Stéphane Graber has left Canonical
stgraber.org
stgraber.org
Pretty damning comment. I don’t know the backstory here, but it seems aimed at management not doing a good job given the praise he lavished on the tech teams.
Can someone here fill me on the issues they’re facing?
If Canonical is really that bad, people already know (and judging by the comments... yeah... not great).
He needs to explain why he tried to get tons of people to work on Canonical adjacent tech, but is now leaving.
He'd be burning bridges with all his contacts if he didn't off them an explanation as to why Canonical tech is no longer something they should contribute to.
He owes no one a detailed explanation for his decision and it's perfectly normal to keep things like this close to the vest.
So I am sad to hear this as it's a great loss to the LXD/LXC community, but I do hope the best for Stéphane and hope he lands somewhere he enjoys!
Thank you Stéphane for what you did for LXD/LXC and for helping me with my dumb newbie questions some years ago :)
[1] https://discuss.linuxcontainers.org
[2] https://ark.fm
The less simplistic view of the situation is that major maintainers (corporate or otherwise) pay the price of keeping the project up for the long run, under the defined license, in all senses including the legal one. So the CLA is the way to integrate contributions without strings that remain legally attached to the author of these contributions. So the CLA is, ironically, the way for these major maintainers to say "no strings attached or wait until we fix the bugs" back to you.
Sample report https://www.docdroid.net/3hDIf3Y/perform-sample-report-may-2...
By the way, I'm done with ubuntu after almost 20 years and will be migrating to full Debian this year, not going to replace my deb with you snap, thanks for the ride.
They also have a really weird focus on your education history when applying, to the point that when I was considering applying there, their application form made me realise I don’t want to work there.
So is this like retaliation? Or an effort to reduce Stephane's influence over LXD? Or was it just that he'd been the one who pushed for developing LXD in the open, and with him gone they figured 'why bother'?
"In theory Ubuntu Discourse should be more reliable in that it’s run by Canonical IS who has a 24/7 team of people looking after services unlike this forum where I’m the one running the infrastructure and dealing with outages."
Nothing is changing about how in the open LXD is developed.
Canonical's general bad attitude towards FOSS is just appalling.
- Quick and easy multi-tenancy
- Very easy to build development enviorment isloated from the system.
- Isolation host for docker containers.
- Automatic networking support with DHCP , OVN or MacVLAN if you have multiple physical IPs.
- Home Made Cluster of containers.
It is literally best way to host multiple docker containers. Isolated from each other.
You wont need K8s in many case , infact if you don't have 10k+ users , do not need to worry about 99.999 uptime and redundancy - LXD is all you need.
Or if you have only one Physical Machine and want to test K8s cluters , you can use LXD Containers for that instead of resource intensive VMs.
I also find lxc system containers better than OCI style immutable containers for dev environments for my personal projects, and LXD is the best way to manage them AFAIK.
It's the closest I've found to Linux-VServer which I still miss to this day.
Now take this personality test. Now do this other crazy thing.
What are they trying to select for here? Are they hiring all 18 year olds, or does someone in their 30s, 40s, 50s or beyond need to justify themselves slacking when they were a teenager in the eyes of management.
On the other hand, a lot of people that did well when I was in HS are the same who would diligently perform this sort of busywork no questions asked.
That's exactly what they expect.
Anecdote: MS was part of the tail-end of my interview process and after I brought up that it was a bit much asking me for justification of decisions I made decades ago, he stated - I'm paraphrasing here - that he believes that someone's decisions at that stage of their life are consistent with how they will react and respond later on, which is why they ask the questions to begin with. I nope'd on out afterward.
Only advice I can give is beware companies that cultivate a cult-of-personality around one or multiple execs. You will be required to drink the Kool-Aid and - when you invariably don't - that's that.
Sounds rather evil....
Completely off-putting, and seemingly filled with nonsense that isn't providing actual value. There were so many bonkers things that I gave up trying to follow the particulars and just decided I'd never apply there.
From what I'm reading here, I suspect a place like Canonical would end discussions early if you even asked. It sounds like they're looking for cheap talent.
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/thsrcp/this_was_the_...
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30735678
I guess they have a surplus of people... because that process looks more intense and picky than e.g. Google's, and Google is only able to do what it does because they pay very high and had great perks and a reputation.
