Linked by David Adams on Tue 3rd Aug 2010 16:05 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Linux As we mentioned in a previous article, Red Hat advocate Greg DeKoenigsberg claimed that due to the much larger amount of code it's contributed, Red Hat is a better open source citizen than Canonical, adding, "Canonical is a marketing organization masquerading as an engineering organization." A Computerworld blog retorts that that's no insult; and that marketing Linux could be just as important to the cause as contributing code. Updated
Permalink for comment 435557
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Ubuntu
by da_Chicken on Thu 5th Aug 2010 22:56 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu"
Member since:

What Ubuntu does is - it's making a distro that friggin works and looks nice.

What Ubuntu doesn't do is - it's not sending many of its changes to upstream projects. Instead, Ubuntu contributes its changes to Canonical's hosting website, Launchpad. Then, all the upstream projects are free to create accounts at Canonical's Launchpad and use Canonical's version control system, so they could benefit from all the "cool Ubuntu innovations" that are hosted there. And then, if a large number of FOSS projects become dependent on Canonical's services and tools, Shuttleworth might become a very powerful man in the FOSS world.

It's a clever strategy, but it doesn't work as long as most of the upstream projects refuse to become Canonical's clients. In stead, Shuttleworth is seen as a bad guy because he keeps Ubuntu's contributions stored at Canonical's hosting services instead of sending them upstream. And this negative public image makes Shuttleworth less influential in the FOSS world. So it's really no wonder that Shuttleworth gets very upset when people keep pointing out that Ubuntu contributes too little code to its upstream projects.

So Shuttleworth must just hope that his evil scheme of world domination pans out and that FOSS projects are stupid enough to allow Canonical to become the new centralized upstream for Ubuntu's upstream projects - not by producing lots and lots of code but, instead, by controlling the tools of production.

If Ubuntu is broken, it's considered broken by powers that be, instead of saying "yeah, you just need to do some fixup to config files here and there".

When Ubuntu is broken and users are complaining, your overlord at Canonical says: "Ubuntu is not a democracy. We won't fix it."

Reply Parent Score: 2