Comment 1518 for bug 1

I think instead of channeling their energy into identifying bugs IN unity and fixing them, some regard Unity as a bug itself, which I believe is fairly unreasonable as a critique. IMHO, the heart of the matter lies in the very release model we have, though which is also one of the things that makes Ubuntu great in the first place - Ubuntu always strives to bring the "latest and the greatest" in innovation, and therefore it is understandable that some non-critical bugs for release always end up remaining in the inter-LTS releases. Closed projects like Windows tend to test their new platforms extensively - for three to five years and possibly more, and even after that Vista was heralded as the worst thing they produces, which, IMHO again, was not bad at all compared to XP - even though I would never consider using either of those (or future versions) ever again. Considering such a model would be unethical for something open and free like Ubuntu, and the closest thing along those lines - offering a 'stable' version like Debian does and maintaining testing and unstable versions to be used at one's own peril, would make bringing the latest and the greatest impossible. I think the developers need to be commended for handling effectively such a short release-cycle as ours - start with the unstable Sid and make it become a distro of the masses, and it is through such continued resistance and innovation that we shall eventually indeed squash Bug #1.

Aside from that, I have been harshly made to believe that innovation by itself is not enough, because Ubuntu already IS a superior software product, and has been for quite some time - the monopoly that MS holds with computer manufacturers is the other daunting impediment; visit any big vendor's website and you shall find "Windows life without walls. XXX recommends Windows 7." Such a thing already serves as a mind-programming instruments for the average user who is not shown any other "vistas" (ironic much?) out there. I also concede it is impossible for us to "break" this monopoly, but maybe Canonical could push to have such alliances of its own and give MS some competition? - and with prominent vendors that MS itself partners with? (Maybe I am talking from a naive perspective, and I certainly do not understand the complicated undertones, yet, it cannot be an unreasonable question to ask) Dell had a lot of Ubuntu offerings before, and they dropped all of them now - not a signal of confidence in the free software community. Thankfully there are others like System76 which are helping to further confidence in Ubuntu.

I see the way Apple made its niche in an MS dominated market - the closed eco-system model that was a brilliant idea except that it began to be used as a lock-down device. If Canonical were to manufacture and sell laptops pre-installed with Ubuntu, which would obviously function without any unexpected hardware-related bugs, and which were sexy and desirable like the Macs were, I am sure the < 1% desktop usage would be higher. Then again, I know this is easier said than done, and maybe we can let these ideas incubate in the backs of our heads.