News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The cost of Ubuntu's Success by patio11 on Saturday February 13, 2010 @12:08AM (#1122585)
In the left corner we have an advertising company whose flagship product is closed source software, and in the right corner we have a software company whose flagship product is closed source software. Linux users, declare your tribal affinities!
Re:The cost of Ubuntu's Success by goplexian on Saturday February 13, 2010 @04:53AM (#1122836)
True enough, I guess it is clear which tribal affinity I possess by that article, but at the same time I do not make that choice without reason.

While both flagship products may be closed source I dont think it is very fair to compare the two company's on that basis alone.

Re:The cost of Ubuntu's Success by gte910h on Saturday February 13, 2010 @12:12AM (#1122588)
Nothing to see here. Linux guy bitching that yahoo paid more than google to be the default search engine of Ubuntu.

Also, he mentioned Ubuntu-one, but doesn't point out that it's just a dropbox clone...

Flagged for inanity and inapplicability to HN

Re:The cost of Ubuntu's Success by nearestneighbor on Saturday February 13, 2010 @12:18AM (#1122596)
> Flagged for inanity and inapplicability to HN

Flagging is new downmodding.

Re:The cost of Ubuntu's Success by goplexian on Saturday February 13, 2010 @04:14AM (#1122790)
"I never thought I'd see the day when a Linux distribution would be serving Microsoft search results by default, even though it is through the thinly veiled disguise of Yahoo."

Clearly you didn't read the article.

Re:The cost of Ubuntu's Success by gte910h on Sunday February 14, 2010 @09:58PM (#1125784)
Yes I did. That's why I pointed out all that means is Yahoo is paying more than Google to be the search provider.
Re:The cost of Ubuntu's Success by danblick on Saturday February 13, 2010 @05:10PM (#1123647)
It seems wrong to write an article about Canonical (Ubuntu) and Microsoft without mentioning "Bug #1": https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1