What happened exactly to Red Hat Linux on the desktop? How far did they get?

[hoppipolla]

I mean, I know Fedora is the new name for desktop Red Hat and I know it's doing fairly well, but it doesn't seem to be showing anywhere near the drive and the growth that Ubuntu is, particularly for casual users or pre-installed on machines.

Screwdriver0815 linked me to this video on Youtube -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYvhBK5sYkA

and it looks to me as if Red Hat was trying to do exactly the same thing that Ubuntu is. So, are Ubuntu just getting further? Did Red Hat step back from the progression of desktop Linux, at least for casual day-to-day users such as home users? I'm just confused because compared to Ubuntu they seem very quiet especially when you take their old adverts into account.

So... what's happening with them? o.O


Hoppi

[Icehuck]

I mean, I know Fedora is the new name for desktop Red Hat and I know it's doing fairly well, but it doesn't seem to be showing anywhere near the drive and the growth that Ubuntu is, particularly for casual users or pre-installed on machines.

Screwdriver0815 linked me to this video on Youtube -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYvhBK5sYkA

and it looks to me as if Red Hat was trying to do exactly the same thing that Ubuntu is. So, are Ubuntu just getting further? Did Red Hat step back from the progression of desktop Linux, at least for casual day-to-day users such as home users? I'm just confused because compared to Ubuntu they seem very quiet especially when you take their old adverts into account.

So... what's happening with them? o.O


Hoppi

Red Hat decided there was no money in the Linux Desktop and only focuses on Red Hat Enterprise. Fedora is the testing ground for Red Hat Enterprise.

In all honesty they are right, there is no money on desktop linux.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Yeh I think RedHat ditched out, thats why Fedora is set up the way it is.


Red Hat decided there was no money in the Linux Desktop and only focuses on Red Hat Enterprise. Fedora is the testing ground for Red Hat Enterprise.

In all honesty they are right, there is no money on desktop linux.

Mark Shuttleworth doesnt seem to agree with that.

[YeOK]

I mean, I know Fedora is the new name for desktop Red Hat and I know it's doing fairly well, but it doesn't seem to be showing anywhere near the drive and the growth that Ubuntu is, particularly for casual users or pre-installed on machines.

Screwdriver0815 linked me to this video on Youtube -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYvhBK5sYkA

and it looks to me as if Red Hat was trying to do exactly the same thing that Ubuntu is. So, are Ubuntu just getting further? Did Red Hat step back from the progression of desktop Linux, at least for casual day-to-day users such as home users? I'm just confused because compared to Ubuntu they seem very quiet especially when you take their old adverts into account.

So... what's happening with them? o.O


Hoppi

Red Hat sponsor the Fedora project and are one off, if not the biggest open source contributor. They work on many aspects of the Desktop, Xorg, Gnome, plymouth, packagekit and I think they even employ the guy who started pulse audio.

http://press.redhat.com/2008/04/16/whats-going-on-with-red-hat-desktop-systems-an-update/

The about link says it better than I can.

[gnomeuser]

Red Hat continues to invest heavily in the Linux desktop. They employ a number of people to work full time on X.org, video card drivers (currently they have full time people working on intel, ati and the nouveau nvidia driver). They also employ the HAL/DeviceKit lead developer, a number of people working on power management. They employ the PackageKit lead developer and the PulseAudio lead developer. They have a guy working full time on both openoffice and firefox. Red Hat finally also employs a great number of high profile GNOME developers. This naturally is on top of the development they do in the kernel where they are the number one corporate contributor. They remain the number one investor in the Linux desktop, and they are increasing that investment every year.. without Red Hat and Fedora there would be no Ubuntu, most of the technology you see with every Ubuntu release is straight from Fedora's plate.

Red Hat are very much invested in the Linux desktop, they do not ship a desktop product themselves that is aimed at average users as they do not currently see a market for it but they have a very successful enterprise workstation desktop.

Fedora is a very capable desktop with a powerful core underneath that is well engineered and have very high security. The community around Fedora is very active and highly technically skilled, they care deeply about the desktop and are actively working hard bringing it to users. Just under half of all current contributors to Fedora are Red Hat employees, the rest are volunteers.

[hoppipolla]

Mark Shuttleworth doesnt seem to agree with that.

