After version 6, Trisquel is moving to LTS only releases.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
I am a member!
Yes- it has been for years. The question is more along the lines of how well does distrowatch accurately reflect the overall distribution spectrum. It has been stated many of times by many of people the methods used to track distributions are imperfect. I think they even state this on the site somewhere. It is more of a gimmick than anything else. It probably does reflect reality to some extent. We know for instance Trisquel does not have the user base that Linux Mint or Ubuntu have. How big is that difference really though?
Ubuntu had and still retains a significant user base. It is nowhere near what it once was though. I don't want to speculate just how big of a drop it was. I'm confident that it was a substantial drop in any event.
I am a translator!
I think Ubuntu's drop in popularity has something to do with the fact that a hundred other distributions are now pretty good for novice-level daily desktop use ... Ubuntu no longer particularly stands out in that department, even if it was a global leader a few years ago ("try Ubuntu first" was very sound advice). In a few years, Debian's userfriendliness might be where Ubuntu's is now. The days of GNU/Linux being a luxury of the super computer-literate are long past.
Most people who use Ubuntu are probably not aware that there is any skirmish around something called Mir vs something called Wayland. That's an opinionated fringe.
Shuttleworth knows this stuff better than anyone, and the porting of Steam to Ubuntu was a very strategic move. If Ubuntu can't be the user-friendliest distro in spades anymore, it can still be the one that answers the age-old objection that "Linux sucks for gamers" ... for now.
I am a member!
I'd be curious how much of that was actually Shuttleworth / Canonical's move and how much of that was Valve. Canonical has been positioning itself it seems to take on these kinds of 'jobs'. Given the amounts they are charging it actually seems like the only logical market. It has the engineering expertise that a company like Valve would need to jump into the gaming device arena. We already know Valve is putting out such a device and Ubuntu has the user base to test with. Combine the two and it seems like a good fit.
I would have thought though if there was really significant money here that other commercial distributions would have been successful already. Other companies have gotten similar types of deals. It's a small world and I know some of the people who worked for past distributors. There working at Canonical now. In any case these other distributors (now gone) attempted to ink similar deals (and did). All failed ultimately.
I'd prefer Trisquel release a solid LTS based distribution than trying to catch up with Canonical.
In the end we love Trisquel for what it is. The best GNU/Linux distribution available and I honestly think making it based off of LTS and releasing some security updates as well as other fixes during a 2 year cycle is a great idea.
(edit: previewing a comment seems to break the reply chain)
t3g wrote:
"Isn't corporate sponsorship the end goal for a lot of projects? "
"A lot"? I suppose ...
Definitely not all.
http://www.debian.org/social_contract
As for your kernel example, I'd say: you can have (corporate) money flowing around you in a number of different ways without profit being your End Goal. Conversely, you can have people dressed up like noble monks who turn out to really be ("end goal") about the cash. (Walk through downtown Sedona or Santa Fe!)
If someone claims to be about selflessness and freedom, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, until they prove themselves otherwise. But once they do, I'll judge them more harshly than I would someone who starts out an unabashed whore.
Because hypocrisy hurts the commons by breaking people's impulse to trust.
So if Linus Torvalds is the leader of the Linux kernel and the Foundation is his primary income now so he can continue with the development, what does your comment say about him and his intentions?
In and of itself, it says nothing.
Having a monetized interest in something is not de facto evidence of corrupt intent.
Whether you're a professional actor or a professor or a lawyer or a priest, you will have colleagues who are motivated purely by greed, colleagues who are paragons of morality and yet making a living, and, mostly, colleagues who are a mix of the two.
I suppose there are even well-intenioned and honorable politicians--actual public servants-- though that's an endangered species.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires