Because it always is. Governance, by it's very definition, is something granted temporarily by a power the controls a resource, usually when they don't want to be bothered with running or managing that resource themselves. If said resource becomes something profitable and tangible, or takes off even to half the extent Android has, "community governance" will be revoked rather quickly in favor of profits and industry. The power comes from the source, not from the method of managing it. Historically I've found that the development community will be the first hit by this, in part because corporate folks have an innate distrust of educated workers, especially those not asking for compensation. (Though that may be less true on your side of the pond...)

Please stop that. Stop trying to make this about me, and implying that I'm in some way wrong. I didn't "mention" something earlier. I noted from an authoritative source (and included a link to said source, MeeGo's own bugtack list) that there is still an open issue with the accelerometer (and Wifi, and sms notification).

You're acting as if I'm just pulling stuff from my posterior, which is not the case. I'm using information presented by the MeeGo community, in the MeeGo bug tracking list, which seems rather up to date. If they say they have a bug, in a re-opened state, with a developer showing activity on it in the past two days, I'm going to take that as an indicator that there's still an issue there.

I'm glad to hear it's progressing. And I do hope some authors are willing to put the time in to move tools to MeeGo. Perhaps a good start would be offering a link to a page about where developers can go to get info on setting up a development environment? I'm sure there's a nice wiki page on the MeeGo site that has such a list.

You misinterpret me. If I explained the Hasidic law meant that those following that faith didn't think it right to mix meat and dairy, would you call me antisemitic? Why then when I explain that others think open implies complete openness, I'm some how bashing a distro?

I'm not bashing Ubuntu at all, nor endorsing one belief over another. I was simply pointing out to ScottishDuck that his definition of "open/free software" is not as universal as he seems to imply it is. There are many groups (like Fedora/Debian) that believe including anything that's not open is in fact not to be considered opensource. Defining that as "misinformation" is incorrect.

I find irony in the fact that you defend the use of the term "open source" on a distro that contains closed source, but then go on to argue pedantically that:


Technically,yes. The same could be said of Android, could it not? Since it uses the same OS, a Linux based kernel with a few custom drivers? Yes, in a puristic sense, they're all distros. From a laymans perspective, they're different. Just as to a layman Ubuntu is "open source" because most of it is open.

I'd love to, but I lack the will to bother. I'm pretty sure I'm right on that one though. Just go check out the MeeGo bug tracker yourself. Many of the bugs still open revolve around hardware drivers. I linked several in a post a few back.

Again, I'm not claiming one distro is better than another, or that one model of governance is superior. I was simply pointing out that governance is less important, because the terms can be changed on the whim of the group that controls the resource. Since both models in this case have nearly identical bits of closed source in terms of hardware drivers, I see little reason to elevate one above the other based on that. If you have an issue with someone claiming one is more open than the other, please direct your comments to them, not to me.