Is too much publicity hurting Ubuntu?

[Jucato]

... well, at least Ubuntu's image. It seems that the user base is still strong. But anyway...

Ubuntu has recently made a lot of headlines in the tech world, from the Dapper release to Mark's recent appearance in the JavaOne convention. It has also generated some discussion about Ubuntu, some of them, not really that good.

Of course, the biggest issue is Ubuntu's relationship to Debian. It seems that despite Mark's attendance at the recent DebConf, there are still growing resentments against him (http://business.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/05/22/1240231&from=rss)

It also seems that Mark's plan for Dapper to be used on businesses as well as on desktops, making a "commercial venture" (http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2266567940.html) out of Ubuntu seems to also cast doubts on Ubuntu's "commitment to freedom".

Then there's also some people who think/say that Mr. Shuttleworth is a bit inconsistent in what he says and what he does, for example in something like Launchpad.

Is being the spotlight (too much?) bad for Ubuntu? Very few of these things were mentioned or discussed months ago, when Ubuntu was quietly sitting on the top (or at least one of the top?) and not making so much headlines except like "Ubuntu voted favorite distro" or something like that.

What's your opinion?

[RAV TUX]

... well, at least Ubuntu's image. It seems that the user base is still strong. But anyway...

Ubuntu has recently made a lot of headlines in the tech world, from the Dapper release to Mark's recent appearance in the JavaOne convention. It has also generated some discussion about Ubuntu, some of them, not really that good.

Of course, the biggest issue is Ubuntu's relationship to Debian. It seems that despite Mark's attendance at the recent DebConf, there are still growing resentments against him (http://business.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/05/22/1240231&from=rss)

It also seems that Mark's plan for Dapper to be used on businesses as well as on desktops, making a "commercial venture" (http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2266567940.html) out of Ubuntu seems to also cast doubts on Ubuntu's "commitment to freedom".

Then there's also some people who think/say that Mr. Shuttleworth is a bit inconsistent in what he says and what he does, for example in something like Launchpad.

Is being the spotlight (too much?) bad for Ubuntu? Very few of these things were mentioned or discussed months ago, when Ubuntu was quietly sitting on the top (or at least one of the top?) and not making so much headlines except like "Ubuntu voted favorite distro" or something like that.

What's your opinion?



Same old humdrum NO story that was brought up by Linux Magazine just in a different context here:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=179304

I think the controversy is speculative and not really as existent as these reporters make it out to be.

...but that is just my opinion, I could be wrong












.

[Rikostan]

I think people need to look at the actual product(in this case, the OS) and leave the petty politics out of it.

[Jucato]

@yozef: well, the link I gave about the DebConf comes from NewsForge and linked from LXer. It actually quotes a conversation from a Debian dev regarding Ubuntu. (And yes, I've read that thread and seen the screenshots of the article. That article could have done better and provided actual quotes/cases)


I think people need to look at the actual product(in this case, the OS) and leave the petty politics out of it.

Ideally, that would be nice. Unfortunately, the real world doesn't exclude politics, and sometimes seem to revolve around it. We also can't help it since Ubuntu is becoming a big distro (or is trying to be), almost rivaling the big guys in popularity.

I wonder if Shuttleworth made the right move in showing up in JavaOne, especially now that Stallman is downplaying/criticizing Sun's statements, calling it a no-event (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060524112209579). I'm relying on his instincts that made him a successful businessman (and a millionaire).

I'm beginning to think that too much publicity is bad publicity.

[RAV TUX]

I think people need to look at the actual product(in this case, the OS) and leave the petty politics out of it.

I agree with you here, as my wife always says "politics isn't talking about us why should we talk about politics?"


I think we should all enjoy Ubuntu, celebrate in our community, and help out how ever we can and let the so-called politics play themselves out elsewhere.









.

[prizrak]

The only bad thing about publicity is that it may turn people to Ubuntu who are not ready for it and the disappointment could result in bad publicity. Use of Ubuntu for business does in no shape or form make it a commercial distro. Canonical WILL provide support and customization services for those who pay for it but the main distro is still completely free, which does not conflict with FSF's philosophy.
When it comes to RMS he is a little (read completely) unreasonable. He wants everyone to be on the GPL v3, which might not be acceptable to a business (such as Sun) that is making money of the technology and wants to retain control over it. He calls it a non-event because Sun is not going GPL and he will never accept that.

[BoyOfDestiny]

The only bad thing about publicity is that it may turn people to Ubuntu who are not ready for it and the disappointment could result in bad publicity. Use of Ubuntu for business does in no shape or form make it a commercial distro. Canonical WILL provide support and customization services for those who pay for it but the main distro is still completely free, which does not conflict with FSF's philosophy.
When it comes to RMS he is a little (read completely) unreasonable. He wants everyone to be on the GPL v3, which might not be acceptable to a business (such as Sun) that is making money of the technology and wants to retain control over it. He calls it a non-event because Sun is not going GPL and he will never accept that.

