Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

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

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    593

    Default

    Quote 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.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    989

    Default

    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 I guess our drivers are out of date" by a core developer when my mouse didn't work with their OS.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    830

    Default

    Quote 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

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    830

    Default

    Quote 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

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    115

    Default Yeah

    Quote 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??

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    536

    Default

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

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

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    536

    Default

    my presence

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •