The problem with Ben's retort is that it /still/ shows Ubuntu in a bad light. While 92 is
certainly better than 6, it doesn't compare favourably to the other companies working on
Linux. See https://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/linuxkerneld... (which is
only considering commits up to 2.6.24). Ubuntu don't make it into the top 27 companies listed
there -- Snapgear are the last ones listed with 285 commits. Other 'small' distros are better
represented there, eg Mandriva with 329 commits. Even the 'black hole of open source where
developers go and are never heard from again' (Google) has almost a thousand commits.
Even *I* have three times as many commits as the whole of Ubuntu/Canonical.
$ git-log v2.6.25 |grep ^Author |grep -c ubuntu
$ git-log v2.6.25 |grep ^Author |grep -c canonical
$ git-log v2.6.25 |grep ^Author |grep -c 'Matthew Wilcox'
Maybe that's unfair, I am paid to work on kernel development after all. How about comparing
to someone who has a full-time job that isn't kernel development?
$ git-log v2.6.25 |grep ^Author |grep -c lwn.net
Of course, these aren't terribly useful statistics. If I split all my patches into eight
parts, I get eight times as much credit. If I submit a whitespace patch that took 5 seconds
to create, that gets just as much credit as a brain-bendingly difficult bug that took me a
week to track down. 'Number of commits' is about as relevant as 'lines of code' (and if you
still think that's relevant, there's a great book from 1975 by Fred Brooks that you really
need to read)
I don't want to bash Canonical. I think Ubuntu is a great thing, and shows what can be done
when you take Debian and put some incredible marketing behind it. They're increasing the size
of the Linux pie and increasing the credibility of Linux on the desktop. I just have a
problem with them trying to portray themselves as great contributors when they're not. I'd
also like to spur them to become better contributors. No, they aren't going to be able to
compete with Red Hat, but they could compete with Mandriva.