After version 6, Trisquel is moving to LTS only releases.
El 11/03/13 12:38, name at domain escribió:
> quiliro:
>
> I am not aware that any of the things he suggested to include are
> nonfree.
>
Please certify so. Here are the guidelines
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios)
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(02)-600 8579
09-845 8078
IRC: http://webchat.freenode.net?channels=asle&uio=OT10cnVlJjEwPXRydWU3a
Todo correo que reciba será tratado como información pública, de libre copia y modificación, sin importar cualquier nota de confidencialidad.
I am a translator!
OMGosh dude, you are difficult.
How do you propose we certify it? Do a careful combing-over of the source code, or what?
VLC is already under a Free license, the source code can be obtained, and it's popularly recognized as Free (so it gets included in repositories of systems that carefully separate free and nonfree software, like Debian and Fedora). All those factors alone make it VERY close to certain that the software is indeed Free. Ditto the Opus codec. I would be astonished if either one turned out to be proprietary.
So yeah, please make like a Wikipedian and Assume Good Faith.
El 11/03/13 21:33, name at domain escribió:
> OMGosh dude, you are difficult.
If you think I am difficult, how difficult do you think is promoting the
use of only free software with some others' attitude of ignoring
freedom's priority?
> How do you propose we certify it? Do a careful combing-over of the
> source code, or what?
Check the code before recommending something that could be an attack on
users' freedom. That is all!
> VLC is already under a Free license, the source code can be obtained,
> and it's popularly recognized as Free (so it gets included in
> repositories of systems that carefully separate free and nonfree
> software, like Debian and Fedora). All those factors alone make it
> VERY close to certain that the software is indeed Free. Ditto the Opus
> codec. I would be astonished if either one turned out to be proprietary.
>
About Debian and Fedora, their recent attitude has been to try to comply
but not to make a big effort. Before it was plainly negative attitude
towards freedom.
Bythe way of your reasoning, we should not check anything and just wait
until there is irrefutable evidence that it either contains non-free
code or recommends it. Well, developers in Trisquel do a lot of work
long before anyone reports this type of freedom bug. It is the least
part of non-free software that slips through and not the other way
around. Are you suggesting that Trisquel developers are not doing a good
job by having this policy?
> So yeah, please make like a Wikipedian and Assume Good Faith.
That is a terrible example. Usually Wikipedia librarians do not assume
good faith even if it is part of their code of conduct. You can check if
you wish.
I am a translator!
From the guidelines:
"There's a lot of code in most free system distributions today; the amount of effort it would take to audit it all directly is impractical for most teams."
THIS.
I am a member!
Your talking about using Debian stable with backports right?
I'm not 100% sure that is actually the case. In general I think your mostly right although the core applications in Ubuntu are based on testing rather than stable so there should be a lot of less significant packages that are newer. You won't find that in a Debian stable + backports solution. Some of these packages could be important too. Now they may be ones that we can simply backport ourselves (like HPLIP). I don't know. I think it would be easier to base it off Ubuntu because then you don't have to worry about it.
>Plus, Debian Stable packages are more outdated than the 12.04.2 LTS and it is debatable which one is more stable.
I'd be very surprised if Debian stable wasn't stabler. Ubuntu LTS is based on Debian testing to get newer packages which leads to less time to squish bugs.
I am a member!
Yea- if the distribution did "fall back" to Debian it would make sense probably to merge with gNewSense. As I say in the other post here I don't think that would necessarily be a good idea. I think Ubuntu LTS releases are a good base and probably becoming an even better base. Even if Ubuntu moved to a rolling release (which they are not doing in a way that would cause Trisquel problems if based on Ubuntu LTS) it shouldn't be a problem for Trisquel. Canonical is still going to release LTS versions for corporate use. They have already started backporting the kernels too so my idea is actually being implemented in part with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS.
I am a member!
