Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Pencil, Pencil, and Pencil
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
Little things that matter in language design
Quick follow up. Were you sponsored by Canonical to attend UDS? Or did you fly out there on LWN's dime?
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software
Posted May 17, 2011 18:27 UTC (Tue) by jake (editor, #205)
As with most international travel (and domestic for that matter), LWN doesn't have the budget to send people to all of the different events that we cover. So we look for sponsorships and in this case Canonical did cover airfare and hotel.
Posted May 17, 2011 18:38 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Again not to say that you are overly bias, if anything I think you punched Shuttleworth in the mouth a little with your choice of quotes. And because the article isn't overtly biased in his favor even though you were sponsored, it gives me some leeway in asking you about bias in the industry in a more general way with the hope that you'll give the question full consideration. Is it ethical for technical laypress to withhold travel sponsorship information from readership?
And it gives me the chance to challenge you personally with the next question. Do you consider yourself an active Ubuntu contributor? I'm trying to understand how laypress sponsorship jives with Jono's explanation of the sponsorship process. Do you feel that sponsoring laypress from the same budget that sponsors active contributors to UDS is a fair use of funds? If you knew that your ticket and hotel could have paid for an active contributor to show up and engage in discussions and take on work items that need to be done in the next cycle would you have chosen to give your sponsorship to that contributor?
Posted May 17, 2011 18:48 UTC (Tue) by jake (editor, #205)
I don't really know about Google, Apple, or Red Hat's policies in this regard. They don't really have "equivalent" events as far as I can tell (FUDCon might be the exception there). I have been sponsored by the Linux Foundation for various events (LinuxCon, Collab, MeeGo, probably others), by GNOME for GUADEC, and by CELF for various ELC and ELCE events, perhaps others as well.
> I think you punched Shuttleworth in the mouth a little with your
> choice of quotes.
Sorry you (and others evidently) think so, it was not my intent. I was trying to give an accurate picture of what he said.
> Do you consider yourself an active Ubuntu contributor?
No. As I understand it, my sponsorship did not go through the usual UDS sponsorship channels. It came, I think, from the marketing budget.
Posted May 27, 2011 6:51 UTC (Fri) by AdamW (guest, #48457)
I know some conferences sponsor journalists to attend.
Posted May 17, 2011 18:55 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1)
The notion that we are, by virtue of writing about what happened at an event, somehow less deserving of travel sponsorship is just a little offensive.
In general we have tended to avoid distribution-specific events (or desktop-project-specific events) because we've always figured that somebody from an opposing camp would complain. We can't possibly attend every distribution's conference, so we normally attend none. Perhaps we need to stick to that in the future.
Posted May 17, 2011 19:12 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
I would say that if its common practice for an organizing entity to sponsor journos, I think sponsored journos should include that information in any article about the event as part of disclosure.
And since Jono's description of the UDS sponsoring process added just this week doesn't mention journos as a special group...I was misled into thinking it was a common budget based on the chatter I was seeing about the original gripe. If there's a separate pot of money for journos then its not a problem. But like I said, from the chatter I'm seeing, that's not necessarily the impression. A clear statement about how journos are selected which parallel's Jono's description of UDS contributor sponsorship would probably make things clearer.
Posted May 17, 2011 19:24 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1)
A reasonable case could certainly be made for better disclosure of travel sponsorship, anyway.
Posted May 17, 2011 19:40 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
And indeed having press at an event does add value for the journalist and the organizer and the readership. I would not suggest otherwise. But there are ethical considerations for the industry to consider when journalists are dependent on sponsorships from organizing entities.
I believe it would be adequate disclosure for anyone who attends and event and is sponsored to attend an event should disclose their sponsorship, whether they attended strictly as a contributor to participate or as a journalist to cover the story, or as a mix of both. It is good practice for a number of reason to disclose sponsorship depending on your particular situation as a sponsored individual. The GNOME devs who write personal blogs do a pretty good job consistently tagging GNOME Foundation sponsorships for events they attend and write about for example, though for completely different reasons than the reasons I would expect a journalist to disclose sponsorship to their readership.
Posted May 17, 2011 21:42 UTC (Tue) by mgross (subscriber, #38112)
Posted May 18, 2011 2:02 UTC (Wed) by nzjrs (subscriber, #35911)
I'm presuming you are referring to the OMGUbuntu folks.
I think elevating or equating OMG with LWN is an insult to the quality and depth of reporting at LWN.
I guess I don't see what mystery there is to get to the bottom of.
If LWN was picked because they were better (more technical, more thorough) journalists then I cant disagree. If they were picked because it was their turn then I have no objection. I can't imagine a cynical third option (if the goal was to provide positive coverage) that would result in LWN being chosen over OMG.
Posted May 18, 2011 3:38 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
But I am stating that we'll all benefit from adequate disclosure about sponsorship. And I personally think the LWN team is probably the best example of journalistic standards in our little pocket of spacetime. And since I think that, I also think they'd listen to a reasonable request that such disclosures be made a common practice when such sponsorship occurs. Trust me, I'm not making a direct comparison between LWN and any other journalistic effort. There's no comparison.
To his credit, Jake didn't drag his feet about answering the question about sponsorship when I asked it. Asked and answered, no hedging no backpedaling..just a straight up answer..even though they know he openned himself up to criticism with the answer. I can't expect anything more than that. It's refreshing to get a clean answer even when the question is challenging in nature.
I'm not going to hold a grudge for the LWN team for not thinking about sponsorship disclosure as a matter of policy up till this point. I certainly didn't ever think about it before now. But I am thinking about it, and I think there's a reasonable chance they'll consider making disclosure part of their standard operating policy.
Posted May 18, 2011 4:01 UTC (Wed) by jake (editor, #205)
I never really considered that, exactly. I have at various points thanked sponsors in my articles from conferences, typically in some kind of wrap-up article. But, I am sure I have forgotten more than a few times as well.
I have no problem "disclosing" that kind of information at all. But I am surprised that some think it is really all that significant in terms of determining biases. We all have biases, and most of what goes into those biases cannot be quantified by things like 'were sponsored to go to XYZ conference by ABC org'. There are plenty of other, less visible things that *could* be contributing to my biases (corporate subscriptions and advertising are two obvious possibilities).
In order to create a bias filter for a site or a writer, I think you have to read the material and compare it to what else you know of the subject of the article and go from there. Over some period of time, you will get a feel for where the biases are, and whether you trust the site/writer to, generally, accurately report things. I can certainly disclose that someone paid for some of the expenses to get me to a place where I could cover an event, but for all you know they (or a competitor) were handing me $100 bills hourly.
It just seems obvious to me that the only way to really figure out what the biases of a given writer/publication are is by reading it and forming your own opinions. Finding out about sponsorships might seem like it helps, and maybe it does, but it's really no substitute for reading and thinking about what's written.
Posted May 17, 2011 19:12 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
Posted May 17, 2011 19:20 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
LWN does a very good job of being even-handed in it's reporting (better than any other organisation I know of writing about the industry), That may be why this article stood out in that if anything, the choice of quotes seems to be aimed at putting Mark in a bad light (very few articles have this many direct quotes), so LWN is definitely not falling down this slope.
I would be disappointed if concerns over this made it so that LWN appeared at fewer events.
Posted May 17, 2011 19:28 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Posted May 17, 2011 20:44 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
there has always been tension in the FOSS community between those who are willing to make compromises in order to provide needed functionality now and those who will do without the functionality until it's free.
Mark has clearly placed himself (and Ubuntu) in the camp of those willing to so things that the other camp isn't willing to do in order to provide functionality now. He is far from being alone in that camp (Linus is another vocal member of that camp) and his description of the other camp as being 'ideologues' is not unexpected (or, in my mind particularly inappropriate, what would)
the problem that he talks about where companies start to open up and get hammered for what they haven't opened yet rather than thanked for what they have opened is a serious problem
I also don't think that anyone disagrees with the '80% complete' problem that he describes.
the need or lack thereof for contributor agreements is a matter where there is a lot more disagreement. It's good that he isn't happy with the current Cannonical agreement, I don't think anyone is and the big thing that he needs to do is to make it clear what he is trying to do with this agreement and re-write the agreement to provide the appropriate guidelines (it may be good enough to add guarantees that the software will always be available under a particular license or class of license in addition to any proprietary licenses that are granted)
I do think that it's a good thing that Mark had decided that it's acceptable for Cannonical to sign contributer agreements when submitting patches to other projects , as that should reduce the friction involved.
but as long as the FSF is requiring contributor agreements, many of the more vocal people really have a hard time arguing that the concept of a contributor agreement is evil.
Posted May 17, 2011 21:04 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
If he's going to talk the talk, Canonical needs to walk the walk. And with LibreOffice, Canonical walked away from corporate management of the codebase and embraced open co-development. Mark can't have his cake and eat it to, try as he might. Canonical showed real leadership in how quickly they embraced Libreoffice.
And he still gets the details of the Qt copyright assignment history wrong. Qt had a BSD relicense nuclear option for like a decade+ tied to its dual licensing model. If the open development tree closed down, a non-profit entities had the authority to relicense the last available open development codebase as BSD. That is a _huge_ offset against bad faith proprietary re-licensing. He continues to gloss over that history when holding up Qt. I've even said that Qt's nuclear option seemed like a fair trade-off to protect long term contributor interests. More disturbingly I don't believe the Harmony drafts make room for that sort of creative long term balance of interests..at least not explicitly. So if anything Harmony may push that sort of pragmatic balance of corporate and contributor business interests off the table as a future model for engagement.
Shuttleworth is not one to let little things like "facts" get in the way of his goals to craft perception and opinion towards the ends that best suit his personal interests.
Posted May 17, 2011 21:05 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
I don't think anybody considers it "evil" and any such portrayal is very unhelpful however many would consider copyright assignment as problematic when commercial companies use it and it is especially problematic when people point to FSF as a justification for it as they invariably do because FSF is a non-profit organization with a legal mandate for serving the public while commercial organizations are not and FSF copyright assignment gives a legal guarantee and FSF's own history makes it clear that they would never release contributed code under a proprietary license.
Evidence or urban legend - "problems" companies have
Posted May 17, 2011 21:19 UTC (Tue) by quaid (guest, #26101)
So I work for Red Hat on community organizing, and have been involved with many discussions directly with real software vendors (ISVs) who range from a spectrum of "all code is already open source but no community around it" to "maybe we'll open source something one day."
This assertion that companies get treated poorly in open communities is not an uncommon fear of these companies. But where is the evidence?
When I have observed these many companies interacting in open communities, or thinking about it, or doing anything, it is rare that I have seen a truly poor interaction that originated from someone in the community. Some mis-communication happens, but rarely, rarely is it an outright attack of the sort Mr. Shuttleworth tells hearsay about.
Aside from the general recognition to treat all potential contributors fairly, even corporations, in the last decade there has been a growth in professional open source developers who impact the quality of discussion in the open communities. I'm sure there ARE companies who have bad experiences, and I'm sure that a percentage of those are not directly at fault for that reaction. But is it an actual problem? Or just perceived as one?
What are the real facts? How close is the reality to the unsupported assertion Mr. Shuttleworth seems to simply repeat?
Considering that this is cornerstone of his long-thinking on the subject, I would hope he has at least done some market research. Not just talked with peer executives at other ISVs, who all repeat the same urban legends without any more evidence than hearsay.
My contrast, I turn to Dr. Dan Frye, who is the VP of IBM's open source developer group. In the below video, he talks about how THEY made the mistakes in their initial forays in to open source development. He didn't blame the community for their reaction. He fixed his house. Today, IBM has a process for evaluating how to join an open source community so they can avoid stomping in with giant boots-of-destruction:
Posted May 17, 2011 21:26 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
This isn't just Mark imagining things.
Posted May 17, 2011 21:35 UTC (Tue) by quaid (guest, #26101)
Agreed, nor am I imagining my own experience. (Which is that more companies strangle themselves in the open source crib than get strangled by external folks.)
But I'm not claiming my experience is the way things are, everywhere, and asking others to accept that anecdotal experience as unverified fact. Nor am I using it as the basis for an unpopular position.
Posted May 17, 2011 21:38 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
if saying that is an unpopular position, then more people need to take such an unpopular position.
Posted May 17, 2011 22:32 UTC (Tue) by quaid (guest, #26101)
If the problem isn't as he describes it, then perhaps his conclusion of what to do is not the right answer?
His direction regarding CLAs is at least called in to question if he is basing that direction on the opinion that there is a wide spread problem if there is no evidence of that problem other than anecdotal.
Posted May 18, 2011 1:06 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
I don't think that his solution will solve the problem, but I think he's entitled to try it and see if he can make it work (there are a lot of companies out there that I would not have thought that there was enough to make it work)
I would disagree with straight copyright assignment, but I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the right to dual license (which is not the same as making proprietary derivatives). I see this as giving people who want to use the code two options 'support the project by contributing code' or 'support the project by contributing money so that the project can buy time to generate code'.
I know that some people are not willing to accept that as choice for their code (especially if they are outsiders, not part of the organization that would be getting the money), and to those folks I would say, find a different project to contribute to, there's no shortage of worthy causes. I will also guarantee that you will not always agree with the choices the organization makes, and for that it doesn't matter what organization, be it Cannonical or the FSF.
Posted May 18, 2011 8:33 UTC (Wed) by dneary (subscriber, #55185)
I've witnessed numerous cases where companies start to open something and have people attacking them publicly
As have I.
I would say that there are a number of factors at play here:
Companies who are honest about the extent of their investment in community projects get a lot of credit. Companies who are not honest about the extent of their investment (potentially to themselves) get criticised.
What I mean by this is: if a company makes an announcement that "we're releasing software X, it's going to be completely community run", and then the governance rules are blatantly skewed to favour the company, then they're going to be criticised. If instead they say "we're releasing this as open source software, but we plan to continue maintaining the core (but patch proposals are welcome)" they will get a free pass.
Companies who leave themselves open to criticism like this lose respect fast, and there is a significant faction in most communities that are extremely, aggressively harsh towards entities they don't respect.
This is not a good state of affairs - and I would like to see the vocal minority think of companies as groups of individuals, each worthy of basic respect, rather than a big amorphous entity that you can freely kick around without hurting anyone's feelings.
Companies which are trusted, and lose that trust, have a long, hard battle to gain it back.
Take the example of Sun, who announced open-sourcing of Solaris after a successful collaboration with GNOME. They never recovered from the criticism they got for OpenSolaris, Java, etc - and nothing they did (including for example relicencing Java as GPL) was good enough to regain the trust they'd lost by messing up the initial release of OpenSolaris. Canonical feels to me to be in a similar situation - slowly spending their community capital and progressively losing the trust of their supporters, until no matter what they do they will be criticised because it won't be good enough.
This is a really hard situation to be in as a company. If you mess up your first interaction with a project, you can spend years repairing the relationship & regaining trust. You do it in baby steps, by showing that you're learning, by entrusting individuals to represent you in communities, and by having those individuals do things in the community's interests.
On the other hand, I have seen companies progressively increase their interaction with communities, and each additional step is met with approval and thanks. Or companies that are forthright that while their product is free software, that they're going to maintain control of their core product, and that's been accepted by their user community. The difference is in the fall from grace and loss of trust. So my best advice to companies thinking about interacting with a free software community is: start small, be honest with yourself & others. Gain trust through your actions, and then handle that trust carefully.
Posted May 18, 2011 22:08 UTC (Wed) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
Sorry, but Sun did not fix their problem with Java (witness the heat Oracle is now raining on Android over that same code) or their other open source projects (placing OpenSolaris under their expressly not GPL compatible license). So it isn't that they invested years of hard work in regaining confidence, they lost whatever they had fair and square and did precious little to gain it back.
Posted May 19, 2011 7:23 UTC (Thu) by dneary (subscriber, #55185)
The main problem people had with Java is "it's not released under the GPL". Then it was. But that was too late, the confidence had been lost, and so people were looking for the catch, and they found it - "the conformance suit isn't available under a free licence".
If Sun's first announcement was "Java released under GPL, but Sun to maintain control of Java trademark" then I think everyone's reaction would have been "fair enough, woohoo". Because this was a 2nd or 3rd step, after an initial "freeing Java" announcement (and in combination with the history around Solaris), people were saying "boo, hiss - holding something back".
Which I think was mostly unfair.
