Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu is NOT a part of community

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I know what I am talking about. What does ubuntu do and for which community?
    Ubunutu only cares about Ubuntu. Nothing else. Redhat, Novell, Mandriva - they are PAYING UPSTREAM DEVS. Without them X, kernel, KDE/gnome would be in a very sorry state. So would be gcc.

    Ubuntu? They take, they don't give back. Just because a patch can be found somewhere means nothing. You have to TELL upstream that there is something that might be interresting. Even better SEND it upstream. Ubuntu does neither. You can not expect that upstream devs scan ubuntu's servers for some patches.

    In short, they do nothing, except creating 'howtos' for ubuntards with shoddy quality and bad advise.
    Ubuntu leeches from everybody else and give back idiots spouting crap and howtos nobody should use.

    Oh and that:
    >They also focus on the various pieces that glue together a distro to try and make the user experience more pleasant.

    is just marketing bullshit. Every distro does that. Ever did. And before there was ubuntu there was already Mandriva/mandrake, Mepis, Xandros, Lindows.

    The difference? Less marketing dollar. And better behaviour.

    the evidence is out there:
    Ubuntu takes and gives nothing back.
    the 'community' lives from people giving back.

    ubuntu hurts the 'communty'.

    Greg has shown the evidence. The net is full with more.

    Just have a look at ubuntard.com.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by energyman View Post
      I know what I am talking about. What does ubuntu do and for which community?
      Ubunutu only cares about Ubuntu. Nothing else. Redhat, Novell, Mandriva - they are PAYING UPSTREAM DEVS. Without them X, kernel, KDE/gnome would be in a very sorry state. So would be gcc.
      Well how do you explain patches in upstream projects provided by Canonical devs?


      Originally posted by energyman View Post
      Ubuntu? They take, they don't give back. Just because a patch can be found somewhere means nothing. You have to TELL upstream that there is something that might be interresting. Even better SEND it upstream. Ubuntu does neither. You can not expect that upstream devs scan ubuntu's servers for some patches.
      But there is a path for Ubuntu patches to go upstream.

      Originally posted by energyman View Post
      In short, they do nothing, except creating 'howtos' for ubuntards with shoddy quality and bad advise.
      Ubuntu leeches from everybody else and give back idiots spouting crap and howtos nobody should use.
      More hate, suggesting that you know yourself that you have no factual basis for your claims, and therefore must resort to flamage.

      Originally posted by energyman View Post
      Oh and that:
      >They also focus on the various pieces that glue together a distro to try and make the user experience more pleasant.

      is just marketing bullshit. Every distro does that. Ever did. And before there was ubuntu there was already Mandriva/mandrake, Mepis, Xandros, Lindows.
      Of course all distros do that. But if you're as knowledgeable as you claim, I would've thought you'd be aware of where the differences in quality are in relation to the integration efforts of the various distros.

      Originally posted by energyman View Post
      The difference? Less marketing dollar. And better behaviour.

      the evidence is out there:
      Ubuntu takes and gives nothing back.
      the 'community' lives from people giving back.

      ubuntu hurts the 'communty'.

      Greg has shown the evidence. The net is full with more.

      Just have a look at ubuntard.com.
      Hmm, ubuntard.com Looks like they're aiming to fill a similar role to http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/

      Comment


      • as Greg has shown, there aren't mny patches.

        Comment


        • http://xkcd.com/619/

          Comment


          • Originally posted by squirrl View Post
            It's so increadibly idiotic. Go to adobe.com and complain there.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by energyman View Post
              as Greg has shown, there aren't mny patches.
              And now...... a questionnaire


              How do you feel about Greg's assertion that any patches to KDE or Gnome by Canonical employees shouldn't be considered relevant because KDE and Gnome aren't part of the Linux ecosystem?

              Do you think it's relevant to consider the amount of years IBM, RedHat, Novell and Canonical have been in business?

              Do you think that the amount of employees IBM, RedHat, Novell, and Canonical have may be relevant?

              Do feel the revenues of IBM, RedHat, Novell, and Canonical are relevant in this discussion?

