Ubuntu is NOT a part of community

[mugginz]

I think is appropriate here: Pak'mar'a weren't very good at fighting, but were great intelligence gatherers for the Rangers (and for people who don't understand the reference, go watch Babylon 5). I think it's fairly safe to say that Ubuntu has helped Linux (GNU/Linux) adoption, and that will indirectly help the community at any rate, regardless of direct code contributions. More people using linux will generate more interest, more development, etc etc etc. Next to that kind of influence, direct code contributions are just icing on the cake (at least, that's how I see it).

I whole hartedly agree with this myself.

[mirv]

I think is appropriate here: Pak'mar'a weren't very good at fighting, but were great intelligence gatherers for the Rangers (and for people who don't understand the reference, go watch Babylon 5). I think it's fairly safe to say that Ubuntu has helped Linux (GNU/Linux) adoption, and that will indirectly help the community at any rate, regardless of direct code contributions. More people using linux will generate more interest, more development, etc etc etc. Next to that kind of influence, direct code contributions are just icing on the cake (at least, that's how I see it).

[mugginz]

Shutlleworth, former Debian developer is not Ubuntu. He is a person, right?

You want to slam Mark, but then when it's shown he does good things, you want to distance your comment from him.... Good work there.

Nice. I have seen many Canonical complaints they contribute to KDE/GNOME. You guys told that. But Proof? Where is it? AFAIK Canonical Contributions to KDE/GNOME are marginal. Canonical did not show anything. You guys did not show anything...

You could perhaps do us the favor and do some research yourself.

What percentage of commits do you think Canonical should've made in order to be worthy of using the KDE and Gnome projects?

Not only do they make commits, but they have also contributed money, manpower and other resources. But, how much is enough?

Also, is it a function of userbase that determines the required amount of patches? Say, if another million non-paying users of Ubuntu cropped up, should Canonical be expected to find more dev resources? Or is it only their payed up users that determines that?

Bulshit. I never started that, It were you idiots blaming Greg speaking about Linux (kernel), that KDE/GNOME are part of the Linux (system) too. You are pedantic idiots, not others, because you use Linux in colloquial way, and blame developer for using it in original way.

I have no problem to use word Linux such a way, but I can't blame anybody, if he use Linux for kernel.

No, you are making assertions that are much, much bigger than just whether or not Canonical make enough kernel commits or not. You said

But. If you buy Canonical product, you won? t support anything in upstream.

You also reference other non kernel areas where you feel that Canonical doesn't do enough in your opinion.

You have been discussing the whole stack for quite a while now.

[BlackStar]

@next9: Mugginz gave you numerous examples of KDE/Gnome projects that Ubuntu/Canonical work on. Have your arguments been demolished so thoroughly that you can only resort to strawmans (Linux vs GNU/Linux) and name calling now?

[mugginz]

In the common vernacular for you perhaps, but I know some of the developer crowd really do make the distinction between kernel and the rest of the system when referring to "Linux" and "GNU/Linux", so that distinction is probably very relevant here.

For me, yes. For many, also yes. In a lot of conversation, Linux is used as a name for the entire stack, but other labels would be more technically correct.

I agree it's relevant to make that distinction where the scope and ramifications of the discussion is focused just in the kernel. He wanted to talk of kernel commits, but then say some fairly unwarrented things.

(from one of his slides in that presentation)

Developers who are not allowed to contribute to Linux should change jobs.

But focusing on the kernel only, in the talk canonical was singled out due to people complaining that the number of kernel patches was far more than "5 or 6" - so it was pointed out that really, they're not that great for kernel patches.

I believe he is correct to point out that indeed, Canonical are not that great for kernel patches, but that wasn't the only thing he was trying to assert. And more worryingly, he consumed the whole Linux Plumbers Conference keynote doing it.

This should not detract from any other area - merely that when it comes to the kernel there isn't that much done relative to others. I'm quite sure they do add to gnome (or whatever else) substantially (I can't be bothered to dig up evidence for that, but it would be good to see some).

I agree that it shouldn't detract from other areas, but others are trying to build some fairly poisonous and unwarranted accusations about Canonical from the issue of number of kernel commits.

[next9]

Also of import is the fact that Canonical is yet to post a profit. Any commits made by Canonical staff have been made, at least partially possible by money from Mark Shuttleworth's own pocket. How many of us can say we effectively donated millions of dollars in order to push Linux forwards?

Shutlleworth, former Debian developer is not Ubuntu. He is a person, right?

They may say publicly that they are part of the community, but I can't find where they state that they contribute more than anyone else to it. Perhaps you could provide that info.

Nice. I have seen many Canonical complaints they contribute to KDE/GNOME. You guys told that. But Proof? Where is it? AFAIK Canonical Contributions to KDE/GNOME are marginal. Canonical did not show anything. You guys did not show anything...

If in the common vernacular, Linux as spoken as to mean the whole stack, from kernel, to DE, to utilities in order to provide a usable computing experience then you are at best being pedantic, and at worst, badly mistaken.

Bulshit. I never started that, It were you idiots blaming Greg speaking about Linux (kernel), that KDE/GNOME are part of the Linux (system) too. You are pedantic idiots, not others, because you use Linux in colloquial way, and blame developer for using it in original way.

I have no problem to use word Linux such a way, but I can't blame anybody, if he use Linux for kernel.

[mirv]

If in the common vernacular, Linux as spoken as to mean the whole stack, from kernel, to DE, to utilities in order to provide a usable computing experience then you are at best being pedantic, and at worst, badly mistaken.

