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 by one man, who may tomorrow change his mind and stop support to Ubuntu, then what?
So, I am bringing this issue to the lista and have people's opinion as to how much Canonical has contributed and how wise is the decision to use Ubuntu?
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.
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/lpc_2008_keynote.html
Please suggest.
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 upstream so we cant trust it. Also his argument was, being run by one man, who may tomorrow change his mind and stop support to Ubuntu, then what?
[1] Canonical is not Ubuntu. Canonical is only a sponsoring agency for Ubuntu, which is trying to get back the money it puts by offering support and service for Ubuntu. It also sponsors for a small portion of people associated with Ubuntu. It also pays for the resources that Ubuntu community uses for the project. [2] Other than the above stated things, Ubuntu is a community run project. Decisions are taken after discussion/debate by contributors and most of them are quite public through IRC channels and mailing lists. The main decisions are taken during Ubuntu Developer Summit which happens at the beginning of every new cycle. Participants to the UDS are people who have substantial contribution to Ubuntu in terms of development. [3] If at all, Canonical decides not to support Ubuntu then am sure that a major portion of the contributing community will make an effort to create resources and run the project. Indeed it will shake us to the roots, but we will try our best not to fall.
A question to your friend will be, if not Ubuntu what does he feel to be dependable enough? Any other distro or some non-GNU/Linux OS at all? Every distribution has some pros and cons, every OS has some pros and cons. At the end of the day, it's your freedom of choice to decide upon something which you like to use and support.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Parthan SR parth.technofreak@gmail.com wrote:
[1] Canonical is not Ubuntu. Canonical is only a sponsoring agency for Ubuntu, which is trying to get back the money it puts by offering support and service for Ubuntu. It also sponsors for a small portion of people associated with Ubuntu. It also pays for the resources that Ubuntu community uses for the project.
What happen if some big company starts supporting Ubuntu project? What can be stand of Canonical in that situation. Its very nice that Canonical is supporting project. I am wondering its still some control factor somewhere which is not inviting more contributor as it should be.
[3] If at all, Canonical decides not to support Ubuntu then am sure that a major portion of the contributing community will make an effort to create resources and run the project. Indeed it will shake us to the roots, but we will try our best not to fall.
I am sure any good opensource project will run without support of any particular company as it is. Agree.
The question to Canonical was Linux Kernel Contribution from its kernel developers. See, http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/lpc_2008_keynote.html
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Swapnil Bhartiya arnieswap@yahoo.com wrote:
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/lpc_2008_keynote.html
Please suggest.
A response to Greg's Presentation.
http://mdzlog.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/greg-kh-linux-ecosystem/
-
Kartik Mistry -
Parthan SR -
Siddhesh Poyarekar -
Swapnil Bhartiya