| |||||||||||||
Ubuntu/Canonical not non-profitUbuntu/Canonical not non-profitPosted Apr 17, 2008 15:18 UTC (Thu) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648)In reply to: Red Hat: no desktop products coming by skvidal Parent article: Red Hat: no desktop products coming
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.
(Log in to post comments)
except that Ubuntu/Canonical has not actually made a profit. Posted Apr 17, 2008 15:31 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] 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.
except that Ubuntu/Canonical has not actually made a profit. Posted Apr 18, 2008 8:24 UTC (Fri) by AlexHudson (subscriber, #41828) [Link] 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.
except that Ubuntu/Canonical has not actually made a profit. Posted Apr 19, 2008 2:14 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] 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 measures! 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 http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid... all other optimizations possible http://llvm.org/pubs/2004-01-30-CGO-LLVM.html Specially in the graphic arena, to the point of making graphic developers drool!... http://zrusin.blogspot.com/2008/02/openvg-and-acceleratin... http://zrusin.blogspot.com/2008/02/gpgpu.html 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 ?
Ubuntu/Canonical not non-profit Posted Apr 17, 2008 15:49 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] 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. http://www.news.com/A-Linux-start-up-on-the-path-to-profi... Besides Red Hat continues to invest heavily in core desktop components. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions I guess that wouldn't happen unless there is belief that there is profit to be made.
Ubuntu/Canonical not non-profit Posted Apr 18, 2008 0:35 UTC (Fri) by szaka (subscriber, #12740) [Link] 70% of Ubuntu's business comes from server support: http://www.linux.com/feature/132575
|
|||||||||||||