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 435332
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Tempest in a Teapot
by sdhays on Wed 4th Aug 2010 12:23 UTC
Member since:

Reading through some of the links, the initial cause of all the hullaballoo was the Gnome Census which showed Redhat making significantly more commits to Gnome than Canonical. However, this is misleading since it's counting commits over the entire course of the Gnome project while Canonical has only been around for, what, five years? If you looked at the commits made in 2009, then the Redhat and Canonical numbers would be similar. And the ragers would have to find something else to scream about.

Running Fedora 13 with KDE4.4. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it just strikes me as an Internet argument based on numbers taken out of context.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Tempest in a Teapot
by TechGeek on Wed 4th Aug 2010 14:01 in reply to "Tempest in a Teapot"
TechGeek Member since:

Not really, no. Canonical has been around about 6 years. Gnome has been around 11. That means that Canonical has been around half of Gnome's life. As such, if they were anywhere near Red Hat in commits per year, they would have half as many as Red Hat. Canonical has 4500 commits to Red Hat's 71000. The math doesn't lie. Canonical just doesn't do very much development. Maybe people would be less hostile if Canonical occasionally thanked Red Hat in public for all the hard work they do instead of just taking all the credit.

Reply Parent Score: 4