It is not easy to write an article about Miguel de Icaza and his words, that do not make feelings sprout. What I can do is show you what happened recently in a google + chat.
First Sriram Ramakrishna He posts on his profile the link to Miguel de Icaza's post about "The death of the desk". Before mentioning what comes next, there is a paragraph that points out muktware:
“Linux, despite being a low-level kernel guy, set the tone for the community years ago when it rejected binary support for device drivers. The kernel folks will have some valid reasons for that, and they will have forced the industry to play by their rules, but the desktop folks didn't have the power that the kernel folks did. But we did keep the attitude. "
The first response to Sriram's post is from Alan cox:
"The second dimension to the problem is that no two Linux distributions have agreed on which core system components to use."
That made me laugh. There was once KDE and Miguel then came and created the confusion he is ranting. It was also a key factor in forcing CORBA to swallow people who back then had to be slowly pulled out of the resulting disaster that ruined Gnome 2.x and took up enormous development times.
He is right that Gnome breaks with compatibility not only with applications but with the UI, the configuration (which is still worse now than in Gnome 1.x!), And so on.
However, it is not a disease of Open Source but of certain projects like the Gnome disease - my 3.6rc kernel still runs a Rogue binary compiled in 1992. X is compatible with applications that are older than Linux.
On his anger with the audio I blame Lennart Poettering (creator of PulseAudio) 8) - the kernel audio has not broken compatibility, it even has OSS compatibility layers of the principles of audio support in Linux. In fact blaming Pulseaudio is bad too (but it's fun to blame Lennart and that's what it exists for) - it has compatibility stuff designed to run old apps 8)
Gnome is not a desktop anyway - it is a research project.
The second answer comes from Linus Torvalds:
Gnome people saying that yo I marked the "attitude" that caused the problems is hilarious.
One of the key kernel rules was always that You are never you have to break external interfaces. That rule has been in place from day one, although it has become more explicit only in recent years. The fact that we break interfaces internal that are not visible to the user is totally irrelevant, a red herring.
Desire that the gnome people have understood the true rules inside the kernel. Like "never break external interfaces" - and "we need to do it to improve things" is not an excuse.
Or the "different users have different needs." The kernel was - and is - happy to support both machines with thousands of SGI-style CPUs and vendors embedded with cell phones and routers. The fact that they have different needs is . obvious.
I personally think one reason why the Linux kernel has been so successful is the fact that I didn't have a big vision of where I wanted to force people to go. Sure, I wanted "unix", and there are several very high-level concepts that go with that (fork, exec, files etc), but I didn't want to force a particular point of view out of that very generic pattern.
In fact, Linux has done what I envisioned in 1991 when I first released it. All subsequent development was driven by outside ideas of what other people needed or wanted to do. Not because of some internal vision of where things "should" go.
That's the exact opposite of the "we know best" mentality, and the "We'll make you swallow Corba / .NET by force whether you like it or not, and if you complain, you're going against progress, and you can't change it" by gnome .
Some in gnome seem to be totally denying what their problem is. They would blame everyone except them. This article seems to be a perfect example of this.
And the third answer comes from Miguel de Icaza:
Linus, my involvement with Gnome ended 5 years ago, and I merely stayed on the periphery because I used Gnome as a user and we were building C # programs that used the Gnome libraries. So it's unfair to Gnome people adding my position to their project. I haven't talked to them in a long time, and I have no idea if any of them agree with me.
Even though you have a strict policy for kernel binary interfaces, which is commendable, and I praise that post of yours where you put that case in a mailing list, my opinion is that the attitude of the kernel developers influenced the way the community FOSS builds software.
There have been whole talks and hectic debates on the question of binary drivers and why you consider it fair game to break those interfaces. The problem is not whether you were right or not, but the prevailing mood was "we don't keep the garbage."
You have a strong personality, and the same many people around you and your strong personality, whether you like it or not, influenced people's attitudes.
An example of this was the humor in the kernel lists (which I remember is from 1999-2000). My part is that you are bright, intelligent and funny, and you can also be mean and severe. Many tried to imitate you, but they were neither bright, intelligent nor funny. And they got mean and harsh and that attitude spread on the mailing lists.
So the message most heard was that we did the right thing, even if we broke software. And they did.
From APIs, to printing subsystems, to audio systems, startup daemons, to bus systems, all those slight changes to the stack caused problems for independent third-party software vendors who want to support the Linux desktop.
Supporting the Linux desktop for proprietary software developers is very expensive and the market is small and deeply fragmented.
About Gnome, personally, I'd like to see a few changes made, and I agree with some of your complaints about Gnome Shell. But they haven't bothered me as much as you.
You're going around the bush, and I want to assure you that no one is going to force anyone to swallow anything.
About CORBA, both the KDE folks and we, out of our naivety, embraced it to solve a series of problems that we thought we would have, and that in the end we didn't. Feel free to lash out at me for defending my poor choices at the time. The smartest ones prevailed and CORBA went out the window. What can I say, I was young, and the KDE ones too. In both cases, the bug was fixed, and there is no CORBA for you to suffer.