I agree that basing on LTS is the logical choice for now, but imo Trisquel should still look at the potential for switching to Debian in the future - especially if Ubuntu continues to insist on re-inventing the wheel and using non-standard system components, e.g. Upstart. It's completely crazy that they use this while the rest of the world moves to systemd.
Maybe a solution could be found in basing on Ubuntu but with systemd - there's a wiki page about doing something like that [1]. Not sure how up-to-date the information there is, though.
I am a translator!
I have not used Trisquel in a long time (Fedora user now), but I still follow these developments regularly. They interest me. I have followed this entire thread, and I must repeat one suggestion made earlier, in spades:
If Trisquel is going the LTS-only route w/backports (which appears certain now), and base on Debian instead of Ubuntu (which is a maybe), we SHOULD and MUST merge with gNewSense.
Why? Because it'd be damn redundant if we didn't.
What's the purpose of gNewSense? To be a totally freedom-respecting distro based on Debian. What's the purpose of Trisquel if it does get based on Debian? To be a totally freedom-respecting distro based on Debian.
There is NO sense in splitting the fully free distro community into two camps working on nearly identical stuff (let's disregard additional fringe elements like the Dyne and Dragora folks for now). This community is small enough as it is, and the shorthandedness makes it tough to deliver something truly competent. If both communities merge, possibly under a new name (Libix GNU/Linux?), I can't envision much of a downside to it. Why not have just one larger community with the same idea of what to achieve? gNewSense is already in dire straits as it is ... they should jump on our bandwagon.
Base it off of Debian testing branch (like Ubuntu LTS), strip any remaining nastiness from that base, and offer the best possible user experience to people who are passionate about freedom by fine-tuning the intitial default apps and configuration and backporting important core stuff. And DEFINITELY have a software center as a priority.
All these decisions together would buy us more valuable time and helping hands to continue offering mini editions for as long as that is relevant (maybe 1-2 more releases), to actually release on something resembling a schedule (I'm tired of "when it's ready"), and maybe even to offer Edu and Pro editions again (and maybe Studio, Gamer, and other flavors to boot), as that is something which made Trisquel unique in the first place.
Every other time I hear news about Canonical or Ubuntu now, I see it as bad. They are so intent on doing things "their way", which tends to break or complicate things for the rest of everybody. Their endless "our way, our brand" BS made the prospects for derivatives bad before and it's not getting any better.
Also, it's probably better to use MATE, not Cinnamon. They are both traditional desktops, but Cinnamon is considerably more resource hungry. And it won't work for users with AMD GPUs, even with kernel 3.8. However, whenever Trisquel.
Building Abrowser with the Gstreamer backend has already been proposed (if that is feasible). Another idea is shipping it with Greasemonkey and the free ViewTube script, so that users of Abrowser will have a proper experience of Youtube and a good many other video websites, out of the box.
I agree with most of your points, but not on using MATE. MATE is built using gtk2 and is incompatible with upstream gnome. And as gtk3 progressess, it'll keep getting older and older. One viable solution is to use Consort, which is built off of gnome 3.6 fallback, and is compatible with upstream gnome. They have just forked the basic required components such as the panel, wm and file manager. The maintainer also aims to bring some old gnome2 features to Consort, like the places menu and such. So it's a logical choice to use that instead of MATE.
Just my 2 cents.
I am a translator!
Yes, I forgot about Consort. That might be the way forward.
But if someday all major 3D hardware is supported with freedom, then I would support a switch to GNOME 3 Shell. It runs about as light as XFCE, and it's too modern and beautiful to pass up. Traditional desktop forks and reversions are the exception to the rule, an exception taken by some old-timers who feel that GNOME is now "forcing" a new kind of workflow upon them (I disagree); the rule is the a move away from the 90s/00s desktop metaphor to something rather more human-centric.
From GNOME 3.8, the so-called "Classic" desktop will be maintained by GNOME developers as a set of extensions and tweaks to GNOME Shell:
Classic mode on the other hand, is using GNOME shell with a few extensions and few settings tweaks.
