Would you use Ubuntu (or any linux) if it was not open source?

[nolag]

I personally would. To me open source is nice, but not something I care too much about. I know others feel differently. I personally use it because it is free (as in free beer), and it works. If it was not free I would not use it. I know there are advantage of open source, linux never would have developed this much without those contributing, they would need to pay a LOT to have it developed. I am more asking if they had (say they spent a lot of money or something) and it (linux/ubuntu either will do) was exactly the same but closed source, would you use it?

[oldsoundguy]

No .. closed source is like a burning building and a local volunteer fire department that charges to put out fires. Why jump from one burning building to another?

Open source .. everyone is a volunteer fire person in one way or another. (if for nothing else, the ability to report a problem.)

[madjr]

Not really, at least they wouldn't be getting my support.

I would not even look forward to using chrome OS if it was not going to be based on open source.

i think that essential stuff need to be based on open standards.

[weasel fierce]

If there were no open source option available, I'd pick Ubuntu over windows due to stability and security, but I'd pick an open option over either, since software freedom is an essential thing.

[amauk]

Free & Open source is more than just source code

Having the source open is, from a technical perspective, one thing
But from a social perspective, it's a whole lot more

It's the community, ease of contribution and piece of mind that come as by-products of open code that I respect

The fact that the GNU/Linux ecosystem has no single controlling entity means it cannot be bought out, beaten down or litigated into bankruptcy. It cannot die. A company (and it's proprietary products) can.

The fact that developers maintain transparent processes to software development ensures that nothing happens behind closed doors, and your average end-user has the opportunity to become involved in the development process.

The fact that different vendors compete not on closed code and proprietary protocols designed to lock you into a system, but on feature-sets, ease of use and ease of integration.

The fact that, if I don't like something, I am free to change it.

So no, I wouldn't use Ubuntu if it was closed source.
You'd lose more than access to the code.
A lot more.

[Spice Weasel]

If there were no open source option available, I'd pick Ubuntu over windows due to stability and security, but I'd pick an open option over either, since software freedom is an essential thing.

Chances are, it wouldn't be as stable and secure if it was closed source.

[bouncingwilf]

Personally, I'm delighted that it is open source but the major reason for using Linux is that (for my needs) it is far superior to other alternative. I have a rebellious streak that absolutely hates people trying to manipulate me and sadly, other OS's try to define the limits to what I'm allowed to do. I think it can be summed up in the the way in which Unix (& Linux) type systems exit silently on success. No drama, no unnecessary and extraneous razamatazz Just does it!

Bouncingwilf

[weasel fierce]

You are very likely right.

Of course, through open source, we've also had companies as diverse as Intel and HP contributing to the linux kernel. Neither of those are likely to sit up and build a kernel themselves.

[Quadunit404]

I wouldn't really care. As long as it isn't Windows Me I'll use it, open-source or not.

All I really care about in an OS is stability, security and the OS doing what I tell it to do. License, I could really care less about.

[eriktheblu]

Tricky question.

I prefer Ubuntu over other operating systems (namely MS Windows, Mac OS, Debian, Fedora, and Open Solaris). While I certainly prefer the open source model, I have no moral objection to using a closed source OS.

The problem here, is that Ubuntu would not be if it were not for the open source communities.

You might as well ask if I would still eat sandwiches if they didn't use bread.

[3Miro]

If it were closed source, Ubuntu would be 50/50 with OSX. I don't know which way I would go.

Open source makes it not even close. You cannot put a price on freedom.

[NCLI]

No, simply because I would be very suspicious of people distributing an operating system for free if I didn't know anyone could look at the code.

[marl30]

If Linux was closed source a lot of things would come into play. There would not be such a diverse community with so many different distributions. It's possible that it would just be controlled by another large commercially driven computer company just as Windows and Mac. Doesn't sound like a lot of freedom to me, so as someone who have been using Windows for years, I doubt there would be much of a desire to want to switch, as this would take away the thing I like most of all about Linux.

[ajgreeny]

It is a completely hypothetical question, as without open source and the ability of anyone who wishes to being able to change the code used for the system, there would be no linux OSs worth thinking about, and certainly nothing to consider as a choice in comparison to windows or mac.

The whole raison-d'etre of this OS is surely that it is free, as in speech, and so no-one can stop anyone else from changing it, making it better, and without that possibility, it would not even exist.

[undecim]

If this were the case, BSD would have a lot of the development effort and community support that Linux has now.

So I would use BSD instead.

[Dustin2128]

Nope, I'd use BSD.

[Brent0]

Yes, I would. I prefer it being open source but it's not like I really care if it's closed. I don't look at the source code if it is available.

[slooksterpsv]

Well, at this stage, I probably would look for an alternative like FreeBSD or that. OpenSource means a lot to me. I already have to pay for the components of the computer, why software to make the computer do something?

I'd rather user Free and OpenSource software.

Example:
2 days ago I formatted my partitions to try another OS; when I went back to install an OS I picked up my Windows 7 DVDs and thought for a moment. Am I going to be happy? What about all the restrictions? Will I really use my computer as much?
Answers: No, I'll just reformat wanting Ubuntu again. The restrictions irritate me. No I probably won't use the computer as much, cause I won't get to tinker or tweak it, and have a million updates and a million reboots. - The reboots part really changed my mind. - So I put back on ubuntu 10.04 64-bit

[johntaylor1887]

No I would not use it. If I wanted a closed source OS, I would just use windows or mac.

[cascade9]

I would not even look forward to using chrome OS if it was not going to be based on open source.

Based on open source, but not open soruce itself. Google is playing the licence game. Release a half finished project under a BSD licence, then you can take whatever code you want from the open source version and dont have to give anything back.

I'd probably use a BSD if linux/GNU wasnt open source, but I'd be far less happy about it......I'm not a fan of the BSD licence.

[Spice Weasel]

Based on open source, but not open soruce itself. Google is playing the licence game. Release a half finished project under a BSD licence, then you can take whatever code you want from the open source version and dont have to give anything back.

I'd probably use a BSD if linux/GNU wasnt open source, but I'd be far less happy about it......I'm not a fan of the BSD licence.

Have you tried GNU/kBSD? (MirOS? and Debian)

[Johnsie]

I dont even program in most of the languages Ubuntu is written in... So why does it make the slightest difference to me?

This 'Open Source' thing is meaningless to the average computer user. All we want is a good looking operating system that works with our hardware and software. It doesn't really matter if that OS is open or closed.

[asifnaz]

Ya I would use it as i am a basic user and have nothing to do with source code .

But ubuntu would not as good as it is with open source .

OS X is way too expensive solution

[RiceMonster]

Open/Closed source is not a deciding factor of whether I use something or not.

[Spice Weasel]

I dont even program in most of the languages Ubuntu is written in... So why does it make the slightest difference to me?

This 'Open Source' thing is meaningless to the average computer user. All we want is a good looking operating system that works with our hardware and software. It doesn't really matter if that OS is open or closed.

Would you be even slightly suspicious if they were giving away an OS that would take years of investment to program without including the source code?

[RiceMonster]

Would you be even slightly suspicious if they were giving away an OS that would take years of investment to program without including the source code?

Well what malicious thing do you think they spent "years of investment" trying to do?

Plus, they would still be charging for support contracts, so...

[kvant]

No, I would not use it.

Ubuntu community has, sadly, a big number of people who don't give a crap about foundations of Linux nor know how to cherish anything really.

[kvant]

Ya I would use it as i am a basic user and have nothing to do with source code .

But ubuntu would not as good as it is with open source .

OS X is way too expensive solution

OS X costs $29.

[kvant]

I dont even program in most of the languages Ubuntu is written in... So why does it make the slightest difference to me?

This 'Open Source' thing is meaningless to the average computer user. All we want is a good looking operating system that works with our hardware and software. It doesn't really matter if that OS is open or closed.

