PDA

View Full Version : Canonical's use of proprietary software



bsell
May 4th, 2008, 01:37 AM
While browsing case studies in the Examples folder on Hardy, I noticed some of the PDFs were created using Adobe InDesign CS3 (5.0) a proprietary application running on Apple's proprietary operating system. Other case studies were created using OpenOffice.

Why was it necessary for Canonical to use proprietary software in order to generate some of the case study PDFs that promote open source software? Why not use the GIMP, Inkscape, Scribus, and OpenOffice on Ubuntu to make the marketing content found in the Examples folder?

acelin
May 4th, 2008, 01:41 AM
While browsing case studies in the Examples folder on Hardy, I noticed some of the PDFs were created using Adobe InDesign CS3 (5.0) a proprietary application running on Apple's proprietary operating system. Other case studies were created using OpenOffice.

Why was it necessary for Canonical to use proprietary software in order to generate some of the case study PDFs that promote open source software? Why not use the GIMP, Inkscape, Scribus, and OpenOffice on Ubuntu to make the marketing content found in the Examples folder?

Could it have not been this software running on Ubuntu?

Not that that is really any better...

SuperSon!c
May 4th, 2008, 01:46 AM
that's available for Windows too, innit? either way, poor play.

zekopeko
May 4th, 2008, 01:47 AM
hmmmmmmmm..... perhaps it was out-sourced to a independent contractor who does businesses with the evil proprietary software on the most locked in platform ever to hit the market.

i think that some older banners on the ubuntu homepage have also been done in photoshop so now we have definite proof that ubuntu is evil as an angry chicken from hell

LaRoza
May 4th, 2008, 01:47 AM
They didn't have to do it themselves. They could have contracted it out, or had a third party do it.

That is normal.

Canonical, indeed everyone, should use what works.

bsell
May 4th, 2008, 01:48 AM
Could it have not been this software running on Ubuntu?

Not that that is really any better...

No, but it could have been Windows :)

steveneddy
May 4th, 2008, 01:55 AM
No, but it could have been Windows :)

So? I say use whatever works.

swoll1980
May 4th, 2008, 01:57 AM
Canonical isn't special I'm sure there offices are lined with xp workstations
It' s really hard (at this moment anyways)to get by using
100% balls to the walls free software only no exceptions. At least for me it is.

bsell
May 4th, 2008, 01:58 AM
So? I say use whatever works.

I'm a Windows user myself.

bsell
May 4th, 2008, 02:01 AM
They didn't have to do it themselves. They could have contracted it out, or had a third party do it.

That is normal.

Canonical, indeed everyone, should use what works.

The case studies have several misspellings and grammar errors. Who is in charge of reviewing out-sourced work at Canonical?

Whiffle
May 4th, 2008, 02:02 AM
So? I say use whatever works.

Same here. Pick the right tool for the job... if you're using the wrong tool, or a tool that doesn't work well, it'll probably cost time and money, both of which are not free. If the best tool so happens to be proprietary, so be it.

LaRoza
May 4th, 2008, 02:02 AM
The case studies have several misspellings and grammar errors. Who is in charge of reviewing out-sourced work at Canonical?

I don't know, not me, of course.

swoll1980
May 4th, 2008, 02:04 AM
Oh I get it your a troll trying to start a flame war, but a lot people here feel "that if it works use it" so your little fire will get pissed on pretty quick

SuperSon!c
May 4th, 2008, 02:05 AM
i don't undestand the mentality here, so please enlighten me. all i ever read around here is anti-proprietary and everyone boasting that there is an open source solution for EVERY proprietary piece of software, yet when something like this comes up people shrug it off? hypocrite much?

SuperSon!c
May 4th, 2008, 02:05 AM
Same here. Pick the right tool for the job... if you're using the wrong tool, or a tool that doesn't work well, it'll probably cost time and money, both of which are not free. If the best tool so happens to be proprietary, so be it.

see now THIS i agree with and always have. but it's rare as HELL around here for someone with balls to post it.

swoll1980
May 4th, 2008, 02:08 AM
see now THIS i agree with and always have. but it's rare as HELL around here for someone with balls to post it.

I count 14 post all of them pretty much say the same thing

SuperSon!c
May 4th, 2008, 02:10 AM
I count 14 post all of them pretty much say the same thing

well over 90% of the time this is not the case in countless other threads, pink pony.

smoker
May 4th, 2008, 02:11 AM
this stuff could have been done by community volunteers using their work pc during lunch break, or such. if proprietory apps is all they have on those particular machines, well, at least it is being put to good use for a change!
:-)

Fedz
May 4th, 2008, 06:30 AM
The case studies have several misspellings and grammar errors. Who is in charge of reviewing out-sourced work at Canonical?
It's grammatical errors :lolflag:

swoll1980
May 4th, 2008, 06:34 AM
It's grammatical errors :lolflag:

grammatical errors about grammatical errors whats this world coming to?

SirThom
May 4th, 2008, 06:38 AM
I use some non-open-source software on my system, because it's practical for me to do so. For example, the last time I installed the open-source flash player, youtube videos were messed up (maybe it's corrected now). I also have a very expensive copy of Mathematica (and I know that there are alternatives, some of which I use, but I also have Mathematica). There are some other examples also.

SirThom
May 4th, 2008, 06:41 AM
So? I say use whatever works.

The Ubuntu contracts for add-people should have an 'only use ubuntu and open source or forfeit all pay' clause.

:lolflag::lolflag::lolflag::lolflag:

SirThom
May 4th, 2008, 06:44 AM
grammatical errors about grammatical errors whats this world coming to?

Woe is me.
:lolflag::lolflag:

(I hope that somebody gets why this is funny.)

23meg
May 4th, 2008, 07:14 AM
hmmmmmmmm..... perhaps it was out-sourced to a independent contractor who does businesses with the evil proprietary software on the most locked in platform ever to hit the market.


Canonical's stance on this matter was stated in a comment to bug #118559 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-website/+bug/118559):




Hi -

I have been asked to comment on this bug as I was involved in its creation and selection.

The image was commissioned by and created for Canonical. We encourage use of open source tools and open standards by all of our suppliers and contractors, but we do not insist on it. Philosophically we support and encourage and have a strong preference for open source software, but at the same time we are not "anti-propriety". We do make requirements of our suppliers in terms of the format in which materials are delivered to us (so that we in turn don't have to use proprietary software), but just as you should be allowed to choose the software you want to run, so should our suppliers and contractors (as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on our choices).

The image in question is an open format (jpg), and is used on a website which does not require viewers to run any proprietary software. In no way has the process of commissioning, creating or displaying the image infringed on the rights of the Ubuntu community to make their own choices regarding their use of free and open source software.

I hope this helps - let me know if further questions.

Cheers,
Jane

swoll1980
May 4th, 2008, 07:20 AM
Woe is me.
:lolflag::lolflag:

(I hope that somebody gets why this is funny.)

I might have an idea ;)

jrusso2
May 4th, 2008, 07:25 AM
Canonical's stance on this matter was stated in a comment to bug #118559 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-website/+bug/118559):

This is kind of what bothers me, the stance they take is to promote open source yet they use the best tool for the job. But when it comes to the distro we have to only get open source on the CD. Even if it means some people with wireless only connections won't be able to get it to work or the people that might need some other driver to install.

Why not take that kind of open minded stance with the Ubuntu distro as well?

reyfer
May 4th, 2008, 07:30 AM
This is kind of what bothers me, the stance they take is to promote open source yet they use the best tool for the job. But when it comes to the distro we have to only get open source on the CD. Even if it means some people with wireless only connections won't be able to get it to work or the people that might need some other driver to install.

Why not take that kind of open minded stance with the Ubuntu distro as well?
I don't know, maybe....because distribution of some proprietary drivers and codecs is illegal in some areas? Maybe because the license for some proprietary drivers and codecs restricts the redistribution?

Ub1476
May 4th, 2008, 08:28 AM
Linux at the core, proprietary as a choice.

howlingmadhowie
May 4th, 2008, 08:44 AM
This is kind of what bothers me, the stance they take is to promote open source yet they use the best tool for the job. But when it comes to the distro we have to only get open source on the CD. Even if it means some people with wireless only connections won't be able to get it to work or the people that might need some other driver to install.

Why not take that kind of open minded stance with the Ubuntu distro as well?

if you want to use proprietary software use windows. just keep that filth away from gnu/linux.

jrusso2
May 4th, 2008, 09:02 AM
if you want to use proprietary software use windows. just keep that filth away from gnu/linux.

I am wondering how pure your install is? Do you listen to non free music and video formats?

Do you install Nvidia drivers? Use wireless? Have a modem?

LaRoza
May 4th, 2008, 09:04 AM
if you want to use proprietary software use windows. just keep that filth away from gnu/linux.

That doesn't make sense.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

If one uses Windows should they only use proprietary software?

quinnten83
May 4th, 2008, 09:06 AM
see now THIS i agree with and always have. but it's rare as HELL around here for someone with balls to post it.

it's not all that uncommon around here for people not be anti-propietary.
this isn't the debian forums after all :D
(Yay distro flamewar!)

insane_alien
May 4th, 2008, 10:54 AM
I have no problem with them using proprietry software or even windows to develop and market ubuntu. i would preffer they stuck with linux and open source but i do not control them.

although in perspective, i care not a jot.

howlingmadhowie
May 4th, 2008, 12:10 PM
I am wondering how pure your install is? Do you listen to non free music and video formats?

