In defense of Ubuntu reproach
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
Posted Aug 19, 2008 23:30 UTC (Tue) by nevyn (guest, #33129)Parent article: In defense of Ubuntu
Ubuntu is far from perfect, and it could certainly give back more than it does, but Ubuntu does not deserve the level of opprobrium it is receiving from certain parts of our community.
[...]
The developers who castigate Ubuntu are uniformly silent about the number of kernel patches coming from the Mandriva camp. They have nothing to say about how much Xandros gives back to Debian.
Maybe because the number of contributions are roughly in line with the number of their users? And also the length of time that it's been "the one true distro."
I mean I appreciate that we don't have anything better than google trends for stats. on Ubuntu users, but that is often used by their evangelists, and "trends" implies that Ubuntu got more mindshare than Fedora/Debian sometime 2005. That's over 3 years ago.
Sudden success can breed a certain amount of animosity, especially when much of that success is perceived to be built on the work of others
Yeh, sudden success 3 years ago. We were fine with them not contributing much back, instantly, they obviously need time to invest from their new found success. But three years is a long time. Are you implying that it would be fine for the leader of Linux user mindshare to never contribute anything back? If not, how many years does it have to be ... and how little do they have to give back?
Also, esp. as engineers, it's compelling to look at the end game ... what happens if all the Linux users are using Ubuntu? It's obvious that the huge amount of work that Red Hat funds can't happen if Fedora/RHEL don't have any users ... is IBM going to fund everything?
On top of all this, Ubuntu employs a number of developers who work within the community. Yes, it would be a good thing if there were more of these developers. It would also be good if more fixes and enhancements escaped Ubuntu's repositories and made it back upstream.
Good if more fixes escaped upstream? ... as though some evil company is keeping them hostage but Canonical is bravely working night and day to free them? Well, I guess, that's almost true. I'm not sure if you meant that as a ironic reference to their "let's share releases" statement (alas. also one of many "not quite true" statements the company has made -- which also doedsn't endear them to us).
I appreciate that you seem to like the Ubuntu distribution, but try not to let that cloud your appraisal of Canonical/Ubuntu the company.
Posted Aug 19, 2008 23:59 UTC (Tue)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link] (2 responses)
I think you're reading that exactly backward. He's complaining that Ubuntu is keeping their fixes and enhancements to themselves, and that they only occasionally manage to escape and make it upstream. IOW, Canonical is the "evil company [...] keeping them hostage".
FWIW, I think that "keeping them hostage" is a bit strong as a description of Canonical's behavior. I haven't heard anyone claim that they're failing to distribute the source to their modifications. They just aren't making the extra effort to push their work upstream where others can benefit from it.
Posted Aug 20, 2008 3:52 UTC (Wed)
by wtogami (subscriber, #32325)
[Link] (1 responses)
A related problem: Often the attitude from Ubuntu is they contribute back to upstream. But they equate upstream as Launchpad, and they wonder why everyone is not using Launchpad for their upstream.
Posted Aug 28, 2008 20:11 UTC (Thu)
by maco (guest, #53641)
[Link]
Other times, patches are submitted directly to Ubuntu because it is just before a release and the time to wait for it to get into upstream, request a merge, etc. will overshoot feature freeze or the release date. In these cases, upstream bugs are filed and the patches are handed over. Again, it's up to upstream whether they want to accept them or not.
And then some other times, well, I can't be the only person to think like this. I'm active enough in the Ubuntu community that I think at least a few of the other bugsquad folks would recognize me. Are patches from strangers or recognized names more likely to be accepted anywhere? Ones from recognized names. Who will recognize my name, other Ubuntu members or upstream? Ubuntu. I figure if I get them to approve it, it then gets a "and oh yeah, Ubuntu approved it already" when it goes for upstream review.
Posted Aug 20, 2008 0:18 UTC (Wed)
by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Aug 20, 2008 0:58 UTC (Wed)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Aug 20, 2008 3:06 UTC (Wed)
by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 28, 2008 19:58 UTC (Thu)
by maco (guest, #53641)
[Link]
That has happened. Canonical dropped support for PowerPC a few releases ago.[1] The community now handles the PowerPC port just fine, even releasing the same day.
[1] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-announce/2007-Fe...
