- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Free Software is a democracy, NOT!
|
|
|
Comments (14)
hilarious
Both Hans and InaTux put the article in the pending queue..I picked InaTux's because well..I thought what you thought azer. ;-)
Sorry, but I don't work for inatux.
And just to clarify, the United States is more of a Representative Democracy or an Electoral Democracy. A republic is a form of government in which the citizens choose their leaders and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government.
In republics such as the United States and France the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy, and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as "republicans".
The idea of having everyone vote on everything would never work with software. And in no way is inatux saying that, nor is much of the community who don't like the new button placement. Democracies exists within a republics.
Having everyone vote on everything before anything gets done is closer to Direct Democracy, while open discussion that influences the Ubuntu design team's decision is closer to Representative Democracy, or a Republic. And Canonical's behavior is closer to a Dictatorship or Autocracy, with Mark as dictator.
While Debian and others aren't developed this way, it's wrong for Ubuntu to be.
And just to clarify, the United States is more of a Representative Democracy or an Electoral Democracy. A republic is a form of government in which the citizens choose their leaders and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government.
In republics such as the United States and France the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy, and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as "republicans".
The idea of having everyone vote on everything would never work with software. And in no way is inatux saying that, nor is much of the community who don't like the new button placement. Democracies exists within a republics.
Having everyone vote on everything before anything gets done is closer to Direct Democracy, while open discussion that influences the Ubuntu design team's decision is closer to Representative Democracy, or a Republic. And Canonical's behavior is closer to a Dictatorship or Autocracy, with Mark as dictator.
While Debian and others aren't developed this way, it's wrong for Ubuntu to be.
This whole discussion has gone off the rails. Ubuntu bug #532633,
[url=https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/ source/light-themes/ bug/532633?comments=all]https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/ source/light-themes/ bug/...[/url] is not about democracy. It is about a specific bug, and it's about who really matters in the Ubuntu "community." Despite all the over-abundant propaganda from the Canonical hype machine about community and humanity to others, I think it's not a real community at all, but a classic corporate boss-worker bee hierarchy.
On the front page of Ubuntu.com it says:
But that is not the reality. I doubt many people have actually read the bug comments. The bug report is about a change that affects all users, so naturally it's getting lots of attention. Many good questions were raised: why change both the button placement and button order, especially in an LTS release? What are the reasons, what was this decision based on? It goes against what people are used to. It is awkward for right-handed users, especially trackpad users, and users who like the left-side placement have to get used to a different button order. It is awkward with tabs (e.g. Nautilus, Firefox). It breaks X automation scripts used by people who need accessibility features. It is too alpha for an LTS release. There's no sense moving the min/max/close buttons to the left, if the scroll bars are still in the right. Why keep advocating for 'cadence' in distro releases, and then throw in this weird non-standard window button order and placement?
The answer? Right here: [url=https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/ source/light-themes/ bug/532633/comments/167]https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/ source/light-themes/ bug/...[/url]
It doesn't answer anything, but rather uses classic derailing techniques to throw blame back on the people raising criticisms and questions. Mr. Shuttleworth introduced the 'democracy' straw man. Instead of really trying to answer legitimate questions, he says in effect "You don't count, and you're being rude for saying that, so we're not going to listen to you." He says more data that supports the old window button placement is needed, but is fine with having no data supporting the change. Hundreds of comments from users don't count, of course, that's not data, that's rudeness.
There is also the usual ration of "If you don't like it, leave" and "You're just afraid of Change!!" comments from other people. (Sound familiar, KDE users?)
Lots of folks think Ubuntu users need to kiss Mark Shuttleworth's ring because he funds it. I think they're forgetting that Ubuntu is built on software and packages created by other people, including many unpaid volunteers who won't benefit materially from Ubuntu's success. They're also forgetting that it is not unreasonable to expect some straight answers and accountablity. This makes Ubuntu look like it's run by little insider cabals. Which I think it is, and Mark Shuttleworth is being serious when he calls himself the "Self-Appointed Dictator for Life." His mistake is trying to maintain a pretense of real community. It raises expectations, and then he's all bewildered when Ubuntu users and contributors actually believe the hype.
The ultimate design goal is obviously to copy Mac OS X, so why not just do it instead of dropping vague misleading hints?
Read the whole commentOn the front page of Ubuntu.com it says:
Quoting: Ubuntu 10.04 Long Term Support (LTS) is just around the corner. If you want to help us test it, download the beta 1 now. We appreciate your feedback and support.
