Is Ubuntu Selling Out or Growing Up?

[Medieval_Creations]

Found this story on slahdot. Was just interested to get others feedback.


AlexGr notes an article by Jeff Gould where he says " Sometimes I wonder whether Ubuntu is really an open source software company any more. Yes, yes, I realize Ubuntu is not a company at all but a free Linux distribution, GPL'd and open source by definition. But still, the Ubuntu distro is sponsored by a traditional for profit company. The answer that has recently emerged to this question is, "yes and no." Yes, of course, because Ubuntu's web site promises that the distro "will always be free of charge, including enterprise releases and security updates." But Ubuntu the enterprise ecosystem — understood as the collection of desktops and servers running Ubuntu in a given organization — is not."

EDIT:
SlashDot Link: http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/08/04/30/199204.shtml
Full Story Link: http://www.interopnews.com/news/is-ubuntu-selling-out-or-growing-up.html

[retrow]

Saw this today afternoon. There are already over 100 comments on /. and after reading through them, I don't think I've anything new to add.

[forrestcupp]

Pretty ridiculous. Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat. OpenSuse is sponsored by Novell. Red Hat has been around forever and they've been commercial forever, and nobody has ripped them apart about it. If a huge project like Ubuntu doesn't have someone behind it paying the bills, it's either not going to last long, or it isn't going to be innovative.

[swoll1980]

Why is making money off of software a crime all of the sudden?

[Foster Grant]

I read this earlier and came to the conclusion that he doesn't know of what he speaks.

[vexorian]

FUD.

If the ubuntu manifesto is not enough, then try the fact that everything is FLOSS, and there isn't a forked version like red hat or SLED.

[blithen]

Pretty ridiculous. Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat. OpenSuse is sponsored by Novell. Red Hat has been around forever and they've been commercial forever, and nobody has ripped them apart about it. If a huge project like Ubuntu doesn't have someone behind it paying the bills, it's either not going to last long, or it isn't going to be innovative.
+564851848

[hardyn]

not so much a conclusion, editorial narrative. although i like his point about the ubuntu slogan.

"Every computer user should have the freedom to download, run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees."

As worded it is a blanket statement, as it implies ALL software, not just some software. No there is absolutly nothing wrong with making a profit from your software, but the article seems to highlight the mismatch between the ubuntu slogan, and cannonical's closed source software practices.

[cardinals_fan]

I have no problem with companies making money off software...

[swoll1980]

not so much a conclusion, editorial narrative. although i like his point about the ubuntu slogan.

"Every computer user should have the freedom to download, run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees."


That is a huge contradiction though

[vexorian]

No it isn't.

[dnns123]

Imagine: "Linux for rich human beings"

[agim]

Hopefully not selling out. But why does it have to be an either or question. I find that there are always more than two pre-defined signs to something. Just going in a new direction. We'll see where it leads.
One of the reasons I have stuck with Ubuntu is because they don't offer a for-pay version like RH and novell and a host of others.

As long as thats the case, and as long as they produce a good OS I will most likely stick with it. Unless something better comes along...
That said, I am deluging PCLOS gnome 2008 right now.

[jrusso2]

The GPL has no problem with people making money off software support which is what Ubuntu and Cannonical is doing and I agree with it.

[Tundro Walker]

So, this guy is basically commenting on the what Mark Shuttleworth has said, from the very start, about where he'd like Ubuntu to go. He wants to provide a free product as a commodity, then profit from the outer processes, community, needs, etc that spring up around it, like the need for more Linux-compatible hardware, the need for more folks who can give Linux support, the need for more folks to go into a company and convert them to Linux, etc, etc.

The World Wide Web is free, but there's people on it that profit from it. The concept is the same. Ubuntu and the World Wide Web are both provided as commodities, and the things that spring up around them can provide profit opportunity.

Shuttleworth was up-front about this very early on. And yet, every few months, some new web editorial comes out from some moron who stumbles upon this concept as if it's a conspiracy and they're the one doing the "hard hitting reporting" to "expose" Ubuntu and Canonical.

