Canonical asks desktop users to "pay what you think Ubuntu is worth"

[Linuxratty]

it would be nice if they had options other than pay pal.

There's nothing wrong with that—this is the open source world, after all, and many people contribute to Ubuntu with code rather than money. But starting this week, Canonical is presenting desktop OS downloaders with an optional donation form.


http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/10/canonical-asks-desktop-users-to-pay-what-you-think-ubuntu-is-worth/

[deadflowr]

I think its a good thing, as Canonical isn't just asking for donations for donations sake. Your donations go toward the features and components you feel need the most attention.
Some people will say it is a sign that Canonical is in a desperate situation, but I'm not so sure. I find it an interesting concept, in that now I feel I might have a tiny say in the overall ecosystem of Ubuntu, from the design to the packages installed and so forth.
Now is it a ploy because they're losing too much money, and are on the brink of collapse? I don't know, but let the crazy rumormill begin anyway.

[Blackmag+c]

I can see a lot of people will balk at the idea of paying but I guess they have to keep the lights on somehow. $16 is pretty good going but I would expect an OS where I didn't have to worry about compatibility at all if I was paying, call that snarky if you will...

But on the other hand perhaps additional revenue will ensure this in the future? Greasing those wheels...

[inobe]

If folks think they are doing good, Invest in them.

I myself see Absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Personally i believe in competition, that stated, who has a better product?

A few Dollars can certainly line someones pockets, However they will work harder for more of it;)

[JDShu]

I think its a good thing, as Canonical isn't just asking for donations for donations sake. Your donations go toward the features and components you feel need the most attention.
Some people will say it is a sign that Canonical is in a desperate situation, but I'm not so sure. I find it an interesting concept, in that now I feel I might have a tiny say in the overall ecosystem of Ubuntu, from the design to the packages installed and so forth.
Now is it a ploy because they're losing too much money, and are on the brink of collapse? I don't know, but let the crazy rumormill begin anyway.

It's both. Canonical IS in a desperate situation, but at the same time if they were going to ask for money, this is the best way to do it.

[Swagman]

I'm going to chuck £20 their way.

I've used Ubuntu since 7:04 (Feisty) and it's served me well.

[jerrrys]

I see nothing wrong with this, where's gnome?

[cprofitt]

It's both. Canonical IS in a desperate situation, but at the same time if they were going to ask for money, this is the best way to do it.


I would not think it IS a case of desperation. The company, according to wikipedia, has an annual revenue of 30 million in 2009. They are also continuing to hire more people. When Apple introduces another potential revenue source would one label it 'desperation'?

Is this different? Yes, clearly it is. It was inspired by the Humble Indie Bundle and is a great idea IMHO.

[lykwydchykyn]

I would not think it IS a case of desperation.

I don't think it is either, but this along with the Amazon thing just seem like the kind of quick'n'easy attempts to monetize a distro that you'd expect from some one-man respin.

I'm not saying it's wrong, or that it won't make them some money, or that they don't deserve to get some money back on what they do. It's just ... they're a multi-million-dollar corporation. It's like a lawyer having a tip jar, or a stock-broker selling magazine subscriptions.

[KiwiNZ]

Mark and Canonical have sunk a lot of money into ubuntu and a considerable amount of people have benefited. It is about time some money went the other way.

[Porcini M.]

I'm not saying it's wrong, or that it won't make them some money, or that they don't deserve to get some money back on what they do. It's just ... they're a multi-million-dollar corporation. It's like a lawyer having a tip jar, or a stock-broker selling magazine subscriptions.

"Unbecoming" of their stature..? :)

An alternative would be to offer something tangible in exchange for the donation, like a personally (by Mark Shuttleworth) autographed install CD, entry of your name into a public "donors" or "stakeholders" ledger, some piece of swag, etc. Sort of like how National Public Radio (NPR) in the U.S. does it.

[mamamia88]

"Unbecoming" of their stature..? :)

An alternative would be to offer something tangible in exchange for the donation, like a personally (by Mark Shuttleworth) autographed install CD, entry of your name into a public "donors" or "stakeholders" ledger, some piece of swag, etc. Sort of like how National Public Radio (NPR) in the U.S. does it.

too much effort to sign all those cds. but i wouldn't mind donating $20 or so for a ubuntu branded flash drive with the latest lts dd'd on it

[Cope57]

I will donate nothing. When I asked shipit for 400 CD's of 4.10 for my soldiers when I was in the military they declined me. I think *buntu used to be a great distribution until they started with six month release cycles,stopped shipit and started to change the direction the distribution was heading. Now it is continuing to head toward being another distribution that will come, and possibly go.

What is *buntu worth? I do not know, I have been using Debian since 2002 before *buntu was born. I tried various releases of different *buntu distributions to see how they have changed, and I am no longer interested in their future. They declined a shipment of CD's to the soldiers which I cared for. I forgive them, but I did not forget

I will however support those that use Linux, and possibly help with any issues that they may have. ):P

[JDShu]

I would not think it IS a case of desperation. The company, according to wikipedia, has an annual revenue of 30 million in 2009. They are also continuing to hire more people. When Apple introduces another potential revenue source would one label it 'desperation'?

Is this different? Yes, clearly it is. It was inspired by the Humble Indie Bundle and is a great idea IMHO.

Canonical and Ubuntu has existed for almost ten years and they still have not made a profit. If it was any other company, it would have shut down years ago but Canonical is supported by Mr. Shuttleworth's millions. Apple on the other hand is profitable already, so no, nobody would call them desperate in that sense.

[bart.a]

I think a contribution is more then reasonable.

When you use this great system on a day to day basis 16 coins is nothing.. Especialy considering the cost of a complete and legal MS system..

[vasa1]

Somewhat OT, but is Canonical registered as a financial entity in various countries where it has a presence? In that case, could they accept contributions in the local currency by online transfers (bank to bank)?

(I don't have a Paypal account.)

[Hedgehog1]

I was pleased that I could contribute to the expenses that Canonical has been carrying for these many years.

I contributed a reasonable amount today, and will likely do so for each new release level I start using.

I am running Ubuntu on 8 systems at home. Lord knows that I have paid more than enough for Windows and OSX releases over time for my non-Ubuntu systems.

The Donation screen could be a little more tasteful - But that is my only small 'gripe'.

It felt good to help 'share the financial load'.

[V for Vincent]

I've installed Ubuntu on nearly ten machines by now and I've been using it on my main machine since 2007. I'll be chipping in a good amount as soon as I've topped off my PayPal account and I'll make a donation for each new version, as well.

[deadflowr]

Canonical and Ubuntu has existed for almost ten years and they still have not made a profit. If it was any other company, it would have shut down years ago but Canonical is supported by Mr. Shuttleworth's millions. Apple on the other hand is profitable already, so no, nobody would call them desperate in that sense.

And you know this how?
Is this based on the information from a four year old interview Mark Shuttleworth gave?
Since 2009, Neither Canonical or Mark Shuttleworth have said absolutely anything in regards to whether or not they are making profitable money.
Yet, since that time, he has moved out of the CEO postion and the new CEO, Jane Sibler, seems well and content for a CEO running a drowning firm.
They are hiring, and I haven't seen any signs of downsizing(Kicking Kubuntu development out doesn't count as that makes sense from the Ubuntu flavor standpoint, it makes Kubuntu no different from the other flavors such Xubuntu or Edubuntu), In fact they've upsized(if that's a word) and expanded themselves. Typically, what they're doing now is not consistent with a company draining cash(And that's regardless of whether or not someone keeps pumping liquidity into that company).

[Statia]

The company, according to wikipedia, has an annual revenue of 30 million in 2009.

So?
Revenue alone means nothing.

[KiwiNZ]

I will donate nothing. When I asked shipit for 400 CD's of 4.10 for my soldiers when I was in the military they declined me. I think *buntu used to be a great distribution until they started with six month release cycles,stopped shipit and started to change the direction the distribution was heading. Now it is continuing to head toward being another distribution that will come, and possibly go.

What is *buntu worth? I do not know, I have been using Debian since 2002 before *buntu was born. I tried various releases of different *buntu distributions to see how they have changed, and I am no longer interested in their future. They declined a shipment of CD's to the soldiers which I cared for. I forgive them, but I did not forget

I will however support those that use Linux, and possibly help with any issues that they may have. ):P

And where do you think the funding for the free CD that Canonical sent for about 7 years came from ?

[Statia]

According to The Register, who are normally knowledgeable and reliable:


Initially, most of those cents came from founder Mark Shuttleworth, the South African software entrepreneur who launched Canonical in 2004 with his own personal fortune (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/27/shuttleworth_ubuntu_commitment/). Since then, the privately held company has built a growing international business based on Ubuntu support and related services. But although it is thought to bring in eight-figure annual revenues, it has yet to achieve profitability.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/11/ubuntu_download_donations/

[mips]

I will donate nothing. When I asked shipit for 400 CD's of 4.10 for my soldiers when I was in the military they declined me. I think *buntu used to be a great distribution until they started with six month release cycles,stopped shipit and started to change the direction the distribution was heading. Now it is continuing to head toward being another distribution that will come, and possibly go.

What is *buntu worth? I do not know, I have been using Debian since 2002 before *buntu was born. I tried various releases of different *buntu distributions to see how they have changed, and I am no longer interested in their future. They declined a shipment of CD's to the soldiers which I cared for. I forgive them, but I did not forget

That's a rather infantile way of looking at things. I can imagine you were not the only turned down for bulk requests like that, imagine a 100 people asking for big bulk shipments. Someone has to pay for it. How many of those 400 CDs you requested would have been put to use anyway instead of being used as coasters?

No individual was stopped requesting a cd (or a few) for personal use and their friends. You could have easily told people about it and if those 400 people were really interested they could have applied individually. At one stage I think I got 20 cds but a lot went to waste, that's the only time I ordered more than I needed and never again.

[Paqman]

I will donate nothing. When I asked shipit for 400 CD's of 4.10 for my soldiers when I was in the military they declined me.

So you burned your own images, right? Or did you storm off in a huff to another distro where you'd have to, er, burn your own images? 400 CDs is a lot, the kind of amount someone planning to sell them would ask for, so I'm not surprised they turned you down.

I never use the download page on the website, but I'll probably fling them some money when I next upgrade. They've provided me with a good product for many years, it's only fair. I've bought stuff from the shop before but only a small fraction of that would have gone into actual development.

[JDShu]

And you know this how?
Is this based on the information from a four year old interview Mark Shuttleworth gave?
Since 2009, Neither Canonical or Mark Shuttleworth have said absolutely anything in regards to whether or not they are making profitable money.
Yet, since that time, he has moved out of the CEO postion and the new CEO, Jane Sibler, seems well and content for a CEO running a drowning firm.




I know this because they have not told us that they are profitable. This is extremely obvious. Imagine if Canonical was profitable. Would they tell us?

Yes.

Of course.

The whole point of Canonical is to show that the Linux Desktop is a market worth targeting. If there was a single instant that Canonical is nearing profitability, then you can be absolutely sure they would tell us and there would be a lot of fanfare.. In fact, if there were reasonable projections that they'd be profitable within a year, then we would know.

Since that hasn't happened yet, I know that Canonical is nowhere near profitable yet.



They are hiring, and I haven't seen any signs of downsizing(Kicking Kubuntu development out doesn't count as that makes sense from the Ubuntu flavor standpoint, it makes Kubuntu no different from the other flavors such Xubuntu or Edubuntu), In fact they've upsized(if that's a word) and expanded themselves. Typically, what they're doing now is not consistent with a company draining cash(And that's regardless of whether or not someone keeps pumping liquidity into that company).

Companies spending lots of money they may or may not have chasing profitability is extremely normal. So no, it is not "regardless of whether or not someone keeps pumping liquidity". The fact that they can reliably get money means that they will continue to spend money expanding their business. Companies go bankrupt when they are unprofitable and nobody is willing to lend them any money.

