While I do consider myself as “one of the masses”, I have had actual personal experience, in a multi-national corporate setting, with the kind of issues I raised while I tried communicating End-User expectations in the thoughts I shared.
-
as CAD/CAM administrator (Nortel, 1985-1993), ensured that all documentation related to systems and process were compliant (1992) with ISO 9001
[ my role in that position encompassed each of software development, operations and support of a mini-computer system shared by 26 electrical and mechanical engineers, both product design and manufacturing ] -
as Senior IS Development Engineer (Nortel, 1997-2000), was one of the few selected (2000) to pair up with CSC (Computer Sciences Corporation) external auditors for the ISPA (Information Systems Process Assessment) of Nortel IT organization, which was a key necessary pre-requisite for CSC’s absorbing Nortel’s IT as part of an outsourcing contract. The Assessment evaluated various IT service departments against the SEI’s CMM, which were then mapped to CSC’s own Catalyst Process Framework.
[ my role in that position encompassed each of software development, operations and support of a group of 5 mid-range servers that serviced the entire Nortel engineering community, handling centralized automated processing of engineering designs for exporting docs and data, then replicating those in synchronized design/manufacturing databases resident on 3 continents and 5 countries ]
I have been retired since I turned 64 (now 70) due to health reasons.
FIrstly, I myself made no such demands.
I was clarifying the OP’s original focus/scope, which he later confirmed to be other than was addressed in the first replies.
I visited the links that were offered and confirmed that they did not encompass the scope which I clarified to be the focus of the OP.
That was not ignored. It was simply not pertinent to the issue that was originally raised, again as confirmed by the OP.
With this statement, it is my belief that you have extravagantly inflated the statement regarding what you think I communicated. At no point have I stated that >> I << was expecting anything of the sort!
What I communicated was my perceived sense of what a Market segment might expect as a trigger motivator to “jump” onto the Linux, and preferrably the Ubuntu, platform.
If, as someone who is as keenly interested as I am in having Ubuntu … dare I say it … dominate the Linux market by “capturing” all those Windows 10 emigrants looking for a soft landing in Linux, it might be worth your while to hear from “the people”, not just “the techies” or the multitudes of “influencers” who haven’t had to support large numbers of Users over extended periods of time to understand that their true focus might be different than what may have been perceived or communicated by others.
I did not say that I trust those organizations any more than Canonical. I attempted to communicate what the ISO Certification conveys as a degree of trustworthiness to those who seek that Certification. It is akin to the situation of trusting a Euro-backed investment vs a USDollar-back investment. Each camp has its adherants who claim theirs is the only “secure” approach. Each has more weight in the eyes of those who give more weight to their “preferred reference point”. No invalidating! Simply not the prime consideration. Which is why Canonical pursue multiple Certifications, covering different scopes, to meet the needs of different “marketplaces”! I don’t see why that seems to be so hard to acknowledge.
I think a stance of “not enough market demand” would be communicating less of a dismissive stance regarding User-perceived “essentials” and would be much more palatable as a hard pill to swallow, for those receiving a message other than what they want to hear!
It saddens me to see this stance repeatedly put out there as the unquestionable baseline. Stance may be why Linux has, so far, always face resistance and roadblocks to being adopted by the public at large. Truly unfortunate that I perceive a lack of willingness to consider walking in someone else’s shoes, to maybe accept that End Users might have a far different perspective on what is “citical” or “important” … for them … and discounting such is, in my view, a HUGE missed opportunity.
To all of you …
Thank you again for hearing me out. It is unfortunate that I was not given the opportunity to post the above into the discussion, in order to clarify some erroneous perceptions.