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 435476
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

If Red Hat went away, the entire Linux community would crawl to a standstill trying to pick up the slack. The community would lose its best contributors, its leaders, and would likely never really recover.

This is just not true because:

- It's all open source
- People would be hired to continue their work in a heartbeat. Do you think they would need to look for a job in a different sector, really?? (PS: Nokia is always hiring Linux gurus ;-)
- KDE is an independent alternative to Red Hat-led Gnome.

Reply Parent Score: 4

someguy10 Member since:

Yes, you're right.

There have been similar cases (well, more or less) where alternatives have been developed for specific needs. One of the most famous cases is Git.

BUT (and this is one big BUT):

Etc ...

In the event that Redhat stopped support Linux Development (with code, developers and infrastructure) the whole ecosystem would suffer to the ground. Of course, other companies or individuals would continue to work but the transition would be a real *****pain in the ass*****.

Could you say the same about Canonical? ;) .

And the little or much success that Ubuntu may have today is due primarily to ***Debian*** and ***Redhat***, but above all, due to this sentence that Ubuntu community seems to have forgotten:

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".

Reply Parent Score: 1

Lunitik Member since:

See, but Red Hat is also the leading developer in the Xorg stack, the most active at, the leading kernel developers. The most active throughout GNU projects. Red Hat pays developers handsomely compared to people like Canonical, so there is no guarantee that they'd stick to Linux development if Red Hat was no more.

Also, companies like Nokia and Google would significantly change the focus of Red Hat engineers they'd hire should Red Hat cease to exist.

EDIT: (GNU projects Red Hat maintains include glibc, gcc, gettext, coreutils)

Edited 2010-08-06 02:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Darkmage Member since:

I'm both a corporate sysadmin, and a home user of linux. At work we're using CentOS and at home I use ubuntu. Frankly, Red Hat RPM based package management sucks. It always has and it always will. RPM is Redhat's greatest weakness and half the reason Debian survives as a distro.. if Redhat switched over to apt-get and .deb packages it would probably deal a large blow to ubuntu's market share. Then again, having everything in/usr instead of /usr/local is very convenient. Sure directory listings can take a while but seriously that's what tab completion and other cli tools were made for. In terms of ease of use Ubuntu is dominating in this area at the moment simply because rather than making a custom solution they are creating/using open tools that are being adopted as the standard. Things like network-manager were adopted into Ubuntu first. Rather than write a crappy perl script like mandrake or their own configuration utility. They backed the standards through This is the way the entire stack needs to be done. Red Hat should have jumped into this stuff years ago and not tried to force everyone into using their package management system. (for the record I've used RPM distros, .deb distros, and gentoo/ebuild script based distros.) .deb has been the easiest/least prone to screwing up in my experience. Your Mileage May Vary.

Reply Parent Score: 2