TimburyDotOrg » Canonical

Who Contributes the Most to LibreOffice?

Susan Linton — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:00:00 +0000

Cedric Bosdonnat has been tracking contributions to LibreOffice since its announced fork from OpenOffice.org. He uses Git Data Miner to gleen results from the main branch of LibreOffice Git repositories. Git Data Miner is more commonly known as the tool used by Jonathan Corbet in his periodic kernel code reports. more>>

Ubuntu update policy change is probably a good thing

Michael Reed — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:00:00 +0000

Despite some premature reports on the net, Canonical isn’t moving to a rolling release schedule for Ubuntu. However, the organisation is open to making some changes to the way that some software packages are updated. It’s seems likely that a mechanism that supports the adding of up to date application packages outside of the normal software repository updates is probably on the cards, and I’d say that it’s about time. more>>

Ubuntu 10.10 almost ready for you

Susan Linton — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 16:26:48 +0000

Canonical announced the availability of the only release candidate and the last developmental release before the Meerkat goes gold. Ubuntu 10.10 is due for release on October 10. more>>

More on Canonical’s Contributions

Susan Linton — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:28:20 +0000

Apparently still troubled over the backlash sparked by Dave Neary's report of top (and bottom) GNOME contributors given at July's GUADEC convention, Mark Shuttleworth, posted his "Reflections on Ubuntu, Canonical and the march to free software adoption." As I reporte more>>

Ubuntu Netbook Remix’s New Look for 10.10 (Maverick Meerkat)

Daengbo — Mon, 03 May 2010 14:48:00 +0000

Mark Shuttleworth had talked about putting the application in the top panel for Ubuntu 10.10 UNR, and now the first mock-ups have arrived. In addition to that change, the status panel is gone and status messages are transient overlays a la Chrome Browser. Application-specific notification icons ("Windicators ... ahhhh) appear in the titlebar, which is now drawn by the application.

I think this is a lot of work. Ubuntu and Canonical haven't been big on diverging heavily from GNOME or Debian. Since GNOME is moving to Shell and the Mutter window manager, this appears to mean that Ubuntu will be forking. Do the Canonical devs have the dedication to make this happen? How buggy will the first version of this forked window manager be? Will the windicators (I grimace even writing it) provide true benefit.

That was the negative. Now for the positive. If Ubuntu sticks with panels and doesn't move to the GNOME Shell, I think it will be a good decision. Scrapping everyone's understanding of an interface and completely starting again will only hurt Ubuntu adoption where Canonical wants to make money -- the enterprise. As I've said in previous articles, "Don't change the UI." These indicator additions seem like smart and intuitive additions to the WIMP desktop model.

If Ubuntu diverges from GNOME (and probably Debian, since it rarely customizes upstream projects more than necessary) by ditching Mutter and the Shell, does it have the chops to keep up? For Canonical, that seems to be the $20,000 question.

See the full story from Mr. Shuttleworth here: Mark Shuttleworth: Window indicators (markshuttleworth.com)

Is Ubuntu Too Big for Its Own Good?

Daengbo — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:22:00 +0000

Image by -= Treviño =- via Flickr

After writing my post about the default applications in Ubuntu last night, I had some thoughts which Fieldyweb might agree with:

What they should do, is redesign that, take ALL the apps out of Ubuntu, other than ff add adobe flash and as many codecs, 3g ethernet and wifi drivers as they can get away with, then redesign the app store, so if you want printing, you install it from there, if you want evolution, gimp whatever you install it from there.

My opinion is that the universe and multiverse repositories contain too much software for Ubuntu to QA properly. The number of bug reports during alpha and beta is so large that many of them aren't triaged until long after release. The release bugs aren't triaged until the next version is just around the corner. Invalid is the natural response in that situation.

Ubuntu is a foundation-run project, but the software reflects on Canonical, which sells support. The Self-Appointed Benevolent Dictator for Life needs to take the lead here and move the MOTUs out of the official Ubuntu repositories and into Launchpad, Canonical's code hosting and buid server. Making optional software available in individual PPAs, will mean that Ubuntu becomes responsible for much less and can concentrate on making the applications in main, especially default applications. Canonical can work toward its stated goal of creating a worthy competitor to OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard) and Windows 7.

What would the process of moving towards more streamlined look like? First, there would be no more mass import from Debian Unstable. Ubuntu would be responsible for the basic application and drivers necessary to run the various projects. MOTUs should be encouraged to move as quickly as possible to PPAs. AptURL should have the prohibition on PPAs removed for Launchpad.net. Finally, the Software Center needs to be reworked into a front-end for Launchpad PPAs. Backports will be responsible only for core applications (and likely only for LTS releases).

In the end, MOTUs and their PPAs would be obviously responsible for third-party package bugs which are now blamed on Ubuntu. Ubuntu development would more closely model its rivals (OS X and Windows), concentrating on the core OS and leaving the extra applications to interested parties. Users would still get one-click installation of software. Users would also stop bitching about having to upgrade in order get the newest software. The default Ubuntu install would just work.

There are some problems with this approach:

Making sure users understand how to get PPA software and that the process is easy. This is solved using AptURL and one-click adding of PPAs and keys.
Enforcing a packaging method in PPAs which limits or eliminates dependency conflicts. This is solved by having the software center only search for MOTU PPAs, where MOTUs are responsible for limited numbers of packages. Python bindings for Coherence (uPnP) are handled by one MOTU and Python programs which use that binding are assigned to other MOTUs.
Ubuntu will definitely get some backlash for supporting fewer applications. Hopefully, this problem is mitigated by the improved quality of the core OS.

Thoughts?