See Full Story
The recently released Who Writes Linux kernel contributor list reveals that some of the usual supporters of Linux -- Red Hat, SUSE, IBM, Intel, Oracle -- remain firmly behind the open source OS. There has also been a lot of attention on the other contributors, which now include Microsoft. What I find most fascinating about the Linux contributor list -- beyond the increasing rate of code change with some 10,000 patches from 1,000 developers representing 200 companies in each quarterly kernel release -- are the contributors that show some new direction and potential for Linux, in this case the processor players.
In your article seem to equivocate on Canonical's responsibility to FOSS:
You state repeatedly that Canonical should contribute more resources to the kernel, in spite of the following:
"[...] I've always thought Ubuntu and Canonical have done quite a bit in expanding the ecosystem and market for Linux, which used to be practically unusable on the desktop. By aspiring to a better, easier and more polished UI, Ubuntu has lifted other Linux distributions and their UIs along with it, in my opinion."
Given that, why should Canonical contribute more to the kernel?