Kind of, but Mark Shuttleworth is more focused on doing something good :)

I think there IS money in desktop Linux, no matter what people say, but not very much when compared to other implementations of Linux. Desktop Linux for casual users at the time being really is more charitable than anything I think, but it will pick up in time :)

[KiwiNZ]

If you refer to the Redhat web site you will see they are putting their efforts into the enterprise market. This has more gains for them.

The retail market at this point is not a viable option for this model.

[earthpigg]

Mark Shuttleworth doesnt seem to agree with that.

beat me to it.

[Icehuck]

Mark Shuttleworth doesnt seem to agree with that.

He can disagree with that, but Canonical hasn't turned a profit yet.

[marchwarden]

If you refer to the Redhat web site you will see they are putting their efforts into the enterprise market. This has more gains for them.

The retail market at this point is not a viable option for this model.

I believe that this was what Red Hat was referring to when they said that they had no interest in the desktop market about half a year ago.

[KiwiNZ]

I believe that this was what Red Hat was referring to when they said that they had no interest in the desktop market about half a year ago.

Thats what I said

[hoppipolla]

He can disagree with that, but Canonical hasn't turned a profit yet.

See my post! ^_^

[magneze]

Mark Shuttleworth doesnt seem to agree with that.... neither do Google - lots of effort going into ChromeOS.

[marchwarden]

Thats what I said

Sorry, I thought you were basing your opinion on how Red Hat currently does business rather than any explicit statements made by the company about it's position on the desktop market. I just thought I was corroborating your opinion with what information I could recall, that was all. :)

[Foster Grant]

... neither do Google - lots of effort going into ChromeOS.

ChromeOS, whatever it eventually becomes, isn't something Google sees as a moneymaking enterprise. There's just not going to be much money in it, which is why Red Hat handed its basic-desktop business over to the people who started the Fedora Linux project in 2003.

Red Hat (NASDAQ: RHT) is trading at just over $26 a share as of this writing, well ahead of its 52-week low of $7.50 a share. It was recently rated as the No. 1 software vendor for overall vendor value in a Ziff-Davis survey of IT executives. They're doing just fine, maybe so well that a larger company might try to gobble it up.

[earthpigg]

ChromeOS, whatever it eventually becomes, isn't something Google sees as a moneymaking enterprise.

indeed, google loses money on plenty of their projects.

i think i crunched some numbers a while back and concluded that the cost of google owning youtube in 2008 was the same as if google purchased 40 F-16 fighter jets in January 2008 and started doing air shows once a month to promote google.... and then intentionally crashed every single one of them into the ground to celebrate the coming of 2009, 12 months later.

i think a $2m net loss per day was the figure i started with. don't recall where i got that from. it was fun math, though.

[Dragonbite]

Red Hat isn't too bad for the desktop, if you are looking for a stable, scalable system for an Enterprise environment.

If you are looking for something more cutting edge and new then look to Fedora but be wary of potential issues cropping up and working to keep on the cutting edge. Funny thing about the bleeding edge.. it keeps moving.

Ubuntu lands somewhere in-between these two extremes.

[HermanAB]

Red Hat Linux works well enough on a desktop/laptop machine, provided that your hardware is old enough. The problem being that Red Hat is always 2 years behind the curve.

[Icehuck]

Red Hat Linux works well enough on a desktop/laptop machine, provided that your hardware is old enough. The problem being that Red Hat is always 2 years behind the curve.


If you are a business this if fine because you get a stable frame work to develop on. It's nice to have 7 year support.

[hoppipolla]

I think Ubuntu will start making a fair amount of money through things like the Software Center and Ubuntu One as the OS becomes more popular. And of course server and enterprise editions that they may release :)

If it were me I would be fairly confident I could profit from Linux on the desktop, with a bit of lateral thinking :)

[Screwdriver0815]

in my job we use RHEL too for the high-performance stuff. Its really really really solid and reliable.

I also have been thinking about going for Centos, which is the free (as in beer and in speech) version of RHEL (RHEL is also free as in speech, but not as in beer), when I need a computer which has to be stable and to be supported quite long.

[Dragonbite]

A better comparison between Ubuntu and Red Hat would be to be between Ubuntu LTS versions (8.04 currently, 10.04 next) and Red Hat 5.

They have a similar focus; stability, commercial use, long support life.

You look on the server side and they are both working on Virtualization and Cloud. Desktops, though, are full of more finiky (and annoying) people!

