2c about the development of ubuntu

[Udo 'Robos' Puetz]

On Mon, 02.01.06, Joseph Method <tristil at gmail.com> wrote:
> I haven't seen anyone mention that the reason you support another gui
> environment, or ensure server support, or reach out to schools, is to
> attract developers. You lose half of Linux developers if you don't
> support KDE. Server support, because it applies to businesses, is
> especially good for attracting paid developers. Schools can employ
> slave labor. But Udo does have a valid concern that the core Canonical
> development team might not scale. It's just that there doesn't seem to
> be a crisis justifying that concern at this moment, just some growing
> pains that have resulted in a few anecdotal problems. It might be a
> gathering concern for the future, but it doesn't follow that the best
> way to address that problem is to shrink the *potential* developer
> base, especially when the work on these projects can often be recycled
> into each other.

Ubuntu is touted as the "most userfriendly" distro right now, roughly right,
hmm? So, how does this come about? I say because ubuntu's *paid* developers
did something about the ui and userfriendliness. The developers, the "free"
ones, where there all along but there was no such highly userfriendly distro
before ubuntu. Why is that? Debian has loots of developers but still progeny
spawned as did linspire and xandros.
My whole point is still that *paid* developers should have more time to work
on userfriendly stuff. That's still my whole point. This somewhat implies
that "free" developers aren't capable of doing this but I see it rather as
they don't want it and this is their good right. I just look at the situation:
-debian with lots of free developers - not so userfriendly
-progeny|linspire|xandros|ubuntu with paid developers - more userfriendly.
It's the simple fact.
Cheers
Udo

-- 
Robos - 
gpg --recv-keys --keyserver blackhole.pca.dfn.de 6EEADA09