|
La Linux Foundation recently published its annual report on the development of the kernel Linux. As usual, Red Hat and SUSE topped the list of top contributors to Linux kernel development. Even Microsoft reached the first 20 due to its cleanliness of the code of its Hyper-V technology that allows to virtualize Linux on Windows Server.
However, Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, was left out of the list (just appears in a distant booth No. 79). |
The question that arises is what is Canonical's contribution to Linux. At Muktware, several users came together to write a common article, some of which I took the liberty of translating and sharing with you below.
When Steven Vaughan-Nichols, editor of ZDNET, asked Mark Shuttleworth about Canonical's contributionHe said: "... the kernel is a small part of the Ubuntu user experience, and we do not lead kernel development as a particular goal."
I was curious what Linus Torvalds and Greg KH, the two leaders of the Linux world, think about Canonical's input. During LinuxCon, when I asked Linus Torvalds about non-contributing players, he said, “When you have people who just use the system, they are not forced to contribute much as they don't need to make any changes. They only use it the way it was designed to be used. "
So if you just use the system without making any changes to it, there is not much to contribute.
When I asked him about Greg KH's criticisms of Canonical, Linus said, “The reason Greg didn't like Canonical was because they really did make changes. They just weren't as active in driving their onboarding as Greg wanted them to be. "
I had a meeting with Greg the next day, so I asked him about Canonical. He said, “If you trust Linux, shouldn't you help contribute to Linux to make sure it works in a way that is useful to you? Canonical's business decision is not to contribute and that's okay. We have no problem with that and Canonical agrees with that. " Then he added: "They have contributed more, there's no question about that, lots and lots of people who contribute are not considered 'top contributors.' That's fine, I have no objection to that.
Canonical's Michael Hall seems to disagree with this definition of contribution. When listening to Greg and Linus' comments on Canonical's contribution, Michael said, “… I'm equally sure that people who say that have a very narrow and unrealistic definition of what a contribution is. I don't agree with your definition. "
Canonical contributions outside the core
Ubuntu supporters often argue that Canonical has contributed by making GNU / Linux very popular with the masses. That's true. Ubuntu has made it easier for those who want to leave Windows to use GNU / Linux.
SJVN also believes that Canonical is contributing significantly outside of kernel development: “Sure, the Linux kernel is important. Without it, nothing could be executed. But, as Shuttleworth points out, Canonical contributes a lot to the larger Linux community. Additionally, Ubuntu has helped expand the Linux audience, and Ubuntu itself is the foundation for other popular Linux distributions, such as Linux Mint, PepperMint OS, and TurnKey OS. The bottom line is that Ubuntu may not have contributed many lines of code to the Linux kernel, but it has made great contributions to Linux in a broader sense. «
“True, but Canonical is not making the word 'Linux' popular. Ubuntu is not Linux. You will not find mention of Linux in the Ubuntu marketing material. Therefore, when a user uses Ubuntu they do not know that it is Linux. In the same way as a user who uses Mac or iOS and does not know that it is BSD. If this is the yardstick for measuring contribution, TomTom must be a bigger contributor as it has a bigger market than Ubuntu. ”Says Rajiv Sachan, an Ubuntu user.
Canonical Technologies Outside Ubuntu
Canonical has developed a large number of technologies like Unity, which can be considered its contribution to the Linux world. Theodore Ts'o, the main developer and maintainer of e2fsprogs, noted: “One of the reasons why many people do not consider Canonical's contributions to Unity as a contribution to 'Linux' is that no other Linux distribution uses it. . The same is true for almost all Canonical-led projects. "
The same is the case with other Ubuntu technologies that are not used outside of Ubuntu. Canonical's personal cloud services like Ubuntu One are not available on other GNU / Linux distributions.
Brett Legree argues that there is nothing preventing other Linux distributions from using Unity. There are a lot of applications that are not installed in all distributions, or even as compiled packages for them. There is work in progress for other distros like Arch, Fedora, Debian, and Mint to allow their users to use Unity.
Ubuntu developer Michael Hal says: “There is nothing preventing other distributions from using the Ubuntu One client, except the desire not to use a free software program that uses a Canonical service. They are as free to use the Ubuntu One client as they are to use the Dropbox client. "
Dean Howell, editor of PoweHouse, is skeptical: “It's hard to really measure Canonical's motives with Ubuntu. On the surface, it is a product for the people, by the people, but internally it is easy to question whether this is indeed the case. Shuttleworth seems to have worked very hard to keep its team isolated from other development groups and even to establish itself as an independent entity. This is dangerous behavior on the part of a company whose work relies heavily on Gnome 3. Unity tries to build on the GTK3 libraries and at the same time use it as a stepping stone to independence. What else could explain the lack of the latest GTK3 packages in Ubuntu? Gnome 3.4 would break Unity.
Nekhelesh Ramananthan, Ubuntu Editor, sees things differently than Dean: “I don't agree with saying that Gnome 3.4 would break Unity. Gnome 3.4 has been ported to work on Ubutnu 12.04. Totem 3.4 is not included just because it requires hardware acceleration, so users with older hardware would be left without a video player by default. "
Beyond the Core: Other Canonical Contributions
“Canonical has contributed uTouch, which is actually the most advanced open source multitouch and gesture system. During uTouch development, many of the drivers have been updated or contributed (Apple Magic TrackPad). And many layers were modified (kernel, X.org, window manager, misc.libraries). From the point of view of a Human-Computer Interaction researcher, Canonical was the first to be interested in linking the work done by scientific researchers and applying it for the benefit of the community, ”says Mohamed Ikbel Boulabiar.
Ubuntu Linux contributes to Linux in a different way. While it is true that they do not contribute to the core, there are other services and technologies that Canonical develops not only for its users, but also for everyone else. Besides that, Ubuntu is probably one of the operating systems and it serves as the basis for other distributions (eg Linux Mint). Ubuntu has made server creation easier and is seen in robotic technology, such as Darwin-OP. "What we have to understand is that Ubuntu is one of the many faces of Linux and is an important gateway to the world of Linux, which is more than enough," says Michael Redford, an Ubuntu user.
Nekhelesh says: “There are a lot of companies that focus on kernel development. I'd rather Canonical (a small-scale company compared to Google or Microsoft) continue to focus on making Ubuntu easy for new users. Besides that they already have their hands on too many topics: Ubuntu TV, a mobile OS, Ubuntu One, the Ubuntu Software Center, etc. I got into Linux because of Ubuntu and am grateful because of the ease of use of the system. I'm absolutely fine with them not participating in kernel development. "
The question is not whether they should get involved in kernel development or not. The point is if they are making changes to the kernel and not sharing them with the wider community so that they can benefit from them. Not sharing these changes is not okay. But, as Greg says, they are contributing, but they are not the top contributors.
Canonical numbers in perspective
Canonical employee Dustin Kirkland makes an interesting comparison in which he points to data from the most important companies in the Linux world:
Employees (2007)
Canonical: ~ 130
Red Hat: ~ 2200
Novell: ~ 4100
IBM: 386,558 ...
Earnings (2007)
Canonical: (probably somewhere south of the following numbers)
Red Hat: $ 523 million USD
Novell: $ 933 million USD
IBM: $ 98,786 million USD (yes, that's a hundred billion dollars)
Years of existence
Canonical: 4 (founded in 2004)
Red Hat: 15 (founded in 1993)
Novell: 29 (founded in 1979)
IBM: 119 (founded in 1889)
These data make the situation somewhat clearer: Canonical may not contribute much, but its size is also much smaller than that of large companies that work with Linux.
Canonical is doing the best it can
Considering the size of the company, Canonical is doing the best it can. Yes, there is much more to be desired, but the field they have chosen to fight is very competitive. They are fighting for a market between an abusive monopoly (Microsoft) and a player with $ 100 billion in the bank (Apple).
It's a tightrope for Ubuntu. Considering its size, the company has expanded into a perhaps too wide range of products: operating system for desktop PCs, Ubuntu One, Ubuntu Music, Ubuntu TV, Ubuntu for Android, etc.
At the same time, Canonical may not want to narrow down that product range and put all of your eggs in one basket. That is why it is your desk is on the tightrope. However, for now Ubuntu is still in balance.
