Support us on Patreon
PayPalAnother fresh interview for you today, this time with Ken VanDine who is responsible for leading the way for Ubuntu on the desktop at Canonical. This will form part of a mini-series — the first already up with Aaron Honeycutt from System76.
GOL: Can you first introduce yourself and tell us what you do?
"I’m Ken VanDine, leading the Ubuntu Desktop team at Canonical. I’ve been here for over 13 years now, and working on the Linux desktop for well over 20 years."
GOL: How did you get started with Linux and what attracted you to it?
"Curiosity… From the time I was a young child, I just had to know how things worked. I would take my toys apart to figure out how they worked before ever playing with them. As I got older, that translated into computer hardware, and soon after software. I discovered Slackware Linux in 1993 and never looked back. It was simply amazing to have access to the source code, seeing how it worked, and I quickly immersed myself into open source software as a means to quench my thirst for how software worked."
GOL: What’s it like to work for Canonical as the Ubuntu Engineering Manager? What’s your work setup like?
"Having the opportunity to work on the Ubuntu Desktop all these years has been quite the privilege, and really the highlight of my career. During this time I’ve been able to work on many exciting projects and contribute in different ways. Now I get to be more involved in setting direction and leading an amazing team of some of the best developers around, it really doesn’t get any better than this! "
GOL: What projects are you directly involved with / working on right now for Ubuntu?
"I lead the overall development of the desktop, which includes the distro, enterprise desktop, WSL, developer experience, and gaming experience. With the gaming experience team being the newest, I’m the primary driver for that until we staff that team."
Pictured - Ubuntu 22.04 LTS
GOL: Does Canonical regularly speak to other businesses and developers, to try and get them to support Linux and Ubuntu?
"Certainly, we have relationships with many interesting companies, which is awesome. And now that we’re starting to get involved in the gaming scene on Linux, we’ve found ourselves creating some more interesting partnerships."
GOL: Canonical recently announced another push into gaming. It seemed like Canonical and Ubuntu let things slide on that front — so why now?
"I would contest that we haven’t really let it slide. For example, we’ve had long standing relationships with partners like NVidia to ensure users are able to easily use the best driver for their hardware. But yes, we are upping our game, and getting involved in much deeper ways. So why now? Momentum… The landscape for gaming on Linux is improving, at a steadily increasing pace. This momentum has sparked increased enthusiasm. It’s the right time to increase our investment and help be a catalyst to continue to fuel that momentum. Our engineers have the unique background to make a significant contribution to that growth, which we’ll all benefit from."
GOL: Going by various stats (like Steam), Ubuntu has been regularly falling as the main choice for Linux Gaming. With the likes of Arch and Manjaro pulling in a lot. Why do you think that is? Any more interesting plans to pull people back?
"I think this is primarily due to web searches done by users looking to solve various problems getting their games to work. There is a wealth of information that leads to distros like Arch. Our top priority will be to ensure users can get their games working without the need to consult those sites. The next goal will be to improve the resources available to help users on Ubuntu when needed."
GOL: So right now, why should someone go for Ubuntu over Pop, Manjaro, Arch, Fedora and others?
"Those are all fine distro choices, and people should choose what they are most comfortable with. I’d say people should choose Ubuntu if their priority is a Linux desktop that just works. We work hard to provide the best user experience possible, not only with the everyday desktop experience but also ease of access to the best drivers, bug and security fixes and out of the box access to the best selection of high quality applications. And let’s not forget our certification program that ensures that many desktops and laptops are supported."
GOL: What are you particularly excited about for the future of Ubuntu?
"Dare I say the year of the Linux desktop? Nah… Linux has reached a point where that can no longer be the goal post, we must look well beyond that. I’m really excited about all the ways Ubuntu is meeting the daily challenges of so many use cases, ranging from robotics, IoT, cloud, to desktop deployments in large enterprises and home users playing video games. Ubuntu is everywhere, and I’m really excited to be part of this journey."
GOL: For all the critics of Snap packages, anything you wish to say to them?
