why dont canonical write any original software?

[Mokoma]

i was kind of wondering this with some programs. i know the whole ethos is to use software created by the "community" but it would be sweet if canonical could include software of their own creation

[swoll1980]

i was kind of wondering this with some programs. i know the whole ethos is to use software created by the "community" but it would be sweet if canonical could include software of their own creation

They have. The restricted drivers manager for one. They also develop closed source commercial software like launchpad.

[Paqman]

They have. I know they wrote ufw, and there's bound to be others. Plus a lot of packages from upstream get modified for Ubuntu.

[Mokoma]

they develop closed source? lmao isnt that kind of two faced??

"opensource FTW, but oh yeah we do closed souce too" O.o

[MaxIBoy]

They created the notification system that appears in Jaunty, but in my opinion that thing is incredibly annoying.


Even if they don't write software, they still benefit the open source ecosystem. They have an excellent bug reporting system, and lots of people use it. Thus, people who write software get bug reports, which helps them to improve their software.

[kj74]

bzr, notify-osd, apport, update-manager, computer-janitor, upstart, checkbox, add/remove, jockey...

[Therion]

they develop closed source? lmao isnt that kind of two faced??

LaunchPad IS being open-sourced:

We're open-sourcing the code that runs Launchpad.net. The process will be completed by 21 July 2009, coinciding with the 3.0 release (see the schedule of releases). ...

[Mokoma]

bzr, notify-osd, apport, update-manager, computer-janitor, upstart, checkbox, add/remove, jockey...

hmmmmm ok now it makes more sense, and yeah im not really a fan of the new notification system either yet. but i will give it some time.

i also hate the new way of handling software updates. what was wrong with the old one?

[sekinto]

I personally like the new notification system. And I also like computer janitor, it helped me find at least 25 packages that weren't needed anymore (old libraries and left-over dependencies for programs I uninstalled).

[Mokoma]

I personally like the new notification system. And I also like computer janitor, it helped me find at least 25 packages that weren't needed anymore (old libraries and left-over dependencies for programs I uninstalled).

yeah i like computer janitor too, i just want it to be intergrated with add/remove.

[Paqman]

I personally like the new notification system.

I don't like it at all. I love it!

[Mokoma]

I don't like it at all. I love it!

i really dont love how when it notifies you of a crash and you click it, it goes transparent and keeps coming back like a mega zombie :(

[swoll1980]

LaunchPad IS being open-sourced:

I think they develop a closed source program that helps administer Ubuntu computer networks too. Smack me if I'm wrong.

[swoll1980]

i really dont love how when it notifies you of a crash and you click it, it goes transparent and keeps coming back like the a mega zombie :(

You have to remember that it's beta software too. It may not behave like that in the final release.

[Mokoma]

You have to remember that it's beta software too. It may not behave like that in the final release.

lol yeah i know but its still anoying :P

[gnomeuser]

LaunchPad IS being open-sourced:

Only partly true. At least one component of Launchpad will continue to be proprietary, namely the build system. There is also no real commitment towards building only open solutions in the future.

Looking at future projects like Ubuntu One, these currently carry a proprietary license. Current ones like Landscape as well.

It feels like having the same debate over and over, they market the advantages of openness yet do not abide by them themselves. In the end a measure of freedom is delivered to apeace the masses and then Canonical go back to saying one thing and doing another.

[Paqman]

i really dont love how when it notifies you of a crash and you click it, it goes transparent and keeps coming back like a mega zombie :(

That's because it's just information. You're not supposed to click on it. Apport throws up a little crash icon in your panel. That's the bit you click on.

[zekopeko]

Only partly true. At least one component of Launchpad will continue to be proprietary, namely the build system. There is also no real commitment towards building only open solutions in the future.

Looking at future projects like Ubuntu One, these currently carry a proprietary license. Current ones like Landscape as well.

It feels like having the same debate over and over, they market the advantages of openness yet do not abide by them themselves. In the end a measure of freedom is delivered to apeace the masses and then Canonical go back to saying one thing and doing another.

I'm thinking that they are probably finding sustainable revenue models for their "corporate" products. Just because they don't open all of their software doesn't mean that they are evil. Just a little hypocritical for the time being.

I would rather like Ubuntu and Canonical to have a viable revenue model and remain on the software scene for the coming decades then live from Shuttleworth's continuous investments simulating a black hole.

Your ex-distro can say all it wants about Canonical and Ubuntu because they have backing from a major Linux player i.e. Red Hat.

On the note of no Canonical/Ubuntu developed software just look at Launchpad which is a great system for collaboration. Far better then some of the others out there IMO. And they are opening it. If i recall correctly Canonical has some 120+ people working on Launchpad and a large part of them are going to be transferred to Ubuntu development once Launchpad goes open source.

[swoll1980]

I'm thinking that they are probably finding sustainable revenue models for their "corporate" products. Just because they don't open all of their software doesn't mean that they are evil. Just a little hypocritical for the time being.


It sure as hell isn't evil. I don't think it's hypocritical either. Just because they say open source is great, doesn't mean they have to be married to it. Use what works. I'm sure they have MS workstations, and I'm sure Microsoft uses Linux servers(I know for sure that they use to) It all works out in the end.

