On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Anand Vaidya <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24 April 2009 am 00:22:33 Chris Henry wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Jeffrey 'jf' Lim <[email protected]> >> wrote: [..] >> >> > >> >From what I know, Redhat is top 5 companies in terms of patches >> >> contribution to the Linux kernel. (In the same measure, Canonical was >> at 300+ a year ago, and I don't think Canonical improves very much.) >> > > Hi Chris, > > This issue was discussed widely a couple of months ago. Linux needs kernel > contributors , artists, packagers, mirror providers, top grade (free) > support, commercial support etc etc to flourish. > > While contributions to kernels is important, I think you should also > remember that Linux is not just kernel code. It was Canonical / *buntu that > has done the hard work of popularizing Linux especially among the non geek > crowd and made Linux appealing once again.
Yes, that's true. But, I have heard some other community who are disappointed with Canonical. Debian was one of them. There was a little bit of a debate sometime ago in one of the ml there. The key point was that while Ubuntu was derived almost directly from Debian package repo, little of Ubuntu patches ever make it back to Debian repo. Again, this was a little over a year ago. I haven't been actively involved in any of the open source ml recently (blame Mac and school). > > Oh, BTW, the misleading fact that you repeated here was originally started > by Novell's Greg Kroah Hartman. And I hope you have read Dustin Kirkland's > rebuttal: > http://dustinkirkland.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/whats-behind-gregkhs-latest-rant/ Umm. Yeah. Which part of that is a rebuttal? He only questions the background of Greg Hartman. He didn't rebutt the numbers. (And btw, I know a company who have a total of 15 kernel contributors and are now ranked in top 20.) I'm sure Canonical has contributed a lot to Linux popularity no doubt. But many of the geeks in the open source community are more interested in contrib back to the source tree. That's probably why Canonical was flaked upon by these guys. Cheers, -- Chris [email protected] +65 9755 3292 http://www.google.com/profiles/chrishenry.ni A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? _______________________________________________ Slugnet mailing list [email protected] http://wiki.lugs.org.sg/LugsMailingListFaq http://www.lugs.org.sg/mailman/listinfo/slugnet
