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 515032
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

a) They spun off Red Hat (the free, desktop version) to Fedora project. That is user-based testing platform, not for serious use. They don't do much customization there, just stabilize during the (short) support period and then release that later as commercial Red Hat Enterprise Linux product.

b) Everything they do, they do on the server side. Focus on server, on cloud - related tech. Nothing on desktop, nada.

They go where the money is, good for them. Good for us - we get stabilized software downstream, in ubuntu and such. But I wouldn't touch Fedora on a desktop with a ten yard pole - the first and only Linux distro that went kernel-panic on my hardware was Fedora release.


Actually they do a ton of desktop development. Network manager came out of them, they were one of the ones who were pushing for Pulse audio so much (though I don't think they originally developed it, I'm sure they started sponsoring the team that did.)

While Red Hat certainly doesn't show that they're doing all this desktop work, more of it is infrastructure things. And look at all the virtual machine work they're doing with Spice and KVM, which quite frankly is the only reason to be getting more than a dual core for your desktop.

Red Hat gets a bad rap for once upon a time saying that the Linux Desktop just isn't there and that they wanted to concentrate on building a solid foundation for a server operating system. Take a look at how snappy and quick CentOS 6.2 is for a good reference on what Red Hat's 'dead' desktop looks like.

Reply Parent Score: 10