| First and foremost, thank you very much for taking the time to answer my comment. >At the scale of hundreds of engineers working on tens of codebases, who hasn't? It's not about the mistakes, but about the way you create new stuff. It always feels that canonical try's to copy other technologies but not to make them better but to own them (snaps). >counterpart in a rich discussion, rather than a one-dimensional anti-everything-Canonical mouthpiece? I am totally not against canonical, it's extremely important to have a professional alternative to rpm-based (RHEL,SLES) distribution's, i am just not happy how ubuntu/canonical changed in the past ~10 years, maybe you see it as hate, but for me it's a bit more like a friend who betrayed me, i know sound's stupid, but ubuntu was that friendly distro who send free disk's around the world and is now the most proprietary one who had a Amazon search function. >But why hate on me, and Canonical, when we literally put everything we had on the line for that vision, but screwed up? Wait, no one hates you...quite the opposite. >Why be an ass to the sorts of people who are willing to put every ounce of strength they have into something that you really wanted to see succeed? Then stop brewing always your own soup, or at least make it better then the rest. Linux already has a massive NIH-Syndrome, and here i have to admit that Ubuntu/Canonical made the right choice with ZFS, when others (SLES) use that terrible BTRFS. |
that is the key insight here. All of Canonical's marquee software projects over the years have been attempts to single-handedly control a given space, and they have essentially all failed.
Canonical is good at integrating other peoples' software though, which isn't surprising since that's been the core function of the company since its inception.