Still no Canonical?

Posted Nov 25, 2009 18:44 UTC (Wed) by nevets (subscriber, #11875)
Parent article: Who wrote 2.6.32

OK, I have to say it. I never expected Microsoft to show up on that list before Canonical!

Still no Canonical?

Posted Nov 25, 2009 21:22 UTC (Wed) by gregkh (subscriber, #8) [Link] (9 responses)

Yes, it's sad:
http://identi.ca/notice/6753919

Still no Canonical?

Posted Nov 25, 2009 22:00 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (2 responses)

Well, here's something to pick you up!

memset(request, sizeof(struct storvsc_request_extension), 0);

Industrial-strength hilarious code is exactly what this kernel lacked all these years.

Still no Canonical?

Posted Nov 25, 2009 22:03 UTC (Wed) by gregkh (subscriber, #8) [Link] (1 responses)

Already fixed and in the linux-next tree. See: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/11/336 for details.

Still no Canonical?

Posted Nov 25, 2009 22:05 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

A bit more at

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-No...

Still no Canonical?

Posted Nov 25, 2009 22:03 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (1 responses)

Although not directly related to your area of interest, I wonder if you have run detailed stats on things a bit higher up the stack including desktop environments like GNOME and KDE? I am curious to know how different the picture looks. Since you went to the level of Xorg, I don't think its a strech to look more holistically at a enlarged core Linux ecosystem.

Still no Canonical?

Posted Nov 25, 2009 22:08 UTC (Wed) by gregkh (subscriber, #8) [Link]

No, I have not run any stats on stuff higher up than the plumbing, as I'm personally not interested in those ecosystems at this moment.

But all of the scripts that we use to generate this information are published, if anyone else wants to do it, feel free to do so.

Still no class?

Posted Nov 26, 2009 2:12 UTC (Thu) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link] (2 responses)

I think that is just petty tbh.

So MS dropped a big pile of code to improve Linux as a guest on their platform.
Canonical just fixed a few real problem linux users had.

I'll prefer Canonicals contribution to MS' any day.

Only when Linux has reached world domination we can really tell who contributed most to its success.

I wouldn't bet on Novell to win that prize though.

Still no class?

Posted Nov 26, 2009 5:12 UTC (Thu) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] (1 responses)

> I think that is just petty tbh.

I went and looked up the linked article, an official blog by Novell's Chief Marketing Officer:

Of course this announcement is about much more than 20,000 lines of code Microsoft is committing (which by the way once accepted into the Linux tree will far surpass those contributed by Canonical).

Wow, yes, that really does seem petty.

Microsoft's contribution is just a driver for improving the speed of linux guests hosted on their proprietary virtualization platform. I'm sure it's nice for Windows users, but it doesn't matter whether that's 20 kLOC or 2 LOC: it's still an isolated driver for virtualization on top of proprietary OS. And I have no doubt that it helps further Windows sales and deployment way more than it helps further Linux deployment...

I'm certain that if Canonical has contributed even one line of code to Linux, it will have been a more valuable contribution, to me, than the 20kLOC that Microsoft contributed. (...which they only did under duress, I'm led to believe).

That said, it would of course be wonderful for Canonical to do more kernel devopment...

Drop staging from the statistics?

Posted Nov 26, 2009 9:17 UTC (Thu) by wsa (guest, #52415) [Link]

I agree and would again vote for excluding staging from these statistics (or make it a seperate list). Most people here probably know how to read these rankings, but most not involved in kernel development won't. IMHO it's just too easy to make 'big headlines' out of nothing this way. The ultimate nightmare would be some "Let's dump a driver and get famous"-tourism getting popular within marketing areas ;)

Still no Canonical?

Posted Dec 9, 2009 14:18 UTC (Wed) by Cato (guest, #7643) [Link]

Ignoring Canonical's major contributions in usability and integration above the kernel is also pretty "sad", not to say biased. If you weren't working for a competitor, your harping on about this would be more credible - I prefer Red Hat's approach in just developing great new features in Fedora.