You don't have to worry about .NET either. Mono is not part of Gnome, and no Gnome app uses it, so you're safe.
Alan (Cox, answering the first answer), I love you too.
I'm surprised you don't remember that you were involved in launching Gnome, that you encouraged us to develop Gnome on LinuxNet, that you had a problem with the Qt license just like we did, that you contributed to Gnome, and that you even participated in the first Gnome meeting. Gnome in the pre-IPO Red Hat.
And I'm tired of translating: I'll leave the post to see the original comments and many more
https://plus.google.com/115250422803614415116/posts/hMT5kW8LKJk
Bonus track: An entertaining moment for you
More of the same, gossip and more gossip, gossip and "shivering." Because a person comments or makes public his way of seeing things we do not have to worry. Miguel, as he clearly says, this entry no longer has anything to do with GNOME or Linux, let him continue in his projects and say what he says, totally, that will not kill GNOME or Linux.
Today I read an article from a very interesting blog. Talking about developing an application installer that can work on all distros, the author said that this is key for the future of linux and commercial application support.
It also talks about how linux has evolved since it began to develop the application.
I found it very interesting, and in a way related to the death of the desktop in Linux, since things have changed for the better, and if there is hope, here is the link (it is in English)
http://blog.tenstral.net/2012/09/listaller-project-to-infinity-and-beyond.html
hehehe, funny the videoO!
Regarding the answers, we can see that the debate continues, with respect to the comments, the truth is that I do not know where this matter is going to end, what if I know that Gnome may continue on his way without Icaza, since he like The user has his tastes just like each of us and if he liked C # .NET and migrating to MAC, good for him, everyone is free to choose the tools according to our needs!
Regards!
Apart from all the puterio (gossip) I think it is good that they discuss and take those clothes out in the sun. Linus bitch at nvidia and now they are giving better support. Who knows, maybe this helps things improve. Maybe the gnome people get the hang of it (although I understand that the problem is the redhat people who put the money in and they don't want the ubuntu people to have a say in the decisions)
I read the whole article and the truth when this debate began I did not agree with Miguel de Icaza, but this paragraph caught my attention:
And I think that this analogy is transferred to many GNU / Linux users who participate in some forums or irc …… just this phrase seemed correct to me
This other one was also interesting to me, here it recognizes mistakes, we all make mistakes, but how many of us admit it?
From the first date, I only know that Miguel de Icaza is very influential for what interests him. In the end the fault will be Linus Tolvards.
As for the second, he acknowledges past mistakes but doesn't realize that he keeps stumbling over the same stones over and over again. The center of the universe is believed.
…. »However, it is not a disease of Open Source but of certain projects like the Gnome disease - my 3.6rc kernel still runs a Rogue binary compiled in 1992. X is compatible with applications that are older than Linux.»
Then he says, "Gnome isn't a desktop anyway - it's a research project."
I have not stopped laughing with after reading these parafos hehehe
Just Wao ...
I can't hold the price and I went straight to Google+ and puffffffffffffffffff there are like 100 comments xD ahahaha
Alan Cox says:
Gnome isn't really a desktop anyway - it's a research project.
🙂 🙂
What do words matter?
they're only words
I just hope that things improve, listen to the opinion of the users and everyone pulls for the same side.
For the benefit of linux
As they are doing with systemd all united, well that's what I understood in the gespada article (http://gespadas.com/archlinux-systemd)
Linus always his statements are very forceful 😀 Stallman the statements are strong and makes many take it as an imposition but he is always right (although nothing looks here). Alan cox's are interesting 😀 now Miguel's I don't understand them at this point. I did not know the term red herring 😀
I was in this thread.
I really didn't see you there.
I'll install GNOME to see how bad or good it is. I have been using Lxde for years. But for many Linux users the desktop is still alive with a great variety and being able to choose the one that best suits our needs. In this case, if the desktop dies in Linux, we can still view web pages, listen to music, program and manage devices all by terminal.
I applaud Alan Cox's last sentence, paraphrasing: "Gnome is a research project." I've never seen it like this, but now, it clears up many of the doubts I had about Gnome 3… hehe. after all, I don't see them so lost anymore.
gnome is not the only linux desktop interface, what they say is dead seems stupid to me because there are plenty of environments in linux openbox, fluxbox, e17, kde, lxde and a long etc ... the good thing that one can adapt them as one wants that is what gnome 3 lacks with unity it is true the interface of the latter is good for a netbook but for desktop it is somewhat crude.
With so much Gnome3 shit I am using Xfce + Compiz, and if things continue like this I will end up frustrated with GNU / Linux and go to the dark side hahahahaha I say to OpenBSD, that speaking seriously I think it is better than GNU / Linux but the only The downside that he has with me is the "BSD" license. I don't like that kind of license.
I try to be as faithful as possible to the GPL 🙂
In all these statements, I only see memory and coherence in Icaza. Linus and Cox seem like they were the ones who walked away from Linux and not Icaza (who was the one who somehow did it).
Greetings.
And the truth is that who knows if they did it a while ago too and only keep up appearances (because Linux would get tremendous publicity if not even their parents want it), at least Linus has been running a Mac for a long time, of course he He says he installed a distro for him and people believe him, but who knows what is actually on his machine.
I think my answer is going to sound out of tune, but everything has its reason.
Alan Cox's response couldn't be more disappointing, crude and rude; that although it is highly applauded because he said the insult that many "wanted to hear" and that what many wanted to be avenged (to Linux) come, it does not change that what was not a sad and fallacious "and you more" was directly a gratuitous and rude insult. Free for attacking something that was not relevant and because in the same way a similar offense could be made against Linux (kernel) and it would be just as "valid"; Let's see what would happen if someone said for example "Linux is not an Operating System, it is an attempt at a kernel in constant beta made by volunteer amateurs and by a team incapable of doing things by themselves", "Linux is an eternal promise in perpetual failure that in 20 years has not fulfilled nor has they come one step closer to the much desired conquest of the desktop, which now they have no choice but to pretend and say that they really 'never proposed it' as we have no memory "," Linux is an incomplete system that for no one can be alternative except for geeks and programmers with difficulty or to do nonsense like browsing and little else, since it lacks real applications except for attempts at substitutes that do not come to compare to professional and useful options »,« Linux is only successful on servers and is because it is the cheapest and most accessible thing there is to run Apache », some more said than others, some more certain than others, some more gratuitous than others, but surely more than one is outraged and they seem unfair at least and others even make them foam at the mouth, since in the world Linux can say anything against whoever it is (even if it is about another project equal to or more open and free than the kernel) and it can go unpunished, they can even applaud you, but something against Linux (kernel) is "unforgivable"; and with the latter I get to why Alan Cox's response was rude and reprehensible, because if his asshole hurt because they said that Linux failed on the Desktop, he didn't have to come and insult a "Friend Project", a Project that makes him the I work for Linux and it fills one of the many gaps that Linux has since it by itself is useless for practically nothing, if it weren't for things like GNOME and many others "work" to create a decent ecosystem around its kernel without ask for anything in return Linux would not be more than a hundredth of what little it is now; what if they "know so much" as if to disqualify others and be ungrateful to whoever helps them to demonstrate it by doing things themselves instead of just making a kernel (and they do that with the help of half the planet), which is already the day they make an Operating System complete and thus they will no longer be able to blame others and in this way they will be able to compare themselves on equal terms against MS and Apple that they did carve out their complete system and on their own. They cannot argue that they do not have resources because they should be more humble, that they are not, and incidentally because they have the help of thousands of volunteers to whom they do not have to pay or salary and because they are supposed to have in favor of the «super miraculous model of the Bazaar »that although I know it is a fallacy they sell it as the end of the story.
What I am now when someone says something against Linux I will think that they deserve it, because those kernel people are of the worst kind and very bad that they have no qualms when it comes to unfairly attacking their "own side" Why should they be defended if they let the rest die, sorry, they do die! to the rest? because those insults against linux do not have no different from those of these people against their "own side."
From Torvalds's answer as fallacious as usual, a full-fledged adhominem and to top it off so wrong that he got a barbarian FAIL.
But in short, in one way or another they both cover their eyes, both to say "it was your fault and we are fine" and to say "but if Linux lives a wonder, do not tell me the opposite that I am fine with my reality, lalalalala I hear nothing".
Another thing is that it is true, although now they are being crazy, it is that from the OpenSource the paradigm was sold that things had to be done "by and for the code", "for the efficiency and excellence" of the code. Now, with these premises, isn't it natural that if you have to change something because now it will be better, more efficient and excellent, it should be done? It is an obligation to do so !! and this is just one of the many implications that these premises have (the one said by Icaza could be another); of course, 20 years later when you have to pick up the glasses Torvalds and company can be crazy and known and say "we never said that", "we always knew how to do things", of course after the war everyone is general and everyone they know what was correct, Icaza at least says "we were wrong", the others are so cynical that they say "but we always knew and told them." But hey, whoever has memory to use it, they can't say no because they got tired of preaching those ideas enough and that is because those ideas are the pillars of Open Source and without it they would be left without their premises and with nothing. But we already see that in this world if there isn't something they are expensive.
Icaza failed to mention among the reasons for failure that lack of maturity and courage for self-criticism, that abundance of self-deception and, of course, the bad attitude towards others.
Miguel de Icaza: you have it inside !!!
Anyway, Linux is a failure, although perhaps not because of Linux itself, or anyone related to the Linux world. I already had enough, after 4 years of using it. The finishing touch was given to me by the "mysterious" deletion of various university files in Ubuntu. Maybe Icaza is right and Linux is nothing more than a cloud of smoke.