But that is not the reality. I doubt many people have actually read the bug comments. The bug report is about a change that affects all users, so naturally it's getting lots of attention. Many good questions were raised: why change both the button placement and button order, especially in an LTS release? What are the reasons, what was this decision based on? It goes against what people are used to. It is awkward for right-handed users, especially trackpad users, and users who like the left-side placement have to get used to a different button order. It is awkward with tabs (e.g. Nautilus, Firefox). It breaks X automation scripts used by people who need accessibility features. It is too alpha for an LTS release. There's no sense moving the min/max/close buttons to the left, if the scroll bars are still in the right. Why keep advocating for 'cadence' in distro releases, and then throw in this weird non-standard window button order and placement?
The answer? Right here: [url=https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/ source/light-themes/ bug/532633/comments/167]https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/ source/light-themes/ bug/...[/url]
It doesn't answer anything, but rather uses classic derailing techniques to throw blame back on the people raising criticisms and questions. Mr. Shuttleworth introduced the 'democracy' straw man. Instead of really trying to answer legitimate questions, he says in effect "You don't count, and you're being rude for saying that, so we're not going to listen to you." He says more data that supports the old window button placement is needed, but is fine with having no data supporting the change. Hundreds of comments from users don't count, of course, that's not data, that's rudeness.
There is also the usual ration of "If you don't like it, leave" and "You're just afraid of Change!!" comments from other people. (Sound familiar, KDE users?)
Lots of folks think Ubuntu users need to kiss Mark Shuttleworth's ring because he funds it. I think they're forgetting that Ubuntu is built on software and packages created by other people, including many unpaid volunteers who won't benefit materially from Ubuntu's success. They're also forgetting that it is not unreasonable to expect some straight answers and accountablity. This makes Ubuntu look like it's run by little insider cabals. Which I think it is, and Mark Shuttleworth is being serious when he calls himself the "Self-Appointed Dictator for Life." His mistake is trying to maintain a pretense of real community. It raises expectations, and then he's all bewildered when Ubuntu users and contributors actually believe the hype.
The ultimate design goal is obviously to copy Mac OS X, so why not just do it instead of dropping vague misleading hints?
[insert Scott Ruecker's comment about "the makings of a good editorial"]
I'd like to gus3, but my bosses would be most unhappy. I heart LXer :)
This stuff kind of makes me grateful Slackware isn't more popular. Mr. Volkerding does a bang-up job as BDFL, and he freely acknowledges the guilty [sic] parties in his cabal. I'd hate to see that crushed under Ubuntu-scale popularity.
gus3, you read my mind and I didn't say it because I know Carla couldn't for the reason she stated.
And for the record, LXer hearts Carla unabashedly..;-)
And for the record, LXer hearts Carla unabashedly..;-)
@tuxchick
I'm not quite sure what you actually want to say, but "welcoming comments and bugreports" is something different from "if you don't like it, we'll change it" or even "if you report a bug, we'll fix it". There is a subtle difference. It says what it says. If you want to read it differently, that's your problem. Your quote "It raises expectations" in fact says it all.
> This makes Ubuntu look like it's run by little insider cabals. Which I think it is,
Well, Canonical is, so to the extent Canonical controls Ubuntu, it is too. And AFAIK, Canonical has absolute control over Ubuntu.
> ...but "welcoming comments and bugreports" is something different from "if you don't like it, we'll change it" or even "if you report a bug, we'll fix it".
True, but "You don't count, and you're being rude for saying that, so we're not going to listen to you." and "If you don't like it, leave" don't qualify as "welcoming comments and bugreports" either. And I notice you didn't disagree with either characterization.
Look, if Mark makes a decision, then he makes a decision. If the Ubuntu team makes a decision, then they make a decision. But they'll have a much happier group of users if they say who makes the decisions and why.
> Mr. Volkerding does a bang-up job as BDFL, and he freely acknowledges the guilty [sic] parties in his cabal.
That he does. He always gives his reasons for the changes he makes, and he even acknowledges when his decisions are somewhat arbitrary.
Well, Canonical is, so to the extent Canonical controls Ubuntu, it is too. And AFAIK, Canonical has absolute control over Ubuntu.
> ...but "welcoming comments and bugreports" is something different from "if you don't like it, we'll change it" or even "if you report a bug, we'll fix it".
True, but "You don't count, and you're being rude for saying that, so we're not going to listen to you." and "If you don't like it, leave" don't qualify as "welcoming comments and bugreports" either. And I notice you didn't disagree with either characterization.
