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 435589
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Lunitik
Member since:
2005-08-07

Thing is, even the developers Canonical do have aren't working in significant upstream projects, so this is really a pointless statement.

Most of the contributions Canonical has made to things like GNOME are simply bug fixes. While I'm not understating the importance of such things, without the original code, there isn't much to fix. Projects like Debian and Gentoo manage to contribute more despite being entirely volunteer based, that is pathetic.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Most of the contributions Canonical has made to things like GNOME are simply bug fixes


So what? There's no clause in the GPL that says you have to contribute X amount of code. In fact, if you look at the whole picture most distros contribute far less than Canonical. To be honest, I don't care who contribute what, Ubuntu satisfies my needs and that's why I, and many others, use it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Lunitik Member since:
2005-08-07

No distro that isn't volunteer based contributes less than Canonical, and several distros that are entirely volunteer based contribute more.

My only point is that its a sorry state of affairs when you do next to nothing, and yet garner most of the praise. I have yet to see a review or anything similar that actually praises Ubuntu for something they've done. The only mention of anything Ubuntu-specific in most reviews in fact relates to its theme, which consistently is discussed negatively.

I'm not sure when theming became a major discussion point, they are probably the easiest thing to change, but many consider distros like Fedora old fashioned and similar because it uses the upstream default. In reality, you're getting most of the things you praise Ubuntu for 6 months earlier.

Red Hat developed the underlying functionality that provides windowing effects - AIGLX. Red Hat developed NetworkManager, which has greatly improved network configuration on Linux. Red Hat developed system-config-printer - hell, it even maintains the naming construct of all Red Hat system management tools. Red Hat used to hire most of the guys doing Linux specific Firefox work. You name it Red Hat is probably responsible for it.

Canonical needs to do more, or give credit where it is due.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Most of the contributions Canonical has made to things like GNOME are simply bug fixes


So what? There's no clause in the GPL that says you have to contribute X amount of code. In fact, if you look at the whole picture most distros contribute far less than Canonical. To be honest, I don't care who contribute what, Ubuntu satisfies my needs and that's why I, and many others, use it.

Reply Parent Score: 2