Would Google be good for ubuntu/linux in general?

[moorhead98]

I'm not saying it's going to happen or anything, I'm just curious:
If Chrome OS were to flop, would you think Google would go out and purchase Canoncial/Ubuntu and use/rebrand it on a new line of computers?

What I'm trying to get at is like when Google bought android from whoever, and then kept adding on to it until it was one of, if not, the biggest mobile operating system(s).
Does anybody else beside me think that something like that could happen? Or am I just crazy?
And if it did, would it be good or bad for ubuntu and linux in general?
Once again, I'm not saying Google will buy them, the thought just popped in my head one day and I felt compelled to see what others think.

[v1ad]

Google didn't buy Android they created it.

[moorhead98]

Google didn't buy Android they created it.
I read somewhere that it was a small project that they then bought (I'll try and find the link)

[moorhead98]

Google didn't buy Android they created it.
Its explained here in the second paragraph in this good old Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29)

[gardnan]

I really don't think that Google is going to purchase Canonical anytime soon, especially since they just bought Motorola for 12.5 billion. However, if Google did buy Ubuntu, that would make me concerned. While Google has better open-source relations that certain other companies, their privacy track record and their "means-to-an-end" open source attitude would probably get me to switch pretty quickly. If Google bought Canonical, Ubuntu would finally be separated from the Linux community at large.

[IWantFroyo]

Google didn't buy Android they created it.

Incorrect.
Android is on the Google Acquisitions list in Wikipedia.
If I'm not mistaken, a company called Danger originally created Android.

As for Google buying Ubuntu... I certainly wouldn't support it. They could very well slowly close off the "open-source-ness," like they did with Android (remember Honeycomb?).
The position Ubuntu is in right now is much better than what Google would do to it.

[Copper Bezel]

I like Google, but I also like Ubuntu being independent and mostly commercial-free. I'd not only be worried about Google's intentions with a project like Ubuntu, but curious what the motivation would be at all - Chromium OS, and thus the Chromebook Google Chrome OS, is already built on an Ubuntu base (not Gentoo as I'd thought; it's only used for the unofficial non-Google ChromeOS platform distro) and Google already has its own quite capable Linux in Android. Google's browser-centric approach and claims of simplicity wouldn't be in keeping with a full desktop OS of Ubuntu's type.

[moorhead98]

I like Google, but I also like Ubuntu being independent and mostly commercial-free. I'd not only be worried about Google's intentions with a project like Ubuntu, but curious what the motivation would be at all - Chromium OS, and thus the Chromebook Google Chrome OS, is already built on an Ubuntu base (not Gentoo as I'd thought; it's only used for the unofficial non-Google ChromeOS platform distro) and Google already has its own quite capable Linux in Android. Google's browser-centric approach and claims of simplicity wouldn't be in keeping with a full desktop OS of Ubuntu's type.
I guess what would be interesting is if they did acquire Ubuntu, what they would do with it. I think chrome os is sorta stupid, so i would be devastated if they made Ubuntu into it.
And what about Unity? Does anybody think that they would chop it off and make their own desktop, or make it better?
and i believe that chrome os is built off of debian squeeze, or ubuntu. Not sure though

[Thewhistlingwind]

and i believe that chrome os is built off of debian squeeze, or ubuntu. Not sure though

I read it was Gentoo, cause they use portage.

EDIT: @Copper Bezel, source, I am curious about this subject.

As for google itself, I doubt they would be interested in buying out the Ubuntu project.

Especially after they just shelled out for Motorola.

[kvv_1986]

They apparently used upstart which was developed by a Canonical guy, though. So basically a mishmash of various things put together. So yah.. gentoo. :P

And by the way, it will be great if Google would contribute to Ubuntu. They already have their own spin of Ubuntu that they use internally.

[tmette]

I do like Google, but I believe they already have enough of my information and I don't want my OS to be owned by them. I love my Android phone, but I also support open-source software. By not having money when I was younger, open-source was always the way to go for me. I have finally converted over to Ubuntu and I love it.

[wojox]

No, I don't see it happening ever.

ChromeOS is still built with 10.04 - Lucid - 64 bit.

[moorhead98]

I read it was Gentoo, cause they use portage.

EDIT: @Copper Bezel, source, I am curious about this subject.