[vasa1]

I know this ... I know that Canonical is nowhere near profitable yet.
...
I'm not really curious to know how you know that.

[pompel9]

Maybe I will donate in the future.

I will buy a t-shirt and the beanie hat from canonical store soon. I hope they make money from this, if not they should get higher prices.

[JDShu]

I'm not really curious to know how you know that.

Wow.

[shreepads]

Wholly approve of this, and not the Amazon ads in desktop search rubbish...

Now if they would just give three more options
- FFS Stop Making The Desktop Even More Amazing (TM) And Get Basic Hardware Compatibility, Bugs And Features Working
- Please Stop Merging The Desktop Environment With Your Planned Tablet/ Smartphone Environment Convergence Rubbish
- Contribute To The Debian Mothership

And yes, please give some options other than Paypal...

I will drop some cash into the hardware compatibility & community one for sure...

Hmmm can I put a negative value in the 'make desktop more amazing' option??? :-p

[stinkeye]

I just donated because I tried quite a few times to get Linux running but
never succeeded until I used an Ubuntu live CD.
Appreciate the work they put in, creating a distro that allowed me to completely switch to Linux.
They may have changed their focus slightly but the whole PC industry is changing focus.

[fat yak]

Yes I'd contribute because it's my OS of choice but I second the point about ironing out bugs and hardware compatibility. Get the basics right before playing with the desktop.

[aysiu]

I think *buntu used to be a great distribution until they started with six month release cycles,stopped shipit and started to change the direction the distribution was heading. Ubuntu's always had six-month release cycles:

October 2004, Warty Warthog
April 2005, Hoary Hedgehog
October 2005, Breezy Badger
June 2006, Dapper Drake
October 2006, Edgy Eft
April 2007, Feisty Fawn
October 2007, Gutsy Gibbon
April 2008, Hardy Heron
October 2008, Intrepid Ibex
April 2009, Jaunty Jackalope
October 2009, Karmic Koala
April 2010, Lucid Lynx
October 2010, Maverick Meerkat
April 2011, Natty Narwhal
October 2011, Oneiric Ocelot
April 2012, Precise Pangolin

The plan was always six months. Dapper got delayed a little, but it's pretty much been on a six-month release cycle since day one.

[forrestcupp]

I don't think it is either, but this along with the Amazon thing just seem like the kind of quick'n'easy attempts to monetize a distro that you'd expect from some one-man respin.

I'm not saying it's wrong, or that it won't make them some money, or that they don't deserve to get some money back on what they do. It's just ... they're a multi-million-dollar corporation. It's like a lawyer having a tip jar, or a stock-broker selling magazine subscriptions.Yeah, I don't have any problem at all with the donation thing, but it wouldn't take much for me to start having a problem with things like Amazon search. I understand that they need to increase revenue, but one of the attractions of Linux over Windows PCs is the lack of crapware. I can see how this could possibly snowball into more and more crap cluttering our desktops to help increase Canonical's revenue. The Unity DE is sure not enough to make me think all that stuff is worth it. But like I said, I don't have any problem with the donation thing.


I was pleased that I could contribute to the expenses that Canonical has been carrying for these many years.

I contributed a reasonable amount today, and will likely do so for each new release level I start using.

I am running Ubuntu on 8 systems at home. Lord knows that I have paid more than enough for Windows and OSX releases over time for my non-Ubuntu systems.But you have to keep in mind that you only get a new Windows release every 3-5 years, and you get Ubuntu twice a year. If I drop $20 on Ubuntu every time I upgrade, that's $120 over 3 years and $200 over 5 years. I can get a Windows 8 upgrade for $40, and the service packs over the next 3-5 years will be free.

I'm definitely not saying I want anything to do with Win8, but I'm just putting into perspective the question of how much is Ubuntu worth. Maybe $20-40 each time they have an LTS release?

[Statia]

- FFS Stop Making The Desktop Even More Amazing (TM) And Get Basic Hardware Compatibility, Bugs And Features Working


This.

[cprofitt]

Canonical and Ubuntu has existed for almost ten years and they still have not made a profit. If it was any other company, it would have shut down years ago but Canonical is supported by Mr. Shuttleworth's millions. Apple on the other hand is profitable already, so no, nobody would call them desperate in that sense.

True,... so one has to make an assumption about Canonical's balance sheet to label this as desperation, because the act itself is not any indication of the state of affairs. When I start seeing things like layoffs and hiring freezes I will start to worry. When I see Canonical asking for money from Microsoft to stay afloat (like Apple once needed) then I will worry. I will not make an assumption about the finances based on allowing users to contribute in a way that allows them to choose what they want to support.


So?
Revenue alone means nothing.

True... allowing people to have an elegant way to donate to the project alone means nothing as well.

[lykwydchykyn]

"Unbecoming" of their stature..? :)


I think it's just that it suggests something negative about their other revenue streams. Essentially, it suggests that Landscape, Ubuntu One, Ubuntu Music, OEM deals, software center sales, and corporate support contracts aren't collectively bringing home the bacon.

What I'd hope to see ultimately is Canonical become a wildly successful corporation with a solid, FOSS-friendly business plan. A donation button isn't part of a sustainable business model. I guess it's a bit of a let-down to me that they have to resort to this.

[johnnybgoode83]

We only need to remember one thing. Open source is about software freedom, not free software.

[stalkingwolf]

400 CDs is a lot My question is what is the life of a service man or woman worth?
There are ways to verify that the person requesting is actually on active duty.
There are also severe penalties for using that position for fraudulent purposes.
Being a veteran myself from the Vietnam era and from a military family, i know many who gave all, and ALL gave some.

We only have one side of the story but i am inclined to believe it. Ive seen it.

Had Canonical honoured a legitimate request from an Active unit the advertising and marketing standpoint could well still be paying dividends.
The involvement of Veteran owned business's, families, friends, service organisations, etc etc. Instead the old marketing axiom was invoked.
"1 dissatisfied customer can do more damage than 100 satisfied ones."

As to donating i have no problem with that. as long as i see it resulting in something other that bling. I dont buy a new computer every 6 months. i dont need all that crap. If I need or want something i add it.

Like the inhibit applet, force quit, and system monitor applets. which are becoming scarce.

[alexfish]

Don't now true cost of Supporting the Ubuntu project .

This one may raise some eyebrows.

Lets take a look at support + security and updates. These in essence are still free.

Supposing this activity could raise money

In terms of user's , ported to be 20M.

A yearly or 6 monthly fee for support + security and updates could = a lot of revenue , yet not hurt pocket , could also be scaled depending on local.

20M * 1 = 20m : 5 = 100M and so on

I for one would prefer this option instead of putting into a begging bowl , although not a bad option if there no other means. but not a professional one .

Alex

[meditatingfrog]

* Those individuals with low/no revenues who otherwise believe Ubuntu is priceless won't be able to "pay what they think it is worth", unfortunately

* This must only be for people who actually download the iso from the website, and don't download and seed with a torrent file (since the ubuntu.com bandwidth isn't free as in rootbeer)

* i'm surprised they didn't do this earlier

* i wonder how long it will take for them to accept bitcoins

[BigSilly]

I have no problem at all donating. I'm currently using Mint, but I recognise that this wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for Ubuntu, so when I download 12.10 I'll be chucking some cash their way, whatever I can afford.

At the end of the day, Ubuntu is massively important for me and my family, and has done so much for desktop Linux over the years. I'd like to see that continue. The best projects must survive.

[thatguruguy]

I will donate nothing. When I asked shipit for 400 CD's of 4.10 for my soldiers when I was in the military they declined me. I think *buntu used to be a great distribution until they started with six month release cycles,stopped shipit and started to change the direction the distribution was heading. Now it is continuing to head toward being another distribution that will come, and possibly go.

I'm trying my best to understand this. What channels was this request made through? What verification was given that there were 400 soldiers who actually wanted Ubuntu on their computers? If the computers were government issue, what verification was given that it was OK to change the operating system? I'm not sure that the US government, for instance, would want a bunch of soldiers changing the OS on their computers, particularly when those computers may be mission-critical and there would be no one authorized to maintain them as needed.

Perhaps most importantly, which nation's military was this request made on behalf of? From Canonical's standpoint, I'd expect that there would be political, social, and possibly legal implications if they started preferentially supplying goods and services to a particular military force.

Also, when was this request made? Was it back in 2004 or early 2005, prior to the release of 5.04 (which was released 6 months after 4.10, incidentally)? Did shipit have procedures for such a large shipment back then?

[rhozac]

Id really like an expansion of this connected to the community. So for instance, others could see how much you have donated towards a particular goal. And also give you a better idea of what the community would like focus on. Also more detailed and wider goal selections. I don't know why this hasn't always been available.

If you cant code, but you want a feature, you could buy attention towards it. Perfect i my case, where as i can barely figure out how to bug-report properly. And can still contribute.

OT, A video guide for alpha-beta testers how to properly use launchpad and reporting bugs. If there is one already please link.

[forrestcupp]

True,... so one has to make an assumption about Canonical's balance sheet to label this as desperation, because the act itself is not any indication of the state of affairs. When I start seeing things like layoffs and hiring freezes I will start to worry. When I see Canonical asking for money from Microsoft to stay afloat (like Apple once needed) then I will worry. I will not make an assumption about the finances based on allowing users to contribute in a way that allows them to choose what they want to support.But aren't there levels of desperation? Wouldn't you agree that it appears that Canonical is at least more desperate than they were a couple of years ago? And if so and that trend continues, couldn't you agree that this could be a mildly desperate attempt to prevent the possibility of future layoffs? It's pretty obvious that the trend is that they feel like they need to find more ways to bring in revenue.



A yearly or 6 monthly fee for support + security and updates could = a lot of revenue , yet not hurt pocket , could also be scaled depending on local.

20M * 1 = 20m : 5 = 100M and so on

I for one would prefer this option instead of putting into a begging bowl , although not a bad option if there no other means. but not a professional one . If they did that, people would be dropping them like crazy, and they would lose their seat as most popular distro in a flash. Some distros that come to mind that followed that kind of system were Lindows/Linspire and Mandrake/Mandriva. I don't think that worked out too well for them.

[JDShu]

It's probably worth mentioning that Canonical is a for-profit entity and donations to them are not tax deductible.

[KiwiNZ]

I know this because they have not told us that they are profitable. This is extremely obvious. Imagine if Canonical was profitable. Would they tell us?

Yes.

Of course.

The whole point of Canonical is to show that the Linux Desktop is a market worth targeting. If there was a single instant that Canonical is nearing profitability, then you can be absolutely sure they would tell us and there would be a lot of fanfare.. In fact, if there were reasonable projections that they'd be profitable within a year, then we would know.

Since that hasn't happened yet, I know that Canonical is nowhere near profitable yet.



Companies spending lots of money they may or may not have chasing profitability is extremely normal. So no, it is not "regardless of whether or not someone keeps pumping liquidity". The fact that they can reliably get money means that they will continue to spend money expanding their business. Companies go bankrupt when they are unprofitable and nobody is willing to lend them any money.


Canonical is a private company, there is no reason or obligation to make public it's private fiscal position.

[KiwiNZ]

It's probably worth mentioning that Canonical is a for-profit entity and donations to them are not tax deductible.

but donating is a way of paying for product being used and probably saving the user a lot of money.
or is it alway take and give only with a return?

[sanderella]

So where is the link to donate? I can't find it.

[CharlesA]

So where is the link to donate? I can't find it.
Only appears when you go to download the ISO.

The link to the 32-bit version of Ubuntu desktop showed as up:
http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/questions?destination=desktop&distro=desktop&release=lts&bits=32

[sanderella]

Thank you, Charles, done. :KS

[alexfish]

But aren't there levels of desperation? Wouldn't you agree that it appears that Canonical is at least more desperate than they were a couple of years ago? And if so and that trend continues, couldn't you agree that this could be a mildly desperate attempt to prevent the possibility of future layoffs? It's pretty obvious that the trend is that they feel like they need to find more ways to bring in revenue.

