Why no more pay software in Ubuntu's Software Center?

[alexan]

What do you think is stopping new pay software to be available on Software Center?

Also poll:

[czr114]

Hopefully the community.

If bundling Flash plugins, an unfree but no-cost piece of software, can be so contentious, imagine how people feel about the OS itself pipelining unfree, paid software right into the systems through something as privileged as an official channel. It's not a good thing for continued FOSS development.

Ubuntu doesn't need an app store. The project is supposed to be free, no-cost, and unencumbered.

The open development model works because it encourages cooperation, so that everyone is better off. To do that, unfree software must be shunned from the core. In the context of a game theory analysis, this is likely to cause defection among some devs.

[alexan]

You can have Opensource (blender&co) on Windows and commercial software.

Why cut out half of option (read: additional things) should be consider an improvement?

Being open isn't about close options to achieve "higher quality".. but give choices.

On side note... I did spot a serious lack of transparency by Canonical with not provide clear information on how app are approved and/if there are commission price and stuff like that.


To be serious, right now the Software Center's ability to provide a "market" looks more like a app store/android market copycat.


I really would expect something innovative towards openness with that step. And (IMHO) looks like Canonical failed to hit the spot.
9~10 million machines with Ubuntu installed would had mean something for the market: Canonical put its voice in this, but then... silence. (== canonical's fears)

[beew]

Three things.

1) Just checked, those apps (2) are still there.

2)I think czr114 has a point. I think the impression being conveyed is that free stuffs can't be good, and if you want quality you have to pay. I don't think it is intentional but this is how the message come across when I read posts of some ethusisasts for pay software (not all of them of course, some do give good arguments)

3) I am more interested in the advertised "new applications" repo for new released softwares which couldn't make the Maverick pre-release feature freeze. What happens to that?

[Paul820]

The only thing i have seen in 'For Purchase' section of the software centre is Fluendo DVD Player!!

[beew]

The only thing i have seen in 'For Purchase' section of the software centre is Fluendo DVD Player!!

There is also a game. But seriously what do people expect to be sold? Photoshop CS5?

[Paul820]

There is also a game. But seriously what do you expect to be sold? Photoshop CS5?

What's with the attitude? I didn't expect anything, i thought there might have been a bit more than that. And saying CS5 is just a stupid thing say.

What was the point of you even making a post, when all you did post was drivel?

And no, there isn't a game, like i said there is only Fluendo DVD Player

[czr114]

You can have Opensource (blender&co) on Windows and commercial software.

Why cut out half of option (read: additional things) should be consider an improvement?

Being open isn't about close options to achieve "higher quality".. but give choices.


All of the great free software we have is the result of people having been given a free platform, put their love of development to work building something they'd like, then releasing it back.

I'm not getting at the economics of something like Photoshop. That's clearly a major commercial product, and the only way it will be built right now is with a price tag.

What I'm talking about are so many of the applications, utilities, widgets, tools, and improvements to existing projects on a more personalized level.

What you'll get from an integrated app store is developers who get an idea, begin building a project for a FOSS platform, then decide to take the money and run when it comes time for first release. The next generation of improvements will instead take the form of paid software, and the next generation of free software will be hamstrung by the closed software of today.

When one person does it, it seems rational to him.

When too many developers do it, the FOSS model starts to crumble as source closes, new developers can't extend the software of others, and development resources go into competition, not cooperation.

That's why I approached it from a game theory perspective.

If that paradigm had prevailed years ago, we wouldn't have Ubuntu as we know it today.

This thing we have advances best when everyone who has been given a free platform extends that free platform. When potential developers are given a free platform, and a way to make money off of it, it will degrade the very mindset which made this OS great.

"What Descartes did was a good step. You have added much several ways, and especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." - Isaac Newton

That's how great free software gets built - with one generation standing on the shoulders of the next. When source closes up, even if a developer does it only for beer money, the projects don't improve, shared source advantages are lost, and development is time wasted when multiple competitors are duplicating tasks.

A second question we have to ask is whether we want to surrender privacy and billing details to an app store, and deal with the fallout of mailing lists and marketing creeping in. Sometimes, the cost of a one dollar purchase is a greater loss of privacy than the dollar itself, owing to the systems needed to transfer that dollar around.

At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves whether we want to be fostering the growth of better free software on the great software of the past, or whether we want to close everything up, imitate Apple, surrender our billing details, and get nickle and dimed repeatedly. Are we part of a software community, or are we just "consumers"?

[beew]

I have edited the post, I didn't mean "you" personally, but generally.

I have said that before, you are basically getting the same type of software we are getting free right now(many of them are great) but with a price tag attached. Not an attitude, just puzzlement.

[beew]

And no, there isn't a game, like i said there is only Fluendo DVD Player

There is also Brukkon.

[czr114]

To put it in perspective, imagine a hypothetical app store in which everything sells for one dollar. Giving up a dollar in exchange for a useful piece of software, in the abstract, is not that unreasonable, all issues of transferring that dollar aside.

Look at how many pieces of useful software are distributed with Ubuntu. If only a small fraction of those developers wanted their one dollar, the cost of running Ubuntu would spiral out of control.

If an entire generation of developers had decided to demand one little dollar, we wouldn't have Ubuntu as we know it today. Instead, we'd be taking out bank loans just to afford all those useful apps.

It's death by a thousand papercuts.

[beew]

czr114

Great post! Though I think the corrosive effect of paid software to the FOSS spirit is probably not as drastic as you predict. Currently there are already Open Source softwares which are not free as beer (the price is usually quite reasonable) and we don't see a massive defection of developers to the pay model.

But I agree with the general drift of your argument. I also like the emphasis on cooperation over competition.

[czr114]

Such as?

If it's free as in software, then there can't be a price tag. To be free as in software, the user has the right to inspect, examine, compile, edit, modify, package, and redistribute that software, with no limit other than his obligation to preserve the same rights which were given to him. If he has all that, then it is also, necessarily, free as in beer.

If there is even a one dollar price tag, then another developer can't take that source, extend it, then contribute it back. Doing so would be piracy.

The hypothetical one dollar also has another nasty side effect - it hinders free association among developers. Instead of people joining projects to contribute code, with the only requirements being their programming expertise and desire to make good software, they'll either be locked out as non-participants in someone else's investment, or developers will be reduced to squabbling over royalties.

[Paul820]

I have edited the post, I didn't mean "you" personally, but generally.

Sorry, my apologies, i thought it was aimed directly at me but i never saw your edit until i had posted.

Anyway, back on topic.

Don't forget a vast amount of people using software that is paid for think it is more superior than free software. They have the attitude of because it's free it's bound to be rubbish.

I have seen on this forum somewhere (can't remember) where one person was telling another about an application that was free, and the other person replied 'FREE, what's wrong with it?'

If a few applications were available to buy then it might bring a few more over to Linux. Free and paid software still manages to coexist very well on Windows.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

The hypothetical one dollar also has another nasty side effect - it hinders free association among developers. Instead of people joining projects to contribute code, with the only requirements being their programming expertise and desire to make good software, they'll either be locked out as non-participants in someone else's investment, or developers will be reduced to squabbling over royalties.

Personally, I trust that free software works on its own merit, so I am not the slightest bit concerned about non-free software somehow compromising that. If that was the case, though, we've already lost: Ubuntu does not live in a bubble and a lot of free software users and contributors do so under Windows.


Anyway, the software centre for Maverick was not intended to have a significant library here. The process for extras is a work in progress being figured out over the next few releases. Right now, there essentially isn't one.

[beew]

Such as?

If it's free as in software, then there can't be a price tag. To be free as in software, the user has the right to inspect, examine, compile, edit, modify, package, and redistribute that software, with no limit other than his obligation to preserve the same rights which were given to him. If he has all that, then it is also, necessarily, free as in beer.



