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 515063
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: eehh
by pgeorgi on Sat 21st Apr 2012 10:17 UTC in reply to "eehh"
Member since:

But lets not forget where the majority of the development is done. It isn't usually on Ubuntu.

Redhat and the others build the foundations. Ubuntu does the polish (integration across the system, providing those tiny GUI widgets that make configuration a breeze, packaging things up so that supported packages all use the same, supported audio system).

Both are important, and looking at Ubuntu's popularity (with the average Linux user), they seem to provide value over the others: On Ubuntu I rarely had the experience of applications mysteriously breaking because they don't support the tech-du-jour yet.

That goes hand in hand with supporting fewer packages (what someone else lamented). That's true, but those they support are _actually_ supported (not packaged just enough that they don't break too hard).

Reply Parent Score: 1