              Do you think that Mark Shuttleworths' desire to fix the parts of the Linux ecosystem that no-ones working on is worthy of investing time?

              And if not, should they drop what they currently do in this area, and instead, strictly work only on projects that others are also working on?

              Do you feel that the current userbase of Ubuntu is a reflection of the work that the Ubuntu team have done, or, more worryingly, the result of an secret and underhanded, underground conspiracy that threatens the whole world as we know it.

              Comment


              • I think ubuntu's PPA system is a nice way to dump software on a large community of ignorant enthusiasts. It has the potential to get feedback from less technically-apt users, but unfortunately most of the user support happens in the horrible Ubuntu forums. Sometimes it can go badly when the packaging is handled by the Ubuntu team though, their rollout of PulseAudio was a disaster and left gave many end-users a bad impression.

                It doesn't really matter if Cannonical contributes patches to Xorg or the Kernel, Ubuntu is a great to get feedback from users who don't know how their software functions.
                Last edited by peepingtom; 12-06-2009, 02:35 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                  And now...... a questionnaire

                  How do you feel about Greg's assertion that any patches to KDE or Gnome by Canonical employees shouldn't be considered relevant because KDE and Gnome aren't part of the Linux ecosystem?
                  Ok. Lets begin from the start. Greg is kernel developer. Maybe you know, kernel has nothing to do with KDE/GNOME. As a kernel developer, he usually speak about kernel and thing around it. And here it comes....

                  During one of his speech, Greg was asked how many patches they (kernel devs) received from Canonical. Completely unprepared, with no intent in mind, Greg answered they contributed 5-6 patches. With 0.1% of patches, Canonical is nothing for kernel development, nobody care a cuss whether it is 5 or 100 patches. It's nothing in fact.

                  But then this answer was criticized by somebody from Canonical. This petty difference (5 or 100) was a reason for canonical to defend themselves and tax kernel developer with such stupid divergence?

                  They started that, they got, what they deserved.


                  Do you think it's relevant to consider the amount of years IBM, RedHat, Novell and Canonical have been in business?

                  Do you think that the amount of employees IBM, RedHat, Novell, and Canonical have may be relevant?

                  Do feel the revenues of IBM, RedHat, Novell, and Canonical are relevant in this discussion?
                  No. Why? Nobody counts who gives more or less. It sould be noticed Canonical gives almost nothing.

                  How many employees has Mandriva? Or Debian or Gentoo? Oh Yeah, Gentoo is far bigger company than Canonical.... ROFL

                  Try to compare Canonical with Gentoo you demagogue!

                  Do you think that Mark Shuttleworths' desire to fix the parts of the Linux ecosystem that no-ones working on is worthy of investing time?

                  And if not, should they drop what they currently do in this area, and instead, strictly work only on projects that others are also working on?
                  What are those parts, nobody (except god blessing Shuttleworth) work on them? Give us some examples!

                  Comment


                  • bringing up KDE/Gnome contributions without backing up the numbers is a false thing - I doubt Canonical contributes much to gnome or KDE.

                    As for places where contributions and manpower would help - the X system, drivers etc, there is where more manpower will be helpful.

                    Instead Canonical have only one employee working on the whole subsystem who has no time to contribute upstream and is drowning in bugs - mostly caused by the proprietary driver. (And yes - even Ubuntu is suffering from this as as such the plans are to have older versions of software in the next LTS release.)

                    There is a reason Canonical want to have synchronised release cycles with other distros - it allows them to offer similar levels of support (maybe a little behind and a little slow) without doing the hard work.

                    It is still a good distro, and if it works for you, use it. Just don't be under the assumption that it plays nice with upstream anywhere.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by bugmenot View Post
                      There is a reason Canonical want to have synchronised release cycles with other distros - it allows them to offer similar levels of support (maybe a little behind and a little slow) without doing the hard work.
                      Yes. This is one of the most devious things Shuttleworth proposed. Ubuntu, fatally depending on Debian, Fedora and SUSE would have even less work then.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X