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 330994
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Accurate or not.... So what?
by VistaUser on Sun 21st Sep 2008 20:43 UTC in reply to "Accurate or not.... So what?"
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

VistaUser Member since:
2008-03-08

Look for example at the fact that Ubuntu has usually better hardware support, if we all were on the same kernel the others could take the drivers we put in there and have hardware support that is just as good as Ubuntu.


http://lwn.net/Articles/290156/

As for the second, yes it is my cynical reading of the proposal from http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/162 (specifically the reply to the first comment.) and other blogs on planet gnome where developers were asking for the code.

To the cynic in me, even the talk of synchronisation talked of flailing - Ubuntu suddenly was using a kernel not being used by another distro, an xserver with the same issue and a couple of other important bits too. (since that time, Debian 5 and OpenSuse 11 have also made the same choices, so Ubuntu is no longer alone).

And for Ubuntu 8.10, there is the "late" switch to kernel 2.6.27 - something Fedora had already been planning to go with. TO me this smacked of synchronisation to cut the workload. Not a bad thing in itself, but how large is the iceberg?

I have also noticed that in some places, there is massive resistance to change in Ubuntu, as was seen in the discussion over whether to go with Empathy by default over pidgin for Ubuntu 8.10. This caution is good in some places, but bad in others. Me personally, I like a little bit of Chaos.

Reply Parent Score: 3

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

VistaUser Member since:
2008-03-08

@irbis - they also provide the code to go with their leadership or aspirations thereof.

This is turning out more confrontational than I intended, but I stick by my point.

Reply Parent Score: 1