Where's the money come from?

[jdodson]

i went to the website and it says nothing about purchasing anything. is Canonical out to make money? if not that is cool, if they are that is cool as well. i was just wondering about that. they did say they would offer pay support (http://www.ubuntulinux.org/support/paidsupport), or at least pricing options on the website.

its cool, i love ubuntu, i was just wondering about that.

[FLeiXiuS]

**Post moved to "Community Chat"**

[im_ka]

afaik, there'll be a boxed version of ubuntu in the future.
and they can make money (later) by offering professional support to businesses.

someone please correct me if i'm wrong

[cerulean coil]

afaik, there'll be a boxed version of ubuntu in the future.
and they can make money (later) by offering professional support to businesses.

someone please correct me if i'm wrong

Thats the gist I got. Its a very Redhat style shindig, as far as I can tell.

[daniels]

We will never, ever charge for Ubuntu. Our site (and the default page on installs) very prominently says this.

The best answer I've yet heard to this question has been from Jeff, who said something like this: 'the thing is, all our guys are very well-respected open source community people, and they've all left prior jobs -- most working on open source -- to come work for us; they wouldn't just leave on a whim'.

[jwb]

Hehehehehe......

My first thought on seeing the question was "The same way we all do, Pinky. With a good scanner and printer."

;-)

[jdodson]

Hehehehehe......

My first thought on seeing the question was "The same way we all do, Pinky. With a good scanner and printer."

;-)


HA! its been awhile since i last saw that show.

to respond to the ubuntu developer, i saw the 'not ever going to charge for ubuntu on the website awhile ago, it is a cool thing' i was just wondering if it was important that the company make money. if it isnt then that is totally fine by me. i was just curious.

[daniels]

to respond to the ubuntu developer, i saw the 'not ever going to charge for ubuntu on the website awhile ago, it is a cool thing' i was just wondering if it was important that the company make money. if it isnt then that is totally fine by me. i was just curious.
We have a plan, but it's absolutely not charging for Ubuntu.

[jdodson]

We have a plan, but it's absolutely not charging for Ubuntu.

HA! cool. :-D

[jwb]

We have a plan, but it's absolutely not charging for Ubuntu.

"So what's the plan, Brain??"

"The same plan it is every night, Pinky..... to try and install Ubuntu at Bill Gate's house!"

"Wow, Brain, your the smartest!"

:-P

[im_ka]

"So what's the plan, Brain??"

"The same plan it is every night, Pinky..... to try and install Ubuntu at Bill Gate's house!"

"Wow, Brain, your the smartest!"

:-P

ROTFL :D

[fng]

nice 1 :)

[mark]

We have a plan, but it's absolutely not charging for Ubuntu.
"...so, what's your plan?"

"Plan? I don't have a plan...I'm makin' this up as I go along..."

"Oh. Okay, so long as ya got a plan..." ;-)

[shad0w]

I love Ubuntu and everything but I can't help wondering where all the money comes from. The combined costs of the free CDs and bandwidth/server costs must be enormous. Is ubuntu backed by some big company? Or are they just getting A LOT of donations?

[az]

Canonical is the "big company"
http://www.canonical.com/

The Ubuntu Project is a community project with participation from many volunteers, sponsored by Canonical Ltd. Canonical will not charge licence fees for Ubuntu, now or at any stage in the future. Canonical's business model is to provide technical support and professional services related to Ubuntu. Please see Paid support for further information.

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/support/paidsupport
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/merchandise
http://www.cafepress.com/ubuntushop.14580695

"The Ubuntu team will send you Ubuntu CDs at no charge, for you to install and share. We will cover the cost of shipping the CDs to you as well." - This is marketing. It's better than a Brittney Spears add for Cola.

[amoser]

My qustion is (even though this may never happen, it is a big IF), what if Mark Shuttleworth runs out of money, what will happen then?

~Alan

[jdodson]

My qustion is (even though this may never happen, it is a big IF), what if Mark Shuttleworth runs out of money, what will happen then?

~Alan

he will have to get a job at mcdonalds like all the other poor rich folk :mrgreen:

[BWF89]

My qustion is (even though this may never happen, it is a big IF), what if Mark Shuttleworth runs out of money, what will happen then?
Then:

-Free CD's coudln't be shipped, you would have to download and burn the ISO yourself...

-The community would be responciple for creating and maintaining the OS...

-These forums would become alot less active...

[poofyhairguy]

My qustion is (even though this may never happen, it is a big IF), what if Mark Shuttleworth runs out of money, what will happen then?

~Alan

Dude, he's gonna run out of money. He is a great businessman with lots of projects. If anything, Ubuntu is more like a community service- he wanted to make Debian better!

[amoser]

he will have to get a job at mcdonalds like all the other poor rich folk :mrgreen:

Hey what does that mean, I work at McDonalds, and I am not rich.

~Alan

[jdodson]

Hey what does that mean, I work at McDonalds, and I am not rich.

~Alan


erf, it was a joke about him getting a job somewhere. so if he ran out of money, he could get a job at mcdonalds. i wasnt saying that people that work at mcdonalds are rich, though i would imagine the people that work for corporate mcdonalds could be.

[zenwhen]

Then:

-Free CD's coudln't be shipped, you would have to download and burn the ISO yourself...

-The community would be responciple for creating and maintaining the OS...

-These forums would become alot less active...

People who would leave because they don't get free CD's aren't that valuable.

I think this is going to pay off for Canonical.

[jdodson]

People who would leave because they don't get free CD's aren't that valuable.

I think this is going to pay off for Canonical.

hmm that remains to be seen, however they are approaching this in a new way, i think it will be interesting to see where it leads.

[poofyhairguy]

People who would leave because they don't get free CD's aren't that valuable.

I think this is going to pay off for Canonical.

Me too, Ubuntu is already very respected. Just a little while longer, and it can be a big player in the business Linux field.

[BWF89]

Me too, Ubuntu is already very respected. Just a little while longer, and it can be a big player in the business Linux field.
How many people are useing Ubuntu as compared to Debian, Redhat, SuSE, and all the other big players?

[poofyhairguy]

How many people are useing Ubuntu as compared to Debian, Redhat, SuSE, and all the other big players?

Who knows? What matters is how active the community is. Thats the difference maker. According to distrowatch, Mandrake is the top distro. But I always had a hard time getting help for it!

[Magneto]

run out of money???? do you realize what he's worth and the cost of a few cd's? the more cd's he uses the cheaper they get.
He's a billionaire- not millions - plural billions thousands of millions
And at the rate ubuntu is headed in 3 years it will have surpassed all other distros
and canonical's profits will generate more billions

[daniels]

he will have to get a job at mcdonalds like all the other poor rich folk :mrgreen:Plus the other ~39 Canonical staff.

[eBopBob]

He's a billionaire- not millions - plural billions thousands of millions
Gone are the days when Billion = 1,000,000,000,000. Such a shame. :(



But, hypothetically speaking, say he started charging for Ubuntu and with it came manuals, so many days of premium support for installation and general everyday work, and so on (as well as maybe some other stuff). A bit like SuSE or Mandrake really.

Would you people still use it, however now buying it, or would you move elsewhere?

And would you still use it if they offered the free version for download, however also boxed versions with manuals and premium support?

[daniels]

But, hypothetically speaking, say he started charging for Ubuntu and with it came manuals, so many days of premium support for installation and general everyday work, and so on (as well as maybe some other stuff). A bit like SuSE or Mandrake really.Very hypothetical, because it will never happen. And I can virtually guarantee you the community will fork it if he did (which the other Ubuntu developers and Canonical developers would not allow anyway).

