Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Canonical joins the Linux Foundation
Here's a
press release from the Linux Foundation, announcing that Canonical has
just joined as a member. "'Canonical is an important new member for
The Linux Foundation,' said Jim Zemlin, executive director of The Linux
Foundation. 'Matt [Zimmerman] and his team have created an exciting
distribution that has taken the world by storm. They have rallied the cause
of cross-industry, cross-community collaboration for years. We are
extremely pleased to work even more closely with Canonical as we push Linux
to the next stage of growth.'"
(Log in to post comments)
Canonical joins the Linux Foundation Posted Aug 18, 2008 15:02 UTC (Mon) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link] "created an exciting distribution" This is so very typical of Canonical/Ubuntu press and that reported by others who refuse to do their homework. With an employee base measured in tens, messages like this appropriate the work of hundreds of volunteers for another distribution, where the bulk of the work is "created". And this is still not mentioned anywhere on ubuntu's home page -- or on any first-tier link from it. Note that I said *messages like this appropriate the work* -- there is nothing wrong in maintaining a derived distribution, but decency indicates that credit be given where credit is due.
'Creating' a distribution Posted Aug 18, 2008 15:22 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] Any Linux distribution is a small contribution on top of the work of thousands of others. It always involves taking code from upstream, and if for Ubuntu the upstream is usually Debian rather than directly from the original author, it doesn't mean they are any less creating a distribution. I guess they could credit Debian more, and call it a distribution of Debian rather than of Linux, but this is quickly getting into 'GNU slash Linux' territory.
'Creating' a distribution Posted Aug 18, 2008 15:45 UTC (Mon) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link] Yes it is. And I always try to use the name GNU/Linux, because it is polite to give credit where credit is due -- especially where history has demonstrated powerful causes deliberately slighting the concepts of freedom through new slogans, careful omissions, and even viral snideness like your (probably unintentional) dismissal of the GNU/Linux phrase.
'Creating' a distribution Posted Aug 18, 2008 16:41 UTC (Mon) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link] IMHO you are stuck in a very old way of thinking. A few points to think about: 1. It was Jim who said that and not someone from Canonical. 2. It is perfectly OK to take others work in open source. Actually that is intended! ;P 3. Most people in debian relized by now that Ubuntu makes Debian stronger. Just watch the debconf videos. 4. Canonical/Ubuntu is a very important part of the free software ecosystem. 5. Stop distro flaming/trolling. "We have bigger fish to fry"
'Creating' a distribution Posted Aug 18, 2008 16:56 UTC (Mon) by modernjazz (subscriber, #4185) [Link] I agree in principle, but it also becomes awkward: "Hey mom, try out this new operating system! It's called GNU/Linux/KDE/KOffice/GNOME/X.org/Freedesktop.org/OpenOffice.org/Debian. It also comes in a server version, but can't really remember what it's called." I propose we just come up with a name (I propose "Fred") as the name of the whole collection, so no one feels that a specific project is subsuming the whole. (I can see it now: "Fred Weekly News", "Fredtoday", etc.)
'Creating' a distribution Posted Aug 18, 2008 18:37 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I like 'Debian' or 'CentOS' personally. The only defense for "GNU" nowadays is that GNU is as critical to running your software as the Linux kernel itself. Debian isn't, OO.org isn't, X Windows isn't, etc etc. Sure there is lots of software that is utterly dependent on other software. But all Linux software is dependent on both the Linux kernel and the GNU toolset. Hell, it's more dependent on GNU then Linux, since it's much easier to swap out the Linux then it is GNU. Even when running most "Linux" software on Windows you still often need a crapload of GNU stuff. The motivation behind the 'GNU/Linux' term is that currently people do place much to much a high a emphasis on the Linux kernel. The Kernel matters much much less then is first assumed by most people. For most people using Linux on a desktop computer life is not significantly better under Linux 2.6.x vs 2.4.x eras. For laptops and wireless stuff, yes it is much better, but for desktops.. not so much. Sure we know there is significant advantages to 2.6, but for a average user all the differences are very non-obvious. HOWEVER, X Windows and GNOME have a much much higher impact then Linux on end users. Proper OGL support would attract much more users then a new file system. (of course a new file system is critical in terms of the future growth in different markets) The ultimate goal of the kernel is to be unknown, unseen, uncared for. That the Linux kernel is given such a significant amount of interest is not a good sign. So maybe if we downplayed the "Linux" part of "linux" then there would be a more balanced approach to reporting, user attention, developer attention, and corporate attention given to various different projects. (because nowadays most serious issues faced in terms of usability don't have the Linux kernel at the center of it, except driver pains.) But otherwise it's pretty silly nowadays to keep kicking a dead horse.
'Creating' a distribution Posted Aug 19, 2008 0:06 UTC (Tue) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588) [Link] Sans gcc I have to respectfully disagree... If the FSF went nuts and was able (they wouldn't) to revoke the license to use any gnu software, the Linux userland would simply become the BSD userland. Think about it and then agree. gcc is truly a piece of work though. There isn't another compiler with the breadth of platforms or featureset it has yet.
