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 515096
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by Luminair
by ideasman42 on Sat 21st Apr 2012 16:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Luminair"
Member since:

Hey, I respect you're opinion too ;)

In sentiment I agree with most of what you say.

I've personally benefited from donations to opensource a lot and the good-will in our community is amazing, I don't meant to be cynical and detract from that - or suggest that human nature is ultimately selfish.

But whats right and wrong are moral issues - and I dont think its fair to say Canonical is `wrong` for not contributing back to linux.

Imagine if Ubuntu doesn't exist in a year for being non profitable, I would hate to think this is because of pandering to a community of linux-zealots telling them how to operate. - Rather then focusing on making a great desttop.

So contributing back is great - but I think self-interest ensures a base level of contribution amongst open-source projects and theres no reason to get angry they dont give back to Linux so much.

Otherwise you could get angry they dont contribute back to Xorg/glibc/gcc/grub... it gets silly.

Reply Parent Score: 1