The result is pretty similar to GNOME 2.
Besides, I recall that, thanks to Fedora developers, GNOME Shell (hence GNOME Classic) works with software rendering only.
It's still not too good though: http://www.datamation.com/open-source/gnome-classic-repeats-history-1.html
Also, apparently Fallback Mode will be maintained in 3.8 by Jonathan Carter[1]. Hopefully some of the bugs and quirks will disappear then.
1: http://jonathancarter.org/2013/02/05/gnome-panel-is-alive/
Since you are the theme wizard around here, have you tried to make a Cinnamon theme for Trisquel? Is that a lot of work and probably not worth it?
I am a member!
I think there is some argument to be had on the basis of trying to support hardware that is hostile to free software. We don't support non-free graphics cards when there aren't free drivers. Why should we do the same for graphics cards? Building for the lowest common denominator is probably not the best idea.
Unfortunately I'd also have to argue that you need to be conscious of the fact a large percentage of new users don't have hardware thats friendly to free software. The problem is a bit more complicated though as the free software friendly hardware is also hostile in certain ways (proprietary BIOS).
I guess what it comes down to is Trisquel should stick with what can be maintained and if the resources allow provide a secondary 3d environment. I think eventually Trisquel will be forced to deal with this issue.
I am a translator!
By all means, prefer Jetsons mode to Flinstones mode if the hardware runs Free.
On another note, has Think Penguin thought about getting into the server hardware space to offer libre options for hosting companies? I see their site only has desktops and laptops and if Trisquel had a server ISO that people could use on these setups would be a welcome option.
I am a translator!
Well, Trisquel has the net install option...
With an LTS-only schedule, Ruben might have time to also release something a little better tailored for a server than a simple netinstall image (i.e. a GLAMP distro). Not everyone who wants to run a server is advanced enough to work with a netinstall.
But I agree, it'd be nice if ThinkPenguin offered meaty server hardware, too.
I am a member!
I don't think server hardware is a pressing issue at this time. There are no enterprises using Trisquel and the projects which might can be run from VPS. Focusing that energy a little and getting a VPS company like Gandi or Linode to offer true Trisquel images would be better. At the moment you can only Trisqualize an Ubuntu image.
The best thing I think somebody could do right now is co-locate two servers at different data centers which are redundant and use high quality hardware. Then lease VPS's to others.
I think there are three projects/organizations/companies using Trisquel on the server. ThinkPenguin will be one of these when our new site is up, the Trisquel project is running Trisquel, and finally the Free Software Foundation is running Trisquel.
If there is anybody else running it chances are its an even less critical site/function than the three of these.
Let's say I download the ubuntu-12.04.2-server-amd64.iso file to make it libre. Is there an easy way to see the packages that come on the ISO and is it easy to modify the setup options that at a user gets? I'm talking about the options like "SSH Server" and "LAMP Server" and then maybe adding "nginx server" as an option either by replacing one or brand new.
And then from there swap out the kernel and firmware with the Trisquel 6 ones and re-create.
I also forgot to mention an option for those who use the netinstall. It would be nice if there was a "trisquel-server" meta package that can be installed that would get the base packages similar to the default base packages for Ubuntu Server.
The list of currently installed packages can be determined by running the following command:
dpkg -l|grep ^ii|cut -d' ' -f3
You can redirect the output to a file by adding >filename to the end of this line. You can also download the images' .manifest file (it's also included in the image itself, in casper/filesystem.manifest as far as I can remember) which also contain information about the respective package's version.
First post, and a word about my distros of choice.
Been mostly running Macs for ten years, and decided around Xmastime that it was time to start the transition to Linux. Because: libre software. I believe in it. Time to put my values into practice.
So in the past few months I've ISOburned about three dozen distros. Generally, the Ubuntu-based ones are prettier, easier, and more what I'm used to from Apple. However, when I get my pretty new Royal Penguin from Chris in a few weeks, it will NOT be running a distro with Canonical lineage.
Why not? Well, when you read deep (about Unity, about Dash, about Stallman's spyware comment, and most recently about the Mir fiasco), this is just not a corporate entity that I want anything to do with. They've even started moving away from using the word Linux (much less Gnu-Linux).
Compare that to Debian, a truly community-based distro with a mighty fine Social Contract running behind it.
Probably, I'll end up running Wheezy when it becomes the new Stable in a month or two. Apt-pinning, to get around the above-mentioned 'old software' issues.
But maybe SalineOS. Maybe SolydX or SolydK (the luscious new replacements for the dead Linux Mint Debian Editions XFCE and KDE). Maybe Chakra or Manjaro or Sabayon on the side, and almost certainly multibooting for a while until I end up rolling my own with Linux from Scratch or Reconstructor. Or maybe those Gnewsense people if they ever wake up and release version 3.
Trisquel is a work of art, aesthetically and politically. I love the people here--this is one of my favorite forums to read for fun. But--for me and me only--it doesn't make much sense to go to such great lengths to be a Libre Purist, and then base on a company that every time I turn around gives less and less of a shit about the basic freedoms we all embrace ... or even about its own community.
Just my noob two cents. Peace on you all.
I am a translator!
Use Fedora. They're backed by Red Hat, a company that actually still gives half a damn about "linux" and freedom, the primary Fedora has the GNOME 3 Shell interface which is somewhat similar to Unity/Mac (as pretty, and lighter to boot), and Fedora has a very strong policy of including only free software that is VERY similar to Debian's social contract (though they have made an exception for kernel binary blobs). Fedora, like Debian, is all about the upstream, and unlike Debian, they're also about bringing you the latest cutting edge software very soon after it gets released. On top of all this, Fedora is released on a roughly six month schedule, much like Ubuntu (but without a firm release date).
Use Fedora 18 and the result is win all around.
I will always shamelessly plug Fedora into these discussions, because I find it recommendable on so many levels.
kernelKurtz, I remember when my Ubuntu 7.10 mailed CD proudly advertised "Linux" heritage and Ubuntu being "software libre" that was ready to share and pass on. Those days are long gone. Marc Shuttleworth has big time Mac envy, has the scantest interest in good upstream practices and the whole rest of the FOSS community, and he's ready to spread all the FUD and hype that will get him that next little slice of media attention.
I still say: base on Debian testing branch, and merge with gNewSense. We need to distance ourselves from Canonical and its BS, but still recycle whatever components of theirs are essential for a good end-user experience. Ruben has a full two years to make that kind of plan work.
I appreciate the clearly experienced advice. Thanks Andrew, I'll have a closer look.
My Mac-transitioning strategy so far has basically been: download all the XFCEs, move the main Panel to the top edge (and draw in a few more freestyle), and then pack on a Docky/AWN/Cairo dock down below. Feels pretty right so far.
I should say that the Mac I'm transitioning from is ancient PPC/Tiger, so the Gnome 3/hypervisory thing isn't really that much of a draw in my book. But ... I'm still open and playing.
Sorry for all the O/T digressions. I'm not even sure that my experiences are that useful to the Trisquel devs--I'm atypical for a New User--but then again, I might not be all that unique, either. So factor all that in and do what you're gonna do, regardless, and in good spirits. : )
Trisquit,
If you decide to use Fedora, remember it is not a free distro
. You can remove the
nonfree bits yourself. You can replace linux with linux-Libre but you
will not be sure other packages are or recommend use of nonfree software.
If you want to learn how a distro is made, you can try Parabola.
Ututo is a distro that was the first libre distro and focuses on
concepts of usability and on-the-edge development.
It is the best to use a distribution
that does not attack its
community by not including or recommending non-free software because
that will enhance the importance of supporting developers that do
respect the user.
Of course you can use non-free software on any free distro but the
difference is that it will prioritize your freedom to anything else. On
other distros it is the other way around.