That's worth the risk. Maybe some people will come to Ubuntu and like it. Other's may bang their head.

Free Software, does not mean it has to be free money wise. Stallman himself made a living for a while selling tapes with emacs. Free Software is about freedom.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html

As for him promoting the GPLv3, it isn't finalized yet.

Here is a link to Richard's article

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060524112209579

He isn't saying sun should GPLv3 java. He's saying that all they've done so far is make it easier to bundle java (which is "non-free" with distributions). There were lots of "yays" from the free software community. As of yet sun hasn't done anything that warrants that. That's his point.

[Jucato]

Of course I'm not saying that being Free Software/GPL means that you can't make money out of it by selling support. It just seems that with the publicity of Dapper being "enterprise-ready" some people might think that Ubuntu is going commercial (something like a Red Hat or Novell), whereas some Ubuntu users are bragging about it being totally free. Of course, you're only selling support, but some people might not see/understand the difference between selling support and selling software. They might think that "Oh, Ubuntu said this, but now it's saying that."

Of course, RMS' opinions on Sun doesn't really have much of a bearing on Ubuntu. But then, Mark shakes hands with Sun, RMS downplays Sun, people will might think "what the hell was Mark thinking?!"

Anyway, it's all about other people's opinions. Most of them non-Ubuntu users. (Although there seems to be someone really disliking Mark here :D). If Ubuntu delivers what it promises, then I guess it will make up for any negative publicity (if there is one).

However, I really find the Debian dev's comments really damaging and possibly hurtful.

@BoyOfDestiny: would that link be identical to the one I posted a few posts up?

[catlett]

It's not politics but opinions of debian attendees at debconf. They make some interesting points.

Politics aside, Ubuntu has diverged enough from Debian that you can no longer assume a Debian package will install and run in Ubuntu or vice versa. And there are other factors that separate Ubuntu from its Debian parent:

* Canonical is not a non-profit. Shuttleworth may be plowing a substantial percentage of his fortune into Ubuntu development now, but he eventually hopes to make money from this venture by offering commercial Ubuntu support, customization, and other services.
* Shuttleworth was a Debian person long before he got rich, but he is by no means a "free software or die" guy. Indeed, one of Canonical's larger projects, Launchpad, is not free software. The site's FAQ says some or all of it may be free someday, "... though it will take some time (potentially, years) before that happens."
* Ubuntu loves Python. Warren Woodford of MEPIS has switched the MEPIS base from Debian to Ubuntu, and has some add-on control panel feature he plans to submit to both Ubuntu and KDE as an act of good open source citizenship, but he says, "They'll be rejected automatically because they're in C, not Python." Warren isn't the only programmer who prefers (fill in language here) over Python.
* Ubuntu's tight release schedule can compromise quality. Debian is famous for being "behind the times" when it comes to having the latest packages available, especially in its stable branch. But you never see bug reports like these Ubuntu OpenOffice.org bugs for Debian.

This last factor -- the quality thing -- is what bothers Brazilian Debian developer Otavio Salvador most about Ubuntu and keeps him loyal to tried and true, stodgy Debian. He told me the Ubuntu emphasis on releases every six months has led to "some ugly hacks." He used the code that powers Ubuntu's boot splash screen as an example. It looks good to users, he said. The problems "are not something a user sees, but they caused problems with LTSP," (the Linux Terminal Server Project) which is one of Salvador's prime interests.

Salvador said he recently sent six patches for LTSP-related bugs to Debian maintainers, and that those bugs were fixed almost immediately, but that those same bugs have not yet been fixed in Ubuntu. "Users trust you," he said. "You have to give them things that are stable." And he is not sure Ubuntu is committed to doing this. He also personally distrusts Shuttleworth to the point where he bluntly told me, "What he says and what he does are different," and went on to say that the "relationship is terrible" between Ubuntu and Debian, with the quality vs. release schedule problem creating much of the friction.

Because of what he called "a lot of mistakes" in Ubuntu packages, Salvador said he believes Ubuntu should not be used on production servers. He noted, though, that not everyone agrees with him on this, and pointed out that "I don't say to people directly, 'Don't use it,' but I don't use it."

[Jucato]

Is it really true, I mean, regarding the quality of Ubuntu being affected by the fixed development/release schedule, involving some "dirty hacks"? I haven't seen such hacks yet, probably because they are quite hidden from users I guess.

[Lanseta]

Being a Vista Alternative (http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/50565.html), The empire will strike it down at all cost. ](*,)

I dont really care about Debian and Ubuntu issues. Its Ubuntu vs. Vista is my concern. No fighting within the ranks pls.

[K.Mandla]

The only bad thing about publicity is that it may turn people to Ubuntu who are not ready for it and the disappointment could result in bad publicity.
That's my main concern. I'd like to think everyone who tries Ubuntu walks away a believer, but there are going to be some frustrated customers.

[RAV TUX]

It's not politics but opinions of debian attendees at debconf. They make some interesting points.
I have reconsidered my previous post,,,

This is very interesting indeed, some very interesting developements have been coming out of Brazil also I must say.






This last factor -- the quality thing -- is what bothers Brazilian Debian developer Otavio Salvador most about Ubuntu and keeps him loyal to tried and true, stodgy Debian. He told me the Ubuntu emphasis on releases every six months has led to "some ugly hacks." He used the code that powers Ubuntu's boot splash screen as an example. It looks good to users, he said. The problems "are not something a user sees, but they caused problems with LTSP," (the Linux Terminal Server Project) which is one of Salvador's prime interests.

Salvador said he recently sent six patches for LTSP-related bugs to Debian maintainers, and that those bugs were fixed almost immediately, but that those same bugs have not yet been fixed in Ubuntu. "Users trust you," he said. "You have to give them things that are stable." And he is not sure Ubuntu is committed to doing this. He also personally distrusts Shuttleworth to the point where he bluntly told me, "What he says and what he does are different," and went on to say that the "relationship is terrible" between Ubuntu and Debian, with the quality vs. release schedule problem creating much of the friction.

Because of what he called "a lot of mistakes" in Ubuntu packages, Salvador said he believes Ubuntu should not be used on production servers. He noted, though, that not everyone agrees with him on this, and pointed out that "I don't say to people directly, 'Don't use it,' but I don't use it."



Dreamlinux Studio Edition could be compared to OS X but much better in it's specailized way.
http://www.dreamlinux.com.br/english/index.html


and Musix GNU + Linux is also very admirable:
http://www.musix.org.ar/en/index.html

I'm sure there are others...





Originally Posted by Lanseta (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=114193)
I dont really care about Debian and Ubuntu issues. Its Ubuntu vs. Vista is my concern. No fighting within the ranks pls.

Vista is a joke, they have already announced further delays, it will be like the New Coke or "Pennies From Heaven"




.

[prizrak]

That's worth the risk. Maybe some people will come to Ubuntu and like it. Other's may bang their head.
It might, it might not be. The problem is the timeframe. From what I seen of Dapper it is excellent but I think that the publicity should have come after CnR (or a similar service) was introduced (if it ever will be), since you know that alot of regular users will not understand why they can't play mp3's out of the box. I think the main issue is really timing. We'll see either way so far I like it.

Free Software, does not mean it has to be free money wise. Stallman himself made a living for a while selling tapes with emacs. Free Software is about freedom.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html

As for him promoting the GPLv3, it isn't finalized yet.

Here is a link to Richard's article

I know that was actually my response to the OP saying that people view Ubuntu being enterprise ready as becoming commercial, which is obviously not true. I only brought up v3 because he is very much against DRM (to the point where it will hurt Linux on desktop rather than help) and because RMS very much prefers v3 over v2 (even tho it's not final).

He isn't saying sun should GPLv3 java. He's saying that all they've done so far is make it easier to bundle java (which is "non-free" with distributions). There were lots of "yays" from the free software community. As of yet sun hasn't done anything that warrants that. That's his point.
I might be misunderstanding the situation, in my experience however RMS does not believe in live and let live philosophy. To him being completely free (the GPL) is the end goal and he doesn't seem to accept anything else. I must admit I dislike him for that, he is not very realistic and I don't believe that FOSS can (or will) produce certain highly specific software.

* Canonical is not a non-profit. Shuttleworth may be plowing a substantial percentage of his fortune into Ubuntu development now, but he eventually hopes to make money from this venture by offering commercial Ubuntu support, customization, and other services.
I really don't see a problem with that. The distro is completely free/libre to any who want it, if organizations want support or customization I se
e no reason not to charge them.

* Shuttleworth was a Debian person long before he got rich, but he is by no means a "free software or die" guy. Indeed, one of Canonical's larger projects, Launchpad, is not free software. The site's FAQ says some or all of it may be free someday, "... though it will take some time (potentially, years) before that happens."

I'm not too sure what is going on with Launchpad. It does seem weird but at the same time maybe he wants full control over it until it is widely accepted or something. There is a rationale there I'm sure.

* Ubuntu loves Python. Warren Woodford of MEPIS has switched the MEPIS base from Debian to Ubuntu, and has some add-on control panel feature he plans to submit to both Ubuntu and KDE as an act of good open source citizenship, but he says, "They'll be rejected automatically because they're in C, not Python." Warren isn't the only programmer who prefers (fill in language here) over Python.
Everyone got language preferences. There could also be some sort of a hidden reason for Python over something else. Perhaps it is easier to develop everything in Python for integration. Could just be personal preference though, not like even superstars like Torvalds don't have those.

Ubuntu's tight release schedule can compromise quality. Debian is famous for being "behind the times" when it comes to having the latest packages available, especially in its stable branch. But you never see bug reports like these Ubuntu OpenOffice.org bugs for Debian.