Such as World of Goo.http://www.worldofgoo.com/

Your logic aside, there do exist free as freedom software which are not free as beer.

So maybe there is some flaws in your model(just minor ones probably). For example, buyers may not act as completely selfish agents as market theory has it and they are willing to pay to support projects they like. Or perhaps it is not really that lucrative to sell open software for the reasons you stated so developers just don't bother (but people do profit from FOSS by selling support which is totally acceptable and uncontroversial)

[beew]

Sorry, my apologies, i thought it was aimed directly at me but i never saw your edit until i had posted.

Anyway, back on topic.

Don't forget a vast amount of people using software that is paid for think it is more superior than free software. They have the attitude of because it's free it's bound to be rubbish.

I have seen on this forum somewhere (can't remember) where one person was telling another about an application that was free, and the other person replied 'FREE, what's wrong with it?'

If a few applications were available to buy then it might bring a few more over to Linux. Free and paid software still manages to coexist very well on Windows.

But we know this attitude towards free software is wrong, so why promote the myth? I think it is shooting FOSS at the foot at a most fundamental level.

[Paul820]

I'm not promoting anything, that is the attitude people still have towards free software.

[alexan]

@czr114
Is not about substitution of free/foss software with commercial; but add an option. In democracy "add" option had a neat reason: you do suppose that people will provide the best answer possible.
There are many flaw in democracy; but the thing you're looking for "the only and secure one option" is something only for dictatorships.

You do unilaterally suppose that the "coming" of commercial software in Linux will destroy the "open and free" spirit of it.
Here the news: there's already commercial software in this world. Be not part of this world, mean be (democratically) destroyed.
People is supposed to find the best solution when they are able to select on everything. When you give only on option to the people.. you're not providing to them to their best solution: but just pushing them to follow the only one path available.

[beew]

I'm not promoting anything, that is the attitude people still have towards free software.

If not promote why at least encourage it? I am not keen on winning over people based on misrepresenting free software in an unfavourable light. Instead we should educate people about FOSS if we think winning more users is important (some of us may not care)

[czr114]

Such as World of Goo.http://www.worldofgoo.com/

Your logic aside, there do exist free as freedom software which are not free as beer.

That doesn't appear to be free software. What's the license?



So maybe there is some flaws in your model(just minor ones probably). For example, buyers may not act as completely selfish agents as market theory has it and they are willing to pay to support projects they like. Or perhaps it is not really that lucrative to sell open software for the reasons you stated so developers just don't bother (but people do profit from FOSS by selling support which is totally acceptable and uncontroversial)
The willingness to support free software development is best leveraged with an inclusive tipjar, not an exclusionary payment gateway. The largest obstacles there are the privacy and banking issues. A FOSS tip processor would be a better project than an app store.

It'd also be nice to see more use of foundational money to hire developers to create free software. Perhaps, in the future, FOSS leaders can get together a grantwriting team to get resources to projects in need. If we can spend a million bucks to learn that drug-addicted rats will press a lever for more drugs, then perhaps we can get similar funding for computer scientists creating public work product.

Software is incredibly powerful technological capital. We have to ask ourselves how we are to get that software in the hands of as many people as possible, and how to create the software for said distribution. The FOSS model works better for all of mankind when the development process can be built on cooperation and public release, not opacity, paywalls, and balkanization.

[czr114]

@czr114
Is not about substitution of free/foss software with commercial; but add an option. In democracy "add" option had a neat reason: you do suppose that people will provide the best answer possible.
There are many flaw in democracy; but the thing you're looking for "the only and secure one option" is something only for dictatorships.

You do unilaterally suppose that the "coming" of commercial software in Linux will destroy the "open and free" spirit of it.
Here the news: there's already commercial software in this world. Be not part of this world, mean be (democratically) destroyed.
People is supposed to find the best solution when they are able to select on everything. When you give only on option to the people.. you're not providing to them to their best solution: but just pushing them to follow the only one path available.
It's not mere addition. I addressed the issue of defection.

This project isn't supposed to be run like a dictatorship. What I'm advocating is free in, free out. What is being distributed now is free software, and we want that to be extended with more free software, not a powerful incentive for a great closing up.

Commercial software is part of this world. Commercial software vendors have every right to write closed software for an open platform.

What I'm saying is that the open platform shouldn't self-defeat by corroding its own openness.

Commercial vendors still have the ability to write software, close it up, lay the marketing on thick, then ship units to open platforms. What we shouldn't be doing is encouraging it with a pre-installed line in on every Ubuntu system.

The commercial software world has its own channels and its own platforms. Why commercialize the #1 free platform?

[forrestcupp]

1. Give it some time.

2. There are a lot of free alternatives.

[Paqman]

What do you think is stopping new pay software to be available on Software Center?


The fact that it's only existed for a few weeks?

[mick222]

I tend to agree with the proponents of FOSS if we really want proprietary software people will use windows or mac . Lots of open source is available for windows but if you use an open platform you should use open software and contribute financially or using you skills if possible.
Do we really want ubuntu and linux in general to turn into apple who use open source but who make users pay for almost everything.

[weasel fierce]

I dont see what the problem is. I bought copies of commercial software to use on linux, mostly games. Doom3, Quake 4, Prey, UT2004, Quakewars.

No reason whatsoever that closed and open can't coexist. Stop trying to control what I can do with my computer.

[Paul820]

If not promote why at least encourage it? I am not keen on winning over people based on misrepresenting free software in an unfavourable light. Instead we should educate people about FOSS if we think winning more users is important (some of us may not care)

Why do you keep on putting words in my mouth. I am not promoting, encouraging, advertising a full page in the local newspaper, shouting from a mountain top....etcetera

It is well known that users of Windows prefer to use paid-for software, whether it's anti-virus or whatever. Even though the free versions of the anti-virus are just as good. If they want to use the paid-for version then that is their choice. Forcing them to use free software because it breaks a philosophy can't be right.

I know, and you know there are some brilliant applications that are available in Linux that are just as good or better than the paid for versions, but you can't force everyone to have that opinion just because you do.

[FuturePilot]

I think it needs to be mentioned that the ability to purchase apps through the Software Center has only been available for about a month. Give it time. These things don't happen over night.

[beew]

Commercial software is part of this world. Commercial software vendors have every right to write closed software for an open platform.

What I'm saying is that the open platform shouldn't self-defeat by corroding its own openness.

Commercial vendors still have the ability to write software, close it up, lay the marketing on thick, then ship units to open platforms. What we shouldn't be doing is encouraging it with a pre-installed line in on every Ubuntu system.

The commercial software world has its own channels and its own platforms. Why commercialize the #1 free platform?

I think this is the best articulated and most persuasive argument put forward against the app store on this forum.

I cannot find any argument against it, well done.

[beew]

Why do you keep on putting words in my mouth. I am not promoting, encouraging, advertising a full page in the local newspaper, shouting from a mountain top....etcetera

It is well known that users of Windows prefer to use paid-for software, whether it's anti-virus or whatever. Even though the free versions of the anti-virus are just as good. If they want to use the paid-for version then that is their choice. Forcing them to use free software because it breaks a philosophy can't be right.

I know, and you know there are some brilliant applications that are available in Linux that are just as good or better than the paid for versions, but you can't force everyone to have that opinion just because you do.

You are saying that the app store is a good thing to get more windows users to try Linux because it caters to their prejudice that free stuffs are no good and one must pay for quality. Is this not your point? Is this not encouraging the prejudice instead of countering it? So how am I putting words in your mouth?:confused:

Now if I follow your argument to its logical conclusion why not put a price tag on Ubuntu itself and make it a little more expensive than Windows? Maybe this will make some Windows users think that Ubuntu is better than Windows?

[czr114]

I dont see what the problem is. I bought copies of commercial software to use on linux, mostly games. Doom3, Quake 4, Prey, UT2004, Quakewars.

No reason whatsoever that closed and open can't coexist. Stop trying to control what I can do with my computer.
Nobody is trying to control what you can do with your computer. Your OS is free and open source. Commercial developers aren't being locked out of that, nor will they, nor is there any serious discussion to do so.

We have markets which sell fresh, organic food, and we have supermarkets which sell frozen TV dinners. Including closed, proprietary software in an official Ubuntu distribution channel would be like selling commercially processed food at a farmer's market. It's simply the wrong venue for that item, based on each venue's mission statement.

By establishing a farmer's market, it's backers are committing to providing fresh, organic, healthy food to the community. They're not trying to stamp out the competition by simply offering an alternative distribution channel to cater to a niche preference. Customers are free to go through another distribution channel for their preservative-laced frozen dinners.

By establishing a open source operating system with a built-in package manager, we're committing to providing free, open source software to the community, as a fresh alternative to an overwhelmingly closed-source, proprietary world. If farmer's markets attempted to compete with Wal-Mart, they'd lose what makes them unique, just as Ubuntu would lose what makes it unique if it officializes a distribution channel for software against its ideals.

Each user is still free to pick and choose what they will.

[Paul820]

I'm saying why can't people have a choice. They have a choice in Windows. No one is forcing you to open the software centre and clicking on the For Purchase button. If you want to use free software then use it, if someone wants to buy a few applications then what is wrong with that?

[czr114]

I'm saying why can't people have a choice. They have a choice in Windows. No one is forcing you to open the software centre and clicking on the For Purchase button. If you want to use free software then use it, if someone wants to buy a few applications then what is wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong with that. They should patronize distribution channels ideologically consistent with their choice to use unfree software. The choice will remain for them to purchase proprietary software elsewhere, based on marketing delivered to them elsewhere.

What's wrong with the software center becoming a client app for distributing proprietary software is the official nature of that channel. It's an in-road to every single Ubuntu system. It is not uninstallable, per a dependency from ubuntu-desktop.

Ubuntu is a welcome relief from people trying to constantly sell us stuff, as they do virtually everywhere else. It's also a welcome relief from restrictive EULAs, trialware, paywalls, and other restrictions on information.

Turning the software center into a client app for distributing marketing, collecting personal information and money, then incentivizing developers to defect from FOSS creation to selling closed software on an open platform makes about as much sense as selling cigarettes in a hospital. That's what a 7-11 is for. The hospital shouldn't compromise its purpose in the name of offering up a choice freely available down the block.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

I can buy the right to use Microsoft Windows or OSX, then install FOSS on it. Why shouldn't I be able to use a FOSS operating system and install pay-to-use software?

If I can get FOSS for a pay-to-use OS; then, I can also get it for a FOSS OS :confused:

[beew]

I'm saying why can't people have a choice. They have a choice in Windows. No one is forcing you to open the software centre and clicking on the For Purchase button. If you want to use free software then use it, if someone wants to buy a few applications then what is wrong with that?

No one denies you choice. If you want to install paid software you can always do provided they are compatible with the platform. People install all kind of paid applications in their Ubuntu boxes, but the point is, as czr114 puts it so eloquently, Ubuntu should not provide a venue to promote commercial software in competition with FOSS. There are already many commercial channels.

[Paqman]

Including closed, proprietary software in an official Ubuntu distribution channel would be like selling commercially processed food at a farmer's market. It's simply the wrong venue for that item, based on each venue's mission statement.


Proprietary software has been available in Ubuntu (through Jockey) for years, and the sky has not fallen. In fact, in cases where the proprietary software is genuinely better than the open source offerings, it only makes the platform stronger.

[beew]

I can buy the right to use Microsoft Windows or OSX, then install FOSS on it. Why shouldn't I be able to use a FOSS operating system and install pay-to-use software?

If I can get FOSS for a pay-to-use OS; then, I can also get it for a FOSS OS :confused:

That's right, you can install FOSS on Windows and Mac but do you expect to get them through MS's or Apple's store?

You can install pay-to-use software in Ubuntu. Get a copy of say, mathematica and install it on your Ubuntu box, believe me it won't crash.:P

[czr114]

Proprietary software has been available in Ubuntu (through Jockey) for years, and the sky has not fallen. In fact, in cases where the proprietary software is genuinely better than the open source offerings, it only makes the platform stronger.
That's another debate, but it's no comparison to a full-blown app store devoted to trafficking in paid software, installed by default on every platform.

One of the key benefits of Ubuntu I mention to potential switchers is its free and open nature.

One of the chief reactions I get from people is a question asking what's the catch, or what are they trying to sell.

Without an officially-sanctioned channel for closing up source and extracting money from users, there is no catch. It's an OS free of fine print, hidden gimmicks, or marketing venues.

This isn't another Firefox vs. Iceweasel issue. This debate isn't over artwork or semantics. It's far more fundamental than that.

If the commercial software is trafficked in under guise of official approval, that establishes a paid feedback loop to keep bringing more and more in, and making the platform less and less open, as developers gain more and more incentive to begin extracting money from the free platform they were given, and less and less incentive to reciprocate the free software given to them by giving new free software to others.

Without an infection of proprietary software, the OS remains a free (as in software) gift to all of humanity. There is no catch, nobody is trying to sell anything, no client-side software exists which serves an external master, and nothing might jeopardize that commitment in the future.

Ubuntu should stay free like free software, not free like a GAIN/Gator search toolbar.

Wikipedia serves as a good model. It's free of cost, free of advertising, and comes with no catch. It's purely an altruistic gift to humanity, which is a welcome oasis in a desert of agenda-driven, advertising-driven, paywall-driven sites all trying to sell something or or work one over on readers.

If it weren't for passionate advocates of free software, we'd all be paying royalties to SCO, assuming patent trolls hadn't completely torpedoed the whole community effort.

[Paqman]

That's another debate, but it's no comparison to a full-blown app store devoted to trafficking in paid software, installed by default on every platform.

Jockey is installed by default on every Ubuntu machine, and even jumps up and down to grab the user's attention, something the paid apps section of USC doesn't do.

Providing easy access to paid software, which may or may not be open source, does the same job as Jockey. Sure, we could all be installing drivers direct from Nvidia, but that's a pain. Likewise rummaging around the internet for software is tiresome, and something that Linux users shouldn't ever have to do. Linux's best feature is package management. Anything which makes more packages available without having to install them the Windows way is a good thing IMO.

The point isn't to make people use non-free software. The point is that people already use it, so why not make it easy for them to install, remove and upgrade?



Wikipedia serves as a good model. It's free of cost, free of advertising, and comes with no catch.

Wikipedia is free to use, but does ask us to open our wallets and support it, they're serving banners with an appeal right now. Ubuntu is the same, it is (and will always be) free to use, but if you want to spend money buying services like Ubuntu One space or software, then you can. No catch.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

There are already many commercial channels.

The last time I checked, Canonical is a private company founded by South African entrepreneur Mark Shuttleworth; therefore, by nature commercial. :)

Mark Shuttleworth put a lot of his own money into Ubuntu so that people like myself can use it for free. He obviously thought that would benefit the company in some way.

I hope people realise that he is running a company.

[dh04000]

How about some games from Indie developers: World of Goo, Prenumbra Series, Amnesia, Yet It Moves, Osmos, Quake based games, ect.

That would be a nice addition.

Also I'd like to see IBM Lotus Office put in the non-free repo. I've been trying the newest version and I like the polish on top of the already awesome OpenOffice.

[weasel fierce]

How about some games from Indie developers: World of Goo, Prenumbra Series, Amnesia, Yet It Moves, Osmos, Quake based games, ect.

That would be a nice addition.

