Linked by David Adams on Mon 9th Aug 2010 15:34 UTC, submitted by suka
Gnome Ubuntu's community manager Jono Bacon talks in an interview with derStandard.at about the relationship between Ubuntu and GNOME, GNOME Shell, Unity and why the netbook market is that important to Canonical.
Thread beginning with comment 436246
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Manish
Member since:
2009-12-18

Not only are they pissing off upstream projects by applying patches and doing things that result in bugs that they have to look into, to add insult to injury Canonical contribute little if any code so don't understand the patches they apply in the first place.


When did applying patches downstream become bad? Everyone is allowed to take the upstream code, change it to fit their needs/vision and release it. Last I checked from Planet Earth that FOSS movement was born with the vision of changing, patching and releasing code to fit one's need.

Reply Parent Score: 1

abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

When did applying patches downstream become bad? Everyone is allowed to take the upstream code, change it to fit their needs/vision and release it. Last I checked from Planet Earth that FOSS movement was born with the vision of changing, patching and releasing code to fit one's need.


I think someone was right when they said this is like the "new school" vs the "old school" because not submitting patches upstream was ALWAYS bad. I'm not sure where some people are getting the idea that it wasn't. Just because the license allows you to do whatever you want with the code doesn't mean it's good FOSS etiquette. The whole point of FOSS is to SHARE. Sure you can take whatever Ubuntu does and use it elsewhere but they don't make it easy for anyone else when it's not committed upstream. How are you supposed to take advantage of these changes when upstream breaks compatibilty with the changes because they were more of a hack than a real solution? There are exeptions but what this isn't it.

Edited 2010-08-14 13:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Manish Member since:
2009-12-18

Things aside, read the guy's comment on which I commented. He was acting as if applying patches was wrong. Modifying code was wrong.

Nowhere in my comment did I say that Ubuntu/Canonical should *NOT* submit patches upstream. I was just replying to his comment statement "Not only are they pissing off upstream projects by applying patches"

Please don't come to your own cooked up conclusion about anyone from a comment.

Reply Parent Score: 1