PDA

View Full Version : Ubuntu One



Pages : 1 [2]

benj1
June 1st, 2009, 01:49 AM
That was a comment solely about the practicalities of using Mint Upload and not at all about Ubuntu One.

then my apologies.

i think this amazon thing annoys me even more, one of the main pro arguments for ubuntu one seems to be that it will make money to reinvest in ubuntu, now most of its going to go to amazon, we also now have to rely on amazon being open with apis etc, they seem to have a fairly good track record and seem to 'get' open source but they havent exactly contributed much.

gn2
June 1st, 2009, 02:09 AM
It looks to me like both Amazon and Canonical will make money from Ubuntu One.

For me the security and control of the storage is the main problem with the cloud.
Will businesses entrust their storage to cloud suppliers?
I know the one I work for never will.

Individual private users shouldn't rely on these services as back-up solutions either, it might be convenient for handy access in multiple locations but you're at the mercy of the supplier of the storage.

Personally I would rather just carry a big capacity flash drive around than pay to rent server space from the likes of Ubuntu One.

Anzan
June 1st, 2009, 02:09 AM
Apparently not, it looks to me like the server side will be handled by Amazon Web Services:



Source (http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/05/hands-on-canonical-aims-for-the-cloud-with-new-ubuntu-one.ars/2).

A quick search reveals the agreement for Amazon Web Services: http://aws.amazon.com/agreement/
Clause 6 makes intersting reading: http://aws.amazon.com/agreement/#6

Doesn't look to me like Canonical have any ownership of the server side software at all and are effectively just operating as middleman between Ubuntu users and Amazon.


.

Ah, I see now. Thank you for this.

In the bug thread (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubunet/+bug/375345), Mark Shuttleworth said:


> > Is there any intention to make the server side open at some point?
> >
> There are lots of moving parts. Some of those are already open, some
> will end up open, others may not. As far as I can tell there's no data
> lock-in on any of the new services (they are all replications of your
> existing data which is available offline) and there's no intent to
> create such data lock-in.
>
> Mark,

If Ubuntu One depends upon Amazon then there's not much Canonical can promise about what Amazon will do.

While I wish that Mark had been explicit about that point, I can see why he would not want to point at Amazon and say so.

I use Gmail and and Google Docs and, while I feel cautious, the sheer utility of ubiqitous access has made that worthwhile. Especially since it is trivial to strip everything from there if that Cloud becomes stormy.

So I feel comfortable that Canonical is doing the best that they can to provide the best that they can given they are in business.

dmizer
June 1st, 2009, 02:24 AM
Just to be clear (though it's already been said), Ubuntu One is NOT proprietary only the server is proprietary. The protocol is open source (https://launchpad.net/ubuntuone-storage-protocol), so anyone can make an Ubuntu One compatible server.

gn2
June 1st, 2009, 02:30 AM
Just to be clear (though it's already been said), Ubuntu One is NOT proprietary. The protocol is open source (https://launchpad.net/ubuntuone-storage-protocol), so anyone can make an Ubuntu One compatible server.

Anyone who has the required skills that is.....
(rules me out for starters!)

How about Canonical setting it's developers to creating such an open source server side solution and releasing it to us, so that we can install it on our own hardware and not have to pay a rental charge for Ubuntu One?

Think I may have answered my own question there. :rolleyes:

monsterstack
June 1st, 2009, 03:09 AM
Just to be clear (though it's already been said), Ubuntu One is NOT proprietary. The protocol is open source (https://launchpad.net/ubuntuone-storage-protocol), so anyone can make an Ubuntu One compatible server.

Thanks for that (https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubunet/+bug/375272) [launchpad.net].



