Why is Canonical a comercial subject?

[jan]

Hi,

ubuntu is a nice piece of software, the only think i cant understand is, why Canonical (the company that develops Ubuntu) is a comercial and not nonprofit company. It brings only a dark shadow over everything they do...

They say they MIGHT set up a nonprofit org later on (covering ubuntu???), but it seems like they're not sure... :???:

Well, it will be only a quetsion of time till somebody does it for them and will take Ubuntu development over (e.g. me and my friends, huh).

Jan

[tim1]

I don't see any problem here. Canonical pays debian and gnome developers to make good software and everything is released under the GPL. The ubuntu website also states that Ubuntu itself will always stay free, free as in freedom, and free as in free beer. What can we get more?

And even if they would make a commercial distro (think of Ubuntu Pro or sth.), that would be great, too. Why? Because they make money, can pay more developers and we get more good software, because they are forced to republish the enhancements on Gnome, Linux, etc. under the (L)GPL again, which is good for the end users and the whole community.

greets, tim

[jdodson]

i used to hate corporations. anymore i don't think all corporations are bad, some are though(e.g. microsoft, etc). i think we should judge entities and people for that matter on thier own merits. cannonical has done nothing to warrant any kind of ill feeling. because they are a corporation should not make them suspect. especially when they have stated the "WE WILL NEVER CHARGE FOR UBUNTU, EVER!!!!" and written and sung it from the rooftops since day one. the ubuntu corporation sets itself apart from many gnu/linux corporations on that fact and many others.

in the end, please judge cannoical on the merits of said corporation and not on the merits of other corporations. there is nothing wrong with making money or turning a profit. there is something wrong with making a profit when you put that profit ahead of the humans who help attain it.

[jan]

Hi,

it's all pretty much a question of trust - "WE WILL NEVER CHARGE FOR UBUNTU, EVER!!!!". I can trust them or can not. I can state "I will give you a $1M" as well, will you trust me???

Canonical is cool, what I am just affraid of is it will end up as a lot of comercial developers of Linux/GNU - look at Suse (novell screwes it), Red Hat (came up with Fedora, cause RH is dieing...). Dont want Ununtu to end up like this.

Jan

[miho]

Ubuntu is a special Linux distribution. It has many distinct features that other distributions don't have. I don't like the idea of it being f with by a corporation. Promises change, often.. :sad:

[az]

There is actually a market for open source software. It is not a bad thing to make money. If you cannot wrap your head arround thins, grow up!

There are ways that businesses make money with software that are, in some points of view, unethical. This is what the GPL protects you from. Other companies sell open source software and that is not really compatible with sustainig an open source business. There are several models for open source than can generate money. Offering support is the most popular.

This seems to be the model that Canonical wants to use.

[Titeuf]

Even if Canonical would charge for Ubuntu, I'm pretty sure there will be people that will fork it and it would still stay free.
But there would be a lost of developpers (those paid by Canonical for instance)

[adbak]

Canonical, as many before me have stated, will never charge for Ubuntu. The reason that Canonical is a commercial entity is so that Canonical can charge for Ubuntu support -- support and only support. Well, maybe some other things down the line but Ubuntu will always be free.

And as long as Mark Shuttleworth is behind Canonical, I can trust them.

[MaZiNgA]

Hey when they say "Ubuntu is and will remain Free" I trust them by 99%...
But even if there is 1% they will lie and turn commercial, no problem, we will switch distribution. That's the beauty of Linux. :D
And of course, old Ubuntu (Warty) will still be out and GPL'd so we can use good ol'Ubuntu!

[xkcdmagic8]

" i don't think all corporations are bad, some are though(e.g. microsoft, etc). "


god im tired of n00b microsoft bashing. They do what they do to survive or stay at the top. Leave them the hell alone + they do make pretty damn good software, we all here just have different needs.

[poofyhairguy]

. They do what they do to survive or stay at the top.

Thats not always a good thing, if the actions are immoral.


Leave them the hell alone + they do make pretty damn good software, we all here just have different needs.

To many, Microsoft= personal computer industry.

they will not be "left alone."

[Zundfolge]

ubuntu is a nice piece of software, the only think i cant understand is, why Canonical (the company that develops Ubuntu) is a comercial and not nonprofit company. It brings only a dark shadow over everything they do...

This is one of the things about the Linux community that makes me want to dump Linux all together.

This foolish "Profit=Evil" pseudo communist BS :roll:

Sometimes I think much of the Linux community would like to take all the programmers and enslave them, chain them to a desk and force them at gunpoint to churn out free code ... Its for the common good ya know ... individuals acting in their own self interest is nothing more then Bourgeois Decadence, right comrade?