Gracias quiliro. I do think there's a pretty wide distinction between including and "recommending". The first seems felonious, I agree ... the second is more open to interpretation in my book. I know this makes me a less than perfect FS(F) partisan. I will take Gnash over Flash any day, for example, as long as it works ... though I do sin for convenience at other points.
But we all seem to be on the same page in general terms, fine detail aside ... no point in being here otherwise!
I will fold your suggestions into my research, and they're much appreciated. Thanks.
I am a translator!
You're on to something there .... e.g. does including WINE for running Windows apps inside GNU/Linux qualify as "recommending"? Well, that's a borderline case, since most but not ALL Windows apps are proprietary. Should we assume that the user will inevitably use it to run nonfree ones?
DuckDuckGo recommends non-free software to me all the time in its little ads. I ignore them, of course, but I still use it, because it's the best available tool for the job (general search with some privacy).
I'm a big boy. I know the risks and responsibilities of enabling a nonfree repo, and I'll do so with caution. I think Stallman's point about distros is aimed at the clueless masses, and it's a good point, in their regard.
So to return to the point: I feel marginally more free using Debian than I would running a son of Mark distro, so that's the way I'm leaning as I explore.
I am a translator!
I agree with you: if you consciously avoid the nonfree stuff that you get recommended, you're in the clear.
DuckDuckGo is great (mostly). I also recommend StartPage (https://startpage.com/) as a supplement to DuckDuckGo ... it also doesn't track you, and you can use it to also search for videos and images natively. You get Google results without Google BS.
DuckDuckGo certainly has more charm as a brand, though.
Another thing: you can disable DDG's ads entirely in the preferences, and that preference will be saved as a cookie. (Settings > Layout)
I also like Seeks as a decentralized/federated alternative. seeks.hsbp.org is my preferred node.
If you use Fedora, you should take a look at Freed-ora:
http://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/selibre/linux-libre/freed-ora.en.html
I am a translator!
Yeah Freed-ora is good (still not sure why Fedora Project didn't include it as an option, at least), but it does take some know-how to install it properly.
Since I started this flame war in the first place, I would like to state that, in my opinion, the current (and even future) Ubuntu base does not make Trisquel less free. Trisquel's developers do a wonderful job at including and proposing freedom-respecting software/fonts only. I entirely trust them.
My point was more a strategic one: it looks harder to clean Ubuntu than Debian and it will get harder and harder as Ubuntu is moving away from the free software projects most distributions use or will use (systemd, GNOME Shell, Wayland). At some point, Ubuntu may drop those more common (and, apparently, technically better) components because their Ubuntu's projects become incompatible with them. I would not like to see Trisquel forced to use technically worse software.
Given the recent news (inclusion of a spyware feature in Ubuntu's dash, encouragement of proprietary software development for Ubuntu's Software Center, less and less mentions of the free software ideals, etc.), there is even a risk that some Canonical's projects turn proprietary. I am sure that, in this case, Trisquel will not include them and, maybe, change its base (probably back to Debian).
In my opinion, the main advantage of being based on Ubuntu is the availability of a new version every six months. Now that this advantage vanished, I do not see any significant reason not to go back to Debian. When a new version of Debian GNU/Linux is released, its software is not much more outdated than that in an Ubuntu LTS. For instance, the next Debian (to be released in a few months) will include Linux 3.2, GIMP 2.8, GNOME Shell 3.4, LibreOffice 3.5, etc. Besides, backports are provided. I would also argue that Debian stable is more stable than Ubuntu LTS, which is based on Debian testing. In my opinion, that remains true for a desktop usage.
