Re: Canonical's business model
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:44:28PM +0100, jeremiah foster wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 10:25 +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> > Thomas Bushnell writes:
> > > No, I think it's because Ubuntu doesn't cooperate well with Debian,
> > > while pretending to cooperate.
> Could you be more explicit? I know there has been concern about Ubuntu
> amongst debian developers, and that Mark Shuttleworth has some doubts
> about working with DCC, although he is rather vague in my opinion. But
> what are the problems with Ubuntu? Is it an unecessary fork? Or is it
> not contributing back its changes to debian software?
Most of the complaints that have surfaced here seem to relate to the
handling of patches to be fed back to Debian, for example, how maintainers
should be notified of them, how much personal attention can be expected from
an Ubuntu developer regarding a patch, etc. There isn't much argument
(anymore) about whether Ubuntu has a right to exist.
There are still rather intense emotional responses to Ubuntu within the
Debian community, as evidenced in this thread and others. However, there
seems to be a trend toward more effective collaboration at the individual
level, as many Debian maintainers now recognize that Ubuntu developers are,
by and large, standing by and willing to work with them, and that such
collaboration requires active participation from both sides.
In comparison with other Debian derivatives, past and present, the fact that
this kind of discussion has been happening at all, with both parties
involved, is a significant step forward.
The DCC is of course an entirely unrelated issue, as the DCC neither
represents nor includes Debian.