[Magneto]

I see them never charging for it, but I see canonical charging for additional software that integrates with Ubuntu , both server and workstation/desktop based, for a nominal fee. And I see the adoption of linux growing significantly in upcoming years. Canonical's revenue would be from support and those apps.

The right linux distribution with the right focus and advertising with praise for its functionality could seriously sweep the home user market where MS reigns. Longhorn will tell the story.


to the buying questions- I'd use it for customers who wanted linux and support contracts that I did not intend to sell them- just like redhat or suse
I'd personally go to LFS or gentoo- maybe debian since I see why so many like it now

[macewan]

I see them never charging for it, but I see canonical charging for additional software that integrates with Ubuntu , both server and workstation/desktop based, for a nominal fee. And I see the adoption of linux growing significantly in upcoming years. Canonical's revenue would be from support and those apps.

The right linux distribution with the right focus and advertising with praise for its functionality could seriously sweep the home user market where MS reigns. Longhorn will tell the story.


to the buying questions- I'd use it for customers who wanted linux and support contracts that I did not intend to sell them- just like redhat or suse
I'd personally go to LFS or gentoo- maybe debian since I see why so many like it now
Any charges to regular joe end user for software/desktop whatever will seriously change the uptake of Ubuntu.

Ubuntu is awesome - I'd hate to go back to Debian from Ubuntu (Hoary) but I'd do it in a second if their was any question about it not being a pint of freedom. ;)

[jdodson]

Any charges to regular joe end user for software/desktop whatever will seriously change the uptake of Ubuntu.

Ubuntu is awesome - I'd hate to go back to Debian from Ubuntu (Hoary) but I'd do it in a second if their was any question about it not being a pint of freedom. ;)

i agree.

[HungSquirrel]

I wondered this myself, but I did not know Ubuntu was financed by a billionaire until I read this thread. 8)

[eBopBob]

Wow...

Very interesting remarks. This is actually something that has puzzled me about the Linux community for such a long time - so few actually wish to purchase a product that comes with decent support and manuals.

So the majority of you wouldn't use Ubuntu if it were commercial? Interesting indeed.

[piedamaro]

I wondered this myself, but I did not know Ubuntu was financed by a billionaire until I read this thread. 8)
I didn't know anything either: he's the 1st to create a working e-commerce webserver, he's the 1st African in space (it costs ~20mln $), he's financing the SchoolTool project, and now Ubuntu.
Guys he's simply a myth, our future shines :D

[Dylanby]

Plus the other ~39 Canonical staff.

I didn't realize there were so many paid developers.

That's great! (Above & beyond great!)

Also, just a small thanks to y'all for all of your hard work & dedication.
You dev's are really building something really substantial & meaningful, IMHO.
(As are all OSS dev's, when I stop to think about it.)

[daniels]

I didn't realize there were so many paid developers.

That's great! (Above & beyond great!)

Also, just a small thanks to y'all for all of your hard work & dedication.
You dev's are really building something really substantial & meaningful, IMHO.
(As are all OSS dev's, when I stop to think about it.)Cheers. Canonical does more than Ubuntu (and, conversely, Ubuntu is more than Canonical). The distribution team as it stands numbers ten, however nice a 40-member distro team would be.

[az]

"Canonical does more than Ubuntu"

My question is, does Canonical pull in some money? Does it rely on donations from the Founder?

[Magneto]

"Canonical does more than Ubuntu"

My question is, does Canonical pull in some money? Does it rely on donations from the Founder?
i read they already have some support contracts i believe

sidenote - azz with the william shatner pic is classic- why are you a "vip"?

[jdodson]

i read they already have some support contracts i believe

sidenote - azz with the william shatner pic is classic- why are you a "vip"?

he slipped ubuntu-geek a $20. :mrgreen:

[az]

"i read they already have some support contracts i believe"

Yes, but the point would be for canonical to be a money-maker. Otherwise, it is just a clubhouse with talented people spending their days poking on laptops.

As for the vip, I dunno. Any day now, I'm gonna say something dumb that will put me back to an Ubuntu Inspiring Guru.

[daniels]

"Canonical does more than Ubuntu"

My question is, does Canonical pull in some money? Does it rely on donations from the Founder?Well, one of the things we are doing is offering paid support for Ubuntu.

[az]

Yes, but is that just token income or would it be able to make the project self-financing?

[poofyhairguy]

Yes, but is that just token income or would it be able to make the project self-financing?


I think the long term goal is to make it more than self-financing. But for now, its just Mark's new baby- I'm sure he enjoys the Ubuntu desktop as much as I do.

I wish I could find his email address, I would like to personally thank him for Ubuntu.

[daniels]

I think the long term goal is to make it more than self-financing. But for now, its just Mark's new baby- I'm sure he enjoys the Ubuntu desktop as much as I do.

I wish I could find his email address, I would like to personally thank him for Ubuntu.http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2004-September/author.html. He's not a fugitive in hiding, but he does receive rather a lot of email ...

[daniels]

Yes, but is that just token income or would it be able to make the project self-financing?
From Google:

Canonical must generate $2m to 5m a year to be self-sustaining, and its only income will come from consulting services and from supplying support. However, with a community continually refining, extending and translating Ubuntu applications for free, there may be little need for paid-for support.

"I have what some people say is the impossible task of building a company around a product that we will give away. I don't know if we can make it sustainable, but if we can we will change the software game," Shuttleworth said.

He has committed $10m for the first two years. "Then I will assess whether or not the community likes this way of working."

[Xian]

From Google:

The venture is also compelling as Shuttleworth has committed to pay them [developers] even if Canonical fails. Its vision is to put Ubuntu on to millions of computers around the world, but the software will all be free.
What would define "fails" to Shuttleworth? No profit? Not enough users?

[az]

"Canonical must generate $2m to 5m a year to be self-sustaining, and its only income will come from consulting services and from supplying support. However, with a community continually refining, extending and translating Ubuntu applications for free, there may be little need for paid-for support"

Now that puts it all into perspective for me. Ubuntu is the by-product of a viable attempt for Canonical to be in business. It is funny to hear the sensationalism about the business model. This is a common open-source company business model...
How else does open-souce software make money? (and it does!)

[Colin]

With Ubuntu I think Canonical have got their eye on trying to provide a solution to help bridge the Digital Divide (the socio-economic gap between communities that have access to computers and the Internet and those who do not). This divide is easily perceived in the developing world.

Free software is a valuable resource in poor countries where the cost of purchasing, say, MS Windows & Office for schools or small businesses may be prohibitive. Perhaps the African word 'Ubuntu' has even been considered a brand name to lure potential adoptees in Africa.

This is hinted at on the Suttleworth Foundation webpage:-
http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/

More about the digital divide here:-
http://www.bridges.org/

[steffen]

How do you recoup the investment in a company that offers a product that is free as in beer, and free as in free speech? The auxiliary services model may become viable, since most organisations are already paying, and needs to continue to pay for support, training and updates. This market is dominated by "the large ones" - IBM, Sun, RedHat, Novell. But what about the home desktop? Home users quickly gets used to "free as in beer", and Ubuntu is committed to being free (beer).

