What Do You Think Of Ubuntu's 10.10 Software Center And The Ability To Purchase Apps

[MetaDark]

Apparently in Ubuntu's 10.10 software center, there will be the option to purchase applications.

I think this is a great idea because it is not effecting any of the free software and it makes it easier to get paid Linux applications.

Another great advantage of this is that Canonical will be able to earn some money so Ubuntu can grow at a much more rapid speed then it currently is at.

Although I think this is a great idea I am sure there are a bunch of users who will be upset by this, Linux is supposed to be open source, but really Ubuntu hasn't been open source since about 2007 because of the added proprietary drivers.

So do you think this is a bad idea or a good idea?

[v1ad]

awesome Idea, we have the users that want all options possible on a free os, this could also encourage people to develop more for this platform.

[donkyhotay]

I don't think it's a bad idea. Lets face it, at the end of the day canonical is like any other company and needs to turn a profit. This is a good way of doing so. So long as they don't remove the free stuff from the repos because they compete I have no problem. I generally don't spend money on software because the free options do whatever I need. However if there was a pay-for program or service I needed I would look first to canonical because I would feel more confident that it would work with my system, could get help if something went wrong, and be supporting a company that provides a free product I enjoy and use.

[MetaDark]

Yeah, I agree with both of you, and I don't know if this is a bug or something but apparently there are 7 votes but only 3 views on this thread, how is that possible?

[rollin]

I think it's great too. I expect a lot of distros will moan about the open source free philosophy but in the real world this will be a milestone for Ubuntu.

When companies realise there is a strong market for products designed for Linux they will invest time and money to create them. This can only increase the potential of Linux for example an end to the Windows for gaming argument.

Also to people who want to point the finger at Canonical it isn't like Linux platforms and software have never been sold commercially, check out RHEL.

[juancarlospaco]

Epic Idea

[Plumtreed]

Dumb idea, after all Ubuntu's existence is essentially based on 'free' software and liberal development. How can this be justified when you consider the amount of 'free' time already applied by those developers who have worked on even the tiniest improvements or changes?

.....and I didn't vote because the poll responses are weighted to the affirmative!

[Cuddles McKitten]

Ubuntu is aimed at being the best option for the desktop. This new feature helps them in this goal by allowing for more development (since there now exists the possibility of a monetary reward) and increased options for consumers (us). If you're afraid of Richard Stallman busting into your house at 2 AM and ripping your FSF posters down from your walls, you still have the option of not paying for proprietary software or going with something like gNewSense.

[jerenept]

ubuntu needs to show that it is a platform that can make money for application developers. there is no better way than to introduce paid applications in the Ubuntu store.

[saulgoode]

It worked so well for Linspire.

[donkyhotay]

I don't know if this is a bug or something but apparently there are 7 votes but only 3 views on this thread, how is that possible?

It's not a bug, you can vote in a poll without posting to the thread.

[kamaboko]

it worked so well for linspire.

doh!

[toupeiro]

personally, I think this is a step in the wrong direction philosophically for ubuntu. Ubuntu's manifesto claims it will always be free. Now, you have injections of pay-on-demand application capacities being applied to the core image. This is what happens when a good thing gets too big. Greed begets the purpose of the whole thing, and what was once good just becomes commercialized. Whats next? Ads? If a company wants to create a commercial repository, for delivering their application to ubuntu, there are other ways to do this. I don't like version development of a free/open (in all meanings) OS suddenly abandoning their philosophy that drew so many users and developers to them.

That being said, Canonical doesn't care what I think, they just want me to buy crap from the ubuntu store.

(On another note, I've been spending the week at VMWorld in San Francisco, CA which focused heavily on cloud computing this year. I was really surprised not to see canonical here, talking about a cloud service tier where they are currently making money, and can make lots more.)

It won't hurt ubuntu immediately, but I do believe it will hurt ubuntu over time.

[rollin]

personally, I think this is a step in the wrong direction philosophically for ubuntu. Ubuntu's manifesto claims it will always be free. Now, you have injections of pay-on-demand application capacities being applied to the core image. This is what happens when a good thing gets too big. Greed begets the purpose of the whole thing, and what was once good just becomes commercialized. Whats next? Ads? If a company wants to create a commercial repository, for delivering their application to ubuntu, there are other ways to do this. I don't like version development of a free/open (in all meanings) OS suddenly abandoning their philosophy that drew so many users and developers to them.

That being said, Canonical doesn't care what I think, they just want me to buy crap from the ubuntu store.

(On another note, I've been spending the week at VMWorld in San Francisco, CA which focused heavily on cloud computing this year. I was really surprised not to see canonical here, talking about a cloud service tier where they are currently making money, and can make lots more.)

It won't hurt ubuntu immediately, but I do believe it will hurt ubuntu over time.

So wrong! Imagine a leading Linux distro in 50 years... Your ideas are outdated, sorry. It's not greed, it is the way Linux and the awesome Ubuntu need to go. The potential for companies to realise an equitable return programming for Linux is a massive gain for everyone. Even the die hards will eventually sit there and think, actually I'm glad Ubuntu started this my favourite X app is now in Linux...

[Madspyman]

It's cool, but it's hard to really give an opinion as there is only one app in the store.

[MetaDark]

It's not a bug, you can vote in a poll without posting to the thread.

I said view, not post, but it doesn't really matter.

[Dustin2128]

meh, neutral.

[Cypress421]

I have no problem, as long as the paid stuff doesn't choke off open source programmers and turn everything into payware apps, like a demented version of Windows, corrupting everything Ubuntu stands for. As long as there is choice, and the paid stuff is just as good the free stuff with no spyware phoning home (I really have been tainted by Windows) fine.

[Ewingo401]

As long as Ubuntu stays "free as in beer" and they don't start removing open source applications from their repos in an attempt to sell more paid apps then I don't have a problem with it.

[Bachstelze]

There should be an "I don't care" option.

[phrostbyte]

I don't think it's a good idea. All this will do is encourage more proprietary apps and in the end of the day all we will end up with is a cheap imitation of Windows.

[Cypress421]

I don't think it's a good idea. All this will do is encourage more proprietary apps and in the end of the day all we will end up with is a cheap imitation of Windows.

I mentioned this, but I don't think it will happen.

[cprofitt]

Free Software does not equal no cost software.

I am still not sure how I feel about it though.

[mrebanza]

Free Software does not equal no cost software.

I am still not sure how I feel about it though.

I think you mean Open Source Software does not equal no cost or Free software . . . which mean you are FREE to view and modify the source so you can improve, learn from and tailor the software to your needs . . . For example you can fix bugs that the Application developer hasn't addressed yet or even ad features to an Application.


As far as the ubuntu app store . . . I don't think it is a bad idea to have paid apps for linux . . . . Why not their are paid app for android . . . but still a boat load of free ones . . . Maby we will even get Adobe Photoshop for linux or even Netflix!

Or like others have said it will encourage independent developers to make cool and useful little apps like games and what not. I see no evil here.

Everybody has bills to pay . . . we do not (yet) live in the blissful socialist society that most of use linux enthusiasts dream of, and until then this is a GREAT way to move towards ubuntu becoming a more commercially embraced platform where individuals who choice to develop Applications for uBuntu will be able to be rewarded financially as well.

I rarely pay for an app but that doesn't mean I don't think that App Developers should be paid. In fact I believe that most App Developers are UNDER PAID.

http://addicted-2-retail.com/ubuntu-app-store-review/

[toupeiro]

So wrong! Imagine a leading Linux distro in 50 years... Your ideas are outdated, sorry. It's not greed, it is the way Linux and the awesome Ubuntu need to go. The potential for companies to realise an equitable return programming for Linux is a massive gain for everyone. Even the die hards will eventually sit there and think, actually I'm glad Ubuntu started this my favourite X app is now in Linux...

... where to start.

1) They are not MY ideas, they are the fundamental ideas of "awesome ubuntu" as well as many distro's before it, and they are nowhere near outdated. In fact, they are still quite in their infancy stage. Commercialized proprietary software services, however, have been around forever, and are extremely outdated. I just participated in a conference with over 17,000 attendee's where the resounding message we've heard is that people, and companies, are finding themselves far more capable to scale great products that are stable and quickly resilient to vulnerability on open standards in software and commodity in hardware versus proprietary methodologies. Do not kid yourself, Linux and FOSS, and their methodologies are at the very heart of that message. None of these companies are going broke either, they wouldn't do it if it didn't work, and didn't see value in it. The difference here is in the direction. Most of these companies were/are still proprietary moving openly. I see this move by Canonical as a method of moving from open to proprietary, and swimming upstream against the flood they helped let loose.

2) You didn't read very thoroughly... I never said there is not a place for commercial, or even proprietary software on Linux. I'm a linux admin by profession and I run VERY, VERY expensive proprietary software on RHEL, so I am quite familiar with the concept. I do not think ubuntu needs to conform its position or philosophies in its core product to support proprietary and/or pay-based repositories/software subscriptions. There is no reason at all why a vendor can't portal this themselves, or put it in the cloud services where it belongs, NOT in the OS. The cloud is where Canonical can create all these pay services and offer them out to their community, and take it even beyond that. Doing this in the OS is a regression.

This has nothing to do with zealotry or being "die-hard" This has to with integrity by sticking to your mission statement and promise to the community that made ubuntu what it is, in the face of making a buck.

To be honest, I think a hybrid solution of FOSS and proprietary software can be a good fit, but the trick is to do so in such a way where both can be successful without compromising the quality in one versus the other. In other words, if the introduction of proprietary software repos integrated into the OS begins to water down the quality and functionality of Open Source applicationd development, thats biting the hand that fed you very well. There is a right way to do it. Personally, I think it's in extending ubuntuone's service offering.

A comparason on the extreme end of the scale: During World Browser War I, Microsoft wanted to win so bad that they took their proprietary browser and integrated it into their kernel and explorer shell, so that internet explorer was an extention of everything you did, up to and including browsing your local files. What that led to was the complete decimation of security of the Windows OS; a proprietary OS that closely knitted its own proprietary software on a massive scale. Granted what we are talking about is not that drastic, yet, but I see it as a very slippery slope they're standing on. If you disagree, I recommend you reread the ubuntu philosophy. It's been slightly reworded over time, but the message is still primarily the same:

http://www.ubuntu.com/project

[Austin25]

Why would people make free apps if they can sell them?

[Cypress421]

Why would people make free apps if they can sell them?

By free, do you mean free to modify the source code?

[Khakilang]

Ubuntu by itself is free and that to me is bonus. Its a matter of choice. Stay with the default software that you are happy with or purchase apps that really cater for your needs. To me its ok to include propreity software and because of Ubuntu popularity, a lot of developer may piggy back ride on its success. In this way end users got more choices of application.

[Austin25]

By free, do you mean free to modify the source code?
Yes. Specifically GPL.

[Cypress421]

Yes. Specifically GPL.

Hmm, good point. If you pay for something and then can freely modify the code . . .

[Austin25]

Hmm, good point. If you pay for something and then can freely modify the code . . .
Wouldn't everybody simply share the code for free?

[toupeiro]

Hmm, good point. If you pay for something and then can freely modify the code . . .

you pay for support. Not everyone can code, and your individual contributions won't always make it upstream as versions progress so you have to regression test and recode every new version that is released upstream, or you pay the upstream developer for the specific pieces you'd like him/her/them to integrate upstream. People pay Open source software developers for their time to integrate features all the time. Sell your skills. Writing software isn't that hard. Writing valuable software good enough for people to want to use to drive their own business on is much harder, and if you're good, there's good money to be made.

[Cypress421]

Good points, we'll all find out by January anyway.

[jrusso2]

I wouldn't worry about it. There are not enough commercial apps for Linux at this point to take over from open source but it would be nice to have a few needed ones available.

Not too many commercial companies are interested in Linux desktops.

[toupeiro]

I wouldn't worry about it. There are not enough commercial apps for Linux at this point to take over from open source but it would be nice to have a few needed ones available.

Not too many commercial companies are interested in Linux desktops.

Doesn't that then beg the question why it warrants being done over, say, something productive like integrating ksplice by default which would add great value to the OS?

[mrebanza]

Why would people make free apps if they can sell them?

For the same reasons people make free apps now . . . for the love of it . . . and a little publicity never hurt anyone . . . their are plenty of “FREE AS IN BEER” products and services that have become very valuable business over the years . . . for example Firefox and WordPress.

Both are FREE as in Beer and Open Source . . . so open in licence that you can modify and re-brand them as your own.

And Mozilla is a very profitable company due to the default search engine being a sponsored Google Search and selling support as toupeiro pointed out . . .

Mozilla was supposedly banking about $100 million after taxes and that was back in 2008!

WordPress aka Automatic follows in the same format . . . FREE as in Beer and Open Source . . . they show Google Ads on FREE WordPress.com hosted blogs and sell support WordPress VIP and upgrades as well as hosting. Put you can run the wordpress code on your own site and have no obligation to even include a powered by wordpress link in your footer . . . furthermore they have WP-MU which allows you to basically run your own WP.com . . . all with out any licences preventing you from changing the code and doing what you want with it . . .

WordPress’s founder and Automatic CEO Matt Mullenweg is quite well off with a Net Worth of over $40 Million USD – CNW

So you see guys even though I agree that selling products and services is 100% completely OK and sometimes a necessary evil that doesn’t mean that the FREE as in Beer and Open Source route does not take the gold when it comes too manny things . . .

Lets Take a look at the Top 10 Websites in the world according to Alexa.com

1
Google – “FREE as in Beer” with many “open source” API’s any can use for FREE to tap into their services
google.com Enables users to search the Web, Usenet, and images. Features include PageRank, caching and tra… More

2
Facebook – “FREE as in Beer” with many “open source” API’s any can use for FREE to tap into their services
facebook.com A social utility that connects people, to keep up with friends, upload photos, share links and … More

3
YouTube – Broadcast yourself – “FREE as in Beer” with many “open source” API’s any can use for FREE to tap into their services
youtube.com YouTube is a way to get your videos to the people who matter to you. Upload, tag and share your… More

4
Yahoo! – “FREE as in Beer” with many “open source” API’s any can use for FREE to tap into their services
yahoo.com Personalized content and search options. Chatrooms, free e-mail, clubs, and pager.

5
Windows Live – “FREE as in Beer” with many “open source” API’s any can use for FREE to tap into their services(Yes Windows Live aka Bing has a FREE Open Search API)
live.com Search engine from Microsoft.

6
Baidu.com “FREE as in Beer”
baidu.com The leading Chinese language search engine, provides “simple and reliable” search exp… More

7
Wikipedia – “FREE as in Beer” with many “open source” API’s any can use for FREE to tap into their services
wikipedia.org An online collaborative encyclopedia.

8
Blogger.com
blogger.com Free, automated weblog publishing tool that sends updates to a site via FTP.

9
Twitter – “FREE as in Beer” with TONS of “open source” API’s any can use for FREE to tap into their services
twitter.com Social networking and microblogging service utilising instant messaging, SMS or a web interface.

10
MSN – “FREE as in Beer”
msn.com Portal for shopping, news and money, e-mail, search, and chat.

While they are not all “open source” they almost all offer some type of “open source” API so developers can tap into their services for FREE and create applications with them. Also you will notice that many of them all of them are “FREE as in Beer” to use and rarely sell any type services to the public. They instead give their best services away for free and leverage they popularity of those services to turn a profit through advertising, marketing . . . Et cetera.

WordPress.com Clocks in at Number 19 aka the nineteenth most visited website on the internet. WordPress is completely open source and completely FREE as in Beer Software. As a matter of fact WordPress is the Software that powers this blog!

19
WordPress.com
wordpress.com Free blogs managed by the developers of the WordPress software. Includes custom design template..

So you see while Making Money from Open Source Software may seem like an obstacle at times. If your idea is good and people catch on to it, than you may find that your open source idea or hobby may become a life changer.

Let’s look at the founder of WordPress, Matt Mullenweg again. He was a former CNET employee while wordpress was getting started and now Matt is living it up on the Embarcadero.


Making Money from Open Source Software (http://addicted-2-retail.com/making-money-from-open-source-software/)

Wow this thread is inspiring allot of heavy writing tonight. . . .

[mrebanza]

Wouldn't everybody simply share the code for free?

honestly this happens anyway . . . even with closed source, proprietary apps with encryption keys and all the other rubbish coded to stop it from being shared . . . If their is a will that is a way . . . and if someone isn't willing to pay for a piece of software, they are not going to pay.



Windows 7 . . . Adobe Photoshop . . . and pretty much any other program that is sold is also available for free (illegally of course) on some torrent site.


It is honestly near to impossible to stop the sharing of software and files once they are "released into the wild"

[Legendary_Bibo]

I like it because then it gives developers an incentive to actually package their software rather than throwing out a tarball and telling people to compile it. We could even integrate Steam into it! I would like it if there was no such thing as third party software honestly because getting debs from the internet sucks because when they install they start making your file directories look a bit crowded.

[Legendary_Bibo]

Hell, Android does this, and no one seems to mind.

[V for Vincent]

It's got real potential. Right now, there are too many gaps which cannot be filled using pure open source tools. Applications for niche crowds, for instance.

Anyway, we'll find out soon enough.

[saulgoode]

For the same reasons people make free apps now . . . for the love of it . . . and a little publicity never hurt anyone . . . their are plenty of “FREE AS IN BEER” products and services that have become very valuable business over the years . . . for example Firefox and WordPress.

Both are FREE as in Beer and Open Source . . . so open in licence that you can modify and re-brand them as your own.

Mozilla is a non-profit organization which bears a legal requirement to conduct business in a manner which ultimately benefits the public. They do indeed generate much revenue from the Google sponsorship, but volunteer contributors have some degree of assurance that their efforts are not going to be exploited to provide dividend payments to stockholders.

Automattic/Wordpress is a closer match to the Canonical/Ubuntu situation, but the contrast with regard to approaching this particular issue is somewhat stark. Wordpress has expressly distanced itself from promoting commercially sponsored themes by having disallowed them in their original official directory, and more recently requiring GPL-compliance for themes hosted in their current extensions catalog. Even though Automattic is a for-profit corporation, these policies have been a positive contributing factor in attracting volunteer participation in the project.

It shall be interesting to see what impact the policies of the Ubuntu Software Center will have on the level of volunteer participation in Ubuntu.

[Naiki Muliaina]

Top bannanas. Glad canonical are doing this. I buy quite a few linux native games. Any extra convenince installing is wins.

[julio_cortez]

I don't think there's anything bad in it. Free and open source software will still be provided through the Software center so I can keep using every app I'm using now (mixxx, audacity, brasero, firefox and whatever) and IN ADDITION there will be a compilation of paid software..

It won't hurt anyone in my opinion.

[zekopeko]

... where to start.

1) They are not MY ideas, they are the fundamental ideas of "awesome ubuntu" as well as many distro's before it, and they are nowhere near outdated. In fact, they are still quite in their infancy stage. Commercialized proprietary software services, however, have been around forever, and are extremely outdated. I just participated in a conference with over 17,000 attendee's where the resounding message we've heard is that people, and companies, are finding themselves far more capable to scale great products that are stable and quickly resilient to vulnerability on open standards in software and commodity in hardware versus proprietary methodologies. Do not kid yourself, Linux and FOSS, and their methodologies are at the very heart of that message. None of these companies are going broke either, they wouldn't do it if it didn't work, and didn't see value in it. The difference here is in the direction. Most of these companies were/are still proprietary moving openly. I see this move by Canonical as a method of moving from open to proprietary, and swimming upstream against the flood they helped let loose.

I bet that the majority of those companies have products that are either in the cloud and therefore beyond the influence of GPL or offer very specialized applications with support. How many of them actually sell consumer level software?


2) You didn't read very thoroughly... I never said there is not a place for commercial, or even proprietary software on Linux. I'm a linux admin by profession and I run VERY, VERY expensive proprietary software on RHEL, so I am quite familiar with the concept. I do not think ubuntu needs to conform its position or philosophies in its core product to support proprietary and/or pay-based repositories/software subscriptions. There is no reason at all why a vendor can't portal this themselves, or put it in the cloud services where it belongs, NOT in the OS. The cloud is where Canonical can create all these pay services and offer them out to their community, and take it even beyond that. Doing this in the OS is a regression.

