No subject

driver. I imagine that "End users" wouldn't care* about the difference
between Nexenta and the current Ubuntu, while they would care suddenly
having their Gnome desktop replaced with KDE.

[*] Once the developers had dealt with the flood of regressions you
get when you switch out a core component; which admittedly would
probably take a while.

>> =A0I didn't have a problem with you mentioning unproven facts,
>> merely yelling it as something that must be taken at face value.
>
> I get it. =A0Horse dead. Moving on...

An even deader horse is "Linux doesn't give back to BSD". Theo has
accused the Linux developers of somehow managing to violate the BSD
licenses exceptionally generous terms.
   http://kerneltrap.org/OpenBSD/Atheros_Driver_Developments

At least most of the software that the Ubuntu community writes could
be included back into the Linux kernel if the Linux devs actually
wanted user land fluff in their kernel.

> Wait wait wait. =A0Not this again. My argument was that they don't
> contribute to the kernel. =A0it's not called "Ubuntu Gnome 2.0 Desktop
> and Associated Useful Applications" last time I checked.

AFAICT the official name of Ubuntu is called "Ubuntu" and not "Ubuntu
Linux". This is kind of muddied because the title of ubuntu.com is
"Ubuntu Linux"

RMS fans are likely to call Ubuntu "Ubuntu GNU/Linux" which is
arguably more accurate than Ubuntu Linux.

>> God (!!), I hate arguments about moral relativism.  Especially when one =
says
>> "like 'good and evil'".  That's moral _absolutism_.  The absolutists hat=
e us

On an earlier topic I prefer relative comparisons to absolute ones.

Here is another FACT: Microsoft has published more open source
software than I have.

Does this make me more "Evil" than Microsoft?

So Google contributes almost ten times more code to the kernel than
Canonical? Last I heard Canonical earns under $30 million while Google
earns over $10,000 million, so Google is hundreds of times larger.
Which means that Google contributes a vastly smaller slice of their
income to the Linux kernel.

My point isn't that Google is evil, or worse than Canonical. I just
don't think that this comparison is meaningful. We people complain
that Ubuntu doesn't contribute enough I imagine that their real
concern is one of the following:

1) The Ubuntu community makes it hard for upstream to merge patches.
2) Canonical is making shit-loads of cash and is investing too little
of it in open source software.
3) Ubuntu is famous, but the Ubuntu devs only do a fraction of the work.
4) Linux "The Desktop" doesn't give anything back the Linux "The Kernel".

AFAICT (1) is not true any more. (2) was never true. (3) is true, but
RedHat intentionally distanced them self from the Desktop and focused
on the server, where the money. As a result RedHat gets the
"shit-loads of cash" and Ubuntu gets the fame, which sounds like a
fair trade to me. I disagree with (4), as Linux Kernel Developers
generally like having shiny Desktops too.

--=20
John C. McCabe-Dansted