The industry seems to be going, either for the business market, or for charging the end-user:

RedHat = server, and is expensive (no free beer)
Novell/SuSe = business desktop/server and costs money (no free beer)
Sun JDS = business desktop, and costs money (no free beer)
Linspire = home desktop, but pay for it (no free beer)
Xandros = home desktop, but pay for it (no free beer)
Gentoo = no direct investment that has to be recouped ("shareholder value" is unimportant --> practically a mutual)
Mepis = one man organisation (intriguing prospect, but maybe not a long-term strategy, unless Mepis/Warren receives a cash-injection - not much investment has taken place...)
Debian = free as in speech, free as in beer. But is a mutual (users = owners = developers)

Canonical/Mark Shuttleworth, seem to believe that offering a great Linux distro for free, and investing a significant amount of cash into it, will generate a long-term revenue, with a positive cash-flow. Is Ubuntu the next "desktop-RedHat"?

To do this they will have to generate income in some way. In practice this system - because of its distributed nature, a close relationship with Gnome/Debian, the high number of free components, and volunteers - defies certain aspects of the traditional business model as it is, and the cost-per-unit should be radically less than if Canonical did not have the opportunity to co-operate with the community. But still, some costs have to be recouped. The traditional model would assume that this is to be done through providing supplementary services, consulting and support. I assume this would be mostly directly to business, or by offering customised OEM Ubuntus to PC manufacturers. But would this make the Ubuntu home desktop simply an asset, living symbiotically alongside Ubuntu4Business, providing credibility? Canonical/Ubuntu would then be competing directly with IBM/Novell/RedHat/Sun in the business market. Ubuntu seem to be targeted the home-users. Is there a long time, revenue-generating strategy in Ubuntu4Home?

My take on this, is that Ubuntu comes off drastically better than Linspire, Xandros, Lycoris, etc. because of the close ties with "the community". On the other hand, Ubuntu should "always be free". Do the benefits of a good community outweigh the loss of not charging for the product?

Moreover, "free as in beer" is a powerful way of building market share (see Ubuntu's rapid climb on Distrowatch), and Ubuntu might control more computers after 6 months, than Xandros does after 6 years. The reproduction cost of digital content is close to zero, so even a tiny revenue stream per unit (PC-box) quickly adds up, with a large market share. But there is only a certain segment that is reached by "free as in beer" for operating systems. To recoup the full cost of Ubuntu, and receiving a decent return on investment, I'd say Canonical needs a marketing plan that goes beyond "free". What could this be?

It would be interesting to hear thoughts on this subject. I'm simply intrigued...

[Leif]

I'd say it's all about gaining familiarity. If you're used to Ubuntu for your home use, one day when it comes to making a decision on what to base your company's infrastructure on, you choose Ubuntu - and you pay for support. It's kind of the same reason Microsoft is happy with pirated copies of its software. Also, while Ubuntu will always be free, this does not preclude other products from Canonical being for-pay, in the future, once they've gained enough trust.

[steffen]

Competition is likely to erode Microsoft's current extraordinary profits, but not automatically distribute decent profits to the competitors. I'm not saying that there's no room for 10-15 great, profit making operating systems in the marketplace, but what determines who the prime profit-making competitors will be?

Ubuntu definitely has potential, but I think it needs an X-factor - something more than a capital injection and a great community. I've already distributed Ubuntu to a few of my friends, and I'm using it on my server. Most likely, I will continue to use Ubuntu for the future. However, if another company comes up, gets a cash-injection, hires a few good developers, and sets up shipit - will they be as likely to succeed long term? Ubuntu has been around publicly for 6 months. What will take Ubuntu through the next 6 years? What is the differentiator?

[az]

The business strategies are different. Marketing, for one, is the tailoring and distribution of a product to a clientelle. The classic business model involves much more work here than the open source software. The ones who make open source software "sctratch their own itches". The software is designed to meet the needs of the client since it was designed by the client.
Marketing Open Source is pretty much free.
There is a need for support. A bringing together of the available software. That is a good place to charge money.

Some comments on the companies you mention:

RedHat = server, and is expensive (no free beer)
When they forked into fedora, that alienated the users who were not big business. It worked for them, but I do not think that another comany would be able to pull that off.

Novell/SuSe = business desktop/server and costs money (no free beer)
Suse was always for sale. That did not change. I beleive, though (I may be wrong) that the fee you pay gives you some support, too. Novell seems to be open-sourceing everything it is buying. (Suse's Yast, evolution connector, Hula) Interesting to watch.

Sun JDS = business desktop, and costs money (no free beer)
They have has a funny model that has worked for them with Java and they want to apply it to everything they own. They want to look as though they are an open source company, but do not want to give up the code. They have no idea what open source is. People should be wary of them. I would not be surprised if they did something dumb like close-off openoffice.

[steffen]

RedHat: Competing directly with Win2k3 and Unix. Have lower R&D costs, because of Open Source. Can spend less on marketing and support because of all the free marketing the Linux brand is generating. Is already established in the marketplace.

Novell: Have an existing client base with NetWare. Recognised brand. Capitalising on the OSS buzz.

Sun: Have an enormous client base. A prime example of how far marketing takes you - gets numerous contracts for Linux deployment, even though they are not as recognised in the community. Recognition in business goes a long way. Now have two Linux-like distros in their portfolio - OpenSolaris 10 and JDS Linux.

-- and these are competing in the B2B market

Windows: Have an enormous customer base on the desktop. Charging the PC-makers directly, through OEM licensing.

The message: If you want to be taken seriously in business - charge money. The only profit model I can see for Ubuntu is getting Ubuntu pre-installed, and making the PC-manufacturers pay for it - i.e. USD10 per PC for Ubuntu certification goes a long way. The manufacturers are already screaming for an alternative, and Apple is not willing to license OS X. In that way, Ubuntu can still be free for download and free to share - but accounts for a small amount of your PC-purchase. This strategy would effectively be to undercut Linspire and Xandros.

...is this the way to go?

Whatever Ubuntu does, they will have to be able to provide some revenue-generating model to account for:
- Their bandwidth and hardware bill
- Salaries
- Conferences, marketing

...still intrigued :idea:

[steffen]

According to CSC (Leading Edge Forum) OpenOffice has a 14% market share on business desktops, while MS Office has a 96% market share on the home desktop. These are different market segments, and needs to be targeted differently. If Ubuntu was going into (the already crowded) Business market, the strategy would have been clear.

Unless you are a geek, you are not going to make a concious decision on what you install on your PC - you just go with what's there, and you only download extra software, if it's not already included on your PC. Ubuntu's shipit is proof that Ubuntu is going for the home-user desktop. I'm simply awaiting the next strategic move - what's on after Shipit has been completely exploited?

My basic question is: When will Ubuntu be self-sufficient cash-wise?

[UbuWu]

Would be interesting to see Mark Shuttleworth replying to this...

[steffen]

Would be interesting to see Mark Shuttleworth replying to this...
He sort of has - in a way - on LugRadio: http://www.paul.sladen.org/lugradio-shuttleworth/ - but I still don't see the longtermism in this, unless of course he sees Ubuntu as a charity...

I'm fearing that Shuttleworth is a bit of a philanthropist. I just wish to see a true open source project (unlike RedHat, Linspire and SuSE), actually finding a long-term business model. The models around suggests (1) services (IBM, CSC), (2) subscriptions/services (RedHat, Novell), (3) Supplementary product (any hardware manfucaturer - Intel, HP, IBM, Oracle - and some software manufacturers - Linspire), (4) Dual license (sendmail, MySQL, QT). Will Ubuntu be going down either of these roads? I highly doubt 2, 3 or 4 - so only supplementary services is available, of the tried and tested models. And I doubt it would work for home-use desktops - they would have to go into some serious B2B, which would fatten the organisation considerably, and destroy some of the Ubuntu value. From what I can see in the interviews with Shuttleworth, he doesn't view it as creating any obvious financial return.