Give me a break. Sounds like home boy needs to a) go back to college and brush up on his business courses, and b) surf the net and read the tech news sites more, that way he'd realize a) this is old news, and b) it really isn't news, it's just commentary on Mark Shuttleworth's blatantly-stated plans for Canonical / Ubuntu.

Get a life.

[FuturePilot]

Pretty ridiculous. Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat. OpenSuse is sponsored by Novell. Red Hat has been around forever and they've been commercial forever, and nobody has ripped them apart about it. If a huge project like Ubuntu doesn't have someone behind it paying the bills, it's either not going to last long, or it isn't going to be innovative.

+100

I think that article is pretty ridiculous.

[swoll1980]

So, this guy is basically commenting on the what Mark Shuttleworth has said, from the very start, about where he'd like Ubuntu to go. He wants to provide a free product as a commodity, then profit from the outer processes, community, needs, etc that spring up around it, like the need for more Linux-compatible hardware, the need for more folks who can give Linux support, the need for more folks to go into a company and convert them to Linux, etc, etc.

The World Wide Web is free, but there's people on it that profit from it. The concept is the same. Ubuntu and the World Wide Web are both provided as commodities, and the things that spring up around them can provide profit opportunity.

Shuttleworth was up-front about this very early on. And yet, every few months, some new web editorial comes out from some moron who stumbles upon this concept as if it's a conspiracy and they're the one doing the "hard hitting reporting" to "expose" Ubuntu and Canonical.

Give me a break. Sounds like home boy needs to a) go back to college and brush up on his business courses, and b) surf the net and read the tech news sites more, that way he'd realize a) this is old news, and b) it really isn't news, it's just commentary on Mark Shuttleworth's blatantly-stated plans for Canonical / Ubuntu.

Get a life.

This just in!! The world is round!! More at 11

[Ralphie]

who cares, your using it for free aren't you?
thats what i have to say about it.

Oh, and maybe if they sold out we could get some proper drivers sometime down the road -- pre-packaged even.

[samjh]

not so much a conclusion, editorial narrative. although i like his point about the ubuntu slogan.

"Every computer user should have the freedom to download, run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees."

As worded it is a blanket statement, as it implies ALL software, not just some software. No there is absolutly nothing wrong with making a profit from your software, but the article seems to highlight the mismatch between the ubuntu slogan, and cannonical's closed source software practices.

Ubuntu and Canonical are separate entities. Canonical sponsors Ubuntu, but there is no need for Ubuntu developers and the community to speak Canonical's mind and vice versa.

[frup]

I have posted two comments on the article. The signed name is Laurent.

[gn2]

There's a big difference between selling a software support service and selling software.

Obviously the writer of the article just hasn't been able to get his thick head round that concept.

[smoker]

wtf is Peerstone Research? seems their idea of research is to paraphrase most of what is on the ubuntu home page, then add what they think to be an 'original speculative twist!'

charge for support? how dare canonical!
:-)

[frup]

wtf is Peerstone Research? seems their idea of research is to paraphrase most of what is on the ubuntu home page, then add what they think to be an 'original speculative twist!'

charge for support? how dare canonical!
:-)

Did you read the whole article?

His main point seems to be Landscape which is Canonical's web based administration tool and is proprietary. The GPL does not cover web apps and so this issue is kind of moot.

He believes that the existence of this tool is to force businesses to buy more support (since it can only be given free to individual machines with support or for $150 per license)

I fail to see the logic here as canonical basically gives you the option of having 1 support license for say 100 machines if you already do this and then buying 99 copies of Landscape for $150 each (24x7 server support is $2950 or something)

So basically IF you want to use Landscape, which is in some ways proprietary but perfectly fine under the GPL. you have to pay for it but if you already have Support they'll give it to you for free.

If you don't want to use it because it's proprietary then don't use it, you haven't until now and your support options don't need to change.

To some how argue canonical is being evil is very circular reasoning. I'm sure there are other tools which can do the job too. Canonical just recommends theirs, which is natural.

The income from landscape alone could probably fun an extra developer for each site that gets landscape for say 5 computers. Meaning Ubuntu could really progress, not to mention that support should improve exponentially.

If no one wants Landscape that's cool Ubuntu will just continue along at the same speed it's been going which is pretty cool already.