As for google itself, I doubt they would be interested in buying out the Ubuntu project.

Especially after they just shelled out for Motorola.

Yeah, that was a pretty big deal. But, correct me if I am wrong, Canoncial isn't worth much.
I cant say exactly how much they are worth, or really find out how much they are worth, but here's and older thread that discussed it:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=978217

[Triblaze]

It'd be nice to see them build their own Linux distro, that way we could see how it goes and we'd have the option of it. It'd also probably add a lot of new ideas to the open source community.

But I wouldn't want them taking over my current OS.

[bobbob94]

As Canonical is a privately owned company there's no possibility of a hostile takeover by Google or anyone else, it would basically need Mark Shuttleworth to decide to sell up, which seems highly unlikely.

[moorhead98]

As Canonical is a privately owned company there's no possibility of a hostile takeover by Google or anyone else, it would basically need Mark Shuttleworth to decide to sell up, which seems highly unlikely.

Unless they pay prices like they did for Motorola.
Then Mark might take the money and go back to space, and take all the hard working Ubuntu dev's with him :D

[Dr. C]

Novel paid $210 million when they acquired SUSE in 2004. http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Novell-Completes-SUSE-Acquisition-Details-Indemnification-Program/. Canonical / Ubuntu today is worth a lot more than SUSE was worth back in 2004.

Was the purchase by Novell in 2004 of SUSE a good thing for SUSE and GNU / Linux in general?

[aysiu]

Novel paid $210 million when they acquired SUSE in 2004. http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Novell-Completes-SUSE-Acquisition-Details-Indemnification-Program/. Canonical / Ubuntu today is worth a lot more than SUSE was worth back in 2004.

Was the purchase by Novell in 2004 of SUSE a good thing for SUSE and GNU / Linux in general?
Are Novell and Google the same?

[ninjaaron]

Ok, this thread is based on the conception that Google could buy
Ubuntu. They cannot. There is nothing to buy. Almost every part
of Ubuntu is under the GLP, and anybody can fork it if they like.
Google has already forked Ubuntu for use in their offices, and
some parts of Ubuntu are in Chrome OS. Furthermore, Google
already makes contributions to the kernel and some to Ubuntu,
though not as many as some would like, since their versions are
heavily patched (much like Ubuntu and Debian, in fact).

Also, because Ubuntu is under the GPL, if they bought Canonical
(which is theoretically possible), anyone who had a problem with
it could fork it, no questions asked.

If Google were to acquire Canonical, I'm sure Linux would get a
lot of it's "problem areas" fixed up quickly, especially driver
support, and major companies such as adobe would begin to take the
platform seriously. In addition, any forks of Ubuntu would benefit
from improvements that Google would introduce.

In short, Google taking a lead role would be good for Linux. I'm
not sure if it would be good for Ubuntu in terms of it's own
goals, but it would be easy at that point to switch to another
distro and still benefit from many of Google's contributions.

[Dr. C]

Are Novell and Google the same?

It is the message that is sent to the marketplace, by placing a value on a GNU / Linux distribution. Create a successful GNU / Linux distribution and one can make a good profit by selling it. Here is a good question: What impact if any did the SUSE sale have on Mark Shuttleworth starting Ubuntu later the same year?

What the purchaser does after that sale is only a small part of the bigger picture.

[moorhead98]

It is the message that is sent to the marketplace, by placing a value on a GNU / Linux distribution. Create a successful GNU / Linux distribution and one can make a good profit by selling it. Here is a good question: What impact if any did the SUSE sale have on Mark Shuttleworth starting Ubuntu later the same year?

What the purchaser does after that sale is only a small part of the bigger picture.

Quite True. But we can't be sure that Ubuntu was created because of SUSE's purchase.
But it is a very good idea, that if something like this were to happen, would some rich guy (Just for fun, lets say Mark Zuckerburg) make up a new distro? Chances are, no.

[moorhead98]

I really don't think that Google is going to purchase Canonical anytime soon, especially since they just bought Motorola for 12.5 billion. However, if Google did buy Ubuntu, that would make me concerned. While Google has better open-source relations that certain other companies, their privacy track record and their "means-to-an-end" open source attitude would probably get me to switch pretty quickly. If Google bought Canonical, Ubuntu would finally be separated from the Linux community at large.

