Do you care, Canonical?

[amiga_os]

Here's a quotation from a review of Edgy Eft (http://www.softwareinreview.com/cms/content/view/59/):


On a final note, I think there is a serious flaw in Canonical Ltd.'s business model. Any company that provides a free product and intends to make money primarily from support services for that product is not financially motivated to offer something that works well. Ubuntu Linux will never be perfect because if it were, Canonical, Ltd. would have no support services to sell. Why spend money on release testing when you can make money telling customers how to fix bugs instead? Perhaps that is what truly separates commercial distros from the free-of-charge ones; with commercial operating systems you pay for the company's best effort at creating a perfect software distribution, not a company's best attempt to create a product that requires paid support services. The better Ubuntu gets with its desktop configuration tools and user documentation, the less money Canonical, Ltd. will make. Doesn't quite make sense, does it?

The review contains a lot of positive stuff... but how would Canonical respond to an allegation like that? If M$ started getting really scared of Ubuntu, would they use a similar argument? If so what would the response be?

[zugu]

Maybe they'll say something about the impossibility of creating a bug-free distribution, or about people needing a *specific* kind of support. They'll think of something.

The real question is, I think, wether the quotation is right or not.

[prizrak]

I know what my response would be. "Home users will not pay us money for support and business users will need support regardless of how good the OS is. MS and Apple both provide commercial support for their end user despite how "good" their configuration tools are. We will make money mostly from businesses asking for customized distributions that fit their needs not from an 800 support number that tells you how to change your mouse cursor from white to purple"

[prizrak]

Maybe they'll say something about the impossibility of creating a bug-free distribution, or about people needing a *specific* kind of support. They'll think of something.

The real question is, I think, wether the quotation is right or not.

If you go from Warty to Hoary to Breezy to Dapper to Edgy you will see real and obvious improvement in both configuration ease and OOTB support. Hence there is no question, the quote is wrong.

[Spano]

Interesting, never thought of it that way. IF that's the model it would be a fine line between creating a quality distro that enterprise would want to adopt and a buggy one that requires constant service.

[MaximB]

believe it or not but M$ making LOTS of money out of support too , and I mean LOTS of money !
but in the end windows has much more bugs then Linux, how would you explain that ? how can they SELL you a broken software ? wouldn't they supposed to be motivated to make the best , bug clear software ? the home clients don't pay for support.

[Erik Trybom]

This is a twist of a classic reliability problem (I don't know if the phenomenon actually has a name).

If everything you bought was set to self-destruction one day after the warranty runs out, then you would have to buy new stuff every third year or so. Therefore it would be in the manufacturer's interest to make products that didn't last too long.

There is an obvious flaw in this reasoning though. If there was just one company that made stuff that lasted longer than the common three years, then everyone would start buying their products. The other manufacturers would have to start making better quality stuff or be put out of business. No one likes to buy stuff that won't last.

Sooner or later these two forces will balance each other and we get products that are reliable but perhaps slightly tilted towards bleeding edge. Making your products last longer does give you less sales - or, in Canonical's case, less support deals - but on the other hand more people will choose your product.

The article's conclusion is flawed in many other ways too. For one thing, I don't know much about the support business but I can imagine most of the support does not involve bug fixing at all. And as several people here already pointed out, Microsoft and Apple offer support deals just as Canonical and Redhat do.

[macogw]

They don't pay for release testing, like the quote says, anyway. We all (well, those of us who don't mind seeing it crash for the sake of going 'oh, i wonder why it did THAT?') download Feisty alphas, go "hey it crashed!" then the next alpha, the betas, until it's stable.

[BarfBag]

That quote is most definitely wrong. I remember back when I tried Ubuntu for the first time (I believe it was only the first or second release). The ease of use was there, but it was too unstable for me. I went straight back to SUSE (which you people know I flip-flop about). It got better and better and now it's not even an issue.

[aysiu]

Competition is what keeps companies accountable for quality. If Ubuntu created a crappy distro so they could charge for support, what would stop people from using a better distro that also charges for support?

Also, support is something legitimate companies and workplaces will almost always want to pay for, regardless of the quality of the product.

By the way, proprietary software is even worse. They charge you for support and...

1. Won't let you change the code even if you know your tech department can make the product better
2. Give you only a certain amount of licenses
3. Give you a crippled version of the product and then charge you more to get real functionality out of it with "add-on" products

[encompass]

I agree with the above. A company can make money. The real motivator is the competition itself. Actually creating a better product so that when there is a problem and yes, at some level there always is, they go to the make of that product. Red hat did it for years. And never lost money over it.

[wpshooter]

If you go from Warty to Hoary to Breezy to Dapper to Edgy you will see real and obvious improvement in both configuration ease and OOTB support. Hence there is no question, the quote is wrong.

Done get me wrong, I am a fan of Ubuntu, but I don't quite agree with your observation regarding improvement in configuration ease.

I have observed very little efforts to make the configuration of this O/S easier for most users by writing good GUI tools to use in configuring things. Most configurations of this O/S are still based on knowing where to find the particular configuration file and what parameter lines in that file to edit and knowing the proper varibles for the parameters in order to get the particular function properly configured. All this is knowledge that MOST computer users do NOT have.

