PDA

View Full Version : Commercialism



gn2
November 23rd, 2009, 12:39 AM
Ubuntu One selling music and charging for off-site storage, paid closed apps for sale in the Ubuntu Software Store.... and all integrated into the default Ubuntu installation, is this really in keeping with the ideals of Ubuntu?

Is it time to start looking for a new distro....?

ZankerH
November 23rd, 2009, 12:42 AM
Ubuntu One selling music and charging for off-site storage, paid closed apps for sale in the Ubuntu Software Store.... and all integrated into the default Ubuntu installation, is this really in keeping with the ideals of Ubuntu?

Is it time to start looking for a new distro....?

gNewSense. Ubuntu with less canonical and more GNU.

-grubby
November 23rd, 2009, 12:43 AM
No.

Giant Speck
November 23rd, 2009, 12:44 AM
Turn off your computer and blow it to pieces. The world is clearly coming to an end earlier than expected.

days_of_ruin
November 23rd, 2009, 12:45 AM
What is wrong with selling music? Canonical has to make money.

FuturePilot
November 23rd, 2009, 12:49 AM
No one will be forcing you to use those features. No functionality is going to be held hostage for a fee. So you'll be able to use Ubuntu just as you always have. I see nothing wrong with these plans. It can encourage companies to develop apps for Linux.

Giant Speck
November 23rd, 2009, 12:51 AM
No one will be forcing you to use those features. No functionality is going to be held hostage for a fee. So you'll be able to use Ubuntu just as you always have. I see nothing wrong with these plans. It can encourage companies to develop apps for Linux.

You may not be forced to use those features but you're forced to acknowledge and deal with their existence.

Oh, God, the pain.

Crunchy the Headcrab
November 23rd, 2009, 12:55 AM
The only way I'd see any of this as a bad thing, is if Ubuntu took competing products out of the repos. I don't mind them having some good solid "premium" content as long as I can still use my free software.

samh785
November 23rd, 2009, 12:55 AM
You may not be forced to use those features but you're forced to acknowledge and deal with their existence.

Oh, God, the pain.
lmao

ZankerH
November 23rd, 2009, 12:56 AM
You may not be forced to use those features but you're forced to acknowledge and deal with their existence.

Oh, God, the pain.


In other words, you're using what began as a Free operating system and is slowly turning into a corporate monstrosity no better than the major proprietary operating systems which shall not be named. I think giving validity to that by continuing to use the product is a big enough issue to warrant switching to a different software distribution of GNU/Linux.

squilookle
November 23rd, 2009, 12:56 AM
There are plenty of other distros and there will probably be plenty of derivative distros that will allow you to use the same OS without all this stuff.

I agree with the point someone made that they have to make money, and maybe it doesnt hurt too much to have these things put in: there will be many users that appreciate these features.

Also, I don't believe we are dealing with something on the same level as Microsoft or Apple. You still have the same rights to use, distribute and modify the OS to your hearts content, that you always had. You do not have these rights with windows and Mac OS.

FuturePilot
November 23rd, 2009, 12:56 AM
You may not be forced to use those features but you're forced to acknowledge and deal with their existence.

Oh, God, the pain.

inorite? Bad ¢anoni¢a£, bad, bad. :p

RiceMonster
November 23rd, 2009, 12:57 AM
In other words, you're using what began as a Free operating system and is slowly turning into a corporate monstrosity no better than the major proprietary operating systems which shall not be named. I think giving validity to that by continuing to use the product is a big enough issue to warrant switching to a different software distribution of GNU/Linux.

lol

ZankerH
November 23rd, 2009, 12:59 AM
There are plenty of other distros and there will probably be plenty of derivative distros that will allow you to use the same OS without all this stuff.

I agree with the point someone made that they have to make money, and maybe it doesnt hurt too much to have these things put in: there will be many users that appreciate these features.

And your post points out the essence of what Canonical is turning the Ubuntu software distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system into: A nuisance of an OS designed to bring in more users to leech of off, through introducing non-Free software into their software distribution of a Free operating system. If there were any justice, this would be illegal and Canonical would be hit with severe punishment like MS and Intel were for their criminal business practices.

Crunchy the Headcrab
November 23rd, 2009, 01:01 AM
And your post points out the essence of what Canonical is turning the Ubuntu software distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system into: A nuisance of an OS designed to bring in more users to leech of off, through introducing non-Free software into their software distribution of a Free operating system. If there were any justice, this would be illegal and Canonical would be hit with severe punishment like MS and Intel were for their criminal business practices.
Why is it wrong for them to have paid products as long as they still include FOSS in their repositories?

-grubby
November 23rd, 2009, 01:05 AM
And your post points out the essence of what Canonical is turning the Ubuntu software distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system into: A nuisance of an OS designed to bring in more users to leech of off, through introducing non-Free software into their software distribution of a Free operating system. If there were any justice, this would be illegal and Canonical would be hit with severe punishment like MS and Intel were for their criminal business practices.

It's NOT illegal to write proprietary software, and it should never be illegal to include proprietary software on the same disk as FOSS software.

kpholmes
November 23rd, 2009, 01:06 AM
Ubuntu One selling music and charging for off-site storage, paid closed apps for sale in the Ubuntu Software Store.... and all integrated into the default Ubuntu installation, is this really in keeping with the ideals of Ubuntu?

Is it time to start looking for a new distro....?

its enough to push me away

edit: i dont mind them selling music, thats fine, we need to get music from places who respect the users and provide it in open formats.

im just not to keen on the selling of closed apps in the software store.

ZankerH
November 23rd, 2009, 01:07 AM
Why is it wrong for them to have paid products as long as they still include FOSS in their repositories?

Because at this point, non-Free software is so tightly integrated with the Ubuntu software distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system itself, it's basically no longer usable without it. It took an entire new software distribution - albeit a derivative of the Ubuntu software distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system - gNewSense - to thoroughly purge it of non-Free software. If non-Free software were purely optional, that wouldn't be the case, and there would be a simple option at install that allowed you to pick between a Free and proprietary installation.

Which isn't the case.

Paqman
November 23rd, 2009, 01:12 AM
is this really in keeping with the ideals of Ubuntu?


Yes. Next question?

Mr. Picklesworth
November 23rd, 2009, 01:13 AM
Pragmatism is a wonderful thing.

Grant A.
November 23rd, 2009, 01:16 AM
In other words, you're using what began as a Free operating system and is slowly turning into a corporate monstrosity no better than the major proprietary operating systems which shall not be named. I think giving validity to that by continuing to use the product is a big enough issue to warrant switching to a different software distribution of GNU/Linux.

True freedom is the freedom of choice. If you want to use Free software only, then fine, but I will damn well use what I please under the confines of the law. If you're denying users the basic freedom of choice, then you sir, are a hypocrite.

It's attitudes like these that drive away corporations that could contribute to the development of the Linux kernel and FOSS as a whole. If you hate corporations so much, then you should flat out stop using Linux altogether.

Here are some fun facts for you:


IBM hires 60% of the Linux Kernel developers
Microsoft has contributed FOSS code randomly (Namely some basic components of the .Net stack)
Apple took the Mach kernel, NeXTSTEP, FreeBSD, and released the product under an open source license, despite them not having too.
AMD proudly supports coreboot. (FOSS BIOS)
Cisco Systems and Netgear are known for making respectable Linux-based routers.
Novell has guarded the UNIX IP (from which Linux is closely related to, and may possibly infringe upon due to vague patents) like a hawk, and has protected us time and time again from the SCO group.
RedHat has greatly contributed to FOSS, and has never been called a leach.
Canonical has helped foster the development of an intuitive Linux distribution that has introduced more computer users to the FOSS world than any other distribution in history. Without Ubuntu and Canonical, many of us would have never even heard of Linux.


Oh, almost forgot:



There are "extremists" in the free software world, but that's one major reason why I don't call what I do "free software" any more. I don't want to be associated with the people for whom it's about exclusion and hatred.


People like you have even turned Linus farther away from Free software. You should be ashamed.

Good day~

Greg
November 23rd, 2009, 01:16 AM
Because at this point, non-Free software is so tightly integrated with the Ubuntu software distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system itself, it's basically no longer usable without it. It took an entire new software distribution - albeit a derivative of the Ubuntu software distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system - gNewSense - to thoroughly purge it of non-Free software. If non-Free software were purely optional, that wouldn't be the case, and there would be a simple option at install that allowed you to pick between a Free and proprietary installation.

Which isn't the case.

So what does that have to do with moral wrong? If you don't like it, don't use it. If you do, then do.

schwim
November 23rd, 2009, 01:19 AM
Is it time to start looking for a new distro....?

If you want to. Are we supposed to beg you not to?

As long as Ubuntu serves it's purpose on my computer, I'll use it. I could care less if they're selling branded suppositories in the Canonical store.

Rainstride
November 23rd, 2009, 01:21 AM
Because at this point, non-Free software is so tightly integrated with the Ubuntu software distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system itself, it's basically no longer usable without it. It took an entire new software distribution - albeit a derivative of the Ubuntu software distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system - gNewSense - to thoroughly purge it of non-Free software. If non-Free software were purely optional, that wouldn't be the case, and there would be a simple option at install that allowed you to pick between a Free and proprietary installation.

