[baltolug] Where Would We Be Without Ubuntu

[Stuart]

I'll even go further than the article. Without Ubuntu only computer 
"geeks" would be using linix on their PCs, laptops, tablets, cell 
phones, and other devices. The user interface would still be via command 
lines, and few drivers, and very little user apps would exist. Despite 
Ubuntu's success in foreign countries however very few Americans realize 
that Ubuntu exists, or perceive it as being inferior to Windows and ios. 
We in the Ubuntu community know better but our job is to make the public 
aware of the Ubuntu's advantages. This should be the priority of Ubuntu. 
They need to get Ubuntu and unity on as many platforms as possible and 
have a public campaign to promote Ubuntu, including TV commercials and 
other promotions.
Stuart

On 01/19/2016 12:06 PM, Bryan J Smith 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
>