All this stuff about high school performance, and choice of university -- really?
Actually what I get from this is that they're aiming to hire cheapish new grads and have no interest in senior industry-seasoned talent.
Because there's some serious arrogance there if they expect to put applicants through the ringer like this without a commensurate effort upfront. Any senior engineer is going to look at that and wonder why they should bother.
> Actually what I get from this is that they're aiming to hire cheapish new grads and have no interest in senior industry-seasoned talent.
Pay em less, make crazy demands, less chance of rebellion, no context to know if behaviors are crazy, etc.
Same idea with the video games industry, really
ChatGPT to the rescue?
About loving your company? I'm pursuing employment, not trying to join a cult here.
One position required me to take a psychoanalytical test where they judge your personality traits to A.) make sure you have the desired personality traits for the role and B.) that you're smart enough for the role. I looked at the terms of service for the company they outsourced this test to, and it seemed like a data breach waiting to happen. I expressed my concern to the HR team in charge of hiring, and said I wouldn't feel comfortable having that kind of deeply personal info shared. I further expressed surprise that an open-source software company was using this test at all, given the usual penchant for data privacy in the FLOSS community. They (cordially) said I could either take the test or drop out-- I chose the latter.
For the other role, the interview process was going well, and I made it to final round. But, I ran when I saw their tech stack and tech debt. Lots of Jenkins and heavy reliance on Launchpad for almost everything. Launchpad might not technically be proprietary since it's GNU-licensed, but it's as good as proprietary if Canonical is one of the few companies using it commercially. And Jenkins is just Java / Groovy garbage all the way down.
It also struck me as a red flag that Canonical is 100% BYOD (Bring Your Own Device), and they do not provide a work computer. You can apply for a _loan_ to buy a computer for work, but they will not pay for one. If a company is too cheap to provide a computer at a job where you work remotely and exclusively on a computer, I don't want to be a part of that company.
Lastly, I read a lot of negative press about Canonical's CEO Mark Shuttleworth while researching the company. In general, Canonical seems like a sketchy place to work.
That doesn't seem so bad to me. I have always preferred personal device whenever possible. Why not cut out the ewaste?
My company gives me a stipend for use of my own phone every month.
As another commenter said, you're adding wear and tear to your own device. Sure, I have my own computers, but they're all spoken for, hosting VMs and containers or acting as my lab. Why should I subsidize the profits of a multi-million-dollar, for-profit company by letting them use my computer at no extra cost?
Your e-waste point is a good one, but I don't think Canonical's managers were looking out for mother nature when they made that choice.
At least it's not as bad as the gilded age where workers got paid in company-store scrip and lived in company housing in a company-run town. Still, I think it's a step in the wrong direction.
I'm not trying to be dramatic or imply that Canonical's device policy is some act of pure evil, but it was a contributing factor to my decision not to move forward. I have a computer that would serve the purpose just fine. It's more about principles. By itself, that policy wouldn't have been so bad, but combined with other red flags it was enough for me to stay away.
Funny, I actually mentioned Snap-On by name in one of my other replies, probably around the same time you were commenting. They've got good brand recognition, apparently!
I actually agree, I would personally not work somewhere that made me bring my own laptop, I prefer having a solid divide between work and home. But on that note, I also don't like having a work laptop, I prefer to have a desktop, that way I know I'm never taking work home lol
Most knowledge workers cannot deduct their laptop.
Sounds horrible to me. Work and personal are always completely separate.
Because it externalizes their costs to employees and creates a bidirectional privacy nightmare (company data is exposed to programs running on a personal machine, and personal data is exposed to company programs - worse if they have any sort of management software but iffy even if not).
The second reason is that I don't want my personal devices subject to security monitoring, and most companies that at least pretend to care about security require some level of endpoint monitoring.
Small companies usually can't be bothered worrying about those risks (and small companies aren't typically worth suing anyway). But a company of any appreciable size needs to worry about the kinds of things mentioned in the comment.
Why won't your personal devices be subject to discovery anyways?
