Linked by Kroc Camen on Sun 9th May 2010 12:34 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "Dear Ubuntu, for the last couple years life has been good. Every time I've shown you to a friend or family member, they've compared you to what they're familiar with--Windows XP or Vista, mostly--and by comparison you've looked brilliant. Yeah, your ugly brown color scheme was a bit off-putting at first, but once people saw how secure, simple, and reliable you were, the response was almost universally positive. But recently, things have changed ..."
Thread beginning with comment 423402
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Fettarme H-Milch
Member since:
2010-02-16

Yeah, I'll get voted down, but I post it anyway.

Canonical contributes next to nothing to FOSS. They have a bunch on incompetent programmers who fail to properly apply patches written by Red Hat for Fedora (see https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server/+bug/565981 ).
Canonical has OTOH a design team that uses Macs with proprietary graphics software and a oversized PR team instead of proper programmers (see http://jordanopensource.org/freeplanet/article/new-ubuntu-design-cr... ).

So instead of giving credit to those who actually deserve it, media like OSNews treat Ubuntu like the second coming of Jesus even though most of those who praise Ubuntu couldn't even tell the difference between Ubuntu and Fedora if Fedora's artwork was changed to Ubuntu's.

So here are a few distributors who actually deserve credit:
- Debian for doing all the hard packaging work Ubuntu is feeding of.
- Red Hat for being one of the top contributors to Xorg, esp. the FOSS Nouveau NVidia driver.
- Novell for employing Greg Kroah-Hartman who's keeping the kernel clean. And also for the radeonhd driver that resulted in much code that was later adopted by the general Xorg radeon driver.
- Mandriva who's despite a very critical financial situation maintains the Poulsbo driver (based on Intel's binary blob for Moblin, but still now easily adoptable by all distributors) and also contributes a relatively big amount of Mandriva's limited income directly to FOSS projects (see http://www2.mandriva.com/community/fund/ ).

And what do we get from Canonical? F***ing windicators!

Reply Score: 5

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Wow, I wondered when we'd get someone spouting the Greg "Arsehole" KH "Ubuntu contributes nothing blah blah blah" rhetoric. They don't do much for the kernel, true, but they have done a fair bit with GNOME. Now, whether they've done good things or bad things is entirely open to debate, and GNOME are by no means obligated to accept their patches. That doesn't mean they contribute nothing however.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

they have done a fair bit with GNOME

How much do you think Canonical does compared to Red Hat and Novell?

Reply Parent Score: 3

Hoodlum Member since:
2009-05-22

Wow, I wondered when we'd get someone spouting the Greg "Arsehole" KH "Ubuntu contributes nothing blah blah blah" rhetoric.

I find it sad that someone (Greg KH) who has contributed so much to Linux gets debased in this way for stating the number of contributions from the significant parties involved in the Linux ecosystem.

He has given numbers on numerous occasions, this isn't some vicious rumor. Since when did telling the truth make you an "arsehole"?

PS. They haven't really done anything for GNOME either. The company you're looking for is RH there.

Reply Parent Score: 6

Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

They don't do much for the kernel, true, but they have done a fair bit with GNOME. Now, whether they've done good things or bad things is entirely open to debate, and GNOME are by no means obligated to accept their patches. That doesn't mean they contribute nothing however.


Somewhat. They *do* contribute to Gnome, but they're not always very good about *how* they do it. Their mindset is to develop things for Ubuntu first, then push them upstream - a legitimate approach, but it means they're somewhat isolated, not actually *part of* upstream.

Consider Gnome 3.0 development. Ubuntu are probably the leading desktop distro, but they appear to have no involvement at all in the upstream vision of what the desktop will look like in a year's time. They're building their own things in their own distro, instead of trying to get Gnome to adopt their ideas.

Reply Parent Score: 2

unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm not sure I would give all that much credit to Debian for their packaging effort. Don't get me wrong their work is excellent and they have a huge set of high quality packages, yet they seriously harm Linux.