[Mehall]

Think of it in this way, it has been known, in the past, for small projects that are open source to end up having their code taken, then forked by someone wanting to put their own name to it. By making it proprietary, they protect their income. And as the users above me have said, it's not hypocritical, it's just using different things for different purposes.

Launchpad is being Open Sourced now it's a full project, so they can Open Source it and move onto other things now it has been made properly.

Thye just want to make sure it is made right, then they can maybe open source it in the future.

I have no problem if they never Open Sourced some things.

[juancarlospaco]

bzr, notify-osd, Landscape, apport, update-manager, computer-janitor, upstart, checkbox, add/remove, jockey, jockey-GTK, Launchpad, Launchpad-Integration, VM-Builder, Python-VM-Builder, Fast-User-Swicht, Guest-Account

[gnomeuser]

Think of it in this way, it has been known, in the past, for small projects that are open source to end up having their code taken, then forked by someone wanting to put their own name to it. By making it proprietary, they protect their income. And as the users above me have said, it's not hypocritical, it's just using different things for different purposes.


Name me one project this has happened to on which the company behind it's finacial future was pinned. We have plenty of cases where businesses are being built on pure openness from the word go and success has been achieved (Imendio, OpenHanded, Collabora, Codethink, Fluendo though they later added proprietary codecs to their line up their main product is still Flumotion).



Launchpad is being Open Sourced now it's a full project, so they can Open Source it and move onto other things now it has been made properly.


Parts remain propritary such as the build system for no good reason. I doubt they have a big income from that yet the very tool that builds your distro, you are not allowed to look at or help fix bugs in.



Thye just want to make sure it is made right, then they can maybe open source it in the future.


So, the mantra of many eyes making problems diappear doesn't apply? Remind me again how behind closed doors design and development possibly can address all use cases and bring innovation.

Pretty much every case we have seen of a company developing a full product and polishing it's codebase before open sourcing it has lead to a near full rewrite over time to address concerns the original creators didn't consider. SELinux, Mozilla and large parts of OpenOffice.org (which is still hailed as a huge pile of hacks) just to name a few.



I have no problem if they never Open Sourced some things.

Good for you, but the tools I have to interact with for translations, bug reporting and for building my system, I damn well want open. "And then we throw the code through this black box. please trust it when it comes out on the other side, no we refuse to tell you want goes on in our tunnel of love... bugs what bugs? there are no bugs in our product and we certainly won't let you fix them".

Aside that if Launchpad is ever to be trusted outside of Ubuntu in the larger FLOSS ecosystem it needs to be in a state of full openness and the community needs to feel that they have a say in the future direction. It is the only way to make it work for the lofty ideals Launchpad is being marketed for.

[ssam]

not all software
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Website/Content/UbuntuContributions

[Polygon]

in launchpad's defence, there is really no REASON for it to be open source....i mean...it only exists in one place...launchpad.net. And thats the way they want it to be, ONE place to collaborate on code/answers/bugs/translations/etc

many people have said once they open source launchpad that at least a few other 'launchpads' will sprout up on the internet, kinda ruining the centralization that launchpad strives to achieve

But...on the other hand, if it was open source, then bugs could get spotted/fixed easier on the main launchpad website....

*shrugs*

[Vadi]

Canonical wrote gnome-app-install, contributes to synaptic, wrote apturl, notify-osd, contributed translations, and other stuff I probably don't know about. It also spawned a ton of original software for linux because people got on Ubuntu.

What kind of a question is this? Heh.

Whaah, whaah, launchpad isn't open source? Here's a challenge - try and make a copy of sf.net. Yeah, that's right, their last 'release' was in 2004 or something.

[bigbrovar]

in launchpad's defence, there is really no REASON for it to be open source....i mean...it only exists in one place...launchpad.net. And thats the way they want it to be, ONE place to collaborate on code/answers/bugs/translations/etc

many people have said once they open source launchpad that at least a few other 'launchpads' will sprout up on the internet, kinda ruining the centralization that launchpad strives to achieve

But...on the other hand, if it was open source, then bugs could get spotted/fixed easier on the main launchpad website....

*shrugs*

I dont quite agree with you, opensourcing a it would mean the source-code would be available and it would allow people to download it and perhaps implement it locally, like an IT Department that wants to use it to keep track of things. also it would allow other projects like redhat or debian to have their own launchpad for their communities.. i find it quite hypocritical that on one hand canonical preaches the open-source model on another its develops tools that are use proprietary license. say it as it is. that dont mean i wont use ubuntu, or i hate Mark Shuttleworth or i dont appreciate the effort put into Ubuntu.

[zekopeko]

I dont quite agree with you, opensourcing a it would mean the source-code would be available and it would allow people to download it and perhaps implement it locally, like an IT Department that wants to use it to keep track of things. also it would allow other projects like redhat or debian to have their own launchpad for their communities.. i find it quite hypocritical that on one hand canonical preaches the open-source model on another its develops tools that are use proprietary license. say it as it is. that dont mean i wont use ubuntu, or i hate Mark Shuttleworth or i dont appreciate the effort put into Ubuntu.

they are opensourcing Launchpad (well most of it. not the build system). I'm guessing they just wanted to build it their way before opensourcing it.