What is your opinion on Canonical?

English Soapbox
1

Disclaimer: I am looking for informed opinions with thought and reason behind them. Please, don’t throw opinions just for the sake of it.

Do you think that Canonical is a force of good in the Free Software ecosystem?

I am not fully informed about what Canonical practices are. I did look up the subject, but I found most resources full of unjustified opinions, and sometimes flame wars. I am looking forward to a calm and informative perspective on the subject.

Some people don’t like the Unity desktop, and criticize it from a functionality/experience point of view. I, personally, like Unity, however, that’s besides the point.

My main concern regarding Unity is the fact that it is almost tied to Ubuntu. For example, openSUSE does not have Unity as a desktop option (except as an alpha-stage product).

The reason I have chosen openSUSE is that it treats almost all DE as first-class citizens. Even though I use KDE only, I respect openSUSE for adhering to the interchangeable software paradigm.

Going back to the subject matter, it seems to me that Canonical does not respect that a free DE should be maximally portable to other Linux distributions, which is against the Free Software spirit as I understand it.

On the other hand, I read that Canonical has actually pushed many of their patches upstream, and upstream was simply not interested in merging their patches. And that’s fine for both upstream and Canonical to do, because part of the open-source development methodology is creating forks when disagreements happen, and creating diversity in this manner.

So, do you think that Canonical is acting in good faith? Or do you think that they might be undermining Free Software “from within”?

And as mentioned earlier, please try to share informed and well-reasoned opinions.

Thank you.

2

On Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:46:01 +0000, zaidgs wrote:

> So, do you think that Canonical is acting in good faith? Or do you think
> that they might be undermining Free Software “from within”?

I think it’s overstating it to state that they’re undermining Free
Software.

Free Software is about the freedom to do what you want, within the bounds
of the OSS licenses the code is licensed under.

Canonical scratches their own open-source itches in the way that suits
them - as do any developers in the OSS world.

Forking code is a big thing in OSS development, and there’s no obligation
(beyond making your code available, generally, depending on the license)
to send those patches upstream. Heck, I’ve got a few OSS programs that
I’ve tweaked for my own purposes, but I’m not interested in maintaining
them or pushing them upstream (indeed, one change does something that I
know would be rejected, but it’s something I need the code to do in my
own, personal environment).

The OSS license for the programs in question lets me do that - since I’m
not distributing my changes, I am not required to share my modifications
to the source. If I distributed the changed programs, then I’d have to
make the code available.

Jim

–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

3

Yes, I know that Canonical is acting within the rules of the GPL license. And I agree, my speculative question about undermining Linux is really jumping many logical steps.

To clarify, I am trying to get educated about those issues. So, I don’t really have any strong opinions. I am trying to understand the situation, and I am reiterating some arguments that have ringed true to me.

For example, I read a lot about the systemd controversy. And I find that some arguments against it are actually credible. In particular, the fact that it is actually hard to have an inter-changeable init system for distributions.

Going back to the DEs analogy. In Linux, we are used to that we can change the DE on a whim. And all the DEs are available on (almost) all distributions, with the exception of course of Unity.

So, it seems to me that what was taken for granted is no longer true.

In fact, what lead me to read a lot about the systemd controversy was my experience in installing Gentoo. In Gentoo, you have the option of installing either openrc or systemd as an init system. You could easily install almost any DE with either init system, except for GNOME which was only supported with systemd.

So, I am really talking about the big picture, rather than following rules in a narrow sense. And I am not saying that such expectations should be followed religiously. I wonder about how these things could affect the Linux ecosystem in the long run.

4

I don’t have a problem with Canonical.

Yes, they have done some things that folk criticize. However, they have also made linux more readily available to many people. On balance, I think it is a plus.

On unity – I don’t much care for it myself. But perhaps I haven’t invested the time to fully explore its possibilities. If somebody really wanted to maintain Unity for openSUSE, I would guess that they could get it included.

If you really want to discuss “systemd”, I suggest a separate topic. But the discussion would probably generate more heat than light.

5

Nah, I don’t really want to delve into the systemd issue. However, I do see some similarities between the two topics, in so far that we’re talking about the general ecosystem, and what we’ve come to expect from Linux software.

So, I don’t mind expanding this topic in that direction a little bit when an analogy is relevant.

And I agree that Canonical did help a lot to advance Linux especially on the desktop.

