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 441052
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
hussam
Member since:
2006-08-17

Why? Because Redhat does? Ubuntu is not Fedora. Ubuntu doesn't shy away from what makes them Ubuntu. They care about the user experience and packaging, they make no qualms about that. Anyone complaining about Ubuntu not contributing code upstream has to ask themselves, does it matter? Does the fact that Ubuntu contributes or not upstream affect Linux either way? The fact that Ubuntu is the highest profile distro means nothing, its the highest profile exactly for the reasons that Mark mentioned, that was their goal. Their goal was to get people to use Linux without having to be an Ubergeek, to make the community friendly enough that someone new could just jump in. They succeeded. Now all the distros who's focus turned from users to the enterprise or got more niche after each release, or thought the user as secondary to the Linux experience are jealous because they feel all of their hardwork is not being credited to them or that they are doing all of the work. Guess what, its gpl bitches. Stop whining. There is no golden rule saying I have to contribute anything back, the code is there, its open, do what you like as long as you don;t close the code. Ubuntu certainly does.


First of all, there's nothing wrong with asking credit for your work. There has been at least one instance of ubuntu fixing a bug and not sending their patch upstream in 2008 or 2009. I don't really remember the package but I remember stealing one of their patches for a bug that wasn't fixed upstream in git head. What this means is that they have the "talent" to fix bugs but they don't always submit to upstream. It simply shows bad attitude.
Still the good things about ubuntu over weigh this shortcoming so the distribution still does ok.

KDE has a lot of paid developers. Anyone ever considered how sweet if would be if canonical paid developers to contribute to upstream?

Edited 2010-09-15 08:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Anyone ever considered how sweet if would be if canonical paid developers to contribute to upstream?


Yes, because as we all know, money grows on trees. Let's just hire a few more developers to satisfy the whiners because they are too narrow-minded to think outside of "lines of c0de omg haxx0rz!".

Reply Parent Score: 2

felipec Member since:
2007-09-25

" Anyone ever considered how sweet if would be if canonical paid developers to contribute to upstream?


Yes, because as we all know, money grows on trees. Let's just hire a few more developers to satisfy the whiners because they are too narrow-minded to think outside of "lines of c0de omg haxx0rz!".
"

Of course not! That would be unselfish, like the nansy-pansies at RedHat, instead, let's be evil and care only about our products.

Reply Parent Score: 1