If they did that, people would be dropping them like crazy, and they would lose their seat as most popular distro in a flash. Some distros that come to mind that followed that kind of system were Lindows/Linspire and Mandrake/Mandriva. I don't think that worked out too well for them.

This is what I said

This one may raise some eyebrows.do not know about Lindows/Linspire , at what stage of Mandrake/Mandriva 's two products did the fee apply , and was it the paid for ,or the unpaid for ,or both.

[kurt18947]

Mark and Canonical have sunk a lot of money into ubuntu and a considerable amount of people have benefited. It is about time some money went the other way.

Absolutely.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

The only thing stopping me from donating in order to vote with my money for what I want them to work on, is the limitation of only accepting Pay Pal. If they accepted credit or debit cards; then, I would not have a problem doing so.

I don't see it as Cononical asking users to "pay what you think Ubuntu is worth". It looks more like they want you to use money to influence what they focus on in the desktop. It is like paying for a desktop maintenance service.

[Uncle Spellbinder]

I have no problem at all donating. I'm currently using Mint, but I recognise that this wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for Ubuntu, so when I download 12.10 I'll be chucking some cash their way, whatever I can afford.

At the end of the day, Ubuntu is massively important for me and my family, and has done so much for desktop Linux over the years. I'd like to see that continue. The best projects must survive.

Indeed. And for me, Ubuntu was the reason I got into Linux. If it hadn't been for Ubuntu 4.10 Warty Warthog, I may never have taken the Linux plunge. Or at least not for a long while.

[thatguruguy]

The only thing stopping me from donating in order to vote with my money for what I want them to work on, is the limitation of only accepting Pay Pal. If they accepted credit or debit cards; then, I would not have a problem doing so.


You're not the first to say that. As it happens, you can, in fact, use your credit or debit card. Please see attached screenshot.

[angry_johnnie]

I no longer use Ubuntu, but I will donate.

I used it for many years, have installed it on numerous computers, and have nothing but fond feelings for it.

It is one of the best Linux distributions out there. It must live on.

I've purchased ubuntu merchandise before. This is just another way to show our support, and I think it's only fair.

[furtom]

Well, open source providers can certainly ask for donations, that is routine.

BUT, it is a bit odd for a for-profit entity to solicit money like that.

Oh and one other thing, let's not forget most of Ubuntu is Debian and they are not-for-profit. All the work done there is voluntary. I wonder how those guys feel about a for-profit entity asking for donations for a distribution based on their work. It is true, Ubuntu has put much into it, too. No doubt about that.

Ubuntu is a great product. I hope and expect Ubuntu will turn a profit someday. That would be great. But the business model for FOSS is the community volunteers their time to create the software and people get paid for the implementation. i.e. hardware, service and labor.

That combination made linux a geeky thing. Hard to spread to the masses. Ubuntu was an attempt to change that and hope to make money in the process. Great idea. I hope it works. But the "hope to make money" part is incompatible with "donations." IMO.

[thatguruguy]

Oh and one other thing, let's not forget most of Ubuntu is Debian and they are not-for-profit. All the work done there is voluntary. I wonder how those guys feel about a for-profit entity asking for donations for a distribution based on their work. It is true, Ubuntu has put much into it, too. No doubt about that.


Feel free to donate to Debian through the Software in the Public Interest, Inc. donations page (http://www.spi-inc.org/donations/).

[JDShu]

Canonical is a private company, there is no reason or obligation to make public it's private fiscal position.

You think I don't know that? It's called logical reasoning.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

You're not the first to say that. As it happens, you can, in fact, use your credit or debit card. Please see attached screenshot.

The problem is, I do not want Pay Pal processing the payment in any way.

[shreepads]

Feel free to donate to Debian through the Software in the Public Interest, Inc. donations page (http://www.spi-inc.org/donations/).

True, but I would be happier if they included a line item for contributing to Debian, which they heavily benefit from, especially as a for-profit company...

And the Ubuntu Download page will always get much more hits & visibility than the page you've mentioned...


The problem is, I do not want Pay Pal processing the payment in any way.

This. Pls add Amazon Payments, Google Checkout &, if possible, Bitcoin...

Actually just imitate the Humble Bundle payment screen and be done with it. Again, just like Humble Bundle collect for EFF/ Child's Play etc Ubuntu has a moral responsibility to collect for Debian.

[forrestcupp]

It's probably worth mentioning that Canonical is a for-profit entity and donations to them are not tax deductible.True, but the Ubuntu Foundation is a non-profit entity. This has been brought up before.


This is what I said
do not know about Lindows/Linspire , at what stage of Mandrake/Mandriva 's two products did the fee apply , and was it the paid for ,or the unpaid for ,or both.In the beginning, Mandrake used to charge you subscription fees to use some of their repos. I'm pretty sure that even Mandriva had some pay repos, but they ended up shutting them down. Lindows/Linspire was just completely commercial, and it was supposed to be an alternative to desktop Windows.



Oh and one other thing, let's not forget most of Ubuntu is Debian and they are not-for-profit. All the work done there is voluntary. I wonder how those guys feel about a for-profit entity asking for donations for a distribution based on their work. It is true, Ubuntu has put much into it, too. No doubt about that.Everything they are asking for donations for is to pay for the things they are developing. If you look at the page, they give you a bunch of specific projects to donate toward, and your money goes directly to the development of that project. They're not asking for donations for anything that Debian is doing.


The problem is, I do not want Pay Pal processing the payment in any way.Why is that? You can pay as a guest, and it's not any different than using any other online credit card processing service. PayPal is a pretty solid, proven company. One time my PayPal account got hacked and someone started putting small monthly charges on there. If I remember right, PayPal contacted me about it, fixed the problem, and sent me a free password generator to help protect my security.

[furtom]

Feel free to donate to Debian through the Software in the Public Interest, Inc. donations page (http://www.spi-inc.org/donations/).

Absolutely, guruguy. Please don't mistake my post as something too critical. I really respect what ubuntu does and what M. Shuttleworth has put into it. I'm a happy and grateful user.

Its just that a for-profit company asking for donations strong strikes me as a bit odd. That's all. Unlike a lot of others, I have no problem with the Amazon search, for example.

Freeware, share ware and nagware are all fine things, but they are not FOSS. All I'm saying.

[Paqman]

let's not forget most of Ubuntu is Debian and they are not-for-profit. All the work done there is voluntary. I wonder how those guys feel about a for-profit entity asking for donations for a distribution based on their work.

The whole point of open source is that you give up any right to say what other people can and can't do with the code once you release it.

[furtom]

The whole point of open source is that you give up any right to say what other people can and can't do with the code once you release it.

Absolutely correct. But if Canonical isn't morally bound to contribute money to Debian, neither is anyone else bound to give to ubuntu. That's my whole point, actually.

If Canonical wants to develop closed source apps, let's say unity 2, and charge for it, they certainty can. Then they would compete in the market place like anyone else. If it was good, I'd buy it. :-)

[germanix]

I want an OS that I can use and enjoy and that meets my expectations. Gnu Linux does exactly that. There are many people and companies contributing to this experience. They are all my heroes.
I would use Debian if I were not so dumb. Debian is for experts of which I am not one. Mark gave us Ubuntu for the masses, so that someone like me can also use it. For this I am grateful. The guys over at Linux Mint also do a great job for the masses.
I have donated on more than one occasion to Mint in the past. They needed the money and I benefitted from their work. So it is a win/win situation for me.
Some things I do not like (Unity, Gnome3), but accept that others may find it more useful than me.
I have no problems with Ubuntu or any other distribution asking for donations. I benefit from their work and so it is only fair to support them.
I do not think I can pay what Ubuntu is worth. To me it is worth a lot more than what I could afford to pay. I will pay what I can afford.
Regular donations, even when small, will help the development of the OS and everyone will benefit from it in the long run.
If you do not support the OS, by whatever means, you should not complain about it short comings.
Just enjoy, and donate if you can.

[forrestcupp]

Absolutely correct. But if Canonical isn't morally bound to contribute money to Debian, neither is anyone else bound to give to ubuntu. That's my whole point, actually.

If Canonical wants to develop closed source apps, let's say unity 2, and charge for it, they certainty can. Then they would compete in the market place like anyone else. If it was good, I'd buy it. :-)
Did you see my reply to you earlier? If you look at the donation page on Ubuntu's web site, they give you a list of specific projects that you can donate to. Whichever ones you choose to donate to, the exact amount you put into the boxes will go to those projects. All of the projects in the list are things that Canonical is developing. They are not taking donations for anything that comes from Debian or anyone else. It's all to pay for what Canonical's dev teams are working on. And there is even a box for derivatives, like Kubuntu and Xubuntu. If you donate in that box, the money will go toward their development and not to Canonical.

Also, if you look at the Free Software Foundation's web site, you will see that Richard Stallman himself says that Free Software doesn't mean free of charge, and it's perfectly acceptable to charge for FOSS. And nobody is more uptight about FOSS than he is. The only thing they are required to do is make the source code available, and allow people to modify or fork their code. Canonical is doing that with everything they claim is FOSS. Not only that, but technically, they are not even charging for anything that is not commercial. They are just taking donations. Anyone can choose whether or not they want to donate, and download the ISO, whether they donate or not.

[josephmills]

I have just thought about this question for a good amount of time. The only thing that I can see that could be negative about this is a case of mistaken purpose.

Now I know the anwser to this and I know what a donation is.

But, I could see that if someone did not know that it was "donations" and just kinda did gave money, and had say a broadcom card or a nvidia card. Or something that buged out. I could see a riot on canonical hands :lol:

That is the only thing that I can think of. A possible "bad" thing.

Or say a new user gives Money to canonical and then bonk's there install overwriting there windows partition and all there files ect.
I could see a 1st time user upset about something like that.
saying to other's "I even gave them money and nothing happened"


I my-self can not afford to give monetary values to conical as I do not have that much myself.


I mean there has to be a v.thin line that has to be drawn here.

Some people think that outreach to homeless people is not a good thing and that it just enables them. Others on the other hand Love the idea of giving to a soup kitchen.

I would like to ask that no one "comes after me " on this I am just stating the only thing that I can think of that *Might* happen. I think it is a great idea, but there is always room for better idea's and better results.

Some things that I would like to see:
.
* Canonical using some of this money to get into the government of the USA (backing new laws for computer use in schools, any thing to try to get more Ubuntu computers into schools)


</rant>

[JDShu]

True, but the Ubuntu Foundation is a non-profit entity. This has been brought up before.


My point which I guess I didn't make clear, is that the donations here go to Canonical, not the Ubuntu Foundation.

Source (http://www.jonobacon.org/2012/10/09/easier-financial-contributions-to-ubuntu-2/)


When a contribution occurs, Canonical will act as a steward for the money and ensure it is managed fairly and in accordance of the user’s wishes…ensuring it goes to the part of the project outlined in the form. Importantly, Canonical will not be using the money for any Canonical business-orientated functions; all of the contributions will be used to fund the Ubuntu project and continue it’s growth and development.


Hence not tax deductible, which I just figured is worth mentioning.

[KiwiNZ]

My point which I guess I didn't make clear, is that the donations here go to Canonical, not the Ubuntu Foundation.

Source (http://www.jonobacon.org/2012/10/09/easier-financial-contributions-to-ubuntu-2/)


Hence not tax deductible, which I just figured is worth mentioning.

Of course a donation to Canonical goes to Canonical the creator, developed and supporter of Ubuntu, that is a good thing.

[litiform]

I think Ubuntu is worth more money than Windows. To buy Windows 7 Pro retail it's like $300. So I'd say Ubuntu is worth at least $350 retail.

