What I love about Unity

[Jo-Erlend Schinstad]

Den 30. des. 2011 20:30, skrev Ted Gould:
> Hey,
>
> 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 :-)
>
> 	Thanks again,
> 		Ted

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 
anything_.

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. :)

Jo-Erlend Schinstad