"Ubuntu users aren’t the critics of snaps, and I’d argue that users are less concerned with how they get their applications. Of course we have strong opinions on how to deliver high quality applications, in a secure and reliable way and it’s our mission to do just that. We do hear what people say and we take the mission of providing the best possible experience very seriously, so we are always looking for legitimate ways to improve the platform."
GOL: Considering we have Flatpak, AppImage, deb, rpm and so on. What do you think about how fractured packaging is on Linux? Does Snap not add to the problems for developers?
"There is fragmentation, which isn’t surprising. I will say out of the packaging formats you mentioned, Snap is the only one that has really seen any success from ISVs. There’s a reason why you see official snap support from major ISVs, but not the others. Snap was one of the first packaging formats to address issues like sandboxing. Other packaging formats following suit shows snap was on the right track. The benefits of snap and the single source of truth store are must haves for any major vendor."
GOL: One of the potential problems with Snap is that the server side is solely controlled by Canonical and is basically proprietary. Will this be opened up? Do you see it as an issue that needs sorting?
"Anyone can create an alternate store that supports snaps. The API is completely open as is snapd. Having a centralized store is actually one of the strengths of the ecosystem. ISVs want that single trusted source for apps. I think the tremendous success we’ve had with ISVs adopting snap is in no small part due to this concept. And I ask, is it really a problem? Snap is completely open, anyone can see what’s being executed on your system. The internals of the store that handles metadata just isn’t interesting."
GOL: Are you buying a Steam Deck? What are your thoughts on what it means for Linux Gaming overall?
"I haven’t yet, I wish I had reserved one earlier. It’s a great device, and Linux was the obvious OS choice for such a device. Valve has done a fantastic job of pushing compatibility technologies to make Linux a viable platform. All their work has really done wonders to bring more games to Linux and I look forward to seeing where that takes us."
GOL: What’s your own personal computing setup like?
"My primary system is a Thinkpad T14, with a couple of 24” displays attached via a USB-C dock. But of course I have quite a bit of additional hardware necessary for development and testing."
GOL: What are your top 5 favourite games to play on Linux?
"Oh, that’s a tough one. I’ve always been partial to racing games and really enjoy any of the Need for Speed games. I’ve also been really into Raft lately as well as playing LoL, Valheim and RDR2. I’m more of a creator than a gamer, however I do have a passion for enabling users to get the most out of their Linux desktop experience."
Big thank you to Ken for joining me on this.
I'll have more interviews to come, stay tuned! Get in touch if you want to be interviewed.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
slaapliedje May 26, 2022
Quoting: ShabbyXQuoting: Lycurgus87Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: Lycurgus87Mate you are tiny bit condescendingYou're condescending, says the guy who told me to climb back to the nearest tree.
(snip)
Or the other options again..the tree over there.
But I wasn't. I am a tiny bit now: The point went over your head. The point was, there are lots of branches of knowledge that can make claims that if you don't have them you are inferior. It is rare for the claims to be valid; claims about the arts or political economy or DIY home maintenance are no more/less valid than your claim that if I don't want to learn computers I should return to the apes. Do you get it now?
Yes there are lot of branch of knowledge and you don't need to know all but...and this is a big but, usually you don't need to know all that because you don't want to use it.
BUT if you want to use something you have to learn it. ...
I used to think like you, opposing simplifications to computer software (or as I would have called it, stupidification) when I was young, because "you need to know exactly how computers work, otherwise you lose your smartness". Some bs like that.
I was wrong, and hope you can take this chance to learn this well.
Just because you have to use it, doesn't mean you need to understand it. You in particular may be smart and curious and capable and willing to understand, which is a great thing. Most people however are either incapable or unwilling to learn about everything.
And please understand that this sort of talk also drives people away (don't get defensive please, and appreciate the feedback), so be mindful of the effect of your statements on people who are showing an interest in Linux.
BUT (a big capitalized but), people should at least have a knowledge of how a tool they use works, right? Like you want to give some preliminary rules on how to use a soldering iron "Don't touch these parts when it's heated, or you will get nicely burned" or firearms, "don't point a gun at a person ever, even if you're sure it's unloaded." etc. Sure a computer generally won't burn you or cost someone their lives, but it never hurts and only helps to learn something about a tool before you use it.
