Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, is not non-profit. Neither is Ubuntu, the distribution.
Ubuntu/Canonical not non-profit
Posted Apr 17, 2008 15:18 UTC (Thu) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648)
Well, then that just adds fuel to my argument that it's not impossible to make a successful (profitable) business out of consumer desktop Linux.
Thank you for the correction.
except that Ubuntu/Canonical has not actually made a profit.
Posted Apr 17, 2008 15:31 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46)
I don't know how much money they're losing, or even if they're losing more or less than they
used to, but Ubuntu is still one of those "charities" that RedHat alluded to.
Posted Apr 18, 2008 8:24 UTC (Fri) by AlexHudson (subscriber, #41828)
I actually though that charity comment was aimed squarely at OLPC, with whom Red Hat did all
that Sugar GUI work.
The elephant in the room does seem to be Canonical in many ways, though. Even though Red Hat
don't ship a consumer desktop type product, they put an awful lot into desktop-related
technologies - that list in the article is pretty extensive really, and we know Novell do an
awful lot of work too.
When you think of what Canonical contributes, it seems to be basically be bzr and upstart, and
various bugfixes. I can't think of much else.
Posted Apr 19, 2008 2:14 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332)
Funny thing, and if i remember correctly, is that the whole Linux movement started by
"charitable" work on a i386... that couldn't be considered a server system by almost all of
But i think that this desktop vs server is getting to much bi-polarized and is full of "fuzzi"
rhetoric, specially for the possible Linux business models.
If RH ever had thoughted about making fortune selling "boxed" software... well, even MSFT can
do it less and less, to the point of rumor of selling online software "features"... but all of
this doesn't invalidate that the Desktop business is a no go... "au contraire"...
Considering autovectorization & autoparalelization
all other optimizations possible
Specially in the graphic arena, to the point of making graphic developers drool!...
Well its pretty obvious what i want. I want autovectorization & autoparalelization with a
compiler framework designed to support transparent, lifelong program analysis and
transformation for arbitrary programs, with compile-time, link-time, run-time and "offline"
optimizations, specially for my desire for highly graphic workloads, to the point that i can
use one GPU or several, or better said GPGPU, of which every model of AMD ATI above the R600
is already a GPGPU because it can run the open sourced "firestream" SDK, and so offload the
CPU and get improvements that by Amdahl law i could get near 50% !...
Well i'm not a professional programmer, or any good at it really, i could have much difficulty
in pulling it off alone... and also because "au contraire" to all those enthusiasts on
"charitable" pirated donations of MSFT soft often do, tweaking it full... this trick can
reveal itself much more difficult.
I'll make you a deal RH, build a live CD with a similar compilar infrastructure like
mentioned, that could detect all my hardware on my command, so that i can install from online
all the source code packages i need and that could be tailored for this vector & parallel job
i want,... and install it by compiling in a more or less automatic fashion... well Gentoo,
Gobo are more or less good examples,... but i want more, i want vector¶lell FULL
optimization, and i want a very smart and capable installer.
For crying out loud, if isn't for something like this, what in the hell is supposed to be the
practical meaning of open source for non-developers !?.... what is the difference to MSFT!?...
Sorry i don't want to be rude, i know that you RH, must have all there is of source code in
Open format that exists on this planet in repository, and to be very frank i couldn't care
less about desktop vs server rhetoric... if it wasn't because of "popular" desktop we wouldn't
have neither Linux and RH... and i'm sure there is a market for desktop... lets see..
The only i care is about price; <$100:-to where i send the check; >$100 <$200 i'll see
Canonical and Novell first, i'm gonna think; >$200 i'll try to do it myself all alone first.
So do we have a deal ?
Posted Apr 17, 2008 15:49 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
Canonical is not a public company and afaik they haven't turned profitable yet. Besides they
have already asserted that their desktop is a means to get a foot in the door and sell it to
the enterprise eventually.
Besides Red Hat continues to invest heavily in core desktop components.
I guess that wouldn't happen unless there is belief that there is profit to be made.
Posted Apr 18, 2008 0:35 UTC (Fri) by szaka (subscriber, #12740)
70% of Ubuntu's business comes from server support: http://www.linux.com/feature/132575
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds