LibreOffice 3.6.2 developer statistics

[dolby]

I was looking at the libreoffice 3.6.2 announcement and especially the awesome infographs about its development.
http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2...eoffice-3-6-2/
In the pie charts you can see that while Canonical employees the same number of developers as Red Hat, the commits coming from Canonical are 1/10 or less than the ones coming from Red Hat and that has been the situation at least from September 2011 (probably has always been the case).
Why is that?

[forrestcupp]

Does Canonical employ people to specifically develop LibreOffice? If not, why does it matter? There are a thousand projects out there that Canonical doesn't work on, but other people do. It just means they have higher priorities for their developers than LibreOffice.

[Mikeb85]

Red Hat and SUSE are both much bigger than Canonical - Red Hat does over a billion in revenue and SUSE probably does 3/4 that. Canonical likely only generates a tiny fraction of that revenue.

While Canonical's contributions to open source projects are far fewer than Red Hat or SUSE (or even IBM, Oracle, etc...), they are also leading the way in creating a usable desktop. Not bad for a company far younger (and smaller) than either Red Hat or SUSE.

[grahammechanical]

You say this:

In the pie charts you can see that while Canonical employees the same number of developers as Red Hat

Just where in those pie charts do you see just how many developers Canonical and Redhat employ? I do not see any such thing.

Ubuntu was very quick to switch from Openoffice to Libreoffice. That must have done wonders for the take up of Libreoffice. The more popular Ubuntu becomes then more popular Libreoffice will be.

[thatguruguy]

Just where in those pie charts do you see just how many developers Canonical and Redhat employ? I do not see any such thing.

That's an excellent point. According to their pages on wikipedia, at least, Red Hat has ~3,700 employees, while Canonical has ~500. Although no breakdown is given relating to number of developers, my guess is that Red Hat has significantly more developers than Canonical does.

According to this, the OP hasn't used Ubuntu since early 2010. He has only a handful of posts since then, and I doubt he'll be back any time soon. Moreover, there have been several threads about Canonical's purported failure to contribute to Linux over the years. I think this thread can be safely closed.

[grahammechanical]

From the little research that I have done, it seems to me that when Redhat installs an OS for a customer it does not install Fedora but a Redhat version of Fedora.

Whereas, when Canonical installs an OS for a customer it installs the same desktop and server versions as that are available for download to anybody.

According to the logic of the OP Microsoft must be doing a better job for Linux than Canonical because there are statistics showing Microsoft as giving more patches to Linux than Canonical.

"If statistics are correct. And statistics show they are ...."

Regards.