Now while some people concentrate on the wrong things 'You need to know how to compile your own kernel!' isn't the depth we're talking about, but 'this is how you launch your Sudoku game' level of learning, and so many people don't even know that. I think this is the level some need to know about. And in this day and age, there is some actual harm that can befall people who are too ignorant to do simple things like 'run updates', or 'don't click on shady things that we warn you about!' as there can be financial, reputational, etc damage.
So yeah, for sure people should learn something about a tool before trying to use it.
Quoting: slaapliedjeQuoting: ShabbyXQuoting: Lycurgus87Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: Lycurgus87Mate you are tiny bit condescendingYou're condescending, says the guy who told me to climb back to the nearest tree.
(snip)
Or the other options again..the tree over there.
But I wasn't. I am a tiny bit now: The point went over your head. The point was, there are lots of branches of knowledge that can make claims that if you don't have them you are inferior. It is rare for the claims to be valid; claims about the arts or political economy or DIY home maintenance are no more/less valid than your claim that if I don't want to learn computers I should return to the apes. Do you get it now?
Yes there are lot of branch of knowledge and you don't need to know all but...and this is a big but, usually you don't need to know all that because you don't want to use it.
BUT if you want to use something you have to learn it. ...
I used to think like you, opposing simplifications to computer software (or as I would have called it, stupidification) when I was young, because "you need to know exactly how computers work, otherwise you lose your smartness". Some bs like that.
I was wrong, and hope you can take this chance to learn this well.
Just because you have to use it, doesn't mean you need to understand it. You in particular may be smart and curious and capable and willing to understand, which is a great thing. Most people however are either incapable or unwilling to learn about everything.
And please understand that this sort of talk also drives people away (don't get defensive please, and appreciate the feedback), so be mindful of the effect of your statements on people who are showing an interest in Linux.
BUT (a big capitalized but), people should at least have a knowledge of how a tool they use works, right? Like you want to give some preliminary rules on how to use a soldering iron "Don't touch these parts when it's heated, or you will get nicely burned" or firearms, "don't point a gun at a person ever, even if you're sure it's unloaded." etc. Sure a computer generally won't burn you or cost someone their lives, but it never hurts and only helps to learn something about a tool before you use it.
Now while some people concentrate on the wrong things 'You need to know how to compile your own kernel!' isn't the depth we're talking about, but 'this is how you launch your Sudoku game' level of learning, and so many people don't even know that. I think this is the level some need to know about. And in this day and age, there is some actual harm that can befall people who are too ignorant to do simple things like 'run updates', or 'don't click on shady things that we warn you about!' as there can be financial, reputational, etc damage.
So yeah, for sure people should learn something about a tool before trying to use it.
Misunderstanding here. The original comment that instigated this discussion claimed that users should know how to disable snaps, switch repos and some such things.
Definitely not something I would ever teach to or expect my parents to have to learn for instance.
slaapliedje May 27, 2022
Quoting: ShabbyXHa, disable snaps... or 'install Mint/pop_os that uses the same base, but removes snaps for you...' I know what I would choose.Quoting: slaapliedjeQuoting: ShabbyXQuoting: Lycurgus87Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: Lycurgus87Mate you are tiny bit condescendingYou're condescending, says the guy who told me to climb back to the nearest tree.
(snip)
Or the other options again..the tree over there.
But I wasn't. I am a tiny bit now: The point went over your head. The point was, there are lots of branches of knowledge that can make claims that if you don't have them you are inferior. It is rare for the claims to be valid; claims about the arts or political economy or DIY home maintenance are no more/less valid than your claim that if I don't want to learn computers I should return to the apes. Do you get it now?
Yes there are lot of branch of knowledge and you don't need to know all but...and this is a big but, usually you don't need to know all that because you don't want to use it.
BUT if you want to use something you have to learn it. ...
I used to think like you, opposing simplifications to computer software (or as I would have called it, stupidification) when I was young, because "you need to know exactly how computers work, otherwise you lose your smartness". Some bs like that.
