Slashdot Log In
Is Ubuntu Selling Out or Growing Up?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Apr 30, 2008 03:17 PM
from the six-of-one dept.
from the six-of-one dept.
AlexGr notes an article by Jeff Gould where he says "
Sometimes I wonder whether Ubuntu is really an open source software company any more.
Yes, yes, I realize Ubuntu is not a company at all but a free Linux distribution, GPL'd and open source by definition. But still, the Ubuntu distro is sponsored by a traditional for-profit company. The answer that has recently emerged to this question is, "yes and no."
Yes, of course, because Ubuntu's web site promises that the distro "will always be free of charge, including enterprise releases and security updates." But Ubuntu the enterprise ecosystem — understood as the collection of desktops and servers running Ubuntu in a given organization — is not."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Just how is Canonical making money, anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just how is Canonical making money, anyway? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Paid Support Just Like RedHat's RHEL (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(While RH sold boxed distros for the longest time, it was more to build name recognition. They never really made money until they switched to the subscription model.)
Re:Paid Support Just Like RedHat's RHEL (Score:5, Interesting)
* Best gui install and package tools:
1) Ubuntu (synaptic)
2) RHEL (yumex)
3) SuSE (yast)
* Fewest unnecessary applications running and listening to open network ports (portmap, nfs, xfs,
1) Ubuntu
2) SuSE
3) RHEL
* Do pkg deinstalls also remove dependencies:
YES) Ubuntu
NO) SuSE, RHEL
* Best hardware compatibility (wifi drivers, etc):
1) Ubuntu
2) SuSE
3) RHEL
As to support, no Linux support is particularly good from my perspective (as a multi-decade sysadmin) and none compare to the Sun or IBM of old. That's the fault of poorly documented and sloppily designed GPL software for the most part, but also of proprietary x86 hardware manufacturers.
So there's a really big opportunity here, for the first company to do Linux support well. Ubuntu is currently the most promising candidate in this field, by a large margin (from the perspective of someone who works on all these OS and several others every day).
Parent
Re:Just how is Canonical making money, anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)
As for how they make their money, I think they primarily earn revenue by selling support for Ubuntu. You know, so, like, a business installs Ubuntu on its servers or on a bunch of desktops or something, they can purchase a support agreement for those computers from Canonical.
Parent
Re:Just how is Canonical making money, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
When I first started using Linux, I used Debian because of apt and because the ideology appealed to me. Then I immediately started making compromises in the name of getting shit done and having a difficult time installing and maintaining those compromises.
Ubuntu lets me make the choice to sell out in the name of getting shit done. Through the restricted and multiverse repositories, it makes it easy to do so. But it also lets me see exactly where I'm doing so, and makes it easy to stop doing so if I should wish, though of course not without consequences.
People who wish to be uncompromising in their principles or need the capacity to roll out systems with the confidence that they are not legally encumbered can do so, while people who respect the ideals but are ready to compromise can do so with foreknowledge and a minimum of fuss.
This is showing a great deal of respect for the positions of a great many users and would-be users.
Parent
Re:Just how is Canonical making money, anyway? (Score:4, Insightful)
Canonical sells tech support for people and companies that want to use its freely available distro. And that makes them bad.. how exactly?
I've managed to use Ubuntu (studio) for a couple of years now, and I've never needed any help beyond the Ubuntu users' forum (which didn't cost me a cent). If this is Canonical's insidious plan to enrich themselves outrageously, I don't think it's such a good one.
It's possible to have a successful company, and make a profit and create some jobs and not have to be rapacious and crave endless and metastasizing growth. But rather, "just do well". Be successful, pay the bills, pay the salaries, and leave something behind.
I think it makes them exactly what business ought to be, and was before the VC-craze turned every other MBA into the business equivalent of malignant melanoma.
Parent
They don't make money (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth [wikipedia.org]
He's basically putting up all the money for the operation on the vague hope that it will pay off someday. They really don't have a business model, just a really generous investor/CEO.
So... it's basically a charity based operating system.
Which raise the point, why is this douchebag
http://www.interopnews.com/news/is-ubuntu-selling-out-or-growing-up.html [interopnews.com]
writing an article about how the company is "selling out" by making some very small moves to make money off of an operating system they spend large amounts of money on, and give away for free?
It kind of pisses me off that random internet idiots who don't make software for a living call anyone who tries to a "sellout."
The article mentions that they are trying to recoup a small amount of the money they are dumping into Canonical by selling some proprietary software.
So what? I'm sick and tired of internet morons tearing apart people that actually have to work for a living. It's not enough that they give away most of their software for free and under an open source license, but if they charge for *anything*, if you develop one line of proprietary code and sell it to make a buck, some random jerkoff will mouth off at you about how "software wants to be free," and you're "oppressing" them with your price tag and your non-gpl license.
