PDA

View Full Version : Has Ubuntu became a commercial product?



emerson1234567890
July 7th, 2012, 04:47 AM
Way back in 2004, Mark Shuttleworth gathered a group of Debian developers to help him work out on his new project - Ubuntu.

The goal of this project was to make Linux appear on Everyone's desktop, not just geeks and hackers.

Linux, as you (the reader) know, is free software. Hackers used Linux, because they love free software. And plus, Linux was easy to learn (to hackers, not me) and yet powerful.

When the Debian project was started, millions of Hackers joined the team and started working on it. It was pretty awesome (try it) but it was targeted to hackers and geeks. Normal users don't use Linux; because to them, it was hard to use. So they preferred to stick with Windows.

Then the Ubuntu Project was born. On it's first launch in 2004, it immediately gathered a large group of normal computer users (for "normal" I mean people like me that only uses computer for daily stuff) because of the slogan - "Linux for human beings". At that time, Ubuntu was targeted to both Hackers and normal computer users.

After that the Ubuntu project started growing. Many new people heard of "Easy-to-use-Linux" and decided to jump in. Ubuntu users started growing rapidly, and it became the No.1 Linux Distro.

No more history classes. ;)

What went wrong was in 2009. The brand-new Jaunty Jackalope started targeting the group of normal computer users more. That's when normal users started ignoring the fact that Ubuntu is actually Linux-based.

They started thinking that Ubuntu is just a free operating system just like Windows. A normal computer product among others, but just free.

Then, I noticed that Canonical pulled off "Linux" from the Ubuntu site. See for yourself. Try find the word "Linux" in there. What's worse is that Canonical began putting advertisements about ubuntu on the site, and Ubuntu slowly tuned from a community-driven project to a commercially successful product.

Even the Ubuntu Software Center. The software center was originally created for users that doesn't want to type "sudo apt-get install" all the time. Now it serves the original purpose PLUS a place for people who wants to sell commercial products.

Nowadays, (saw this on Youtube) people use Ubuntu because it is free, not because it's philosophy behind it. I wish that we could change the situation back to 2004.

I'm not saying that commercial products are bad, it's that the philosophy behind Ubuntu are virtually gone.

Maybe you don't understand what I am talking about, because my writing is bad. :p

QIII
July 7th, 2012, 05:04 AM
"Old-timin' Linux snobbery" is not pragmatic.

I could say that nothing should have changed since I was using Unix. That's when men were men.

How has the philosophy of Ubuntu disappeared?

oboedad55
July 7th, 2012, 05:05 AM
I, too, am not a fan of paid apps in the software center. At least I'd like the ability to turn that feature off. As far as the labeling of Ubuntu is concerned it doesn't really bother me. The more people use Linux, regardless of what it's labeled, can only be a good thing. Until Ubuntu starts being sold as a commercial product, which it's not, then I don't see a problem. I'm certain you didn't mean this, but Windows is not free. Quite the contrary.

Lightning Dragon
July 7th, 2012, 06:00 AM
Excuse me if I sound like I'm babbling or not making any sense--I tend to do that. :oops:

I'm sure its not just because its free that people use it. I'm not saying that's not one of the biggest reasons why more people are using it, but its not the only reason. I know people who use it simply because of what it is and how it is built, and enjoy being able to -- and I have no idea how -- make their own builds.

Its just a lot of people who do have Ubuntu because its free are the people who cannot afford buying Windows Keys every time they lose a PC to a virus etc etc. And I never saw that as a bad thing.... :(

Mikeb85
July 7th, 2012, 06:24 AM
Linux was never about the hardcore GNU 'free software' agenda. Yes, it's GPL'd, yes it uses GNU tools, but the idea behind Linux is to create an operating system that enables you to do anything you want, not simply to avoid paying for software.

The forces that have made Linux successful are commercial ones. Without IBM, Red Hat, SUSE, even Oracle, and other commercial entities, Linux would still just be a hobbyist's OS (and would probably be dead).

From what I understand about Linux and Linux Torvalds, his decision to make Linux open-source was largely pragmatic, and the response was not something he anticipated. Likewise, Linux adoption, especially by large enterprises, is also largely pragmatic, not ideological.

