I'm sure that both of these things are true. It's also true that Canonical aren't very good at persuading their various up-streams of the value of accepting th

I'm sure that both of these things are true. It's also true that Canonical aren't very good at persuading their various up-streams of the value of accepting their patches. It's also true that they don't really do much general linux/gnome infrastructure stuff - they mostly concentrate on Ubuntu specific UI/UX stuff - which is very rarely adopted by upstream projects, for various reasons. It's also true that litl (http://litl.com/ http://litl.com/) a smallish, 40 person, single product start-up, has about the same level of Gnome contributions as Canonical, a company ~10x their size: (http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2010/07/28/gnome-census/ http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2010/07/28/gnome-census/) I'm not sure of the wider meaning of these things is, really, if they have any; especially considering that I've currently got Ubuntu installed on all my computers.