According to ITWeb.co.za (http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/software/2004/0411051105.asp?A=LIN&S=Open%20Source&O=FPT) Shipit alone cost USD10million for only the first period. Canonical needs to make alot more than USD20 million per year in revenue to be sustainable.

Either
1) Mark Shuttleworth + Ubuntu = Philanthropy
2) Mark Shuttleworth is banking on a totally new and unexpected business model to pop up.

I'm writing a college thesis in business and economics - on whether open source is commercially viable. All evidence suggests it definitely is. But the Ubuntu model doesn't quite fit the picture...yet. I'm hoping it will, though :D

[paul cooke]

RedHat = server, and is expensive (no free beer)
Novell/SuSe = business desktop/server and costs money (no free beer)

not strictly true... Novell/Suse can be downloaded for free in the form of the GPL version which doesn't contain the restricted distribution commercial aspects (namely closed source binary drivers like nVidia and some wireless drivers). And Redhat have Fedora for free and other people have produced items like whitebox linux which is redhat debranded...

[steffen]

not strictly true... Novell/Suse can be downloaded for free in the form of the GPL version which doesn't contain the restricted distribution commercial aspects (namely closed source binary drivers like nVidia and some wireless drivers). And Redhat have Fedora for free and other people have produced items like whitebox linux which is redhat debranded...

It took CentOS 14 days to make a complete replica of the Source RPMs of RHEL4. The investment for CentOS to do this hardly matches the millions that have been put into Ubuntu.

Fedora is an R&D project, and any big organisation (banks, etc) would go for RHEL4 and paying for it - Fedora would just give RedHat credibility, market share (marketing), and provide cheap R&D. Ubuntu doesn't have a RHEL4 that costs USD2500,- to make up for the loss.

Novell is using the SuSE desktop in some of the same way - and they are providing complimentary products. The Novell Desktop is only free for 3 months, and that would be the one most businesses would choose.

Giving a product away for free, when you have "something better" back hand, is old fashioned, standard marketing. That's not what Ubuntu is doing.

Without any complimentary product/project/service - Ubuntu won't be financially sustainable.

(I'm not trying to argue, for the argument's sake, even though it may seem like it. I'm actually trying to see where Ubuntu fits into Canonical - a limited company, registered in a tax haven) #-o

[totalshredder]

Without any complimentary product/project/service - Ubuntu won't be financially sustainable.

(I'm not trying to argue, for the argument's sake, even though it may seem like it. I'm actually trying to see where Ubuntu fits into Canonical - a limited company, registered in a tax haven) #-o


I agree with you, good point. Eventually I'm thinking they'll change the CDs from free to a small fee. But they do make it an obviously stated goal that they will never have an "enterprise edition". I think though, that mark shuttleworth (that's his name, right?) is really supporting them, and if he likes the results, he will continute to do so. Let's pray ubuntu will be 100% free for years to come! [-o< (I just had to use that smilie somehow)

Luke

[jdodson]

I agree with you, good point. Eventually I'm thinking they'll change the CDs from free to a small fee. But they do make it an obviously stated goal that they will never have an "enterprise edition". I think though, that mark shuttleworth (that's his name, right?) is really supporting them, and if he likes the results, he will continute to do so. Let's pray ubuntu will be 100% free for years to come! [-o< (I just had to use that smilie somehow)

Luke

ubuntu has stated from the start that it will always be free. this is a promise that mark and the developers have made to the community. this will never change, period. i know this is hard to fathom, even if ubuntu becomes the leading distro, however this is the way it is.

as far as if they will continue the shipit system, i don't know. they have stated they will continue shipit with hoary, so it looks promising. personally i think they will keep it up.

cannonical is about the ubuntu community and making a profit at no expense to the community(i mean they wont abuse the community). just because we have seen the "gnu/linux" business model always being a redhat/suse model, does not mean that is the best way to do things. honestly, when ubuntu achieves a critical mass in a few years, i think redhat and suse will have to adapt to survive. ubuntu shows no signs of slowing in its adoptance by the open source community at large. i believe mark shuttleworth and company understood what the open source community at large wanted and is now giving that product. it seems strange to us all because we always wanted it, but when we get it we still are nervous that the "gravy train" will keep on moving.

the release of hoary will open the floodgates of more users and ubuntu related hype. then again, i am pretty biased in my thoughts about ubuntu.

[und3rdog]

Models like this work based on committment to users. As stated before, the claim Ubuntu will always be free doesn't limit other comercial products from being marketed along side our uber free OS. The point is to build a fan base with a great product and then recover costs on other projects down the road. Ubuntu in its self is the best form of advertisement. I would compare it to say a superbowl commercial, a money pit true but a chance for some major branding. The ubuntu philisophy is based on it becoming the major linux player in the future, that's why it's free now, that's why it will remain free.

-Luke

[steffen]

I am pretty sure Shipit is only a fraction of the total Ubuntu cost. However, it's the only figure I've seen. Bandwidth and salary/staff costs and overheads would contribute to total as well, and at least double the figure. Even if shipit is discontinued, there will still be huge costs.

I do not doubt that Ubuntu will make big inroads into the desktop OS market in the coming years. It is by far the best OS I've ever used. However, I'm trying to determine whether it is a charity (with a cause) or whether Shuttleworth is simply giving away his money so that I can have a free desktop. I believe neither, and I believe we will see a business model emerging from this. The question is what will this business model look like?

There are simply too many great technologies that have never made it. Ubuntu's differentiator is it's community, which is a powerful resource, but the community is a cost saver, rather than a profit centre.

[underworld]

Would be interesting to see Mark Shuttleworth replying to this...

That would be nice.

I am testing now Ubuntu for two weeks and must say I am impressed. Now my next question would be: in which direction is Ubuntu heading for the future?

Greetings,
Daniel

[jdodson]

That would be nice.

I am testing now Ubuntu for two weeks and must say I am impressed. Now my next question would be: in which direction is Ubuntu heading for the future?

Greetings,
Daniel

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/BreezyBadger

[steffen]

I am testing now Ubuntu for two weeks and must say I am impressed. Now my next question would be: in which direction is Ubuntu heading for the future?

Greetings,
Daniel
I wouldn't be worried, Daniel. Ubuntu is an open source project, so even if Shuttleworth disappears, Ubuntu will still exist, and be maintained. However, as many people have noted - this is a great distro created in short time, with ambitious goals - it greatly fascilitates the work to have a team of people working full time. I think some revenue model will appear from this. It will probably be in the region of paid (if needed) support for business desktops or customised OEMs. We'll just have to wait I guess :)

[underworld]

@jdodson: Thanks for the link.

@steffen: I come from Gentoo and was a little bit tired of all this hours of compiling ;)
I think Ubuntu will become my desktop operating system of choice :D, I was just surprised that a company would give away for free such a great "product".
But I will also donate for this project as I do for every opensource product I use frequently.

Hm, if there were 1 million Ubuntu users (does anyone know a approximation of this number?) and everyone would donate 1 Euro per month that would easily help to finance the project.

Greetings,
Daniel

[az]

"I'm not trying to argue, for the argument's sake, even though it may seem like it. I'm actually trying to see where Ubuntu fits into Canonical - a limited company, registered in a tax haven"

Canonical is a relatively small team of developers who "put together" Ubuntu. They hack debian packages to make a superb OS. They then support that OS for money.