Free software isn't a business model. None of the distros that don't make you pay money *per install* make any money. Canonical loses money, Suse loses money. The only people who make money making operating systems do so by selling some proprietary code, or (as with red hat) devising schemes to make people pay money for shrink wrapped copies of open source code. Ubuntu has by far taken the least obnoxious approach, i.e. giving away most of their software, and letting you use their repository for free updates (which others don't do), but developing some proprietary stuff they let you buy separately.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well thats really a nice way to shoot your own developers in the foot isn't it. Make it literally impossible to build a business model on selling software, like it was going out of style (its not), then scramble to find other ways to pay your own developers.
That's the shift people need to catch. Business models that depend on revenue from selling software is on the way out. Business models that generate revenue from supporting software are the future.
The internet is drastically changing many business models (e.g. news, movie, music, communication industries). Businesses will either adapt and flourish or drag their feet and die a slow painful death. This is a lesson that we can trivially derive from many times in human history.
And your point is...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
WILL THE PUNDITS OF THE WORLD PLEASE STOP EQUATING "OPEN SOURCE" WITH "COMMUNISM"!!!
(and yes, I am intentionally shouting--I don't even own a "caps lock" key, <adding some filler here to get past the lameness filter...>)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
SOCIALISM was the stepping stone between Capitalism and Communism.
Neither Communism or Anarchism (one is an economic model, the other is a political model so it's apples to oranges anyways) says that every one is equal.
Communism says that all property should be held in common, and Anarchism says that laws should be abolished.
Neither one is the same as Totalitarianism, Fascism, or Dictatoriship(ism?) (which are all political models).
Socialism is where a political party or a branch of the go
The problem is (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it is one of the problem OSS faces in terms of getting more companies to adopt that style. For every person that is actually honest about simply wanting the freedom to modify their software, but being perfectly ok with still paying for it, it seems there is at least one person who just wants a free lunch, and only spouts OSS dogma because they believe it'll lead to them getting more for free.
Parent
and more to the point (Score:2)
If everything must be open then I suggest: (Score:5, Funny)
But you're right to focus on those Canonical bastards. They don't even post all their bank account and password details!
I really have no idea what you're talking about (Score:5, Insightful)
It follows that Canonincal has to offer something that they charge for. And seeing as they've pledged that the distribution itself remains free, it makes sense that the things they charge for are the kind of things a business might need and might be prepared to pay for - support and bells and whistles that aren't in the free version and frankly aren't terribly relevant to the individual with one or two systems.
Re: (Score:2)
he writes but he says nothing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It can be a way of doing business, but it isn't some corporonazi mammon worshiping religion, either. Open source simply does what you need it to do the way you want it to do what you want. If you want to use it for business, it can be used for that. If you want to simply give, it can be used for that as well.
And I though vi vs emacs was bad...
this whole free speech and the internet thing have gone too far.
I'll leave it to the younger slashdotters to flame you for that particular p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Suck it up. Freedom is nearly a religion to me, and one of my highest values is that random jackasses get to say things I disagree with. How about this next time someone riles you: don't listen to them. They have as much right to be as vocally wrong as you do.
Free (Score:5, Insightful)
They are questioning whether or not Ubuntu classifies as open source, because the parent company might want to make money. The entire preposition here is flawed and silly.
Should web-apps be open source? (Score:5, Insightful)
So his complaint amounts to: "Sure they give you the source code for all distributed binaries, but they don't give you the source code for a subscription-based online service that they run."
For those of us who believe in software freedom, the question is really "does software freedom extend to web services?" Is providing someone with a web service akin to providing them with a binary? That is, you should give them access to the source code (where I'm using "should" as shorthand for "it's the free software thing to do").
The fact is that this is a point of contention in the community. It was debated considerably during the writing of GPLv3. Both sides have valid points: on the one hand, an online service isn't distributing software to end-users. On the other hand, this may be a "loophole" that allows companies to modify free software, but deny the eventual users of that software the ability to use the changes or further modify the code.
The author was inherently assuming that not providing code for web services was non-free. But really that's an unfinished debate, and he should have pointed out the nuances.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I got about 1/3 of the way through TFA, mentally tagged it as BS and came back to watch the fireforks. I never got to the quoted part and I missed the point of the article.
And this is indeed an interesting debate for me as I'm in an GPL'd code project that could be monetized with an optional web service.
I fail to see the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
If they start data-mining Ubuntu computers for profit or something just as devious - THAT's a problem.
I'm going to use Ubuntu as long as it remains free of evil and cost. If one of those changes, I'll move along to a different distro, but as long as they have the most easy to use open-source desktop environment and continue to develop this project as quickly and as beautifully as they are I'll continue to use it - simple as that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who? What? (Score:2)
But then I got to wondering -- who is this tool? There's no Wikipedia entry for him, and googling doesn't really produce anything helpful. So should the title of the
What a rediculous article (Score:2)
It's not like Suse or Redhat that have (or had) significant differences between the free and commercial versions of their products.
If you never talk to Canonical, or give them a penny, you will still have a completely open, fr
Twice! (Score:2)
It's not only diculous, it's re-diculous!
They must really feel the ridicule, I guess.
So? (Score:2)
They have to make money somewhere. Everyone knows Ubuntu is free because it's a hook to get companies, eventually, to sign up for support. So what?
What is he talkin bout? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's "whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis". And, if possible, there should be some indication that the phrase is spoken in a comically low tone.
Yes (Score:2)
And the point is? (Score:2)
After reading the article, it appears that his gripe is that Canonical has a closed-source proprietary systems management function that you have to pay for if you want to use it. Oh, the horror! They actually want to make money, and even worse, aren't a "pure" open-source company!
Maybe I'm unusual for thinking this, but if you're going to have a support personnel and professional programmers on staff, it follows that you need a revenue stream, since most of them are real big on getting paid. There is no
That's the point (Score:2)
A large part of the FOSS movement is about making money. The FOSS philosophy posits that freely distributing code and encourage others to share and share alike creates more value than closing it off and slapping a price tag on the bits. While "everyone can review and modify sourcecode" is true in principle--not everyone has the knowledge or desire to do so and are willing to pay people to modify code how they want it.
Also, enterprise customers want support contracts and they'll pay quite a lot for that.
Mod submission down (Score:3, Funny)
Are Ubuntu and Canonical the same? (Score:2)
Religion vs Reality (Score:2, Insightful)
But seriously â" let's look at Ubuntu for a moment. It's one of the freest and most principled distributions o
Did they... (Score:2)
Call me crazy, but I regard for-profit organization initially not with hatred, but suspicion and skepticism. Here we have Canonical, they support Ubuntu, which I and many other people enjoy and like. Shouldn't that be worth some moral credit? Have they done something horrible and evil that outweighs the good of supporting Ubuntu?
Don't get me wrong, I hate Microsoft, but I hate them for REASONS. Namely, they're products aren't very good and are often very bad, they
OSS people needs to eat too? (Score:2)
Is this serious? IHBT? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ubuntu is good (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I think he has a point (Score:3, Insightful)
The point that Canonical tries to have it both ways - that (despite the clarity in distinguishing them in the OS) it isn't entirely opensource in practice, but it wants to act as if it were to market itself to opensource advocates - well, he has a valid point.
That said - it is, essentially, calling them on a marketing decision. Fair enough - they are allowed to make a marketing decision which is deceptive without being dishonest, he is allowed to call them on it.
But saying that they have a product which is not open source, and that in turn means they're selling out? Umm - no. Maybe it means they are not pure of heart and soul, but I'm okay with that. Most companies that support opensource aren't doing out of some deep, abiding divine spark. I seem to recall IBM has one or two closed source products lying around somewhere - .
There *is* a dichotomy between making opensource products and making a sell-able product, and I haven't seen a good way to make a profit *just* selling a useful product as open source yet, without incurring some kind of subscription based support service for it.
If someone can come up with a way to make GPL'd open source product so well made it doesn't *need* support, and still manage to sell the darn thing and make money at it, they will resolve this dichotomy. I'm not sure I see how to do it (yet), but it seems to me to be the problem that needs resolved.
Pug
Follow the money (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the reasons Shuttleworth founded Canonical was to fund Ubuntu. He tossed enough cash at the Ubuntu Foundation ($USD10 million) to make sure it would be viable for a good long time. He's smart enough to want to make sure Ubuntu keeps being funded, so he made sure there would be a steady stream of income.
He also founded the Shuttleworth Foundation, which is focused on education. One of the things you need for that in this day and age is....computers. If you don't want your child's education to be held hostage by a for-profit corporation, one of the things you need is a free-as-in-speech operating system to run all your important education software on.
Does anyone seriously think setting up this particular chain is an accident? An education foundation that emphasizes the need for Free software, a user-friendly Linux distribution, and a revenue source?
I'm as skeptical as the next guy, but Shuttleworth comes off as some kind of Heinlein-esque hero.
Re:brick (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Boot to a Live-CD. Chroot, go into grub, have it setup the MBR, and presto!
Re: (Score:2)
That's a completely foreign concept to someone who would say
All I know is that upgrading to Hoary bricked my PC, I can't even boot into XP anymore
I've been bitching about XP's contiunually rebooting until it "catches" and reaches the desktop while Mandriva boots right up with no complaints, but I finally found our why it was doing that.
The power supply was on its way south. My PC is now truly bricked, at least until I replace the power supply.
Re: (Score:2)
In Springfield [slashdot.org], a thitd of the way between the two cities, wearing either hat in a bar may result in severe bodily injury. Use at your own peril. [bbc.co.uk]