Posted Aug 20, 2008 3:45 UTC (Wed)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 20, 2008 5:36 UTC (Wed)
by motk (guest, #51120)
[Link]
Posted Aug 20, 2008 11:49 UTC (Wed)
by TxtEdMacs (guest, #5983)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Aug 21, 2008 0:29 UTC (Thu)
by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Aug 22, 2008 18:29 UTC (Fri)
by kragil (guest, #34373)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 22, 2008 19:07 UTC (Fri)
by TxtEdMacs (guest, #5983)
[Link]
Posted Aug 22, 2008 19:05 UTC (Fri)
by TxtEdMacs (guest, #5983)
[Link]
Posted Aug 20, 2008 6:12 UTC (Wed)
by interalia (subscriber, #26615)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Aug 20, 2008 9:31 UTC (Wed)
by alex (subscriber, #1355)
[Link]
Posted Aug 20, 2008 14:04 UTC (Wed)
by nevyn (guest, #33129)
[Link]
I could say the same thing about "Oracle Linux" (and it would be just as true), except Canonical already have way more users. You seem to imagine that you get to a point where you have an infinite amount of money or something, but that doesn't happen. If it's more cost effective to ignore the community and let them clean up your mess now, it'll be even more cost effective to do it when you are producing 2x, 10x or 100x the amount of changes.
Posted Aug 21, 2008 9:59 UTC (Thu)
by liljencrantz (guest, #28458)
[Link]
Posted Aug 22, 2008 16:24 UTC (Fri)
by andrel (guest, #5166)
[Link] (2 responses)
Actually we do have something better than Google trends for stats. For example Ubuntu popcon, Debian popcon, and Fedora smolt all attempt to measure various interesting things including number of users. (Smolt seems to be down due to the recent Fedora intrusion.)
Mirror admins also have insight into number of downloads, though most don't publish their numbers.
Posted Aug 22, 2008 20:21 UTC (Fri)
by nevyn (guest, #33129)
[Link]
I didn't know Ubuntu published popcon numbers, thanks for that pointer! Interestingly, unless I'm reading it wrong, the stats. there show Fedora=584,595 Ubuntu=677,927 which is a huge difference from the trends data.
Posted Aug 23, 2008 1:47 UTC (Sat)
by andrewsomething (guest, #53527)
[Link]
Posted Aug 25, 2008 21:47 UTC (Mon)
by mdz@debian.org (guest, #14112)
[Link] (2 responses)
The number of Ubuntu users does not translate directly to commercial success, and it doesn't make much sense to measure "contributions...roughly in line with the number of their users". In fact, it's to be expected that the user community will grow much earlier and much faster than the customer base.
The fact that Canonical is compared with competitors with an order of magnitude more developers was flattering once, but when it's used as justification for this type of criticism, it's discouraging.
Posted Aug 26, 2008 0:21 UTC (Tue)
by nevyn (guest, #33129)
[Link] (1 responses)
That's naive, at best. Yes, Canonical let's you download, for free, their brand specific bits thus. consolidating the non-paying for services and paying for services customers ... but with CentOS and Fedora etc. it's hard to swallow the argument that Red Hat is getting paid for anything but their services.
It makes perfect sense, how else should we measure them? As they get more users they certainly wield more power over the community, and thus. they certainly use more "resources" from the community. So if parts of the community speak out against a "tragedy of the commons", that seems more than fair and sensical.
The fact that Canonical is employing an order of magnitude less developers (and that's very conservative, IMO) than it's competitors was amusing once, but when it's semi-justified as a long term to just spend less it's discouraging.
Posted Sep 3, 2008 9:45 UTC (Wed)
by mdz@debian.org (guest, #14112)
[Link]
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
Good if more fixes escaped upstream? ... as though some evil company is keeping them hostage but Canonical is bravely working night and day to free them?
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
I think you're reading that exactly backward. He's complaining that Ubuntu is keeping their fixes and enhancements to themselves, and that they only occasionally manage to escape and make it upstream. IOW, Canonical is the "evil company [...] keeping them hostage".
The issue is not "keeping them hostage" but rather the fallacy of "making available" as good enough to be a good community player. It is not enough to simply put your patches up for public download. You need to engage an upstream community project to explain the merits of patches and actively get them merged.
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
It really comes down to sustainability on several different levels.
First there's just the sustainability of the Ubuntu community itself. If Canonical as an
organization blinked out of existence tomorrow, could the Ubuntu community pick up the pieces?
Is there enough of a non-proprietary infrastructure to keep Ubuntu going with the same
processes? Are the critical pieces of what Canonical does for the Ubuntu community replicable?