They are also building a superb community by:

1- Developing wonderful tools such as bazaar and (?)Malone (The new bug tracking thing - I am unsure of the name).
2- Encouraging diversity and welcoming new members into the community.
3- Working on merging all of the effort that was put into UserLinux into Ubuntu.

What seems to be going on is the building of the groundwork for OSS to flourish.

[jdodson]

What seems to be going on is the building of the groundwork for OSS to flourish.

i agree, what they are building is nothing short of amazing. it is and will change the what people expect from distros.

[steffen]

I couldn't agree more with jdodson and azz - open source is changing the perception of how IT-infrastructure is made. However, they are also right in another sense - that Ubuntu will change the perception of what people expect from a Linux distro. From now on, Warren's (of Mepis) one man approach of spending several years to put together a great OS, won't work. Because Ubuntu, with a large cashpile, has proven it works better/faster. With RedHat in the server market, Novell on the business desktop, and Ubuntu on the personal desktop, Linux is about to lose it's virginity... True, Gentoo, Xandros, pure Debian, Slack, Arch, and the others, will still have their place, but only for >1% market share (still good though, in the Internet world) (sorry about the cynicism), and it won't receive as much attention as GNU/Linux goes from curiocity to mainstream.

I'm arguing, that the huge cashpile (huge in the desktop Linux world, at least) currently enjoyed by Ubuntu is a make-or-break for desktop Linux as we know it. Either the Linspire/Xandros model, with pay-to-install will prevail (I don't think so, although there is a small slice for them as well) or the Ubuntu, enjoy for free model will prevail (my bet!). However, for the Ubuntu model to become the norm, more investors like Mark Shuttleworth will have to become interested in providing the cash for startups. If Ubuntu is to become successful (more so) the only way to gain serious market share, is to provide more than a technically excellent distro - also having idle cash to sustain development for a couple of years + marketing, without revenue is a huge benefit.

Let's say both the GNU/Linux system and Ubuntu/Debian does extremely well over the coming 5 years. Linux grabs a 10% market share in the desktop market (more than doubles), and Ubuntu grabs half of that (approx 50-80 million desktops). This is actually not entirely unlikely, at the current growth rate of Linux, and the current "****-up-rate" (technically, and cost-wise) of "that other OS" (but seriously, they must have been doing something right to gain a >90% market share). What will be true however, is that Ubuntu will have grown because of a serious cash-investment of more than US$300 million (at least) over 5 years. Would Mepis or Slack be able to keep it up? And with 50-80 million desktops scattered around the world, how would Ubuntu be able to keep it's lean organisation, and have a support centre?

If Ubuntu's invest US$300 to be successful model actually is succesful, the benefits both to the open source community and to the Linux system could be potentially huge. Whatever the detrimental effects to Slack and Mepis would be, free and open source software would receive a huge cash injection, providing developers with a decent salary, and securing that open source would remain free for the future, through proving through Ubuntu that a promise to stay free, is not necessarily contrary to common business sense. But US$ contributions from all users won't be enough to sustain the whole system.

From my research of open source software development over the past 12 months, I have to conclude that developers (hackers/coders/programmers) are better at (1) creating great software (obviously), (2) teamwork and collaboration, (3) inter-organisatorial cooperation, (4) effective use of resources (economics), and (5) planning and executing a business operations plan - than the best MBAs of Wharton, LSB and Harvard from the last 20 years put together. How do we transfer this lean & mean machine into an enterprise that Mark Shuttleworth (and others) can pitch investors with, and receive additional funding for continuing the great work of making the greatest desktop OS available - and still market it as "free beer" and "free speech"? What will a grown-up Linux look like?

(...so many silly questions)

My take on this is that Ubuntu/Canonical will be a network (kindof a franchise) organisation, rather than a traditional corporation, where local Ubuntu offices in cities around in the world provides technical support, installation and consulting services for their local clients. These networked units will be financially self-sustainable, sponsoring bounties, shipits, mirrors and developers for the central Ubuntu/Canonical organisation. For Ubuntu centrally, recouping the annual costs, won't be that hard, and the costs of actually running the HQ will decrease, rather than increase, as Ubuntu grows.

...I would however be interested in hearing the obstacles/challenges to this model...? :mrgreen:

[az]

I think you are focusing on slightly the wrong thing. The linux landscape has significantly changed in the past few years and nothing has happened to make it different in the next few years.

The distributions will merge, fork, change names and ownership. Big deal. The software industry will never be the same. There will not be another Microsoft. I do not think that consumers would stand it, and the quality of FLOSS would make the need for one company to offer one product line obsolete.

With FLOSS comes a universe of choice. What the consumers will need is a way to get the most out of that ocean of software without having to learn every single detail about it.

My point is, you would not even have to be a distributer of a particular OS to be able to offer that service.

Possibly, Mark Shuttleworth does not want to create a superb OS as much as he wants to tweak the software marketplace. The viablility of Canonical is probably less of an issue in comparison with setting a precedent. If the Bazaar becomes the de-facto software development strategy (as opposed to the Cathedral - Eric Raymond) perhaps future ventures of the same nature would not need as much startup capital to make it.

[paretooptimum]

I'm reminded of the early days of the railroad - there is clearly an opportunity to fulfill a consumer demand using a new technology, but the dominant financial model is still undiscovered.

Mass market proprietary software for the desktop is dead.

Clearly Mark has accepted the fact that the desktop operating system and most popular software (eg office suite, graphics editor) are commodities sold at their marginal cost (ie $0). So I can't imaging a scenario where there will suddenly be a Canonical Linux for $1,499 per server. That's the game of the last century.

Maybe we should take him at his word - Canonical will (eventually) make money from selling services. Build it and they will come. Make a massive land grab for market share in a wide open period of technological change. Once the inevitable creative destruction sets it, the one with the most is left standing can capitalise on their position. [cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction.]

I'm not saying Ubuntu will change its contract (ie libre), but rather that controlling (say) 30% of the desktop linux market five years from now must be monetisable. How? Well clearly not through traditional means such as OEM fees or boxed software, but service contracts to small business sure and "Ubuntu Linux Certified Engineer" programs and probably twenty other things that we haven't even thought of yet.

Tim's law: market share is the cashflow of the post-industrial era.

However, kid's don't try this at home - this is clearly a large financial bet. But I respect him for it and would do something similar if I was in his position.

[occy8]

I think Ubuntu will always be free as promised but

I think the money will be made from companies for support and maintenance and donations of course. Once a company has made the switch they want the peace of mind that their software is still supported and maintained in 2-3 years. This is only possible if Canonical doesn't go broke. They already saved a lot of money for buying no more licenses from Microsoft, therefore they will in their own interest donate some money.

From home desktops money can be made from computer manufacturers. Windows + Office is 25 - 50 percent of a new machine. Part of this saving would also flow back as donations or service support agreement to keep Ubuntu going.

Another way of course is what Sun did with Staroffice.

[steffen]

Sun Microsystems spends USD 250million per year maintaining Solaris (purely development effort). This has been a viable model, because they've been able to sell the system at a price, plus offering hardware and services to subsidise. As they have realised themselves, they now have to enter the new FLOSS paradigm, release the code to cut costs and increase innovation, and rely on services for business.

Ubuntu spends - maybe - USD 5million per year in maintenance thanks to the new paradigm of open source (see Bruce Perens (http://perens.com/Articles/Economic.html) etc). R&D is the big saving for Canonical. Add to that the savings from us - the marketing community. But Ubuntu/Canonical will still have to build up a service-organisation to become a business.