Also I'd like to see IBM Lotus Office put in the non-free repo. I've been trying the newest version and I like the polish on top of the already awesome OpenOffice.

I think indie games would be an outstanding addition to the system.

[m4tic]

Can i back up paid software?

[Dr. C]

Games is something that I can see doing well in Ubuntu's Software Center

[pommie]

For years some of the community have been screaming out for Steam to come to Linux, and not many have protested, now we have a (thankfully) different way to purchase some software that will also benefit Conical, and there are complaints galore, and here I was thinking that Linux was all about choice, so why remove the choice for others just because you (that's the universal 'you') don't like it.
Personally I have deleted it off my system, no drama, just my choice, someone else wants to use it, its their choice, and you never know, if the big game developers start bringing out their offerings native to Linux because they see a marketing opportunity, it can only be for the good of Linux, as I am tired of trying to get games working properly and would welcome buying games that I KNOW will work out of the box.

Cheers David

[Dr. C]

As long as it is clearly identified if the software is FLOSS or propriety, gratis or paid (There are four possible combinations here), I do not see a problem.

[SyphonX67]

Maybe we'll see Steam?

[beew]

if the big game developers start bringing out their offerings native to Linux because they see a marketing opportunity, it can only be for the good of Linux, as I am tired of trying to get games working properly and would welcome buying games that I KNOW will work out of the box.

Cheers David

This is just wishful thinking. The game makers know that there is a demand for games in Linux, Adobe knows that there is a demand for PS in Linux. They know for years. I am sure they know the existence of WINE.

So there are other reasons why they are not porting their software to Linux. Maybe the development cost is too high for a very small market in the overall picture? As long as people are dual booting, using virtualbox or wine they are still selling their products to the Linux community so why spend the money and resources on making and maintaining a Linux version?

On the other hand there are markets where Linux is well supported. For example, scientific computing. Why? it just happens that Linux users are disproportionally represented in the scientific community so if you are the maker of Matlab or Mathematica, it would make sense to support a Linux version.

[alexan]

@czr114: You did provide a very good example: what about Wikipedia?
What will happen if we apply the "only free contents" to article contents?
Should we remove articles like these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mc_Donald's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_products
The only missing thing is the ability to buy directly hamburger online (thus, the main article contain the official webpages and other links).
I am quite sure that a big piece of contributions to this article (published and refused) is commissioned by mcd.
What did Wikipedia so really good and being opensource/free? Entering in the Encyclopedia market without leaving no-thing out.

Also, many don't wonder about this, but I think that the commercial software need a free and open market for software.
Lot (too much) of resources, bucks, professional software engineer are today driven by Apple/Microsoft... just give a look to Adobe Flash kick out from iPhone/iPad or Steam's competitor (Windows Live) that is coming with forced windows update on every windows PC of this planet.

Again, is not about talking about a "free side" and a "commercial side"... but more about a fair field for everyone.
Windows OS don't provide this (Example: Internet Explorer over Netscape // Windows Live Games over Steam)
Apple's OS don't provide this (Example: application free and commercial aviable only if good for Steve Job's taste).
Consider this: we now are talking about "real people" jobs, life and stuff

We are sure that Canonical would provide this fair field for both free and commercial software: this is why I hope more in Canonical than anything else.
But too many are pushing Canonical to restrict itself to "free stuff"... so I fear that Canonical is indeed restricting itself.

[Primefalcon]

Canonical needs to have a better set out application process for apps to be listed.

As of now I don't think there is anything official. As long as Commercial developers have to bust their *** to get in there, they won't.

[Nightstrike2009]

I hope the Linux community will stop this practice in its tracks, linux is supposed to be free software, free to modify and free to share, I don't like the way this is going at all. Paid for software can always be looked up via the internet it doen's need "Pushing" in a linux based system, in my own opinion at least.:-(

[zekopeko]

Can i back up paid software?

AFAIK the plan is to simply tie your purchases to your Ubuntu Single Sign On account. You install a new machine, enter your login information in USC/UbuntuOne and you sync everything that you installed on the other machine. There will probably be some limitations on the number of computers you can install your paid commercial software like on Steam.

[zekopeko]

I hope the Linux community will stop this practice in its tracks, linux is supposed to be free software, free to modify and free to share, I don't like the way this is going at all. Paid for software can always be looked up via the internet it doen's need "Pushing" in a linux based system, in my own opinion at least.:-(

Sorry but I don't want a walled garden consisting only of free software. I should have the ability to install what I want on my machine.

[Spice Weasel]

Sorry but I don't want a walled garden consisting only of free software. I should have the ability to install what I want on my machine.

Being able to install what you want != Including proprietary software in a FOSS operating system

[zekopeko]

Being able to install what you want != Including proprietary software in a FOSS operating system

Who is including proprietary software in Ubuntu? The default CD has non.

[Spice Weasel]

Who is including proprietary software in Ubuntu? The default CD has non.

Who is stopping you from downloading .debs/buying CDs of commercial software and installing it that way?

If the default CD has none, why is there a Free Software Only option on the installer? (and that still leaves in proprietary firmware)

[zekopeko]

Who is stopping you from downloading .debs/buying CDs of commercial software and installing it that way?

Why should I do that if I can have a more convenient way of installing software? Not to mention that my computer would be more secure if I only install software from trusted repositories such as the paid section of USC.


If the default CD has none, why is there a Free Software Only option on the installer? (and that still leaves in proprietary firmware)

It's there for the purists.

[dh04000]

Who is including proprietary software in Ubuntu? The default CD has non.

Ever hear of drivers? The wireless ones especially.

[zekopeko]

Ever hear of drivers? The wireless ones especially.

AFAIK the drivers are FOSS and in the kernel. The only thing that might be debatable is the firmware which I presume can be distributed legally.

[Merk42]

Even if the drivers are non-free, they aren't downloaded via Ubuntu Software Center and therefore aren't relevant to this thread.

[KiwiNZ]

I fully support a commercial based Software Centre. It can have the ability to provide the Developer community with a living, Canonical much needed revenue and the user base a greater selection of product to select from, all in all a win win situation.

This is the a start to move the consumer Linux from basement hobby out of the basement.

[zekopeko]

this is the a start to move the consumer desktop linux from basement hobby out of the basement.

ftfy

[KiwiNZ]

I used "Consumer" as Enterprise are accustomed to paying.

[Spice Weasel]

Why should I do that if I can have a more convenient way of installing software? Not to mention that my computer would be more secure if I only install software from trusted repositories such as the paid section of USC.

There is no way of checking if it is secure if you cannot see the source code.

[KiwiNZ]

There is no way of checking if it is secure if you cannot see the source code.

90% of users still would not know even if they can see the source. You cannot see the source for the Banking software, most of the software in your car, the planes you fly in etc etc etc .

[Merk42]

90% of users still would not know even if they can see the source. You cannot see the source for the Banking software, most of the software in your car, the planes you fly in etc etc etc .
Isn't vBulletin itself closed source?
Oh well, guess Spice Weasel can't post here anymore.

[Nightstrike2009]

By Merk32:Isn't vBulletin itself closed source?
Oh well, guess Spice Weasel can't post here anymore.

Eh? Thats the websites software (not installed software), Spice weasels choice of internet browser would determine whether closed source or not not a website surely?

[czr114]

@czr114: You did provide a very good example: what about Wikipedia?
What will happen if we apply the "only free contents" to article contents?
Should we remove articles like these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mc_Donald's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mc_Donald%27s)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_products (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_products)
The only missing thing is the ability to buy directly hamburger online (thus, the main article contain the official webpages and other links).
I am quite sure that a big piece of contributions to this article (published and refused) is commissioned by mcd.
What did Wikipedia so really good and being opensource/free? Entering in the Encyclopedia market without leaving no-thing out.

