Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
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
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
Canonical isn't making money. They loose lots of money .. (on a pretty consistent basis so far)
So up until now Ubuntu is essentially a charity organisation that sends out CDs to everyone and develops a _very_ popular distro.
RH and Novell (mostly due to the help from MS though) are making lots of money on the other hand. So it is only fair that they do more development.
That is how the system should work IMNSHO.
Ubuntu debuts its Upstream Report
Posted Oct 1, 2008 22:45 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Draw your own conclusions about the sustainability of what Canonical's approach to managing community interactions. The situation with translation handling continues to be a hallmark example. Ubuntu specific improvements such as translations are bound up in that closed infrastructure and are not flowing into upstream projects as smoothly:
And that's just upstream translations, which arguably is one of the lowest hanging fruit of community and upstream interaction that Ubuntu's popularity could be leveraged to help with. It stands to reason that Ubuntu's wide popularity translates into an army of volunteer translators across a multitude of languages.
But those volunteer efforts are not flowing easily into upstream projects because launchpad is specifically designed to aggregate contributions and not to redistribute them back to upstream. If Canonical was actually interested in helping create a conduit between community effort and the upstream projects this problem would have been solved as part of launchpad's design...years ago. Canonical has created this problem by deliberately designing launchpad to try to be a central service to everybody's workflow. To make use of downstream translations, upstream projects have to pull from launchpad and thus rely specifically on Canonical. Canonical could have designed launchpad to work with upstream projects directly and push translations into upstream's processing.
What if launchpad had been originally developed with upstream coordination in mind? What if launchpad were open to contribution from day one? Would the Rosetta component have functioned like transifex does now?
If Canonical was an actual charitable organization, they'd have no compelling reason to keep launchpad closed and Ubuntu community volunteers like their translators would be free to build the tools and the workflows they need without having to worry about Canonical's service based business model.
Speaking of charitable organizations...isn't there a Ubuntu Foundation on the books...does that organization do anything day-to-day month-to-month or was it just a PR stunt?
Posted Oct 1, 2008 22:55 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462)
Let's connect some dots....
Let's not. Let's ask for a release of the LWN site source code, so someone could say implement a reasonable comment filter.
Posted Oct 1, 2008 23:00 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
Posted Oct 2, 2008 6:05 UTC (Thu) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
Just as an example: I regularly use at least 3 different computers, with 3 different installations of FireFox, separate bookmarks, cookies, etc.
Posted Oct 2, 2008 8:56 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (guest, #14462)
To this long time Red Hat user, the continuous Ubuntu bashing here is just
becoming a bit boring, and frankly, it is looking pathetic. Talking a lot
about what could be done distracts from the important stuff that is actually
being done. People are of course free to determine whether something is
important to them or not, and it is mainly the lack of respect for this
important foundation of free software that annoys me.
For people who remember the discussions about the test bed Red Hat created
with Fedora and the way Novell is dealing with Microsoft, the whining about
Canonical or Ubuntu not contributing enough to the community is a very bad
More on topic: to me it seems that the correct tooling is essential for
getting the work done, so I welcome this very interesting contribution by
Posted Oct 2, 2008 2:27 UTC (Thu) by nevyn (subscriber, #33129)
Canonical isn't making money.
They loose lots of money .. (on a pretty consistent basis so far)
Possibly true, although as a private company only they know.
So up until now Ubuntu is essentially a charity organisation that sends out CDs to everyone
So you agree, they are spending money ... just not on development.
and develops a _very_ popular distro.
I think we've established that they mostly market a distro. ... and as to how popular it is, well popcon vs. smolt stats. are pretty close. So let's just say "one of the popular" distros.
So you're argument (or "logic" as you say) is that it's fine for them not to participate, even though they are one of the popular distributions, because they are spending that money on PR/marketing ... but it wouldn't be fine for Red Hat or Novell to just stop paying developers to participate upstream and instead just spend that money on PR/marketing?
Or maybe you're just saying it's fine if noone grows the pie but just spends all their money on trying to grab as big a slice of the current pie as possible?
That's fine, I guess, you can have that opinion ... but given that I actually like Linux, and want to see it improve faster (and I'd kind of prefer having a job) personally I'll choose option B. Which is pointing out how Canonical are hurting the community and need to change. As did Greg, probably for the same reasons.
Posted Oct 2, 2008 4:13 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
it's not a zero-sum game, ubuntu's gain doesn't directly cause RedHat loss
Posted Oct 2, 2008 4:39 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
As of May 22, 2008 Mark was quoted in an interview as saying that Canonical was "not close" to breaking even. I can't imagine a more qualified opinion on the matter than Shuttleworth.
This interview is also interesting to note that because Mark talks about the future of software as "unlicensed" software. That is a bit of an odd way of describing FOSS if that was his intent. Everywhere else I see the phrase "unlicensed software" used it is used in the context of some sort of licensing violation. I'm pretty sure that Mark doesn't mean to imply that the future of software is going to be the use software in violation of the license that it is offered under.
Posted Oct 2, 2008 8:21 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646)
Who established that? you? Then you're part of a vocal group of people, but where others (me included) take objection to that opinion. Ubuntu develops a popular distribution by integrating different packages for a target audience of computer non-experts desktop users better than their competitors. This integration and smoothing work is *not* just marketing -- and it doesn't matter that you and others want to debase that important work that's part of our Linux eco-system.
For the record, I am not involved in Ubuntu and don't even use it. (I installed it once in a VM and recognized after a few weeks that it's not my style of distro.) But I've met many people who started to use Linux because of Ubuntu -- they tried RH and SUSE before, and Ubuntu was the first Linux distro that »did things right« for them. And just because of those newbies starting to use Linux, Ubuntu is a Good Thing(tm).
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds