Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
Thanks for making my argument
Posted Mar 6, 2013 15:15 UTC (Wed) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
These assumptions of corruption reflect more about how the writer sees the world and thinks in their own head than about the people who are the subject of their words.
Posted Mar 6, 2013 15:51 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
Posted Mar 6, 2013 16:04 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
Such biases do exist, at various levels of consciousness. That is not to condemn them. However, we should be aware of them, and take care to note affiliations.
Posted Mar 6, 2013 16:16 UTC (Wed) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
As far as I can tell, dissing Canonical provides no tactical or strategic benefit to any particular vendor who is involved in this discussion
Posted Mar 6, 2013 16:28 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
However, there's been a number of times over the last few years where from several rouge capped free software people have snipped at Canonical, with a common theme that Canonical is somehow free-riding. The sub-text seems to be that Canonical gets more of the user-base with Ubuntu and recognition than their share of the work deserves. Guess who employees a lot of the people doing the work?
To think there is absolutely no element of corporate competition to this story seems, I'm sorry, a little naïve. Both in terms of Canonical choosing not to hitch their wagon to Wayland, and in the (predominantly) RedHat and Intel employees' reactions to that. There are pure, technical elements too, of course...
Posted Mar 6, 2013 19:34 UTC (Wed) by HelloWorld (subscriber, #56129)
Posted Mar 6, 2013 15:56 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (guest, #15091)
I am sure David calmly and dispassionately reviewed once more the payroll list of Canonical, and checked the LinkedIn skillsets of all employees. Then ignoring all subconscious biases he might once have possessed, decided that they didn't have anyone competent enough to write a display server.
Posted Mar 6, 2013 16:11 UTC (Wed) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
In any event pointing out the clear lack of familiarity with the technologies they are (not) using is not pre-judice, it's post-judice. I don't think it's unfair to also say that they have not demonstrated technical leadership very often in the underlying infrastructure technologies they depend on, bzr and upstart being two examples. They need not just the cojones but the talent to pull this all off.
I should also point out that I wish nothing but the best for Ubuntu, which is why I'm talking about this in the first place, if I didn't care I wouldn't comment.
Posted Mar 6, 2013 20:38 UTC (Wed) by airlied (subscriber, #9104)
Intel told Red Hat to tell me to say this. Thats exactly how it went down.
Posted Mar 6, 2013 20:48 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds