Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Some GUADEC notesSome GUADEC notesPosted Aug 20, 2010 13:07 UTC (Fri) by jake (editor, #205)In reply to: Some GUADEC notes by rahulsundaram Parent article: Some GUADEC notes
> The article wording just seems sloppy.
And for that I apologize, but I would like to point out that I was quoting Dave and that's what he said. As his report indicates, he does not attribute former employees' work to the Red Hat pile, he was just making an aside to (I think) give folks an idea of how pervasive Red Hat's contributions are.
jake
(Log in to post comments)
Some GUADEC notes Posted Aug 20, 2010 17:59 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
that doesn't make sense, you say
he does not attribute former employees' work to the Red Hat pile
but then you say that he was trying to
give folks an idea of how pervasive Red Hat's contributions are
former red hat employees work should not matter when considering how pervasive red hat's contributions are. This is exactly the mixing of credit I am opposed to.
Some GUADEC notes Posted Aug 20, 2010 20:46 UTC (Fri) by blitzkrieg3 (subscriber, #57873) [Link]
Whatever dude, Red Hat and Novell (-> SUSE -> Ximian) got there first. It's the same reason recent pickups at Intel's OSDL largely Red Hat ex-employees. If you wanted to do work in Gnome or Linux back in the day and still get paid, there were basically only two games in town.
It isn't a good or bad thing, it just is. And we can't expect upstarts like Canonical or Intel to be there just yet. It's just an observation that a lot of Gnome developers cut their teeth at Red Hat before moving on.
Disclaimer, I'm a Red Hat employee.
Some GUADEC notes Posted Aug 23, 2010 18:52 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
It makes perfect sense because those two sentences are not mutually exclusive. One talks about checkins in recent history, the other talks about them over a larger amount of time. There's no need to get defensive.
|
|||||||||||||