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 […]
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?
Loading ...
Reading Between the Linux Contributor List's Lines
Posted by: Jay Lyman April 17, 2012 05:00 AMThe 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 […]
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?