On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Karanbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Bibek Paudel wrote: > > IMO, Ubuntu came very late in the scenario when the Linux kernel had > > achieved more or less a polished state. Redhat, Novell etc contributed > > for it. > I came across this comment on Linux Magazine: *I personally think that Canonical contributed enormously by nearly doubling Linux desktop install base. And the "Linux desktop install base" is important bit. Anybody who had to deal with kernel development in last five years would found that contributing something to kernel what provides gains on desktop is nearly impossible: if it hurts servers (forte of RH & Novell) it will be immediately blocked by their people. Just recall Kon Colivas "goodbye letter." It's all there. The conflicts on LKML still happening all the time. Linux as kernel heavily server oriented - because companies who keep most developers on payroll are server companies. And they choose server market because it is possible to make a profit in server market, while in desktop market you face up hill battle against M$ and Apple. RH and Novell (SUSE) choose easy target where they can compete - Canonical choose much much harder target and yet is delivering good results. So who is coward then?? P.S. And frankly, 95% of kernel contributions of RH and Novell can be filed under category "improved Oracle performance by 0.0001%." To me personally most of their contribution for past years were pretty useless. * You can check the thread here: * http://www.linux-magazine.com/online/news/kroah_hartman_attacks_canonical Swapnil * _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