I was wrong, and hope you can take this chance to learn this well.
Just because you have to use it, doesn't mean you need to understand it. You in particular may be smart and curious and capable and willing to understand, which is a great thing. Most people however are either incapable or unwilling to learn about everything.
And please understand that this sort of talk also drives people away (don't get defensive please, and appreciate the feedback), so be mindful of the effect of your statements on people who are showing an interest in Linux.
BUT (a big capitalized but), people should at least have a knowledge of how a tool they use works, right? Like you want to give some preliminary rules on how to use a soldering iron "Don't touch these parts when it's heated, or you will get nicely burned" or firearms, "don't point a gun at a person ever, even if you're sure it's unloaded." etc. Sure a computer generally won't burn you or cost someone their lives, but it never hurts and only helps to learn something about a tool before you use it.
Now while some people concentrate on the wrong things 'You need to know how to compile your own kernel!' isn't the depth we're talking about, but 'this is how you launch your Sudoku game' level of learning, and so many people don't even know that. I think this is the level some need to know about. And in this day and age, there is some actual harm that can befall people who are too ignorant to do simple things like 'run updates', or 'don't click on shady things that we warn you about!' as there can be financial, reputational, etc damage.
So yeah, for sure people should learn something about a tool before trying to use it.
Misunderstanding here. The original comment that instigated this discussion claimed that users should know how to disable snaps, switch repos and some such things.
Definitely not something I would ever teach to or expect my parents to have to learn for instance.
Craggles086 May 28, 2022
Ubuntu put some early work into Wayland if I remember correctly before Wayland was on anyones radar, before they decided that Mir was more suited to their purposes.
Would have been nice to see more support for Mir on the desktop from the open source community when Mir and Wayland looked like they were competing against similar goals. Good things have come out of a bit of competition, even in the open source community. Just look at gnome vs kde.
As far as Ubuntu being the source of the NIH philosophy, wasn't SystemD a bit of NIH from the Fedora / Redhat team, and now it is incorporated throughout most of Linux?
slaapliedje May 30, 2022
Quoting: Craggles086So I had more complaints about Ubuntu's use of Snaps then I ever had of Mir.Depends on how you look at it... upstart was a thing, but wasn't something that seemed either good enough, or widely tested enough for all the other distributions to adopt. Plus it literally only covered init, whereas systemd covers much more. Systemd for example has some watchdog like elements to it.
Ubuntu put some early work into Wayland if I remember correctly before Wayland was on anyones radar, before they decided that Mir was more suited to their purposes.
Would have been nice to see more support for Mir on the desktop from the open source community when Mir and Wayland looked like they were competing against similar goals. Good things have come out of a bit of competition, even in the open source community. Just look at gnome vs kde.
As far as Ubuntu being the source of the NIH philosophy, wasn't SystemD a bit of NIH from the Fedora / Redhat team, and now it is incorporated throughout most of Linux?
Canonical only has a small team of developers, IBM/Redhat have tons more, and if there is a core project out there for Linux stuff, it seems like redhat's hands are in it at some level.
I knid of think of the story of the rabbit and the turtle. Canonical is the rabbit in this, trying to hurry up and get to the end without all the planning and development, so they can get something out quicker, but is a mess underneath. Where Redhat is slow and methodical and ends up winning in the end.
Quoting: slaapliedjeI knid of think of the story of the rabbit and the turtle. Canonical is the rabbit in this, trying to hurry up and get to the end without all the planning and development, so they can get something out quicker, but is a mess underneath. Where Redhat is slow and methodical and ends up winning in the end.
Wow, more casual Ubuntu-bashing, eh? Upstart replaced the SystemV init system in 2006 and was used by various distributions (including Redhat, ffs) for about 7 or 8 years. It was instrumental in pushing the start up times of Linux from the 30sec+ norm in those days to the sub-10s we have now. Iteratively, it was surpassed by SystemD and that's fine. That's good, that's what makes Linux better, over time. Upstart wasn't "a mess underneath", nor was Mir, nor Unity, nor Snap, nor many of the other truly exceptional, innovative things Canonical have contributed over the decades they've been around.
