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 515335
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
cyrilleberger
Member since:
2006-02-01

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.


RHEL is also a desktop product, albeit, non-free, but then you can get it for free with CentOS or Scientific Linux. Also most of the work of FC goes to serve as based of future version of RHEL, meaning that a lot of FC packages are maintained by Red-Hat employees. And finally, Red Hat is the largest corporate contributor to the Gnome project (a desktop project).

Red Hat has not given up the linux desktop, they have given up the linux desktop for consumers, there is little to no money to make in that area.

Cannonical is still barely profitable, and they only managed to reach that point after years of sponsorship by Shuttleworth, which has basically kills all the existing competition on the consumer market (ie Mandriva, SuSE...).

Reply Parent Score: 2