Also, not to mention, the open-ness of Ubuntu would probably decrease. Android is only 20 something percent open source, so it would make some sense that Ubuntu would be far less open then it is

[aysiu]

Mark Shuttleworth starting Ubuntu in 2004 and Novell buying SuSE in 2004 is just coincidence, unless you provide some evidence otherwise. Really, apart from this thread, I have read no mention of any connection between the two, not even from the "boycott Novell" folks.

What Mark Shuttleworth has said numerous times, which makes sense, is that creating Ubuntu was a natural outgrowth of his experience with open source software and his trip to space. For example, from 'Linux is a platform for people, not just specialists' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/22/internet.software):
Technology Guardian: To what extent did your space trip feed into Ubuntu?

Mark Shuttleworth Going to space and seeing the Earth from a distance makes it very clear just how interdependent we are. So I wanted to do something that was really global; free software is a phenomenon that is truly global. No mention of SuSE in there at all.

Really, why woud it matter at all to Mark Shuttleworth that Novell bought SuSE in 2004? Did he have anything against Novell? Did anybody?

It didn't appear to me that anyone had anything against Novell until it entered an agreement with Microsoft in 2006. Suddenly then Novell was "evil" and couldn't be trusted. Whether you believe that to be true or not is up to you, but that was well two years into Ubuntu's existence.

So if you're going to say Mark Shuttleworth started Ubuntu in opposition to Novell buying SuSE, why don't you pony up some evidence? When did he ever say that? What evidence do you have that he had any problem with Novell prior to 2004?

More importantly, what relevance does that have to Google? I don't believe Google has any interest in buying Ubuntu, and I don't believe Mark Shuttleworth has any interest in selling Ubuntu, but even if both situations were valid, are you trying to say Google will act exactly the same way Novell did? If so, why? What, based on Google's past behavior would lead you to say that?

If you can't answer all my questions, I'm just going to ignore any future insinuations and speculations on your part.

[ninjaaron]

Also, not to mention, the open-ness of Ubuntu would probably decrease.

Could you define that statement a little more precisely?

[moorhead98]

Mark Shuttleworth starting Ubuntu in 2004 and Novell buying SuSE in 2004 is just coincidence, unless you provide some evidence otherwise. Really, apart from this thread, I have read no mention of any connection between the two, not even from the "boycott Novell" folks.

What Mark Shuttleworth has said numerous times, which makes sense, is that creating Ubuntu was a natural outgrowth of his experience with open source software and his trip to space. For example, from 'Linux is a platform for people, not just specialists' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/22/internet.software): No mention of SuSE in there at all.

Really, why woud it matter at all to Mark Shuttleworth that Novell bought SuSE in 2004? Did he have anything against Novell? Did anybody?

It didn't appear to me that anyone had anything against Novell until it entered an agreement with Microsoft in 2006. Suddenly then Novell was "evil" and couldn't be trusted. Whether you believe that to be true or not is up to you, but that was well two years into Ubuntu's existence.

So if you're going to say Mark Shuttleworth started Ubuntu in opposition to Novell buying SuSE, why don't you pony up some evidence? When did he ever say that? What evidence do you have that he had any problem with Novell prior to 2004?

More importantly, what relevance does that have to Google? I don't believe Google has any interest in buying Ubuntu, and I don't believe Mark Shuttleworth has any interest in selling Ubuntu, but even if both situations were valid, are you trying to say Google will act exactly the same way Novell did? If so, why? What, based on Google's past behavior would lead you to say that?

If you can't answer all my questions, I'm just going to ignore any future insinuations and speculations on your part.

Nobody said that Ubuntu was started because of Novel buying SUSE.
Dr. C said, and I quote, "Here is a good question: What impact if any did the SUSE sale have on Mark Shuttleworth starting Ubuntu later the same year?"
Never in that did he say that was why Ubuntu was formed. He was proposing a question for people to think about, like mine with what would happen if google bought ubuntu.
What I was proposing in my second to last post was, if that was the reason for ubuntu's conception, then if something similar might happen if Ubuntu/Canoncial were to be purchased.
And could you please specify what you mean by, "are you trying to say Google will act exactly the same way Novell did? If so, why"
I am not sure what you meant by that.
Reply if you have any other questions

[moorhead98]

Could you define that statement a little more precisely?

