[baltolug] Where Would We Be Without Ubuntu

[steve ARe]

your take on the above (or below, as case may be) is extremely interesting.

i wonder if we might explore other perspectives (per this) as well, in the
next meeting for, if so, i will definitely be there.

steve ARe.

(apologies to "ron swift" should he receive a duplicate email)

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Bryan J Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote:

> Ron Swift wrote:
> > This is an interesting article that imagines where we would be today
> > with Ubuntu Linux,
> > http://www.techrepublic.com/article/where-would-we-be-without-ubuntu/
> > Please feel free to share your thoughts on the list.
> > Moreover, Ubuntu-MD will have our first meeting of the year this
> > Saturday, Jan 23, 2016 at 1 pm at CCBC Catonsville campus in the
> > HTEC building Linux lab 101-B.
> > Use parking lot 5.
> > We will have a discussion on running Ubuntu on a Chromebook.
> > Please join us, thanks.
>
> I never understood these arguments, especially the first two.  The
> last is more of a debatable case, which most people don't understand
> ... until you look at one, simple reality.
>
> 1)  Many users hate that Ubuntu is a commercial product
> 2)  Many "hard core" Linux users look at Ubuntu as "Linux lite"
> 3)  Many don't see Canonical giving back enough to the open source
> community
>
>
> #1 is just the most self-defeating argument I've ever heard.
>
> While everyone appreciates Mark Shuttleworth's long-standing charity,
> but wants to see Canonical self-sustaining long-term.  The more
> avenues for revenue Canonical and open and exploit, the more
> developers they can hire (bonus for #3), the more the community
> "wins."  It's in _all_ our interests to see Canonical sustainable,
> revenue-wise, and that _requires_ commercial funding.
>
> There is little money in consumer software, at least not where you
> don't _also_ have "distribution control/lock" like Apple, Google and
> Samsung do (which is another story).  Even Sony has trouble breaking
> into some of this space, despite being a huge media company.
>
> To lambast Canonical simply because they are in the business of
> revenue is self-destructive.  Even Richard Stallman has always been
> about GNU including commercial entities and sustainable revenue.
> After all, whenever anyone "brags" about not paying Canonical a dime
> all while their business relies on Ubuntu LTS, they get an earful of
> me.
>
> Purchase Canonical Advantage and help sustain the company that makes
> your business possible.
>
>
> #2 is something I never hear.  I think that's just a translation issue.
>
> I.e., at most, some companies with IHVs/ISVs that require a strong,
> API/ABI are going to go with something like an Enterprise Linux
> release that never rebases.  But even Canonical backports fixes and
> sustains software for 5+ years in LTS.
>
> Yes, Canonical doesn't have the certifications and industry
> relationships that some entities have, but they are slowly getting
> there.  AT&T just signed an agreement with them on OpenStack and,
> again (going back to #1), the more companies sign agreements with and
> fund Canonical -- such as via Advantage and other programs -- the more
> they will get there.
>
> This is encouraging, but more entities need to support Canonical.
> It's great to "like" Ubuntu, but Canonical needs _fiscal_ support too,
> and everyone needs to assist when they rely on Ubuntu LTS (again,
> going back to #1).
>
>
> #3 is really one of those things that is a catch-22.
>
> You can subsidize for-profit entities, at a cost of not hiring more
> GPL developers.  Canonical has chosen to support Dell and other
> entities with consumer services, license and ship proprietary codecs
> and other things, which is not exactly a profitable endeavor -- not
> even for Microsoft.  Other, large Linux entities have given Tier-1
> OEMs and ISVs the virtual "cold shoulder," making the case it takes
> away from the money that could fund GPL developer salaries, and
> refusing to ship anything proprietary too.
>
> This has resulted in some of these other entities doing more Upstream
> and having more contributions -- even when "per-employee" is factored
> in (e.g., one entity being 7x larger, but making 15-20x as many
> contributions, depending on how it's factored) -- because they will
> not cater to consumer-centric entities that expect to be subsidize.
>
> Again, it's a catch-22, and I do _not_ either demonize or laud
> Canonical in this regard, I just understand the difference.  In the
> same regard, people who demonize other entities that are GPL-first
> should recognize that's just as defeating as well.
>
>
> The community would be far less without Ubuntu and Canonical.  It's
> very important for everyone to understand this, all without going to
> the point of rabid "anti-" against other entities, which cause a lot
> of the "backlash" that doesn't work out well for anyone.
>
> Marketing a trademarks play tricks on a lot of consumers and users.
> But didn't we leave all of that non-sense from the commercial-only
> software world?  Why drag it into the GNU/Linux world?  That's what I
> always ask myself.  Especially since there is _plenty_ of room for
> _all_ major Open Source entities to grow and thrive ... together.
>
> We all stand on the shoulders of giants.
>
>
> -- bjs
>
> --
> Ubuntu-us-md mailing list
> Ubuntu-us-md at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-md
>



-- 


Off the Road But Still in the Light