Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Sun 21st Sep 2008 06:46 UTC, submitted by Rahul
Linux Greg KH, Linux kernel developer delivered a keynote in the Linux plumbing conference about the health of the ecosystem. His message was essentially that distributions that don't contribute to the ecosystem have to rely on the whims of others which is unhealthy for them. Here is an introduction the development model and some interesting statistics about the Linux kernel code. Update by TH: Rebuttals are appearing all over the web, like this one by Canonical's Matt Zimmerman ("He's refuting a claim which has, quite simply, never been made. [...] When this sort of thing happens on mailing lists, it's called trolling."), or this one by another Canonical employee, Dustin Kirkland.
Permalink for comment 331006
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Rant disguised as keynote
by irbis on Sun 21st Sep 2008 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Rant disguised as keynote"
irbis
Member since:
2005-07-08

You have to compare Ubuntu to its mother distribution, Debian. Basically, Ubuntu is only aimed to offer a more user friendly "Debian experience".

Just put an average person in front of a PC and ask them to install, configure and use Debian and Ubuntu and then compare the user experience. Do you think they will find Debian easier to use? Hardly.

Although Debian has seen many great improvements in its usability lately, Ubuntu is simply much easier to install, configure and use to an average person, and also implements some new advanced technologies faster than Debian (stable) does. A stable Ubuntu release is usually also more stable than Debian Testing, not to mention Debian Unstable release, is.

You simply get a relatively stable and cutting edge Debian-like distribution, readily configured and streamlined for typical desktop use by installing and using Ubuntu instead of Debian.

Such as?
I know of Upstart
There is also bulletproof-X

Well, many things, maybe small or usually rather invisible, like improving automatic hardware configuration, improving GNOME menus and their structure, having sane software defaults instead of offering dozens of applications choices for the same tasks, replacing some default GNOME applications with newer and better alternatives - like when replacing the GNOME browser with the (then) better choice Firefox, etc.

So what if some other people may have usually developed the software used in Ubuntu? Ubuntu does not need to reinvent the wheel every time, just use Debian as base and then pick up and offer customers a good and streamlined selection of open source software in an easy to use form. If others have failed to do the same as successfully, it is not Ubuntu's fault.

Edited 2008-09-21 22:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3