Comments on: Shuttleworth: There's more to Linux development than kernel hacks

Canonical has taken heat for not contributing more to the Linux kernel, but this may not be an accurate reflection of the good work that it does.

[The_Decider]

That is pretty funny Matt.

Canonical adds very little to Linux in every area.

Ubuntu is years behind the cutting edge distros and is one of the more clunky ones. It is not even close in terms of contribution, ease of use, development tools, or anything else.

Ubuntu merely groups up packages, ties an ugly brown wrapper around it and tosses it out the door. They are not in the same league as Novel or Red Hat.

[odubtaig]

Does that mean there an ETA on OpenSUSE having an actual working SVN Server?

[MSSlayer]

*** are you babbling about Odubtaig?

[odubtaig]

Apparently Ubuntu is not in the same league as Novell's OpenSUSE. I would say I agree, but my interpretation of that sentence appears to be very different. OpenSUSE is becoming less usable as time goes on with an unusable installation of SVN server being the showstopper since at least 9.3 (there's a bug report if you care to google it), although their update manager no longer eats single CPU systems. I can't say if it still hangs on shutdown if NFS mounted to a share on a Red Hat based server due to implementation.

I still have the box for SuSE 8.2 somewhere but the quality has suffered in recent years.

Red Hat though? More difficult to configure in places but absolutely industrial strength.

[Clarious]

Yeah, Canonical does not contribute much to linux from a technical perceptive, but it has helped linux in another way, getting more users. About its quality, I agree that there are still many problems in Ubuntu, but it is closer to 'just work' than other distributions.

[MSSlayer]

I would argue that Ubuntu has scared more users away from Linux then it has gained.

[odubtaig]

Based on what exactly?

[bradyme]

There are 8 million active users on the Ubuntu platform. fedora has 1.2 mil, Suse 1.5 million. If numbers of users don't click that you got something good going on here, then you got to ask yourself "what are they doing, that we are not doing?"

[kelmon]

I'm quite certain that Ubuntu is the only Linux distribution the wider market will have heard of, if they have heard of any distribution. I have absolutely no idea what code Canonical does or does not contribute back to Linux but they do seem to bring something that Linux is in dire need of if it ever hopes to be adopted over the likes of Windows and Mac OS on desktops - exposure. If a potential customer has not heard of your product then they aren't going to "buy" it.

[MSSlayer]

What is your point?

Ubuntu is the MS of Linux, in every way, including lack of QA.

[jhrozek]

I'm really surprised that a prominent open source columnist thinks that a proprietary bug tracking system (and one lacking on features..) is a good contribution to the open source world. C'mon Matt, you can do better.

[cmonachi]

@ jhrozek

Are you seriously sticking your foot in your mouth to make such an unwarranted base criticism? Launchpad may be lacking in features compared to some of its more mature counterparts, but one would expect that from a young project. Regarding your commentary on the posts author, perhaps Matt was already aware when writing this that Launchpad has a number of parts already opened and is scheduled to be fully open source in a little over a year (allowing time first for Canonical to ensure a stable source of revenue for LP's developers)?

First be educated on the topic... then speak.

Reference:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/linux.ars/2008/07/23/mark-shuttleworth-launchpad-to-be-open-source-in-12-months

[tristanbob]

Ubuntu's biggest contribution is users. For a variety of reasons (see the link below for details) Ubuntu has attracted millions of users who are now using open source software. I like the other two points, but users are required before a open source desktop can achieve critical mass, and recognition by software developers.

http://useopensource.blogspot.com/2007/08/ubuntu-innovations.html

[Papa Chango]

While many do not like Ubuntu for various geek reasons but I am stunned at the amount of people who dont know diddly about Linux wanting to know more about Ubuntu. (I usually steer them towards Mandriva/PCLinuxOS afterwards!!)
I dont expect these people to use or care about Slackware and Gentoo so if they want to try Ubuntu because of the marketing, fine.
It could be worse, it could have been Xandros instead.


>Matt Asay is general manager of the Americas

Every company does the same thing I see: you ask for a raise and instead they give you something from pythonesque Department of Silly Titles.
http://www.workforce.com/wpmu/bizmgmt/2008/10/27/department_of_silly_titles/

[supercarrot]

What are you people talking about? I have used many distro's over the years (inc Gentoo which I ran for a year or so, Red Hat, Fedora - etc). And just finding a slick workable desktop replacement for Windows that is not just going to take up all my time setting it up. Well it's Ubuntu. Many of the others, things are just broken. (Yes things are broken on Ubuntu - but to a lesser degree). The deb ecosystem means that I don't have to make computing a hobby just to check out some software. The frustration factor is far less in Ubuntu than in any other distro. I get it, sometimes hardware don't work and its annoying. You think it is annoying now, try 5 years ago. For those folk that are not particularly interested in the purity of the GNU tool chain every time they want to write a letter or send an email or maybe just listen to some music, or check out a website. They shortest distance between two points is often Ubuntu, even shorter than Windows often. If they are managing that, then, no matter what you say. They have contributed something. If all they are focusing on is joining other peoples work together, somehow they seem to be doing a more successful job of it than others. To be upset with that is just player hating.

[Aus_Engineer]

"Many of the others, things are just broken. (Yes things are broken on Ubuntu - but to a lesser degree). "

this is the problem, most , well all the linux distros are broken, none work in a slick and professional manner.

release times are too frequent, business models are flawed, there is no market trust in any distro, including Ubuntu.

mabey if all that brain power just worked on one distro, and made it good, fixed the crappy parts (most of it).

you would be able to compete, but as long as ego's are in play, and there is no focus on quality over qualtity, linux is doomed to failure.

It allready has failed, after 17 years its no better off than when it started. all its tried to be is a rip off of others work (UNIX, Windows) and its failed.

It is an abject failure, and thats bad, because it had potental, and i wonder how much better MS windows would be now if it had some competition on quality.

at the moment it does not, and i dont see any competition in the near future, LINUX is focused on quantity, and a vast nuber of distros, i have no idea why, MS just focus on ONE or a very small number of OS"s and make it work and make it quality.

dont you see which model is working and which is not, if you cant, MS is working and Linux is not. and if you cant tell that by now , you need to get out of the game.

[supercarrot]

I have just re-upgraded from Vista because it was more broken than Ubuntu. I thought let me try out Windows again after all these years. It was quite nice after a two day setup, then after a while started to go south. So what you are saying doesnt seem too work in practice. The current open source model does work. But it is only in the last few years that we have just seen effort being put into the end user experience. Instead of "You can write that in the terminal - nothing wrong with that" The terminal has its place surely, but it needs to be kept in its place. Ubuntu is placing the pressure and the focus right where I for one really want it right now. Pulling it all together and increasing the end user experience.