Which isn't the case.

it is 100% optional in ubuntu! theres even an option in the alt install cd to limit your install to free software only.

besides ubuntuone can be removed by clicking a single button, its the one that says "remove", you can find it in the software center. if you don't want the ability to buy music, disable the plugin. and if you don't want commercial software, DON"T BUY IT! continue to use free opensource software only.

you act like its some hidden back door or something. these things are OPTIONAL! and removable.

samh785
November 23rd, 2009, 01:21 AM
And your post points out the essence of what Canonical is turning the Ubuntu software distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system into: A nuisance of an OS designed to bring in more users to leech of off, through introducing non-Free software into their software distribution of a Free operating system. If there were any justice, this would be illegal and Canonical would be hit with severe punishment like MS and Intel were for their criminal business practices.
How would a novice user use proprietary software if it wasn't in the repositories? They couldn't. I'm glad that they are doing this, and I'll continue to be so unless they start removing FOSS. Then I'll happily switch to another distro.

chris200x9
November 23rd, 2009, 01:22 AM
Ubuntu One selling music and charging for off-site storage, paid closed apps for sale in the Ubuntu Software Store.... and all integrated into the default Ubuntu installation, is this really in keeping with the ideals of Ubuntu?

Is it time to start looking for a new distro....?

do you use a "normal" linux kernel? If so you have already sold out. In for a penny in for a pound.

Giant Speck
November 23rd, 2009, 01:22 AM
If you want to. Are we supposed to beg you not to?

As long as Ubuntu serves it's purpose on my computer, I'll use it. I could care less if they're selling branded suppositories in the Canonical store.

I had to do a double take to make sure you typed suppositories deliberately.

dasunst3r
November 23rd, 2009, 01:24 AM
At least it's not this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_XP

I ran it on a virtual machine two years ago, and it's the sorriest excuse of a distro I've ever seen.

jwbrase
November 23rd, 2009, 01:36 AM
Because at this point, non-Free software is so tightly integrated with the Ubuntu software distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system itself, it's basically no longer usable without it. It took an entire new software distribution - albeit a derivative of the Ubuntu software distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system - gNewSense - to thoroughly purge it of non-Free software. If non-Free software were purely optional, that wouldn't be the case, and there would be a simple option at install that allowed you to pick between a Free and proprietary installation.

Which isn't the case.

Not everybody thinks that all non-Free software is the devil incarnate. There are certainly things I don't like about it, and it does not make sense to treat information in the computer age as if it were a physical good and try to make it proprietary, but neither is it necessary to cleanse your hard disk of all software just because you don't have access to its source code. There are actually proprietary software developers who aren't crooks. They aren't all henchmen of Bill Gates, and even he, though I regard him as a complete criminal and a perfect example of how the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil, is not the Antichrist.


EDIT:

And seriously:


the Ubuntu software distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system

You repeated this phrase, word for word, twice in that post.

Your zeal for political correctness surpasses that which certain corporations display in calling certain special brands of malware "trusted computing" and "digital rights management." There are some people who get a bit worked up whenever they hear someone say "Ubuntu GNU/Linux" or "GNU Linux" instead of "Ubuntu" or "Ubuntu Linux". I'm not one of them. If you want you can say "Ubuntu GNU". But is it seriously necessary to call it "the Ubuntu software distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system" every time you mention it?

ZankerH
November 23rd, 2009, 01:37 AM
People like you have even turned Linus farther away from Free software. You should be ashamed.

This isn't about the Linux kernel or the personality cult of the deluded moron who pretends not to understand the difference between a kernel and an operating system because he happens to be the founder of the kernel. Linus regrets making the Linux kernel Free Software, because it gets him less ego-stroking adoration than it would have if he maintained it as a one-person obscure, incompatible with anything OS. The FSF's definition is about as close to real Freedom as you can get.

SunnyRabbiera
November 23rd, 2009, 01:41 AM
There is nothing wrong with it, I see no issue with commercial softwares that are offered in ubuntu.
Hey if it means more commercial support for linux in general then I am all for it.
We need commercial support as much as free software support.

SteveHillier
November 23rd, 2009, 01:41 AM
It's NOT illegal to write proprietary software, and it should never be illegal to include proprietary software on the same disk as FOSS software.

If it were illegal that would leave RedHat is a mess wouldn't it?

SteveHillier
November 23rd, 2009, 01:46 AM
Without Ubuntu and Canonical, many of us would have never even heard of Linux.


Echo that.
Though for me I have tried other Distros but Ubuntu was the first one that really worked for me.

Grant A.
November 23rd, 2009, 01:54 AM
This isn't about the Linux kernel or the personality cult of the deluded moron who pretends not to understand the difference between a kernel and an operating system because he happens to be the founder of the kernel. Linus regrets making the Linux kernel Free Software, because it gets him less ego-stroking adoration than it would have if he maintained it as a one-person obscure, incompatible with anything OS. The FSF's definition is about as close to real Freedom as you can get.

It's quite funny that the only statement you chose to refute in my entire post was the one where you could bash another Linux user. I love hypocritical trolls.

wilee-nilee
November 23rd, 2009, 01:55 AM
There are many ism's here are just a few.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ism

samh785
November 23rd, 2009, 01:56 AM
it's quite funny that the only statement you chose to refute in my entire post was the one where you could bash another linux user. I love hypocritical trolls.
+1

Greg
November 23rd, 2009, 01:56 AM
This isn't about the Linux kernel or the personality cult of the deluded moron who pretends not to understand the difference between a kernel and an operating system because he happens to be the founder of the kernel. Linus regrets making the Linux kernel Free Software, because it gets him less ego-stroking adoration than it would have if he maintained it as a one-person obscure, incompatible with anything OS. The FSF's definition is about as close to real Freedom as you can get.

Real freedom is being able to do what you want. That includes using proprietary software if you so choose, and it includes calling an OS whatever the hell you want.

[]Milo
November 23rd, 2009, 02:00 AM
I would like to understand why it is that offering paid for services is a problem in Ubuntu. I get all of the 'everything should be free' yada yada, thats great and all, but its not terribly pragmatic. Can anyone offer a reasoned argument as to why these developments are a threat to the future of linux/ubuntu?

For the record, I'm in favour of the argument that says if Canonical can make a buck doing this stuff, and if they are not application or platform specific services, then the future of Ubuntu is guaranteed. Hell, they might even produce win and mac clients and make a few from those guys as well!! (btw there are much cheaper storage solutions than Ubuntu One available)

Irihapeti
November 23rd, 2009, 02:01 AM
It amazes me how people can be so certain about someone else's motivations. I have enough trouble trying to figure out what's motivating me, never mind anyone else.

Rainstride
November 23rd, 2009, 02:02 AM
it's quite funny that the only statement you chose to refute in my entire post was the one where you could bash another linux user. I love hypocritical trolls.
+1


real freedom is being able to do what you want. That includes using proprietary software if you so choose, and it includes calling an os whatever the hell you want.
+1

wilee-nilee
November 23rd, 2009, 02:02 AM
It's quite funny that the only statement you chose to refute in my entire post was the one where you could bash another Linux user. I love hypocritical trolls.

Now where is my label maker. ;)

RiceMonster
November 23rd, 2009, 02:02 AM
Milo;8368931']Can anyone offer a reasoned argument as to why these developments are a threat to the future of linux/ubuntu?

I would like to see one too.

*queue condescending remark from ZankerH*

wilee-nilee
November 23rd, 2009, 02:05 AM
It amazes me how people can be so certain about someone else's motivations. I have enough trouble trying to figure out what's motivating me, never mind anyone else.

+1 These interpretations are a projection.

Rainstride
November 23rd, 2009, 02:08 AM
+1 These interpretations are a projection.

exactly.

KiwiNZ
November 23rd, 2009, 02:09 AM
This isn't about the Linux kernel or the personality cult of the deluded moron who pretends not to understand the difference between a kernel and an operating system because he happens to be the founder of the kernel. Linus regrets making the Linux kernel Free Software, because it gets him less ego-stroking adoration than it would have if he maintained it as a one-person obscure, incompatible with anything OS. The FSF's definition is about as close to real Freedom as you can get.

Please present arguments without insults.

Greg
November 23rd, 2009, 02:16 AM
I would like to see one too.

*queue condescending remark from ZankerH*

You know what, this is uneven teams. I think I'll switch.

The presence of proprietary software in software distributions of GNU/Linux clearly undermines the integrity of the ideals of free software. Canonical has continually moved towards a more and more commercial objective. As the focus switches from free software to making money, it will become more and more embedded within the culture. The software distribution will lose focus and move down the path of an operating system that I shall not name.

Shpongle
November 23rd, 2009, 02:21 AM
edit: I dont mind them selling music, thats fine, we need to get music from places who respect the users and provide it in open formats.

Im just not to keen on the selling of closed apps in the software store.

