Re: [Ilugc] Canonical Not Great Contributor

2008-09-29 Thread Karanbir Singh
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: I have a confession to make: I have shamelessly used linux since 1995 and have never contributed a patch to the kernel. Even worse, I dont know C. So, boycott me. Hate me. Kick me. Ban me. But whatever you do - I will continue to use linux. reading the OP post before

Re: [Ilugc] Canonical Not Great Contributor

2008-09-28 Thread Mohan R
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Swapnil Bhartiya wrote: > I just learnt from a friend of mine that I should stop using Ubuntu as > Canonical is not contributing to the development of GNU/Linux systems as > compared to other players. He also suggested that since most of its stuff, o

Re: [Ilugc] Canonical Not Great Contributor

2008-09-28 Thread Swapnil Bhartiya
> I have a confession to make: I have shamelessly used linux > since 1995 and have > never contributed a patch to the kernel. Even worse, I dont > know C. So, > boycott me. Hate me. Kick me. Ban me. But whatever you do - > I will continue > to use linux. > > > > -- > regards > KG That was l

Re: [Ilugc] Canonical Not Great Contributor

2008-09-28 Thread Kenneth Gonsalves
On Sunday 28 Sep 2008 4:01:20 pm Aanjhan R wrote: > On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Swapnil Bhartiya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here is the article of Greg Kroah-Hartman, maintainer of the USB and > > other subsystems in the Linux kernel mentioning Canonical contribution to > > be 100 patches

Re: [Ilugc] Canonical Not Great Contributor

2008-09-28 Thread Kapil Hari Paranjape
Hello, On Sun, 28 Sep 2008, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: > You can then re-examine your decision in the light of experience. By which I meant "personal experience" of course. Free software has one big freedom to offer (like science), that of making your _own_ choices. In the final analysis, does

Re: [Ilugc] Canonical Not Great Contributor

2008-09-28 Thread Kapil Hari Paranjape
Hello, On Sun, 28 Sep 2008, Swapnil Bhartiya wrote: > I just learnt from a friend of mine that I should stop using Ubuntu > as Canonical is not contributing to the development of GNU/Linux > systems as compared to other players. He also suggested that since > most of its stuff, or nothing, is upst

Re: [Ilugc] Canonical Not Great Contributor

2008-09-28 Thread Parthan SR
Swapnil Bhartiya wrote: Here is the article of Greg Kroah-Hartman, maintainer of the USB and other subsystems in the Linux kernel mentioning Canonical contribution to be 100 patches viz a viz 230 by Mandriva and only 270 by Gentoo. Remember Ubuntu is quite young compared to Mandriva, Gentoo.

Re: [Ilugc] Canonical Not Great Contributor

2008-09-28 Thread Rahul Sundaram
Aanjhan R wrote: On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Swapnil Bhartiya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here is the article of Greg Kroah-Hartman, maintainer of the USB and other subsystems in the Linux kernel mentioning Canonical contribution to be 100 patches viz a viz 230 by Mandriva and only 270 by

Re: [Ilugc] Canonical Not Great Contributor

2008-09-28 Thread Venkatesh Nandakumar
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 16:01, Aanjhan R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Swapnil Bhartiya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Here is the article of Greg Kroah-Hartman, maintainer of the USB and other >> subsystems in the Linux kernel mentioning Canonical contribution to be

Re: [Ilugc] Canonical Not Great Contributor

2008-09-28 Thread Aanjhan R
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Swapnil Bhartiya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is the article of Greg Kroah-Hartman, maintainer of the USB and other > subsystems in the Linux kernel mentioning Canonical contribution to be 100 > patches viz a viz 230 by Mandriva and only 270 by Gentoo. Rememb

Re: [Ilugc] Canonical Not Great Contributor

2008-09-28 Thread technocraze
I just learnt from a friend of mine that I should stop using Ubuntu as Canonical is not contributing to the development of GNU/Linux systems as compared to other players. He also suggested that since most of its stuff, or nothing, is upstream so we cant trust it. Also his argument was, being run

Re: [Ilugc] Canonical Not Great Contributor

2008-09-28 Thread Satish Chandra
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Swapnil Bhartiya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > I just learnt from a friend of mine that I should stop using Ubuntu as > Canonical is not contributing to the development of GNU/Linux systems as > compared to other players. He also suggested that since most of its stuf

Re: [Ilugc] Canonical Not Great Contributor

2008-09-27 Thread Santhosh Thottingal
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Venkatraman S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Swapnil Bhartiya <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >wrote: > > > I just learnt from a friend of mine that I should stop using Ubuntu as > > Canonical is not contributing to the development of GNU/Linux

Re: [Ilugc] Canonical Not Great Contributor

2008-09-27 Thread Venkatraman S
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Swapnil Bhartiya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > I just learnt from a friend of mine that I should stop using Ubuntu as > Canonical is not contributing to the development of GNU/Linux systems as > compared to other players. He also suggested that since most of its stuf

[Ilugc] Canonical Not Great Contributor

2008-09-27 Thread Swapnil Bhartiya
I just learnt from a friend of mine that I should stop using Ubuntu as Canonical is not contributing to the development of GNU/Linux systems as compared to other players. He also suggested that since most of its stuff, or nothing, is upstream so we cant trust it. Also his argument was, being run