[hoppipolla]

in my job we use RHEL too for the high-performance stuff. Its really really really solid and reliable.

Ah so they use none other than the KDE 4.3.2 desktop I presume! With all the most STABLE apps such as erm.... erm... I... hmm o.O

[earthpigg]

I think Ubuntu will start making a fair amount of money through things like the Software Center and Ubuntu One as the OS becomes more popular. And of course server and enterprise editions that they may release :)

If it were me I would be fairly confident I could profit from Linux on the desktop, with a bit of lateral thinking :)

i will probably end up purchasing some games on the ubuntu software store thingie. nothing (such as a computer operating system or web browser) that i would ever consider myself reliant on, though.

[Screwdriver0815]

Ah so they use none other than the KDE 4.3.2 desktop I presume! With all the most STABLE apps such as erm.... erm... I... hmm o.O
no, its still KDE 3.5 :D

[hoppipolla]

no, its still KDE 3.5 :D

hehe :)

[Jammy4041]

Basically Red Hat divided into 3 directions:

Fedora and other RPM based distros for desktops


CentOS for the server market.

My server runs on CentOS. Basically its a community respin of Red Hat with all the brandings removed. It's 100% binary compatible with Red Hat. Like Red Hat, but with free support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS


and its Enterprise distro with paid support for servers.

However RHEL cannot be in that shape:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1559094/red-hat-share-price-passes-microsoft

[marchwarden]

However RHEL cannot be in that shape:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1559094/red-hat-share-price-passes-microsoft

Unfortunately the analysis is far too restricted to be meaningful.

[Frak]

Yeh I think RedHat ditched out, thats why Fedora is set up the way it is.



Mark Shuttleworth doesnt seem to agree with that.
And that's why Canonical still isn't profitable.

[maflynn]

Basically Red Hat divided into 3 directions:

Fedora and other RPM based distros for desktops


CentOS for the server market.

Actually I have to disagree, CentOS is not from Red Hat, yes its based on RHEL (with just the logos and other trademarked/copyrighted images removed) but its not a Red Hat product. Its supported by its own set of developers. So when Red Hat supplies a security patch, you have to wait until the CentOS team rolls it into a CentOS patch

[hoppipolla]

And that's why Canonical still isn't profitable.

see my post ^_^

[Frak]

see my post ^_^

I'll say it the best way I can.

Canonical isn't sure about commercial apps, and there aren't bidders for it either.

They need to get in gear and make a profit, or we'll see the Ubuntu Foundation a lot sooner than we think.

[dragos240]

RedHat is still doing a desktop distro. It's called fedora.

[Bigtime_Scrub]

I mean, I know Fedora is the new name for desktop Red Hat and I know it's doing fairly well, but it doesn't seem to be showing anywhere near the drive and the growth that Ubuntu is, particularly for casual users or pre-installed on machines.

Screwdriver0815 linked me to this video on Youtube -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYvhBK5sYkA

and it looks to me as if Red Hat was trying to do exactly the same thing that Ubuntu is. So, are Ubuntu just getting further? Did Red Hat step back from the progression of desktop Linux, at least for casual day-to-day users such as home users? I'm just confused because compared to Ubuntu they seem very quiet especially when you take their old adverts into account.

So... what's happening with them? o.O


Hoppi

In a lot of ways Fedora out Ubuntus Ubuntu. Have you used Fedora 11? It is an excellent desktop OS.

[Roasted]

I'll say it the best way I can.

Canonical isn't sure about commercial apps, and there aren't bidders for it either.

They need to get in gear and make a profit, or we'll see the Ubuntu Foundation a lot sooner than we think.

Explain? I never heard of the Ubuntu Foundation.

And I thought Canonical makes its money through paid support offered to Ubuntu desktop machines? More times than now when I hear about an Ubuntu lab/district/school/whatever they have paid Canonical support.

[KiwiNZ]

RedHat is still doing a desktop distro. It's called fedora.


Not quite correct

Fedora is a community based Distro sponsored by Redhat to a degree

[KiwiNZ]

I'll say it the best way I can.

Canonical isn't sure about commercial apps, and there aren't bidders for it either.

They need to get in gear and make a profit, or we'll see the Ubuntu Foundation a lot sooner than we think.

Yes

The Well is not eternal. The Ferryman well need paying at some time

[hoppipolla]

I'll say it the best way I can.

Canonical isn't sure about commercial apps, and there aren't bidders for it either.

They need to get in gear and make a profit, or we'll see the Ubuntu Foundation a lot sooner than we think.

come on man, you know as well as I do their primary objective here is not to turn over a profit, or not a large one anyway. Mark Shuttleworth is first and foremost doing this to do something good :)

[KiwiNZ]

come on man, you know as well as I do their primary objective here is not to turn over a profit, or not a large one anyway. Mark Shuttleworth is first and foremost doing this to do something good :)

Wages
Tax
Rent
Hardware
Stock
Coffee
.........

And other sundry treats ..... ;)

[jdrodrig]

I just think that it makes perfect sense to specialize, in particular if you use the same kernel.

If I see ubuntu has a great feedback generating machine (eg these forums), why should I invest in replicating them all over again...if I were RedHat, I would work quietly on the kernel and other 'internals' and leverage on ubuntu's test base to see what the users like or not.

[jdrodrig]

come on man, you know as well as I do their primary objective here is not to turn over a profit, or not a large one anyway. Mark Shuttleworth is first and foremost doing this to do something good :)

Just doing something to do good, might not be a credible strategy to convince developers to work on your platform. Anyone's wealth is finite, and you want some sign that the platform is not going to disappear anytime soon.

[Frak]

Just doing something to do good, might not be a credible strategy to convince developers to work on your platform. Anyone's wealth is finite, and you want some sign that the platform is not going to disappear anytime soon.
Absolutely. As it stands, Canonical is on shaky grounds. People don't know what to think of it. It's up in the air if Canonical will pull something out of the air and magically turn into a profitable company.

[Frak]

Explain? I never heard of the Ubuntu Foundation.

A trust established to oversee the development of Ubuntu in case Canonical were to ever disappear.

http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/foundation

[Icehuck]

Absolutely. As it stands, Canonical is on shaky grounds. People don't know what to think of it. It's up in the air if Canonical will pull something out of the air and magically turn into a profitable company.

I believe it was Mark who said he is only going to give it three more years. I'll have to find the interview where he said that last year.

[hoppipolla]

Absolutely. As it stands, Canonical is on shaky grounds. People don't know what to think of it. It's up in the air if Canonical will pull something out of the air and magically turn into a profitable company.

If they keep churning out good, free OSs which steadily become more popular, who the hell cares how they do it?

[Frak]

I believe it was Mark who said he is only going to give it three more years. I'll have to find the interview where he said that last year.
I hope he did. Hate to say it, but, that's a lot of money to blow on a project that already has many competitors (name RedHat for instance).

Save the money, do something good for the world with it.

[Frak]

If they keep churning out good, free OSs which steadily become more popular, who the hell cares how they do it?

If Canonical disappears, Ubuntu essentially dies. It will have free developers, but all the paid ones will leave. Ubuntu will be just another OS.

[hoppipolla]

I hope he did. Hate to say it, but, that's a lot of money to blow on a project that already has many competitors (name RedHat for instance).

Save the money, do something good for the world with it.


If Canonical disappears, Ubuntu essentially dies. It will have free developers, but all the paid ones will leave. Ubuntu will be just another OS.

o.O

Are you just here to spread FUD?

[jdrodrig]

If Canonical disappears, Ubuntu essentially dies. It will have free developers, but all the paid ones will leave. Ubuntu will be just another OS.

In my book, Canonical lasting contribution will not be Ubuntu but Launchpad....it basically re-confirmed to the skeptical that opensource is a viable development strategy once you get some momentum going...

[Icehuck]

I couldn't find the exact interview where it was stated, but this is a good sum up. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10075890-92.html

Interesting tidbit from Mark


"I don't think it will possible to make a lot of money, or maybe any money, selling the desktop," Shuttleworth said.

[KiwiNZ]

o.O

Are you just here to spread FUD?


That is not called for . Please do not post like this .

[Screwdriver0815]

regarding "Canonical on shaky grounds", "just 3 more years"... etc:

look, guys, Mark is not stupid. He created this business and I think he also was involved as they have created the business idea.
Mark has invested his money to be successfull. So the question has to be asked: why should Mark pull the plug? Because Canonical is maybe (maybe because we don't know for sure as we are not the financial guys of the company) on shaky grounds?