+1

frdrx
November 23rd, 2009, 02:24 AM
Moreover, at least one package in universe has essentially been turned into adware (see Bug #433799 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/r-base/+bug/433799). If this is the direction Ubuntu is heading, I would say yes, everybody should consider switching to a different distro. I am now in the process of migrating all machines I administer (especially those at my faculty department) to Debian because I have lost my trust in Canonical's Ubuntu.

KiwiNZ
November 23rd, 2009, 02:25 AM
Ever considered how much it costs to develop , host, distribute ,support etc your beloved OS?

Money does not grow on a tree , the ferry man does need paying .

wilee-nilee
November 23rd, 2009, 02:27 AM
I haven't read the whole thread but there are copy write laws to be paid so this is a logical reason for Canonical to charge for music or anything.

Edit: I see Kiwi has posted the same idea.

jwbrase
November 23rd, 2009, 02:31 AM
You know what, this is uneven teams. I think I'll switch.

Nice... ;)



The presence of proprietary software in software distributions of GNU/Linux clearly undermines the integrity of the ideals of free software. Canonical has continually moved towards a more and more commercial objective. As the focus switches from free software to making money, it will become more and more embedded within the culture. The software distribution will lose focus and move down the path of an operating system that I shall not name.

Ah, but is the presence of a commercial objective the bad thing, or the ruthlessness and disregard for good morals with which it is pursued?

Irihapeti
November 23rd, 2009, 02:33 AM
Ever considered how much it costs to develop , host, distribute ,support etc your beloved OS?

Money does not grow on a tree , the ferry man does need paying .

Thank you, KiwiNZ. I am beginning to think that one of the downsides of free software is that so many people seem to think they're entitled to other people's work for nothing.

KiwiNZ
November 23rd, 2009, 02:34 AM
We should move to a full commercial footing . The community can earn credits for purchases by providing support and developing.

jwbrase
November 23rd, 2009, 02:35 AM
Moreover, at least one package in universe has essentially been turned into adware.

That is something I find more concerning than anything else said up to this point on this thread.

Greg
November 23rd, 2009, 02:36 AM
Nice... ;)



Ah, but is the presence of a commercial objective the bad thing, or the ruthlessness and disregard for good morals with which it is pursued?

What does it matter, when the end result is the same? The integrity of the distribution is compromised by the pursuit.

Mr. Picklesworth
November 23rd, 2009, 02:42 AM
Ah, but is the presence of a commercial objective the bad thing, or the ruthlessness and disregard for good morals with which it is pursued?

Exactly my thought on the matter. Not every commercial venture is evil, and if you behave as if that's the case by default, it will end up coming true.

For example, have you ever eaten at a restaurant? I'll bet you prefer the ones with friendly service and reasonable prices. I have been at restaurants that are kind enough to share their recipes for free, and others that sell complete cook books for about the price of a single meal.

As another example, Feedly is a fantastic online product. It is proprietary, but the developers are very responsive and friendly. Some of it is marketing, but lots of it is genuine. These guys love what they do.

Lots of video game developers are the same. For example, Telltale Games and VALVe impress me with the great ways they treat their communities (http://blackmesasource.com/).

Rainstride
November 23rd, 2009, 02:43 AM
Thank you, KiwiNZ. I am beginning to think that one of the downsides of free software is that so many people seem to think they're entitled to other people's work for nothing.

they think that "free software" should also include price. leaches don't understand that even "free" software has its costs. whether that be time, money, or effort.(usually all three;)) if ubuntu can be funded by optional services, that we all want/or need whether that be buying music or storage space, its win win.

and if you don't like the idea, don't use the services. its not like its mandatory.

frdrx
November 23rd, 2009, 02:44 AM
That is something I find more concerning than anything else said up to this point on this thread.

There's a whole thread on this here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1282931&highlight=revolution-r). I find the thing they've done with R in Ubuntu so disturbing that I feel I can no longer recommend Ubuntu to any of my friends and colleagues.

wilee-nilee
November 23rd, 2009, 02:44 AM
Here is a link to a Forbes article that is a good bit of information.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/09/05/linux-ubuntu-opensource_cz_mr_0906shuttleworth.html

jwbrase
November 23rd, 2009, 02:45 AM
Thank you, KiwiNZ. I am beginning to think that one of the downsides of free software is that so many people seem to think they're entitled to other people's work for nothing.

Ah... But Free as in free speech != free as in free beer. Why not have FOSS under a commissioned work system like the fine arts in the renaissance? You could have some sort of commission guild: Members pay dues and get to request the development of software. According to the number of members that request a particular software concept and the amount of new code required, the guild then pays developers to develop software and release the source to the public. Projects with lots of requests and that require the development of a large system from scratch draw a large paycheck. Low numbers of requests and small programs written from scratch and small modifications to existing large programs draw small paychecks.

Greg
November 23rd, 2009, 02:46 AM
they think that "free software" should also include price. leaches don't understand that even "free" software has its costs. whether that be time, money, or effort.(usually all three;)) if ubuntu can be funded by optional services, that we all want/or need whether that be buying music or storage space, its win win.

and if you don't like the idea, don't use the services. its not like its mandatory.

The perpetuation of commercial ideals by the representative (for better of worse) to the masses of GNU/Linux is harmful to free software. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate problem.

wilee-nilee
November 23rd, 2009, 02:52 AM
There's a whole thread on this here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1282931&highlight=revolution-r). I find the thing they've done with R in Ubuntu so disturbing that I feel I can no longer recommend Ubuntu to any of my friends and colleagues.

It is about copyrights.
http://www.revolution-computing.com/aboutus/legal.php
We are lucky to get a free version at all.

LinuxFanBoi
November 23rd, 2009, 02:55 AM
Because at this point, non-Free software is so tightly integrated with the Ubuntu software distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system itself, it's basically no longer usable without it.

Funny you should say that, I have never been charged anything to use Ubuntu nor have I had any functionality "expire" as a result of non-payment. That being said, The Linux platform will never gain widespread acceptance without commercial software developers releasing commercial titles.

Like it or not, profit drives progress. Linux will always be free but that doesn't mean someone can't charge you to use there software. Don't like it? vote with your wallet. Free software titles will still exist, use them.

frdrx
November 23rd, 2009, 02:56 AM
It is about copyrights.
http://www.revolution-computing.com/aboutus/legal.php
We are lucky to get a free version at all.

Sorry, this isn't about copyright but about advertising proprietary software using free-software packages in the default Ubuntu repository. No, I am not feeling lucky because of this.

wilee-nilee
November 23rd, 2009, 03:04 AM
Sorry, this isn't about copyright but about advertising proprietary software using free-software packages in the default Ubuntu repository. No, I am not feeling lucky because of this.

Cherry picking out what I was commenting on, makes so much sense. ;)

Rainstride
November 23rd, 2009, 03:08 AM
The perpetuation of commercial ideals by the representative (for better of worse) to the masses of GNU/Linux is harmful to free software. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate problem.

( commercial ideals = oxymoron.;) )

i want you to name a single thing that/in what Canonical is doing that expressly hurts free software. all the code they have made is open source, and viewable. the options are just that options, they aren't forcing them on you like micrsoft does with all of there crap and licenses. the only thing that comes installed off the bat from Canonical is ubuntu one, and it can be removed, or you can get a free account. mark shuttleworth even funds gnash. and other open source software.

also nice gang mentality at the end there.

Greg
November 23rd, 2009, 03:21 AM
( commercial ideals = oxymoron.;) )

i want you to name a single thing that in what Canonical is doing that expressly hurts free software. all the code they have made is open source, and viewable. the options are just that options, they aren't forcing them on you like micrsoft does with all of there crap and licenses. the only thing that comes installed off the bat from Canonical is ubuntu one, and it can be removed, or you can get a free account. mark shuttleworth even funds gnash. and other open source software.

also nice gang mentality at the end there.

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

They claim to be a representative of free software, but it took a whole other software distribution of GNU/Linux to purge Ubuntu of proprietary software. Falsehoods harm the spread of FOSS ideals.

wilee-nilee
November 23rd, 2009, 03:27 AM
Anybody want to wager on time of lock for this thread. ;) I give it about 1 hour.

frdrx
November 23rd, 2009, 03:29 AM
Cherry picking out what I was commenting on, makes so much sense. ;)

If you really insist that I also comment on this sentence of yours:


We are lucky to get a free version at all.,

I must ask you to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a `free version' of R, which makes your comment absolutely meaningless. R has been created free and always will be free, since it is licensed under the GPL. Advertisements for proprietary extensions made by REvolution Computing have no place in R packages installed from the universe repository like advertisements for StarOffice or RedOffice have no place in OpenOffice.

Mr. Picklesworth
November 23rd, 2009, 03:39 AM
it took a whole other software distribution of GNU/Linux to purge Ubuntu of software that saint Stallman has not blessed as matching his ideals.

There, fixed that for you.

mivo
November 23rd, 2009, 03:41 AM
Ever considered how much it costs to develop , host, distribute ,support etc your beloved OS?