Some of you people really need to throw out that well worn copy of Das Capital and pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

[eBopBob]

In my opinion, I see no problem with Canonical Ltd beind behind Ubuntu - I would not even have a problem with paying for Ubuntu in the same way you pay for SuSE Professional or Mandrake Discovery or PowerPack; to be quite honest I'd actually prefer it.



This is one of the things about the Linux community that makes me want to dump Linux all together.
You know, I cannot agree with you more there - That is the exact same way I feel.

[KiwiNZ]

Hi,

it's all pretty much a question of trust - "WE WILL NEVER CHARGE FOR UBUNTU, EVER!!!!". I can trust them or can not. I can state "I will give you a $1M" as well, will you trust me???

Canonical is cool, what I am just affraid of is it will end up as a lot of comercial developers of Linux/GNU - look at Suse (novell screwes it), Red Hat (came up with Fedora, cause RH is dieing...). Dont want Ununtu to end up like this.

Jan

I would not agree that Novell have harmed Suse at all . As for Redhat heading for the grave , again I beg to differ.
I see nothing wrong with Corporations bringing their venture capital. This will strengthen Linux . A good example is Rehat/fedora and Novell/Suse . Advantages are being passed back to the community.

Corporations are not all evil demons that we must all fear. After all they do pay wages.

Its a fact of life , if Linux wants to grow to be a market leader it needs Corporates such as Redhat , Novell , IBM and HP to invest time , resources and most importantly , Capital.

[jdong]

I would not agree that Novell have harmed Suse at all . As for Redhat heading for the grave , again I beg to differ.
I see nothing wrong with Corporations bringing their venture capital. This will strengthen Linux . A good example is Rehat/fedora and Novell/Suse . Advantages are being passed back to the community.

Corporations are not all evil demons that we must all fear. After all they do pay wages.

Its a fact of life , if Linux wants to grow to be a market leader it needs Corporates such as Redhat , Novell , IBM and HP to invest time , resources and most importantly , Capital.


1. Novell hasn't harmed SuSE at all. It's promoted it, ESPECIALLY in North America, when SuSE prior has never been mentioned. Also, before Novell, has SuSE ever released an FTP DVD image of SuSE Pro? ;)

2. RedHat definitely didn't go to the grave! In fact, I think Fedora is a wonderful idea. A great way to get us hackers together, and their development has been a lot more open to community suggestions ever since!

[tim1]

Could someone please add "I don't care" as an option, because I'd like t choose that. And this is the great thing with GPL'ed Software: You don't have to care about intentions, because no single person/company/whatsoever can lock down software once its freed, it's just there for everyone, and forever will be.

greets, tim

[daniels]

Canonical has guaranteed that it will never charge for Ubuntu: to that end, it would be difficult for us to hijack Ubuntu, as such, and use it for our own ends, as it still wouldn't bring in profit.

Also, it's quite simple: Canonical employs around 10 core Ubuntu developers to work on Ubuntu. If it was a non-profit, that simply wouldn't happen, and most of us would still be working within Debian or other free/open organisations, not necessarily for our day jobs, and Ubuntu as we know it wouldn't exist.

(edit: minor typographical clarifications)

[az]

"A good example is Rehat/fedora"
Red hat is riding the wave of popularity that it has. It is hearalded as the next windows. The thought is that if you do not mind using non-free (as in proprietary - red-hat's own) apps and if you do not mind being tossed aside if you are not a large company, then it is fine. It is a horrible example of open-source software. How can you charge for free (or mostly free) software?


"You don't have to care about intentions, because no single person/company/whatsoever can lock down software once its freed, it's just there for everyone, and forever will be."

Not true. Imagine Sun releasing the next version of Openoffice alongside another software suite with more features, but the catch is that you have to pay for it. Most of that community is run by Sun. Yes the source for the old version of OpenOffice is open and free, but the project's community of developers on on the new project. The old one is pretty much gone. It would take an enormous effort to fork something like that.

Forking is making the best of a bad situation. It is not a guarantee that the software project will continue to thrive.

You can say that a piece of software is free by looking at it's licence. The GPL requires that the software and anything based on it remains free. Equally important is that you need to know that the community producing the software will not dissapear on you. Certain companies tend to use GPL licences to lure people in, but when you read the fine print, you realise that that is not what they stand for. Users of free software need to be vigilant. A company cannot have it both ways - you cannot sell a version of software alongside a GPL version of the same software!

All that to say that I think Canonical is striving to be an example of a successful free software company.

