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 331071
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thoughts...
by TemporalBeing on Mon 22nd Sep 2008 17:45 UTC
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

Basically, see my post in response to mdz:

http://mdzlog.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/greg-kh-linux-ecosystem/#com...

To summarize:

He is making the case for anyone attending the LPC that they should not let their projects (or employers let their projects) become solely dependent on an upstream provider; whether that employer is Canonical or someone else; he just used Canonical as an example since he already had some data...


and:

Now perhaps he should have abstracted it away from any single contributor sponsor to help get the point across (likely a more professional thing to do), but that seems to be the jist of what he was (at least) trying to say, and that is a message that should have been appropriate for an LPC keynote - communicating to everyone how to be a player in the entire ecosystem, helping lighten their work load, and everyone else's too.


And directly per Canonical:

So then we come to this comment in [mdz's] article: "our kernel consists almost entirely of code we receive from upstream."

This is exactly what Greg arguing against. He was basically saying "don't rely on upstream; be your own distro/project, and provide patches back up".


Edit: Fixed per formatting issues with copy/paste.
Edit: Fixed per HTML/UBB tags

Edited 2008-09-22 17:49 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Thoughts...
by chris_dk on Mon 22nd Sep 2008 19:05 in reply to "Thoughts..."
chris_dk Member since:
2005-07-12

So then we come to this comment in [mdz's] article: "our kernel consists almost entirely of code we receive from upstream."

This is exactly what Greg arguing against. He was basically saying "don't rely on upstream; be your own distro/project, and provide patches back up".


And when Ubuntu patches its kernel everybody goes: "It's different from vanilla! Ubuntu sucks!"

Also, a vanilla kernel makes it easier to send bug reports upstream instead of having them rejected.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Thoughts...
by segedunum on Mon 22nd Sep 2008 21:40 in reply to "RE: Thoughts..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

And when Ubuntu patches its kernel everybody goes: "It's different from vanilla! Ubuntu sucks!"

Hmmmm, no. You would like to have as much upstream as you can, but you will never be quite in step with upstream though. Everyone has to patch at some point. What you want, however, are people upstream who know what they're doing on your behalf, which is why Red Hat's developers end up contributing a lot to the kernel.

Also, a vanilla kernel makes it easier to send bug reports upstream instead of having them rejected.

Not the point. It would be better for Canonical to have developers contributing stuff upstream that Ubuntu needs to make what they're doing better, which will possibly be desktop related, and making sure they have the experience in-house to support what they, their users and their customers need and actually have some vision for what they're doing.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Thoughts...
by sbergman27 on Mon 22nd Sep 2008 19:10 in reply to "Thoughts..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Basically, see my post in response to mdz:

I was not going to post anything further under this essentially valueless story topic. (Not referring to your thread, but to the story topic itself.) But then I ran into this little gem posted in the comments on your site. It is so very apt. And funny because it is likely so true. Regarding Ubuntu's position in the community and the detractors seemingly coming out of the woodwork, lately, to disparage it, he says:

"""
First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, ( <- you are here )
then you win.
"""

Edited 2008-09-22 19:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Thoughts...
by segedunum on Mon 22nd Sep 2008 21:34 in reply to "RE: Thoughts..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Regarding Ubuntu's position in the community and the detractors seemingly coming out of the woodwork, lately, to disparage it, he says:

"""
First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, ( <- you are here )
then you win.
"""

Funny that you've quoted that, and even funnier, and rather sad, that it doesn't actually apply. Using that statement assumes that Canonical are actually doing something to 'win' in the first place. They're not:

1. Canonical and Ubuntu can't win and can't surpass Mac OS with the contributions they're making to open source software today.

2. Point 1 means that any apparent progress is all down to marketing, soundbites and hype, and even Mark Shuttleworth will run out of money to finance that at some point as so many companies, most of them VC funded, have done before them.

3. People aren't fighting Ubuntu at all I'm afraid. All they're doing is pointing out points 1 and 2.

I'll re-phrase your quote as it actually is, and it really is rather sad:

- First you think you're being ignored so you create lots of hype.

- When people point out said hype and look for something more concrete (i.e. lines of code) you think people are laughing at you.

- The questions continue and you believe that people are fighting against you because they won't go away.

- You fail to contribute the lines of code necessary to actually create something that surpasses Mac OS (or even to identify what's needed), you fail to generate money off the back of that because hype and soundbites aren't enough, your benefactor can't put money in forever, you run out of money and you lose.

Reply Parent Score: 5