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 515104
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by BallmerKnowsBest
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 21st Apr 2012 19:13 UTC
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

The whining about Canonical not "giving enough back" demonstrates one of the most hilarious facts about GNU/Zealots: none of them understand the difference between the terms "voluntary" and "obligatory". Is Canonical failing to meet one of their obligations WRT to the GPL? No? Then STFU, no one cares about your whiny self-entitlement-by-proxy.

Then again, this IS a group of people who believe that altruism is still altruism when it's enforced by a license - so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. To any company that works with "Free Software(tm)", it must seem like a gigantic bait-and-switch. There's a license that outlines what you can & can't do with that software; fair enough, so you're in the clear as long as you abide by that license, right? But no, you're still going to get hordes of GNU/Freetards whining that you're not doing enough "for the greater good" (or some other bit of recycled socialist rhetoric).

GNU/Fanatics just want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a license that enforces altruism, but they also expect any company that uses "Free Software(tm)" to go above and beyond the the license requirements out of the goodness of their hearts or some such. If it's an actual obligation, then put it in the goddamn license - but even uber-Freetard Richard Stallman has enough sense not to put a "you must contribute to the greater good" clause in the GPL. Even he realizes that would kill "Freedom Fries Software(tm)" faster than a shot between the eyes.

What it really boils down to with Canonical is that they've committed the two worst possible sins in the eyes of GNU/Fanatics: they're a (gasp) commercial organization with a product that uses GPL software, and (even worse) they've been moderately successful. And if you're a neckbeard-cultivating Freetard living in your parents' basement, what do you resent more than anything else? The success of others, of course.

Edited 2012-04-21 19:14 UTC

Reply Score: 3