I don't understand
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| skelband Aug 31, 2011 12:44 PM EDT |
Jim Zemlin in his critique of Canonical seems to be implying that Canonical are not contributing their kernel updates upstream.
In fact his comments seemed a little confused generally. Does he contend that they are not contributing enough to the Linux Kernel or that they are holding back their changes from the mainstream? Surely the GPL would prevent them from doing this. Even Red Hat, which seems to be his poster boy of open source, have their proprietary applications.... |
| mrider Aug 31, 2011 1:09 PM EDT |
It's funny how everyone focuses on the inflammatory part of his statement, and ignores the payoff.Quoting:Let me tell you, maintaining your own version of Linux ain't cheap, and it ain't easy Not to put words into his mouth, but it seems to me like what he is saying is that writing modifications to an open source project, and then not contributing them back, is idiotic. The reason for that should be obvious: If one doesn't contribute changes back, then one must port them to each successive version, and one must deal with all the regressions and etcetera at each iteration. Why not contribute them instead and let the O.S. project maintain the changes? |
| skelband Aug 31, 2011 1:15 PM EDT |
@mrider I don't disagree with Jim Zemlin's sentiments. I actually heartily agree with him on the point you highlight. We all benefit from community custodianship of open source. I'm not a big supporter of Canonical, especially since they moved to that armpit of a UI called Unity. However, I didn't really follow his potshot about Canonical and their kernel contributions, unless I misunderstood what he was trying to say. AFAICS, Canonical have made their mark in an entirely different direction. Not every organisation should be judged by their contributions to the kernel. They certainly have contributed to the distribution eco-system in a very profound way, and all at the same time as losing money on the thing. |
| tuxchick Aug 31, 2011 1:17 PM EDT |
mrider, you're right, but the inflammatory bits are pretty over-the-top. It is ridiculous to crab at anyone who is not a major kernel contributor because, duh, the kernel is just one small part of a huge ecosystem. I don't see Linus supporting an entire distro the way Patrick Volkerding or Jeff Hoogland or any of the small-team distros are doing. Linus doesn't even write much code anymore. So what's that lazybones doing anyway? He must be an idiot. The article is very confused on what the kernel is, and what role it plays in Linux. Zemlin also says "that the desktop doesn't matter." Tell that to the residents of the world wide botnet, and anyone who has real work to do. Jeesh. |
| lcafiero Aug 31, 2011 1:20 PM EDT |
I don't think Jim Zemlin's comments are confused, nor do I think he's saying that Ubuntu/Canonical is holding back -- to hold something back implies that you'd have to produce something to withhold. I think what he's saying is that the companies that have been contributors back to Linux and FOSS -- like Red Hat, to use the example in the article (though the same would apply to Novell/SUSE as well) -- stand to benefit from contributions made back to the kernel and the wider FOSS community. Allow me to provide a little background. Greg Kroah-Hartmann gave a talk at the Linux Plumbers Conference in 2008 where he outlined Canonical's contributions back to the kernel. His slides are here: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/lpc_2008_keynote.html David Neary of GNOME had also mentioned this in his GNOME Census in 2010: http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2010/07/28/gnome-census/ Of course, being part of the firefight that ensued afterward, I'm not terribly objective on this issue, and I think Kroah-Hartman, Neary and Zemlin are right. But let me state first and foremost that Ubuntu/Canonical has made great strides in promoting Ubuntu to the non-tech world, which is great and my hat is off to them. However, they don't get a free pass from criticism because they did this. Also, being the suited guy in the showroom selling the great car to customers is one thing; building the great car that goes in the showroom is another. [As an aside, if you go to ubuntu-dot-com, you won't find the word "Linux" on that page -- you can dig for it and you'll find it on a secondary page, but why isn't it there out front? Both Kubuntu-dot-org and Xubuntu-dot-org have the word "Linux" readily visible on their home page. It's a mystery.] So I'm going to leave now and put on some Nomex while I wait for the flames. |
| skelband Aug 31, 2011 1:26 PM EDT |