Mark Shuttleworth certainly isn't replicable..but I would hate to think that the entire Ubuntu
community hinges on him. Cults of personality are not exactly community. The question remains
though, are the services that Canonical provides the Ubuntu community replicable if there was
ever a need for the community to take over some of those responsibilities? That's a very
serious question that active Ubuntu community members should be thinking about.
Second, is the effort Canonical is making a sustainable in the context of the larger
ecosystem. Are the technologies that Canonical is spending money on creating a sustainable
platform for other to do their work in a way that does not assume the continued existence of
Canonical? Do you want your work flow to be locked in to Canonical and its business
interests? That is a very serious question that external projects should be thinking about
when making use of Canonical's services.
Third, are the spending decisions Canonical is making as a company, leading towards a
sustainable business model for itself? That's a very serious question that Canonical's stock
holders...oh wait...still a venture capital startup. I guess that's a question that Mark
should be thinking about. Mark and anyone he's courting for the next venture capital
injection.
You can make decisions that seem great in the short term, but are not necessarily sustainable.
A bumper crop of corn for 3 or 4 straight years, to take advantage of increased demand for
corn, without letting your field lie fallow, can have serious long term consequences for the
productivity of the land and the long term sustainability and profitability of your farm.
If you are a large farm, a corporate farm, with a significant amount of land, big enough to
have your corn production count as a significant amount of national or global supply then such
short term actions would depress the price of corn for other people, making it harder for them
to turn a profit while you were flooding the market with unsustainable supplies of corn, and
affecting the sustainability of their farms as well.
Luckily, Canonical isn't that big.
-jef
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
Mark has made public statements about the future funding, I don't remember the details (and he
hasn't listed exact dollar figures), but he has setup funding for several years, with
additional funding being released when particular milestones are reached, as well as setting
up protections to maintain funding in case something happens to him.
so this isn't nearly as bad as people have speculated.
yes, canonical could disappear and ubuntu would have problems, but that's hardly a problem
limited to one distro, if redhat were to disappear I doubt if fedora would survive without any
problems either.
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
Fedora makes use of an entirely open software stack for its infrastructure.
People can replicate the entire build system and mirror manager and so on and so on. As long
as people can find the hosting bandwidth and the iron, the software that grinds the sausage
isn't proprietary and there is no secret sauce anywhere in the build system. In fact to grow
out additional architecture support, people in the Fedora community do in fact find that
additional hosting and bandwidth and iron. Why? because... its a community effort... whose
entire framework is open so that motivated community members and even other business interests
can contribute beyond the bounds of what Red Hat can sustain. Honest sustainable development
where multiple interests can co-exist without anyone being asked to support more than what
they feel they can sustain. I can just imagine the pressure some Canonical employees feel to
make sure they continue to live up to the perception they've marketed...without a sustainable
bottomline to build resource allocation budgets around.
Fedora's build system is setup to allow motivated Fedora community to work on interests other
than those that Red Hat feels it can sustain on its own. Doing things that way was a
deliberate choice.. a sustainable choice made by Red Hat empower the community as partners in
the process and not just consumers.
How open is launchpad? How critical is it to the inner workings of Ubuntu distribution
development? If the launchpad service disappeared with Canonical..would it be replicable? If
Canonical decided to drop support for an arch(sparc or arm just as examples) because it was no
longer deemed potentially profitable to support.. is the Ubuntu development framework flexible
enough to allow the community to take over those sorts of things? Or would Canonical feel
burdened to continue supporting arches even though it was a negative on their business? Very
important questions for the Ubuntu community to ask of Shuttleworth.
-jef
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
Canonical decided to drop support for an arch(sparc or arm just as examples) because it was no
longer deemed potentially profitable to support.. is the Ubuntu development framework flexible
enough to allow the community to take over those sorts of things? "
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
"""
It really comes down to sustainability on several different levels.
"""
And shouldn't the post really have been signed with:
Jeff (I'm an incredibly huge Fedora fan, bar none) Spaleta?
I'm familiar with your penchant for such style of sig during your very long history on the
Fedora lists. :-)
Please cut the sour grapes routine. Fedora is less self-sufficient than Ubuntu, after all.
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
What the what now? You're making less sense than usual here.
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
RE: "oh wait...still a venture capital startup"
Do you possess any proof of that assertion? I ask, because that's is counter to what I have
heard from Shuttleworth. I have an additional reason for posing the question, you seem too
wedded to your assumptions to allow any discordant facts divert you from your target.
