We dodged that bullet but now we're heading to a world where facebook.com plus a small few other sites are the internet.
If that were true, there would be no point in search. Yes there are a few that are very popular, but their relative popularity doesn't come at the expense of the very long tail.
I love Lennart Poettering's response:
It's really appalling how GNOME first NIH'ed Unity, and then the Wayland guys came and NIH'ed Mir, and then the git guys came and NIH'ed bzr, and then the github guys and came and NIH'ed launchpad. But the systemd guys are still the worst, NIH'ing Upstart! Such suckers! Let's stand together against NIH'ing Canonical technology!
NIH is only a problem if you "invent" something inferior to what's already there. And really, NIH is an intellectual weak argument that someone uses when they lack the stones to make an argument based on metrics that are actually meaningful. Lennart is actually very clear on the technical reasons why he chose to create systemd even if Mark wants to remain ignorant of them.
Also, we'll know that Mark as actually done his homework when he learns the proper capitalization of systemd. Come on Mark, at least read the fucking cover page and FAQ.
RC1's significance is that marks the end of the merge window. It means that large chunk of features have made it in which is interesting. It also marks the start of the testing phase, which we want a lot of participation in. There are a lot of reasons why RC1 is interesting and noteworthy.
My thoughts on other RCs? While they're an important part of the process, they aren't interesting enough to warrant much discussion. Which is why you won't see articles on them.
On the other hand, it would be fun to create and promote articles about the other RCs simply because we now know they're good clickbait for angry nerds in search of something to rage about. Thanks for the tip!
Ubuntu's supposed purpose is to add polish, so one shouldn't expect them to be doing kernel work.
So what the fuck are they doing with Mir? Polishing a turd?
"MS" is not software like "GNU" is. So it doesn't work that way.
MS owns Windows. GNU does not own Linux. So it doesn't work that way either.
The relation that works is that Linux uses GNU therefore it gets GNU in it's name. (If you subscribe to the opinion that you should list accompanying software in its name.)