Canonical will never have to make much money from Ubuntu and related services. But they will have to make some. paretooptimum makes a valid point in that market share will be vital to do this. And to gain this market share, investment from entrepreneurs like Mark Shuttleworth is probably needed. I am starting to think that the umbrella-organisation of services that I mentioned earlier might be a good model to achieve this - while still maintaining the close relationship with the community, and keep a lean organisation. To challenge the existing monopoly-system, cost cutting is probably more vital than profit-generation, and Canonical is proving itself to understand the implications of this to the fullest...

[paretooptimum]

Taking your $5 million number (which I may not agree with...)

That is:

3,333 people spending $1,500

50,000 people spending $100

5,000,000 people spending $1

50,000,000 people spending $0.10

500,000,000 people spending $0.01

(remember ~820m computers in the world in 2004)

Now Red Hat is clearly going for the first option, but with more and more market share Ubuntu can go for less and less revenue per user/desktop. Imagine a world where Ubuntu has 30% of the desktop market and makes all its revenue from licensing the use of the Ubuntu name to television programs. Stranger things have happened.

[steffen]

By the time Ubuntu gets a 30% market share, a lot more will have been spent. The $5mn I mentioned was an example of R&D costs. The annual spending figure is probably closer to $30-40 million (at least). If Ubuntu gets a 30% market share, I reckon the value of the brand will be so huge that making money from support is alone enough. But getting to 30% will be extremely hard, not because Microsoft is currently huge, but because the market will be so much more fragmented over the coming years. Very few, if none will have that kind of share. I would be happy with 3-5% worldwide over the next 5 years ;)

Obviously, taking one region at a time - let's say a 20% share in certain African countries - will enable a much more effective support-organisation. So that will probably be the first goal.

[paretooptimum]

Mark answers the question on Slashdot today:

Everything free -- what's the business plan?
by HoserHead (599)

How does Canonical plan on making money? Ubuntu seems to be completely and utterly free, in both senses of the word. In my mind at least, the 'services will pay for development' business plan for Free Software went out of style when the dot-com bubble burst. How will your company be different?

MS: You're right that the "services pay for development" model is unlikely to work very well for single applications. An entire distribution, though, is slightly different, because the number of users is potentially much, much greater than the number of users for, say, a web server or database app.

Canonical provides support for Ubuntu, but more importantly we provide support for companies that provide support for Ubuntu. The idea is to create an ecosystem of people who collaborate on the free software. You can see the beginnings of that ecosystem on this page of Ubuntu service providers, and I hope it will continue grow as fast as it has since Warty hit the streets.

Part of being sustainable is keeping the costs down, so we focus resources on development and support, not marketing or office waste. The guys will tell you I'm a cheap bastard when it comes to the frills (Canonical One doesn't *actually* belong to Canonical :-).

I'd very much like to make the distro project sustainable, because I've never had the privilege to work with such talented guys who work as hard as this team, and they deserve to be rewarded and to know that people appreciate the value they add every day. If it doesn't work utthat way, though, I'm honoured to consider it a gift back to the open source world, which played such a critical role in helping me build Thawte. So I hope it's commerce, though it may turn out to be philanthropy. Either way, it's still cheaper than going back to space, or hooking up with fast planes/boats/women, which I supposed would be Plan B.

[steffen]

Heh - Pareto - I was just about to paste the same quote for your pleasure :wink:

I'd say we hook up and form a business on the Ubuntu platform. In that way we'll be able to sustain Ubuntu into the future --> by being a Canonical customer... What do you think? ;)

The open source world will just keep on going, until all free distros are at pareto optimum - that means, no proprietary/costly-ware as they operate at a lower social optimum :-D

So, in our Edgeworth box - which distros will be in it? :lol:

[paretooptimum]

I think the post-linux computer company won't be in computers. The operating system is a commodity, business/users are still getting used to the idea. In the future (~20 years) computers and the internet will be a regulated commodity utility (cf water, gas, roads, railroad, telephone (until recently), airplane routes). Who makes the switch that delivers power to your house, or water or telephone? Who cares? Clearly the outline is formed by Google and Amazon, but that's not radical enough to be the next wave. A few guesses:

1. Interactive multimedia education (no elementary school required), starts in third world, spreads to first as quality improves. Linux platform.

2. Virtual dating/sex - how much interface/bandwidth required? I'm thinking a fat client could deal with a lot of compression giver we are dealing with a limited number of neural imputs.

3. Clearly the library/book store is doomed (the next napster), What comes after? Wikipedia? Does the government give away the sum total of human knowledge or does MS/Google/Disney own it? It is all sunk cost with no marginal cost. A big pie to fight over.

4. Post dead trees scientific publishing; peer review crossed with slashdot.

That all the ideas I can come up with on the spot.

[paretooptimum]

This transcript of Mark's appearance on Lug Radio has additional detail on the Ubuntu/Cannonical business model:

http://www.paul.sladen.org/lugradio-shuttleworth/

[steffen]

Is there any way to measure Ubuntu's market share? I think we have identified this as being core to the model.

Being no. 1 on Distrowatch doesn't really give the big picture of how many are actually using Ubuntu day-to-day, and not even how many have downloaded.

Going by Shipit is not a good idea either, because Shipit ships 10 CDs, some of which are likely to be used to install on several PCs, whereas others will dust. And I know for sure, that one ISO image downloaded by me, quickly turned into 5-6 PCs, so that won't be a good measure either.

Two years ago, the allmighty Google said that about 1.3% of their visitors were using Linux PCs. This is likely to have risen by now, and does give a blurry picture of Linux penetration in general, not counting servers. But is there any way to distinguish Ubuntu from other distros in the Firefox/Epiphany/Konqueror/Opera/Mozilla signature? Or will it just say Linux i686? I know Apache distinguishes on some servers, and so Netcraft has been able to measure some of the server distrowars. But even most Apache servers don't have the distroname in the signature.

Another way to go about it is to count all the people in all the different Ubuntu forums and mailing lists, plus add an arbitrary number for people who hasn't registered yet, or not posted a message. As far as I can see, this will be the most accurate...

[nocturn]

1) Mark Shuttleworth + Ubuntu = Philanthropy
2) Mark Shuttleworth is banking on a totally new and unexpected business model to pop up.

I'm writing a college thesis in business and economics - on whether open source is commercially viable. All evidence suggests it definitely is. But the Ubuntu model doesn't quite fit the picture...yet. I'm hoping it will, though :D

The problem with Free Software is that the philosophy behind it is not designed to accomodate businesses or even capitalism for that matter.
The most natural way for this to work is if projects receive public funding and are donated to the community and enhanced. For example a university could write a good spreadsheet program and make it GPL, this is how the early days of computing were.

Now, there is nothing wrong with people trying to make money on a Free software model, and I wish them luck. However, this is not the primary goal nor a measurement for success for the Free Software movement.

Guess I'm still dreaming of a world where technology and knowledge are shared without finincial incentives...

[steffen]

The problem with Free Software is that the philosophy behind it is not designed to accomodate businesses or even capitalism for that matter.


The philosophy behind beer was originally not to commercialise it, but to drink, enjoy, party and get drunk. Still, brewing is a multi-billion-kroner(or euro or dollar)-business.