Elliot Murphy wrote on 2009-05-13:
Hi Corey, there are currently no plans or roadmap to open-source the server software part of Ubuntu One.

dmizer
June 1st, 2009, 03:15 AM
I didn't say that the server software wasn't closed source. The protocol (as linked above) is open. So anyone can make a compatibile server. This means that (given someone develops a compatible server ... which is quite possible), you have no vendor lockin.

monsterstack
June 1st, 2009, 03:25 AM
I didn't say that the server software wasn't closed source. The protocol (as linked above) is open. So anyone can make a compatibile server. This means that (given someone develops a compatible server ... which is quite possible), you have no vendor lockin.

The protocols are free, but it is disingenuous to say that Ubuntu One is not proprietary.

wgrant
June 1st, 2009, 07:50 AM
Just to be clear (though it's already been said), Ubuntu One is NOT proprietary. The protocol is open source (https://launchpad.net/ubuntuone-storage-protocol), so anyone can make an Ubuntu One compatible server.

Parts of Ubuntu One are not proprietary.

fatality_uk
June 1st, 2009, 07:55 AM
So apparently, Mr. Shuttleworth wasn't sitting in his secret lair, plotting the global downfall of FOSS by introducing nasty bad code into Ubuntu.

He bought in a Amazon EC2/S3 service and made it very easy to sync to such a service and also provided us with this for free or a small monthly charge :)

What a total and utter ********** ** :D

Foaming Draught
June 1st, 2009, 08:03 AM
I must be thicker than I thought. How is this different from what I already do with Google and my IMAP e-mail provider (both free as in beer)? And I can upload, view and retrieve those files via any browser on any machine, smart phone or PDA, anywhere, it doesn't need to be my own Ubuntu-powered device. At work, I'm unfortunate enough to be saddled with a Windows desktop, but that doesn't stop me cloud computing.

If I understand UbuntuOne (and perhaps I don't), I can only use the service on a device running the client.

Please put me right, because of course I'd like to support Canonical as a small thank you for all that they've done to enhance my computing experience over the past several years (Yes, yes, I know it's countless community contributors, but Shuttleworth provided the initial oomph and much funding subsequently). I just can't see a commercial model in this which isn't already offered by Google and (for example) Fastmail.

wgrant
June 1st, 2009, 08:06 AM
Apparently not, it looks to me like the server side will be handled by Amazon Web Services:

...snip...

Doesn't look to me like Canonical have any ownership of the server side software at all and are effectively just operating as middleman between Ubuntu users and Amazon.


I don't think you quite understand how Amazon's EC2 and S3 work. Anybody can use them to run their applications, or store their data. They're just network services which do pretty raw stuff - EC2 provides virtual server environments, and S3 stores arbitrary blobs of data in a non-hierarchical model. They are services on which the Ubuntu One server software is built. There is probably no special relationship between Amazon and Canonical, and no Amazon code in Ubuntu One - Ubuntu One just uses the Amazon Web Services protocols and backends behind the scenes, like any other application.

It should be easy, for example, to port the Ubuntu One server to run on Eucalyptus, a Free Software reimplementation of some of the Amazon Web Services.

gn2
June 1st, 2009, 09:16 AM
I don't think you quite understand how Amazon's EC2 and S3 work.

You are correct, before last night (UK time) I had no knowledge whatsoever of Amazon EC2 and S3 and I suspect that many people participating in this debate may not know much about them either.


Anybody can use them to run their applications, or store their data. They're just network services which do pretty raw stuff - EC2 provides virtual server environments, and S3 stores arbitrary blobs of data in a non-hierarchical model. They are services on which the Ubuntu One server software is built. There is probably no special relationship between Amazon and Canonical, and no Amazon code in Ubuntu One - Ubuntu One just uses the Amazon Web Services protocols and backends behind the scenes, like any other application.

It should be easy, for example, to port the Ubuntu One server to run on Eucalyptus, a Free Software reimplementation of some of the Amazon Web Services.