Occasionally they did indeed put out duds. That's also fine. As long as we're all running Linux, we're all in this together.
Although from the comments on this thread, you'd hardly fucking think it.
slaapliedje May 31, 2022
Quoting: scaineThe problem with Ubuntu is they think of people as Ubuntu users, not as Linux users. Upstart was used briefly in Fedora, It was never used in RHEL. Snap is a mess. Unity was... meh.Quoting: slaapliedjeI knid of think of the story of the rabbit and the turtle. Canonical is the rabbit in this, trying to hurry up and get to the end without all the planning and development, so they can get something out quicker, but is a mess underneath. Where Redhat is slow and methodical and ends up winning in the end.
Wow, more casual Ubuntu-bashing, eh? Upstart replaced the SystemV init system in 2006 and was used by various distributions (including Redhat, ffs) for about 7 or 8 years. It was instrumental in pushing the start up times of Linux from the 30sec+ norm in those days to the sub-10s we have now. Iteratively, it was surpassed by SystemD and that's fine. That's good, that's what makes Linux better, over time. Upstart wasn't "a mess underneath", nor was Mir, nor Unity, nor Snap, nor many of the other truly exceptional, innovative things Canonical have contributed over the decades they've been around.
Occasionally they did indeed put out duds. That's also fine. As long as we're all running Linux, we're all in this together.
Although from the comments on this thread, you'd hardly fucking think it.
Quoting: slaapliedjeSnap is a mess.Oh, snap!
Quoting: slaapliedjeQuoting: scaineThe problem with Ubuntu is they think of people as Ubuntu users, not as Linux users. Upstart was used briefly in Fedora, It was never used in RHEL. Snap is a mess. Unity was... meh.Quoting: slaapliedjeI knid of think of the story of the rabbit and the turtle. Canonical is the rabbit in this, trying to hurry up and get to the end without all the planning and development, so they can get something out quicker, but is a mess underneath. Where Redhat is slow and methodical and ends up winning in the end.
Wow, more casual Ubuntu-bashing, eh? Upstart replaced the SystemV init system in 2006 and was used by various distributions (including Redhat, ffs) for about 7 or 8 years. It was instrumental in pushing the start up times of Linux from the 30sec+ norm in those days to the sub-10s we have now. Iteratively, it was surpassed by SystemD and that's fine. That's good, that's what makes Linux better, over time. Upstart wasn't "a mess underneath", nor was Mir, nor Unity, nor Snap, nor many of the other truly exceptional, innovative things Canonical have contributed over the decades they've been around.
Occasionally they did indeed put out duds. That's also fine. As long as we're all running Linux, we're all in this together.
Although from the comments on this thread, you'd hardly fucking think it.
Briefly? Like 5 releases briefly? I've never thought of five years as a brief time, I have to admit. It was also a beta option in RHEL for a similar time, but you're right, it was never adopted, since start-up time on a server O/S is pretty insignificant compared to the POST checks in most Enterprise environments. I vaguely remember Debian considering it too, for quite a while, but I can't remember their reasons for not adopting it. Back then, their focus was and still to a large is, servers.
But anyway, my point is that Upstart was very well thought out - a fully asynchronous service management/init system with a simple interface, massively extendable, yet completely backwards compatible with SysV.
Snap is a mess, is it? Based on what?
Unity was meh? Based on... ah, okay. Your opinion, I suppose, which is fair enough. Opinions differ. Mine was/is that Unity is a great example of Canonical's innovation - reacting to the options in front of them at the time and, crucially, doing something about it. Back then (around 2010), Gnome Shell - now that was a mess. A wholly forced, non-configurable change in workflow. Canonical had to react to that, and Unity was born. It was a brilliant half-way house between gnome 2 and shell. It was, itself, also a bit shitty until the 2012 releases, but that's iterative development for you.
Also back then, remember, Canonical were pushing the idea of a converged mobile & desktop experience. The "Edge" phone was coming, powered by Unity. Incredible vision, when you realise this was twelve years ago. I remember being blown away by the possibility of using my phone as a dashboard screen on my desktop, and resizing, mobile-aware apps - something we take a little more for granted these days, but absolutely mind-blowing at the time.
