Bundling online services with Ubuntu

**zekopeko** · May 19th, 2009

If Canonical did name UbuntuOne something more generic would you mind if the client was bundled with Ubuntu by default?

**BackwardsDown** · May 19th, 2009

I would not. I think including a (partly) free service is a good way to make it profitable. But I think a lot of people will complain.

**Mehall** · May 19th, 2009

A lot of people complain about Mono and it's on the disc.

**zekopeko** · May 19th, 2009

mono is free. and it's not promoting one service over another.
if canonical put a client to something like ubuntuone on the disk would the community mind that? that is if canonical promotes it's services within ubuntu.

the nice thing with ubuntuone is that it's trying to offer an integrated service with ubuntu. every other big OS is doing it. Mac with MobileMe and Windows with Live.
i for one would like to see some more ubuntu-specific integration to online services that canonical could profit from. and we are talking here about opt-in not opt-out.

**Paqman** · May 19th, 2009

Originally Posted by zekopeko

If Canonical did name UbuntuOne something more generic would you mind if the client was bundled with Ubuntu by default?

I'd be very surprised if it didn't become part of the default install. Canonical wouldn't have gone to the trouble of developing it in-house if they didn't see it as part of Ubuntu's future. They're clearly looking for ways to monetise Ubuntu while still offering it as a free install. We should be supportive of that, because ultimately that's what will keep Canonical in business. Canonical needs to find new income, or they'll eventually fold. If that happens Ubuntu will wither.

I don't think they should have to rename it either. I don't really see the problem there. So there's an upgrade available for Ubuntu One that costs money? So what? The basic service is free, and since when has making money from open source software been wrong anyway?

**monsterstack** · May 20th, 2009

Originally Posted by Paqman

I'd be very surprised if it didn't become part of the default install. Canonical wouldn't have gone to the trouble of developing it in-house if they didn't see it as part of Ubuntu's future. They're clearly looking for ways to monetise Ubuntu while still offering it as a free install. We should be supportive of that, because ultimately that's what will keep Canonical in business. Canonical needs to find new income, or they'll eventually fold. If that happens Ubuntu will wither.

I don't think they should have to rename it either. I don't really see the problem there. So there's an upgrade available for Ubuntu One that costs money? So what? The basic service is free, and since when has making money from open source software been wrong anyway?

You've hit the nail on the head, thar, buddy. Far too many people seem to think there is some sort of ideological crime involved in charging users for a service. There isn't. The GPL specifically allows you to do just that.

That's why I would have no problem with such services so long as they were free software. I would pay for it, too. Free software is the reason Linux even exists. Introducing proprietary stuff for Ubuntu only rather makes a mockery of that, I believe.