6

On 2017-02-01, zaidgs <zaidgs@no-mx.forums.microfocus.com> wrote:
> In fact, what lead me to read a lot about the systemd controversy was my
> experience in installing Gentoo. In Gentoo, you have the option of
> installing either openrc or systemd as an init system. You could easily
> install almost any DE with either init system, except for GNOME which
> was only supported with systemd.

Please correct me if I’m wrong (I only use Gentoo with KDE), but I thought Dantrell B (who wrote the Funtoo GNOME
patchset) has a layman/portage-package that allows GNOME 3 to run on openrc dependencies rather than systemd. In Gentoo,
I avoid systemd just because it’s harder work. It might boot up 2 seconds quicker than openrc, but I really don’t care -
they’re just init systems.

7

On Wed, 01 Feb 2017 20:46:01 +0000, nrickert wrote:

> If you really want to discuss “systemd”, I suggest a separate topic. But
> the discussion would probably generate more heat than light.

Indeed, and that has been discussed at great length in the past.

Jim

Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

8

On Wed, 01 Feb 2017 20:06:01 +0000, zaidgs wrote:

> Going back to the DEs analogy. In Linux, we are used to that we can
> change the DE on a whim. And all the DEs are available on (almost) all
> distributions, with the exception of course of Unity.

Which is, of course, the choice of the people who write the code. The
same holds true for a fair amount of OSS and non-OSS software that runs
on Linux - some producers of that software decide to target only specific
distributions.

Choice and freedom are the overriding values, generally. Some take an
absolutist view on the freedom perspective and say that any true GNU/
Linux distribution includes no proprietary components at all.

> So, it seems to me that what was taken for granted is no longer true.

It’s never been true that in the OSS world you were required to do
anything you didn’t want to (other than comply with the license for code
you didn’t create).

> So, I am really talking about the big picture, rather than following
> rules in a narrow sense. And I am not saying that such expectations
> should be followed religiously. I wonder about how these things could
> affect the Linux ecosystem in the long run.

Well, certainly they do affect the ecosystem - every decision has ripple
effects. But when it comes to “damage”, OSS is very efficient at
“routing around” it.

Jim

–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

9

Indeed, yes, because there are a lot more brains out there examining it from a much wider variety of angles and viewpoints than can be had in the commercial sector, because they need to keep payroll within limited bounds in order to turn profits and please the shareholders, plus they need to keep “secrets” away from their competitors.

10

You are correct. An overlay exists. However, at the time I am talking about, that patch was considered experimental and unofficial. The patch is now is still unofficial and unsupported, but I believe it is much more stable.

I am not a fan of GNOME, so I have not been closely following those developments.

11

This sounds like an odd statement to me, that choice and freedom are overriding values. In my understanding, freedom in the broad sense is defined as having a choice.

The way I see it, proprietary software forced you to compromise (ie. make a choice) between two values. Using the software, and being in control of the software you run. You cannot have it both ways.

The absolutist view on software freedom you mention is about having the conviction that having control of the software you run (and the long-term consequences of giving up this control) supersedes any benefits of using proprietary software. And I do agree with this value judgment for the most part.

This is more of a philosophical argument than a technical one. But your initial statement was perplexing to me.

Yes, I agree to a great extent. And this, in fact, has been my thinking. However, I enjoy hearing opposing points of view, because I am interested in learning the limits of this statement.

Can we really expect OSS (and Free Software in particular) to be resilient? What sort of observations would make you worry about the future of FOSS (if any)?

12

On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 21:16:01 +0000, zaidgs wrote:

> hendersj;2810865 Wrote:
>> Choice and freedom are the overriding values, generally. Some take an
>> absolutist view on the freedom perspective and say that any true GNU/
>> Linux distribution includes no proprietary components at all.
>
> This sounds like an odd statement to me, that choice and freedom are
> overriding values. In my understanding, freedom in the broad sense is
> defined as having a choice.
>
> The way I see it, proprietary software forced you to compromise (ie.
> make a choice) between two values. Using the software, and being in
> control of the software you run. You cannot have it both ways.
>
> The absolutist view on software freedom you mention is about having the
> conviction that having control of the software you run (and the
> long-term consequences of giving up this control) supersedes any
> benefits of using proprietary software. And I do agree with this value
> judgment for the most part.
>
> This is more of a philosophical argument than a technical one. But your
> initial statement was perplexing to me.