When you invest money into a business because you want to be successfull, why should you pull the plug before getting into the profit? Why? You just would do it if there is no vision for the future and when there is no way to into profit. But the way is there. And I am confident that Canonical will go this way and they will become profitable.

[KiwiNZ]

regarding "Canonical on shaky grounds", "just 3 more years"... etc:

look, guys, Mark is not stupid. He created this business and I think he also was involved as they have created the business idea.
Mark has invested his money to be successfull. So the question has to be asked: why should Mark pull the plug? Because Canonical is maybe (maybe because we don't know for sure as we are not the financial guys of the company) on shaky grounds?

When you invest money into a business because you want to be successfull, why should you pull the plug before getting into the profit? Why? You just would do it if there is no vision for the future and when there is no way to into profit. But the way is there. And I am confident that Canonical will go this way and they will become profitable.

Yes

But in the real world there is a loooooooooooooooong list of Corporate failures, each one someone invested to make a profit. No one invest to fail , well maybe to rid taxes , but in general no one does , but the harsh commercial fact of life is , more businesses fail than succeed.

[hoppipolla]

regarding "Canonical on shaky grounds", "just 3 more years"... etc:

look, guys, Mark is not stupid. He created this business and I think he also was involved as they have created the business idea.
Mark has invested his money to be successfull. So the question has to be asked: why should Mark pull the plug? Because Canonical is maybe (maybe because we don't know for sure as we are not the financial guys of the company) on shaky grounds?

When you invest money into a business because you want to be successfull, why should you pull the plug before getting into the profit? Why? You just would do it if there is no vision for the future and when there is no way to into profit. But the way is there. And I am confident that Canonical will go this way and they will become profitable.

hehe yeah, and seriously man if it was me I would have no trouble coming up with ways to profit from the Ubuntu project :)

[Icehuck]

hehe yeah, and seriously man if it was me I would have no trouble coming up with ways to profit from the Ubuntu project :)

Then maybe you should go tell Mark how to run a business. I mean, he only made millions in running his own business before hand. What could he know?

[Screwdriver0815]

Yes

But in the real world there is a loooooooooooooooong list of Corporate failures, each one someone invested to make a profit. No one invest to fail , well maybe to rid taxes , but in general no one does , but the harsh commercial fact of life is , more businesses fail than succeed.

this may be right but I think that in these days the short-term thinking has taken over. Which means: no matter if there is a way to turn this business into profit, it will be cancelled when it does not turn into profit until a certain date (e.g.: 31st of october 2009 ;) ). This is wrong I think and I also think that Mark will not play this game.
He alone knows best how to do this business.

anyway: what happens if he would pull the plug on Canonical? Life will go on. Even if Ubuntu decreases and loses... there are so many nice distros out there... guess what happens if Microsoft goes bancrupt? It would be horrible. But a Linux-distro? Either it survives or there will be a replacement for the users

[hoppipolla]

Then maybe you should go tell Mark how to run a business. I mean, he only made millions in running his own business before hand. What could he know?

Yeah and if I could do it I would hope he can! lol :)

[hoppipolla]

this may be right but I think that in these days the short-term thinking has taken over. Which means: no matter if there is a way to turn this business into profit, it will be cancelled when it does not turn into profit until a certain date (e.g.: 31st of october 2009 ;) ). This is wrong I think and I also think that Mark will not play this game.
He alone knows best how to do this business.

anyway: what happens if he would pull the plug on Canonical? Life will go on. Even if Ubuntu decreases and loses... there are so many nice distros out there... guess what happens if Microsoft goes bancrupt? It would be horrible. But a Linux-distro? Either it survives or there will be a replacement for the users

Plus man, if Ubuntu keeps going like this, it will become popular too fast for any of this to be too much of an issue! In my opinion anyway :)

It seems very blunt to just say there is no money in this market or that Mark doesn't know what he's doing in some way. I honestly can think of many, many ways to profit from this project.

[cariboo]

Just so you know there is an Ubuntu foundation to keep things going if Canonical ceases to exist. About a year ago I saw a news report that Canonical needed 30 million in the bank to keep them going, and they were just about there then.

[KiwiNZ]

My own business before I sold it was making profits from open source, but not purely from open source. It also dealt with closed source solutions.

I used Ubuntu and other Distros to provide fitted solutions to select clients for which Windows solutions or others were not appropriate.

If I was using purely open source I would not have made profits and I would not have been able to sell the business as a going concern for the considerable made.

