Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Sun 21st Sep 2008 06:46 UTC, submitted by Rahul
Linux Greg KH, Linux kernel developer delivered a keynote in the Linux plumbing conference about the health of the ecosystem. His message was essentially that distributions that don't contribute to the ecosystem have to rely on the whims of others which is unhealthy for them. Here is an introduction the development model and some interesting statistics about the Linux kernel code. Update by TH: Rebuttals are appearing all over the web, like this one by Canonical's Matt Zimmerman ("He's refuting a claim which has, quite simply, never been made. [...] When this sort of thing happens on mailing lists, it's called trolling."), or this one by another Canonical employee, Dustin Kirkland.
Thread beginning with comment 330931
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by FooBarWidget on Sun 21st Sep 2008 09:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
FooBarWidget
Member since:
2005-11-11

Canonical SHOULD be ashamed of itself in this regard


Shuttleworth recently invested millions into FOSS - again. What exactly is it that Canonical should be ashamed of? That they've invested more money into FOSS than you ever will?

Reply Parent Score: 15

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by SlackerJack on Sun 21st Sep 2008 10:32 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Well what millions is that then, where, into what FOSS?

The fact of the matter is ordinary developers of their free time contribute more than them. Ubuntu is a great distro but they need to put more effort into contributing more back to projects code,it's really that simple considering how popular it is.

I'd like to point out about in the update that person puts up employees, which is completely wrong. If only 130 people contribute to Linux at IBM then it's about the same, it's about how many contribute in the company not how many are employed.

Whats how many years it's been going got to do with it, it only takes a few people to contribute patches at a fast rate.

Edited 2008-09-21 10:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by FooBarWidget on Sun 21st Sep 2008 10:40 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
FooBarWidget Member since:
2005-11-11

Well what millions is that then, where, into what FOSS?


Did you not follow the news? http://osnews.com/story/20282/Canonical_to_Fund_Upstream_Linux_Usab...
It was even on OSNews.

Or is it that you can never be pleased no matter what they do?

Edited 2008-09-21 10:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by -oblio- on Sun 21st Sep 2008 19:24 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
-oblio- Member since:
2008-05-27

"Ubuntu is a great distro but they need to put more effort into contributing more back to projects code,it's really that simple considering how popular it is."

Projects need more than "code". Publicity ain't free, exposure ain't free.

Also, DOES ANYONE HERE BELIEVE THAT UBUNTU/CANONICAL IS MAKING MONEY? Not me, I think that they're bleeding money (I believe even Shuttleworth announced it)...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by maco on Mon 22nd Sep 2008 15:59 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
maco Member since:
2008-09-22

130 work on Linux....do you mean Linux the K]kernel or do you mean 130 total work on porting Symphony and Lotus and all their other software to Linux? I really doubt it's the latter. They've probably got a lot more people than that working on the userspace software. And that's most of what Canonical does too. They just can't do it on the scale that IBM does.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by Almindor on Sun 21st Sep 2008 14:09 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
Almindor Member since:
2006-01-16

You obviously don't get it...

Money is of no concern here. We're talking about developers doing the right thing for the right reasons which in the end benefit everyone.

I also work on one FOSS project, and there are basically two kinds of people:
1. People who when they fix or enhance something, rush the changes upstream (patches or direct commits if they got the right)
2. People who don't even say they got something fixed or enhanced and rather use their own copies etc.

#2 usually makes more money (mostly because they don't care ABOUT the tool, they just want to get the job done), but is more destructive than constructive. We need more #1.

Now don't get me wrong. I like Canonical, can't really say if I like Shuttleworth, don't know the guy. Anyway I'm not bashing here, but it seems to me that they don't try to finish the job when it comes to changes and enhancements. I'm not an inside man so it's a bit questionable how much this article can be trusted, given Canonical's small size etc.

Edited 2008-09-21 14:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7