McDonald's is a notable subject worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The article must conform to Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and encyclopedic content.

If Wikipedia were using the McDonald's article to run advertisements for food, or had allowed the McDonald's corporation to change standards in exchange for remuneration, then that would reflect poorly on Wikipedia, and serve as grounds to leverage the GDFL and fork the project into something not commercial, free of advertising, and free of bias.



Also, many don't wonder about this, but I think that the commercial software need a free and open market for software.
Lot (too much) of resources, bucks, professional software engineer are today driven by Apple/Microsoft... just give a look to Adobe Flash kick out from iPhone/iPad or Steam's competitor (Windows Live) that is coming with forced windows update on every windows PC of this planet.


The platform is open to them. They already have commercial venues for marketing their software - ever notice those nauseating banner ads which have taken over most websites? Ever notice those biased tech journalists and bloggers who are more than willing to write puff pieces in exchange for something, be it a freebie, sponsorship, advertising, etc?

Nothing is stopping them from building software for Ubuntu. The issue at hand is whether the Ubuntu team should be aiding in its own commercialization.



Again, is not about talking about a "free side" and a "commercial side"... but more about a fair field for everyone.
Windows OS don't provide this (Example: Internet Explorer over Netscape // Windows Live Games over Steam)
Apple's OS don't provide this (Example: application free and commercial aviable only if good for Steve Job's taste).
Consider this: we now are talking about "real people" jobs, life and stuff

We are sure that Canonical would provide this fair field for both free and commercial software: this is why I hope more in Canonical than anything else.
But too many are pushing Canonical to restrict itself to "free stuff"... so I fear that Canonical is indeed restricting itself.
Nothing would be restricted. Each individual user is more than free to respond to marketing and load their system up with paid commercial products.

The GPL allows Canonical to do this. They would be within their rights, just as developers, volunteers, and users would be well within their rights to find another project should Ubuntu be infested with crass commercialization.

The top two operating systems are heavily commercial. Ubuntu is a paradigm of freedom, altruism, and open development. It has no catch, and doesn't ask for money from its users. With the overwhelming market share already dedicated to commercialized operating systems, do we really need yet another?

What message does this send to volunteers and contributors?

[Spice Weasel]

90% of users still would not know even if they can see the source. You cannot see the source for the Banking software, most of the software in your car, the planes you fly in etc etc etc .

Yeah, and that's exactly the problem. Security issues and bugs can be around for years and nobody can fix them because of licensing issues. My point was that it is no more secure if you are installing software from the repository than from the internet if it is closed source.


Isn't vBulletin itself closed source?
Oh well, guess Spice Weasel can't post here anymore.

Very funny.

[zekopeko]

I used "Consumer" as Enterprise are accustomed to paying.

Good point. Then again Android is also a consumer product.

[Paqman]

ever notice those nauseating banner ads which have taken over most websites?

If he's anything like most people, no.

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

[zekopeko]

Yeah, and that's exactly the problem. Security issues and bugs can be around for years and nobody can fix them because of licensing issues. My point was that it is no more secure if you are installing software from the repository than from the internet if it is closed source.

Getting software from the repos is infinitely more secure then getting them from some XY website. When I get closed source software from the repos I know that they move from creator to Ubuntu. Zero chance of tampering with the software.

If I get it from XY website who knows how many people touched and messed with it.

[czr114]

Yeah, and that's exactly the problem. Security issues and bugs can be around for years and nobody can fix them because of licensing issues. My point was that it is no more secure if you are installing software from the repository than from the internet if it is closed source.
That's assuming they're even found in the first place. With open source, any moderately competent programmer can analyze security on any part of the project.

With closed source, it's generally highly motivated and highly intelligent cybercriminals analyzing the software with disassemblers and memory inspectors, because they know that the source itself isn't being audited. Nobody outside the original development team can help with the code, which puts a busy or shortsighted dev team against teams of elite hackers looking to root systems or spread malware.

Security auditing of closed binaries sets the bar too high, and too often, it's the wrong sort of people who can overcome that challenge.

[czr114]

On another note, I'd like to know what sort of ethics policy might be governing the software center when there is a financial incentive to keep FOSS from competing with paid programs.

Might good FOSS alternatives be kept out or buried when a paid alternative is being marketed to every Ubuntu installation?

Might a large developer with sway be able to prevent or slow the inclusion of a free alternative in the software center?

The mission of Ubuntu involves distributing free software as widely as possible. If paid software marketing becomes the norm in Ubuntu, there will have to be a vigorous and open process to ensure free software isn't buried by commercial software.

To maintain its mission, the project would have to be vigorously undermining paid inclusions at every turn, by including, improving, and featuring free alternatives. That might not sit well with large, well-funded vendors.

[czr114]

Getting software from the repos is infinitely more secure then getting them from some XY website. When I get closed source software from the repos I know that they move from creator to Ubuntu. Zero chance of tampering with the software.

If I get it from XY website who knows how many people touched and messed with it.
That's an argument for digital signatures and HTTPS downloads, not a commercial pipeline straight into every desktop installation.

[Paqman]

Might good FOSS alternatives be kept out or buried when a paid alternative is being marketed to every Ubuntu installation?


I don't see how it could. There's a limit to how much control Canonical has over the repos, much of it is a community effort.

[alexan]

McDonald's is a notable subject worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The article must conform to Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and encyclopedic content.
So, if we try to translate this example we would come that Photoshop wouldn't be notable subject worthy of inclusion in a software database because is?



If Wikipedia were using the McDonald's article to run advertisements for food, or had allowed the McDonald's corporation to change standards in exchange for remuneration, then that would reflect poorly on Wikipedia, and serve as grounds to leverage the GDFL and fork the project into something not commercial, free of advertising, and free of bias.
Wikipedia have clear rules on what their game is it; they are not the perfect rules for encyclopedia.. they are suitable rules for their propose: text and media contents.

Wikipedia can run on every PC/Netbook/Smartphone which work on simple standard (html+css)

Ubuntu don't
Ubuntu "to work" need to be supported by hardware manufacturer, hardware manufacturer support OS that clients (read: paying people) use for their (sometime paid) software.

AppStore set their own rules...
GfW Live set their own rules...
Android Market set their own rules...
Steam set their own rules...

No one did need to change their rules to include both Gimp or Photoshop in their market.
So... why Ubuntu should had?

This remind me some FUD campaign by Microsoft: GNU/FOSS license are virus, you can't put commercial and patent-free things close.



The platform is open to them. They already have commercial venues for marketing their software - ever notice those nauseating banner ads which have taken over most websites? Ever notice those biased tech journalists and bloggers who are more than willing to write puff pieces in exchange for something, be it a freebie, sponsorship, advertising, etc?

Nothing is stopping them from building software for Ubuntu. The issue at hand is whether the Ubuntu team should be aiding in its own commercialization.
There's no point in this: I did fail to see why Canonical shouldn't try to enter in business just because...everyone else is doing it.
Canonical, with their work, deliver about 9~10million of desktop stations (call it dualboot or whatever)... its a competitive and tasteful rage for any (brainy) company.
Also consider that Canonical way to play is widely recognized more fairer than any Steve Ballamer/Jobs.

You've your own point of view about business (to me, looks like you're somewhat hating it).. but also trust is a big factor in business. I do bet that Valve would be more happy today having Canonical as (factual) partner rather Microsoft and Apple.




Nothing would be restricted. Each individual user is more than free to respond to marketing and load their system up with paid commercial products.

The GPL allows Canonical to do this. They would be within their rights, just as developers, volunteers, and users would be well within their rights to find another project should Ubuntu be infested with crass commercialization.

