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 330990
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by VistaUser on Sun 21st Sep 2008 20:26 UTC 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[8]: Comment by Kroc
by VistaUser on Sun 21st Sep 2008 21:02 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Kroc"
VistaUser Member since:
2008-03-08

So?


Was just arguing against the opinion that Ubuntu is a philanthropic project.

There is nothing wrong with being for profit, but the poster I was replying to was suggesting that as an excuse to give Ubuntu extra leeway.

Disclaimer: I am Vista User who also dabbles in Fedora. I have used Ubuntu, but do not plan to again, nor would I recommend it to others as I am of the opinion that in the medium to long term it is bad for the floss ecosystem.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Comment by Kroc
by irbis on Sun 21st Sep 2008 21:42 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Kroc"
irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

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.

Exactly. I think you hit the nail on its head there.

Many people attack Ubuntu a lot all the time - just because they would like to see something else enjoying its popularity: SUSE/Novell, Fedora, Mandrake, BSDs etc.etc.

Heck, also I may have been guilty of that a few times when Ubuntu was still young and I hoped that they would just concentrate on improving vanilla Debian instead of developing their own distro. However, later I had to admit that the big Debian project seemed all all too slow and cumbersome a ship to turn so Ubuntu's choices started to make more sense to me gradually.

Reply Parent Score: 2