In the presentation I watched and listened, Ubuntu is just one of this person's interests.
Despite on our probable shared focus on Linux, per se, that does not describe this person's
goals. Therefore, assuming the business success of Canonical as being paramount, is based
upon a weak foundation.
As at least one other post has pointed out, the very criteria you construct should make one
skeptical of the long term survivability of nearly every "free(er)" portion of the major
distributions now extant. You dislike Ubuntu and perhaps every thing it may represent; so
what other pertinent issues do you really have that should concern the mass of casual users of
this distribution?
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
"Do you possess any proof of that assertion? "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/22/internet...
TG: How close are you to breaking even?
MS: Not close. It will require time and ongoing investment.
Straight from the horse's mouth. As of May of this year Canonical was "not close" to breaking
even.... so sayth Shuttleworth. Not close. Are they any closer than they were a year ago? two
years ago? three years ago?
"Therefore, assuming the business success of Canonical as being paramount, is based upon a
weak foundation."
Another quote from Shuttleworth...
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/07/23/Ubuntu-founder-...
"When we look back at this era, we'll be looking at economics,"
So again..straight from the horses mouth.. the economics of things are of parmount importance.
That's not me talking, that's Shuttleworth. But what doe the economics of Canonical look like?
Canonical's business interests are completely opaque. How important is launchpad based
services going to be to Canonical's bottomline moving forward? Anyone got a clue on that? Is
the Dell desktop arrangement a profit center for Canonical or is it a wash..or is it a net
drain or company resources. How many people are buying Ubuntu support contracts for their
Dells when they purchase the hardware? How is the mobile initiative fairing as a business
initiative?
And then there's landscape...which is clearly not aimed at the home desktop user.
How many different revenue concepts is Canonical currently pursuing? Can they sustain interest
in all these areas simultaneously? What happens if Canonical decides to drop support for one
of their current initiatives like mobile devices a year from now? Is the Ubuntu infrastructure
that they control open enough to allow a non-commercial community effort to flourish in its
wake? Popularity doesn't automatically make something is an economical business venture...
and if Shuttleworth is to be believed.. its the economics that ultimate matter.. not the
popularity.
"You dislike Ubuntu and perhaps every thing it may represent"
I have no problem with Ubuntu as a community, nor as a distribution. But I am concerned that
Canonical may not be able to sustain the level of interest it has strategical cultivated, and
I don't want to see the Ubuntu community suffer while Canonical flounders around trying
different business models until they find one that works. If I wanted to see the Ubuntu
community suffer, I'd find a way to get myself hired by Canonical.
What I am concerned about is that so much community good will is being placed into the hands
of a single business entity. Canonical. Canonical is not Ubuntu. A business entity whose CEO
who is attempting to centralize how open developers interact by driving them into using a
centrally managed proprietary infrastructure that only Canonical has control over.
Which Mark Shuttleworth should we believe? The one that is protectionist of his own company's
important codebases.. or the one that goes to conferences and proclaims that Free software is
"the ultimate form of disclosure" and serves as an engine for innovation?
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/07/23/Ubuntu-founder-...
If you are going to stand up as the head of a corporate entity and talk the talk, I think its
perfectly acceptable for the people whom you are talking to to expect you walk the walk
instead of promising to walk the walk in around 12 months or so, market conditions depending.
If you are a Ubuntu desktop user, you should be concerned when Shuttleworth speaks to the
press as he did earlier this year about Ubuntu "migrating" into a business phenomenon.
http://searchitchannel.techtarget.com/news/article/0,2891...
If Canonical is planning to "migrate" into a company that services business customers... have
they created an infrastructure open enough to let the Ubuntu community fill in the gaps so
that the Ubuntu community can serve the needs of the non-business userbase while Canonical
chases after business user service contracts?
He didn't say expanding.. he said..migrating..That sort of terminology should concern any
active Ubuntu community member who is more concerned about the home desktop user than the
office professional. If Canonical is looking to chase the sort of certifications that allow it
into the doors of corporate businesses, that is going to end up being an engineering drain on
Canonical, no doubt about it. Certification processes are about as far away as 'just works'
polish as one can possibly imagine. Can Canonical chase those certs and continue to serve the
home desktop users? Can Canonical sustain both a corporate initiative and a consumer desktop
initative with its available resources? Will Canonical open up the infrastructure they
tightly control so that the Ubuntu community can step in and help sustain the Ubuntu momentum
and keep Canonical from spreading itself too thin? Canonical needs to open up its
infrastructure and let the Ubuntu community take on some of the responsibility for the
development of the Ubuntu process itself. How far will Canonical allow community to be
involved in the development of its own future?
-jef
Nothing better to do?
OMG!
You are obviously a Ubuntu-hating Fedoratroll/-fanboy. No need to point out in how many ways
you are blinded by your hate.
Anyways .. I take the most user friendly distro with the biggest repository and long support
that is sponsored by a really rich philanthropist any day over the development version of some
enterprise distro :P No matter what.
Nothing better to do?
You are a "Guest", minimal standards should require you to be at least civil. Your name
calling is too similar to the MS types that posted on the IBM forum to help kill OS/2. No
repeat performances here. Be civil or leave.
Thank you,
Txt.
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
Had I read further into the comments thread I would have foregone my posting, since it was so
obvious facts will not play any role.
My reason to respond now is two fold, a gratuitous attack of name calling by a <i>guest</l>
and noticing you seemed to purposely pretend to quote a question I did not ask. Moreover, you
cite a known fact that bears no pertinence.
The issue is not if Canonical is making a profit, it is the implied exigencies implicit in
venture capital funding where the modus operandi is a pump and run up of the stock pricing so
the funding group can run off with the excess cash. That was dishonest, at the very least.
You are oblivious to reasoned argument, hence, you should better converse with yourself and
save of the hearing the noise of your words.
Thank you, your silence is appreciated.
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
Also, esp. as engineers, it's compelling to look at the end game ... what happens if all the Linux users are using Ubuntu? It's obvious that the huge amount of work that Red Hat funds can't happen if Fedora/RHEL don't have any users ... is IBM going to fund everything?
If the weight of so many users shifted to Ubuntu, then Canonical would be making money from support (as Red Hat does) and could afford to hire developers. Those Canonical developers would then be upstream, much as a number of Red Hat employees (and so have fewer problems pushing patches upstream since they are upstream).
So while you're correct in that Red Hat could not fund so much work without the associated revenue, I would presume that such a scenario solves itself. If it happened, Canonical would employ developers to maintain its momentum and gain the same strategic influence over Linux/OSS direction that Red Hat currently possesses.
Paid Engineers
I think this is the core issue. RedHat have a lot more engineering resources than Canonical so
make more of an impact upstream (after all it's in every packagers interest to push changes
upstream that make their life easier). If the balance of economic resources shifted I would
hope that would directly impact the number of developers in each distro and hence the
contributions upstream.
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
If the weight of so many users shifted to Ubuntu, then Canonical would be making money from support (as Red Hat does) and could afford to hire developers.
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
In what way does providing packaging of other free software components free of charge not
constitute contribution? Packaging is surprisingly hard and huge amounts of work. Ubuntu
provides a valuable service to the community absolutely free of charge.
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
For Red Hat's commercial products such as RHEL, more users = more money = more opportunity to fund development. With Ubuntu, the (full, commercial, updated, supported) product is free, and Canonical only earns revenue from services.
it doesn't make much sense to measure "contributions...roughly in line with the number of their users"
The fact that Canonical is compared with competitors with an order of magnitude more developers was flattering once, but when it's used as justification for this type of criticism, it's discouraging.
In defense of Ubuntu reproach
That's naive, at best. Yes, Canonical let's you download, for free, their brand specific bits thus. consolidating the non-paying for services and paying for services customers ... but with CentOS and Fedora etc. it's hard to swallow the argument that Red Hat is getting paid for anything but their services.
Fedora is a different product, with different source code, QA and release methodology. It doesn't compete with RHEL any more than Gentoo does. CentOS is a better analogy: who's complaining about not receiving enough contributions from CentOS?
It makes perfect sense, how else should we measure them? As they get more users they certainly wield more power over the community, and thus. they certainly use more "resources" from the community. So if parts of the community speak out against a "tragedy of the commons", that seems more than fair and sensical.
Hogwash. If a lone developer creates a new distribution which is used by millions, we don't suddenly expect them to contribute on behalf of those millions of users. This would be ridiculous. They aren't "using resources" from that community: on the contrary, that community is using their resources!
The fact that Canonical is employing an order of magnitude less developers (and that's very conservative, IMO) than it's competitors was amusing once, but when it's semi-justified as a long term to just spend less it's discouraging.
That may be your opinion, but opinions don't count for much where hard numbers are concerned. I can't parse the remainder of your sentence; I think there's a word missing somewhere.