[DJ_Max]

This foolish "Profit=Evil" pseudo communist BS :roll:

Sometimes I think much of the Linux community would like to take all the programmers and enslave them, chain them to a desk and force them at gunpoint to churn out free...
I know what you mean, people fail to understand that software development is a business. Even though a majority do it as a side-hobbie, there are some in it as a compnay, such as Novell & RedHat.


This is one of the things about the Linux community that makes me want to dump Linux all together.
Wouldn't go that far, there's always commercial Linux distros.


i used to hate corporations. anymore i don't think all corporations are bad, some are though(e.g. microsoft, etc).
Agreed, companies like that, including SCO give corporations a bad taste in peoples mouths. But there are quite a few ethical corporations.

[Zundfolge]

I know what you mean, people fail to understand that software development is a business.
That and one crucial thing programmers have to eat too.


...there's always commercial Linux distros.
Yep ... and when I can afford to replace my PC it will be with a Mac running basically a commercial Unix distro ;)



Agreed, companies like that, including SCO give corporations a bad taste in peoples mouths. But there are quite a few ethical corporations.
I would probably go so far as to say that most corporations are ethical ... if they are not then the market responds ... often by killing them (which honestly is what I think we'll see happen to Microsoft in the next decade or so).

[nocturn]

" i don't think all corporations are bad, some are though(e.g. microsoft, etc). "


god im tired of n00b microsoft bashing. They do what they do to survive or stay at the top. Leave them the hell alone + they do make pretty damn good software, we all here just have different needs.

Ok, I'm not a n00b, but here goes.
I do not mind MS charging a *reasonable* amount for their products.
What I do mind is them making crappy software with huge security holes in it, not patching those holes in time and thereby having my network connection saturated with Windows viruses attempting to propagate.

What I also mind is their behavior towards competition. If they would simply compete on the merrit of their products, it would be okay, but keep in mind that they are a convicted monopolist (both in the US and in the EU), they are a convited software pirate (Early windows version had the Apple copyrights still in the headers, convited of this by a French court) and they revert to bought studies to fight Linux.

I mind their strategy that hes led to the term 'MS tax' on computers where even people wanting to run Gnu/Linux have to pay for a license, one that carries a user agreement that you cannot read before the purchase.

[Dylanby]

To the person who voted no:

Your tinfoil hat is ready, where should I send it?

[Yukonjack]

To the person who voted no:
Your tinfoil hat is ready, where should I send it?

Hehehe =D>

[jdodson]

" i don't think all corporations are bad, some are though(e.g. microsoft, etc). "


god im tired of n00b microsoft bashing. They do what they do to survive or stay at the top. Leave them the hell alone + they do make pretty damn good software, we all here just have different needs.

wow, i am trying really hard not to get heated on this. i am not a newb. it is not a secret that microsoft has been found in court to be a monopolist. microsoft embodies that philosophy of monoplism(is that a word :roll: ) in everything it does.

the fact that i use ubuntu only should be an indicator that i don't think they make damn good software. they make damn buggy, unstable, virus/malware/tojan infested bunk. and to top it off, charge $199 a copy. wow, please sign me up for more of that.

let me enlighten you a bit on the forum you are posting. we are gnu/linux ubuntu users. telling people to aviod microsoft basing on a gnu/linux forum is like telling christians to stop preaching on a focus on the family web forum, it isnt going to happen! i don't really care if people use windows, use it as long as you are able. but i do mind when people call me a newb because i don't think highly of microsoft. why would that make me a newb? i can use gnu/linux and do whatever i want with it, does that make me a newb? i am an avid python and php scripter. i think its fun compiling some things from source, i am a stone cold geek(which i don't mind). by definition a newb is a new user, so am i a new microsoft user or a new gnu/linux user(which i am neither)? next time you want to search for a term to defame me i would suggest ******* or shithead, at least they contextually make some kind of sense. :grin:

[KiwiNZ]

jdodson Well said !!!!

As for that word "noob" I for one would like to elliminate it from these forums completely. I hate it .

I was amused on another forum when I was called a noob . Hmmm I have been in computers for 20 years . gee are you a noob until 40 years . It turned out the troll that was calling me a noob was 17 and had his first computer for about 6 months

[MaZiNgA]

jdodson Well said !!!!

As for that word "noob" I for one would like to elliminate it from these forums completely. I hate it .

