To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
You're using a different definition of open, I think.
Anyways, even if the development process isn't managed by the community, being Open Source, the code is eventually released and the community has the access and ability to work with, implement, and choose to modify it at will.
That's open.
Openness is not about getting your gratis software 4 free and being able to dictate how people run their own projects. That's childish and rather stupid.
Openness IS about freedom. You're free to ignore Ubuntu. You're free to create your own distro. You're free to remain completely silent. You're free to despise Ubuntu and Mark with every ounce of your being.
You're not, however, free to throw a childish troll session/temper tantrum because you don't agree and expect to be listened to and have EVERYONE agree with you.
Sincerely,
A proud consistent Kubuntu user with few complaints 






Member since:
2005-12-18
"
Community is not about managment, it is about participation, it is usual and acceptable to a company which financially supports a project to manage it, as long they have community oriented policies, which Ubuntu does"
Community as about management too. If management is not done by the community or community has no say in it how can you call it honestly a open project?