworth is right - Ubuntu is not a democracy and nor should it be

Some comments that Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth recently made on a bug report have been flaming up and down the internet faster than a bushfire in the outback.

Annoyingly the “popularity” of said comments is not down to any salaciousness news or shocking revelations present in what Mark has to say but simply from articles being padded out with gross inaccuracies and false assumptions about how the Ubuntu community works.

As such I just want to offer my opinion on this because, to me at least, there is nothing new or shocking in what Mark has said.

The blatant linkbait contentious issue comes from one specific line in which Mark states, in a discussion on the Window button debacle, that -

"This is not a democracy. Good feedback, good data, are welcome. But we are not voting on design decisions."

And y’know what? There’s nothing wrong in that statement. Relax kids! I trust a qualified doctor to prescribe my medicine based on what he knows. I don’t then expect a poll of the waiting room patients to see whether they agree with him; My trust is in people with interface design backgrounds to choose the best interface and design options.

That’s not being dictated to or denied a say, that’s just common sense.

The Ubuntu community has always been a meritocracy – a system whereby people are given responsibilities based upon proven talent and aptitude – so any gripes over this are about 5 years late. Ubuntu shines because it has the best people delegated to manage and oversee each part of it.

These decisions are made by informed people whose sole aim is making Ubuntu great. Passers by stamping their feet because they don’t get to make the decisions are totally missing the point.

As Mark later points out: -

We have a kernel team, and they make kernel decisions. You don't get to make kernel decisions unless you're in that kernel team. You can file bugs and comment, and engage, but you don't get to second-guess their decisions.

We have a security team. They get to make decisions about security. You don't get to see a lot of what they see unless you're on that team.

We have processes to help make sure we're doing a good job of delegation, but being an open community is not the same as saying everybody has a say in everything."

People getting the wrong end of stick

The biggest disservice some people are doing to the Ubuntu community is misrepresenting and misrepresenting Marks comments.

One spuriously fact-deficient article presents Canonical/Ubuntu Community as some moat-surrounded-fortress from which evil wizards plot to make the Ubuntu experience rubbish for all…: -

Open development is what Linus sees as Linux's greatest advantage, where anyone can contribute and everyone's opinion counts, he believes this makes for better software. For Canonical to develop Ubuntu and gather such a large community around it, only to deny them this collaboration, is just wrong.

Now, last time I looked there was a massive community actively collaborating on Ubuntu and anyone is free to file bugs or chime in with their thoughts. The fallacy in the argument above is in expecting everyone's opinion to be factored into the end product. That’s both wishful thinking and just plain illogical.

The Ubuntu developers do a great job of balancing the direction Ubuntu needs to take (adding new features, making everything work, keeping up with user trends) and the needs of the community at large (fixing bugs, tweaking things so they work better, adding hardware support).

So is Ubuntu an open community? This author doesn’t thinks so.

An open community is just that, the community has a say in everything. If the community at large doesn't like something, you don't do it. This is what 'open' means, open to discussion, open-minded.
Open-minded discussion and developer compromise has been part of Free Software development since the beginning. If Ubuntu users wanted to be ignored they'd be using Windows 7 or Mac OS X.

This is, again, a flawed argument on behalf of the article author because Ubuntu is open, is open-minded, is open to discussion and is open to contribution. Look at launchpad, look at the mailing lists, look at the IRC’s, look at the developer blogs, UDS…

What is not open is people wanting to come in and make the decisions with some sense of ‘entitlement’ simply because “this is Linux” – and rightly so!

Too many cooks spoil the broth (or something)

Improvements

This isn’t to deny that there are some areas where dialogue between developers and users couldn’t be improved but to imply that Canonical are fostering some elite clique of decision makers who are oblivious to community opinion isn’t accurate and is an insult to the community.

Ubuntu is so popular because it is so good. It is so good because it puts the best people in the right positions and there is nothing to be ashamed of in doing that.

“Storm in a teacup” by UK artist John Lumbus

Continue reading