Does Canonical Deny Linux?
Poor Canonical, right? He is very "small" and does what he can. But, in truth, the question that matters is whether Canonical's low contribution to the Linux kernel is due to an economic impossibility or if it is really based on a commercial strategy in order not to associate Ubuntu with Linux, something similar to the Google's own strategy with Android.
The story comes from an article published by Joe brockmeier on his personal blog. In fact, Brockmeier downloaded the first beta of Ubuntu 12.04 to test it, and when taking a look at the release notes, the poor man was shocked when he found the following line: "Beta-1 includes the Ubuntu kernel 3.2.0-17.27 which is based on the stable kernel v3.2.6. »
Ubuntu kernel? He wondered, since when? Since never, of course. And there he reminded a bit of the detachment that Canonical has had regarding the name "Linux" in its products, since there is not even mention of the kernel created by Linus Torvalds on the official Ubuntu website (or not at first glance).
It seems that in Canonical they prefer Ubuntu to be just Ubuntu. In other words, goodbye to "Linux for human beings".
And what do you think? Does Canonical contribute to the development of GNU / Linux?
Source: Muktware & Kirkland & Very Linux
Ubuntu One is a proprietary technology because only the client part is free software.
Another case where Canonical's contribution has been almost irrelevant at the contribution level has been GNOME. According to a study conducted before the launch of Unity, Canonical's contributions were just over 1 percent, and there were people who had contributed more than an entire company like Canonical.
http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2010/07/28/gnome-census/
Regarding own contributions such as Unity or Utouch, those who want to contribute must give Canonical, a private company, the right to use their contributions with the licenses, free or not, that they consider appropriate.
I think that the fact of having to sign such an agreement does not favor collaboration with individuals or with other companies in the GNU / Linux ecosystem.
http://www.canonical.com/contributors
Saying that Canonical contributes to the Linux kernel because it makes it more popular is similar to saying that a packaging manufacturer contributes to the Coca Cola formula.
It is true that apparently they do not contribute as far as Kernel is concerned, but if it were not for them, thousands of users who would get fed up with Windows would not be or would have migrated to GNU / Linux. I don't know the other users, but without ever having seen an Ubuntu OS in my life (My first distro was 9.04, which they sent me for free at home) I was always clear that it was part of the Linux world. My transition was easy, comfortable, I learned a lot and all my family and friends whom I have been introducing into this world.
If that is not contributing, I would not know what to call it. Now if you see it from the business point of view, it is obvious that they want to have exclusive products and earn with them, every company does.
Sometimes I think and it is my personal opinion that one should not be more popish than the Pope.
That is one of the problems, that mentality that all companies seek their own profit and each one apart that is not the philosophy of free software which is collaborative by nature and Ubuntu has been in charge of making users think that this is Well done and really that is not the right thing to do, it is not the way free software should take
The truth is that Ubuntu does not contribute and is moving away from linux with its own activities such as unity is killing them ... proof of this is that many have migrated to Mint. The transition of all OS is difficult and with Fedora I feel more than satisfied ... you learn about the latest technologies.
That it does not contribute to the kernel does not mean that it does not contribute, it contributes and a lot in other aspects for example upstart and a lot of measures adopted in ubuntu server are used in distros with as much experience in servers as Red Hat.
Yellowness is not good at all, and if once there is a serious proposal for a distro we start to doubt it is better to go back to the year 2000 where to have 3d acceleration in any distro you had to be little less than a hacker.
Canonical has contributed to popularity first, then ease of use, and hardware autoconfiguration.
Let's stop being yellow and enjoy what we have if we want and if we don't want to use Ubuntu there are many distros, there are even systems like Microsoft's Windows, which is the main contributor to the Linux kernel.
That said, it is clear that contributing to the linux kernel does not make you a better company, the proof is microsoft.
Courage:
You have all the comments saying something against, really, do you work at Canonical?
Do you know what their policy is? Are you part of it?
This is not the case, so you cannot so convincingly state that:
Ubuntu will be paid
Canonical wants a monopoly
Canonical this and that; If you have a product, obviously you want it to be consumed, the canonical product is Ubuntu, you talk about marketing, in my life I have seen and I don't think I will see ubuntu commercials (made by canonical) on internet pages, tv, or other media .