'Creating' a distribution Posted Aug 19, 2008 2:20 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] gcc isn't controlled by the FSF, it's run by Redhat nowdays. and while there are no other compilers directly comparable to it, there are several that are close enough that if something were to happen they would probably get a lot of attention and mature very quickly (sort of like what happened to VCS systems when bitkeeper withdrew the free license)
gcc control Posted Aug 19, 2008 3:27 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] "gcc isn't controlled by the FSF, it's run by Redhat nowdays."This is false. GCC is legally owned by the FSF, and all contributors sign over their work. The head release manager works for CodeSourcery, not Red Hat, and key contributors work for many companies (SUSE, IBM, Google, Intel, AMD, and others all employ people to work on GCC, as does Red Hat). The situation was different ten years ago, when Red Hat was more dominant. But while Red Hat's contributions are still important, and welcomed, their relative contribution has been decreasing over time as more and more contributors get involved. Key decisions are made by the Steering Committee (though the technical stuff is left to the judgement of the maintainer of that particular area of the compiler), and RMS personally is involved on occasion, though not that often. Technically, the FSF does control GCC, though in practice, this control is delegated. Having a controlling organization that is perceived as neutral (the FSF and steering committee) helps companies that are fierce competitors work together on GCC.
'Creating' a distribution Posted Aug 19, 2008 10:44 UTC (Tue) by filipjoelsson (subscriber, #2622) [Link] The only defense for "GNU" nowadays is that GNU is as critical to running your software as the Linux kernel itself. Debian isn't, OO.org isn't, X Windows isn't, etc etc. Sure there is lots of software that is utterly dependent on other software. But all Linux software is dependent on both the Linux kernel and the GNU toolset. I'm not sure what this "linux software" that you refer to is - but I'm pretty sure I don't use much of it. I would say that all of the software I use, at work as well as in my spare time, runs quite ok on a BSD kernel with BSD userland as well (and even *shudder* on Windows). If there's any part that is harder to swap out, I'd say it's GTK/QT. Filip, proud Mozilla/Apache/XFCE/GTK/X/GNU/Linux user
'Creating' a distribution Posted Aug 19, 2008 11:20 UTC (Tue) by mosfet (guest, #45339) [Link] <blockquote>I'm not sure what this "linux software" that you refer to is - but I'm pretty sure I don't use much of it.</blockquote> Except that ever bit of Software you use on *BSD is compiled with GCC. Maybe this will change in the Future with PCC or LLVM, but right now you are using GNU/BSD.
'Creating' a distribution Posted Aug 19, 2008 11:45 UTC (Tue) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] right now you are using GNU/BSD Stallman himself disagrees: "A name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation." While the BSDs do use some GNU tools, he points out that GNU systems also use BSD tools; but, overall, BSD evolved independently of GNU.
'Creating' a distribution Posted Aug 28, 2008 21:57 UTC (Thu) by BackSeat (subscriber, #1886) [Link] This is rapidly becoming a special case of Godwin's Law for discussions of Linux, in that sooner or later someone will declare that it it practically illegal not to prefix the L word with the G word.Derek/Jill/Backseat (with apologies for missing out my grandparents)
Canonical joins the Linux Foundation Posted Aug 18, 2008 18:23 UTC (Mon) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link] Have you looked at ubuntu.com just now? :) (Happy Birthday Debian banner)
Canonical joins the Linux Foundation Posted Aug 19, 2008 3:16 UTC (Tue) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link] Yes, and this is the first time I have seen mentioned on the Ubuntu home page. It's overdue. That said, the link itself is welcome, and I find nothing significant to disagree about in the story or the framing. So I will say well done, Canonical. Let's hope that you continue to provide a link to the Ubuntu Story on the front page -- I'd prefer that it even mention Debian on the front page, as Debian is the very significant parent distribution from which Ubuntu continues to rebase itself.
Canonical joins the Linux Foundation Posted Aug 18, 2008 21:59 UTC (Mon) by ericc72 (guest, #41737) [Link] If it wasn't for Ubuntu, I would have never given Debian a try. Now I love Debian, but for me it took the path of getting used to Ubuntu first before I tried Debian.
Canonical joins the Linux Foundation Posted Aug 19, 2008 21:14 UTC (Tue) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] > If it wasn't for Ubuntu, I would have never given Debian a try. My story is similar - I'd been aware of debian, and had given it a try but wasn't overly taken with it. After trying ubuntu desktop, and liking it a lot, I tried ubuntu server, and ended up migrating my mail/dns/web servers from a certain rpm-based distro to ubuntu. Now that I'm comfortable with ubuntu server, debian seems a natural choice for server tasks. The bottom line is that IMHO ubuntu is winning converts to the debian system design, package management system etc.
Canonical joins the Linux Foundation Posted Aug 19, 2008 4:04 UTC (Tue) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link] > "created an exciting distribution" > This is so very typical of Canonical/Ubuntu press and that reported > by others who refuse to do their homework. That wasn't said by Canonical. That was said by Jim Zemlin, executive director of The Linux Foundation, who I am quite sure has done plenty of related homework.
Canonical joins the Linux Foundation Posted Aug 19, 2008 12:13 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link] I think you need to loosen up and quit your whining.
|
|
||||||||||||