Is Ubuntu Selling Out or Growing Up? 345
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."
Just how is Canonical making money, anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just how is Canonical making money, anyway? (Score:5, Funny)
Paid Support Just Like RedHat's RHEL (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
With Redhat having proven that a Linux support company can stay the distance and make money it should be easier for Canonical to do the same.
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).
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Ubuntu lets me make the choice to sell out in the name of getting shit done.
To me it's a bit so that in order to sell something out, you must have been there in the first place. I think I speak for about 99% of all computer users when I say that we weren't raised on free and sold out to semi-free, we grew up on DOS, Windows, MacOS, OS/2, AmigaOS and the like. To the vast, vast majority of people the alternative is their full-proprietary desktop and Ubuntu+restricted+multiverse+other "ugly" repos is a half-full glass rather than a half-empty glass. Most of you are supposed to be IT
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, I'm a little dumb and all, but I thought that Ubuntu was just Debian with a great install and update system...but everything on it is all in Debian, yes? So if you install this, you have a Debian install, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Many people who use Debian for a personal system, tend to run Debian Testing. A somewhat smaller number run Debian Unstable. Only servers and people with such mission critical needs use Debian Stable.
Ubuntu is a six monthly freeze snapshot of Debian Unstable. They freeze it, fix bugs in it, put the bugfixes upstream and then release it.
So, it isn't n
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.
I disagree :) (Score:2)
a: you can have the systems without the support (aka support it yourself), and
b: selling support is infinitely greater than charging for the distro. People always need support. People don't always need more copies of the distro. Distro free also = no piracy.
I seem to recall that there are companies out there that have techs who know how to handle their own Ubuntu servers, no?
What really makes me wonder is that since it's open source, and people know what landscape is designed to do, w
Re: (Score:2)
Very similar to how I can choose to not get an extended warranty from my PC Supplier, or choose to get a 3 year NBD
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, the value of having techs who are inexperienced with Ubuntu who are essentially learning via talking with paid support on a big business is probably priceless for future support and training as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Go troll elsewhere.
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:2)
Not quite. Communism says that, not only are all people equal, but that all people own all the property. As defined my Marx, true Communism only occurs when the means of production are owned and shared by the workers.
In this sense, Open Source is actually rather close to communism, in the sense that a GPL tool is free for all to use, share and modify.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is NOT a principle that say everyone is equal, it pretty much says the opposite. If it said everyone was equal, it would be Anarchism.
In fact, Communism attempts to provide only equality of outcome and ostensibly equality of opportunity as well. Free health care i
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really virtually every band and tribe-level society in history is basically communist.
The hard part is finding a state-level example. Which just tells me that communism is a perfectly fine philosophy that cannot scale to large populations. Lots of things work in small populations that don't scale to large ones, and vice versa.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I got into an exchange with a guy via email a few years back about my open source software because he wanted a user manual for it, and I couldn't do one as fast as he wanted.
The thing was, he didn't seem to grasp that I was too busy, and as he wouldn't be paying for it (I didn't ask, but he never offered), I was pretty much free to set my own timetable for
Re: (Score:2)
I have been known to register a free product to not only support it but to also get a shiney printed manual. It seems that manuals are a logical area to offer a pay-for upgrade while still having a free base product. Maybe Canonical could so
and more to the point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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!
Re: (Score:2)
That's enough to allow for a cloned AMD or Intel CPU if you were so inclined.
Infact, this is why there is an AMD.
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer that has recently emerged to this question is, "yes and no."
:)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prep`o*si"tion\, n. [L. praepositio, fr. praeponere to place before; prae before + ponere to put, place: cf. F. pr['e]position. See Position, and cf. Provost.]
1. (Gram.) A word employed to connect a noun or a pronoun, in an adjectival or adverbial sense, with some other word; a particle used with a noun or pronoun (in English always in the objective case) to make a phrase limiting some other word; -- so called because usually placed before the word with which it is phrased; as, a bridge of iron;
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually this debate was finally settled in what is now called "the Massachusetts Beer Party of 2008". During which it was agreed that not providing code for web services is still considered "free" so long as you provide Richard Stallman (and the software's author(s) - which was included as an amendment after 3 hours of lengthy debate) w
Re: (Score:2)
Which is, of course, pure unadulterated bullshit. There's nothing that prevents anyone from running closed source code on an open source kernel.
That right there is proof enough that the author has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.
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:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.glgroup.com/Council-Member/Jeff-Gould-110923.html [glgroup.com]
CEO
Peerstone Research
Member of the Technology Council
Jeff Gould is the Chief Executive Officer and Director of Research at Peerstone Research. He produces primary research and independent analysis focused on enterprise applications software, middleware software and server hardware.
Mr. Gould uses proprietary primary research to identify and quantify the impact of emerging
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)
Re: (Score:2)
And i never said it was a good or bad thing, only that its happening. That is a debate i wont even get into.
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)
Flamebait (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with trying to make money off of F/OSS software. In reality, here on Earth, people need to provide for themselves and their loved ones. Ubuntu is embracing a very unique model in that they give away software, and even hire coders to work on the software they give back to the community. Who cares if they charge for support? There is still a HUGE, FREE community backing it. You don't have to pay Canonical for su
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there is - it's WORKING. =)
Re: (Score:2)
What the parent was trying to say is that by using a model where you can make money doesn't mean that you have sold out.
The article is content-free (Score:2)
You type an address, they mail you a stack of CDs (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this serious? IHBT? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ubuntu is good (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Where do I moderate this article -10 Stupid? (Score:2)
Anybody that starts with a premise stating that open source and making money are contradictory should no longer be allowed to spread his ignorance.
something seems to be missing from your comment (Score:2)
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
I Predicted This (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Boot to a Live-CD. Chroot, go into grub, have it setup the MBR, and presto!
Re: (Score:2)
If you are using SATA drives, pay close attention to how your drives are mapped by linux. I ran into the same problem recently with Gutsy, turns out that Linux and the Bios disagree with how to order my SATA drives. Updating grub to use the linux-side hard drive numbers fixed it.
HTH
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Idiotic Iguana
Jobless Jaguar
Kolpophobic Kangaroo
Lustful Lynx
Menstruating Moose
I think that's proof of Ubuntu growing up a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that the H release has been released already? Anyways, you could always refer to it as Ubuntu X.04, or X.10.
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, a lot of people still continue to use the pre-release code name, even press. Even package qualifiers use the code name.
Free as in Speech / Free as in Beer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)