On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:32:16AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> wrote: > > > | How could we know ? We know nothing about Ubuntu, nothing about > > | Canonical, nothing about the goals, nothing about how everything was > > | done to begin with, nothing about who works or doesn't work there. > > > > That, sir, would be entirely the fault of yourself. It's three clicks > > from the front page of canonical.com what the goals of Ubuntu is. > > It's well documented on the www.ubuntu.com pages. About who works or > > doesn't work there, well, though it's not secret, it's not like the > > company roster is publically available. A lot of the names should be > > easy to pick out, though. > > For $DEITY's sake. Will you please understand that the Ubuntu folks > totally failed to inform their fellows about what was going on ? And Why should they have? Considering the amount of crap that gets piled on them now, I think their decision not to send constant "so-and-so just went to the toilet" messages to d-d-a was pretty reasonable. > I think we deserved a better explanation. I think we all deserved a pony. > > I don't think accusing the Ubuntu developers of hiding information is > > At the time of no-name-yet, they *were* hiding information. Like what? The fact that one of them turned up in the office one day with a hangover? That's not hiding, that's just not telling you something. And no, you do not have a right to know *anything* about Ubuntu, so it's difficult to make charges of information hiding stick. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature