On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 11:32 +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > at the time, there was no Canonical website, no Ubuntu website. Only a > handful of patches up on no-name-yet. > At the same time, neither the company name nor name of the distribution had been decided! So there could hardly have been websites for things that didn't actually exist.
The front page of www.no-name-yet.com clearly stated we were a group of Debian Developers working on a derived distribution, and so did the announcement sent to debian-devel. There was nothing else to report. > I think we deserved a better explanation. > Such as? > > I don't think accusing the Ubuntu developers of hiding information is > > At the time of no-name-yet, they *were* hiding information. > No more than any other company would tend to do while still getting on its feet, trying to find staff, etc. You seem to be assuming Canonical was a fully-fledged company from day#1, that isn't true. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