Anybody know what portion of the price someone pays for a computer that comes with Windows goes towards Microsoft? Pretty sure it's less than $350. This might be a good amount to contribute. I can't afford $350 at the moment :0

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

The problem is, I do not want Pay Pal processing the payment in any way.Why is that? You can pay as a guest, and it's not any different than using any other online credit card processing service. PayPal is a pretty solid, proven company. One time my PayPal account got hacked and someone started putting small monthly charges on there. If I remember right, PayPal contacted me about it, fixed the problem, and sent me a free password generator to help protect my security. I added the bold font.

That and similar problems have happened for many years, if I remember right. I am old enough that I have to be careful; therefore, I try to avoid placing myself at risk. I know that my credit card is vulnerable; however, the more companies involved in the credit card transaction increases that vulnerability. I choose not to add Pay Pal to the processing stream.

[litiform]

Yeah, I cancelled all my accounts with Paypal. It was a joke. They freeze my money all the time. Then they like Oh, Sorry.

It just got to be too much so I won't even deal with them anymore.

[craig10x]

Don't know if you guys realize this, but you don't have to actually USE your own paypal account to make a donation or pay any website that uses paypal...i have a paypal account but i never use it anymore...

When you click on to pay, even if it detects that you have a paypal account from your information, you can simply tell it to bypass it and pay without logging in, and then just use any major credit card or a debit card for your payment...

You don't even have to HAVE a paypal account to use a credit/or/debit card to make the payment... ;)

[forrestcupp]

My point which I guess I didn't make clear, is that the donations here go to Canonical, not the Ubuntu Foundation.

Source (http://www.jonobacon.org/2012/10/09/easier-financial-contributions-to-ubuntu-2/)


Hence not tax deductible, which I just figured is worth mentioning.I don't think you're right about that. Even your source says that the money goes to the Ubuntu Foundation and not for Canonical's business purposes. Canonical is just acting as the steward to distribute the money to the right places in the Ubuntu Foundation.


I added the bold font.

That and similar problems have happened for many years, if I remember right. I am old enough that I have to be careful; therefore, I try to avoid placing myself at risk. I know that my credit card is vulnerable; however, the more companies involved in the credit card transaction increases that vulnerability. I choose not to add Pay Pal to the processing stream.
I hear what you're saying, but if you don't use your account, like craig10x is saying, PayPal just acts as a credit card processing service. Whether you use PayPal as that service or not, any time you use your credit card online, you're using some 3rd party processing service. I doubt if using PayPal to do that is any less secure than any other one out there.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

I hear what you're saying, but if you don't use your account, like craig10x is saying, PayPal just acts as a credit card processing service. Whether you use PayPal as that service or not, any time you use your credit card online, you're using some 3rd party processing service. I doubt if using PayPal to do that is any less secure than any other one out there.

Maybe I am not communicating this well.

My issue isn't with Pay Pal. It is with using 3rd. and 4th. parties to process the transaction. From what I have seen, Pay Pal is 4th. party. It appears to me that it uses other 3rd. party processing services. I could be wrong. I don't what any extra companies involved in a transaction.

If I could enter my credit or debit card on a secure webpage and Canonical worked with the credit card processor directly, it wouldn't trouble me.

[JDShu]

I don't think you're right about that. Even your source says that the money goes to the Ubuntu Foundation and not for Canonical's business purposes. Canonical is just acting as the steward to distribute the money to the right places in the Ubuntu Foundation.


I wasn't able to get the actual payment site working, but I believe that when you donate through the interface, the money goes to Canonical Ltd, and therefore it is not tax deductible for the donor. That's all I'm saying.

[DogMatix]

I can quite understand Canonical requesting donations and I realise they are a commercial enterprise. There is Ubuntu One & its music store as visible monetary streams. They have to cover costs or they are on a spiraling journey down the plug hole no matter how good their intentions. Maybe they are becoming a victim of their own success.

The added opt-out in Quantal dash of Amazon search results says to me Canonical don't want to rock the boat and lets not forget it's a voluntary donation they are asking for not a charge. Plus, Ubuntu is still free as in freedom not as in beer and there are lots of derivatives should you so desire.

[craig10x]

Don't know if this will help inspire your confidence about it old_grey_wolf, but i have used my credit card through paypal (not logging into my account with them of course) many times including FOREIGN transactions as well and never had my card compromised in any way...and it is very secure.

It's processed just like any other online site's credit and debit card transactions :)

[mr john]

Cannonical didn't write all the software in Ubuntu. So they are taking money for other people's work? It's legal, yes. But is it moral?

[KiwiNZ]

Cannonical didn't write all the software in Ubuntu. So they are taking money for other people's work? It's legal, yes. But is it moral?

Yes it is.

[Gone fishing]

I find myself agreeing with almost everything KiwiNZ posted - a strangly novel experience. I will be donating next time I download Ubuntu possibly 11:10 even.

It seems to me that as I have been using Ubuntu since Warty or Hoary it about time I gave a little back and as i'm not a coder cash will have to do (and the odd bug report etc).


Yeah, I don't have any problem at all with the donation thing, but it wouldn't take much for me to start having a problem with things like Amazon search. I understand that they need to increase revenue, but one of the attractions of Linux over Windows PCs is the lack of crapware. I can see how this could possibly snowball into more and more crap cluttering our desktops to help increase Canonical's revenue.

I have this concern too - so please Canonical make sure Ubuntu doesn't turn into an adware / spyware infested piece of crap. I like Unity and upto this point In my opinion, generally Ubuntu has shown a steady improvement from release to release.

[Paqman]

Cannonical didn't write all the software in Ubuntu. So they are taking money for other people's work? It's legal, yes. But is it moral?

Red Hat didn't write all the software in RHEL either, and they've been absolutely coining it for years. A real Linux success story, in fact.

There's nothing legally or ethically wrong with making money as a Linux vendor.

[hydn79]

And the effects of Linux Mint begin haha

[KiwiNZ]

I find myself agreeing with almost everything KiwiNZ posted - a strangly novel experience. I will be donating next time I download Ubuntu possibly 11:10 even.

It seems to me that as I have been using Ubuntu since Warty or Hoary it about time I gave a little back and as i'm not a coder cash will have to do (and the odd bug report etc).



I have this concern too - so please Canonical make sure Ubuntu doesn't turn into an adware / spyware infested piece of crap. I like Unity and upto this point In my opinion, generally Ubuntu has shown a steady improvement from release to release.

Welcome to the dark side :-p

[Gone fishing]

Welcome to the dark side :-p

:lolflag:

[3rdalbum]

A lot of people are talking as though the ability to donate to Canonical/Ubuntu was something new.

I donated a few years ago using a very little-known link that somebody gave me. I received an e-mail back thanking me for my donation and promising that it would go toward work on Ubuntu.

So, donation is not new, it's just this method that is new.

If you feel odd about donating you could buy some music using Ubuntu One Music Store, or some space on U1, buy an Ubuntu baseball cap or T-shirt, or some software from Software Center. Heck, buy some training or desktop support if you feel you could use it. Canonical's phone support line is meant to be very good.

I've got a couple of albums from U1MS (I use 7Digital direct now as I hate waiting hours for my music to sideload), a baseball cap, a mug, a polo shirt, a t-shirt, and a hoodie. I also got some official Ubuntu CDs, a sheet of stickers and some Kubuntu pens that sadly broke in about five minutes. I don't feel the need to rush out and donate more, but I probably will once 12.10 comes out.

[3rdalbum]

The problem is, I do not want Pay Pal processing the payment in any way.

Mail Canonical a cheque "For improving the desktop" or "supporting varients" or whatever your selection is.

Paypal is probably more secure than any credit card issuer. Firstly, it's a company borne of the Internet, rather than a bricks-and-mortar business that decides to "click onto this newfangled Cyberspace thingy". Secondly, it has an anti-fraud response team backed by anti-fraud software that's notoriously top-secret. Said software and said team are the reason Paypal stayed afloat when all its initial competitors died off.

[MG&TL]

It would be nice if we could see how much has been raised so far. Maybe a blog on what's been done using the money.

[vasa1]

...
Paypal is probably more secure than any credit card issuer...

I just signed up for an account. Within minutes I got a couple of e-mails and my bank account has been debited a token INR 1.00. But my details verification will still take "4-6 working days".

Canonical will just have to wait ;)

[Elfy]

It would be nice if we could see how much has been raised so far. Maybe a blog on what's been done using the money.

Try commenting here and see what happens :)
http://blog.canonical.com/2012/10/09/contributions-come-in-many-forms/

[forrestcupp]

Maybe I am not communicating this well.

My issue isn't with Pay Pal. It is with using 3rd. and 4th. parties to process the transaction. From what I have seen, Pay Pal is 4th. party. It appears to me that it uses other 3rd. party processing services. I could be wrong. I don't what any extra companies involved in a transaction.

If I could enter my credit or debit card on a secure webpage and Canonical worked with the credit card processor directly, it wouldn't trouble me.Lol. I gotcha. But I doubt there are very many online stores that don't use a 3rd party for credit card processing.


I wasn't able to get the actual payment site working, but I believe that when you donate through the interface, the money goes to Canonical Ltd, and therefore it is not tax deductible for the donor. That's all I'm saying.If the money goes to the Ubuntu Foundation, and they are really doing it in such a way that it's not tax deductible, that's a really dumb way to do it. I wonder how we could find out about that for sure.


Cannonical didn't write all the software in Ubuntu. So they are taking money for other people's work? It's legal, yes. But is it moral?It's been explained many times in this thread that on the web site, you choose which project to donate to, and every project you can donate to is one that Canonical is working on. They are not taking donations for other people's work.

Even if they were, yes it is still moral. Anyone who uses the GPL license should know that they are releasing their code in a way that people can rightfully do that. If a developer doesn't like that idea, there are plenty of other licenses out there, and if you don't like any of them, you can write your own.

[MG&TL]

Try commenting here and see what happens :)
http://blog.canonical.com/2012/10/09/contributions-come-in-many-forms/

Good idea. Done, but awaiting moderation. :)

[iiiears]

I just donated because I tried quite a few times to get Linux running but
never succeeded until I used an Ubuntu live CD.
Appreciate the work they put in, creating a distro that allowed me to completely switch to Linux.

Gaming, Photoshop, MS Office, Outlook, BIN and Loadable Module security are still weak so the the switch isn't complete for me but, i agree with you Ubuntu has made Free/Libre Software useful to millions of users.

The search lens may be controversial for adding Amazon but it's easier than finding an SSL "Donate" via Paypal button on canonical's site.

Where is it if i already have an ISO and why isn't it encrypted from start to finish?

This is the error i received this morning.


warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/drupal-6.x/includes/common.inc:424) in /srv/canonical-mainsite/all/modules/ubuntu/ppdonate.inc on line 144.

[cariboo]

Gaming, Photoshop, MS Office, Outlook, BIN and Loadable Module security are still weak so the the switch isn't complete for me but, i agree with you Ubuntu has made Free/Libre Software useful to millions of users.

The search lens may be controversial for adding Amazon but it's easier than finding an SSL "Donate" via Paypal button on canonical's site.

Where is it if i already have an ISO and why isn't it encrypted from start to finish?

This is the error i received this morning.


warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /srv/drupal-6.x/includes/common.inc:424) in /srv/canonical-mainsite/all/modules/ubuntu/ppdonate.inc on line 144.

You can create a bug report on Launchpad about the error you got.

[rg4w]

I was pleased that I could contribute to the expenses that Canonical has been carrying for these many years.
I'm waiting until about a week after release so the server load dies down, but then I'll be donating and very much welcoming the opportunity to do so.

FWIW, I'll be setting everything to $0 except "Improve hardware support on more PCs" which I'll set to the max.

I've been hoping to see greater HW compatibility for some time to build greater credibility with the masses. It's just one vote so to speak, but at least I get to put my money where my mouth is.

Now the question is: How hard will it be to convince the Kompozer team to add a similar donation page?

[sffvba[e0rt]

Can Canonical/Ubuntu do nothing without people getting their nickers in a twist?! Donate if you want to, if not don't...

The value you have gotten from Ubuntu is much greater than the money I have spent on other OS's and I am glad for another way to be able to contribute.