Yes, it does mean something for the end user. Because the way in which the software is built has direct consequences on the way it turns out and how it's shaped and what it becomes. If GNU/Linux was a closed soruce megacorp project, it would be about limiting your abilities to use it. Have you read the Windows licence yet?

[RiceMonster]

Ubuntu community has, sadly, a big number of people who don't give a crap about foundations of Linux nor know how to cherish anything really.

"Know how to cherish anything"? It's just an OS. This is not an important life issue, here.

[amauk]

"Know how to cherish anything"? It's just an OS. This is not an important life issue, here.It is when said OS forms the backbone of your career

[ctrlmd]

yes i would

[RiceMonster]

It is when said OS forms the backbone of your career

That's an extremely small number of people you're talking about there. Most people who make money developing Linux, or being a Linux admin or whatever probably would have ended up somewhere else in the industry and would be doing just fine.

[nolag]

If it were closed source, Ubuntu would be 50/50 with OSX. I don't know which way I would go.

Open source makes it not even close. You cannot put a price on freedom.

Well to be fair if it was closed source it would still be $0.


No I would not use it. If I wanted a closed source OS, I would just use windows or mac.

Again still free and stable


Based on open source, but not open soruce itself. Google is playing the licence game. Release a half finished project under a BSD licence, then you can take whatever code you want from the open source version and dont have to give anything back.

I'd probably use a BSD if linux/GNU wasnt open source, but I'd be far less happy about it......I'm not a fan of the BSD licence.

I have always wondered how that works. If you have some code that is under BSD use it don't you need to go under it?


Would you be even slightly suspicious if they were giving away an OS that would take years of investment to program without including the source code?

There are many free games, and other applications that are not open source. Some people (or companies) like to be in charge of the direction that the project goes, but do want to offer it free. With open source with the community can control where it goes (not that I am saying that is bad).

[Austin25]

I would probably use some other open source operating system, probably some form of BSD.

[Spice Weasel]

Well to be fair if it was closed source it would still be $0.


Which company would spend an estimated $1.38 billion to develop an OS that they were going to give away for free?

[Austin25]

Which company would spend an estimated $1.38 billion to develop an OS that they were going to give away for free?

Canonical.

[Khakilang]

I don't mind using it as long as it is free. I don't really tweak or modify Ubuntu and I don't know any programming to change anything. I just need something that work.

[BrokenKingpin]

nope

[rg4w]

OS X costs $29.
That, and a thousand US for the box to run it on.

[Spice Weasel]

Canonical.

Canonical haven't developed anything until recently besides the software centre and a modified Debian Installer. I seriously doubt they would be able to program the entire of GNU/Linux and GNOME from scratch.

[amauk]

Canonical haven't developed anything until recently besides the software centre and a modified Debian InstallerCanonical have developed (or sponsored the community development of) the following projects:
Upstart
Landscape
Ubuntu One
Unity
Launchpad
Storm
Quickly
Bazaar
OpenCD
Simple Scan

and probably other things that I've missed,
Anyway...

[Spice Weasel]

Did they program those themselves using the cathedral style of software development, or was a lot of the work done by the community? 13,499,457 lines of code are in the kernel alone, that's a hell of a job for one (not as big as MS or Apple) company.

[amauk]

Most are developed, continuing with the Raymond wording, the "Bazaar" way

As far as I know stuff like Launchpad & Landscape (which are web services developed for internal use only) get developed Cathedral-ly

[NightwishFan]

I would certainly consider it. Canonical are a great group of people, and Ubuntu is reliable and usable operating system. Open source and freedom certainly sell it to me though, it was the reason I searched for alternatives in the first place. I like the ability to have open source, and pick and choose closed source when I deem it appropriate.

[aG93IGRvIGkgdWJ1bnR1Pw==]

Nope, I'm having second thoughts about ubuntu as it is, I will definitely be moving my servers to a more Free GNU/Linux software distribution before the end of the 10.04 support cycle. While Ubuntu presents a decent compromise between being GNU/Free and usable on the desktop, it's really a no-brainer on the server. There are plenty of superior server distribution that do not sacrifice software Freedom.