But I doubt any of this is convincing you, slaapliedje. Pretty sure you've made up your mind about Canonical for reasons I certainly can't fathom. But there's some context for why I'm repeatedly impressed by Canonical and what they've brought to the Linux desktop.
slaapliedje May 31, 2022
Quoting: scaine5 releases of Fedora is 2.5 years, as they do about 6-ish months. And yeah when you're my age, 2.5 years is nothing.Quoting: slaapliedjeQuoting: scaineThe problem with Ubuntu is they think of people as Ubuntu users, not as Linux users. Upstart was used briefly in Fedora, It was never used in RHEL. Snap is a mess. Unity was... meh.Quoting: slaapliedjeI knid of think of the story of the rabbit and the turtle. Canonical is the rabbit in this, trying to hurry up and get to the end without all the planning and development, so they can get something out quicker, but is a mess underneath. Where Redhat is slow and methodical and ends up winning in the end.
Wow, more casual Ubuntu-bashing, eh? Upstart replaced the SystemV init system in 2006 and was used by various distributions (including Redhat, ffs) for about 7 or 8 years. It was instrumental in pushing the start up times of Linux from the 30sec+ norm in those days to the sub-10s we have now. Iteratively, it was surpassed by SystemD and that's fine. That's good, that's what makes Linux better, over time. Upstart wasn't "a mess underneath", nor was Mir, nor Unity, nor Snap, nor many of the other truly exceptional, innovative things Canonical have contributed over the decades they've been around.
Occasionally they did indeed put out duds. That's also fine. As long as we're all running Linux, we're all in this together.
Although from the comments on this thread, you'd hardly fucking think it.
Briefly? Like 5 releases briefly? I've never thought of five years as a brief time, I have to admit. It was also a beta option in RHEL for a similar time, but you're right, it was never adopted, since start-up time on a server O/S is pretty insignificant compared to the POST checks in most Enterprise environments. I vaguely remember Debian considering it too, for quite a while, but I can't remember their reasons for not adopting it. Back then, their focus was and still to a large is, servers.
But anyway, my point is that Upstart was very well thought out - a fully asynchronous service management/init system with a simple interface, massively extendable, yet completely backwards compatible with SysV.
Snap is a mess, is it? Based on what?
Unity was meh? Based on... ah, okay. Your opinion, I suppose, which is fair enough. Opinions differ. Mine was/is that Unity is a great example of Canonical's innovation - reacting to the options in front of them at the time and, crucially, doing something about it. Back then (around 2010), Gnome Shell - now that was a mess. A wholly forced, non-configurable change in workflow. Canonical had to react to that, and Unity was born. It was a brilliant half-way house between gnome 2 and shell. It was, itself, also a bit shitty until the 2012 releases, but that's iterative development for you.
Also back then, remember, Canonical were pushing the idea of a converged mobile & desktop experience. The "Edge" phone was coming, powered by Unity. Incredible vision, when you realise this was twelve years ago. I remember being blown away by the possibility of using my phone as a dashboard screen on my desktop, and resizing, mobile-aware apps - something we take a little more for granted these days, but absolutely mind-blowing at the time.
But I doubt any of this is convincing you, slaapliedje. Pretty sure you've made up your mind about Canonical for reasons I certainly can't fathom. But there's some context for why I'm repeatedly impressed by Canonical and what they've brought to the Linux desktop.
Evidence of snaps being a mess? Just look at what everyone says about their slow performance, their singular store source, the fact they've had crypto mining bits hidden in programs uploaded.
Anyhow, I, nor anyone else, needs to justify to random people online why we don't use Ubuntu, just as much as you don't need to justify why you'd use it. It's my own personal belief that Ubuntu was, as their mission statement said (yes I was there at the beginning of it) was to create a 6 month release of Debian based upon the Gnome desktop was later on ditched and became just another 'based on Debian' distro for me. So I moved back to using Debian and have enjoyed not having any proprietary software installed on my system in a method other than the one I choose myself.
See more from me