404

[forrestcupp]

Gaming, Photoshop, MS Office, Outlook, BIN and Loadable Module security are still weak so the the switch isn't complete for me but, i agree with you Ubuntu has made Free/Libre Software useful to millions of users.

Everything in your list is valid except MS Office. You can get it to work almost perfectly in Wine.

[Sableyes]

Hmmm, Ubuntu are not allowed too make money. Ever. Someone will always seem too get knickers in a twist over it. Sillyness.

I wonder how many other distros are helped by sponsorships and donations? A quick look and both distros above Ubuntu on DistroWatch are Mageia and Mint, both take donations. Doesn't seem to effect their popularity... ^^

[Wim Sturkenboom]

I'm probably stupid but how does that donation page work. If I e.g. fill in $10 for 'performance optimisation', do I reward them for what they have done in this area up till now (that's actually what the title implies) or is that where they are going to invest the money in R&D?

[Lightstar]

I thought Ubuntu/ Canonical was already making money from their business tech support, and more and more businesses are leaning toward ubuntu and linux.

I left Red Hat when they started being a paid OS.
People often chose ubuntu over windows when I gave / sold second-hand computers because ubuntu was free.

I personally am fine with donating, but I like donating when I want.
I'm happy that this is optional. And will most likely donate.

However if it ever becomes an obligation, I'm out.

[KiwiNZ]

Can Canonical/Ubuntu do nothing without people getting their nickers in a twist?! Donate if you want to, if not don't...

The value you have gotten from Ubuntu is much greater than the money I have spent on other OS's and I am glad for another way to be able to contribute.


404

My experience since 2004, no they can't.

[Max Blyss]

I WILL be donating some cash in the future... Broke right now, which is the continual state of someone with two kids, lol...

I think this is a great idea, and I hope people get on the bandwagon with whatever they can afford. The 'Buntus are great products and definitely are deserving of some appreciation in paper form.

[dolby]

Its funny that Canonical asks for money in order to "better support" Ubuntu flavours, cause it currently doesnt support them at all.
0*better is still 0...

[forrestcupp]

I'm probably stupid but how does that donation page work. If I e.g. fill in $10 for 'performance optimisation', do I reward them for what they have done in this area up till now (that's actually what the title implies) or is that where they are going to invest the money in R&D?You're not rewarding them. You're donating to invest in the development of whatever project you choose.


Its funny that Canonical asks for money in order to "better support" Ubuntu flavours, cause it currently doesnt support them at all.
0*better is still 0...
That's kind of what I thought, too. But if the money really goes to those projects, that's cool. I just wish you could choose which derivative your money goes to, instead of one box for all of them. I guess if you really cared, you would just donate directly to that derivative.

[Blackmag+c]

Probably would donate the price of the CD which is £4.71 from the store.

Hardly a massive amount really when a 1 use windows 7 disc is like £100

[CharlesA]

Hardly a massive amount really when a 1 use windows 7 disc is like £100
You aren't paying for the disc, you are paying for the key.

Little different. ;)

[furtom]

Hmmm, Ubuntu are not allowed too make money. Ever. Someone will always seem too get knickers in a twist over it. Sillyness.

I wonder how many other distros are helped by sponsorships and donations? A quick look and both distros above Ubuntu on DistroWatch are Mageia and Mint, both take donations. Doesn't seem to effect their popularity... ^^

Speaking for myself, my knickers are pretty straight. :)

My objections really have nothing to do with whether or not Canonical makes money. I'd love it if they can make a business plan work that makes a profit. That would only be good for linux.

It simply doesn't add up to me that a for-profit entity is asking for donations. Maybe I'm wrong, but so far, reading this thread, I'm not convinced.

Other distros are community based efforts and not-for-profit. Therefore, soliciting for donations is entirely appropriate for them.

The day Canonical becomes non profit and exists solely for the maintenance and propagation of Ubuntu, I'd love to donate. Until then, I think donated dollars are more appropriately given upstream to people and groups who are non profit.

Hey, I like those Ubuntu hats! I have no problem with Canonical selling stuff, offering services for hire, partnering with hardware developers, and in general trying to make money. In fact, I'm rooting for them.

If Ubuntu's development were segregated out to the non-profit foundation, that would be a completely different thing. As yet, I don't think that's how it goes, however. As I understand it, the foundation exists to continue ubuntu development if Canonical goes under. Sort of like a "rainy day fund."

To me this is all very simple and logical. I have no problem if anyone disagrees with me, but I"m surprised at the near hostility of some of the comments. (That remark is not necessarily directed at Sableyes quoted above. :)

It is silly that I have to say this, but no one should take my stance or comments as my being "against" Ubuntu, Canonical, M. Shuttleworth, etc. Can't someone dissent without having an agenda?

[KiwiNZ]

Speaking for myself, my knickers are pretty straight. :)

My objections really have nothing to do with whether or not Canonical makes money. I'd love it if they can make a business plan work that makes a profit. That would only be good for linux.

It simply doesn't add up to me that a for-profit entity is asking for donations. Maybe I'm wrong, but so far, reading this thread, I'm not convinced.

Other distros are community based efforts and not-for-profit. Therefore, soliciting for donations is entirely appropriate for them.

The day Canonical becomes non profit and exists solely for the maintenance and propagation of Ubuntu, I'd love to donate. Until then, I think donated dollars are more appropriately given upstream to people and groups who are non profit.

Hey, I like those Ubuntu hats! I have no problem with Canonical selling stuff, offering services for hire, partnering with hardware developers, and in general trying to make money. In fact, I'm rooting for them.

If Ubuntu's development were segregated out to the non-profit foundation, that would be a completely different thing. As yet, I don't think that's how it goes, however. As I understand it, the foundation exists to continue ubuntu development if Canonical goes under. Sort of like a "rainy day fund."

To me this is all very simple and logical. I have no problem if anyone disagrees with me, but I"m surprised at the near hostility of some of the comments. (That remark is not necessarily directed at Sableyes quoted above. :)

It is silly that I have to say this, but no one should take my stance or comments as my being "against" Ubuntu, Canonical, M. Shuttleworth, etc. Can't someone dissent without having an agenda?

Ever thought how things like the servers for this Forum and other community access points etc are funded?

Ever thought of how the Developer Conferences are funded?

Are you saying that Mark should be the only one paying for these?

[jrog]

Ever thought how things like the servers for this Forum and other community access points etc are funded?

Ever thought of how the Developer Conferences are funded?

Are you saying that Mark should be the only one paying for these?
I think it's pretty clear that he's (or she's?) not saying the last thing; he was talking about Canonical, not Mark.

[jrog]

Its funny that Canonical asks for money in order to "better support" Ubuntu flavours, cause it currently doesnt support them at all.
0*better is still 0...
I don't know why you'd take "better support" to mean "take the current level of support and multiply it," because 0 support is not better than 0 support. Why not take it to mean "provide a level of support that is greater than the current level?" That seems to be the way that this ought to be understand, if we're being charitable -- not to mention that it seems to be what "better" means in the first place (i.e., add more; not necessarily multiply the current level).

[furtom]

Ever thought how things like the servers for this Forum and other community access points etc are funded?

Ever thought of how the Developer Conferences are funded?

Are you saying that Mark should be the only one paying for these?

If this is his business venture, then, M. Shuttleworth's going to put what money in it he thinks is appropriate in the hopes of a return on his investment like anyone else.

If it's not a business venture, but a non-profit enterprise, I'd be happy to give. Ubuntu is great and I would support it's continued development.

For-profit entities that need cash seek investors, not donations.

[furtom]

I think it's pretty clear that he's (or she's?) not saying the last thing; he was talking about Canonical, not Mark.

That's right. Is Mark (does everyone refer to him by his first name? I'm new here) the only Canonical investor? If so, he has no one to answer to. If not, he and his other investors will decide what money to spend in the pursuit of their business.

[KiwiNZ]

If this is his business venture, then, M. Shuttleworth's going to put what money in it he thinks is appropriate in the hopes of a return on his investment like anyone else.

If it's not a business venture, but a non-profit enterprise, I'd be happy to give. Ubuntu is great and I would support it's continued development.

For-profit entities that need cash seek investors, not donations.

That doesn't answer my question. These Forums are provided for Community support and interaction. Canonical gains no direct benefit from them. They are funded by Canonical. So should Canonical continue to fund or should the community fund by way of donation. It is the same with the Developer conferences?

Remember the tens of thousands of FREE ubuntu CD's that were sent all around the World, who funded them?

The $10,000,000 that was given to sustain the ubuntu Foundation who funded that ?

Should it always be a one way street?

[furtom]

That doesn't answer my question. These Forums are provided for Community support and interaction. Canonical gains no direct benefit from them. They are funded by Canonical. So should Canonical continue to fund or should the community fund by way of donation. It is the same with the Developer conferences?

Remember the tens of thousands of FREE ubuntu CD's that were sent all around the World, who funded them?

The $10,000,000 that was given to sustain the ubuntu Foundation who funded that ?

Should it always be a one way street?

Canonical has an interest in spreading Ubuntu to as many users as possible. Anything that helps that, like giving away DVDs or providing support or conferences, is a business expense.

Don't blame me for this. It was set up as a private corporation to make a profit. That's just the way it is.

If Mark set up Ubuntu as not-for-profit, everything you say would be 100 percent correct. But since Canonical is trying to make a profit, that makes all the difference.

Mark has said himself, Canonical is creeping toward the break even point. When that happens, then what? Let's say it turns a profit. Is Canonical going to return the donations?

It just doesn't make sense that a business asks for donations. It doesn't matter if it's a linux business or any other.

Anyway, that's my opinion. So far, I don't see any reason to change it. I doubt you will either. So we may agree to disagree.

Edit: But you are right about the Ubuntu Foundation. If the donations were for that, you'd not hear a peep from me about it. :)

[KiwiNZ]

Canonical has an interest in spreading Ubuntu to as many users as possible. Anything that helps that, like giving away DVDs or providing support or conferences, is a business expense.

Don't blame me for this. It was set up as a private corporation to make a profit. That's just the way it is.

If Mark set up Ubuntu as not-for-profit, everything you say would be 100 percent correct. But since Canonical is trying to make a profit, that makes all the difference.

Mark has said himself, Canonical is creeping toward the break even point. When that happens, then what? Let's say it turns a profit. Is Canonical going to return the donations?

It just doesn't make sense that a business asks for donations. It doesn't matter if it's a linux business or any other.

Anyway, that's my opinion. So far, I don't see any reason to change it. I doubt you will either. So we may agree to disagree.

Edit: But you are right about the Ubuntu Foundation. If the donations were for that, you'd not hear a peep from me about it. :)

So ubuntu should be $50 per download.

[vasa1]

They should have a highly visible donate button on all Canonical pages, even wiki pages, that isn't linked to the act of downloading.

[vasa1]

I think it's just that it suggests something negative about their other revenue streams....
I'm sure we can all think of certain other "ventures" that ask for money from people even though they, the ventures, are extremely well-funded and make no secret of their opulence.
I can't provide examples here because that would violate forum regulations.

[jrog]

So ubuntu should be $50 per download.
This is not what he said at all, so it doesn't really seem helpful to the conversation, as far as I can tell... Let's at least try to be fair/charitable to people here.

The only thing furtom seems to be saying is this: Canonical is a for-profit business, not a non-profit community; that being so, seeking donations to fund them and their activities is somewhat odd. That's all, as far as I can tell. In no way does that entail that Ubuntu should be $50 per download, or anything like that. The only suggestion is that if Canonical wants to be a for-profit Linux business, then it ought not to be the target of donations; instead, it ought to fund its products with its own revenue, in whatever ways it deems fit. That doesn't require charging for the downloads (Oracle Linux, for example, is freely available even though Oracle seeks to turn a profit and is not, as far as I know, seeking donations).