Ever considered that Canonical just takes stuff from Debian and re-packages it? Tell us, how much money has Canonical donated to the Debian project? While you are at it, mind explaining why Canonical barely gives anything back while other companies, such as Novell and RH, contribute a lot of code/etc?

I don't mind that Canonical tries to cash in, after all Mark S. did not become a millionaire by running charities. But I do mind the claim that Canonical somehow is the developer of all that Ubuntu consists of. Most of the support here is done by users, not by Canonical employees, who only provide support to those who pay for it.

The mindset expressed by what you said is the very reason why Canonical and Ubuntu meet so much resentment in the Linux community. Claim credit for marketing, not for the work of the Debian project, developers of free software, and the contributions of other companies.

Giant Speck
November 23rd, 2009, 03:42 AM
there, fixed that for you.

mmlolirl

KiwiNZ
November 23rd, 2009, 03:42 AM
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy

They claim to be a representative of free software, but it took a whole other software distribution of GNU/Linux to purge Ubuntu of proprietary software. Falsehoods harm the spread of FOSS ideals.

Ubuntu meets that philosophy then , now and will . Even if there is a cost .

"For Ubuntu, the 'free' in 'free software' is used primarily in reference to freedom, and not to price - although we are committed to not charging for Ubuntu. The most important thing about Ubuntu is that it confers rights of software freedom on the people who install and use it. It is these freedoms that enable the Ubuntu community to grow, continue to share its collective experience and expertise to improve Ubuntu and make it suitable for use in new countries and new industries."

KiwiNZ
November 23rd, 2009, 03:46 AM
Ever considered that Canonical just takes stuff from Debian and re-packages it? Tell us, how much money has Canonical donated to the Debian project? While you are at it, mind explaining why Canonical barely gives anything back while other companies, such as Novell and RH, contribute a lot of code/etc?

I don't mind that Canonical tries to cash in, after all Mark S. did not become a millionaire by running charities. But I do mind the claim that Canonical somehow is the developer of all that Ubuntu consists of. Most of the support here is done by users, not by Canonical employees, who only provide support to those who pay for it.

The mindset expressed by what you said is the very reason why Canonical and Ubuntu meet so much resentment in the Linux community. Claim credit for marketing, not for the work of the Debian project, developers of free software, and the contributions of other companies.

He made his fortune from the sale of Thawte and made extensive donations to fund the OS you are using for free

wilee-nilee
November 23rd, 2009, 03:52 AM
If you really insist that I also comment on this sentence of yours:

,

I must ask you to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a `free version' of R, which makes your comment absolutely meaningless. R has been created free and always will be free, since it is licensed under the GPL. Advertisements for proprietary extensions made by REvolution Computing have no place in R packages installed from the universe repository like advertisements for StarOffice or RedOffice have no place in OpenOffice.

I think it is a matter of interpretation, and your willingness to argue whether right or wrong or anywhere in between. ;) It is also your opinion, not backed with anything but your reasoning.
http://www.revolution-computing.com/downloads/revolution-r.php
Personally I am not familiar with REvolution computing altogether, but it just seems like a personal problem, as is the general problems with Canonical possibly having a charged service.

It would be nice to have a more socialized commerce system in general with everybody being accountable, but that is not the real world in many situations.

I understand the argument of advertising should not be allowed.

Greg
November 23rd, 2009, 03:54 AM
Ubuntu meets that philosophy then , now and will . Even if there is a cost .

"For Ubuntu, the 'free' in 'free software' is used primarily in reference to freedom, and not to price - although we are committed to not charging for Ubuntu. The most important thing about Ubuntu is that it confers rights of software freedom on the people who install and use it. It is these freedoms that enable the Ubuntu community to grow, continue to share its collective experience and expertise to improve Ubuntu and make it suitable for use in new countries and new industries."

They say free as in freedom while distributing and developing proprietary software like Ubuntu One.

wilee-nilee
November 23rd, 2009, 03:55 AM
He made his fortune from the sale of Thawte and made extensive donations to fund the OS you are using for free

Yes as the Forbes article states 15 million dollars of his own.

mivo
November 23rd, 2009, 03:56 AM
This doesn't answer the question about donations to the Debian project which is what Ubuntu is for the vast part based on, or why so little code and man power is contributed, especially compared to other for-profit companies.

I use Ubuntu on one machine, and I have seeded the CDs for years and ordered some merchandise, so I did not just use it for free. I also use Arch Linux, and guess what? No one had to sell their company and fund it. It is also offered for free in spite of expenses for hosting. It works just as well, if not better, as do many distros without financial backing of a company.

Canonical entered the Linux scene relatively late, too - by the time, it was already a feathered nest, at least to a larger degree than it would have been in earlier years. I'm not saying Canonical has not had an impact, as it certainly did. The forum here is evidence of that. But Canonical didn't somehow invent Linux. Most of what Ubuntu consists of was not developed or even sponsored by Canonical.

As I said, I have no issues with Canonical wanting to make money.

KiwiNZ
November 23rd, 2009, 03:59 AM
They say free as in freedom while distributing and developing proprietary software like Ubuntu One.

Ubuntu One is a "Service"

You can have for free or choose to upgrade at a cost

KiwiNZ
November 23rd, 2009, 04:05 AM
This doesn't answer the question about donations to the Debian project which is what Ubuntu is for the vast part based on, or why so little code and man power is contributed, especially compared to other for-profit companies.

I use Ubuntu on one machine, and I have seeded the CDs for years and ordered some merchandise, so I did not just use it for free. I also use Arch Linux, and guess what? No one had to sell their company and fund it. It is also offered for free in spite of expenses for hosting. It works just as well, if not better, as do many distros without financial backing of a company.

Canonical entered the Linux scene relatively late, too - by the time, it was already a feathered nest, at least to a larger degree than it would have been in earlier years. I'm not saying Canonical has not had an impact, as it certainly did. The forum here is evidence of that. But Canonical didn't somehow invent Linux. Most of what Ubuntu consists of was not developed or even sponsored by Canonical.

As I said, I have no issues with Canonical wanting to make money.

And Debian has benefited greatly

frdrx
November 23rd, 2009, 04:06 AM
I think it is a matter of interpretation, and your willingness to argue whether right or wrong or anywhere in between. ;) It is also your opinion, not backed with anything but your reasoning.

What I stated regarding the relationship between R and REvolution Computing are just plain facts. R is a GPL project completely independent of the company. There is no room for interpretation or opinion there.

Anyway, I see this as a warning that Ubuntu is about to betray its stated principles. How far is Canonical prepared to take these partnerships with distributors of proprietary software? Too far, I fear.

Greg
November 23rd, 2009, 04:08 AM
Ubuntu One is a "Service"

You can have for free or choose to upgrade at a cost

Gratis, not libre. The point isn't whether it costs, the point is whether it's free.

OK, that's my last remark. I didn't switch sides just so ZankerH could abandon the thread.

Regenweald
November 23rd, 2009, 04:10 AM
Is it time to start looking for a new distro....?

Yes.

wilee-nilee
November 23rd, 2009, 04:19 AM
What I stated regarding the relationship between R and REvolution Computing are just plain facts. R is a GPL project completely independent of the company. There is no room for interpretation or opinion there.

Anyway, I see this as a warning that Ubuntu is about to betray its stated principles. How far is Canonical prepared to take these partnerships with distributors of proprietary software? Too far, I fear.

Then let your fear drive your decisions. ;)

mivo
November 23rd, 2009, 04:20 AM
And Debian has benefited greatly

In what ways did the Debian project benefit? I'm not trying to be difficult, and my interest is genuine: Could you please give specific examples?

I recall list messages where Debian developers expressed their displeasure with Canonical/Ubuntu.

LinuxFanBoi
November 23rd, 2009, 04:20 AM
Anyway, I see this as a warning that Ubuntu is about to betray its stated principles. How far is Canonical prepared to take these partnerships with distributors of proprietary software? Too far, I fear.

Please read the Ubuntu Philosophy (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy). When you are done, please explain what principals within are being threatened. I don't think that canonical is doing anything that would threaten their philosophy, but if I'm wrong, I would like you to show me what I've over looked.

KhanTG
November 23rd, 2009, 04:24 AM
Just to add my voice to the topic... I don't mind paying for software that I truly enjoy; for that matter, I would be happy contribute to Canonical's success as a business.
All things in life do not have to be free.. Would you work at your job for NOTHING? I think not, unless you are independently wealthy and no longer care about monetary needs and wants (or if you are happy leeching off the kindness of others, who DO work for money or other compensation).

note32
November 23rd, 2009, 04:31 AM
i think that selling music is a great thing for canonical to invest in, everyone has to see the other side to ubuntu that it is in a market it will be good to have some commercial support for it

boballen55
November 23rd, 2009, 04:31 AM
vote with your wallet.

I hate that statement every time I see it because then the rich minority win the vote because they have more...

While currently fairly benign in Ubuntu's case right now it will probably be more and more corrupted by the for profit monetary system the world operates in right now (just like everything else) to the detriment of anyone looking to use software to improve their lives.