In the common vernacular for you perhaps, but I know some of the developer crowd really do make the distinction between kernel and the rest of the system when referring to "Linux" and "GNU/Linux", so that distinction is probably very relevant here.

But focusing on the kernel only, in the talk canonical was singled out due to people complaining that the number of kernel patches was far more than "5 or 6" - so it was pointed out that really, they're not that great for kernel patches. This should not detract from any other area - merely that when it comes to the kernel there isn't that much done relative to others. I'm quite sure they do add to gnome (or whatever else) substantially (I can't be bothered to dig up evidence for that, but it would be good to see some).

[mugginz]

No. Linux is kernel. Me, you, others use "Linux" a little incorrect way for the whole system. It's OK. But that is not fault of kernel developers!

There is a kernel called Linux. There is a conference called Linux Plumbing. You must be idiot to blame kernel developer, using the term "Linux" in right and original way! Oh wait. From now, all kernel developers should find a new name for the Linux (kernel), because some idiot adopts it and now is not able to difference kernel (original) and system (colloquially).



Thats useless argument. I would not anticipate from kernel developer to prepare GNOME patch statistics fot a Linux kernel keynote on a Linux plumbing conference!

If in the common vernacular, Linux as spoken as to mean the whole stack, from kernel, to DE, to utilities in order to provide a usable computing experience then you are at best being pedantic, and at worst, badly mistaken.

[mugginz]

So look at that error he made:

6 / 99 000 = 6 x 10E^(-5)

vs.

100 / 99 000 = 1 x 10E^(-3)

Yes. You can argue that it is 2 place value. But thats stupid. In amount of 99 000 patches it is nothing vs. nothing. It right to say Canonical is one of th most unimportant contributors into the kernel far behind many individuals. This fact itself is OK, but. But finding this fault in Greg first speech and emphasizing it is idiotic self-centered and rude from Canonical. They got, what they had deserved.

If Canonical made an error in a public forum, surely they would be expected to correct this error. And likewise it's the same if someone else. I don't think the would be being petty if they wanted to go on the public record as having the actual amount of commits they made instead of a small sub-set of them.


I believe this thread was started on the premise that Canonical isn't part of the community. You yourself try to make many negative points with respect to Canonical's effort in the community. I believe the community is bigger than the sub-set that Greg wishes to reference. You make many claims as to Canonical not doing enough for the community to please you personally, but don't qualify these claims as referring to the kernel only. Perhaps you should re-state these more clearly? Although, even if you do qualify your statements in that way, to try and minimise Canonical's contributions to a small sub-set of the Linux software stack it still wouldn't be very transparent where the main point you're trying to make is that Canonical does nothing for no-one but themselves.

But then there are statements made by you like

Ubuntu is traditionally and loudly mark themselves as the most communitiest community. Whitch is completelly bullshit.

They may say publicly that they are part of the community, but I can't find where they state that they contribute more than anyone else to it. Perhaps you could provide that info.

Bingo. That's the point. He can't know each of the 99 000 patches right?

I don't expect him to know the details of each and every commit made. If he wishes to correct the record the way he did though, you'll have to excuse me for thinking that his motives might not have been completely pure.

And. As a kernel developer, motivating companies to contribute into the kernel, he would not comment KDE or GNOME. He wants companies to contribute into the kernel, because kernel is his job.

Others brought to his attention that the Ubuntu guys focus mainly on other areas of the Linux stack, and that perhaps he should've included KDE and Gnome patches in his speech to be more fair. He responded by saying that KDE and Gnome aren't relevant, or part of Linux, because KDE and Gnome can also run on FreeBSD and OpenSolaris as well.

Thats correct. KDE and GNOME have nothing to do on Linux Plumbing conference. On a conference about car engines, it is Off topic to mention steering wheel right?

You say Linux, but you mean GNU/Linux. Linux itself is just a kernel, so Gregs Linux is not your GNU/Linux. Just to be accurate.

He made statements that went further than just Canonical's commits to the kernel. He tried to make points with far greater reach than would've been justified if he wanted his main point to be something along the lines of "Canonical doesn't make many commits to the kernel" Also, his response when asked to consider other parts of the Linux stack were quite flawed in my view.


Also of import is the fact that Canonical is yet to post a profit. Any commits made by Canonical staff have been made, at least partially possible by money from Mark Shuttleworth's own pocket. How many of us can say we effectively donated millions of dollars in order to push Linux forwards?

[kraftman]

No. Linux is kernel. Me, you, others use "Linux" a little incorrect way for the whole system. It's OK. But that is not fault of kernel developers!

And what the correct way is? People call entire system just Linux, because it's not confusing. The correct name should be just Linux distribution (IMHO), but hell no GNU/Linux.

There is a kernel called Linux. There is a conference called Linux Plumbing. You must be idiot to blame kernel developer, using the term "Linux" in right and original way! Oh wait. From now, all kernel developers should find a new name for the Linux (kernel), because some idiot adopts it and now is not able to difference kernel (original) and system (colloquially).

It depends if he was talking about contribution only to Linux kernel or also about contribution to other OS projects.

Thats useless argument. I would not anticipate from kernel developer to prepare GNOME patch statistics fot a Linux kernel keynote on a Linux plumbing conference!

I assume it was just about kernel contribution, but if Canonical supports projects like Gnome or KDE or some other OS projects (in theory) it shouldn't be blammed.