Here's an article that showed how open source android really is.
http://www.techdrivein.com/2011/08/how-open-source-is-android-after-all.html
It shows that android is not as open source as other projects, and if something like Ubuntu were to be controlled by Google, what might happen to the open-ness of the project
Granted, It does say in the article that part of the reason may be because of phone companies trying to keep their phone networks safer. But I find it hard to believe that would keep it that closed.

[ninjaaron]

Here's an article that showed how open source android really is.
http://www.techdrivein.com/2011/08/how-open-source-is-android-after-all.html
It shows that android is not as open source as other projects, and if something like Ubuntu were to be controlled by Google, what might happen to the open-ness of the project
Granted, It does say in the article that part of the reason may be because of phone companies trying to keep their phone networks safer. But I find it hard to believe that would keep it that closed.
What a load of bull. While it is true that Google has more direct/dictatorial
control over what goes into Android, that isn't part of the "Open Source
Definition." (I have refered to this a lot lately, and it is a sort of arbitrary
definition, but it's where the terminology began, so it's the closest we'll get
to an "objective" definition) Anybody can do whatever they like with Android's
code, except close the source on their changes. Some of Google's bundled apps
are closed, but the platform is open. Even Linus Torvalds and Mark Shuttleworth
both give themselves the title of "benevolant dictator for life" for their
respective projects. They may be more open to contribution, but they both get
the final say on anything, and they can't be overruled by the community.

There is no such thing as a percentile ranking for something like open source.
Either it meets the definition or it doesn't. It is, of course, possible to
speak in specific legal terms and about spedific company or community practices
involving code, but those things don't boil down to numbers. I'm not saying I
agree with all of Google's practices or even support them in general. I'm just
saying you can't boil "openness" down to a perecent using any of the established
definitions. Please try again when you have specific practices you'd like to
discuss.

[Dr. C]

Mark Shuttleworth starting Ubuntu in 2004 and Novell buying SuSE in 2004 is just coincidence, unless you provide some evidence otherwise. Really, apart from this thread, I have read no mention of any connection between the two, not even from the "boycott Novell" folks.

What Mark Shuttleworth has said numerous times, which makes sense, is that creating Ubuntu was a natural outgrowth of his experience with open source software and his trip to space. For example, from 'Linux is a platform for people, not just specialists' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/22/internet.software): No mention of SuSE in there at all.

Really, why woud it matter at all to Mark Shuttleworth that Novell bought SuSE in 2004? Did he have anything against Novell? Did anybody?

It didn't appear to me that anyone had anything against Novell until it entered an agreement with Microsoft in 2006. Suddenly then Novell was "evil" and couldn't be trusted. Whether you believe that to be true or not is up to you, but that was well two years into Ubuntu's existence.

So if you're going to say Mark Shuttleworth started Ubuntu in opposition to Novell buying SuSE, why don't you pony up some evidence? When did he ever say that? What evidence do you have that he had any problem with Novell prior to 2004?

More importantly, what relevance does that have to Google? I don't believe Google has any interest in buying Ubuntu, and I don't believe Mark Shuttleworth has any interest in selling Ubuntu, but even if both situations were valid, are you trying to say Google will act exactly the same way Novell did? If so, why? What, based on Google's past behavior would lead you to say that?

If you can't answer all my questions, I'm just going to ignore any future insinuations and speculations on your part.

The relevance is that regardless of whether Canonical / Ubuntu is sold or not the SUSE sale placed a market valuation on a GNU / Linux distribution of a given size and market penetration. This is very relevant to anyone making a business case to invest in or purchase a GNU / Linux distribution. Furthermore it demonstrates that FLOSS can turn out to be very profitable to those who invest in it, while at the same time keeping it as FLOSS. All of this is highly relevant to any potential sale of any GNU / Linux distribution,

To summarize Freedom can also be highly Profitable when it comes to software. Red Hat is valued at $6.930,000,000 by the markets. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=RHT. What do you think Canonical / Ubuntu is worth?

A multi billion dollar takeover of a major GNU / Linux distribution will do wonders for GNU / Linux, FLOSS and the Open Source and Free Software movements in general.