@icafiero: "Also, being the suited guy in the showroom selling the great car to customers is one thing; building the great car that goes in the showroom is another." Yes, but we don't criticise the salesman purely because he is not an engineer or car designer. They both have an important role to play. |
| tuxchick Aug 31, 2011 1:29 PM EDT |
Larry, the kernel is just the engine in that beautiful car. It takes a whole lot of other parts and disciplines and infrastructure-- design, supply chain, electronics, etc.-- to make an actual car, which is a way obvious point all these Canonical snitters are missing. Just ordinary old geekmonkeys in action; get a little bored, throw some recreational feces. Nobody has to love Canonical, I do wish for criticisms with some actual basis. |
| lcafiero Aug 31, 2011 1:38 PM EDT |
That's exactly my point, skelband. There's value in both sides of that coin. I would absolutely have no problem if Canonical/Ubuntu were portrayed as the top marketer of Linux rather than Canonical/Ubuntu positioning itself as the be-all and end-all for Linux; the latter seems to be the gospel according to the more strident Kool-Aid drinkers among the Ubunteros. |
| ColonelPanik Aug 31, 2011 1:43 PM EDT |
Support the Colonel |
| lcafiero Aug 31, 2011 1:44 PM EDT |
I'm not sure I agree with the recreational feces, but you make a good point about the part-of-a-whole. It is a small portion of the big picture, but I still think it needs to be pointed out. I like Canonical and I want them to succeed. Part of that -- a great part of it -- is praising them when they do well and rolling up the proverbial paper when they don't. |
| mrider Aug 31, 2011 1:53 PM EDT |
A lot of poo has been flung in Canonical's direction, and they could deflect it if they just said somewhere in fine print something along the lines of: Ubuntu is powered by GNU and the Linux Kernel, and they do such an effing good job that we concentrate on the user experience. They won't of course, but it would deflect the poo nicely. :) |
| skelband Aug 31, 2011 1:54 PM EDT |
@icafiero: They are certainly promoting themselves. But I certainly don't seem them putting down the competition. In essence, you seem to be deriding their success in becoming the biggest and most important outfit in the Linux desktop world. Canonical have never ever portrayed themselves as anything other than a "packager" of desktop Linux. So far, they seem to have been the most successful. Whether or not they make a big deal of what kernel they use, I think is neither here nor there. It is certainly true that other very successful and profitable companies that use the Linux kernel (perhaps the embedded sort) are not lambasted in quite the same way. There are many ways in which Canonical could be thanked. For instance actively encouraging spin off distributions based on their core product. Like tuxchick, I think there are many ways in which Canonical can be properly criticised, such as their copyright assignment requirements for contributors, without having to resort to this strange, and in my opinion unwarranted, angle. |
| skelband Aug 31, 2011 1:59 PM EDT |
@mrider: Although it is not as prominent as it might be, they do mention GNU and Linux in various pages on their web site, in a few places, one click from the main page such as here: http://www.ubuntu.com/community I agree that they could make it a little more obvious though. |
| gus3 Aug 31, 2011 2:44 PM EDT |
What's to stop someone else from taking the published patches from Canonical and submitting them? After all, the patches have to be GPL as well. |
| lcafiero Aug 31, 2011 2:53 PM EDT |
skelband wrote:"They are certainly promoting themselves. But I certainly don't see them putting down the competition. In essence, you seem to be deriding their success in becoming the biggest and most important outfit in the Linux desktop world." I'm not deriding their success. What makes you say that? I said I wanted them to succeed, but I'm not going to pretend I don't see something wrong with their system just because they're Ubuntu. I would say that for any distro as well. Putting down the competition? Competing with who? Where does that come from? skelband wrote:"Canonical have never ever portrayed themselves as anything other than a 'packager' of desktop Linux." . . . because they don't put out a server product. Oh wait, they do. Let's just put that aside. For the sake of argument, I follow you so far. skelband wrote:"So far, they seem to have been the most successful. Whether or not they make a big deal of what kernel they use, I think is neither here nor there. It is certainly true that other very successful and profitable companies that use the Linux kernel (perhaps the embedded sort) are not lambasted in