Beer would not have been a multi-billion-cash-industry today, if the original creators of beer had kept the receipt to themselves, taking it with them to the grave. But because they shared the receipt, a number of beer and beer-derivatives showed up, and the brew has been improved upon for thousands of years. Today you can chose between Miller and Guinness, or something in the middle. (Please don't take my beer-analogy further, I see there are limits =; )

But the world today is different. Still, we are starting to see the contours of a commercial FLOSS industry.

FLOSS today is business. More than 50% of OSS developers are employed by companies, according to the FLOSS Report (infonomics.nl/FLOSS) and make money from FLOSS. The FLOSS value chain goes all the way from the Brazilian developer who receives a cash-price for a bounty, through IBM, to Wall Mart, to the end PC user who receives PC software for free.

By using FLOSS software, you are actually making money from FLOSS, because you save the cost of otherwise having to pay for software. Someone else has paid for it.

The sharing model saves almost all of the cost of developing. (Compare Sun's US$250mn/year on Solaris R&D, v. Red Hat's US$25mn/year on R&D for RHEL) But as the Ubuntu story shows, some costs are still present. The key to recoup this cost is market share. Red Hat, Inc. can spend US$25mn/year, because they have a number of customers willing to pay, and a huge market share in the Linux server market.

[paretooptimum]

I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank all those contributors to the beer industry. Without their long efforts and commitments I would not be enjoying the excellent brew I consume today. From those first cavemen to the monks and eunuchs of the middle ages, to today's craft brewers. Thank you.

Even when I've had a long session and throw up my beer, I don't blame the developers of beer, but rather ask how did I misuse their invention? Did I mix my wholesome beer with wine or commercial spirits. Remember, if you're a beer drinker, stay true to your beverage.

[squinter]

Its no doubt they can make money out of support, etc. But is there enough profit to keep the company alive? To pay the staffs, keep up with inflation, etc?

[TravisNewman]

wow, an almost 4 year old thread, resurrected from the dead :)

[codypumper]

(You mean almost two years)

Strange, because since this thread started Canonical now offers commercial support.

[TravisNewman]

wow yeah, thanks. 2 years. I don't know why I typed the 4:)

[AndrewCaul]

wow yeah, thanks. 2 years. I don't know why I typed the 4:)
My best guess is that the year 2004 confused you. Years are confusing. I prefer not to use them. ;)


There's also an Official Ubuntu Book, which I assume Canonical makes some money off of.

[Anduu]

I was informed that they plan on making good money supporting corporate Ubuntu...dunno

"Are you thinking what I am thinking Pinky?"

"I think so Brain but where are we going to get a duck and a rubber hose at this hour?"

[Engnome]

And maybe Amazon aswell, for those ubuntu dvds.

[Adamant1988]

Canonical operates at a loss as far as I've seen/heard. I see this situation solving itself in the same way that RedHat solved theirs, don't charge for the OS, just offer a version with bundled service.

But as it stands I don't think Canonical really NEEDS to make money. It's privately held, it has a philanthropist dumping about $10,000,000 in it every year; but he supposedly makes more than the entire Linux industry in a year so I could imagine that if that statement is true that Canonical won't need to make money for a very very long time.

[mips]

My best guess is that the year 2004 confused you. Years are confusing. I prefer not to use them. ;)


Lol, that sounds like something out of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

[az]

I was informed that they plan on making good money supporting corporate Ubuntu...dunno


Well, the way that it seems to be panning out is that Canonical is making money from professional support and services. They are operating at a loss, but they stil have some income.

I heard that Rosetta (the online translator in launchpad) was used by Canonical to offer professional translation services and has generated some revenue. They offer professional support as do many companies. They are opening up a support center here in Montreal which will offer support for mainly the server distributions and help companies migrate their enterprise server to Ubuntu.

I also heard that there is to be a pretty big deployment of Ubuntu in a Sounth African Tax bureau as well as some other governemnt offices in some other countires. Again, revenue from professional support.

I also heard the ten million per year cost. I beleive it. But if Ubuntu stays on top of the ditro popularity charts, and if Canonical can continue to maintain their position as being an excellent source of new tools and innovative support for free-libre software deployment and migration, they probably can hope to see a return on that investment in the future.

I suppose, what they want to be is the distro that hardware vendors write their drivers for. With distributed version control (bazaar-ng) pushing patches upstream and to other distros, working with Canonical would be the easiest way (and the best of both worlds) for a company to reach the whole linux/free software community.

[mips]

I also heard that there is to be a pretty big deployment of Ubuntu in a Sounth African Tax bureau as well as some other governemnt offices in some other countires. Again, revenue from professional support.


I might be mistaken but think that is on hold or fizzled away. As far as I remember SARS (not the virus, although some might disagree, SA Revenue Services) put out a tender for proposals to migrate their desktop environment to open source, meaning the OS and all apps, if there was no substitute you would have to create it.

The SARS servers already run on Novell RH, dunno how far the migration is but I reckon the majority of server are linux.

http://www.tectonic.co.za/view.php?action=view&id=955&topic=
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=265047&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__business/

[Linux O)o_O7]

As long as Ubuntu remains stable and reliable I am happy. The more software packages the more happy I become when using Ubuntu. This is essential for most users.

IF Ubuntu continues the way it is heading now I reckon it will do well in the commercial sector and government even. Just as long more software support is available and all essential software packages are maintained by the community.

If it had a price tag then I would not use it. I am willing to donate but who needs to when a billionaire runs the show...

Some day I envision this OS competing in the game market (no Linux OS has yet so it is about time - the next leap?) where we can play games that are as good and rich as they are on other platforms. May be more support for video cards and also some software for devs to use when making games - surely that is a must without a doubt. Well it may not ever come true and if it doesn't I will be forced to use commercial software then which I dislike for many good reasons. I am probably also willing to pay for software support but only in rare extreme cases, I see no reason why all help files cannot be added to a consolidated ubuntu database for if need be.

I am no software dev so like all Linux users I want a stable fully functioning OS with a decent range of software.

Bring on 64 bit quad core systems! :mrgreen:

[kolinab]

Hi,

OK, I've been using Ubuntu since December, and I've been reading and learning about Linux all over the internet. I must confess that I'm a pretty ignorant about what makes Ubuntu and other Free Operating systems work - what sustains these efforts?

I understand Mark Shuttleworth (and some others) fronted a large amount of money to get this effort going. So I guess there are some people getting paid developing this OS? What I am wondering is where the money comes in to eventually sustain these free OSs? There are volunteer developers, communities like these, etc., but where do the bucks come from for all the expenses incurred making this work?

Who is paying the people coding this OS? Are there companies paying for professional corporate support of this OS, and does that money keep things going?

I'm a little embarrassed I don't understand all of this better. I'm probably asking the wrong questions, but I wonder if someone can try to explain to me how these free Linux OSs stay above water. Surely not solely on the time and care of their devoted community volunteers?

I love this OS. I am having fun learning about this whole side of the computing world.

K

[tubasoldier]

Linus Torvald and Linux are not necessarily in it for the money. Yes, there is a lot of Linux money floating around, but money is not what keeps it going. Its the largest volunteer project in the world.

There are compaines that do pay developers to improve the OS. But these improvements are given back to the community and not horded. It is sharing and openness with information and technology that keeps it going. Not everyone wants to use a closed source OS.

[kolinab]

It really is a pretty amazing effort.

Since posting my question a few minutes ago, I have done some reading of 'The Official Ubuntu Book.' I can't remember where I downloaded it from but it's a pretty good resource on the type of question I was asking.

[Quillz]

Hi,

OK, I've been using Ubuntu since December, and I've been reading and learning about Linux all over the internet. I must confess that I'm a pretty ignorant about what makes Ubuntu and other Free Operating systems work - what sustains these efforts?