Why? My problem with Debian they still use the .deb format. If they and other distros had switched to RPM there would have been one packaging format in the Linux world, this would have mad life much easier for developers and support people. Linux have a small market shate as it is, there is, there is no need to split it further by having two packaging formats that both do about the same thing in two different ways.

So, why should Debian change and not the RPM crowd you might wonder. First of all LSB states that to be LSB compliant you need to be able to install rpms. Debian currently fix this by using alien, but why not just switch packaging format. Second there are versions of apt-get that can handle rpms, while yum can't handle debs, so by switching to rpm debian users could continue to use apt-get and yum users could continue to use yum.

The days when rpm meant a slow dependency hell are long gone, so why not unify on the LSB standard. The next step would be to somehow standardize the naming and versioning information of all packages making up the LSB, that way it would be even easier to support and develop for Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 3

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Simple. RPM took too long to mature and iron out its dependency problems. Now a days there are more deb packages than there are RPMs. For a long time RPM had no equivalent to apt-get. Then someone ported apt-get to RPM, but it was slow and unofficial. Then Red Hat came out with yum, which was even slower for a very long time. Only recently has Yum's speed gotten anywhere close to that of apt. While I always found it much easier to build RPM packages than to build debs, deb provided a better experience for end-users until recently when RPM caught up after years of lagging behind.
Besides, one packaging format isn't going to help. Ever tried installing Suse RPM packages on Fedora? How about installing straight Debian debs on Ubuntu? Eventually, when you cross-mix and match distribution packages even in the same format you run into trouble. If you're advocating standardizing on one distribution, I fully agree with you. It's a pipe dream however. The LSB refuses to evolve, and even supposed LSB compatibility doesn't solve everything. Linux distributions are so different from one another in many respects that they might as well be different oses altogether.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

I'm not sure I would give all that much credit to Debian for their packaging effort. Don't get me wrong their work is excellent and they have a huge set of high quality packages, yet they seriously harm Linux.

Why? My problem with Debian they still use the .deb format.

Build Service -- jointly developed by Novell, the openSUSE community, and the Linux Foundation (Canonical is once again completely absent) -- happily spits out dep files as well as RPMs.

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


And what do we get from Canonical? F***ing windicators!


The windicator allows you to see if you are connected to the internet without having to slightly rotate your eyeballs.

How dare you question the contributions of Canonical's 300 employees! The 280 person p.r. team is going to write you a very nasty letter once they finish playing foosball!

Reply Parent Score: 3

Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

"Canonical has OTOH a design team that uses Macs with proprietary graphics software"

- Don't say that you really believed that real graphic design could be accomplished with Gimp?

"oversized PR" compared to other distros maybe, but oversized is overstated. Outside of Geekdom no one has heard of Ubuntu or knows the ubuntu logo.

Edited 2010-05-10 09:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

"Real" design is very much possible using GIMP, Inkscape and other FOSS tools. Fedora Design team uses tools available in Fedora itself exclusively for all its design and does a splendid job with it. Think about the UI of NetworkManager, virt-manager etc as ample proof of that.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

Don't say that you really believed that real graphic design could be accomplished with Gimp?

What is wrong graphic design?
But who am I asking? You mentioned a raster graphics program and obviously think that such an approach is the way to go with high density screens where scalable graphics are a must...

Graphics for user interfaces these days are created using vector graphic tools and maybe later the resulting 16x16, 32x32, ... render outputs are being slightly retouched using raster graphic tools.

Considering that KDE's entire Oxygen graphics set was created using Inkscape almost exclusively, I think FOSS tools are pretty capable already.
http://wiki.ubuntuusers.de/Wiki/Icons/Oxygen


"oversized PR" compared to other distros maybe, but oversized is overstated. Outside of Geekdom no one has heard of Ubuntu or knows the ubuntu logo.

Everything that sacrifices upstream contributions in favor of marketing means that the marketing team is oversized.

Reply Parent Score: 2