So we should all go and simply install stuff the old Windows and Mac way by going to the vendors webpage and using installers and what not? All the while there is the repos system that is really one of the major pluses on Linux's side.


This has nothing to do with zealotry or being "die-hard" This has to with integrity by sticking to your mission statement and promise to the community that made ubuntu what it is, in the face of making a buck.

To be honest, I think a hybrid solution of FOSS and proprietary software can be a good fit, but the trick is to do so in such a way where both can be successful without compromising the quality in one versus the other. In other words, if the introduction of proprietary software repos integrated into the OS begins to water down the quality and functionality of Open Source applicationd development, thats biting the hand that fed you very well. There is a right way to do it. Personally, I think it's in extending ubuntuone's service offering.

So you are saying that we should put barriers to offering proprietary software because FOSS developers have low quality standards (thankfully that is changing by finally programmers realizing that they aren't usability experts or designers)?

I for one would like some competition.


A comparason on the extreme end of the scale: During World Browser War I, Microsoft wanted to win so bad that they took their proprietary browser and integrated it into their kernel and explorer shell, so that internet explorer was an extention of everything you did, up to and including browsing your local files. What that led to was the complete decimation of security of the Windows OS; a proprietary OS that closely knitted its own proprietary software on a massive scale. Granted what we are talking about is not that drastic, yet, but I see it as a very slippery slope they're standing on. If you disagree, I recommend you reread the ubuntu philosophy. It's been slightly reworded over time, but the message is still primarily the same:

http://www.ubuntu.com/project

You have yet to provide proof of proprietary software becoming a core part of Ubuntu. Looks to me like you didn't properly research the topic or have some very skewed view of it.

[cra1g321]

hopefully if people purchase some of the software. Companies may see this and decide to create linux versions of there existing window-only software.

hopefully :lolflag:

[DoeNietWil]

I'm very much hoping this will get more commercial products native to ubuntu

[m4tic]

I haven't been on Ubuntu in over 3 months but i do pop on this site a few x a week. i am a mechanical engineer and while i understand why some people here won't agree with the paid software move but they seem to be thinking within their own little circle. for someone like me all i need is solidworks computer aided drafting software, there's no other freeware or open source program that can come close, don't disagree this is my profession. it's software like that that gave vision to everyday things, from your pen sharpener to a spaceship. i welcome paid apps because it seems as hard as you might try and give open source some patience, reality sinks in and a commercial entity has to come in and give a little push forward.

[undecim]

I really like the idea. I just hope that beside that "Buy World of Goo" button, there is a "Buy the Hedgewars Developers a Cup of Coffee" button, and the like for free applications.

Other than that, I see this as a way to encourage third party support for Linux/Ubuntu. If it provides another revenue stream for canonical, then other businesses will be able to get real numbers on the number of sales for paid applications, and they will know when it will be profitable to support Linux.

I hear people complaining sometimes that Ubuntu is commercializing Linux, but at the same time, there are people (many of whome are members of the former set) complaining that Linux has no third party support. We can't have one without the other, so the best we can do is give users a choice. Stay "pure" and go with FOSS only apps, or spend some money and get commercial apps.

[donkyhotay]

i really like the idea. I just hope that beside that "buy world of goo" button, there is a "buy the hedgewars developers a cup of coffee" button, and the like for free applications.

+1

[johnboy1313]

I hope this brings some better games to Ubuntu, games are the only thing I miss from the darkages of being a windows user

[clw3388]

Good idea.. Too bad they can't offer more games for linux nor the ability to stream netflix.. :popcorn:

[NCLI]

I really like the idea. I just hope that beside that "Buy World of Goo" button, there is a "Buy the Hedgewars Developers a Cup of Coffee" button, and the like for free applications.

That seems to be the plan :)

Features planned (10.10):
- Selling software
- Sell one thing is success, zero is non-success, two is no more of a success
- Implies billing system working
- Not an app that has serial number requirement
- New applications show up in the software center ("open the floodgates")
Session on that later:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-maverick-opportunistic-apps-stable-release
- Design for only a few apps a week getting in
- Need both a social and technical process, including for unblessing PPAs
- Risk is that a trusted application is updated *after* the review process
and leads to bad bad badness
- Also need to avoid "being Apple" and having too much bureaucracy around both new apps and updates
- Eg: FOSS developer has a PPA, files a bug, subscribes a team, they review it, then add a line to a bzr-checked out file, commit it, and then software center gets it a day later (when the system does its daily check for updates?)
- no live search of launchpad

11.04
- Allow a donation feature (depending on how developer enables it for his app)
- APIs for developers publishing software
- Selling content for free apps (11.04)
- Deal with apps that require a serial number (software center would need to issue it)

[forrestcupp]

I think it's a very useful feature. But I predict that most people will still mostly stick to the free stuff.

[drawkcab]

Given Ubuntu's goals, this is a positive thing. I sympathize with FOSS purists but they can maintain their own distros sans proprietary software.

[Merk42]

Some people seem to think: "If there are commercial options then no one will use FOSS :("
If being FOSS is the only advantage your software has over a competitor, you need to improve your software.



Yes. Specifically GPL.
As I said before in this thread, something can be GPL and cost money.
There's also absolutely nothing stopping a developer right now from creative a commercial application for Linux that may or may not be GPL. You'd just have to go to their website and download it instead of using the more convenient method of the Software Center.


Given Ubuntu's goals, this is a positive thing. I sympathize with FOSS purists but they can maintain their own distros sans proprietary software.If they are 100% FOSS purists I don't think they'd be running Ubuntu in the first place

[Random_Dude]

Canonical has to make money somehow, right?

If it makes companies interested in developing software for Linux I think it's a good thing, as long as it doesn't have a negative effect on FOSS software.

Cheers :cool:

[beew]

It is always good to have more choices though I wouldn't use it. I just hope that they have up to date repositories instead of freezing feature updates by default so you always get stuck with old versions. Open source is great provided you don't get stuck with dinosaurs just because the Ubuntu team has decided that new features are bad for "stability".

[beew]

You probably don't need a pay software repository, what you need is the ability to get updated softwares from the repo without having to upgrade the whole OS, this is absurd.

[Merk42]

You probably don't need a pay software repository, what you need is the ability to get updated softwares from the repo without having to upgrade the whole OS, this is absurd.

I agree, the fact that Maverick will miss Firefox 4 by weeks means by default we won't get it until April is frustrating. However it's also completely irrelevant to the topic of having the ability to purchase apps

[fiyer]

As others have mentioned, if software publishers take note that Linux users are willing to purchase software occasionally, some of the more proprietary programs may have future Linux versions.

Unlike others who posted, my job currently does not require that I use any super-specialized Windows only software that won't run in Wine, so I'm not really holding my breath for a magic app that will do everything I can't currently. However, for people in that situation, I can understand this possibly being the future of something great.

Bottom line: I'm pretty satisfied with what is already available to me legally for free and find it highly unlikely that I would pay for an app. :) I won't bemoan the availability of it either.

[MCVenom]

Everyone freaking out about proprietary software displacing FOSS... I think we can all agree that there's a ton of proprietary software for Windows... but people still use FOSS programs like Firefox and OO.org on Windows. I personally have my Win7 partition filled with FOSS software for almost every single thing I could possibly want to do with it. :P

My point? Just because there's proprietary software easily available for Ubuntu (if that happens), doesn't mean everyone will stop using open source software. Besides, Ubuntu will still be an open source OS, with good open source software installed by default, and promoted in the Software Center. :D

I like the idea.

[Plumtreed]

There seems to be an assumption here that Canonical are not now making money and by selling a 'few' apps they will suddenly climb on a magical gravy train!

They are making money. By selling some game apps they may increase their market share by making Ubuntu more acceptable to the general ie 'public'.

Linux, Debian and Ubuntu have developed over many years of of work by 'unpaid' developers spending many hours building a workable base.

Ubuntu is merely a fork of Debian which is a fork of Linux etc. etc.
There would be no Ubuntu except for all the free time given by many Linux developers over many years.

...and I still didn't vote because the Poll responses are 'twisted'!

[rg4w]

Everyone freaking out about proprietary software displacing FOSS...
...except for developers of proprietary software, whose concern is the opposite: why would anyone pay for software when a free alternative is available?

Personally I think there's room for both, and applaud Canonical's decision to provide more options for us.

[zekopeko]

No I am not implying that. repo's can be added very easily. I don't see why commercialized products can't be repo'ed. I also don't see why they should be treated any differently.

Sorry but adding repos isn't easier then having a section in Ubuntu Software Center for paid apps that get updated and new ones added.


use a key based methodology as your entitlement and you're good to go. Again, this can ALL be done in the cloud, which is the direction most software services will be going over the next 5 or so years. reworking your OS to support a proprietary software framework when you promised that all parts of the OS will be free and open is a contradiction in my opinion, if you offer facets of software from your "free" OS that are proprietary and cost money. This also is the answer to the last statement you made. The proof to me is in the adoption of that methodology. Ubuntu will be 99% free, with the exception of some commercially advertised applications. That percentage will gradually drop. I am just HOPING that the quality of FOSS doesn't drop with it. The last thing we need is another catalyst for siloed programming.

You have yet to provide any proof for this "reworking your OS to support a proprietary software framework" statement. They are simply providing an integrated repository and payment system for paid applications. All of those live in the cloud. You are being vague with your statements.


as far as companies who have turned a profit on Open Source?!
Sun (R.I.P)
Novell
Zenoss
Ksplice Upstart
Alfresco
o3spaces
liferay
Zimbra (MS exchange alternative whom I spoke with at length)
canonical (ubuntuone and others)
netapp (mbrscan/mbralign and other CIFS tools that they've opened up)
EMC
Dell gave us DKMS
just to rattle off a few. It can be done. It is being done.


I asked for companies that make CONSUMER level applications not ENTERPRISE ones. Virtually non from your list have CONSUMER level applications as their exclusive business model. They all target the business sector.


Bottom line, I'm not saying I have a problem with proprietary software being developed and used in ubuntu, I have a problem with the injection point of it! I think its counterproductive to ubuntu's promise, and I actually thinks its somewhat telling from a consumers point of view on Canonical's commitment to their own cloud offerings. Why wouldn't they want to grow this presence, especially with something so fitting?!
If you disagree, thats fine, it won't be the first, or likely the last. :)

I don't get the injection point objection. USC is simply a glorified frontend to a server that is in the cloud.