If offering paid software in the software centre creates a better user experience, and allows more people to make a living, it's a huge plus for Ubuntu, not a negative. And again, if a profitable Canonical means a better Ubuntu experience, how is that a bad thing?

If you are a free-software zealot, there are other distros out there, including GNU/Hurd and others endorsed by the FSF.

Primefalcon
July 7th, 2012, 07:28 AM
Ubuntu is about giving the masses freedom of choice and giving free software to everyone....

To do that it needs main stream support..... and to do that, it needs commercial pushing and backing, which is what caonical are doing.....

I'd like the best games coming out to run on Linux..... and without Canonical doing.. what Canonical are doing, that'll never happen....

If you want an OS that hates propietary software and supports the eliteism you want.... you want want to look at GnuSense.... good luck with hardware support though, since they even remove all propietary binary blobs from the kernal...

And to be clear, I am a fan of paid Apps in the software centre... though a seperate area would be nice... and I'd like to see apps like Dreamweaver in there eventualy.

Tigerbloodz
July 7th, 2012, 07:55 AM
Millions of hackers joined Debian.A lot of people helped dev Debian but not millions, not even anywhere close to millions.



On it's first launch in 2004, it immediately gathered a large group of normal computer users (for "normal" I mean people like me that only uses computer for daily stuff) because of the slogan - "Linux for human beings". At that time, Ubuntu was targeted to both Hackers and normal computer users.Ubuntu didn't start to become "popular" with non-linux users until 2007, with version 7.04 I believe.

The slogan had almost nothing to do with it, certain articles on tech sites and youtube videos from Compiz at the time and Vista lured in a lot of Windows geeks to Ubuntu.


They started thinking that Ubuntu is just a free operating system just like Windows. A normal computer product among others, but just free.Windows isn't free. Why do you care that non tech-savvy computer users might not know they use Linux?



Even the Ubuntu Software Center. The software center was originally created for users that doesn't want to type "sudo apt-get install" all the time. Now it serves the original purpose PLUS a place for people who wants to sell commercial products.You don't have to buy stuff, but it's nice that you can if you want to. I honestly don't see any downsides.



Nowadays, (saw this on Youtube) people use Ubuntu because it is free, not because it's philosophy behind it. I wish that we could change the situation back to 2004.

I'm not saying that commercial products are bad, it's that the philosophy behind Ubuntu are virtually gone.It's a good, free, linux distro. Should I care if people use it because it's good or because it's free or because it's Linux?

Without good commercial software/games Linux will always stay at it's 1% desktop market share, unless something major happen we can't predict yet.

sffvba[e0rt
July 7th, 2012, 08:05 AM
Thread moved to Recurring Discussions.


404

hansdown
July 7th, 2012, 08:45 AM
Hi emerson1234567890.

I apologize in advance.

Your history lesson differs slightly, with some folks.

Believe it or not, but some people are able to live their lives, without pointing out points in their lives, that they feel are insurmountable.

Paqman
July 7th, 2012, 09:28 AM
Nowadays, (saw this on Youtube) people use Ubuntu because it is free, not because it's philosophy behind it.

People have always had their own reasons for using it, which may or may not be the same as yours. That's not something you can control. Try to unclench a little and grant others the freedom you seem keen to reserve for yourself.

emerson1234567890
July 7th, 2012, 01:17 PM
Thanks for everyone for the replies. I never knew so much people would reply!!:confused:

Seeing what everyone had said, I think I was being too skeptic at that time.

Especially what Paqman said. Linux users are growing, so we should all be happy.

I apologize to the people that spent their time replying to my post. Guess I'll be more optimistic and contribute more to the Ubuntu community!

Gone fishing
July 7th, 2012, 08:04 PM
Certainly Ubuntu doesn't advertise the fact that it is a Linux distribution, no Linux for Human beings anymore. I feel somewhat sad about that, but Ubuntu makes it very explicit that it is an open-source project and I think that and it stated philosophy tell us that Canonical is committed to being open-source and the community.