So what is the time frame for Canonical porting to such a "Free Software reimplementation"?
Shouldn't take long if it's easy...
Are plans for porting to a FOSS solution in place?
Or will Canonical just continue the commercial relationship as customer of Amazon and continue to use Amazon's proprietary enabling software?
Who owns the server hardware on which Ubuntu One users will store their data and where is it physically located?

wgrant
June 1st, 2009, 09:41 AM
...snip...
So what is the time frame for Canonical porting to such a "Free Software reimplementation"?
Shouldn't take long if it's easy...


They probably don't have any timeframe - there is little incentive to not use AWS, and it's much easier to have Amazon manage the physical servers.



Are plans for porting to a FOSS solution in place?


As above. You'd really have to ask Canonical.



Or will Canonical just continue the commercial relationship as customer of Amazon and continue to use Amazon's proprietary enabling software?


Proprietary enabling software? Canonical is using some of Amazon's provided APIs, which are an interface into proprietary software. The Ubuntu One server is not unlike the Ubuntu One client, in this respect.



Who owns the server hardware on which Ubuntu One users will store their data and where is it physically located?

Amazon would own the hardware, and it would probably be in an Amazon DC somewhere. IIRC they have S3 offered with US and Europe regions.

gn2
June 1st, 2009, 10:03 AM
Thanks for those replies wgrant, you've told me all I need to know. :)

Anzan
June 1st, 2009, 12:38 PM
Yes indeed, wgrant. All is much clearer. Thank you.

Flimm
June 1st, 2009, 07:53 PM
I must be thicker than I thought. How is this different from what I already do with Google and my IMAP e-mail provider (both free as in beer)? And I can upload, view and retrieve those files via any browser on any machine, smart phone or PDA, anywhere, it doesn't need to be my own Ubuntu-powered device. At work, I'm unfortunate enough to be saddled with a Windows desktop, but that doesn't stop me cloud computing.
Easy. They have different names, different brands, different communities and different promises. Google has never promised that they will always be gratis and free as in freedom. Ubuntu has.
I'm not really dead against cloud computing, or even proprietary software. But I believe in calling things what they are. When you install proprietary drivers in Ubuntu, you get disclaimers making sure that the user understands that the driver is not Ubuntu and is not Ubuntu's responsibility. Will we get disclaimers like that for Ubuntu One?

gn2
June 1st, 2009, 09:08 PM
When you install proprietary drivers in Ubuntu, you get disclaimers making sure that the user understands that the driver is not Ubuntu and is not Ubuntu's responsibility. Will we get disclaimers like that for Ubuntu One?

No need, because the part of Ubuntu One which will be installed on users' computers is FOSS.

Foaming Draught
June 1st, 2009, 11:01 PM
I still can't see how UbuntuOne is different in practice, in practical effect, (never mind the semantics of "Free") from how I already order my cyberlife? In fact, it seems to go backwards, because now I can retrieve, view, edit, upload my calendar, contacts, IMAP mail, files, images, documents on any browser-enabled device, anywhere, running any operating system. As I understand UbuntuOne, users will only be able to do that on a specific machine running Ubuntu and having the UbuntuOne client installed.

What am I missing?

thebear78
June 2nd, 2009, 12:25 AM
Hi Foaming Draught. We (Canonical employee here) have plans to support other distros and other OSs further along in the Beta. Currently, we're listening to user feedback, fixing bugs, and improving our infrastructure in order to support more Beta users.

As we check off the higher priority fixes, we'll spend more time on innovative file storage features, more robust developer resources, and new services in new areas.

jbruced
June 8th, 2009, 10:05 PM
@Canonical

All the success with this new project. Go for it!

After all,

"money makes the verld go 'round, the verld go 'round."

I'm signing up.

gn2
June 10th, 2009, 10:26 AM
I'm signing up.

You would be daft to do so without trialling Adrive first.

kevindontenville
July 3rd, 2009, 04:12 PM
To be honest I thought UbuntuOne was a version for the Acer Aspire One at first... ;-)

I think UbuntuOne and other similar ventures with OSS and FOSS bring out some of the weaknesses and dangers inherent in the commercial interactions and relationships with GPL style communities.