[toupeiro]

I don't get the injection point objection. USC is simply a glorified frontend to a server that is in the cloud.

... this is a fair point that I didn't really thoroughly bake myself. I guess I am thinking more web oriented as the demarcation point for the cloud in this case. The person could apt-repository-add this or even apturl it. That's as easy as USC, and would be more inline with ubuntu's promise as a project. Thank you for the perspective.

I disagree with your separation of consumer and enterprise when the person and the business BOTH buy "consume" software, especially as it pertains to enterprise putting stake in FOSS when it has been driven by proprietary software for decades. These are FOSS applications, projects, that became good enough to get the attention of enterprise. The CONSUMER can use them for free, the enterprise can buy support, and so can the consumer if they so choose at a lower tier. Thats a whole other topic, though.

For the sake of not volleying this back and forth, I'll just leave it with: I'm very sceptical about this, Honestly, I think I'm pretty close to reality as far as where this could go, but I hope that it doesn't.

[m4tic]

if they don't include a like button, download count, i'm not buying. it'll be good to see how much people liked the software vs purchased. maybe a Facebook integration so i could share with my friends.

[M93]

the only good thing bout this paid software is that it will enable faster devolopment
but wont this start be a step forward to be a commercial OS?!!

[Tracy177]

do you know what ?

i would like to pay for Ubuntu as whole OS not for single applications.

ubuntu need better hardware support ( drivers are useless at the moment and it take to long to make everything work properly and to be honest u wont be able to make everything work in ubuntu )

i would like to purchase ubuntu and have working flash working ati card working nvidia card sound etc etc etc

the same way as everything work in windows. Plug and Play !!!!
i paid for win 7 one off 130£ and everything work out of the box. tv box sound card graphic card etc etc etc.

ubuntu maybe free but buggy so as i said i would pay 50 or 100£ ones but i need drivers for my hardware !!!!!!

im not happy watching cpu load 65% 100% when play flash or other HD clips killing my cpu gpu screen wifi just cuz i have ubuntu and everything i got are buggy drivers.


I use ubuntu for fun to learn bit of soemthing different than windows. Ubuntu isnt as good as windows is and it is cuz ubuntu doesnt have almost at all hardware support.

[Chaotica]

I can't understand where is the problem. I use windows and I have only free software installed...

[beew]

I use ubuntu for fun to learn bit of soemthing different than windows. Ubuntu isnt as good as windows is and it is cuz ubuntu doesnt have almost at all hardware supporI use Ubuntu and it is way better than windows. Everything works and it is much faster than vista even running out of an external drive. Sound, nvidia card, broadcom wirless card all work if only after installing a few things from the repo.

[Naiki Muliaina]

I use ubuntu for fun to learn bit of soemthing different than windows. Ubuntu isnt as good as windows is and it is cuz ubuntu doesnt have almost at all hardware support.

Windows is not as good as Ubuntu. ;)

Edit : Where did the rest of ma post go? :-/

Before I hit reply I had some message about the way Windows are said to be including some sort of trusted repository in the future. With that, Apples app stores, Android market, seems like everyone could be making money from repos soon :)

[Raffles10]

Why would anyone pay for software if there are free alternatives that do the same thing.

Don't be naive, the only way canonical can make this pay is to remove the free alternatives, it's inevitable, it's called business. If it doesn't happen straight away, it will eventually.

[Groucho Marxist]

Why would anyone pay for software if there are free alternatives that do the same thing.

Don't be naive, the only way canonical can make this pay is to remove the free alternatives, it's inevitable, it's called business. If it doesn't happen straight away, it will eventually.

I agree; as soon as Canonical starts shifting in that direction and fiscal concerns replace the essence of FOSS, I'll switch distros.

I am not against paying for software, but I am against proprietary elements eroding FOSS and GNU/Linux from within.

[RiceMonster]

Why would anyone pay for software if there are free alternatives that do the same thing.

Because the paid version is either better, or the free version does not meet said person's needs?

[cra1g321]

Just read there that the Fluendo’s DVD Player is the 1st 'paid' software to be added. Lets hope theres more to come :D

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/09/software-centre-adds-first-paid-app-fluendo-dvd-player/

[beew]

Because the paid version is either better, or the free version does not meet said person's needs?Really? I am not sure what kind of pay software will be on the offer. There are some big item softwares that some folks will gladly pay for like Photoshop (though I think most people would just use the gimp while hardly knowing the difference) but these things typically just don't work on Linux, period. For most others the free alternatives are just as good.

Instead they should make the open source alternative more attractive by, say, keeping them up to date in the repository so that you don't have to wait for 6 monthss (or an absurd duration of 3 years for LTS?) for new features and improvements. Yes, you can use PPAs or download a .deb file but they aren't always available, easy to find, or trustworthy.

[Naiki Muliaina]

Really? I am not sure what kind of pay software will be on the offer. There are some big item softwares that some folks will gladly pay for like Photoshop (though I think most people would just use the gimp while hardly knowing the difference) but these things typically just don't work on Linux, period. For most others the free alternatives are just as good.

For me my PC is leisure time now days. Not something I am hugely interested in. 99.9% of the games in Ubuntus repo keep me occupied for all of 5 minutes.

Machinarium held my attention for far longer. As did Osmos, Penumbra, and Irukandji. :)

[Christian Knudsen]

As a game developer working on my first commercial title (for Windows, Mac and Linux - check out my signature!), I'm very much looking forward to being able to sell my game through the Software Center (hopefully). I think it'll really attract more developers to Ubuntu as selling your game/application on this platform will be a lot easier.

Has any information about the process of having your application added to the Software Center, or how big a piece of the pie Canonical takes, been released?

[DeadSuperHero]

I'm all for it, and this seems like the perfect time to start bringing over the big guns from Lin-App.

My main concern is the following: What does one need to do in order to have your app included in the Software Center? If it's proprietary, do you have to charge a price, or can you just make closed "freeware" games, and submit those, too?

As the AGS Linux engine (http://www.bigbluecup.com/yabb/index.php?topic=37968.0)just got updated to resolve the age-old savepath problem (thus enabling true packaging in .deb packages), this could mean that there's hundreds of quality indie adventure games that could be easily ported to Ubuntu and included in the store. The AGS community is extremely prolific in developing independent titles, which Ubuntu severely needs right now.

[Raffles10]

Just read there that the Fluendo’s DVD Player is the 1st 'paid' software to be added. Lets hope theres more to come :D

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/09/software-centre-adds-first-paid-app-fluendo-dvd-player/

I wonder...how long before libdvdcss becomes unavailable for install in ubuntu ?

[NCLI]

I wonder...how long before libdvdcss becomes unavailable for install in ubuntu ?

I think Canonical is very well aware that their userbase will crumble if they head down that path. Besides, they would never be able to prevent you from adding a PPA, or installing it from a DEB.

[lxlv01]

I think that this all about options and having more options is never a bad think. if this feature was used to bring some good professional applications like photoshop, or AutoCAD vital for some professionals so that they can use ubuntu as their OS and some quality games for gamers, it is fine. It will help more people to discover Ubuntu and thus gaining a bigger market share would bring more hardware support etc. But i wouldn't like to see an Apple like store selling .99 crap or open source applications being not available or outdated in the repos to favor the purchase of commercial ones. This is too commercialised and to be honest, if i wanted an Apple like experience, I would opt for the real one, not an imitation. While i love ubuntu and run it as my sole OS, if i see it takes that direction, I will drop it. but these opinions are of course personal. there are plenty of Linux distros for all tastes.

just my .02$

[NightwishFan]

I approve of the idea. ;)

[toupeiro]

I think that this all about options and having more options is never a bad think. if this feature was used to bring some good professional applications like photoshop, or AutoCAD vital for some professionals so that they can use ubuntu as their OS and some quality games for gamers, it is fine. It will help more people to discover Ubuntu and thus gaining a bigger market share would bring more hardware support etc. But i wouldn't like to see an Apple like store selling .99 crap or open source applications being not available or outdated in the repos to favor the purchase of commercial ones. This is too commercialised and to be honest, if i wanted an Apple like experience, I would opt for the real one, not an imitation. While i love ubuntu and run it as my sole OS, if i see it takes that direction, I will drop it. but these opinions are of course personal. there are plenty of Linux distros for all tastes.

just my .02$

I've worked with Adobe and Autodesk as a software packager for windows some years ago, and honestly I don't think this extension is going to get the Adobe and Autodesks of the world really looking any harder at ubuntu. These companies specifically have very siloed thinking about their software, and many others do too. Their reasoning for not porting their application is not a point of sales problem, its a resource/overall application portability problem that exists regardless of the software center. I'm not trying to sound pessimistic, just realistic.

Games, on the other hand, perhaps. Many games are still self-contained entities of software that don't require too many OS components or frameworks to function, which is why so many of them are portable to Linux using wine, but applications that are tied heavily into .NET frameworks, for example, usually have a more difficult time.

[poosietgp]

I think ubuntu would do better if in Ubuntu Software Center there will be a clickable option like "Get Professional Help (But with fee of course.)" or something like "If all else fails, get Online Tech-support". But it might have a negative impact to the community.

Ubuntu is free and will forever be free (I read something like this on their site... I think.) Ubuntu should remain free but that doesn't mean the software you choose to install on it will be free too.

Has anyone tried purchasing media in the UbuntuOne: Music Store?

[BkkBonanza]

Here starts the slippery slope to eventually everything on Ubuntu costing money.
Re$i$t.

[sideaway]

... Seriously you two!

My opinion; What I'm afraid of is the million-and-one 'lite' versions of paid apps. I agree with previous statements - I'd like a shop that displays Adobe Photoshop, Solidworks (I am an engineer) and perhaps some kind of Steam integration? Not Apple/Android like 99cent options. It just gets full of mediocre apps that are just out there to make a quick buck. Unfortunately that will take time. I own an android device and am impressed by the ratio of free apps to paid - I believe Ubuntu can achieve an even greater ratio. I don't want to see some cheap imitation of the Apple store. Perhaps Canonical will take hard reins which paid apps will become avaliable, as they do with the repos to ensure their ability to work natively with Ubuntu as opposed to some cheap port.

