Ubuntu's Real Contribution to Free Software

This is the best compliment ole Bruce could come up with ? It seems everything I read from this fella he has nothing good at all to say about gnu/linux and he spins it as constructive complaining...

Now I await his ardent flock of supporters to attack me. Happy Wednesday!

It's hardly worth the bother, but here goes...I think sliming a lengthy, nuanced article in a couple of pointless, snotty sentences is childish and a waste of space. Happy day yourself!

Quoting:Such problems seem the inevitable result of a conflict between a company pushing for profitability and the non-commercial standards of much of the free software community.

That statement doesn't hold up to Red Hat's model. Red Hat contributes to kernel development, as well as hosting the Fedora project. But Red Hat isn't charging for software development. They are charging for product support.

...and Red Hat is on the verge of becoming the first billion dollar FOSS company. Even Novell, with their relatively paltry enterprise Linux market share, has done well with SLES and SLED. SUSE can't prop up the rest of the company, though. It's Novel's legacy and proprietary offerings which are failing, which is why they have found lots of buyers for SUSE and nobody who wants the rest of their stuff. Profits and FOSS are not contradictions in terms.

Oh, and I agree with tuxchick. Bruce Byfield is one of my favorite tech writers because he takes the time to research before writing, really knows his stuff, and never goes for sensationalism over content. Canonical has done some very good things and also some things that are legitimately open to question. The article doesn't take sides or damn with faint praise as klhrevolution suggests. It simply examines what Canonical has and has not done. No zingers, no soundbite ready lines, just pros and cons. You can argue specific points as I did in my first paragraph, but the article is pretty darned solid on the whole.

Quoting:Bruce Byfield is one of my favorite tech writers because he takes the time to research before writing, really knows his stuff, and never goes for sensationalism over content.

You can argue specific points as I did in my first paragraph, but the article is pretty darned solid on the whole.

Agreed.

@klhrevolution: If you are saying you're an agitator I'd have to agree. If you're saying Bruce Byfield is then I don't agree.

Your topic title made these lyrics pop into my head:

"Dog baiter, agitator, Asking questions, says he wants to know why. Ain't no reason that money can't buy. Mink, he pretty, so mink he must die, Must die, must die. "

Do with that what you will :)

Quoting:Do with that what you will :)

Can I fix the grammar? :P

caitlyn, I have been restraining myself from that same comment since yesterday. Not the lyrics, but the rest.

Not a Genesis fan, az?

no, not that, the lyrics themselves didnt cross my mind. trying to figure out who the agitator actually was ...