This last factor -- the quality thing -- is what bothers Brazilian Debian developer Otavio Salvador most about Ubuntu and keeps him loyal to tried and true, stodgy Debian. He told me the Ubuntu emphasis on releases every six months has led to "some ugly hacks." He used the code that powers Ubuntu's boot splash screen as an example. It looks good to users, he said. The problems "are not something a user sees, but they caused problems with LTSP," (the Linux Terminal Server Project) which is one of Salvador's prime interests.

Salvador said he recently sent six patches for LTSP-related bugs to Debian maintainers, and that those bugs were fixed almost immediately, but that those same bugs have not yet been fixed in Ubuntu. "Users trust you," he said. "You have to give them things that are stable." And he is not sure Ubuntu is committed to doing this. He also personally distrusts Shuttleworth to the point where he bluntly told me, "What he says and what he does are different," and went on to say that the "relationship is terrible" between Ubuntu and Debian, with the quality vs. release schedule problem creating much of the friction.

Because of what he called "a lot of mistakes" in Ubuntu packages, Salvador said he believes Ubuntu should not be used on production servers. He noted, though, that not everyone agrees with him on this, and pointed out that "I don't say to people directly, 'Don't use it,' but I don't use it."


From what I have seen in Dapper it is not true. If there are ugly hacks they seem to work extremely well. Yes Debian is super stable and very well made, however it is so behind the times that using it on a desktop is pretty much impossible. Ubuntu is a desktop distro even on the enterprise level it's mostly meant to be a desktop and not really a server. Debian is a server distro, there is different focus.

I really think that the Debian people are getting a little pissy because while Ubuntu is based on Debian and was very close with them in the beginning it is now very much on its own and people prefer it. It seems to be an ego issue. It's like the new kid in school getting all the girls/guys.

[BoyOfDestiny]

I think you are being a tad hard on Stallman.

He doesn't want all software to be GPL'd. Anything private should be up to the author. For published software, he would. It makes sense from the perspective he's coming from.
He doesn't want devs & community to be a doormat. Taking their work, closing it up (ala OS X let's say), then you are stuck competing against your own work...

Anyway, he doesn't come into my home and say I can't use macromedia flash though... So really, you can do what you like without his approval...

http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt

Transcript of one of his speeches. It hits some things right on the head, even though it's from 5 years ago... Gives incite into how and why the free software movement started (over a closed printer driver!) However, it is an extremely long long read...
I think I finally understand what Free Software means, where it came from, etc... Give it a go if you have time.

[catlett]

Just to comment on the article again.
I can see how they are getting mad. If you read the article
I'm also using this example because several people at DebConf told me the person primarily responsible for GNOME package maintenance in Ubuntu -- as a paid Canonical employee -- is also the primary Debian GNOME package maintainer, and added the most recent version of GNOME to Ubuntu several months before he got around to adding it to Debian's unstable branch. This led to a certain amount of ill will toward Ubuntu from Debian believers, especially since other, similar tales of divided loyalty by developers who work on both Ubuntu and Debian were making the rounds, too. One DebConf attendee summed it up to me this way: "Nobody wants to do Ubuntu packaging all day at work, then do Debian packaging at night on his own time. That's just too much. Shuttleworth is grabbing the Debian volunteers who work on free Debian packages. Now they are paid people working on an OS that has profit in it's long term sites (not as problem with me per se but Debian is big on it's social contract) In turn they are neglecting Debian packages because they are full time on Ubuntu. Ubuntu is stripping Debian resources. I would be surprised if their wasn't a Debian backlash against Shuttleworth

[graabein]

When someone or something is enjoying too much success people allways turn and talk you down. That's just the way it is.

As long as the product is great I don't pay much attention to the chatter. If Dapper delivers its promise and the Edgy Eft paves new ground all is well! I also hope these forums and the people responsible keep being great!



And also the ethics and the way things are done have to be in place. I don't want to support a "dirty" distro.

[tseliot]

If the relationship between Ubuntu and Debian is the one reported in the article I think that Shuttleworth might need to improve the procedures of passing fixed bugs to Debian. Or at least the process might follow Debian's standard procedures and include more details as, in my opinion, contributing to Debian (also with bugfixes) is fundamental to the life of Ubuntu.

As far as Shuttleworth paying Debian volunteers (and thus subtracting their time) I can't see where the problem is. If they didn't work for Shuttleworth they would have to work somewhere else and they would spend their time differently.

I admit that I don't understand the danger lying beneath Launchpad. Would anyone mind to explain that a bit more in detail (or to point me to an artcle that deals with it)?

In conclusion if Shuttleworth wants to make money out of commercial support my life doesn't changes and I don't see how that could change the market. Perhaps Ubuntu can subtract customers to Suse or Redhat (which provide commercial support)

[Jucato]

If the relationship between Ubuntu and Debian is the one reported in the article I think that Shuttleworth might need to improve the procedures of passing fixed bugs to Debian. Or at least the process might follow Debian's standard procedures and include more details as, in my opinion, contributing to Debian (also with bugfixes) is fundamental to the life of Ubuntu.

