3 ms·
"Their contributions to Gnome are miniscule compared to Red Hat and several others." No, they are not minuscule. I could not use Red Hat and several others(sus
by forgottenpaswrd 16y ago
"Their contributions to Gnome are miniscule compared to Red Hat and several others."
No, they are not minuscule. I could not use Red Hat and several others(suse, mandriva...) because for me, and for many others Linux was a pain to use, with obvious design flaws.
Red Hat and others could not care less about the "normal user", they care about companies, witch is fine, but they made very little actual contributions to me if I could not use it.
There is no problem having an "Open Core" strategy if the code is GPL, and you could see it. They give the company(in this case Canonical) control over the design, witch is fine too. If you don't like it you could fork or create a new project.
Way easier to criticize than do anything.
- jdub 16y agoThe previous poster was referring to code and module contributions to the GNOME project itself, not the sprucing up of the GNOME experience in Ubuntu. GTK+, the underlying toolkit for GNOME, was substantially written and still substantially maintained by developers employed by Red Hat. If those resources had not been committed to GTK+ and GNOME, Ubuntu simply would not exist. There's a difference between what you might regard as important, and the fundamentals of who contributes to an open source project. :-)
- SwellJoe 16y ago"Way easier to criticize than do anything." Yes, it is, and I do both. I've written code that ships in Ubuntu (and Debian, and Red Hat, and Fedora, and FreeBSD, etc.), and I've worked on Open Source projects for over a dozen years. I believe that grants me a right to speak on the subject, particularly since I'm not advocating a position that benefits me in any way; it merely presents my opinion as an Open Source contributor of many years.