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 515101
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Kernel Contributions
by hackus on Sat 21st Apr 2012 17:54 UTC
Member since:

Kernel Contributions are not a requirement for any distro.

However, this is a requirement for Kernel contribution, which IMHO, should be:

1) Integrators with Hardware and Software Server Applications for LINUX.

Contriibutions should be testing and verification. This is a community responsible thing to do

2) Manufacturers of Hardware.

Either should pay customers, vendors or end users for development and on going improvement of kernel features for said hardware.

Or of course, do it themselves and publish it back to the community.

Under no circumstances should any binary drivers be manufactured by these people.

Primarily for reliability reasons, and secondly I don't trust them, or third party people at this level.

Security is impossible with binary blobs on any system. So the less binaries the better.

3) End Users. Should report kernel problems to their hardware manufacturers....if you want to be a responsible user anyway.


Reply Score: 1