Irihapeti
November 23rd, 2009, 04:35 AM
If you are bothered by what you think Canonical might be doing, then why not express that concern directly to Canonical?

If you think that sounds like work, yes, it probably is. But, is it important enough to you, for you to want to do something effective about it?

cariboo
November 23rd, 2009, 04:47 AM
In what ways did the Debian project benefit? I'm not trying to be difficult, and my interest is genuine: Could you please give specific examples?

I recall list messages where Debian developers expressed their displeasure with Canonical/Ubuntu.

How about this (http://www.osnews.com/story/21970/Shuttleworth_Offers_Canonical_Employees_to_Debian)

aysiu
November 23rd, 2009, 04:54 AM
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/debian

KiwiNZ
November 23rd, 2009, 05:00 AM
Gratis, not libre. The point isn't whether it costs, the point is whether it's free.

OK, that's my last remark. I didn't switch sides just so ZankerH could abandon the thread.

Ubuntu One

The client is GPL

mivo
November 23rd, 2009, 05:00 AM
How about this (http://www.osnews.com/story/21970/Shuttleworth_Offers_Canonical_Employees_to_Debian)

A conditional offer that would greatly benefit Ubuntu's x.04 releases, and depend on Debian's agreement for a freeze in December. Well, it's something, I won't deny that, but the thread here mentioned that Debian benefited greatly, and I'm still curious about examples that already did benefit Debian.

Did Debian agree to a December freeze? Reading the comments of the linked article raised some doubts and actually expressed the resentment I had mentioned earlier.

Thanks for the link. I hadn't read the article before, or heard of the offer. Appreciated.

aysiu
November 23rd, 2009, 05:04 AM
I hate that statement every time I see it because then the rich minority win the vote because they have more... Uh, not really. Do you think the rich minority are making Wal-Mart profits? No, the rich minority are shopping at Whole Foods and Pottery Barn. It's the collective poor majority that win the vote. Consumers have more power than you give them credit for.

Rainstride
November 23rd, 2009, 05:42 AM
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy

They claim to be a representative of free software, but it took a whole other software distribution of GNU/Linux to purge Ubuntu of proprietary software. Falsehoods harm the spread of FOSS ideals.
it didn't actually take a new distro, they could have used the free software only option when installing ubuntu. and it would have been the same damn thing. but instead a bunch of zealots decided to reinvent the wheel instead of doing a little bit of reading. all because ubuntu isn't a community of people just as over-zealous as them.


Anybody want to wager on time of lock for this thread. ;) I give it about 1 hour.
hmm....1-3 hours. though you never know, it could be here in 3 weeks.


There, fixed that for you.
much better.

I love the work stallman does and the gpl and all that he has done to push for software users rights, but the zealots that follow his example to an extreme and his more erratic behaviour, to the point of hindering open source and "free" software projects progress and creating in-fighting because so and so's project isn't free enough, I just can't support. also, it makes him look crazy and everyone around him by default.


They say free as in freedom while distributing and developing proprietary software like Ubuntu One.
ubuntu-one as far as i know (any dev's want to correct me plz do) is going to be just like how launchpad went, its planned to be open to development at a certain point. launchpad wasn't open-sourced till like a year (give or take) ago.


I hate that statement every time I see it because then the rich minority win the vote because they have more...

While currently fairly benign in Ubuntu's case right now it will probably be more and more corrupted by the for profit monetary system the world operates in right now (just like everything else) to the detriment of anyone looking to use software to improve their lives.
mark shuttleworth is worth several hundred million dollars. there's not much he can't buy as is. so the idea that he would be corrupted by creating a successful linux distro, is...well.. dumb as hell. if he wanted to make money, he could have picked any number of other things.

wilee-nilee
November 23rd, 2009, 06:38 AM
Well with the tandem posts by the mods showing the mea culpa of Ubuntu has quited the zealots. I certainly don't want to see the thread closed it is informative in so many ways. ;)

Rainstride
November 23rd, 2009, 07:30 AM
mea culpa
:confused:translation?

wilee-nilee
November 23rd, 2009, 07:34 AM
@wilee-nilee mea culpa


:confused:translation?

Actually not a correct use of the term but it seemed yes I say seemed appropriate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mea_culpa

Also a great song on My life In The Bush Of Ghosts by David Byrne and Brian Eno.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LadTYdtdpbA

Rainstride
November 23rd, 2009, 07:44 AM
@wilee-nilee mea culpa



Actually not a correct use of the term but it seemed yes I say seemed appropriate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mea_culpa

Also a great song on My life In The Bush Of Ghosts by David Byrne and Brian Eno.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LadTYdtdpbA

not really my kind of music, not bad though. iv definite hear much worse:D.

gn2
November 23rd, 2009, 07:45 AM
Ubuntu One

The client is GPL

And the server?

Irihapeti
November 23rd, 2009, 07:49 AM
I've been involved with a couple of bug reports against xserver-xorg-video-intel and at least one of them has been reported upstream as well. I see that as a form of giving back.

wilee-nilee
November 23rd, 2009, 07:53 AM
not really my kind of music, not bad though. iv definite hear much worse:D.

Actually if you get a chance to get the album I suspect you might find it interesting. Some of the key players are Robert Fripp and Bill Laswell, Bill Laswell is the premier NY producer of over 300 albums and the king of the Avante Garde and Dub scene. The band Praxis is his baby and several others. Robert Fripp is a Enigma as well.

The album was just pre digital by a couple of years and is all recorded events put to music including a exorcism, and a call to prayer by a Musilm Cleric, very danceable and true mixed media art.

I believe the mea culpa track was a minister apologizing with the music added, the pre recorded was heavily manipulated in each song though in most of the pieces to have it work with the music. The call to prayer is a beautiful song though and sounds unchanged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj3M5tdtjeY

Rainstride
November 23rd, 2009, 08:26 AM
Actually if you get a chance to get the album I suspect you might find it interesting. Some of the key players are Robert Fripp and Bill Laswell, Bill Laswell is the premier NY producer of over 300 albums and the king of the Avante Garde and Dub scene. The band Praxis is his baby and several others. Robert Fripp is a Enigma as well.

The album was just pre digital by a couple of years and is all recorded events put to music including a exorcism, and a call to prayer by a Musilm Cleric, very danceable and true mixed media art.

I believe the mea culpa track was a minister apologizing with the music added, the pre recorded was heavily manipulated in each song though in most of the pieces to have it work with the music. The call to prayer is a beautiful song though and sounds unchanged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj3M5tdtjeY

hmm.. actually I kind of like this one. it has a nice beat, and things are well placed, it would make great relaxing music. I would check out some more of his stuff, but im on an annoyingly small 5gb a month internet connection, so I pretty much can't touch youtube more than I did just to listen to that. Is his stuff on pandora?

for the most part im more of a nine inch nails kind of guy, but if its put together well and not like the new "fad" crap played on every radio station on the air today ill definitely give it a chance.

Aflack
November 23rd, 2009, 08:28 AM
I dont care how commercial anything gets, as long as ubuntu is free and functional with free basic software that works, Im going to use and support it.

wilee-nilee
November 23rd, 2009, 08:37 AM
hmm.. actually I kind of like this one. it has a nice beat, and things are well placed, it would make great relaxing music. I would check out some more of his stuff, but im on an annoyingly small 5gb a month internet connection, so I pretty much can't touch youtube more than I did just to listen to that. Is his stuff on pandora?

for the most part im more of a nine inch nails kind of guy, but if its put together well and not like the new "fad" crap played on every radio station on the air today ill definitely give it a chance.

It would be hard to find this actual album on pandoras although David Byrne originally the guitarist and singer for the Talking heads is some what of a open music source. He had a web site that let people remix some of his songs. Brian Eno is the ambient music King. I would just see if your library has a copy of bush of ghosts and you know listen to it. Or buy it off of Amazon.

Rainstride
November 23rd, 2009, 08:46 AM
I dont care how commercial anything gets, as long as ubuntu is free and functional with free basic software that works, Im going to use and support it.

free as in freedom? or free as in price? or both?

Aflack
November 23rd, 2009, 08:52 AM
free as in freedom? or free as in price? or both?

Price? I always have freedom to do anything...

Rainstride
November 23rd, 2009, 08:58 AM
It would be hard to find this actual album on pandoras although David Byrne originally the guitarist and singer for the Talking heads is some what of a open music source. He had a web site that let people remix some of his songs. Brian Eno is the ambient music King. I would just see if your library has a copy of bush of ghosts and you know listen to it. Or buy it off of Amazon.

i just typed Brian Eno &david byrne into pandora and it came up. i found the album you talked about http://www.pandora.com/music/album/brian+eno+david+byrne/my+life+in+bush+of+ghosts

Hallvor
November 23rd, 2009, 08:59 AM
How about this (http://www.osnews.com/story/21970/Shuttleworth_Offers_Canonical_Employees_to_Debian)

This hasn`t got anything to do with, say, Ubuntu 10.04 LTS..? Canonical has taken developers and resources away from Debian for years.