Anyway, I'm not saying that I agree. I did notice that one of the donation options is specifically titled, "Tip to Canonical," which might mean that the other donations are to the larger Ubuntu community (or the Ubuntu Foundation, or something like that) rather than to Canonical itself. That might get around furtom's concerns, but I'm not sure.

[KiwiNZ]

This is not what he said at all, so it doesn't really seem helpful to the conversation, as far as I can tell... Let's at least try to be fair/charitable to people here.

The only thing furtom seems to be saying is this: Canonical is a for-profit business, not a non-profit community; that being so, seeking donations to fund them and their activities is somewhat odd. That's all, as far as I can tell. In no way does that entail that Ubuntu should be $50 per download, or anything like that. The only suggestion is that if Canonical wants to be a for-profit Linux business, then it ought not to be the target of donations; instead, it ought to fund its products with its own revenue, in whatever ways it deems fit. That doesn't require charging for the downloads (Oracle Linux, for example, is freely available even though Oracle seeks to turn a profit and is not, as far as I know, seeking donations).

Anyway, I'm not saying that I agree. I did notice that one of the donation options is specifically titled, "Tip to Canonical," which might mean that the other donations are to the larger Ubuntu community (or the Ubuntu Foundation, or something like that) rather than to Canonical itself. That might get around furtom's concerns, but I'm not sure.

Ubuntu is BOTH a non-profit and for profit, as an example 100% of those who visit here benefit from the non profit.

My point for the $50 is in order to clear confusion maybe ubuntu should no longer be free then there is no confusion. But that wont stop the inevitable protests at a change made by ubuntu.

[sammiev]

I do not have Paypal but would send Canonical a money order if I could. Please make payment options easier to support the cause. :)

[mikodo]

I am happy to see this. I don't have any skills to contribute to FLOSS, though Ubuntu has made Linux easy enough, even for me to use.

I'll be sending along cash on my next install. Heck, I would pay $16.00 biannually, for the continued support of Ubuntu Forums and y'all, alone. Seems miniscule, for what Ubuntu means to me.

I do hope there becomes more options for donations, rather than only PayPal, for the people not wanting to use that service. As revenue comes in through PayPal, maybe Canonical will consider other means of contributing, too.

I didn't read through the thread so maybe, my comments are only echoing others' sentiments ...

[jrog]

Ubuntu is BOTH a non-profit and for profit, as an example 100% of those who visit here benefit from the non profit.
Right. It wasn't entirely clear to me whether furtom understood this or not, though I thought that he did. He just wants donations to go to the non-profit arm, AFAICT.

For myself, I think he probably already has that option (just slide the "Tip to Canonical" slider down to $0 and donate to the other causes), and, even if not, I don't really have an issue with even the for-profit side of Ubuntu saying "pay what you think it's worth" -- that doesn't really strike me as a donation, so much as a payment for product, analogous to things like the Humble Bundle (where you also give some money to for-profit ventures, with the option of giving nothing). I can't find a problem with the Humble Bundle, so I have a hard time finding a problem with this. So, I think I ultimately agree with you (KiwiNZ) about this. furtom's thoughts about donating to a for-profit enterprise seemed interesting, though.


My point for the $50 is in order to clear confusion maybe ubuntu should no longer be free then there is no confusion. But that wont stop the inevitable protests at a change made by ubuntu.
Fair enough, though that's a pretty drastic way of clearing up the confusion!

[thatguruguy]

I do not have Paypal but would send Canonical a money order if I could. Please make payment options easier to support the cause. :)

I'm assuming you missed this post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=12291120&postcount=55). You can use a credit card or debit card. I don't know of a way to submit a money order via a a form on a web page.

[vasa1]

... I don't know of a way to submit a money order via a a form on a web page.
I don't think anyone wanted to do that.

[thatguruguy]

I don't think anyone wanted to do that.

Well, it's easy enough to send a letter to Canonical, they've provided their address here (http://www.ubuntu.com/contact-us). I found that by looking at the Ubuntu.com site and looking for a "Contact Us" link, which is fairly standard on commercial sites.

It is fairly obvious how to send a money order through the mail once you have an actual address. Moreover, it's already been mentioned in this thread that you don't have to have a PayPal account to use the "contribute" page. As such, when someone writes as follows:

I do not have Paypal but would send Canonical a money order if I could. Please make payment options easier to support the cause. :smile:
... it appears that the person believes there should be some mechanism to submit the money order through the web page. I acknowledge that 99.9999999% of internet users know that's impossible, but I guess there's at least some chance that sammiev has never actually purchased anything through a web site.

[furtom]

Right. It wasn't entirely clear to me whether furtom understood this or not, though I thought that he did. He just wants donations to go to the non-profit arm, AFAICT.

You are right. I don't clearly understand this. If there are entities set up as not-for profit, it's fine for them to solicit donations.

This Website has been brought up a few times. Who owns it? It seems there may be paid staff. What entity pays them?

My understanding is that the Ubuntu Foundation is non-profit, but that it is currently inactive. It exists as a sort of rainy day fund in the event Canonical can no longer support Ubuntu development.

That decision was made for some reason. I'm not sure why, but nevertheless, Canonical, not the Ubuntu Foundation, is the operative entity here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as "what it's worth," any linux distribution is much more complete and feature rich than bare windows, for example, so $50 would be a bargain.

However, it doesn't work like that and is also not really the point. :)

[nothingspecial]

This Website has been brought up a few times. Who owns it? It seems there may be paid staff. What entity pays them?



We get paid £1 for each spam post we put on the forums by whichever company the spam is for, and Canonical pays us £2 for each spam post we remove.

:p

[vasa1]

We get paid £1 for each spam post we put on the forums by whichever company the spam is for, and Canonical pays us £2 for each spam post we remove.

:p
I knew that.

Now if someone manages to speed up the site loading a bit your earnings would increase.

[thatguruguy]

It just doesn't make sense that a business asks for donations. It doesn't matter if it's a linux business or any other.


As noted by Jono Bacon (http://www.jonobacon.org/2012/10/09/easier-financial-contributions-to-ubuntu-2/), the idea was inspired by the Humble Bundle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humble_Indie_Bundle). Since its inception, the Humble Bundle has generated over $23M (http://cheesetalks.twolofbees.com/humble/), most of which has gone to the game developers, all of whom are presumably businesses who are trying to make money.

You might argue that it makes no sense for the game developers (and now, musicians and authors) to participate in the Humble Bundle, but the fact that they continue to do so suggests that they would disagree with you.

[furtom]

As noted by Jono Bacon (http://www.jonobacon.org/2012/10/09/easier-financial-contributions-to-ubuntu-2/), the idea was inspired by the Humble Bundle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humble_Indie_Bundle). Since its inception, the Humble Bundle has generated over $23M (http://cheesetalks.twolofbees.com/humble/), most of which has gone to the game developers, all of whom are presumably businesses who are trying to make money.

You might argue that it makes no sense for the game developers (and now, musicians and authors) to participate in the Humble Bundle, but the fact that they continue to do so suggests that they would disagree with you.

I think you are missing an important point here.

The developers are contributing to open source writing software under the GPL (or other work under the CC). By the terms of the licence, all this work is available outside Humble Bundle and for free. Humble Bundle's business model is to collect donations for them and make it easy for users to download and install the software. For that they take a percentage. Good business plan.

But that's not at all what I perceive Canonical is doing. They are not, as far as I know, collecting donations for distribution to Debian and developers and extracting a fee for Ubuntu's role in providing it.

Programmers contribute to open source not to make money for any entity. The GPL makes their work open and available to anyone to build upon. In short, it's a service to the community. That is their motivation.

Anyone is free to try to make money with open source in any way except selling it! The GPL makes that very clear. And it's a good thing, too. If it weren't that way, Ubuntu wouldn't exist.

I'm not accusing Canonical of trying to sell Ubuntu. It's clear the donation is optional. There is no legal problem with this as far as the GPL is concerned.

I'd just rather donate to non profits. If Canonical provides a service I want to buy, I'd be happy to pay.

I'm not against the profit motive in any way. And I'm also a big proponent of open source. I just find it odd the way it's being done here. Makes no sense to me in fact.

[thatguruguy]

I think you are missing an important point here.

...

Anyone is free to try to make money with open source in any way except selling it! The GPL makes that very clear. And it's a good thing, too. If it weren't that way, Ubuntu wouldn't exist.


Wait... what? First of all, you're wrong (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html).

Secondly, Canonical pays a bunch of people, and (as already mentioned (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=12291731&postcount=62) in this thread), the requests relate to projects being done by Canonical.

I'm not convinced that I'm the one who is "missing an important point."

[thatguruguy]

Moreover, the following statement:



The developers are contributing to open source writing software under the GPL (or other work under the CC). By the terms of the licence, all this work is available outside Humble Bundle and for free. Humble Bundle's business model is to collect donations for them and make it easy for users to download and install the software. For that they take a percentage. Good business plan.


... makes clear that you have no idea at all what the Humble Bundle is.

[furtom]

Moreover, the following statement:



... makes clear that you have no idea at all what the Humble Bundle is.

You might be right about that. I was just going on what you said about them distributing money to developers.

OK, yes the GPL does allow for charging for distribution, but the source code has to be freely available to those it is distributed to. Those persons can do whatever they want with the source code.

The moment Ubuntu charged for the binaries, someone else would compile it and release it for free. That's the main reason most distributions are freely available. The market dictates it.

I got ahead of myself speaking in shorthand. Thanks for pointing it out.

[jrog]

The developers are contributing to open source writing software under the GPL (or other work under the CC). By the terms of the licence, all this work is available outside Humble Bundle and for free. Humble Bundle's business model is to collect donations for them and make it easy for users to download and install the software. For that they take a percentage. Good business plan.
As thatguruguy pointed out, this isn't correct. The developers whose work becomes available in the Humble Bundles are not all writing open source software, and the games are not all under the GPL. Many of the games have been proprietary, and have not been offered elsewhere for free. The business model of the Humble Bundle is to allow users to purchase these games in a "name your own price" sort of way.


But that's not at all what I perceive Canonical is doing. They are not, as far as I know, collecting donations for distribution to Debian and developers and extracting a fee for Ubuntu's role in providing it.
Why does this make any difference? I can't see any relevance to this right now. Canonical develops a product and is now distributing that product on a "name your own price" model just like the Humble Bundle model. I can't see why it matters that Canonical is both the developer and the distributor of the product, or why it matters that Canonical is not merely giving these donations to Debian. Canonical's product is based on Debian, but it is not Debian itself. Perhaps you simply have an issue with making money off of GPL software? If so, then it seems you have a problem with the license itself.


Programmers contribute to open source not to make money for any entity.
This is certainly not always true. Many people develop open source software with the goal of making money for various entities.


Anyone is free to try to make money with open source in any way except selling it! The GPL makes that very clear. And it's a good thing, too. If it weren't that way, Ubuntu wouldn't exist.
As thatguruguy pointed out, this simply isn't correct, so:


I'm not accusing Canonical of trying to sell Ubuntu. It's clear the donation is optional. There is no legal problem with this as far as the GPL is concerned.
there would also be no legal problem with this as far as the GPL is concerned if Canonical were to try to sell Ubuntu.

[thatguruguy]

You might be right about that. I was just going on what you said about them distributing money to developers.

I did more than that; I provided a link so you could read about it yourself. I'd suggest that it's generally better to actually research your position prior to making your points than to make others do the research to prove you're wrong.


OK, yes the GPL does allow for charging for distribution, but the source code has to be freely available to those it is distributed to. Those persons can do whatever they want with the source code.

The moment Ubuntu charged for the binaries, someone else would compile it and release it for free. That's the main reason most distributions are freely available. The market dictates it.

Which is why, I suppose, you are encouraged to PAY WHAT YOU THINK IT'S WORTH, rather than Canonical simply charging for Ubuntu. If you don't think it's worth anything, don't pay anything. That's up to you.