[Screwdriver0815]

AFAIK everything Red Hat does is open source. But I don't know if it was all open source in the past too, as they have started their business. Does anyone know more?

Anyway, I too think it is really tough to find a slot in the market for open source products. But it seems like that it is possible to make profit based on pure open source.

Maybe Red Hat is so successful because they are so big now.

[cariboo]

I did see something a while back that RedHat was going to release a desktop version again.

[Screwdriver0815]

I did see something a while back that RedHat was going to release a desktop version again.

this would be great. I would try it and maybe switch to it.

but there already is CentOs... this is RHEL for free (as in beer).

[hoppipolla]

I mean, like I say if it was me and I was focused on making money from the open source desktop market, I would focus on things like this:

- merchandise
- support
- donations (encouraged perhaps even with a link on the desktop)
- Software Center sales
- Possibly light advertising, but concealed.
- Money from server and/or enterprise editions, and selling the OS with support to businesses.


I just feel that with a combination of things like this, as an OS gradually gains popularity, staying afloat really shouldn't be too hard, surely?

I mean sometimes you just have to make these options more obvious to people, such as as I mentioned a link on the desktop about donations.

They are tiny prices to pay to keep the project afloat :)

Now granted even WITH all these things I'm sure desktop Linux isn't as profitable as other endeavours, but if Mark's goal is to do something good over earning large profits, then surely this should not be an issue.

The business model can be tweaked and improved, but I think it holds water sufficiently to provide an excellent and progressive OS based on open source components :)

[KiwiNZ]

I mean, like I say if it was me and I was focused on making money from the open source desktop market, I would focus on things like this:

- merchandise
- support
- donations (encouraged perhaps even with a link on the desktop)
- Software Center sales
- Possibly light advertising, but concealed.
- Money from server and/or enterprise editions, and selling the OS with support to businesses.


I just feel that with a combination of things like this, as an OS gradually gains popularity, staying afloat really shouldn't be too hard, surely?

I mean sometimes you just have to make these options more obvious to people, such as as I mentioned a link on the desktop about donations.

They are tiny prices to pay to keep the project afloat :)

Now granted even WITH all these things I'm sure desktop Linux isn't as profitable as other endeavours, but if Mark's goal is to do something good over earning large profits, then surely this should not be an issue.

The business model can be tweaked and improved, but I think it holds water sufficiently to provide an excellent and progressive OS based on open source components :)

Am I reading this right ? you want to profit from peoples donations ????????:(

[hoppipolla]

Am I reading this right ? you want to profit from peoples donations ????????:(

No, sorry I guess profit isn't the right word - just for the furthering of the project :)

[Dragonbite]

I just think that it makes perfect sense to specialize, in particular if you use the same kernel.

If I see ubuntu has a great feedback generating machine (eg these forums), why should I invest in replicating them all over again...if I were RedHat, I would work quietly on the kernel and other 'internals' and leverage on ubuntu's test base to see what the users like or not.

And you don't think Canonical/Ubuntu isn't doing the same thing regarding servers?

[Roasted]

I believe it was Mark who said he is only going to give it three more years. I'll have to find the interview where he said that last year.

Wikipedia:

In a Guardian interview in May 2008, Mark Shuttleworth said that the Canonical business model was service provision and explained that Canonical was not yet close to profitability. Canonical also claimed it will wait for the business to turn into a profitable one within another 3 to 5 years. He regarded Canonical as positioning itself as demand for services related to Free Software rose.[18] This strategy has been compared to Red Hat's business strategies in the 1990s.

So it doesn't sound like Mark is getting ready to abandon ship or anything like that, but almost like he doesn't EXPECT any profit until another 3-5 years to begin with.

[hoppipolla]

Wikipedia:

In a Guardian interview in May 2008, Mark Shuttleworth said that the Canonical business model was service provision and explained that Canonical was not yet close to profitability. Canonical also claimed it will wait for the business to turn into a profitable one within another 3 to 5 years. He regarded Canonical as positioning itself as demand for services related to Free Software rose.[18] This strategy has been compared to Red Hat's business strategies in the 1990s.

So it doesn't sound like Mark is getting ready to abandon ship or anything like that, but almost like he doesn't EXPECT any profit until another 3-5 years to begin with.

Also we must remember 3-5 years is a long time in technology, software development, and the progression of open source. I mean, I think that just Lucid will bring big changes, and that's only 6 months away.