As a user community we need to exercise eternal vigilance as the brands we all help develop become more valuable and ripe for exploitation.

I think that using Ubuntu in the name was out of character with the past and general ethos of the Canonical/Ubuntu relationship.

I don't know, but if, due to the recession, there is quickly a need for more cashflow or financial support for Ubuntu development and this was seen as a route for generating said income then perhaps engaging the Ubuntu communities creativity would instead be a more inclusive and positive experience.

I have seen several projects wax and wane. Some get too far from their roots in the name of cash generation or the brand and software value was too attractive to resist selling out. I think we are right to remind Canonical that this is a community that cares about its philosophy.

Personally, I want Canonical to offer a great cloud based storage system for Ubuntu, Linux, Windows, Apple and more but I don't want it to dilute the perception of the Ubuntu brand in pursuit of short term cash.

With a commercial company holding the rights to our community name we are only as powerful as the noise and future choices we make.

At the high times who holds a trademark seems like an insignificant thing particularly when it comes to the fun of a project like Ubuntu. When something unexpected like this happens we suddenly feel exposed and vulnerable to a company. We can fear it may not share enough of our ideals and become quickly aware its only connection with us is on trust. It can feel like a betrayal even if it isn't.

Are we are being foolish accepting a commercial company and 'Daddy' Shuttleworth ;) to look after the trust and time we have invested them.

Ian Murdock, Debian Project founder was prevented by the Debian Project itself from using the Debian name even in a linked FOSS project. I would like to feel Ubuntu had similar options for protection yet never needed to employ them. Perhaps that confirmed to Mark Shuttleworth the risks of not having control ;-)

Aside from the trademark type stuff I really don't think UbuntuOne is a very good name for the service. It doesn't express much about the service especially if it will support wider distros and OS. It may put off other users because it sounds too Ubuntu. Ubuntu users would hear of the service via the forums and general chatter so its not needed for them. On those grounds I think it should change to aid the commercial success of Canonical.

I also think it should change because enough informed community members are uneasy about it and Canonical should do more than just listen to those anxieties. It should really have foreseen such feeling coming. I know Mark does like to shake things up, that's a good thing generally. Complacency is bad for democracy and communities and this may help slow down any damaging complacency.

So, suitably shaken awake, how do we move on?

1) Change the UbuntuOne name for the two reasons I mention - choose one that will associate with the style the service more. Commercially I don't see the benefit in weakening the brand, especially for so small a return.

2) I don't care if Canonical keeps the server software closed that's their prerogative both legally and morally. Landscape/Launchpad/1U can all be theirs alone.

3) Look for a better mechanism to protect the Ubuntu name. Perhaps extend the prohibitions of use to Canonical Ltd and use a Community/Canonical based council specifically to oversee the Trademark.

juancarlospaco
July 3rd, 2009, 06:59 PM
Canonical CAN (if they like) be permissive with the name,
and use it, and share it, if they like, because is they trademark.

Read the GNU aGPL for more info.

kevindontenville
July 3rd, 2009, 08:37 PM
Oh yes I understand that, I know the legal framework well. It is the morality and philisophy I am interested in. The real world is human based and requires trust and common purpose to be efective. Legal rights are intended to represent that not be an end in themselves. When legal rights don't work to support it, the divergence of common interests and purpose work against a community.

Vanishing
July 4th, 2009, 04:52 PM
"Ubuntu One" is fine as it is.
There is no point in arguing that.


I don't see any bug in that bug report.

Anzan
July 5th, 2009, 02:31 PM
The Community Council will be discussing it again on Tuesday, July 7th on ubuntu-meeting.

Flimm
July 6th, 2009, 11:02 AM
The Community Council will be discussing it again on Tuesday, July 7th on ubuntu-meeting.
Glad to hear that.

