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 515072
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by ideasman42 on Sat 21st Apr 2012 11:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
Member since:

"totally agree, linux kernel is only once piece of the puzzle. Im really not sure why there is this big deal made of them not contributing so much to linux.

One of the freedoms of opensource is _NOT_ to contribute back, no obligations, no strings attached - as long as you meet the license, I really don't like that there is a notion of moral obligation to give back to a project that by the looks of things is already doing rather well.

Much rather Ubuntu focus on user level issues and making a good user experience.

You are a leech just like Canonical then.

sheesh, I spent most of my working life creating/improving free software.
Even spent almost a year unpaid (living off savings). I write GPL software, people use it and don't have to contribute back - its fine by me ;)

Reply Parent Score: 5