But that's not what you've argued. These are the main arguments you've made:


You've argued that it makes no sense for an actual company to accept donations; I've shown that the "Humble Bundle" method of allowing people to pay what they want (which Canonical is explicitly following) is a successful way to generate money.
You've argued that selling open source software is prohibited by the GPL, which is simply wrong.
You've argued that Canonical/Ubuntu is somehow diverting funds away from Debian and other institutions by charging money for the work of others, although it's been mentioned repeatedly that Canonical is suggesting that users donate to projects that Canonical is, itself, working on. If you don't think any of those projects are worthwhile, don't donate to them, but your original premise is faulty.

Again, if you don't feel like donating, don't donate. But don't pretend that the reasons you don't want to donate are the reasons you've given thus far, because those reasons don't hold any water.

[sammiev]

I'm assuming you missed this post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=12291120&postcount=55). You can use a credit card or debit card. I don't know of a way to submit a money order via a a form on a web page.

Your correct, I did miss that post. Now my donation has been made. :)

Thanks

[furtom]

Why does this make any difference? I can't see any relevance to this right now. Canonical develops a product and is now distributing that product on a "name your own price" model just like the Humble Bundle model. I can't see why it matters that Canonical is both the developer and the distributor of the product, or why it matters that Canonical is not merely giving these donations to Debian. Canonical's product is based on Debian, but it is not Debian itself. Perhaps you simply have an issue with making money off of GPL software? If so, then it seems you have a problem with the license itself.

No! I don't. I just have a problem with a for-profit company soliciting for donations. Actually, "have a problem" is too strong. Canonical can conduct its business any way it wants to. I just don't understand why anyone would do it.

Anyway, I think I've talked this subject to death here. I'm even starting to bore myself! :) I hope to see you guys in other threads where we can perhaps agree.

[furtom]

I did more than that; I provided a link so you could read about it yourself. I'd suggest that it's generally better to actually research your position prior to making your points than to make others do the research to prove you're wrong.
Guilty as charged. I apologize.




You've argued that Canonical/Ubuntu is somehow diverting funds away from Debian and other institutions by charging money for the work of others, although it's been mentioned repeatedly that Canonical is suggesting that users donate to projects that Canonical is, itself, working on. If you don't think any of those projects are worthwhile, don't donate to them, but your original premise is faulty.

I don't think I ever said "diverting." I just said I don't get why anyone would contribute donations to a for-profit rather than to guys who are donating their time. That's it.

And you are taking my stance in the most negative way possible. I'm not sure why. I never said Ubuntu's projects weren't worthwhile. Never even implied that.

Anyway, I've tried to make my opinion as clear as I can as have you. It's all good.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do.

[jrog]

No! I don't. I just have a problem with a for-profit company soliciting for donations. Actually, "have a problem" is too strong. Canonical can conduct its business any way it wants to. I just don't understand why anyone would do it.
But why even understand it as a "donation?" The title of this thread says that Canonical is asking users to "pay what [they] think Ubuntu is worth," which is different than asking for donations -- it is requesting a payment for software/services provided directly to the paying user. And the page where you actually choose the payment amount also doesn't portray it as a donation, as far as I can tell (it says "contribution," but not all contributions are donations, and one of the examples it mentions is a tip, which is not a donation).

Presumably, you don't have problems with for-profit organizations seeking payment for software/services from those who use the software/services. So, I'm not sure that I understand what the problem is with Canonical/Ubuntu doing it, particularly when it is using the "Humble Bundle" model of allowing the user to set the price that they pay and even providing the option of paying nothing.

[goldshirt9]

Conical cannot need the money so badly as if you believe the hype of how much of the world is run on linux.

I would be willing to donate though if they stopped rolling out a new distro's, when the old distro has multiple bugs.

I use and love the LTS release but it can miss out on lot's of new features when developers constantly chase new versions.

[matt_symes]

Closed for review.

[CharlesA]

Reopened after clean up.

You are free to disagree with someone's opinion, but please be respectful about it. (That is a general "you" btw.)

[lisati]

I'm assuming you missed this post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=12291120&postcount=55). You can use a credit card or debit card. I don't know of a way to submit a money order via a a form on a web page.

Money order? /me brushes cobwebs away to get a clear view of some memories..... :D

[vasa1]

... /me brushes cobwebs away to get a clear view of some memories..... :D
Only works for external cobwebs ;)

[CharlesA]

Only works for external cobwebs ;)
Unless you go to Rekall. ;)

[vasa1]

Unless you go to Rekall. ;)
But they charge more than $16 :(

[otetiani]

I intend on donating, The progression alone of Ubuntu since I started using it (2004) has been more than favorable in my eyes. I hope and expect money to go where it is needed most. Even if the money only goes to fighting the closed source OS market from pushing us out it's a win for all of us, I know everytime I have to work on one of our non-Ubuntu systems I am amazed again when I log back on my Ubuntu system how well it works for me and allows me to modify what I want usually easily.

[mikodo]

I use and love the LTS release but it can miss out on lot's of new features when developers constantly chase new versions.
I too, prefer LTS releases for my main OS.

I use PPA's and backport repositories for newer features of some of the apps, to keep them current. Have you tried that?

[forrestcupp]

That doesn't answer my question. These Forums are provided for Community support and interaction. Canonical gains no direct benefit from them. They are funded by Canonical. So should Canonical continue to fund or should the community fund by way of donation. It is the same with the Developer conferences?I don't think that's true at all. Canonical benefits greatly from the forums because they are one of their main sources of free of charge support. It helps their image to be able to offer free community support. They are benefiting from us.



If Mark set up Ubuntu as not-for-profit, everything you say would be 100 percent correct. But since Canonical is trying to make a profit, that makes all the difference.

Mark has said himself, Canonical is creeping toward the break even point. When that happens, then what? Let's say it turns a profit. Is Canonical going to return the donations?

It just doesn't make sense that a business asks for donations. It doesn't matter if it's a linux business or any other.You really don't understand how these things work at all. Yes, Canonical is a for-profit corporation, but they never have and never will use Ubuntu to make a profit. The thing you don't understand is that Ubuntu is created and maintained by something called The Ubuntu Project (http://www.ubuntu.com/project), which is a collaboration of Canonical and the open source community. The Ubuntu Project is financially sponsored by Canonical, and also provided with some full time developers. Canonical isn't trying to make their profit from Ubuntu, the distribution. They have other things they use for generating revenue, like Ubuntu One, commercial support, and OEMs. Ubuntu is not Canonical; Ubuntu is sponsored by Canonical.

Did you happen to notice that the donation page is on Ubuntu's web site, and not on Canonical's web site (http://www.canonical.com/about-canonical), which is different? Did you also notice that out of the 8 options for which projects to donate to, only one of them is for a tip for Canonical, and the rest go directly to the different parts of the Ubuntu Project? Canonical is only acting as the administrator here.

[KiwiNZ]

I don't think that's true at all. Canonical benefits greatly from the forums because they are one of their main sources of free of charge support. It helps their image to be able to offer free community support. They are benefiting from us.

.

You are correct, I should have said Canonical receives no direct fiscal benefit from these Forums.

[vasa1]

... It helps their image to be able to offer free community support. They are benefiting from us.
...
Unfortunately, it's double-edged. Quite a few people use the forum to, putting it politely, exercise their "freedom of speech" rather than provide actual support. Just check out the number of posts of several people relating to providing support as opposed to their contributions around the water-cooler.
Even this thread provides a few examples of low-beaners who don't feel, or haven't yet felt, the need to be active in the support section but are highly visible here.

[JDShu]

Unfortunately, it's double-edged. Quite a few people use the forum to, putting it politely, exercise their "freedom of speech" rather than provide actual support. Just check out the number of posts of several people relating to providing support as opposed to their contributions around the water-cooler.
Even this thread provides a few examples of low-beaners who don't feel, or haven't yet felt, the need to be active in the support section but are highly visible here.

I did not realize that the only reason for any of us to be here is to provide value for Canonical.

[Drenriza]

I think it is a good idea. But i would like to see this also on the server download page.

If ubuntu had en easy to use, monthly donation system, i would setup a monthly donation. It would not be much, since i don't have a lot ,) But less is better than nothing?

And if i donated a little and others donated a little, a drop will become a river?

Anyways, thumps up.
Hope people will use it.

[vasa1]

I did not realize that the only reason for any of us to be here is to provide value for Canonical.
Did anyone say exactly that?

[shreepads]

Did you happen to notice that the donation page is on Ubuntu's web site, and not on Canonical's web site (http://www.canonical.com/about-canonical), which is different? Did you also notice that out of the 8 options for which projects to donate to, only one of them is for a tip for Canonical, and the rest go directly to the different parts of the Ubuntu Project? Canonical is only acting as the administrator here.

Hmmm, well that's almost correct. Look at the post from Jono Bacon here:

http://www.jonobacon.org/2012/10/09/easier-financial-contributions-to-ubuntu-2/


"When a contribution occurs, Canonical will act as a steward for the money and ensure it is managed fairly and in accordance of the user’s wishes…ensuring it goes to the part of the project outlined in the form. Importantly, Canonical will not be using the money for any Canonical business-orientated functions; all of the contributions will be used to fund the Ubuntu project and continue it’s growth and development."

So we trust Canonical (but of course they have root so...) but IMHO Canonical will have to open up part of its finances so that people who contibute can trust but verify...

And if they are indeed imitating Humble Bundle, a few graphs outlining total collections split by area of collection etc would go some way towards this.


Unfortunately, it's double-edged. Quite a few people use the forum to, putting it politely, exercise their "freedom of speech" rather than provide actual support. Just check out the number of posts of several people relating to providing support as opposed to their contributions around the water-cooler.
Even this thread provides a few examples of low-beaners who don't feel, or haven't yet felt, the need to be active in the support section but are highly visible here.

Interesting point-of-view... I thought the point of a forum is that folks do what they want/ can as long as they follow the forum rules... "Double-edged" seems to imply that there is a downside to any behaviour other than asking for/ providing support...

Also what's the threshold after which one is no longer a "low-beaner"?

[nothingspecial]

what's the threshold after which one is no longer a "low-beaner"?

12,800




I thought the point of a forum is that folks do what they want/ can as long as they follow the forum rules...

It is :) It's all about the community.

[stinkeye]

12,800

Your in the "Bean there,done that" category.
:p

[shreepads]

I'm assuming you missed this post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=12291120&postcount=55). You can use a credit card or debit card. I don't know of a way to submit a money order via a a form on a web page.

Well I just finished paying using that option and the experience wasn't too great

- Firstly I need to give Paypal my complete address, email id and for some reason, telephone number before I can pay with my CC... I think I need to start moving homes/ phones now...

- After Paypal verifies the basic details and I hit "Pay Now", it sends me straight back to Ubuntu where the ISO starts downloading. No hint about whether the transaction went thru succesfully or not, no confirmation page to the effect that yes we have succesfully received your $20 (or there was an error) and note that you are contributing nothing to make the desktop more amazing or to our grand plans of tablet/ phone convergence...

Hmpf... :(

[forrestcupp]

Unfortunately, it's double-edged. Quite a few people use the forum to, putting it politely, exercise their "freedom of speech" rather than provide actual support. Just check out the number of posts of several people relating to providing support as opposed to their contributions around the water-cooler.
Even this thread provides a few examples of low-beaners who don't feel, or haven't yet felt, the need to be active in the support section but are highly visible here.I don't really see that as a bad thing. If we can provide a real community where people enjoy hanging out and talking, then we're more likely to keep people around to help out in the support sections, too. Not everyone will, but their presence still adds to the community to help keep some here for support.


Hmmm, well that's almost correct. Look at the post from Jono Bacon here:

http://www.jonobacon.org/2012/10/09/easier-financial-contributions-to-ubuntu-2/
How is it almost correct? I pretty much said exactly what he did. The money goes directly to the projects in the Ubuntu Project that you choose, but Canonical administrates it, which means the same as they act like a steward. The only time Canonical itself gets any money that doesn't go directly to a specific project is when you choose to donate to the box that says "Tip to Canonical – they help make it happen".

