You mean Canonical? Well, the article was about public US companies. Canonical is neither, it's private, and it's registered in the UK.
> [..] registered in the UK.
Actually, it's registered in the Isle of Man, which is a self-governing island that is not technically part of the UK.
My mistake, I didn't know that. I looked for the information on where they are registered on their legal page http://www.canonical.com/legal, and it simply states 'United Kingdom'. Anyway, the point stands - they're not a US company.
It's not about distributions, it's about companies. Canonical is not a for-profit, publicly traded company so it doesn't really fit this comparison between sun, redhat and novel.
Canonical are a for-profit company IIRC, however they are not publically traded and not "cash flow positive" ;)
Not sure why you were downvoted, it's called "Canonical Ltd." and besides, you can't trade stock in a not-for-profit company; parent was way off the mark.
I think emarcotte was wrong about "for-profit," but right about "not . . . publicly traded."
You're right; I mentally transposed 'not a', which gives the sentence a different spin.