Can you imagine how far things might progress in the space of 3 or 5 YEARS? Anything could happen in that time.

[Roasted]

Also we must remember 3-5 years is a long time in technology, software development, and the progression of open source. I mean, I think that just Lucid will bring big changes, and that's only 6 months away.

Can you imagine how far things might progress in the space of 3 or 5 YEARS? Anything could happen in that time.

Exactly. That's why I'm failing to see why the comment was brought up in the first place when it seems like Mark is pretty prolonged about his estimated time scale on the big picture.

[jdrodrig]

And you don't think Canonical/Ubuntu isn't doing the same thing regarding servers?

Most likely it is doing it, learning from RedHat, Solaris, etc....I guess this supports my point, we should not expect every single open source company to offer overlapping product portfolios..

[jdrodrig]

My own business before I sold it was making profits from open source, but not purely from open source...

If I was using purely open source I would not have made profits...

I am confused, just to make sure I understand; were you or weren't you making profits from open source?

and maybe a more fundamental question, do you think you should "donate" some of those profits back to canonical or the corresponding open source provider?

[FLMKane]

Canonical can easily make a lot of money. Cancel the free CD shipment, and create a flexible and cheaper way to buy disks online. For example, I would like to buy _one_ ubuntu 9.10 disk, but I dont want five. And then there are crazy stuff that you can do, like offer the entire repository of games as one or more DVDs and stuff like that.

Stuff like that is right in their faces, so I dont believe they will miss it.

[hoppipolla]

Canonical can easily make a lot of money. Cancel the free CD shipment, and create a flexible and cheaper way to buy disks online. For example, I would like to buy _one_ ubuntu 9.10 disk, but I dont want five. And then there are crazy stuff that you can do, like offer the entire repository of games as one or more DVDs and stuff like that.

Stuff like that is right in their faces, so I dont believe they will miss it.

I don't think it works like that man, most stuff they're not allowed to profit from. They have also promised it will always remain free. I don't think charging for the OS or the repositories is an option here, perhaps TINY amounts of money but even then it's undermining them more than it is helping, as one of the best things about the OS is that it can be freely distributed legally. That will help it spread like WILDFIRE when it becomes mature enough to be desirable to enough computer users :)

[Xbehave]

I don't think it works like that man, most stuff they're not allowed to profit from.
Nope, they can profit of anything, all the GPL says is you have to show me the code (much of ubuntu is more liberally licensed than GPL)

They have also promised it will always remain free.
The download link can stay free while they charge for CDs

I don't think charging for the OS or the repositories is an option here,
what about charging for the convenience of having one DVD with all your games on it?

as one of the best things about the OS is that it can be freely distributed legally.Don't confuse free and libre.

I think the problem with FLMKane's ideas is that they do not bring in enough money, as most people would not use them, hell i try and chroot instead of burning CDs.

My best guess of canonicals's plan is simple, get lots of people using ubuntu then sell support to companies, I'm not sure if it will work/fail but it seams to be doing ok (while they arn't making a profit yet, they are making less of a loss each year).

Red Hat's plan is different and I do not know how it's working out for them, they are making a profit but it may be more/less each year.

[hoppipolla]

hehe fair do's, but yeah we should always keep Ubuntu free to distribute, that's it's greatest asset! ^_^

EDIT -- They always need a free VERSION of it though don't they? I mean that's what openSUSE do...

Otherwise you're just profiting blindly from other people's work, if it was that easy other companies would have exploited it by now! xD

DOUBLE EDIT -- or is that what Apple do? O.O


Man I get so confused on this legal stuff lol, this is probably the biggest area where my knowledge on open source and Linux falters! :)

[Screwdriver0815]

hehe fair do's, but yeah we should always keep Ubuntu free to distribute, that's it's greatest asset! ^_^

EDIT -- They always need a free VERSION of it though don't they? I mean that's what openSUSE do...

Otherwise you're just profiting blindly from other people's work, if it was that easy other companies would have exploited it by now! xD

DOUBLE EDIT -- or is that what Apple do? O.O


Man I get so confused on this legal stuff lol, this is probably the biggest area where my knowledge on open source and Linux falters! :)
no, they do not need to make a free version (free as in free beer) when it is open source.
Red Hat for example have their RHEL which is open source but you have to pay for it.
Yeah, they have Fedora, but not because they need to have a not-money-costing version. They have it for developing new technology and testing it, technically and also acceptance-wise.