[thatguruguy]

Well I just finished paying using that option and the experience wasn't too great

- Firstly I need to give Paypal my complete address, email id and for some reason, telephone number before I can pay with my CC... I think I need to start moving homes/ phones now...

Perhaps you've never bought anything on the internet, but many banks now require information including the telephone number of the credit/debit card holder in order to combat fraud. Feel free to give incorrect information, but make sure it's the same incorrect information that you've given your bank or credit card company.


- After Paypal verifies the basic details and I hit "Pay Now", it sends me straight back to Ubuntu where the ISO starts downloading. No hint about whether the transaction went thru succesfully or not, no confirmation page to the effect that yes we have succesfully received your $20 (or there was an error) and note that you are contributing nothing to make the desktop more amazing or to our grand plans of tablet/ phone convergence...

Hmpf... :(

Presumably, if the transaction had failed, it would not have proceeded.

[vasa1]

Well I just finished paying using that option and the experience wasn't too great

- Firstly I need to give Paypal my complete address, email id and for some reason, telephone number before I can pay with my CC... I think I need to start moving homes/ phones now...

- After Paypal verifies the basic details and I hit "Pay Now", it sends me straight back to Ubuntu where the ISO starts downloading. No hint about whether the transaction went thru succesfully or not, no confirmation page to the effect that yes we have succesfully received your $20 (or there was an error) and note that you are contributing nothing to make the desktop more amazing or to our grand plans of tablet/ phone convergence...

Hmpf... :(

What do you mean by the part in bold? I've had basically the same experience. I provided my debit card details and signed up on Saturday.

Today, the two tiny credits they mention appeared in my bank account. I filled in that information as directed by them.

Then I was told a four-digit code would be sent at a temporary cost of USD 1.95 (to be reversed later). That was debited from my account. I used that four-digit code to verify my debit card with PayPal. Then went to the Ubuntu site. Made payment. No mention of whether the transaction has gone through or not. No debit of approx. INR. 880 (equivalent of USD 16) from my account.

[vasa1]

Perhaps you've never bought anything on the internet, but many banks now require information including the telephone number of the credit/debit card holder in order to combat fraud. Feel free to give incorrect information, but make sure it's the same incorrect information that you've given your bank or credit card company.

Presumably, if the transaction had failed, it would not have proceeded.

I do my banking online. I buy mutual funds online. I pay utility bills online. I buy and sell shares online. All of a sudden, it appears I don't know the basics :)

[vasa1]

It is :) It's all about the community.
Somewhat like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8To-6VIJZRE) but Community, Community, Community?

[thatguruguy]

I do my banking online. I buy mutual funds online. I pay utility bills online. I buy and sell shares online. All of a sudden, it appears I don't know the basics :)

It's entirely possible that different countries have different standards.

My bank required that I provide my social security number (which is significantly more invasive than requesting my phone number) when I set up online banking. I occasionally call my utility companies, which also verify both my phone number and the last four digits of my social security number.

Again, these are anti-fraud measures typical in the U.S. I can't speak for the requirements in other countries, however I'm not surprised that an international company would request any and all information that may be required by the different banks in different countries, rather than generating different forms for each locale.

[vasa1]

It's entirely possible that different countries have different standards.

My bank required that I provide my social security number (which is significantly more invasive than requesting my phone number) when I set up online banking. I occasionally call my utility companies, which also verify both my phone number and the last four digits of my social security number. ...
India has something called a Permanent Account Number that's necessary for more and more financial transactions.

With reference to the current topic, it's just a bit unusual that there's no immediate confirmation of whether the transaction went through successfully or not.

I wonder if Canonical intends to have a page showing the donors. The one-man show @ Mint does.

[forrestcupp]

India has something called a Permanent Account Number that's necessary for more and more financial transactions.
Do they tattoo a UPC code to you? :)

[thatguruguy]

India has something called a Permanent Account Number that's necessary for more and more financial transactions.

THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST!


With reference to the current topic, it's just a bit unusual that there's no immediate confirmation of whether the transaction went through successfully or not.

I see the point, and agree. At the very least, they should send a confirmatory e-mail. But I think that needs to be done by Canonical, not PayPal.

[shreepads]

Perhaps you've never bought anything on the internet, but many banks now require information including the telephone number of the credit/debit card holder in order to combat fraud. Feel free to give incorrect information, but make sure it's the same incorrect information that you've given your bank or credit card company.

Presumably, if the transaction had failed, it would not have proceeded.

Wow, that's deep. You first imply that I've never bought anything on the net and then don't find it strange that no confirmation page is displayed after paying. Which you retract later below but we'll get to that.

Now from my basic online shopping experience, Amazon doesn't require a phone number, but obviously they want an address. While for movie tickets no address is required, but they want a phone number to which they send a confirmation code. Basically sufficient information.

The problem here is that Paypal is collecting excessive information. I don't know why you are propping up Paypal all through this thread. More payment options are needed, Paypal is not good enough.


What do you mean by the part in bold? I've had basically the same experience. I provided my debit card details and signed up on Saturday.

I used a credit card, which is probably why we have a different experience.



I see the point, and agree. At the very least, they should send a confirmatory e-mail. But I think that needs to be done by Canonical, not PayPal.

Well I did get a confirmatory email but that was from Paypal, not Canonical/ Ubuntu... Which still doesn't obviate the need for a confirmation screen from Canonical/ Ubuntu saying 'Yes we got the money'.

Anyway, that's it, I'm done donating and off this thread...

[clanky]

It will be interesting to see the figures of exactly how much the supposedly awesome Ubuntu community does donate, there have been eleventeen million threads on UF with people saying that they would gladly pay x dollars for Ubuntu, well, for all those who have posted in those threads with the amounts you would pay, here is your chance to put your money where your mouths are.

I suspect that the actual results will be quite poor, although it may give Canonical a wake up call as to exactly how much Ubuntu is really worth as an unsupported (or even a community supported) OS.

[vasa1]

Do they tattoo a UPC code to you? :)
Community building at its best.

[jrog]

I suspect that the actual results will be quite poor, although it may give Canonical a wake up call as to exactly how much Ubuntu is really worth as an unsupported (or even a community supported) OS.
I think it probably depends on what you mean by "poor results." What do you think Canonical is expecting or ought to expect? What would be good results?

[forrestcupp]

It will be interesting to see the figures of exactly how much the supposedly awesome Ubuntu community does donate, there have been eleventeen million threads on UF with people saying that they would gladly pay x dollars for Ubuntu, well, for all those who have posted in those threads with the amounts you would pay, here is your chance to put your money where your mouths are.

I suspect that the actual results will be quite poor, although it may give Canonical a wake up call as to exactly how much Ubuntu is really worth as an unsupported (or even a community supported) OS.

I don't know what you're talking about. They've pretty much always accepted donations, so it's not like now we finally have a way to pay them. It's just more obtrusive now.

[mr john]

I'm only going to donate when Ubuntu works out of the box with my HP G6 laptop. Right now it wont boot OOTB. The bug has been on launchpad for some time. Personally I would prefer to donate directly to package developers rather than Canonical's offshore account in the Isle of Man.

[Dry Lips]

I think it's a good idea... If you wanted to make a donation to Ubuntu before this, you would actually have to spend quite some time on their website trying to find a way to donate. I know people on this forum who have asked about where to make a donation, so the donation page was kind of hidden before. You'd think that Canonical didn't care about donations before, but I'm glad they've realised that it's a valid way of generating income.

[ScottDeagan]

As a very long term Ubuntu user who has deployed more Ubuntu servers than he can remember and uses Ubuntu as his primary desktop/work OS (and Ubuntu Server as his home server), I decided to donate last night.

Unfortunately, the donation system doesn't work. I went to the "Desktop Contribute" page, moved the sliders around, clicked on the "Pay with PayPal" button. From here I was redirected to the "process-donation" page, and it just hung (first time). When I tried several times after that, a warning message was displayed (attached).

I hope someone from Canonical fixes this problem soon, as they could be haemorrhaging donations as we speak (type)...

[Trumusiate]

Good idea. I donated some years ago and I'll likely do it again.

[rg4w]

I'm glad the donation page is now easy to find at ubuntu.com, and I LOVE that I can choose which category my donation will be applied to:
http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/questions?distro=desktop

The categories there were all tempting and to various degree I feel they're all important goals well worth supporting.

But for myself, I feel that none of them can really move forward significantly until we get the "it just works" factor done first. After all, you can't enjoy Ubuntu if you can't run it at all.

So to make my intent clear, I moved all sliders there to the left except for "Improve hardware support on more PCs" - that one I slid all the way to the right, and happily donated $125 to that goal.

It's still a bargain to me at that price; I'll likely pay again down the road to add a little more toward seeing that goal moving forward.


This exercise got me thinking about the rest of you:

For those who chose to donate, what did you choose for your categories?

[kanikilu]

I actually just noticed that page today, seems like a good idea. I guess time will tell if the trend set by Linux customers with the Humble Bundles continues :)

[gerowen]

Yeah I gave them a few dollars, they deserve it.

[sffvba[e0rt]

Threads merged.

404

[Jedcurtis]

I really wish I had the money to donate to one of the Linux projects, and as soon as I do, I definitely will. Knowing how many people are going to fork over 80 bucks US, to get the new version of Windows 8 and then be disappointed, is disheartening. I know how hard the dev's work to keep all of us happy! Happy to not be using MS that is! Free is a misnomer here, as "time is money" and it takes a lot of time to get whatever distro your using up to it's current standards. I also know it's hard to make everyone happy all the time! That said, for now my contribution will have to come in the form of the written word on my blog site. Since August 15th, that amounts to over 12,000 viewers! So if you want to know what I have to say about the wondrousness of Linux, look no further than; No Thanks, I have Linux! (http://www.jedsdesk.com/?p=640.) (I had to change at least one word so as not to make merelyjim on the #! CrunchBang Linux Forums think I was stealing his title! :mrgreen:)

Moderators, feel free to redirect this post to wherever you deem it should be! This is just where I post the most. I just wanted people to know how important 'we the users' donations are in the continuation and betterment of Linux, and Open-Source projects, really is. Donations can come in many forms, i.e. money, word of mouth, posting something positive on your blog, or even contributing to development etc.

Thanks,
Jed

[sffvba[e0rt]

I really wish I had the money to donate to one of the Linux projects, and as soon as I do, I definitely will. Knowing how many people are going to fork over 80 bucks US, to get the new version of Windows 8 and then be disappointed, is disheartening. I know how hard the dev's work to keep all of us happy! Happy to not be using MS that is! Free is a misnomer here, as "time is money" and it takes a lot of time to get whatever distro your using up to it's current standards. I also know it's hard to make everyone happy all the time! That said, for now my contribution will have to come in the form of the written word on my blog site. Since August 15th, that amounts to over 12,000 viewers! So if you want to know what I have to say about the wondrousness of Linux, look no further than; No Thanks, I have Linux! (http://www.jedsdesk.com/?p=640.) (I had to change at least one word so as not to make merelyjim on the #! CrunchBang Linux Forums think I was stealing his title! :mrgreen:)

Moderators, feel free to redirect this post to wherever you deem it should be! This is just where I post the most. I just wanted people to know how important 'we the users' donations are in the continuation and betterment of Linux, and Open-Source projects, really is. Donations can come in many forms, i.e. money, word of mouth, posting something positive on your blog, or even contributing to development etc.

Thanks,
Jed

Post moved to more appropriate thread.

404

[forrestcupp]

Threads merged.

404

Now you've polluted a positive thread about this with a very long negative one. :)

[sffvba[e0rt]

Now you've polluted a positive thread about this with a very long negative one. :)

I have?


404

[forrestcupp]

I have?


404

The new thread seemed kind of positive about this, and the old thread you merged it with had a lot of negativity. ;)

[sffvba[e0rt]

I only moved the last two or three posts and they don't sound that bad...


404