IMO, this O/S has a good ways to go before many average computer users can be comfortable with using it.

Thanks.

[Hex_Mandos]

I tend to agree with wpshooter. Installation is definitely easier than Windows... but Ubuntu needs tons of "finishing touches" to make it work reasonably well. I mean stuff like proprietary Firefox plugins (I hate Flash passionately as a designer, but I can't live without it as a surfer), multimedia codecs (I have nothing against ogg, but not being able to use mp3s confirms the myth that "Linux isn't compatible"), etc. Not to mention installation of some hardware drivers (it took me three tries to install my nVidia card, and I don't call directories folders).

[prizrak]

Done get me wrong, I am a fan of Ubuntu, but I don't quite agree with your observation regarding improvement in configuration ease.

I have observed very little efforts to make the configuration of this O/S easier for most users by writing good GUI tools to use in configuring things. Most configurations of this O/S are still based on knowing where to find the particular configuration file and what parameter lines in that file to edit and knowing the proper varibles for the parameters in order to get the particular function properly configured. All this is knowledge that MOST computer users do NOT have.

IMO, this O/S has a good ways to go before many average computer users can be comfortable with using it.

Thanks.
Honestly I have never needed any kind of file editing on Ubuntu. I had issues with my touchpad up to Breezy but since then it is completely set up for me. Network-Manager takes care of the pain in the butt configuration of WPA supplicant (though it's not perfect yet it does require uncommenting interfaces but I'm sure will change once it's the default). Repositories can be both added and enabled in the GUI. Automatix is extremely easy to install and is basically copy pasting. I know Automatix is 3rd party but I have found that save for one or two things everything is actually in the repos it's just easier to use a script that does everything for you.

I had to touch a config file when I was setting up my tablet, that was the only thing that I think needs improvement. Everything else just worked out of the box.


it took me three tries to install my nVidia card, and I don't call directories folders
You must be one unlucky SOB. Drivers in the repos install as easily as everything else using Synaptic. Installing beta drivers was also a breeze for me, tho it did kill xorg on reboot, but then again if you compile stuff outside of repos there is nothing Ubuntu can do for you.


I agree that config tools are not as good as SuSE or Fedora but Ubuntu doesn't have as many paid developers and GUI designers as those two. Novell/RH can afford to maintain teams of people that do nothing but work on Yast, XGL, Compiz and Network-Manager. We basically get what Gnome/KDE provides.

I think some people misunderstand what support is. Canonical wouldn't expect you to pay $200 a month (or w/e the price is, too lazy to look) so you can call and ask how to set up your Bluetooth. Support they are talking about is corporate where it might involve creating some custom software to make Ubuntu work with some piece of specialized hardware/software that the enterprise uses. Or even a completely custom distro that will do EXACTLY what the organization wants. It's not the geek squad ;)

[d3v1ant_0n3]

I am the only one who pictured Mark Shuttleworth cackling maniaically, hunched over a keyboard, furiously inserting bugs?

[drphilngood]

I am the only one who pictured Mark Shuttleworth cackling maniaically, hunched over a keyboard, furiously inserting bugs?

That is hilarious!

[jimrz]

This is a twist of a classic reliability problem (I don't know if the phenomenon actually has a name).

If everything you bought was set to self-destruction one day after the warranty runs out, then you would have to buy new stuff every third year or so. Therefore it would be in the manufacturer's interest to make products that didn't last too long.

There is an obvious flaw in this reasoning though. If there was just one company that made stuff that lasted longer than the common three years, then everyone would start buying their products. The other manufacturers would have to start making better quality stuff or be put out of business. No one likes to buy stuff that won't last.

Sooner or later these two forces will balance each other and we get products that are reliable but perhaps slightly tilted towards bleeding edge. Making your products last longer does give you less sales - or, in Canonical's case, less support deals - but on the other hand more people will choose your product.

The article's conclusion is flawed in many other ways too. For one thing, I don't know much about the support business but I can imagine most of the support does not involve bug fixing at all. And as several people here already pointed out, Microsoft and Apple offer support deals just as Canonical and Redhat do.

ask the Big 3 Automakers in Detroit ( inventors of "planned obsolesence") what they think along these lines now ... I wonder if they will ever be able to regain the consumer cofidence (and $'s) that they valued so lightly ...

[encompass]

ask the Big 3 Automakers in Detroit ( inventors of "planned obsolesence") what they think along these lines now ... I wonder if they will ever be able to regain the consumer cofidence (and $'s) that they valued so lightly ...

Call it better costumer service. Which culturally in america is highly favored. But in other places, Like here in Finland they don't accept costumer service the same way. When you come to the store you are supposed to know what your going to get. Why would they help you find the product when you could find something else that could make them even more money.
With the first, more costumer service ideology, people are willing to offer services so much to compete against another they would give away a product that is better than any other. That way THEY get the service not there competitors.
That is the reason I feel Cononical does an open source os. It also provides a way, at the same time, to help developing countries that could pay services, but can't pay licencing. Like oh so many companies in countries that end up getting illegal versions of windows.
I am happy to be part of a new way of business. I hope that I can offer my services for Ubuntu Based products some day. Just on a smaller scale. Not on Cononicals, government and companies idea.
Well enough ramblings for me.