You say that there are other distros easier to use than Ubuntu and yes maybe there are, but tell me, in all the time before Ubuntu, they never took the initiative to make it easy for the average user to use.
As for me, Ubuntu is a Linux distribution, and perhaps at some point it "creates" its own kernel, but by the time that happens, I assure you that you will ask yourself the question, what about me? Linux, OS X and others were based on Unix and in the end they separated, so if Ubuntu develops its own kernel it does not affect me at all.
If Ubuntu is sold, it does not affect me at all, I will buy it because I like it, which will not happen because it is part of its philosophy that Ubuntu will always be free.
That you use Arch does not interest me or anyone here, that you think that you are no longer common because using Arch is your problem, I do not like Arch because it is too primitive, I have been using Linux for 8 years, 4 Using ubuntu and believe me that it is the distribution that I will use it for a long time because for me it is the best of all.
"That you use Arch does not interest me or anyone here, that you think you are no longer common because using Arch is your problem"
If they ask me or suggest it, I have to answer out of education, which I see that you lack a lot
"I don't like Arch because he's too primitive"
Rather because you don't know how to install it
"I've been using Linux for 8 years"
You don't believe that, nor are you tired of wine, because if you really took them, you wouldn't be disrespectful. The newest are the ones who insult the most.
"Do you know what their policy is like?"
I know what they intend perfectly, also it is clearly seen in the article with that of "Ubuntu Kernel"
«That you think that you are no longer common because of using Arch is your problem»
Who Said What? I thought twice before talking about someone for free
"You talk about marketing, in my life I have seen and I don't think I will see ubuntu commercials (made by canonical) on internet pages, tv, or other media."
You don't have to play Swedish, but I'm going to give it to you:
- Former slogan
- The Missing ShipIt
- Pre-installations
They have removed all that as soon as they have managed to be the most used distro.
"They took the initiative to make it easy for the average user to use."
Being easier they are easy to use for the average user, come on, I don't think it takes Einstein to figure it out.
"OS X and others were based on Unix and eventually parted ways"
You are saying things that are not true again, Mac O $ X is a BSD, that you do not know is something else.
"If Ubuntu develops its own kernel it doesn't affect me at all."
The ubuntosos are not affected, other users may be
"If Ubuntu is sold, it doesn't affect me at all, I'll buy it because I like it"
Sure, the ubuntosos will buy it, but maybe not everyone will be able to afford it.
"It will not happen because it is part of their philosophy that Ubuntu will always be free."
You do not know the principles of GNU / Linux and much less do you know the intentions of Ubuntu.
How can you affirm that? No way.
BSD is Unix, and OS X is already UNix too. Umildad first of all.
Look that you do not want to believe my 8 years of using Linux is up to you, I have not installed Arch because for me its installation method is not good, telling the user "do whatever you can" is not correct. In addition, the computer is to make things a little easier for us, not to make ourselves complex to install something.
The mini list you mention, those are not advertisements, I never saw anywhere (TV, Radio, internet) any kind of advertisement referring to them.
Ubuntu does not do commercials and if you do not know the world is in an economic crisis, so it is understandable that the delivery of free discs has been withdrawn.
«Newbies are the ones who insult the most….» look that you are then but one of those who are just born, at no time disrespect you, speak clearly and directly to the point (I read your other comments and what insults you).
The one who is not informed is you, OS X is not BSD, and I quote wikipedia
«It is based on UNIX, and was built on the technologies developed in NeXT between the second half of the 80's and the end of 1996, when Apple acquired this company.10 11 Since the Mac OS X version 10.5 Leopard for Intel processors, the system has UNIX 03 certification »
By God, find out before you speak, I keep what I said, OS X was born from UNIX and separated as another system.
Ubuntu was born from Linux, if you want to separate, do it; Or does that bother you because then Linux runs out of users?
How does another kernel affect you? Your life does not revolve around that, if Ubuntu modifies and separates, you will not be out of work. It doesn't affect you or me at all.