quite the same way." They have been most successful, and if you read the links I posted earlier, one could successfully argue that their success was not generated in-house and their success was built by others. Legal? Under the GPL, sure. Morally and ethically OK? That's for you to decide. Also, you don't think Red Hat and Novell/SUSE get blasted for missteps? I see it all the time, especially Red Hat. If there's ever a company that is the target of success-envy sufferers, it's Red Hat. The thing is, Red Hat and Novell/SUSE don't really care and stay committed to their course. skelband wrote:"There are many ways in which Canonical could be thanked. For instance actively encouraging spin off distributions based on their core product." This is a good point, and I would also give credit to Ubuntu for providing a base from which other distros have spawned. |
| Grishnakh Aug 31, 2011 5:06 PM EDT |
More unwarranted Canonical bashing. When will it end? Canonical deserves plenty of criticism for their idiotic Unity initiative, but not their lack of contributions to the kernel. That simply isn't something they focus any attention on, as others seem happy to work on that. Ubuntu became wildly popular years ago for a good reason: it was an easy-to-install distribution that didn't have all the problems the other distros had, with dependency hell (a perennial RPM problem) or terrible hardware detection. Ubuntu came along, fixed these problems, and made a distro that was easy to just burn onto a CD and install on a PC without having to be a Linux expert. As another poster here said, there's a lot more to a car than just its engine, though many Americans don't seem to understand that judging by their fixation on horsepower above all else. To make a car analogy, the pre-Ubuntu distros were like cars with really fast engines, but with handling so bad that they would flip over as soon as you turned the wheel, and a crappy interior with vinyl seats; Ubuntu came along and made a car with the same engine, but with excellent handling and a nice interior. (Of course, they screwed it all up when they switched to Unity, but that's another story.) I don't know what Canonical's track record on upstream contributions to other (non-kernel) projects is, but maybe someone should compile that information, instead of focusing only on the kernel to the exclusion of all the other integral parts of a modern Linux distro. |
| patrokov Aug 31, 2011 6:14 PM EDT |
Grishnakh, They certainly promote themselves that way, but there were other easy to use Linux distributions (and arguably easier). What made Ubuntu special was Canonical putting a ton of capital into developing the community. |
| tracyanne Aug 31, 2011 6:33 PM EDT |
Why, I woder does everyone seem to think that Canonical is the company is foolish for keeping back changes. Surely Google have kept more of their stuff out of the kernel and elsewhere than Canonical. Then there's TomTom with their famous lack of support of Linux. Why Single out Canonical? |
| BernardSwiss Aug 31, 2011 8:39 PM EDT |
I happen to be on an Ubuntu box right now (my Debian box appears to have developed motherboard issues, so I'm using a spare I keep with the version of Ubuntu used at the local Free Geek -- 10.04 LTS, thank diety). Here is what is displayed when one clicks on "About Ubuntu" on the menu:Quoting: So perhaps Ubuntu/Canonical doesn't mention Linux on the Front Page of the Ubuntu Website. That's a marketing decision, and it's not aimed at anyone already using any form of Linux -- including Ubuntu. The "Features" link, for example, doesn't mention Linux either (though some of the Links on that page do, including the "about Ubuntu" link there, which leads to a different description than the one quoted above). So I don't think Canonical has any interest in "hiding" Linux. They do seem to feel that it's not something that "ordinary" users unfamiliar with FOSS/GNU/Linux are going to recognize as a "feature", and possibly a distraction from the initial message. |
| tracyanne Aug 31, 2011 9:08 PM EDT |
Quoting:So I don't think Canonical has any interest in "hiding" Linux. They do seem to feel that it's not something that "ordinary" users unfamiliar with FOSS/GNU/Linux are going to recognize as a "feature", and possibly a distraction from the initial message. @BernardSwiss, I agree. |
| lcafiero Aug 31, 2011 11:03 PM EDT |
That's fair enough, although seeing something on a drop-down menu on an already running operating system -- even if it's from a live CD -- is different than a casual observer looking for information on the Internet and finding nothing about Linux on Ubuntu's main page. But never mind. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!