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 515543
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Apples and Oranges?
by devnet on Tue 24th Apr 2012 17:52 UTC
devnet
Member since:
2007-01-16

Using all the Ubuntu logic here...PCLinuxOS has brought just as much to the Linux desktop that Canonical has.

Afterall, they've provided an excellent desktop for end users that is solid and less buggy than any others out there.

So...what we're really arguing about here is what Canonical AS A COMPANY does to support Linux. Providing end users a nice GUI is great...but it's no different than a mom and pop distro like PCLinuxOS can provide. What sets them apart? Right now, the only thing I can see that sets them apart from others is that they appear to do more...we have nothing other than people with opinions to substantiate what they acutally do.

In other words, we need more data. Just looking at the data makes Red Hat/Fedora in the pole position with Ubuntu laps and laps behind. Ubuntu isn't doing itself any favors with comments like the one Mark let fly.

Reply Score: 1