I feel like in 2004 not everyone who was an asshole on the internet was aware they were assholes, and there wasn’t the same culture of enthusiastically informing them.

Not to excuse the behavior, but different times were different times.

I can't read this comments as anything other than virtue signalling. You can call Mark Shuttleworth an asshole and still use Ubuntu without being a hypocrite.

Ive been feeling like Ubuntu has been failing technically for years and this thread is really helping explain why.

Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing.

This Shuttleworth guy sounds like a smarmy jackass, and after reading that article on the hiring process, I wouldn't even wanna bother, especially considering I could literally apply at a MAGNAM company and get double the compensation.

They can have their "fanatical fan base employees" with my blessing.

But these factors were also in place for their distro ascendency too, so you probably can't blame the factors. If anything, long term success itself is more likely to explain eventual hubris, complacency then decline.

I still use Ubuntu at home, but it's probably just inertia at this point. I don't hate it, but I also don't really like it the way I used to.

Would you mind explaining why you say Ubuntu has been failing technically? I’ve found it underwhelming but I’m curious to read more negative opinions.

That’s interesting because as soon as I read the phrase ‘virtue signaling’, I ignore the person who wrote it. It’s deeply rude because you’re implying that I have no virtue. You don’t know me and so that’s intellectually dishonest.

from what you've written so far it seems pretty accurate.

I mean, if Mark wrote that in 2004, he was dunking on an administration that was widely believed to be the worst ever.

(Obviously, we had NO idea what was coming.)

> (Obviously, we had NO idea what was coming.)

Yeah, those drone strikes from the Obama administration were pretty bad.

Obama certainly could have done a better job at stopping them (and done better at many other things as well), but those drone strikes started under Bush2, along with the rest of the mostly disastrous "war on terror". Given we experienced our first non-peaceful transition of power, it's absurd to pretend anything else in US history compares.

> our first non-peaceful transition of power

I know what you mean, but the phrasing seems odd given that the US has gone through multiple transfers of power because POTUS was murdered.

I'm not sure why that is relevant. "Transition of power" describes the period of time when power transitions from one administration to the next. A non-peaceful end of presidency can be followed by a peaceful transition of power.

If anything, this fact makes things much worse.

VPOTUS assuming the presidency absolutely is a new administration. Hard to see how anyone could claim otherwise.

Consider Andrew Johnson, who wasn't even the same party as Lincoln. He was impeached by Republicans and in his run for presidency got his votes mostly from Southern whites. He pardoned basically all confederates. The murder of Lincoln definitely was a violent transfer of power from an abolitionist to a Southern apologist.

> VPOTUS assuming the presidency absolutely is a new administration. Hard to see how anyone could claim otherwise.

I am not claiming otherwise. I'm saying: it doesn't matter if the last president dies.

> Consider Andrew Johnson, who wasn't even the same party as Lincoln. He was impeached by Republicans and in his run for presidency got his votes mostly from Southern whites. He pardoned basically all confederates. The murder of Lincoln definitely was a violent transfer of power from an abolitionist to a Southern apologist.

What violence occurred during the transition of power? Who tried to stop the political processes?

> What violence occurred during the transition of power? Who tried to stop the political processes?

There wasn't supposed to be a transition of power. A violent initiation to the transfer of power when transfer of power was not supposed to occur is a non-peaceful transfer of power.

Exactly :) It was still a brat comment though. I'd forgotten about that. Thank goodness we grow out of some things.

Wait till you hear how much of an asshole RMS and Linus (to degree) are. What's next on your trip, go full time on Microsoft?

Why are you this obsessed with defending this particular dude??

Where precisely was I 'defending' anyone, nonetheless 'obsessing' over it? hm? care to provide some citations? This isn't reddit.

I wrote one line of facetious comment. Definition of "obsessed" and "defending" are clear cut. Words have meaning.

They also buy email lists from ZoomInfo to spam people then don’t take GDPR requests seriously after you chase them for answers. So yeah, good riddance.

Honest question why?

It’s based upon a few things.

