Shuttleworth To Step Down As Canonical CEO In 2010 163
LinuxScribe writes "In a blog announcement today, Canonical Founder and CEO Mark Shuttleworth revealed he will be stepping down from his CEO role to be replaced by current COO Jane Silber. Both execs do not see major strategic changes on the horizon. Silber's official blog and Linux.com each have more details on how the change will be implemented."
Not leaving the project (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not using an Ubuntu logo? (Score:3, Informative)
He is switching to customers and OEMs... (Score:3, Informative)
...which is all good and great, because he cares about end users - which matters most for Ubuntu Linux to succeed.
Re:Thanks Mark (Score:2, Informative)
He said it was the "best thing around" if
1) know what you're doing, and 2) have time to read docs and fiddle with things.
Nice quote mining attempt though.
Re:Thanks Mark (Score:5, Informative)
Ubuntu works really well for what it is designed to do: be an easy to setup and use Linux system.
I've got it on my desktop and laptop currently. On the laptop, I was going to go with FreeBSD, but it wouldn't install properly. I then tried to install Arch; it was a no go. Gentoo? Nope. Sabayon sounded interesting but unfortunately the installer crapped out. Ubuntu? After a simple, easy install, it works like a charm.
There are annoyances, like having no luck getting wireless networking going strictly from a command line which I had no problem with on my late, lamented UltraSparc laptop with OpenBSD.
But Ubuntu is the only one that would install without any problems.
Maybe Jane will understand (Score:3, Informative)
that shipping an LTS (Long Term Support) release doesn't mean "This release is just as buggy as all of the other releases were when they shipped, but we'll be updating security issues for longer". :) Don't get me wrong, I 3 Ubuntu more than most people, but this is just something that always irked me (especially since I run multiple production terminal server environments with Ubuntu LTS & LTSP)
Re:Thanks Mark (Score:3, Informative)
No. That's the purpose of an SSL certificate. URLs serve as a means to request information from a known source. They do nothing to verify where it's from.
However in the case of repositries for a distribution SSL is a suboptimal soloution for two main reasons.
Firstly implementing SSL creates a LOT of extra work for the server. That means either more processing power on the servers or special SSL accelerators either of which means a substantial increase in cost for mirror operators.
Secondly most users (at least on debian which is where secure apt originated from, I don't use ubuntu but I expect things are the same on that side of the fence) get thier distribution package from third party mirrors. If the mirror you use becomes malicious (either through being hacked or through a malicious admin) then ssl doesn't really help you.
With secure apt compromising the mirror is not sufficient, they actually have to compromise the master keys used to sign the package lists.
Re:I ask on behalf of everyone here... (Score:0, Informative)
No [flickr.com].
Re:Jane Silber? (Score:3, Informative)
Jane is a guy's name in South Africa?
"Since Jane joined the company, she and I have shared the load of coordinating between the leaders of all the key teams that make up Canonical."
Ooh, to be sure to be sure, there's a clue in that statement like it or not.
Re:Thanks Mark (Score:2, Informative)
I still don't understand this argument of "vastly superior performance" with the hard to set up vs the easy to set up distros. I've been using ubuntu for a whole 2 days now. Not very long I know, but what's so much better with those other distros? Firefox opens and is useable in seconds. Openoffice opens and is useable in seconds. My computer seems a little slow from power on till the point I get to select ubuntu from the bootlist, but after that the os is up and useable within 30-45 seconds.
Ubuntu's pretty nice so far. The install was the easiest I've ever experienced. I've played around with linux distros over the years but have never kept any on my system for more than a week. Usually something doesn't work, I spend a few days trying to fix it. Then I say screw it and go back to xp where everything was already working. I mean really, Ubuntu is kicking XP's ass right now. I tested my printer. Just plugged it in and it recognized not just a generic printer, but the specific printers manufacturer and model. With XP it just recognizes a USB connection, then after 5 minutes gives up and show the little "unknown hardware" icon in the device manager. I've got a little bluetooth usb stick. With XP, it doesn't recognize it properly and I have to install all this crap off of the cd that came with it. With Ubuntu, it just recognizes it and gives me bluetooth capabilities within seconds.
The only issue I'm having with it right now is that it doesn't seem to see my SATA HD at all. I also haven't tested out my webcams yet but I hardly use them anyway. Also there seems to be no trace of my wireless card, but I had that disabled in XP since I never used it anyway.
First distro I tried was Debian. This was back around 2003. I'm sure things have changed now, but back then with the installer, it asked too many questions. It would ask you where your mouse was and then it seemed to give you a list of 20 options. Same with the keyboard, sound card, video card, and network card. I could read the list and feel confident with my selections for some of the options but not for all of them. If I remember right, after it turned on and booted up it just left you at the command prompt. I had to ask in an irc room why all the screenshots show a desktop and why all I saw was just a black screen with "login:". Someone told me I had to type startx after logging in and that seemed to work. No network connection, no sound, and the highest resolution I could go to was 640x480.
Next one I tried was Mandrake. I think this was version 8 or 9. Still around 2003-2004. Anyways that one installed more like ubuntu did today. It did let you chose which packages / programs to install. After installing it, everything worked except for the sound. I couldn't get the sound issue figured out after about a week so that was it for Mandrake.
I'm not too sure why everyone says windows XP is a resource hog compared to linux. It looks like I'm using 325mb out of 2gigs of ram on ubuntu right now. On XP that might be 500-600mb of ram used, but performance wise you can't tell the difference. Plus the ram usage builds linearly. I mean, I'd imagine if I was using 700mb of ram on ubuntu that I'd be using 900-1000mb of ram on XP. CPU wise, both operating systems seem to leave 99% of the cpu at idle power. I understand that if you only have running what you want running, that the computer has less to process and can get its task done quicker and more efficiently. But there is a line where you just can't tell or measure the difference anymore.
Maybe you meant reliability and not having the OS crash on you? For the 6 hours a day I'm on my computer it usually never crashed with XP. Now of course most of those linux people talk about having their computers running for weeks to months at a time without a restart. That's great for a server type setup, but that's just an enormous waste of energy for the home desktop user.
Re:Thanks Mark (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Thanks Mark (Score:1, Informative)
Try WICD. You will need to uninstall Network Manager First. WICD also has a command line version.
and don't forget about iwconfig and ifconfig. I don't think Ubuntu installs them by default, but I could be wrong.