Once again, you have no idea what you are saying, I maintain that Ubuntu will always be free because that is its philosophy and I quote from the ubuntu page:
Ubuntu is free. Always has been and always will be. From the operating system to security updates, storage to software. »
Please do not say things that are not true, find out before "correcting" someone.
As far as I know, Canonical does show that it uses Linux, from the phrase "Linux for human beings" and even after installation, grub shows the entry: "Ubuntu with Linux 3.0.x"
Canonical does what it can with what it has, as mentioned, it only has 8 years to live, it cannot be expected that they already dominate the world and more with a product that few know (Linux).
I want to believe that their strategy of «not showing» that Ubuntu is Linux, is because doing it implies explaining, it implies making the user know its history and that is terribly tedious and boring, just like Microsoft does with Windows, it is still MS- Two but with one interface.
We must give Canonical time, perhaps in the future we will come across TVs that use Ubuntu, Canonical brand computers and at that time we will see the phrase "Linux for human beings".
The scum, aliens or dogs is something you say. Furthermore, the slogan "Linux for human beings" was discontinued years ago, following a brand repositioning. It is the slogan with which Ubuntu was born, but they have not promoted themselves like that for years.
The evidence you claim to have is pretty poor. On the one hand ShipIt was a brutal investment of money to promote itself. When ShipIt was retired, the Ubuntu name was already everywhere, so it is normal to stop making such a large investment in marketing if its effects are not noticed.
About OEM facilities, I don't know if you know the meaning of the acronym. Many equipment manufacturers require that certain requirements be met to be part of the package to be sold and to be able to offer a guarantee. I do not understand what the problem is.
But it was promoted with that slogan (which I said ex-slogan), which was insulting towards those of us who use other distros.
ShipIt was an investment, sure, but it was to gain territory.
OEM installations, I mean computers with Ubuntu pre-installed, and with the warranty I mean that if you change the distro you will not be able to take the computer to technical service without paying in the event that it breaks.
So if you had Fedora pre-installed you would do this same amount to it without end… ..see that you are quite incongruous.
Ubuntu wants to place itself in the battle against Windows and OS X, and if for this it must have OEM equipment, I see no problem.
What do you think? Does Canonical contribute to the development of GNU / Linux? »
Well no, rather they want to make a ponopoly, close their system and sell it for € 300 like Windows
Instead of ponopoly you mean monopoly, I guess. And as far as I know it is not taking any action that could favor a monopoly, you can choose any other distro at any time and migrate your data without problems. Nor does it have its own incompatible formats.
And you don't have a single piece of evidence that he's going to "shut down" (although I don't know what you mean by shutting down) his system or sell it for 300 euros. So before saying anything, it would be nice to provide evidence of what you say.
Monopoly, I actually meant that.
"And as far as I know he is not carrying out any measure that could favor a monopoly"
Yes there are, his former slogan "Linux for human beings", what are we who use other distros? Human waste? Aliens? Dogs?
And you don't have a single piece of evidence that he's going to 'shut down' (although I don't know what you mean by shutting down) his system or he's going to sell it for 300 euros. So before saying anything, it would be good if you provided evidence of what you say. "
Don't say so lightly without knowing how far I can go.
Evidences are the missing ShipIt, the former slogan and the OEM facilities. Any computer with Linux pre-installed always carries Ubuntu, remove it and you lose the warranty.
That ShipIt is evidence that Ubuntu is shutting down? Come on, then all the distros that don't send you a CD to your house are going to close (I suppose that by closing you mean closing the code).
On the other hand, I don't think Ubuntu is in a position to charge € 300 for its system, even so, what if it does? I don't know if you know that free software can be sold.
On the other hand, what else does Canonical do with its distro? From your comments it seems that you don't use Ubuntu, so (I repeat) ... what else does it give you?
«That ShipIt is evidence that Ubuntu is going to shut down? Come on, then all the distros that don't send you a CD to your house are going to close (I suppose that by closing you mean closing the code). »
Of course it is, if Canoni $ oft sends the CD's for free, people don't bother to download the ones from other distros, thus sending users to other distros
"On the other hand, I don't think Ubuntu is in a position to charge € 300 for its system, even so, what happens if it does?"
I do not care
"I don't know if you know that free software can be sold."
I know, but you cannot violate the principles of GNU / Linux like this company does.
"On the other hand, what difference does Canonical do with its distro?"
I do not care because it is a lack of respect towards Linux users, and they want the other distros to disappear.
So if you create X product, it matters little to you if they use it or not ... how brave you were
The Ubuntu Software Center is Free Software and it is the reason I did not leave Ubuntu. Unhappy with Ubuntu, I decided to try Fedora and it took me three hours to collect enough information to be able to install programs, all to hear a meringue on my laptop, something that new versions of Ubuntu just have to play and a wizard appears that downloads me what I need without further knowledge.
I don't know how much computer or Gnu / Linux knowledge you have, but… so much fun just to listen to music? I use fedora and everything is just as easy as Ubuntu, a couple of commands a couple of packages and everything is ready. Do you want a graphical interface? there is also, so I don't know why so much trouble The software center seems slow to me the truth.
What he says is slander, it is another ubunto more, one of those who dream of going to the Ubuntu Mosque to praise Uncle Mark.
The average user likes that, I like it (I've been using Linux for 8 years), I prefer to see what I do in a normal way, to see what I do with a code.
Like it or not, for Ubuntu there is the restricted extras package, where you get all Ubuntu ready for everyday actions, which in other distributions you must install each package independently.
Yes, the terminal is faster, but it is not comfortable for the end user
So why did Ubuntu become popular?
If it was not for users not experienced in computing, who were the ones who started to install it and create a mass of users so large as to be one of the most used on the desktop?
Also, just because Ubuntu became popular for being easy to install and use, it doesn't mean that there was NO distro that was easy to install and use.
"So why did Ubuntu become popular?"
By marketing.
But Linux was already close to the end user
Give me proof of that "marketing"
I am going to respond with this comment to several of them who say the same nonsense, the nonsense that Ubuntu has brought Linux to users not experienced in computing.
That is COMPLETELY FALSE.
Before Ubuntu existed there were distros like Mandriva or Kororaa, it could even include Fedora and OpenSUSE, which although they are somewhat more complicated are not for supernerds from the underworld.
Those 4 distros that I name are very easy to use, especially Mandriva (I have not tried Kororaa), which in terms of ease of use gives Ubuntu a thousand kicks.
Before speaking, it is advisable to inform yourself a little
Fuck the nonsense this Courage says:
1) On Mandriva, Fedora, Suse, etc. not all the software packages exist in Ubuntu. (a small ME tv example).
2) As for driver installation, you can break your head to leave the equipment in condition. (simple example to install the scanner of a Brother dcp115c).
In Ubuntu it is installed with just a couple of mouse clicks, that draiver and all that are needed.
But okay, saying nonsense is free and in these forums free.
Fuck the nonsense that this Guax says
1: You can install these packages the same way, that you don't know is something else
2: Lie, Mandriva catches everything the first time, not looking for the driver is something else. In Mandriva it is installed with a click of the mouse with RPMdrake, that and all that are needed
But okay, telling fallacies is free and more in these free forums
It is very different that it is easy for you to install a .bin with all that it entails than what is easy for the average user, they prefer that with just a few clicks everything is ready (in the case of USC and .deb).
I have tried mandriva and let me contradict you, mandriva cannot with anything known in this world, you must manage to install a printer driver or any other device, since you can rarely leave mandriva "at the shot".
I must say that I like to read the page a lot and it is the first time I have commented on any topic here. But the truth is that this discussion catches my attention and I want to emphasize some points
1. It is free software and I think that is why everyone can do with it what it embodies.
2. If I don't know much about linux and its kerner and I only used ubuntu, linux mint (ubunto in the background) and kanoprix and it seems to me that if at the end and if at the end of the day I have not been able to do more because the truth The codes are not provided to me and I think that cannical has been concerned about that.
3. Let's think about a company that is in charge of supervising that everything is fine and that if something goes wrong, go repair it and that's it and they are in charge of taking certain these products to the end users and this is where the canonical work is
4. Let's not get into discussions because at the end of the day we are gnu and it doesn't matter if what a company does has repercussions on the kerner or not.
5. Why don't we criticize RedHat, a company that makes a profit with Linux and largely contributes, or what if we say something about Microsoft? I think that the error of several (without offending) is that they believe that everything is implicit in the I concommend that you have and that perhaps somehow we want to learn this and not the hard way.
In a good way 😀
Very good article, however it happens that indeed, Ubuntu may not collaborate so much in the development of significant parts for Linux such as its kernel, but rather works more on the visual, the interface, the simplicity and others.
I think that each OS is characterized by having "something" that the other does not have, in the case of Debian it is stability, in the case of Arch the ability to be malleable and be Rolling Release, and it happens that Ubuntu is characterized by thinking more well in the massification ... I started with Ubuntu, which at that time (9.04) was more primitive, and more "Linux", it was the gateway to the world of Linux.
Through time Ubuntu changed, Unity, Gnome is no longer the same, services and others, but I do not think that it is doing things wrong, maybe now it can focus more on its real objective and for that reason it left many disappointed (among I include myself), but at the end of the day it seems that that was their final objective (massification over tradition). In the same way, you have to think that thanks to those hateful changes, many came to know other distros that allowed greater customization or better maintained that "Linux" profile that Ubuntu no longer has.
I think it would be wrong to say that Ubuntu does NOT collaborate, but at the same time it is undeniable that it is using the tools around it to make ITS own OS. Sometimes it hurts that certain OS usurp tools, ideas and others without showing due respect when they do it (in the case of windows and the constant thefts from KDE and Dolphin), but you also have to think that somehow Ubuntu is still Linux, they want it or not its core is LINUX, it's called Ubuntu or whatever you want to put it.
My reality is that I use GNU / Linux thanks to Ubuntu. After several unsuccessful attempts Ubuntu convinced me four years ago and since then I have even managed to encourage other close users to take the step and the satisfaction is total.
On the other hand, I find it surprising that Canonical has so few workers… I really thought it was a multinational with branches all over the world. I think Canonical has a lot of merit because it has contributed a lot to the spread of GNU / Linux.
To think that Canonical is moving away from the word Linux, from the Linux project I think it is simply an occurrence that has nothing to do with reality.
To give just one example ... I have entered the Ubuntu Software Center and typed in the word Linux and I get 1651 references ... including that of Linux Magazine with which Canonical recently reached an agreement for its distribution in the Center of Software.
Honestly, I think there is persecution mania with Canonical ... and sometimes a bit of envy ... but hey, that invites in certain cases to overcome. That also makes GNU / Linux advance ... By the way, and how many people use Android without having a clue what Linux is ...
Final: This afternoon I tested the SliTaz Gnu / Linux mini distro and it is fantastic. Gnu / Linux advances… and each one contributes what they can and what they want. That is the beauty and what we would have to value.
I have put the intentions below.
It is not necessary to disqualify someone who does not agree with you
We look forward to telling everyone what your intentions are and what evidence you have, beyond the fact that it is clear that you have some kind of resentment, envy or irrational disgust for a part of the free software family.
I thought you wouldn't argue with me anymore. Can't you hold out then? Make peace. Ultimately GNU unites us. "
You throw the stone and hide your hand.
More hypocrisy, say yes.
Huy «Canonical purposes»
Second part of "Psycho" by Alfred Hitchcock.
Nobody says Stallman likes Canonical, what he wouldn't like is your attitude belittling GNU work and overvaluing Linux work.
Come on man, let's stop the nonsense, if in the end very few care about the development of Hurd and nothing happens.
I thought you wouldn't argue with me anymore. Can't you hold out then? Make peace. In the end, GNU unites us.
"If Stallman listened to them he would have made them pretty by now."
Although Stallman seems like an extremist to me, you should know that he is against Ubuntu.
It seems to me that you have to learn a little more
But have you seen the Canonical figures? If it is a SME »
The number of workers is completely independent of their purposes
But have you seen the Canonical figures? If it is a SME. And it is true, it is successful, but today it is most likely even making losses. You're hooked on the little one in the class. You can already take an example and install the Win7 that Microsoft does actively contribute to the kernel, to top it off in the end it is venerated as if it were the OS and it is not.
