[CALUG] [baltolug] Where Would We Be Without Ubuntu

[Bryan J Smith]

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