I agree on this. If what the Debian devs say about how Ubuntu gives back patches were true, I guess they better work things out. I'm not sure if the silence from Ubuntu regarding this matter is helping.


As far as Shuttleworth paying Debian volunteers (and thus subtracting their time) I can't see where the problem is. If they didn't work for Shuttleworth they would have to work somewhere else and they would spend their time differently.

Well, the problem is that, according to the article, those Debian devs hired by Shuttleworth either start to work less on their volunteer work in Debian (which has not, or will not, hire anyone) or delay in giving patches to Debian (if that's how I understand it). If they didn't work for Mark, they might be working elsewhere, but probably not somewhere that would have conflicting interests with Debian. I think that's basically the problem of this aspect. Loyalty and conflicting interests.


I admit that I don't understand the danger lying beneath Launchpad. Would anyone mind to explain that a bit more in detail (or to point me to an artcle that deals with it)?

Ask lovechild. He seems to know quite a lot about it. All I know is that Canonical/Mark has said that they might release Launchpad under GPL in the future, but has not started anything that would back this up. I'm also not too informed about this, though.


In conclusion if Shuttleworth wants to make money out of commercial support my life doesn't changes and I don't see how that could change the market. Perhaps Ubuntu can subtract customers to Suse or Redhat (which provide commercial support)

I guess what would be affected primarily will be Shuttleworth's image. If (a big if) it will be proven that he is indeed having double standards or is lying (as some would put it), his integrity would be in question and his image greatly affected. And as he is the primary driving force in Ubuntu, this will still trickle down to Ubuntu.

But I'm hoping that all these are just FUD (probably not so much on the Debian issues). So far, from what I've read, Mark has been one of the most down-to-earth leaders that I've known/read about in the Linux industry (even the way he dresses when everyone else is in formal attire says a lot). I guess Dapper will really either make or break people's expectations. The whole Linux world might be watching on June 1st...

[prizrak]

I think you are being a tad hard on Stallman.

He doesn't want all software to be GPL'd. Anything private should be up to the author. For published software, he would. It makes sense from the perspective he's coming from.
He doesn't want devs & community to be a doormat. Taking their work, closing it up (ala OS X let's say), then you are stuck competing against your own work...

Anyway, he doesn't come into my home and say I can't use macromedia flash though... So really, you can do what you like without his approval...

http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt

Transcript of one of his speeches. It hits some things right on the head, even though it's from 5 years ago... Gives incite into how and why the free software movement started (over a closed printer driver!) However, it is an extremely long long read...
I think I finally understand what Free Software means, where it came from, etc... Give it a go if you have time.
Haven't read the transcript yet it is quite long. I agree I do tend to be hard on Stallman. I was watching a panel discussion on open source where he was the opening speaker (Mark was also there actually) and what he was saying sounded very unrealistic and inpractical. Personally I find him too idealistic but then again if he wasn't we probably wouldn't had GNU right now.

Back on topic though. I think that Debian has a point about their devs being "stolen" by the Ubuntu project. However those devs made that choice it's not like Mark is keeping them in his basement chained to computers (well maybe he is but we don't know that).

Someone mentioned Debian's social contract, as far as I know the Debian project has quite a bit of money and my guess is that they do do commercial support for enterprises. In fact I'm positive they do, no enterprise would ever use an OS for their server that was not commercially supported.

[eentonig]

Just to comment on the article again.
I can see how they are getting mad. If you read the article Shuttleworth is grabbing the Debian volunteers who work on free Debian packages. Now they are paid people working on an OS that has profit in it's long term sites (not as problem with me per se but Debian is big on it's social contract) In turn they are neglecting Debian packages because they are full time on Ubuntu. Ubuntu is stripping Debian resources. I would be surprised if their wasn't a Debian backlash against Shuttleworth


Can you blame him for hiring the best guy for the job? The package maintainer was probably doing this in his own time. Now he can do his hobby and get paid for it.
And yeah, if I pay a guy to package some soft, I would very well like him to first do the work I hired him for and for which I have a deadline, and then do the work he volunteered for.

[DigitalDuality]

And who's really to blame here? Shuttleworth isn't putting a gun to these guy's heads?

THe Debian devs that have crossed over (so to speak) did so on their own free will. If the debian community wants people to be pissed at, why not be pissed at the devs that switched?

I know, i know, it's easier to target a common figure head than actually address the issue you're mad about.