Being commercial isn't in-itself a problem with being an open-source project. I think that Linux needs this support from large companies like Red Hat and Canonical. As long as they behave ethically and openly I don't see a problem - in fact, I think it is a good thing, to show that large tech companies can be successful and ethical, as some large tech companies behave unethically. Moreover Canonical is interested in new uses for Ubuntu and Linux, Ubuntu TV and Ubuntu for Android etc this is important if Linux for ordinary users is not going to stagnate. Large companies also help in opposing anti open-source moves by large unethical companies, patents restricted boot etc.

Finally I would like to point out that Ubuntu and Canonical and Ubuntu Forums have helped to change the culture of Linux for the better. When I first started being interested in Linux it was hard to get support and help. When you got stuck and asked for help it was too often rtfm and the power of the command-line Ubuntu changed that forever.

Dr. C
July 7th, 2012, 08:55 PM
Certainly Ubuntu doesn't advertise the fact that it is a Linux distribution, no Linux for Human beings anymore. I feel somewhat sad about that, but Ubuntu makes it very explicit that it is an open-source project and I think that and it stated philosophy tell us that Canonical is committed to being open-source and the community.

Being commercial isn't in-itself a problem with being an open-source project. I think that Linux needs this support from large companies like Red Hat and Canonical. As long as they behave ethically and openly I don't see a problem - in fact I think it is a good think to show that large tech companies can be successful and ethical, as some large tech companies behave unethically. Moreover Canonical is interested in new uses for Ubuntu and Linux, Ubuntu TV and Ubuntu for Android etc this important if Linux for ordinary users is not going to stagnate. Large companies also help in opposing anti open-source moves by large unethical companies, patents restricted boot etc.

Finally I would like to point out that Ubuntu and Canonical and Ubuntu Forums have helped to change the culture of Linux for the better. When I first started being interested in Linux it was hard to get support and help. When you got stuck and asked for help it was too often rtfm and the power of the command-line Ubuntu changed that forever.

What does "Linux" actually mean in this context? In particular what makes Ubuntu "Linux" here when compared to Android the presence of the GNU toolchain? Seriously the success of Android has fundamentally changed the nature of the old Stallman/Torvalds polemic between "GNU/Linux" and "Linux". "Linux for human beings" makes no sense anymore when everyone is running Android, which is why quite properly Canonical has dropped the slogan.

KiwiNZ
July 7th, 2012, 09:09 PM
Ubuntu becoming a commercial product? = a good thing.

Branding as 'Ubuntu' only and dropping the whole GNU/Linux nonsense is very good.

rg4w
July 7th, 2012, 09:50 PM
And to be clear, I am a fan of paid Apps in the software centre... though a seperate area would be nice... and I'd like to see apps like Dreamweaver in there eventualy.
Apparently you're not alone in wanting to see more apps like that available for Ubuntu - according to Canonical's Gerry Carr the #1 requested app for Ubuntu is Photoshop:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/15991/ubuntu_would_welcome_adobe_to_linux

Maybe we'll get lucky:
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/04/adobe-photoshop-for-linux-definitely-on-the-radar

rg4w
July 7th, 2012, 09:53 PM
I apologize to the people that spent their time replying to my post. Guess I'll be more optimistic and contribute more to the Ubuntu community!
IMO no apology needed. When I first signed up here I was all full of opinions about how Ubuntu and Linux in general should be. But as I spent more time here reading the posts from the many good folks here who patiently replied, I learned a lot about the community which has made me enjoy where it is and where it's going so much more.

Welcome aboard. Nothing's perfect in this imperfect world, not even Ubuntu or this community. But Ubuntu's pretty good, and this community is about as close to an ideal good time as I've encountered yet. :)

UbunHawk
July 7th, 2012, 09:55 PM
As I saw in an earlier reply, I'd like to be able to filter it so I can see paid/free apps

haqking
July 7th, 2012, 10:23 PM
Then, I noticed that Canonical pulled off "Linux" from the Ubuntu site. See for yourself. Try find the word "Linux" in there.

From http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu

Where did it all begin?

