| |||||||||||||
LPC: Fitting into the kernel ecosystemLPC: Fitting into the kernel ecosystemPosted Sep 18, 2008 8:25 UTC (Thu) by pointwood (guest, #2814)Parent article: LPC: Fitting into the kernel ecosystem
I'm not going to argue whether his numbers are wrong or right, but I think his definition of the "Linux ecosystem" is wrong. I would say that all the free software that's included in the various distributions repositories are part of the Linux ecosystem.
Canonical has clearly focused a lot on the desktop (where Redhat and Novell have been more focused on the server side), particularly a desktop based on Gnome and they have no doubt been pretty succesful in that regard. A lot of what they have done is polish and making things "just work", stuff that I think can be hard to measure.
To get a better picture of how much or how little Canonical have contributed to the ecosystem, you need to include all the software that's part of Ubuntu.
Canonical isn't exactly a big company so there are limits as to how much they can contribute. I think part of the reason they are in focus is because they have been quite succesful on the desktop and gotten a lot of users. Would the critic be different if it was for example Slackware?
(Log in to post comments)
LPC: Fitting into the kernel ecosystem Posted Sep 18, 2008 12:14 UTC (Thu) by mbanck (subscriber, #9035) [Link] Canonical has clearly focused a lot on the desktop (where Redhat and Novell have been more focused on the server side), particularly a desktop based on Gnome and they have no doubt been pretty succesful in that regard. A lot of what they have done is polish and making things "just work", stuff that I think can be hard to measure.Sure, however if you would compare patches/lines of code contributed to GNOME for Redhat, Novell and Canonical, I am pretty sure there would be again a difference by several orders of magnitude between the first two and Canonical. Michael
LPC: Fitting into the kernel ecosystem Posted Sep 21, 2008 10:36 UTC (Sun) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link]
Well, first it would be good to see some actual figures. However, it seems they aren't available at present.
But even if it is a difference of, say, two orders of magnitude, that is probably about the difference in size between Canonical, Canonical's relevant dev teams, and Canonical's revenues in comparison to Red Hat and Novell's corresponding figures.
Once Canonical is profitable (which Red Hat and Novell already are), I will be very critical if it doesn't step up collaboration. Until then, I would encourage it but I won't be critical regarding that matter.
|
|||||||||||||