Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Sep 2010 22:42 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu If there's one consistent piece of criticism that gets lobbed in Canonical's and Mark Shuttleworth's direction, it's that they do not contribute enough code - or anything else for that matter - to the Free software world. Mark Shuttleworth has apparently had enough, and has written a very, very lengthy blog post detailing how he feels about this criticism.
Thread beginning with comment 440995
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

This creates a problem in the long term because features Canonical will push to end users are not the same as those found in upstream and in other distributions and users who will first start using Canonical distributions will make simple assumptions that the way of the *buntu* is the way of linux and this will intime fragment the ecosystem ..its kind of hard to understand why he doesnt understand this


That's a load of hoo hoo. There are MANY differences between distros. I think what Ubuntu does (and does well) to contribute is to market linux and to make it more user friendly (or at least APPEAR that way). And that's what linux needs to become a ubiquitous desktop (along with reliable drivers and software to replace what users have become used to via MS).

And even by your own post, it sounds like you don't really WANT ubuntu's changes upstream. :/

Reply Parent Score: 3

mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14



That's a load of hoo hoo. There are MANY differences between distros. I think what Ubuntu does (and does well) to contribute is to market linux and to make it more user friendly (or at least APPEAR that way). And that's what linux needs to become a ubiquitous desktop (along with reliable drivers and software to replace what users have become used to via MS).


Critic's main point is that their "contribution" is non existent in upstream projects. Ubuntu is a big player with a lot of buzz around it but with a very small presence in upstream. Why dont they work with upstream in their effort to make linux more user friendly?

They make linux more user friendly by creating their own little corner and add their own little features in their little corner and then push them to end users and they call this "contribution". This is not the kind of contribution people are talking about about. Again, Why dont they work with upstream in their effort to make linux more user friendly?

Reply Parent Score: 6

marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

Exactly as I predicted couple years ago, mob goes with the latest fad. This is probably a reward for calling it Linus^Hx which it never was.

Reply Parent Score: 2

pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

Critic's main point is that their "contribution" is non existent in upstream projects.

I can relate to that a bit.
See, I've managed packaging for OpenSolaris, and built many patches to cleanly support that operating system.
At first, I tried to get them integrated, but at some point, I just didn't bother anymore.

The effort to keep my patches up to date with upstream changes was _much_ less than figuring out the various cultures and protocols that stood in the way between me providing a patch for many projects and it finally ending up in the upstream source.

I also had to endure the usual snobist treatment that some linux based devs show against supporting "genetic" unix systems ("why should we fix problems on that weird platform? Just use Linux!"), but given how Ubuntu was treated when it was new, they might have had similar problems as well - the bullies just had bad luck in that Ubuntu was successful.

tl;dr: It's easier to endure complaints like yours than the hostility with which patches are rejected in some projects.

Reply Parent Score: 8