cancelled my UbuntuForums account

[NickStone]

I have finally had my account with Ubuntu Forums disabled. The reason is that I had read recently that the next version of Ubuntu (13.04) was to be developed (part) in secret. This I believe goes against everything that Open Source stands for, and I no longer like where Canonical is heading.

I will no longer install another version of Ubuntu unless Canonical changes its ways.

[whatthefunk]

Yeah I just read about that. No alpha releases and only one beta?? I bet its going to be buggy as hell.... I read a while back that they are doing this to shock and awe upon release date. I wonder what they have up their sleeves and I wonder if anybody is going to be impressed when their new features are filled with bugs.

However, Ubuntu Forums are a lot like Kubuntu Forums, they are not connected to Canonical in any way so cancelling your membership there isnt really doing much.

[james147]

Does that include kubuntu since they are based off the same system? And so parts of it might be developed in secret along with ubuntu (though I bet it is only the UI stuff that they are developing in secret so there wont be much to worry about in kubuntu).

Personally I don't have a major problem with it as long as they open it up soon after they release it. It can be hard for new large project to gain a sense of direction if they are completely open from the start, so a closed start can help focus their initial development efforts to what the creator wants... as long as it is opened up after release.

Given this I don't see it as a "Conical are becoming closed" but more "Conical want to focus their development", but what they are truly doing can only be seen after they have finished and what they do then I will reserve my full judgement until then.

[james147]

Yeah I just read about that. No alpha releases and only one beta?? I bet its going to be buggy as hell.... I read a while back that they are doing this to shock and awe upon release date. I wonder what they have up their sleeves and I wonder if anybody is going to be impressed when their new features are filled with bugs.

However, Ubuntu Forums are a lot like Kubuntu Forums, they are not connected to Canonical in any way so cancelling your membership there isnt really doing much.

O wait, they are not just developing new software for it but the entire alpha release is going to be done in secret?

Not entirely sure how they can do this as they have so many volunteer developers that add to the system through that point...

That has me slightly more worried for kubuntu.

(My previous post was under the assumption that they there developing new software in secret not the entire system)

[Snowhog]

However, Ubuntu Forums are a lot like Kubuntu Forums, they are not connected to Canonical in any way so cancelling your membership there isnt really doing much.

Not so. Canonical is the sole owner of Ubuntu Forums.

Ubuntu Forums History:
The Ubuntu Forums were created by Ryan Troy (ubuntu-geek) in October 2004. The forums became a popular resource for Ubuntu and were deemed the Official Ubuntu Forums in November 2004. The forums hosting continued to be maintained and paid for by Ryan until March 2006, when Canonical graciously offered hosting for the forums. In June of 2007 the forums domain, license and assets were transfered to Canonical who is now the sole owner of the forums.

[vw72]

I have finally had my account with Ubuntu Forums disabled. The reason is that I had read recently that the next version of Ubuntu (13.04) was to be developed (part) in secret. This I believe goes against everything that Open Source stands for, and I no longer like where Canonical is heading.

I will no longer install another version of Ubuntu unless Canonical changes its ways.

I hope you change your mind. There are a lot of articles online refuting the developing in secret and how a few sites used that to garner page hits. In reality, Shuttleworth was trying to attract new developers to the project and the only requirement was that since they would be given some insider information they would need to keep it secret. That doesn't seem to unreasonable. As for the removal of the alpha and beta builds, that is because they are releasing the daily builds and it was thought that the artificial alpha and beta releases were keeping some updates out because of freezes that had to be imposed.

Once all of the FUD from those few sites that were spreading it had settled down, most people were in favor of what Ubuntu was doing, even though they (Ubuntu) didn't articulate it very well.

I do agree, though, that I am concerned with Canonical's direction, but that is not because of the things you mention.

[luckyone]

A resource, is a resource, is a resource. But I too am somewhat worried about this direction Canonical is taking. But I suspect if a Beta is the first thing that people 'see' it will not be a lot more buggy than previous Beta versions.

As for the whole 'shock and awe' thing, it appears to be an attempt to increase interest. After all they lost a lot of folks with the recent interface change. And let's face it, the direction that Gnome 3 is going is the main reason.

[SteveRiley]

*Ahem* more armchair quarterbacking

Nicholas Skaggs, Canonical's QA community coordinator, explains the changes. As I was in the room at UDS during the release cycle discussions, I can assure you that there's no desire to "do stuff in secret." In reality, there's nothing particularly special about the alpha and beta milestone releases. During each development cycle, an automated process creates daily ISOs. So on whatever day a milestone was due to be declared, that day's ISO received the moniker.

The QA team had come to realize that milestones were more interesting to people who report the development of Ubuntu than anything else. "Oh look, it's an alpha, it must be worthy of writing an article!" J. Random User would install alpha 1, use it for two weeks, and file a bug. Well, the bug got fixed in the daily build three days after alpha 1, but J. Random User doesn't dist-upgrade, so his bug report is superfluous, creates a distraction, and interrupts the work cadence.

In fact, a milestone was never a point toward which developers were striving; it was simply that day's ISO, and nothing more. Everyone in the room at UDS agreed that eliminating the milestones also gives developers more flexibility to for conducting testing and getting fixes into their code.

BTW, this is all publicly documented in the Raring release schedule blueprint. It's an entirely sensible approach.

[luckyone]

I've never thought that a general release of Alpha quality software was a good idea. Maybe Canonical will set a new standard in DE-dom.
Overall they have done a tremendous job so far. And even though I've never particularly liked anything but KDE I'm prepared to be impressed. Perhaps I will be.

[NickStone]

From the horses mouth (so to speak)...

...but we will need to trust you not to talk in your sleep...

The full message here http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1200

[SteveRiley]

Indeed, hardly "secret" at all:

While we won’t talk about them until we think they are ready to celebrate, we’re happy to engage with contributing community members that have established credibility (membership, or close to it) in Ubuntu, who want to be part of the action.

Furthermore, Mark explains he's actually opening up what used to be internal Canonical-only processes:

The process is becoming more open, not less. There are always things people work on in private and land before feature freeze. I’m inviting trusted members of the community to participate in some of the things *we* do that way. The rest is unchanged.

[kubicle]

Well...I've been running raring since quantal was released, and the repos are quite open...so it's not like the the whole development is under a blanket.

Canonical have always been a bit secretive about their in-house development, often dropping controversial changes in to the repos just before the release freeze. This change might actually open up the in-house development a bit...which is a good thing.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer fully open development...but Canonical is Canonical.

Anyway, it shouldn't affect kubuntu users much, Canonical doesn't do that much upstream development aside from Unity.

[whatthefunk]

Not so. Canonical is the sole owner of Ubuntu Forums.

Didnt know that! Thanks for the info.

[Jonas]

*Ahem* more armchair quarterbacking

Nicholas Skaggs, Canonical's QA community coordinator, explains the changes. As I was in the room at UDS during the release cycle discussions, I can assure you that there's no desire to "do stuff in secret." In reality, there's nothing particularly special about the alpha and beta milestone releases. During each development cycle, an automated process creates daily ISOs. So on whatever day a milestone was due to be declared, that day's ISO received the moniker.

The QA team had come to realize that milestones were more interesting to people who report the development of Ubuntu than anything else. "Oh look, it's an alpha, it must be worthy of writing an article!" J. Random User would install alpha 1, use it for two weeks, and file a bug. Well, the bug got fixed in the daily build three days after alpha 1, but J. Random User doesn't dist-upgrade, so his bug report is superfluous, creates a distraction, and interrupts the work cadence.

In fact, a milestone was never a point toward which developers were striving; it was simply that day's ISO, and nothing more. Everyone in the room at UDS agreed that eliminating the milestones also gives developers more flexibility to for conducting testing and getting fixes into their code.

BTW, this is all publicly documented in the Raring release schedule blueprint. It's an entirely sensible approach.

Thanks for clearing that up Steve. It doesn't sound half as bad when it's not "brushed" by the media.

I would agree that this is the time to release a "wow-feature". Ubuntu is the competitor to "the elephant & the dinosaur", in the eyes of the public. While the two big, at time being, their media focus (ofc angled aswell) is on a confusing and poorly executed Metro, or is it Modern(?) interface and the other is all about "fund raising" through the legal system.

I just hope that this "wow thing" isn't all blown up (and possibly backfire?), too often these things are so awesome for the developers but it's hard for the users to grasp this awesomeness.

I hope this feature doesn't have to do with that they're creating a new icon theme.

b.r

Jonas

PS; It feels good to be on a free autonomous forum

[GreyGeek]

My first Kubuntu was the Alpha release of 9.04. I chose it deliberately so that could help with the bug reports, input suggestions on app design, and get a feel for where the problems were so I could help on this forum. I switched to every release since, including my current one - 12.04 - at its Alpha stage for the same reasons. However, I am staying with 12.04 till its EOL, so I won't be doing any more Alpha or Beta testing till 2017.

My experience with Alpha releases is that they have, on the whole, been quite usable and stable, with intermittent problems with specific apps, none of which were show stoppers. Of course, depending on your skill and your hardware, you millage may vary.

Like Steve, I noticed a lot of negative articles about Kubuntu were written using an Alpha. The complaints that usually came with the article didn't stay with that Alpha but were mirrored around the web. A few SKILLED Alpha/Beta testers are worth a lot more than a collection of Joe and Sally Sixpack users who do not understand nor appreciate the development process.

It times pass the mantra of Linux was "release early, release often". That was a fine approach in its day, when Linux was used mainly by technically literate and appreciative folks, but today the LiveCD has given just about anyone the ability to install Kubuntu, Alpha, Beta or whatever. But, not everyone is qualified to speak coherently to the problems of an Alpha or Beta release.

And, dare I say it, there are those rascals who use the problems of an Alpha or Beta to misinform or FUD the less technically blessed among us and the world.

So, it wouldn't bother me in the least that Canonical decided to NOT release daily LiveCD ISOs or even to give the public access to them, if they so choose, especially if that public were inclined, against all advice, to run mission critical apps on them and then complain when they had problems. ("Oh noooesss, I lost my accounting books will running Kubuntu xx.yy Alpha!!! Kubuntu is crap!")