I think expecting a 100% success rate for a first time effort is unrealistic. That particular bug in question has been known by the upstream GNOME project since 2002 if you believe the GNOME bug ticket..with patches presented in a discussion dating back to 2005. The question really isn’t why hasn’t Canonical fixed it. The real question is why has upstream GNOME not incorporated already existing patches even before the papercuts effort? Maybe there is a manpower bottleneck, but perhaps its in a different spot that you realize.

But in evaluatating the papercuts project, what really matters is that the bugs that were fixed as part of the papercuts effort were fixed in collaboration with upstream projects and patches were submitted appropriately back to the upstream projects and were accepted for inclusion. And from my own spot checking, I think its fair to say it was successful as they have done a good job of forwarding patches back up.

If Papercuts team can show the produced high quality patches that are acceptable to upstream projects during the first run, it will make it easier for them to work with upstream projects again in the future. The more trust upstreams have that papercuts is going to produce acceptable patchesets the more willing upstreams will be to work with the papercuts team..maybe even to the point where upstream projects plan for a papercuts sprint as part of their own development cycle.

-jef

Socceroos@11: You said:

“[...] While it may take longer to get ready a solution for that market, I believe it would be the ideal path to world domination. [...]”

Well, somehow, the solution you mention already exists, as Jef pointed out, it’s what we are working in at eBox.

I totally agree with you on Canonical targeting the wrong market regarding to the server space. The Microsoft-IBM case is an “Innovation’s dilemma” typical example, and IMHO Canonical should apply a similar strategy instead of struggling for the upper part of the market.

If you -Jef, Socceroos- are interested in knowing more about any stuff related to eBox Technologies, please let me know. I would be very glad to share our thoughts and experiences.

Socceroos@11: I can’t really speak for Shuttleworth’s views on the SMB market, but Canonical insiders have told me there are no plans to offer a small business server.

Personally, I think Canonical needs to build a channel for its current server offering before taking aim at the SMB market.

I do believe Canonical can succeed in SMB — but it might involve the cloud strategy. Most start-up businesses (including the one I co-own) adopt a range of cloud and SaaS offerings because they don’t want to buy IT infrastructure. If Canonical can find some application partners in the cloud, I bet they could catch on in SMB… …

But I will try to ask Shuttleworth about the SMB market during the Oct. 26 briefing. Thanks for your note and readership.
-jp

Is Ebox the sort of SMB solution you are looking for?
It’s a derivative of Ubuntu.. and it has corporate backing… just not Canonical’s.

Ebox Technologies is yet another example of how a different company other than Canonical is building a service business around Ubuntu without driving revenue back into Canonical or paying for the core Ubuntu infrastructure or release maintenance in some other way.

If you are correct.. and the SMB market is a ripe target…you should keep a close eye on how fast EBox Technologies builds its partner network and watch their press releases and any hints they drop about revenue targets. Even if Canonical decided to jump it with both feet, can they really compete in the space more effectively as the linux for SMB than Ebox Technologies?

-jef

I seem to remember in past posts of yours that Shuttleworth has been dismissive of the SMB market. I’m of the opinion that this is a big mistake. This is where Microsoft hit hard in the beginning and it worked like a charm for them – they under-cut IBM with software and functionality parity that was good enough – and it worked.

I still believe that if Shuttleworth were to build a solid SMB solution that covers the basics (Email+Groupware+Push, File Server – done, Intranet – done, centralised auth – done) then he could really crack into the server market.

Canonical seems intent on trying to bust its way into the toughest market in IT – big iron – which has a number of very settled and well placed players. Conversely, the SMB market is dominated in very large part by Microsoft with little or no competition from others.

While it may take longer to get ready a solution for that market, I believe it would be the ideal path to world domination.

Pester them about it. I think Mark needs to reconsider or at least properly explain his lack of regard for this particular market.