Anzan
July 8th, 2009, 01:46 AM
Glad to hear that.

They ran out of time.

Next CC meeting will be Tue, 21st July 11:00 UTC but basically


23:10 sabdfl we didn't reach consensus on the use of the Ubuntu name, I don't think it's productive to revisit that now
23:10 mako silbs issues sounded like a new issue (maybe a subset, but it was a distince new proposal/question)
23:11 sabdfl there's a new question, w.r.t. one.ubuntu.com which is being raised here rather than simply executed
23:11 sabdfl i asked that the domain be one.ubuntu.com, and it was felt better to raise it here than JFDI
23:11 sabdfl which is how that came to be on the agenda
23:11 sabdfl but we're out of time now

RealG187
July 10th, 2009, 04:20 AM
Don't they have to so that so nobody else will take the name. Imagine if they didn't trademark it and then Microsoft did!

zahidraf
July 10th, 2009, 07:53 AM
differnt people have differnt thinking open souce can be use by any one ..but he must have to comman on it .

kevindontenville
July 10th, 2009, 09:54 AM
I agree the name should be protected, but the control of the name should be alligned with the interests in it. That is not just the Canonical commercial side, which is vital but also all of us in the Ubuntu community.

Open Source works best when the interests are more alligned - authors, users, developers etc. Those committments and interests should be reflected in the systems of control and ownership.

It may be that the Ubuntu One name will increase the collective benefit but personally I haven't seen that argument successfully made.

Flimm
July 11th, 2009, 09:36 AM
They ran out of time.

Next CC meeting will be Tue, 21st July 11:00 UTC [...]
Bah.

scaine
July 25th, 2009, 05:03 PM
Well, that meeting was four days ago. Anyone got any links to minutes (assuming it's a public meeting)?

Incidentally, another thread (here) discussed the costs associated with the UbuntuOne product. I think they need a selling point over and above "$1 a month per Gb" for cloud storage, when you compare to their competitors in this space.

The main reason I want to see the minutes of the CC meeting, however, is to discover whether the inclusion by default of the UbuntuOne client in Karmic Koala is a final decision, or whether it's still up for debate.

I don't have any particular qualms (unlike many on this thread) about the naming of the UbuntuOne product, but I most certainly don't want it installed by default on every installation of Karmic I install - this is the first step on the rocky, downhill road of bloatware that I left behind in MS-land. I'd rather a "Getting Started" web page with apt-url links to install the client if it's of interest. They could promote many different services this way without offending the community.

Anzan
July 26th, 2009, 12:29 AM
I wasn't watching for the CC meeting and the IRC records for -meeting don't have anything I could quickly see.

However, my 9.10 alpha 3 install has Ubuntu One by default.

I haven't yet tested how it does with my files from my other 9.04 machines. Hopefully better than alpha 2 when I installed from the PPA.

andrea000
July 26th, 2009, 07:05 AM
I think i have posted here before but they give it to
you and they don't port it for any other o.s. they do
charge for more space but the price is only part of
the expense for the extra hardware and man hours it
takes to keep the service up and running.I know i
don't need more then 2gig of space and this is a
great service and has proved it will only get better
over time.

wbutchart
August 3rd, 2009, 11:31 PM
I can add the newbie side to this, I was on ubuntu left for mac but things such as this (ubuntu one) are making me look again.

I think its vital canonical look for ways to make money, I mean how on earth are they to fund the things they do (the new coders etc?) do we really expect Mark to continually dip into his pocket - and these are the moral leaders?. No its unrealistic and unfair, and most important it will not succeed!. How is the ubuntu one causing problems with a free operating system? it is not, ubuntu will continue to be free! Ubuntu one is a seperate project, whats the problem?. It offers a service that is needed by loads of people, it even has a free option!.

