Which is an odd choice when comparing RH and Canonical. The former has been almost religious about living to the open source ideals, going so far as open sourcing products they purchase, and making sure new products they create have opensource upstreams. I don't think the same can be said of Canonical which seems at every turn to in need of $ so they try desperate ploys to monetize new projects they work on by developing them in house and dropping releases, or trying to lock up markets and charge for features not available in the open source version.

So, while they definitely aren't ideal, its hard to point to another company that does more across as much of the opensource ecosystem. Maybe google these days? But one needs only look at some of the google projects governance model to see the difference between RH and Google.

>>The former has been almost religious about living to the open source ideals

Pre-IBM sure... Post IBM hardly

>>its hard to point to another company that does more across as much of the opensource ecosystem. Maybe google these days?

Really, you think google is a good example of Open Source... wow how far we have come..

Google worse than Microsoft when it comes to the EEE model

You are correct Canonical is not ideal, but I find them to be more ethical and upfront than Post-IBM RedHat and for sure google

>> Post IBM hardly

Can you put some substance on that statement?

> The former has been almost religious about living to the open source ideals, going so far as open sourcing products they purchase, and making sure new products they create have opensource upstreams.

We are having this conversation on an article about them doing their best to avoid sharing their source code in order to kill their downstreams.