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 515034
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Why so much misunderstanding?
by galvanash on Fri 20th Apr 2012 23:51 UTC in reply to "Why so much misunderstanding?"
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

He is right in saying so, and it is the right way to do for a company that focuses on UI and user-friendly operating system development.


How can ANYONE mod this down? Is it the Red Hat comment? Granted that may be a little over the top, but the rest of this comment is spot damn on...Linux NEEDS companies like Canical, unfortunately there aren't really any others to speak of that have been nearly as successful.

Canical "gets" what they do. They are in the business of molding Linux into something usable by the consumers. I'm not saying they are completely successfully at it, but that is their MO. They don't need to muck about with the kernel to do this - what they need to do is listen to their users and package the product in a way that appeals to their sensibilities. The Red Hats and Debians of the world are absolutely horrible at this.

The world needs Red Hats and Debians too - don't get me wrong... But if you Canical gave up tomorrow desktop linux would lose at least half of its already small userbase.

Ask yourself what is more important to the success of Linux in the long run - widespread adoption by non-technical users or having it work and look the way you want it to? How does Canical using Linux (or open source in general) somehow take something away from you? You don't use Ubuntu - why do you even care?

I really don't get this selfish viewpoint some people in the OSS world have - why the f*ck do you want to license software so liberally but at the same time piss on how it is being used - just because it doesn't suit you? There is nothing in the GPL about having to be a prolific contributor.

I say that anyone using Linux for any reason short of violating the license is a good thing for Linux.

ps. I'm not directing my angst against the poster - my comments where motivated by the post being modded down...

Edited 2012-04-20 23:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Actually the GPL states, give forward. Not give back.

It states that if you give someone the binaries of a program you made or modified you should give that user the source.

It also is clear that you can ask money for the changes/code you made.

I believe the GPL also states it should be 'buildable' or have instructions.

It does not state anything about giving your modifications to the original developers.

All the GPL does is garantee that the user of the software is free to do with it what he/she wants (while complying to the GPL ofcourse).

So if you sell your modifications to some company, you'll have to give them the source. It does not mean that anyone else will get the source.

Obviously your or the company that you sold it to can give the binaries/source to the original developers if they want to. But there is nothing which demands that.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

And exactly what is it that Canonical does not give back?
Contributing code to the kernel is not a requirement for making a Linux distro and it's not a requirement for using the Linux kernel.
In fact, I doubt most Linux distros contribute any code to the kernel at all.

Reply Parent Score: 5

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

what is more important to the success of Linux in the long run

Being easy to operate on the front end and highly configurable on the backend.
As much as I like creating software, spending X hours changing parameters on my system is not something I want to do. A Linux distribution is not 1 package with 1 config file, unfortunately.

That is their contribution - making a sane distribution and forcing others to do something similar.

Reply Parent Score: 2