I have enough experience and knowledge to understand all these technical details if I want to, but now I’m wearing my “average-end-user hat”: I don’t care about lightning fast boot times if my notebook does not work with the newer version of Ubuntu (It used to work with the older version). I just want it to work. If the objective is to make Linux use widespread, those in charge of the distros should have this in mind.

It is just my opinion, but, in order to grow, some level of compromise solution must be reached. I believe that the ability to easily install a closed-source driver without Internet access is such an acceptable level.

“Better yet, I’d like to see Ubuntu take a stance and ship the closed-source firmware by default until its open equivalent matures. The chances of being sued are minimal”

This _really_ galls me. Ubuntu are NOT pirates who wilfully disregard licensing. And they should not. But you seem to think they should. I could not disagree more.

What about my bias is hidden? It’s not like I’ve pulled in punches or sneaked up on an Ubuntu developer community and pretended to a supporter and then shoved a knife in their back. Honestly I don’t know how to be any more blatant about my bias. I guess I could get a tattoo on my butt of Shuttleworth as the devil or something, but then I’d have to attach a photo of the tattoo of every post I make.

I threw in my sarcastic comment about axiomatically considering everything Canonical does as wrong as a blatant over-the-top reminder about how absurd it is for me to be put in a position defending Ubuntu decision making against someone who is a self-described Ubuntu supporter. Its craziness.. axiomatically so.

-jef

While I think it’s ostensibly a good goal to rid the world of inaccuracies, I think that your one-man crusade to rid the internets of anything that isn’t rigorously (at least to your standards) researched is axiomatically wrong (i.e. against the spirit of the internet), super inefficient and brings down the average level of open-source happiness (at least for everyone besides you, presumably, unless this is a heavy burden for you). Furthermore, as a self-appointed arbitrator of “truth,” while I trust the facts you present, by your own statement of illogical axiomatic dismissal of everything that Canonical does makes me distrust at the very least the stories you choose to “pursue” and the bloggers you chew up for honest mistakes. At least Chris is clearly on a blog dedicated to Ubuntu. You seem to think that either a) your bias is unimportant to the discussion, or b) people will listen to your more if you don’t make it clear.

I also disagree with your assessment of the RMS situation. You are acting like Chris was attacking him personally, as though he doesn’t represent an ideology or school of thought. Like if I were to say, “Gosh I hate Reaganomics,” that you might get mad at me for insulting the late man, rather than the policies and ideologies he pushed. Sure, it’s an abrasive technique, but… have you read any of your latest posts, Jef? Sort of like the kettle calling the pot black.

I’m sure WorksWithU is so thrilled that we’re having this completely esoteric debate on their comments so I’m gonna check out. I’m sure I’ll get all worked up about one of your comments again sometime very soon…

what was personal about my attack? Did I call Chris names? Did I say he is a bad person for writing a bad article? Did I at any point question his motivations for slandering Stallman’s name and painting Ubuntu developers as fanatics? I did none of those things. What I have attacked..and what I will continue to attack is poorly researched articles full of bad assumptions and factual errors. It’s not personal. I don’t even consider Chris to be particularly bad at this relative to the average of his peers who are writing for any number of other sites. Sadly this sort of poor research habits are quite common in the new media. But he did sign the Ubuntu CoC voluntarily… and I think he should be expected to be held to at least the standard of behavior set forth in that document an refrain from the name calling and conspiracy theories when in disagreement over technical decisions are made.

If I were going to turn this into a personal attack I’d take the name Tozzi and start using it a synomym to shoddy journalism and use phrases like ” so and so is a Tozzi-esque journalist” in the same way Chris felt it was appropriate to turn Stallman’s name into a derogatory jibe. That would be a clear personal attack and there’s no call for that.

-jef

What opinion did I express in the course of this discussion do disagree with?

If Chris has simply stated that he did not understand why the broadcom drivers weren’t available on the Karmic livecd and simply stated that in his opinion that was a serious regression there’d be nothing to argue about. I make no issue of his feelings about this being a regression important enough to write an article about. But he went much further than that making unsubstantiated claims as to personal motivation for the decision. You can point out a decision is bad without casting those who make it as fanatical.

In this case there’s more than enough to debate concerning how the boot time target goals took priority over keeping the restricted module stuff working regression free. An aspect of the decision making Chris completely missed by failing to research what the developers have said at the time the decision was made. Boot time targets are going to get more aggressive for Lucid. What other functionality is Canonical willing to break to achieve its pragmatic goals for even faster target boot times in Lucid?

-jef

Maybe… we’d all be better off.. if there was several orders of magnitude less poorly researched and factually incorrect content. I certainly don’t speak to a subject unless I feel I’ve made a reasonable effort to research it and inform myself and I am prepared to defend any of the conclusions I have drawn.

If I’ve made a factually incorrect statement, then please, point me to correct information. Conclusions are only as good as the information they are based on. I try very hard to extremely conscientious about referencing source material when drawing conclusions or providing criticism to give people a fair chance to point out faulty information on which I’m building faulty conclusions.

-jef

No problem I laugh. because when you said that I did Google my usual user name, and I do at times (a lot apparently ;p ) spout off myself.

Ack, I wasn’t clear. I meant that Jef is a prolific commenter – my second comment was directed at him (while also agreeing with you).

Hope that makes sense!