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 435228
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

No it didn't grow based on statcounter:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-200907-201008

I think Ubuntu has actually been bad for Linux due to it having zero corporate appeal. A weird brown er.. aubergine OS that sounds like a curry dish is not going to go far with the typical CTO. Name and presentation mean a lot and Ubuntu doesn't have either.

Linux Mint has a much better name and comes with a complimentary theme that results in a cohesive offering. People have heard of Linux, Mint is associated with value, and green has wider appeal than brown or pretty purple. Shuttleworth should fire his design team and hire the Linux Mint guy.

Reply Parent Score: -1

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Ubuntu has tons of corporate appeal. The engineering, the name, the color of the icons doesn't matter; only the ability to buy a support contract does. Linux Mint has zero marketability in the corporate world due to it being a community project.

Ubuntu has been good for corporate Linux. It's really pushed the idea that Linux has a place outside of the server room. There's not another company that does that. Red Hat sells desktops licenses, but they would really rather sell just server licenses.

On the other hand, Ubuntu hasn't done enough. They really need to start looking at the entire ecosystem corporations need. They need to make deploying and maintaining a Linux only network easy, and they really need to create a first class development package.

I do agree with you about Mint being better then Ubuntu.

Reply Parent Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Ubuntu has tons of corporate appeal. The engineering, the name, the color of the icons doesn't matter; only the ability to buy a support contract does.


So if Novell made a distro called ClownTimeOS that used a circus theme that wouldn't matter as long as they offered support contracts?


Linux Mint has zero marketability in the corporate world due to it being a community project.


Linux Mint isn't being marketed to the corporate world but the name and color scheme would be an easier sell.


Ubuntu has been good for corporate Linux. It's really pushed the idea that Linux has a place outside of the server room.


I'm not seeing major corporate rollouts of Ubuntu. I think it has been a waste of time for Linux overall.


I do agree with you about Mint being better then Ubuntu.


It's funny as to how many people prefer Mint when Shuttleworth has a team of designers and Mint is mostly the work of 1 person.

Reply Parent Score: 1

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Hah.

Meanwhile, in the real corporate world, what matters is management tools that make deploying, updating and maintaining dozens, hundreds and thousands of servers and workstations as easy (read: manpower-free) as possible. Windows and AD and group policies, however crappy they are, do a decent job of providing these things to the average J-Random-DumbAdmin.

Reply Parent Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I think Ubuntu has actually been bad for Linux due to it having zero corporate appeal.

Now that is an outright false statement.

Reply Parent Score: 7

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

No it's an opinion.

The corporate world has completely ignored Ubuntu in case you hadn't noticed.

Reply Parent Score: 1