I see no point of arguing about it, I see no reason for ubuntu to exist to bleed an individual dry when the smallest amount of financial savvy says make some money to make the product better.

Just my two cents.

Anzan
August 4th, 2009, 03:24 PM
Canonical is also really putting forward its support services.

irishbreakfast
August 19th, 2009, 12:32 PM
I've not read all the messages in this thread. But I caught a few that prompted me to think that some folks are confusing free and libre. A clear explanation is in a WikiEducator tutorial, "What is free content?". The second page, link below, refers to "The essential freedoms", GNU, and Richard Stallman.

http://www.wikieducator.org/Wikieducator_tutorial/What_is_free_content/Freedom_as_concept

evets
August 23rd, 2009, 04:10 PM
Perhaps respect and concern for the community should have dictated a different name. Maybe they will acquiesce in this regard.

However, in that they made a business decision, in extremely hard economic times, to develop a proprietary product and market it, does not alter or distort their public or community image, contribution, promise or reputation one iota.

Everybody deserves to get paid for their work. Some get paid in fiat, and some in benefit. A corporation needs fiat, a community needs benefit.

My hat's off to Canonical, it's principles, employees, and community contributors! Karmic rocks, btw!:)

Bharath
September 15th, 2009, 09:03 AM
Please keep canonical and ubuntu business areas seperate. Use of names must adhere to vision (philosopy).

"Canonical One" looks fine for me...... that way Canonical can promote the brand (name) as well...

Ubuntu is community...... effort

Bharath

kevindontenville
September 15th, 2009, 11:25 AM
I agree Canonical should make money, should commercially gain benefit from its investment in Ubuntu and it's community. I just think they should not blur the Free/Free philosophy of Ubuntu with fees and proprietary software. CanonicalOne is fine for a commercial service Canonical deliver, or any other non-Ubuntu-esque name.

Ubuntu rests on Debian and the work given freely by its members and community so I think they deserve to be credited for much of what happens within Ubuntu. It isnt just Canonical as a magnanamous organization that delivers Ubuntu, or even Debian, it is a vast and diverse collection of people all contibuting to all that Ubuntu is built on and with.

Please do not confuse clarity of purpose and mission with a mad belief it can all be free of all costs. Everything costs something but not everything need cost money or be driven by the pursuit of it. Ubuntu and Canonical are not the same thing.

gonzomalan
October 14th, 2009, 03:12 AM
I think its vital canonical look for ways to make money, I mean how on earth are they to fund the things they do (the new coders etc?) do we really expect Mark to continually dip into his pocket - and these are the moral leaders?. No its unrealistic and unfair, and most important it will not succeed!. How is the ubuntu one causing problems with a free operating system? it is not, ubuntu will continue to be free! Ubuntu one is a seperate project, whats the problem?. It offers a service that is needed by loads of people, it even has a free option!.

i take it you haven't read anything by Stallman, the originator of the term "free software". the only reason he could continue to make free software is because he sold it.
remember: the software liked by the FOSS community makes its source code available. that's the issue here with Ubuntu One: the source code on the server side is not made "free", or even "open".
i feel the more free software there is, the better free software there can be. there is no need that i know of to make the source code closed for security reasons.

Yeti can't ski
November 4th, 2009, 10:20 PM
This Ubuntu One thing sounds a lot like those AOL CDs of the past, which were distributed in the most unsual and invasive forms.

I am deeply disappointed. Canonical has granted itself a commercial Trojan horse to the desktop of millions of users.

If I go to Applications>Internet I find an icon of a non-free software/project which I never chose to install. It is a privilege that no other stakeholder of the Ubuntu Project (Dell, HP and, above all, the Community of users) has.

ubuntu-freak
November 4th, 2009, 11:58 PM
This Ubuntu One thing sounds a lot like those AOL CDs of the past, which were distributed in the most unsual and invasive forms.

I am deeply disappointed. Canonical has granted itself a commercial Trojan horse to the desktop of millions of users.

