Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th May 2009 20:59 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 364730
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Hello Canonical :-)
by h3rman on Thu 21st May 2009 11:18
in reply to "RE: Hello Canonical :-)"
The first thing I thought when I read this article was that there already exists a stable Debian from which Ubuntu was forked, which Dell has forked again to make stable. So why doesn't Dell just release a customized Debian?
Ubuntu is usually a Debian Unstable fork.
What did Dell fork? I wasn't aware of that.
IMHO, this is a slap in the face of the makers of Ubuntu. If such a big vendor decides to fork the entire distribution repository, only to enhance quality, the makers of Ubuntu should really re-think their strategy.
Ubuntu claims to be "open" and what else than quirks in Ubuntu's release/fix/backport policies would stop a contributor to send enhancements and fixes back to the community?
Canonical, are you listening?
Ubuntu claims to be "open" and what else than quirks in Ubuntu's release/fix/backport policies would stop a contributor to send enhancements and fixes back to the community?
Canonical, are you listening?
WTF you are talking about?
Dell has not forked anything, all they do is to add their own repository for customizations and work directly together with Canonical. Their repository & modifications are available here: http://dell-mini.archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/
Also HP works directly together with Canonical with their MiniMe Ubuntu version. HP's repository and customizations are available here: http://hpmini.archive.canonical.com/
Canonical's strategy to work directly with hardware vendors seems pretty good for me.




Member since:
2008-05-22
IMHO, this is a slap in the face of the makers of Ubuntu. If such a big vendor decides to fork the entire distribution repository, only to enhance quality, the makers of Ubuntu should really re-think their strategy.
Ubuntu claims to be "open" and what else than quirks in Ubuntu's release/fix/backport policies would stop a contributor to send enhancements and fixes back to the community?
Canonical, are you listening?