What happened at Canonical

Pushing yearly bonuses back to May so that they can do layoffs in April is a hugely dick move.

If it isn't salary, don't budget for it.

Nothing happened at Canonical, just what the top executives normally do. Realizing that it may be more profitable to destroy their companies and sellout to the main competition rather than compete with them.

With Canonical and Redhat virtually in bed with Microsoft does any one seriously think that Canonical was going to proceed on a path that would mean getting into headon competition with a major company they had decided to collaborate with?

When Ubuntu collaborates with Microsoft on Bash/WSL what do you think is going to happen? When hardware vendors don't want to open up their drivers for Linux to compete effectively with Windows and Mac how much progress can Ubuntu make with their phones?

The Linux desktop is supposed to be a power users desktop but their poor vision of its developers failed it. It is supposed to be the equivalent of an advanced Smalltalk or Lisp workstation where its administration is concerned, to managed by message passing in Smalltalk or Lisp scripts or similar. The fact that it is still managed by tedious error prone scripts only shows how poor the whole design has been. Coming to think of Linux is just the kernel, and none of the desktop developers had the smarts to develop a sound administration language and build the desktop proper on top of it. All that has happened is that it has given Microsoft and the other big guys the breathing space to retrench and now it has carved up the market by basically co-opting Redhat and Ubuntu into its camp.

One should post about what happened in Mozilla for the past chaotic 4 years as well, especially for those offices not in the USA. The story is sorrowfully similar.

I'm surprised Microsoft hasn't released a semi-offical Linux distribution for power users showcasing .Net Core and Azure assisted apps. At least a Linux container on par with AWS Lambda.

Who knows what's really going on behind the scenes and whether this piece might be unduly negative or not. It's possible that things are shaky to a level that the changes and the way they were conducted might be in fact much better than they could have been. I feel this piece works to characterize Shuttleworth in a negative light (by including his "um" and so on in quoting him, for example).

Shuttleworth produced the first easy to install Linux distro and brought many to Linux as a result. Doesn't he get credit for that?