If I go to Applications>Internet I find an icon of a non-free software/project which I never chose to install. It is a privilege that no other stakeholder of the Ubuntu Project (Dell, HP and, above all, the Community of users) has.
Firefox is free software, but takes you to sites and services that are non-free. The Ubuntu One application does the same thing, so I don't see much difference in that regard.

Vadi
November 5th, 2009, 02:21 PM
Go start up your own syncing software. Buy servers. Make them free for people.

Then talk about it replacing Ubuntu One!

Yeti can't ski
November 5th, 2009, 06:12 PM
Firefox is free software, but takes you to sites and services that are non-free. The Ubuntu One application does the same thing, so I don't see much difference in that regard.

Agreed, this is not a matter of sin, evil, purity or absolutely forbidden strategies. It is only an issue of where to draw the line and let it be transparent to everyone so that people can regulate their expectations (note: some folks don't see Ffox as FOOS but I'm not of them; moreover we cannot forget that Mozilla Foundation is non-profit).

My problem is that I (humbly and personally) get the feeling that the line is being slowly redrawn in the Ubuntu/Canonical area, from more community oriented to more commercial oriented. I am sure about the good faith of Canonical no conspiracy theory on my side and thankful for their hard work, but things like the following (in addition to Ubuntu One) concern me somewhat:


The Ubuntu Software Center is a graphical utility for package management in Ubuntu. [...] In version 2, the primary goals are to take the place of Synaptic and gdebi, and to include ratings and reviews of software. In version 3, we plan to offer commercial software for sale. [...] Unifying the interface will make handling software easier, [...] and provide a prominent showcase for Ubuntu and partner software

Source: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter

Sudden changes are easy to notice. The dangerous ones are those that take place slowly (boiling frog anecdote). If it keeps going like this, it will arrive the day in which we will all have pop-ups of Ebay offers upon log-in and will have to buy third parties plug-ins in order to have full functionality in the system.

benj1
November 5th, 2009, 08:06 PM
Go start up your own syncing software. Buy servers. Make them free for people.

Then talk about it replacing Ubuntu One!

what like backblaze (http://www.backblaze.com/)?, uses open source software and open source hardware design

Vadi
November 5th, 2009, 11:02 PM
but it's not free. these people want the stuff for free. doesn't run on ubuntu either.

benj1
November 6th, 2009, 12:56 AM
but it's not free. these people want the stuff for free. doesn't run on ubuntu either.
its free as in freedom, i thought thats what you were talking about, i know it doesnt work in ubuntu, but considering its built on debian, i refuse to believe that if canonical had gone to them about developing a client, something couldnt have been done.

although i agree some people have been talking about free as in beer it isnt exactly possible with something that involves actual running costs, such as a server.

ubuntu-freak
November 6th, 2009, 01:50 AM
what like backblaze (http://www.backblaze.com/)?, uses open source software and open source hardware design
Backblaze is proprietary according to Wikipedia.

gonzomalan
November 6th, 2009, 03:30 AM
If I go to Applications>Internet I find an icon of a non-free software/project which I never chose to install.

project yes, software no. the client side (on the install) is open source, but the server side (meaning ubuntu's hardware) is closed source.
my understanding is that this is a matter of freedom, not price.

benj1
November 6th, 2009, 05:29 PM
Backblaze is proprietary according to Wikipedia.

full instructions on how to build the hardware, they even include 3d models for their own spacial cases
http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/

and from with that article



A Backblaze Storage Pod Runs Free Software

A Backblaze Storage Pod isn’t a complete building block until it boots and is on the network. The pods boot 64-bit Debian 4 Linux and the JFS file system, and they are self-contained appliances, where all access to and from the pods is through HTTPS.


it could be that the front end is proprietary, but as canonical managed to make an open source front end for ubuntu one ...


@gonzomalan
at least some of the hardware is amazon's, its based on their cloud offering