This is a touchy subject - but if Ubuntu can make it work, it could cause an explosion in development, then awareness and then userbase. All without alienating their current userbase. Ubuntu have taken a high risk and but also potentially high rewards option, as most extremely successful enterprises do. I'm going to reserve judgement until I see the final result, if I don't like it, perhaps Fedora or Arch will tickle my fancy (or I'll just stick with 10.04 for a while, it is LTS after all).

The only reason I reboot to windows is to play the odd game and Solidworks, this will continue until they come to Linux - for me, there is no other 'alternative' as my choice is governed by the industry. Steam is on the Mac, I would like to see it on Linux after Valve see the success of the linux store, perhaps they may be persuaded to develop a linux client? I believe this is the case for many of us! Perhaps ATi will then take linux seriously and develop a stable driver for my HD5870... Well we can dream.

[Someone uk]

i welcome the idea but i know the only things that would sell are games because i find this is quite a common stance of people here:
Pay for OS:no (well not anymore)
pay for applications: no (we'll always find a free alternative, if none found one would be written)
pay for games: yes

so since valve took a u-turn on the whole steam for linux idea we have been wanting a content delivery system for games and i know the new software centre will be basically our version of steam :)

[Christian Knudsen]

Definitely. A lack of quality games seems to be one of the things holding back a lot of people from jumping over to Ubuntu. I can't imagine a Software Center offering paid games not attracting more professional game makers to the platform.

[zekopeko]

Here starts the slippery slope to eventually everything on Ubuntu costing money.
Re$i$t.

You do realize that anybody can charge money for FOSS applications?
I could take Ubuntu right now and sell it for 200$ if I wished.

[Swagman]

Choice is good.

I don't think that free software will be threatened by commercial or vice versa. People will install the stuff they require to do whatever task they require. If the better option for that task costs money then they have the option whether to open fat wallet.

What I'm concerned about is the O/s update option b0rking your o/s after you've purchased a shedload of programs. (six month cycle) ok.. I have /home on a separate partition.. N00bs to ubuntu most likely WONT

What then ?

[zekopeko]

What I'm concerned about is the O/s update option b0rking your o/s after you've purchased a shedload of programs. (six month cycle) ok.. I have /home on a separate partition.. N00bs to ubuntu most likely WONT

What then ?

You will be able to reinstall previous purchases. Probably even on multiple computers.

[DeadSuperHero]

I'm still curious. How will third-party devs (such as a guy that just makes two or three games) be able to submit our products to the Software Center? Will there be a repository system similar to LaunchPad, but with commercial and proprietary apps? Where can I read up on the submission proccess?

[Christian Knudsen]

That's what I'm curios about as well, but seeing as nobody has answered these kinds of questions, I think it's still undecided/unknown.

[zekopeko]

I'm still curious. How will third-party devs (such as a guy that just makes two or three games) be able to submit our products to the Software Center? Will there be a repository system similar to LaunchPad, but with commercial and proprietary apps? Where can I read up on the submission proccess?

They are probably going to adapt the process that is planned for getting new apps in Maverick.

[phrostbyte]

Just read there that the Fluendo’s DVD Player is the 1st 'paid' software to be added. Lets hope theres more to come :D

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/09/software-centre-adds-first-paid-app-fluendo-dvd-player/

Fluendo is a pretty good company and they are the primary developers of gstreamer, a FOSS project.

I honestly have no problem if the sale of proprietary software helps funds more development of FOSS. In the case of Fluendo, I think this is true. But Canonical makes it too "easy" to sell software via Ubuntu, I think it will hurt FOSS development in the long run.

And really, there is no point to Linux or Ubuntu's existence if it's just going to be another proprietary ecosystem. There is already plenty of those (Windows, Mac OS X, etc.). Hell Mac OS X can run many of the same applications.

When you really look objectively at the advantages of Linux: It's never been security, performance, usability, or any other perceived or actual technical advancements.

No, the main selling point and differentiator of _this_ ecosystem is the freedom of endeavour it affords it's user base. That's something special. It's our feature that non of the big proprietary software powers have been able to match. So why endanger it?

[perspectoff]

Dumb idea, after all Ubuntu's existence is essentially based on 'free' software and liberal development. How can this be justified when you consider the amount of 'free' time already applied by those developers who have worked on even the tiniest improvements or changes?

.....and I didn't vote because the poll responses are weighted to the affirmative!

Not true. That is Debian's concept.

If a user wants a true open source distro, roll back to Debian.

Debian is the rock on which Ubuntu is built, anyway.

I hope some profits, if any, can somehow be returned back to Debian.

Besides, the apps are not necessarily Ubuntu's, but small developers who need a way to market. Without this channel, many of these apps might wither and die more quickly.

The more successful apps have commercial arms (Groupware, Drupal websites, etc.)

Ubuntu is facilitating this co-operation, which is a fabulous idea.

[arnab_das]

to be honest, if this means stuff like adobe photoshop, video editors, and more games (good 3D graphics etc) are made available, then i guess i'm okay with it. i mean lets face it, we dont have a professional image editor for linux (gimp is okay-ish, but great for most since its free). i'll tell u something, there are many who dont use linux because there arent enough efficient softwares around. yes, there are many great ones, but very few professional grade apps with support systems.

caveat: if this means prioritising the closed source apps (generally most paid softwares are closed source, with very few exceptions) over open source, then i think its a step in the wrong direction. i guess the best thing to do now would be to let canonical do its thing and not jump the gun in criticising something we arent sure of right now.

[ghettocottage]

Great inspiration for small developers to come up with useful little apps. I am already coming up with a few ideas..

[Prohibited]

This will definitely encourage more developers to start coding for Linux :)

[khelben1979]

In my opinion, I think it's okay. In the end, it will be the users of Ubuntu which decides which applications they want to use and if they want to run free or non-free software in it, just like it is today.

The only bad thing I can think of, that would be if the Ubuntu distribution changes to something which splits the Ubuntu community, making it into 2 distributions: non-free Ubuntu and the other free Ubuntu (not sure about it's names though..).

[Tjampman]

I like the idea of being able to make donations to FOSS programs, which as someone mentioned is in the roadmap for 11.04.

Buying software can go either way, good or bad, but if it goes down the good route I definitely see it as a game changer, that will increase ubuntu's userbase, and bring forth great commercial software, did anyone mention Photoshop :-).
Needless to say if it goes bad, there's other distros, so no problem.

[FiveSidedPoly]

I can see the pros and cons of this whole idea. But to be honest, if this commercial software is restricted for use only on Ubuntu would be wrong, allowing it to be used on all Debian based forks is the only way with will help the Linux community as a whole.

Paid for Apps are fine, I would rather just donate money to the developers directly, rather then have to deal with any sort of middle man at all. Especially when I can donate a crap load of money because I constantly download and use the latest versions regularly from a developer.

Examples: XBMC, Putty, VLC, ClamAV, etc, etc.

These are programs worth paying for or at least donating.

But if any commercial software, especially games are sold through the software center, and I have to pay for each time I install it on any of my many Linux boxes. Or if I don't get regular bug fixes or updates for free. Then you might as well count me as not using any of it.

It needs to be donations, free, or like Steam.... everything else is just makes it more like if MS put a "Windows Store" right in Control Panel. Which everyone and their mother would have a problem with.

[demontranoth]

Honestly, when I found out about this whole idea, I got scared. Ubuntu is supposed to be free and stay free. I wouldn't mind companies which already make commercial programs to make them available for Linux i general, but I cant stand the idea that maybe, already freely available software would charge money for later versions or that free software will be "killed" by the sudden invasion of non-free software. I hope this doesn't lead to Ubuntu's demise...

[Merk42]

Honestly, when I found out about this whole idea, I got scared. Ubuntu is supposed to be free and stay free. I wouldn't mind companies which already make commercial programs to make them available for Linux i general, but I cant stand the idea that maybe, already freely available software would charge money for later versions or that free software will be "killed" by the sudden invasion of non-free software. I hope this doesn't lead to Ubuntu's demise...Well let me ease your fears and let you know that the Software Center is intended to be where "companies which already make commercial programs to make them available for Linux", it is NOT to charge for something you could get for free (unless the developer chooses to do so, but I don't see why they would).

[demontranoth]

Well let me ease your fears and let you know that the Software Center is intended to be where "companies which already make commercial programs to make them available for Linux", it is NOT to charge for something you could get for free (unless the developer chooses to do so, but I don't see why they would).
phew, thats a relief!

[corcomp84]

I would love to see software that can be supported on Linux.. Especially games, that is by far what I miss the most... I would pay more for a good strategy game like medieval war that runs on linux than I would for windows.. I hope that in the future I will be able to go to the store or online and purchase the newest games that will simply play on my computers without any worry.. All I look for is that awesome penguin..

[Yeti can't ski]

Facts:

- Canonical must financially survive.

- Nobody forces me or anyone else to use Ubuntu.

- Free-Libre and Open Source Software can be sold for a price and still be FOSS.

All that said, it really makes me uncomfortable to think that (i) there will be a direct and privileged channel of distribution of proprietary software within Ubuntu and (ii) Canonical will unavoidably have economical incentive to favor proprietary solutions.

Why work hard on the integration and updating of some FOSS (and free as in beer) application for the repositories if that will cut precious sales of a proprietary competing product in the Software Center? It does not mean that Canonical will do it, but it is disturbing to have a business model that goes in that direction.

I just can't help feeling the smell of "Open-Core".

A very important issue, has Canonical disclosed the terms and conditions for adding software to the USC? If yes, does any one know where I can find it?

[Yeti can't ski]

games, that is by far what I miss the most... I would pay more for a good strategy game like medieval war that runs on linux than I would for windows.

Quite off-topic, but have you ever checked Glest?

[Oxwivi]

I'm very much against it since it's selling apps, yet there's no direct way to get free proprietary stuff.

[WRDN]

I'm very much against it since it's selling apps, yet there's no direct way to get free proprietary stuff.

Could you expand on that comment please?

There is a number of proprietary applications in the repositories, such as Adobes flash player.

[alexan]

Every ¢ Canonical spend... was well spend until now.

Better see money end in a company which turn them out in something good... rather... the usual way we'd see with the majors like Microsoft and Apple. :KS



Only point against... I would like to see the price in €
After all it should come with the localization of the OS, shouldn't?

[Merk42]

Every ¢ Canonical spend... was well spend until now.

Better see money end in a company which turn them out in something good... rather... the usual way we'd see with the majors like Microsoft and Apple. :KS



Only point against... I would like to see the price in €
After all it should come with the localization of the OS, shouldn't?
I'm confused at your wording, are you against it? If not I guess I could post this question to those in the thread that are:

How should Canonical make money if not at the very least to pay the people that work on Ubuntu?

[Yeti can't ski]

I guess I could post this question to those in the thread that are:

How should Canonical make money if not at the very least to pay the people that work on Ubuntu?

That is the one-fantizillion-Dollar question and that is why there is no easy answer for it.

If they are trying something as risky as a creating a channel of proprietary software into the very heart of the system, then I presume that everything else - support to hardware vendors like Dell and HP, sale of space to Yahoo, sale of support, certification and training etc. - has failed miserably or is simply not enough to keep the company breathing.

I guess that one of the problems is exactly the "company" part of it. It is much easier to obtain disperse support with a non-profit Mozilla-like structure. It is bit awkward for a company to take donations (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/get-involved/donate).

For a foundation, wide and "charitable" support is just part of the game. We have Linux Foundation for the Kernel, now we have The Document Foundation for the office-package. Why not a similar model for the desktop?

Can you imagine an Ubuntu-Foundation saying: "Hey Guys, I need three dollars per year from each one of you!"?? If only one in ten users donated, it would still be a reasonable amount of money (http://ostatic.com/blog/canonical-announces-12-million-ubuntu-users-google-makes-a-comeback). I would certainly donate to such a non-profit entity (for the moment, I just buy gear from Ubuntu shop, I don't feel like donating to a company).

P.S. - Just to clarify, I know that companies can and do succeed with open-source. But, as said before in the thread, it is much easier in enterprise markets than with final users.

[jcolyn]

Sounds OK to me though I won't be buying any software.

[zekopeko]

That is the one-fantizillion-Dollar question and that is why there is no easy answer for it.

If they are trying something as risky as a creating a channel of proprietary software into the very heart of the system, then I presume that everything else - support to hardware vendors like Dell and HP, sale of space to Yahoo, sale of support, certification and training etc. - has failed miserably or is simply not enough to keep the company breathing.

Doubt it. Without those programs Canonical would be deeper in the red then it's now.


I guess that one of the problems is exactly the "company" part of it. It is much easier to obtain disperse support with a non-profit Mozilla-like structure. It is bit awkward for a company to take donations (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/get-involved/donate).

For a foundation, wide and "charitable" support is just part of the game. We have Linux Foundation for the Kernel, now we have The Document Foundation for the office-package. Why not a similar model for the desktop?

Can you imagine an Ubuntu-Foundation saying: "Hey Guys, I need three dollars per year from each one of you!"?? If only one in ten users donated, it would still be a reasonable amount of money (http://ostatic.com/blog/canonical-announces-12-million-ubuntu-users-google-makes-a-comeback). I would certainly donate to such a non-profit entity (for the moment, I just buy gear from Ubuntu shop, I don't feel like donating to a company).

P.S. - Just to clarify, I know that companies can and do succeed with open-source. But, as said before in the thread, it is much easier in enterprise markets than with final users.

Mozilla has a non-profit part and the for profit part (Mozilla Corporation). They get 90+% of their money from Google and other search vendors so if Google stops paying them for being the default search engine Mozilla's money would dry up pretty fast.

Donations as a viable source of income is unrealistic. You can't know how much money you are going to collect. Look at Wikipedia and their regular donation drives.

[Oxwivi]

Could you expand on that comment please?

There is a number of proprietary applications in the repositories, such as Adobes flash player.
What I mean is, purchasable apps would be (unless I'm much mistaken) readily available on the Software Center, but to allow installing free proprietary apps, you need to go to Software Sources and enable the repo for proprietary softwares, then you can install. My info is of 10.04 Software Center latest, I no longer attempt to install proprietary apps from the SC, but rather Terminal.

[alexan]

I'm confused at your wording, are you against it? If not I guess I could post this question to those in the thread that are:

How should Canonical make money if not at the very least to pay the people that work on Ubuntu?

I am not against it. To buy games on Linux... better Canonical than Valve.



I hope Canonical will dare to make the next step: try sell videogames who work rock-stable with wine.
Canonical to contact the game developers and offer themselves as "source code" bridge of said games to make them adhere perfectly to Wine... then sell these certified for wine games thought software center (pre-compiled).

I am pretty sure game developer companies will be motivate to take the next step in the open source code... if they start to move

[cpmman]

I see nothing wrong in selling software as long as it is not core os software.

[spoons]

The poll lacks a "I don't really care" option. I mean, I don't mind paid apps in the software centre, I'm not against it, because I'm not going to buy them, and I'm not for it, or saying "this is great!" because I'm not going to buy them. It does not affect my life in any way.

If the paid apps were forced upon me, I'd just change operating systems. When the computer/developer thinks they know what I want better than I do, I get angry.

[oppression]

In my opinion is the worst idea ever! we have already enough companies to sell programs!(Microsoft,Apple) I prefer ubuntu to stay out of all this with MONEY!

[Quadunit404]

I don't really mind it that much. As long as an OS works and isn't Windows ME I'll use it. Besides, there's only one app for sale right now.

I do like the new Software Center over 9.10 (my first version of Ubuntu) and 10.04, but I don't like how it still shows Opera as "new" even though I installed it over a week ago, right after reinstalling Ubuntu (Opera .debs add their repo to your Software sources to keep it up-to-date, but I prefer going to the Desktop Team blog for new builds.) Why not show new stuff from one of the million PPAs (read: over-exaggeration) I have on my system?

http://i563.photobucket.com/albums/ss76/Quadunit404/th_WHYISOPERASTILLNEW.png (http://i563.photobucket.com/albums/ss76/Quadunit404/WHYISOPERASTILLNEW.png)

[sudoer541]

I really want to see how will this work out, and what are Canonicals plans in regards to USC.
I want to see who will be their partners.

One thing, I dont like is:
When you click on two programs to install, USC downloads the first program and it prepares it for installation. The second program waits for the first program to finish.
It would be great if you could select multiple program at the same time as well as download and install programs at the same time.
One more ting I dont like... they should make USC FASTER and less of a memory eater!!!


Cant wait to see games and other apps...my wallet is ready!!!

[beew]

How many of you actually pay for the Fluendo DVD player?

[ve4cib]

This is really just providing a platform where people can sell their applications to Ubuntu users. No one is forcing anyone to actually buy them. Hell, no one is forcing you to even use the USC; you can remove the package and use Aptitude, Apt-Get, Synaptic, etc... and do everything that way if you prefer.

There have always been closed-source Linux applications that you've had to pay for. Yes, they're the minority, and yes they're generally aimed at business/server clients, but that's not really the point. The fact that they've existed is what's important.

From Canonical's point of view, and from the angle of trying to make Linux into a more competitive desktop system, this makes a lot of sense. Canonical gets to take a cut of the profit made from the for-pay applications, and having the opportunity to sell applications opens up new business opportunities for serious developers. Imagine if you could actually buy a native version of Photoshop, or AutoCad. For people who use those applications regularly they'll know that the free/open-source alternatives don't always cut it for some users' specific needs.

The biggest detriment to Linux on the desktop for a long time has been the lack of most well-known commercial software. Adding the ability to sell applications is a good first-step in resolving that limitation.

As for the argument that Ubuntu stands for freedom, I'd say that this doesn't affect that stance at all. Ubuntu is an operating system that is still free. If someone chooses to run closed-source applications on it, that's their choice -- a choice they should be *free* to make for themselves.

[sudoer541]

This is really just providing a platform where people can sell their applications to Ubuntu users. No one is forcing anyone to actually buy them. Hell, no one is forcing you to even use the USC; you can remove the package and use Aptitude, Apt-Get, Synaptic, etc... and do everything that way if you prefer.

There have always been closed-source Linux applications that you've had to pay for. Yes, they're the minority, and yes they're generally aimed at business/server clients, but that's not really the point. The fact that they've existed is what's important.

From Canonical's point of view, and from the angle of trying to make Linux into a more competitive desktop system, this makes a lot of sense. Canonical gets to take a cut of the profit made from the for-pay applications, and having the opportunity to sell applications opens up new business opportunities for serious developers. Imagine if you could actually buy a native version of Photoshop, or AutoCad. For people who use those applications regularly they'll know that the free/open-source alternatives don't always cut it for some users' specific needs.

The biggest detriment to Linux on the desktop for a long time has been the lack of most well-known commercial software. Adding the ability to sell applications is a good first-step in resolving that limitation.

As for the argument that Ubuntu stands for freedom, I'd say that this doesn't affect that stance at all. Ubuntu is an operating system that is still free. If someone chooses to run closed-source applications on it, that's their choice -- a choice they should be *free* to make for themselves.


Well said!:)

[Quadunit404]

This is really just providing a platform where people can sell their applications to Ubuntu users. No one is forcing anyone to actually buy them. Hell, no one is forcing you to even use the USC; you can remove the package and use Aptitude, Apt-Get, Synaptic, etc... and do everything that way if you prefer.

There have always been closed-source Linux applications that you've had to pay for. Yes, they're the minority, and yes they're generally aimed at business/server clients, but that's not really the point. The fact that they've existed is what's important.

From Canonical's point of view, and from the angle of trying to make Linux into a more competitive desktop system, this makes a lot of sense. Canonical gets to take a cut of the profit made from the for-pay applications, and having the opportunity to sell applications opens up new business opportunities for serious developers. Imagine if you could actually buy a native version of Photoshop, or AutoCad. For people who use those applications regularly they'll know that the free/open-source alternatives don't always cut it for some users' specific needs.

The biggest detriment to Linux on the desktop for a long time has been the lack of most well-known commercial software. Adding the ability to sell applications is a good first-step in resolving that limitation.

As for the argument that Ubuntu stands for freedom, I'd say that this doesn't affect that stance at all. Ubuntu is an operating system that is still free. If someone chooses to run closed-source applications on it, that's their choice -- a choice they should be *free* to make for themselves.

This.

[NightwishFan]

How many of you actually pay for the Fluendo DVD player?

I am pretty sure libdvdcss is frowned upon where I live so I might have to.