[NightwishFan]

Nope, I'm having second thoughts about ubuntu as it is, I will definitely be moving my servers to a more Free GNU/Linux software distribution before the end of the 10.04 support cycle. While Ubuntu presents a decent compromise between being GNU/Free and usable on the desktop, it's really a no-brainer on the server. There are plenty of superior server distribution that do not sacrifice software Freedom.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and choice. Though I am inclined to wonder if you are aware all software in the "Main" will always be free and open source. Of course supported by Canonical as well. If anything, the Ubuntu server team is as hard working as their Desktop counterparts.

[amauk]

IMHO Ubuntu rocks on servers
It's got that perfect balance between company sponsored & community supported that can cater for everyone

If you have the skills in-house to admin a linux server, then you can just admin it yourself for no monetary cost

If not, then you can get a support contract from Canonical themselves

Or alternatively, source a 3rd party support firm.

All distros offer 1 or 2 options out of the 3

Redhat - Contract only
CentOS - DIY or 3rd party
Debian - DIY or 3rd party
Suse - Contract only
OpenSuse - DIY or 3rd party
Ubuntu - DIY, Contract or 3rd party

No other distro apart from Ubuntu offers all 3 options

[kvant]

That, and a thousand US for the box to run it on.

Runs just fine on a plain PC if you choose the components so that it's compatible (not hard to do).

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

l would use it if I had no other open source alternative.

I was attracted to Linux because it was open source and written by a community of computer enthusiasts.

My first home computer didn't have an operating system. You had to program everything yourself in assembly language. No one was copyrighting their software. We didn't have Internet then. Where I worked we had a file cabinet where we shared programs we wrote for others to use and modify. Since they were written in assembly language, they had to be modified for the CPU you were using, e.g. 6800, 8080. We had checkbook programs, word processors, games, etc. The first OS I used on my home computer was "OS-9 Level One" which was a Unix like OS released in 1979, IIRC.

Like many, when I upgraded to a newer computer it came with DOS. I used DOS and then Microsoft's other operating systems over the years. When I finally got tired of Microsoft treating me like a criminal, I looked for alternatives. That is when I found Debian, Red Hat, Slackware and its fork SuSE. It was a good feeling to be back to the days of the beginning of home computers.

If I see something strange going on in my router logs, memory usage, running processes, etc., I can read the source code which is something I can't do with closed source programs.

Needless to say, since it is in my signature, you should use whatever OS works for you. I just prefer FOSS for my own computing needs.

[handy]

Yes, as I prefer Linux distros to any alternative that exists at the moment. Though I am looking forward to Haiku R1.

[nolag]

I am glad I got a lot of replies. It is interesting to see everyone's opinions. For those who said they would not trust the company, I have 2 questions:

1) who said it was a company? A person may develope it
2) Have you ever played free (not online) games? They are mostly not open source (I would not expect online ones to be open it could add unfair advantages for those who code).

Also I am wondering how does canonical make money? According to wiki they make $30mill revenue (although I wonder how much is profit). I understand that some people buy support or donate or buy ubnutu stuff (like disks or shirts), but $30mill seems like a lot.


Yes, as I prefer Linux distros to any alternative that exists at the moment. Though I am looking forward to Haiku R1.

I will be looking that up what is it?

[MisterGaribaldi]

Sorry, I guess I'm a little late to this party.

For my part: no, I would not use Linux if it were closed-source and/or commercial.

That being said, my main "production" OSs are closed-source and commercial, but that's a matter of history and also a matter of availability of software which does what I want and need. Why would I choose to run an OS which is closed source, commercial, and doesn't have all the software available for it that I need?

[nolag]

Sorry, I guess I'm a little late to this party.

For my part: no, I would not use Linux if it were closed-source and/or commercial.

That being said, my main "production" OSs are closed-source and commercial, but that's a matter of history and also a matter of availability of software which does what I want and need. Why would I choose to run an OS which is closed source, commercial, and doesn't have all the software available for it that I need?

If it was closed source, but free, then you could still use it because $0 is a good selling point. I know that BSD would still be open source, but by the fact that you do use linux you must like something about it more than BSD. I assume that what ever it is you would still like more if it was closed source.

[asifnaz]

Yes, as I prefer Linux distros to any alternative that exists at the moment. Though I am looking forward to Haiku R1.

Out of curiosity I googled it . Find it interesting and downloading is right now .

[Guitar John]

If there were other open source alternatives, I might look there.

If Ubuntu were still free of charge, I might stay put.

If Ubuntu was closed-source, and they charged for it, I would do what I do with any product that I purchase. I would weigh cost against features and choose accordingly.

[3Miro]

I am glad I got a lot of replies. It is interesting to see everyone's opinions. For those who said they would not trust the company, I have 2 questions:

1) who said it was a company? A person may develope it
2) Have you ever played free (not online) games? They are mostly not open source (I would not expect online ones to be open it could add unfair advantages for those who code).


I can only answer for myself.

1. A person or a company, either way you have to put your trust into someone else. In an open project anyone can verify other people's work, I don't have the expertise to start verifying the code in the Linux kernel so I do still have to trust the community to not hurt me, however, I trust the developers and the community to not hurt themselves (I just tag along for the ride helping in other ways if I can). On the same note, in an open project, the person who finds a problem is often the person who fixes it, in a closed environment like Windows, people that find problems have to resort to building third party AV software and such.

2. I do play free (as in beer) on-line games and I don't trust them. I trust my system to not let them do damage.

[nolag]

...
2. I do play free (as in beer) on-line games and I don't trust them. I trust my system to not let them do damage.

I guess that's the major difference between us, I trust the games :P. If I did not trust people I would compile it myself (after reading over it) I think a really crule way to harm someone (if one wanted to) would be to make an "open source" project but compile it differently and infect those who don't compile themselves (because let's face it not many of us do).

[MisterGaribaldi]

If it was closed source, but free, then you could still use it because $0 is a good selling point. I know that BSD would still be open source, but by the fact that you do use linux you must like something about it more than BSD. I assume that what ever it is you would still like more if it was closed source.

A significant part of what makes Linux appealing is its open-source nature. Closed wouldn't have the same appeal.

[Gremlinzzz]

No I would not use windows if it was open source.meaning you couldn't give me windows.
I would use Linux if it was not free.

[nolag]

No I would not use windows if it was open source.meaning you couldn't give me windows.
I would use Linux if it was not free.

Why would you not use windows if it was open? Are you scared too many people would exploit it (since it is so popular)? Also do you use windows now?

[Gremlinzzz]

Not the people but Microsoft is Evil and no I don't use any windows or windows products .pure Linux.

[kaldor]

Not the people but Microsoft is Evil and no I don't use any windows or windows products .pure Linux.

Is Mono/C# evil too?

[Gremlinzzz]

Is Mono/C# evil too?

windows products was going a bit far.so start a law suit Microsoft would.

[amauk]

Is Mono/C# evil too?It's certainly got the potential to be leveraged for evil (same as Oracle has done with Java)

[ErikNJ]

I would not use Ubuntu if it weren't open-source. I also don't see how it'd be possible for any Linux distribution to ever become closed (non-free).

In fact, I am not terribly comfortable using Flash or the NVidia driver and wish the FOSS alternatives would yield similar performance (I can say that the nouveau drivers are really impressive and I can get pretty decent 3D performance from them). When I buy my next laptop, I plan to research enough to be sure it works well with open-source drivers. As far as Flash, I'm not quite as bothered since it isn't a driver.

[amauk]

In fact, I am not terribly comfortable using Flash or the NVidia driver and wish the FOSS alternatives would yield similar performanceHopefully HTML5 will usurp flash in the coming years (for online video at least, youtube is paving the way, here)

[nolag]

It's certainly got the potential to be leveraged for evil (same as Oracle has done with Java)

What did Oracle do with Java that is evil?