Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Apr 2012 20:09 UTC, submitted by fran
Linux "Linux vendor Canonical said it has 'no interest' in Linux kernel development. Two weeks ago a Linux Foundation report showed that since version 2.6.32, Microsoft had committed more code to the Linux kernel than Canonical. Since then, Canonical has faced claims from rivals that it does not contribute to Linux as much as it should given its popularity. Recently Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth told The Inquirer that his company has no interest in contributing to the Linux kernel." Why is this such a bad thing? You can contribute more to open source than code alone. Like, I don't know, users?
Thread beginning with comment 515023
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Like...
by _cynic_ on Fri 20th Apr 2012 22:16 UTC
_cynic_
Member since:
2012-04-18

Like, I don't know, packaging, testing, user-space code, support... Provide support and polish in the only area everyone else ignores and isn't really lucrative, the desktop.

They've been operating on loss for years, giving everything back to the Linux community. And now they are compared to MS, that made large commits of self-serving low quality code.

And quantity doesn't mean anything. A fix, to the Linux kernel may take 50 lines of code and one commit, but dozens of hours to develop and test. Is it the same as a crappy driver code dump?

Reply Score: 6

RE: Like...
by leech on Fri 20th Apr 2012 23:00 in reply to "Like..."
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

Like, I don't know, packaging, testing, user-space code, support... Provide support and polish in the only area everyone else ignores and isn't really lucrative, the desktop.

They've been operating on loss for years, giving everything back to the Linux community. And now they are compared to MS, that made large commits of self-serving low quality code.

And quantity doesn't mean anything. A fix, to the Linux kernel may take 50 lines of code and one commit, but dozens of hours to develop and test. Is it the same as a crappy driver code dump?


Call me crazy, but all the packaging, testing, infrastructure was already there with Debian. Really the only thing that Ubuntu brought to the table over Debian is scheduled releases, and releases based on the latest gnome, which I guess would be where the 'testing and packaging' would come from. Though honestly I think that's where they should have stayed. A Fresher Debian. Kept more compatible to Debian, and just stayed with whatever direction Debian went. That was the original goal of Ubuntu, and why I used it during the first few releases, but then they would break so bad, I'd just go back to proper Debian.

They don't even 'support' as many packages as Debian does.

Reply Parent Score: 4