Re: Canonical's business model
Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:34:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Ubuntu could report in the BTS all the bugs it finds, and submit patches
>> via the BTS.
> As you know, most bugs are reported by users, not discovered by developers
> We direct users to report those bugs to us, rather than Debian, for obvious
Really? I get not infrequent mail from Ubuntu users, about Debian
packages I maintain, in the Ubuntu distribution. Problems with, say,
installation, and whatnot, sometimes caused *by Ubuntu*. And yet, the
poor users look at the unmodified Maintainer: field, and conclude I
must be the maintainer of what they are looking at, even though, in
fact, I am not.
> Many patches are submitted via the BTS, though not every patch published in
> the patch archive is submitted this way, for reasons which have been
> discussed to death in previous threads.
The fact that you have reasons is irrelevant. The fact is, you're not
cooperating. Saying "it's too expensive to cooperate properly!" may
be true, but doesn't somehow turn non-cooperation into cooperation.
>> Ubuntu could find a way to do its own bug triage on packages for its
>> users, rather than leaving Debian maintainer fields unmodified.
> I don't see the connection between these two behaviors. Ubuntu developers
> do triage a huge volume of bugs from our user community, and the maintainer
> field issue was thoroughly discussed in an older thread.
Thoroughly? To whose satisfaction? Not mine. You still think
mislabeling the package is a great thing.