> placing OpenSolaris under their expressly not GPL compatible license
Since when does every free software licence have to be GPL compatible? It would have been nice, but releasing it as free software is better than not releasing it as free software. This is a case in point of what Mark is saying - "not enough" is an all too frequent chant.
Posted May 19, 2011 15:09 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576)
You forgot 'passing the non-free conformance test is a condition for being able to use the numerous wide-reaching patents over which we will eventually sue you'. As catches go, a massive lawsuit probably counts as quite a big one.
Posted May 19, 2011 15:13 UTC (Thu) by dneary (subscriber, #55185)
Ah, I don't care about patents, and I encourage every other free software developer not to care about patents. It is an issue orthogonal to software freedom and the licence of the software.
Posted May 19, 2011 15:34 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576)
Do you have any justification for this rather extraordinary assertion?
> and the licence of the software.
Posted May 19, 2011 15:39 UTC (Thu) by dneary (subscriber, #55185)
The Linux kernel is patent encumbered. The GIMP saved GIFs when LZW was still patented.
This does not prevent either from being free software.
Mind me asking what was extraordinary about my assertion?
Posted May 20, 2011 21:49 UTC (Fri) by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
Posted May 20, 2011 23:36 UTC (Fri) by dneary (subscriber, #55185)
Then no software is free.
Posted May 21, 2011 5:40 UTC (Sat) by faramir (subscriber, #2327)
Are you saying that ALL software is covered by
patents? That seems implausible.
Posted May 21, 2011 6:29 UTC (Sat) by dark (subscriber, #8483)
Either way, how can you prove for any piece of software that it's not covered by any patents?
Posted Jun 5, 2011 5:47 UTC (Sun) by JanC_ (guest, #34940)
Posted May 21, 2011 9:54 UTC (Sat) by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
Posted May 21, 2011 10:30 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
for example, the RCU patent has been licensed to all software under the GPL IIRC
Posted May 22, 2011 8:22 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
Posted May 22, 2011 21:13 UTC (Sun) by dneary (subscriber, #55185)
I would say *proven* to infringe a patent. And that needs a court case. And a bucketload of money. And not $1 bills.
So, all software is free, and the patent system is broken, and keeps approving patents which, if challenged, would be invalidated. So, as I said, I don't worry about patents, and I don't think a patent should ever be a reason not to write a piece of free software.
Posted May 22, 2011 23:11 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
Posted May 27, 2011 7:04 UTC (Fri) by AdamW (guest, #48457)
Posted May 29, 2011 18:50 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433)
For example, where I live, software patents are EXplicitly NOT permitted. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop the EPO granting them in contravention of their constitution :-(
Evidence - "problems" companies have
Posted May 22, 2011 7:57 UTC (Sun) by nhippi (subscriber, #34640)
Posted May 22, 2011 8:09 UTC (Sun) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185)
Posted May 17, 2011 20:50 UTC (Tue) by ofeeley (guest, #36105)
It's impossible to know if the choice of quotes is aimed at anything, or is instead a fair representation of the interview. That's why journalists often keep a recording. Given Jake's previous reporting it might be fair to assume that he managed to capture the essence of the interview and in order to reinforce his interpretation provided quotes to anchor it.
If you look at the companion piece about UDS you'll see that the same style (short, inlined quotes) is used.
Posted May 17, 2011 21:51 UTC (Tue) by cmccabe (guest, #60281)
He is clearly frustrated that FOSS is a cost center rather than a profit center for companies. For example, Google and Facebook spend money on FOSS to support their operations, but they don't directly make money from FOSS. It is an expense for them, like air conditioning or health care.
Shuttleworth seems to think that using copyright assignment, companies can offer premium version of their projects alongside open source ones. This would allow them to generate a revenue stream of their own.
It would have been nice to have fewer, longer excerpts from the speech. Having just a few whole paragraphs would probably have been better. But it's not like the content of this speech should surprise anyone. He's been saying these things for years. It's kind of like seeing "breaking news: Pope thinks Jesus is a great guy" in the headlines.
P.S. I don't think I agree with Mark... copyright assignment seems to separate communities into first-class citizens who get the profit from selling proprietary licenses and second-class citizens who never will. But that's another issue and it's been discussed many times elsewhere...
Posted May 18, 2011 9:44 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
Google and Facebook spend money on FOSS to support their operations, but they don't directly make money from FOSS.
They may not actually make money, but it certainly saves them money. Linux lets Google use commodity PCs for their server farms, and imagine the aggregated cost of those Windows licenses/maintenance/
Besides, I'm sure that, from a strategy POV, Google would hate being dependent on their biggest competitor for their operating system. If Linux didn't exist, it might even be worth Google's while to write their own operating system just to be »free«.
Posted May 18, 2011 21:02 UTC (Wed) by piggy (subscriber, #18693)
It would sadden me if this were the outcome. I certainly appreciated the coverage reported here. I count on LWN occasionally attending many of the conferences that I would love to attend myself.
Posted May 19, 2011 9:13 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646)
No, please don't. It gives us a chance to learn what's going on at other distributions. I like to hear about UDS or about Fedora meetings, it's interesting information. Please, don't let the jspaleta's obsessed search for Shuttleworth/Canonical misdoings influence your journalistic decisions. That you can let the respective organizations pay for your travel and conference costs, is a trust situation that you (both you personally, and LWN.net as a whole) earned with impartial reporting in the past.
Posted May 19, 2011 9:30 UTC (Thu) by fb (subscriber, #53265)
I personally wish that you would _not_ stick to that in the future. The conference reports are, at least to me, useful and interesting.
Please (*please*) don't let (what I see as) jspaleta "trolling on all things Ubuntu" influence LWN policies and choices. I mean, are we to get less coverage on Ubuntu because jspaleta has nothing better to do than post 50 times in _every_ Ubuntu/Canonical story?
Posted May 19, 2011 10:11 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
And again, I'll re-iterate that I'm not complaining about Jake's attendance at UDS. I'm _not_ asking for some sort of sham "fair and balanced" stupidity for event coverage either. I do not expect LWN to try to be at every possible event to cover all bases and all factions. And like you I don't think they should go out of their way to avoid "camp" specific events either.
I do think its better for all of us in the readership that travel sponsorship is disclosed as a matter of policy. And to Jake's credit he added a sponsorship thank you in the newest weekly edition article summarizing the UDS experience, which more than meets any reasonable sponsorship disclosure request I could ask for as a member of the readership.
It could very well be that we need to find more ways to get press sponsored to attend conference events to raise the profile of working going on in the ecosystem. And I have no problem with that, as long as we make it a cultural norm to disclose sponsorship.
Posted May 19, 2011 14:07 UTC (Thu) by bfields (subscriber, #19510)
And again, I'll re-iterate...
Most of us heard you the first time, even if you for some reason feel that one particular commenter didn't.
Please do us all the favor of stating your position once as well as you can, and then sitting out unless you have something to say that an intelligent reader wouldn't be able to figure out on their own from a previous post.
(Apologies for the off-topic post.)
Posted May 19, 2011 15:44 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Posted May 19, 2011 14:01 UTC (Thu) by stevem (subscriber, #1512)
Also +1 on not letting jspaleta put you off!
Posted May 20, 2011 18:59 UTC (Fri) by Kluge (guest, #2881)
Posted May 17, 2011 22:06 UTC (Tue) by pzb (subscriber, #656)
Posted May 18, 2011 0:47 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Posted May 18, 2011 1:22 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
providing assistance for press to attend is less common in the FOSS world, if for no other reason than that the budgets tend to be small.
but in the commercial world, high-value give-aways are very common, even to attendees. This is a large part of the reason that many press people end up getting the reputation as shills and I believe that it's a large part of the reason that the traditional press (including many magazines) are of such poor quality.
I can't point at specifics on the commercial side, but if you read the write-ups after just about any major commercial event, it seems pretty obvious.
Posted May 18, 2011 1:30 UTC (Wed) by pzb (subscriber, #656)
I was thinking of events like:
There are tons more, these are just a few that come to mind. I'm not sure if you would call all of these FLOSS ecosystem entities, but all contribute to FLOSS or have large percentages their software running on Linux. Admittedly none of these is really the same as UDS, but Canonical does not run a user conference similar to the above to my knowledge.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds