Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Apr 2012 20:09 UTC, submitted by fran
Linux "Linux vendor Canonical said it has 'no interest' in Linux kernel development. Two weeks ago a Linux Foundation report showed that since version 2.6.32, Microsoft had committed more code to the Linux kernel than Canonical. Since then, Canonical has faced claims from rivals that it does not contribute to Linux as much as it should given its popularity. Recently Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth told The Inquirer that his company has no interest in contributing to the Linux kernel." Why is this such a bad thing? You can contribute more to open source than code alone. Like, I don't know, users?
Permalink for comment 515021
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why so much misunderstanding?
by rimzi on Fri 20th Apr 2012 22:13 UTC
rimzi
Member since:
2009-12-17

He is right in saying so, and it is the right way to do for a company that focuses on UI and user-friendly operating system development.

Linux is just one piece of Ubuntu operating system. Very important, just it is not the focus at Cannonical.

Development of Unity, X.org, related tools - that is more important now for them.

You cannot call Cannonical leech by any measure. They DO contribute, just not in kernel level.

Such damn lies usually come from those companies that left linux desktop for dead - Red Hat, I am looking at you.

Edited 2012-04-20 22:14 UTC

Reply Score: 9