Linked by David Adams on Thu 29th Jul 2010 16:59 UTC, submitted by root
Thread beginning with comment 434779
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: These numbers look very similair to the Linux Kernel
by Soulbender on Fri 30th Jul 2010 05:54
in reply to "RE: These numbers look very similair to the Linux Kernel"
http://www.jonobacon.org/2010/07/30/red-hat-canonical-and-gnome-con...
Dylan McCall's comment is easily the most interesting.
Edited 2010-07-30 05:57 UTC
RE[3]: These numbers look very similair to the Linux Kernel
by vivainio on Fri 30th Jul 2010 08:29
in reply to "RE[2]: These numbers look very similair to the Linux Kernel"
http://www.jonobacon.org/2010/07/30/red-hat-canonical-and-gnome-con...
Dylan McCall's comment is easily the most interesting.
Dylan McCall's comment is easily the most interesting.
The whole article is pretty interesting.
Dave Neary (the guy who did the census) also chips in as a voice of sanity in the discussion:
http://www.jonobacon.org/2010/07/30/red-hat-canonical-and-gnome-con...




Member since:
2010-02-16
Indeed. When Greg KH held his keynote with statistics from core OS parts Linux distributions Canonical's immediate excuse was "We care more about higher levels than that. That statistic is unfair."
I wonder how/if Canonical will respond to this. Will they present 100 Paper Cuts as "proof" that they are the only entity around that cares about usability even though most paper cuts aren't even fixed by Canonical staff?
As a side note: One Xorg developer pointed out on his blog that Canonical employees file bug reports to Red Hat, because they can't fix them themselves: http://airlied.livejournal.com/72817.html
Edited 2010-07-30 00:38 UTC