[8_Bit]

Google would provide the much needed funding and business backing that Linux desperately needs to compete with Windows and Mac. Corporations and computer manufacturers would finally take it seriously, and I would expect pre-installed Linux systems to become quite common.

In the process of it all, however, Linux would risk losing its spirit of freedom. You decide whether that's a risk worth taking.

[Dr. C]

Google would provide the much needed funding and business backing that Linux desperately needs to compete with Windows and Mac. Corporations and computer manufacturers would finally take it seriously, and I would expect pre-installed Linux systems to become quite common.

This is very true. There is also the additional benefit that message this takeover sends in the marketplace. Once can get very rich from FLOSS projects.


In the process of it all, however, Linux would risk losing its spirit of freedom. You decide whether that's a risk worth taking.

As far Linux is concerned this is very much a risk, because of tivoization. There are many implementations of Android that are effectively closed to the end user because of this. However we are talking here about GNU / Linux and there is a big difference because of the GPL v3. In particular because of the anti tivoization and protection from DRM abuse provisions in the license. There is enough GPL v3 code already in Ubuntu to ensure that this loss of freedom cannot happen.

[moorhead98]

What a load of bull. While it is true that Google has more direct/dictatorial
control over what goes into Android, that isn't part of the "Open Source
Definition." (I have refered to this a lot lately, and it is a sort of arbitrary
definition, but it's where the terminology began, so it's the closest we'll get
to an "objective" definition) Anybody can do whatever they like with Android's
code, except close the source on their changes. Some of Google's bundled apps
are closed, but the platform is open. Even Linus Torvalds and Mark Shuttleworth
both give themselves the title of "benevolant dictator for life" for their
respective projects. They may be more open to contribution, but they both get
the final say on anything, and they can't be overruled by the community.

There is no such thing as a percentile ranking for something like open source.
Either it meets the definition or it doesn't. It is, of course, possible to
speak in specific legal terms and about spedific company or community practices
involving code, but those things don't boil down to numbers. I'm not saying I
agree with all of Google's practices or even support them in general. I'm just
saying you can't boil "openness" down to a perecent using any of the established
definitions. Please try again when you have specific practices you'd like to
discuss.

After reading your post through, I have to admit you're right. I personally believe that android is open source, and that its a little absurd the way they made the little percentage.
So maybe it is the fault of whoever came up with the percentages?
Also, forgive me for not knowing, but what is that eclipse project that they rated #1?

[moorhead98]

This is very true. There is also the additional benefit that message this takeover sends in the marketplace. Once can get very rich from FLOSS projects.



As far Linux is concerned this is very much a risk, because of tivoization. There are many implementations of Android that are effectively closed to the end user because of this. However we are talking here about GNU / Linux and there is a big difference because of the GPL v3. In particular because of the anti tivoization and protection from DRM abuse provisions in the license. There is enough GPL v3 code already in Ubuntu to ensure that this loss of freedom cannot happen.

Which to me, it is a relief knowing Ubuntu should stay open no matter what.
But again, forking Ubuntu into Chrome and making Chrome more closed would not be good.

[Dr. C]

Which to me, it is a relief knowing Ubuntu should stay open no matter what.
But again, forking Ubuntu into Chrome and making Chrome more closed would not be good.

Rooting or Jailbreaking Chrome OS in an official feature.

http://chromestory.com/2010/12/rooting-or-jailbreaking-chrome-os-is-an-official-feature-in-chrome-notebook-cr48/
https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/chromium-os/developer-information-for-chrome-os-devices/cr-48-chrome-notebook-developer-information.

This is a legal requirement because Chrome OS contains GPL v3 code, otherwise Google could be held liable for copyright infringement (software piracy) over the GPL v3 code. We should all thank the FSF and Richard Stallman for this.

[moorhead98]

Rooting or Jailbreaking Chrome OS in an official feature.

http://chromestory.com/2010/12/rooting-or-jailbreaking-chrome-os-is-an-official-feature-in-chrome-notebook-cr48/
https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/chromium-os/developer-information-for-chrome-os-devices/cr-48-chrome-notebook-developer-information.

This is a legal requirement because Chrome OS contains GPL v3 code, otherwise Google could be held liable for copyright infringement (software piracy) over the GPL v3 code. We should all thank the FSF and Richard Stallman for this.

Heh, that's actually really great.
If only apple had an auto-jailbreak button.