4 ms·
Canonical is not really "better" than IBM. You're jumping out of the pot and into the fire.
by jniedrauer 8y ago
Canonical is not really "better" than IBM. You're jumping out of the pot and into the fire.
- bryanlarsen 8y agoI don't understand how anybody could make a comment like this. Canonical has made some mistakes that the community has rightly called them out for, and sometimes they make decisions that we don't agree with, but in the end they open source everything important. Compared to the old Red Hat they're far from perfect, but compared to IBM, Microsoft, Google, Amazon or Oracle or any other closed source software company they are fricking angels.
- dralley 8y agoDisclaimer: Red Hat employee That's not entirely fair. Canonical has almost zero kernel contributions, while IBM is the #4 top corporate contributor. And Canonical keeps some "important" things proprietary, like the server code behind Snaps.
- bryanlarsen 8y agoAs I said, the old Red Hat was a much better corporate citizen than Canonical is. I hope the new Red Hat ends up doing a "reverse takeover" of IBM. Kernel contributions are a really bad metric, they're like 1% of a distribution and get lots of attention. IBM isn't an Nvidia, but they're not a Red Hat or Canonical either.