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 515085
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Non issue
by jessesmith on Sat 21st Apr 2012 13:37 UTC
jessesmith
Member since:
2010-03-11

I don't see why this would be an issue at all. Most people who use open source software don't contribute back code and that's fine. There is no obligation to submit patches upstream just because you make use of open source software. (I say this as an open source developer.)

Plus, the kernel is just one of over 30,000 packages included in Ubuntu. Canonical contributes to many projects with code, with paid developers (check out their career page on their website), they supply infrastructure and bug tracking to other projects, they support GNOME, Shuttleworth donates to KDE, and they have done a huge amount of marketing, certification and documenting over the years.

There are reasons to not like Ubuntu, but claiming Canonical doesn't contribute to the open source community or that they are a "leech" just because they don't focus on kernel development is plain ignorance.

Reply Score: 4