An interesting limit: for Mark->Steve, Ubuntu->Mac OS X

In an article reported on a italian website, I read an interesting comparison: can Mark Shuttleworth be the Steve Jobs Of Ubuntu?
It sounds like a provocation, but actually every Great Project (GNU, Linux kernel, Debian, Ubuntu, Slackware, KDE and even Apple and Microsoft) has a leader whom manages and guides all project's members. Debian had Ian Murdok; Slackware has Patrick Volderking; GNU has Richard Stallman; Linux has Linus Torvalds; OpenBSD has Theo de Raadt.
Steve Jobs is one of most famous CEO in the world: his keynotes are shows. He saved Apple from a deep hole (in 1997 it could be sold to Sun Microsystem) and transformed it to one of most powerfull companies in the world. Some "never-seen-before features" was already present in GNU/Linux (spaces - virtual desktops, e.g.) but with Job's personal touch, they become "new" and "amazing".
In FOSS (Free-Open Source Software) environments, Jobs sits on the Throne of Evil  once reserved to Bill Gates. With no doubts Apple's devices are much closed than other (iPhone is a small fortress); no doubts that an HTC with Android is more free and more open than an iPhone. But you can't classify Jobs just as "a tyrant", "a criminal" or "a shark".
Ubuntu is trying to earn space in the desktop market. It's a very competitive place, where command line is evil. I think Mark Shuttleworth MUST BE the "Steve Jobs of Ubuntu", a landmark for desktop developers and for desktop users. He's taking seriously this role since one year, with some revolutions on Ubuntu, such as window buttons on the left corner, Wayland to replace X.org and Unity instead Gnome Shell. This ideas have been criticized by Ubuntu comunity but their motivations sounds like a "zealot reaction", not as technical observations.
Mark Shuttleworth is becoming more influent. If his vision is right and clear as I hope, maybe Ubuntu could become more widespread. As every man, Steve Jobs has good things and bad things. But as a CEO, we must admit he's one of the best.
FOSS zealots must to understand that making Ubuntu more functionally, more actractive and less "integralist", will help the GNU/Linux desktop adoption. And if «Mark Shuttleworth will approach to Steve Jobs», could be a way to realize this dream (lim Ubuntu=Mac OS X).

This is my Way (land)

This is "MY" way: AC/DC, no Sinatra!

 In these days, the FOSS world seems shaked by a earthquake called "Ubuntu". Mark Shuttleworth, founder of the most widespread GNU/Linux distribution, in a post on his blog, talks about the possibility to replace X.org and the whole X-Server architecture with the modern and clean Wayland display. Mr. Shuttleworth admits X.org is a living project, more active now than ever and he admits and it's die hard. But, also, he said

«[..] we don’t believe X is setup to deliver the user experience we want, with super-smooth graphics and effects.
[..] We’re choosing to prioritize the quality of experience over those original values, like network transparency.»

Yeah mr. Shuttleworth! This is the first time I heard statements like this since the Waldo Bastian's analysis about KDE^[1]. Statements about the importance of user experience over technical decisions

Now, let's see differences between X.org and Wayland

X architecture (curtesy of Wayland's site)

As you can see in this graph, rendering a frame is a very long path of APIs. And this is because (from Wayland's site):

«In general, the X server is now just a middle man that introduces an extra step between applications and the compositor and an extra step between the compositor and the hardware.»

Now, let's look Wayland's architecture:

Wayland's architecture (curtesy of Wayland's site)

In this graph, you see that Wayland embeds the compositor. This reduces passages to render a frame and then, accelerate displaying speed. But, most important, Wayland embeds the detection of window whom recive an I/O message (such as a click). This task, in X, is done by the compositor: in Wayland is part of the display manager.

Wayland, also, it's smaller than X.org and less resources-hungry. These features makes it perfect also for small computers, such as netbooks and tablets. Furthermore, X can works as a Wayland client and this can help the passage to the new display manager.
It's true Wayland doesn't work on old hardware. But this means we'll never use it on a Pentinum I 233. About this, mr. Shuttleworth said

«The requirement of EGL is new but consistent with industry standards from Khronos»

And he's right. Now the bad news: NVidia (AaronP's words) say

«We have no plans to support Wayland.»

Does this means the end of Wayland project? Who knows? Actually NVidia just said ACTUALLY they have no plans, so in future this decision could change. Anyway, a passage to Wayland is a big step for FOSS world, at least as the begining of KDE project.

[1] I read this analysis on a italian magazine (Linux &C.), when KDE 3.0 was released. I can't find Waldo Bastian's post anymore, because all forums are now dead-links. Can you help me to find it?

Unity and so be it

Is this a flame? Maybe. But I support Canonical's decision to use Unity instead Gnome Shell. Why? Because this "fork" is fundamental, not just for usability reasons, but mainly because it's a strong stance from the most widespread GNU/Linux distribution. Adopting Unity, Canonical did some decisions, oriented both to usability and development. Choosing Unity, Canonical show us its direction: the underlying technology is useless if user experience is poor. KDE 4 is on this way: great technology (C++, QT, Plasma, Phonon, ecc.) but the resulting desktop is not "sexy" as Gnome on Ubuntu.
Technology can't be the objective. Christopher Tozzi said

«GNOME Shell introduces a number of innovative interface concepts that, if successful, could truly redefine the way users interact with their operating system.
Unity, meanwhile, is an interface developed by Canonical that borrows many of its ideas from GNOME Shell. Canonical began work on Unity last spring, and introduced it as the default interface for Ubuntu Netbook Edition in the Ubuntu 10.10 release, which debuted a few weeks ago.»

I put emphasis on some statements, expecially about "to borrow ideas": this is the base of Free Software, which is not (as many thinks) a "Hippy-Programmers Way of Life". Free Software is much more near to "Ideal Market" and "Concurrency" than other realities (such as Apple and Microsoft). Same ideas are implemented by different teams in different ways (e.g. EMACS vs VIM; Eclipse vs Netbeans; Gnome vs KDE; Firefox vs Konqueror and so on). This environment allows to many competitors to survive. But Canonical must monetize its work. And to do this it needs to follows user's desires. If Gnome shell isn't actractive enough, then welcome Unity.