Centos is RHEL for free (no cost) but just because RHEL is open source so anyone can come up, take the source code and do their own distro. Centos does it this way. So Centos as the system is without the support of Red Hat but they also get the updates of RHEL as they are open source too.

So all the community editions (Fedora, Open Suse etc.) are there to give back to the community and to gain from the communities work. Its just give and get back.

[hoppipolla]

no, they do not need to make a free version (free as in free beer) when it is open source.
Red Hat for example have their RHEL which is open source but you have to pay for it.
Yeah, they have Fedora, but not because they need to have a not-money-costing version. They have it for developing new technology and testing it, technically and also acceptance-wise.

Centos is RHEL for free (no cost) but just because RHEL is open source so anyone can come up, take the source code and do their own distro. Centos does it this way. So Centos as the system is without the support of Red Hat but they also get the updates of RHEL as they are open source too.

So all the community editions (Fedora, Open Suse etc.) are there to give back to the community and to gain from the communities work. Its just give and get back.

oh ok I think I get it :)

[jdrodrig]

no, they do not need to make a free version (free as in free beer) when it is open source.
Red Hat for example have their RHEL which is open source but you have to pay for it.


That statement left me scratching my head.....if it is opensource, as soon as somebody buys a copy, he/she can recompile it and redistribute it to everybody...driving the price to zero...

RHEL does not charge for the code, charges for the support. For instance, they guarantee a 2-day response for web support -vs- uncertain time in ubuntu forums...

[Screwdriver0815]

That statement left me scratching my head.....if it is opensource, as soon as somebody buys a copy, he/she can recompile it and redistribute it to everybody...driving the price to zero...

RHEL does not charge for the code, charges for the support. For instance, they guarantee a 2-day response for web support -vs- uncertain time in ubuntu forums...
yeah of course they charge just for the support. I thought this is obvious when I say "you can come, take the source code and do your own distro"?

Anyway, if you want a REAL Red Hat Enterprise Linux, you have to buy it at Red Hat.

And you even do not need to buy the copy. The GPL says that you have to deliver the source code on request. So Red Hat provides the source code somewhere, you download it, recompile it, remove the logos - thats it. And thats what Centos does/did

[KiwiNZ]

I am confused, just to make sure I understand; were you or weren't you making profits from open source?

and maybe a more fundamental question, do you think you should "donate" some of those profits back to canonical or the corresponding open source provider?

I donate my time , many many hours per week over many years

[Dragonbite]

That statement left me scratching my head.....if it is opensource, as soon as somebody buys a copy, he/she can recompile it and redistribute it to everybody...driving the price to zero...

Sounds easy, doesn't it?

I've heard CentOS has something like 13 people, and they aren't trying to develop much "new" as they implement what Red Hat has already created (and to remove all of the trademarks). It still takes them time to get a CLONE from the source provided out the door.

Trying to undermine Red Hat by offering cheaper support is exactly what Oracle is doing (or trying to do) with their Invulnerable (Unbreakable?) Linux. Mind you, it doesn't work.


RHEL does not charge for the code, charges for the support. For instance, they guarantee a 2-day response for web support -vs- uncertain time in ubuntu forums...

Maybe, but Canonical/Ubuntu can easily offer something Red Hat and Novell cannot; You can "support yourself" if you are Linux-savy, and when you realize you're in over your head or the "Linux guru" leaves the company and an experienced replacement is nowhere to be found then you can subscribe to Canonical's support without having to go through migraines moving from the Community version (openSUSE, CentOS, Fedora, etc.) to the Enterprise versions (SLED/SLES, Red Hat, etc.).

Plus, once you pay for the subscription with Canonical you have access to (not sure if it costs more money) some tools such as Landscape (http://www.canonical.com/projects/landscape).

[Frak]

Plus, once you pay for the subscription with Canonical you have access to (not sure if it costs more money) some tools such as Landscape (http://www.canonical.com/projects/landscape).

Our company got it free with a Server Supp. Contract.

[jdrodrig]

I donate my time , many many hours per week over many years

and they are well appreciated!

also, your answer goes directly to my point, once a group of people create enough momentum donating hours and knowledge around a distro, others can simply leverage on those and improve...without the need to start from scratch....