Look, if Mark makes a decision, then he makes a decision. If the Ubuntu team makes a decision, then they make a decision. But they'll have a much happier group of users if they say who makes the decisions and why.
> Mr. Volkerding does a bang-up job as BDFL, and he freely acknowledges the guilty [sic] parties in his cabal.
That he does. He always gives his reasons for the changes he makes, and he even acknowledges when his decisions are somewhat arbitrary.
@jdixon
Is it wise to treat your community like that? No! I think I did make that point very clearly. But that has not been the extent of the discussion so far. I'm nor an Ubuntu user, not is it likely that I will ever be. If I were, I'd probably discuss the reason WHY I LEFT - as several people have done. Eat my dust, Mark!
Quoting:I'd like to gus3, but my bosses would be most unhappy.So put it on LT. The discussion of this topic is certainly not limited to LXer. And you know it'd bring lots of traffic to LT. ;-)
> I'm nor an Ubuntu user, not is it likely that I will ever be.
I have an Ubuntu install at work to play with, and I'll probably keep it current. But pretty much everyone here knows my distro of choice, and it certainly isn't Ubuntu. :)
> So put it on LT.
Seconded.
I have an Ubuntu install at work to play with, and I'll probably keep it current. But pretty much everyone here knows my distro of choice, and it certainly isn't Ubuntu. :)
> So put it on LT.
Seconded.
Parallels to proprietary Linux companies
Canonical's pseudo-democracy here (really a "meritocracy" as Shuttleworth deigns to call it) continues to have more and more similarities to the marketing tactics taken by two of the best-known proprietary Linux companies; Red Hat and Novell's SuSE.
Red Hat's business product is RHEL, see http://www.redhat.com/ Red Hat's much less commercial, community-based distro is obviously Fedora, see http://fedoraproject.org/
Novell's business products are SLES and SLED, see http://www.novell.com/home/ Novell's much less commercial, community-based distro is obviously OpenSUSE, see http://www.opensuse.org/en/
Similarly, Shuttleworth's meritocratic Ubuntu may remain "free as in free beer", but now perhaps decreasingly “free” as in “free speech” (see 'The Free Software Definition' page at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ) The Bezemer piece addresses this very point in this excerpt:
And yet, there exists the one key Linux distro which has remained as democratic as one can possibly and even chaotically imagine; Debian GNU/Linux, (http://www.debian.org/). Debian obviously remains as the much-less commercial, widely-known, truly community-based, "universal operating system", this as compared to Ubuntu.
Whatever commercialized direction Shuttleworth may take Ubuntu, end-users and devs will continue to monitor this. The author even knows this quite well:
Ubuntu's base-distro Debian will remain as yet another viable, non-commercial distro option regardless of "where Ubuntu is going" and regardless of when Shuttleworth "starts asking himself the right questions."
Read the whole commentRed Hat's business product is RHEL, see http://www.redhat.com/ Red Hat's much less commercial, community-based distro is obviously Fedora, see http://fedoraproject.org/
Novell's business products are SLES and SLED, see http://www.novell.com/home/ Novell's much less commercial, community-based distro is obviously OpenSUSE, see http://www.opensuse.org/en/
Similarly, Shuttleworth's meritocratic Ubuntu may remain "free as in free beer", but now perhaps decreasingly “free” as in “free speech” (see 'The Free Software Definition' page at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ) The Bezemer piece addresses this very point in this excerpt:
Quoting:That's why I don't understand why InaTux gets so upset. FOSS is not and never will be a democracy in the sense he (or she?) understands democracy. Design decisions are not made by simply voting them off - and certainly not by its users.
And yet, there exists the one key Linux distro which has remained as democratic as one can possibly and even chaotically imagine; Debian GNU/Linux, (http://www.debian.org/). Debian obviously remains as the much-less commercial, widely-known, truly community-based, "universal operating system", this as compared to Ubuntu.
Whatever commercialized direction Shuttleworth may take Ubuntu, end-users and devs will continue to monitor this. The author even knows this quite well:
Quoting:If you don't like where Ubuntu is going, install another distribution. Nobody is saying that you should stick with it. It's easy.
Quoting:If too many people start doing that [leaving Ubuntu], Mark Shuttleworth has two options. Either he creates the perfect distribution for Mark Shuttleworth or he starts asking himself the right questions. A customer lost takes twice the effort to reel in than a new one.
Ubuntu's base-distro Debian will remain as yet another viable, non-commercial distro option regardless of "where Ubuntu is going" and regardless of when Shuttleworth "starts asking himself the right questions."
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Is it just me or does anyone else find humor in someone posting their own fail?