I understand Mark Shuttleworth (and some others) fronted a large amount of money to get this effort going. So I guess there are some people getting paid developing this OS? What I am wondering is where the money comes in to eventually sustain these free OSs? There are volunteer developers, communities like these, etc., but where do the bucks come from for all the expenses incurred making this work?

Who is paying the people coding this OS? Are there companies paying for professional corporate support of this OS, and does that money keep things going?

I'm a little embarrassed I don't understand all of this better. I'm probably asking the wrong questions, but I wonder if someone can try to explain to me how these free Linux OSs stay above water. Surely not solely on the time and care of their devoted community volunteers?

I love this OS. I am having fun learning about this whole side of the computing world.

K
Regarding Ubuntu, it makes its money from paid commercial support contracts and novelty items. This is generally how the larger Linux companies such as Red Hat and Novell have also earned revenue, although they also tend to offer commercial versions of their Linux distros.

[karellen]

it's called passion. not hobby, not interest, but passion in the highest form :)

[ferg]

Being relatively new to the Linux community I still find it staggering that people are willing to spend their time to create/recreate/improve something just for the benefit of others. Makes closed source software seem very narrow, very trapped and extremely inefficient. As karellen says it's just a passion... which is what makes this such a great community to be a part of of! :)

[yabbadabbadont]

I forget where, but I read an article recently about from where the majority of the kernel patches originate. At least for the kernel, most of them come from people who work for the large Linux sponsoring companies. Red Hat, IBM, Novel (SuSE), etc. Which makes sense I suppose.

[ghowells]

It is quite an involved read but Free Software/Open Source Guru Eric S. Raymond wrote a paper on this very subject a number of years ago called "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" Which is an anthropological study (well musing!) on the differences that exist between the Closed Source development model (The Cathedral) and the Open Source Development model (The Bazaar).

You can find the paper here (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/)

Hope you enjoy it :)

[23meg]

Hi,

OK, I've been using Ubuntu since December, and I've been reading and learning about Linux all over the internet. I must confess that I'm a pretty ignorant about what makes Ubuntu and other Free Operating systems work - what sustains these efforts?

I understand Mark Shuttleworth (and some others) fronted a large amount of money to get this effort going. So I guess there are some people getting paid developing this OS? What I am wondering is where the money comes in to eventually sustain these free OSs? There are volunteer developers, communities like these, etc., but where do the bucks come from for all the expenses incurred making this work?


Ever since the start of Free software movement and the GNU project, which is where it all began, the main motivation has been to build a complete Free operating system based on the UNIX design that's open source, modifiable and redistributable without restrictions. Ubuntu is made up of Free software written by people who share that motivation. The core Ubuntu developers' job consists mostly of bring together what the Free software community already provides, in a way that makes sense and works best for the user base. In other words, the group of thirty or so core developers isn't where all the goods come from.

The GNU set of tools, which make up an important part of Ubuntu as well as just about every other distro, are copyrighted and developed by the Free Software Foundation. Tens of thousands of independent developers ( some of whom are paid by companies to work on Free or open source software from which they benefit as well) also participate in writing the software you use as part of Ubuntu.


Who is paying the people coding this OS? Are there companies paying for professional corporate support of this OS, and does that money keep things going?

Canonical (http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid), as well as many other companies (http://www.ubuntu.com/support/marketplace) some of which Canonical provides with escalation support, provide support for Ubuntu. Considering that millions of CDs are printed and shipped for free all over the world, and that there are only a handful of paid developers, it's safe to assume that very little of the whole budget of Ubuntu goes into development, and little of it would be compensated for by the support income of Canonical at the moment. Mark Shuttleworth has also invested into a separate Ubuntu Foundation (http://www.ubuntu.com/news/UbuntuFoundation?action=show&redirect=UbuntuFoundation), as part of his effort to make Ubuntu sustainable in the long term, independent from the status of Canonical.

Some links to get you started about Free software:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation
http://www.gnu.org
http://www.fsf.org

[tigerpants]

Being relatively new to the Linux community I still find it staggering that people are willing to spend their time to create/recreate/improve something just for the benefit of others.

It's what normal human beings do. It's called being an adult. Most people with money, power, influence, behave like spoilt kids.

[kolinab]

Thanks for all the good replies, folks.

Thanks for all the links 23meg - I had the GNU one but have bookmarked the FSF.

I also found an Ubuntu Wiki article this morning on Mark Shuttleworth (ok, REGARDING him) that speaks directly to some of my initial questions in the original post:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarkShuttleworth

K

[aysiu]

I've merged this with a couple similar threads.

I also moved the posts about capitalism to their own thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=388433).

[ubuntu27]

All of us should see a movie called "Reolution OS" (http://www.revolution-os.com/)!

Click here to watch it on Google Video. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409&q=Revolution+OS&hl=en)

That movie could answer some of our questions. :)

[Ek0nomik]

All os us should see a movie called "Reolution OS" (http://www.revolution-os.com/)!

Click here to watch it on Google Video. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409&q=Revolution+OS&hl=en)

That movie could answer some of our questions. :)

Awesome link. Thanks.

[Ek0nomik]

I don't really understand how an open source project can roll in profits. Red Hat is open source, yes? How do they make a profit out of open source software? Obviously not everyone can have access to the code, because otherwise their business strategy would be shot. How does that work out? Who gets access to the source code?

Also, with open source projects, how does one really even get access to the code? Ubuntu as an example. How does one go about getting access to some of the Ubuntu code?

[maniacmusician]

All the code for Ubuntu is in the repositories.

Red Hat also releases all of its source code. However, they do offer commercial support, mostly at the corporate level. That's their main source of income. They service machines, do installations, provide support for extended periods of time, etc

A company can also charge for the version of the distro that they give you. For example, when you get Ubuntu, everything is already compiled and configured for you. If they wanted, Canonical could charge you for the compilation and configurations that they've done. They spent countless hours piecing together pieces of software to create a distro. They would still be open source, because you could compile it all yourself if you wanted to, and it wouldn't cost you a penny.

[aysiu]

The thread I've merged you with can answer some of your questions.

You may also want to check out these links:
How to make money from Open source (http://www.builderau.com.au/strategy/businessmanagement/soa/How_to_make_money_from_Open_source/0,339028271,339191343,00.htm)
How to Make Money Off Open Source (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1454374,00.asp)
Making Money from Free Software (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1836385,00.asp)
101 Ways to Make Money off Open Source (http://www.manageability.org/blog/archive/20030611%23101_ways_to_make_money1/view)
How Do You Make Money from Open Source Software? (http://clarklane.blogspot.com/2005/01/how-do-you-make-money-from-open-source.html)
Making money with open source (http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1101691,00.html)
Using open source to make money on generic PCs (http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6998877341.html)
Open source turns money-spinner (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/4407742.stm)
Canonical seeks profit from free Ubuntu (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6123249.html?tag=st.num)

[cowlip]

I heard at Mark Shuttleworth's presentation from debconf available from Google Video that they want money from infrastructures like Launchpad, support ecosystems where they're the upstream for local support systems (unlike Red Hat and Novell which off their own support all the way down), and I guess possibly commercial support, but apparently they don't see it as a big money maker. He likened Canonical's future to a country's reserve bank, not a big money maker but offering unique services.

At the time this was recorded though, bazaar/bzr was predicted to be a "big" thing, while today it seems that git is taking over that space--so I don't know what the goals are now.