What I was aiming for was the idea that there are those who say that a
“true” GNU/Linux distribution is defined by only containing open-source
components (ie, components that are “free” in the “libre” sense).

That’s a view that’s held by (for example) Richard Stallman.

He’s not “wrong” in that view, but if I want the freedom to select a
video card that only has a proprietary driver, that’s a freedom as well -
just of a different kind (freedom of choice rather than freedom of
software - in the OSS sense).

It is a philosophical difference. We need people like RMS, of course, to
drive proprietary software vendors to the idea that “open is better”, but
there’s, I think, a balance to be made between the absolutist “it must be
free - as in open” and “I’m a user who just wants to use my system and
not worry about my choices requiring a closed-source driver”.

> hendersj;2810865 Wrote:
>> > So, I am really talking about the big picture, rather than following
>> > rules in a narrow sense. And I am not saying that such expectations
>> > should be followed religiously. I wonder about how these things could
>> > affect the Linux ecosystem in the long run.
>>
>> Well, certainly they do affect the ecosystem - every decision has
>> ripple effects. But when it comes to “damage”, OSS is very efficient
>> at “routing around” it.
>
> Yes, I agree to a great extent. And this, in fact, has been my thinking.
> However, I enjoy hearing opposing points of view, because I am
> interested in learning the limits of this statement.
>
> Can we really expect OSS (and Free Software in particular) to be
> resilient? What sort of observations would make you worry about the
> future of FOSS (if any)?

OSS is resilient - expectation or no. As long as individuals have the
right to create and modify the code of OSS software, it’ll remain so as
long as there’s someone interested in maintaining a particular piece of
code.

Destroying that right would take a lot of work - certainly in the US
(where I am), it’s a free speech issue, and curtailing that would be a
very difficult thing to do. Not impossible, but it would be a very high
bar to clear.

–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

13

I think Canonical has done some good (ie: brought alot of new people to GNU/Linux etc…). The main problem, as I see it, is when they shoot themselves in the foot by appearing to only care about their own interests. At times they give the impression that they want to be the Apple of Linux. Unity was designed (as is Mir) mainly for their convergence plan and to push into the cellphone market. They invested much money and man hours into this, then after many years, this was all abruptly put on hold. Desktop functionality was put on a lower objective (it seems) throughout this process, so now Ubuntu users are left with no convergence, no mobile (officially its on hold), no Apple of Linux (Ubuntu One also gone)…At times its like a Ship with no rudder or a Captain that keeps changing course. All my opinion of course. Meanwhile Fedora has Wayland by default. :sarcastic:

Ref: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/01/ubuntu-phone-ota-15-ditched
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2014/07/ubuntu-one-files-service-closes-today

PS: I’m also a Slacker so take all of this with a grain of salt.

14

On 2017-02-04, ChuangTzu <ChuangTzu@no-mx.forums.microfocus.com> wrote:
> Unity was designed (as is Mir) mainly for their
> convergence plan and to push into the cellphone market.

My feeling that that a touchscreen interface is long overdue in GNU/Linux. This is something that has been scandalously
neglected by the GNOME and KDE projects. If there is a touchscreen interface desktop being developed by Canonical, good
luck to them - I hope it can implemented into non-*buntu GNU/Linux distributions.

15

On Wed 08 Feb 2017 09:22:19 AM CST, flymail wrote:

On 2017-02-04, ChuangTzu <ChuangTzu@no-mx.forums.microfocus.com> wrote:
> Unity was designed (as is Mir) mainly for their
> convergence plan and to push into the cellphone market.

My feeling that that a touchscreen interface is long overdue in
GNU/Linux. This is something that has been scandalously neglected by
the GNOME and KDE projects. If there is a touchscreen interface desktop
being developed by Canonical, good luck to them - I hope it can
implemented into non-*buntu GNU/Linux distributions.

Hi
Touchscreen works fine here on my laptop (DELL Inspiron 5555) Leap,
Tumbleweed and SLE… hardly ever use… mouse and keyboard person lol

–
Cheers Malcolm °¿° SUSE Knowledge Partner (Linux Counter #276890)
openSUSE Leap 42.1|GNOME 3.16.2|4.1.36-44-default
If you find this post helpful and are logged into the web interface,
please show your appreciation and click on the star below… Thanks!

