Linked by David Adams on Tue 3rd Aug 2010 16:05 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Linux As we mentioned in a previous article, Red Hat advocate Greg DeKoenigsberg claimed that due to the much larger amount of code it's contributed, Red Hat is a better open source citizen than Canonical, adding, "Canonical is a marketing organization masquerading as an engineering organization." A Computerworld blog retorts that that's no insult; and that marketing Linux could be just as important to the cause as contributing code. Updated
Thread beginning with comment 435222
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

In spite of Red Hat's significant technological contributions to Linux in general, and the inroads they have made with Linux on servers, they never made much of a dent in the average Joe desktop market.

And they never wanted to, either. Canonical does, and should be applauded for that. When Ubuntu started out, there was no distribution that had the same role as Red Hat (the distro with that name) used to have. There was RHEL that was very expensive, and there was Fedora that was a bleeding edge distro for hobbyists. What was missing was a free production quality distro. SUSE was not free either. Slackware, Mandrake and others were just bad in their own ways.

Back then Debian was failing to release in pathological fashion, because there was no central authority - so it was pretty bad option for most desktop users.

Reply Parent Score: 1