"Nobody is arguing that it wasn't. The argument presented in the article is that maybe this anti-community behavior was justifiable in the face of Oracle showing almost no willingness to work with the community. That point is certainly debatable, but I don't know where you see the claim that it wasn't anti-community."
No anti-community behavior is justifiable for any reason. Just as it has been wrong to judge Ubuntu for their lack of upstream contributions to certain projects.
"The argument there (which is a personal view of someone that happens to work for Red Hat) is that a Linux distributor (in this case, Fedora) is under absolutely no obligation to provide multiple interchangeable implementations of software that solve the same problem so that the user can choose his or her preferred implementation."
It is constantly used against any semblance of choice, I haven't misrepresented it, it has been used by many RedHat employees (and others) to silence critics of any sort.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Importance of community
Date: 2014-02-24 07:30 pm (UTC)No anti-community behavior is justifiable for any reason. Just as it has been wrong to judge Ubuntu for their lack of upstream contributions to certain projects.
"The argument there (which is a personal view of someone that happens to work for Red Hat) is that a Linux distributor (in this case, Fedora) is under absolutely no obligation to provide multiple interchangeable implementations of software that solve the same problem so that the user can choose his or her preferred implementation."
It is constantly used against any semblance of choice, I haven't misrepresented it, it has been used by many RedHat employees (and others) to silence critics of any sort.