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 330992
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Accurate or not.... So what?
by Kokopelli on Sun 21st Sep 2008 20:34 UTC
Kokopelli
Member since:
2005-07-06

I fail to see the point in GKH's talk. I do not think it is in dispute that Canonical contributes less than many companies to the core (Linux Kernel, GCC, X). For that matter they do not contribute as much as many companies to the user visible components.

It is funny in a way. I do not hear or see Canonical arguing that their contributions are in volume or nature comparable to Novell's or Red Hat's. You get a random voice from the community upon occasion but nothing compared to the numerous others decrying Ubuntu's contributions and existence for that matter.

Canonical is not trying to control the wave, merely surf upon it. The fact of the matter is that Canonical is a tiny company. They do not have the resources to effect great change, nor has it been my impression that they are trying to. They package and present Linux in a way that is appealing to many users. Whether clever marketing or actual accomplishment does not matter, many people have bought into the vision.

Canonical have, or listen to, ideas and attempt to implement them to make a better desktop. Their focus is there, and even then not on core design but upon assembly and fine tuning.

Do not confuse popularity with size, or merit for that matter. Canonical is popular and hope to be profitable one day, but right now they are small and trying to effect change to the users benefit in a way their size can accomplish. Hiring a team of kernel hackers will not help accomplish Ubuntu's goals on the desktop as going a different route.

Mark Shuttleworth in particular is known for stepping on the toes of establishment and the merits of his ideas are much debated. Indeed in many ways he steps beyond his sphere of influence, but at least he is not afraid of speaking his mind. Nor is GKH. The same talking points could have been discussed without targeting Canonical, he has an axe to grind and given the lack of Novell logo I would say it is personal.

GKH's slides not having the Novell logo on them most likely means Novell did not bless the message. There is nothing sinister in the act, it simply means GKH was talking for himself, not Novell.

Reply Score: 2

VistaUser Member since:
2008-03-08

I do not hear or see Canonical arguing that their contributions are in volume or nature comparable to Novell's or Red Hat's


But you do get Mr Shuttleworth saying that other other distributions should base their kernel of Ubuntu's as it is more stable and better tested... and you get him projecting a leadership image where he is leading the Gnome community down a path and asking others to move to his tools instead of Canonical to upstream's.

What this presentation shows that while Canonical talks the talk, it is not yet walking the walk. It is valid and debunks the leadership myth that Mark Shuttleworth is trying to project.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Kokopelli Member since:
2005-07-06


But you do get Mr Shuttleworth saying that other other distributions should base their kernel of Ubuntu's as it is more stable and better tested...


It sounds like Shuttleworth but I have not seen that particular accusation before. Can you provide a link.

and you get him projecting a leadership image where he is leading the Gnome community down a path and asking others to move to his tools instead of Canonical to upstream's.


This I can see as an extreme interpretation of Shuttleworth's talks but I do not really agree with the interpretation. Can you give examples of this?

What this presentation shows that while Canonical talks the talk, it is not yet walking the walk. It is valid and debunks the leadership myth that Mark Shuttleworth is trying to project.


And you are arguing against Mark Shuttleworth's projection of leadership, not Canonical's contributions. If GKH has problems with Mark S. then he should have based the talk on such and backed this up with accurate facts.

Reply Parent Score: 2

irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

debunks the leadership myth that Mark Shuttleworth is trying to project.

Blehh..., what exactly is your point, VistaUser? Many other leaders in the opensource community tend to be much more aggressive and dominant than Mark Shuttleworth has been: Linus, RMS, ESR, the participants in the Mono/.net debate etc.

Shuttleworth is rather considered a relatively diplomatic person who tries to be in good terms with others (which, by the way, is probably one reason why Ubuntu and Mr. Shuttleworth are so popular). But he is interviewed and asked questions about this and that all the time, and of course he supports his own projects and their goals. But I don't see him trying to force his opinions on anybody, not to mention trying to control the direction of other projects like GNOME or other distributions - anymore than anybody else (like Novell, a big rich company) is.

Reply Parent Score: 4

KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

I fail to see the point in GKH's talk.

You do? The whole point is outlined right at the beginning of that article. It's an answer to questions asked by Ubuntu fans at a talk given by him at Google.

Reply Parent Score: 2