The top two operating systems are heavily commercial. Ubuntu is a paradigm of freedom, altruism, and open development. It has no catch, and doesn't ask for money from its users. With the overwhelming market share already dedicated to commercialized operating systems, do we really need yet another?
Ubuntu don't need Linux
Linux don't need Ubuntu; but the combine of both achieve a great result!
That's the basic difference.
Ubuntu repositories or debian repositories?

Gentoo today had the same hardware compatibility that Ubuntu had; why this? because the Ubuntu userbase did bring Gentoo community.
Canonical OEM agreement with Dell, IBM... or new entities like System76 etc.
This "commercial" work done by Ubuntu/Canonical did open many doors with a simple action: close many spiffy windows.


What message does this send to volunteers and contributors?

People usually read only what they like... no matter what book their are reading.
The real question is: what are the gain, what are the lose?
There are no perfect solution that bring only good or only bad; everything is based on *how* the work is done.
Canonical made the first step in a new direction... then did stop (at the last, until now)

[Spice Weasel]

Getting software from the repos is infinitely more secure then getting them from some XY website. When I get closed source software from the repos I know that they move from creator to Ubuntu. Zero chance of tampering with the software.

If I get it from XY website who knows how many people touched and messed with it.

What if the creator puts something bad in it?

[KiwiNZ]

What if the creator puts something bad in it?

Why would someone wanting to sell in the Software Center put something bad in their Software?
How would that give them continuing business?

[czr114]

So, if we try to translate this example we would come that Photoshop wouldn't be notable subject worthy of inclusion in a software database because is?

There is no translating because you're making an inanalogous comparison.

Wikipedia exists to inform people about notable subjects, per Wikipedia's notability guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N). It does not sell anything, nor does it act as a marketing vehicle for anything. Articles must also have a neutral point of view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV); this means they can't pitch anything, since all selling and marketing is inherently biased.

The software center exists to distribute software. Inclusion in that is far different than inclusion in an encyclopedia. Photoshop can be described in an encyclopedic fashion without selling, marketing, or distributing it. That is how Wikipedia works - if they were getting a revenue split from links selling the software described, then it would be biased and commercialized.

Wikipedia is instead a non-commercial source with strict policies against advertising and bias. That's why it's a welcome relief from the crass commercialism which pervades almost every other corner of the Internet.

That stands in stark contrast to many tech "review" sites, which are little more than marketing shills designed to excite readers into patronizing their affiliate referral links and advertisers.



Wikipedia have clear rules on what their game is it; they are not the perfect rules for encyclopedia.. they are suitable rules for their propose: text and media contents.

Wikipedia can run on every PC/Netbook/Smartphone which work on simple standard (html+css)

And?



Ubuntu don't
Ubuntu "to work" need to be supported by hardware manufacturer, hardware manufacturer support OS that clients (read: paying people) use for their (sometime paid) software.


Hardware manufacturers are incentivized to make their hardware usable so that people will buy it.

Hardware must be purchased. It is inherently scarce. Software isn't. Once a FOSS developer creates a great program, the whole world can enjoy that program. Payment gateways are designed to exclude usage and inhibit distribution to all those who won't cough up the cash.



AppStore set their own rules...
GfW Live set their own rules...
Android Market set their own rules...
Steam set their own rules...


GNU/Linux on the desktop is supposed to to be the alternative to that. Why emulate that model?



This remind me some FUD campaign by Microsoft: GNU/FOSS license are virus, you can't put commercial and patent-free things close.

That's true, but with Microsoft's spin. The GPL is designed to protect rights, whereas proprietary EULAs are designed to inhibit rights. A company can't take GPL software and then distribute it in a restrictive manner.

Microsoft used spin to create fear.

Meanwhile, companies like Redhat have innovated by giving away free software widely, contributing to its creation, then selling inherently scarce support resources to help people make use of that software. They aren't inhibiting wide distribution of the software itself.

CentOS is a trademark-free RHEL.




There's no point in this: I did fail to see why Canonical shouldn't try to enter in business just because...everyone else is doing it.
Canonical, with their work, deliver about 9~10million of desktop stations (call it dualboot or whatever)... its a competitive and tasteful rage for any (brainy) company.
Also consider that Canonical way to play is widely recognized more fairer than any Steve Ballamer/Jobs.


Then the Ubuntu distribution becomes commercialized just like every other OS. It's built in software delivers marketing and extracts money. It's two tier (free user, paying customer) hierarchy excludes users from software. Meanwhile, the nature of the enterprise itself discourages collaborative cooperation in favor of proprietary competition.

Ubuntu is supposed to be the exception to 95%+ of the desktop market. Ubuntu is supposed to be the choice offering software freedom in a world choked by software restriction and commercialization.

In short, if Ubuntu emulates those competitors, it loses that trait which made it unique.

It will also lose much goodwill among the project volunteers who thought they had signed on to simply make a great gift of software to all of humanity. If Shuttleworth wants to line his pockets selling apps, he shouldn't expect the volunteers who made desktop Linux systems possible to continue along for the ride.



You've your own point of view about business (to me, looks like you're somewhat hating it).. but also trust is a big factor in business. I do bet that Valve would be more happy today having Canonical as (factual) partner rather Microsoft and Apple.


I have nothing against business.

What I'm against is commercializing a system which was set up as a welcome relief to commercialization, and built on the backs of volunteers who believed in free software.

There is a large place for commercial software in the market. Right now, that is most of the market.

The major competitor to the entire commercial paradigm is Ubuntu.

Commercial developers still have the freedom to build and market commercial software for Ubuntu, just as each user has the freedom to purchase and install that software.

The question is whether that becomes inherently tied into the system, and made a part of the standard desktop base, by the very people who built a system on an identity of freedom, openness, and inclusion.

It's much like turning one's back on one's roots. We shouldn't forget who we are, nor should the Ubuntu project forget what it was about.




Ubuntu don't need Linux
Linux don't need Ubuntu; but the combine of both achieve a great result!
That's the basic difference.
Ubuntu repositories or debian repositories?


Those who believe in the free experience can just as easily migrate to another project like Mint. They can also take many end-users with them.

If Ubuntu forgets its roots, and gives up its comparative appeal, then it will lose many of the people who switched to it from the world of closed commercial software.

There is a litany of now-shuttered projects which, despite success, eventually forgot what they were about and lost the appeal which made them great. If Ubuntu wants to be Apple-lite, then it is no longer unique - just a toned down alternative.



Gentoo today had the same hardware compatibility that Ubuntu had; why this? because the Ubuntu userbase did bring Gentoo community.
Canonical OEM agreement with Dell, IBM... or new entities like System76 etc.
This "commercial" work done by Ubuntu/Canonical did open many doors with a simple action: close many spiffy windows.


Strategic partnerships with hardware vendors open up the drivers and enhance reliability for all users. That is in the benefit of everyone. It also has nothing to do with infecting a free operating system with commercialism.

Why should somebody donate to the Ubuntu project anymore? It's no longer about giving away great software as widely as possible.

If it's going to be run as a for-profit operating system (not a way to sell support like RHEL), and not as a foundation to handle organizational tasks required for distributing and maintaining free software, then any donations just go to the bottom line.



People usually read only what they like... no matter what book their are reading.
The real question is: what are the gain, what are the lose?
There are no perfect solution that bring only good or only bad; everything is based on *how* the work is done.
Canonical made the first step in a new direction... then did stop (at the last, until now)
It looks like they made a step in the Apple direction.

The completely FOSS desktop was a step in a new direction. It was a brand new way of thinking about a digital good able to made made and copied without restriction.

Now it appears that it's following the commercial trend.

[czr114]

Why would someone wanting to sell in the Software Center put something bad in their Software?
How would that give them continuing business?
For the same reason that spyware and trojans have proliferated everywhere else: because they're profitable.

If the source is closed, then every user has to trust the developer. If the source is open, then every user only has to trust the community's ability to review the developer.

What is to stop a shady design house from building an app with privacy or integrity issues, getting it in the paid software center, then duping users into buying/installing it because of the implicit approval from the Ubuntu project?

That stands in contrast to the current model, in which all app behavior is fully disclosed through open source code.

[KiwiNZ]

For the same reason that spyware and trojans have proliferated everywhere else: because they're profitable.

If the source is closed, then every user has to trust the developer. If the source is open, then every user only has to trust the community's ability to review the developer.

What is to stop a shady design house from building an app with privacy or integrity issues, getting it in the paid software center, then duping users into buying/installing it because of the implicit approval from the Ubuntu project?

That stands in contrast to the current model, in which all app behavior is fully disclosed through open source code.

Before you get on a Plane do you check the Pilots credentials, the experience and credentials of all the Air traffic controllers that will handle the aircraft and review the maintenance logs etc of that aircraft ?

To be frank, this argument re malware in the store if its closed is FUD.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

That stands in contrast to the current model, in which all app behavior is fully disclosed through open source code.

Does searching Google on Ubuntu only give you free software?

[czr114]

Before you get on a Plane do you check the Pilots credentials, the experience and credentials of all the Air traffic controllers that will handle the aircraft and review the maintenance logs etc of that aircraft ?

To be frank, this argument re malware in the store if its closed is FUD.
The review procedures, just like my earlier ethics issue, are a fair question, just as the procedures for certifying and examining pilots are a regular and open matter of public policy.

We're used to ensuring benevolence by auditing the source code. That has served us well for over a decade, all the while Windows users were used to playing Russian roulette on the shareware sites.

If source code will no longer be audited, then users do have a right to know what keep problems out, other than "We hope they won't do it."

Above and beyond malware, there's more of an issue with things that might malfunction, break compatibility, or violate their own privacy policies.

For example, what do we do about an app which promises to disclose no personal information, but then, all of a sudden, starts pinging the developer's server with usage stats and patterns? The best users can hope for is that somebody notices it after a while of operational privacy breaches, then brings it to the community's attention. Even after that, the apology can't make up for the damage done.

There's a reason why open code auditing drives out problems of all sorts. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[czr114]

Does searching Google on Ubuntu only give you free software?

An open source app fully discloses the code which makes calls to Google. Google is an external service, not a closed product distributed by the Ubuntu project.

For that matter, open source apps are generally very good about not locking in specific search engines. Replacing Google with Scroogle is quite easy.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

My question is more about whether Ubuntu actually is in a bubble and I have been oblivious to it.

I do understand your concern — I agree there is a possible slippery slope here — but I also don't see other options for Ubuntu. (If this was gNewSense (http://www.gnewsense.org/Main/HomePage), sure). We live in a world with proprietary software, and if we want Ubuntu to work for real people (“Linux for human beings”) we need to accept people use it, like it and sometimes even depend on it. That means supporting Facebook and Twitter. That means being able to dual-boot with Windows, or install Ubuntu under Windows. That means having an open-ended policy for proprietary hardware drivers.
And yes, that means making it as easy to get World of Goo as it is to get Blender: with reviews, easy updates and a trustworthy software repository.

And nobody needs to compromise anything. Free software is still awesome, and if someone is using Ubuntu that person knows that. We don't need to force people to think our way: they are already well acquainted. If there is a really great piece of free software it will stand tall, and it will always get better. Give it a few decades and we won't need to worry about this at all.

There's definitely the question of whether Canonical will end up with proprietary software on Ubuntu as its best means of income and therefore put it above everything else. But, let's remember that Ubuntu is free software and it thrives on the ecosystem that includes all those little bits and pieces. Even the pieces that have nothing (technically) to do with the core system. The people at Canonical get that, and just about all of them (including Mark) have been involved in free and open source software for a long time. It would not make any sense if they actively contradicted their own interests.
I do smell my bias there; it's definitely just my opinion, and I guess in my case it boils down to trust.

[KiwiNZ]

I would like to see both , open source and closed source available. What ever the consumer demand is it is available to be purchased the Software Store. This is a way forward for the Consumer Linux, a way it can move towards mainstream and move away from the hobby basements.

As long as its clearly labelled and buyer is aware of what they purchasing then there is no problem just like iTunes , Amazon or what ever online trading.

[Paul820]

I really can't understand the problem with having paid for software. If a user of Ubuntu doesn't want to use paid for applications then they do not have to. All those privacy fears you are having should not really come into the argument if you have no intention of using them. Like i said before, you do not even have to click on the option in the software centre, then it will not be an issue for you. Even if there was spyware, which i doubt there would be, then it will not affect you, carry on using the free stuff.

Now, for those that do want to download some applications and pay for them, then that option should still be available for them if they want it. Canonical will put the usual disclaimer on the application page no doubt so users will have a choice and decide for themselves if they want to download.

There are already proprietary applications that users download, adobe pdf, adobe flash, graphics drivers, wireless drivers etc. No one knows what is in them but they still install them.

[Paqman]

My question is more about whether Ubuntu actually is in a bubble and I have been oblivious to it.

I do understand your concern — I agree there is a possible slippery slope here — but I also don't see other options for Ubuntu. (If this was gNewSense (http://www.gnewsense.org/Main/HomePage), sure). We live in a world with proprietary software, and if we want Ubuntu to work for real people (“Linux for human beings”) we need to accept people use it, like it and sometimes even depend on it. That means supporting Facebook and Twitter. That means being able to dual-boot with Windows, or install Ubuntu under Windows. That means having an open-ended policy for proprietary hardware drivers.
And yes, that means making it as easy to get World of Goo as it is to get Blender: with reviews, easy updates and a trustworthy software repository.

And nobody needs to compromise anything. Free software is still awesome, and if someone is using Ubuntu that person knows that. We don't need to force people to think our way: they are already well acquainted. If there is a really great piece of free software it will stand tall, and it will always get better. Give it a few decades and we won't need to worry about this at all.

Couldn't have put it better myself. I agree with this 100%.

Ubuntu has always taken a pragmatic approach to non-free software. If the users want it, then they should have access to it. This in no way diminishes the value of having access to vast repositories of lovely open source goodness.

[ikt]

Do we really want ubuntu and linux in general to turn into apple who use open source but who make users pay for almost everything.

Ubuntu and Linux in general are subject to the whims of their users more heavily than windows or apple, both apple and windows have large pre-install bases so even though Windows Vista was crap, millions got given it because there was nothing else available.

If the users of Ubuntu don't want to pay for software or want a completely open source software the options are there, however overwhelmingly users have said, yeah we'll take proprietary if it makes the experience better.

If you want to compare simply look at the market share of debian to ubuntu.

Proprietary nvidia and ati drivers are heavily relied upon, same with the codecs to play MP3's, Flash is another piece of software that is proprietary and that millions of ubuntu users use.

So while I would love to not use these proprietary software there is simply nothing else available that replaces them, or if there is it's so buggy and crap that it's unusable, which is in my opinion how it should be: a core open source base, and the option of proprietary closed source applications to compliment it aka android.

At the end of the day you've made one crucial mistake, you assumed ubuntu is linux and that's all there is to it, linux has thousands of distro's, all of which would love to have another user, if you don't like ubuntu you're more than welcome to leave and go to debian or mint or suse or any of the others.

[czr114]

ikt makes excellent points.

Unfree drivers, codecs, and plugins have always been a source of ideological tension, over which a great many debates have been conducted. The trend though, has been towards pragmatism. These solutions, while not optimal, were adopted out of necessity while development on free alternatives progressed.

We have seen drivers open up, both with and without vendor cooperation. Vendors have released free drivers, and the community has built them from scratch in situations where vendors remained ignorant. Vendors have also acknowledged the community's desire for open hardware, and those vendors which responded accordingly reaped the rewards from increased awareness and desirability of their products.

Unfree codecs have led to free implementations, as well as free alternatives. We have XviD, x264, Ogg, and others, and we can package them in open containers like Matroska. New W3C standards make good use of these open projects.

Unfree plugins, like Flash, have spawned free replacements. The reliance on Flash has also spawned a great deal of innovation in Javascript usage, and now, the new HTML5 standard.


In all these situations, the necessary evil of closed implementations on open systems has spurred growth and development to proceed in the free direction. These problems encouraged the community to take things in a better direction, which paid dividends for all of us.

If a company like Adobe or Valve sees an opportunity in the Linux market, the software will get built. id and Epic already saw that opportunity, and made good money selling the Linux ports of their games. That calculation on the feasibility of the port, and the size of the target market, is going to proceed with or without a direct line in to every Ubuntu desktop.

The Ubuntu app store will primarily be a game changer for small, independent developers. It is these developers who traditionally gave back to the community for what it had been given them. It is among this population where the personal benefits and community losses from defection will be most pronounced.

That incentive pushes development in the wrong direction, unlike the efforts made to open up drivers, codecs, and plugins in response to an already unacceptable level of reliance on unfree software.

Turning Ubuntu into a hybrid paradigm giving heavy exposure to, and fostering reliance on, future unfree software development takes the project away from its original intention to put the best free software in the hands of as many people as possible.

We've been getting away from the proprietary bundled nuisances, and here comes an app store to foster future reliance.

[KiwiNZ]

For the last 10 years plus the current paradigm has seen consumer Linux get to +/- 1% and for all intent and purpose stagnate at the level of penetration. What I see demonstrated here is an unwillingness to try new ideas and new paradigms to see if we can jump start that penetration.

If Corporations like Canonical are going to (A) survive, (B) compete and (C) advance against their wealthy competitors they need revenue and capital not dreams and a paying store is one way to get that and stocking that store with products that appeal to a good and broad cross section of consumers is vital not just the FOSS purists.

[3rdalbum]

You know those three indie developers who teamed up to do a special on all three of their games, which were also available on Linux? They have released their game engines as open source. Commercial leads to openness, not the other way around.

[zekopeko]

You know those three indie developers who teamed up to do a special on all three of their games, which were also available on Linux? They have released their game engines as open source. Commercial leads to openness, not the other way around.

They released the source to the game engine. The content is still proprietary. AFAIK the released code was for games that where old and unmaintained. I doubt you will see FOSS game engines for their new games any time soon.

[alexan]

There is no translating because you're making an inanalogous comparison.

Wikipedia exists to inform people about notable subjects, per Wikipedia's notability guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N). It does not sell anything, nor does it act as a marketing vehicle for anything. Articles must also have a neutral point of view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV); this means they can't pitch anything, since all selling and marketing is inherently biased.
There are also free books and book that you've to pay to read. Do this suppose that only the "free books" are not biased.

Canonical is a company meanwhile Wikipedia is a foundation.

Canonical is plugging money for their projects, Wikipedia has to put the big banner of Jimbo Wales asking for money. Both way are legitimate and both resources are very essential.


The software center exists to distribute software. Inclusion in that is far different than inclusion in an encyclopedia. Photoshop can be described in an encyclopedic fashion without selling, marketing, or distributing it. That is how Wikipedia works - if they were getting a revenue split from links selling the software described, then it would be biased and commercialized.Wikipedia is instead a non-commercial source with strict policies against advertising and bias. That's why it's a welcome relief from the crass commercialism which pervades almost every other corner of the Internet.
That stands in stark contrast to many tech "review" sites, which are little more than marketing shills designed to excite readers into patronizing their affiliate referral links and advertisers.
Software center exist to... distribute software.
Period.
Stop.

How you would like to see it distributed is no matter of real interest.
Canonical, like an company which follow the law and pay fees and salaries is, legit to do anything necessary to keep pay fees and salaries.



Hardware manufacturers are incentivized to make their hardware usable so that people will buy it.
Hardware manufactures are taking your money (as linux user) and use them to develop Windows driver/dll. Wishful thinking don't help.


Hardware must be purchased. It is inherently scarce. Software isn't. Once a FOSS developer creates a great program, the whole world can enjoy that program. Payment gateways are designed to exclude usage and inhibit distribution to all those who won't cough up the cash.
Then, don't buy books: all the books that come with money are made only to diffuse commercial lies :confused:


GNU/Linux on the desktop is supposed to to be the alternative to that. Why emulate that model?
Buy&Sell concept exist from longer time than Valve's Steam, you know?
There's already commercial and professional software for Linux; you willing not.. that's allowed by the whole GNU/Linux model.
Does RSM denounce anyone? Does RSM claim that Linux did lost its GNU tag?



That's true, but with Microsoft's spin. The GPL is designed to protect rights, whereas proprietary EULAs are designed to inhibit rights. A company can't take GPL software and then distribute it in a restrictive manner.
A company can't distribute in restrictive manner GPL software.
Why are you now try to make it look as: I host free binary and source code on a server... I can't host password protected stuff on that server?

Do you realize that's FUD?

GPL say:
1. get GPL the sorce code > re-distribute source code
2. fix the GPL code for your product/needs > re-distribute the fix (with the original GPL source code)

the 3. point
3. use the GPL source code > now you belong to the GPL
does not exist.


Microsoft used spin to create fear.

Meanwhile, companies like Redhat have innovated by giving away free software widely, contributing to its creation, then selling inherently scarce support resources to help people make use of that software. They aren't inhibiting wide distribution of the software itself.
Thanks to Canonical, now Redhat can innovate/operate on larger number of people, thanks to Canonical's agreement with other companies.
Redhat don't need to do the job Canonical Inc is doing. If Canonical will stop doing it.. someone else would need to do it for Linux and OSS. Otherwise it would be just a waste.




Then the Ubuntu distribution becomes commercialized just like every other OS. It's built in software delivers marketing and extracts money. It's two tier (free user, paying customer) hierarchy excludes users from software. Meanwhile, the nature of the enterprise itself discourages collaborative cooperation in favor of proprietary competition.
Can you give me the number of the next lotto withdraw? You seems so pretty confident with the future :lolflag:

What will do Canonical, lay only on Canonical's choices. Canonical is already selling music on Ubuntu one. But also provide Jamendo and link to other free products. I do value a company by the way it act in the past, present and "how's going in the future".. which (for Canonical at the last) is pretty good.

To what I do see, they are doing it fairly and not biased. I want to see them in the market because I want a fair and a not biased market to choice on.


Ubuntu is supposed to be the exception to 95%+ of the desktop market. Ubuntu is supposed to be the choice offering software freedom in a world choked by software restriction and commercialization.

In short, if Ubuntu emulates those competitors, it loses that trait which made it unique.
Canonical is paying the salaries for its programmers, developers, and take other trade agreements based on trust (which certainly can not do after Microsoft kicked off many of its competitors).
Canonical is already a company in business. Our experience about Canonical's way of business are based upon past and present.
Prophecies can be true sometime; but if we want to build something important (example) like an hospital.. we base our choices of science: past, present and "on building for future" knowledges.


It will also lose much goodwill among the project volunteers who thought they had signed on to simply make a great gift of software to all of humanity. If Shuttleworth wants to line his pockets selling apps, he shouldn't expect the volunteers who made desktop Linux systems possible to continue along for the ride.
Other prophecies. Quit the stuff and give me directly the next winner numbers for lotto withdraw.
I will send you a postcard written on it "you was right" from the Maldives. :lolflag:
Just mocking: but still willing to point that "what will be" is something to handle with very cares

Next to be continued ... :\

[alexan]

There's a new addition, Vendetta Online in software center for about 0$...




cheap.

[madjr]

There's a new addition, Vendetta Online in software center for about 0$...




cheap.

cool, gotta check that out