Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shuttleworth Tosses $1M Behind Open-Source Project

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic Shuttleworth Tosses $1M Behind Open-Source Project

    Shuttleworth Tosses $1M Behind Open-Source Project

    Phoronix: Shuttleworth Tosses $1M Behind Open-Source Project

    Mark Shuttleworth is investing one million dollars into an open-source project to support its rapid growth and community...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE4MTg

  • Pallidus
    replied
    my presence

    Leave a comment:


  • Pallidus
    replied
    mark's contribution to linux: millions of $ spent promoting it, ubuntu, etc etc etc

    asdx's contribution to linux: 444 posts of fail.

    Leave a comment:


  • zeealpal
    replied
    Yeah

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    again, is English your first langauge? I ask because In english, you can say XYZ system doesn't have a single point of failure, just as you can say XYZ system does have a single point of failure. (even just google, and you will turn up results/examples that use the former). Both statements make sense and the former does not imply (as you said before) that XYZ system is incapable of failing, in any possible way. ~ You saying that it implied the system was incapable of failing didn't make 'a single bit of sense'.

    anyways, it doesn't really matter.

    cheerz
    I gather from the statement that is saying: the system can have multiple points of failure, and the system can fail when more than one points fail, but there is no single point in the system that could make the whole thing fail??

    Leave a comment:


  • ninez
    replied
    Originally posted by md1032 View Post
    He said it didn't have a single point of failure, which doesn't make a single bit of sense.
    again, is English your first langauge? I ask because In english, you can say XYZ system doesn't have a single point of failure, just as you can say XYZ system does have a single point of failure. (even just google, and you will turn up results/examples that use the former). Both statements make sense and the former does not imply (as you said before) that XYZ system is incapable of failing, in any possible way. ~ You saying that it implied the system was incapable of failing didn't make 'a single bit of sense'.

    anyways, it doesn't really matter.

    cheerz

    Leave a comment:


  • md1032
    replied
    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    Is english your first language? (doesn't sound like it) - I only ask (not trolling) because a 'single point of failure' (or SPOF) does NOT whatsoever imply incapable of failing; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_point_of_failure
    He said it didn't have a single point of failure, which doesn't make a single bit of sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • ninez
    replied
    Originally posted by md1032 View Post
    Because of one of English's numerous stupid exceptions, the phrase, "doesn't possess a single point of failure," implies that it is incapable of failing. Probably not what you meant.
    Is english your first language? (doesn't sound like it) - I only ask (not trolling) because a 'single point of failure' (or SPOF) does NOT whatsoever imply incapable of failing; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_point_of_failure

    Leave a comment:


  • allquixotic
    replied
    If he expects to get a return on his investment from this, then fine, whatever. But I don't think it helps at all with Bug #1 except that it might in the long run increase the enterprise / server market share of Ubuntu and make more enterprises adopt it, thereby funding Canonical to continue attacking Bug #1 in their spare time... but at what point do the developers stop working on Bug #1 and work on server instead because that's where the money is? Point being, if they keep focusing and focusing on server because that's what their customers are paying for, then Ubuntu will be a server OS like CentOS, where I was once told "huh... that's weird. I guess our drivers are out of date" by a core developer when my mouse didn't work with their OS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teho
    replied
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    Well I did have that in mind but $1 million for a project that likely would have (eventually) been completed without any donation?
    It's a company not a project. File systems are never really completed and even if they were it would taken years and years. I also don't see any reason why Inktank would need to stick to one project and one million isn't even that much when you think about it; it could hire 5 developers for two years and that's just about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • schmidtbag
    replied
    Originally posted by Teho View Post
    You need to understand that most of Canonicals paid users and hardware partners are from server side. They have also made big investment on OpenStack and ARM servers too. It kinda makes sense for Shuttleworth to invest in technologies that benefits him and his companies finansically and keeps Linux stong on markets that they actually have a good chance of succeeding on. File systems require huge ammount of testing and that doesn't come cheap.
    Well I did have that in mind but $1 million for a project that likely would have (eventually) been completed without any donation? I'm not against his motives or decision, I just think that the amount was excessive.

    As for servers being their main source of income, canonical didn't get popular because of servers, whether that be their own or for other companies. I'm not saying hes obligated to pay for a project like wayland or nouveau, I'm just saying that if he's going to throw that much money to a relatively uncritical project, where does he draw the line of whats considered worth his money and how much of it?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X