[FiveSidedPoly]

How many of you actually pay for the Fluendo DVD player?

I wanted to but decided to hold off for now, really waiting till they have McAfee Antivirus up there, I just won't watch any DVDs until then. :-$

[oppression]

Realy I am very upset with this idea. I thought that ubuntu is out from this strategy to sell software to make money I don't like to open the software center and see purchase software. if they want to sell they can make a website or something else. I think is time to install other distribution of linux.

[m4tic]

Realy I am very upset with this idea. I thought that ubuntu is out from this strategy to sell software to make money I don't like to open the software center and see purchase software. if they want to sell they can make a website or something else. I think is time to install other distribution of linux.

I'm laughing at you.

[oppression]

Why?

[NCLI]

Why?
I am not m4tic, but I will try to answer in his place. There are several excellent reasons:

1. Of course Ubuntu wants to make money. Developers need to eat! Lol!

2. If you don't want to buy anything, don't, lol! Why get upset because they provide the option to purchase software?

3. Make a website? That's what they've been trying for the past many years with shop.ubuntu.com! They added the option to the software center because no one used the website, lol.

4. And the big one: You're going to switch to another distribution because the company behind this one is trying to earn money to pay more developers to improve it? ROFLMAO! Besides, it's just an option in an application you can remove:

sudo apt-get remove software-center
There you go, no more paid applications!

5. You really need to learn some proper grammar. At least use commas, lol!


Yes, I am aware that I used an inordinate number of "lol's" in this post. Sorry.

[Glenn Jones]

I've just stumbled on this thread and must admit I haven't read all of the comments here but from what I can see most people don't care whilst others are set against it.

Personally I don't see a problem with this as Ubuntu is targeted towards end desktop users. Ubuntu were one of the first distros to add proprietary drivers in the repository. In the end Ubuntu must make money so they can pay for designers and programmers etc which end up improving the user experience which will ultimate improve the open source community. So long as there is a feedback where if we pay for software then improvements are seen by the whole open source community.

Red Hat on the other hand have a different target audience with Fedora which is completely open source and business model. We are seeing people paying for Red Hat support which pays for coders to live which in the end results in an improvement in the open source community.

So long as the community prospers then I do not have an issue with paying for software. Rant Over ;)

Might I take this opportunity to commend the open source community for working hard to improve wireless and video card drives over the past 5 years or so. It has made a number of companies sit up and take note and my hats off to you guys. Now for laptop batteries :?

[oppression]

Do you know how many people have worked for free for you to have all this free software and you speak as if no one else has worked?

[Paul820]

Does anyone know how well our details are kept safe when purchasing software from the software centre? Is everything properly encrypted? I just want to check before entering my card details.

I am just asking as more applications etc have now appeared in my software centre and i have my eye on Brukkon :D I don't usually play games but i do like puzzles and that looks pretty good. And at $7/£4.43 it is a great price.

Oh yeah, i am all for paid software. It's a great chance for some unknown developers to make a bit of cash for themselves. If you don't like it, don't buy. ;)

[Quadunit404]

I didn't buy anything from the USC until yesterday. It was World of Goo. The fact that it receives universal acclaim across all platforms and its price of $19.95 lulled me into doing so, and hell yeah was it worth the money :D

[cgroza]

Dumb idea, after all Ubuntu's existence is essentially based on 'free' software and liberal development. How can this be justified when you consider the amount of 'free' time already applied by those developers who have worked on even the tiniest improvements or changes?

.....and I didn't vote because the poll responses are weighted to the affirmative!

Programmers need to eat too so I think it is a good idea.

[NCLI]

Do you know how many people have worked for free for you to have all this free software and you speak as if no one else has worked?
When did I degrade free software? I'm just saying that big applications require many dedicated developers, and many dedicated developers requires a lot of money for them to eat, pay their rent, etc.

Sometimes, the developers are paid while the code stays open and free of charge, like the kernel, usually because the company sponsoring it uses the software.

However, in many cases, developers have no other way to fund their software development than charging the user, especially in the case of huge things like games. Why shouldn't we enable them to do so easily?

[oppression]

I can give you many reasons why it's wrong but probably you would not understand, and something else is that you are not representing the developers if you want to make money from Ubuntu. Speak for yourself and not for the developers.

[graabein]

All software in the software center should be free. Ubuntu (GNU/Linux) is based on this premise.

[zekopeko]

I can give you many reasons why it's wrong but probably you would not understand,

Well considering you can't produce one good reason why Ubuntu shouldn't have paid applications I would say we can disregard your opinion.


and something else is that you are not representing the developers if you want to make money from Ubuntu. Speak for yourself and not for the developers.

LOL! You're hilarious. You do understand that the developers are implementing the Ubuntu Software Center and the ability to purchase apps? I haven't seen a single post from developers that was against paid applications in Ubuntu.

[zekopeko]

All software in the software center should be free. Ubuntu (GNU/Linux) is based on this premise.

Here is the promise:


The Ubuntu Promise
Ubuntu is free. Always has been and always will be. From the operating system to security updates, storage to software.

Ubuntu is fast to load, easy to use, available in most languages and accessible to all.

Ubuntu applications are all free and open source – so you can share them with anyone you like, as often as you like.

Ubuntu comes with full support and all kinds of services available worldwide.

Perhaps you could point to me where does it say or imply that paid or closed source applications can't be sold or used on Ubuntu?

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Here is the promise:



Perhaps you could point to me where does it say or imply that paid or closed source applications can't be sold or used on Ubuntu?

I think the confusion lies in how people see Ubuntu as a product. Many of Ubuntu's developers see it as a platform*and a unique free operating system that builds on GNU, Linux and all sorts of other free software.
The repositories themselves (as a service) are definitely part of Ubuntu, but the software in them is not. (Except maybe main).

Some people insist on calling it a “Linux distribution,” which is a term that has no formal definition but seems to impose a number of limitations. (Including that a “Linux distro,” for some reason, may not be called an operating system and must be exactly like every other “Linux distro”).
Strangely, Android and WebOS are not “Linux distros” even though they are built on GNU, Linux and other free software.

[rg4w]

Did I miss an announcement where Canonical said we'll all be REQUIRED to pay for ALL apps in the USC?

Because as long as it's merely an option that's easily avoidable by just using any of the other thousands of apps available I can't imagine what all the fuss is about.

[desnaike]

did i miss an announcement where canonical said we'll all be required to pay for all apps in the usc?

Because as long as it's merely an option that's easily avoidable by just using any of the other thousands of apps available i can't imagine what all the fuss is about.


+ 1

[NCLI]

I can give you many reasons why it's wrong but probably you would not understand, and something else is that you are not representing the developers if you want to make money from Ubuntu. Speak for yourself and not for the developers.
I am representing me when I say that I am glad Canonical is beginning to really try earn some money for itself, since if Canonical doesn't turn a profit, it will die in the relatively near future(5-10 years would be my guess), which would slow down desktop linux considerably.

But please, provide examples of the negative effects you claim outweigh the benefits of this move.

[rajeev1204]

And Mozilla is a very profitable company due to the default search engine being a sponsored Google Search and selling support as toupeiro pointed out . . .



Mozilla is non-profit organization and they cannot and do not 'sell' anything.

Please read about it here http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/about.html

A non-profit organization uses the revenue generated and puts it back into its projects and for salaries and none of the money can go as profit to the shareholders.The mozilla foundation is not really different from a charitable organization.

Mozilla's profits are '0' in dollars or any other currency.

Sorry for off-topic post, please get back to the original discussion.

[rajeev1204]

I am representing me when I say that I am glad Canonical is beginning to really try earn some money for itself, since if Canonical doesn't turn a profit, it will die in the relatively near future(5-10 years would be my guess), which would slow down desktop linux considerably.

But please, provide examples of the negative effects you claim outweigh the benefits of this move.

....

[zekopeko]

Mozilla is non-profit organization and they cannot and do not 'sell' anything.

Please read about it here http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/about.html

A non-profit organization uses the revenue generated and puts it back into its projects and for salaries and none of the money can go as profit to the shareholders.The mozilla foundation is not really different from a charitable organization.

Mozilla's profits are '0' in dollars or any other currency.

Sorry for off-topic post, please get back to the original discussion.

Ahmmm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation

[rajeev1204]

Ahmmm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation

Yes true there are two entities but it also says this :

Any profits made by the Mozilla Corporation will be invested back into the Mozilla project. There will be no shareholders, no stock options will be issued and no dividends will be paid.

So the corporation lets it sell stuff in the commercial sense but the above quote is keeping in line with the non profit culture.There are no dividends in the non profit world.

I work in a similar organization and i have briefly interacted with the mozilla dev and language team also.

Iam not a legal expert so obviously there are much more details beyond what i mentioned .

Anyways , in reply to the OP, iam not sure about this since there is hardly any software in the paid apps section.Its all too early to comment on.

[rajeev1204]

As I said before in this thread, something can be GPL and cost money.


Can you name a single application which does this ?

[conradin]

I'm all for paying programmers! I hope the revenue can provide rapid development for software and the OS!

[conradin]

Can you name a single application which does this ?

lots of OEMs use free software bundled with new hardware.

some examples of GPL software that costs $ is spartan molecular modelling, and Gaussian.

In fact since its inception the FSF has promoted selling of software.

[rajeev1204]

lots of OEMs use free software bundled with new hardware.

some examples of GPL software that costs $ is spartan molecular modelling, and Gaussian.

In fact since its inception the FSF has promoted selling of software.



Point is,not many such companies exist nor do they make any money.Mostly seems to be the domain of scientific research.

Maybe iam totally wrong here.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

.

:)

[rajeev1204]

.

:)


That smiley tells me iam wrong .;)

[WinterMadness]

it better not be proprietary, thats all im saying.

that would really be pandoras box, and yes i know ubuntu has proprietary things already i just dont want to see the app store being like download.com

[Mr. Picklesworth]

That smiley tells me iam wrong .;)

Oh, no, I think you're right there! I just wrote something that was relevant about two pages ago and I needed to get rid of it.

[zekopeko]

Yes true there are two entities but it also says this :

Any profits made by the Mozilla Corporation will be invested back into the Mozilla project. There will be no shareholders, no stock options will be issued and no dividends will be paid.