Rainstride
November 23rd, 2009, 09:08 AM
Price? I always have freedom to do anything...

true, but with non-free (as in freedom) software they have the right to try and send you to prison for doing what you want if they say its not allowed.

wilee-nilee
November 23rd, 2009, 09:21 AM
i just typed Brian Eno &david byrne into pandora and it came up. i found the album you talked about http://www.pandora.com/music/album/brian+eno+david+byrne/my+life+in+bush+of+ghosts

Cool man, I haven't used Pandoras for a while I liked it but the randomness of it when I last used it a while ago about a year and a half was not for me.

Giant Speck
November 23rd, 2009, 09:28 AM
true, but with non-free (as in freedom) software they have the right to try and send you to prison for doing what you want if they say its not allowed.

They do the same thing when I try to buy Big Macs from McDonalds only to remove the lettuce and resell them as Giant-Speck's Thousand Island Burgers. Those bastards!

Rainstride
November 23rd, 2009, 09:35 AM
They do the same thing when I try to buy Big Macs from McDonalds only to remove the lettuce and resell them as Giant-Speck's Thousand Island Burgers. Those bastards!

damn corporate greed keeping the little guy down! :lolflag:

Rainstride
November 23rd, 2009, 09:38 AM
Cool man, I haven't used Pandoras for a while I liked it but the randomness of it when I last used it a while ago about a year and a half was not for me.

I like pandora just because it makes it a lot easier to find new bands/songs. cause I sure as hell can't find them on the radio;). also, I don't have to sit though stuff I don't like.

3rdalbum
November 23rd, 2009, 11:06 AM
Ubuntu has always been a commercial distribution. It has always intended to make a profit for Canonical. It is currently not doing that. Canonical already sells support contracts, training, certification, merchandise and third-party software; now the addition of a music store and online cloud storage makes people foam at the mouth and proclaim that they're leaving Ubuntu?

Turning a profit == assurance of Ubuntu's future (and assurance of Shipit's future).
Turning a profit == money for marketing Ubuntu and bringing it past the 5% market share.
Turning a profit == hiring of new full-time developers, and hiring current voluntary contributors to work full-time on Ubuntu and associated services.
Turning a profit == good for every Ubuntu user.

Some people just don't know what's good for them.

frdrx
November 23rd, 2009, 12:20 PM
Please read the Ubuntu Philosophy. When you are done, please explain what principals within are being threatened. I don't think that canonical is doing anything that would threaten their philosophy, but if I'm wrong, I would like you to show me what I've over looked.
How arrogant of you to suggest that I hadn't read that.
Of course, Canonical are not going to violate those few principles written on that web page, but they have created over the years a perception of what Ubuntu is, and this is now at stake.

By the way, have you watched that video with Nelson Mandela talking about Ubuntu? Perhaps he should change his description of Ubuntu to the following:


`A traveler through a country would stop at a village and he didn't have to ask for food or for water. Once he stops, the people give him food (while nagging him to buy junk food) and water (and discount on Coca-Cola), entertain him, invite him to buy music at their music shop and paid proprietary software at their software shop, and offer him a catalogue of non-free software and pamphlets introducing proprietary derivatives of free software tools. That is one aspect of Ubuntu but it will have various aspects, including covert advertising. Ubuntu does not mean that people should not address themselves with commercial intent. The question therefore is: Are you going to do so in order to enable the target groups around you to be able to improve?'

reeboker
November 23rd, 2009, 12:33 PM
Ubuntu One selling music and charging for off-site storage, paid closed apps for sale in the Ubuntu Software Store.... and all integrated into the default Ubuntu installation, is this really in keeping with the ideals of Ubuntu?

Is it time to start looking for a new distro....?

Awww, C'mon, nothings wrong with that as long as the OS is okay to get, don't you think? And what about if you have iSomething and shop for music trough iTunes, huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(philosophy) ;)

gn2
November 23rd, 2009, 12:45 PM
frdrx expresses perfectly what I am thinking.

Would so many people have been so keen to make Ubuntu what it has become if it had started out as a purely commercial enterprise?

Psumi
November 23rd, 2009, 02:54 PM
No one will be forcing you to use those features. No functionality is going to be held hostage for a fee. So you'll be able to use Ubuntu just as you always have. I see nothing wrong with these plans. It can encourage companies to develop apps for Linux.

Just wait until 10.04 or 10.10 when they will start charging us to install codec packages, and give us a nice little warning that says we cannot install them unless we pay.

RabbitWho
November 23rd, 2009, 02:58 PM
I'm the biggest fan on earth of Commercialisim and Social-Capitalisim.

Making money through providing services and helping people is a GREAT thing. If everyone could make money this way the world would be a better place. If you boycott companies doing this you hurt the evolution of the human race.

alphaniner
November 23rd, 2009, 03:36 PM
`A traveler through a country would stop at a village and he didn't have to ask for food or for water. Once he stops, the people give him food (while nagging him to buy junk food) and water (and discount on Coca-Cola), entertain him, invite him to buy music at their music shop and paid proprietary software at their software shop, and offer him a catalogue of non-free software and pamphlets introducing proprietary derivatives of free software tools. That is one aspect of Ubuntu but it will have various aspects, including covert advertising. Ubuntu does not mean that people should not address themselves with commercial intent. The question therefore is: Are you going to do so in order to enable the target groups around you to be able to improve?'

When can I book a trip?

zekopeko
November 23rd, 2009, 03:45 PM
Just wait until 10.04 or 10.10 when they will start charging us to install codec packages, and give us a nice little warning that says we cannot install them unless we pay.

FUD-ing much?
Canonical already offers codecs for cash (provided by Fluendo).
People in the US can't legally watch movie, listen to music without paying for codecs (at least in Ubuntu).

mivo
November 23rd, 2009, 04:28 PM
People in the US can't legally watch movie, listen to music without paying for codecs (at least in Ubuntu).

If someone has a legit copy of Windows, which includes the codecs, would it then be legal to use a Linux distro to watch movies/etc?

Psumi
November 23rd, 2009, 04:28 PM
If someone has a legit copy of Windows, which includes the codecs, would it then be legal to use a Linux distro to watch movies/etc?

No. Because the codecs for Windows are made for Windows, not linux.


People in the US can't legally watch movie, listen to music without paying for codecs (at least in Ubuntu).

Medibuntu, anyone?

xuCGC002
November 23rd, 2009, 04:31 PM
lol

This.

gn2
November 23rd, 2009, 05:03 PM
I'm the biggest fan on earth of Commercialisim and Social-Capitalisim.

Making money through providing services and helping people is a GREAT thing. If everyone could make money this way the world would be a better place. If you boycott companies doing this you hurt the evolution of the human race.

I am unable to provide a response to this other than to say that I disagree with your view.

alphaniner
November 23rd, 2009, 05:26 PM
Yeah, thank you for giving validity to a genocidal racist maniac by using his quotes. I thought RL politics was off-limits here?


Whhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

First off it's a made up quote. Made up by someone other than me on the last page of this thread. Second off, I'm no authority but I'm pretty sure Nelson Mandela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela) is neither genocidal, nor racist, nor maniacal.

RiceMonster
November 23rd, 2009, 05:32 PM
First off it's a made up quote. Made up by someone other than me on the last page of this thread. Second off, I'm no authority but I'm pretty sure Nelson Mandela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela) is neither genocidal, nor racist, nor maniacal.

I don't think you read the part about politics being off limits here. This probably goes for your signature as well.

LowSky
November 23rd, 2009, 05:41 PM
If people are so worried about Canonical's Commercialism, than switch to a distro that has no Corporate funding. And good luck with that.

alphaniner
November 23rd, 2009, 05:43 PM
I don't think you read the part about politics being off limits here. This probably goes for your signature as well.

I think you have grossly misjudged my intention with that quote. frdrx made it up in post #117 as a metaphor of where he believed Ubuntu is heading. My point was simply that it doesn't seem like such a bad place. ZankerH made it about politics.

As for my sig, feel free to report it to a mod. If they feel it should be removed, I will do so.

Paqman
November 23rd, 2009, 05:57 PM
Medibuntu, anyone?

The whole point of Medibuntu is that the codecs contained within it are not freely available. IIRC installing libdvdcss (for example) may well be a breach of the DMCA in the US.

mivo
November 23rd, 2009, 06:03 PM
than switch to a distro that has no Corporate funding. And good luck with that.

Why "good luck with that"? Most of these distros are at least as stable and polished as Ubuntu (and 9.10 is not the reference here, that was a beta release). I often wonder what some of those distros without funding could achieve if they had even 10% of Ubuntu's funding and 5% of the number of employed devs.

Greg
November 23rd, 2009, 09:22 PM
Why "good luck with that"? Most of these distros are at least as stable and polished as Ubuntu (and 9.10 is not the reference here, that was a beta release). I often wonder what some of those distros without funding could achieve if they had even 10% of Ubuntu's funding and 5% of the number of employed devs.

Yeah- like imagine where Debian would be with corporate funding :P

Tristam Green
November 23rd, 2009, 09:49 PM
This thread is pretty laughable.

Commercialism is not a bad thing at its core. It only gets corrupted with use.

Also, there's some loud laughter ensuing at my desk, where I'm effectively reading "the only brand of Freedom anyone should have is *my* brand of Freedom".

That sounds an awful lot like authoritarianism.

slumbergod
November 23rd, 2009, 09:53 PM
If you look at the biggest names in Linux over the last couple of years they are almost all backed by commercial companies. We've benefitted from that development because a lot of work contributed is from paid programmers. It makes sense for the backing companies to try and make money somehow.

I look at it like this: if they get it right, their projects will blossom. Get it wrong and people will leave in droves. At the end of the day we have many choices with Linux.

koenn
November 23rd, 2009, 10:06 PM
Yeah- like imagine where Debian would be with corporate funding :P

:)

frdrx
November 24th, 2009, 12:40 AM
frdrx made it up in post #117 as a metaphor of where he believed Ubuntu is heading. My point was simply that it doesn't seem like such a bad place.

What I did was I slightly modified Mandela's quote from this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODQ4WiDsEBQ) that was formerly distributed on the Ubuntu CD.

I would like Ubuntu to be a GNU/Linux distribution inspired and shaped by the philosophy of Ubuntu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28philosophy%29), not by greedy interests. I think Canonical can make more money in the long run if they continue to strive to make Ubuntu the best desktop operating system without spoiling it by advertising and petty commercialism. After all, a vast community of loyal and devoted individuals is more valuable than hordes of paying consumers, isn't it?

Irihapeti
November 24th, 2009, 01:12 AM
Something strange happened in message 117. I was quoted as saying something that I did not say. That may have been a forum software glitch, because what I originally said makes no sense in the context, but I still want to set the record straight.

What I *did* originally say was this:


If you are bothered by what you think Canonical might be doing, then why not express that concern directly to Canonical?

If you think that sounds like work, yes, it probably is. But, is it important enough to you, for you to want to do something effective about it?

I still think it' a valid point.

frdrx
November 24th, 2009, 01:17 AM
Something strange happened in message 117. I was quoted as saying something that I did not say. That may have been a forum software glitch, because what I originally said makes no sense in the context, but I still want to set the record straight.

What I *did* originally say was this:



I still think it' a valid point.

Whether it was a software glitch, my mistake or a combination of both, I do not know. I am sorry in any case. Your point definitely is valid.

Irihapeti
November 24th, 2009, 01:47 AM
Whether it was a software glitch, my mistake or a combination of both, I do not know. I am sorry in any case. Your point definitely is valid.

I really appreciate that. Thank you.

ugm6hr
November 24th, 2009, 07:55 AM
I think Canonical can make more money in the long run if they continue to strive to make Ubuntu the best desktop operating system without spoiling it by advertising and petty commercialism. After all, a vast community of loyal and devoted individuals is more valuable than hordes of paying consumers, isn't it?

My (probably worthless) views:

1. As far as I was aware, the client-side software for Ubuntu One and Software Centre are open source.

2. Commercial interests and open source philosophy are not extremes of one spectrum; they are 2 separate spectrums that can, and should, go hand in hand in the software business.

3. Canonical already have Ubuntu-related commercial interests. Encouraging users to use those businesses for non-core functionality is not evil.

4. Ubuntu already has a community of users (albeit, perhaps not necessarily loyal); Canonical now wants to start making a profit, as they had always intended. The idea of a user in the hand being worth more than £2 in the bank (sorry - I think I've made a mess of that saying) obviously doesn't apply when profits are concerned. With a web-centric OS (which Ubuntu is), how else would you foresee them profiting from desktop users? Their options would be limited to: support contracts - a business where they already allow open competition and even allow competitors to advertise on their website; selling the distro - an even worse situation than at present.

I'm not sure whether your (frdrx) final comment was sarcastic or genuine, but I am pretty certain that Canonical's Mark Shuttleworth has a firm grasp on business practice, and obviously believes that paying customers are better than loyal users ;)

Crunchy the Headcrab
November 24th, 2009, 08:47 AM
My (probably worthless) views:
2. Commercial interests and open source philosophy are not extremes of one spectrum; they are 2 separate spectrums that can, and should, go hand in hand in the software business.

Well said. They both have their merits.

Khakilang
November 24th, 2009, 08:58 AM
When I heard that Linux is free. I am curious as to what it means. As in dollars? If in dollars, how do they earn their money. Don't forget they have to maintain a website, spending time writing software, support users etc. To me it like to hard to believe its true that you can get quality software for free. So if the software is so I believe they deserve some reward in term selling something to keep them going. Even if they sell their OS, I don't mind buying let alone music or movie.

Rainstride
November 24th, 2009, 10:35 AM
I would like Ubuntu to be a GNU/Linux distribution inspired and shaped by the philosophy of Ubuntu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28philosophy%29), not by greedy interests. I think Canonical can make more money in the long run if they continue to strive to make Ubuntu the best desktop operating system without spoiling it by advertising and petty commercialism. After all, a vast community of loyal and devoted individuals is more valuable than hordes of paying consumers, isn't it?

first of all, if im going to buy music anyway I would much rather spend my money in the ubuntu music store and support my favourite distro's development and progress at the same time as getting the music i want, and plan to buy whether ubuntu gives me the option to not. this way I get to help the project at the same time.

second of all, for this distro to become self sustaining in a business since, there needs to be an infrastructure built around it, for example, i would love to have commercial games, and maybe (depending on what it is) commercial software. I also want to help the ubuntu project, so adding commercial software to the ubuntu store gives me both the ability to get software and games i want, and help fund the project at the same time. It also shows company's that there is a real demand for commercial games and software. so company's will be more inclined to make good software for ubuntu(and maybe also Linux in general). companies with great software, and reasonable licence agreements will sell great and expand there ubuntu/linux development more and more. companies that try and pull the crap they try with windows users will barely sell and will lose money and won't be able to make enough to expand in to ubuntu/linux.

furthermore if companies like say adobe (just an example) and other industry standard software see corporations adopt ubuntu in a large enough amount they will have no reason not to tap those markets and port there software.

of course this is all years down the road. you need to remember though ubuntu does not have an infinite amount of money behind it. and chances are we are all buying music as is, so why not do it from a different spot and help ubuntu at the same time.

frdrx
November 24th, 2009, 12:00 PM
My (probably worthless) views:

1. As far as I was aware, the client-side software for Ubuntu One and Software Centre are open source.

Yeah, I know that as well. The server side is proprietary, which is not too good, but never mind as long as the protocol is transparent. Launchpad was also proprietary initially, so I hope the Ubuntu One server one day will be as well. I use Ubuntu One myself and have nothing against it.


2. Commercial interests and open source philosophy are not extremes of one spectrum; they are 2 separate spectrums that can, and should, go hand in hand in the software business.
I agree. But if you want to go hand in hand with somebody, you should treat him or her as a partner.


3. Canonical already have Ubuntu-related commercial interests. Encouraging users to use those businesses for non-core functionality is not evil.
Of course, but I never said that. I only reject certain immoral ways of doing so (like advertising proprietary products using free software).


4. Ubuntu already has a community of users (albeit, perhaps not necessarily loyal); Canonical now wants to start making a profit, as they had always intended. The idea of a user in the hand being worth more than £2 in the bank (sorry - I think I've made a mess of that saying) obviously doesn't apply when profits are concerned. With a web-centric OS (which Ubuntu is), how else would you foresee them profiting from desktop users?
Canonical could easily lose this community of they press for profits too hard. I'm not against making money from GNU/Linux if it is done considerately.



Their options would be limited to: support contracts - a business where they already allow open competition and even allow competitors to advertise on their website; selling the distro - an even worse situation than at present.
I don't know. Anyway, support contracts are probably the best thing in my opinion.


I'm not sure whether your (frdrx) final comment was sarcastic or genuine, but I am pretty certain that Canonical's Mark Shuttleworth has a firm grasp on business practice, and obviously believes that paying customers are better than loyal users ;)
It was genuine. Who's going to do the free, community support if not loyal, enthusiast users? I believe that the community of Ubuntu-loving people willing to help others is the best thing about this distro and that Shuttleworth thinks the same.

frdrx
November 24th, 2009, 12:09 PM
When I heard that Linux is free. I am curious as to what it means. As in dollars? If in dollars, how do they earn their money. Don't forget they have to maintain a website, spending time writing software, support users etc. To me it like to hard to believe its true that you
can get quality software for free.
Take a look at Debian. Canonical gets it for free twice a year. The free software ecosystem is a very complicated thing, and you cannot apply "Microsoft" logic to it.


So if the software is so I believe they deserve some reward in term selling something to keep them going. Even if they sell their OS, I don't mind buying let alone music or movie.
I fully agree. Canonical is entitled to try and make money off their users. I wish them luck as long as they stick to decent behaviour.

BenAshton24
November 24th, 2009, 12:20 PM
Ubuntu One selling music and charging for off-site storage, paid closed apps for sale in the Ubuntu Software Store.... and all integrated into the default Ubuntu installation, is this really in keeping with the ideals of Ubuntu?