As for other GNU/Linux distributions, their default kernel is not Libre (as far as I understand, Debian's is if proprietary firwmare is not installed) and proprietary software is usually mixed with free software in the repositories. That is why, if Trisquel would not exist, I would use Debian GNU/Linux. Fedora does not include proprietary software but that in the Linux kernel. As it was said, Linux-libre can substitute it. Fedora's official repository rejects patent-encumbered free software such as free software codecs for popular formats like MP3 or MP4 (Trisquel includes them in the default system). The repository usually enabled to enable the non-free section of the unofficial RPM Fusion repository (if I am wrong, please tell it). As a consequence, either the user does not play popular formats (again: with free codecs) or, like with most GNU/Linux distributions, she has to carefully pick from a list of packages those that, she believe/hope, do not attack her freedom.
There has been a lot of negativity in the software community towards Canonical recently after they announced the development of the Mir display server. The Wayland camp got pissed, but the reality is that Wayland has been dragging their feet for years and is still pretty much unusable for even the most basic tasks. If it wasn't for for Canonical talking about Wayland a few years ago, nobody would really know what Wayland is.
People are pissing and moaning about Mir, but it will be released under the GPLv3. Get over it Wayland fanbois.
Unity Next should be interesting too as it moves Unity to QT5. I believe this will be under a GPL license like Mir. The Compiz developer threw a hissy and left after that announcement. Oh well.. Compiz was a resource hog and overrated anyways. I also read that he was the only person working on Compiz and Ubuntu was the only major distribution that was using it and keeping the development going. Bye bye Compiz.
Canonical is still supporting 12.04 for 4 more years and Trisquel 6 is safe for now. Maybe re-evaluation of the code base should happen in a year when 14.04 comes out. If the Ubuntu base is still where you want to go a year for now, then go for it. If its Debian, then God save your souls in maintaining it.
I am a translator!
The point is, since Wayland is dragging its feet (given that it has so damn much on its plate, to be an X replacement), the best practice would have been to contribute upstream to the Wayland project. They certainly have the people and resources to turn that project around. That would have set the entire GNU/Linux world on the right track, and everyone would be on the same page. Instead, they insist on going their own way as usual. But at least Mir is GPLv3. That's the silver lining. Who knows, maybe Mir WILL become the standard in a few years, and Wayland will be scrapped.
And Unity is already getting rewritten for the umpteenth time. I maintain that there was no reason for Ubuntu not to simply have a customized GNOME 3 Shell. The two are similar enough, and Shell did come first: http://www.happyassassin.net/2013/03/11/dear-mark-shuttleworth-please-tell-the-truth/
Agreed. This is the same thing I thought about some days ago while testing Toutatis, but my conclusion is that we need a free Ubuntu-based derivate, while gNewSense should focus on Debian (and release a damn release already).
I am a member!
I don't think Canonical is going to start developing non-free software. There are things I'd have done differently though were I in charge. Some of the mistakes are repeats and anybody with sense and knowledge of the history of commercial distributions shouldn't have made. In any case. There bigger issue is probably a financial one rather than an ethical one. Most of the software is free. It would be easy enough to fix the ethical problems if the company focused on them.
I think Ubuntu's a bit more tweaked for desktop usage than Debian. I'd be weary of moving Trisquel to a Debian base right now. Maybe in 3 years though. I think at that point Canonical/Ubuntu will have fizzled. This could be really bad or it could be really good. It all depends on how things play out. It may be better for us if they do 'figure it out' financially. The company does contribute substantially to the free software ecosystem.
I am a member!
I'm also going to add one more comment. It is easy to criticize Canonical for what they have done wrong. However it is a good thing that companies and developers are taking risks. It would be better if there was less copying going on for changes that were unproven though.
What we need is a combination of risk takers (It is fair to say Canonical has been doing that) and stability (Trisquel's new model). One without the other is also bad. Somebody has to develop new tools, refine them, etc before they can be deployed for the masses.
Somebody has to push out theoretical improvements and take risks of a backlash. While Unity was a bad idea it took someone time to develop it, test it, and realize this. On paper I'm sure it seemed like a great idea. I think there are some features/elements which are better. Had they been implemented slightly different they might even work great. There are some aspects of it that are better than Gnome 2. For example it is much harder for novice users to muck things up.
