4 ms·
In a speech at the Linux Plumbers Convention in 2008 he criticised Ubuntu for not contributing more to the Linux kernel, saying that, of the 100,000 kernel patc
by anon1385 13y ago
In a speech at the Linux Plumbers Convention in 2008 he criticised Ubuntu for not contributing more to the Linux kernel, saying that, of the 100,000 kernel patches made in the preceding five years, only 100 of these came from Canonical, creating the strange situation whereby the world's most popular Linux distribution contributed only 0.1 per cent of the work needed to keep the kernel going.
Four years later, in 2012, Kroah-Hartman complained that "Canonical uses me as a gatekeeper of what bugs get fixed in their kernel package and sent to their customers. There's so much wrong with this, I don't know where to start..."
If the Linux kernel maintainers are that upset about this then they should have used a licence that forced Canonical to contribute (code or financially), but they didn't, they made the Linux kernel 'Free Software', and that means Canonical can do what they want with it (freedom 2 in this case), so long as they are not restricting the freedom of others. Either change the licence or shut up.
- icebraining 13y agoWhy? What is this new strange rule, that prevents one from criticizing others if one doesn't want to contractually force them to do the right thing?
- sz4kerto 13y agoThat's what's going on in the other thread where some people are criticising Linus and some others say that he's not paid by them, so shut up. My opinion is that even you're a volunteer, you should listen to criticism or don't call yourself a volunteer (as this usually means that you want to achieve something for the benefit of others (at least in part), or you're doing something in cooperation with others). If you're not completely isolated then your actions have an effect on others so you should be prepared for criticism.
- GravityWell 13y agoSimilar to the position some have that if you comment on a bug/flaw/shortcoming of an open source app, that you are somehow obliged to shut up and get involved in the bug report process. In case it's not obvious, I don't subscribe to this view.
- ProblemFactory 13y agoI don't think it's valid criticism in the first place. The kernel is only a single part of a much bigger "Linux desktop distribution". For desktop users, work on good default configurations for all software, X (or its replacements), window managers, package managers, backports of security fixes to old software, and many other things that Canonical does are just as valuable as improving the kernel itself.
- checker 13y agoWhy aren't the kernel maintainers allowed to voice their opinion on how their product is being utilized? Changing the license would have impacts far beyond just preventing Canonical from leeching their work. Sometimes the best thing to do is voice an opinion and hope that the message is heard.
- guard-of-terra 13y agoThis is so true. I remember ancient times Apple withheld Webkit development process, but people kept bitching about this for year or so, despire numerous smarty pants who argued Apple can do anything it wants and should raise no criticisms. This became very loud, Apple was forced to release webkit development process to public, and then Chrome happened, phones got browsers that didn't suck, every desktop toolkit got HTML renderer that rocks, this was tremendous example of open source success. So thank you, smarty pants, a bit more effort on your part and we'll have no Chrome, no phone browsers, no nothing.
- kostyakow 13y agoThere is some things which are totally legal, but morally wrong. Canonical doesn't have a legal obligation to contribute kernel code, but it doesn't make their behaviour right, and kernel developers have every right to criticize them.