Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Tue 1st Mar 2011 18:32 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Permalink for comment 464549
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-07-14
I have no idea what the "commercial Linux Desktop" means. What is Fedora? Is it Commercial or not? It doesn't charge any money and the software is free to use. Many developers are paid by RedHat, and its used as a basis for an OS that requires a support contract to use and receive updates for ( RHEL).
It seems to me that you'd have to craft the definition of "commercial Linux Desktop" in order to include Ubuntu but exclude Fedora in order for that to be a true statement by Shuttleworth. It would seem to be a very convenient definition, contrived only to make Ubuntu look good and deflect the criticism over this issue.
I understand he's personally invested a lot of money into Ubuntu and would like to see it become self funding. But, the self funding can only come about because of all of the other free contributions by thousands of other people ( and some company sponsors) which also need to recoup some revenue.
You can't talk about what you've given, without recognizing what you've received. Unless you want to sound like an a**hole.