<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>IgorPartola</author><text>Upstart is a bad example. pacman is a package manager only used by Arch Linux and nowhere else. Should Arch abandon it because it hasn&apos;t seen wide use yet? Better yet, there are plenty of package managers that are better than both aptitude and pacman (&lt;a href=&quot;http://nixos.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://nixos.org/&lt;/a&gt;). Should we abandon the technically inferior solutions for the technically superior ones?&lt;p&gt;Unity is the same way: it is open source. If you don&apos;t like it, fork it and fix it. Or use one of the alternatives. This is not Windows or OS X. Vote with your feet and move over to Gnome 3, Xfce, LXDE, or another DE. If enough people do, Canonical will see the effects and stop putting effort into Unity.&lt;p&gt;IMHO, Linux and its surrounding ecosystem has a long history of everyone trying to pull it into their own direction. Companies are often forced to cooperate when they don&apos;t have another choice, but if they did, they would push their own ideas of what the infrastructure should be on everyone else.</text><parent_chain><item><author>hmo09</author><text>Regardless of the technical considerations, Linux and its surrounding ecosystem has a long history of many different companies co-operating on core software. Canonical&apos;s philosophy seems to fly directly against that - so far we have:&lt;p&gt;Launchpad / Upstart / Unity / Mir&lt;p&gt;Launchpad is free-software by name only, and Canonical actively discourage you to setup your own instance.&lt;p&gt;Upstart hasn&apos;t been widely adopted outside of Ubuntu, and has been replaced by the technically superior systemd.&lt;p&gt;Unity has been extremely unpopular from a user-experience point of view, and now we have Mir. So past history isn&apos;t filling me with confidence. Their philosophy seems to be &quot;patch first, ask questions later&quot;.&lt;p&gt;I&apos;m amazed how Canonical has the resources to keep branching out so much while producing a distribution every 6 months. I was under the impression they weren&apos;t yet making a profit.</text></item><item><author>pilgrim689</author><text>I don&apos;t understand all the negative reactions. Canonical is recognizing various problems in making GNU/Linux mainstream. They are then innovating at a deeper level (fixing root causes rather than duct-taping) to ultimately attempt to really attract the layman to a mobile or desktop GNU/Linux distro. Devs don&apos;t need to target Mir if they don&apos;t want to, Linux users can switch to another Debian if they don&apos;t like it, and the Layman discovers that Linux can possibly be just as shiny as Mac OS.
Can someone explain to me why this is all so horrible?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Ubuntu will switch from X window server to Mir</title><url>https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MirSpec</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Sanddancer</author><text>Upstart was used because it was better than traditional init, and was used by Fedora as well. Then again, Linux could have had a much better init system many years ago, but the GPL zealots wouldn&apos;t hear of having launchd, and its less restrictive license, be used.</text><parent_chain><item><author>hmo09</author><text>Regardless of the technical considerations, Linux and its surrounding ecosystem has a long history of many different companies co-operating on core software. Canonical&apos;s philosophy seems to fly directly against that - so far we have:&lt;p&gt;Launchpad / Upstart / Unity / Mir&lt;p&gt;Launchpad is free-software by name only, and Canonical actively discourage you to setup your own instance.&lt;p&gt;Upstart hasn&apos;t been widely adopted outside of Ubuntu, and has been replaced by the technically superior systemd.&lt;p&gt;Unity has been extremely unpopular from a user-experience point of view, and now we have Mir. So past history isn&apos;t filling me with confidence. Their philosophy seems to be &quot;patch first, ask questions later&quot;.&lt;p&gt;I&apos;m amazed how Canonical has the resources to keep branching out so much while producing a distribution every 6 months. I was under the impression they weren&apos;t yet making a profit.</text></item><item><author>pilgrim689</author><text>I don&apos;t understand all the negative reactions. Canonical is recognizing various problems in making GNU/Linux mainstream. They are then innovating at a deeper level (fixing root causes rather than duct-taping) to ultimately attempt to really attract the layman to a mobile or desktop GNU/Linux distro. Devs don&apos;t need to target Mir if they don&apos;t want to, Linux users can switch to another Debian if they don&apos;t like it, and the Layman discovers that Linux can possibly be just as shiny as Mac OS.
Can someone explain to me why this is all so horrible?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Ubuntu will switch from X window server to Mir</title><url>https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MirSpec</url></story>