Sounds like their application process works. If someone is unwilling to fill out a basic questionnaire they are probably aren't a good candidate. The questions seem reasonable and they aren't asking for you to write a book for each one.
I'm sure that the team at Canonical feels this process works for them, and maybe it does, but I'd love to see what metrics they have to show that it does. (Or maybe they for some reason have to practice "hire slow, fire never"...)
Also, our process doesn't work as well for some roles and some locations, so we continue to evolve it.
But on balance, I am very happy with the growth of our teams and the calibre of our new colleagues.
Also, at what point will the candidate be able to vet whether Canonical is a suitable match? Is that only after this questionnaire, psych test, and take-home assignment?
Doesn't seem a good indication for conscientiousness, integrity, and tact, frankly.
Those things are for people. Companies can get fucked. They're a tool, and that's it. I don't practice tact toward a screwdriver. This application process is a joke, and warning other humans that this particular tool likes to waste their time is conscientiousness and integrity.
Being kind to the people employed by them is commendable, of course.
If you want something, you will have to jump through hoops. I'm not saying the hoops are legitimate, but you will have to jump through them anyway. My comment was about the person, not the hoops.
If he really didn't want the job that much, then don't bother. If you do, jump through the fucking hoop. It honestly just seems like the person didn't want the job enough to invest in actually applying, but enough to bother publicly attacking a potential employer. What does this really say about the person's character?
They're thoughtful enough to warn others. Even at the risk of people like you thinking ill of them over it. Rather kind of them, I think.
[EDIT] Do pointed reviews of bad products bother you, too? Seems like the same thing, to me.