So the corporation lets it sell stuff in the commercial sense but the above quote is keeping in line with the non profit culture.There are no dividends in the non profit world.

I work in a similar organization and i have briefly interacted with the mozilla dev and language team also.

Iam not a legal expert so obviously there are much more details beyond what i mentioned .

Anyways , in reply to the OP, iam not sure about this since there is hardly any software in the paid apps section.Its all too early to comment on.

You do understand that for-profit entities don't have to be publicly traded? Canonical isn't a publicly traded company, it is fully owned by Mark Shuttleworth and yet it's still for-profit. And it invest it's profits back into Ubuntu.

[rajeev1204]

You do understand that for-profit entities don't have to be publicly traded? Canonical isn't a publicly traded company, it is fully owned by Mark Shuttleworth and yet it's still for-profit. And it invest it's profits back into Ubuntu.

Iam not trying to argue about two different business models here if that is where you want to get to.

I just wanted to clarify to the poster i had quoted about mozilla's philosophy and direction.

But thanks for the wiki link.It was an eye opener.But instead of wikipedia this page will make it more clear.

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/about/whatismozilla.html

[oppression]

I am representing me when I say that I am glad Canonical is beginning to really try earn some money for itself, since if Canonical doesn't turn a profit, it will die in the relatively near future(5-10 years would be my guess), which would slow down desktop linux considerably.

But please, provide examples of the negative effects you claim outweigh the benefits of this move.

If you want to understand why it is wrong you must stop thinking in terms of profit and money. UBUNTU probably you know what it means but if you have forgotten let me remind you- Ubuntu, pronounced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet) /ùbúntú/ (oo-BOON-too), is an ethic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic) or humanist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) focusing on people's allegiances and relations with each other. You can read the rest from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28philosophy%29

Before gnu/linux and especially Ubuntu, the most popular distribution we had was Microsoft. It sells OS and software but in this world many countries and people don't have money to buy all these and the only way to use them is to steal them. Perhaps you can understand how bad it is for societies to learn in these situations when they are already dealing with poverty and disease- where is room left for them to move forward into westernized technology? On the other hand, Microsoft has allowed this because it wants to have a monopoly, though in the last years it has seriously tried to disguise this.

Until now Ubuntu has given this ability if someone lives in a poor country to have the same OS and software with anyone else in this world and that means if Ubuntu starts to sell software, it starts again this problem to separate people and they drive poor people again to start to steal. And again they will not receive equal treatment as with others who can afford to pay for their hardware and all types of software. And that for me is NOT FAIR .

I don't continue to write this because some people they think only in terms of profit and probably don't understand this.

From the other I can't understand why you want a special spot in Ubuntu to sell, if as you say you want to make a game you must find other people to work and to sell it like all the other companies. You don't need Ubuntu for this.

Now if your idea for your game is good, people who have money will buy it like all the others companies. I think that is more fair and for you to make money and of course I believe that developers need money.

I think Canonical is making a big mistake in my opinion and I hope they understand this and remove the purchasing option from the Software Center. If they want to make profits I think it is better for them to become more competitive and to make money for the market and not for the users.

[rajeev1204]

If you want to understand why it is wrong you must stop thinking in terms of profit and money. UBUNTU probably you know what it means but if you have forgotten let me remind you- Ubuntu, pronounced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet) /ùbúntú/ (oo-BOON-too), is an ethic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic) or humanist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) focusing on people's allegiances and relations with each other. You can read the rest from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28philosophy%29

Before gnu/linux and especially Ubuntu, the most popular distribution we had was Microsoft. It sells OS and software but in this world many countries and people don't have money to buy all these and the only way to use them is to steal them. Perhaps you can understand how bad it is for societies to learn in these situations when they are already dealing with poverty and disease- where is room left for them to move forward into westernized technology? On the other hand, Microsoft has allowed this because it wants to have a monopoly, though in the last years it has seriously tried to disguise this.

Until now Ubuntu has given this ability if someone lives in a poor country to have the same OS and software with anyone else in this world and that means if Ubuntu starts to sell software, it starts again this problem to separate people and they drive poor people again to start to steal. And again they will not receive equal treatment as with others who can afford to pay for their hardware and all types of software. And that for me is NOT FAIR .

I don't continue to write this because some people they think only in terms of profit and probably don't understand this.

From the other I can't understand why you want a special spot in Ubuntu to sell, if as you say you want to make a game you must find other people to work and to sell it like all the other companies. You don't need Ubuntu for this.

Now if your idea for your game is good, people who have money will buy it like all the others companies. I think that is more fair and for you to make money and of course I believe that developers need money.

I think Canonical is making a big mistake in my opinion and I hope they understand this and remove the purchasing option from the Software Center. If they want to make profits I think it is better for them to become more competitive and to make money for the market and not for the users.

So you are saying i should not have a choice of buying software which i feel is useful for me ? I should stop using ubuntu ?

I use ubuntu but i use a lot of proprietary software.I pay for them with my own free will.

[Spice Weasel]

So you are saying i should not have a choice of buying software which i feel is useful for me ? I should stop using ubuntu ?

I use ubuntu but i use a lot of proprietary software.I pay for them with my own free will.

Nobody is stopping you from buying a CD or buying a download from another website.

[Merk42]

Nobody is stopping you from buying a CD or buying a download from another website.

Nobody is stopping you from not choosing For Pay software in USC. See it works both ways.

[rajeev1204]

Nobody is stopping you from buying a CD or buying a download from another website.

If i have an option to buy it from the USC, i will be happy.Its about choice.

Iam sorry , but i was not aware that ubuntu and open source are some religious cult where certain things are taboo.

I started using ubuntu because it offered me a choice.And i exercised my right to choose.

Now whether inclusion of paid software will harm free software in any way is just speculation at this point.

[Spice Weasel]

Nobody is stopping you from not choosing For Pay software in USC. See it works both ways.

It does go both ways, and that's exactly why people shouldn't use choice as an argument.

Nobody is saying anyone shouldn't have a choice of buying software. Software doesn't need to be put in a designated store for you to buy it, you can buy it anywhere. Selling software in the store will disappoint people, but if software isn't sold in the store then nobody looses.

[Merk42]

It does go both ways, and that's exactly why people shouldn't use choice as an argument.
Yes so you shouldn't use it an as argument either


Nobody is saying anyone shouldn't have a choice of buying software. Software doesn't need to be put in a designated store for you to buy it, you can buy it anywhere. Selling software in the store will disappoint people, but if software isn't sold in the store then nobody looses.

The developers of the application(s) lose because no one knows of their app, and the users lose because they didn't know the software existed.

If you say "well they can still go tot he website and get it and learn about it through X", then why even have USC at all? Why not have every bit of software done via the developers own websites?

[Spice Weasel]

If you say "well they can still go tot he website and get it and learn about it through X", then why even have USC at all? Why not have every bit of software done via the developers own websites?

1) Basic applications NEED to be included with the operating system, like Microsoft said, they would have no chance in the market if they did not include a web browser and media player.

2) Don't they seem to do fine by that? There is plenty of libre/gratis software and paid software for Windows, and I don't see no app store.

Also, Skype is a good example of nonfree and partially commercial software that is included in the Ubuntu repository. It's known that the Chinese government uses Skype to listen in on people. Would you have Canonical promote commercial spyware, so that the customer doesn't loose by not knowing of the spyware, and the developer looses because nobody knows about their spyware?

[rajeev1204]

It's known that the Chinese government uses Skype to listen in on people. Would you have Canonical promote commercial spyware, so that the customer doesn't loose by not knowing of the spyware, and the developer looses because nobody knows about their spyware?

Its also known that there is no phone in the world which cannot be tapped.You think your government cannot find out what you do ? But isnt that a totally different discussion ?

[Merk42]

1) Basic applications NEED to be included with the operating system, like Microsoft said, they would have no chance in the market if they did not include a web browser and media player.
I wasn't referring to preinstalled software.

[ve4cib]

It's known that the Chinese government uses Skype to listen in on people. Would you have Canonical promote commercial spyware, so that the customer doesn't loose by not knowing of the spyware, and the developer looses because nobody knows about their spyware?

I'm reasonably certain that every protocol used by Pidgin and Telepathy/Empathy can also be compromised. Hell, Google probably uses your Google Chat logs to mine for advertising keywords. And yet Canonical seems to have no issues with placing those applications in their repositories either. So you just seem to be spewing a lot of FUD that has to real relevance to anything.

There's also a MAJOR difference between software Canonical actively supports (i.e. everything in their Main repos), and software they do not support, but bundle up to make it easier for you to install should you choose to (i.e. the Universe and Multiverse repos). Skype is not in Main, and as such it is not -- to paraphrase your post -- "actively promoted by Canonical."

[akand074]

I like the idea for sure. Ubuntu and GNU/Linux operating systems isn't really only about open-source and free software. It's about freedom in general. You're allowed to make your own choices. If you want free or open-source software only, that's fine. If you want some proprietary software too, that's up to you. The main thing is that you don't have anyone telling you what you can and can not do with your computer. Also, just because a software is open-source doesn't mean it's free, and just because a software is free doesn't mean it's open-source.

[kvant]

I suggest everyone reads this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Sorry if somebody already posted it.

[fatharraxman]

exellent:KS

[oppression]

I suggest everyone reads this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Sorry if somebody already posted it.

where is the Ubuntu philosophy? or Do they use Ubuntu's philosophy only to sell?

[Tweak42]

Although I first didn't like the USC, I definitely see a compelling need for it to attract new users. Marrying linux superior package management, a newbie friendly gui and the internet is the goto answer when a potential new user asks "What kind of programs and where can I get them for linux"?

Since Windows 95 shipped a Add/Remove Programs app I've been waiting for M$ to ship a framework that facilitates a App Store to make downloading/installing programs simple. Funny with all the new "innovative features" on windows shipped since they STILL haven't done it, and Apple of all people were 1st to "get it" and popularize it with iTunes store.

Now there have been some false starts such as the Click N Run tech on Linspire (good feature, bad implementation), but it was in the right direction. With all the "marketplaces" cloud distribution is the future so having paid apps available by choice is a good thing so long as:

Paid apps don't FUD on free alternatives
Not vendor locked to one source
Standardized interface and secure transactions
Not required, aka can uninstall USC and do manual download, apt-get install