For me, I have a separate laptop for every contract I work on, sometimes more than one for a given contract (for complicated compliance reasons). The reason for this is to a) prevent cross-contamination between projects, and b) because the laptops could get caught up in legal shenanigans. If one contract ends up in dispute, the laptop could end up getting subpoenaed, and if it was my only laptop I would be SOL. Or god forbid, code from two projects gets mixed by accident, and now I'm in violations of multiple NDAs. In one case, the customer paid for my hardware during development, and when we were done they took ownership of the laptops along with the code.
Your work computer is just like your work code: At the end of the day it's not really yours, don't get attached.
Of course, if you can bill the machines through to the clients, why bother!
Good luck switching hard drives on locked down customer provided laptops, or from the own IT on the consulting firm for that matter.
but you can with Linux.
I've never tried it with MacOS but the days of swapping Apple harddrives are in the past anyway.
Now, if you're doing this for concerns regarding discovery, I'd just use separate devices, as my confidence is low the court wouldn't just require the entire host(s) involved anyway.
This is personally why my environment is not tied to a specific host. Should any given device(s) get caught up in discovery I can still build/recover a full fresh environment on a new device relatively unimpeded - and do so regularly to ensure it's not just a theoretical. It can be a hassle, but at least I'm not trying to juggle devices in that way and have flexibility to either BYOB or work with client supplied kit and still bring my env and tools with me.
Not saying this is their reasoning - and if they're not too cheap, it would surely be better for tax purposes to buy your employees computers than pay them the equivalent in cash - but it's a reason at least.
There are many reasons not to work for Canonical, but the opportunity to pick and choose your own hardware rather than suffer what someone else thought your would need seems an odd choice.
Thats just asking for trouble.
So just add the cost of acquiring employer-specific hardware to the compensation package during salary negotiations, is it really a big deal? Don't you generally have your own hardware preferences anyways?
The problem would be if they insist on what software you run on that machine and if they put crap like spyware/backdoors on your device.
If it's just a "we don't care what you run, just be productive and do good work" kind of attitude, BYOD could totally be ideal.
Nothing is more annoying than having an employer shove something like an imac down your throat with a "use this backdoored garbage or quit" mentality.
Having said all that though, their interview process sounds more like a hazing ritual designed to filter out people who won't tolerate abuse. It's deterred me from ever pursuing a role there, despite probably being a decent fit for the work.
It is a sign the company will resist spending modest amounts to improve efficiency and morale. Including pay increases likely.
Are they special because they can be ultra selective with who they bring in to the fold and have a loyal army of "true believers" working for them? Or something else? I get it, I watched a fabulous company get nearly ruined by a couple of bad hires. I'm a big believer in culture adds vs. culture fits and every time you bring someone in they're adding various traits to your culture, some are good and some are bad. We choose to be a little different, try to find the best fit, try to avoid wasting time, and then after 1 to 2 quarters ask some hard questions about if they're actually working our or not.
I suspect that there is something in his message about it not being the company he was excited to work for 12 years ago.
Can't speak to the complete process, first step was fill out a google doc just to submit an application, and was ghosted from there.
> What did they have you write?
Work Samples, Writing Samples, Analysis Samples, Presentations Samples, Psychological Questionnaire
> What was the role?
Rust Embedded Systems Engineer or some such. Which given that I was previously the lead for a high availability modern C++ RTOS, had programmed in Rust professionally since 2017, and would regularly give talks on the state of embedded systems work in Rust (using slides running as a bare metal application on an Nintendo 64 written in Rust to put my money where my mouth was), I figured I should at least get to talk to someone there.
Starting with a giant doc you have to fill out just to apply should have been a sign to just not even bother, but I had a lot of respect for bcantrill. Some of which has now eroded.
And at the end of the day it's the asymmetry of their process that I have an issue with.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y3L6dXqkK3c5IN2j73HuZkda...
This is slightly specialized for the Product Marketing role; for engineering roles, the Market Analysis section is replaced with a similar section for engineering / system analysis.
(I work at Oxide, but this link is publicly available, albeit hard to find on the website)
Oh and they asked me if I would be willing to use my own laptop…
Below is the list of interview/application stages:
- Initial screening
- Personal essay
- Standardised aptitude and personality tests
- Culture interview
- General interviews
- Recruitment screen
- Technical assessment
- Role-specific interviews
- Hiring manager interview
- Executive interview