2c about the development of ubuntu

[Robos]

On Sun, 01.01.06, Stephan Hermann <sh at sourcecode.de> wrote:
> Hi Udo,

Hi Stephan and List. 

[...]

> That is what Ubuntu is doing. >=20 Devs are spending their paid time to create 
> a free, but for software and hardware vendors to be certified, distribution. 
> This won't be happening with Debian, because there is no one who stands for 
> the support, with Fedora, because RedHat wants to sell the enterprise thing, 
> and as well OpenSuSE, because Novell/SuSE wants to sell their enterprise 
> thing. 
> 
> If Ben and Fabio and Colin and others are doing their job nicely, and when 
> Mark, Claire and Malcom are doing their jobs correctly, and if the hardware 
> and software vendors (and I speak here not only about server stuff) are 
> willing to play with Canonical, then there is one distribution, which is free 
> (means you can download it for free and use it without any further payment), 
> which will be certified (for IBM DB2 it is already) and you or your company 
> can think about paying for support e.g. for IBM DB2 or Oracle (if it would be 
> certified). The same applies to the hardware side. 
> 
> Advantages? You have to pay only the support for the Software or Hardware, but 
> not for the operating system. This is as well a good thing for Ubuntu, but 
> even for Debian, because companies can install Ubuntu, and know that it has 
> the basement of Debian.

Is it me or is there a certain shift from "linux for human beings" to "linux
for the corporate environment - free!". I would think that already enough
companies cater for the server side of linux: ibm in conjunction with ...,
novell and such that in that area there are enough players. Like I said, and
microsoft said, the licensing cost is - for a company - neglectable to the
cost of support and the cost of e.g. oracle.
What I see is this: canonical can more easily make support contracts with
companies about servers at the moment - BECAUSE "linux isn't ready for the
desktop". That was - at least I understood it like this - what ubuntu wanted
to do. Make linux more userfriendly to the human behind the machine on his
desk. THEN companies will approach canonical about support contracts for
linux on the desktop. Fewer, in smaller volume, but _that_ was what I
understood Mark was spending his money on. Surely ubuntu will amortize
itself faster with more focus on the server - but was that the intent? From
what I read in Mark's remarks about dapper drake he wants it to go head on
against vista - not windows server 2000something. I think there is this
notion about "linux not ready for the desktop" (I run it solely, on lots of
machines) _because_ nobody is doing something about this. I thought ubuntu
was. Am   I   wrong?
Cheers
Udo 'Robos' Puetz

> Regard,
> 
> \sh
> 
> -- 
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
> 

-- 
Robos - 
gpg --recv-keys --keyserver blackhole.pca.dfn.de 6EEADA09