Do you install Nvidia drivers? Use wireless? Have a modem?

i have ffmpeg2theora installed on one computer to convert media i want to watch.

nvidia driver? no
wireless? yes--free driver (to the best of my knowledge, though i haven't tried it with the gnewsense kernel yet)
modem? no

billgoldberg
May 4th, 2008, 12:15 PM
If canonical uses proprietary software to make their documents, well that says a lot.

How do they expect to be taken serious if they don't use their own supported software and OS?

This is a blow to the face of the ubuntu community!

Canonical using Adobe's software on OSX would be the same like if Apple would make their "Mac vs PC" commercials using windows movie maker on vista.

Sure I also use proprietary software (just the some video, audio formats and flash) , but that just not the same.

jimcooncat
May 4th, 2008, 12:34 PM
Sure, I'd prefer contributors use free software to produce the stuff, but if what they have is expedient for them, and works well with free software, then I'd rather they submit the content than wait, or not submit at all.

In the "choose your battles" frame of mind, a proprietary tool to create PDF's seems a relatively minor infraction.

howlingmadhowie
May 4th, 2008, 12:46 PM
If canonical uses proprietary software to make their documents, well that says a lot.

How do they expect to be taken serious if they don't use their own supported software and OS?

This is a blow to the face of the ubuntu community!

Canonical using Adobe's software on OSX would be the same like if Apple would make their "Mac vs PC" commercials using windows movie maker on vista.

Sure I also use proprietary software (just the some video, audio formats and flash) , but that just not the same.

if the documents were created by community members, as seems to be the case here, i can't call it anything worse than regrettable.

the yawner
May 4th, 2008, 01:45 PM
I'd be more concerned if I would have to install some specific proprietary software to open the file.

howlingmadhowie
May 4th, 2008, 02:10 PM
That doesn't make sense.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

If one uses Windows should they only use proprietary software?

interesting leap of logic.

"people should not use proprietary software on gnu/linux therefore if they use windows they should only use proprietary software"

eragon100
May 4th, 2008, 02:56 PM
Being on the fence is very comfortable: I, too, don't give a damn and use whatever works best although I love free software:

http://www.coppo-juveniel.nl/bestanden/Coppo%2028%20cl%20Bier-Fris%20gevuld.JPG

bsell
May 4th, 2008, 02:56 PM
It's grammatical errors :lolflag:

"Grammar errors (http://www.tameri.com/edit/gramerrors.html)" is grammatically correct.

23meg
May 4th, 2008, 03:15 PM
Please report errors with the example content at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/example-content/+bugs.

regomodo
May 4th, 2008, 04:09 PM
hasn't this issue come up before on each new release? The mods always come in with their wisdom and tell us that canonical probably contracted a graphic design company to do the examples for them. Makes sense to me although it would be nicer if community-made examples were used instead.

Perpetual
May 4th, 2008, 04:22 PM
Life is way too short...

eragon100
May 4th, 2008, 04:28 PM
...to care about free software :lolflag:

Fedz
May 4th, 2008, 04:37 PM
"Grammar errors (http://www.tameri.com/edit/gramerrors.html)" is grammatically correct.
Not within the context of your post ;)

phrostbyte
May 4th, 2008, 05:10 PM
I don't think it's right. "Right tool for the right job" bah, it's like saying Ubuntu is not good enough by saying something like that.

It's like AMD buys a bunch of Intel machines and when confronted about it, they say "it's the right tool for the right job".

We'll good luck for Canonical that they aren't a public company. :)

PS: There is nothing in those PDFs that couldn't been done in OOo. Hell a half competent person can pump out a PDF better then that in OOo in about 15 minutes tops (given the text). There is no real excuse for this.

bsell
May 4th, 2008, 11:22 PM
Not within the context of your post ;)
Me: The case studies have several misspellings and grammar errors. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4874581&postcount=10)

The sentence is grammatically correct.

LaRoza
May 4th, 2008, 11:47 PM
hasn't this issue come up before on each new release? The mods always come in with their wisdom and tell us that canonical probably contracted a graphic design company to do the examples for them. Makes sense to me although it would be nicer if community-made examples were used instead.

Has the community submitted work for this?

Don't complain, if you don't deliver.

23meg
May 5th, 2008, 12:03 AM
Has the community submitted work for this?

Don't complain, if you don't deliver.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Examples was created to get content submissions from the community during the Feisty cycle. It was announced on the forums (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=514347) too, and was revisited (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/hardy-example-content) (note the staggering number of subscribers) in the period leading to Hardy. As you can see, the total number of contributions is zero.

LaRoza
May 5th, 2008, 12:07 AM
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Examples was created to get content submissions from the community during the Feisty cycle. It was announced on the forums (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=514347) too, and was revisited (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/hardy-example-content) (note the staggering number of subscribers) in the period leading to Hardy. As you can see, the total number of contributions is zero.

That says a lot for why Canonical uses what it uses.

regomodo
May 5th, 2008, 12:18 AM
Has the community submitted work for this?

Don't complain, if you don't deliver.

What?! I'm not complaining. I don't even use Ubuntu. I couldn't care less what Canonical decide to do. I was stating what i thought they would have done after the last time people were up in arms about this use of non-FOSS.

I really hope you weren't trying to flame me.

LaRoza
May 5th, 2008, 01:04 AM
I really hope you weren't trying to flame me.

I shouldn't have used the quote button. It was directed at you.

bsell
May 5th, 2008, 03:09 AM
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Examples was created to get content submissions from the community during the Feisty cycle. It was announced on the forums (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=514347) too, and was revisited (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/hardy-example-content) (note the staggering number of subscribers) in the period leading to Hardy. As you can see, the total number of contributions is zero.The case studies themselves were done by Canonical to market Ubuntu and appear on the Ubuntu Web site (http://www.ubuntu.com/products/casestudies) as downloadable PDFs. The inclusion of the case studies as part of the Examples content had nothing to do with the community contributions.

doorknob60
May 5th, 2008, 03:21 AM
I chose no. From what I understand, some of the files like the MS office files and the PDF are to show you that Ubuntu can read all the common file formats that you;re used to using in Windows. Also, how would you know that it's not just an open office file exported to PDF or something (there might be a way to know, but AFAIK there isn't).

23meg
May 5th, 2008, 03:22 AM
The case studies themselves were done by Canonical to market Ubuntu and appear on the Ubuntu Web site (http://www.ubuntu.com/products/casestudies) as downloadable PDFs. The inclusion of the case studies as part of the Examples content had nothing to do with the community contributions.

That's right, but it's not like, had the community come up with quality case studies (yes, it's possible; there's a marketing team made of volunteers that does great work, as well as people who have written no less than anthropological theses on Ubuntu), they wouldn't have stood an equal chance of being included. The point that the example content is a part of Ubuntu (like all others) that's fully open to community contributions that have merit stands.

regomodo
May 5th, 2008, 08:08 AM
I shouldn't have used the quote button. It was directed at you.

eh?! Thanks, i guess.

tact
May 5th, 2008, 08:24 AM
Why was it necessary for Canonical to use proprietary software in order to generate some of the case study PDFs that promote open source software?

I guess for a start Canonical is a corporate identity, one that sells proprietary software product and services for a living. Canonical's relationship to ubuntu is as a public minded corporate sponsor.

Would you criticise another corporate entity who gives millions to feed the hungry - for not eating the same food that they pay to be air-dropped to the starving?

:)

elamericano
May 5th, 2008, 09:37 AM
Please report errors with the example content at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/example-content/+bugs.

But, but... Launchpad is a closed-source application! :eek:

Personally, I think it would be great if more proprietary vendors wrote applications for Linux, especially games.

Can anyone who's not using Gobuntu really make a fuss about this minor transgression? It ain't no big deal.

23meg
May 5th, 2008, 10:13 AM
But, but... Launchpad is a closed-source application! :eek:

It's intended as a service, not an application that's meant to be distributed and run on numerous computers. You are not running it on your computer; someone else is running it for you, and you are reading its output and sending it input, all via open protocols, and you can retrieve everything you put into it via various open means (RSS, HTML, XML-RPC, e-mail). The fact that it's closed source has no more impact on your freedoms to utilize it as a service than the fact that Google is closed source has on your freedoms to utilize it.

That said, software freedom is also relevant in remote networked usage under detached ownership, but it's an entirely different story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License) than running stuff on your computer.

Some hearsay as a striking example: Richard Stallman is comfortable with the idea of using non-free software for non-personal purposes on others' computers. He just won't let it on his.

SuperSon!c
May 5th, 2008, 11:37 AM
I chose no. From what I understand, some of the files like the MS office files and the PDF are to show you that Ubuntu can read all the common file formats that you;re used to using in Windows. Also, how would you know that it's not just an open office file exported to PDF or something (there might be a way to know, but AFAIK there isn't).

that's rubbish and you know it.

SuperSon!c
May 5th, 2008, 11:38 AM
eh?! Thanks, i guess.

yeah, i didn't get that at all either.