Ubuntu has been underwhelming as of late. It’s fine, just underwhelming. Sometimes software becomes underwhelming as it matures but in this case, the hiring process seems designed to ship underwhelming software.

Then there is the particular issue. That kind of thinking/communication style doesn’t make me feel comfortable with Ubuntu (or any project he would have a leadership role in).

And finally, I’m really tired of how our industry seems to glorify jerks.

So we have:

1.) Ubuntu is rather underwhelming.

2.) The hiring process is so fucked that underwhelming software is the most likely result.

3.) There is a lot of competition and I can find projects with vaguely professional/secure leaders.

4.) I run more than enough jerk driven software.

Why is filtering applicants for people who accomplished at least something in any area of life (not even specifically software) being a jerk ?

What is a good alternative to migrate from Ubuntu to?

he's an asshole because he wants to work with extraordinary people and made fun of george bush?

Twisting the signal/noise knob this way may not attract all or even the right kind of extraordinary people you think you will.

The classic Madeleine Albright-Aaron Swartz dichotomy. Gee, that's a tough call LOL

More word salad.

How is it noise to imply that people who work in government are overwhelmingly blood-sucking bureaucrats who could never hack it in the software world? Who does that drive away that would be useful? Tech lobbyists?

Read his words.

"I can’t support anyone who is this much of an asshole."

And so I ask again: He's an asshole because he wants to work with extraordinary people and made fun of george W bush?

see, I added the W. now answer.

Now answer? Are you fucking kidding me? You think I’m going to follow your orders? Are you really stupid or do you just have poor social skills?

C'mon, it was a casual joke and no harm done. Also punching someone weaker is a simple act, but taking on someone stronger requires courage.

Does it fit the somewhat quirky (but by far not unusual) interview process? Yes

Is it a sign of a moral flaw? No

Unless, of course, you work for that government. Kind of the same one that put people on the Moon, made the atomic bomb, invented the internet, and other things less extraordinary than repackaging Debian ;-)

I have talked to him a couple times while working for Canonical and, while I knew his reputation of being a very Steve Jobs person, he was never an asshole with me. And the CEO was a real sweetheart. I'd think twice if he called me, but wouldn't blink if she did.

The Bush Administration did not do any of those things. Reading his comments as a dismissal of those things, rather than the guy running the White House when he wrote it, seems uncharitable.

Words like “Bush” or “current administration” do not occur in the article. Rather, it was just a link. You don’t have any particular reason to be this charitable.

He linked to the White House website. The occupant of the White House at the time was George W. Bush. I am not even trying to be charitable, that's just the most likely reading to me. Basically every talk show host made similar jokes all the time because Bush was widely considered to be an incompetent nepo baby, so I'd need a reason to read it any other way, and I don't really see one here.

They also interned Japanese-Americans, caused the Arab Spring/Syrian Civil War, made the atomic bomb (oh, you mentioned that one!), ran numerous undisclosed human experimentation projects, imposed multiple central banking systems on the United States, caused the mortgage crisis, and gave China most favoured nation status.

You still can't really say the US government doesn't do things that are deeply impactful, many times very negatively impactful.

The US government serves the US's interests. I have no illusions as to how well it behaves towards other countries.

Except most of the things I mentioned hurt Americans first and foremost. You didn't catch that? Gulf War syndrome, Tuskegee, MK Ultra, Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac/Lehman Brothers, destroying Detroit, enriching an adversary totalitarian nuclear state with Mao Zedong on its money, confiscating gold, devaluing the dollar... literally putting American citizens in camps.

The US government serves the US government's interests.

It is controlled by the people elected. The only solution is to elect better representatives who need to push for stricter regulations on government behavior so that worse representatives have fewer opportunities for making a mess.

it's nominally controlled by the elected. until someone accuses the elected of threatening the independence of such and such agency and then the intelligence community (permanent Washington) has six ways from Sunday at getting back at you. stories are planted in all CIA/State Department-aligned i.e. major newspapers. classified information is selectively leaked by the heads of the agencies to their friends in academia. lawsuits fly. the ACLU finds a couch surfer to testify that bees are fish. and it's over before it started.