continue.............
"The Linux graphics stack enablement isn't great," Shuttleworth said. "There are a lot of devices where [Unity] is not an appropriate choice. So we've been working on a 2D version of Unity, which preserves all the same semantics and behaviors, but it's visually less intense."
While Shuttleworth said Canonical's user testing shows Unity is easier to use than GNOME 3, he acknowledged there are aspects of the new menu and search systems that "are slightly awkward to use."
"I look at the comments that come in from my blog as one indicator and there are absolutely folks who both hate it and love it," Shuttleworth said. "Someone commented the other day saying we should rename it 'Exodus,'" because it will cause people to switch to another Linux OS.
Linux code controversies"We'll clean all that up in the next cycle," he said. "I think this next release will feel much tighter. We have a very large user base, so we're pretty confident that the issues we need to address are documented."
While Canonical has been criticized for not contributing more code to Linux and GNOME, Shuttleworth defended the company's level of contribution both to the code base and to the mission of making Linux usable for the masses.
"We get painted into a bit of a hole here," he said. "We have 30-plus kernel developers at Canonical. Typically what they're doing is making sure that the kernel works well on new hardware, whether that's by integrating existing device drivers, or by creating new device drivers or by fixing and updating old ones. There's a ton of work there. That ends up having a real impact on the number of people who can run Linux without thinking about it."
Further, Canonical contributes heavily to AppArmor, a security model for the Linux kernel that was maintained by Novell until Novell laid off its AppArmor programmers in 2007.
AppArmor keeps Linux users safe by restricting applications' permissions to interact with the network, file system and memory, Shuttleworth said. For example, even if a browser is infected it can't be used to send spam or read a password file. "We contribute effectively all of that now," Shuttleworth said.
But don't expect more from Canonical.
"I don't see it as our role to be at the forefront of driving the next generation of the kernel," he said. "It's not important to our users to be trying to invent a new file system or a new memory manager. That hasn't been a requirement. Our users care about the fact that the operating system just works on their hardware."
The code question has occasionally turned into a Red Hat vs. Canonical flame war. Shuttleworth said whether it's IBM, Intel or Red Hat, companies that contribute to the Linux kernel do so at least partly out of self-interest, to make sure Linux works well with their own products. In fact, he was so insistent on this point that he dropped his phone, explaining that he lost control of it while waving his arms around.
No comments:
Post a Comment