With Gnome 2 for instance we found 90% (extreme exaggeration) of novice users would delete there toolbars and be unable to get them back. When 99% (again, exaggeration) of users leave things as is the adaptability features are just creating problems. Lets lock those features down just a bit.
I am a translator!
True enough, a risk-taker like Canonical, with the larger world more concerned about standards and stability, could give us all some "hybrid vigor".
But I maintain that GNOME 3 Shell >= Unity. Many/most of the things that are good about Unity apply to GNOME 3 also.
I'm not saying Burn The Witch. I'm not even sure I'm criticizing, though RMS basically did both WRT Canonical in December. Quote:
"please remove Ubuntu from the distros you recommend or redistribute ... tell people that Ubuntu is shunned for spying."
On balance, it probably IS a good thing, for all of us, that MarkyMark poured his money and effort into distro(s), instead of land mines or a better floor wax, and that he continues to take risks. Even his fanbois are not very bothersome, compared to Apple's ...
I'm just trying to pick tools that match my needs, values, politics, and aesthetics. And I think there are better tools out there, on those criteria, in my unique use case.
I am a member!
I think the numbers suggest this as well. Linux Mint gained significantly from Ubuntu's move to Unity. Those who stayed were likely people who had a stake (psychological or otherwise). It is up for debate which distribution is leading statistically. I think if we counted the numbers Linux Mint wins by a long shot.
I think Trisquel actually has a larger user base than most people realize. While our numbers at ThinkPenguin may not accurately reflect the general distribution spectrum due selective advertising, etc if you compared it to say Linux Mint Trisquel holds up well. Both I'd say are equally well promoting ThinkPenguin. It certainly wouldn't fall at the bottom of the numbers game in our book.
If there was a distribution to drop for financial reasons (ie it wasn't bringing in enough money) it would certainly not be Trisquel.
Mint has prided itself on taking the Ubuntu refugees by rejecting Unity in favor of MATE/Cinnamon and recently saying they are staying with X around the Mir announcement.
Mint 9 was my first time trying out GNU/Linux and it had its benefits at the time. I never did like their custom update manager as it would exclude kernel updates and wasn't built to allow distribution updates. They said it was for safety, but the Ubuntu update manager was better implemented.
I wouldn't say the Mint developers "pride" themselves in people switching from Ubuntu to Mint, at least not openly. Some people made posts around the lines of "Ubuntu sucks, I switched to Mint" and Clem came out in defense of Ubuntu, asserting that they did not oppose Ubuntu (something about their only possible enemy being Microsoft).
They do want users to move from Ubuntu to Mint because that is potential revenue for them. More users that donate or use their web browser with their affiliate search engines is more money. Mint gaining popularity also increases the chances of corporate sponsors joining them.
I am a member!
I have talked to Clem personally about various financial aspects a number of time and he has always been very adamant about keeping a distance from corporate interests. Yes- they want to see the user base grow. Everybody wants to see that. Unfortunately reporters, bloggers, and people like yourself make up sensationalist statements like this. Nothing the project has done backs up your assumptions. If there going to take market share they want to take it from Microsoft/Apple. Ubuntu is more like icing on the cake. It does not help. It does not hurt.
The users of Ubuntu are the ones doing the expressing. Reporters and others are making statements that are in this case largely true about people moving to Linux Mint from Ubuntu. It has mainly been the result of Unity. Though there have been other issues which are also involved.
Isn't corporate sponsorship the end goal for a lot of projects? Mozilla's sugar daddy is Google. The Python foundation has sponsorship from Google, Lucasfilm, and even Microsoft. The Linux foundation, for which you all rely on the kernel so much, has the big guns like IBM, Intel, Oracle, Samsung, AMD, Google, Panasonic, and Adobe to name a few.
I am a translator!
Chris,
I think you're on to something, Mint is way ahead of everything else on DistroWatch right now.