Is it time to start looking for a new distro....?

Music store idea = AWESOME

Closed apps for sale?!? That's the first I've heard of it but if what you say is true then yes I agree...

The second this arrives, new distro time. :( I'll miss Ubuntu but I really think that that idea is completely against the spirit of Linux.

Ben.

(I'm thinking Arch Linux...)

frdrx
November 24th, 2009, 12:25 PM
first of all, if im going to buy music anyway I would much rather spend my money in the ubuntu music store and support my favourite distro's development and progress at the same time as getting the music i want, and plan to buy whether ubuntu gives me the option to not. this way I get to help the project at the same time.

Yes, provided that advertising isn't over the top. I actually think the music store idea is a good one, especially if Canonical decide to support lesser known musicians.


second of all, for this distro to become self sustaining in a business since, there needs to be an infrastructure built around it, for example, i would love to have commercial games, and maybe (depending on what it is) commercial software.
As long as they don't advertise proprietary applications or games in the default installation, I'm okay with it.



I also want to help the ubuntu project, so adding commercial software to the ubuntu store gives me both the ability to get software and games i want, and help fund the project at the same time.
I agree depending on the way they choose to do it.


It also shows company's that there is a real demand for commercial games and software. so company's will be more inclined to make good software for ubuntu(and maybe also Linux in general).
Proprietary software, that is. Making proprietary software is a very bad thing in my view. Canonical should do their best to promote writing of free software instead.


companies with great software, and reasonable licence agreements will sell great and expand there ubuntu/linux development more and more.
The only reasonable licenses in my view are free software licenses.


companies that try and pull the crap they try with windows users will barely sell and will lose money and won't be able to make enough to expand in to ubuntu/linux.
I wouldn't mind. Proprietary software is not welcome.



and chances are we are all buying music as is, so why not do it from a different spot and help ubuntu at the same time.
The reason why I entered this discussion was that Canonical has taken a Debian package and turned it into adware (in the universe repository). This would be totally unacceptable in Debian, for example. I have no issue with offering music for sale as long as it's not ridden with DRM.

the yawner
November 24th, 2009, 01:57 PM
<snip>

The reason why I entered this discussion was that Canonical has taken a Debian package and turned it into adware (in the universe repository). This would be totally unacceptable in Debian, for example. I have no issue with offering music for sale as long as it's not ridden with DRM.

Consider me uninformed. But what exactly was Canonical's participation with regards to the inclusion of software that is not included in a default installation?

As for my take on the subject:
Ubuntu clearly intends to prove that it can be a viable desktop OS, a good alternative against the current competitions. But what makes say Windows a great product for the majority of consumers all over the world?

Software.

Sure, there's a lot of free and open-source software that can replace the popular ones people use in Windows. Photoshop? GIMP. MS Office? Open Office.

But are all the bases covered? Do we think it's wise to ignore, reject, or worse, antagonize the companies that provide proprietary solutions? Solutions that the market may be willing to purchase regardless of the platform?

What if software is no longer an issue that could prevent widespread adoption of Linux?

Make Ubuntu a viable alternative. Attract the sellers and perhaps the market may follow. I think it's a good plan.

gn2
November 24th, 2009, 02:00 PM
~ I hope the Ubuntu One server one day will be {open} as well. ~

Unlikely.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=7380633#post7380633

conehead77
November 24th, 2009, 03:43 PM
I bought World Of Goo from their website. Why is it a bad thing if Canonical sells it in a software store? Many commercial applications could be aggregated there and would make shopping much more convenient.

It's not like they are starting to sell a copy of gcc...

forrestcupp
November 24th, 2009, 05:22 PM
Is it time to start looking for a new distro....?
If it bothers you enough to complain about it, then yes.

ugm6hr
November 24th, 2009, 07:11 PM
Proprietary software, that is. Making proprietary software is a very bad thing in my view. Canonical should do their best to promote writing of free software instead.

The only reasonable licenses in my view are free software licenses.

I wouldn't mind. Proprietary software is not welcome.

The reason why I entered this discussion was that Canonical has taken a Debian package and turned it into adware (in the universe repository). This would be totally unacceptable in Debian, for example. I have no issue with offering music for sale as long as it's not ridden with DRM.

Unfortunately, it appears Debian is more to your taste than Ubuntu.

If Ubuntu applied the same philosophy, there would be little point to Ubuntu at all; it would have made more sense to just join the Debian community.

Canonical obviously do not feel that open source needs to exist in isolation of proprietary software, as demonstrated by their own mix of opensource and proprietary development. Once you accept that, their choices seem pretty obvious.

Those people who vehemently refuse to use proprietary software, and are incensed by the mention of it in the Ubuntu arena, may well be better off moving distro. I suspect that this group will actually be a (vocal) minority though. If there was any significant suggestion that this was not the case, Canonical would most likely not have made this decision in the first place.

boballen55
November 24th, 2009, 08:32 PM
mark shuttleworth is worth several hundred million dollars. there's not much he can't buy as is. so the idea that he would be corrupted by creating a successful linux distro, is...well.. dumb as hell. if he wanted to make money, he could have picked any number of other things.

I am speaking more generally here, I'm not really talking about Mark. The monetary system requires that everyone compete against each other for just about everything we need or want instead of collaborating to the benefit of all. This creates an environment where people try to do whatever they can to make a profit. Now making a huge leap, while we try to maximize our profit we create monopolies or oligarchies to create scarcity and by use of overbearing advertising to create artificial needs, driving up whatever we are producings value, to the detriment of others. Linux and OSS is one of the places where this trend is not overwhelming and there are communities of people working together to benefit of everyone (not really everyone, more like anyone that is looking to use software to improve their lives). I think the FOSS movement is one of the first steps to a much saner world, but there is always the corrupting forces of the monetary system threatening to derail any progress that might be made. I am saying the things mentioned in the first post are a minor symptom of that phenomenon.

KiwiNZ
November 24th, 2009, 08:36 PM
I am speaking more generally here, I'm not really talking about Mark. The monetary system requires that everyone compete against each other for just about everything we need or want instead of collaborating to the benefit of all. This creates an environment where people try to do whatever they can to make a profit. Now making a huge leap, while we try to maximize our profit we create monopolies or oligarchies to create scarcity and by use of overbearing advertising to create artificial needs, driving up whatever we are producings value, to the detriment of others. Linux and OSS is one of the places where this trend is not overwhelming and is there are communities of people working together to benefit of everyone (not really everyone, more like anyone that is looking to use software to improve their lives). I think the FOSS movement is one of the first steps to a much saner world, but there is always the corrupting forces of the monetary system threatening to derail an progress that might be made. I am saying the things mentioned in the first post are a minor symptom of that phenomenon.


Err the hardware sector has progressed very well in a highly competitive market and prices have dropped significantly.

The auto industry is another example of this

As is the TV makers

Campared to wages and salaries Windows 7 is cheaper than Windows 95

boballen55
November 24th, 2009, 08:45 PM
Uh, not really. Do you think the rich minority are making Wal-Mart profits? No, the rich minority are shopping at Whole Foods and Pottery Barn. It's the collective poor majority that win the vote. Consumers have more power than you give them credit for.

Your statement is very confusing. Yes the rich minority are making the Wal-Mart profits. You think the poor masses are the owners???

I think you mean to say that the poor are making Wal-Mart profitable. I contend that the people that buy at Wal-Mart are not really that poor, though not part of the ruling elite either. There are many many many more people living on less than a dollar a day (something like one in four people in the world) and thousands of children die daily from starvation. What purchasing "vote" are these people winning? They have no flipping vote.

And of course consumers have all the power, but the richest few have the vast majority of that power because they have the most votes.

boballen55
November 24th, 2009, 09:03 PM
Err the hardware sector has progressed very well in a highly competitive market and prices have dropped significantly.

The auto industry is another example of this

As is the TV makers

Campared to wages and salaries Windows 7 is cheaper than Windows 95

If competition is abundant and fair, prices will come down. There are some laws that encourage this. Making a big jump again, that is not helping more than a billion people that live on less than a dollar a day or the thousands of children dieing from starvation daily. Nor is it relevant to the people who still can't afford them. I'm saying that if we transcended the monetary system and there was no money and everyone had access to anything they needed or even wanted (people will say this is impossible, but it is not, it just will take a lot of work, education and basically the redesign of our cultures. Take a look at my links. There is a lot of info there.). Why isn't all of this new power to create all these products being used to help improve the standard of living of everyone? Because of the profit orientated monetary system.

Also, even within the monetary system if the goal was to have the price be as low as possible I guarantee all the things you mentioned would be even cheaper than they are. But of course that sort of mentary system wouldn't make any sense. That is why we need to escape it, it is outdated by our current state of technology. We just need to update our culture.

frdrx
November 28th, 2009, 02:44 AM
Unlikely.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=7380633#post7380633
Bugger.

wilee-nilee
November 28th, 2009, 04:04 AM
Bugger.

Just when I thought enough already you dig up this junk. :p