If Stallman listens to them he would have made them pretty by now. It offends me that they do not recognize that the greatest work is in GNU, at the end of King Penguin you can say that he is a very lucky guy.
I carry the weight of what I write by grams, Aaron Griffin is a great creator who gives us the richness of what he creates, GNU is made of that breed. I don't care what King Penguin says, if it wasn't for the GNU community, his work would have been forgotten like many others.
I tell you, no one forces them to use Ubuntu, and you can reproach what you want but they are going the wrong way.
hahaha you bitten ??? I'm going to give you a little more wax because I see you can still shine more. Canonical is a company and companies are there to make money, we all have that clear, you don't have to go to school or use Arch. The point is that your views are like those of Bill Gates and Mr. Jobs, short.
Red Hat is a great company, it produces high-quality software and they are aware that their success is based on free software and specialized service. A few years ago Gates condemned Red Hat and free software models to failure, today it is a model that is making its way, the professional sector already has it covered. I'm not saying that Canonical is like Red Hat but broadly speaking they have a lot in common. I don't see why Canonical would give up on a business model with prospects for success.
Besides, what else does that give you if you use Arch. I haven't been able to see the famous list but I wonder where Aaron Griffin's team is on the list. I don't really care and in the end they do a great admirable job on GNU because in the end the huge project of this community lies in GNU.
Courage:
Today you woke up wanting war and filled this with nonsense. Canonical has no obligation to collaborate with the core and if you want to sell your product you can do so, the GPL does not imply "free bar". Right now I'm not even using Ubuntu but it is undeniable that they have done a great job of facilitating the GNU / Linux experience and have inspired other projects like Mint and even Backtrack for a while now.
You talk about so many nonsensical things that it gives me a bit of anguish to think how you would take to get on the Arch bandwagon that requires arduous and continuous learning, reason a little, Ubuntu's business is in the support just like Red Hat, they are the same business models, no one is going to "lock in the code" or charge you "300 euros" because otherwise the business strategy is detached from the objective. For the moment sleep peacefully, that does not take away your sleep.
Let's do the GNU and not war. Peace is Open
The GNU / Linux universe lives not only from kernel development. You have to be very clear about this. Canonical's contribution goes the other way and is VERY IMPORTANT. As important as that of translators, designers and graphic artists, teachers, documentary makers, etc., etc. Each one contributes in the way they know how and can. Please don't throw stones at our own roof. Sometimes I think that the "linuxers" who criticize Canonical so viciously are actually undercover minions of Microsoft and Apple.
In short, Canonical helps GNU development, application development and UI to make it "easier" to use a distribution for non-computer users, however the kernel does not contribute as much. In addition, we must remember that the data of the Linux Foundation are two contributions to the kernel, because what other contributions could they refer to?
I think Canonical does something important, however I think it could do more, at least give more recognition to the linux kernel.
I agree. I think your comment is very accurate.
The idea of this article was to start generating a debate on the subject. a hug! Paul.
I find it quite unfair that Upstart is not mentioned in the article. There is also no talk of Bazaar, Launchpad or Notify OSD, for example.
Regarding the name, it is true that since they carried out the branding and image change process, they have tried to sell Ubuntu as "Ubuntu", not as GNU / Linux, or as a GNU / Linux distro, or as Ubuntu GNU / Linux . They focus on the name and the logo, and sometimes that can make a lot of people not like it, understandably. Of course, I do not see that they deny Linux or GNU / Linux, without going any further, in the about of the web:
http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu
On the other hand, I understand that there are those who believe that Canonical should be more directly involved instead of focusing on their products and services, but of course, it must be taken into account that they made a very strong initial investment and that they had the need to start being profitable.
In any case, the debate that can be generated about "let's see who contributes more or less" seems harmful to me. If now each one of us is going to have to put on the table what they contribute in order to be respected, or at least not insulted, we are going to have many problems.
Anyone who does not want to see benefits for GNU / Linux (not only for Linux) that have arisen from Canonical and / or Ubuntu should look at himself and ask if how much he contributes based on what he has, if it seems fair, and if it is a debate that is useful for something.
I write this as an ex-Ubuntu user. I neither understand nor am I interested in fanfare, partisanship or fanboy sentiment.