Bradley Kuhn on switching back from Ubuntu to Debian

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 01:18:54AM +0200, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) wrote:
> There's a saying that I like, "It's not a problem until there's a
> solution" which isn't always 100% true, but I try to not complain
> about something until I have an answer, unfortunately Ubuntu One is
> something I don't have an answer for, but I'd like to share my views
> here if it's ok.

I don't usually think that way at all...a problem is (I think I nicked this
from Jerry Weinberg) a difference between something *as it is perceived* and
*as it is desired*.  It's simply something we want to see change.

So, needless to say, I don't mind you sharing your view of the problems
without a solution.

> Being included by default in Ubuntu ads some problems, many people who
> develop will have a tendency to integrate with Ubuntu One instead of other
> easy to use free tools such as an SSH server. Ubuntu One is also really
> nice so users can adopt it quickly as well. Where does that leave someone
> who doesn't want to use Canonical's proprietary hosting solution when
> eventually, everything integrates with it and not with much else? What
> does a large government organisation do if they're not allowed to let
> their data leave the country, when they have thousands of Ubuntu users who
> could really benefit from such software do? They can't host their own
> Ubuntu One. I guess Canonical would see this as an opportunity to sell
> Ubuntu One appliances to large organisations.  What about small to medium
> businesses who could benefit running one in their own office for keeping
> things in sync between computers, but don't have the bandwidth to keep
> running it over the Internet? What happens a clients finds a bug in Ubuntu
> One which is server related, and they ask me to fix it (since I promised
> it's all free software and fixable by anyone who has the technical skills)
> and I have to explain to them that actually, a large percentage of the
> software in Ubuntu relies on a non-free piece of software where the bug
> actually lies?

I think these are valid concerns, and they are consistently raised in areas
where free software and proprietary web services collide.  I don't think
that the fact that Ubuntu includes some U1-enabled applications
exacerbates them significantly, though.  There have been proprietary web
services for (nearly?) as long as there has been a web, and these have
always been available to Ubuntu applications.  Evolution integrates with
Google Calendar, Pidgin works with MSN, etc.

> At UDS Karmic some people found it strange that I was annoyed with
> Ubuntu One's default inclusion. Some people said things like "You
> visit google.com don't you? Do you use gmail? Those are non-free
> server stuff too!". The difference is that my web browser pretty much
> uses open standards throughout, and I can visit any web pages I like,
> whether they're non-free or free in terms of content and the software
> they run on. It's completely different to the case of Ubuntu One that
> relies on non-free software.

Why is it different?  Ubuntu One is based on open standards as well, and the
services based on desktopcouch especially so.  The web is not free in the
same sense that we use in free software.  The same concept can be applied,
but we've learned over time that it's different enough that we need new
conceptual models of freedom.

Is Ubuntu One the right kind of free?  I think that's open for debate at
this point.  However, I don't think Ubuntu One should be seen as a
regression in freedom.

> (and I think it's kind of cool that Matt can bring this up, even
> though he works for Canonical)

I regret not being able to participate more actively in the discussion, as
other commitments have made it hard to keep up.  There is no doubt in my
mind that our community hinges on the alignment of our ideals about
software: it's not enough that it "just works".  Any compromises we make in
this area need to be carefully and transparently considered.

If critique were to become taboo, we would be losing sight of something very
important.

-- 
 - mdz