I was amused on another forum when I was called a noob . Hmmm I have been in computers for 20 years . gee are you a noob until 40 years . It turned out the troll that was calling me a noob was 17 and had his first computer for about 6 months
Behave...Now YOU called him a troll.... :D :D :D

[KiwiNZ]

True I did , I will punish myself by spending 24 hours using Windowshttp://www.ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/icon_smile.gifhttp://www.ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/eusa_whistle.gif

[Tichondrius]

I completely agree with jdodson response to nitinshantharam. Even more silly than trying to defend microsoft on a linux forum, is to call the moderator of said forum a newbie......

But on subject, I just hope Canonical makes enough money on their paid support contracts to stay in business. I'm almost feel obligated to donate something for this company and its employees for delivering such a great product for free....

[Joeb]

Canonical has guaranteed that it will never charge for Ubuntu: to that end, it would be difficult for us to hijack Ubuntu, as such, and use it for our own ends, as it still wouldn't bring in profit.

Also, it's quite simple: Canonical employs around 10 core Ubuntu developers to work on Ubuntu. If it was a non-profit, that simply wouldn't happen, and most of us would still be working within Debian or other free/open organisations, not necessarily for our day jobs, and Ubuntu as we know it wouldn't exist.

(edit: minor typographical clarifications)

Ummm, most non-profits pay employees. Just think of your local church. It's a non-profit and probably has a paid staff. Whether Canonical is non-profit or not doesn't determine whether it pays developers. The Red Cross is another non-profit that pays employees.

Whether a corporation sets itself up as non-profit or for-profit (yes, most non-profits are still corporation) is just a determination as to what the purpose of the corporation is. The purpose of all for-profits is to have a return on investment for the owners/shareholders. The purpose of all non-profits is to provide a service to the community. That doesn't mean that for-profits don't do things for free and non-profits don't charge for the services they provide. It simply is a determination as to what the existance of the corporation is about.


Joeb

[jdodson]

But on subject, I just hope Canonical makes enough money on their paid support contracts to stay in business. I'm almost feel obligated to donate something for this company and its employees for delivering such a great product for free....

agreed, dumping a few (insert currency here) into the unbutu bucket is something i have been thinking about for sometime.

[Zundfolge]

I just hope Canonical makes enough money on their paid support contracts to stay in business.
I hope Canonical makes enough money that its president can buy a jet ... maybe a football team as well because I like to see good people rewarded for their hard work :D

[electroglas]

Hey, I'm not even running Ubuntu right now, but I still donated $10 to the cause. If the direction of Ubuntu continues on the same great course, I will make this a regular donation.

I believe Mark Shuttleworth is somewhat of a philanthropist and intends to do a good deed by supporting the building of a great free desktop OS from South Africa to stimulate his country's technical prowess.

If I were doing as well as he is, I couldn't think of a better way to make use of my good fortune.

I hope to see more developers join forces behind such a great effort. If we could just get the likes of Progeny, Mepis, Knoppix and Slackware to join up under the Ubuntu umbrella, it would be an unbeatable combination.

[daniels]

Ubuntu as a non-profit would not sustain enough money to pay the core developers and ensure that releases get out, are good quality, et al. That's the sad reality.

Also, aside from the cost of buying lots of very big machines, the bandwidth bill is frightening.

[jdodson]

Ubuntu as a non-profit would not sustain enough money to pay the core developers and ensure that releases get out, are good quality, et al. That's the sad reality.

Also, aside from the cost of buying lots of very big machines, the bandwidth bill is frightening.

i would imagine. are you guys considering "torrent" only downloads. because the current system has a torrent and the regular iso. perhaps in the first two weeks of hoary you should do a "torrent only" download on all isos. then again you could torrent updates and patches..... still it might offset the cost a bunch.

[Randabis]

i would imagine. are you guys considering "torrent" only downloads. because the current system has a torrent and the regular iso. perhaps in the first two weeks of hoary you should do a "torrent only" download on all isos. then again you cant torrent updates and patches..... still it might offset the cost a bunch.
You still have to account for everybody that does regular dist-upgrades, etc. that's probably where the real bandwidth is going. I know I've downloaded A LOT from archive.ubuntu.com...

[az]

Bittorrent aware deb package archives: Now that is innovation!

Dpkg would have to become a bittorrent client.

[jdodson]

yeah, but they would save tons of bandwidth. as ubuntu reached critical mass they wouldn't hardly pay anything for bandwidth, just the intial seed offering.

i think the uses for bittorrent have not even been thought up yet. it is pretty limitless.

[jdodson]

You still have to account for everybody that does regular dist-upgrades, etc. that's probably where the real bandwidth is going. I know I've downloaded A LOT from archive.ubuntu.com...

i get ALL the security updates. it seems every other day there are 12+ megs of files i need to download.