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 515023
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by _cynic_ on Fri 20th Apr 2012 22:16 UTC
Member since:

Like, I don't know, packaging, testing, user-space code, support... Provide support and polish in the only area everyone else ignores and isn't really lucrative, the desktop.

They've been operating on loss for years, giving everything back to the Linux community. And now they are compared to MS, that made large commits of self-serving low quality code.

And quantity doesn't mean anything. A fix, to the Linux kernel may take 50 lines of code and one commit, but dozens of hours to develop and test. Is it the same as a crappy driver code dump?

Reply Score: 6