Linux was already established as an enterprise server platform in 2004. But free software was still not a part of everyday life for most computer users. That's why Mark Shuttleworth gathered a small team of developers from one of the most established Linux projects – Debian - and set out to create an easy-to-use Linux desktop, Ubuntu.
The vision for Ubuntu is part social and part economic: free software, available free of charge to everybody on the same terms, and funded through a portfolio of services provided by Canonical.

Ubuntu is different from the commercial Linux offerings that preceded it because it doesn't divide its efforts between a high-quality commercial version and a free, 'community' version. That took me about 1 minute to find and to cut and paste into here.

Free as in speech not in beer, that being said to the end user Ubuntu is also free as in Beer.

As for becoming a commercial product, Canonical is a business, business's strive to make money (commerce) ergo yes its a commercial product that you happen to get for free.

Peace

Gone fishing
July 8th, 2012, 08:16 AM
Ubuntu is different from the commercial Linux offerings that preceded it because it doesn't divide its efforts between a high-quality commercial version and a free, 'community' version.

I think this is very important; some easy Linux distro's that were about before Ubuntu were commercial, in that the free version was a poor version of the real thing - Xandros comes to mind, or for proper updates and connection to the repositories you had to pay. With Ubuntu you always got the real thing. So Commercial in the Ubuntu sense has not been an attempt to crudely monetize Linux but produce a Commercial quality product and to explore the markets for that product.


What does "Linux" actually mean in this context? In particular what makes Ubuntu "Linux" here when compared to Android the presence of the GNU toolchain? Seriously the success of Android has fundamentally changed the nature of the old Stallman/Torvalds polemic between "GNU/Linux" and "Linux". "Linux for human beings" makes no sense anymore when everyone is running Android, which is why quite properly Canonical has dropped the slogan.

I don't disagree and it is also noticeable that Android doesn't advertise it uses a Linux kernel. Ubuntu is trying to establish its operating system as a complete product rather than simply a Linux distro. I think quite properly - Ubuntu is an OS. Linux in this sense is the Kernel that Ubuntu chose to use, I suppose they could have chosen a BSD kernel but a Linux kernel was more appropriate both to Canonicals technical and philosophical aims. From a promotion aspect Linux can be intimidating to users I was on a tech site yesterday and read some Windows fanboy nonsense about Linux only being good for servers forgetting that Linux is in everything set top boxes, GPS, multmedia systems etc etc.

Nevertheless I do miss the brown Ubuntu Themes and the Linux for Human beings - my issue not Canonicals.

Peripheral Visionary
July 9th, 2012, 12:03 AM
Red Hat is commercial Linux. Android is commercial Linux. SuSE is commercial Linux. Why not Ubuntu?

I think it's great to have a Debian-based commercial-quality OS, and it's great that someone has been willing to sink a small personal fortune into its development. Ubuntu is a phenomenal free OS and I wish Canonical continued success and profit in its efforts to produce and main this commercial-quality Linux-based OS.

This is certainly something I would have paid for anyway, to replace Windows and buy years of extra life for my trusty old hand-me-down computer.

3rdalbum
July 9th, 2012, 02:42 PM
Why are people talking about Ubuntu "becoming" a commercial product?

Almost from the first day it's been possible to buy a support contract with Canonical, or pay Canonical to custom-build a remix of Ubuntu for deployment across your business' PCs. Canonical has been selling software, services and even merchandise since long before the Ubuntu Software Center came along. Heck, Canonical is a company, not a not-for-profit organisation. The domain name is ubuntu.com, not ubuntu.org.

Probably the first indication of a real play for sales was in 2006; the first LTS, delayed for six weeks "for extra polish". The LTS and its extra polish was not for the benefit of Grandma using Ubuntu; it was for businesses looking to adopt Linux and buy one of those support contracts.

Ubuntu has always been commercial. It's just that people have chosen to ignore it; plus Canonical has been quite skillful in marketing efforts that haven't turned ordinary home users away.

Paqman
July 10th, 2012, 08:15 AM
Besides, Linux itself was a (very successful) commercial product long before Ubuntu rocked up.