16

On 2017-02-08, malcolmlewis <malcolmlewis@no-mx.forums.microfocus.com> wrote:
> Touchscreen works fine here on my laptop (DELL Inspiron 5555) Leap,
> Tumbleweed and SLE… hardly ever use… mouse and keyboard person lol

Interesting- please educate me! Does GNOME have a proper touchscreen interface e.g. including auto keyboard popup,
pinch-to-zoom, drag momentum?
>

17

Hi
Yes, all of those, the pinch to zoom is sensitive, but that could be just me… drag windows around etc

18

IMO Canonical is a FOSS “good citizen.”

FOSS does not require that anything/everything that is created be universally usable by others. By being FOSS, at the least others can inspect anything in detail and if they wish, copy or adapt to others even if something couldn’t be fork-lifted.
And yes, a great many Canonical projects disregard (intentionally or not) compatibility with others.
But, that’s OK because the projects they support often push the boundaries of what is common and that’s often risky.

To do that,
Maybe Canonical has to be a little less compatible with others, if you believe that to do effective R&D requires cash resources which might mean modifying the traditional FOSS openness to being a little semi-proprietary (ie creating technical barriers while being completely FOSS legally).
But, I don’t see that as a real issue… It also means that Canonical may not benefit as much from outside its tight community as others, there is a penalty to balance against the benefit for those decisions.

And, the track record for Canonical is appropriately mixed…
By pushing boundaries, they have explored and provided technical and marketing data for the world at their expense for a great many things which have eventually been dropped as well as what they have decided to continue to build on. By so doing, Canonical has provided a great many benefits to others in FOSS which would not have been available otherwise.

IMO,
TSU

19

Any company which promotes the use of Linux as a Linux main solution, and tries to be a third way between MS & Apple, is ok to me. I liked Unity till I discovered Mate. Now I’m a small monthly donor.

20

On 02/01/2017 06:46 AM, zaidgs wrote:
>
> Disclaimer: I am looking for informed opinions with thought and reason
> behind them. Please, don’t throw opinions just for the sake of it.
>
> Do you think that Canonical is a force of good in the Free Software
> ecosystem?

Yes. Sometimes the Ubuntu folks don’t understand Debian and so they sometimes
make errors because of that. Many times Debian provides an answer for things,
the Ubuntu community does things the Fedora/Red Hat way (or other) instead of
the often better Debian way.

That is to say, you get a lot of wrong information from their community (more so
than others, e.g. openSUSE, Fedora).

>
> I am not fully informed about what Canonical practices are. I did look
> up the subject, but I found most resources full of unjustified opinions,
> and sometimes flame wars. I am looking forward to a calm and informative
> perspective on the subject.
>
> Some people don’t like the Unity desktop, and criticize it from a
> functionality/experience point of view. I, personally, like Unity,
> however, that’s besides the point.

I liked KDE 4 and I’m often frustrated with KDE 5. I’m actually frustrated with
all of them for redoing what has already been done and not actually bringing in
features that IMHO we truly need.

>
> My main concern regarding Unity is the fact that it is almost tied to
> Ubuntu. For example, openSUSE does not have Unity as a desktop option
> (except as an alpha-stage product).
>
> The reason I have chosen openSUSE is that it treats almost all DE as
> first-class citizens. Even though I use KDE only, I respect openSUSE for
> adhering to the interchangeable software paradigm.
>
> Going back to the subject matter, it seems to me that Canonical does not
> respect that a free DE should be maximally portable to other Linux
> distributions, which is against the Free Software spirit as I understand
> it.

Debian is a different sort of beast (than rpm based distros) and Ubuntu (aka
ignorant Debian) can be a confusing beast. Even systemd can vary greatly.

>
> On the other hand, I read that Canonical has actually pushed many of
> their patches upstream, and upstream was simply not interested in
> merging their patches. And that’s fine for both upstream and Canonical
> to do, because part of the open-source development methodology is
> creating forks when disagreements happen, and creating diversity in this
> manner.

Debian doesn’t want ignorant Debian patches. Other things are accepted. Just
like anywhere else.

>
> So, do you think that Canonical is acting in good faith? Or do you think
> that they might be undermining Free Software “from within”?

I think they’re acting in good faith. They have a reasonable community, but a
lot of “noise” (unfortunately) to sift through. Experience seems to be lacking.

>
> And as mentioned earlier, please try to share informed and well-reasoned
> opinions.

Well… it’s still just “opinion”, but I’ll stand by my assessment.

>
> Thank you.
>
>