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 330989
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by apoclypse on Sun 21st Sep 2008 20:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
apoclypse
Member since:
2007-02-17

They are bleeding money and Mark has had to contribute money to the project three times as far as I can count. That's 30 million dollars out of his own pocket to a project which has still to make a red cent. Suse and RedHat have the luxury of having rich parent companies that had infused them with cash. They both sell their distro commercially while ubuntu has stuck to their guns that their distro would always be free. They could have capitilized on the popularity of the brand a long time ago and sold the distro. In-fact only recently have they started packaging Ubuntu in retail locations.

Canonical has one guy giving away his own money to a project he believes in, Suse has Novell, RedHat had TimeWarner at some point. He decided to focus his distro on what they can do best which is packaging and they seem to be doing it rather well. They don't have to contribute all that much to the kernel because they use almost the exact same kernel that Debian does, they contribute bug reports and fixes to the debian and they in turn contribute patches back to the kernel in necessary. I don't see the issue here.

This is a stupid argument, and just shows sour grapes. So what if Ubuntu is more popular, instead of complaining about how about doing something about it. How about seeing what exactly is it about Ubuntu that makes people new and old want to use it.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by VistaUser on Sun 21st Sep 2008 20:26 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
VistaUser Member since:
2008-03-08

Mark Shuttleworth has a business plan. It may or may not be making money now, but you can bet your bottom dollar that he is expecting it to some day. He is not infusing money into the project as an act of charity, but as an investment.

As for the benefit of the Ubuntu marketing, if there was no Ubuntu, some other distro would take its place as a darling of friendliness.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by sbergman27 on Sun 21st Sep 2008 20:53 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kroc"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Mark Shuttleworth has a business plan. It may or may not be making money now, but you can bet your bottom dollar that he is expecting it to some day. He is not infusing money into the project as an act of charity, but as an investment.

So? He's investing in something he believes in. There are a lot of easier, faster, and less risk-prone ways to make a decent profit from one's capital. While I'm sure he'd like to see a return some day, if he were "in it for the money" he certainly wouldn't be heading up a Desktop Linux company.

As for the benefit of the Ubuntu marketing, if there was no Ubuntu, some other distro would take its place as a darling of friendliness.

It used to be Mandrake. But they developed a long-running reputation for poor quality, made some incredibly bad business decisions, went into the French equivalent of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and lost the throne while they tried to sort it all out internally. Ubuntu is doing a lot better on all fronts than any distro which has attempted to blaze this trail before. That generates a lot of jelousy among users of distros who wanted their distro to achieve the popularity that Ubuntu enjoys today.

See my previous thread on how people hate it when that happens, and how they react. It's all so very transparent and predictable.

Edited 2008-09-21 20:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by KAMiKAZOW on Sun 21st Sep 2008 23:29 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

Suse and RedHat have the luxury of having rich parent companies that had infused them with cash.

Red Hat has a parent? Red Hat got successful on its own.
SuSE also was successful before that was bought by Novell.

They both sell their distro commercially while ubuntu has stuck to their guns that their distro would always be free.

Huh? Red Hat gives away Fedora, and Novell gives away openSUSE. Both Red Hat and SuSE were given away on magazine CDs since the 1990s.
Red Hat and Novell moth sell enterprise support contracts, but that's no different than Cannonical.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by irbis on Sun 21st Sep 2008 23:54 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kroc"
irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

SuSE were given away on magazine CDs since the 1990s

I can't remember ever having seen one but maybe I only missed seeing those magazines?

Anyway, SuSE was long described as partly a non-free distribution by sites like Distrowatch. There were no free SuSE installation ISOs to be downloaded anywhere, but you could install SuSE by using the more difficult and time consuming ftp installation method. OpenSUSE (and its commercial variant SLED) came only after Novell had bought SuSE.

Edited 2008-09-21 23:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by apoclypse on Mon 22nd Sep 2008 13:05 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kroc"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

RedHat and Suse did get successful on their own, initially. Just like Ubuntu, they were popular because they were community based projects that made it easy (relatively) for the average user to install linux without having to compile everything from scratch. However both distros, though they contributed, did exactly the same thing that Ubuntu does now, they were integrators, they didn't start really pushing contributions until after they got parent companies with huge amounts of money to back their projects. RedHat being the first to get this financial backing and already having dealings with IBM has contributed the longest. To top it off Suse, RedHat, and Mandrake (now Mandriva, stupid name) though they gave away their distro for free still sold their products through retail. The versions they gave away were usually "community" version which had things missing from it.

One of the main reason's Ubuntu is so popular (at least in my eyes) is that they give you a basic 1 cd install (while the others used to give you a DVD or 5/6 disc) and EVERYTHING else you need is available via the repos, which are already setup for you and ready to go (which wasn't always the case, I'm glad they changed that). I'm glad to see other distros are following suit. I downloaded Fedora the other day and was able to download one live CD instead of a DVD's worth of crap I won't use. The idea isn't new but Ubuntu took the concept polished it up and ran with it.

Which is what Canonical really does. They are integrators, distributors. They are basically a more popular version of that guy who puts Linux Mint together or any other small scale distro out there that focuses on what they want their distro to be like and devote their resources to it. Tell me how many kernel patches do those guys contribute back? I can tell you, not many. Don't let Ubuntu's popularity and enigmatic leader fool you into thinking that Ubuntu is anything more than just some scratch your own itch distro that just happened to scratch a whole bunch of other people's itches.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by Soulbender on Mon 22nd Sep 2008 16:29 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kroc"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I dont see RedHat giving away RHEL or SuSE giving away their equivalent.

Reply Parent Score: 2