[catlett]

Can you blame him for hiring the best guy for the job? The package maintainer was probably doing this in his own time. Now he can do his hobby and get paid for it.
And yeah, if I pay a guy to package some soft, I would very well like him to first do the work I hired him for and for which I have a deadline, and then do the work he volunteered for.
Did you read the article? That is a link to it in the thread. That wasn't that guys hobby -- is also the primary Debian GNOME package maintainer He is the Debian package manager for Gnome. Debian is a way of life for those involved and just because they volunteer doesn't make there work a hobby. That is condescending to them and belittles their hard work.
There really isn't any sense arguing with you because you are clearly indoctrinated in American Capitalism and believe money is everything. To you money is everything but not to the people at Debian. And what Shutttleworth is doing is not in the spitit of GNU and open source.
What he is doing is fine in a capitalistic way but don't go attending Debian and GNU or Open source conferences and act like your one of them. He is taking and not giving back. He has taken all the work that Debian volunteers have given and is going to turn it into a for profit business. And along the way he is going to destroy Debian because Ubuntu will be a brain drain on Debian. But to a capitalistic end-user like yourself it won't matter but to someone who thinks gnu is an incredible concept in the world, it is sad that Shuttleworth is bringing capitalism in and tearing it down.
Read the article. My opinion doesn't matter because I am not involved but those attendees are Debian and their opinion does matter when it comes to how Debian is used.
You don't see Linspire or Xandros acting like they're gnu and neither should Shuttleworth.
In case everyone has forgotten what has gotten us all together i.e. without Debian there would be no Ubuntu and without Ubuntu obviously there wouldn't be the Ubuntu Cafe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Social Contract with the Free Software Community
Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component.

We will give back to the free software community
When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We will make the best system we can, so that free works will be widely distributed and used. We will communicate things such as bug fixes, improvements and user requests to the "upstream" authors of works included in our system.

We will not hide problems
We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view at all times. Reports that people file online will promptly become visible to others.

Our priorities are our users and free software
We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non-free works that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to charge a fee to people who create or use such works. We will allow others to create distributions containing both the Debian system and other works, without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals, we will provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with no legal restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system.

Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug tracking system and mailing lists).

[Christmas]

Canonical is not a non-profit. Shuttleworth may be plowing a substantial percentage of his fortune into Ubuntu development now, but he eventually hopes to make money from this venture by offering commercial Ubuntu support, customization, and other services.
I don't find anything bad in Canonical providing commercial stuff. Since I've read this, a thought I had many times since I made the transition from Windows to Linux was "How can I earn a living from developing programs for Linux?". I must say I'm a student at a computer college, so programming would be my main activity. I didn't find serious documentation on earning a living in an open-source world (most apps are open source and GPL licensed, if you make a closed-source program for Linux who's going to use it?). There are some examples, like games, but are there methods to actually do money developing for Linux?

[egon spengler]

Did you read the article? That is a link to it in the thread. That wasn't that guys hobby -- is also the primary Debian GNOME package maintainer He is the Debian package manager for Gnome. Debian is a way of life for those involved and just because they volunteer doesn't make there work a hobby. That is condescending to them and belittles their hard work.
There really isn't any sense arguing with you because you are clearly indoctrinated in American Capitalism and believe money is everything. To you money is everything but not to the people at Debian. And what Shutttleworth is doing is not in the spitit of GNU and open source.

Well I don't know the individual involved but I assume that like most people he is not so that wealthy that he doesn't need a job. Shuttleworth offered them a job as a package maintainer and they took it.

What is there for you to be mad at? The dev had the option of declining the offer, personally I turned down a higher paying job that ofered 50% more to take my current position because it's what I would have prefered to do. Why was this option not available to the Debian dev? Oh wait a second, it was. I guess maybe Debian people aren't really some higher breed of people with priorities beyond such petty trivialities as money.

What you need to bear in mind is that as a volunteer he or she is well within their rights to withdraw or just reprioritise their assistance. Their time is a donation and so how can you be so ungrateful as to complain that they are not donating enough? I don't know the canonical working practises but I assume that the dev in question would be working similar hours to those they would at a third party software development role. I think it being ubuntu they are working is just a convenient angle, if the dev was working for Samsung and coming home too tired/drained/whatever to work on Debian packages would there be an outcry tht Samsung is trying to hamstring OS development?

[prizrak]

Did you read the article? That is a link to it in the thread. That wasn't that guys hobby -- is also the primary Debian GNOME package maintainer He is the Debian package manager for Gnome. Debian is a way of life for those involved and just because they volunteer doesn't make there work a hobby. That is condescending to them and belittles their hard work.
There really isn't any sense arguing with you because you are clearly indoctrinated in American Capitalism and believe money is everything. To you money is everything but not to the people at Debian. And what Shutttleworth is doing is not in the spitit of GNU and open source.
What he is doing is fine in a capitalistic way but don't go attending Debian and GNU or Open source conferences and act like your one of them. He is taking and not giving back. He has taken all the work that Debian volunteers have given and is going to turn it into a for profit business. And along the way he is going to destroy Debian because Ubuntu will be a brain drain on Debian. But to a capitalistic end-user like yourself it won't matter but to someone who thinks gnu is an incredible concept in the world, it is sad that Shuttleworth is bringing capitalism in and tearing it down.
Read the article. My opinion doesn't matter because I am not involved but those attendees are Debian and their opinion does matter when it comes to how Debian is used.
You don't see Linspire or Xandros acting like they're gnu and neither should Shuttleworth.
In case everyone has forgotten what has gotten us all together i.e. without Debian there would be no Ubuntu and without Ubuntu obviously there wouldn't be the Ubuntu Cafe
Calling something a hobby does not belittle anyone in any way shape or form. My hobby is racing cars that doesn't make me a crappy driver that just means it's not my full time job. Volunteering for the project means that there has to be some other source of income, whatever that source is. That particular developer still has expenses and needs money to survive. I don't believe that money is everything, however money is a necessity in the modern world like it or not.

I very much don't see how Canonical is not in spirit of free software or how Ubuntu is not giving back to the community. The OS is completely free in both senses of the word, the source code is open to anyone to use. I very much see no way how Ubuntu is breaking the FSF philosophy. They provide paid support and customization but that's not against RMS's ideals in any way shape or form.

Yes Canonical employs Debian Debs. Ubuntu is based on Debian so having DD's on the team is highly beneficial. It's not like they are forced to work on Ubuntu it is fairly obvious that the devs find the project interesting and worth their time. Besides it's not like there are only the fixed number of devs that are skilled enough for Debian so someone else might come.

[dmacdonald111]

As far as I know, ubuntu is based on linux and linux is open-source. Therefore, just because one person goes around to all of these functions and puts a face to the people behind ubuntu shouldn't be taken in any form that this is to do with politics. Again, therefore, anyone who is at any official (or unofficial for that matter) function increasing the public view of linux/ubuntu is representing everyone who has ever developed, tested, or used the system. Secondly, I think it's great that ubuntu IS getting big and SHOULD be used in the workplace. I was actually thinking the other day to do a comparison between microsoft products and similar products on ubuntu for my website so that people could see that it is actually possible to run a business from ubuntu. But anyhoo, politics should not come into it - get on ubuntu! :-D

[catlett]

The point is about how Debian feels about someone who uses there system and claims to be one of them. Its not about his business practices.
To them this is not what being part of gnu is,
Debian Project Secretary Manoj Srivastava worries about Ubuntu's tendency to treat "upstream providers" poorly. In a private conversation over breakfast, he spent at least half an hour telling me that when Shuttleworth claimed bug reports and patches from Ubuntu were always fed back to Debian, he was not telling the whole truth. Yes, Srivastava said, perhaps a whole stack of patches and bugs are sent to Debian or posted somewhere, but the right way to deal with an upstream developer or project is to send specific patches and bug reports directly to the person who could do something about them, along with direct contact information for the person submitting them rather than having all the ones coming to Debian from Ubuntu being "from Ubuntu." again it is not from a regular persons point of view. It is from the view of Debian people who think Ubuntu isn't following gnu.

[egon spengler]

Its not about his business practices.

Well you and the thread starter brought up his business practices so I think ideally if you could make it about that I'm sure that you would. Only problem is that he's not doing anything that contradicts the GPL and so you realise you have little moral authority to cast scorn on the guy for making some cash.

I don't know how damning you think that last quote was but it doesn't dispute that all ubuntu patches get passed back to Debian. The complaint was that the individual patches and bugs aren't passed directly to the releveant developer or assigned a contact. I'm sure that is often very annoying for the Debian maintainers (it must be hassle enough fielding bug reports without being expected to sift through a tonne of ubuntu discovered bugs to see IF one is for your project), still not quite as sinister as you or the author of that article would like to make out though

To be honest I'm not overly familiar with the underlying "concepts" of GNU, I just had a brief look at wikipedia and gnu.org and neither one of them stressed the importance of proper bug reporting as a preequisite of GNU

[Jucato]

I wasn't really focusing on Mark's business practices when I started the thread. I was just wondering if all this media hype on Ubuntu is throwing undue/unnecessary attention to some things. Mark's business practices (or as some would say, his double standards) is just one. The relationship with Debian is another one, although it seems to have existed before but is really being spread around now. Then there's Launchpad, which I have so little knowledge about.

Regarding Ubuntu selling support and making money, I know there's nothing wrong with that and nothing against FSF/GPL. I just read somewhere that Mark gave a lot of money into Ubuntu, but in the end he really just wants to make money out of it, or something like that. I personally think that he deserves to get some income through Ubuntu, he's money isn't infinite and the more money he has, the more he can fund Ubuntu right? :D I'm just worried that people might begin to equate Ubuntu with Linspire, especially after the news regarding CnR.

Regarding the hiring of Debian devs to work for Ubuntu, it's not bad in itself, of course. It gets bad when a dev is an important Debian dev and begins to slowly neglect Debian because of his work in Ubuntu. It's like he's riding on the name of Debian, yet cashing in on Ubuntu. I understand why some Debian devs would feel a bit betrayed. It's really a conflict of interest.

Regarding the upstream-downstream of patches, I have no clue as to how those work. But I guess it's not something that couldn't be worked out. I'm willing to bet that those Debian devs complaining about how Ubuntu should have given back patches didn't actually sit down and discuss it with the Ubuntu team. Maybe the problem is how Ubuntu gives back patches. Maybe the problem is how Debian handles the upstream. Maybe the problem is the upstream process itself. Whatever it is, I think they can work it out if they just talk about it among themselves and left the media out of it.

Ubuntu is a great distro and has worked greatly so far. I just don't like that people's impressions on it be prejudiced by things like this.

[prizrak]

The point is about how Debian feels about someone who uses there system and claims to be one of them. Its not about his business practices.
To them this is not what being part of gnu is,again it is not from a regular persons point of view. It is from the view of Debian people who think Ubuntu isn't following gnu.
This quote doesn't show whether the Debian project made any attempts to mitigate the issue. It is easy to complain about something w/o doing anything about it.
I agree that Ubuntu - Debian relationship should improve but it won't be solved by one side only. I respect Mark for what he does (not just with Ubuntu he is a major philantropist) and while no one is perfect I so far see no issue with how he is conducting himself and his distro.
From what I know about the Debian project though is that it always had major issues among the developers. I think Ubuntu might be a scapegoat. Again I'm not saying that you are wrong or that the Debian project are just whining, however I do not see anything wrong with what Mark is doing and I can't expect a project with as many issues as Debian to not have problems with what is really their desktop division.
I also don't see how Ubuntu is not following GNU (remember Debian devs are not infallible). I can't remember when Mark ever claimed to be part of the Debian project from what I know he said he respected their ideals and thought they had an excellent distribution. His only claim was that Ubuntu works with the upstream and provides any code they create to all of them, which is actually supported by the provided quote. Whether they are using the wrong venues on purpose would be the real issue.

[Jucato]

Just read this a while ago. It's a blog entry from Joey Hess, a Debian volunteer. His fears are not really focused on Ubuntu but also on other Debian-based distros. I guess Ubuntu should try to mend relationships with Debian before matters get worse, if they're really broken, or strengthen their bonds, if they still exist.

http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/the_supermarket_thing.html

[catlett]

I am going to stop posting in the Ubuntu Cafe because you guys are turing this into something else. The posts are their comments not mine (the debian attendess from debconf). It isn't about anything else. I made an opinion that it doesn't bother me per se (i.e. personally his actions don't bother me at all) But I can understand how they feel. Debian built there whole system through volunteers and people are free to use it, they only ask that bug fixes and patches get back.
Personally I use to feel like Ubuntu was taking GNU to the next level and this was a great social endeavor but now I feel like it is a smart business move.
Like you have posted we all have a right to make a choice, so I'm going to spend more time in my Debian install than my Ubuntu, at least my bug reports will get to debian.

[Jucato]

I am going to stop posting in the Ubuntu Cafe because you guys are turing this into something else.

Who are you refering to? What is "this" that we are turning into something else?

Regarding the relationship between Ubuntu and Debian, I only post what I've read. And if I will base my opinions purely on what I've read, I have to agree and sympathize with the Debian devs.

But then I've only read half of the story. To date, there has been no word from any Ubuntu dev that would support or refute this issue. It's like a full media blackout has been called, and we can only speculate. The Debian developers have been more vocal in this matter.

Debian is a great distro. I personally consider it sort of a legendary figure in Linux distros. Without it, the DEB package management upon which so many distros are based would not exist. That's why I hope that whatever the situation is between Debian and Ubuntu would change for the better.

As for Ubuntu being a smart business move, I'm not actually sure about that, after some thinking. From the beginning, Ubuntu has always said that it offers commercial support for it. It has never hidden that fact. Probably it has never been emphasized or well-known until now, because Ubuntu has been more famous for desktop rather than business uses. So it might be somewhat of a shock to others because of the all the attention that Dapper is getting.

P.S. Not that I'm trying to pull you back or anything, but please don't base your leaving Ubuntu on just one thread or from the opinions/views of some people. This is the Ubuntu Cafe, where any and all opinions are expressed. It does not in anyway represent the sentiments of the whole Ubuntu community. But of course, the choice is yours (where have I heard that before? :D)

[egon spengler]

Who are you refering to? What is "this" that we are turning into something else?

It's a fairly common occurence on forums, somebody posts something expecting a blanket response of "Why yes, you are 100% correct, let us all bask in your brilliance". Anything less than that and they take offence and go to play somewhere else

[prizrak]

catlett,
If you are refering to me, I apologize if you felt I was attacking you. I was simply stating that the debconf comments didn't really show any reason to think that Ubuntu is nothing but a clever business move.

From the blog that Fenyx posted it is obvious that Debian is talking about all of the distros and are using Ubuntu as an example because of how well known it is. I also believe that Debian is a bit confused on what they are normally thought of. That blog shows that Debian is wanting to do desktops, which is why there is friction with Ubuntu because it's basically a Debian for desktops. Debian is a server distro and should focus on that, Ubuntu is a desktop distro despite having a server install.